United States Office of Air Quality EMS Report 90-MW;-4
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards Volume I
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 November 1390
Air
Mediesl Waste Inch'W&tfon
Enlist on Tesf: Report
Cape Fear Memorial Hospital
Wilmington, North Carolina
-------
DCN: 90-275-026-26-05
MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATION
EMISSION TEST REPORT
Cape Fear Memorial Hospital
Wilmington, North Carolina
VOLUME I
EMB Project No. 90-MWI-05
Work Assignment 26
Contract No. 68-D-90054
Prepared for:
Waste Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
3200 Nelson Highway/Chapel Hill Road
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
December, 1991
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
List of Figures „ v
List of Tables vi
Volume I
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Test Objectives 1-3
1.2 Brief Site Description 1-4
1.3 Emission Measurement Program 1-4
1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 1-10
1.5 Description of Report Contents 1-10
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 2-24
2.4 Participate Matter/Visible Emissions 2-35
2.5 Halogen Gas Emissions 2-38
2.6 CEM Results 2-46
2.7 CEM Burn Down Results 2-50
2.8 Ash Loss-on-Ignition and Carbon Content Results 2-52
2.9 Microbial Survivability Results 2-54
2.10 CDD/CDF Emission Values Incorporating the Toluene
Recovery Results . 2-
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.1 Facility Description 3-1
3.2 Pre-Test Activities 3-3
3.3 Process Conditions During Testing 3-4
4.0 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 4-1
JBS219
-11
-------
CONTENTS, continued
Section Page
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES BY ANALYTE 5-1
5.1 CDD/CDF Emissions Testing Method 5-1
5.2 Particulate 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 5-53
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 6-37
6.6 Data Variability 6-50
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 III
APPENDICES
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 Tables
D.3 Bum Down 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
JBS219 IV
-------
CONTENTS, continued
K.4 Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste
Incinerator Ash
K.5 Determination of HC1 Emissions from Stationary Sources
L INCINERATOR OPERATIONAL QA/QC PROCEDURES, MAINTENANCE
ROUTINES AND OPERATOR TRAINING
M ON-SITE EXTERNAL QA/QC DAILY REPORTS
JBS219
-------
FIGURES
Page
1-1 Cape Fear Memorial Hospital Incinerator 1-2
1-2 Sampling Locations 1-7
3-1 Temperature Profile for Run 1 3-8
3-2 Temperature Profile for Run 2 3-9
3-3 Temperature Profile for Run 3 3-10
3-4 Temperature Profile for Run 4 3-11
3-5 Temperature Profile for Run 5 3-12
3-6 Temperature Profile for Run 6 „ 3-13
3-7 Temperature Profile for Run 7 3-14
3-8 Temperature Profile for Run 8 3-15
3-9 Temperature Profile for Run 9 3-16
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
5-13 Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing of Ash
Samples 5-46
5-14 Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Microbial Viability Testing 5-47
5-15 Sample and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing 5-48
5-16 HC1 Sample Train Configuration 5-51
5-17 HCl/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme 5-54
5-18 Schematic of CEM System 5-57
5-19 Anderson MK HI In-Stack Impactor with Particle Pre-Separator
Sampling Train 5-67
JBS219 VI
-------
TABLES
Pae
1-1 Cape Fear Memorial Hospital MWI Test Matrix
2-1 Emissions Test Log ..................... . ....... . ............. 2-2
2-2 Average CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations for Each Test
Condition ......... . ................................... ..... 2-4
2-3 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7% O2 for Each
Test Condition ..... . ......................................... 2-5
2-4 Average CDD/CDF Stack Gas Emissions for Each Test
Condition ........ . ............ . ............................ 2-6
2-5 Average CDD/CDF 2378 Toxic Equivalent Stack Gas Concentrations
Adjusted to 7% O2 for Each Test Condition ................. . ....... 2-7
2-6 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and Emissions Rates at
Condition 1 .......... . , ..... . ........... ..... ...... . ....... . 2-8
2-7 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and Emissions Rates at
Condition 2 ............... . ............ . ____ . ...... . ........ 2-9
2-8 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and Emissions Rates at
Condition 3 .............. . ---- . . ......... . . ................. 2-10
2-9 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentration Adjusted to 7% O2 for Condition 1 ............ 2-11
2-10 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentration Adjusted to 7% O2 for Condition 2 ... ......... 2-12
2-11 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentration Adjusted to 7% O2 for Condition 3 ............ 2-13
2-12 CDD/CDF Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters ......... ..... 2-14
2-13 CDD/CDF Average Ash Results for Each Condition ____ ........ ...... 2-17
2-14 CDD/CDF Ash Results at Condition 1 ....... ..................... 2-18
2-15 CDD/CDF Ash Results at Condition 2 ........... ........ . ........ 2-19
2-16 CDD/CDF Ash Results at Condition 3 ... ............. . ......... . . 2-20
2-17 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons Flue Gas Results CDD/CDF Run 7 ......... 2-21
2-18 Chlorinated Phenols and Chlorinated Benzenes Flue Gas Result
CDD/CDF Run 7 ........ ..... .............. . ____ ... ......... 2-22
2-19 PCB Flue Gas Results; CDD/CDF Run 7 . ................ ......... 2-25
2-20 Average Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates at Each
Condition ............................... .......... ......... 2-26
2-21 Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 1 .... .............. ..... ...... ..... ........ . ...... 2-27
2-22 Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 2 ................................................. 2-28
2-23 Metals/Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 3 ............................. . .......... . ---- .... 2-29
JBS219 Vll
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-24 Ratio of Metals to Paniculate Matter 2-32
2-25 Metals Amounts in Flue Gas Samples by Sample Fractions 2-33
2-26 Metals and PM Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters 2-34
2-27 Metal and Ash Concentrations 2-36
2-28 Particulate Matter Concentrations and Emissions Results 2-37
2-29 Percent Opacity Observations Summary . 2-39
2-30 Summary of Halogen Acid Testing Results 2-40
2-31 Summary of HC1 Results for Each Run 2-41
2-32 Summary of HF Results for Each Run 2-43
2-33 Summary of HBr Results at Each Run 2-44
2-34 Comparison of Manual and CEM HC1 Results 2-45
2-35 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Daily Test Run Averages;
O2, CO, CO2 and HC1 2-48
2-36 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Daily Test Run Averages;
O2, SO2, NOX and THC 2-49
2-37 CEM Burn Down Averages 2-51
2-38 Summary of Ash Carbon Content, LOI and Moisture Results 2-53
2-39 Summary of Incinerator Feed Amounts and Ash Generation Per Run 2-56
2-40 Overall Microbial Survivability 2-59
2-41 Viable Spore Emissions 2-60
2-42 Indicator Spore Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameter 2-62
2-43 Viable Spores in Ash . . 2-63
2-44 Viable Spores in Pipes 2-64
2-45 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Gas
Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for Condition 1,
Incorporating the Toluene Rinse Values . 2-
2-46 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Gas
Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for Condition 2,
Incorporating the Toluene Rinse Values 2-
2-47 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Gas
Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for Condition 3,
Incorporating the Toluene Rinse Values 2-
3-1 Process Data Summary . 3-6
5-1 Test Methods for the Cape Fear Memorial Hospital MWI 5-2
5-2 Sampling Times, Minimum Sampling Volumes and Detection Limits
for the Cape Fear Memorial Hospital MWI Tests 5-3
5-3 CDD/CDF Glassware Cleaning Procedure 5-6
5-4 CDD/CDF Sampling Checklist 5-11
JBS219 viii
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
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
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 Laboratory Proof Blank Results Compared to Run Results ....... 6-19
6-15 Method Blank and Field Blank Results for the MM5 and Toluene
Flue Gas Samples 6-23
6-16 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Analyses 6-24
6-17 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Toluene Analyses 6-26
6-18 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Ash Analyses 6-29
6-19 Metals Ash and Flue Gas Method Blank Results 6-30
6-20 Metals Method Blank Spike Results 6-31
6-21 Halogen Method Blank, XAD Proof Blank, Reagent Blank and Matrix
Spike Recovery 6-32
6-22 Comparison of Halogen Results Between H2SO4 Impinger Catches
and NaOH Impinger Catches 6-34
JBS219 IX
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
6-23 Wet Spore Spike Solution Confirmation Analysis 6-35
6-24 Dry Spore Spike Material Confirmation Analysis 6-36
6-25 CEM Internal QA/QC Checks 6-38
6-26 CEM Daily Calibration Drifts 6-40
6-27 QC Gas Responses 6-44
6-28 NOX Stratification Check 6-47
6-29 CEM Linearity Results 6-49
6-30 Coefficients of Variation for the CDD/CDF Hue Gas Concentrations 6-51
6-31 Coefficients of Variation of the Flue Gas Metals Concentrations 6-53
6-32 Coefficients of Variation for the Halogen Flue Gas Concentrations 6-54
6-33 Coefficients of Variation of CEM Gas Concentrations 6-55
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 be evaluated to determine its advantages and disadvantages, including its
ability to render a medical waste non-infectious or less infectious, and unrecognizable.
Additionally, EPA is required to identify operational parameters which influence the
effectiveness of incineration, such as facility quality control procedures, maintenance
procedures, and incinerator operator training.
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 reports to
Congress. One of the basic needs in the evaluation of incineration as a treatment
technology is a characterization of effluents from existing medical waste incinerators
(MWIs) including air emissions and ash quality. These data are required to assess the
actual potential impacts on health and the environment from existing sources that do not
have advanced combustion controls or air pollution control devices.
Therefore, OSW and OAQPS are working jointly to perform additional studies at
typical existing MWI facilities. The test program described in this report is one of the
studies.
The MWI facility at Cape Fear Memorial Hospital in Wilmington, North Carolina
was selected for testing because it is typical of existing ram-fed units with a secondary
chamber gas retention time of approximately one second, 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 (RTF) minimized travel
expenditures and because the hospital administration had expressed an interest in
cooperating with the EPA in the emission test program.
JBS226
-------
Secondly Chamber
Figure 1-1. Cape Fear Memorial Hospital Incinerator
1-2
-------
1.1 TEST OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the testing program at the Cape Fear Memorial Hospital MWI
were:
• 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 quality as a factor 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 (NOJ, hydrogen chloride (HC1), and polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF).
Determine, if possible, the microorganism destruction efficiencies based on
a surrogate indicator organism that is spiked into the incinerator feed
during each test run.
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 - Below-design feed rate (200 Ib/hr) at a high charge frequency
(6 minute cycle) and a high secondary chamber temperature (1900-2000°F).
• Set Z - Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr) at a high charge frequency (6 minute
cycle) and a high secondary chamber temperature of 1900-2000°F.
JBS226
-------
Set 3 - Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr) at the design charging frequency
(10 minute cycle), and the design secondary chamber temperature 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
Cape Fear Memorial Hospital is a 109-bed hospital located in Wilmington, North
Carolina. The MWI for this facility is located adjacent to the engineering and
maintenance building and near a dumpster location. The MWI is a 385 pound-per-hour
(Ib/hr) nameplate rated, ram-fed unit manufactured by Environmental Control Products
(now known as Joy Energy Systems). Wastes are brought out of the main building in
plastic carts by the hospital housekeeping staff. Cafeteria waste and some paper waste
are separated and placed in the dumpster, which is then deposited in a local landfill.
The remainder is burned in the incinerator.
There is a full time operator for the MWI facility. Normal operating hours are
between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. daily. The facility is maintained by the hospital's
engineering and maintenance department. Ash is removed each morning before warmup
on gas. The ash is stored in 35 gallon trash cans and taken to the local landfill several
times a week.
Detailed descriptions of the MWI facility, its operation, the waste and waste
handling procedures are given in Section 3.
1.3 EMISSIONS AND ASH QUALITY MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
This section provides an overview of the emissions and ash quality measurement
program conducted at Cape Fear Memorial Hospital. Included in this section are
JBS226
-------
summaries of 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 Cape Fear 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
particulate matter/metals tests as well as CDD/CDF and halogen 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,
screened through 1/2" mesh, and placed in the bulk ash containers where it was sampled
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
impingers. The analysis was completed using high resolution gas chromatography
(HRGC) coupled with high resolution mass spectrometry detection (HRMS).
JBS226
-------
TABLE 1-1. CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI TEST MATRIX
Sample Number
Location Runs
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
)
i
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Incinerator
Incinerator
9
9
27"
18b
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
HCI/HBr/HF
Indicator Spores
SO2
02 /C02
NOX
CO
THC
HCI
Opacity
Incinerator Ash
Indicator Spore Pipes
Sample
Sample Method Duration Analysis Method Laboratory
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
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Manual
4 hours
4 hours
1 hour
1 .6 .hours
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
4 hour
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
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
Chemiluminescence CEM
NDIR CEM
FID CEM
NDIR CEM
Visual
LOI, Carbon, Metals
Dioxins
Microbial Draft Method
Microbial Draft Method
Radian
Triangle
Labs,
Inc.
Radian
RTI
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs,
Inc.
RTI
RTI
a3 one-hour runs per test day.
b2 one-hour 45 minute runs per test day.
-------
Stack
Particutetes
Meiate
BCf/HSr/HF
tndteator Spores
COD/COF
NO
X
CO
THC
HCI
Opacity
Incinerator
Bottom Ash
Indicator Spore Pipes
Figure 1-2. Sampling Locations at the Cape Fear Memorial Hospital MWI
1-7
-------
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.
Three methods were used to evaluate the microbial survivability in the
incinerator. These methods were intended to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the
MWI in destroying microbes in the waste. This was achieved by spiking the incinerator
with surrogate indicator spores encased in insulated double-pipe containers and spiking
the actual waste stream. The waste stream was spiked with indicator spores loaded onto
material commonly found in the medical waste stream and then charged into the
incinerator to determine the ability of the indicator organisms to survive in the
combustion gases and the incinerator bottom ash. Flue gas testing for spore emissions
was conducted simultaneously with the other emissions testing. The morning following
the daily bum cycle, ash samples and pipe samples were recovered and analyzed for
spore viability. Direct ash sampling and pipe sampling was conducted daily when 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 microbiological
identification, culturing, and quantification techniques outlined in the EPA draft method
"Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions." Ash samples
and pipe samples were analyzed as outlined hi the EPA draft method "Microbial
Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Ash." These tests were conducted as
outlined in the test plan.
Visual opacity measurements were also taken continuously during the paniculate
test periods. A certified observer documented incinerator stack gas opacity by following
EPA Method 9 protocol.
Gaseous emissions (NO^ CO, SO2, THC, and HC1) were measured using CEMs
continuously during the day. The diluent gases (O2, CO2) were measured using CEMs at
all times when tests were being performed so that the emission results could be
JBS226
-------
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 and mixed to provide a representative composite
sample for each test run. 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 the following morning for microbial analysis. Detailed
descriptions of the sampling and analytical procedures are provided in Section 5.
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) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), including chlorobenzenes (CBs) and
chlorophenols (CPs).
Samples from paniculate matter/metals emission tests were analyzed by Radian's
Perimeter Park (PPK) laboratory. Analytical procedures were completed using ICAP,
graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (GFAAS) and cold vapor atomic
absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS). Incinerator ash was also analyzed for metals content
using these techniques. Paniculate 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 1C techniques.
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
colonies of indicator organisms were enumerated using standard methods for microbial
JBS226
-------
testing. The protocol is outlined in the EPA draft methods "Microbial Survivability Test
for Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions" and "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical
Waste Incinerator Ash.
