vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office ot Air Quality EMB Report 90-MWI-3
Planning and Standards Volume I
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 May 1990
Air
Medical Waste Incineration
Emission Test Report
Lenoir Memorial Hospital
Kinston, North Carolina
-------
DCN: 91-275-026-26-04
MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATION
EMISSION TEST REPORT
Lenoir Memorial Hospital
Kinston, North Carolina
VOLUME I
EMB Project No. 90-MWI-05
Work Assignment 26
Contract No. 68-D-90054
Prepared for:
Waste Characterization Branch, 05-332
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
1300 Nelson Highway/Chapel Hill Road
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
November 1991
-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Section Page
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Test Objectives 1-1
1.2 Brief Site Description 1-4
1.3 Emissions Measurement Program 1-5
1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 1-10
1.5 Description of Report Contents 1-11
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2-1
2.1 Emissions Test Log 2-1
2.2 CDD/CDF Results 2-1
2.3 Toxic Metals Results 2-21
2.4 Particulate Matter/Visible Emissions 2-32
2.5 Halogen Gas Emissions 2-35
2.6 CEM Results . 2-43
2.7 Ash Loss-on-Ignition and Carbon Content Results . 2-47
2.8 Microbial Survivability Results 2-48
2.9 CDD/CDF Emission Values Incorporating the Toluene
Recovery Results 2-60
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.1 Facility Description 3-1
3.2 Pre-Test Activities 3-4
3.3 Process Conditions During Testing 3-8
4.0 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 4-1
JBS219 11
-------
CONTENTS, continued
Section
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 5-1
5.1 CDD/CDF Emissions Testing Method 5-1
5.2 Participate Matter and Metals Emissions Testing Method 5-22
5.3 Microbial Survivability Testing 5-35
5.4 HCl/HBr/HF Emissions Testing by EPA Method 26 „ 5-49
5.5 EPA Methods 1-4 5-55
5.6 Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Methods 5-56
5.7 Visible Emissions 5-66
5.8 Process Sampling Procedure 5-66
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) 6-1
6.1 QA/QC Definitions and Objectives 6-1
6.2 Manual Flue Gas Sampling and Recovery Parameters 6-2
6.3 QC Procedures for Ash and Pipe Sampling 6-20
6.4 Analytical Quality Assurance 6-21
6.5 CEMs Quality Assurance 6-34
6.6 Data Variability 6-46
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
VOLUME II
APPENDICES
A EMISSIONS TESTING FIELD DATA SHEETS
A.1 CDD/CDF Run Sheets
A.2 PM/Metals Run Sheets
A.3 Microbial Run Sheets
A.4 HCl/HBr/HF Run Sheets
A.5 Opacity Data
A.6 Miscellaneous Field Data
B PROCESS DATA SHEETS
B.I Waste Charge Quantification and Incinerator Temperature Sheets
B.2 Microbial Spiking Data Sheets
B.3 Ash and Pipe Recovery Sheets
B.4 Field Data
JBS219
111
-------
CONTENTS, continued
VOLUME HI
C SAMPLE PARAMETER CALCULATION SHEETS
C.I CDD/CDF
C.2 PM/Metals
C.3 Microbial
C.4 HCl/HBr/HF
D CEM DATA
D.I CEM Plots
D.2 CEM Data
E ANALYTICAL DATA
E.I CDD/CDF
E.2 PM/Metals
E.3 Microbial
E.4 HCl/HBr/HF
E.5 Sample Identification Log
F MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY DATA REDUCTION
G CALIBRATION DATA SHEETS
H SAMPLE EQUATIONS
I PARTICIPANTS
J VISIBLE EMISSIONS OBSERVATIONS PLOTS
K SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS
K.1 EPA Proposed Method 23 - Determination of CDDs and
CDFs from Stationary Sources
K.2 Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions
in Exhaust Gases from Incineration Processes
K.3 Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste
Incinerator Emissions
K.4 Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste
Incinerator Ash
K.5 Determination of HC1 Emissions from Stationary Sources
JBS219 IV
-------
FIGURES
Page
1-1 Lenoir Memorial Hospital Incinerator 1-2
1-2 Sampling Locations 1-7
3-1 Schematic of Incinerator 3-2
3-2 Temperature Profile for Run 1 3-12
3-3 Temperature Profile for Run 2 3-13
3-4 Temperature Profile for Run 3 3-14
3-5 Temperature Profile for Run 4 3-15
3-6 Temperature Profile for Run 4R 3-16
3-7 Temperature Profile for Run 5R 3-17
3-8 Temperature Profile for Run 6 3-18
3-9 Temperature Profile for Run 7 3-19
3-10 Temperature Profile for Run 8 3-20
3-11 Temperature Profile for Run 9 3-21
4-1 Sample Port Location at the Exhaust Stack 4-2
4-2 Traverse Point Layout at the Exhaust Stack 4-3
5-1 CDD/CDF Sampling Train Configuration 5-4
5-2 Impinger Configuration for CDD/CDF Sampling 5-9
5-3 CDD/CDF Field Recovery Scheme 5-16
5-4 Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples 5-19
5-5 Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train 5-24
5-6 Impinger Configuration for PM/Metals Sampling 5-25
5-7 Metals Sample Recovery Scheme 5-28
5-8 Metals Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme 5-33
5-9 Indicator Spore Spiking Scheme for Combustion Gas Destruction
Efficiency Testing 5-37
5-10 Sampling Train for Determination of Indicator Spore Emissions 5-39
5-11 Sample Recovery Scheme for Microbial Viability Testing 5-41
5-12 Ash Quality Pipe Sample Assembly 5-43
5-13a Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing of Ash
Samples 5-46
5-13b Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Microbial Viability Testing 5-47
5-13c Sample and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing 5-48
5-14 HC1 Sample Train Configuration 5-51
5-15 HCl/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme . 5-54
5-16 Schematic of CEM System 5-57
JBS219
-------
TABLES
1-1 Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI Test Matrix ..... ............. . ..... 1-6
2-1 Emissions Test Log ........................................... 2-2
2-2 Average CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations for Each Test
Condition .................................................. 2-5
2-3 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7% O2 for Each
Test Condition ............................................... 2-6
2-4 Average CDD/CDF Stack Gas Emissions for Each Test
Condition .................................................. 2-7
2-5 Average CDD/CDF 2378 Toxic Equivalent Stack Gas Concentrations
Adjusted to 7% O2 for Each Test Condition ......................... 2-9
2-6 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and Emissions Rates at
Condition 1 ................................................. 2-10
2-7 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and Emissions Rates at
Condition 2 .................................... . ............ 2-11
2-8 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and Emissions Rates at
Condition 3 ........... . ....................... . ............. 2-12
2-9 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentration Adjusted to 7% O2 for Condition 1 .... ..... ... 2-13
2-10 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentration Adjusted to 7% O2 for Condition 2 ...... ...... 2-14
2-11 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentration Adjusted to 7% O2 for Condition 3 . ..... . ..... 2-15
2-12 CDD/CDF Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters ......... ..... 2-16
2-13 CDD/CDF Ash Results ...................................... . . 2-17
2-14 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Flue Gas Results .......... ......... 2-19
2-15 Chlorinated Phenols and Chlorinated Benzenes Flue Gas Results
CDD/CDF Run 7 ........... ..... ............................ 2-20
2-16 Qualitative PCB Flue Gas Results; CDD/CDF Run 7 ................. 2-22
2-17 Average Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates at Each
Condition ........................ . ......................... 2-23
2-18 Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 1 ................. ..... ........................... 2-24
2-19 Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 2 ....................................... . ......... 2-25
2-20 Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 3 ....................... . . ........................ 2-26
2-21 Ratio of Metal to Particulate Matter . . ............................ 2-29
2-22 Metals Amounts in Flue Gas Samples by Sample Fractions ............. 2-30
2-23 Metals and PM Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters ........... 2-31
JBS219
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-24 Metals in Ash Concentrations 2-33
2-25 Particulate Matter Concentrations and Emissions Results 2-34
2-26 Percent Opacity Observations Summary „ 2-36
2-27 Summary of Halogen Acid Testing Results 2-37
2-28 Summary of HC1 Results for Each Test Run 2-39
2-29 Summary of HF Results for Each Test Run 2-40
2-30 Summary of HBr Results at Each Test Run 2-41
2-31 Comparison of Manual and CEM HC1 Results 2-42
2-32 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Daily Test Averages;
O2, CO, CO2 and HC1 „ 2-45
2-33 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Daily Test Averages;
O2, SO2, NOX and THC 2-46
2-34 Summary of Ash Carbon Content, LOI and Moisture Results 2-49
2-35 Summary of Incinerator Feed Amounts and Ash Generation Per Run 2-51
2-36 Overall Microbial Survivability 2-54
2-37 Viable Spore Emissions 2-56
2-38 Indicator Spore Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters 2-57
2-39 Viable Spores in Ash . 2-59
2-40 Viable Spores in Pipes 2-61
2-41 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for
Condition 1 2-62
2-42 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for
Condition 2 2-63
2-43 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for
Condition 3 2-64
3-1 Operating Parameters for Emissions Tests 3-5
3-2 Process Data Summary for Emissions Testing 3-9
3-3 Calculated Gas Residence Time in Secondary Chamber 3-22
5-1 Test Methods For The Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI 5-2
5-2 Sampling Times, Minimum Sampling Volumes and Detection Limits 5-3
5-3 CDD/CDF Glassware Cleaning Procedure 5-6
5-4 CDD/CDF Sampling Checklist 5-11
5-5 CDD/CDF Sample Fractions Shipped to Analytical laboratory 5-17
5-6 CDD/CDF Cogeners Analyzed 5-18
5-7 CDD/CDF Blanks Collected 5-21
JBS219
VU
-------
TABLES, continued
5-8 Approximate Detection Limits for Metals of Interest
Using EMB Draft Method ...................................... 5-31
5-9 Indicator Spore Testing QA/QC Checks ........................... 5-50
5-10 CEM Operating Ranges and Calibration Gases ..... ................. 5-62
6-1 Summary of Precision, Accuracy, and Completeness Objectives ........... 6-3
6-2 Leak Check Results for CDD/CDF Emissions Tests ........... . ....... 6-4
6-3 Isokinetic Sampling Rates for CDD/CDF, Metals and
Microorganisms Test Runs ...................................... 6-6
6-4 Dry Gas Meter Post-Test Calibration Results ........................ 6-7
6-5 CDD/CDF Field Blank Results .................................. 6-8
6-6 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Full Screen Analytical Results Compared
to MM5 Analytical Results for Condition 1 ......................... 6-10
6-7 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Full Screen Analytical Results Compared
to MM5 Analytical Results for Condition 2 ......................... 6-11
6-8 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Full Screen Analytical Results Compared
to MM5 Analytical Results for Condition 3 ......................... 6-12
6-9 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Confirmation Analytical Results
Compared to MM5 Analytical Results for All Conditions ............... 6-13
6-10 CDD/CDF Toluene Field Blank Results ........................... 6-14
6-11 Leak Check Results for Toxic Metals ....... . ..... . ........ . ....... 6-15
6-12 Metals Field Blank Results Compared to Average Amounts Collected
During the Test Runs .......................... .... ........... 6-16
6-13 Leak Check Results for Microbial Survivability in Emissions Sampling
Runs [[[ 6-18
6-14 Halogen Field Blank Results Compared to Run Results ................ 6-19
6-15 Method Blank and Field Blank Results for the MM5 and Toluene
Flue Gas Samples ..... ....................................... 6-24
6-16 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Analyses ____ . ..... . ....... 6-25
6-17 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Toluene Analyses ........ 6-26
6-18 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Ash Analyses ... ......... 6-27
6-19 Metals Ash and Flue Gas Method Blank Results . . ................... 6-29
6-20 Metals Method Spike Results ................. . .................. 6-30
6-21 Halogen Method Blank and Field Blank Results and Matrix Spike
Recovery ...................................... . ............ 6-31
6-22 Wet Spore Spike Solution Confirmation Analysis ..................... 6-32
6-23 Dry Spore Confirmation Analysis ................................. 6-33
6-24 CEM Internal QA/QC Checks ................................... 6-35
6-25 Daily Calibration Drifts ........................................ 6-37
-------
TABLES, continued
age
6-27 NOX Stratification Check 6-43
6-28 Linearity Results 6-45
6-29 Coefficients of Variation for the CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations 6-48
6-30 Coefficients of Variation for the Flue Gas Metals Concentrations 6-49
6-31 Coefficients of Variation for Halogen Flue Gas Concentrations 6-50
6-32 Coefficients of Variation of CEM Gas Concentrations . 6-51
JBS219
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Under Section 11008 of the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 (MWTA), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must prepare a series of reports
to Congress that provide information concerning the characterization of medical wastes,
treatment and disposal technologies, and an assessment of the impact of medical waste
on human health and the environment. The MWTA specifically requires that
incineration methods be evaluated to determine their advantages and disadvantages.
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is responsible for implementation of the
MWTA and for managing the various studies that are required to prepare the report to
Congress. Section 11008 of the MWTA requires EPA to evaluate the efficiency of
incineration as a treatment technology. Additionally, there was a need to evaluate
incineration emissions from existing medical waste incinerators (MWI's). These data are
required to assess the actual potential impacts on health and the environment from
existing sources, the vast majority of which do not have advanced combustion controls or
air pollution control devices.
Therefore, OSW and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
are working jointly to perform additional studies at typical existing MWI facilities. The
emission test program described in this report is one of the studies.
The MWI facility at Lenoir Memorial Hospital in Kinston, North Carolina, was
selected for emissions testing because it is typical of existing ram-fed units with a
secondary chamber gas retention time of less than 0.5 seconds, and with no add-on
emission control equipment (see Figure 1-1). Other factors in the selection were that
the proximity to Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, (RTP), minimized travel
expenditures and because the hospital administration had expressed an interest in
cooperating with the EPA in the emission test program.
1.1 TEST OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the testing program at the Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI
were:
JBS219
-------
Figure 1-1. Lenoir Memorial Hospital Incinerator
1-2
-------
To obtain emission data from a facility that is not equipped with air
pollution control devices and is typical of the existing population of
medical waste incinerators.
To collect data and evaluate the impact of incinerator operation variations
on the emissions and ash generation as factors in the overall effectiveness
of incineration as a treatment method.
The measurements that were performed at this facility provided data to:
Determine the mass emission rates of particulate matter (PM), selected
metals, carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrogen chloride (HC1), and polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF).
Determine the general effectiveness of incineration as a medical waste
treatment technology by spiking a surrogate indicator organism to the
incinerator feed during each test run and determining the quantity of
microbes surviving the process.
Determine the degree of combustion (burnout) of the wastes based on
residual carbon, or loss on ignition (LOI), of the bottom ash that is
collected for each test day.
Determine the relationship, if any, between visible emissions and other
emissions, such as PM.
The measurements described above were repeated at three operating conditions
while the incinerator was burning hospital wastes (including red bag waste) to evaluate
the effect of waste feed rate, charging frequency, and secondary chamber temperature on
the emissions. These conditions were:
Set 1 - Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr) at a high charge frequency (6 minute
cycle) and a high secondary chamber temperature setpoint of 1900-2000°F.
Set 2 - Below-design feed rate (200 Ib/hr) at a high charge frequency
(6 minute cycle) and a high secondary chamber temperature setpoint
(1900-2000°F).
JBS219
-------
• Set 3 - Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr) at the design charging frequency
(10 minute cycle), and the design secondary chamber temperature setpomt
of about 1600°F.
Key process operating variables including flue gas oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), primary and secondary chamber temperatures, and the amount and frequency of
waste charging were monitored and recorded to document the operating conditions
during each test.
The test program included an internal quality control program. The goal of the
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities was to ensure that the results are of
known precision and accuracy, and that they are complete, representative and
comparable.
1.2 BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION
Lenoir Memorial Hospital is a 226-bed hospital located in Kinston, North
Carolina. The MWI for this facility is located behind the facility near the loading dock
area. The MWI is a 320 pound per hour (Ib/hr) rated, ram-fed unit manufactured by
Environmental Control Products (now known as Joy Energy Systems). The facility is
located beside a dumpster near the maintenance shop area and existing boiler facilities.
Wastes are brought out of the main building via the loading dock area by hospital
housekeeping staff in plastic carts. Cafeteria waste, office waste and cardboard are
separated to some degree and placed in the dumpster which is then deposited in a local
landfill. The remainder of the waste is burned in the incinerator. The waste is brought
out periodically, some is burned and some is stored outdoors in large plastic bins.
There is no full time operator for the MWI facility. The housekeeping staff
alternately loads waste into the charge hopper as their schedule permits. The facility is
maintained by the hospital's engineering and maintenance department who removes the
ash on a daily or bi-daily basis. The ash is stored in 35 gallon trash cans and taken to
the local landfill on a weekly basis.
Detailed descriptions of the MWI facility, its operation, the waste and waste
handling procedures are given in Section 3.
JBS219
1-4
-------
1.3 EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
This section provides an overview of the emissions measurement program
conducted at Lenoir Memorial Hospital. Included in this section are summaries of the
the test matrix, sampling locations, sampling methods, and laboratory analysis. Greater
detail on these topics is provided in the sections that follow.
1.3.1 Test Matrix
The sampling and analytical matrix for this test program is presented in Table 1-1.
Sampling locations are shown in Figure 1-2. Both manual emissions tests and continuous
emission monitors (CEM) were employed for the Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI test
program. In addition to flue gas sampling, incinerator bottom ash and ash quality pipe
samples were also taken. Each of the tests are briefly described in Sections 1.3.3 and
1.3.4.
1.3.2 Sampling Locations
The stack gas sampling was conducted at a series of three sets of double ports in
the stack wall. The double ports were located 90° from each other. The top most ports
were used for microbial survivability emission tests. The middle set of ports was used for
paniculate matter/metals tests as well as CDD/CDF tests. The bottom set of ports was
used for halogen emission tests and for the CEM probes. Incinerator ash was sampled
every day. Ash was completely removed from the incinerator every day and placed in
the bulk ash containers where it was sampled using a sample thief to obtain a
representative sample.
1.3.3 Sampling Methods
Total particulate matter emissions along with a series of 11 toxic metals [lead
(Pb), chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), arsenic (As), beryllium
(Be), antimony (Sb), barium (Ba), silver (Ag), and thallium (Tl)], were determined using
a single sample train. Particulate loading on the filter and front half (nozzle/probe,
filter holder) rinse was determined gravimetrically. Metals analyses were then completed
on the filter front half rinses and back half impinger catches using atomic absorption
(AA) and inductively coupled argon plasma (ICAP) techniques. Flue gas samples for
CDD/CDF were collected using EPA Method 23. Flue gas was extracted isokinetically
and CDD/CDF was collected on the filter, a chilled adsorbent trap, and in the
JBS219
-------
TABLE 1-1. LENO1R MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI TEST MATRIX
Sample Number
Location Runs
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
£ Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Incinerator
Incinerator
aThree runs
bThree runs
9
9
2T
20b
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
27
of
Sample Type
Particulates/Metals
(Pb, Cr, Cd, Be, Hg,
Ni, As, Sb, Ag, Ba, Tl)
CDD/CDF
HCl/HBr/HF
Indicator Spores
SO2
02 /C02
NOX
CO
THC
HC1
Opacity
Incinerator Ash
Indicator Spore Pipes
comprised one complete test for the
comprised a complete test for Tests
Sample Method
EPA Method 5/Combined
Metals Train
EPA Method 23 and GC/MS
Method 8290
EPA Method 26
Draft EPA Method
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 10
EPA Method 25A
CEM
EPA Method 9
Representative Composite
Sample/Manual
Representative Composite
Sample/Manual
Representative Composite
Sample/Manual
Representative Composite
Sample/Manual
Manual
HCl/HBr/HF (halogen) tests.
1 and 2; two runs for Tests 3
Sample
Duration
4 hours
4 hours
1 hour
1.8 hours
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
4 hour
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
through 9.
Analysis Method Laboratory
Gravimetric Atomic
Adsorption/ICAP
Mass Spectrometry and
High Resolution MS for
CDD/CDF
Ion Chromatography
Microbial Draft Method
UV Analyzer CEM
Zirconium Oxide Cell/
NDIR CEM
Chemilumenesence CEM
NDIR CEM
FID CEM
NDIR CEM
Visual
LOI, Carbon
Metals
Dioxins
Microbial Draft Method
Microbial Draft Method
Radian
Triangle
Labs
Radian
RTI
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
McCoy
Labs
Radian
Triangle
Labs
RTI
RTI
-------
Figure 1-2. Sampling Locations at the Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWl
1-7
-------
impingers. The analysis was completed using high resolution gas chromatography
coupled with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS).
Hydrogen chloride (HC1), hydrogen bromide (HBr) and hydrogen fluoride (HF)
concentrations in the stack gas were determined using EPA Method 26. Gas was
extracted from the stack and passed through an acidified collection solution which
stabilized the respective halogen ions (Cl~, Br', F). The quantity of ions collected was
then determined using ion chromatography (1C) analyses.
In order to adequately evaluate the efficiency of the incinerator process, three
types of microbial survivability tests were completed on the incinerator. These tests were
intended to generally evaluate the effectiveness of the medical waste incinerator in
destroying the most heat resistent microbes found in the waste. This was achieved by
emissions testing, direct ash sampling, and by using spiked pipe containers. In order to
test the flue gases and ash, indicator spores were loaded to material commonly found in
the medical waste stream and then charged into the incinerator. This approach was used
to determine the ability of the indicator organisms to survive in the combustion gases
and the incinerator bottom ash. The flue gas testing for spore emissions was conducted
simultaneously with the other emissions testing. Pipe samples were spiked with 1 x 106
organisms, and added to the waste stream at appropriate time intervals. Following the
daily burn cycle, ash samples and pipe samples were recovered and analyzed for spore
viability. Direct ash sampling and pipe recovery was conducted daily as the ash was
removed manually from the incinerator. Flue gas samples were collected isokinetically
and passed through a circulating phosphate buffer solution. Following the test, the
buffer solution samples were analyzed for viable spores using culturing and quantification
techniques outlined in the EPA draft method "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical
Waste Incinerator Emissions." Samples were analyzed as outlined in the EPA draft
method "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Ash."
Visual opacity measurements were also taken continuously during the particulate
test periods. A certified observer documented incinerator stack gas opacity by following
EPA Method 9 protocol.
Gaseous emissions (NOX, CO, SO2, THC and HC1) were measured using CEMs
continuously during the day. The diluent gases (O2, CO2) were measured using CEMs at
JBS219
1-8
-------
all times when tests were being performed so that the emission results could be
normalized to a reference O2 or CO2 basis. The O2 and CO2 results were also used for
flue gas molecular weight calculations for stack gas flow rate calculations.
Ash was sampled manually using a sample thief and mixed to provide a
representative composite sample. Samples were taken for analysis as follows: LOI,
carbon, toxic metals, dioxins, and microbial analysis. An archive sample was also saved
for each test condition. Indicator spore pipes were charged at regular intervals into the
incinerator and recovered manually for microbial analysis. Detailed descriptions of the
sampling and analytical procedures are provided in Section 5. The reference methods
are included in the Test Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for this
project.
1.3.4 Laboratory Analyses
All manual flue gas tests were sent out for extensive laboratory analyses. Samples
from CDD/CDF emission tests were analyzed for tetra-octa CDD/CDF isomers by
Triangle Laboratories, Inc. Ash samples were also analyzed by Triangle for these
analytes. Analytical procedures followed EPA Method 23 protocols (Analytical
Method 8290X). This technique incorporates High Resolution Gas
Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) analytical
procedures. Because of the quantity of organics present in the CDD/CDF samples, a
representative flue gas sample was analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as well
as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Samples from particulate matter/metals emission tests were analyzed by Radian's
Perimeter Park (PPK) laboratory. Analytical procedures were completed using
Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma (ICAP), Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
(GFAA) and Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption (CVAA). Incinerator ash was also
analyzed for metals content using these techniques. Particulate matter was analyzed
using gravimetric techniques following EPA Method 5 guidelines. Samples from halogen
emission tests were analyzed by Radian's PPK laboratory. Quantities of chloride,
bromide, and fluoride ions in the impinger solutions were determined using Ion
Chromatographic techniques.
1.0
JBS219 A y
-------
Microbial survivability samples from the emissions tests and the ash and pipe tests
were analyzed for viable spores of Bacillus stearothermophilus by Research Triangle
Institute (RTI). Impinger samples (emissions), ash, and pipe samples were cultured and
enumerated using analytical techniques recently developed specific for this test method.
This protocol is given in the EPA draft methods "Microbial Survivability Test for
Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions" and "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical
Waste Incinerator Ash (included in the test plan for this test program).
The incinerator ash was analyzed by McCoy Labs for volative matter (LOI) by
Standard Methods of Water and Wastes, 209G and carbon content by ASTM
Method D 3178-84.
1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
All flue gas testing procedures followed comprehensive QA/QC procedures as
outlined in the Lenoir MWI test plan and EPA reference methods. A full description of
the resulting QA parameters is given in Section 6.
All post-test leak check criteria were met for all four manual sampling trains.
The allowable isokinetic QC range of ± 10 percent of 100 percent was met for all
CDD/CDF, PM/Metals and 19 out of 20 microbial emissions test runs. All post-test dry
gas meter calibration checks were within 5 percent of the full calibration factor. Field
blanks (FB) results showed virtually no contamination in the MM5 CDD/CDF FB,
PM/Metals FB, microbial FB or halogen FB samples. The CDD/CDF toluene rinse
field blank had higher levels of most CDD/CDF congeners than most of the runs. This
would not affect any emission rate values as toluene results are not incorporated into
those calculations.
From an analytical QA perspective, all analyses were completed under a strict
QA/QC regimen. The initial CDD/CDF MM5 analyses experienced high organic
concentrations posing interference and saturation problems. These samples were diluted
and reanalyzed without any further problems.
The manual flue gas test data reflected variation from run to run as indicated by
the coefficient of variation (CV) analyses. Overall pooled CVs ranged from 38.5 percent
for CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations to 51.5 percent for metals flue gas concentrations.
JBS219 1-10
-------
The overall pooled CV for the CEM data was 254 percent. These values reflect a strong
variability in process operation.
1.5 DESCRIPTION OF REPORT CONTENTS
Section 1 of this report provides an introduction to the medical waste testing
program conducted at Lenoir Memorial Hospital in Kinston, North Carolina. This
section includes the test objective, a brief site description, an overview of the emissions
measurement program, a brief overview of the QA/QC program, and this description of
the report contents.
Section 2 gives a summary of the test results. Included in the contents of this
section are the emissions test log, CDD/CDF results, toxic metals results, paniculate
matter/visible emissions results, halogen results, CEM results, ash LOI and carbon
results, and microbial survivability results.
Section 3 details the process and operation of the Lenoir incinerator and gives
process results. Included in the process results are the waste feed rates and incineration
chamber temperatures.
Section 4 provides a detailed description and drawings of the sample locations.
Section 5 presents detailed descriptions of sampling and analytical procedures.
The descriptions that are covered in this section are the CDD/CDF testing method, the
particulate matter and toxic metals testing method, microbial survivability testing
methods, the manual halogen emissions testing method, EPA Methods 1 through 4, CEM
methods, the visible emissions method, and process sampling procedures.
Section 6 provides details of the quality assurance/quality control procedures used
on this program and the QC results. Included in this section is a summary of QA/QC
objectives, QC procedures for the manual flue gas sampling methods, QC procedures for
the ash and pipe (microbial) sampling, analytical QC procedures and QA parameters,
and CEM QC procedure and QA parameters.
Appendices containing the actual field data sheets and computer data listings are
contained in a separate volume.
JBS219
-------
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section provides results of the emissions test program conducted at the
Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI from May 30 to June 8, 1990. Included in this section
are results of manual tests conducted for CDD/CDF, toxic metals, particulate matter,
visible emissions, halogens, and microbial survivability. This section also contains the
results of continuous emissions monitoring for O2, CO2, CO, NOX, SO2, THC, and HC1
gases.
2.1 EMISSIONS TEST LOG
Ten tests were conducted over a nine day period. Test Run 5 was repeated due
to problems encountered with high particulate loadings in the flue gas which resulted in
unreliable CEM results.
Table 2-1 is the emissions test log. This table shows the test date, run number,
test type, run times and port change times for all the manual stack testing conducted
during this program.
2.2 CDD/CDF RESULTS
2.2.1 Overview
Nine 4-hour CDD/CDF emission test runs were completed at Lenoir Memorial
Hospital during the May/June 1990 test program. One of the runs (Run 5) was
invalidated due to poor CEM performance caused by high particulate loadings and was
therefore, repeated (Run 5R). Three runs were completed under each of three test
conditions. Testing protocol followed EPA Method 23 which requires a final sample
recovery rinse of toluene to be analyzed separately from the rest of the sample. Because
this data is not incorporated into the final emission results, it will be presented with the
sampling QA parameters in Section 6.3.1.
Daily ash samples were taken and composited into a single sample for each test
condition (i.e., three samples total). The ash samples were also analyzed for tetra
through octa CDD/CDF isomers.
JBS219
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
5/30/90
5/30/90
5/30/90
5/30/90
5/30/90
5/30/90
5/30/90
5/30/90
5/31/90
5/31/90
5/31/90
5/31/90
5/31/90
5/31/90
5/31/90
5/31/90
6/01/90
6/01/90
6/01/90
6/01/90
6/01/90
6/01/90
6/01/90
6/02/90
6/02/90
6/02/90
6/02/90
6/02/90
6/02/90
6/04/90 *
6/04/90 *
6/04/90 +
6/04/90 +
6/04/90 *
6/04/90 *
6/04/90 *
6/04/90
•LOCATION
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
RUN ;
NUMBER ;
1
1
1A
IB
1C
1A
IB
1C
2
2
2A
2B
2C
2A
2B
2C
3
3
3A
3B
3C
3A
3B
4
4A
4B
4C
4A
4B
5
5
5A
5B
5C
5A
56
4R
TEST
TYPE
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HO
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
na
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
Ha
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
RUN
TIME
14:56-20:22
14:55-20:22
15:11-16:11
16:25-17:25
18:37-19:38
14:53-15:53
17:16-18:01
20:02-20:47
12:47-17:11
12:47-17:11
12:56-13:50
14:05-15:05
16:00-17:05
12:52-13:52
14:40-15:40
16:13-17:13
10:19-14:40
10:19-14:40
10:19-11:19
11:30-12:31
12:55-13:55
10:17-12:05
12:40-14:28
10:02-14:23
10:00-11:00
11:10-12:10
13:05-14:05
10:00-11:48
12:22-14:10
10:50-15:01
10:50-15:01
10:50-11:50
12:00-13:00
13:10-14:10
10:51-12:39
13:58-15:46
15:43-19:47
PORT
CHANGES
16:56-18:22
16:55-18:22
14:52-15:11
14:54-15:11
12:19-12:40
12:19-12:40
12:02-12:23
12:50-13:01
12:50-13:01
17:43-17:47
* Bad CEM data. All runs invalidated.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG, (continued)
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
6/05/90
6/05/90
6/05/90
6/05/90
6/05/90
6/05/90
6/05/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/07/90
6/07/90
6/07/90
6/07/90
6/07/90
6/07/90
6/07/90
6/08/90
6/08/90
6/08/90
6/08/90
6/08/90
6/08/90
6/08/90
LOCATION
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
RUN
NUMBER
6
6
6A
6B
6C
6A
6B
7
7
7A
7B
7C
7A
7B
5R
5R
5RA
5RB
SRC
5RA
5RB
8
8
8A
SB
8C
8A
SB
9
9
9A
9B
9C
9A
9B
TEST
TYPE
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
na
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
na
HC1
na
Spore
Spore
RUN
TIME
11:21-15:32
11:21-15:32
12:20-13:20
13:30-14:30
15:00-16:00
11:20-13:08
13:37-15:25
10:14-14:33
10:14-14:28
10:15-11:15
13:13-14:15
14:35-15:15
10:12-12:00
12:30-14:18
16:57-21:07
16:57-21:07
16:59-17:59
18:15-19:15
19:46-20:46
16:57-18:45
19:19-21:05
12:55-17:04
12:55-17:04
12:55-13:55
14:25-15:25
15:36-16:37
12:54-14:42
15:12-17:00
11:20-14:27
11:20-15:27
11:23-12:23
12:34-13:34
14:38-15:38
11:22-13:10
13:41-15:29
PORT
CHANGES
13:21-13:32
13:21-13:32
12:14-12:28
12:14-12:28
18:57-19:07
18:57-19:07
14:55-15:04
14:55-15:04
13:20-13:27
13:25-13:27
2-3
-------
The following sections report CDD/CDF emission test results in Section 2.2.2 and
incinerator ash CDD/CDF concentrations in Section 2.2.3. Emission values
incorporating the final toluene rinse amounts are given in Section 2.9.
2.2.2 CDD/CDF Emission Results
Tables 2-2 through 2-5 present the average emission parameters for each of the
three test conditions. Data from each individual test run are presented in Tables 2-6
through 2-12. Emission tests analyses were targeted for the tetra through octa 2378
substituted CDD/CDF isomers. Results are presented for each isomer as well as for
each tetra octa homologue total (Total CDD, Total CDF).
Average CDD/CDF stack gas concentrations for each test condition are presented
in Table 2-2. Stack gas concentrations of all target CDD/CDF congeners were detected
in every test run throughout the program. Condition 3 showed the highest concentration
for all targeted CDD/CDF congeners except Octa CDD and Octa CDF. The average
concentration of 2378 TCDD for Condition 3 was 16.2 ng/dscm. Averages for
2378 TCDD for Conditions 1 and 2 were 2.40 and 1.20 ng/dscm, respectively. The
average concentration of Total CDD/CDF for Condition 3 was 19,100 ng/dscm. Values
for Conditions 1 and 2 were 4,540 and 5,150 ng/dscm, respectively.
Average CDD/CDF concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2 for each test
condition are shown in Table 2-3. Average O2 concentrations for Conditions 1, 2, and
3 were 11.8, 12.4, and 13.6 percent by dry volume, respectively. Because of the higher O2
values, corrected concentrations for Condition 3 increased from actual concentrations
more than did corrected concentrations from the other two test conditions. Corrected
concentrations of 2378 TCDD for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 3.84, 1.95, and
31.0 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2, respectively. Corrected concentrations of Total
CDD/CDF for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 7,260, 9,090, and 35,500 ng/dscm at 7 percent
O2, respectively.
Average CDD/CDF emission rates for each condition are shown in Table 2-4.
Average emissions of 2378 TCDD for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 5.11, 2.48, and
30.7 ug/hr, respectively. Average total CDD/CDF emissions for Conditions 1, 2, and 3
were 9,650, 10,600, and 35,800 ug/hr, respectively.
JBS219 2-4
-------
TABLE 2-2. AVERAGE CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOR EACH
TEST CONDITION; LENOER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION*
(ng/dscm, as measured)
CONDITION
••. ' .1'
2.40
26.3
15.3
64.2
21.3
20.9
46.4
128
160
145
280
910
12.1
430
41.4
65.5
644
229
129
153
9.30
685
484
76.1
349
327
3,630
4,540
CONDITION
>•• • . ^ : ":;
1.20
12.8
8.64
47.7
19.4
18.2
34.1
115
226
205
608
1,296
6.0
214
25.0
53.0
524
192
88.3
188
6.09
564
522
90.6
450
927
3,850
5,150
CONDITION
3 ••<•••• ,
16.2
200
88.7
371
86.0
85.2
198
546
440
394
371
2,794
79.6
1885
214
304
3,096
895
560
507
56.4
2,812
2,974
447.1
2,002
460
16,300
19,100
a dscm = dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-3. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7% OXYGEN
FOR EACH TEST CONDITION; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION
(fig/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2) 1 ;
CONDITION
1
3.84
41.5
23.2
99.0
32.3
32.6
72.1
200
256
231
446
1440.0
19.1
679
64.8
102.2
989
362
201
249
14.9
1,085
780
127
580
573
5,830
7,260
CONDITION
••'•• -.y •*'•• 2 '--:;
1.95
20.7
14.3
79.0
33.3
31.0
57.7
195
397
367
1,105
2300.0
9.70
362
41.3
89.4
899
338
152
333
10.2
974.2
920
155
787
1,718
6,790
9,090
4: CONDITION
•'••'•" >' - 3 \?;. V
31.0
380
169
701
164
161
374
1,030
825
736
693
5260.0
152
3565
403
570
5,788
1,666
1,044
946
105.9
5,242
5,465
820
3,668
831
30,300
35,500
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-4. AVERAGE CDD/CDF STACK GAS EMISSIONS FOR EACH
TEST CONDITION; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
EMISSIONS
OS/h*)
CONDITION
'. - i •' • ; •
5.11
56.0
32.6
136.7
45.2
44.4
98.9
272
341
309
592
1930.0
25.9
916
88.2
139
1,373
487
274
324
19.8
1,456
1,027
161.0
737.8
687.5
7,720
9,650
CONDITION
2
2.48
26.5
17.8
98.4
40.0
37.6
70.3
236
466
423
1,250
2670.0
12.3
442
51.5
109
1,079
396
182
388
12.6
1,161
1,074
187
927
1,905
7,930
10,600
CONDITION
' r. :'.£:
30.7
378
167
697
162
160
372
1,025
823
736
692
5240.0
150
3553
403
572
5,826
1676.9
1049.7
950
106.0
5,272
5,549
833
3,729
852
30,500
35,800
2-7
-------
Table 2-5 presents average corrected CDD/CDF gas concentrations in 2378 toxic
equivalents. The concentration of each congener corrected to 7 percent O2 was
multiplied by its respective Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) to determine 2378 Toxic
Equivalents. The TEF's used in this report are the international TEF values.(l) The
average 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations for Total CDD/CDF for Conditions 1, 2,
and 3 were 181, 170, and 955 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2, respectively.
Table 2-6 gives both the CDD/CDF stack gas concentrations and emission rates
for each test run in Condition 1. Tables 2-7 and 2-8 give similar information for
Conditions 2 and 3, respectively. Run 4 and Runs 7, 8, and 9 have values which are
classified as estimated maximum possible concentration (EMPC). These values, shown
in parenthesis, represent analytical results which have a signal to noise ratio above 2.5:1,
but do not meet all of the qualitative identification criteria. These values are included in
all averages and summations.
Table 2-9 presents the CDD/CDF stack gas concentration corrected to 7 percent
O2 and the 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations for each run in Condition 1.
Tables 2-10 and 2-11 give similar information for Conditions 2 and 3, respectively.
The CDD/CDF sampling and flue gas parameters for each run are shown in
Table 2-12. Information on sample rates, sample gas volumes, O2/CO2 concentrations,
moisture content, gas flow, and other parameters are given.
2.2.3 CDD/CDF Ash Results
Three daily ash samples were taken and composited into a single sample per test
condition. Results from the composite sample CDD/CDF analyses are shown in
Table 2-13. Values are given in parts per billion (ppb). All target CDD/CDF congeners
were detected on every run except for 123478 HxCDD during Condition 2, 2378 TCDF
for Condition 2, and 123789 HxCDF for Conditions 1 and 2. The average concentration
of 2378 TCDD in ash was 0.032 ppb.
Ash 2378 Toxic Equivalencies are also shown in Table 2-13. The total
CDD/CDF 2378 Toxic Equivalency averaged over all three conditions was 0.69 ppb.
JBS219 2-8
-------
TABLE 2-5. AVERAGE CDD/CDF 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS
ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR EACH TEST CONDITION
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
2378-TCDD a
TOXIC
EQUTV.
FACTOR
1.00000
0.00000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
0.10000
0.00000
0.05000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.1000
0.1000
0.0000
0.0100
0.0100
0.0000
0.0010
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, @ 7 percent O2)
CONDITION
1
3.84
0.00
11.58
0.00
3.23
3.26
7.21
0.00
2.56
0.00
0.45
32.1
1.91
0.00
3.24
51.11
0.00
36.22
20.14
24.92
1.49
0.00
7.80
1.27
0.00
0.57
149
181
CONDITION
2
1.95
0.00
7.15
0.00
3.33
3.10
5.77
0.00
3.97
0.00
1.10
26.4
0.97
0.00
2.07
44.72
0.00
33.77
15.18
33.29
1.02
0.00
9.20
1.55
0.00
1.72
143
170
CONDITION
3
31.05
0.00
84.44
0.00
16.40
16.09
37.40
0.00
8.25
0.00
0.69
194
15.24
0.00
20.17
285.22
0.00
166.56
104.41
94.57
10.59
0.00
54.65
8.20
0.00
0.83
760
955
ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International
Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-6. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 1
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, as measured)
RUN!
0.79
9.7
6.04
30.8
13.3
9.64
18.6
56.1
85.0
73.9
212.5
516
4.39
166
18.0
31.1
316.3
116.4
57.9
72.0
3.3
337.8
265.8
38.2
183.3
201.4
1,810
2,330
RUN 2
3.76
42.5
28.0
106.3
34.3
33.6
78.1
205.0
228.1
211.9
345.9
1,317
20.1
687
66.9
104.5
1,080
343.3
205.7
205.5
14.4
1,027
653.6
88.0
410.5
253.3
5,160
6,480
RUN3
2.64
26.6
11.8
55.5
16.1
19.4
42.5
122.4
168.3
150.1
282.2
897
11.9
436
39.3
60.8
537
228
122
181
10.2
691
533
102
452
525
3,930
4,830
AVERAGE
2.40
26.3
15.3
64.2
21.3
20.9
46.4
128
160
145
280
910
12.1
430
41.4
65.5
644
229
129
153
9.3
685
484
76.1
349
327
3,630
4,540
EMISSIONS
fog/to)
RUN I
1.60
19.7
12.3
62.8
27.2
19.7
37.9
114.5
173.3
150.7
433.4
1,053
8.94
339
36.8
63.5
645.0
237.4
118.1
146.9
6.8
688.8
542.1
77.8
373.8
410.7
3,700
4,750
RUN 2
8.19
92.5
60.8
231.2
74.7
73.0
169.8
445.8
496.2
460.8
752.3
2,865
43.7
1494
145.5
227.3
2,349
746.8
447.5
446.9
31.3
2,233
1,422
191.4
892.8
55Q.9
11,200
14,100
RUN?