The incinerator ash was analyzed by McCoy Labs for volatile 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 Cape Fear 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 16 out of 18 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 and Toluene
CDD/CDF FB, PM/Metals Lab Proof Blank, Microbial FB, or Halogen Lab Proof
Blank samples. Final toluene rinses of the CDD/CDF samples collected only a small
portion of the total MM5 catch.
From an analytical QA perspective, all analyses were completed under a strict
QA/QC regimen. The CDD/CDF MM5 analytical protocol was varied to accommodate
the expected high organic loading of the MM5 samples. The CDD/CDF ash analyses
revealed high enough levels to saturate the detector. Therefore, the values presented in
this draft report should be considered to be biased low.
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 50.5 percent
for CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations to 42.1 percent for metals flue gas concentrations.
The overall pooled CV for the CEM data was 90.2 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 Cape Fear Memorial Hospital in Wilmington, North Carolina.
JBS226
1-10
-------
This section includes the test objective, a brief site description, an overview of the
emissions and ash quality 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, PM/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 Cape Fear 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
PM 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 QA/QC 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
procedures and QA parameters.
Appendices containing the actual field data sheets and computer data listings are
contained in a separate volume.
JBS226
-------
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section provides results of the emissions and ash quality test program
conducted at the Cape Fear Memorial Hospital MWI from August 15 to August 28,
1990. Included in this section are results of manual tests conducted for CDD/CDF,
PAHs, CBs, CPs, and PCBs; toxic metals; PM; visible emissions; halogens; and microbial
survivability. This section also contains the results of continuous emissions monitoring
for O2, CO2, CO, NO^ SO2, THC, and HC1 gases.
2.1 EMISSIONS TEST LOG
Nine tests were conducted over a thirteen day period. Table 2-1 presents the
emissions test log. This table shows the test date, run number, test type, and run times
for all the 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 Cape Fear
Memorial Hospital during the August 1990 test program. Three runs were completed
under each of three test conditions. Testing protocol followed EPA Method 23 which
requires a final sample recovery rinse with toluene to be analyzed separately from the
rest of the sample. This data was not incorporated into the final emission results in this
section, however, it is discussed in Section 2.10 and is presented with the sampling QA
parameters in Section 6.2.1.
As well as flue gas samples, daily ash samples were also taken. Each ash sample
was also analyzed for tetra through octa CDD/CDF isomers.
The following sections report CDD/CDF emissions test results in Section 2.2.2
and incinerator ash- CDD/CDF concentrations in Section 2.2.3.
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
JBS226
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
8/15/90
8/15/90
8/15/90
8/15/90
8/15/90
8/15/90
8/18/90
8/18/90
8/18/90
8/18/90
8/18/90
8/18/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/19/90
8/19/90
8/19/90
8/19/90
8/19/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/20/90
8/20/90
8/20/90
8/20/90
8/20/90
8/21/90
8/21/90
8/21/90
8/21/90
8/21/90
8/21/90
8/21/90
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
RUN
NUMBER
1
1
1A
IB
1A
IB
2
2
2A
2B
2C
2A
2B
3
3
3A
3B
3C
3A
3B
4
4
4A
4B
4A
4B
5
5
5A
5B
5C
5A
5B
a
OPERATING
CONDITION
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TEST
TYPE
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
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
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
RUN
TIME
12:32-16:52
12:32-16:51
12:33-13:32
15:02-16:24
12:31-14:07
14:45-16:40
09:46-16:31
09:45-16:17
09:44-10:44
13:06-14:06
14:49-15:49
09:45-11:26
13:13-14:49
10:00-15:19
10:01-15:21
10:18-11:18
12:18-13:18
14:06-15:06
10:02-11:38
13:15-14:51
12:10-16:42
12:10-16:42
12:22-13:22
15:27-16:42
12:10-13:46
14:58-16:42
10:32-14:48
10:30-14:45
10:39-11:39
11:58-12:58
13:12-14:12
10:30-12:06
13:05-14:54
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG, (continued)
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/26/90
8/26/90
8/26/90
8/26/90
8/26/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/27/90
8/27/90
8/27/90
8/27/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
8/28/90
8/28/90
8/28/90
8/28/90
8/28/90
8/28/90
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
RUN
NUMBER
6
6
6A
6B
6C
6A
6B
7
7
7A
7B
7C
7A
7B
8
8
8A
8B
8A
8B
9
9
9A
9B
9C
9A
9B
a
OPERATING
CONDITION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
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
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
Spore
RUN
TIME
10:30-14:42
10:30-14:40
10:30-11:45
11:59-13:14
13:33-14:48
10:10-12:05
13:05-14:54
11:40-15:58
11:40-15:58
11:47-13:02
13:32-14:42
14:58-15:58
11:40-13:16
13:47-15:46
10:59-15:06
11:00-15:06
11:05-12:15
12:35-13:50
11:00-12:36
13:23-15:04
10:05-14:30
10:05-14:30
10:15-11:25
11:45-12:55
13:20-14:30
10:08-11:44
12:13-13:51
a Condition 1: Below design feed rate (200 Ib/hr, 6 min. cycle, 1100-2000°F)
Condition 2: Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr, 6 min. cycle, 1900-2000°F)
Condition 3: Design feed rate (300 Ib/hr, 10 min. cycle, 1600°F)
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2. AVERAGE CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOR EACH
TEST CONDITION; CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF •">, :.,jg
Total CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, as measured)
CONJ>mON
I
1.16
12.9
5.58
27.8
7.83
9.57
18.8
55.9
56.3
77.3
116
317
5.30
134
19.8
26.2
284
101
58.3
92.7
5.61
288
221
32.0
167
300
»:--••:€• 1,730
2,050
CONDITION
2
4.05
75.4
17.1
108
18.9
23.5
44.5
143
127
127
180
86»
17.1
557
77.2
84.1
990
285
172
187
10.5
847
470
67.2
323
438
4,520
5,390
CONDITION
3
4.08
37.8
15.8
80.4
19.0
21.3
43.4
134
107
104
78.2
644
13.6
397
55.0
69.0
734
236
149
150
8.22
727
350
46.8
226
139
^;O»--.^.' 3.30Q:'
3,940
a dscm = dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68°F.
-2-4
-------
TABLE 2-3. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7% OXYGEN
FOR EACH TEST CONDITION; CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD ;:
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
"
Total CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2>
CONDITION
1
1.33
14.8
6.45
32.2
9.07
11.1
21.7
64.5
65.7
89.7
136
:.::. :-V- . .: 369
6.15
156
22.9
30.5
329
117
67.8
109
6.52
334
258
37.4
195
353
2,020
2,390
CONDITION
2
4.56
83.1
19.2
120
21.1
26.2
49.4
159
139
139
192
••••»••- -^ '•• .-:954::::
19.2
620
86.4
93.7
1098
317
192
205
11.7
939
520
74.0
354
464
4,990
5*950
CONDITION
3
5.49
49.9
20.4
104
24.3
27.2
55.2
169
135
131
99.6
- !•'•» •"-. 820
17.9
513
70.8
89.1
939
299
189
195
10.6
925
442
59.2
285
176
4,210
5,030
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-4. AVERAGE CDD/CDF STACK GAS EMISSIONS FOR EACH
TEST CONDITION; CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
COHGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
TOtal CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
EMISSIONS
Otg/hr)
CONDITION
1
2.12
23.7
10.4
51.7
14.6
17.9
34.8
103
105
145
216
591
9.91
251
36.7
49.1
529
188
109
175
10.6
537
413
60.0
311
561
3,230
3,820
CONDITION
2
6.99
125
29.5
184
32.4
40.0
76.1
243
211
210
283
1442
29.7
956
134
145
1710
489
297
314
18.2
1460
795
113
539
684
7,680
9.120
CONDITION
3
6.48
59.7
24.8
126
29.7
33.3
67.8
209
167
162
122
1006
21.4
622
86.1
108
1150
368
232
236
12.9
1140
546
73.0
352
216
5,160
6,160
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-5. AVERAGE CDD/CDF 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS CONCENTRATION
ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR EACH TEST CONDITION;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
. - .• - • • .- ' : • ,";:
.":' ' r ''.-'• ":-:"-
CONGENER I
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
2378-TCDD a
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
.,..-^23J« TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, @ 7 percent O2)
CONDITION
1 "v; ' :
1.329
0.000
3.223
0.000
0.907
1.108
2.168
0.000
0.657
0.000
0.136
6.616
0.615
0.000
1.144
15.251
0.000
11.696
6.779
10.861
0.652
0.000
2.577
0.374
0.000
0.353
49.9
56.5
CONDITION
i 2 , :
4.557
0.000
9.607
0.000
2.114
2.620
4.943
0.000
1.395
0.000
0.192
25.428
1.922
0.000
4.324
46.877
0.000
31.741
19.165
20.551
1.174
0.000
5.197
0.740
0.000
0.464
132
•-•• : •'..• • - • ">:\158
CONDITION
- . . 3 •£ :•..
5.487
0.000
10.204
0.000
2.432
2.722
5.521
0.000
1.354
0.000
0.100
25.991
1.793
0.000
3.541
44.566
0.000
29.850
18.901
19.509
1.058
0.000
4.422
0.592
0.000
0.176
•A-' ;<•.••:.•'• . 124
150
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxiciry
Equivalency Factor (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-6. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 1;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
1 '. . : : . ' ''•,:•:.- '
CdNGtefc/J:"' v
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD :
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTALCDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscto, a$ measured)
RUN1
(1.52)
16.0
(6.00)
30.0
7.75
9.39
20.6
63.2
72.8
73.8
133
^434
5.17
192
30.6
33.9
413
139
79.8
98.5
4.65
406
306
37.6
220
343
:M1Q
2,740
RUNS
0.80
9.82
5.159
25.7
7.92
9.74
17.0
48.7
86.6
80.8
165
-^••'457
5.43
200
27.2
41.9
414
149
88.8
160
6.57
435
314
51.3
233
406
:?:;:>'2,530;
2,990
RUN 6
[1.02]
[1.02]
[1.20]
[1.20]
[3.25]
[2.81]
[3.39]
[3.13]
9.50
0.00
48.5
58
[0.32]
10.7
1.52
2.69
24.4
(13.5)
6.26
19.4
[3.45]
22.5
43.3
(6.99)
47.9
152
;:':/:^350
:':.>:^4iO
AVERAGE
1.16
12.9
5.579
27.8
7.83
9.57
18.8
55.9
56.3
77.3
116
317
5.30
134
19.8
26.2
284
101
58.3
92.7
5.61
288
221
32.0
167
300
1,730
2,050
EMISSIONS
0*g/*»r)
RUN1
(2.66)
28.0
(10.5)
52.6
13.60
16.50
36.1
111
128
130
234
763
9.09
338
53.7
59.6
726
245
140
173
8.16
713
538
66.0
386
602
4,060
4,820
RUN 5
1.58
19.4
10.18
50.8
15.62
19.22
33.5
96.0
171
160
326
902
10.7
395
53.7
82.7
816
293
175
316
12.96
857
621
101
459
800
4,990
5,900
RUN 6
[1.88]
[1.88]
[2.21]
[2.21]
[5.97]
[5.17]
[6.24]
[5.76]
17.5
0.000
89.3
107
[0.59]
19.69
2.80
4.95
44.88
(24.9)
11.5
35.8
[6.35]
41.5
79.6
(12.9)
88.2
280
647
753
AVERAGE
2.12
23.7
10.4
51.7
14.6
17.9
34.8
103
105
145
216
: ..^v" 591,
9.91
251
36.7
49.1
529
188
109
175
10.56
537
413
60.0
311
561
3,230
3,820
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68°F.
0 = estimated maximum possible concentration. [ ] = minimum detection limit
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-7. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 2;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD ;;
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF f
TOTALCDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
• ••••* :: ••: "•"".. '"' (ng/dsen»; as i&jeasured)
RUN 2
1.66
74.0
7.00
69.4
9.16
14.4
25.0
93.4
124
128
312
;; 858
5.71
292
26.3
35.0
468
157
68.9
158
3.86
419
350
55.2
306
817
<~3,l&>:
4,020
RUN 3
6.41
94.7
26.5
149
28.4
33.6
60.9
197
156
157
152
1,062
26.3
765
115
117
1290
392
247
223
15.1
1107
606
82.9
376
290
5,650
6,710
RUN 4
4.08
57.6
17.8
106
19.1
22.5
47.5
139
100
94.4
75.0
:..;f::/ 683
19.3
615
90.6
100
1211
307
199
180
(12.5)
1014
455
63.4
287
206
4,760
5,440
AVERAGE
4.05
75.4
17.1
108
18.9
23.5
44.5
143
127
127
180
868
17.1
557
77.2
84.1
990
285
172
187
10.5
847
470
67.2
323
438
4,520
5,390
EMISSIONS
Og/hr)
RUN 2
2.39
106
10.1
100
13.2
20.7
36
134
178
184
448
1,233
8.2
420
37.80
50.36
673
225
99.0
227
5.55
602
503
79.4
441
1175
4,550
5,780
RUN 3
11.2
165
46.2
260
49.4
58.5
106
344
272
274
265
1,850
45.8
1332
200
204
2248
683
430
388
26.3
1930
1055
144
654
505
9,840
11,700
RUN 4
7.42
105
32.3
193
34.7
40.9
86.3
252
182
172
136
t 1242
35.1
1118
165
182
2200
558
362
327
(22.7)
1843
826
115
522
374
8,650
sr-:f 9*890
AVERAGE
6.99
125
29.5
184
32.4
40.0
76.1
243
211
210
283
tV^??r'Vl442/
29.7
956
134
145
1710
489
297
314
18.2
1457
795
113
539
684
7,680
9,120
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68°F.
0 = estimated maximum possible concentration
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-8. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 3;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, as measured)
RUN?
4.04
47.6
15.8
82.9
17.3
19.5
36.7
102
84.4
77.1
66.5
554
16.4
397
53.3
68.9
666
187
125
159
7.85
610
266
36.1
171
108
2,870
3.430
RUN 8
[1.46]
10.5
6.55
31.8
(8.06)
8.34
18.0
55.3
48.2
41.9
50.1
279
9.07
272
33.4
40.3
423
129
84
75
4.76
429
200
29.3
132
102
1,960
2,240
RUN 9
4.13
55.3
25.1
126.6
31.6
36.0
75.5
245
188
193
118
1,098
15.4
522
78.3
97.9
1,113
392
236
217
12.1
1,114
584
75.1
374
206
5,060
6,160
AVERAGE
4.08
37.8
15.8
80.4
19.0
21.3
43.4
134
107
104
78.2
644
13.6
397
55.0
69.0
734
236
149
150
8.22
727
350
46.8
226
139
3,300
3,940
EMISSIONS
Oig/hr)
RUN 7
6.62
78.0
25.9
136
28.4
32.0
60.2
167
138
126
109
908
26.9
651
87.4
113
1,091
306
206
261
12.9
1,000
437
59.2
280
176
4,710
5,620
RUNS
[2.21]
16.0
10.0
48.5
(12.3)
12.7
27.4
84.2
73.3
63.8
76.2
424
13.8
414
50.8
61.4
643
196
128
114
7.24
654
304
44.6
201
156
2,990
3,410
RUN 9
6.34
85.0
38.6
194
48.5
55.2
116
376
289
296
181
1,686
23.7
802
120
150
1,710
601
362
333
18.5
1,750
897
115
573
317
7,770
9,460
AVERAGE
6.48
59.7
24.8
126
29.7
33.3
67.8
209
167
162
122
1,006
21.4
622
86
108
1,150
368
232
236
12.9
1,140
546
73.0
352
216
5,160
6,160
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration [ ] = minimum detection limit.