5.53
55.8
24.8
116
33.7
40.6
88.9
256
353
315
591
1,880
24.9
913
82.4
127
1,124
478
256
379
21.3
1,447
1,117
214
947
1,101
8,230
10,110
AVERAGE
5.11
56.0
32.6
136.7
45.2
44.4
98.9
272.3
340.7
308.7
592.3
1,933
25.9
916
88.2
139.4
1,373
487.3
273.9
324.3
19.8
1,456
1,027
161.0
737.8
687.5
7,720
9,650
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 arm and 68° F
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-7. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 2
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, as measured)
RUN 4
(1.331)
12.7
7.83
45.0
12.8
15.2
26.1
95.4
167.3
150.2
355.5
889
5.32
177
20.2
39.9
343.0
122.4
66.5
129.3
5.51
394.9
344.5
73.8
308.0
380.2
2,410
3,300
RUN5R
0.84
7.98
7.40
42.2
23.5
21.3
37.1
132.7
345.0
353.4
1160.3
2,132
4.05
235
21.0
55.3
645.0
289.3
112.2
299.6
5.76
743.5
805.3
114.1
656.9
1,958
5,950
8,080
RUN 6
1.42
17.8
10.7
55.8
22.0
18.3
39.2
115.9
166.2
112.3
306.9
867
8.50
230
33.8
63.8
583.1
164.6
86.2
135.8
7.00
552.6
415.4
83.8
385.4
442.3
3,190
4,060
AVERAGE
1.20
12.8
8.64
47.7
19.4
18.2
34.1
115
226
205
608
1,296
5.96
214
25.0
53.0
524
192
88.3
188
6.09
564
522
90.6
450
927
3,850
5,150
EMISSIONS
OtgVhr) .- .-"H -<•••-•
RUN 4
(2.783)
26.5
16.4
94.1
26.7
31.8
54.5
199.4
349.8
314.0
743.4
1,859
11.1
370
42.1
83.5
717.1
256.0
139.1
270.3
11.5
825.7
720.3
154.2
644.0
795.1
5,040
6,900
RUN5R
1.72
16.3
15.2
86.5
48.1
43.6
75.9
271.9
707.0
724.2
2377.5
4,368
8.29
481
43.0
113.4
1,322
592.8
229.9
613.9
11.8
1,523
1,650
233.8
1,346
4012.0
12,200
16,500
RUN 6
2.92
36.6
22.0
114.7
45.1
37.5
80.5
238.0
341.1
230.6
630.2
1,779
17.5
473
69.4
131.1
1,197
338.0
176.9
278.8
14.4
1,135
852.9
172.2
791.3
908.1
6,560
8,330
AVERAGE
2.48
26.5
17.8
98.4
40.0
37.6
70.3
236
466
423
1,250
2,669
12.3
442
51.5
109
1,079
396
182
388
12.6
1,161
1,074
187
927
1,905
7,930
10,590
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-8. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 3
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dsctn, as measured)
RUN?
13.9
165.5
88.0
441.7
99.5
109.4
230.2
722.8
645.0
619.4
627.9
3,763
74.8
2053
229.4
359.7
3,734
1,290
786.0
717.6
(69.63)
4,028
5,186
811.6
3,695
982.5
24,000
27,800
RUN8
15.7
179.2
81.0
311.8
81.9
71.0
165.3
418.7
338.0
280.1
266.7
2,210
78.6
1572
173.6
227.8
2,144
587.7
380.6
347.1
(42.63)
1,888
1,526
221.1
969.5
158.0
10,300
12,500
RUN 9
19.1
254.7
97.1
358.4
76.4
75.2
197.8
495.7
335.6
281.7
218.5
2,410
85.4
2030
237.9
323.6
3,409
806.1
512.4
455.5
(56.94)
2,520
2,212
308.7
1,343
238.8
14,500
16,900
AVERAGE
16.2
200
88.7
371
86.0
85.2
198
546
440
394
371
2,794
79.6
1885
214
304
3,096
894.62
559.69
506.76
(56.39)
2,812
2,974
447
2,002
460
16,300
19,100
EMISSIONS
(Mg/hr)
RUN?
25.4
302.5
160.8
807.3
181.9
199.9
420.8
1,321
1,179
1,132
1,148
6,879
137
3752
419.3
657.4
6,825
2,358
1436.6
1311.7
(127.3)
7,363
9,479
1,483
6,754
1,796
43,900
50,800
RUN 8
29.9
342.1
154.6
595.2
156.4
135.4
315.6
799.2
645.2
534.8
509.2
4,218
150
3000
331.3
434.8
4,093
1,122
726.6
662.6
(81.4)
3,604
2,912
422.0
1,851
301.7
19,700
23,900
RUN 9
36.8
490.2
186.8
689.6
147.0
144.7
380.6
953.7
645.8
542.0
420.3
4,638
164
3907
457.8
622.7
6,559
1,551
986.0
876.4
(109.5)
4,849
4,255
593.9
2,583
459.6
28,000
32,600
AVERAGE
30.7
378
167
697
162
160
372
1,025
823
736
692
5,245
150
3553
403
572
5,826
1,677
1049.7
950
(106.0)
5,272
5,549
833
3,729
852
30,500
35,800
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-9. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 1
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION*
{ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN1
1.09
13.5
8.42
42.9
18.6
13.4
25.9
78.3
118.5
103.0
296.3
720.0
6.11
232
25.1
43.4
441.0
162.3
80.8
100.4
4.6
470.9
370.6
53,2
255.5
280.8
2,527
3,247
RUN 2
4.84
54.7
36.0
136.8
44.2
43.2
100.5
263.8
293.6
272.7
445.2
1,696
25.9
884
86.1
134.5
1,390
441.9
264.8
264.5
18.5
1,321
841.2
113.3
528.3
326.0
6.640
8,336
RUN 3
5.59
56.3
25.0
117.4
34.1
41.0
89.8
259.0
356.0
317.7
597.0
1,899
25.2
922
83.2
128.7
1,135
482.5
258.5
382.8
21.5
1,462
1,128
215.8
956.2
1,112
8,314
10,213
AVERAGE
3.84
41.5
23.2
99.0
32.3
32.6
72.1
200
256
231
446
1,438
19.1
679
64.8
102
989
362
201
249
14.9
1,085
780
127
580
573
5,827
7,265
2378-TCDDb
TOXIC EQUiy.
FACTOR
1.00000
0.00000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
0.10000
0.00000
0.05000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.1000
0.1000
0.0000
0.0100
0.0100
0.0000
0.0010
237» TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN1
1.09
0.00
4.21
0.00
1.86
1.34
2.59
0.00
1.19
0.00
0.30
12.6
0.61
0.00
1.26
21.70
0.00
16.23
8.08
10.04
0.46
0.00
3.71
0.53
0.00
0.28
62.9
75.5
RUN 2
4.84
0.00
18.00
0.00
4.42
4.32
10.05
0.00
2.94
0.00
0.45
45.0
2.59
0.00
4.30
67.27
0.00
44.19
26.48
26.45
1.85
0.00
8.41
1.13
0.00
0.33
183
228
RUN 3
5.59
0.00
12.51
0.00
3.41
4.10
8.98
0.00
3.56
0.00
0.60
38.7
2.52
0.00
4.16
64.35
0.00
48.25
25.85
38.28
2.15
0.00
11.28
2.16
0.00
1.11
200
239
AVERAGE
3.84
0.00
11.58
0.00
3.23
3.26
7.21
0.00
2.56
0.00
0.45
32.1
1.91
0.00
3.24
51.11
0.00
36.22
20.14
24.92
1.49
0.00
7.80
1.27
0.00
0.57
149
181
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International
Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-10. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 2
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDEHCDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 4
(1.943)
18.5
11.4
65.7
18.7
22.2
38.1
139.2
244.3
219.3
519.1
1,298
7.77
259
29.4
58.3
500.8
178.8
97.2
188.8
8.05
576.5
503.0
107.7
449.7
555.2
3,520
4,818
RUN5R
1.68
15.9
14.8
84.3
46.9
42.5
74.0
265.0
689.1
705.9
2,317
4,257
8.08
469
41.9
110.5
1,288
577.8
224.1
598.4
11.5
1,485
1,608
227.9
1,312
3,910
11,873
16,130
RUN 6
2.22
27.7
16.7
87.0
34.2
28.5
61.1
180.6
258.9
175.0
478.3
1,350
13.25
359
52.7
99.5
908.7
256.5
134.3
211.6
10.9
861.1
647.3
130.7
600.5
689.2
4,975
6,325
AVERAGE
1.95
20.7
14.3
79.0
33.3
31.0
57.7
195
397
367
1.105
2,302
9.70
362
41.3
89.4
899
338
152
333
10.2
974
920
155
787
1,718
6,789
9,091
2378-TCDDb
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES -,
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2) ' :
RUN4
(1.943)
0.00
5.72
0.00
1.87
2.22
3.81
0.00
2.44
0.00
0.52
18.5
0.78
0.00
1.47
29.15
0.00
17.88
9.72
18.88
0.80
0.00
5.03
1.08
0.00
0.56
85.3
104
RUNSR
1.68
0.00
7.39
0.00
4.69
4.25
7.40
0.00
6.89
0.00
2.32
34.6
0.81
0.00
2.10
55.26
0.00
57.78
22.41
59.84
1.15
0.00
16.08
2.28
0.00
3.91
222
256
RUN 6
2.22
0.00
8.33
0.00
3.42
2.85
6.11
0.00
2.59
0.00
0.48
26.0
1.32
0.00
2.63
49.75
0.00
25.65
13.43
21.16
1.09
0.00
6.47
1.31
0.00
0.69
123
149
AVERAGE
1.95
0.00
7.15
0.00
3.33
3.10
5.77
0.00
3.97
0.00
1.10
26.4
0.97
0.00
2.07
44.72
0.00
33.77
15.18
33.29
1.02
0.00
9.20
1.55
0.00
1.72
143
170
a „ . . ™~ „. , ,^. „„, „„
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International
Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
c () = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-14
-------
TABLE 2-11. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 3
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION «
:••••:••• . :',..•
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 7
24.27
289.4
153.9
772.3
174.0
191.2
402.6
1,264
1,128
1,083
1,098
6,580
131
3589
401.1
628.9
6,528
2,256
1,374
1,255
(121.7)
7,043
9,067
1,419
6,460
1,718
41,870
48,450
RUNS
34.70
397.3
179.6
691.3
181.6
157.3
366.6
928.2
749.3
621.1
591.4
4,898
174
3485
384.8
504.9
4,754
1,303
843.8
769.6
(94.5)
4,185
3,382
490.1
2,149
350.4
22,776
27,674
RUN 9
34.17
454.6
173.2
639.5
136.4
134.2
352.9
884.4'
598.9
502.6
389.8
4,301
152
3623
424.6
577.5
6,083
1,438
914.4
812.8
(101.6)
4,497
3,946
550.8
2,396
426.2
25,841
30,142
AVERAGE
31.0
380
169
701
164
161
374
1,025
825
736
693
5,260
152
3565
403
570
5,788
1,666
1,044
946
(105.9)
5,242
5,465
820
3,668
831
30,162
35,422
2378-TCD0b
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 7
24.27
0.00
76.93
0.00
17.40
19.12
40.26
0.00
11.28
0.00
1.10
190
13.07
0.00
20.05
314.43
0.00
225.56
137.42
125.47
(12.17)
0.00
90.67
14.19
0.00
1.72
955
1,145
RUNS
34.70
0.00
89.78
0.00
18.16
15.73
36.66
0.00
7.49
0.00
0.59
203
17.42
0.00
19.24
252.47
0.00
130.29
84.38
76.96
(9.45)
0.00
33.82
4.90
0.00
0.35
629
832
RUN 9
34.17
0.00
86.62
0.00
13.64
13.42
35.29
0.00
5.99
0.00
0139
190
15.24
0.00
21.23
288.75
0.00
143.84
91.44
81.28
(10.15)
0.00
39.46
5.51
0.00
0.43
697
887
AVERAGE
31.05
0.00
84.44
0.00
16.40
16.09
37.40
0.00
8.25
0.00
0.69
194
15.24
0.00
20.17
285.22
0.00
166.56
104.41
94.57
10.59
0.00
54.65
8.20
0.00
0.83
760
955
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International
Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
c () = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-12. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
*.un Number
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume,Vm(std) (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfin)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Run Number
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Run Number 1
Date . :•• ' • .. . />;:;:::;:;
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Test Condition 1
1
05/30/90
240
0.543
3.694
1306.75
6.91
10.93
11.83
4579.37
1200.19
33.99
99.61
2
05/31/90
240
0.579
3.932
1381.50
7.20
10.10
12.74
5101.21
1280.00
36.25
99.44
3
06/01/90
240
0.568
3.863
1349.29
4.49
14.33
13.52
4911.73
1232.94
34.92
101.41
Average
240
0.563
3.830
1345.85
6.20
11.79
12.70
4864.10
1237.71
35.05
100.16
; i Test Condition 2
4
06/02790
240
0.39
2.63
1208.35
6.35
11.38
11.74
4400.13
1230.67
34.85
100.55
•W.}fSK •;•-•
06/06/96
240
0.39
2.62
1319.58
4.89
13.94
11.48
4572.90
1205.80
34.15
104.29
6
06/05/90
240.00
0.38
2.60
1258.73
6.01
11.98
11.14
4426.55
1208.27
34.22
103.27
Average
240
0.38
2.62
1262.22
5.75
12.43
11.45
4466.53
1214.91
34.41
102.70
Test Condition 3
7
06/06/90
240
0.344
2.34
1329.73
5.94
12.95
12.78
4163.79
1075.66
30.46
104.53
8
06/07/90
240
0.483
3.28
1274.19
4.59
14.63
13.01
4241.62
1123.39
31.81
100.53
9
06/08/90
240
0.491
3.34
1301.48
5.86
13.11
13.32
4349.81
1132.39
32.07
101.35
Average
240
0.440
2.99
1301.80
5.46
13.56
13.03
4251.74
1110.48
31.45
102.14
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-13. CDD/CDF ASH RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONDITION
1 ' v:i-
(ppb)
0.080
6.220
0.250
8.450
0.300
0.660
1.300
16.240
6.900
14.300
17.600
72.30
7.200
30.500
1.100
2.600
39.500
10.200
2.800
5.100
[0.020]
22.300
20.500
0.640
13.760
14.300
171
243
CONDITION
- - 2
(ppb)
0.005
0.255
(0.009)
0.160
[0.005]
(0.009)
(0.020)
0.190
0.090
0.150
0.130
1.02
[0.003]
1.200
0.040
0.080
0.590
0.100
0.040
0.060
[0.005]
0.280
0.150
0.020
0.090
0.130
2.78
3.80
CONDITION
3
(PI*)
(0.010)
0.560
(0.040)
0.740
0.050
0.080
0.160
1.010
0.450
0.650
0.860
4.61
1.100
4.900
0.240
0.510
5.250
0.940
0.320
0.610
(0.020)
1.930
1.400
0.110
0.890
0.850
19.1
23.7
AVERAGE
(PI*)
0.032
2.345
0.100
3.117
0.175
0.250
0.493
5.813
2.480
5.033
6.197
26.0
4.150
12.200
0.460
1.063
15.113
3.747
1.053
1.923
0.020
8.170
7.350
0.257
4.913
5.093
64.1
90.1
TOXIC
EQUTV.
FACTOR a
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
CONDITION
: l ..-
(Ppb)
0.0800
0.0000
0.1250
0.0000
0.0300
0.0660
0.1300
0.0000
0.0690
0.0000
0.0176
0.518
0.7200
0.0000
0.0550
1.3000
0.0000
1.0200
0.2800
0.5100
0.0000
0.0000
0.2050
0.0064
0.0000
0.0143
4.11
4.63
CONDITION
,: 2
(ppb)
0.0050
0.0000
(0.005)
0.0000
0.0000
(0.001)
(0.002)
0.0000
0.0009
0.0000
0.0001
0.014
0.0000
0.0000
0.0020
0.0400
0.0000
0.0100
0.0040
0.0060
0.0000
0.0000
0.0015
0.0002
0.0000
0.0001
0.06
0.08
CONDITION
3
(ppb)
(0.010)
0.0000
(0.02)
0.0000
0.0050
0.0080
0.0160
0.0000
0.0045
0.0000
0.0009
0.064
0.1100
0.0000
0.0120
0.2550
0.0000
0.0940
0.0320
0.0610
(0.002)
0.0000
0.0140
0.0011
0.0000
0.0009
0.58
0.65
AVERAGE
(ppb)
0.02833
0.00000
0.05000
0.00000
0.01167
0.02500
0.04933
0.00000
0.02480
0.00000
0.00620
0.199
0.27667
0.00000
0.02300
0.53167
0.00000
0.37467
0.10533
0.19233
0.00200
0.00000
0.07350
0.00257
0.00000
0.00509
1.59
1.78
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds:
International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
[ ] = minimum detection limit ( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration
-------
2.2.4 PAH. CB. CP and PCB Emission Results
Because of the high concentration of organics found in the CDD/CDF Modified
Method 5 (MM5) flue gas samples, it was decided to quantify some of the organic
species. A single sample was selected for analyses of polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), chlorobenzenes (CBs), chlorophenols (CPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). The Run 7 MM5 sample was chosen for analysis because it was collected
during the worst case emissions scenario (Condition 3). Because EPA instructed Radian
to conduct the analyses after the samples had already been collected, typical analytical
quantification procedures were not performed. This was due to the fact that it is
necessary to spike the XAD traps with a series of standards prior to sampling, in order
to accurately quantify the results. Therefore, only the presence of PCB isomers can be
confirmed without any quantitation. PAH, CB, and CP results are semi-qualitative and
only represent the amount of compounds in the sample extract and not necessarily in the
MM5 sample (biased low).
The PAH results are presented in Table 2-14. Results are reported in total //g
detected, stack gas concentrations in ug/dscm and ug/dscm at 7 percent O2 and
emissions in mg/hr. These units are 1000-fold higher than the units used for CDD/CDF
results - total ng, ng/dscm, ug/hr. Napthelene, Z-Methylanaphthalene, Acenaphylene
Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene, Pyrene and Benzo(g,h,i)perylene were the only PAH
species detected. Concentrations for those species ranged from 5.13 ug/dscm for
Acenapthylene to 270 ug/dscm for Naphthalene. Emission rates for those two species
ranged from 9.39 to 493 mg/hr, respectively. However, because there was no archived
laboratory blank extract available, laboratory contamination could not be checked.
There is usually some naphthalene found in the laboratory blank as it is a known
constituent of XAD resin and toluene. Therefore, the naphthalene value should be
flagged as suspect. Values for other PAHs are based on minimum detection limits or
estimated maximum possible concentrations.
The CB and CP flue gas results are shown in Table 2-15. One congener of
chlorophenol was detected out of the seventeen CP target compounds. Two congeners
of chlorobenzene were detected out of the eleven CB target compounds.
JBS219 2-18
-------
TABLE 2-14. POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS FLUE GAS RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
a
Naphthalene
2-methylanaphtalene
2-Chloronapthalene
Acenapthylene
Acenapthene
Fluorene
Phenathrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
TOTAL
ANALYSIS
(total Mg)
631
(12.02)
[0.180]
118.0
[0.160]
[0.160]
159
[0.110]
178
158
[0.080]
[0.080]
[0.080]
[0.080]
[0.080]
[0.090]
[0.140]
[0.110]
[0.100]
78.2
1334
GAS
CONC.
Oig/dscm)
270
(5.135)
[0.077]
50.4
[0.068]
[0.068]
67.8
[0.047]
76.1
67.6
[0.034]
[0.034]
[0.034]
[0.034]
[0.034]
[0.038]
[0.060]
[0.047]
[0.043]
33.4
570
GAS CONC.
&7% O2
(/ig/dscm)
471
(8.978)
[0.135]
88.1
[0.119]
[0.119]
119
[0.082]
133
118
[0.059]
[0.059]
[0.059]
[0.059]
[0.059]
[0.066]
[0.105]
[0.082]
[0.075]
58.4
997
EMISSIONS
(mg/hr)
493
(9.386)
[0.141]
92.1
[0.124]
[0.124]
124
[0.086]
139
124
[0.062]
[0.062]
[0.062]
[0.062]
[0.062]
[0.069]
[0.110]
[0.086]
[0.079]
61.1
1042
a This value is suspect high as the sample adsorbent (XAD n) is known to have naphthalene present.
b [ ] = minimum detection limit.
c ( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-15. CHLORINATED PHENOLS AND CHLORINATED BENZENES FLUE GAS RESULTS
CDD/CDF RUN 7; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,5-Dichlorophenol
2,3-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
3 ,5-Dichlorophenol
3 ,4-Dichlorophenol
2,3,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,3 ,4-Trichlorophenol
2,3 ,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,5, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
IDT AT rrHTi^i?rii*p*P'>ifrtt s
* v t, vvi-» \^rmji\\ji fUC,£\\jLfj
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
ANALYSIS
(total fig)
[0.340]
[0.080]
[0.080]
[0.220]
[0.220]
[0.210]
[0.420]
[0.370]
[0.370]
[0.690]
[0.600]
[0.500]
[0.550]
[0.600]
71.8
[0.670]
[0.890]
: -71 o
/ I.o
[0.310]
[0.390]
[0.320]
[0.410]
[0.410]
[0.420]
(9.570)
(10.59)
[0.330]
74.3
27.6
122.0
CAS
CONC.
(/£g7dscm)
[0.145]
[0.034]
[0.034]
[0.094]
[0.094]
[0.090]
[0.179]
[0.158]
[0.158]
[0.295]
[0.256]
[0.214]
[0.235]
[0.256]
30.671
[0.286]
[0.380]
-art 7
-..;:. ... ::...:.:.--.." JV. /
[0.132]
[0.167]
[0.137]
[0.175]
[0.175]
[0.179]
(4.088)
(4.524)
[0.141]
31.717
11.781
•-'• :.-••*•£ S2.1
GAS CONC.
©7% O2
(/ig/dscm)
[0.254]
[0.059]
[0.059]
[0.164]
[0.164]
[0.157]
[0.313]
[0.276]
[0.276]
[0.516]
[0.448]
[0.374]
[0.411]
[0.448]
53.625
[0.500]
[0.664]
:«fi
- :• ;: •-;•:-'• \VJ.O
[0.231]
[0.292]
[0.240]
[0.306]
[0.306]
[0.313]
(7.148)
(7.910)
[0.247]
55.455
20.599
- .-: ,Hr9i.i
EMISSIONS
(mg/hr)
[0.265]
[0.062]
[0.062]
[0.172]
[0.172]
[0.165]
[0.327]
[0.289]
[0.289]
[0.539]
[0.468]
[0.391]
[0.430]
[0.468]
56.06
[0.523]
[0.695]
OC f
X JO. 1
[0.241]
[0.305]
[0.250]
[0.320]
[0.320]
[0.327]
(7.472)
(8.269)
[0.258]
57.97
21.53
95.2
[ ] = minimum detection limit.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-20
-------
The PCB analysis was also performed on flue gas sample Run 7 (MM5-7).
Because no PCB internal standards were added prior to extraction, there could be no
quantitation. Only the presence of mono through deca isomers could be confirmed.
Table 2-16 lists the PCB results. The presence of hexa, hepta, octa, and nona
polychlorinated biphenyls were observed in the MM5-7 sample.
2.3 TOXIC METALS RESULTS
2.3.1 Data Reduction Overview
A single sampling train was used to determine emission rates of a series of 11
metals [antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd),
chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), and thallium (Tl)], and
particulate matter. Three sampling runs were performed under each of the three test
conditions in order to assure representative test results. Sampling locations, methods,
and QA/QC are discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The average metals
concentrations and emission rates for each test condition are summarized in Table 2-17.
The results for each individual run are presented in Tables 2-18 through 2-20. Actual
concentrations and concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown.
The values reported in Tables 2-17 through 2-20 include the respective detection
limits for metals which were not detected in the samples. Since the samples were
analyzed in three separate fractions (see Section 6 for details), guidelines for
mathematically handling detection limits were required. The guidelines used for this
report are:
If a metal was detected in one or more fractions of the sample train but
not in all fractions, only the detected values were used to determine total
sample mass (non detects = zero).
If a metal was not detected in any fractions of a sample train, the lowest
detection limit reported for an individual fraction was used as the overall
sample detection limit.
JBS219
-------
TABLE 2-16. QUALITATIVE PCB FLUE GAS RESULTS
CDD/CDF RUN 7
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ISOMER
TOTAL MONO PCB
TOTAL DI PCB
TOTAL TRI PCB
TOTAL TETRA PCB
TOTAL PENTA PCB
TOTAL HEXA PCB
TOTAL HEPTA PCB
TOTAL OCTA PCB
TOTAL NONA PCB
DECA PCB
COMPOUND
DETECTED
(Yes/No)
No
No
NA
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA = Results not confirmed
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-17. AVERAGE METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES
AT EACH CONDITION; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
Test Condition
Run Numbers
Antimony (jig/dscm)
Otg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (/ig/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (/tg/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (/tg/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (/ig/dscm)
(/tg/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
1
1,2,3
420
646
0.838
6.40
10.0
0.013
65.7
102
0.131
[0.078]
[0.127]
[0.0002]
150
214
0.297
15.4
25.2
0.031
1,180
1,870
2.36
90.6
139
0.181
12.24
19.0
0.024
[1.283]
[2.079]
[0.003]
[2.083]
[3.371]
[0.004]
,?|f '-,:• .,2
4R.5R.6
309
599
0.606
5.45
10.4
0.011
79.3
146
0.153
[0.061]
[0.114]
[0.0001]
164
312
0.321
18.1
34.2
0.035
1,820
3,540
3.51
96.0
186
0.188
9.45
17.9
0.018
12.0
24.2
0.023
[1.664]
[3.104]
[0.003]
.m-m •;:•:•<> ••: : 3
-, ":"'•,/, ,,7,8,9
1060
2000
1.96
9.91
18.9
0.018
90.8
174
0.169
[0.065]
[0.124]
[0.0001]
192
370
0.355
32.4
59.7
0.060
1,430
2,670
2.65
1,170
2,060
2.14
28.7
52.5
0.053
6.57
11.7
0.012
[1.738]
[3.331]
[0.003]
Note: Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits for elements
not detected in the samples. Detection limits are not included in the
averages unless otherwise indicated.
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-18. METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES
FOR CONDITION 1; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
Date
Time
RUB No.
O2 Ctorieentratioii (%V>
Flow Rate (dscnnn)
Antimony (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @1% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
05/30/90
14:56-20:22
1
10.9
32.99
381.97
532.54
0.76
4.35
6.06
0.01
45.55
63.50
0.09
[0.059]
[0.082]
[0.0001]
78.95
110.07
0.16
17.79
24.80
0.04
943.80
1315.83
1.87
109.21
152.26
0.22
17.78
24.78
0.035
[0.980]
[1.366]
[0.002]
[1.624]
[2.264]
[0.003]
05/31/90
12r47-17:ll
2
10.1
32.69
547.50
704.66
1.07
9.05
11.65
0.02
93.70
120.60
0.18
[0.089]
[0.115]
[0.0002]
304.35
391.71
0.60
11.47
14.77
0.02
1441.43
1855.17
2.83
96.70
124.46
0.19
9.46
12.18
0.019
[1.449]
[1.865]
[0.003]
[2.335]
[3.005]
[0.005]
06/01/90
10;1
-------
TABLE 2-19. METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES FOR
CONDITION 2; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
Date
Time
Run Number
O2 Concentration (%V)
Flow Rate (dscmm)
Antimony (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (/tg/dscm)
Oig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (/tg/dscm)
Otg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (^tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (/tg/dscm)
Otg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (/tg/dscm)
Gig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (/tg/dscm)
Gtg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (/ig/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (/tg/dscm)
Oig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (/ig/dscm)
Otg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (jig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
06/04/90
15:43-19:47
4R
14.1
32.20
254.54
521.08
0.49
5.96
12.21
0.01
87.27
178.65
0.17
[0.064]
[0.131]
[0.0001]
79.83
163.41
0.15
25.81
52.83
0.05
3425.40
7012.24
6.62
101.98
208.77
0.20
15.33
31.38
0.03
12.42
25.43
0.02
[1.684]
[3.447]
[0.003]
06/06/90
16:57-21:07
'•...,.-; /-5R
13,9
33.33
517.11
1032.73
1.03
6.34
12.67
0.01
58.04
115.91
0.12
[0.058]
[0.116]
[0.0001]
300.60
600.33
0.60
12.74
25.44
0.03
1029.21
2055.46
2.06
137.47
274.54
0.27
4.73
9.44
0.01
11.49
22.94
0.02
[1.613]
[3.221]
[0.003]
06/05/90
11:21-15:32
6
12,0
31.21
155.76
242.72
0.29
4.04
6.29
0.01
92.59
144.28
0.17
[0.061]
[0.095]
[0.0001]
110.82
172.69
0.21
15.64
24.38
0.03
994.15
1549.18
1.86
48.54
75.64
0.09
8.29
12.92
0.02
[1.023]
[1.594]
[0.002]
[1.696]
[2.643]
[0.003]
AVERAGE
309
599
0.606
5.45
10.4
0.011
79.3
146
0.153
[0.061]
[0.114]
[0.0001]
164
312
0.321
18.1
34.2
0.035
1,820
3,540
3.51
96.0
186
0.188
9.45
17.9
0.018
12.0
24.2
0.023
[1.664]
[3.104]
[0.003]
not detected in the samples. Detection limits are not included in the averages
unless otherwise indicated.
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-20. METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES FOR
CONDITION 3; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
Date
Time
Run Number
O2 Concentration (%V)
Flow Rate (dscmm)
Antimony (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2
(g/hr)
Arsenic (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm @7% O2
(g/hr)
Barium (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2
(g/hr)
Beryllium (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm @7% O2
(g/hr)
Cadmium (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
^ead (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (/tg/dscm)
Otg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
"hallium (/tg/dscm)
(/tg/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
06/06/90
10:14-14:33
7
13.0
30.33
796.64
1392.86
1.45
11.69
20.45
0.02
60.50
105.77
0.11
[0.063]
[0.110]
[0.0001]
246.02
430.15
0.45
19.28
33.71
0.04
1991.59
3482.15
3.62
3389.31
5925.96
6.17
15.47
27.05
0.03
3.03
5.30
0.01
[1.742]
[3.046]
[0.003]
06707/90
12:55-17:04
8
14.6
31.63
854.78
1894.97
1.62
9.33
20.68
0.02
85.81
190.24
0.16
[0.065]
[0.144]
[0.0001]
215.76
478.32
0.41
14.52
32.19
0.03
956.58
2120.65
1.82
38.52
85.39
0.07
9.89
21.92
0.02
[1.063]
[2.357]
[0.002]
[1.741]
[3.860]
[0.003]
06/08/90
11:20-15:27
9
13.1
30.80
1524.01
2719.35
2.82
8.71
15.53
0.02
126.13
225.05
0.23
[0.066]
[0.118]
[0.0001]
113.03
201.69
0.21
63.40
113.13
0.12
1354.26
2416.46
2.50
96.63
172.42
0.18
60.84
108.56
0.11
10.11
18.04
0.02
[1.730]
[3.087]
[0.003]
AVERAGE
1,060
2,000
1.96
9.91
18.89
0.018
90.8
174
0.169
[0.065]
[0.124]
[0.0001]
192
370
0.355
32.4
59.7
0.060
1,430
2,670
2.65
1,170
2,060
2.14
28.7
52.5
0.053
6.57
11.7
0.012
[1.738]
[3.331]
F0.0031
Note: Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits for elements
not detected in the samples. Detection limits are not included in the
averages unless otherwise indicated.
2-26
-------
For the purpose of calculating average results:
If a metal was detected in one or more of the test runs but not in all, only
those runs for which a detected result was obtained were used in
calculating the average.
If the metal was not detected in any of the three runs, then the average
results was reported as not detected at the average detection limit.
This approach assumes that it is most likely that an element would be found in the train
fraction with the lowest detection limit; therefore, the minimum detection limit for the
entire train is based on the lowest fraction detection limit.
The composited ash samples were analyzed for the same series of metals as were
the emissions test sample. These results will be reported in Section 2.3.3.
2.3.2 Metals Emission Results
Table 2-17 presents the metals emission parameters averaged for each condition.
Actual concentrations, concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2, and emission rates are
shown. Results from Test Condition 3 showed the highest concentrations and emission
rates of metals, with the exception of lead and silver which showed higher values during
Test Condition 2. Lead was the most prevalent element detected in each of the three
test conditions, with emission rates at 2.36, 3.51, and 2.65 g/hr for Conditions 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. Silver was detected in the samples from Test Conditions 2 and 3 with
emission rates of 0.023 and 0.012 g/hr, but not in the samples from Test Condition 1.
Beryllium and thallium were not detected in any of the samples collected during the
three test conditions.
Table 2-18 presents the metals emission results for Condition 1 (300 Ib/hr,
6 minute cycle, 1900°F secondary setpoint). Lead and antimony had the highest average
flue gas concentrations under this condition at 1,180 and 420 ^g/dscm (2.36 and
0.84 g/hr), respectively.
The metals emission results for Condition 2 (200 Ib/hr, 6 minute cycle, 1900°F
secondary setpoint) are presented in Table 2-19. Silver was detected in 2 of the 3 runs
2-27
-------
(4R and 5R) with flue gas concentrations of 12.4 and 11.5 /^g/dscm (0.024 and
0.023 g/hr), respectively.
Table 2-20 presents the metals emission results for Condition 3 (300 Ib/hr,
10 minute cycle, 1600°F secondary setpoint). Lead, mercury, and antimony were the
most prevalent elements detected under this condition, with average concentrations of
1,430, 1,170, and 1,060/*g/dscm, respectively (emission rates of 2.65, 2.14, and 1.96 g/hr,
respectively). Run 7 produced an emission rate for mercury of 6.17 g/hr, while Runs 8
and 9 produced emission rates for mercury of 0.073 and 0.179 g/hr, respectively.
A summary of the ratio by weight of metals to particulate matter is presented in
Table 2-21. Metals to particulate matter ratios are given in units of milligrams of metal
to grams of particulate matter collected by the sampling train. Lead has the highest
ratio of all the metals in each of the three test conditions (5.48, 10.8, 2.63 mg/g,
respectively). Antimony had the second highest metals to particulate matter ratios
except for Condition 3 in which mercury had the second highest ratio. The high average
for mercury under Condition 3 was a result of the Run 7 value of 5.87 mg/g, compared
to a range of 0.077 to 0.843 mg/g for mercury for all other runs combined.
Table 2-22 presents a summary of the amounts of metals collected in each of the
sample fractions from each run. The front half fraction includes the acetone probe/filter
holder rinse, nitric acid probe/filter holder rinse and the filter itself. The back half
fraction included the HNO3/H2O2 impinger contents (Impingers 1 and 2), and the third
fraction consisted of the KNMO4 impinger contents analyzed only for mercury. Except
for mercury, the higher proportion of most metals was collected in the front half
fractions. The fraction with the highest amount of mercury was in the Impingers 1 and 2
fractions in all runs except Run 9. Runs 7 and 8 had higher proportions of antimony
collected in Impingers 1 and 2 than in the front hah0. Laboratory analytical results for
each sample fraction are presented in detail in Appendix E.3.
Sampling and flue gas parameters for the metals and particulate matter runs are
shown in Table 2-23. Total sampling times, sample volumes and isokinetic results for
each sampling run are presented. Appendix C.2 contains a complete listing of these and
JBS219
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-21. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICIPATE MATTER
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
METALS/PARTICULATE RATIO
(mg metal per gram of particulate)
Test Condition
Run Number
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium (a)
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Condition 1
I
2.447
0.028
0.292
ND
0.506
0.114
6.047
0.700
0.114
ND
ND
2
1.825
0.030
0.312
ND
1.014
0.038
4.803
0.322
0.032
ND
ND
3
1.677
0.030
0.294
ND
0.336
0.086
5.845
0.335
0.048
ND
ND
Average
1.976
0.029
0.301
ND
0.669
0.075
5.477
0.442
0.062
ND
ND
Condition 2
4R
1.353
0.032
0.464
ND
0.424
0.137
18.205
0.542
0.081
0.066
ND
5R
3.170
0.039
0.356
ND
1.843
0.078
6.309
0.843
0.029
0.070
ND
6
1.025
0.027
0.610
ND
0.730
0.103
6.545
0.320
0.055
ND
ND
Average
1.863
0.033
0.471
ND
0.989
0.107
10.774
0.577
0.056
0.048
ND
Condition 3
7
1.379
0.020
0.105
ND
0.426
0.033
3.448
5.869
0.027
0.005
ND
8
1.713
0.019
0.172
ND
0.432
0.029
1.917
0.077
0.020
ND
ND
9
2.754
0.016
0.228
ND
0.204
0.115
2.447
0.175
0.110
0.018
ND
Average
1.949
0.018
0.167
ND
0.353
0.060
2.635
2.146
0.053
0.008
ND
NJ
S)
XO
a ND = metal not detected in the flue gas.
-------
TABLE 2-22. METALS AMOUNTS IN FLUE GAS SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTIONS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONDITION 1
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium (a)
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUN1 .';'.;
FRONT
HALF
1300
15
162
[0.500]
282
62
3370
104
63.5
[8.200]
[14.00]
MPB4OERS
,:vl::: »>2
64.4
0.523
0.696
[0.210]
[0.540]
1.55
1.26
272
[2.100]
[3.500]
[5.800]
IMPINOERS
3*4 (b)
14.1
•' , • •;,..• RUNZ • . '"-;' '
FRONT
> HALF
856
19.4
232
[0.500]
756
28.5
3580
44.2
23.5
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINOERS
'•". 1,2 '-:'
504
3.09
0.756
[0.220]
[0.540]
[1.100]
0.513
196
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.800]
IMPINOERS
3&4
[0.600]
fl:,..::.f •:-:,::•- . v;; .:-;.':
'.: Sx:1 •"•'• :% .'k '" ' '•.. '• :*.V."
l||-: "•••A ••'-' •.- «- "••'•!:. ':- '•-:'
FRONT
i:?:'lALF:
556
13.4
146
[0.500]
168
41.8
2920
48.2
24
[8.200]
[14.00]
RUN 3
IMPINOERS
"1,2>. -i
282
1.33
0.755
[0.220]
[0.540]
1.4
[0.320]
119
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.800]
IMPINOERS
3*4
[0.710]
RUN*
FRONT
HALF
461
13.8
316
[0.500]
379
52
3400
[2.400]
26
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINOERS
1,2
71.7
[0.430]
0.644
[0.210]
[0.540]
1.5
[0.320]
166
2.36
[3.500]
[5.800]
CONDITION 3
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
IMPINOERS
3*4(b)
[0.550]
AoHWHt" Collected JH»
FRONT
HALF
1072
33.2
200
[0.500]
819
62.8
6630
4015
51.5
[8.200]
[14.00]
KUH7
WPINOERS
U
1580
5.73
1.39
[0.210]
[0.540]
1.39
[0.320]
6280
[2.100]
10.1
[5.800]
ftOTNOERS
3&4
988
RUNi
FRONT
HALF
976
22.2
289
[0.500]
731
46.8
3240
35
33.5
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINOERS
1,2
1920
9.4
1.74
[0.220]
[0.540]
2.39
0.901
95.5
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.900]
IMPINOBRS
3&4
[0.490]
RUN?
FRONT
HALF
2820
26.5
402
[0.500]
379
210
4540
324
204
[8.200]
[14.00]
rMPINOERS
12
2290
2.69
20.9
[0.220]
[0.540]
2.59
0.840
[2.700]
[2.200]
33.9
[5.800]
IMPINOERS
344(b)
[11.00]
. Value, enclosed in bracket* represent minimum detection limiti for element! not detected in the sampler
b Impingers 3&4 only sample fractions analyzed for mercury content
2-30
-------
TABLE 2-23. METALS AND PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
Run Number .:
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Run Number
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Run Number
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
TEST CONDITION 1
::: '•"••! '
05/30/90
240
0.526
3.572
1,289
10.9
6.9
12.2
4,421
1,165
32.99
99.3
' ' . 2 :•, ->•
05/31/90
240
0.366
2.484
1,341
10.1
7.2
12.7
4,498
1,154
32.69
103
3 ' *•:.,
06/01190
240
0.373
2.533
1,341
14.3
4.5
13.2
4,811
1,218
34.49
99.9
Average
240
0.422
2.863
1,324
11.8
6.2
12.7
4,577
1,179
33.39
100.7
; TEST CONDITION 2
4R
06/04/90
240
0.507
3.445
1,282
14.1
4.6
11.6
4,277
1,137
32.20
98.1
5R
06/06/90
240
0.529
3.595
1,312
13.9
4.9
11.8
4,460
1,177
33.33
98.9
6 A;:'
06/05/90
240
0.503
3.420
1,254
12.0
6.0
10.9
4,017
1,102
31.21
100
; Average
240
0.513
3.487
1,283
13.3
5.2
11.4
4,251
1,139
32.25
99.0
TEST CONDITION 3
7
06/06/90
240
0.490
3.329
1,312
13.0
5.9
12.6
4,092
1,071
30.33
98.1
8
06/07/90
240
0.498
3.388
1,268
14.6
4.6
13.0
4,198
1,117
31.63
98.9
9
06/08/90
240
0.493
3.353
1,289
13.1
5.9
13.1
4,138
1,087
30.80
100
! Average
240
0.494
3.357
1,289
13.6
5.5
12.9
4,143
1,092
30.92
99.0
2-31
-------
additional sampling and flue gas parameters for each run. The field data sheets are
contained in Appendix A.2.
2.3.3 Metals In Ash
A sample of the incinerator bottom ash was collected after each sampling run (the
following day) to determine metals concentrations in the ash. The metals of interest
were the same as those sampled for in the flue gas. Ash samples from the three runs
during each test condition were composited to represent a single sample for the
respective test condition. Concentrations of the metals in the ash were determined by
extracting the metals from 1 gram of ash in 100 ml of extraction fluid. The analyses
were then completed as discussed in-Section 5.
The metals in ash results are shown in Table 2-24 for each test condition. Barium
has the highest concentrations in the ash samples from Test Conditions 1 and 2 (383 and
252 mg/kg) and lead was the most prevalent metal found in the ash from Test
Condition 3 (252 mg/kg). Beryllium, mercury, silver, and thallium were not detected in
any of the ash samples. Analytical results of the ash analyses are contained in
Appendix E.3.
2.4 PARTICULATE MATTER/VISIBLE EMISSIONS
2.4.1 Particulate Matter Results
Particulate matter (PM) emissions were determined from the same sampling train
used for metals analysis. Before metals analysis, particulate matter collected on the filter
and in the front half acetone rinse (probe, nozzle, filter holder) was analyzed
gravimetrically. PM stack gas concentrations and emission rates for each sampling run,
and averaged for each test condition are presented in Table 2-25. Uncorrected
concentrations and concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown. Test Condition 3
had the highest concentrations and emission rates (0.237 gr/dscf and 2.217 Ib/hr) while
Test Condition 2 had the lowest (0.073 gr/dscf and 0.716 Ib/hr). A brief summary of the
sampling and flue gas parameters for the particulate matter runs is given in Table 2-22
and Appendix C.2 presents a detailed listing of the parameters for each sampling run.
The results of the gravimetric analyses are presented in Appendix E.2.
JBS219 2-32
-------
TABLE 2-24. METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
Test Condition
Run Numbers
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium (a)
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
1
1,2,3
(mg/kg)
166
13.5
383
[0.200]
10.9
126
147
[0.980]
199
[3.300]
[5.400]
VV'2
3,4R,5R
,
6,7,8
(mg/kg)
212
14.4
212
[0.200]
16.4
68.9
252
[0.980]
65.2
[3.300]
[5.400]
a Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits for elements not detected
in the samples.
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-25. PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
5/30/90
5/31/90
6/1/90
6/4/90
6/6/90
6/5/90
6/6/90
6/7/90
6/9/90
SAMPLING
CONDITION
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
AVERAGES:
4R
5R
6
AVERAGES:
7
8
9
AVERAGES:
TIME
14:56-20:22
12:47-17:11
10:19-14:40
15:47-19:47
16:57-21:07
11:21-15:32
10:14-14:33
12:55-17:04
11:20-15:27
FLUE GAS CONCENTRATION
(grains/dscf)
0.068
0.131
0.086
0.095
0.082
0.071
0.066
0.073
0.252
0.218
0.242
0.237
• (grains/dscf)
1 @7%O2)
0.095
0.169
0.182
0.149
0.168
0.142
0.103
0.138
0.441
0.483
0.432
0.452
(grams/dscm)
0.156
0.300
0.197
0.218
0.188
0.163
0.152
0.168
0.577
0.499
0.553
0.543
(grams/dscm)
@7%O2)
0.218
0.386
0.417
0.340
0.385
0.326
0.237
0.316
1.010
1.106
0.988
1.034
FLUE GAS EMISSION RATE
(Ib/hr)
0.681
1.298
0.900
0.960
0.802
0.719
0.627
0.716
2.317
2.087
2.246
2.217
(*£'»*)
0.309
0.589
0.408
0.435
0.364
0.326
0.284
0.325
1.051
0.947
1.023
1.007
-------
2.4.2 Visible Emissions
The opacity of emissions from the stack were determined visually by a qualified
observer following EPA Method 9 protocol. Observations were recorded during the full
duration of each particulate matter/metals sampling run, except for Run 5R, where
observations were curtailed because of darkness. Also, observations were not recorded
during particulate matter/metals Run 4R, but were taken during the original Run 4.
Both of these runs were conducted under the same test condition.
Opacity observations were recorded at 15 second intervals to the nearest
5 percent. Opacity for each run was determined by grouping the 15-second field
observations into sets of 24 (6 minutes) consecutive observations and then calculating the
average percent opacity of each set. An average percent opacity for each run was also
calculated as well as a test condition average. A summary of the observations is
presented in Table 2-26. Test Condition 3 had the highest percent opacity, with each of
the 3 runs having higher run averages than the 6 runs under the other 2 test conditions.
The observations data sheets for each run are contained in Appendix A.5. Plots of
opacity are contained in Appendix J.
2.5 HALOGEN GAS EMISSIONS
Hydrogen chloride (HC1), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and hydrogen bromide (HBr),
incinerator stack gas concentrations were manually sampled following EPA Method 26
procedures. In this method, flue gas was extracted from the stack and passed through
acidified water. HC1 solubilizes and forms chloride (Cl") ions in acidified water. Ion
chromatography (1C) was used to detect the Cl", Bromide (Br~), and fluoride (F~) ions
present in the sample. Three test runs were performed at each of the three operating
conditions described previously.
2.5.1 Halogen Gas Emissions Results
Table 2-27 presents a summary of the average HC1, HF, and HBr test results with
concentrations reported on a ppmV and ppmV corrected to 7 percent O2 basis.
Condition 3 had the highest average concentrations of all three halogen gases. Condition
1 had the next highest values for both HC1 and HF whereas Condition 2 had the second
highest values for HBr.
JBS219 2-35
-------
TABLE 2-26. PERCENT OPACITY OBSERVATIONS SUMMARY
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
Run Number
Date
Time
Range of Individual Observations (% opacity) (a)
Range of Set Averages (% opacity) (b)
Run Average (% opacity) (c)
Test Conditons Average (% opacity)
Run Number
Date
Time
Range of Individual Observations (% opacity)
Range of Set Averages (% opacity)
Run Average (% opacity)
Test Conditons Average (%opacity)
Run Number
Date
Time
Range of Individual Observations (% opacity)
Range of Set Averages (% opacity)
Run Average (% opacity)
Test Conditons Average (% opacity)
TEST CONDITION 1
1
5/30/90
14:50-20:00
0-80
0-10
1
2
5/31/90
12:13-17:08
0-85
0-21
3
2
3
6/1/90
09:59-14:38
0-80
0-21
3
TEST CONDITION 2
4 (d)
6/2/90
10:00-14:22
0-75
0-5
1
5R(e>
6/6/90
16:54-20:13
0-80
0-5
1
1
6
6/5/90
11;16~15:29
0-75
0-9
1
TEST CONDITION 3
7
6/6/90
10:10-14:25
0-100
0-34
10
8
6/7/90
12:52-17:08
0-100
0-35
13
12
9
6/8/90
11:19-15:27
0-100
0-38
12
a Individual observations recorded at 15 second intervals, to the nearest 5 percent
b A set is composed of 24 consecutive individual observations.
c The run average is calculated by averaging the set averages in a run,
or averaging all the individual observations.
d Opacity ovservations were taken during PM/Metals Run 4 but not during PM/Metals Run 4R.
The test conditions were the same for both runs.
e Opacity observations during PM/Metals Run 5R were curtailed at 20:13 because of darkness.
The sampling run was completed at 21:07.
2-36
-------
to
OJ
-J
TABLE 2-27. SUMMARY OF HALOGEN ACID TESTING RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
,::t;,,-,,,?TEST
It';1;;; RUN
NUMBER
AVERAGE 1
AVERAGE 2
AVERAGE 3
AVERAGE COND 1
AVERAGE 4
AVERAGE 5R
AVERAGE 6
AVERAGE COND 2
AVERAGE 7
AVERAGE 8
AVERAGE 9
AVERAGE COND 3
HCI CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
753
680
982
805
654
684
652
663
945
1,020
819
927
(ppmv
@7%O2)
1040
866
2370
1430
964
1320
1020
1100
1740
2310
1450
1830
HE CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
1.90
7.26
6.55
5.24
6.67
3.84
2.94
4.48
9.28
2.68
9.52
7.16
(ppmv
@7% O2)
2.66
8.69
15.7
9.01
10.0
7.41
4.37
7.27
16.8
6.10
16.3
13.1
HBr CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
[0.022]
[0.023]
[0.030]
[0.080]
[0.025]
[0.022]
0.122
0.122
0.763
0.317
0.578
0.553
(ppmv
@7%O2)
[0.030]
[0.028]
[0.070]
[0.130]
[0.036]
[0.042]
0.206
0.206
1.24
0.793
1.01
1.01
ND = Not Determined; Run SRC was not analyzed due to strong organics
[ ] = minimum detection limit
NOTE: Run 5RC was not analyzed due to strong organics; the average of Run 5R was calculated using 5RA and 5RB.
-------
HC1 concentrations were much higher than either of the other two halogen gases.
HC1 concentrations for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 805, 663, and 927 ppmV, respectively.
HF concentrations for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 5.24, 4.48, and 7.16 ppmV,
respectively. HBr was not detected in the flue gas during Condition 1 and average
concentrations for Conditions 2 and 3 were 0.12 and 0.55 ppmV, respectively.
Table 2-28 presents the HC1 results for each run performed under each condition.
Three "sub-runs" were conducted during each day's overall test interval (i.e, 1A, IB and
1C). Concentrations as well as emission rates are presented. Emission rates used an
average of the stack gas flows determined from the PM/Metals and CDD/CDF,
sampling trains. HC1 concentrations ranged from 402 ppmV for Run 2A to 1,410 ppmV
for Run 3B. The corresponding HC1 emission rates were 1,261 and 4,439 g/hr,
respectively.
Table 2-29 presents the HF emissions results for all test runs. Certain values in
this table are enclosed in parenthesis, denoting them as "maximum estimated
concentration." These numbers were derived by the analytical laboratory as estimates,
however, they are included in all averages. Runs 2B and 4C had concentrations
substantially higher than the rest of the runs at 16.0 and 16.3 ppmV, respectively. The
range of concentrations for the other runs were 1.09 to 11.4 ppmV. Emissions rates
ranged from 1.79 to 28.7 g/hr.
Table 2-30 presents the HBr emission results for all test runs. No HBr was
detected in the flue gas in 18 out of 26 test runs. Detected flue gas concentrations were
found in the later runs (6-9) and ranged from 0.069 to 0.763 ppmV. Corresponding
emission rates were 0.45 to 4.68 g/hr.
2.5.2 HC1 CEM Results
Continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) was performed to measure HC1 in
addition to other gas concentrations. The average HC1 CEM concentration calculated
over the duration of the PM/Metals, CDD/CDF, and Microbial Survivability emissions
test runs are presented in Section 2.7. The following paragraphs and Table 2-31 present
HC1 CEM data averaged over the same time period as each manual halogen sub-run. A
JBS219
2-38
-------
TABLE 2-28. SUMMARY OF HC1 RESULTS FOR EACH TEST RUN
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
- -';; 'RuttFri
NUMBER 1
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE :
RUN5RA
RUN5RB
RUN SRC
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE ::
RUN7A
RUN7B
RUN7C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
989
1350
1090
1140
610
1130
1360
1030
1180
2130
1160
1490
892
1010
1080
991
1170
906
NA
1040
1110
878
978
989
1340
1770
1190
1430
1690
1290
1650
1540
1270
882
1570
1240
(mg/dscm
©7% 02)
1280
1820
1640
1580
793
1290
1850
1310
2750
6000
2050
3600
1290
1460
1630
1460
2240
1770
NA
2010
1950
1320
1360
•V,,,:::,- 1540
2175
3391
2343
2636
4392
2878
3224
3498
2160
1419
3022
2200
(ppfttV)
652
892
716
753
402
746
893
will- :- 680
776
1410
762
\oife-. 982
588
663
710
Y:V:" ••" 654
770
598
NA
684
732
579
645
652
885
1170
783
945
1110
849
1040
1020
836
582
1040
819
(ppmv
@7% O2)
844
1290
1080
1040
523
853
1220
866
1810
3960
1350
2370
853
965
1080
964
1480
1170
NA
1320
1290
871
896
1020
1440
2240
1550
1740
2900
1900
2130
2310
1430
936
1990
1450
EMISSION
RATE
(g/hr)
1987
2716
2181
2295
1261
2339
2802
2134
2450
4439
2406
3099
1864
2103
2250
2072
2363
1835
NA
2099
2180
1724
1919
1941
2446
3226
2164
2612
3211
2451
3138
2934
2391
1664
2969
2341
= Not Analyzed; Run 5RC was not analyzed due to strong or games.
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-29. SUMMARY OF HF RESULTS FOR EACH TEST RUN
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE
RUN5RA
RUN5RB
RUN SRC
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE
RUN7A
RUN7B
RUN7C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
1.72
(0.916)
2.12
1.58
1.80
13.3
3.04
6.04
6.19
6.39
3.77
5.45
1.64
(1.47)
13.5
5.55
4.37
2.02
NA
3.19
(0.910)
3.21
3.23
2.45
9.52
9.18
4.46
7.72
2.33
2.30
(2.06)
2.23
9.52
8.98
5.26
7.92
(mg/dscm
@7%62)
2.22
(1.23)
3.19
2.21
2.34
15.2
4.15
7.23
14.5
18.0
6.68
13.0
2.38
(2.14)
20.5
•A .8.34
8.38
3.94
NA
6.16
(1.60)
4.82
4.49
3.64
15.4
17.6
8.80
13.9
6.06
5.14
(4.03)
5.07
16.2
14.4
10.1
13.6
(ppfflv)
2.06
(1.10)
2.55
1.90
2.16
16.0
3.65
7.26
7.44
7.68
4.54
: ;-.:;;• 6.55
1.97
(1.77)
16.3
6.67
5.25
2.42
NA
,;--;c-3.84
(1.09)
3.86
3.88
•••'•::<,i;::C2.94
11.4
11.0
5.36
" v%;:::;'9.28
2.80
2.76
(2.48)
•-> 2,68
11.4
10.8
6.32
. ,::,-:::'.-9.52
(ppmv
©7% O2)
2.67
(1.48)
3.83
2.66
2.82
18.3
4.99
8.69
17.4
21.6
8.04
15,7
2.86
(2.57)
24.6
ioro
10.1
4.73
NA
7.41
(1.92)
5.80
5.39
4.37
18.6
21.2
10.6
1£*
7.28
6.17
(4.84)
6,10
19.5
17.4
12.1
16.3
EMISSION
RATE
(g/hr)
3.45
(1.841)
4.26
3.18
3.72
27.5
6.28
%.:-,- 12.50.
12.90
13.31
7.86
11.35
3.43
(3.076)
28.3
11.60
8.84
4.08
NA
,:%,>>::.:•. ;: 6.46
(1.786)
6.29
6.34
4.81
17.36
16.75
8.13
14.08
4.43
4.37
(3.921)
4.24
17.95
16.94
9.91
: 14.93
NA = Not Analyzed; Run SRC was not analyzed due to strong organics.
( ) = maximum estimated concentration
2-40
-------
TABLE 2-30. SUMMARY OF HBr RESULTS AT EACH TEST RUN
LENOER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE
RUN5RA
RUN5RB
RUN SRC
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE
RUN7A
RUN7B
RUN7C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
•:;::|;;;;MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dacm)
[0.064]
[0.089]
[0.066]
[0.073]
[0.060]
[0.095]
[0.073]
[0.076]
[0.101]
[0.101]
[0.104]
[0.102]
[0.075]
[0.091]
[0.084]
[0.083]
[0.077]
[0.068]
NA
[0.073]
0.590
0.231
[0.076]
0.411
2.57
[0.056]
[0.102]
2.57
1.52
0.615
[0.129]
1.07
2.10
1.87
1.87
1.95
(tng/dscm
P%62)
[0.083]
[0.120]
[0.099]
[0.101]
[0.078]
[0.109]
[0.100]
[0.096]
[0.236]
[0.284]
[0.184]
[0.235]
[0.109]
[0.132]
[0.127]
[0.123]
[0.148]
[0.133]
NA
[0.141]
1.036
0.348
[0.106]
0.692
4.17
[0.107]
[0.201]
4.17
3.96
1.37
[0.252]
2.67
3.58
3.01
3.58
3.39
(ppntv)
[0.019]
[0.026]
[0.020]
[O.Q22J
[0.018]
[0.028]
[0.022]
[0,023]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.031]
[0.030]
[0.022]
[0.027]
[0.025]
[0.025]
[0.023]
[0.020]
NA
10.022}
0.175
0.069
[0.023]
0,122
0.763
[0.017]
[0.030]
0/763
0.452
0.183
[0.038]
0.317
0.624
0.556
0.555
,0.578
(ppmv
@7% O2)
[0.025]
[0.035]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.023]
[0.032]
[0.030]
[0.028]
[0.070]
[0.084]
[0.055]
[0.070]
[0.032]
[0.039]
[0.038]
[0.036]
[0.044]
[0.039]
NA
[0.042]
0.308
0.103
[0.032]
0.206
1.24
[0.033]
[0.059]
1-24
1.18
0.408
[0.074]
0.793
1.06
0.89
1.07
1.01
EMISSION
RATE
(g/br)
[0.129]
[0.179]
[0.133]
[0.147]
[0.124]
[0.196]
[0.151]
[0.157]
[0.210]
[0.210]
[0.217]
[0.212]
[0.157]
[0.190]
[0.176]
[0.174]
[0.156]
[0.138]
NA
[0.147]
1.157
0.454
[0.149]
0.806
4.68
[0.102]
[0.186]
4.68
2.90
1.17
[0.246]
2.03
3.96
3.53
3.52
3.67
NA = Not Analyzed; Run SRC was not analyzed due to strong organics
[ ] = minimum detection limit
2-41
-------
TABLE 2-31. COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND CEM HC1 RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE
RUN5RA
RUN5RB
RUN SRC
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE
RUN7A
RUN7B
RUN7C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
MANUAL HC1 RESULTS
(ppmv)
652
892
716
753
402
746
893
Mi:!i;-A. 680
776
1410
762
982
588
663
710
654
770
598
NA
. :;:;*:;;-:V;:v.'684
732
579
645
652
885
1170
783
,•• vT::. ••••••945
1110
849
1090
1020
836
582
1040
;:v:v;-;-:''-.,819
(ppmv)
<&J% O2)
844
1200
1080
1040
523
853
1220
866
1820
3960
1350
2370
853
965
1080
• • v:::Lv: V:-:,964
1480
1170
NA
, .:••::;••, -{-1320
1290
871
896
1020
1440
2240
1550
1740
2900
1900
2130
••;v::;>i.'23lO-
1430
936
1990
1450
CEM HQ RESULTS
(ppmv)
10.3
29.5
15.9
18.6
152
233
280
222
121
172
152
148
21.5
28.7
54.4
34.9
7.47
9.13
12.7
8.30
NA
NA
101
101
40.7
10.8
12.3
'• vt 21.3
108
91.3
110
•••:•,«: 103
108
107
247
I..: ,./•• •- 154
(ppmv)
<&!% O2)
13.36
39.63
23.88
; 12.35
197.58
266.35
382.31
147.34
282.64
483.04
269.02
98.56
31.25
41.72
82.35
23.19
14.34
17.83
25.63
>•:• •¥".'• 5.52
NA
NA
140.77
67.35
66.06
20.66
24.28
14J14
279.98
204.13
214.64
•;i:lv 68.44
183.46
172.21
473.33
102.26
NA = Not Analyzed; Run SRC was not analyzed due to strong organics and the HC1
analyzer was not operative during Runs 6A and 6B.
2-42
-------
direct comparison can then be made between the CEM HC1 data and the manual HC1
data.
The CEM HC1 concentrations vary from an average of 8.3 ppmV for the manual
halogen test periods 5RA, 5RB, and SRC to 222 ppmV for manual halogen test periods
2A, 2B, and 2C. There is very little similarity between the CEM and manual HC1 data.
Comparing Conditions 1, 2 and 3 averages for CEM versus manual HC1 data reveals the
following values:
CEM HC1 Manual HC1
Condition 1 130 ppmV-dry 805 ppmV-dry
Condition 2 48.1 ppmV-dry 663 ppmV-dry
Condition 3 92.8 ppmV-dry 927 ppmV-dry
The reason for this discrepancy between manual HC1 and CEM HC1 data is not known
at this time. A possible explanation may be that the HC1 CEM sample extraction system
did not allow the system to respond quickly enough to fully resolve the high, sharp
concentration peaks exhibited by the Lenoir incinerator stack gases. More information
on this phenomenon will be gained through additional MWI HC1 CEM testing.
However, because the halogen test method followed an EPA reference protocol (EPA
Method 26), the data produced by the manual halogen method should be considered the
valid HC1 data.
2.6 CEM RESULTS
Three test runs were performed at each of three operating conditions while the
incinerator was burning hospital waste. A description of these conditions are repeated
here for reference:
Set 1 - Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr) at a high charge frequency (6 minute
cycle) and a high secondary chamber temperature setpoint of 1900°F to
2000°F.
Set 2 - Below-design feed rate (200 Ib/hr) at a high charge frequency
(6 minute cycle) and a high secondary chamber temperature setpoint of
1900°F to 2000°F.
JBS219
-------
Set 3 - Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr) at the design charging frequency
(10 minute cycle), and the design secondary chamber temperature setpoint
of about 1600°F.
Continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) was performed using an extractive sample
system and instrument methods to measure NO^ CO, SO2, THC and HC1 concentrations.
The diluent gases (O2, CO2) were measured using CEMs at all times so that the emission
results could be normalized to a reference 7 percent O2. Concentrations of NOX, SO2,
CO2, and O2 were measured on a dry basis. Concentrations of CO were measured
during the first condition using a dilution probe system which was on a wet basis. For
Conditions 2 and 3, CO was measured on a dry basis. The HC1 monitor used a dilution
probe and therefore, results are on a ppm volume wet basis. THC concentrations were
also monitored on a wet basis. All CEM data were recorded as 30-second averages over
each sampling interval, a copy of which are included in Appendix D.
The 30-second CEM values were averaged over the sampling interval for each test
run. Both actual and corrected values are summarized in Tables 2-32 and 2-33. All data
is reported in actual concentrations and concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2/dry
(HC1 and THC for all conditions and CO for Condition 1 were measured wet and
corrected to a dry basis). Overall averages are presented for each CEM parameter
under each of the three incinerator operating conditions.
Average O2 concentrations varied by 4.5 percent by volume during the 9 test runs
ranging from 10.1 to 14.6 percent O2. The average O2 values for each set of tests was
11.8 (Condition 1), 12.4 (Condition 2), and 13.6 (Condition 3). The CO2 concentrations
varied inversely with the O2 concentrations at 6.2, 5.8, and 5.5 for Conditions 1 through
3, respectively. The CO2 run averages ranged from 4.5 to 7.2 percent by volume over the
nine test runs.
Average CO concentrations ranged from 63.2 ppmV to 231 ppmV at 7 percent O2
under Condition 1 with the overall average concentration at 154 ppmV. For the second
condition, the CO run averages ranged from 52.5 ppmV to 134.1 ppmV, with an overall
average CO concentration of 84.3 ppmV. For the third condition, the CO run averages
JBS219
2-44
-------
TABLE 2-32. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING DAILY TEST AVERAGES FOR O2, CO, CO2, AND HC1
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/06/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
RUN
NUMBER/
MANUAL
TEST TYPE
1
2
3
AVERAGE:
4
4Rf
5R
6
AVERAGE:
7
8
9
AVERAGE:
CONDITION
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
TEST a
TIME
14:56-20:22
12:47-17:11
10:19-14:40
10:02-14:23
15:43-19:47
16:57-21:07
11:21-15:32
10:14-14:33
12:55-17:04
11:20-15:27
MOISTURE
12.03
12.72
13.38
11.74
11.61
11.64
11.03
12.67
12.99
13.24
OXYGEN
<%V,dry)
10.93
10.10
14.33
11.79
11.38
14.11
13.94
11.98
12.43
12.95
14.63
13.11
13.56
CO2
<*V,dry)
6.91
7.20
4.49
6.20
6.35
4.55
4.89
6.01
5.75
5.94
4.59
5.86
5.46
CO
actual :
(jjpmy,diy)
145.8 (wet)e
112.8 (wet)e
25.9 (wet)e
94.8 (wet)e
36.0
65.5
62.7
48.3
49.0
1698.4
491.0
1330.5
1173.3
CO
corrected b
(ppmv,dry)
@7#O2
167.0 d
149.0 d
63.8 d
126.6 d
54.4
97.4
105.0
75.0
78.1
2193.0
774.0
2061.0
1676.0
HCL c
:":V:S :'.. . "S- • ,
actual
(ppmv,wet)
25.3
208.5
129.3
121.0
33.3
8.8
90.1
44.1
21.7
92.6
140.8
85.0
HCL e-|
corrected c
JjJPI^^.
4:x<8>7^:-Oi2i ;
34.8
321.C
355.C
236.9
61.7
18.0
116.0
65.2
44.3
279.0
339.0
220.8
a For metals/CDD/CDF runs.
b 30 second averages were corrected to 7% oxygen (corrected value = actual * (13.9 /(20.9 - O2)).
c HC1 concentrations were determined by manual methods as well. A comparison of CEM vs. manual results is presented in Section 2.6.
d 30 second averages were corrected to 1% oxygen and for moisture, where the corrected value = actual * 13.9/(20.9 - O2) * (1/(1 - moist).
e These values were determined using a dilution probe system. Because the CEM concentration trends were extremely noisy with very high, sharp peaks,
this system may not have been able to fully resolve CO concentrations and values may biased low.
f Toxic metals Run 4 originally scheduled to be performed on 6/02 was performed on 6/04. CEM values for this run are not included in condition averages.
-------
TABLE 2-33. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING DAILY TEST AVERAGES FOR O2, SO2, NOx AND THC
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/06/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
AVERAGE:
4
4R
5R
6
AVERAGE:g
7
8
9
AVERAGE:
CONDITION
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
TEST
TIME a
14:56-20:22
12:47-17:11
10:19-14:40
10:02-14:23
15:43-19:47
16:57-21:07
11:21-15:32
10:14-14:33
12:55-17:04
11:20-15:27
MOISTURE
:*.(#V},:,.
12.03
12.72
13.38
11.74
11.61
11.64
11.03
12.67
12.99
13.24
OXYGEN
(*V,dry)
10.93
10.10
14.33
11.79
11.38
14.11
13.94
11.98
12.43
12.95
14.63
13.11
13.56
S02
actual -
(ppmv,dry)
10.96
16.09
3.92
10.32
5.20
7.41
8.60
4.78
6.19
12.37
6.28
23.14
13.93
SO2
corrected b
-------
ranged from 1089 ppmV to 2969 ppmV with the overall average for this condition being
2144 ppmV at 7 percent O2.
The average NOX concentrations varied from 62.2 ppmV to 102 ppmV at
7 percent O2 over the nine test runs. Averages for Condition 1 ranged from 62.2 ppmV
to 94.6 with an overall average of 81.6 ppmV. Averages for Condition 2 ranged from
70.2 to 93.8 ppmV with an overall average of 87.8 ppmV, and the Condition 3 range was
95.5 to 102 ppmV with the average value being 97.8 ppmV.
The SO2 run averages corrected to 7 percent O2 for each condition ranged from
7.83 to 15.3 ppmV for Condition 1, 4.59 to 12.8 ppmV for Condition 2, and 8.61 to
31.9 ppmV for Condition 3. The condition averages were 11.9 ppmV, 8.02 ppmV, and
19.0 ppmV for the Conditions 1 through 3, respectively.
Average THC concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2 varied from 4.11 ppmV to
75.8 ppmV over the nine runs. The average THC for each condition ranged from 10.9 to
29.5 ppmV for Condition 1, 4.1 to 16.6 ppmV for Condition 2, and 17.8 to 75.8 ppmV for
Condition 3. The Condition 1 average was 19.8 ppmV, the Condition 2 average was
7.51 ppmV, and the Condition 3 average was 46.8 ppmV. All THC concentrations were
given on a dry basis at 7 percent O2.
2.7 ASH LOSS-ON-IGNITION AND CARBON CONTENT RESULTS
This section presents results of laboratory analyses of ash samples collected daily.
During the test period, ash was removed manually from the incinerator each morning,
weighed and placed in 35 gallon metal cans. After the ash was allowed to cool, samples
were taken manually with a sample thief and composited to obtain a representative
sample. The ash was screened so that only material less than one-half inch in diameter
was obtained. Portions were taken from the composite sample for the various analyses
including one sample which was analyzed for moisture content, loss-on-ignition and
carbon content.
Samples were collected for three replicate tests at three different incinerator
operating conditions (total of 9 runs).
2-47
JBS219
-------
Table 2-34 presents a summary of the ash analysis results. The moisture content
of the samples ranged from 0.2 percent for Run 9 (Test Condition 3) to 6.14 percent for
Run 7 (Test Condition 3).
The average moisture values for each test condition show fairly close grouping
with the lowest value shown for Condition 1 (1.04 percent) and the highest value for
Condition 3 (2.33 percent).
Loss-on-ignition results varied from 1.42 percent for Run 4 (Condition 2) to
10.18 percent for Run 5 (Condition 2). Average values for each test condition ranged
from 4.94 percent for Condition 1 to 7.17 percent for Condition 2.
Carbon content in the ash samples varied from 0.0 percent for Run 4
(Condition 2) to 5.79 percent for Run 5 (Condition 2). Average values for each test
condition showed close grouping with a low value of 2.11 percent for Condition 3 and a
high value of 3.56 percent for Condition 1.
2.8 MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY RESULTS
This section provides the background and test matrix for microbial survivability
testing and presents the test results for emissions, ash and in pipes.
2.8.1 Background and Test Matrix
The objectives of this portion of the test program were to refine testing methods
for measuring microbial survivability in incinerator processes and utilize these methods
to evaluate this incinerator unit. As part of the medical waste incineration test program
at Lenoir Memorial Hospital, microbial survivability was evaluated by adding a known
quantity of indicator organisms to the normal waste stream and measuring the quantity
of organisms surviving the process. The surrogate indicator organism used was Bacillus
stearothermophilus. which is a non-pathogenic spore forming bacteria normally found in
soil. This organism was chosen because it is resistant to high temperatures, not normally
found in the medical waste stream, and is easy to culture because few organisms will
grow at the high culture temperatures.
Two types of testing procedures were performed. The first test method was used
to determine overall microbial survivability both in the combustion gases (emissions) and
the bottom ash. For these tests, a known quantity of B. stearothermophilus in solution
JBS219 2-48
-------
TABLE 2-34. SUMMARY OF ASH CARBON CONTENT, LOI AND MOISTURE RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONDITION *
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
TEST
DATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
TEST
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5, 4R
6
7, 5R
8
9
SAMPLE
DATE
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
AVERAGE:
06/03/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
AVERAGE;
06/07/90
06/08/90
06/09/90
•:• • AVERAGE;
MOISTVRE;;
{*r:1I""
0.91
0.43
1.79
:--:>. ::>• -'.iM <;••"•" '
0.32
3.83
1.77
1.97
6.14
0.66
0.20
- ..'?::-.-.-2.33 *.
^L- l*P,y& >,,•?,••
:,,: .. <*),, ::-,.•
7.40
1.73
5.69
4.94
1.42
10.18
9.90
7.17
6.52
6.08
3.83
•?:>' : 5.48 .:•:*'
TOTAL LOSS
{*)
8.24
2.15
7.38
5.92
1.74
13.31
11.50
8.85
12.26
6.70
4.02
7.66 : •;:
CARTON
(*)
3.34
1.63
5.72
3.56
0.00
5.79
0.85
2.21
2.72
2.39
1.23
•••".":'".>-2iU ;: :?: ,- '
S)
* CONDITIONS:
(1) 3001b/hr., 1900° F, 30 lb/6 min.
(2) 200 lb/hr., 1900° F, 20 lb/6 min.
(3) 300 Ib/hr., 1600° F, 50 lb/10 min.
-------
(wet spores) was inoculated onto materials commonly found in the medical waste stream
(i.e., gauze, paper, bandages, etc.) and introduced into the incinerator with the normal
waste stream at regular intervals. Simultaneous emissions testing was conducted at the
incinerator stack following the EPA draft method "Microbial Survivability Test for
Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions." This testing was performed concurrently with
other emissions testing (PM/Metals, CDD/CDF, Halogens, and CEMs). Ash samples
were taken each morning following the test run when the incinerator was cleaned
manually. The ash was sampled and analyzed as described in the EPA Draft Method
"Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Ash" (Appendix K). Waste
inoculated material were charged into the incinerator four times during a 4-hour test run
(essentially once per hour).
The second test method utilized freeze dried samples (dry spores) encased in
double iron pipes which were insulated. This test method was used as a comparison to
the direct ash method to aid in the assessment of microbial Survivability in the ash.
Three spiked pipes were charged daily at nearly even intervals: (1) the first loading of
waste of the day, (2) midday, and (3) last load of the day. Three triplicate runs
(1 run/day) were performed at three different incinerator operating conditions for a total
of nine runs.
Complete details of the microbial spiking, recovery and analysis procedures are
given in Section 5.3.
Four wet spore spikes and three dry spore spikes were performed for each run.
One run was performed daily with the exception of June 6, 1990 when Runs 7 and 5R
were performed. On this day, eight wet spore spikes were performed, but only three dry
spore spikes were performed because ash could not be removed between runs.
Table 2-35 summarizes the wet and dry spore spiking times and quantities and
totals the waste feed and total ash quantities (wet spore spike amounts were based on
the preparation laboratory's count). It should be noted that the total waste feed
quantities for Runs 4 and 8 could be in error since the hospital staff may have burned
wastes in the evening after testing had been completed
JBS219
1-50
-------
TABLE 2-35. SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR FEED AMOUNTS AND ASH GENERATION PER RUN
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
DATE
5/30/90
5/31/90
6/01/90
6/02/90
6/04/90
CONDITION
1
1
1
2
2
WET
SPORE SPIKES d
TIMES
15:14
16:38
17:41
19:41
13:18
14:55
15:38
16:33
10:40
11:44
13:20
14:14
10:19
11:10
12:26
13:16
11:15
12:05
14:13
15:11
AMOUNTS (spores)
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
7.0E+11
DRY SPORE
(PIPE) SPIKES d
TIMES
11:05
15:35
20:54
10:02
16:11
17:32
9:55
14:04
14:53
9:10
14:19
19:17
9:32
15:05
19:55
AMOUNTS (spores)
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E-I-05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
TOTAL WASTE
FEED(lbs)
2237 a
1959
1536
10702
2089
TOTAL ASH^
WEIGHT *
283.8
178.9
149.7
129.2
186.3
NOTE:
Condition 1 = 300 Ib/hr; 1900°F; 30 lb/6 min.
Condition 2 = 200 Ib/hr; 1900°F; 20 lb/6 min.
Condition 3 = 300 Ib/hr; 1600°F; 50 lb/10 min.
Four wet spore spikes and three dry spore spikes were performed each day.
* Total ash weight includes relatively large pieces of material (glass, metal, etc.) which were extracted from the ash
a Includes an estimated 400 Ibs burned in the first 1.5 hours of charging.
b The hospital may have burned later in the day.
c The hospital may have burned later in the day but it is unlikely.
d All amounts are in units of "total spores* added (total spores/500 ml bag).
-------
TABLE 2-35. SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR FEED AMOUNTS AND ASH GENERATION PER RUN, (continued)
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
6
7
5R
8
9
DATE
6/05/90
6/06/90
6/06/90
6/07/90
6/08/90
CONDITION
2
3
3
3
3
WET
SPORE SPIKES d
TIMES
11:32
12:28
13:51
14:42
10:42
11:22
12:44
13:56
17:08
18:18
19:48
20:26
13:23
14:15
15:39
16:20
11:43
12:35
14:12
14:47
AMOUNTS
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
4.0E+11
DRY SPORE
(PIPE)* SPIKES d
TIMES
9:31
14:42
20:22
9:13
15:23
21:10
11:20
15:28
20:30
9:20
15:19
17:38
AMOUNTS
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
3.4E+05
TOTAL WASTE
FEED (Ibs)
1310 b
2783
2783
1790 c
2025
.'••'''•'
•;TOTAI|:.A^H|
WEIGHT: (ib$) *
145.7
243.9
243.9
144.7
189.8
to
NOTE:
Condition 1 = 300 Ib/hr; 1900°F; 30 lb/6 min.
Condition 2 = 200 Ib/hr; 19008F; 20 lb/6 min.
Condition 3 = 300 Ib/hr; 1600°F; 50 lb/10 min.
Four wet spore spikes and three dry spore spikes were performed each day.
* Total ash weight includes relatively large pieces of material (glass, metal, etc.) which were extracted from the ash sample.
a Includes an estimated 400 Ibs burned in the first l.S hours of charging.
b The hospital may have burned later in the day.
c The hospital may have burned later in the day but it is unlikely.
d All amounts are in units of "total spores'* added (total spores/SOO ml bag).
-------
2.8.2 Overall Microbial Survivability
By comparing the number of wet spores spiked into the incinerator with the
number of viable spores exiting in both the stack gas and incinerator ash, an overall
percentage of microbial survivability can be determined as follows:
MS = fSe + Ae>| x 100
S.
s
MS = spore microbial survivability (wet)
Se = Number of viable spores detected in the stack
Ae = Number of viable spores detected in the incinerator ash
Ss = Number of viable spores spiked in the waste feed (wet)
This is an adaptation of the destruction efficiency (DE) calculation presented in the
reference test protocol which calculates DE based only on stack emissions and a separate
DE based on spores in ash. By combining the two DE estimates a more complete
estimate of Microbial Survivability (1 - DE) is obtained. The total number of spores in
the ash was calculated by multiplying the number of spores found in 1 gram of ash by
the total weight of ash removed from the incinerator per day. Microbial log reduction
values are also reported. The equation for calculating the microbial log reduction is
shown in Table 2-36 as well as in Appendix F.
Table 2-36 presents the microbial survivability and microbial log reduction of the
wet indicator spores. The values presented here are determined from a quantitative
summary of all microbial analytical results completed by RTI laboratories (see
Appendix E.3). It was determined that there were no emissions of spores in the stack
gas during any of the nine test runs. Spores were found in ash from Run 1. The other
runs had ash results ranging from none detected to greater than 2.21 x 109 total spores in
the ash stream. Quantitative Microbial Survivability values could only be calculated for
Run 1 at 0.11 percent. The corresponding microbial log reduction value was 3.0. Five of
JBS219 2-53
-------
TABLE 2-36. OVERALL MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DATE
5/30/90
5/31/90
6/01/90
6/02/90
6/04/90
6/05/90
6/06/90
6/07/90
6/08/90
CONDITION
300/6
300/6
300/6
200/6
200/6
200/6
300/10
300/10
300/10
NUMBER INDICATOR
SPORES SPIKED
TO INCINERATOR a
(total spores) f
2.80E+12
2.80E+12
2.80E+12
2.80E+12
2.80E+12
2.80E+12
5.60E+12 a
2.80E+12
2.80E+12
NUMBER INDICATOR
SPORES EXTTING
THE STACK
;::|;V;': :";:- (total spores) •' : :?
< 5.21E04
< 6.43E04
< 3.73E04
< 5.50E04
< 5.68E04
< 6.41E04
< 6.49E04
< 5.55E04
< 67.2E04
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN ASH b
U; : (total spores)
3.03E+09
> 1.62E09
< 3.40E04
< 1.17E09
> 1.69E09
> 1.32E09
< 2.21E09
< 1.31E09
< 4.30E04
MICROBIAL
SURVIV ABILITY
•&. (%)c
1.1E-01
> 5.8E-02
< 2.6E-06
< 4.2E-02
>6.1E-02
> 4.7E-02
< 7.9E-02
< 4.7E-02
< 2.6E-05
MICROBIAL
LOG
REDUCTION
d
3.0
<3.2
>7.6
>3.4
<3.2
<3.3
>3.4
>3.3
>6.6
N)
a 2.8E+12 spores were spiked during Run 7 emissions test and an additional 2.8E+12 spores were spiked during Run 5R emissions tests
(completed later the same day).
b Ash results were calculated from the higher of 2 analyses.
c MS = (stack spores + ash spores)/(spiked spores) * 100
d MLR = log(spiked spores) - log(stack spores + ash spores)
NOTES:
— For calculating MS or MLR, detection limits were considered zero when either stack or ash results were positive (Run 1)
In all other cases, DLs were summed in order to calculate the MS or MLR value.
— Analytical confirmation results on the indicator spiking slurry were used for calculating the MS and MLR values (see Table 6-22)
— All Values calculated from results of repetitive analytical runs. All analytical results are listed in Appendix E.3
— All calculations are shown in Appendix F
-------
the test runs had MS values determined to be less than 0.079 percent. The
corresponding microbial log reduction values were all greater than 3.4. The remaining
three test runs had MS results calculated to be greater than 0.047 percent (> 0.047,
> 0.058, and > 0.061 percent). These values were flagged with a greater than qualifier
because replicate analyses resulted in high variability with both detected and
non-detected values. Flue gas microbial survivability and ash microbial survivability are
further discussed in the following sections. All microbial survivability calculations are
shown in Appendix F.
2.8.3 Microbial Survivability in Emissions
Microbial Survivability in flue gas emissions was aimed at quantifying the number
of viable spores exiting in the stack during the test run. The formulas used for
calculating the number of viable spores existing in the stack, Se is calculated as shown in
Appendix F.
Each test run for viable spore emissions was actually made up of 2 to 3 "sub-runs."
Runs 1 and 2 has three sub-runs (A, B, and C) and Runs 3-9 has two sub-runs each (A
and B). Each sub-run sample was collected for 45 to 108 minutes through one of the 2
sample ports. An approximate 1.5 liter sample of impinger collection solution was
generated for each sub-run. The sub-run samples were recovered in a disinfected mobile
laboratory, sealed and sent to the analytical laboratory where they were combined into
one sample for each test run.
For each run performed, 9 aliquots were prepared for analysis: three 10 ml
aliquots, three 100 ml aliquots and 3 equal aliquots of a remaining filterable amount of
sample. Both a first and second count on each aliquot were performed. The cultures
were quantified after approximately a 48 hour incubation period.
Table 2-37 presents the Microbial Survivability in Emissions test results. It was
determined that no spores were present in the flue gas samples. The Microbial
Survivability sampling and flue gas parameters are shown in Table 2-38.
2-55
JBS219 JJ
-------
TABLE 2-37. VIABLE SPORE EMISSIONS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ALIQUOT
SIZE
(ml)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR
SPORES
DETECTED
(spores/aliquot)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR
SPORES
IN SAMPLE
(spores/sample)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CONCENTRATION OF
OF INDICATOR
SPORES IN
FLUE GAS
(spofes/dscm)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
EXITING STACK
DURING TEST PERIOD
(total spores)
< 5.21E+04
< 6.43E+04
< 3.73E+04
< 5.50E+04
< 5.68E+04
< 6.41E+04
< 6.49E+04
< 5.55E+04
< 6.72E+05
NOTE: Values taken from averages of repetitive analytical rung as shown in Appendix E.3.
All calculations are shown in Appendix F
ND = Not Detected. Detection limits were determined to be 1 spore/100 ml aliquot
2-56
-------
TABLE 2-38. INDICATOR SPORE EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN NUMBER:
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume,Vm(std) (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUK-NUMBBRj?::"-..-^^: ^: f^wP
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER;
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
01A
60
1,198
7.53
10.16
0.622
1.06
12.03
5,251
41.44
97.1
04A
108
1,121
6.22
11.60
0.523
1.60
11.74
4,102
34.55
97.9
07A
108
1,258
6.51
12.33
0.305
0.93
12.67
3,900
29.75
99.9
01B
45
1,142
6.97
11.04
0.526
0*
12.03
4,203
34.32
95.5
04B
108
1,175
6.31
11.44
0.526
1.61
11.74
4,693
38.19
89.2
07B
108
1,225
5.49
13.47
0.299
0.91
12.67
3,895
30.31
96.0
01C
45
1,182
6.80
11.05
0.373
0.48
12.03
5,018
39.97
90.9
AVERAGE
50
1,174
7.10
10.75
0.507
0.73
12.03
4,824
38.58
94.5
AVERAGE
108
1,148
6.27
11.52
0.524
1.60
11.74
4,397
36.37
93.6
AVERAGE
108
1,241
6.00
12.90
0.302
0.92
12.67
3,898
30.03
98
02A
60
1,246
7.33
10.23
0.505
0.86
12.72
4,493
34.47
94.8
05A
108
1,154
6.5**
12
0.480
1.47
11.42
3,967
32.30
96.5
08A
108
1,211
4.15
15.26
0.297
0.91
12.99
3,697
28.76
101
02B
60
1,241
7.55
8.75
0.468
0.79
12.72
4,270
32.86
92.2
05B
108
1,150
6.5 **
12
0.340
1.04
11.42
4,104
33.50
99.4
08B
108
1,163
5.00
14.00
0.295
0.90
12.99
3,544
28.38
101
02C
60
1,287
7.31
10.40
0.432
0.73
12.72
4,017
30.10
92.9
AVERAGE
60.00
1,258
7.40
9.79
0.468
0.80
12.72
4,260
32.48
93.3
AVERAGE
108
1,266
4.88
13.91
0.303
0.93
11.64
3,890
29.89
98.8
AVERAGE
108
1,187
4.58
14.63
0.296
0.91
12.99
3,621
28.57
101
03A
108
1,218
3.61
15.63
0.525
1.61
13.38
4,394
34.16
99.6
06A
108
1,102
5.26
13.02
0.336
1.03
11.03
3,889
33.12
98.9
09A
108
1,215
6.29
12.58
0.295
0.90
13.24
3,673
28.48
101
03B
108
1,285
5.27
13.14
0.550
1.68
13.38
4,680
34.97
102
06B
108
1,213
6.59
11.33
0.334
1.02
11.03
4,129
32.83
99.1
09B
108
1,196
5.24
13.80
0.302
0.92
13.24
3,723
29.19
101
AVERAGE
108
1,251
4.44
14.39
0.538
1.64
13.38
4,537
34.56
101
AVERAGE
108
1,158
5.93
12.18
0.335
1.02
11.03
4,009
32.97
99.0
AVERAGE
108
1,206
5.77
13.19
0.299
0.91
13.24
3,698
28.83
101
K)
* Impinger broke, no sample was recovered.