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-9. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 1;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN!
(1.70)
17.9
(6.74)
33.7
8.70
10.6
23.1
71.0
81.9
83.0
150
: 488
5.81
216
34.3
38.1
465
157
89.6
111
5.22
456
344
42.2
247
385
2,600
3,080
RUNS
0.95
11.7
6.15
30.7
9.44
11.6
20.3
58.0
103
96.4
197
545
6.48
239
32.4
50.0
493
177
106
191
7.83
518
375
61.2
278
483
3,020
3,560
RUN 6
3.52
[1.28]
[1.28]
[1.50]
[1.50]
[4.07]
[3.52]
[4.25]
[3.92]
11.9
0.0
60.8
72.7
[0.404]
13.4
1.91
3.37
30.6
(17.0)
7.84
24.4
[4.32]
28.2
54.2
(8.76)
60.1
191
441
513
AVERAGE
1.33
14.8
6.45
32.2
9.07
11.1
21.7
64.5
65.7
89.7
136
369
6.15
156
22.9
30.5
329.4
117
67.8
109
6.52
334
258
37.4
195
353
2,020
2,390
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUIV.
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 1
(1.70)
0.000
(3.37)
0.000
0.870
1.056
2.311
0.000
0.819
0.000
0.150
10.280
0.581
0.000
1.717
19.074
0.000
15.666
8.963
11.074
0.522
0.000
3.441
0.422
0.000
0.385
61.845
72.126
RUNS
0.954
0.000
3.075
0.000
0.944
1.161
2.026
0.000
1.033
0.000
0.197
9.388
0.648
0.000
1.621
24.993
0.000
17.725
10.589
19.074
0.783
0.000
3.749
0.612
0.000
0.483
80.277
89.666
RUN 6
[1.282]
0.000
[0.751]
0.000
[0.407]
[0.352]
[0.425]
0.000
0.119
0.000
0.061
0.180
[0.040]
0.000
0.095
1.685
0.000
(1.695)
0.784
2.436
[0.432]
0.000
0.542
(0.088)
0.000
0.191
7.517
7.697
AVERAGE
1.329
0.000
3.223
0.000
0.907
1.108
2.168
0.000
0.657
0.000
0.136
6.616
0.615
0.000
1.144
15.251
0.000
11.696
6.779
10.861
0.652
0.000
2.577
0.374
0.000
0.353
49.880
56.496
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 Modem 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.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-10. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 2;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDEHCDF
CONCENTRATION a
{ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 #62}
RUN 2
1.69
74.9
7.09
70.3
9.27
14.6
25.3
94.5
126
130
316
869
5.78
296
26.6
35.5
474
159
69.7
160
3.91
424
354
55.9
310
827
3,200
4,070
RUN 3
7.73
114
32.0
180
34.2
40.5
73.5
238
188
190
183
1282
31.7
923
138
141
1560
474
298
269
18.3
1336
731
100
453
350
6,820
8,100
RUN 4
4.25
60.0
18.5
111
19.9
23.5
49.5
145
104
98.4
78.2
712
20.1
641
94.5
104
1260
320
207
188
(13.0)
1056
474
66.1
299
214
4,960
5,670
AVERAGE
4.56
83.1
19.2
120
21.1
26.2
49.4
159
139
139
192
954
19.2
620
86.4
93.7
1100
317
192
205
11.7
939
520
74.0
354
464
4,990
5,950
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUIV.
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% O2)
RUN 2
1.685
0.000
3.543
0.000
0.927
1.456
2.528
0.000
1.256
0.000
0.316
11,711
0.578
0.000
1.331
17.735
0.000
15.858
6.971
15.973
0.391
0.000
3.539
0.559
0.000
0.827
64
:™75
RUN 3
7.728
0.000
16.006
0.000
3.425
4.054
7.349
0.000
1.883
0.000
0.183
40,628
3.175
0.000
6.914
70.653
0.000
47.355
29.777
26.897
1.826
0.000
7.312
1.000
0.000
0.350
195
236
RUN 4
4.258
0.000
9.271
0.000
1.990
2.349
4.953
0.000
1.045
0.000
0.078
23.944
2.014
0.000
4.726
52.244
0.000
32.011
20.746
18.784
(1.305)
0.000
4.741
0.661
0.000
0.214
137
161
AVERAGE
4.557
0.000
9.607
0.000
2.114
2.620
4.943
0.000
1.395
0.000
0.192
25.428
1.922
0.000
4.324
46.877
0.000
31.741
19.165
20.551
1.174
0.000
5.197
0.740
0.000
0.464
132
158
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 (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
[ ] = minimum detection limit. () = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-11. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 3;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7% 02}
RUN?
6.15
72.5
24.0
126
26.4
29.7
55.9
155
129
117
101
:843
24.9
605
81.1
105
1013
284
191
242
11.9
928
406
54.9
260
164
:•;. 4,370
* 5,210
RUNS
[1.74]
12.6
7.8
38.0
(9.62)
10.0
21.5
66.1
57.5
50.1
59.8
•";:. 333
10.8
325
39.8
48.2
505
154
100
89.5
5.7
513
239
35.0
158
122
; 2.340
:: 2,680
RUN 9
4.83
64.6
29.4
148
36.9
42.0
88.2
286
220
225
138
1283
18.0
610
91.5
114.4
1300
458
276
253
14.1
1333
682
87.8
436
241
5,910
7,200
AVERAGE
5.49
49.9
20.4
104
24.3
27.2
55.2
169
135
131
99.6
820
17.9
513
70.8
89.1
939
299
189
195
10.6
925
442
59.2
285
176
4,210
5,030
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUIV.
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
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7% O2)
RUN 7
6.148
0.000
12.019
0.000
2.641
2.968
5.594
0.000
1.285
0.000
0.101
30.757
2.495
0.000
4.057
52.412
0.000
28.423
19.100
24.240
1.194
0.000
4.057
0.549
0.000
0.164
137
167
RUN 8
[1.738]
0.000
3.909
0.000
(0.962)
0.996
2.152
0.000
0.575
0.000
0.060
S.654
1.083
0.000
1.991
24.090
0.000
15.370
10.024
8.955
0.568
0.000
2.386
0.350
0.000
0.122
65
XT; ;.-.:. 74
RUN 9
4.825
0.000
14.684
0.000
3.694
4.201
8.819
0.000
2.201
0.000
0.138
38.562
1.801
0.000
4.576
57.197
0.000
45.758
27.579
25.333
1.410
0.000
6.822
0.878
0.000
0.241
172
210
AVERAGE
5.487
0.000
10.204
0.000
2.432
2.722
5.521
0.000
1.354
0.000
0.100
25.991
1.793
0.000
3.541
44.566
0.000
29.850
18.901
19.509
1.058
0.000
4.422
0.592
0.000
0.176
124
150
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 arm and 68°F.
b North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dtoxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity
Equivalency Factor (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
[ ] = minimum detection limit. () = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-12. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN NUMBER
DATE
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 (acftn)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER
DATE
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 (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER
DATE
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 (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
TEST CONDITION I
1
08/15/90
220
1398
8.01
8.53
0.487
3.034
14.0
4192
1034
29.272
101
5
08/21/90
240
1398
7.61
9.24
0.533
3.625
13.8
4698
1161
32.889
99.3
6
08/22/90
240
1407
7.19
9.81
0.503
3.421
14.6
4452
1083
30.679
101
AVERAGE
NA
1401
7.60
9.19
0.508
3.360
14.1
4447
1093
30.947
NA
TEST CONDITION 2
2
08/18/90
240
1434
7.81
7.17
0.389
2.643
14.8
3536
846
23.957
98.6
3
08/19/90
240
1468
7.72
9.38
0.469
3.185
14.5
4389
1025
29.018
98.1
4
08/20/90
240
1430
9.17
7.56
0.508
3.453
14.7
4456
1070
30.290
102
AVERAGE
NA
1444
8.23
8.04
0.455
3.094
14.7
4127
980
27.755
NA
TEST CONDITION 3
7
08/26/90
240
1294
6.89
11.77
0.444
3.021
14.5
3717
965
27.323
101
8
08/27/90
155
1303
8.45
9.26
0.407
1.787
15.4
3511
896
25.361
99.6
9
08/28/90
240
1306
8.71
9
0.413
2.808
14.2
3509
903
25.584
100
AVERAGE
NA
1301
8.02
10.01
0.422
2.538
14.7
3579
921
26.089
NA
NA = Not Applicable
2-14
-------
substituted CDD/CDF isomers. Results are presented for each isomer as well as for
each tetra octa homologue total (Total CDD, Total CDF). All CDD/CDF results except
for TEF values have been formatted to three significant figures. The TEF values are
presented to the nearest thousandth.
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
during each test condition throughout the program. Results from Conditions 2 and 3
were somewhat similar with overall concentration averages being much higher than those
from Condition 1. Condition 2 showed the highest average concentrations of targeted
CDD/CDF isomers except 2378 TCDD and 123478 HxCDD. Average 2378 TCDD
concentrations for Conditions 1, 2 and 3 were 1.16, 4.05, and 4.08 ng/dscm, respectively.
Total CDD/CDF average concentrations for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 2,050, 5,390,
and 3,940 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 9.19, 8.04, and 10.01 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 1.33, 4.56, and
5.49 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2, respectively. Corrected concentrations of Total
CDD/CDF for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 2,390, 5,950, and 5,030 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 2.12, 6.99, and
6.48 ug/hr, respectively. Average Total CDD/CDF emissions for Conditions 1, 2, and 3
were 3,820, 9,120, and 6,160 g/hr, respectively.
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 international TEF values.(1) The
JBS226 2"^
-------
average 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations for Total CDD/CDF for Conditions 1, 2,
and 3 were 56.5, 158, and 150 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. Non-detected results are presented in brackets (i.e.,
[1.023]) and other values classified as estimated maximum possible concentration
(EMPC) are presented in parenthesis. The EMPCs 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.
Non-detected values are considered to be zero in calculating averages and summations.
Condition 1 was made up of Runs 1, 5, and 6, where as Conditions 2 and 3 were made
up of Runs 2, 3, and 4 and Runs 7, 8, and 9, respectively.
Table 2-9 presents both 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, stack gas flow, and other parameters are given.
2.2.3 CDD/CDF Ash Results
Incinerator ash was completely removed from the incinerator every morning
following a test day. The ash was passed through a 1/2 inch mesh sieve to remove large
pieces of glass, metal, or other large objects. The sifted ash was stored in a pre-cleaned
stainless steel drum and allowed to cool. Daily composited ash samples were then taken
using a 4 foot sample thief.
Ash samples were analyzed for the same CDD/CDF isomers that the flue gas
samples were analyzed for. Average ash CDD/CDF concentrations for each condition
are presented in Table 2-13. Results from the full screen analyses revealed several
problems and should be considered when reviewing the data. Ash samples from all
runs except Runs 6 and 9 saturated the MS detector. Confirmation analyses which are
JBS226
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-13. CDD/CDF AVERAGE ASH RESULTS FOR EACH CONDITION;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CONDI
ASH
(Ppb.wt)
0.15
10.62
1.06
23.71
1.43
2.51
5.57
31.72
18.57
21.47
29.77
146.57
1.76
84.20
3.43
10.93
76.80
28.90
11.13
21.13
0.42
33.01
31.87
3.43
21.83
28.67
357.53
504.10
COND 2
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.19
17.08
1.96
50.41
4.12
7.00
14.87
72.88
43.57
46.17
84.33
342.57
11.63
87.00
6.93
19.27
66.03
25.97
14.50
24.83
0.91
31.79
22.13
7.43
29.50
82.33
430.27
772.83
COND 3
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.07
5.96
0.50
11.6
0.73
1.40
2.60
17.3
10.4
12.4
18.7
81.7
1.16
52.0
2.13
5.40
65.5
21.4
7.30
13.4
0.27
28.2
26.4
2.60
16.5
22.9
265
347
2378-f CDD b
TOXIC EQUIV.
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
COND 1
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.147
0.000
0.530
0.000
0.143
0.251
0.557
0.000
0.186
0.000
0.030
1.843
0.176
0.000
0.172
5.467
0.000
2.890
1.113
2.113
0.042
0.000
0.319
0.034
0.000
0.029
12.4
14.2
COND 2
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.187
0.000
0.978
0.000
0.412
0.700
1.487
0.000
0.436
0.000
0.084
4.284
1.163
0.000
0.347
9.633
0.000
2.597
1.450
2.483
0.091
0.000
0.221
0.074
0.000
0.082
18.1
22.4
COND 3
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.070
0.000
0.252
0.000
0.073
0.140
0.260
0.000
0.104
0.000
0.019
0.917
0.116
0.000
0.107
2.700
0.000
2.140
0.730
1.343
0.027
0.000
0.264
0.026
0.000
0.023
7.48
8.39
a [ ] = minimum detection limit
() = estimated maximum possible concentration
b North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: Internationa] Toxicity
Equivalency Factor (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
NOTE: Values presented for all conditions except 2378 TCDF and "Other" TCDF values are biased low.
HRGC/HRMS full screen analyses were saturated for all runs except 6 and 9.
2-17
-------
TABLE 2-14. CDD/CDF ASH RESULTS AT CONDITION 1;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
:•••-' .: ' '.-' V .:--.
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
RUN!
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.11
5.09
0.56
10.30
0.74
1.30
2.60
13.86
8.30
10.00
10.50
63.4
1.20
52.0
2.80
7.10
32.5
(10.6)
(5.60)
(9.60)
0.34
8.76
8.60
2.10
9.50
12.8
164
227
RUNS
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.28
23.8
2.30
54.6
3.20
5.60
12.90
75.10
42.80
48.40
71.30
: 340.3
3.30
169
6.10
22.5
161
(62.7)
23.6
46.4
0.76
64.2
60.4
6.70
43.9
61.9
733
1073
RUNS
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.05
2.95
0.32
6.18
0.36
0.64
1.20
6.20
4.60
6.00
7.50
36.0
0.79
31.9
1.40
3.20
36.5
13.4
4.20
7.40
0.17
26.0
26.6
1.50
12.1
11.3
J77
213
ASH
AVERAGE
(ppb.wt)
0.15
10.6
1.06
23.7
1.43
2.51
5.57
31.7
18.6
21.5
29.8
147
1.76
84.2
3.43
10.9
76.8
28.9
11.1
21.1
0.42
33.0
31.9
3.43
21.8
28.7
358
504
2378-TCDDb
TOXIC EQUIV.
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
RUN!
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.110
0.000
0.280
0.000
0.074
0.130
0.260
0.000
0.083
0.000
0.011
0.948
0.120
0.000
0.140
3.550
0.000
(1.060)
(0.560)
(0.960)
0.034
0.000
0.086
0.021
0.000
0.013
.x.f(B4'
7.49
RUN 5
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.280
0.000
1.150
0.000
0.320
0.560
1.290
0.000
0.428
0.000
0.071
-1::: -4.099
0.330
0.000
0.305
11.250
0.000
(6.270)
2.360
4.640
0.076
0.000
0.604
0.067
0.000
0.062
26,0
;.,.*;£• 30.1
RUN 6
TEF
(ppb.wl)
0.050
0.000
0.160
0.000
0.036
0.064
0.120
0.000
0.046
0.000
0.008
0.484
0.079
0.000
0.070
1.600
0.000
1.340
0.420
0.740
0.017
0.000
0.266
0.015
0.000
0.011
; ;-:.:• .:4.56
...:&:•; -$M
AVERAGE
TBF:;j;
(ppb^wt)
0.147
0.000
0.530
0.000
0.143
0.251
0.557
0.000
0.186
0.000
0.030
1.843
0.176
0.000
0.172
5.467
0.000
2.890
1.113
2.113
0.042
0.000
0.319
0.034
0.000
0.029
: 12-4
14.2
a [ ] = minimum detection limit
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration
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 (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
NOTE: Values presented for all conditions except 2378 TCDF and "Other" TCDF values are biased low.
HRGC/HRMS full screen analyses were saturated for all runs except 6 and 9.
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-15. CDD/CDF ASH RESULTS AT CONDITION 2;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
RUN 2
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.06
10.1
0.37
19.9
0.57
1.20
2.30
20.8
9.80
12.3
19.5
97.0
0.50
31.3
1.30
4.00
35.5
(11.6)
4.80
(10.6)
0.21
15.99
11.2
2.40
13.0
30.9
173
270
RUNS
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.14
11.8
1.40
39.0
3.70
5.90
12.9
44.2
23.7
23.4
42.5
209
8.50
65.6
5.00
(14.40)
38.1
(8.30)
(4.80)
(8.60)
0.91
10.6
12.1
8.50
18.0
43.1
247
455
RUN 4
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.36
29.3
4.10
92.3
8.10
13.9
29.4
154
97.2
103
191
722
25.9
164
14.5
(39.4)
125
(58.0)
(33.9)
(55.3)
1.60
68.8
43.1
11.4
57.5
173
871
1593
ASH
AVERAGE
(ppb.wt)
0.19
17.1
1.%
50.4
4.12
7.00
14.9
72.9
43.6
46.2
84.3
343
11.6
87.0
6.93
19.3
66.0
26.0
14.5
24.8
0.91
31.8
22.1
7.43
29.5
82.3
430
773
2378-TCDD b
TOXICfcQUIV.
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
RUN 2
TEF?:::"i:
(ppb.wt)
0.060
0.000
0.185
0.000
0.057
0.120
0.230
0.000
0.098
0.000
0.020
0,770
0.050
0.000
0.065
2.000
0.000
(1.160)
0.480
(1.060)
0.021
0.000
0.112
0.024
0.000
0.031
5.00
5.77
RUN 3
•v-:;::;,TEF ;'":
(ppb.wt)
0.140
0.000
0.700
0.000
0.370
0.590
1.290
0.000
0.237
0.000
0.043
3.370
0.850
0.000
0.250
(7.200)
0.000
(0.830)
(0.480)
(0.860)
0.091
0.000
0.121
0.085
0.000
0.043
10.8
14.2
RUN 4
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.360
0.000
2.050
0.000
0.810
1.390
2.940
0.000
0.972
0.000
0.191
8.713
2.590
0.000
0.725
(19.700)
0.000
(5.800)
(3.390)
(5.530)
0.160
0.000
0.431
0.114
0.000
0.173
38.6
47.3
AVERAGE
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.187
0.000
0.978
0.000
0.412
0.700
1.487
0.000
0.436
0.000
0.084
4.284
1.163
0.000
0.347
9.633
0.000
2.597
1.450
2.483
0.091
0.000
0.221
0.074
0.000
0.082
18.1
22.4
a [ ] = minimum detection limit.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration
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 (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
NOTE: Values presented for all conditions except 2378 TCDF and "Other" TCDF values are biased low.
HRGC/HRMS full screen analyses were saturated for all runs except 6 and 9.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-16. CDD/CDF ASH RESULTS AT CONDITION 3;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
RUN?
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.08
5.82
0.61
13.4
0.94
1.90
3.30
21.2
14.3
17.2
27.5
106
1.30
56.3
2.50
6.40
74.0
(24.7)
9.20
16.4
0.42
27.2
24.6
3.70
19.7
34.1
301
407
.;tRW8
';.TASH
(ppb.wt)
0.07
6.73
0.48
12.6
0.69
1.30
2.50
17.0
9.40
11.1
18.0
79.9
1.20
55.5
2.00
5.60
66.1
(20.8)
6.70
14.2
0.19
18.9
20.8
2.30
14.7
23.3
252
;:I::332
RUN 9
ASH
(ppb^t)
0.06
5.34
0.42
8.78
0.56
1.00
2.00
13.8
7.40
8.9
10.6
58.9
0.99
44.2
1.90
4.20
56.5
18.7
6.00
9.70
0.20
38.6
33.9
1.80
15.2
11.2
243
302
ASH
AVERAGE
(ppb.wt)
0.07
5.96
0.50
11.6
0.73
1.40
2.60
17.3
10.4
12.4
18.7
81.7
1.16
52.0
2.13
5.40
65.5
21.4
7.30
13.4
0.27
28.2
26.4
2.60
16.5
22.9
*::?•;:;•:.•; 265
347
237S-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
RUN?
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.080
0.000
0.305
0.000
0.094
0.190
0.330
0.000
0.143
0.000
0.028
1.170
0.130
0.000
0.125
3.200
0.000
(2.470)
0.920
1.640
0.042
0.000
0.246
0.037
0.000
0.034
8.84
10.0
RUN 8
TEF':""V
(ppb.wt)
0.070
0.000
0.240
0.000
0.069
0.130
0.250
0.000
0.094
0.000
0.018
0.871
0.120
0.000
0.100
2.800
0.000
(2.080)
0.670
1.420
0.019
0.000
0.208
0.023
0.000
0.023
7.46
8.33
RUN 9
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.060
0.000
0.210
0.000
0.056
0.100
0.200
0.000
0.074
0.000
0.011
0.711
0.099
0.000
0.095
2.100
0.000
1.870
0.600
0.970
0.020
0.000
0.339
0.018
0.000
0.011
6.12
6.83
AVERAGE
TEF
(Ppb.wt)
0.070
0.000
0.252
0.000
0.073
0.140
0.260
0.000
0.104
0.000
0.019
0.917
0.116
0.000
0.107
2.700
0.000
2.140
0.730
1.343
0.027
0.000
0.264
0.026
0.000
0.023
...... 7.48
8.39
a [ ] = minimum detection limit.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration
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 (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
NOTE: Values presented for all conditions except 2378 TCDF and "Other" TCDF values are biased low.
HRGC/HRMS full screen analyses were saturated for all runs except 6 and 9.
2-20
-------
TABLE 2-17. POLY AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS FLUE GAS RESULTS
CDD/CDF RUN 8; CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER" •„ 1 '*; ''' • . .,•;
Naphthalene
2-Methylanaphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
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 /tg)
607
[0.230]
[0.290]
20.3
[0.260]
[0.260]
72.3
[0.170]
76.9
[0.090]
[0.100]
[0.100]
[0.140]
[0.140]
[0.150]
[0.160]
[0.260]
[0.200]
[0.180]
[0.160]
, ;; 776.5
GAS
CONC.
(yig/dscm)
340
[0.129]
[0.162]
11.3
[0.145]
[0.145]
40.5
[0.095]
43.0
[0.050]
[0.056]
[0.056]
[0.078]
[0.078]
[0.084]
[0.090]
[0.145]
[0.112]
[0.101]
[0.090]
434.5
GAS CONC.
®7%O2
Otg/dscm)
406
[0.154]
[0.193]
13.5
[0.173]
[0.173]
48.3
[0.113]
51.4
[0.060]
[0.067]
[0.067]
[0.093]
[0.093]
[0.100]
[0.107]
[0.173]
[0.134]
[0.121]
[0.107]
518.9
EMISSIONS
(mg/hr)
517
[0.196]
[0.247]
17.3
[0.221]
[0.221]
61.6
[0.145]
65.5
[0.076]
[0.085]
[0.085]
[0.119]
[0.119]
[0.128]
[0.137]
[0.221]
[0.170]
[0.154]
[0.137]
661.2
[ ] = minimum detection limit.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-18. CHLORINATED PHENOLS AND CHLORINATED BENZENES FLUE GAS RESULTS
CDD/CDF RUN 8; CAPE FEAR 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
2,3I4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Total Chlorophenols
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 /tg)
[0.410]
[0.380]
[0.380]
[0.580]
[0.580]
[0.280]
[0.550]
[0.590]
[0.600]
[0.890]
[0.970]
[0.810]
[0.880]
[0.980]
[1.110]
[1.080]
[1.410]
GAS
CONC.
(/tg/dscm)
[0.229]
[0.213]
[0.213]
[0.325]
[0.325]
[0.157]
[0.308]
[0.330]
[0.336]
[0.498]
[0.543]
[0.453]
[0.492]
[0.548]
[0.621]
[0.604]
[0.789]
GAS CONC,
®7%O2
(/tg/dscm)
[0.273]
[0.254]
[0.254]
[0.388]
[0.388]
[0.187]
[0.368]
[0.394]
[0.401]
[0.595]
[0.648]
[0.541]
[0.588]
[0.654]
[0.742]
[0.721]
[0.942]
EMISSIONS
i(ing/hrjf
[0.348]
[0.324]
[0.324]
[0.495]
[0.495]
[0.239]
[0.469]
[0.502]
[0.511]
[0.758]
[0.826]
[0.689]
[0.749]
[0.834]
[0.945]
[0.919]
[1.201]
.,•:-• « none detected .;?:>:: v;f -v ..*• - m '. •'.
[0.380]
[0.360]
[0.390]
[0.540]
[0.530]
[0.550]
[0.290]
[0.400]
[0.530]
[0.740]
[0.800]
[0.213]
[0.201]
[0.218]
[0.302]
[0.297]
[0.308]
[0.162]
[0.224]
[0.297]
[0.414]
[0.448]
[0.254]
[0.240]
[0.260]
[0.361]
[0.355]
[0.368]
[0.193]
[0.267]
[0.355]
[0.494]
[0.535]
[0.324]
[0.306]
[0.332]
[0.460]
[0.452]
[0.469]
[0.247]
[0.341]
[0.452]
[0.630]
[0.682]
.••".". none detected
[ ] = minimum detection limit.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-22-
-------
used for quantifying 2378 TCDF and Other TCDF did not exhibit saturation. However,
no confirmation analysis has been completed on samples from Runs 2 and 3 at this time.
Therefore, all values presented in this section except for Runs 6 and 9 and 2378 TCDF
and other TCDF values should be considered biased low. This is further discussed in
Section 6.
Average ash CDD/CDF concentrations are given in units of parts-per-billion by
weight (ppb.wt). Ash 2378 TCDD Toxic Equivalencies are also presented. Tables 2-14,
2-15, and 2-16 present the ash results for each sample (test run).
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 PAHs, CBs, CPs, and PCBs. The
Run 8 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, PCB, 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 2-17. 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, Acenapthylene, Phenathrene, and
Fluorene were the only PAH species detected. Concentrations for those species ranged
from 11.3 g/dscm for Acenapthylene to 340 g/dscm for Napthalene. Emission rates
for those two species were 17.25 and 517 mg/hr, respectively. The laboratory blank also
contained 66.3 g of Napthelene (flue gas sample was not blank corrected). No other
PAH species were found in the laboratory blank. All analytical results are included in
Appendix E.I.
2-23
JBS226 ^ -"
-------
The CB and CP flue gas results are shown in Table 2-18. None of the targeted
CB or CP isomers were detected.
The PCB analysis was also performed on flue gas sample Run 8 (MM5-8). These
results are presented in Table 2-19. Tetra, Penta, and Octa PCB isomers were detected
in small quantities. Flue gas concentrations were estimated at 0.308, 0.207, and
0.017 ng/dscm for the above isomers, respectively.
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 (Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Pb, Hg, Ni, Ag, and Tl) and PM. 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 2-20. The results for each individual run are
presented in Tables 2-21 through 2-23. Concentrations at dry, standard conditions, and
concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown.
The values reported in Tables 2-20 through 2-23 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 5 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.
JBS226
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-19. PCB FLUE GAS RESULTS;
CDD/CDF RUN 8, CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
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
TOTAL
ANALYSIS
(total ng)
[0.008]
[0.010]
[0.020]
(0.550)
(0.370)
[0.030]
[0.020]
0.030
[0.020]
[0.020]
0.950
GAS
CONC.
(ng/dscm)
[0.004]
[0.006]
[0.011]
(0.308)
(0.207)
[0.017]
[0.011]
0.017
[0.011]
[0.011]
0,532
GAS CONC.