** CO2 and O2 values for this run were assumed to be ~ 6.5/12 for moisture weight calculations.
-------
2.8.4 Microbial Survivability in Ash
Incinerator ash was completely removed from the incinerator every day and stored
in three to five 35-gallon metal trash containers. A composite ash sample was then
taken from the containers using a sample thief and deposited in a sterilized, amber
glasssample bottles. The composite samples were then submitted to the laboratory for
culturing and enumeration of B. stearothermophilus.
Both an initial spore analysis and a reanalysis of the same ash samples were
completed on the Lenoir samples. The initial analysis consisted of three aliquots of
1 gram of ash from each sample with triplicate enumerations performed on each aliquot
(9 replicates/sample). The results of the initial analyses were, in most cases, either too
numerous to count (TNTC) or nothing detected. All ash samples were then retested
using a serial dilution technique in order to determine more quantitative values. Two
hundred was determined to be the maximum number of spores on a filter that could be
quantified. Using a typical dilution factor of 100:1, the TNTC samples were assigned a
minimum or maximum value of 20,000 (> 20,000 or < 20,000 spores/gram) based on the
number of analytical repetitions that resulted in TNTC. For the purpose of Microbial
Survivability calculations, results from the higher of the two analyses were used for all
Microbial Survivability calculations.
A summary of the ash results is presented in Table 2-39. Ash from Runs 3 and 9
in both analyses showed no spores detected. All other runs from the initial analysis were
either < 20,000 or > 20,000 spores/gram based on the typical dilution factor of 100:1.
The reanalysis results showed viable spores detected in the Run 1 sample at
23,500 spores/gram. All other reanalysis samples yielded non-quantitative values and
were assigned either a minimum or maximum value of 20,000 spores/gram ash, or if no
spores were seen in any of the repetitions, < 1 spores/gram ash. All values were taken
as the average of multiple enumerations. Standard deviations from each analysis is listed
in the analytical data found in Appendix E.3.
2.8.5 Microbial Survivability in Pipes
Three pipe samples were loaded into the incinerator during each test day. The
pipes were recovered on the following morning during ash removal. After allowing the
JBS219 2-58
-------
TABLE 2-39. VIABLE SPORES IN ASH
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NUMBER OP
INDICATOR SPORES
FIRST
ANALYSIS
(spores/gash)
> 20,000
> 20,000
ND
< 20,000
> 20,000
> 20,000
< 20,000
< 20,000
ND
SECOND
ANALYSIS
(spores/g ash)
23,500
<300
ND
ND
ND
< 20,000
< 20,000
< 20,000
ND
Note:
Values were taken from average of repetitve analyses. Values of < 200 or > 200
spores/filterwere assigned to samples with one or more enumerations of TNTC (Too
Numerous to Count). Values were then adjusted to ~ 20,000 based on a dilution ratio
of 1:100. The higher of the two analytical results was used to calculate
Microbial Survivability. All calculations are shown in Appendix F.
All analytical results are presented in Appendix E.3.
ND = Not Detected. Detection limits were determined to be (1 spore/gram of ash)/2.
2-59
-------
pipes to cool, the inner containers were removed from the outer containers and sent to
the laboratory for analysis. Pipe samples were cultured for 48 hours and no reanalysis
was performed.
Microbial Survivability in pipes at 48 hours are presented in Table 2-40. Results
from the majority of pipe samples showed no spores detected. One out of 27 sample
results showed 1 viable spore and three were TNTC. The raw analytical data used to
compile this table can be found in Appendix E.3.
2.9 CDD/CDF EMISSION VALUES INCORPORATING THE TOLUENE
RECOVERY RESULTS
In accordance with EPA Method 23, a final toluene rinse was completed on the
CDD/CDF sampling train after the methylene chloride (MeCl2) rinse procedure. This
was done to determine how well the MeCl2 was collecting all of the CDD/CDF material.
As prescribed in the method, these values are to be used only as a QA indicator and are
not to be incorporated into the emission values. Therefore, a full presentation of the
data is given in Section 6. However, to gain perspective into how these values effect the
gas phase CDD/CDF concentrations, stack gas CDD/CDF concentrations incorporating
the toluene recovery amounts are given in Tables 2-41 through 2-43. Concentrations are
given corrected to 7 percent O2 as well as in 2378 TCDD Toxic Equivalents. Results for
each test run as well as the overall condition averages are given. These values can be
directly compared to the non-toluene CDD/CDF gas concentrations shown in Tables 2-9,
2-10, and 2-11.
JBS219
2-60
-------
TABLE 2-40. VIABLE SPORES IN PIPES a
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
IttlN
KIJMBBR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LOAUUKJ
TIME OF
DAY
11:05
15:35
20:54
10:02
16:11
17:32
9:55
14:04
14:53
14:19
19:17
10:19
9:32
15:05
19:55
9:31
14:42
20:22
9:13
15:23
21:10
11:20
15:28
20:30
9:20
15:19
17:38
NUMBER OF
JNOICAICHt SPORES
DETECTED fc
TNTC
ND
ND
TNTC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TNTC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
a Three pipe samples were taken during each run.
b This number is the highest value detected between first count and second count.
Note:
TNTC = Too Numerous To Count
ND = Not detected; Detection limits were determined to be 1 spore/aliquot.
2-61
-------
TABLE 2-41. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 1 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
{ng/dscjn, adjusted to? percent O2)
RUN!
1.09
13.5
8.4
42.9
18.6
13.5
26.0
83.4
118.7
103.0
296.9
726
6.1
232.1
25.2
43.4
441.3
162.4
80.8
100.5
4.6
471.2
371.1
53.3
255.8
281.3
2,529
3,255
RUN 2
4.85
54.7
36.0
136.9
44.2
43.2
100.6
265.0
293.9
272.9
445.7
1,698
25.9
884.3
86.1
134.6
1390.3
442.2
265.0
264.6
18.5
1321.8
842.2
113.4
528.8
326.4
6,644
8,342
RUN 3
5.61
56.5
25.1
117.9
34.3
41.2
90.2
253.3
357.8
319.3
600.6
1,902
26.0
925.2
83.7
129.5
1143.9
484.7
259.7
384.8
21.6
1468.5
1133.8
216.7
960.7
1116.8
8,356
10,258
AVERAGE
3.85
41.6
23.2
99.2
32.4
32.6
72.3
200.6
256.8
231.8
447.7
1,442
19.3
680.5
65.0
102.5
991.8
363.1
201.9
250.0
14.9
1087.2
782.4
127.8
581.8
574.8
5,843
7,285
2378-TCDl>b
TOXIC EQUIV,
FACTOH
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
; :••:• ; (ng/dsein, adjusted to 7/ percent O2) •: :
RUN1
1.095
0.000
4.212
0.000
1.862
1.345
2.596
0.000
1.187
0.000
0.297
12.6
0.614
0.000
1.258
21.724
0.000
16.243
8.085
10.050
0.464
0.000
3.711
0.533
0.000
0.281
63.0
75.6
RUN 2
4.850
0.000
18.012
0.000
4.422
4.324
10.057
0.000
2.939
0.000
0.446
45.0
2.590
0.000
4.307
67.299
0.000
44.220
26.498
26.464
1.854
0.000
8.422
1.134
0.000
0.326
183
228
RUN?
5.606
0.000
12.574
0.000
3.425
4.123
9.024
0.000
3.578
0.000
0.601
38.9
2.596
0.000
4.184
64.752
0.000
48.473
25.973
38.478
2.160
0.000
11.338
2.167
0.000
1.117
201
240
AVERAGE
3.850
0.000
11.600
0.000
3.237
3.264
7.226
0.000
2.568
0.000
0.448
32.2
1.933
0.000
3.250
51.258
0.000
36.312
20.185
24.997
1.493
0.000
7.824
1.278
0.000
0.575
149
181
ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International
Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
2-62
-------
TABLE 2-42. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 2 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HepU-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDEHCDF
CONCENTRATION «
(ng/dscm. adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 4
0.01
18.5
11.4
65.7
18.7
22.3
38.1
136.1
246.0
220.6
524.5
1,302
8.00
259.4
29.6
58.7
503.2
179.8
97.7
190.7
8.13
579.6
505.6
107.8
452.4
563.0
3,544
4,846
RUN5R
1.69
15.9
14.8
84.3
46.9
42.5
74.2
269.8
690.9
707.4
2327.7
4,276
8.22
469.4
42.0
110.7
1289.8
578.8
224.5
599.7
11.5
1487.4
1612.3
228.6
1315.6
3924.8
11,904
16,180
RUN 6
2.22
27.8
16.7
87.1
34.3
28.5
61.3
186.6
259.8
175.6
480.4
1,360
13.41
359.5
52.8
99.8
910.6
257.3
134.7
212.5
11.0
863.0
649.2
131.2
602.2
692.7
4,990
6,350
AVERAGE
1.31
20.7
14.3
79.1
33.3
31.1
57.9
197.5
398.9
367.9
1110.9
2,313
9.88
362.8
41.5
89.7
901.2
338.6
152.3
334.3
10.2
976.7
922.4
155.9
790.1
1726.9
6,812
9,125
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 4
0.008
0.000
5.725
0.000
1.873
2.233
3.813
0.000
2.460
0.000
0.525
16.635
0.800
0.000
1.480
29.327
0.000
17.978
9.771
19.067
0.813
0.000
5.056
1.078
0.000
0.563
85.9
103
RUN5R
1.691
0.000
7.394
0.000
4.692
4.253
7.416
0.000
6.909
0.000
2.328
34.683
0.822
0.000
2.100
55.360
0.000
57.876
22.454
59.974
1.154
0.000
16.123
2.286
0.000
3.925
222
257
RUN 6
2.224
0.000
8.350
0.000
3.428
2.854
6.129
0.000
2.598
0.000
0.480
26.063
1.341
0.000
2.641
49.885
0.000
25.726
13.468
21.246
1.098
0.000
6.492
1.312
0.000
0.693
124
150
AVERAGE
1.307
0.000
7.156
0.000
3.331
3.114
5.786
0.000
3.989
0.000
1.111
25.794
0.988
0.000
2.074
44.857
0.000
33.860
15.231
33.429
1.021
0.000
9.224
1.559
0.000
1.727
144
170
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 aim and 68° F.
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International
Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
2-63
-------
TABLE 2-43. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 3 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION*
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN?
24.3
289.6
153.9
772.3
174.3
191.5
402.6
1247.9
1130.5
1085.2
1103.3
6,575
131.3
3591.2
401.6
630.1
6537.1
2258.7
1376.0
1254.7
121.9
7052.8
9073.5
1419.2
6465.0
1723.3
42,036
48,612
RUNS
34.7
397.8
179.9
692.2
182.0
157.8
367.6
955.0
752.3
623.7
595.4
4,938
175.3
3490.2
386.0
506.5
4765.5
1306.3
845.7
771.8
94.6
4195.3
3387. 1
490.7
2152.8
353.0
22,921
27,859
RUN 9
34.2
454.8
173.4
639.9
136.5
134.4
353.3
886.6
600.0
502.6
390.8
4,307
152.9
3624.2
425.2
578.1
6087.2
1439.8
915.2
813.8
101.7
4497.7
3948.1
551.1
2395.5
427.1
25,958
30,264
AVERAGE
31.1
380.7
169.1
701.5
164.3
161.2
374.5
1029.8
827.6
737.2
696.5
5,273
153.1
3568.5
404.3
571.6
5796.6
1668.3
1045.6
946.8
106.1
5248.6
5469.6
820.3
3671.1
834.5
30,305
35.578
237S-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUTV.
AV'FA^Sroitr'
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
y (ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent 02)
RUN?
24.302
0.000
76.936
0.000
17.431
19.155
40.262
0.000
11.305
0.000
1.103
190
13.126
0.000
20.082
315.038
0.000
225.871
137.596
125.475
12.189
0.000
90.735
14.192
0.000
1.723
956
1,147
RUN 8
34.710
0.000
89.943
0.000
18.204
15.775
36.760
0.000
7.523
0.000
0.595
204
17.529
0.000
19.301
253.243
0.000
130.631
84.571
77.181
9.463
0.000
33.871
4.907
0.000
0.353
631
835
RUN 9
34.209
0.000
86.712
0.000
13.651
13.442
35.333
0.000
6.000
0.000
0.391
190
15.286
0.000
21.260
289.066
0.000
143.979
91.520
81.380
10.167
0.000
39.481
5.511
0.000
0.427
698
888
AVERAGE
31.074
0.000
84.530
0.000
16.428
16.124
37.452
0.000
8.276
0.000
0.697
195
15.314
0.000
20.215
285.782
0.000
166.827
104.562
94.679
10.606
0.000
54.696
8.203
0.000
0.834
762
956
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International
Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
2-64
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Lenoir Memorial Hospital is a 322-bed hospital located in Kinston, North
Carolina. The medical waste incinerator (MWI) at this facility is a model 480-E
manufactured by Environmental Control Products (now known as Joy Energy Systems).
The MWI, which was installed in 1983, is a dual-chamber unit with an automatic ram
feeder. Ash is removed manually. According to the manufacturer, the design feed rate
is 145 kilograms per hour (kg/h) (320 pounds per hour [lb/h]) for waste with a heating
value of 8,500 Btu/lb. Waste heat is not recovered from the stack gases of the MWI,
and it has no add-on air pollution control device. Figure 3-1 is a schematic of the MWI.
3.1.1 Incinerator
The primary combustion chamber has a volume of 3.85 cubic meters (m3)
(136 cubic feet [ft3]) and operates in a controlled-air (starved-air) mode. A natural-gas-
fired auxiliary burner in the primary chamber is used to preheat and maintain the
chamber temperature above about 540°C (1000°F). After the first two or three loads are
charged, the burner is not needed again (under normal operating conditions) until the
burndown period. Waste is fed into the primary chamber by means of a mechanical
hopper/ram charging system, which is manually loaded.
A timer and the temperature in the primary chamber are used to control the
frequency of charges. The timer setting can be varied, but is typically between 6 and
10 minutes. The ram activates immediately if the "start" button on the control panel is
pushed when the time since the last charge exceeds the timer setting. Pushing the "start"
button before the timer cycle is complete puts the ram in standby mode; when the timer
cycle is complete, the ram activates. A controller locks out the ram when the primary
chamber temperature exceeds a setpoint. The timer cycle is reset when the temperature
falls below the setpoint.
The secondary chamber has a volume of 0.85 m3 (30 ft3) and a design gas
retention time of about 0.4 second. The gas-fired auxiliary burner in this chamber is
activated automatically when the temperature falls below a preset level. This chamber
operates with excess combustion air.
JBS219
-------
-Hopper door
X
Ram feeder
m
HEFRACTORir-
Flameport
Secondary
chamber
Primary
chamber
Ash
[- removal
door
Figure 3-1. Schematic of Incinerator at Lenoir Memorial Hospital
-------
Combustion air is introduced into the primary chamber through air ports in the
chamber wall. The air ports are about 3.8 centimeters (cm) (1.5 inches [in.]) in
diameter, 7.6 cm (3 in.) above the hearth, and spaced about 0.3 m (1 ft) apart around
the hearth (except for the space for the ash door). Additional combustion air is added in
the flameport. One blower supplies the air to both the primary chamber and the
flameport. A manually adjustable damper in the duct to the primary chamber is
positioned to restrict flow to about 15 percent of what it would be with the valve fully
open. A damper in the duct to the flameport is automatically modulated based on the
temperature in the secondary chamber. This modulated damper is partially closed when
waste is charged to the primary chamber. It gradually opens as the secondary chamber
temperature increases, and it returns to the partially closed position as the temperature
decreases.
The primary and secondary chamber setpoint temperatures are changed by
adjusting a set screw rather than a calibrated dial. Therefore, the new setpoint is not
known until the burner turns on or off in the secondary chamber or the ram is locked
out in the primary chamber. Achieving the desired setpoint often requires adjustments
during several charging cycles.
3.1.2 Waste
"Brown bag" waste (i.e., general refuse) is the most prevalent component of the
waste stream. The hospital also burns "red bag," "blue bag," and "orange bag" wastes and
sharps. Red bags contain infectious waste, primarily from isolation rooms. Blue bags
contain body fluids, swabs, suction materials, and other operating room wastes. Orange
bags contain laboratory wastes, primarily glass that has been exposed to cultures and to
stocks of infectious agents and associated biologicals. Sharps are placed in either red or
almost clear plastic containers. Small amounts of pathological waste, chemotherapy
waste, and outdated medicines are also incinerated. Cafeteria waste and cardboard
JBS219
-------
boxes are separated from the waste stream, compacted, and landfilled. Coffee shop and
lounge waste also is supposed to go to the trash compactor, but some of it is incinerated.
3.2 PRETEST ACTIVITIES
The objectives of the pretest were to identify any necessary equipment repairs
or modifications to accommodate testing and to determine whether proposed operating
conditions could be achieved.
3.2.1 Equipment Issues
Two equipment problems that would affect testing were identified during
pretest activities. First, there were no sampling ports in the original stack. To
accommodate testing, the spark arrestor was removed from the original 4.9-m (16-ft)
stack and a 3.7-m (12-ft) extension with sampling ports was added. The second problem
was that temperature controllers/monitors in both chambers are biased high. The
incinerator manufacturer's service representative checked the calibration of the
controllers and determined that both were biased about 55°C (100°F) high in the typical
operating ranges. The equipment was not replaced because the actual temperatures
would be monitored during testing with new thermocouples attached to a data logger. In
addition, the bias would be compensated for by setting the secondary burner setpoint
temperature on the control panel about 55°C (100°F) above the desired temperature.
However, as indicated in Section 3.3, after testing was completed the actual differences
were determined to be about 16°C (60°F) in the primary chamber and 71°C (160°F) in
the secondary chamber.
3.2.2 Proposed Test Condition Trials
Three conditions that cover the potential range of operation for this type of
incinerator were proposed before the pretest and a fourth condition was developed while
onsite. A short trial of each condition was performed during the pretest. Based on the
trials, one of the three proposed conditions was revised for the actual tests and the
fourth condition was discarded. Table 3-1 lists the proposed and final test condition
parameters. Observations made during each of the four trials are presented below.
General refuse was burned during the trials, except as noted. The temperatures
presented in this section were estimated by subtracting about 55°C (100°F) from the
temperatures displayed on the control panel. These temperatures are presented because
JBS219
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-1. OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EMISSIONS TESTS
Condition
I
II
III
IV
Proposed operating parameters
Feed rate,
kg/hr
db/hr)
136(300)
91 (200)
145 (320)
136(300)
Charge rate,
kg/charge
(Ib/charge)
14 (30)
9.1 (20)
36 (80)
23 (50)
Charge
cycle,
min
6
6
15
10
Secondary
chamber burner
setpoint temp.,
°C (°F)
1038-1093
(1900-2000)
1038-1093
(1900-2000)
870 (1600)
1093 (2000)
Revised operating parameters
Feed rate,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
136(300)
91 (200)
136(300)
None
Charge
rate,
kg/charge
(Ib/charge
14(30)
9.1 (20)
23 (50)
Charge
cycle,
min
6
6
10
Secondary
chamber burner
setpoint temp.,
°C (°F)
1038 (1900)
1038 (1900)
870(1600)
OJ
-------
it was believed during the pretest, based on the calibrations from the service
representative, that they were close to the actual temperatures. However, as the results
in Section 3.3 indicate, the actual differences were 16°C (60°F) and 71°C (160°F) in the
primary and secondary chambers, respectively.
3.2.2.1 Condition I. The proposed Condition I operating parameters were
design feed rates with frequent charges and a high secondary chamber burner setpoint
temperature. For this trial, the ram was activated manually by pushing the "start" button
every 6 minutes, and each load contained about 14 kg (30 Ib) of waste. The secondary
chamber burner setpoint was adjusted so that the burner turned on and off at a little less
than 1038°C (1900°F). Nine loads were charged in 48 minutes during this trial.
Peak secondary chamber temperatures were lower than those for the
Condition III trial and the burner could not maintain the setpoint temperature in the
secondary chamber. The temperatures climbed between 55° and 110°C (100° and 200°F)
in the 2 minutes after each charge, fell rapidly in the next 2 minutes, and continued to
fall at a slower rate for the last 2 minutes before the next charge. The temperature was
typically about 955°C (1750°F) when a charge was introduced. The average temperature
during each charging cycle increased slightly as the trial proceeded.
Average primary chamber temperatures during each charging cycle increased
as the trial proceeded, closing the gap between primary and secondary chamber
temperatures. After the last charge, the primary chamber temperature exceeded the
secondary chamber temperature for more than 2 minutes.
3.2.2.2 Condition II. The proposed Condition II operating parameters
consisted of frequent charges at less than design rates and a high secondary chamber
burner setpoint temperature. For this trial, each load contained about 9.1 kg (20 Ib) of
waste, and the ram was again activated manually every 6 minutes. The secondary
chamber burner setpoint was increased so that the burner would turn on and off at about
1093°C (2000°F). Five loads were charged in 24 minutes during this trial.
Secondary chamber temperatures increased less than 110°C (200°F) after each
charge, and the peaks were always less than 1065°C (1950°F) (and less than the burner
JBS219 3-6
-------
setpoint). Even though the burner was always on, the temperature fell steadily from the
peak until the next charge, just as for Condition I. Temperatures fell to an average of
about 955°C (1750T) at the start of each charging cycle. Primary chamber temperatures
were always well below the secondary chamber temperatures.
3.2.2.3 Condition III. The proposed Condition III operating parameters were
design feed rates with infrequent charges and a low secondary chamber burner setpoint
temperature. An attempt was made to charge 36 kg (80 Ib) every 15 minutes, but the
hopper typically could only hold about 23 kg (50 Ib) of waste. Therefore, the charging
parameters were revised to 23 kg (50 Ib) every 10 minutes. For the trial, the ram cycle
timer was set to about 1 minute and the ram was activated manually by pressing the
"start" button every 10 minutes. The position of the set screw that controls operation of
the secondary chamber burner was adjusted so that the burner would turn on and off at
about 870°C (1600°F).
Seven loads were charged during the trial. Secondary chamber temperatures
increased by 28° to 330°C (50° to 600°F) in the 3 minutes after each charge. The 330°C
(600°F) increase occurred after charging a combination of blue bags (operating room
waste) and brown bags. This effect indicates that operating room waste has a high
heating value. Waste from an unknown source also has a high heating value because the
second largest increase in the secondary chamber temperature (260°C [500°F]) occurred
after an all-brown-bag charge. The temperatures dropped back to about 870°C (1600°F)
in the 2 minutes after each peak and remained at that level until the next charge.
Primary chamber temperatures were not closely monitored during this trial.
Nearly all of the primary chamber temperatures that were recorded were 55°C (100°F) or
more below the secondary chamber temperatures. Some of the primary chamber
temperatures that were recorded may be incorrect due to a weak element in the LCD
that made temperatures in the 1800's look like 1600's. The weak element was a problem
for subsequent trials as well, but it was replaced during the first run of the emissions
tests.
3.2.2.4 Condition IV. A fourth condition was examined to determine whether
a minimum secondary chamber temperature could be maintained by charging 23 kg
(50 Ib) every 10 minutes with the secondary chamber burner setpoint temperature at
3-7
JBS219
-------
2000°F. This goal was not achieved. The results of this trial were similar to those for
Condition I except that the average primary and secondary chamber temperatures both
showed a steady rise during the trial. After 40 minutes (and 6 hours since the start of
the first trial), the primary chamber temperature exceeded the lockout temperature
(about 1024°C [1875°F]) for the first time during the pretest. In addition, while the ram
was locked out and for 2 minutes thereafter, the primary chamber temperatures
exceeded the secondary chamber temperatures.
3.2.3 Selected Test Conditions
Except for the change in the charge size and frequency for Condition III, the
three proposed conditions were selected for the actual tests. All three conditions were
demonstrated to be feasible based on the trials, but, as the trial of Condition IV showed,
temperatures in the primary chamber could increase over time and cause the ram feeder
to lock out before the end of a 4-hr test. During the trials, a temperature spike occurred
in both chambers after each waste charge. The magnitude of the spikes varied
depending on the characteristics of the waste in each charge. The trials also showed that
the secondary chamber burner could maintain a minimum temperature of 871°C
(1600°F) but not 1038°C (1900°F). The fourth condition was discarded because the
results were similar to those for Condition I.
3.3 PROCESS CONDITIONS DURING TESTING
The primary purpose of this source test was to characterize uncontrolled
emissions from an older-generation MWI under a range of operating conditions. Three
emission test runs were scheduled at each of three conditions for a total of nine runs.
However, two runs (Runs 4 and 5) were repeated due to sampling problems. The
process data for Run 4 are presented in this discussion because only the paniculate and
metals data were invalidated. Process data for Run 5 are not presented because all of
the test data were invalidated. The target and actual operating conditions for each valid
test run are presented in Table 3-2.
The primary chamber temperature often was above the secondary chamber
temperature during all six runs with a target charge rate of 136 kg/hr (300 Ib/hr). In
addition, at some point between 3.5 and 6 hours after the first charge on days when the
charging rate was 136 kg/h (300 Ib/h), the primary chamber temperature exceeded the
JBS219
3-8
-------
Table 3-2. Process Data Summary for Emissions Testing at Lenoir Memorial Hospital
Test Teal
Run Dale
No.
1 05/30/90
2 05/31/90
3 06/01/90
4 06/02/90
4R 06/04/90
6 06/05/90
7 06/06/90
5R 06/06/90
8 06/07/90
9 06/08/90
Target Teat Conditions
Charge rale Charge Sec. chamb.
Ib/h Ib/ freq., burner
charge min iclpoinl
temp., F
300 30 6 1900
300 30 6 1900
300 30 6 1900
200 20 6 1900
200 20 6 1900
200 20 6 1900
300 SO 10 1600
200 20 6 1900
300 50 10 1600
300 50 10 1600
Preheat Charging
lime, before
min teal,
min
15 267
65 162
58 35
24 55
37 3% 0)
38 116
39 61
80 105
59 61
Daily Operation (a) Actual Teal Conditions (V)
Hours Total Ash, % Charge rate Charge Avg. Avg. Prim. Sec. Natural
of waste of waste Ib/h Ib/ freq., prim. sec. burner, burner, gas
charging, charged, charged charge min chamber chamber % on % on use,
h/d Ib/d lemp.,F lemp ., F (c) fl3/h (d)
10.5
7.5
5.33
5.5
10.8
6.67
12
5.9
7.33 (1)
2237 (e) 12.7 220 30.7 8.4 1783 (f) 1767 (f) (g) (g) (h)
1959 9.1 250 30.8 7.4 1920 1831 (g) (g) (h)
1536 9.9 294 32.3 6.6 1767 1783 (g) (g) (h)
1070 (i) 12.1 191 20.4 6.4 1504 1616 0 98.9 1160
2089 8.9 189 20.2 6.4 1801 (i) 1770 (f) (g) (g) 1090
1310 (i) 11.1 190 20.5 6.5 1568 1660 0 89.4 1170
2783 8.8 266 49.7 11.2 1841 1680 0 53.3 500
195 20.8 6.4 1805 1783 0 94.9 1130
1790 (k) 8.1 296 51.3 10.4 1850 1641 0 46.2 500
2025 9.4 285 51.0 10.7 1820 1658 0 43.9 550
(a) From the time the incinerator is turned on until bumdown is initialed
(b) Includes port changes and limes for ill trains, not just the Method 5 trains
(c) The tabulated percentages may be slightly low because the data logger occasionally indicated the burner was off when
it actually was on. There are no known instances of the logger indicating the burner was on when it actually was off
(d) Natural gas meter readings were taken when convenient. Therefore, some consumption values are based on as little as 2.5
hour* of data during the test period
(e) Includes an estimated 400 Ibs in the first 1.5 hours of charging
(f) Temperatures are based on manually recorded values rather than values obtained with the data logger.
The averages are not statistically valid because the temperatures were not recorded at uniform intervals.
(g) Data logger inoperative
(h) Not recorded
(i) The hospital may have burned more later in the day
(j) Charging lime includes lime for invalidated Run 5
(k) The hospital may have burned more later in the day, but il it not likely
(I) Includes 2 hours after Ihe teal
-------
setpoint (1024°C or 1116°C [1875° or 2045°F]) and locked out the feeder ram for the first
time. Temperatures continued to lock out the ram periodically from this time until the
testing was completed for the day. Lockouts were especially common during the first run
because the setpoint temperature (1024°C [1875°F]) was too low. On days when the
charging rate was 91 kg/hr (200 Ib/hr), the ram locked out only once during one run.
Clearly, the heating value of the waste is higher than that assumed when the design
charging rate was specified by the manufacturer.
The time elapsed between the first charge and the start of testing varied
among the runs. The time was much longer for the first two runs because it took longer
than expected to set up the sampling equipment. Charging the incinerator was not
delayed until the sampling equipment was ready because it took several charges (30 to
60 minutes) to increase the temperatures from preheat levels to the operating range.
Furthermore, proper calibration of the HC1 continuous emission monitor required
temperatures in the normal operating range.
The incinerator operating parameters monitored during each test run were the
charge weight, charge frequency, type of waste, primary and secondary chamber
temperatures, and the percentage of time the burners were on. In addition, natural gas
meter readings were recorded for some runs, and the ash was weighed after each run.
The temperatures and times when the burners were on were recorded every 10 seconds
with the data logger; other data were recorded manually. Temperatures were also
recorded manually as a backup.
The temperatures for Runs 1 and 4R are based on the manually recorded
values because the data logger did not operate properly during these runs. However, the
manually recorded temperatures had to be corrected for the bias in the temperature
monitor/controller. The correction factor was determined by comparing the manually
recorded temperatures for Run 9 with the corresponding temperatures that were
recorded with the data logger. This comparison showed the primary and secondary
chamber temperatures were biased about 16°C (60°F) and 71°C (160°F) high,
respectively. It was assumed that the biases were the same for all of the runs.
Averages for the recorded operating parameters are presented in Table 3-2,
and data sheets documenting the process parameters that were recorded during each test
JBS219
3-10
-------
run are presented in Appendix B. For all runs, there are discrepancies between the
results of the data logger and manual observations of when the secondary chamber
burner was on or off. The major discrepancy occurred during Run 6. The data logger
showed the burner to be off from 13:46 to 13:59, but manual observations (and the
setpoint) indicated that the burner was on for most of this time.
Temperature profiles for each run are shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-11.
Each temperature spike corresponds with a waste charge. The time at which charges
occurred is shown by tick marks along the top side of the X-axis of each figure.
Calculated gas residence times in the secondary chamber are presented in Table 3-3 for
each run. These residence times range from 0.30 sec for Run 3 to 0.36 sec for several
runs, and the average over the nine runs is 0.34 sec. To calculate the residence time, the
chamber volume was divided by the average stack gas flow rate, which was corrected for
the difference between the average stack and secondary chamber temperatures.
A summary of each test run is presented below.
3.3.1 Condition I
For the first three runs, the target charging rate was 14 kg (30 Ib) of waste
every 6 minutes (136 kg/hr [300 lb/h]). The target secondary chamber burner setpoint
temperature was 1038°C (1900°F). Figures 3-2 through 3-4 present the temperature
profiles for each run. Each of the profiles show the primary chamber temperatures were
often above the secondary chamber temperatures. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3-2,
the average primary chamber temperatures were above the secondary chamber
temperatures for Runs 1 and 2. Information about the percentage of time the burners
were on is not available because the data logger was not working properly during any of
the runs. The natural gas meter was not read during these runs. Summaries of each of
the three runs are presented in the subsections below.
3.3.1.1 Run 1. The first load of waste was charged to the incinerator after
about 15 minutes of preheat. Charging continued at irregular intervals for the next
2.5 hours. At this time, the ram cycle timer was adjusted for about 6.3 minutes, and
regular charging at about 14 kg/charge (30 Ib/charge) was begun. No attempt was made
to reduce the cycle to exactly 6 minutes because the dial on the timer controller was not
sensitive enough to make such fine-tuning adjustments.
JBS219
-------
OJ
Temperature Profile
Run 1 (5-30-90)
2100-
Test start
at 14:53
Test end
at 20:47
1900
1500-
Target operating conditions:
30 Ibs of waste every 6 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1900 F
Actual charge times shown by tick marks
along top of x-axis
1300
i ii ii in ii ii i 11 i i
i i
i i i i i i i i 11 i i
14:30
15:30
16:30 17:30 18:30
Time, 24-h clock
19:30
20:30
Primary chamber
Secondary chamber
-------
2400-
u_
0)
I
Q
Q.
E
0)
2200
2000
1800
1600
Test start
at 12:47
1400
1200
12:00
Temperature Profile
Run 2 (5-31 -90)
Target operating conditions:
30 Ibs of waste every 6 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1900 F
Actual charge times shown by tick marks
along top of x-axis
Test end
at 17:13
I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I II M
13:00
14:00 15:00 16:00
Time, 24-hr clock
17:00
18:00
Primary chamber
Secondary chamber
Figure 3-3. Temperature Profile for Run 2
-------
OJ
Temperature Profile
Run 3 (6-1-90)
2200
2000
Test start
at 10:17
Test end
at 14:40
1200
Target operating conditions:
30 Ibs of waste every 6 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1900 F
Actual charge times shown by tick marks
along top of x-axis
1000
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10:00
11:00
12:00 13:00
Time, 24-hr clock
14:00
15:00
Primary chamber
Secondary chamber
Figure 3-4. Temperature Profile for Run 3
-------
U)
LL
-------
U)
t—»
Os
2200
2000
1400-
1200-
Temperature Profile
Run 4R (6-4-90)
Test start
at 15:43
Target operating conditions:
20 Ibs of waste every 6 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1900 F
Actual charge times shown by tick marks
along top of x-axis
Test end
at 19:47
M I I I I, ' I ' ' ,' I I I I, ' ' I ' | I ' I I ,' I ' I I,'
15:30
16:30
17:30 18:30
Time, 24-h clock
19:30
Primary chamber
Secondary chamber
Figure 3-6. Temperature Profile for Run 4R
-------
2100-
1900
OJ
1500-
1300-
Temperature Profile
Run 5R (6-6-90)
Test start
at 16:57
Target operating conditions:
20 Ib of waste every 6 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1900 F
Actual charge times shown by tick marks
along top of x-axis
Test end
at 21:07
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
17:00
18:00 19:00
Time, 24-h clock
20:00
21:00
Prim, chamber
Sec. chamber
Figure 3-7. Temperature Profile for Run 5R
-------
00
2100
1100
Temperature Profile
Run 6 (6-5-90)
Test end
at 16:00
Test start
at 11.20
E 1500
Target operating conditions:
20 Ibs of waste every 6 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1900 F
Actual charge times shown along x-axis
I I I I I I J II! 1 I J
I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I
11:00
12:00 13:00 14:00
Time, 24-hr clock
Prim, chamber Sec. chamber
Figure 3-8. Temperature Profile for Run 6
15:00
16:00
-------
U)
Temperature Profile
Run 7 (6-6-90)
2500
-------
2400
Temperature Profile
Run 8 (6-7-90)
2200
1400-
1200-
1000-
Test start
at 12:54
Target operating conditions:
50 Ibs of waste every 10 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1600 F
Actual charge times shown along x-axis
13:00
14:00 15:00
Time, 24-hr clock
16:00
Prim, chamber
Sec. chamber
Test end
at 17:04
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
17:00
Figure 3-10. Temperature Profile for Run 8
-------
2400
2200
1400
1200
1000
Temperature Profile
Run 9 (6-8-90)
Test start
at 11:20
Target operating conditions:
50 Ibs of waste every 10 minutes
SC burner setpoint temperature of 1600 F
Actual charge times shown along x-axis
J L_J L
Test end
at 15:38
11:00
12:00
13:00 14:00
Time, 24-hr clock
Prim, chamber Sec. chamber
15:00
16:00
Figure 3-11. Temperature Profile for Run 9
-------
Table 3-3. Calculated Gas Residence Time in Secondary Chamber
Run
No.
1
2
3
4R
5R
6
7
8
9
average
Stack eas conditions
flow
rate,
acfm
4421
4498
4811
4277
4460
4017
4092
4198
4138
average
temp.,
F
1289
1341
1341
1282
1312
1254
1312
1268
1289
*
Average
secondary
chamber
temp., F
1767
1831
1783
1770
1783
1660
1680
1641
1658
Average gas
residence
time in
secondary
chamber, s
(a)
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.33
0.32
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.36
0.34
(a) Residence time is based on the secondary chamber
volume of 0.85 m3 (30 ft3) and is calculated as
follows for Run 1:
Res. time, s = (30 ft3)(60 s/min)(1289 + 460 R)
(4421 acfm)(l 767 + 460 R)
3-22
-------
Before the start of emissions testing, the secondary chamber burner setpoint
temperature was adjusted from what was believed to be about 1093°C (2000°F) to about
1038°C (1900°F). However, because the bias was greater than expected, the actual
setpoint temperature was about 1010°C (1850°F). The primary chamber temperature
setpoint at which the ram would lock out was not adjusted because lockouts were not a
problem during the pretest. According to the display on the control panel, the setpoint
was about 1085°C (1985°F), the value recommended by the incinerator manufacturer.
However, because of the bias in the controllers, the actual setpoint was about 1052°C
(1925°F).
Emissions testing began 2 hours after the ram timer was adjusted to
6.3 minutes, or nearly 5 hours after the incinerator was turned on. By this time, the ram
had already locked out twice because of high temperatures in the primary chamber.
Lockouts continued to occur frequently during the test period, which resulted in an
average cycle time of 8.4 minutes and an average charge rate of about 100 kg/hr
(220 Ib/hr) during the test period. Although the goal was to charge 136 kg/hr
(300 Ib/hr), the testing was not suspended during the lockout periods because the
incinerator was operating normally. However, after the test it was decided that the bias
in the primary chamber temperature monitor may have been responsible for the
frequency of lockouts. Therefore, as indicated below, the setpoint was increased during
Run 2.
Most of the available waste was general, "brown bag" refuse. Five red bags,
one blue bag, and numerous sharps containers were apportioned to the loads during the
first 2 hours of the test. None of these items had any noticeable effect on the
temperatures. Other charges that did cause large temperature fluctuations had no
distinguishable characteristics.
3.3.1.2 Run 2. Waste was charged at about 14 kg/charge (30 Ib/charge) for
2.7 hours before emissions testing began. At about the time testing was starting, the ram
locked out and a hospital engineer adjusted the set screw slightly to increase the lockout
temperature. This procedure was repeated during subsequent lockout periods in the first
1.5 hours of the test. After the third adjustment, the lockout setpoint temperature was
JBS219 3-23
-------
about 1121°C (2050°F). This setpoint was not adjusted again during any of the
subsequent test runs.
The frequency of lockouts was much lower during this run than during Run 1.
As a result, the average charge rate was about 118 kg/hr (260 Ib/hr), and the average
charge frequency was about 7.4 minutes during this test.
One of the highest secondary chamber temperatures of the day, 1281°C
(2338°F), occurred after a brown bag full of blue sheets was charged. Later in the day
the temperature reached 1282°C (2340°F) after a bag full of yellow cloth (either gowns
or sheets) was charged. Small blue bags and red bags, both of which were charged with
brown bags throughout the day, had no observable effect on temperatures.
3.3.1.3 Run 3. Waste charging began after about 1 hour of preheat. In an
effort to get as much of the test completed before a lockout, this run began about
35 minutes after the first charge. Almost 3.5 hours of the test were completed before
the first lockout. Three heavy loads, about 20 kg (45 Ib) each, of frozen pathological
waste also delayed the first lockout. The pathological waste was added between 1.25 and
1.5 hours into the test. Primary and secondary chamber temperatures dropped to 673°C
(1244°F) and 824°C (1515°F), respectively, during this time. During this test, a bag full
of blue sheets did not cause the temperatures to increase more than other charges.
General refuse predominated for the rest of the day. The only exceptions were one
small blue bag, four small red bags, and two sharps containers.
3.3.2 Condition II
For the second set of runs, the target charging rate was 9.1 kg (20 Ib) of waste
every 6 minutes (91 kg/hr [200 Ib/hr]), and the target secondary chamber burner
setpoint temperature was 1038°C (1900°F). Again, because the bias was more than
expected, the actual setpoint temperature was about 1850°F. Natural gas consumption
averaged 32.2 cubic meters per hour (m3/hr) (1,140 cubic feet per hour [ft3/hr]) during
runs 4, 4R, 5R, and 6, and the burner was on an average of 94 percent of the time
during three of these runs. Summaries of the runs are presented in the subsections
below.
3.3.2.1 Run 4. The first charge was introduced after about 25 minutes of
preheat and testing began about 1. hour later. One lockout occurred after 3 hours of
JBS219 3-24
-------
testing. The charge before the lockout contained a 12-lb sharps container. This
container did not necessarily affect the temperature because similar containers had no
such effect on other days. This test was conducted on Saturday, and it appeared that
coffee shop, lounge, and patient room trash comprised a higher percentage of the waste
stream than on other days. Housekeeping personnel indicated that this mix was normal
for weekends because there are more visitors in the patients' rooms, and they buy food;
the nurses have 12-hour shifts on weekends and are more likely to order out for food;
and less surgery occurs on the weekends.
3.3.2.2 Run 4R. This run began about 40 minutes after the invalidated Run 5
ended. Even though waste had been charged for almost 7 hours before the start of the
test, the ram locked out only once during the test. The average charge rate during the
test was 85 kg/hr (187 Ib/hr). Waste was primarily brown bag refuse. Three small blue
bags and four large sharps containers (4.5 to 7.7 kg/container [10 to 17 lb/container])
had no distinguishable effect on the temperatures. The highest secondary chamber
temperature of the day, 1189°C (2172°F), was reached after a brown bag with operating
room waste was incinerated. This charge contained a brown bag full of blue sheets.
3.3.2.3 Run 6. The incinerator was preheated for about 35 minutes. Waste
was charged for almost 2 hours before emissions testing began. The ram did not lock
out during the test. The average charge rate was 86 kg/hr (190 Ib/hr), and the average
ram cycle was 6.5 minutes. The largest secondary chamber temperature spike (322°C
[580°F]) occurred after a brown bag full of blue sheets was charged at 12:28.