@7%O2
(ng/dscm)
[0.005]
[0.007]
[0.013]
(0.368)
(0.247)
[0.020]
[0.013]
0.020
[0.013]
[0.013]
0.635
EMISSIONS
Oig/hr)
[0.006]
[0.009]
[0.017]
(0.469)
(0.315)
[0.026]
[0.017]
0.026
[0.017]
[0.017]
0.810
[ ] = minimum detection limit.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-20. AVERAGE METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND
EMISSION RATES AT EACH CONDITION;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST CONDITION
RUN NUMBERS
Antimony (jtg/dscm)
Oig/dscm® 7% O2)
-------
TABLE 2-21. METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES FOR
CONDITION 1;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
TIME
RUN NUMBER
O2 CONCENTRATION (%V)
FLOW RATE (dscmm)
Antimony (jig/dscm)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (jig/dscm)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Barium O^g/d50111)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (jig/dscm)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (jig/dscm)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (jj.g/dscm)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Lend (iic/dscni)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury O^g/d8001)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel O'g/^80111)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hf)
Silver Otg/d50™)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium O^g/^50111)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
08/15/90
12:32-16:52
1
8.5
28.71
2668.03
2998.03
4.60
17.78
19.97
0.03
389.22
437.36
0.67
[0.072]
[0.081]
[0.0001]
263.39
295.97
0.45
27.06
30.41
0.05
4230.64
4753.91
7.29
254.82
286.34
0.44
4.26
4.79
0.01
6.18
6.94
0.01
69.94
78.59
0.12
08/21/90
10:32-14:48
5
9-2
34.93
730.70
871.07
1.53
8.68
10.35
0.02
167.11
199.21
0.35
[0.054]
[0.064]
[0.0001]
281.44
335.50
0.59
40.39
48.15
0.08
5345.25
6372.13
11.20
100.70
120.04
0.21
22.98
27.39
0.05
11.49
13.70
0.02
113.87
135.74
0.24
08/22/90
10:30-14:42
6
9.8
34,33
176.42
221.13
0.36
4.21
5.27
0.01
104.47
130.94
0.22
[0.055]
[0.069]
[0.0001]
167.02
209.33
0.34
15.29
19.16
0.03
2284.79
2863.71
4.71
116.76
146.35
0.24
6.77
8.48
0.01
2.17
2.73
0.004
96.45
120.88
0.20
AVERAGE
1190
1360
2.16
10.2
11.9
0.019
220
256
0.412
[0.060]
[0.071]
[0.0001]
237
280
0.462
27.6
32.6
0.054
3950
4660
7.73
157
184
0.297
11.3
13.6
0.023
6.61
7.79
0.013
93.4
112
0.186
Note:
Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits for compounds
not detected in the samples. Detection limits are not included in the averages
unless otherwise indicated. ~ -_
-------
TABLE 2-22. METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES FOR
CONDITION 2;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
TIME
RUN NUMBER
02 CONCENTRATION <%V)
FLOW RATE (dscrnm)
Antimony (^g/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (jig/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (/ig/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium Otg/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium Otg/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium Otg/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (pg/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury Otg/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 1 % O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel 0*g/dscni)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (jig/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (jig/dscm)
Otg/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
08/18/90
09:46-16:31
2
7.17
24.01
1191.46
1206.21
1.72
16.26
16.47
0.02
614.61
622.22
0.89
[0.079]
[0.080]
[0.0001]
328.96
333.04
0.47
29.49
29.86
0.04
4421.13
4475.87
6.37
605.46
612.96
0.87
7.04
7.13
0.01
19.52
19.76
0.03
92.54
93.69
0.13
08/19/90
10:00-15:19
3
9.38
26.10
2078.42
2507.81
3.25
26.34
31.78
0.04
508.12
613.10
0.80
[0.073]
[0.088]
[0.0001]
381.68
460.53
0.60
33.95
40.96
0.05
6246.41
7536.90
9.78
729.91
880.71
1.14
7.81
9.42
0.01
20.06
24.20
0.03
97.85
118.06
0.15
08/20790
12:10-16:42
4
7.67
33.54
1158.64
1217.31
2.33
25.34
26.62
0.05
550.35
578.22
1.11
[0.057]
[0.060]
[0.0001]
343.80
361.21
0.69
29.26
30.75
0.06
6416.47
6741.42
12.91
34.00
35.72
0.07
6.23
6.54
0.01
9.23
9.70
0.02
136.44
143.35
0.27
AVERAGE
1480
1640
2.43
22.6
25.0
0.039
558
605
0.930
[0.070]
[0.076]
[0.0001]
351
385
0.588
30.9
33.9
0.052
5700
6250
9.69
456
510
0.695
7.03
7.70
0.012
16.3
17.9
0.026
109
118
0.187
Note:
Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits for compounds
not detected in the samples. Detection limits are not included in the averages
unless otherwise indicated. 2-28
-------
TABLE 2-23. METALS/STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES FOR
CONDITION 3;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
TIME
RUN NUMBER
02 CONCENTRATION (%V)
FLOW RATE (dscmm)
Antimony (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/br)
Barium (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (/ig/dscm)
Qig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (/ig/dscm)
(/tg/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 (/ig/dscm)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (/ig/dscm)
(/ig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (/tg/dscm)
Oig/dscm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
08/26/90
11:40-15:58
7
11.77
29.24
776.24
1181.79
1.36
8.64
13.16
0.02
137.95
210.02
0.24
0.85
1.29
0.001
480.15
731.00
0.84
19.64
29.90
0.03
2834.72
4315.73
4.97
4297.94
6543.41
7.54
6.71
10.22
0.01
5.23
7.97
0.01
406.28
618.54
0.71
08/27/90
I
-------
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. Runs where the metal was not detected were not
included for averaging.
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 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 2-20 presents the metals emission parameters averaged for each condition.
Concentrations at standard conditions, concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2, and
emission rates are shown. Results from Test Condition 3 showed the highest
concentrations and emission rates for beryllium, cadmium, mercury, and thallium.
Antimony, arsenic, barium, lead, and silver showed their highest concentrations and
emission rates under Test Condition 2. Test Condition 1 has the highest concentrations
and emission rates for Ni with highest Cr values during Condition 2. Lead was the most
prevalent element detected in each of the three test conditions, with emission rates at
7.73, 9.69, and 7.04 g/hr for Conditions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Beryllium was detected
in the samples from Test Condition 3, but not in the samples from Test Conditions 1
and 2.
Table 2-21 presents the metals emission results for Condition 1. Lead and
antimony had the highest average flue gas concentrations under this condition at 3,950
and 1,190 g/dscm (7.73 and 2.16 g/hr), respectively.
JBS226
2-30
-------
The metals emission results for Condition 2 are presented in Table 2-22. Lead
showed concentrations of 4,421, 6,246, and 6,416 /jg/dscm (6.37, 9.78, and 12.91 g/hr) for
Runs 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
Table 2-23 presents the metals emission results for Condition 3. Run 7 produced
an emission rate for mercury of 7.54 g/hr, while Runs 8 and 9 produced emission rates
for mercury of 1.31 and 0.58 g/hr, respectively. Also, results show Run 7 to be the only
run under all test conditions with detectable amounts of beryllium in the samples
(0.85 //g/dscm, 0.001 g/hr).
A summary of the ratio by weight of metals to PM is presented in Table 2-24.
Metals to PM ratios are given in units of milligrams of metal to grams of PM collected
by the sampling train. Lead as the highest ratio of all the metals in each of the three
test conditions (25.159, 14.568, 11.365 mg/g, respectively). Antimony had the second
highest metals to PM 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 18.156 mg/g, compared to a range of 0.079 to 2.820 mg/g for mercury for all
other runs combined.
Table 2-25 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 (HNO3) probe/filter holder rinse and the filter itself. The back
half fraction included the HNO3/hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) impinger contents
(Impingers 1 and 2), and the third fraction consisted of the potassium permanganate
(KMnO4) impinger contents analyzed only for mercury. Except for mercury and
antimony, the higher proportion of most metals was collected in the front half fractions.
The fraction with the highest amount of mercury and antimony was in the Impingers 1
and 2 fractions in aU runs, except Run 9 for mercury and Runs 6 and 7 for antimony.
Laboratory analytical results for each sample fraction are presented in detail in
Appendix E.2.
Sampling and flue gas parameters for the metals and PM runs are shown in
Table 2-26. Total sampling times, sample volumes, and isokinetic results for each
sampling run are presented. Appendix C.2 contains a complete listing of these and
2-31
JBS226
-------
TABLE 2-24. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICIPATE MATTER;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
METALS/PARTfCULATE RATIO
' (mg metal per gram of participate)
TEST CONDITION
RUN NUMBER
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
CONDITION 1
1
11.700
0.078
1.706
ND
1.155
0.119
18.552
1.117
0.019
0.027
0.307
5
4.028
0.048
0.921
ND
1.551
0.223
29.465
0.555
0.127
0.063
0.628
6
2.310
0.055
1.368
ND
2.187
0.200
29.917
1.529
0.089
0.028
1.263
AVERAGE
6.809
0.061
1.315
ND
1.504
0.177
25.159
0.952
0.077
0.043
0.610
CONDITION 2
2
5.550
0.076
2.863
ND
1.532
0.137
20.593
2.820
0.033
0.091
0.431
3
3.950
0.050
0.966
ND
0.725
0.065
11.871
1.387
0.015
0.038
0.186
4
2.703
0.059
1.284
ND
0.802
0.068
14.970
0.079
0.015
0.022
0.318
AVERAGE
3.662
0.058
1.399
ND
0.884
0.078
14.568
1.047
0.018
0.039
0.281
CONDITION3
7
3.279
0.037
0.583
0.004
2.028
0.083
11.975
18.156
0.028
0.022
1.716
S
3.310
0.036
0.684
ND
1.213
0.061
15.108
1.841
0.021
0.032
0.407
9
4.821
0.039
0.677
ND
0.837
0.044
8.369
0.904
0.015
0.018
0.560
AVERAGE
3.949
0.037
0.653
0.001
1.274
0.060
11.365
5.894
0.020
0.023
0.830
N)
ND = Metal not detected in the flue gas.
-------
TABLE 2-25. METALS AMOUNTS IN FLUE GAS SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONDITION 1 Oig collected)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RtWJ
FRONT
HALF
2900
44.6
1110
[0.500]
772
70.5
12400
8.40
12.5
[8.200]
205
IMPINGERS
1,2
4920
7.50
30.8
[0.210]
[0.530]
8.72
[1.600]
735
[2.100]
18.1
[5.700]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
3.48
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUN 2
FRONT
HALF
1090
37.5
1610
[0.500]
878
72.5
11800
24.5
18.8
[8.200]
247
IMPINGERS
1,2
2090
5.91
30.4
[0.210]
[0.520]
6.22
[1.600]
1590
[2.100]
52.1
[5.700]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
1.48
KUN5
FRONT
HALF
1250
26.8
589
[0.500]
1090
151
20700
42.0
89.0
[8.200]
441
IMPINGERS
1,2
1580
6.83
58.2
[0.210]
[0.540]
5.44
2.17
348
[2.100]
44.5
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
[0.810]
RUN 6
FRONT
HALF
411
16.1
388
[0.500]
639
55.3
8740
7.80
22.8
[8.200]
369
IMPINGERS
1,2
264
[1.400]
11.7
[0.210]
[0.540]
3.20
1.61
438
3.09
8.32
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3,4 $""
0.940
CONDITION 2 0*g collected)
RUN 3
FRONT
HALF
1520
52.0
1430
[0.500]
1100
92.5
18000
151
22.5
[8.200]
282
IMPINGERS
1,2
4470
23.9
34.4
[0.210]
[0.530]
5.33
2.16
1940
[2.100]
57.8
[5.700]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
12.6
RUN 4
FRONT
HALF
1360
78.3
1890
[0.500]
1270
98.0
23700
10.9
23.0
[8.200]
488
IMPINGERS
1,2
2920
15.3
143
[0.210]
[0.540]
10.1
2.44
112
[2.100]
34.1
16.0
IMPINGER
3,4 b
2.70
CONDITION 3 0»g effected)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SUver
Thallium
RUN?
FRONT
HALF
1610
23.9
431
2.75
1560
57.3
9210
434
21.8
[8.200]
1320
IMPINGERS
1,2
912
4.18
17.2
[0.210]
[0.540]
6.5
[1.100]
11500
[2.100]
17.0
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
2030
RUN*
FRONT
HALF
582
18.7
529
[0.500]
1020
45.5
12700
104.0
17.5
[8.200]
342
IMPINGERS
1,2
2200
11.3
43.2
[0.210]
[0.540]
5.97
[1.100]
1390
[2.100]
26.5
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
53.3
RUN 9
FRONT
HALF
2070
27.5
784
[0.500]
1010
48.0
10100
570
16.0
[8.200]
676
IMPINGERS
.'. i-\$\-y-
3750
20.0
33.3
[0.210]
[0.540]
5.33
1.89
517
2.35
21.6
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
3.65
a Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits for elements not detected in the samples.
b Impingers 3 & 4 analyzed for mercury content only.
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-26. METALS AND PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RIM NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
TEST CONDITION 1
1
OS/15/90
220
0.47
103.49
2.931
1397.8
8.5
8.0
13.9
1013.75
28.71
101
5
08/21/90
240
0.57
136.74
3.873
1427.2
9.2
7.6
14.4
1233.33
34.93
101
6
08/22/90
240
0.56
135.08
3.826
1395.6
9.8
7.2
14.7
1212.10
34.33
101
AVERAGE;
NA
0.533
125.10
3.543
1406.9
9.2
7.6
14.3
1153.06
32.66
NA
TEST CONDITION 2
2
08/18/90
240
0.39
94.25
2.669
1423.2
7.2
7.8
15.3
847.91
24.01
101
3
08/19/90
240
0.42
101.77
2.882
1486.8
9.4
7.7
14.8
921.42
26.10
100
4
08/20/90
240
0.54
130.44
3.694
1442.2
7.7
9.2
15.5
1184.34
33.54
100
AVERAGE
NA
0.450
108.82
3.082
1450.7
8.1
8.2
15.2
984.56
27.88
NA
TEST CONDITION 3
7
08/26/90
240
0.480
114.72
3.249
1240.5
11.8
6.9
12.6
1070.93
30.33
98.1
8
08727/90
155
0.45
69.44
1.967
1269.1
9.3
8.5
13.0
1116.79
31.63
98.9
9
08/28/90
240
0.43
103.96
2.944
1292.9
9.0
8.7
13.1
1087.48
30.80
100
AVERAGE
NA
0.453
96.04
2.720
1267.5
10.0
8.0
12.9
1091.73
30.92
NA
NA = Not Applicable
2-34
-------
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. 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 2-27 for each test run. Barium was
the most prevalent metal found in the ash from all test conditions. Antimony, beryllium,
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 emissions were determined from the same sampling train used
for metals analysis. Before metals analysis, PM collected on the filter and in the front
half acetone rinse (probe, nozzle, filter holder) was analyzed gravimetrically. The PM
stack gas concentrations and emission rates for each sampling run, and averages for each
test condition are presented in Table 2-28. Uncorrected concentrations and
concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown. Test Condition 2 had the highest
concentrations and emission rates (0.170 gr/dscf and 1.467 Ib/hr) while Test Condition 1
had the lowest (0.071 gr/dscf and 0.684 Ib/hr). A brief summary of the sampling and
flue gas parameters for the PM runs is given in Table 2-26 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.
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 PM/metals sampling run.
2-35
JBS226 ^ JJ
-------
TABLE 2-27. METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST CONDITION
RON NUMBER
DATE
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
1
1
08/15/90
(mg/kg)
[32]
69.6
29000
[0.20]
12.0
58.0
935
0.132
1960
[33]
[54]
5
08/21/90
(mg/kg)
[32]
72.2
2700
[0.20]
14.0
130
1160
[0.039]
28.0
[33]
[54]
6
08/22790
(mg/kg)
[32]
82.3
20700
[0.20]
10.0
37.0
396
0.156
[20]
[33]
[54]
AVERAGE
[32]
74.7
17467
[0.20]
12.0
75.0
830
0.144
994
[33]
[54]
TEST CONDITION
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
2
2
08/18790
(mg/kg)
[32]
53.7
12900
[0.20]
10.0
52.0
268
[0.039]
[20]
[33]
[54]
3
08/19/90
(mg/kg)
[32]
27.4
7910
[0.20]
[5.0]
28.0
5360
[0.039]
[20]
[33]
[54]
4
08/20/90
(mg/kg)
[32]
35.2
25000
[0.20]
12.0
62.0
86700
0.177
[20]
[33]
[54]
AVERAGE
[32]
38.8
15270
[0.20]
11.0
47.3
30776
0.177
[20]
[33]
[54]
TEST CONDmOK
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
3
7
08/26/90
(mg/kg)
[32]
174
10700
0.300
8.00
49.0
3580
0.222
[20]
[33]
[54]
8
08/27/90
(rag/kg)
[32]
37.5
38400
[0.20]
[5.00]
48.0
249
[0.039]
[20]
[33]
[54]
9
08/28/90
(mg/kg)
[32]
69.6
28100
[0.20]
13.0
89.0
163
[0.039]
485
[33]
[54]
AVERAGE
[32]
93.7
25733
0.300
10.5
62.0
1331
0.222
485
[33]
[54]
a Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits
for elements not detected in the sample.