3.3.2.4 Run 5R. This run was conducted after Run 7. Therefore, the control
settings for the ram cycle timer and the secondary chamber burner setpoint temperature
were readjusted at the end of Run 7. After these adjustments, the secondary chamber
burner was shutting off at about 1038°C (1900°F). The setpoint would not have been
adjusted again during this test except that about 30 minutes before the start of emissions
testing the burner shut off at about 1010°C (1850°F). At that time, the setpoint was
adjusted upward. Several more adjustments were necessary during the next 2 hours
before the desired cutoff was achieved. After about 1.5 hours into the test, the burner
was cutting off at about 1038°C (1900°F), and it continued to do so for the rest of the
test.
3-25
JBS219 J J
-------
This run was conducted after almost 8 hours of charging, whereas Runs 4 and
6 were conducted after only 1 to 2 hours of charging. As a result, both average primary
and average secondary chamber temperatures were higher for this run. Primary chamber
temperatures were affected to a greater degree and they exceeded secondary chamber
temperatures during most of the run. No lockouts occurred during the test. The average
charge rate was 88 kg/hr (195 Ib/hr), and the average ram cycle was 6.4 minutes.
Beginning with the last charge during the HC1 test in Run 7, waste was charged
at about 9.1 kg/charge (20 Ib/charge) for 1.75 hours before the Run 5R testing began.
Two minutes before the test started, several small boxes and paper bags that contained
outdated medicines from the pharmacy were incinerated. Because the glass content of
this charge was high, the secondary chamber temperature rose less than 55°C (100°F)
after it was introduced. One charge consisted of operating room waste, but the
secondary chamber temperature did not increase significantly. Two small blue bags and
five small red bags added with brown bags at various times during the run caused no
unusual temperature effects.
3.3.3 Condition III
For the final three runs, the target charging rate was 23 kg (50 Ib) every
10 minutes (136 kg/hr [300 Ib/hr]), and the target secondary chamber burner setpoint
temperature was 870°C (1600°F). The incinerator operated normally during all three
runs. Table 3-2 shows that average primary chamber temperatures were 89° to 106°C
(160° to 190°F) higher than the average secondary chamber temperatures for these three
runs. Furthermore, as Figures 3-9 through 3-11 show, the primary chamber temperatures
were higher than secondary chamber temperatures throughout the runs except for
occasional secondary chamber temperature spikes. Figures 3-9 through 3-11 also show
that after the secondary chamber temperature spikes, the burner maintained a minimum
temperature between 843°C (1550°F) and 860°C (1580°F). Natural gas consumption
averaged 14.6 m3/hr (520 ft3/hr) during the three runs, and the secondary chamber
burner was on about 48 percent of the time. Summaries of all three runs are presented
in the subsections below.
JBS219
3-26
-------
3.3.3.1 Run 7. Waste was charged at 23 kg/charge (50 Ib/charge) for an hour
before the emissions test began. During this time the secondary chamber burner
setpoint temperature was reduced to about 870°C (1600°F). The ram cycle timer was
also adjusted before the start of the test. When the ram was operating without lockouts,
it was activated every 10 to 10.5 minutes. Two lockouts occurred before 14:30, the time
at which all but one HC1 test had been completed. For two charges during the test, the
ram had to activate a second time to clear material that blocked the ram door from
closing.
Three more lockouts occurred before the last HC1 run was completed at 15:15.
Between 14:30 and 15:15, only three charges were introduced; in anticipation of Run 5R,
the last charge was only 9.1 kg (20 Ib). Consequently, the average charge rate was
121 kg/hr (266 Ib/hr) and the ram cycle was 11.2 minutes for the total test period. The
average charge rate was 128 kg/hr (283 Ib/hr) between 10:12 (the start of emission
testing) and 14:30. During this time, Figure 3-9 shows that the secondary chamber
burner maintained a minimum temperature of about 857°C (1575°F) after the
temperature spikes. At about 14:45, the secondary chamber burner setpoint temperature
was prematurely adjusted upward. After the adjustment the cutoff was about 1038°C
(1900°F).
The highest secondary chamber temperature spike during the run (1310°C
[2390°F]) occurred after one charge that consisted of waste from the operating room.
Other waste charges had no distinguishable characteristics that could be correlated with
temperatures.
3.3.3.2 Run 8. Before testing began, the ram cycle timer was adjusted to
about 10.5 minutes, and the secondary burner setpoint temperature was adjusted to
about 860°C (1580°F). These adjustments were necessary because Run 5R was
conducted after Run 7. After 80 minutes of preheat, the first load was charged to the
incinerator. Waste was charged at about 23 kg/charge (50 Ib/charge) for 1.75 hours
before the test began. The only lockout occurred less than 1 minute after the last test
was completed. The average charge rate was 134 kg/hr (296 Ib/hr), and the ram cycle
was 10.4 minutes. As shown in Figure 3-10, the secondary chamber temperature was
maintained at about 849°C (1560°F) after the temperature spikes. Several charges in the
JBS219 3-27
-------
last 2 hours of the test caused very little change in the secondary chamber temperature;
the contents of the bags did not appear unusual. The highest secondary chamber
temperature spike (1263°C [2306T]) occurred after a brown bag charge at 14:25. Three
other temperature spikes to about 1177°C (2150T) occurred after various mixtures of
brown, red, and blue bags were charged.
3.3.3.3 Run 9. After 1 hour of preheat, waste was charged for another hour
before testing began. The secondary chamber burner setpoint temperature setting was
unchanged from Run 8 (860°C [1580°F]), and as shown in Figure 3-11, a minimum
temperature of about 843°C (1550°F) was maintained after the temperature spikes. The
dial on the ram cycle timer was adjusted several times in an attempt to achieve a
10-minute cycle; these adjustments resulted in cycles between about 9.5 and 11 minutes.
Two lockouts occurred during the test. The average charge rate was 129 kg/hr
(285 Ib/hr), and the average ram cycle was 10.8 minutes. A secondary chamber
temperature spike to 1238°C (2260°F) occurred after a charge at 12:46 that contained
mostly operating room waste. A secondary chamber temperature spike to 1280°C
(2336°F) occurred after a charge with blue sheets in one of several brown bags at 14:58.
Two mixed red and brown bag charges at 12:25 and 14:33 caused secondary chamber
spikes to about 1193°C (2180°F). A mixed charge with one blue bag at 12:55 caused a
similar spike.
JBS219
3-28
-------
4. SAMPLE LOCATIONS
The sampling locations that were used during the emission testing program at the
Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI are described in this section. Flue gas samples were
collected at the exhaust stack using three sets of ports.
The exhaust stack at this facility has a 26-inch steel shell with refractory lining.
The inside diameter of the refractory lining is 22 inches. The existing stack is 16 feet in
height above the secondary chamber. A spark arrestor is presently installed at the stack
exit.
There are no test ports available in the existing stack, and due to the risk of
damaging the refractory, installation of ports in the existing stack was not attempted.
An unlined steel stack extension was fabricated for temporary installation at the
top of the existing stack. The extension was 22 inches in diameter and 12 feet high.
Three sets of test ports were provided as shown in Figure 4-1. The lower set of ports
was used for the CEM, HC1/CEM, and manual HC1 tests. The center set of ports was
used for metals and CDD/CDF testing. The upper ports was used for microorganism
sampling. The two upper sets of ports were aligned with each other in the vertical plane,
while the lowest set was offset by 45° to prevent flow disturbances.
The test ports were located in an ideal location according to EPA Method 1.
There were at least two stack diameters of undisturbed flow downstream of the ports,
and greater than eight diameters of undisturbed flow upstream of the ports. (NOTE:
CDD/CDF and metals sampling probes are not treated as upstream disturbances for the
upper set of ports.)
The number of traverse points used for CDD/CDF, metals, and microorganism
sampling was eight. Four points on each of two diameters was used as shown in
Figure 4-2.
JBS219
-------
144"
192"
42"
60"
t
42"
22"
Stack
Extension
Figure 4-1. Sample Port Location at the Exhaust Stack
4-2
-------
Port A
/
A
w
A
V
^
2'
\
u
PortB
Diameter = 22 inches
Point Percent Inches from
of Diameter Inside Wall
1
2
3
4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3
1.4
5.25
15.75
19.6
Figure 4-2. Traverse Point Layout at the Exhasut Stack
4-3
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES BY ANALYTE
The sampling and analytical procedures used for the Lenoir Memorial Hospital
Medical Waste Incinerator (MWI) test program are the most recent revisions of the
published EPA methods. Where published methods are not available, state-of-the-art
sampling and analytical methods are used. In this section, descriptions of each sampling
and analytical method by analyte are provided.
A summary of the sampling methods that are used is included in Table 5-1.
Sampling times, minimum sampling volumes, and detection limits are summarized for the
manual sampling methods in Table 5-2.
5.1 CDD/CDF EMISSIONS TESTING METHOD
The sampling and analytical method for determining flue gas emissions of
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDD/CDF) is
EPA Proposed Method 23. This methodology is a combination of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 1984 draft protocol and the EPA Method 8290. The
analytical method is designated as Method 8290X by Triangle Laboratories, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina, who performs the analyses. (Because of
proprietary reasons, Triangle Laboratories has requested that a copy of their standard
operating procedures not be included in this test plan.)
5.1.1 CDD/CDF Sampling Equipment
The CDD/CDF sampling method uses the sampling train shown in Figure 5-1.
Basically, the sampling system is similar to a Method 5 train with the exception of the
following:
• Uses all components (quartz probe/nozzle liner, all other glassware, filters)
which are pre-cleaned using solvent rinses and extraction techniques; and
• Uses a condensing coil and XAD-II* resin absorption module located
between the filter and impinger train.
All sampling equipment specifications are detailed in the reference method shown
in Appendix K.
JBS219
-------
TABLE 5-1. TEST METHODS FOR THE LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI
Analyte
CDD/CDF
Particulates
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Beryllium
Antimony
Barium
Silver
Thallium
SO2
02/C02
CO
NOX
THC
HC1
HC1
HBr
HF
Method
EPA Proposed Method 23 with GC/MS
Method 8290
EPA/EMSL Multimetals Train
EPA Instrument Methods 6C
3A
10
7E
25 A/ 18
NDIR CEM Analyzer
EPA Draft Method 26
EPA Draft Method 26
EPA Draft Method 26
Microorganisms in Emissions
Microorganisms in Pipe Test
and Direct Ash Test
Opacity
Loss On Ignition
Carbon
EPA Draft Method "Microbial
Survivability Tests for MWI Emissions"
EPA Draft Method "Microbial
Survivability Tests for MWI Ash"
EPA Method 9
Standard Methods of Water &
Wastes 209G
ASTM D 3178-84
JBS219
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. SAMPLING TIMES, MINIMUM SAMPLING VOLUMES AND DETECTION
LIMITS FOR THE LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI TESTS
Sampling Sampling Minimum
Train Time Sample Volume
(hours) (dscf)
CDD/CDF 4a 120
PM/Metals 4a 120
HCl/HBr/HF 1.0 120 liters6
Microorganisms 3.2 30
Analyte
CDD/CDF
PM
As
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Be
Ba
Sb
Ag
Tl
cr
Br
F
Indicator
sporesd
Detection Limit
Flue Gas
0.3 ng/dscm
0.006 gr/dscf
0.3 g/dscm
0.6 g/dscm
1.6 g/dscm
0.2 g/dscm
25 g/dscm
1.6 g/dscm
0.3 g/dscm
0.2 g/dscm
3.3 g/dscm
0.71 g/dscm
4.2 g/dscm
28 g/dscm
32 g/dscm
100 g/dscm
30 viable spores0
dscm
Analytical
0.01 ng
50-100mge
0.002 g/ml
0.006 g/ml
0.015 g/ml
0.002 g/ml
0.25 g/ml
0.015 g/ml
0.0003 g/ml
0.002 g/ml
0.032 g/ml
0.007 g/ml
0.040 g/ml
0.11 g/ml
0.127 g/ml
0.40° g/ml
1 viable spores
aliquot
a An average sampling rate of 0.5 ft3/min was used to calculate sampling time.
b An average sampling rate of 2 liters/min was used to calculate the sample volume.
c Detection limit based on 100 ml aliquot. Method is still under development. Actual limit may vary.
d The indicator spore will be Bacillus stearothermophilus. (only 1 1)
e Based on average detection limits for tetra-octa CDD/CDF congeners.
JBS219
-------
Water Cooled
ProbeSheath _ ^
Stack
WaU
Temperature /
Semor
Gooseneck
Nozzle
Temperature Sensor
.Fitter Holder
SType not Tube
Temperature Sensor
XAO-2Trap
Temperature Sensor
Heat Traced
Quartz Probe
Uner
Redrculation
Pump
Water Knockout 100ml HPLC Water Empty Silica Gel
Impinger ^ (300 grams)
Vacuum
Gauge
Dry Gas
Mater
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-1. CDD/CDF Sampling Train Configuration
-------
5.1.2 CDD/CDF Equipment Preparation
In addition to the standard EPA Method 5 requirements, the CDD/CDF
sampling method includes several unique preparation steps which ensure that the
sampling train components are not contaminated with organics that may interfere with
analysis. The glassware, glass fiber filters and absorbing resin are cleaned and the filters
and resin are checked for residuals before they are packed.
5.1.2.1 Glassware Preparation. Glassware is cleaned as shown in Table 5-3.
Glassware is washed in soapy water, rinsed with distilled water, baked and then rinsed
with acetone followed by methylene chloride. Clean glassware is allowed to dry under a
hood loosely covered with foil to prevent laboratory contamination. Once the glassware
is dry, the exposed ends are sealed with methylene chloride rinsed aluminum foil. All
the glass components of the sampling train, including the glass nozzles, plus any sample
bottles, flasks, petri dishes, graduated cylinders and pipets that are used during sampling
and recovery will be cleaned according to this procedure. Non-glass components (such
as the Teflon®-coated filter screens and seals, tweezers, Teflon® squeeze bottles, nylon
probe brushes and nylon nozzle brushes) are cleaned following the same procedure
except that no baking is performed.
This cleaning procedure deviates from the EPA proposed method; however,
Radian feels that the use of chromic acid solution may cause analytical interferences with
the compounds of interest.
5.1.2.2 XAD-II* Resin and Filters Preparation. XAD-II* absorbing resin and
glass fiber filters are pre-cleaned by separate procedures according to the specified
method. Only pesticide grade solvents and HPLC grade water are used to prepare for
organic sampling, and to recover these samples. The lot number, manufacturer and
grade of each reagent used is recorded in the laboratory notebook.
To prepare the filters, a batch of 50 is placed in a soxhlet pre-cleaned by
extraction with toluene. The soxhlet is charged with fresh toluene and reflexs for
16 hours. After the extraction, the toluene is analyzed as described in Sections 5.2 and
5.3 of the reference method for the presence of Tetrachloro Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (TCDD)
or Tetrachloro Dibenzofurans (TCDF). If these analytes are found, the filters are
re-extracted until no TCDD or TCDF is detected. The filters are then dried completely
JBS219
-------
TABLE 5-3. CDD/CDF GLASSWARE CLEANING PROCEDURE
(Train Components, Sample Containers and
Laboratory Glassware)
NOTE: USE VTTON® GLOVES AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION WHEN
RINSING WITH SOLVENTS
1. Soak all glassware in hot soapy water (Alconox®).
2. Tap water rinse to remove soap.
3. Distilled/deionized H2O rinse (X3).a
4. Bake at 450°F for 2 hours.b
5. Acetone rinse (X3), (pesticide grade).
6. Methylene chloride (X3), (pesticide grade)
7. Cap glassware with clean glass plugs or methylene
chloride rinsed aluminum foil.
8. Mark cleaned glassware with color-coded identification
sticker.
9. Glassware is rinsed immediately before using with
acetone and methylene chloride (laboratory proof).
* (X3) = three times.
Step (4) has been added to the cleanup procedure to replace the dichromate
soak specified in the reference method. Radian has demonstrated in the past
that it sufficiently removes organic artifacts. It is not used for probe liners and
non-glass components of the train that cannot withstand 450°F (i.e.,
teflon-coated filter screen and seals, tweezers, teflon squeeze bottles, nylon
probe and nozzle brushes).
JBS160
5-6
-------
under a clean Nitrogen (N2) stream. Each filter is individually checked for holes, tears,
creases or discoloration, and if found, is discarded. Acceptable filters are stored in a
pre-cleaned petri dish, labeled by date of analyses and sealed with Teflon® tape.
To prepare the absorbing resin, the XAD-II* resin is cleaned in the following
sequential order:
• Rinse with HPLC grade water, discard water;
• Soak in HPLC grade water overnight, discard water;
• Extract in soxhlet with HPLC grade water for 8 hours, discard water;
• Extract with methanol for 22 hours, discard solvent;
• Extract with methylene chloride for 22 hours, discard solvent;
• Extract with methylene chloride for 22 hours, retain an aliquot of solvent
for gas chromatography analysis of TCDDs and TCDFs; and
• Dry resin under a clean N2 stream.
Once the resin is completely dry, it is checked for the presence of methylene
chloride, TCDDs and TCDFs as described in Section 3.1.2.3.1 of the reference method.
If TCDDs or TCDFs are found, the resin is re-extracted. If methylene chloride is found,
the resin is dried until the excess solvent is removed. The absorbent is to be used within
four weeks of cleaning.
The cleaned XAD-II* resin is spiked with five CDD/CDF internal standards.
Due to the special handling considerations required for the CDD/CDF internal
standards, the spiking is performed by Triangle Laboratories. For convenience and to
minimize contamination, Triangle Laboratories also performs the resin and filter cleanup
procedures and loads the resin into the glass traps.
5.1.2.3 CDD/CDF Method 5 Equipment Preparation. The remaining
preparation includes calibration and leak checking of all sampling train equipment. This
includes: meterboxes, thermocouples, nozzles, pilot tubes, and umbilicals. Referenced
calibration procedures are followed when available. The results are properly
documented in a laboratory notebook, or project file and retained. The data forms used
are included in Appendix B. If a referenced calibration technique for a particular piece
JBS219
-------
of apparatus is not available, then a state-of-the-art technique is used. A discussion of
the techniques used to calibrate this equipment is presented in Section 7.2.7.
5.1.3 CDD/CDF Sampling Operations
5.1.3.1 Preliminary Measurements. Prior to sampling, preliminary measurements
are required to ensure isokinetic sampling. These include determining the traverse point
locations, performing a preliminary velocity traverse, cyclonic flow check and moisture
determination. These measurements are used to calculate a "K factor." The K factor is
used to determine an isokinetic sampling rate from stack gas flow readings taken during
sampling.
Measurements are then made of the duct inside diameter, port nozzle length, and
the distances to the nearest upstream and downstream flow disturbances. These
measurements are then used to determine sampling point locations by following EPA
Reference Method 1 guidelines. The distances are then marked on the sampling probe
using an indelible marker.
5.1.3.2 Assembling the Train. Assembly of the CDD/CDF sampling train
components is completed in the recovery trailer and final train assembly is performed at
the stack location. First, the empty, clean impingers are assembled and laid out in the
proper order in the recovery trailer. Each ground glass joint is carefully inspected for
hairline cracks. The first impinger is a knockout impinger which has a short tip. The
purpose of this impinger is to collect condensate which forms in the coil and XAD-II*
resin trap. The next two impingers are modified tip impingers which each contain
100 ml of HPLC grade water. The fourth impinger is empty, and the fifth impinger
contains 200 to 300 grams of blue indicating silica gel. After the impingers are loaded,
each impinger is weighed, the initial weight and contents of each impinger is recorded on
a recovery data sheet. The impingers are connected together using clean glass U-tube
connectors and arranged in the impinger bucket as shown in Figure 5-2. The height of
all the impingers are approximately the same to obtain a leak free seal. The open ends
of the train are sealed with methylene chloride-rinsed aluminum foil, or clean ground
glass caps.
The second step is to load the filter into the filter holder in the recovery trailer.
The filter holder is then capped off and placed with the resin trap and condenser coil
JBS219
5-8
-------
Siid«s for Attaching
to H««ttd BOK
I
\
lmping«r Bucktt
Slid« for Attaching
Rgurt 5-2. Implnger Configuration for CDO/CDF Sampling
5-9
-------
(capped) into the impinger bucket. A supply of pre-cleaned foil and socket joints are
also placed in the bucket in a clean plastic bag for the convenience of the samplers.
Sealing greases are not used to avoid contamination of the sample. The train
components are transferred to the sampling location and assembled as previously shown
in Figure 5-1.
5.1.3.3 Sampling Procedures. After the train is assembled, the heaters are turned
on for the probe liner and heated filter box and the sorbent module/condensor coil
recirculating pump is turned on. When the system reaches the appropriate temperatures,
the sampling train is ready for pre-test leakchecking. The temperature of the sorbent
module resin must not exceed 50°C (120°F) at any time and during testing it must not
exceed 20°C (68°F). The filter skin temperature is maintained at 120 ± 14°F (248
±25°F). The probe temperature is maintained above 100°C (212°F).
The sampling trains are leak checked at the start and finish of sampling.
(Method 5/23 protocol only requires post-test leak checks and recommends pre-test leak
checks.) Radian protocol also incorporates leak checks before and after every port
change. An acceptable pre-test leak rate is less than 0.02 acfm (ft3/min) at
approximately 15 inches of mercury ("Hg). If, during testing, a piece of glassware needs
to be emptied or replaced, a leak check is performed before the glassware piece is
removed, and after the train is re-assembled.
To leak check the assembled train, the nozzle end is capped off and a vacuum of
15 inches Hg is pulled in the system. When the system is evacuated, the volume of gas
flowing through the system is timed for 60 seconds. After the leak rate is determined,
the cap is slowly removed from the nozzle end until the vacuum drops off, and then the
pump is turned off. If the leak rate requirement is not met, the train is systematically
checked by first capping the train at the filter, at the first impinger, etc., until the leak is
located and corrected.
After a successful pre-test leak check has been conducted, all train components
are at their specified temperatures, and initial data is recorded (DGM reading), the test
can be initiated. Sampling train data are recorded periodically on standard data forms.
A checklist for CDD/CDF sampling is included in Table 5-4. A sampling operation that
is unique to CDD/CDF sampling is that the gas temperature entering the resin trap
JBS219
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST
Before test starts:
1. Check impinger set to verify the correct order, orientation and number of
impingers. Verify probe markings, and remark if necessary.
2. Check that you have all the correct pieces of glassware. Have a spare probe
liner, probe sheath, meter box and filter ready to go at location.
3. Check for data sheets and barometric pressure.
4. Bag sampling equipment for CO2/O2 needs to be ready except when using CEMs
for CO2/O2 determinations.
5. Examine meter box - level it, zero the manometers and comfirm that the pump is
operational.
6. Verify the filter is loaded correctly and as tight as possible; place filter in line
with the train and leak check at 15 inches Hg.
7. Add probe to train.
8. Check thermocouples - make sure they are reading correctly.
9. Conduct pitot leak check, recheck manometer zero.
10. Do final leak check; record leak rate and vacuum on sampling log.
11. Turn on variacs and check to see that the heat is increasing.
12. Check that cooling water is flowing and on. Add ice to impinger buckets.
13. Check isokinetic K-factor - make sure it is correct. (Refer to previous results
to confirm assumptions). (Two people should calculate this independently to
double check it.)
During Test:
1. Notify crew chief of any sampling problems ASAP. Train operator should
fill in sampling log and document any abnormalities.
2. Perform simultaneous/concurrent testing with other locations
(if applicable). Maintain filter temperature between 248°F ±25°F. Keep
temperature as steady as possible. Maintain the resin trap and impinger
temperatures below 68°F. Maintain probe temperature above 212°F.
JBS160
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
3. Leak check between ports and record on data sheet. Leak check if the test is
stopped to change silica gel, to decant condensate, or to change filters.
4. Record sampling times, rate, and location for the fixed gas bag sampling (CO,
CO2, C-2), if applicable.
5. Blow back pilot tubes periodically is expected mositure entrapment.
6. Change filter if vacuum suddenly increases or exceeds 15 inches Hg.
7. Check impinger solutions every 1/2 hour; if the knockout impinger is approaching
full, stop test and empty it into a pre-weighed bottle and replace it in the train.
8. Check impinger silica gel every 1/2 hour; if indicator color begins to fade, request
a prefilled, preweighed impinger from the recovery trailer.
9. Check the ice in the impinger bucket frequently. If the stack gas temperatures
are high, the ice will melt at the bottom rapidly. Maintain condenser coil and
silica gel impinger gas temperatures below 68°F.
After test is completed:
1. Record final meter reading.
2. Do final leak check of sampling train at maximum vacuum during test.
3. Do final pitot leak check.
4. Check completeness of data sheet. Verify the impinger bucket identification is
recorded on the data sheets. Note any abnormal conditions.
5. Leak check function (level, zero, etc.) of pitot tubes and inpsect for tip damage.
6. Disassemble train, cap sections, and take each section and all data sheets down to
recovery trailer.
7. Probe recovery (use 950 ml bottles)
a) Bring probes into recovery trailer (or other enclosed area).
b) Wipe the exterior of the probe to remove any loose material that could
contaminate the sample.
JBS160 5"12
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
c) Carefully remove the nozzle/probe liner and cap it off with prerinsed
aluminum foil.
d) For acetone rinses (all trains)
- Attach precleaned cyclone flask to probe to catch rinses
- Wet all sides of probe interior with acetone
- While holding the probe in an inclined position, put precleaned probe
brush down into probe and brush it in and out
- Rinse the brush, while in the probe, with acetone
- Do this at least 3 times until all the paniculate has been recovered.
- Recover acetone into a preweighed, prelabeled sample container
e) Follow the procedure outlined in (d) using methylene chloride. Recover the
solvent into the same acetone recovery bottle.
f) Follow the procedure outlined in (d) using toluene. Recover this solvent into
a separate preweighed prelabelled sample container.
7. Cap both ends of nozzle/probe liner for the next day, and store in dry safe place.
8. Make sure data sheets are completely filled out, legible, and give them to the
Crew Chief.
JBS160
-------
must be below 68°F. The gas is cooled by a water jacket condenser through which ice
water is circulated.
The leak rates and sampling start and stop times are recorded on the sampling
task log. Also, any other events that occur during sampling are recorded on the task log
such as sorbent module heat excursions, pitot cleaning, thermocouple malfunctions,
heater malfunctions or any other unusual occurrences.
If the probe liner breaks while the DGM is not running (i.e., during port changes
or after the run is completed), the probe liner is replaced, the run is completed, and
sample recovery done on both the broken sections of the glass liner and the replacement
liner. If the break occurs while the DGM is running and the exact time of the break is
noted, the test is stopped so that the probe liner can be replaced. The run is then
completed and sample recovery done on all liner sections. If the recovered sample
appears unusual, the sample is discarded and an additional run is performed later. If the
recovered sample appears normal, the run is tentatively acceptable.
At the conclusion of the test run, the sample pump (or flow) is turned off, the
probe is removed from the duct, a final DGM reading is taken, and a post-test leak
check is completed. The procedure is identical to the pre-test procedure, however, the
vacuum should be at least one inch Hg higher than the highest vacuum attained during
sampling. An acceptable leak rate is less than 4 percent of the average sample rate or
0.02 acfm (whichever is lower). If a final leak rate does not meet the acceptable
criterion, the test run may still be accepted upon approval of the test administrator. If
so, the measured leak rate is reduced by subtracting the allowable leak rate from it and
then multiplied for the period of time in which the leak .occurred. This "leaked volume"
is then subtracted from the measured gas volume in order to determine the final gas
sample volume.
5.1.4 CDD/CDF Sample Recovery
To facilitate transfer from the sampling location to the recovery trailer, the
sampling train is disassembled into the following sections: the probe liner, filter holder,
filter to condenser glassware, condenser sorbent module, and the impingers in their
bucket. Each of these sections is capped with methylene chloride rinsed aluminum foil
or ground glass caps before removal to the recovery trailer. Once in the trailer, field
JBS219
5-14
-------
recovery follows the scheme shown in Figure 5-3. The samples are recovered and stored
in cleaned amber glass bottles to prevent light degradation.
The solvents used for train recovery are all pesticide grade. The use of the
highest grade reagents for train recovery is essential to prevent the introduction of
chemical impurities which interfere with the quantitative analytical determinations.
Field recovery results in the sample components listed in Table 5-5. The sorbent
module is stored in coolers on ice at all times. The samples are shipped to the analytical
laboratory by truck accompanied by written information designating target analyses.
5.1.5 CDD/CDF Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedure used to obtain CDD/CDF concentrations from a single
flue gas sample is by high resolution gas chromatography (HRGC) and high resolution
mass spectrometry (HRMS) (resolution from 8000-10000 m/e). The target CDD/CDF
congeners are listed in Table 5-6. The analyses are performed by Triangle Laboratories,
Inc., by Method 8290X.
The flue gas samples are analyzed in two fractions according to the scheme in
Figure 5-4. One fraction is the total train methylene chloride and acetone rinses, filter(s)
and sorbent module, the other fraction is comprised of the toluene rinse of applicable
portions of the sampling train. For the CDD/CDF analysis, isotopically-labeled
surrogate compounds and internal standards are added to the samples before the
extraction process is initiated. The internal standards and surrogates that are used are
described in detail in EPA Method 23.
Data from the mass spectrometer are recorded and stored on a computer file as
well as printed on paper. Results such as amount detected, detection limit, retention
time, and internal standard and surrogate standard recoveries are calculated by
computer. The chromatograms are retained by the analytical laboratory and also
included in the analytical report delivered to Radian Corporation.
5.1.5.1 Preparation of Samples for Extraction. Upon receiving the sample
shipment, the samples are checked against the Chain-of-Custody forms and then assigned
an analytical laboratory sample number. Each sample component is reweighed to
determine if leakage occurred during travel. Color, appearance, and other particulars of
the samples are noted. Samples are extracted within 21 days of collection.
JBS219
-------
Probe Monte Probe Uner
Cyclone
*
Front He*
BackHaU
of Rftor
FUarSupport Houelng
RtoawNh
Acetone
UnNaf
to Removed
Attach Brush and Brush and
ZSOmLRask rinaewNh rtoae-a*i
toBal Joint
i
Rhino wtth
Acetone
Ernpty Flask
MoeOmL
RhaewMh
Line
i I
ntnso wtth Rbm wtth
Condenser
I
Hkeewtth
oeton
04
Rhsr
I
Carefully
remove rer
fromaupport
RaalnTrap 1(^SS!SStf Zndlmplnger Srdlmplngar 4thknplnger
Secure XAD
BruahUner
andRkne
w«n3
Check Unar
to See If
PMKcutato
la Removed.
K Not Repaet
Rknawtti
SAIcuob
-cfiSr -ttser -c^fir-c^0
(3x) (3>0
*4 — —
t botoend
HInaowtth Hnsewtth Rlnaewtth Brush toooo damp*
nielhylana mathytone mettiylene parttculAto
chkxtde chtarkto chloride ontoMar Placah
(3i) m (3x) cooler tof
(atteietonce (atteaafonce
Mttwrinae tot the rinse SaaJIn
•tandSmlnulaa stand5mkutae peMdWi
In unit) kiunlQ
I
Weigh
hangar
I
Record
walght
and
I
Weigh
ImpJSer
I
Record
and
gam
Weigh
Implnger
Record
weight
«i
calculate
gam
I
Weigh
Record
weight
and
Weigh
knplngar
Record
•ar
gain
I 1 I I I
Dtocard
CNacard
Obcard
CNacard
Save
tor
leneratton
SM
Recover Into
Rkwa
wNh
Toluene
Rkwa
Hkiee
«Mh
Tokjen*
Rkva
wflh
Toluene
Note: See Table 5-5 for Sample Fractions Identification
Toluene
(atkMMtonoe Rhae (at toast once
Mtherinae wHh letlhertnee
atwdSmtnuav Tokiana Hand S mkiuaw
kiunM) (3^ InunN)
| POT/CUT
Figure 5-3. PCB/CDD/CDF/TCO Field Recovery Scheme
-------
TABLE 5-5. CDD/CDF SAMPLE FRACTIONS SHIPPED
TO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Container/ Code Fraction
Component
1 F Filter(s)
2 PRa Acetone and methylene chloride rinses of
nozzle/probe, cyclone, front half/back half
filter holder, filter support, connecting
glassware, condensor
3 PRT* Toluene rinse of nozzle/probe, cyclone, front
CRT* half/back half filter holder, filter support,
connecting line and condensor
4 SM XAD-II® resin trap (sorbent module)
a Rinses include acetone and methylene chloride recovered into the same sample bottle.
b Rinses of toluene recovered into separate sample bottle (sometimes toluene probe
rinse (PRT) and coil rinse (CRT) are recovered separately).
JBS219
-------
TABLE 5-6. CDD/CDF CONGENERS ANALYZED
DIOXINS:
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 pentachlorinated 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 dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD)
FURANS:
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)
l',2,3,4,7,8,9 heptachlorodibenzofuran (l',2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
c 18
JBS219 J~io
-------
Silica Gel Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Eluate to 1 mL
with N2
Basic Aluminum Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Eluate to
0.5 ml with N,
FK-21 Carbon/Celite 545
Column Chromatogaphy
Cleanup; Concentrate
Eluate 1.0 mL in
Rotary Evaporator
Concentrate Eluate to
200 ml. with N 2
Store in Freezer
Analyze with DB-5
Capillary column; if
TCDF is Found, Continue
Analyze with DB-5
Capillary column; if
TCDF is Found, Continue
Analyze with
SP2331
Column
Analyze with
SP2331
Column
Quantify Results
According to
Section 5.3.2.6
of Reference Method
Quantify Results
According to
Section 5.3.2.6
of Reference Method
Figure 5-4. Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples
5-19
-------
5.1.5.2 Calibration of GC/MS System. A five-point calibration of the GC/MS
system is performed to demonstrate instrument linearity over the concentration range of
interest. Relative response factors are calculated for each congener or compound of
interest. The response factors are verified on a daily basis using a continuing calibration
standard consisting of a mid-level mixed isomer standard. The instrument performance
is acceptable only if the measured response factors for the labeled and unlabeled
compounds and the ion-abundance ratios are within the allowable limits specified in the
method (52200, 52201 FR 891220).
5.1.6 CDD/CDF Analytical Quality Control
All quality control procedures specified in the test method are followed. Blanks
are used to determine analytical contamination, calibration standards are used for
instrument calibration and linearity checks, internal standards are used to determine
isomer recoveries and adjust response factors for matrix effects, surrogate standards are
used to measure the collection efficiency of the sampling methodology and an alternate
standard is used as a column efficiency check.
5.1.6.1 CDD/CDF Quality Control Blanks. Three different types of sample
blanks are collected for CDD/CDF analysis. The type of blanks that are required are
shown in Table 5-7.
Reagent blanks of 1000 ml of each reagent used at the test site are saved for
potential analysis. Each reagent blank is of the same lot as was used during the
sampling program. Each lot number and reagent grade is recorded on the field blank
label and in the laboratory notebook.
A glassware blank (proof blank) is recovered from each set of sample train
glassware that is used to collect the organic samples. The precleaned glassware, which
consists of a probe liner, filter holder, condenser coil, and impinger set, is loaded as if
for sampling and then quantitatively recovered exactly as the samples will be. Analysis
of the generated fractions will be used to check the effectiveness of the glassware
cleaning procedure only if sample analysis indicates a potential contamination problem.
A field blank is collected from a set of CDD/CDF glassware that has been used
to collect at least one sample and has, been recovered. The train is re-loaded and left at
a sampling location during a test run. The train is then recovered. The purpose of the
JBS219
5-20
-------
TABLE 5-7. CDD/CDF BLANKS COLLECTED
Blank
Collection
Analysis
Field Blanks
Glassware Proof
Blank
Method Blank
Reagent Blanks
One run collected and
analyzed for each sampling
location.
Each train to be used (2)
will be loaded and
quantitatively recovered
prior to sampling
At least one for each
analytical batch
One 1000 ml sample for each
reagent and lot.
Analyze with flue
gas samples.
Archive for potential
analysis
Analyze with each
analytical batch of flue
gas samples
Archive for potential
analysis.
JBS160
5-21
-------
field blank is to measure the level of contamination that occurs from handling, loading,
recovering, and transporting the sampling train. The field blanks are analyzed with the
flue gas samples. If they are unsatisfactory in terms of contamination, reagent blanks
may be analyzed to determine the specific source of contamination.
To verify the flue gas sample was quantitatively recovered, toluene rinses are also
analyzed separately from the other fractions. These results are not incorporated into the
final emission values, however, they will be used as QA/QC indicators.
In addition to the three types of blanks that are required for the sampling
program, the analytical laboratory will analyze a method blank with each set of flue gas
samples. This will consist of prepping and analyzing reagent water by the exact
procedure used for the samples analysis. The purpose of this is to verify that there is no
laboratory contamination of the field samples.
5.1.6.2 Quality Control Standards and Duplicates. Recoveries of the internal
standards must be between 40 to 130 percent for the tetra- through hexachlorinated
compounds and the range is 25 to 130 percent for the hepta- and octachlorinated
homologues. If these requirements are not met, the data will be acceptable if the signal
to noise ratio is greater than or equal to ten. If these requirements are met, the results
for the native (sampled) species are adjusted according to the internal standard
recoveries.
Surrogate standard recoveries must be between 70 to 130 percent. If the
recoveries of all standards are less than 70 percent, the project director will be notified
immediately to determine if the surrogate results will be used to adjust the results of the
native species.
Duplicate analyses are performed for every ten samples. The purpose of this is to
evaluate the precision of the combined sample preparation and analytical methodology.
A summary of the acceptance, criteria, control limits, and corrective action for the
procedures described in this section is shown in Table 7-1.
5.2 PARTICULATE MATTER AND METALS EMISSIONS TESTING
METHOD
Sampling for Paniculate Matter (PM) and metals is performed according to an
EPA Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) draft protocol entitled "Methodology for the
Determination of Metals Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Incineration Processes." The
JBS219
5-22
-------
protocol is presented in Appendix A. This method is applicable for the determination of
participates and Pb, Ni, Zn, P, Cr, Cu, Mn, Se, Be, Tl, Ag, Sb, Ba, Cd, As, and Hg
emissions from various types of incinerators. Analyses of the Lenoir Memorial Hospital
MWI test samples will be performed for As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Ag, Ba, Be, and Tl.
PM emissions are also determined from this sampling train. Paniculate
concentrations are based on the weight gain of the filter and the front half acetone rinses
(probe, nozzle, and filter holder). After the gravimetric analyses have been completed,
the sample fractions are then analyzed for the target metals as discussed in Section 5.2.5.
5.2.1 PM/Metals Sampling Equipment
The methodology uses the sampling train shown in Figure 5-5. The 5-impinger
train consists of a quartz nozzle/probe liner followed by a heated filter assembly with a
Teflon® filter support, a series of impingers and the usual EPA Method 5 meterbox and
vacuum pump. The sample is not exposed to any metal surfaces in this train. The
contents of the sequential impingers are: two impingers with a 5 percent nitric acid
(HNO3)/10 percent hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) solution, two impingers with a 4 percent
potassium permanganate (KMnO4)/10 percent sulfuric acid (H2SO4) solution, and an
impinger containing silica gel. An optional empty knockout impinger may be added if
the moisture content of the flue gas is high. The second impinger containing
HNO3/H2O2 shall be of the Greenburg-Smith design; the other impingers shall have
straight tubes. The impingers are connected together with clean glass U-tube connectors
and are arranged in an impinger bucket as shown in Figure 5-6. Sampling train
components are recovered and analyzed in separate front and back half fractions
according to the described method.
5.2.2 PM/Metals Sampling Equipment Preparation
5.2.2.1 Glassware Preparation. Glassware is washed in hot soapy water, rinsed
with tap water (3X) and then rinsed with deionized distilled water (3X). The glassware
is then subjected to the following series of soaks and rinses:
• Soak in a 10 percent nitric acid solution for a minimum of 4 hours;
• Rinse with deionized distilled water rinse (3X); and
• Rinse with acetone rinse.
5-
JBS219 J
-------
Temperature y
Temperature Sensor
Temperature Sensor
Gooseneck
Nozzle
Implngers with Absorbing Solution
Stack
WaU Heat Traced
&S. Probe
S-Type Pilot Tube
Empty (Optional Knockout)
Temperature
n»v Sensors *
5%HNQ/10%H£02 Empty 4% KMnq/10% H£O4 Silica Gel
(Optional Knockout)
tee Bath
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-5. Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train
i
-------
Slide* for Attaching
to Heated Box
Impinger Bucket
Slid* for Attaching Gooseneck
Figure 5-6. Impinger Configuration for PM/Metals Sampling
(optional knock out impinger not shown)
5-25
-------
The cleaned glassware is allowed to air dry in a sterile environment. The ends
are then covered with parafilm. All glass components of the sampling train plus any
sample bottles, pipets, Erlenmeyer flasks, petri dishes, graduated cylinders, and other
laboratory glassware used during sample preparation, recovery and analysis are cleaned
according to this procedure.
5.2.2.2 Reagent Preparation. The sample train filters are Pallflex
Tissuequartz 2500QAS filters. The acids and hydrogen peroxide are Baker
"Instra-analyzed" grade or equivalent. The peroxide is purchased specifically for this test
site and is kept cold until it is opened.
The reagent water is Baker "Analyzed HPLC" grade or equivalent. The lot
number, manufacturer and grade of each reagent that is used is recorded in the
laboratory notebook.
The HNO3/H2O2 absorbing solution and the acidic KMnO4 absorbing solution is
prepared fresh daily according to Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the reference method. The
analyst wears both safety glasses and protective gloves when the reagents are mixed and
handled. Each reagent has its own designated transfer and dilution glassware. This
glassware is marked for identification with a felt tip glass marking pen and used only for
the reagent for which it is designated.
The analyst may save time preparing the acidic KMnO4 solution each day by
observing the following procedure, beginning at least one day before the reagent is
needed.
• Quantitatively remove 400 ml from a 4 liter bottle of Baker "Analyzed
HPLC" water. Label this bottle 4.4 percent KMnO4 in water.
• Quantitatively add 160 g of potassium permanganate crystals to the bottle;
stir with a Teflon® stirring bar and stirring plate as thoroughly as possible.
This reagent will be stored on the counter in a plastic tub at all times.
• Each morning the acidic reagent is needed, decant 900 ml of KMnO4
solution into a 1000 ml volumetric flask. Carefully add 100 ml of
concentrated H2SO4 and mix. This reagent is volatile and must be mixed
cautiously. Hold the flask cap on the flask, mix once, vent quickly.
Complete the mixing slowly until the mixture is homogenous. Allow the
solution to cool and bring the final volume to 1000 ml with H2O.
JBS219
5-26
-------
• Carefully filter this reagent through Waltman 541 filter paper into another
volumetric flask or 2 liter amber bottle. Label this bottle 4 percent acidic
KMnO4 absorbing solution. Vent the top and store the reagent in a plastic
tub at all times.