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-28. PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
08/15/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
SAMPLING
CONDITION
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
RUN NUMBER
1
5
6
2
3
4
7
8
9
TIME
12:32-16:52
10:32-14:48
10:30-14:42
AVERAGES:
9:46-16:31
10:00-15:19
12:10-16:42
AVERAGES:
11:40-15:58
10:59-15:06
10:05-14:30
AVERAGES:
FLUE GAS CONCENTRATION
(grains/dscf)
0.010
0.079
0.034
0,071
0.094
0.230
0.187
0.170
0.013
0.187
0.179
0.157
(giains/dsef
©7% O2)
0.112
0.095
0.042
0,083
0.095
0.278
0.197
0.190
0.158
0.223
0.209
0.197
(grams/dscm)
0.228
0.181
0.076
0,162
0.215
0.526
0.429
0.390
0.237
0.427
0.410
0.358
(grams/dscm
@7% O2)
0.256
0.216
0.096
0,189
0.217
0.635
0.450
0.434
0.360
0.510
0.479
0.450
FLUE GAS EMISSION RATE
(Ib/br)
0.866
0.838
0.347
0,684
0.682
1.816
1.902
1.467
0.916
1.568
1.423
1.302
(fcg/hr)
0.393
0.380
0.157
0,310
0.309
0.824
0.863
0.665
0.415
0.711
0.645
0,591;
NJ
-------
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 set 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 2-29. Test Conditions 2 and 3 both had an average percent opacity
of 3 and Test Condition 1 had an average percent opacity of 2.
2.5 HALOGEN GAS EMISSIONS
Hydrogen chloride, HF, and 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. The HC1 solubilizes and
forms chloride (Cl~) ions in acidified water. Ion chromatography was used to detect the
Cl", Br", and 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 2-30 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.
Conditions 2 and 3 had similar average HC1 concentrations at 1,118 and 1,197 ppmV,
respectively. The Condition 1 average was 923 ppmV HCL When compared to the HC1
gas concentrations, substantially lower amounts of HF and HBr were found. Average
HF concentrations for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 7.29, 14.2, and 7.93 ppmV,
respectively. Average HBr concentrations were 2.03, 1.69, and 0.36 ppmV for the above
conditions, respectively.
Table 2-31 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. The HC1 concentrations ranged from 418 ppmV for Run 5A to 1,502 ppmV for
Run 9C. The corresponding HC1 emission rates were 1,290 and 3,540 g/hr, respectively.
JBS226
2-38
-------
TABLE 2-29. PERCENT OPACITY OBSERVATIONS SUMMARY;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN NUMBER
DATE;;
TIME 5
Range of Individual Observations (% opacity)
Range of Set Averages ( % opacity)
Run Average (% opacity)
Test Conditions Average (% opacity)
RUN NUMBER
DATE
TIME
Range of Individual Observations ( % opacity)
Range of Set Averages (% opacity)
Run Average (% opacity)
Test Conditions Average (% opacity)
RUN NUMBER
;DATE
TIME
Range of Individual Observations (% opacity)
Range of Set Averages ( % opacity)
Run Average ( % opacity)
Test Conditions Average (% opacity)
TEST CONDITION 1
1
08/15/90
12:31-16:51
0-100
0-21
2
5
08/21/90
10t30-14:48
0-100
0-15
1
2
6.. -•,,-,.:
08/22/90 :;
10:30-14:42
0-80
0-4
0
TEST CONDITION 2
2
08/18/90
09:45-16:32
0-100
0-10
1
3
08/19/90
10:00-15:21
0-100
0-20
4
3
4
08/20/90
12:10-16:42
0-100
0-25
4
TEST CONDITION 3
7
08/26/90
11140-15:58
0-100
0-8
2
8
08/27/90
11:00-15:04
0-100
0-27
3
3
9
08/28/90
10:05-14t30
0-100
0-19
3
a Individual observations recorded at 15 second intervals, to the nearest five 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.
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-30. SUMMARY OF HALOGEN ACID TESTING RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
AVERAGE 1
AVERAGE 5
AVERAGE 6
AVERAGE CONDI
AVERAGE 2
AVERAGE 3
AVERAGE 4
AVERAGE COND 2
AVERAGE 7
AVERAGE 8
AVERAGE 9
AVERAGE COND 3
HC1 CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
1,102
902
764
,::::.V-/'923
968
1,152
1,445
1,118
1,168
1,145
1,278
1,197
(ppmv
-v-v 1,31*
1,746
1,353
1,490
1,530
HP CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
7.11
11.64
3.11
7.29
9.47
7.19
25.99
14.2
6.17
4.52
13.10
"J\-~ 7.93'
(ppmv
@7%O2)
7.83
13.77
3.85
8.48
10.01
8.58
27.67
'•m;':K: 15,4
8.66
5.31
15.46
9.81
HBr CONCENTRATION
(ppfflv)
2.03
[0.034]
[0.027]
2.03
0.26
1.90
2.92
1.69
[0.031]
[0.028]
0.36
0.36
(jppmv
<&!% 02)
2.24
[0.041]
[0.034]
2.24
0.26
2.41
3.07
1,91
[0.046]
[0.033]
0.41
::i\ M ' VvM:.
( ) = estimated value (less than 5 times the detection limit). [ ] = minimum detection limit
2-40
-------
TABLE 2-31. SUMMARY OF HC1 RESULTS FOR EACH TEST RUN;
CAPE FEAR 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)
1,569
1,772
a
1,670
2,116
1,254
1,032
1,467
1,977
1,794
1,470
1,747
1,853
2,529
a
2,191
634
1,894
1,575
1,368
747
1,278
1,449
1,158
1,947
2,121
1,245
'."••..*•' 1^1
1,290
2,182
a
1,736
1,778
1,757
2,277
1,937
(mg/dscm
@7% 02)
1,686
2,027
1,856
1,979
1,410
1,174
1,521
2,303
1,817
2,064
2,061
2,166
2,656
2,411
846
2,197
1,827
1,623
1,059
1,508
1,695
1,420
3,127
3,194
1,622
2,647
1,515
2,589
2,052
2,055
2,013
2,707
2,258
(ppmv)
1,035
1,169
^.!;R ! 1,102
1,395
827
681
968
1,304
1,183
970
1,152
1,222
1,668
';% Iy445."
418
1,249
1,039
---.OvPSKG'
493
843
956
. v- . . 764
1,285
1,399
821
1,168
851
1,439
1,145
1,173
1,159
1,502
1,278
(ppmv
@7% O2)
1,112
1,337
1,225
1,305
930
774
- i:/;i#03
1,519
1,198
1,361
1,360
1,429
1,752
1,590
558
1,449
1,205
1,070
698
995
1,118
937
2,063
2,107
1,070
•"'.. 1,746
999
1,707
1,353
1,356
1,328
1,785
1,490
EMISSION
RATE
(g^)
2,730
3,081
2,906
3,044
1,805
1,486
2,112
3,270
2,966
2,430
2,889
3,549
4,843
; 4,196
1,290
3,853
3,204
2,782
1,457
2,493
2,826
2,259
3,305
3,599
2,112
3,005
2,055
3,475
2,765
2,764
2,731
3,540
3,012
a Third run was not completed for these tests.
2-41
-------
Table 2-32 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 flagged by the analytical laboratory as estimates
because they were less than five times the detection limit. These values are included in
all averages. Runs 4B, 5C, and 9C had concentrations substantially higher than the rest
of the runs at 45.67, 24.65, and 30.79 ppmV, respectively. The range of concentrations
for the other runs were 0.564 to 10.65 ppmV for Runs 8B and 2A, respectively.
Emissions rates ranged from 0.747 to 72.76 g/hr.
Table 2-33 presents the HBr emission results for all test runs. No HBr was
detected in the flue gas in 14 out of 24 test runs. Detected flue gas concentrations were
found in Condition 1 (Run 1 only), Condition 2 (all runs), and Condition 3 (Run 9 only).
Detected concentrations ranged from 0.102 to 3.13 ppmV for Runs 2B and 3C,
respectively. Corresponding emission rates were 0.492 to 17.43 g/hr.
2.5.2 HC1 CEM Results
Continuous emissions monitoring 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 2-34 present HC1
CEM data averaged over the same time period as each manual halogen "sub-run." A
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 0.78 ppmV for the manual
halogen test period 5A to 920 ppmV for manual halogen test period 9C. There is very
little similarity between the CEM and manual HC1 data. Comparing Conditions 1, 2,
and 3 averages for CEM vs manual HC1 data reveals the following values:
JBS226
2-42
-------
TABLE 2-32. SUMMARY OF HF RESULTS FOR EACH TEST RUN;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUNIC
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE ; I :.
RUN5RA
RUN5RB
RUN SRC
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE^ ;
RUN7A
RUN7B
RUN7C
AVERAGE::;: ;
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE ;
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGB;;:
MEASURED CONCENTRATIOJNS
{mg/dsom)
7.39
4.44
a
5.91
8.86
8.31
6.45
..v 7,88:
5.83
6.14
5.99
1 ^ 5.98
5.25
38.00
a
-* 21.62
3.80
4.75
20.50
t; ?,. 9.69
2.05
3.11
2.59
*;-•:->:- m2.5S-
2.54
3.92
8.93
::£ :;> 5.13
7.05
(0.469)
a
3.76
4.42
2.66
25.61
10:90
(mg/dscm
@7% O2)
7.94
5.08
6.51
8.29
9.35
7.34
.:> .-%. 8,33
6.78
6.21
8.41
-1 7114
6.14
39.90
23.02
5.06
5.51
23.78
11.45
2.91
3.67
3.03
m-_ E 3.20
4.08
5.91
11.64
H-^>.: 7.21
8.28
(0.556)
4.42
5.11
3.05
30.44
;; 12.86
9.55
6.10
7.83
9.96
11.24
8.82
::>'::;;I:'.ip-ot
8.15
7.47
10.12
-:v ;^ 8.58",
7.38
47.96
;-:l-:--27.67::
6.09
6.63
28.59
- *-: 13.77,
3.50
4.41
3.64
:-: f, :0.8S
4.90
7.10
13.99
8.66
9.96
(0.669)
'. ::C.-:v5.31
6.14
3.66
36.59
" 15.46
EMISSION
RATE
(g/hr)
12.86
7.72
: 10.29
12.75
11.97
9.29
A:;. "4 11.34:
9.63
10.15
9.91
:'.* •;: 9:90
10.05
72.76
41.41
7.72
9.67
41.72
€ 19.70
4.00
6.06
5.05
fcv-;s::;':::,5.04
4.31
6.66
15.16
8.71
11.23
(0.747)
5.99
6.87
4.13
39.81
16.94
a The third run was not completed for these tests.
( ) = Maximum estimated concentration
2-43
-------
TABLE 2-33. SUMMARY OF HBr RESULTS AT EACH TEST RUN;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
BUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUNIC
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGEPi%:
RUN5RA
RUN5RB
RUN SRC
A^RAGEt:-ffiv:
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE::
RUN7A
RUN7B
RUN7C
AVERAGE '• :;
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE :--^::"
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
MEASqUED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
8.36
5.30
a
6.83
1.44
(0.342)
[0.114]
0.89
4.93
3.71
10.54
639
[0.119]
9.83
a
, 9m
[0.111]
[0.115]
[0.115]
•W: i [01114]
[0.091]
[0.092]
[0.093]
{0,092}
[0.097]
[0.100]
[0.118]
&i05]
[0.097]
[0.091]
a
«r':pxo94j
1.08
1.34
[0.101]
,m^-M3i-
(mg/dscm
@7fc 02)
8.98
6.06
7.52
1.34
(0.385)
[0.130]
0.86
5.74
3.76
14.80
8.10
[0.139]
10.32
10.32
[0.148]
[0.133]
[0.133]
[0.138]
[0.129]
[0.109]
[0.109]
[0.116]
[0.156]
[0.151]
[0.154]
10.154]
[0.114]
[0.108]
•- ^"tQ.liir
1.25
1.54
[0.120]
:--:?&^ - 1-39
ftpon)
2.48
1.57
2.03
0.43
(0.102)
[0.034]
0.26
1.46
1.10
3.13
1.90
[0.035]
2.92
:»;::;:|:i;:.2.92 ;
[0.033]
[0.034]
[0.034]
;SilP$34];
[0.027]
[0.027]
[0.028]
mpwzi}
[0.029]
[0.030]
[0.035]
fO,03X]
[0.029]
[0.027]
::?:;'::-:::fI&028J:'
0.32
0.40
[0.030]
0.36
(ppmv
@7%02)
2.67
1.80
2.24
0.40
(0.115)
[0.039]
0.26
1.71
1.12
4.40
2.41
[0.041]
3.07
l}>i|£:.:;3-07
[0.044]
[0.039]
[0.039]
[0.041]
[0.038]
[0.032]
[0.033]
10,034]
[0.047]
[0.045]
[0.046]
s^B>;o4$r
[0.034]
[0.032]
'••m:' {OJ33J
0.37
0.46
[0.036]
0.41
EMISSION
RATE
(g/fr)
14.54
9.21
ngo
2.07
(0.492)
[0.164]
1.2?
8.15
6.14
17.43
1 10.57
[0.228]
18.82
18.82
[0.226]
[0.234]
[0.234]
%li[0.231]
[0.177]
[0.179]
[0.181]
!;i! 10.179].
[0.165]
[0.170]
[0.200]
1 PU78]
[0.154]
[0.145]
»lt'IP.150J'
1.68
2.09
[0.157]
1.88
a The third run for these tests were not completed.
[ ] = Minimum detection limit
2-44
-------
TABLE 2-34. COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND CEM HC1 RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE -.- •- Fir-
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE l ? :X::' ;':%:,
RUN5A
RUN5B
RUN5C
AVERAGE ;
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE,,-' •' ••>>;.
RUN7A
RUN7B
RUN7C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE ' ";'•••:.' ;-
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE. .-;;: ^...1
MANUAL HC1 RESULTS
(ppmV)
1035
1169
NC
1102
1395
827
681
«..:vw.,968
1304
1183
970
1152
1222
1668
NC
:;f":-:H-- ... 1445.
418
1249
1039
902
493
843
956
•t:,..,^..m' ^64
1285
1399
821
1168
851
1439
NC
•$. : :-'\, %. ii*5
1173
1159
1502
1278
(ppmV
@1% 02)
1112
1337
NC
1225
1305
930
774
1 •;:. •m.KXB;
1519
1198
1361
: 4 • 1360
1429
1752
NC
1590
558
1449
1205
1070
698
995
1118
937
2063
2107
1070
>•; ;-?:>,• rt4&
999
1707
NC
•''-"•- ;':"::'f-:;?1353
1356
1328
1785
1490
CEM HO RESULTS
(ppmV)
386
336
NC
:':•: "• H;. •0361;;.
833
155
114
••;• .-:.:-: '&%%&
519
294
257
357
105
13.6
NC
59.3
0.78
95
13.2
-i::;. -•".-:••. %36.5
27.9
224
271
174
ND
ND
ND
f:^m-:;^>
310
422
NC
^•f'M:^3&'
450
419
920
, :-^m<596'
(ppmV
@7* oa>
344
336
NC
340
674
149
111
:•-:•- .,:- :-• 311
547
255
394
399
112
11.2
NC
61.6
0.84
100
13.8
38.1
33.3
220
263
172
ND
ND
ND
-"•... '^'ND-
309
428
NC
369
466
421
963
617
NC= Run not completed.
ND = Not Determined.
2-45
-------
CEM HC1 Manual HC1
Condition 1 191 ppmV-dry 922 ppmV-dry
Condition 2 261 ppmV-dry 1,189 ppmV-dry
Condition 3 321 ppmV-dry 1,197 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 Cape Fear incinerator stack gases. More
information on this phenomenon will be gained through additional MWI HC1 CEM
testing. However, because the manual 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 - 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.
Set 2 - 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 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 was performed using an extractive sample system and
instrument methods to measure NOX, CO, SO2, THC, and HC1 concentrations. The
diluent gases (O2, CO2) were measured using CEMs at all times so that the emission
JBS226
2-46
-------
results could be normalized to a reference 7 percent O2. Concentrations of NO^ SO2,
CO, CO2, and O2 were measured on a dry basis with the sample stream conditioned as
shown in Figure 5-16. Concentrations of HC1 and an additional measurement of CO
using a separate monitor were measured using a dilution probe system and was on a wet
basis. The wet CO analyzer was used only as an indicator of the operability of the
dilution probe system. No CO values will be reported from that system. The THC
concentrations were also monitored on a wet basis, but did not employ the dilution
probe system. 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 values corrected to 7 percent O2 are summarized in Tables 2-35
and 2-36. Actual concentrations are presented as they were measured (NO^ SO2, CO,
CO2, and O2-dry; THC, and HC1). All values corrected to 7 percent O2 are presented on
a dry basis. Each 30-second CEM reading was corrected to 7 percent O2 based on the
corresponding O2 value. Averages of the corrected values were then calculated. For
HC1 and THC, stack gas moisture determined from the average of the PM/Metals and
CDD/CDF sampling trains was used for the corrections. Overall averages are presented
for each CEM parameter under each of the three incinerator operating conditions.
Average O2 concentrations varied by 4.6 percent by volume during the 9 test runs
ranging from 7.17 to 11.77 percent O2. The average O2 value for each set of tests was
9.19 (Condition 1), 8.07 (Condition 2), and 10.01 (Condition 3). The CO2 concentrations
varied inversely with the O2 concentrations at 7.60, 8.23, and 8.02 for Conditions 1
through 3, respectively. The CO2 run averages ranged from 6.89 to 9.17 percent by
volume over the nine test runs.
Average CO concentrations ranged from 21.8 ppmV to 239 ppmV under
Condition 1 with the overall average concentration at 126 ppmV. For the second
condition, the CO run averages ranged from 322 ppmV to 632 ppmV, with an overall
average CO concentration of 523 ppmV. For the third condition, the CO run averages
ranged from 128 ppmV to 564 ppmV with the overall average for this condition being
399 ppmV.
2-47
JBS226
-------
TABLE 2-35. CEM DAILY TEST RUN AVERAGES FOR OXYGEN, CO, CO2 AND HC1;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
08/15/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
AVERAGE:
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
AVERAGE:
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
AVERAGE:
HUN
NUMBER/
MANUAL
TEST TYPE
1
5
6
2
3
4
7
8
9
CONDITION
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
TEST
TIME *
12:32-16:51
10:30-14:45
10:30-14:40
09:45-16:17
10:01-15:21
12:10-16:42
11:40-15:58
11:00-15:06
10:05-14:30
MOISTURE
14.00
14.10
14.60
15.10
14.60
15.10
14.80
14.80
14.70
OXYGEN
(%YQl,d«y)
8.53
9.24
9.81
93$:
7.17
9.38
7.67
&07:
11.77
9.26
9.00
10,0!
CO2
(%vo!.dry)
8.01
7.61
7.19
\:W/:?;7.(i0/.
7.81
7.72
9.17
•*?:>'^ :::v$;23?
6.89
8.44
8.72
ji$ :i£ *;02
CO
actual
(ppmV.dry)
116
239
21.8
iW::: 125.60
322
616
632
"• •••':.:W- 523.
128
505
631
•• :•: .- . -:-:-:-:•:-. : "-"«O I
_,-.;. -•• •- ;.-.- ..-• _^ff^.
CO
corrected b
(ppmV.dry)
@7%Q2
88.40
185.00
22.00
•H -••".]'. 99 A7
245
583
472
; -;,".;.-.-; :',-;.-: 433
159
494
427
.:.:>•:. •;*%.'3$Q
HCL 0
actual
(ppntV.wet)
359
17.4
189
188
397
354
89.2
280
ND
337
577
457
HCL C
corrected d
(pjpBtV,dry)
@7&Q2
341.00
18.40
188
182
299.00
411
74.90
262
ND
338
601
470
N)
4x
00
a For metals/CDD/CDF runs.
b Thirty-second CEM 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 Thirty-second CEM averages were corrected to 7% oxygen and for moisture, where the corrected value = actual * 13.9/(20.9 - O2) * (1/(1 - moist)).
ND = Not Determined
-------
TABLE 2-36. CEM DAILY TEST RUN AVERAGES FOR OXYGEN, SO2, NOx AND THC;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
08/15/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
AVERAGE:
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
AVERAGE:
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
AVERAGE:
RON NUMBER
1
1
5
6
2
3
4
7
8
9
CONDITION
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
TEST
TIME «
12:32-16:51
10:30-14:45
10:30-14:40
09:45-16:17
10:01-15:21
12:10-16:42
11:40-15:58
11:00-15:06
10:05-14:30
;&:, 'SKy :':**--.""'
MOISTURE
14.00
14.10
14.60
15.10
14.60
15.10
14.80
14.80
14.70
OXYGEN
(*vol.dry)
8.53
9.24
9.81
••'•:' :-',.*.|&;;
7.17
9.38
7.67
8.07
11.77
9.26
9.00
10.01
SQ2
actual
(ppmV,dry)
24.90
16.20
8.66
16.5?
18.20
35.30
29.20
27.57
12.60
35.90
28.30
£ :•;;,•: 25.60
SO2
corrected b
(ppmV.dry)
25.70
16.80
10.30
•Y;.,-:;?:::i7.60-
17.50
38.40
29.30
28.40
16.60
32.30
21.10
23.35
NOX
actual
(ppmV,dry)
74.00
59.40
53.60
62.3*
68.20
68.10
92.80
76,37
63.40
78.60
84.70
V:-,.:.?:v7S,S7
NOX
corrected b
(ppmV.dry)
83.80
70.00
66.60
75,47
75.10
81.60
96.50
84,40
92.90
90.90
96.00
95,27
THC
actual
(ppmC, wet)
2.51
4.13
2.36
3.00
1.33
41.20
51.80
31.44
9.43
12.60
12.7
'/••:::- ;: 1L38
THC
corrected c
(ppmC, dry)
2.31
4.18
2.72
•\---:m<:3#&
1.08
48.10
46.70
:.. -m*iM:
12.40
9.46
9.03
^i v>&
K)
a Time is for metals and CDD/CDF runs.
b SO2 and NOx are corrected to 7% oxygen, where the corrected value = actual * 13.9/(20.9 - O2).
c THC is corrected to 7% oxygen and corrected for moisture where the corrected value = actual * 13.9/(20.9 - O2) * (1/(1 - moist)).
-------
The average NOX concentrations varied from 53.6 ppmV to 92.8 ppmV over the
nine test runs. Averages for Condition 1 ranged from 53.6 ppmV to 74 with an overall
average of 62.3 ppmV. Averages for Condition 2 ranged from 68.1 to 92.8 ppmV with
an overall average of 76.4 ppmV, and the Condition 3 range was 63.4 to 78.6 ppmV with
the average value being 75.6 ppmV.
The SO2 run averages for each condition ranged from 8.66 to 24.9 ppmV for
Condition 1, 18.2 to 35.3 ppmV for Condition 2, and 12.6 to 35.9 ppmV for Condition 3.
The condition averages were 16.6 ppmV, 27.6 ppmV, and 25.6 ppmV for the
Conditions 1 through 3, respectively.
Average THC concentrations varied from 1.33 ppmV to 51.8 ppmV over the nine
runs. The average THC for each condition ranged from 2.36 to 4.13 ppmV for
Condition 1, 1.33 to 51.8 ppmV for Condition 2, and 9.43 to 12.7 ppmV for Condition 3.
The Condition 1 average was 3.00 ppmV, the Condition 2 average was 31.4 ppmV, and
the Condition 3 average was 11.6 ppmV.
2.7 CEM BURNDOWN RESULTS
After the daily test run was completed, combustion gas concentrations were
continuously analyzed and recorded during a "burn down" period by the CEMS. At this
time the ram feed hopper is locked out while the primary and secondary chambers
operate under normal set point routines. Three days of burn down conditions were
monitored. All CEM analyzers were operational monitoring O2, CO2, SO2, NOX, CO,
HC1, and THC. The 30-second CEM averages were reported in ppm or percent by
volume as measured and also corrected to 7 percent O2.
Table 2-37 reports the burn down CEM data. The measured O2 and CO2 were
similar for burn down Runs 5 and 9. Oxygen values were 12.7 and 13.7 percent by
volume for these two runs. Carbon dioxide values were 4.5 and 4.19 for Runs 5 and 9,
respectively. Burn down Run 3 gas concentrations were much more dilute with O2
values at 18.2 and CO2 at 1.46 percent. Sulfur dioxide was approximately 0 ppm by
volume for all three runs and CO concentrations were 0, 0, and 19.7 ppm for Runs 3, 5,
and 9, respectively. The NOX concentrations were 20.4, 49.9, and 46.0 ppm for the three
JBS226
2^50
-------
TABLE 2-37. CEM BURN DOWN AVERAGES
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
08/19/90
08/21/90
08/28/90
08/19/90
08/21/90
08/28/90
RUN
NUMBER
3
5
9
3
5
9
CONDITION
2
1
3
2
1
3
BURNDOWN
TEST
TIME *
16:23-18:33
15:49-19:02
14:37-18:21
16:23-18:33
15:49-19:02
14:37-18:21
OXYGEN
(%vol,dry)
18.2
12.7
13.7
CO2
(%vol.diy)
1.46
4.5
4.19
SO2
actual
(ppmV,dry)
0
0.08
0.00
CO
actual
-------
runs. The THC average concentrations were below 2 ppm for all three runs. The CEM
HC1 averages were 27.4, 2.11, and 183 for Runs 3, 5, and 9, respectively.
2.8 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,
screened through 1/2-inch mesh, weighed, and placed in 35 gallon metal cans. After the
ash was allowed to cool, samples were taken manually and composited to obtain a
representative sample. 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). Table 2-38 presents a summary of the ash analysis
results. The moisture content of the samples ranged from 0.56 percent for Run 2 (Test
Condition 2) to 2.22 percent for Run 4 (Test Condition 2).
The average moisture values for each test condition are shown. The lowest value
shown was for Condition 3 (0.69 percent) and the highest value for Condition 2
(1.33 percent).
Loss-on-ignition results varied from 3.21 percent for Run 9 (Condition 3) to
15.14 percent for Run 4 (Condition 2). Average values for each test condition ranged
from 4.76 percent for Condition 3 to 8.17 percent for Condition 2.
Carbon content in the ash samples varied from 1.16 percent for Run 9
(Condition 3) to 7.37 percent for Run 4 (Condition 2). Average values for each test
condition showed a low value of 1.64 percent for Condition 3 and a high value of
3.50 percent for Condition 2.
JBS226
2-52
-------
TABLE 2-38. SUMMARY OF ASH CARBON CONTENT, LOI AND MOISTURE RESULTS
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONDITION *
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
TEST
DATE ,
8/15/90
8/21/90
8/22/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/28/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
TEST
NUMBER
1
5
6
2
3
4
9
7
8
SAMPLE
DATE
8/16/90
8/22/90
8/23/90
'\:.#AVBRA<®:to-.
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/21/90
AVERAGE
8/29/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
::::1;::-:'AVERAC!E ••;:;•"• \
MOISTURE
<*)
0.74
0.89
0.89
I*"--" 0.84 ;
0.56
1.21
2.22
1.33
0.66
0.71
0.71
:. , viv:/ 0.69 -- M;;:;:"
L.OX
<*>
4.62
10.11
4.52
•? 6.41 ":;'
3.54
5.84
15.14
• 8.17 • " *>.
3.21
4.51
6.57
' • .4.76 •*:•••>.•.
TOTAL LOSS
<*)
5.33
10.91
5.37
".• .::-: : ?.7J6 •' -,:-^
4.08
6.98
17.02
9.36
3.84
5.19
7.23
5.42
CARBON
m
1.89
4.73
1.43
Vy ;-•.. :v- $& rtr ft :;;:
1.44
1.68
7.37
3.50 I;;:;:...' :';: -
1.16
1.40
2.35
>,,-|:y :1.64^?;;i;V.
K)
6,
U)
* CONDITIONS:
(1) 200 Ib/hr., 1900°F. 20 lb/6 min.
(2) 300 Ib/hr.. 1900°F. 30 lb/6 min.
(3) 300 Ib/hr.. 1600°F, 50 lb/10 min.
-------
2.9 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.
2.9.1 Background and Test Matrix
The objectives of this portion of the test program was 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 Cape Fear Memorial Hospital, microbial survivability was evaluated 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. is a spore forming non-pathogenic soil inhabiting bacteria. This
organism was chosen because it is resistant to high temperatures. This organism is also
easy to culture because few other 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
(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 comparision to
JBS226
2-54
-------
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 charge of
the day, (2) midday, and (3) last charge of the day. Three triplicate runs (days) were
performed at three different incinerator operating conditions for a total of nine runs.
Four wet spore spikes and three dry spore spikes were performed for each run. One run
was performed daily.
Complete details of the microbial spiking, recovery and analysis procedures are
given in Section 5.3.
Table 2-39 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).
2.9.2 Overall Microbial Survivability
By comparing the number of indicator spores spiked into the incinerator with the
number of viable spores exiting in both the stack gas and incinerator ash, an overall
microbial survivability value can be determined as follows:
(SK + A\
MS = -5 - - * 10°
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)
The above calculation combines microbial survivability in air emissions and microbial
survivability in ash to provide an estimate of the total descruction efficiency (1-MS) of
the incinerator. 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.