5.2.2.3 Equipment Preparation. The remaining preparation includes calibration
and leak checking of all train equipment as specified in EPA Method 5. This equipment
includes the probe nozzles, pitot tubes, metering system, probe heater, temperature
gauges, leakcheck metering system, and barometer. A laboratory field notebook is
maintained to record these calibration values.
5.2.3 PM/Metals Sampling Operations
The sampling operations used for PM/Metals testing are virtually the same as
those for the CDD/CDF tests as discussed in Section 5.1.2. The only differences are
that there is no condenser coil so coil temperatures are not recorded and glass caps,
Teflon® tape, or parafilm is used to seal off the sample train components rather than
foil. Detailed instructions for assembling the metals sampling train are found beginning
on page 14 of the reference method.
5.2.4 PM/Metals Sample Recovery
Begin recovery procedures as soon as the probe is removed from the stack and
the post-test leak check is completed.
To facilitate transfer from the sampling location to the recovery trailer, the
sampling train is disassembled into three sections: the nozzle/probe liner, filter holder,
and impingers in their bucket. Each of these sections is capped with Teflon® tape or
parafilm before removal to the recovery trailer.
Once in the trailers, the sampling train is recovered as separate front and back
half fractions. A diagram illustrating front half and back half sample recovery
procedures is shown in Figure 5-7. No equipment with exposed metal surfaces is used in
the sample recovery procedures. The weight gain in each of the impingers is recorded to
determine the moisture content in the flue gas. Following weighing of the impingers, the
front half of the train is recovered, which includes the filter and all sample-exposed
surfaces forward of the filter. The probe liner is rinsed with acetone by tilting and
rotating the probe while squirting acetone into Jts upper end so that all inside surfaces
are wetted. The acetone will be quantitatively collected into the appropriate bottle.
JBS219
-------
1st Implnger
2nd & 3rd
Probe Uner
and Nozzle
Front Half of
Filter Housing
Rinse with
Acetone Into
Tared Container
Brush Uner
with NonmetalUc
Brush and Rinse
with Acetone
at Least
3 Times
Brush with
NonmetalUc
Brush and
Rinse with
Acetone Into
Tared Container
&
Check Uner
to see V
Particulate
Removed: If
not Repeat
Step Above
Filter
Carefully
Remove Fiber
from Support with
Teflon Coated
Tweezers and
Place In PetrlDteh
Brush Loose
Particulate
Onto Filter
Filter Support
and Back Half
of Fitter
Housing
Rinse Three
Times with
0.1 N
Nitric Acid
Into Tared
Container
SealPetrt
Dtehwtth
Tape
Recover
Into Sample
Container
Rinse Three
Times with
0.1 N
Nitric add into
Tared Container
Rinse Three
Times with
0.1 N
Nttric add Into
Tared Container
I
I
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Volume
I
APR
(3)
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Volume
I
PR
(2)
Weigh
to Calculate
Rinse Amount
I
Measure
Implnger
Contents
I
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
I
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Container
Rinse Three
Times with
0.1 N
Nitric Acid
I
Recover Into
Sample
Container
I
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Amount
Measure
Implnger
Contents
I
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
I
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Container
Rinse Three
Times with
0.1 N
Nitric Acid
I
Recover Into
Sample
Container
I
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Amount
4th 4 5th
Implngere
(Acidified
(KMnOJ
Measure
Implnger
Contents
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
I
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Container
Rinse Three
Times with 100mL
Permanganate
Reagent
I
Recover Into
Sample
Container
I
Remove any
Residue with 5u mL
aNHdsoTn
I
Weigh to Calculate
Sample and
Rinses Volume
Last Implnger
Weigh (of
Moisture
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
I
Discard
F
(1)
HN
W
KM
(5)
SO
(6)
Figure 5-7. Metals Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
This rinse is followed by additional brush/rinse procedures using a non-metallic brush;
the probe is held in an inclined position and acetone is squirted into the upper end as
the brush is pushed through with a twisting action. All of the acetone and paniculate
will be caught in the sample container. This procedure is repeated until no visible
paniculate remains and finished with a final acetone rinse of the probe and brush. The
front half of the filter is also rinsed with acetone until all visible paniculate is removed.
After all front half acetone washes are collected, the cap is tightened, the liquid level
marked and the bottle weighed to determine the acetone rinse volume. The method
specifies a total of 100 ml of acetone may be used for rinsing these components.
However, Radian feels that a thorough rinse requires more reagent. An acetone reagent
blank of approximately the same volume as the acetone rinses are analyzed with the
samples.
The nozzle/probe liner, and front half of the filter holder is rinsed three times
with 0.1N HNO3 and placed into a separate amber bottle. Cap tightly, record the weight
of the combined rinse and mark the liquid level. The filter is placed in a clean,
well-marked glass petri dish and sealed with Teflon® tape.
Prior to recovering the back half impingers, the contents are weighed for moisture
control determinations. Any unusual appearance of the filter or impinger contents are
noted. Pictures may be taken to further document any abnormality.
The contents in the knockout impinger (if used) is recovered into a preweighed,
prelabeled bottle with the contents from the HNO3/H2O2 impingers. These impingers
and connecting glassware are rinsed thoroughly with 0.1N HNO3, the rinse is captured in
the impinger contents bottle, and a final weight is taken. Again, the method specifies a
total of 100 ml of 0.1N HNO3 be used to rinse these components. A nitric acid reagent
blank of approximately the same volume as the rinse volume is analyzed with the
samples.
The impingers that contain the acidified potassium permanganate solution are
poured together into a preweighed, prelabeled bottle. The impingers and connecting
glassware are rinsed with at least 100 ml of the acidified KMnO4 solution (from the same
batch used for sampling) a minimum of three times. Rinses are added to the sample
recovery bottle. A final 50 ml 8N HCL rinse is conducted and placed into the sample
5-29
JBS219 J ^
-------
recovery bottle. A final weight is recorded and the liquid level is marked on the bottle.
The bottle cap is loosley tightened to allow venting.
After final washing, the silica gel from the train is saved in a bag for regeneration
after the job has been completed. The ground glass fittings on the silica gel impinger
are wiped off after sample recovery to assure a leak tight fit for the next test.
A reagent blank is recovered in the field for each of the following reagents:
• Acetone blank - 100 ml sample size;
• 0.1N nitric acid blank - 1000 ml sample size;
• 5 percent nitric acid/10 percent hydrogen peroxide blank - 200 ml sample
size;
• Acidified potassium permanganate blank - 1000 ml sample size; this blank
should have a vented cap;
• 8N hydrochloric acid blank - 50 ml sample size;
• Dilution water; and
• Filter blank - one each.
Each reagent blank is of the same lot as was used during the sampling program. Each
lot number and reagent grade is recorded on the field blank label.
The liquid level of each sample container is marked on the bottle in order to
determine if any sample loss occurred during shipment. If sample loss has occurred, the
sample may be voided or a method may be used to incorporate a correction factor to
scale the final results depending on the volume of the loss.
Approximate detection limits for the various metals of interest are summarized in
Table 5-8.
5.2.5 Particulate Analysis
The same general gravimetric procedure described in Method 5, Section 4.3 is
followed. Both filters and precleaned beakers are weighed to a constant weight before
use in the field. The same balance used for taring is used for weighing the samples.
JBS219
5-30
-------
TABLE 5.8 APPROXIMATE DETECTION LIMITS FOR METALS
OF INTEREST USING EMB DRAFT METHOD
Instack Method
Detection Limits
Metal
Chromium
Cadmium
Arsenicd
Leadd
Mercury
Nickel
Barium
Beryllium
Silver
Antimony
Thallium
Method3
ICAP
ICAP
GFAAS
GFAAS
CVAAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
Analytical
Detection
Limits
( g/ml)
0.007
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.0002
0.015
0.002
0.0003
0.007
0.032
0.040
Front Half
(300ml
sample
size)
( g/m3)
1.7
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.05
3.6
0.5
0.07
1.7
7.7
9.6
Back Half
(150ml
sample
sizeV
( gM3)
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.03C
1.8
0.3
0.04
0.9
3.8
4.8
a ICAP = Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma
GFAAS = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
CVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
b These detection limits are based on a stack gas sample volume of 1.25 m3. If 5 m3 are
collected, the instack method detection limits are 1/4 of the values indicated.
c The detection limit for mercury is the same in the HNO3/H2O2 fraction as it is in the
KMnO4 fraction.
d If Fe and Al are present, samples will be diluted which may raise analytical detection
limits.
5-31
JBS219
-------
The acetone rinses are evaporated under a clear hood at 70°F in a tared beaker.
The filter is also desiccated under the same conditions to a constant weight. Weight gain
is reported to the nearest 0.1 mg. Each replicate weighing must agree to within 0.5 mg
or 1 percent of total weight less tare weight, whichever is greater, between two
consecutive weighings that are at least 6 hours apart.
5.2.6 Metals Analytical Procedures
A diagram illustrating the sample preparation and analytical procedure for the
target metals is shown in Figure 5-8.
The front half fractions basically are digested with concentrated nitric acid and
hydrofluoric (HF) acid in either a microwave pressure vessel or a Parr® bomb. The
microwave digestion takes place over a period of approximately 10 to 12 minutes in
intervals of 1 to 2 minutes at 600 watts; the Parr® bomb digestion is for 6 hours at 140°C
(285°F). Both the digested filter and the digested probe rinses are combined to yield the
front half sample fraction. The fraction is diluted to a specified volume with water and
divided for analysis by applicable instrumentation.
The absorbing solutions from the HNO3/H2O2 impingers are combined. An
aliquot is removed for the analysis of mercury by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy (CVAAS) and the remainder is acidified and reduced to near dryness. The
sample is then digested in either a microwave or by conventional digestion, with
50 percent HNO3 and 3 percent H2O2. After the fraction has cooled, it is filtered and
diluted to a specified volume with water.
Each sample fraction is analyzed by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma
Spectroscopy (ICAP) using EPA Method 200.7. All target metals except mercury, iron
and aluminum, are quantified. If iron and aluminum are present, the sample are diluted
to reduce their interferences on arsenic and lead. If arsenic or lead levels are less than
2 ppm, Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (GFAAS) is used to analyze
for these elements by EPA Methods 7060 and 7421. Matrix modifiers such as specific
buffering agents may be added to these aliquots to react with and tie up interfering
agents. The total volume of the absorbing solutions and rinses for the various fractions
are measured and recorded in the field notebook.
JBS219
5-32
-------
Containers
Add Probe Rinse
(Labeled APR)
Container 2
Acetone Probe Rinse
(Labeled PR)
Reduce to OryneM
In a Tared Beaker
Determine Residue
Wetght In Beaker
SohjbUbe Residue
wNh Cone. HMO,
Acidify to pH2
wfthConc.
Reduce Volume to
Near Dry nees and
Digest (Mm HF and
ConaHNO,
L
FMer and DHule
to Known Volume
Fraction 1
Container 1
Filter
(Labeled F)
Desiccate to
Constant Weight
Determine Filter
Partteutate Weight
Divide Into 0.5 g
Sections and Digest
Each Section wtth
Cone. HF and HNQ,
Remove SO to 100 mL
Aliquot for Hg
Analysis by CWAS
Fraction 1B
Container 4
Containers
(Include condensate
Impinger, tf used)
Permanganate Implngera
(labeled KM)
Aliquot Taken
Taken for CVAAS
for Hg Analysis
Fraction 2B
Digest with Add
and permanganate
at95*Cfor2h
and Analyze
forHgbyCWAS
Digest with Add and
Permanganate at 95*C In
a Water Bath for 2 h
Analyze by (CAP for
Target Metato
Fraction 1A
Analyze for
Metals by QFASS
Fraction 1A
Analyze AliqiK
Hg Using CU
luotfor
'AAS
Acidify
Remaining
Sample to pH
of2wHh
Cone. HNCb
Fraction 2A
Reduce Volume
to Near
Dry ness and
Dtoestwtth
Analyze by
(CAP for 15
Target Metals
Digest with Add
and permanganate
at95*Cfor2h
and Analyze
for Hg by CVAAS
Fractkx>3
ft
Figure 5-8. Metals Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme
-------
To prepare for mercury analysis by CVAAS, an aliquot from the KMnO4
impingers, HNO3/H2O2 impingers, filter digestion, and front half rinses are digested with
acidic reagents at 95°C in capped BOD bottles for approximately 3 hours.
Hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution and stannous chloride is added immediately
before analysis. Cold vapor AAS analysis for mercury follows the procedure outlined in
EPA Method 7470 or in Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analysis.
Method 303F.
5.2.7 Quality Control for Metals Analytical Procedures
All quality control procedures specified in the test method are followed. All field
reagent blanks are processed, digested and analyzed as specified in the test method. To
ensure optimum sensitivity in measurements, the concentrations of target metals in the
solutions are at least 10 times the analytical detection limits.
5.2.7.1 ICAP Standards and Quality Control Samples. The quality control
procedures include running two standards for instrument checks (or frequency of
10 percent), two calibration blank runs (or frequency of 10 percent), one interference
check sample at the beginning of the analysis (must be within 10 percent or analyze by
standard addition), one quality control sample to check the accuracy of the calibration
standards (must be within 10 percent of calibration), one duplicate analysis and one
standard addition for every 10 samples (must be within 5 percent of average or repeat all
analysis).
Standards less than 1 //g/ml of a metal are prepared daily; those with
concentrations greater than this are made weekly or bi-monthly.
5.2.7.2 Graphite Furnace Standards and Quality Control Samples. Standards
used for GFAAS analysis must be matrix matched with the samples analyzed and the
matrix modifiers that were added. Standards less than 1 //g/ml of a metal are prepared
daily; those with concentrations greater than this are made weekly or bi-monthly. A
JBS219
5-34
-------
minimum of five standards make the standard curve. Quality control samples are
prepared from a separate 10 ^g/ml standard by diluting it into the range of the samples.
All samples are analyzed in duplicate. A matrix spike on one front half sample
and one back half sample for each 10 field samples is analyzed. If recoveries of less
than 75 percent or greater than 120 percent are obtained for the matrix spike, each
sample is analyzed by the method of additions. One quality control sample will be
analyzed to check the accuracy of the calibration standards. The results must be within
10 percent or the calibration will be repeated.
5.2.7.3 Mercury Standards and Quality Control. An intermediate mercury
standard is prepared weekly; working standards are prepared daily. The calibration
curve is made with at least six points. Quality Control samples are prepared from a
separate 10 /^g/ml standard by diluting it into the range of the samples.
A quality control sample must agree within 10 percent of the calibration, or the
calibration will be repeated. A matrix spike on one of every 10 samples from the
HNO3/H2O2 back half sample fraction must be within 20 percent or the samples will be
analyzed by the method of standard addition.
5.3 MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY TESTING
The Lenoir Memorial Hospital Medical Waste Incinerator was loaded with waste
inoculated with indicator spores in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the incinerator
by measuring the ability of microbes to survive the incineration process. This evaluation
should directly reflect the microbial destruction efficiency for that incinerator. The first
test method is aimed at determining microbial survivability in the combustion gases and
the ash. This method involves inoculating a known quantity of spores in solution onto
materials normally found in the medical waste stream (i.e., petri dishes, gauze, etc.)
Direct ash sampling and flue gas testing are conducted in order to determine the
destruction efficiency. Test procedures follow guidelines set forth by the EPA draft
methods located in Appendix K.3 and K.4 of the test plan.
The second test method utilizes spore samples encased in insulated iron pipes
which are charged to the incinerator with the waste stream. These tests are aimed at
comparing this method with the direct ash sampling method and should provide a
general assessment of microbial survivability. However, the pipe method cannot
JBS219
-------
determine destruction efficiency because it cannot measure the actual number of spores
surviving in flue gases and the ash. Three sets of samples (two different diameters) are
periodically charged into the incinerator through out the test day. Following the test, the
viability of the indicator spores in each sample is checked to assess the destruction
efficiency of spores that remain in the pipe. Testing procedures used here follow an
EPA draft method entitled "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator
Ash." (See Appendix K.4). The following sections detail both spiking procedures
(emissions/ash and pipe) as well as the flue gas sampling and analytical techniques.
5.3.1 Spiking Procedure for Emissions and Ash Microbial Loading
In addition to the pipe samples, a second series of waste materials inoculated with
indicator spores are charged into the incinerator. A known quantity of
B. stearothermophilus spores are inoculated onto or in materials normally found in the
medical waste stream such as petri dishes, test tubes, gauze, etc. The waste is loaded
into the incinerator to coincide with the emission tests conducted at the incinerator
outlet. Direct ash samples are collected after the ash has cooled sufficiently.
5.3.1.1 Equipment. A "wet spore" culture solution is prepared by the University
of Alabama. The culture inoculum is divided between the nine sampling runs as shown
in Figure 5-9. The spore solution is prepared as a frozen slurry in 1-liter amounts.
Inoculation quantities are approximately 600 to 700 mis. The culture inoculum is added
to various materials using sterile syringes or other implements as required.
5.3.1.2 Spiking Preparation and Procedure. The spiked waste sample is prepared
so that about 1 to 2 x 1012 spores are charged into the incinerator per sample run (the
quantity of the bag is recorded). The total charge is separated into four bag. Each bag
of spiked waste is loaded into the ram feeder at equal time intervals over the course of
the emissions test run. For the proposed 4-hour test, spiked bags are loaded at sampling
times of 0,1,2,3, hours from the start of testing.
JBS219
5-36
-------
Fermentation
Batch 1
i i
Runl Run 2 Ron 3
Fractioaa a a
FkacOMb b b
Fractkac c c
FnctiMd d d
Fermentation
Batch 2
i i
Run 4 Run 5 Run 6
a a
b b
c c
d d
a
b
c
d
Fermentation
Batch 3
i i
Run 7 Run 8 Run 9
a a
b b
c «
d d
a
b
c
d
Fraction e c e — if required to get 1 X 10 spores —
Notes: Each fraction will be loaded into the incinerator at equally spaced
intervals over the duration of the test run during normal charge periods.
At least twelve fractions or doses per test condition. Additional fractions
will be added from Batch 4 (fraction e) if necessary to achieve 1 X to"
spores per run.
Figure 5-9. Indicator Spore Spiking Scheme for Combustion Gas
Destruction Efficiency Testing (Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI)
-------
5.3.2 Indicator Spore Flue Gas Sampling
Flue gas is extracted from the incinerator stack during the bum cycle to determine
spore emissions. The testing procedure follows the previously mentioned, draft EPA
method (see Appendix K.3). Flue gas samples are collected isokinetically in a buffered
solution in impingers (no filter). The recovered samples are divided into different
volume aliquots. These samples are filtered, cultured, and colonies are enumerated.
The following sections describe the flue gas sampling techniques to be used.
5.3.2.1 Equipment. A schematic of the spore sampling train is shown in
Figure 5-10. Flue gas samples are extracted isokinetically through a quartz nozzle/probe
system housed in a water-cooled sheath. A smaller tube is located inside the sampling
probe to deliver a buffered solution at the nozzle end of the probe. This allows the gas
sample stream to be immediately buffered preventing acid condensate from killing viable
spores. From the probe, the sample stream is delivered to a series of chilled impingers.
The first two contain 200 ml and 100 ml, respectively, of phosphate buffered solution to
collect indicator spores. The third impinger serves as a knock-out (empty) and the
fourth contains silica gel. The remainder of the sampling train is identical to a Method 5
system. (Meter box containing pump, meter, velocity and sampling pressure
manometers, etc.)
A Peristaltic pump is used to deliver the buffer solution to the probe tip. The
pump is capable of accurately metering a 10 to 20 ml/minute flow rate.
5.3.2.2 Sampling Preparation. All equipment used for sampling and sample
recovery, which come into contact with the sample, is hydrogen peroxide/alcohol
disinfected and washed before each run. The nozzle/probe liner, impingers, impinger
connections, and the nozzle/probe brush are first washed using the same procedure as
discussed in Section 5.3.4.2. Following washing, all components are disinfected with
hydrogen peroxide/alcohol. After completing this procedure, all components are sealed
with Parafilm® to prevent contamination. Additional sample containers, recovery items,
and analytical equipment is sterilized by autoclaving or another equivalent method.
Some of the items which will need to be sterilized are wash bottles, two liter glass
JBS219
5-38
-------
Quartz-Glass
Prate Unw/
Button Hook Noxzl*
1/8- Telfon Line
(Reaching lo leai ol
button hook nozzle)
Tampwatur*
SMIMM
T«mp«ralui«
Sansor Thwmonwlw
of 2.0 M
Phosphal*
Buffer
RevefteTypa
100 ml
2.0 M
Phosphate
Buller
20M
Phosphal*
BulUi
Figure 5-10.
36I8 2/90
Sampling Train for Determination of Indicatpr
Spore Emissions
-------
sample storage bottles, incubation tubes, petri dishes, filter units, reagent water (sterile
deionized), and buffering reagent.
The train is assembled by first antiseptically adding the buffer solution to the first
two impingers. Silica gel is added to the fourth impinger and the impinger train is
connected to the meter box via an umbilical line. A pre-test leak check on the impinger
train is completed at approximately 15 inches Hg. Leakage rates in excess of 4 percent
of the average sampling rate or 0.02 cfm, whichever is less, are unacceptable.
5.3.2.3 Flue Gas Sampling. Before inserting the probe into the stack, the nozzle
cap is removed and alignment of the nozzle and pitot tube are checked. The probe
cooling water flow is started and adjusted. The buffering system pump is then started
making sure that the probe is slightly inclined so that the buffer solution drains into the
first impinger. The probe is inserted into the duct and located at the first sampling
traverse point. Isokinetic sampling commences in accordance with Method 5 guidelines.
All sampling parameters (AP, gas meter readings, stack temperature, meter temperatures,
meter AH, meter vacuum, first impinger temperature, and silica gel impinger
temperature) will be periodically monitored, adjusted, and recorded throughout the test
run.
Two different trains will be used. When the first traverse is completed, the
second traverse will immediately start with the second train.
After completion of the test run, the probe is removed from the stack and the
flow of buffering solution turned off. The final meter reading is recorded and the
sample train is leak checked. Post-test leak checks are completed at a vacuum equal to
or greater than the maximum vacuum reached during the sampling run. Acceptable
post-test leak check criterion is the same as was previously mentioned for the pre-test
leak checks.
5.3.2.4 Sample Recovery. Sample recovery procedures are summarized in
Figure 5-11. After the probe has cooled, the probe cooling water is turned off. The
nozzle tip is inspected for port scrapings or any external matter near the tip and removed
if found. (However, a glass nozzle will break when scraped against the port nipple so
the presence of port scrapings, etc., are highly unlikely.) The probe is disconnected from
JBS219
5-40
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
Rinse and
brush using
buffer into
sterile
container
1st lapinger
(200 ml of
buffer)
Empty contents
into sterile
container
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
2nd lapinger
(100 ml of
buffer)
Empty contents
into sterile
container
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
lapinger
(E«pty)
Silica
Gel
Eapty contents
into sterile
container
Weigh
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
Discard
Liquid Saaple
Figure 5-11. Sample Recovery Scheme for Microbial Viability Testing
-------
the impinger train and the probe buffer delivery tube are rinsed and brushed with sterile
buffer solution. All rinses are collected in a sterile sample bottle.
The impingers are weighed and the contents are antiseptically transferred to the
sample bottle containing the nozzle/probe rinsings. The pH of the sample is adjusted if
necessary to 6.0 to 7.5 with 1.0 N NaOH. The level of liquid in the sample bottle is
marked to determine later if leakage occurred during transport. The bottle is then
packed in ice so that sample temperatures are maintained at or below 4°C, for shipment
to the laboratory.
5.3.3 Direct Ash Sampling for Indicator Spores
Direct ash sampling provides an indication of the ability of the indicator organism
to survive the incinerator process under various conditions. An outline of the proposed
ash sampling protocol can be found in Appendix K. Ash samples are recovered from the
ash when it has cooled sufficiently. Ash samples are taken using a sampling thief.
During each sampling run, three samples are taken. Two are transported to the
laboratory for culture and identification and the third sample is used to determine the
pH of the material.
5.3.3.1 Equipment. Ash samples are taken using a precleaned sample thief and
placed in sample containers for transport to the laboratory. These samples are stored on
ice. The pH of the ash is determined by adding a known amount of deionized water to a
weighed aliquot of ash and measuring the pH by specific ion electrode.
5.3.4 Pipe Spiking Procedures
The waste is charged into the incinerator with known quantities of
B. stearothermophilus contained in insulated pipes. Upon recovery, the samples are
cultured according to the Draft Method found in Appendix K.4 of the test plan.
Colonies of B. stearothermophilus are enumerated and gram stained to ensure correct
cellular morphology.
5.3.4.1 Spiking Equipment. A diagram of the pipe sample assembly used for the
pipe test is shown in Figure 5-12. The indicator organisms are freeze-dried spores
(lyophilized) that were prepared by American Type Culture Collection in Rockville,
Maryland. A small amount of lyophilized material equalling approximately 10s spores is
prepared and placed in a small glass vial. The contents of one vial was emptied into a
JBS219
5-42
-------
Inner Container
(Containing Spores)
Vermlcullte
Outer Container Cap
Two sizes will be used:
2" diameter x 6" long and 11/2" diameter x long
Figure 5-12. Ash Quality Pipe Assemblies
-------
sterilized pipe to constitute a single pipe sample. Each pipe sample uses the contents of
1 spore vial.
After the vial contents were placed in a short piece (2-4 inch) of 3/8 stainless
steel tubing, both ends were capped with Swagelock™ caps. This "inner container" is then
placed in an "outer container" which is a 2 inch diameter steel pipe nipple about 4 to
6 inches long. Each outer container is identified with a unique identification number for
tracking of feed time and location. Enough vermiculite or other thermal insulation
surrounds the inner container to maintain its position in the center of the outer container
and to protect it from thermal shock. Both ends of the outer container are capped.
5.3.4.2 Spiking Preparation. The inner container and caps are cleaned and
disinfected before use. This procedure consists of soaking the containers for at least one
hour in 1.0 N HNO3, washing with laboratory detergent, rinsing 3 times with tap water,
3 times with sterilized deionized water, and finally, rinsing with 90 percent alcohol.
The spiked sample is prepared by placing a known amount of spores (targeted at
105) inside the inner container and then sealing with end caps. The inner container is
placed in the outer container with enough vermiculite to position it in the center.
Additional vermiculite is added and tapped down gently. Finally, the outer container is
sealed by securing the other end cap.
5.3.4.3 Spiking Procedure. The incinerator spiking procedure varied according to
the loading procedure. The Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI is ram-loading,
continuous-burning incinerator, which operates from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
each day. A single pipe spike is charged to the incinerator at the beginning, middle, and
end of each day's operation. The first pipe is fed in the first load of the day at about
7:00 a.m. The second pipe is added to a load approximately at noon. The last pipe is
added with the last load of the day (about 3:00 p.m.). The exact times for charging the
spikes are coordinated with hospital personnel.
The pipe sample is placed in the charging hopper at random locations that
correspond to where the MWI bags are placed in the hopper.
5.3.4.4 Sample Recovery. The pipes are recovered from the incinerator following
a cool down period each morning. The ash cleanout door is opened at about 7:00 a.m.,
and the ignition chamber allowed to cool until about 7:30 a.m. During this period, the
JBS219
5-44
-------
location of the samples on the grate is recorded to the extent possible. The samples are
recovered and the hot ashes removed from the ignition chamber. Ash samples are also
taken during this time as discussed in Section 5.3. Excess debris is removed from the
outer container and each pipe is placed in a plastic bag. The pipe samples are
maintained at or below 4°C in an ice cooler with care to protect them from
contamination from melting ice.
5.3.5 Microbial Analysis
The quantity of viable spores are determined from the pipe samples, flue gas
samples and the direct ash samples. Sample preparation for the three sample types is
discussed below.
5.3.5.1 Pipe Sample and Ash Analytical Preparation Procedure. The sample
preparation and analysis scheme for the pipe and ash samples are presented in
Figures 5-13a and 5-13b. The analysis is performed within 96 hours after sample
recovery. The contents of the inner container of the pipe and the direct ash samples are
transferred to a sterile incubation tube. The inside of the sample containers are rinsed
with sterile phosphate buffer solution into the incubation tube. Any glassware used for
this transfer procedure is rinsed with sterile deionized water into the incubation tubes.
The direct ash samples are mixed and aseptically added to 100 mis of sterile deionized
water before further processing.
5.3.5.2 Flue Gas Sample Analytical Preparation Procedure. The sample
preparation and analysis scheme is presented in Figures 5-13c. The level of each sample
is checked to determine if leakage during shipment occurred. Each sample contains
approximately 1.5 to 2.0 liters of sample. The sample is then aliquoted and prepared as
shown in Figure 5-13a. Three 10 ml aliquots, three 100 ml aliquots, and three equal
volume of the remaining solution is prepared. The aliquots are placed in sterile
incubation tubes, filtered and placed onto agar plates as discussed in the following
sections.
5.3.5.3 Colonial Enumeration and Identification Procedure. Trypticase soy agar
is used for culturing B. stearothermophilus. Each sample is then filtered through a
separate vacuum filter unit employing a sterile cellulose nitrate filter (0.2 /*m). The
incubation tube is rinsed with sterile deionized water and poured through the filter as
JBS219 ^
-------
1 screened liter ash
sample mixed well
-*> Measure pH on-site
Make 3 aliquots by adding
1 g ash to 100 ml
buffer solution
Ash 10 g ash to 20 ml sterile
deionized water. Allow ash
to settle
Serial dilutions
Vacuum filter each serial dilution
through separate sterile cellulose nitrate
filter (0.2pm)
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubate plates at 658C for 48 hours
Calibrate pH meter and measure
pH of liquid portion of sample
Samples which read TNTC
are then serial diluted
Perform plate counts
Confirm indicator organism using gram stain,
colonial morphology and appropriate
biochemical tests as needed
Determine ratio of colonies to the total
volume of ash in drum and adjust to find
total number of spores remaining viable
through incinerator cycle
Figure 5-13a. Sample and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing of Ash Samples
5-46
-------
Recovered inner
container
Transfer contents
to a incubator tube
Rinse inner tube
with sterile phosphate
Buffer into the
Incubator tube
Vacuum filter through separate sterile
Nalgene®cellulose nitrate 0.2 /un
filter unit
I
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
I
Incubator plates at 65°C for 48 hours
Enumeratic colonies of B. stearotbennophilus
on filters
Figure 5-13b. Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Microbial Viability Tests
5-47
-------
Recovered
liquid sample
r
3 10-ml aliquots
3 100-ml aliquots
3 equal aliquots
of remaining sample
Vacuum filter through seprate sterile
Nalgene® cellulose nitrate 0.2 ^m
filter unit
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubator plates at 65°C for 48 hours
Enumeratic colonies of B. stearothermophilus
on filters
Figure 5-13c. Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing
5-48
-------
well. Each filter is removed from the filtering unit using sterile forceps and placed face
up on an agar plate. The plates are incubated in plastic bags at 65°C for 48 hours prior
to final colonial enumeration. The plates are removed from the incubator and colonies
of B. stearothermophilus are quantified. A variety of tests including a gram stain and
biochemicals may be used to confirm that the colonies are B. stearothermophilus.
5.3.5.4 Indicator Spore Analytical Quality Control. Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) procedures followed during spore enumeration and verification
procedures (analysis) are documented in Table 5-9. An aliquot from one batch of the
wet spore spiking slurry is sent to Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to verify the
manufacturer's count.
Field blanks from a flue gas (impinger) sample as well as a non-charged pipe
sample, are analyzed to check for contamination during preparation or recovery
procedures. Duplicates are analyzed for impinger samples from two test runs.
A blank ash sample will be collected prior to the test program to check for the
presence of indicator spores prior to any spiking.
5.4 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE/HYDROGEN BROMIDE/HYDROGEN
FLUORIDE EMISSIONS TESTING BY EPA METHOD 26
Hydrogen Chloride (HC1), Hydrogen Bromide (HBr), and Hyrdogen Fluoride
(HF) sampling is accomplished using a single sampling train. The procedure follows the
EPA Method 26 draft protocol entitled "The Determination of HC1 Emissions from
Municipal and Hazardous Waste Incinerators." In this method, an integrated gas sample
is extracted from the stack and passed through acidified water. In acidified water, HC1
solubilizes and forms Chloride (Cl~) ions. Ion chromatography (1C) is used to detect the
Cl" ions present in the sample. For this test program, the presence of Bromide (Br~) and
Fluoride (F) ions will also be detected by 1C. The method is included in Appendix A.
5.4.1 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Equipment
A diagram of the HCl/HBr/HF sampling train is shown in Figure 5-14. The
sampling train consists of a quartz probe with a pallflex Teflon/glass filter to remove
paniculate matter, and a series of chilled midget impingers and a DGM system. Because
the high temperatures of the stack and the shortness of the sampling probe keep sample
gas in the probe above the acid dewpbint, the probe will not be heated. The train
5-49
JBS219 J y
-------
TABLE 5-9. INDICATOR SPORE TESTING QA/QC CHECKS
Sample Type
Number
QA/QC Check
Wet Spores
Verify manufacturer's wet spore count
by sending an aliquot from one slurry to
RTI for count.
Field Blank -
Impinger Sample
Prepare train through leakcheck, run
buffer solution for 2 hours, collect 1
field blank sample
Field Blank -
Pipe Sample
Fully prepare pipe sample without
placing spore charge inside to check
for handling contamination
Duplicates -
Impinger Sample
Complete duplicate analyses on 2
impinger samples from 2 test runs
Field Duplicates
Pipe Samples
Load duplicate pipe samples on 3
separate occasions into incinerator and
analyze
Pre-Test Ash
Blank
Collect ash samples using the test
procedures prior to any spiking of
indicator spores
JBS219
5-50
-------
HCICEM
Extraction Pip*
Stack Wall
Themxxoup*
Exhaust
NOx.3Q.CQ,
O,, THC. CO
C*1/QC
GMM
Heat Trace
Unheated Gas Lines
Signal Wire
FIGURE 5-14. HCI SAMPLE TRAIN CONFIGURATION
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
5-51
-------
consists of an optional knockout impinger followed by two impingers containing 0.1 N
H2SO4 to collect HC1, HBr and HF, two impingers containing 0.1 N NaOH to capture
any pollutants present in the flue gas that might cause DGM damage, and finally one
silica gel impinger.
5.4.2 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Preparation
5.4.2.1 Equipment Preparation. Sampling preparation includes calibration and
leak checking of all train equipment. This includes meterboxes, thermocouples, and
umbilicals. Referenced calibration procedures are followed when available, and the
results properly documented and retained. If a referenced calibration technique for a
particular piece of apparatus is not available, then a state-of-the-art technique is used.
5.4.2.2 Assembling the Train. Assembly of the sampling train is done both in the
recovery trailer and at the stack location. First, the empty clean impingers are
assembled and laid out in the proper order. The optimal knockout impinger is not being
used for testing at this facility. The first two impingers contain 15 to 20 ml 0.1 N H2SO4
each, followed by two impingers filled with 15 to 20 ml each of 0.1 N NaOH, and finally
an impinger containing 20 to 30 grams of silica gel. When the impingers are loaded,
they may be wrapped with Teflon® tape to secure the two sections of the impinger. The
impingers are connected together using U-tube connectors and arranged in the impinger
bucket. The height of all the impingers should be approximately thesame to easily
obtain a leak free seal. The open ends of the train are sealed with aluminum foil.
5.4.3 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Operations
Prior to sampling, the HCl/HBr/HF train is leak checked as required by
Method 26 protocol. The leak checking procedure is the same as that discussed in
Section 5.1. The leak rate, sampling start and stop times, and any other events are be
recorded on the sampling task log. Upon completion of a sampling run, repeat the leak
check procedure. Sampling train data are recorded every five minutes, and include
readings of the DGM, DGM temperature, flow rate meter, and vacuum gauge.
JBS219
5-52
-------
5.4.4 HCl/HBr/HF Sample Recovery
The impingers are disconnected from the probe and filter and moved to the
recovery trailer. Once in the trailer, the contents of the two acidified impingers are
quantitatively recovered with deionized distilled water and placed into a clean sample
bottle. The sample bottle should be sealed, mixed, labeled and the fluid level marked.
The contents of the second set of impingers (containing the 0.1 N NaOH) are discarded
for every triplicate series except for one. These will be archived for possible future
analyses. The sample recovery scheme is shown in Figure 5-15.
5.4.5 HCl/HBr/HF Analytical Procedures
Before analysis, the samples are checked against the chain-of-custody forms and
then given an analytical laboratory sample number. Then, each sample is examined to
determine if any leakage occurred and any color or other particulars of the samples are
noted.
The Ion Chromatographic (1C) conditions are described by the type of analytical
column and whether suppressed or nonsuppressed 1C is used. Prior to sample analysis, a
stable baseline is established and water samples are injected until no Cl", Br, or F
appears in the chromatogram. Then, the 1C is calibrated using standards spanning the
appropriate concentration range, starting with the lowest concentration standard. Next, a
QC check sample is injected in duplicate, followed by a water blank and the field
samples. The calibration standards are re-injected at the end of the analysis to allow
compensation for any drift in the instrument response during analysis of the field
samples. The Cl", Br", and F sample concentrations are calculated from either the
respective ion peak area or peak height and the calibration curve.
5.4.6 HCl/HBr/HF Analytical Quality Control
The 1C is calibrated with a minimum of three concentrations, not including zero.
A correlation coefficient of greater than or equal to 0.995 must be achieved to have an
acceptable calibration. At least 10 percent of the total number of samples are analyzed
in duplicate. Ion concentrations in the duplicates must agree to within ± 20 percent.
5-53
-------
Probe Uner
and Nozzle
1st Implnger
ra?j%
2nd Implnger
3rd Implnger
(~20mTNaOH)
4th Implnger
(~20mTNaOH)
Silica Gal
Do Not Rinse
or Brush
Empty Contents
Into 100ml
Volumetric Flask
Make Up
Volume to 100ml
using 01
Transfer to Sample
Container
Liquid Sample
Empty Contents
Into Sample
Containers once
Run Conditioner
Rinse 3x
InDI
Archive for
Possible Analysis
Inspect for Indicator
Color Change
Replenish
if Necessary
(discard used
portions)
Ul
Figrue 5-15. HCI/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
5.5 EPA METHODS 1-4
5.5.1 Traverse Point Location Bv EPA Method 1
The number and location of sampling traverse points necessary for isokinetic and
flow sampling will be dictated by EPA Method 1 protocol. These parameters are based
upon how much duct distance separates the sampling ports from the closest downstream
and upstream flow disturbances. The minimum number of traverse points for a circular
duct less than 24 inches is 4 (8 total sample points). Several sets of perpendicular
sampling ports are established in the incinerator outlet. Traverse point locations are
determined for each port depending on the distances to duct disturbances (see
Section 4).
5.5.2 Volumetric Flow Rate Determination by EPA Method 2
Volumetric flow rate is measured according to EPA Method 2. A Type K
thermocouple and S-type pitot tube are used to measure flue gas temperature and
velocity, respectively. All of the isokinetically sampled methods that are used
incorporate Method 2 (CDD/CDF, PM/Metals, Microorganisms).
5.5.2.1 Sampling and Equipment Preparation. For EPA Method 2, the pitot
tubes are calibrated before use following the directions in the method. Also, the pilots
are leak checked before and after each run.
5.5.2.2 Sampling Operations. The parameters that are measured include the
pressure drop across the pitots, stack temperature, stack static and ambient pressure.
These parameters are measured at each traverse point, as applicable. A computer
program is used to calculate the average velocity during the sampling period.
5.5.3 O. and CO2 Concentrations bv EPA Method 3A
The O2 and CO2 concentrations are determined by CEMs following EPA
Method 3A Rue gas is extracted from the duct and delivered to the CEM system
through heated Teflon® tubing. The sample stream is then conditioned (particulate and
moisture removed) and is directed to the analyzers. The O2 and CO2 concentrations are,
therefore, determined on a dry basis. Average concentrations are calculated to coincide
with each respective time period of interest. More information on the CEM system will
be given in Section 5.6.
JBS219
-------
5.5.4 Average Moisture Determination by EPA Method 4
The average flue gas moisture content is determined according to EPA Method 4.
Before sampling, the initial weight of the impingers is recorded. When sampling is
completed, the final weights of the impingers are recorded, and the weight gain is
calculated. The weight gain and the volume of gas sampled are used to calculate the
average moisture content (percent) of the flue gas. The calculations are performed by
computer. Method 4 is incorporated in the techniques used for all of the manual
sampling methods that are used during the test.
5.6 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING (CEM) METHODS
EPA Methods 3A, 7E, 6C, and 10 are continuous monitoring methods for
measuring CO2, O2, NO^ SO2, and CO concentrations. Total hydrocarbons are analyzed
by EPA Method 25A Flue gas HC1 concentrations are also monitored using CEM
procedures using state-of-the-art equipment and procedures. A diagram of the CEM
system is shown in Figure 5-16.
Two extractive systems are used to obtain flue gas samples for the CEM systems.
One system is for HC1 monitoring and the other system is for all other CEMs. For the
main CEM extraction system, samples are withdrawn continuously at a single point from
the incinerator outlet duct and transferred to the CEM trailer through heat-traced
Teflon® line. The flue gas is conditioned (temperature lowered and moisture removed)
before the flue gas stream is split using a manifold to the various analyzers.
Hydrocarbon measurements are made on a wet basis; therefore, its sample stream
bypasses the gas conditioner.
5.6.1 CEM Sampling Equipment
5.6.1.1 Sample Probes. The main CEM probe consists of a black iron pipe
mounted to a Swagelok® reducing union which is attached directly to the heat trace
tubing. The probe is placed approximately at a point of average velocity in the stack
determined by a prior velocity traverse.
5-6.1.2 Heated Lines. Heated sample lines are used to transfer the flue gas
samples to the instrument trailer for O2, CO2, NO^ SO2, CO, and THC analyses. These
lines are heated in order to prevent condensation. Condensate could clog sample lines
or provide a medium for the flue gas sample to react and change composition.
JBS219
5-56
-------
A
Stack
Wall
Heat Traced
Sample Train Using Midget Implngers
Thermometer
\
Probe (end packed with
\
Glass Wool
Orifice
FIGURE 5-16. SCHEMATIC OF CEM SYSTEM
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
oc
n
-------
All heat trace lines contain three 3/8 inch Teflon® tubes. One tube carries the
sample, one tube is used for calibration and QC gases, and the other is available as a
backup. These gases can then be directed up to the sampling probe and through the
entire sampling/conditioning system.
5.6.1.3 Gas Conditioning. Exemplar PEL 3 and PEL 4-Special gas conditioners
are used to reduce the moisture content of the flue gas. The Exemplar systems use
thermoelectric cooling plates to lower the temperature of the gas and condense any
moisture in the sample. Condensate is immediately removed from the sample path by a
dried sample slipstream that blows across the plates, greatly reducing the potential for
sample bias. Additionally, the systems operate under positive pressure eliminating the
possibility of a leak. The gas conditioner may be located in the CEM trailer or at the
sampling location depending on site conditions.
5.6.1.4 HC1 CEM Sample System. HC1 flue gas concentrations are monitored
using a CEM analyzer as well as by manual test runs. The HC1 CEM sampling system
uses a GMD Model 797 dilution probe. This probe cannot be used at the expected flue
gas temperature ranges (approximately 1600-1900°F). Therefore, a slip-stream of flue
gas is extracted from the stack and allowed to cool to approximately 400 to 500°F as it
passes through a length of smaller pipe (i.e., 1 inch ID). The dilution probe is placed in
a sampling well in the slipstream pipe for HC1 CEM gas extraction. A thermocouple is
located adjacent to the probe to monitor gas temperatures (see Figure 5-16). A nominal
dilution ratio of 200:1 is used.
5.6.2 CEM Principles of Operation
5.6.2.1 SO2 Analysis. The Western 721A SO2 analyzer is essentially a continuous
spectrophotometer in the ultraviolet range. SO2 selectively absorbs ultraviolet (UV) light
at a wavelength of 202.5 nm. To take advantage of this property of SO2, the analyzer
emits UV light at 202.5 nm and measures the absorbance (A) of the radiation through
the sample cell by the decrease in intensity. Beer's law, A = abc, is used to convert the
absorbance into SO2 concentration (A = absorbance, a = absorbitivity, b = path length,
c = concentration). SO2 measurements are performed using EPA Method 6C.
5.6.2.2 NOX Analysis. The principle of operation of this instrument is a
chemiluminescent reaction in which ozone (O3) reacts with nitric oxide (NO) to form
JBS219
5-58
-------
oxygen (O2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). During this reaction, a photon is emitted which
is detected by a photomultiplier tube. The instrument is capable of analyzing total
oxides of nitrogen (NO + NO2) by thermally converting NO2 to NO in a separate
reaction chamber prior to the photomultiplier tube, if desired. NOX measurements are
performed using EPA Method 7E.
5.6.2.3 O3 Analysis. Oxygen analysis is completed using one of the instruments
discussed below.
The Thermox WDG III measures oxygen using an electrochemical cell. Porous
platinum electrodes are attached to the inside and outside of the cell which provide the
instrument voltage response. Zirconium oxide contained in the cell conducts electrons
when it is hot due to the mobility of O2 ions in its crystal structure. A difference in O2
concentration between the sample side of the cell and the reference (outside) side of the
cell produces a voltage. This response voltage is proportional to the logarithm of the
oxygen concentration ratio. A linearizer circuit board is used to make the response
linear. Reference gas is ambient air at 20.9 percent O2 by volume.
The Beckman 755 O2 analyzer uses electron paramagnetic resonance to detect O2
molecules. Unlike most substances, O2 has a triplet electron ground state which leaves
one electron unpaired, making it a paramagnetic molecule. This electron may have one
of two spin quantum states (nij. = ± 1/2). By applying an alternating electromagnetic
field of the proper frequency, the Beckman 755 O2 analyzer induces resonance between
the two spin quantum states. In effect, the O2 analyzer measures the electromagnetic
energy absorbed by O2 molecules at the resonant frequency. Oxygen measurements are
performed using EPA Method 3A.
5.6.2.4 CO3 Analysis. Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) CO2 analyzers emit a
specific wavelength of infrared radiation through the sample cell which is selectively
absorbed by CO2 molecules. The intensity of radiation which reaches the end of the
sample cell is compared to the intensity of radiation through a CO2-free reference cell. A
reference cell is used to determine background absorbance which is subtracted from the
sample absorbance. The detector uses two chambers filled with CO2 which are
connected by a deflective metallic diaphragm. One side receives radiation from the
sample cell and the other side receives radiation from the reference cell. Since more
JBS219
-------
radiation is absorbed in the sample cell than in the reference cell, less radiation reaches
the sample side of the detector. This causes a deflection of the diaphragm due to
increased heat from radiation absorption on the reference side. Deflection of the
diaphragm creates an electrical potential which is proportional to absorbance.
Absorbance is directly proportional to CO2 concentration in the gas. Carbon dioxide
measurements are performed using EPA Method 3A.
5.6.2.5 CO Analysis. Either a TECO Model 48 or a Model 48H analyzer will be
used to monitor CO emissions. Both TECO analyzers measure CO using the same
principle of operation as CO2 analysis. The instruments are identical except that a
different wavelength of infrared radiation is used; 5 nm is selective for CO. Carbon
monoxide measurements are performed using EPA Method 10.
5.6.2.6 Total Hydrocarbon Analysis. Either a Beckman Model 400, 402 or 404
will be used to monitor Total Hydrocarbon (THC) emissions. By allowing the THC
sample stream to bypass the gas conditioners, concentrations will be determined on a wet
basis. All analyses employ Flame lonization Detectors (FID). As the flue gas enters the
detector the hydrocarbons are combusted in a hydrogen flame. The ions and electrons
formed in the flame enter an electrode gap, decrease the gas resistance, and permit a
current flow in an external circuit. The resulting current is proportional to the
instantaneous concentration of the total hydrocarbons. This method is not selective
between species. EPA Method 25A applies to the continuous measurement of total
gaseous organic concentrations of primarily alkanes, alkenes, and/or arenes (aromatic
hydrocarbons). The results are reported on a methane basis and methane is used as the
calibration gas.
5.6.2.7 HC1 CEM Analysis. HC1 flue gas concentrations are continuously
monitored using an NDIR/GFC instrument manufactured by Thermo Electron
Corporation (TECO). Detection of HC1 is achieved by alternately passing an infrared
(IR) beam between reference HC1 gas and reference HC1 free gas contained in the filter
wheel. The "chopped" beam passes through the sample cell to the detector. The
difference in IR beam strength caused by the absorption of the IR beam is proportional
to the HC1 concentration.
JBS219
5-60
-------
5.6.3 CEM Calibration
All the CEM instruments are calibrated once during the test program (and
linearized, if necessary) using a minimum of three certified calibration gases (zero and
two upscale points). Radian performs the multipoint calibrations with four general
categories of certified gases: zero gas (generally N2), a low scale gas concentration, a
midrange concentration, and a high scale concentration (span gas). The criterion for
acceptable linearity is a correlation coefficient (R2) of greater than or equal to 0.998,
where the independent variable is cylinder gas concentration and the dependent variable
is instrument response. If an instrument does not meet these requirements, it is
linearized by adjusting potentiometers on the linerarity card within the instrument or by
other adjustments, if necessary.
The CEM analyzers are calibrated before and after each test run (test day) on a
two point basis: zero gas (generally N2), and a high-range span gas. These calibrations
are used to calculate response factors used for sample gas concentration determinations.
Instrument drift as a percent of span is also determined using these calibrations for each
test run.
After each initial calibration, midrange gases for all instruments are analyzed,
with no adjustment permitted, as a quality control (QC) check. If the QC midrange gas
concentration observed is within ±2 percent of full scale, the calibration is accepted and
the operator may begin sampling. If the QC check does not fulfill this requirement,
another calibration is performed and linearization may be performed if deemed
necessary. Calibration procedures are further detailed in the daily operating procedure
(Section 5.6.5).
Table 5-10 lists the concentration of all calibration and QC gases to be used on
this test program.
5.6.4 Data Acquisition
The data acquisition system used for the Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI test
program consists of an Omega signal conditioner, a Tecmar A/D converter and a
COMPAQ 286 computer. All instrument outputs are connected in parallel to stripchart
recorders and the Omega signal conditioner. The stripchart recorders are a back-up
system to the computer data acquisition system data. The signal conditioner adjusts the
5-61
JBS219
-------
TABLE 5-10. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES
Analyte
Gas Concentration
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Beckman 865
0-20%
18%
N?
10%
5%
CO-dry
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
CO wet
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
TECO 48H
0-50,000 _ppm
1000, 900XFor 19,000 ppma
idOQ or 9000 ppm '
2100 ppm
TECO 48
0-100, 0-200, 0-5000 ppm
1000, 180 or 90 ppm*
N
ppm
90 ppm
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Thermox WDG
0-25%
20%
0.2% 02
10%
5%
.SQ.2
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas
Low Range QC Gas
Western 721A
0-500 or 0-5000 ppm
200 or 50 ppm
N
idbppm
30 ppm
JBS219
5-62
-------
TABLE 5-10. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES, continued
Analyte Gas Concentration
Instrument TECO 10AR
Range 0-250 ppm
Span Gas Value 200 ppm
Zero Gas N,
Midrange QC Gas Value 10(3 ppm
Low Range QC Gas Value 50 ppm
THC
Instrument Beckman 402
Range 0-10, 0-50, 0-100 ppm
Span Gas Value 100 ppm as methane
Zero Gas N,
Midrange QC Gas Value 45 ppm as methane
Low Range QC Gas Value 25 ppm as methane
HC1
Instrument TECO Model 15
Range 0-2000 ppm
Span Gas Value 1800 ppm
Zero Gas N,
Midrange QC Gas Value 900 ppm
Low Range QC Gas Value 100 ppm
Several sets of calibration/QC gases were acquired in order to closely approximate
stack gas concentrations.
5-63
JBS219
-------
voltage response range from the output range of the instrument (typically 0-100 mV or
0-10 mV) to 0-5 volts. The A/D converter then digitizes the analog inputs for use by the
computer. A Radian computer program translates the digitized voltages into relevant
concentrations in engineering units (ppmV, %V, etc.). The computer program has
several modes of operation: calibration, data acquisition, data reduction, data view, data
edit, and data import. The import function is used to combine other data files for
comparison and correlation. On-line color graphics and data manipulation are included
in the data acquisition portion of the program so that the operator and on-site engineers
may monitor trends in the process.
5.6.5 Daily Operating Procedure
The following is a detailed standard operating procedure for calibrating and
operating the CEM system:
1. Turn on COMPAQ computer and EPSON printer, put printer on-line, and
load the CEM.EXE program. Be sure that the CEM instruments have
been on for at least 20 hours.
2. Synchronize watch with sample location leaders.
3. Turn on strip chart recorders (SCR) and make appropriate notes on charts
and in logbook (write down all procedures and observations in logbook and
on SCRs as the day progresses).
4. Turn on the gas conditioners and blow back compressor. Blow back the
system.
5. Open all calibration gas cylinders so that they may be introduced to the
instruments via control panel valves.
6. Perform daily pre-test leak check on CEMs by introducing ultra high purity
nitrogen to the system. Zero all instruments except the Thermox O2
analyzers. Make adjustments to the zero potentiometers as required to
zero the instruments. Be sure to check and maintain all flows throughout
calibration and operation.
7. Record the zero values in the computer calibration routine.
8. Introduce 0.2 percent O2 to set the low scale response for the Thermox O2
analyzers and repeat Step 7 for these instruments.
9. Introduce the mixed span gases for O2, CO2, and CO. Make adjustments
as required to these instruments.
JBS219
5-64
-------
10. Enter these values in the computer calibration routine.
11. Introduce the NOX span gas.
12. Make adjustments to the NOX instruments as required and enter the value
into the computer calibration routine.
13. Introduce the SO2 span gas for the SO2 analyzer, repeat Step 12 for the
SO2 analyzer. (Note that all calibration gases are passed through the entire
sampling system.)
14. Switch the Western SO2 analyzer range to 0-500 ppm, introduce the span
gas for this range and repeat Step 12 for this instrument.
15. Introduce the HC1 span gas to the HC1 dilution probe/CEM analyzer.
Repeat Step 12 for this system.
16. Check the calibration table on the computer, and make a hardcopy. Put
the computer in the standby mode.
17. Introduce QC gases to instruments in the same sequence as the calibration
gases. Record three minutes of data for each, once the responses have
stabilized. If the QC gas response is not within ±2 percent of the
instrument range the operator should recalibrate the instrument, or
perform other corrective actions.
18. Begin sampling routine with the computer on stand by.
19. Start the data acquisition system when signaled by radio that system is in
stack.
20. Carefully check all flows and pressures during the operation of the
instruments and watch for apparent problems in any of the instruments,
such as unusual readings or unreasonable fluctuations. Check the gas
conditioning system periodically and drain the traps.
21. Stop the data acquisition system at the end of the test when signaled.
22. Perform final leak check of system.
23. Perform the final calibration (Repeat steps 6-17) except make no
adjustments to the system.
24. Check for drift on each, channel.
JBS219
-------
5.7 VISIBLE EMISSIONS
The opacity of emissions are determined visually by a qualified observer following
EPA Method 9. The observer is certified within 6 months before the test, as required by
the method. Opacity observations are recorded to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second
intervals. Twenty-four observations are recorded and averaged per each data set.
Observation will continue throughout the 4-hour test run each day.
5.8 PROCESS SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Incinerator ash is composited each test day into a cleaned, 55 gallon plastic drum
after initial cooling in 30 gallon cans that are used by the facility. After testing is
completed for that day, approximately 1 gallon of ash is taken from the composited
sample using a sample thief. This composite is then quartered. The quarters are sent to
respective laboratories for analyses of LOI/carbon, metals, and CDD/CDF. The fourth
quarter is archived or used as needed.
JBS219
5-66
-------
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Specific Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures were strictly
adhered to during this test program to ensure the production of useful and valid data
throughout the course of the project. A detailed presentation of QC procedures for all
manual flue gas sampling, process sample collection, and CEM operations can be found
in the Lenoir Test Plan. This section will report the test program QA parameters so that
the degree of data quality may be ascertained.
In summary, a high degree of data quality was maintained throughout the project.
All sampling train leak checks met the QC criteria. Isokinetic sampling rates were kept
within 10 percent of 100 percent for all the PM/Metals and CDD/CDF test runs.
Isokinetics criteria was also met for 19 out of 20 microbial emission test runs. Metals
analytical QA results revealed good spike recovery data. Dioxins analytical procedures
were modified because of unexpected heavy sample loading. This is further discussed in
Section 6.4.1. The CEM data incorporated a variety of QC checks and QA procedures
such as QC gas responses, daily drift, and others. CEM quality assurance is presented in
Section 6.5. Microbial indicator spore analyses were completed using up to nine
aliquots/sample and two enumeration per aliquot. Microbial Survivability in emissions
quality assurance is further discussed in Section 6.4.4.
Section 6.1 presents the QA/QC definitions and data quality objectives.
Section 6.2 presents manual flue gas sampling and recovery QA parameters. Section 6.3
discusses the QC procedures for ash and pipe sampling and Section 6.4 presents
method-specific analytical QA parameters. Section 6.5 discusses the CEM QA
parameters. Section 6.6 presents a discussion on data variability.
6.1 QA/QC DEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall QA/QC objective is to ensure precision, accuracy, completeness,
comparability, and representativeness for each major measurement parameter called for
in this test program. For this test program, quality control and quality assurance can be
defined as follows:
• Quality Control: The overall system of activities whose purpose is to
provide a quality product or service. QC procedures are routinely followed
to ensure high data quality.
JBS219
-------
• Quality Assurance: A system of activities whose purpose is to provide
assurance that the overall quality control is being done effectively.
Assessments can be made from QA parameters on what degree of data
quality was achieved.
• Data Quality: The characteristics of a product (measurement data) that
bear on its ability to satisfy a given purpose. These characteristics are
defined as follows:
Precision - A measure of mutual agreement among individual
measurements of the same property, usually under prescribed
similar conditions. Precision is best expressed in terms of the
standard deviation and in this report will be expressed as the
relative standard deviation or coefficient of variation.
Accuracy - The degree of agreement of a measurement (or an
average of measurements of the same thing), X, with an accepted
reference or true value, T, can be expressed as the difference
between two values, X-T, the ratio X/T, or the difference as a
percentage of the reference or true value, 100 (X-T)/T.
Completeness - A measure of the amount of valid data obtained
from a measurement system compared with the amount that was
expected to be obtained under prescribed test conditions.
Comparability - A measure of the confidence with which one data
set can be compared with another.
Representativeness - The degree to which data accurately and
precisely represent a characteristic of a population, variations of a
parameter at a sampling point, or an environmental condition.
A summary of the estimated precision, accuracy, and completeness objectives is
presented in Table 6-1.
6.2 MANUAL FLUE GAS SAMPLING AND RECOVERY PARAMETERS
The following section will report method-specific sampling QA parameters so that
insight can be gained at the quality of emissions test data produced from manual tests
during the test program.
6.2.1 CDD/CDF Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-2 lists both the pre-test and post-test leak checks completed on the
CDD/CDF sampling trains. The acceptance criterion is that all post-test leak checks
JBS219
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF PRECISION, ACCURACY,
AND COMPLETENESS OBJECTIVES3
Parameter
Dioxins/Furans Emissions
Metals Emissions
Paniculate Matter Emissions
HCl/HBr/HF Concentrations
Indicator Spore Emissions
CEM Concentrations
Velocity/Volumetric Row Rate
Fixed Gases/Molecular Weight
Flue Gas Moisture
Flue Gas Temperature
Precision
(RSD)
±40a
±15d
±12
±10d
ND
±20
±6
±0.3%V
±20
±2°F
Accuracy5
(%)
±50
±30
±10
±15
ND
±15
±10
±0.5%V
±10
±5°F
Completeness0
(%)
100
100
100
95
100
95
95
100
95
100
RSD = Relative Standard Deviation. Uses worst case assumption that variation
amongst run results is not due to process variation.
ND = Not Determined at this time.
a Precision and accuracy estimated based on results of EPA collaborative tests. All values
stated represent worst case values. All values are absolute percentages unless
otherwise indicated.
b Relative error (%) derived from audit analyses, where:
Percent
Relative Error
Measured Value - Actual Value x 100
Actual Value
c Minimum valid data as a percentage of total tests conducted.
d Analytical phase only. Percent difference for duplicate analyses, where:
Percent
Relative Error
First Value - Second Value x 100
0.5 (First -i- Second Values)
e Minimum requirements of EPA Method 6C, based on percent of full scale.
f No measureable bias has been detected in the available literature.
JBS219
6-3
-------
TABLE 6-2. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF EMISSIONS TESTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5R
6
7
8
9
MB-TESt
LEAK RATE
....,&&&
0.015
0.010
0.003
0.010
b
0.010
0.120
b
0.010
INCHES FOR
JMfcE-TJSST
., CHECK
15
10
15
15
b
15
b
20
Am SAMPLE
KATJS
(dscftn)
0.54
0.58
0.57
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.34
0.48
0.49
4% SAMPLE
HATE
(d9cfm)a
0.022
0.023
0.023
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.019
0.020
ACCEPTABLE
LEAK LEVEL
(acfm)
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.019
0.020
MEASUREMENTS
*OST-TE$t
LEAK RATE
0.003
0.008
0.016
0.008
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.014
0.018
INCHES
FOR
SECQMfc CHECK
8
15
12
6
5
8
10
15
15
NOTE:
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfin) and may be slightly different than actual cfm (acfm).
b No Data Recorded
-------
must be less than 0.02 cfm or 4 percent of the average sampling rate (whichever is less).
All CDD/CDF post-test leak checks met the acceptance criterion.
Table 6-3 presents the isokinetic sampling rates for CDD/CDF, PM/Metals, and
microbial sampling trains. The acceptance criterion is that the average sampling rate
must be within 10 percent of 100 percent isokinetic. All CDD/CDF test runs deviated
by no more than 5 percent of 100 percent, thereby meeting the isokinetic criterion.
All dry gas meters are fully calibrated every six months against an EPA approved
intermediate standard. The full calibration factor or meter Y is used to correct actual
metered sample to true sample volume. To verify the full calibration, a post-test
calibration is performed. The full and post-test calibration coefficients must be within
5 percent to meet Radian's internal QA/QC acceptance criterion. As can be seen from
Table 6-4, the meter box used for CDD/CDF was well within the 5 percent criterion.
Field blanks are collected to verify the absence of any sample contamination.
The CDD/CDF sampling train was fully prepared, leak checked, and then recovered.
Table 6-5 presents the CDD/CDF analytical results for the MM5 field blank (toluene
field blank results are presented in the following section). All CDD/CDF congeners
were detected in the MM5 field blank but at much lower amounts than in any of the test
runs. Because the amount of contamination was so low and the consistency of
contamination throughout the test program could not be determined, no field blank
corrections were made on the emissions results. Analytical blank results are further
discussed in Section 6.4.1.
6.2.1.1 CDD/CDF Toluene Recovery Results. As a newly developed step in
EPA CDD/CDF sample recovery protocol, a final toluene rinse was completed on all
sample train glassware. Following the test, the nozzle/probe, filter housing, and
condenser coil were recovered using methylene chloride. This sample fraction is
analyzed along with the filter and XAD trap to determine total CDD/CDF collected in
the sample. A final toluene rinse of all the above components was completed and
analyzed separately as a part of EPA Method 23 QA protocol. The following discussion
and tables present those results.
JBS219
-------
TABLE 6-3. ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RATES FOR CDD/CDF, METALS, AND
MICROORGANISMS TEST RUNS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
PATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/06/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
JEPN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
5B
6A
6B
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
CW/CDF
JSOKJNBTie SAMPLE
KATB»#
99.6
99.4
101.0
101.0
104.0
103.0
105.0
101.0
101.0
TOXIC METALS
ISOKINBTICSAMPJ-E
RATE, %
99.3
103.0
99.9
98.0
(4R)
98.9
100.0
101.0
98.2
99.8
MICROORGANISMS
ISOKHfETfC SAMPLE
RATE,*
97.1
95.5
90.9
94.8
92.2
92.9
99.6
102.0
97.9
89.2
98.6
98.9
98.9
99.1
99.9
96.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-4. DRY GAS METER POST-TEST CALIBRATION RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLING;
TRAM
CDD/CDF
PM/METAL
MICROORGANISMS
HALOGENS
METER BOX
NUMBER
N-30
N-31
N-32
7
V5
FULL
CALIBRATION
FACTOR !
1.0066
1.0070
0.9973
0.9929
1.0153
POST-TEST
CALIBRATION
FACTO&
0.9955
0.9916
0.9959
0.9848
1.0028
POST-TEST
DEVIATION
<*>*
-1.1
-1.53
-0.14
-0.82
-1.23
(Post-Test) - (Full) x 100
(Full)
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-5. CDD/CDF FIELD BLANK RESULTS.
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
f •*•* •
! FULL SOSEBN ANALYSES 1
:
2378 TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378 PCDD
TOTAL PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL HepU-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
TOTAL TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
TOTAL PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
TOTAL HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
TOTAL Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
' '^Jf'^' '•" '
i C^NH^^^pOlljW^ALY^S
''$%Jlj!f*' *?,"'' - '-,
•v f
2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
TOTAL TCDD
TOTAL TCDF
MM5 i
FIELD j
BLANK !
««««*«.
0.13
1.50
0.68
3.80
0.82
1.00
2.20
8.80
5.70
10.00
5.40
2.20
15.40
1.50
2.50
28.20
5.40
3.20
3.20
0.47
29.30
7.70
0.89
1.40
2.90
MMS i
HELD , i
BLANK \
MM? i
CONP1 1
AW
*•*•"• ~~CrGTA
9.3
111.2
59.3
308.0
82.2
80.8
179.9
838.3
620.3
1182.3
1078.3
232.7
1470.0
160.5
253.7
2910.0
887.0
498.3
591.0
36.1
4663.3
1870.7
293.7
3510.0
1256.7
MMf
CQNEU |
MM5
CONB2 |
AW
f. ftrijpMt*3
AV«"<">*•
49.3
658.0
265.3
1350.0
252.3
246.7
580.7
2653.3
1246.7
2350.0
1025.0
807.0
6010.0
633.7
890.0
10576.7
2546.7
1600.0
1446.7
0.0
13606.7
8176.7
1218.7
14833.3
1205.3
MM5
CONP^
AVQf 'i
0.22
0.42
1.60
8.90
8.7
47.1
173.9
1713.7
6.8
15.6
65.6
575.7
62.3
239.3
803.7
5820.0
6-8
-------
Tables 6-6, 6-7, and 6-8 compares the toluene recovery amounts of CDD/CDF
congeners to the respective MM5 amounts from full screen analyses for each run in
Conditions 1, 2, and 3, respectively (all units in picograms). The ratio of the toluene
catch to the MM5 expressed as a percentage (T/M x 100), is also given. The results
reveal a relatively small amount of CDD/CDF isomers present in the toluene samples.
For Condition 1 (Runs 1 through 3), T/M ratios range from 0 to 0.59 percent.
Condition 2 values range from 0 to 0.75 percent (Run 8, octa-CDF). T/M ratios for
2378 TCDD for all conditions range from 0 to 0.39 percent.
The confirmation toluene analytical results are compared to the confirmation
MM5 values in Table 6-9. The T/M ratios presented here are also very low. T/M
values ranged from 0 to 2.21 percent (Run 1).
The toluene field blank analytical results are compared to the toluene test run
analytical results in Table 6-10. The field blank values for most congeners are relatively
high compared to the average run values. The 2378 field blank result is 74.2 pg
compared to 18.0, 8.2, and 66.0 average pg collected for Conditions 1, 2, and
3, respectively. Additional insight into these results can be gained by reviewing method
blank results shown in Section 6.4.1 (Table 6-15).
6.2.2 PM/Metals Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-11 presents the leak check results for the PM/Metals. All post-test leak
checks met the "0.02 cfm or 4 percent of the sample rate" acceptance criterion.
The isokinetic sampling rates for the PM/Metals trains are listed in Table 6-3.
All isokinetic values were within 3 percent of 100 percent, thereby meeting the
± 10 percent criterion.
The post-test dry gas meter calibration check for box number N-31 used for
PM/Metals sampling is shown in Table 6-4. The results of -1.53 percent deviation from
the full calibration value is well within the 5 percent acceptance criterion.
Table 6-12 presents the results from the metals field blank analysis compared to
the average values from the test runs. Antimony, barium, chromium, and lead were
detected at relatively low levels compared to the total amounts collected during the tests.
No blank corrections were made.
JBS219
-------
TABLE 6-6. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION 1 (total pg) - LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hp-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS'
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 Hp-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
CDD+CDF
RUN1
MM5
(Pg)
2,900
35,700
22,300
113,700
49,300
35,600
68,700
207,400
314,000
273,000
785,000
1,907,600
116,000
564,000
66,600
115,000
1,168,400
430,000
214,000
266,000
12,300
1,247,700
982,000
141,000
677,000
744,000
6,744,000
8,651,600
TOLUENE
fcg)
[20.90]
[20.90]
(22.70)
(22.70)
45
44
(74.90)
0
582
0
1560
2350
57
101
57
121
787
373
218
295
[22.00]
814
1310
(227.0)
670
1380
6409
8759
TOL/MM5
M(^t
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.02
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.20
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.00
0.07
0.13
0.16
0.10
0.19
0.10
0.10
RUN 2
MM5
(Pg)
14,800
167,200
110,000
418,000
135,000
132,000
307,000
806,000
897,000
833,000
1,360,000
5,180,000
344,000
2,016,000
263,000
411,000
4,246,000
1,350,000
809,000
808,000
56,600
4,036,400
2,570,000
346,000
1,614,000
996,000
19,866,000
25,046,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
(17.80)
37
58
97
93
95
235
511
941
839
1660
4584
141
616
163
205
1582
943
527
489
32
1819
2850
332
1508
1220
12427
17011
TOL/MM5
(«)
0.12
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.06
0.07
RUN3
MM5
(Pg)
10,200
102,800
45,700
214,300
62,200
74,900
164,000
472,900
650,000
580,000
1,090,000
3,467,000
238,000
1,132,000
152,000
235,000
2,073,000
881,000
472,000
699,000
39,300
2,668,700
2,060,000
394,000
1,746,000
2,030,000
14,820,000
18,287,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
36
374
218
922
342
382
775
.2361
3270
3000
6720
18400
1400
5390
787
1460
15653
4070
2240
3570
136
12674
10180
1720
8130
9160
76570
94970
TOL/MM5
<*>
0.36
0.36
0.48
0.43
0.55
0.51
0.47
0.50
0.50
0.52
0.62
0.53
0.59
0.48
0.52
0.62
0.76
0.46
0.47
0.51
0.35
0.47
0.49
0.44
0.47
0.45
0.52
0.52
AVERAGE
MM5
(Pg)
9,300
101,900
59,333
248,667
82,167
80,833
179,900
495,433
620,333
562,000
1,078,333
3,518,200
232,667
1,237,333
160,533
253,667
2,495,800
887,000
498,333
591,000
36,067
2,650,933
1,870,667
293,667
1,345,667
1,256,667
13,810,000
17,328,200
TOLUENE
frg)
27.1
205.5
99.4
347.4
159.9
173.4
361.6
943.5
1597.7
1919.5
3313.3
8430.9
532.7
2035.6
335.5
595.3
6007.2
1795.3
995.0
1451.3
83.8
5102.5
4780.0
759.7
3436.0
3920.0
31802.0
40232.9
TOL/MM5
(*>
0.29
0.20
0.17
0.14
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.26
0.34
0.31
0.24
0.23
0.16
0.21
0.23
0.24
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.23
0.19
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.31
0.23
0.23
a [] = minimum detection limit, (not used in the averages or summations)
() = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
-------
TABLE 6-7. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION 2 (total pg) - LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hp-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
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 Hp-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
CDD+CDF
RUN 4
MM5
(Pg)
(3500.)
33,300
20,600
118,400
33,600
40,000
68,600
250,800
440,000
395,000
935,000
2,338,800
87,800
406,200
53,000
105,000
902,000
322,000
175,000
340,000
14,500
1,038,500
906,000
194,000
810,000
1,000,000
6,354,000
8,692,800
TOLUENE
4\.(pg>;^.
14
78
(80.10)
283
143
216
336
725
3,130
2,420
9,840
17,265
410
1,180
333
651
4,386
1,830
1,010
3,450
137
5,503
4,760
1,450
4,880
14,170
44,150
61,415
TOL/MM5
(*)
0.39
0.23
0.39
0.24
0.43
0.54
0.49
0.29
0.71
0.61
1.05
0.74
0.47
0.29
0.63
0.62
0.49
0.57
0.58
1.01
0.94
0.53
0.53
0.75
0.60
1.42
0.69
0.71
RUN5R
MM5
,,;', (pg)
2,200
20,900
19,400
110,600
61,500
55,700
97,100
347,700
904,000
926,000
3,040,000
5,585,100
132,000
539,000
55,000
145,000
1,690,000
758,000
294,000
785,000
15,100
1,947,900
2,110,000
299,000
1,721,000
5,130,000
15,621,000
21,206,100
TOLUENE
(Pg)
[13.00]
[13.00]
(25.90)
56
59
99
191
423
2,390
2,050
13,690
18,984
184
436
100
251
2,099
1,270
565
1,790
40
3,405
5,180
941
4,899
18,890
40,050
59,034
TOL/MM5
(#)
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.05
0.10
0.18
0.20
0.12
0.26
0.22
0.45
0.34
0.14
0.08
0.18
0.17
0.12
0.17
0.19
0.23
0.26
0.17
0.25
0.31
0.28
0.37
0.26
0.28
RUN 6
MM5
(Pg)
3,700
46,300
27,800
145,200
57,100
47,500
102,000
301,400
432,000
292,000
798,000
2,253,000
147,000
750,000
87,900
166,000
1,516,100
428,000
224,000
353,000
18,200
1,436,800
1,080,000
218,000
1,002,000
1,150,000
8,577,000
10,830,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
11
57
63
102
96
127
263
423
1,420
940
3,620
7,122
278
962
243
466
3,191
1,240
704
1,480
112
3,174
3,140
851
2,769
5,810
24,420
31,542
TOL/MM5
^ :-(*>«"
0.29
0.12
0.23
0.07
0.17
0.27
0.26
0.14
0.33
0.32
0.45
0.32
0.19
0.13
0.28
0.28
0.21
0.29
0.31
0.42
0.62
0.22
0.29
0.39
0.28
0.51
0.28
0.29
AVERAGE
MM5
-------
TABLE 6-8. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION 3 (total pg) - LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hp-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS '
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 Hp-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
CDD+CDF
RUN 7
MM5
frg)
32,500
387,500
206,000
1,034,000
233,000
256,000
539,000
1,692,000
1,510,000
1,450,000
1,470,000
8,810,000
667,000
4,193,000
537,000
842,000
8,741,000
3,020,000
1,840,000
1,680,000
(163000.0)
9,430,000
12,140,000
1,900,000
8,650,000
2,300,000
56,103,000
64,913,000
TOLUENE
^^OMS)^
38
203
223
463
380
467
946
1,777
3,700
2,960
7,220
18,377
745
3,305
762
1,620
11,578
4,220
2,290
(3210.)
206
13,124
8,660
1,340
6,130
7,370
64,560
82,937
TOL/MM5
<#)
0.12
0.05
0.11
0.04
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.11
0.25
0.20
0.49
0.21
0.11
0.08
0.14
0.19
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.19
0.13
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.32
0.12
0.13
RUNS
MM5
(Pg)
51,400
588,600
266,000
1,024,000
269,000
233,000
543,000
1,375,000
1,110,000
920,000
876,000
7,256,000
754,000
4,816,000
570,000
748,000
7,042,000
1,930,000
1,250,000
1,140,000
(140000.0)
6,200,000
5,010,000
726,000
3,184,000
519,000
34,029,000
41,285,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
83
659
472
1,378
661
683
1,540
3,696
4,480
3,860
6,060
23,572
1,660
8,200
1,840
2,280
17,380
5,090
2,790
3,320
179
14,711
7,410
865
4,975
3,910
74,610
98,182
TOL/MM5
(#)
0.16
0.11
0.18
0.13
0.25
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.40
0.42
0.69
0.32
0.22
0.17
0.32
0.30
0.25
0.26
0.22
0.29
0.13
0.24
0.15
0.12
0.16
0.75
0.22
0.24
RUN9
MM5
(Pg)
63,900
850,100
324,000
1,196,000
255,000
251,000
660,000
1,654,000
1,120,000
940,000
729,000
8,043,000
1,000,000
6,600,000
794,000
1,080,000
11,376,000
2,690,000
1,710,000
1,520,000
(190000.0)
8,410,000
7,380,000
1,030,000
4,480,000
797,000
49,057,000
57,100,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
77
397
332
676
297
395
789
0
2,030
0
1,900
6,181
876
2,898
1,200
1,200
8,020
2,640
1,580
1,940
141
1,498
3,670
571
0
1,770
26,202
32,383
TOL/MM5
(#)
0.12
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.12
0.16
0.12
-0.01
0.18
-0.07
0.26
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.15
0.11
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.13
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.06
-0.04
0.22
0.05
0.06
AVERAGE
MM5
(Pg)
49,267
608,733
265,333
1,084,667
252,333
246,667
580,667
1,573,667
1,246,667
1,103,333
1,025,000
8,036,333
807,000
5,203,000
633,667
890,000
9,053,000
2,546,667
1,600,000
1,446,667
164333.3
8,013,333
8,176,667
1,218,667
5,438,000
1,205,333
46,396,333
54,432,667
TOLUENE
(pg)
66
420
342
839
446
515
1,092
1,794
3,403
2,067
5,060
16,043
1,094
4,801
1,267
1,700
12,326
3,983
2,220
2,823
175.3
9,778
6,580
925
3,101
4,350
55,124
71,167
TOL/MM5
(*)
0.13
0.07
0.13
0.08
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.11
0.27
0.19
0.49
0.20
0.14
0.09
0.20
0.19
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.20
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.36
0.12
0.13
a [] = minimum detection limit, (not used in the averages or summations)
0 = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
-------
TABLE 6-9. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE CONFIRMATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARED TO MM5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ALL CONDITIONS (Total pg entrained)
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
%
CONGENER
\ .. x
> v
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
'
CONGENER
s^".
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
smzmm
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
RUN1 ;
MM5 .
m)
220
1,380
420
8,480
TOLUENE
*M«$*
[9.300]
[9.300]
9.3
169.7
TOL/MM5
- m :
0.00
0.00
2.21
2.00
RUN4
MM5
....?..«&
6,000
55,100
14,000
466,000
TOLUENE
m):
27.5
98.5
66.5
1403.5
TOUMM5
i: m
0.46
0.18
0.48
0.30
" BUW?
MM5
®&
45,300
504,700
175,000
4,805,000
TOLUENE
(P9)
65
364
127
2563
TQUMM5
m
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.05
, BUI* 2
. MM5
®&
6,500
55,300
16,200
614,800
TOLUENE
-------
TABLE 6-10. CDD/CDF TOLUENE FIELD BLANK RESULTS.
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
- :
I^LSCi^N ANALYSES ;
2378 TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378 PCDD
TOTAL PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
TOTAL TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
TOTAL PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
TOTAL HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
TOTAL Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
""- '"'";K
- lri''7^'^P7 ->
2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
TOTAL TCDD
TOTAL TCDF
TOL
MELD -;
BLANK !
CONPI !
AV$ i
TJQJ*
C0HB-2 i
imiMiiHH.Mm^iMiiiMHtH^^j^-lQffi^l^. pi(JJ\H«+m+*-*
74.2
94.3
81.2
175.0
105.0
112.0
284.0
999.0
767.0
1270.0
1020.0
157.0
743.0
197.0
224.0
1870.0
703.0
384.0
350.0
[71.20]
2950.0
1120.0
125.0
1750.0
519.0
' i5».
'BLANK
27.3
47.8
168.0
763.0
18.0
149.1
99.4
439.2
159.9
173.4
361.6
1613.4
1597.7
2877.3
3313.3
532.7
2568.3
335.5
595.3
6938.0
1795.3
995.0
1451.3
55.9
9400.0
4780.0
759.7
8900.0
3920.0
TOL,
AVS- "
—.»«««H(TO
35.6
65.5
294.7
2198.7
8.2
53.2
56.3
167.8
99.5
147.5
263.3
1034.0
2313.3
4116.7
9050.0
290.7
1150.0
225.2
456.0
3906.7
1446.7
759.7
2240.0
96.3
8570.0
4360.0
1080.7
9623.3
12956.7
c3S&
''- AW-!,; -i
T AI* p<3}-<«»«->
21.7
44.7
106.2
924.0
TOL
OOIO3-'
66.0
511.3
342.3
1292.0
446.0
515.0
1091.7
4340.0
3403.3
6146.7
5060.0
1093.7
6186.7
1267.3
1700.0
16093.3
3983.3
2220.0
2823.3
175.3
20010.0
6580.0
925.3
12020.0
4350.0
TQl, \
AV
-------
TABLE 6-11. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR TOXIC METALS.
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990).
* PAt$ x
^
•,.. . .. *" .->\
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/04/90
06/06/90
06/05/90
t
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
,; HIP
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i>«ip&mAii¥i
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.012
0.010
INCHES
^0RI>1UEI4ML
;.^ £H8GK C
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
A VG. SAMPLE
XAXS %
(dsdjn)* .,.
0.53
0.37
0.37
0.51
0.53
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.49
49E SAMPLE
,»AtE
. .. (Atfei)
0.021
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
AMITAB1&
LEAK LEVEL
(mcfra)
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
MEASUREMENT
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.008
0.006
0.008
b
0.012
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.016
INCHES
BOIL
SEC.CH&' 1
8
5
5
b
6
8
18
16
16
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) and may be slightly different than actual cfm (acfin).
b No data recorded.
-------
TABLE 6-12. METALS FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED TO AVERAGE AMOUNTS COLLECTED DURING THE TEST RUNS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
! M*tt& ".
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
ftftftl&tflg V
- BfcOKT,
(20.8)
[5.00]
13
a [0.50]
[1.20]
c (3.00)
[25.0]
[2.40]
[5-00]
[8.20]
[14.0]
S "<«*.&>
[7.60]
[0.47]
(0.354)
[0.024]
[0.059]
[1.20]
(1.04)
(4.42)
[2.40]
[3.90]
[6.40]
iM!3K<3£{t&
•? !**>.
[0.44]
NDflK)NJ.
moNT
HAtP
904.00
15.93
180.00
0.00
402.00
44.10
3290.00
65.47
37.00
0.00
0.00
a4PIH<3ER&
a
283.47
1.65
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.59
195.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
IMWNOERS
344*
4.70
coNurnowi
HMW
! '««*
1001.67
18.90
274.67
0.00
578.00
61.77
6300.00
17.18
31.93
0.00
0.00
MHKGERS
M6 .
87.87
0.15
0.64
0.00
0.21
0.97
0.17
320.00
0.79
28.03
0.00
BrfWHGERS
It*4^
coNraruoN |
mom
HALF
1622.67
27.30
297.00
0.00
643.00
106.53
4803.33
1458.00
96.33
0.00
0.00
IMPINGERS
MS
1930.00
5.94
8.01
0.00
0.00
2.12
0.58
2125.17
0.00
14.67
0.00
IMP1KK3ERS
3:&4 b
329.33
a Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits for elements not detected in the samples.
b Impingers 3 & 4 only sample fractions analyzed for mercury content.
c Values enclosed in parenthesis represent gaHmatea as they are less than 5 times the detection limit.
-------
6.2.3 Microbial Survivability in Emissions Quality Assurance
The post-test dry gas meter calibration check for the microbial emissions meter is
shown in Table 6-4. Post-test calibration factors were within the 5 percent acceptance
criterion at -0.14 percent.
Table 6-13 presents the leak check results for the Microbial Survivability in
emissions test runs. All leak checks met the "0.02 cfm or 4 percent of sample rate"
acceptance criterion.
Microbial emission testing isokinetic results are presented in Table 6-3. Nineteen
out of the 20 test runs met the isokinetic criterion of ± 10 percent of 100 percent.
Run 4B resulted in an isokinetic rate of 89.2 percent. This slightly low value would not
be expected to effect the results.
The microbial emissions field blank results showed no positive detection in any of
the nine aliquots analyzed. Data from the analysis is shown in Appendix E.3.
6.2.4 Halogen Flue Gas Sampling Quality Assurance
Halogen flue gas concentration tests did use an isokinetic sampling method. A
constant flow of flue gas was extracted from the stack through a heated 3 foot quartz
probe. The sample stream was bubbled through a series of impinger collection solutions
and sent to the laboratory for analysis of Cl', F, and Br".
Leak checks were completed before and after each halogen test run. They were
conducted by establishing approximately 10 inches of vacuum on the train, plugging the
end of the probe, turning off the flow, and checking for any detectable vacuum loss over
a 30-second period. If a leak was observed in the system, the run was invalidated.
(There was no quantitation of leak rate.) All halogen test results had sample trains
which met the post-test leak check criterion.
The halogen test dry gas meter post-test calibration results are listed in Table 6-4.
The post-test calibration factor was within 5 percent criterion of the full calibration
factor at -1.23 percent.
Halogen field blank results are shown in Table 6-14. No Cl', F, or Br were
detected in the field blank sample.
6-17
JBS219
-------
TABLE 6-13. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY IN EMISSIONS SAMPLING RUNS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
r
06/06/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
SB
6A
6B
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
(acfrn)
0.020
0.015
0.007
0.006
0.001
0.003
0.006
0.008
0.020
0.018
0.018
0.008
0.002
0.006
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.005
0.018
0.004
INCHES FOR
: PRE-TBST
CHECK
10
6
5
6
5
6
6
6
3
5
6
6
5
6
6
5
6
5
5
6
AVG, SAMPLE
RATE
0.622
0.526
0.373
0.505
0.468
0.432
0.521
0.550
0.523
0.526
0.306
0.299
0.336
0.334
0.305
0.299
0.298
0.295
0.295
0.302
4% SAMPLE
RATE
(dscfnn) *
0.025
0.021
0.015
0.020
0.019
0.017
0.021
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
1SS3SS
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.020
0.019
0.017
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.003
b
0.008
0.004
0.000
0.002
0.005
c
0.005
0.008
0.009
0.008
0.060
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.001
0.003
0.015
0.010
JNCHES
FOR
SECONP CHECK
3
5
7
5
3
6
5
5
5
3
6
5
5
6
5
5
4
5
5
oo
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) and may be slightly different than actual cfm (acfm).
b Sample run was invalidated due to lost sample.
c No Data Recorded
-------
TABLE 6-14. HALOGEN FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED
TO RUN RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ANALYTE
HC1
HF
HBr
FIELD
BLANK
[6.99] a
[26.33]
[8.00]
CONDITION i
AVERAQE
(total /*§)
141,451
174
[10.0]
NDiTIQN2
AViRAOB
(totol^
119,550
662
50
NprrtoN3
AVERAGE
0otoiftg>
160,686
896
207
a Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection
limits for compounds not detected in the samples
6-19
-------
6.3 QC PROCEDURES FOR ASH AND PIPE SAMPLING
As stated in Section 5.3, the incinerator waste charges were spiked with
B. steareothermophilus in both wet and dry forms. Solutions of B. steareothermophilus
were spiked into the incinerator to coincide with simultaneous emissions testing and daily
ash sampling. Assessments of B. steareothermophilus survivability could then be made.
A pre-aliquoted stock solution of wet spores of approximately 500 ml was deposited onto
paper waste material and placed in a new, clean plastic garbage bags for each spike.
This package was then added to the normal waste loads at precise spiking times.
Freeze-dried quantities of B. steareothermophilus were placed in sealed pipes (See
Figure 5-12) to determine the viability of "thermally shaded" microbial matter. A single
sample was placed into the charging bin three times daily.
For both wet and dry spore spiking procedures, only pre-cleaned/disinfected
materials were used for handling, application, and transport. The wet spore aliquots
were divided and sealed at the manufacturer. This prevented any losses of material
during shipment or upon application. (The empty solution container was also placed in
the spiked waste charge.) The spiked charge was tied closed and placed in a upright
position in the ram feeder. Personnel handling the spiking material used disposable
plastic gloves to prevent any cross-contamination.
The inner containers for the pipe samples were acid washed and alcohol
disinfected. These were then placed in clean baggies awaiting the dry spore charge. The
dry spore was loaded into the pipe container on the same day as it was spiked. The dry
spore material was received from the manufacturer in sealed, glass vials. This allowed
for easy and complete transfer of all the spore material to the inner container.
In conjunction with the wet spore/microbial survivability tests, incinerator ash was
collected before each test day (from the previous test run). The ash was also analyzed
for metals, CDD/CDF, carbon, loss on ignition, moisture content, as well as indicator
spores. All of the ash was completely removed from the incinerator bed every morning
and placed in 4 - 5 garbage cans. Using a sample thief, four approximately 500 gram
samples were taken and placed in pre-cleaned, amber glass bottles. All material used for
sampling, sample compositing, and sample aliquoting was cleaned to prevent any sample
contamination.
JBS219
6-20
-------
During the ash removal process, the pipe samples were also recovered. The outer
containers were allowed to cool and then opened. The inner container was removed and
placed in a clean, dry Ziplock baggie, labeled and kept in a clean environment prior to
shipment to the laboratory.
6.4 ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
The following section reports QA parameters for the CDD/CDF, Metals,
Microbial Survivability, and Halogen analytical results.
6.4.1 CDD/CDF Analytical Quality Assurance
6.4.1.1 Flue Gas (MM5) Analytical Procedure. There were two samples
generated for each flue gas (MM5) test run. One sample consisted of the pooled MM5
sample which received both the full screen and confirmation analyses. The second
sample was the post-recovery, toluene rinse, which also received a full screen and
confirmation analysis. The full screen analyses were conducted using a DB-5 GC column
which allows for the separation of each class of chlorination (i.e., tetras, petra, etc.) and
fully resolves 2378 TCDD from the other TCDD isomers. The confirmation analysis,
performed on a DB-225 GC column, is needed to fully resolve the 2378 TCDF from the
other TCDF isomers. The 2378 TCDD and total TCDD isomers are also reported on
the confirmation analysis. The final results for 2378 TCDF and other TCDF emission
parameters were taken from the confirmation analysis. All other CDD/CDF results
were taken from the full screen analysis.
A component of the CDD/CDF analytical laboratory's QA/QC program is adding
isotopically labeled standards to each sample during various stages of analysis to
determine recovery efficiencies. Four different type standards are added. Surrogate
standards are usually spiked on the XAD absorbent trap prior to the sampling session.
Toluene surrogates are added to the sample prior to extraction. Recovery of these
compounds allows for the evaluation of overall sample collection efficiency and analytical
matrix effects. Internal standards are spiked after the sampling session but prior to
extraction. Alternate standards are also spiked to the impinger solutions at this stage.
Recovery percentage of internal standards are used in quantifying the flue gas or "native"
CDD/CDF isomers. Recovery of alternate standards allows for extraction/fractionation
efficiencies to be determined. Finally, recovery standards are added after fractionation,
6-21
JBS219
-------
just prior to the HRGC/HRMS analysis. Internal standards recovery are determined
relative to recovery standards recovery.
Poor recovery percentage of the various standards can reveal poor data quality.
In some cases, if an analysis with a poor recovery is also accompanied by a suitable
QA/QC "flag", the sample result can be validated. A full discussion of the QA/QC
program can not be presented in this summary report, but can be found in Triangle's
CDD/CDF Data User Manual.
6.4.1.2 CDD/CDF MM5 Initial Analyses and Data Qualifiers. The MM5
samples from Lenoir Memorial Hospital MWI tests were originally analyzed and high
concentrations of organics were determined. Microgram levels of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons were found. High levels of the target CDD/CDF isomers were also found.
Because of this, the initial analyses experienced several problems.
Quantitative interferences were found in MM5 samples from Runs 2, 3, 7, 8, and
9, which did not allow for quantitation of the full screen CDD/CDF isomers. Therefore,
sample extracts from these runs were diluted, additional internal and surrogate standards
added, and another analysis was completed. Confirmation analyses for these runs were
completed on the original sample extract.
Full screen analyses of samples from Runs 1, 4, 5R, and 6 had high enough
CDD/CDF concentrations to saturate the detector. Confirmation analyses of these
compounds did not exhibit this problem and were, therefore, completed initially. Sample
extracts were diluted and reanalyzed (no additional standards) for the full screen
isomers.
Therefore, data from the reanalysis of the MM5 samples exhibit the following
qualifiers:
Runs 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 - Full Screen: Because viable internal standards
were added after extraction, the values presented are corrected for
fractionation losses but not for extraction losses.
Runs 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 - Full Screen: The dilution of the original sample
extract negates accurate resolution of the pre-spiked surrogate standards
and will, therefore, not be reported.
JBS219
6-22
-------
• Runs 1, 4, 5R, and 6 - Full Screen: Analyses of these samples represent a
10-fold extract dilution and, therefore, surrogate standard recovery will also
not be reported.
6.4.1.3 CDD/CDF MM5 Blank Results. Both method blanks and field blanks
were analyzed for CDD/CDF isomers for both the MM5 samples as well as the toluene
rinses. Table 6-15 presents these results. The MM5 method blanks had very little
detected. The toluene TLI method Blank-L had 18.5 pg of 2378 TCDD detected as well
as 29.5 and 59.1 pg of Total PeCDD and Octa-CDD. The toluene TLI Method Blank
LR1 had small amounts of HpCDF and Octa-CDF present. The ash TLI Method Blank
only had a small amount of Octa-CDD detected.
6.4.1.4 CDD/CDF Standard Recoveries. Tables 6-16 and 6-17 present the
standard recovery values for the MM5 flue gas and toluene flue gas samples,
respectively. The analytical acceptance criterion for internal standard recoveries is
40 percent to 130 percent for tetra- through hexa-chlorinated compounds, while the
range is 25 percent to 130 percent for hepta- and octa-chlorinated compounds.
Recoveries outside of these limits may still be acceptable if other identification criteria
are met. Internal standard recoveries for Runs 1-9 FS, all met the acceptable criteria
except for Run 7, PCDD. This value of 23 percent was flagged as valid even with the
low recovery. Many Toluene FS internal standard recoveries were out of the acceptable
range, however these results were still accepted by the laboratory QA officer.
Surrogate recoveries are listed for Runs 1, 4, 5R, and 6. These values represent
recoveries of pre-sampled standards and are an indication of overall collection and
extraction efficiency. All recoveries at 37C1-TCDD are within 8 percent of 100 percent.
Several recoveries of 13C12 HxCDD are above 130 percent and are probably the result
of slight quantitative interferences. Results from these samples are still considered valid.
Table 6-18 present the recovery standards for the ash samples. All recoveries
appear to be less than 50 percent, however no data was invalidated for these samples.
Further information on standards recoveries can be found in Appendix E.I.
6-23
JBS219
-------
TABLE 6-15. METHOD BLANK AND FIELD BLANK RESULTS FOR THE MM5 AND TOLUENE FLUE GAS SAMPLES
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPTIAL (1990)
FULL-SCREEN ANALYSIS
2378 TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378 PCDD
TOTAL PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL Hepta-CDD
Octe-CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
TOTAL TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
TOTAL PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
TOTAL HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
TOTAL Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
CONFIRMATION JMAURK*
2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
TOTAL TCDD
^-^^., -r^r^r-
MM5
ttl-M3BTHOD
BLANK-H
ftobJug)
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
(0.030)
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.040]
[0.040]
0.170
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.020]
[0.010]
0.020
[0.020]
0.030
[0.100]
MM$
TU-METHQJ&
BLAHK-H
(iWrtflj)
MM5 ;
tU-METHOD
BLANK-HC1
(tobdflg)
[5.300]
[5.300]
[8.800]
[8.800]
[8.000]
[7.800]
[9.200]
[8.300]
[10.60]
[10.60]
[24.90]
[3.300],
[3.300]
[5.700]
[6.100]
[5.900]
[4.900]
[4.600]
[6.000]
[7.500]
[5.500]
[5.300]
[8.400]
[6.500]
[21.60]
MMS
TJJ-METHOP
BLAWC-HCl
(tetftlng)
MMS
REEUD
BLANK j
#
74.20
94.3
81.20
175.0
105.00
112.0
284.00
999.0
767.00
1270.00
1020.00
157.000
743.000
197.000
224.000
1870.000
703.000
384.000
350.000
[71.20]
2950.000
1120.000
125.000
1750.000
519.000
- im.
"FIELB
*LAN&
<***?&
27.3
47.8
168.0
•T.^^^g
ASH
TU-N4ETHOD
<«*>
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.01]
[0.01]
[0.01]
[0.01]
[0.02]
[0.02]
0.05
[0.005]
[0.005]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.01]
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.01]
[0.01]
[0.04]
ASH
TtHiffimWOD
<»<»
to
-------
TABLE 6-16. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ANALYSES
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE IP
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13Cl2-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD678
13C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
m&#&n
105.0
101.0
116.0
199.0
73.6
55.9
65.4
67.2
66.2
87.8
97.9
77.7
94.0
79.5
76.0
86.2
107.0
76.6
68.7
NMM»
55.8
57.5
61.2
66.1
80.3
106.0
51.7
65.0
47.6
53.0
44.6
109.0
86.6
102.0
MM5-RUN3
52.6
59.6
53.0
56.8
59.3
63.0
52.3
64.1
44.5
50.5
34.0
103.0
80.5
68.6
MMS-RUN4
102.0
112.0
113.0
147.0
81.0
67.0
78.0
76.2
82.7
85.0
82.2
78.6
88.7
68.8
75.0
81.2
114.0
80.5
68.6
X**VN*
108.0
101.0
123.0
225.0
61.2
64.3
78.5
69.9
76.1
70.2
84.9
79.6
95.9
114.0
83.1
111.0
111.0
74.5
62.6
MMS-8UN6
103.0
113.0
103.0
138.0
68.3
85.1
98.4
65.8
70.1
81.2
87.2
94.1
105.0
105.0
97.3
88.4
108.0
79.4
67.9
*€M$.*BSr7
46.8
54.0
43.9
59.9
75.8
84.5
57.8
66.4
37.4
52.1
23.0
110.0
73.4
86.4
MM$-#UN*
64.6
74.6
75.9
80.1
111.0
147.0
67.7
80.1
59.4
65.4
50.9
112.0
65.2
80.1
«w$-*w$
52.3
56.8
56.1
56.9
67.2
99.6
51.0
59.5
47.9
54.3
47.2
109.0
48.2
59.6
MMS-F1ELD
BMJJK
95.7
121.0
112.0
99.0
90.0
53.1
62.3
50.3
61.3
57.7
89.6
60.1
85.9
58.7
65.1
33.6
105.0
66.3
61.6
-------
TABLE 6-17. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF TOLUENE ANALYSES
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
5AMPLBID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
1WH&a?M
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
45.3
49.3
50.3
TOCHfEtJfl^
77.2
70.7
92.1
108.0
S8.4
82.3
107.0
80.8
79.8
65.4
85.4
93.0
96.9
68.7
65.2
46.4
69.0
65.4
75.0
TXH^»»$
70.1
70.5
84.1
136.0
57.8
75.8
95.4
76.2
75.6
64.9
105.0
81.2
88.9
70.0
66.3
53.4
64.8
60.1
70.4
tq*^tBfi4
56.7
76.6
74.2
138.0
47.5
69.9
113.0
59.7
69.5
64.8
119.0
68.7
144.0
61.2
59.4
14.7
63.3
85.1
69.2
TQL~*UN3B
25.6
42.3
37.2
52.6
26.8
29.2
41.0
29.0
31.0
37.8
62.5
37.4
64.9
39.6
41.8
22.3
72.5
91.0
65.5
TQL-RUS6
49.4
72.3
52.8
88.0
53.2
54.3
65.1
48.8
48.7
55.6
100.0
46.3
82.1
57.1
69.1
31.9
81.2
91.3
83.8
TOL-RUNf
29.1
49.4
33.8
50.2
30.0
30.3
36.9
29.2
31.1
33.1
66.9
28.3
51.7
34.8
39.8
14.0
59.1
63.9
63.8
TOL-RUHfr
66.2
89.0
89.7
117.0
68.8
72.0
96.5
59.4
66.8
65.5
108.0
72.2
100.0
83.3
80.7
36.2
82.7
83.4
83.0
TQL-KUf**
59.8
94.4
87.6
126.0
77.6
77.3
106.0
56.4
60.1
73.0
134.0
74.9
126.0
91.9
97.9
48.1
78.1
83.2
79.1
TOL-FIELD
PkANK
57.6
68.8
74.2
95.2
48.7
58.7
70.7
60.5
59.6
64.4
97.6
66.3
91.0
70.6
76.5
35.5
78.7
94.8
86.2
-------
TABLE 6-18. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ASH ANALYSES
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
FULLSCREEN DATA FOR ASH
ANALYTICAL DATE
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD678
13C12-OCDD
CQm&MKW&JtW&^'fi&ti ,
"
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
it*
BLANK
WOW6
32.3
35.5
39.4
42.7
40.5
38.1
35.0
27.5
33.0
29.8
47.2
30.5
35.3
39.1
42.8
23.8
-
V
iswfrawawfr
CASK it & m
CQNP*
mtiim
37.5
22.7
58.2
40.6
34.3
40.8
42.5
40.4
36.8
21.3
26.5
52.6
48.0
44.7
34.6
15.8
i4*H#tf#*
<&itit*m
' m$$K&
36.0
45.2
37.4
fcMJM$/l5#0
CASHiT&^fl
CQND2
tettim
41.7
32.5
40.1
33.0
28.4
33.8
42.2
40.0
41.5
27.0
37.2
44.1
39.5
34.2
29.5
13.3
LMH-06/15/90
-------
6.4.2 Metals Analytical Quality Assurance
The analytical methods used for the flue gas samples, the ash samples for the
metals analyses are fully discussed in Section 5. The following paragraph will briefly
report metals analytical QA parameters.
Table 6-19 present the method blank metals results for both the ash and flue gas
samples. Only a small amount of Barium (0.40 mg/kg and 1.00 ug) were reported
detected for the ash and flue gas sample, respectively.
Table 6-20 presents the method spike and matrix spike results for the metals
analyses. Method spikes are performed using water where as matrk spikes are added to
an actual sample. All spiked recoveries were within the QA allowance of ± 20 percent
of 100 percent.
6.4.3 Halogen Analytical Quality Assessment
The analysis for Cl", P, and Br" incorporate stringent QA/QC guidelines.
Table 6-21 presents the method blank results for the 1C analysis. The analyses were
completed in four batch runs and a method blank was included for each set. None of
the target halogen ions were detected in any of the method blanks.
The matrk spike recoveries are also shown in Table 6-21. Results for all 3 ions
was within the 20 percent criteria. Recoveries for HC1, HF and HBr were 98.2, 100, and
95.2 percent, respectively.
6.4.4 Microbial Survivability Quality Assurance
Field blank results for the microbial impinger sampling train as reported in
Section 6.2.3 revealed no viable spores were detected in the nine 24-hour counts and
1 spore was detected in 1 out of the nine 48-hour counts.
Two of the stock wet spore solutions, that were used for spiking the incinerator
were also analyzed. These results are listed in Table 6-22. The first sample had a
manufacturer's count of 8 x 108 viable spores/ml, and the confirmation count resulted in
too numerous to count (TNTC). The second sample had a manufacturer's count and
confirmation count of 8 x 108 and 1.4 x 109 viable spores/ml, respectively. All microbial
survivability calculations used the average confirmation count of 1.4 x 109 spores/ml.
Two dry spore samples were also sent in for QA analysis. These results are
shown in Table 6-23. The first sample was sent to the laboratory as it was received from
JBS219
6-28
-------
TABLE 6-19. METALS ASH AND FLUE GAS METHOD BLANK RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ON
METAL
-
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
ASH
METHOD
BLANK
(rag/kg)
[6.40]
[2.00]
(0.40)
[0.20]
[0.50]
[1.00]
[10.0]
[0.98]
[2.00]
[3.30]
[5.40]
FLUB GAS METHOD BLANK
#RONT
HALF
(total Mg)
[16.0]
[5.00]
(1.00)
[0.50]
[1.20]
[2.50]
[25.0]
[2.40]
[5.00]
[8.20]
[14.0]
1MWNGERS
1,2
(total ^g>
[7.20]
[0.45]
[0.22]
[0.22]
[0.56]
[1.10]
[0.34]
[0.88]
[2.20]
[3.70]
[6.00]
iMEtNGEKS
3&4 H
{total /tg)
[0.52]
FIELD BLANK:
FRONT
HALF
(total >g)
(20.8)
[5.00]
13
[0.50]
[1.20]
(3.00)
[25.0]
[2.40]
[5.00]
[8.20]
[14.0]
IMSWNGEES
L2
(total /ig)
[7.60]
[0.47]
(0.354)
[0.024]
[0.059]
[1.20]
(1.04)
(4-42)
[2.40]
[3.90]
[6.40]
1MMN&ERS
3&4 a
(total /tg)
[0.44]
a Impingers 3 & 4 only sample fractions analyzed for mercury content.
NOTE:
—Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits for elements not detected in the samples.
—Values enclosed in parenthesis represent estimates as they are less than 5 times the detection limit.
-------
TABLE 6-20. METALS METHOD SPIKE RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
MBTAJ,
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
MBTHOPSPIREI
FRONT
HALF
97.3
97.8
94.2
96.7
100
96.8
98.7
96
90.5
172
95.5
IMPINGERS
u
102
100
99.4
102
106
104
95.6
94.3
105
NC
112
FROfcTT
HAUF
104
96.2
95.8
98.7
102
100
100
108
92.8
107
95.5
IMPINGERS
u
77.4
100
98.6
101
107
103
95.6
89.1
106
NC
104
MATRIX
SPIKB
88
MATRIX
IXJPUCATE
89.8
NC = Not Calculated
6-30
-------
TABLE 6-21. HALOGEN METHOD BLANK AND FIELD BLANK RESULTS
AND MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERY
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ANALYTE
HC1
HF
HBr
METHOD
BLAN&
(Ruittf 13)
{pg/mifc
[0.11]
[0.42]
[0.13]
METHOD
BLANK
(Raws 3,4)
to/«i>
[0.11]
[0.42]
[0.13]
METHOD
BLANK
3&8*5,6)
{pg/nd}
[0.11]
[0.42]
[0.13]
METHOD
BLANK
(law 5R,t"9)
(total pg>
[8.95]
[33.7]
[10.1]
FIELD
BLANK
(total ^g>
[6.99]
[26.33]
[8.00]
HC1
HF
HBr
RECOVERY
98.20
100.00
95.20
a Total sample volume was typically 100 mis.
6-31
-------
TABLE 6-22. WET SPORE SPIKE SOLUTION CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
U)
SAMPLE
m
10 ml Spore Suspension
Vial
200 ml Spore Suspension
Bag
MANUFACTURER'S
COUNT
(viable
-------
TABLE 6-23. DRY SPORE CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
MANUFACTURER'S
COUNT
(viable spores/ml)
CONFIRMATION
AVERAGE
(viable spores/ml)
CONFIRMATION
COUNT
STANDARD DEVIATION
(viable «poreg/ml)
Dry Spore Glass
Vial
Dry Spores Loaded Into
A Pipe
3.45E+05
3.45E+05
9.1E-K)5
8.4E+05
9.2E+04
1.4E+04
-------
the manufacturer (in a glass vial). The second sample was loaded into a pipe and then
sent to the laboratory with the other samples to determine possible preparation or
recovery losses. The confirmation count in both cases exceeded the manufacturer's count
(9.1 x 10s and 8.4 x 105 spores vs. 3.45 x 105 spores, respectively).
6.5 CEM QUALITY ASSURANCE
Flue gas was analyzed for carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and total hydrocarbons (THC), using
EPA Methods 10, 3A, 6C, IE, and 25A, respectively. An additional CEM analyzer was
also employed for real time HC1 gas concentrations.
6.5.1 CEM DATA OVERVIEW
CEM sampling system and instruments were operated performing daily QA/QC
procedures. These included QC gas challenges, sample systems blow back, probe
maintenance, filter replacement, conditioner inspection and maintenance, calibration
drift checks and others. The aim was to ensure a quality data product.
The CEM data is a unique form of emissions testing in that it provides real time,
minute by minute indications of stack gas pollutant and diluent gas concentrations. The
Lenoir incinerator stack gas emissions were characterized by extreme, very quick
fluctuations in concentrations at various times during the test, CO concentrations varied
from low ppmV values (10-50 ppmV) to over 50,000 ppmv. In addition to
concentration fluctuations, short episodes of high organic, "sooty" emissions occurred
which made steady CEM operation very difficult. However, all data reported in this
report is considered valid and is verified by the following QA parameters.
Table 6-24 presents the CEM internal QA/QC checks along with their respective
acceptance criteria which were conducted at the Lenoir tests.
6.5.2 Calibration Drift Checks
All CEM analyzers were calibrated daily with a zero gas (generally nitrogen), and
a high-range span gas. Calibrations were performed prior to and at the completion of
each test run. By comparing the post-test calibration to the pre-test calibration, the
calibration drift was determined (zero drift and span drift).
Drift requirements between calibrations for both zero and span was ±3 percent
for each run of full scale as required by EPA Methods 6C and 3A. Although Method 10
JBS219
6-34
-------
TABLE 6-24. CEM INTERNAL QA/QC CHECKS
Check
Frequency
Criteria
Initial Leak Check
Daily Leak Checks
Calibration Drift
Multipoint Linearity
Check (Calibration
Error)
Sample System Bias
Response Time
Once/Site
Before Each Test
Run
Daily
Every 3rd Day
3 point for O2, CO2,
SO2, HC1
4 point for CO, THC
Every 3rd Day
Zero and Span
Once/Site
< 4% of Total flow
while under vacuum
< 0.5% O2 with
0.2% O2 gas
< ±3% Span
zero and upscale
gas (can use
± 10 ppm limit for
HC1 if less
restrictive)
r = 0.998
< 5% Span
85% of time for
stable SO2
measurements
NOX Convenor
Stratification Test
Once/Site
Once/Site
> 90% conversion
efficiency
Within 10% of
average
JBS219
6-35
-------
for CO allows ±10 percent of full scale drift, the CO drift requirements were ±3 percent
for this test program, to ensure the quality of data produced. For days where the drift
exceeded 3 percent, the CEM data was drift corrected as shown in Appendix H.
Table 6-25 lists the zero and span calibration drift results for each CEM analyzer
on each test day.
6.5.3 Daily PC Gas Challenges
After initial calibration, mid-range QC gases for all instruments were analyzed
with no adjustment, as a quality control check of daily calibrations and to provide
day-to-day precision estimates for each instrument. The calibration was considered
acceptable if the difference between the measured response and the certified
concentration was within ± 2 percent of full scale of the analyzer.
Table 6-26 presents the results of the daily QA gas challenges.
6.5.4 Stratification Check
Following the tests, NOX concentrations were recorded at eight sampling points to
check for possible flue gas stratification. The procedure called for NOy to be
continuously monitored for approximately 10 minutes/point while an additional CEM
NOX system monitored concentrations at a stationary reference point in the stack. In this
way, fluctuations in concentrations caused by process operation and not due to
stratification, could be monitored.
Stratification is normally determined as the percent difference that a point
concentration deviates from the average of all point concentrations. However, when the
flue gas concentration is not stable, each point value is compared to the reference
concentration determined during that same time interval. This is an acceptable method
when the average reference concentration approximates the average of all the point
concentrations.
The stratification results are given in Table 6-27. Stratification is typically defined
as any point concentration deviating from the average concentration by more than
10 percent. The largest deviation present during the test series was -4.1 percent. This
then shows that there was no flue gas stratification present.
JBS219
6-36
-------
TABLE 6-25. DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS
LENDER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ZERO SPAN
U*STEU!MBNT INSTRUMENT
KON mm »KIFT
DATS NB&tBEK. (* of Spaa) {* of Span)
PARAMETER: O2
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: 0.2% O2
FULL SCALE: 25
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
1
2
3
4
4R
6
7
5R
8
9
PARAMETER: CO
-0.0804
-0.0801
0.3151
0.1575
*
-0.9533
0.0000
0.1564
ND
0.0000
-0.9644
0.6410
0.0788
0.0000
*
0.1589
0.0000
0.3911
-0.8000
0.0000
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 5000
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
1
2
3
4
4R
6
7
5R
8
9
PARAMETER: CO2
0.0247
0.0397
0.0080
-0.0172
*
0.0016
0.0000
0.0045
ND
0.0000
-0.2539
0.0056
0.0095
0.0719
*
0.0000
0.0000
0.0719
-0.1700
0.0000
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 20
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
1
2
3
4
4R
6
7
5R
8
9
0.0000
-0.1448
0.7838
0.0000
*
0.0719
0.0000
-0.0721
ND
0.0000"
-0.7531
-2.3168
-0.9975
0.0000
*
-0.0719
0.0000
0.1441
-0.1000
0.0000
* No final calibration was performed on 06/04/90 due to equipment problems.
** CEM data was drift corrected.
ND = Not determined -
-------
TABLE 6-25. DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS, (continued)
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ZERO SPAN
USSTlWMBJCr JNS31BMENT
Wm 3>«IFr 0B3FT
BATE NUMBBR {* of Span} {* of Span}
PARAMETER: HC1
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 2000
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
1
2
3
4
4R
6
7
5R
8
9
PARAMETER: SO2
1.6043
0.8074
0.7322
0.8721
*
1.4566
-0.0427
0.2072
ND
0.0000
-1.0027
4.4406 **
0.1831
2.5292
*
1.3561
19.7988 **
-0.8289
7.58 **
0.0000
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 500
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
1
2
3
4
4R
6
7
5R
8
9
PARAMETER: NOx
0.0000
-0.1797
0.9408
0.0000
• *
0.1815
0.0000
0.0000
ND
0.0000
-0.2699
0.7069
1.1180
0.5337
*
0.5446
0.0000
3.5321
0.2800
0.0000
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 250
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
1
2
3
4
4R
6
7
5R
8
9
0.0000
0.0000
0.9138
0.0000
*
0.1667
0.0000
0.0000
ND
0.9979
-2.605
-0.1681
-0.2492
-1.0833
*
0.3333
0.0000
2.4334
0.4000
-0.1663
* No final calibration was performed on 06/04/90 due to equipment problems.
** CEM data was drift corrected.
ND = Not determined t ^ o
-------
I ABLE 6-25. DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS, (continued)
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ZERO SPAN
iNsm&tBNT INSTRUMENT
*m DBIPT D30FT
DATE NUMBER {% of Span) (% of Span}
PARAMETER: THC
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 100
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
1
2
3
4
4R
6
7
5R
8
9
0.0000
7.7119 **
1.4493
1.3855
*
13.3429 **
0.0000
ND
ND
0.0000
-8.5961
15.9322 **
7.4638 **
1.2048
*
0.0000
0.0000
ND
ND
0.0000
* No final calibration was performed on 06/04/90 due to equipment problems.
** CEM data was drift corrected.
ND = Not determined
6-39
-------
TABLE 6-26. QC GAS RESPONSES
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
&ATB
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
PARAMETER
O2 b
CO(dry) c
TSJUE
CONCENTRATION
9.99
9.99
4.99
0.20
4.99
9.99
9.99
9.99
20.10
9.99
9.99
4.99
20.10
9.99
90.50
90.50
181.00
181.00
90.50
181.00
95.80
190.00
450.00
95.80
95.80
19.05
450.00
190.00
450.00
95.80
MEAStlREB
CONCENTRAT1OII
9.8
9.7
4.8
0.2
4.7
9.7
9.8
9.8
20.2
10.0
9.8
4.8
20.1
10.0
88.2
26.5
182.4
184.4
93.2
174.9
94.5
192.8
461.9
97.8
97.2
17.4
475.8
188.5
421.4
96.0
PERCENT*
DIFFERENCE
-0.76%
-1.16%
-0.76%
0.00%
-1.16%
-1.16%
-0.76%
-0.76%
0.40%
0.04%
-0.76%
-0.76%
0.00%
0.04%
-0.05%
-1.28%
0.03%
0.07%
0.05%
-0.12%
-0.03%
0.06%
0.24%
0.04%
0.03%
-0.03%
0.52%
-0.03%
-0.57%
0.00%
NOTE:
a percent difference = 100 * (measured - true)/span
b in units of percent by Volume
c in units of ppm by Volume
6-40
-------
TABLE 6-26. QC GAS RESPONSES, (continued)
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
06/09/90
PARAMETER
CO2b
SO2c
NOxc
TRW
COKCESITIUTIOJ!
10.09
10.09
5.04
5.04
10.09
10.09
8.90
18.00
8.90
5.04
18.00
8.90
49.20
49.20
49.20
49.20
49.20
49.20
49.20
25.20
102.10
49.20
90.10
49.60
91.00
91.00
50.60
91.00
49.30
200.00
91.00
49.60
91.00
49.30
49.30
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
10.0
9.8
4.9
4.9
9.8
10.0
9.0
18.0
8.7
4.9
17.8
8.8
48.6
49.5
44.5
45.0
46.7
53.3
48.3
20.9
103.5
48.6
90.5
50.2
90.4
91.9
49.4
88.9
47.9
206.0
92.8
49.6
92.0
49.5
48.9
PERCENT*
DIFFERENCE
-0.45%
-1.45%
-0.70%
-0.70%
-1.45%
-0.45%
0.50%
0.00%
-1.00%
-0.70%
-1.00%
-0.50%
-0.12%
0.06%
-0.94%
-0.84%
-0.50%
0.82%
-0.18%
-0.86%
0.28%
-0.12%
0.20%
0.30%
-0.30%
0.45%
-0.60%
-1.05%
-0.70%
3.00%
0.90%
0.00%
0.50%
0.10%
-0.20%
NOTE:
a percent difference = 100 * (measured - true)/span
b in units of percent by Volume
c in units of ppm by Volume
6-41
-------
TABLE 6-26. QC GAS RESPONSES, (continued)
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
UATB
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/08/90
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/05/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
rAKAMETEH
THC (wet) c
HCL (wet) c
TIKJl
CONCEKTRATIOKT
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
45.00
45.00
45.00
465.10
465.10
1848.90
465.10
465.10
202.50
465.10
202.1
1848.1
465
MEASURED
CONCEHTRATIOJI
6.4
7.0
6.0
3.2
4.5
45.5
43.9
44.3
546.5
535.5
1850.9
536.2
525.7
207.7
442.8
223.8
1999.6
507
PERCBJCT*
DIFFERENCE
1.40%
2.00%
1.00%
0.20%
-0.50%
0.50%
-1.10%
-0.70%
4.07%
3.52% **
0.10%
3.56%
3.03%
0.26%
-1.12%
1.09%
7.58%
2.10%
NOTE:
a percent difference = 100 * (measured - true)/span
b in units of percent by Volume
c in units of ppm by Volume
6-42
-------
TABLE 6-27. NOx STRATIFICATION CHECK
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
POINT
NUMBER
Al
A2
A3
A4
Bl
B2
B3
B4
DISTANCE :
FROMWAUw
(jtaeto*).. .. i
1.2
4.5
13.5
16.8
1.2
4.5
13.5
16.8
11MB
INTERVAL
16:59-17:02
17:03-17:06
17:06-17:10
17:11-17:15
17:19-17:22
17:22-17:25
17:28-17:30
17:31-17:35
AVERAGE
REFERENCE
AVERAGE NO*
CONCENTRATION
68.5
90.4
89.1
54.5
55.9
64.8
67.8
46.7
&£l
POINT
AVERAGE NO*c
CONCENTRATION
65.7
92.1
89.2
56.0
54.8
67.2
66.8
46.8
&&
PERCENT DIFFERENCE
FROM REFERENCE *
<*>
-4.1
1.9
0.1
2.8
-2.0
3.7
-1.5
0.2
-------
6.5.5 Multipoint Linearity Check
During the test program, the multipoint linearity was determined for each CEM
analyzer. This is important because flue gas concentrations are determined from a two
point linear regression analysis (zero calibration and span calibration gas). Multipoint
calibrations are performed with either three or four certified gases depending on the
instrument: a zero gas, a low scale gas concentration, a mid-range concentration, and a
high scale concentration (span gas). The QC criterion for acceptable linearity will be a
correlation coefficient (r) of greater than or equal to .998, where the independent
variable is the cylinder gas concentration and the dependent variable is the instrument
response.
Table 6-28 presents the results of CEM linearity checks. All linearity checks met
the acceptance criteria.
6.5.6 NOX Converter Efficiency
After all test runs were completed an NO2 to NO converter efficiency test was
performed as prescribed in Method 20. The procedure used for testing the converter
efficiency is given below:
• Fill a leak-free Tedlar bag approximately half full with an NO in N2 blend.
• Fill the remainder of the bag with 0.1 grade air.
• Immediately attach the NO/Air mixture to the inlet of the NOX monitor
being used.
• Allow the monitor to sample the gas in the bag for 30 minutes.
As the O2 and NO in the bag are exposed to each other a reaction occurs which
changes the NO to NO2. An attenuation in response over time of less than five percent
absolute indicates that the converter efficiency is acceptable. Approximately halfway
through the procedure the NO/Air mixture in the Tedlar bag was depleted and the
measured NOX concentration dropped as expected. Sufficient data had been
accumulated however to indicate acceptable converter efficiency.
JBS219
6-44
-------
TABLE 6-28. LINEARITY RESULTS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER
O2 *
O2 *
CO *
CO *
C02*
SO2 **
NOx*
HC1 (wet) **
DATE
06/01/90
06/07/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/07/90
06/07/90
06/19/90
06/07/90
TRW
CONCENTRATIOK
0.20
0.20
4.99
9.99
0.20
4.99
9.99
20.10
0.00
49.60
91.00
222.00
0.00
19.05
95.80
190.00
450.00
0.00
5.04
9.00
18.00
0.00
25.20
49.20
102.10
0.00
25.20
49.20
102.10
0.00
202.10
465.10
1848.10
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
0.2
0.2
4.7
9.7
0.2
4.8
9.8
20.1
0.0
49.5
90.8
220.4
0.0
17.4
97.2
188.5
475.8
0.0
4.9
8.7
17.8
0.0
20.9
48.3
103.5
0.0
20.9
48.3
103.5
0.0
223.8
442.8
1999.6
CORRELATION
(R>
0.99988
0.99992
0.99999
0.99965
0.99992
0.99890
0.99997
0.99942
* in units of percent
** in units of ppm
6-45
-------
6.5.7 Sample Bias
All calibrations and linearity checks were performed through the entire sampling
system. Therefore, any system bias which may have existed was compensated for in the
calibrations.
6.6 DATA VARIABILITY
6.6.1 Overview
Coefficients of Variation (CV) were calculated for all the final stack gas pollutant
concentrations. The CV or relative standard deviation (RSD) is calculated by dividing
the standard deviation by the mean and expressed as a percentage. CVs from several
distinct groups of data can be combined into a "Pooled CV". The pooled CV is
calculated as follows:
CV = — x 100
M
Where:
CV = Coefficient of variation
S = Standard deviation (calculated using LOTUS 123™ which uses n and
not n-1 where n = number of data points.)
M = mean
(CV{)2
CVp = pooled coefficient of Variation
CV; = Coefficient of variation for a simple sample set i.
nj = Number of data points in that sample set.
The CV values expressed in the following tables are not intended to represent
sampling/analytical precision. They are more a reflection of the variability of the data
as a whole, including process caused emission variability.
JBS219
6-46
-------
6.6.2 CDD/CDF Data Variation
Table 6-29 presents the CVs for the CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations. Values
are listed for each congener for each triplicate run as well as a pooled CV for the entire
nine runs. Pooled CVs are also compiled for all of the congeners and for the entire test
program (overall). The overall pooled CV for the CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations
was 38.5 percent.
Table 6-30 presents CVs for the metal flue gas concentrations. The Condition 3,
mercury CV is uncharacteristicly high at 133.3 percent. This value results from a high
concentration of 3,390 ug/dscm for Run 7 compared to 38.5 and 96.3 ug/dscm for
Runs 8 and 9, respectively. The overall pooled CV for 6 metals concentrations in
51.5 percent.
The Halogen gas test CVs are listed in Table 6-31. Values were calculated for
each run as each run consisted of multiple "sub-runs" (1A, IB, 1C, etc). The overall
pooled CV for all three halogen flue gas concentrations is 45.3 percent.
Table 6-32 presents the CV values for the CEM 30 second readings. It should be
noted in comparing these numbers to the manual test CVs, that the CEM data reflect
real time, almost instantaneous changes in concentrations. The manual tests are all
integrated tests which by sampling over an extended period of time, result in an "average
concentration" for that time period. The overall pooled CV for the CEM data
253.5 percent. Results from manual tests did not fluctuate nearly as much as the
30 second CEM readings, therefore have much lower CVs.
6-47
-------
TABLE 6-29. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATIONS FOR THE CDD/CDF FLUE
GAS CONCENTRATIONS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGB&BR
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
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 Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
POOLED CV
OVERALL POOLED CV
CYiHJ
<*>
51.3
51.1
60.7
49.0
43.8
47.1
52.7
47.6
36.6
38.8
19.4
38.1
46.4
48.3
46.0
49.8
40.4
47.1
38.0
49.0
41.1
33.5
36.0
33.9
43.5
44.3
38.5
CVi4"$
<#>
77.4
31.3
16.9
12.3
24.4
13.5
16.9
13.3
37.2
51.6
64.4
20.9
25.5
25.0
18.7
24.9
36.9
21.2
41.9
10.7
25.3
38.8
18.9
33.2
78.7
36.3
CYi7«£
<*>
13.5
19.6
7.4
14.5
11.5
20.2
13.4
23.7
33.1
40.5
49.2
11.1
12.1
13.4
18.3
22.1
32.8
30.2
30.7
19.6
31.9
53.4
58.2
60.3
80.7
34.2
POOLED
cv
54.2
36.4
36.7
30.3
29.7
30.6
32.9
31.6
35.6
44.0
48.1
25.9
31.4
32.3
30.6
34.6
36.8
34.5
37.1
31.1
33.4
42.7
41.0
44.3
69.8
6-48
-------
TABLE 6-30. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF THE FLUE GAS
METALS CONCENTRATIONS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
FLOW RATE
(dscwtt*)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
POOLED CV
OVERALL POOLED CV
CONDITION
I
CV
<*>
22.0
30.7
31.1
ND
73.0
18.3
17.3
20.0
32.0
ND
ND
35.0
51.5
CONMHQN
2
CV
(*>
49.3
18.5
19.2
ND
59.6
31.0
62.7
38.1
46.6
3.9
ND
44.5
CONBmON
3
CV
<*>
31.2
13.0
29.8
ND
29.7
67.9
29.7
133.3
79.4
96.7
ND
66.8
POOUBJ>
CV
36.0
22.0
27.2
ND
57.0
44.4
41.3
80.9
56.3
68.4
ND
6-49
-------
TABLE 6-31. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION
FOR HALOGEN FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
ISIN
Average- 1
Average-2
Average-3
Condition 1
Average-4
Average-5R
Average
Condition 2
Average-7
Average- 8
Average-9
Condition 3
ANALYTE POOLED
TOTAL HALOGEN
HBr
31.55
85.22
21.81
53.96
101.80
83.86
44.43
79.91
29.95
5.39
23.93
22.35
56.08
ND = Not Detected; CV's were not calculated for non-detect result
6-50
-------
TABLE 6-32. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF CEM GAS CONCENTRATIONS
LENOIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
mm
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
4R
5R
6
7
8
9
DATE
05/30/90
05/31/90
06/01/90
06/02/90
06/04/90
06/06/90
06/05/90
06/06/90
06/07/90
06/08/90
COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION
(percent)
O2
28.2
33.1
17.0
25.2
17.8
ll'.O
24.9
18.3
16.5
20.1
CO
677.1
128.0
381.1
169.0
493.5
823.2
272.9
390.0
483.0
554.6
C02
39.7
36.4
41.9
37.3
40.4
28.4
40.6
39.4
53.1
44.1
HCJ
359.3
52.8
50.3
59.0
100.5
55.0
143.8
119.6
132.1
SQ2
216.5
346.7
412.5
168.4
265.0
432.8
863.6
338.2
360.6
329.7
NO*
54.8
35.5
40.9
29.8
53.9
17.2
24.9
52.9
59.1
53.9
THC
165.7
80.2
326.3
101.7
139.1
109.6
508.0
530.8
POOLEBi
CV !
308.7
146.1
247.3
102.6
237.3
382.2
346.0
280.3
253.1
320.9
POOLED CV 21.2 450.5 38.1 143.7 401.7 41.2 234.6
OVERALL POOLED CV 253.5
6-51
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern
Society. Pilot Study on International Information Exchange on Dioxins and
Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF) Methods
of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds.
Report No. 176, August 1988.
JBS219
------- |