JBS226
-------
TABLE 2-39. SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR FEED AMOUNTS AND ASH GENERATION PER RUN ;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
CONDITION
1
2
2
2
1
WET
SPORE SPIKES
TIMES
12:44
13:36
15:00
16:16
9:57
10:45
13:25
14:13
10:12
11:04
13:18
14:22
12:24
13:16
15:06
15:59
10:36
11:26
13:08
14:21
TOTAL SPORE
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
DRY SPORE
(PIPE) SPIKES
TIMES
10:04
13:42
Ambient
07:42
10:38
16:27
09:23
12:31
15:26
12:10
14:46
15:37
16:53
10:30
12:43
14:58
TOTAL SPORES
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
I TOTAL WASTE
FEED (Ibs)
1228.4
1997.1
1549.0
1304.7
906.5
TOTAL ASH
WEIGHT (Ibs)
51.5
NA
120.0
211.5
138.1
bJ
NOTE:
Condition 1 = 200 Ib/hr; 1900°F; 20 lb/6 min
Condition 2 = 300 Ib/hr; 1900°F; 30 lb/6 min
Condition 3 = 300 Ib/hr; 1600°F; 50 lb/10 min
NA = Not Available
Ambient = Pipe sample not placed in incinerator (QA sample)
-------
TABLE 2-39. SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR FEED AMOUNTS AND ASH GENERATION PER RUN (continued) ;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
HUN
NUMBER
6
7
8
9
DATE,
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
CONDITION
1
3
3
3
WET
SPORE SPIKES
TIMES
10:45
11:23
13:10
14:33
12:00
12:40
14:00
15:22
11:10
12:03
13:26
14:27
10:15
11:04
12:17
13:19
TOTAL SPORE
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
3.85E+11
DRY SPORE
(PIPE) SPIKES
TIMES
10:20
13:22
15:04
11:40
14:10
16:02
11:00
13:05
Ambient
10:05
12:37
14:29
TOTAL SPORES
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
2.3E+06
TOTAL WASTE
FEED (Ibs)
1165.1
1346.0
1248.2
1382.2
TOTAL ASM
WEIGHT (Ibs)
93.3
118.5
111.2
102.6
NOTE:
Condition 1 = 200 Ib/hr; 1900°F; 20 lb/6 min
Condition 2 = 300 Ib/hr; 1900°F; 30 lb/6 min
Condition 3 = 300 Ib/hr; 1600°F; 50 lb/10 min
NA = Not Available
Ambient = Pipe sample not placed in incinerator (QA sample)
-------
Table 2-40 presents the overall survivability of the 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). Spores were not detected in
either the flue gas or the ash samples in Runs 3, 5, 7, and 9. Microbial survivability
detection limits for these runs were all less than <5.1 x 10"6 percent survivability. Spores
were also not detected in flue gas samples from Runs 1 and 8 and in the ash sample
from Run 4. Multiple analytical repetitions from all other flue gas and ash samples did
not result in consistently detected numbers of spores. However, in order to present a
worst-case emissions scenario, positive detects were assigned to flue gas samples from
Runs 2, 4, and 6 and ash samples from Runs 1, 5, and 6. The microbial survivability
values from these runs were all less than 3.3 x 10~3 percent survivability. Flue gas
microbial survivability and ash microbial survivability are further discussed in the
following sections. All microbial survivability calculations are shown in Appendix F.
2.9.3 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 exiting the stack, Se is calculated as shown in
Appendix F, and in the EPA draft method in Appendix K.
Each test run for viable spore emissions was actually made up of 2 "sub-runs."
Each sub-run sample was collected for 96 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 2-41 presents the Microbial Survivability in Emissions test results. The
analytical results were taken from an analytical quantitative summary of all anlayses
JBS226 2-58
-------
TABLE 2-40. OVERALL MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
5
6
2
3
4
7
8
9
INCINERATOR
FEED RATE/
FREQUENCY
(Ib/hr/min)
200/6
200/6
200/6
300/6
300/6
300/6
300/10
300/10
300/10
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR
SPORES SPIKED
TO INCINERATOR
1.54+12
1.54+12
1.54+12
1.54+12
1.54+12
1.54+12
1.54+12
1.54+12
1.54+12
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR
SPORES EXITING
THE STACK a
< 2.57E+04
< 4.59E+04
4.64E+04
12.8E+04
<5.18E+04
10.5E+04
< 3.83E+04
< 5.35E+04
< 4.53E+04
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR
SPORES
IN ASH b
5.149E+07
<3.13E+04
< 4.23E+06
NA d
< 2.72E+04
< 4.80E+04
< 2.69E+04
NA
< 2.33E+04
MICROBIAL
SURVTVABILITY
<*)c
3.3E-03
< 5.0E-06
3.0E-04
8.3E-06
<5.1E-06
6.8E-06
< 4.2E-06
NA
< 4.5E-06
MICROBIAL
LOG
REDUCTION
4.5
>7.3
7.5
7.1
>7.3
7.2
>7.4
NA
>7.4
N)
a (See Table 2-41).
b (See Table 2-43).
c Calculated using (number spores in flue gas + number of spores in ash) / number wet spores spiked x 100 (See Appendix F).
NOTE:
[ ] = Detection limit
d Total ash weight was not determined for Run 2 however no spores were detected in the ash sample.
-------
TABLE 2-41. VIABLE SPORE EMISSIONS
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN;"
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ALIQUOT
SIZE
(ml)
100
157
100
100
100
213
100
100
100
NUMBER OP
INDICATOR
SPORES
IN ALIQUOT
ND
2
ND
1
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
NUMBER OF;
INDICATOR!
SPORES
IN SAMPLE
ND
61
ND
47
ND
19
ND
ND
ND
CONCENTRATION <5P
OF JO^fcATOR
SPORES IN
FLUE GAS(#/dscm)
ND
29
ND
18
ND
7
ND
ND
ND
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
EXITING STACK
DURING TEST PERIOD
< 2.57E+04
12.8E+04
< 5. 18+04
10.5E+04
< 4.59E+04
4.64E+04
< 3.83E+04
< 5.35+04
< 4.53E+04
NOTE: Values taken from averages of repetitive analytical runs as presented in the analytical quantitative summary 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
[ ] = Detection limit
2-60
-------
shown in Appendix E.3. Two spores were detected from two Run 2 sample aliquots
resulting in an emission rate of 12.8 x 104 spores exiting the incinerator in the stack gas
during the 192 minute test period. Runs 4 and 6 emission rates were determined to be
10.5 x 104 and 4.64 x 104 spores/test period, respectively. Spores were not detected in
flue gas samples from Runs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9. The Microbial Survivability sampling and
flue gas parameters are shown in Table 2-42.
2.9.4 Microbial Survivability in Ash
Incinerator ash was completely removed from the incinerator every day and stored
in a pre-cleaned, disinfected stainless steel drum. A composite ash sample was then
taken from the containers using a sample thief and deposited in a sterlized, amber glass
sample bottles. The composite samples were then submitted to the laboratory for
processing.
Microbial Survivability in ash for the Cape Fear MWI tests are presented in
Table 2-43. Three ash aliquots of approximately one gram were prepared from each
sample. Six serial dilutions were prepared on each ash aliquot and triple plated.
B. stearothermophilus colonies were found in several of the cultures. Spores were not
detected in ash samples from Runs 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9. Results from Runs 2 and 6 were
assigned values of less than 100 spores/gram based on only several detects in the
multiple analytical repetitions. The Run 1 ash was assigned a value of
2,200 spores/gram of ash. This value was determined by averaging the results from
18 analytical repetitions. All calculations are shown in Appendix F.
2.9.5 Microbial Survivabilitv 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
pipes to cool, the inner containers were removed from the outer containers and sent to
the laboratory for analysis. The entire contents of the pipe were rinsed, filtered, and
cultured. Culture plates were incubated for at least 48 hours.
Microbial Survivability in pipes are presented in Table 2-44. Results ranged from
not-detected to too numerous to count (TNTC). All runs except Runs 1 and 5 showed
JBS226 2'61
-------
TABLE 2-42. INDICATOR SPORE EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS;
CAPE FEAR 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
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
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
1A
96
1,335
8.81
7.68
0.47
1.282
14.0
3,928
28.387
102
2A
96
1,329
8.94
5.64
0.40
1.084
15.1
3,189
22.798
108
7A
96
1,203
6.00
12.43
0.44
1.199
14.8
3,463
26.782
103
IB
96
1,309
7.63
8.88
0.42
1.129
14.0
3,421
25.094
102
2B
96
1,278
8.74
8.37
0.38
1.022
15.1
3,145
23.149
100
7B
96
1,188
8.06
10.48
0.38
1.044
14.8
2,953
23.044
104
AVERAGE
NA
1,322
8.22
8.28
0.44
1.205
14.0
3,675
26.741
NA
AVERAGE
NA
1,304
8.84
7.01
0.39
1.053
15.1
3,167
22.973
NA
AVERAGE
NA
1,196
7.03
11.46
0.41
1.122
14.8
3,208
24.913
NA
5A
96
1,266
6.51
10.09
0.69
1.874
14.1
5103.8
38.310
110.7
3A
96
1,366
7.46
9.07
0.48
1.299
14.6
4,247
29.602
99.3
8A
96
1,186
8.41
8.86
0.43
1.156
14.8
3,292
25.657
103
5B
96
1,359
6.17
10.05
0.55
1.488
14.1
4216.2
29.996
112.3
3B
96
1,329
8.31
8.63
0.39
1.051
14.6
3,421
24.332
98.6
8B
92
1,154
8.31
9.75
0.42
1.085
14.8
3,284
26.106
99.4
AVERAGE
NA
1,313
6.34
10.07
0.62
1.681
14.1
4,660
34.153
NA
AVERAGE
NA
1,348
7.88
8.85
0.43
1.175
14.6
3,834
26.967
NA
AVERAGE
NA
1,170
8.36
9.31
0.42
1.121
14.8
3,288
25.882
NA
6A
96
1,288
6.09
11.01
0.59
1.596
14.6
5014.1
36.877
99
4A
96
1,300
7.72
8.79
0.56
1.534
15.1
4,788
34.793
100
9A
96
1,174
8.18
8.82
0.43
1.178
14.7
3,384
26.496
102
6B
96
1,337
7.92
9.01
0.48
1.299
14.6
4499.3
32.194
92
4B
96
1,391
9.75
7.54
0.40
1.077
15.1
3,746
25.896
94.1
9B
96
1,196
8.87
9.37
0.42
1.151
14.7
3,351
25.885
102
AVERAGE
NA
1,312
7.00
10.01
0.53
1.448
14.6
4,757
34.535
NA
AVERAGE
NA
1,345
8.73
8.16
0.48
1.306
15.1
4,267
30.345
NA
AVERAGE
NA
1,185
8.52
9.10
0.43
1.165
14.7
3,367
26.191
NA
N)
Os
to
NA = Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 2-43. VIABLE SPORES IN ASH;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
{spores/g ash)
2200
< 100
ND
ND
ND
< 100
ND
NA b
ND
TOTAL ASH
WEIGHT GENERATED
(«*>
51.5
NA a
120
211.5
138.1
93.3
118.5
111.2
102.6
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN ASH
5.15E07
NA
< 2.72E04
< 4.8E-04
<3.13E04
< 4.23E06
< 2.69E04
NA
< 2.33E04
Note:
Values were taken from average of replicate analyses as presented in the Analytical quantitative summary
in Appendix E and calculated as shown in Appendix F
ND = Not Detected. Detection limits for all samples were; (1 spore/filtration)/2.
a Total ash weight generated was not recorded
b Not Analyzed Due to incorrect sample shipment
2-63
-------
TABLE 2-44. VIABLE SPORES IN PIPES;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
Ib
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LOADING
TIME OF
DAY" . •••'••';': •"'
10:04
13:42
07:42
10:38
16:27
Ambient Pipe
09:23
12:31
15:26
12:10
14:46
16:53
(Blank)
10:30
12:43
14:58
10:20
13:22
15:04
11:40
14:10
16:02
11:00
13:05
Ambient Pipe
10:05
12:37
14:29
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
DETECTED a
ND
ND
53
1
TNTC
37
Growth Around Clumps on Agar
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
2
20
5
2
20
3
35
TNTC
3
1
a Values taken from the Analytical quantitative summary presented in Appendix E.3.
b Only two pipe samples performed on this day. Door jam prevented third pipe spike.
Note:
TNTC = Too Numerous To Count
ND = Not detected; Detection limits were determined to be 1 spore/aliquot.
Entire pipe sample was rinsed, filtered and analyzed (no dilutions were made
thereby not allowing quantification of higher numbers, ie 3.4E+05).
2-64
-------
some spore survivability in the pipe samples. The raw analytical data used to compile
this table can be found in Appendix E.3.
2.10 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 calculated by
including the toluene recovery amounts (as well as all other fractions) are given in
Table 2-45 through 2-47. 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.
JBS226
-------
TABLE 2-45. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 1 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RINSE VALUES; CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD4CDF
; CONCENTRATION jai:
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN!
1.7
18.0
6.8
33.8
8.7
10.6
23.3
71.2
82.7
83.7
152.4
492.9
6.0
216.7
34.6
38.4
467.3
157.6
90.3
111.8
5.3
458.5
347.5
42.8
249.6
392.2
2618
3111
RUNS
1.0
11.7
6.2
30.7
9.5
11.6
20.3
58.1
103.5
96.5
197.4
546.6
6.5
238.8
32.5
50.1
494.0
177.6
106.1
191.0
7.9
518.9
375.9
61.4
278.3
485.5
3024
3571
RUN 6
[1.285]
[1.285]
[1.505]
[1.505]
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.037
12.1
0.1
62.0
74.3
0.0
13.4
1.9
3.4
30.7
17.1
7.9
24.5
0.0
28.5
54.7
8.9
60.6
193.5
;;.'::;:?:445-
,-;i;;-5l9
AVERAGE
1.3
14.8
6.5
32.3
6.1
7.4
14.5
43.1
66.1
60.1
137.3
371.2
4.2
156.3
23.0
30.6
330.7
117.4
68.1
109.1
4.4
335.3
259.4
37.7
196.1
357.1
«¥:.,::.. 2029
2401
2378-ifCDD b
TdilClQUIV.
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/dscrii, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN1
1.714
0.000
3.401
0.000
0.870
1.062
2.325
0.000
0.827
0.000
0.152
10.4
0.596
0.000
1.730
19.201
0.000
15.759
9.028
11.178
0.527
0.000
3.475
0.428
0.000
0.392
«ZJ
72.7
RUN 5
0.956
0.000
3.082
0.000
0.945
1.163
2.028
0.000
1.035
0.000
0.197
•;.*!?: Ml
0.653
0.000
1.625
25.042
0.000
17.760
10.611
19.104
0.786
0.000
3.759
0.614
0.000
0.485
80.4
; 89.8
RUN 6
[1.285]
0.000
[0.753]
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.121
0.000
0.062
0.18
0.002
0.000
0.096
1.698
0.000
1.707
0.789
2.453
0.001
0.000
0.547
0.089
0.000
0.193
7.5S
7.76
AVERAGE
1.335
0.000
3.242
0.000
0.605
0.742
1.451
0.000
0.661
0.000
0.137
6.65
0.417
0.000
1.150
15.314
0.000
11.742
6.809
10.912
0.438
0.000
2.594
0.377
0.000
0.357
50.1
56.8
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.
[ ] = minimum detection limit. () = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-66
-------
TABLE 2-46. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 2 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RINSE VALUES; CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
••• ::-:i':siVt::-
CONGENER ;
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD;
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD*CDF
CONCENTRATION a
{ng/dscm, adjusted to 796 O2)
RUN 2
1.69
75.0
7.09
70.3
9.27
14.6
25.3
94.5
125.6
129.9
315.6
869
5.78
295.7
26.7
35.5
474.2
158.6
69.7
159.7
3.91
424.0
353.9
55.9
310.3
827.4
3201
4070
RUN 3
7.73
114.3
32.0
180.1
34.2
40.5
73.5
238.1
188.3
189.8
183.4
} 1282
31.7
922.9
138.3
141.3
1557.8
473.5
297.8
269.0
18.3
1335.7
731.2
100.0
453.1
349.7
6820
8102
RUN 4
4.26
60.1
18.5
110.7
19.9
23.5
49.5
144.7
104.5
98.4
78.2
712
20.1
641.2
94.5
104.5
1262.6
320.1
207.5
187.8
13.0
1057.3
474.1
66.1
299.3
214.4
; 4963
-a-,-,. 5675
AVERAGE
4.56
83.1
19.2
120.4
21.1
26.2
49.4
159.1
139.5
139.4
192.4
954
19.2
619.9
86.5
93.8
1098.2
317.4
191.6
205.5
11.7
939.0
519.7
74.0
354.2
463.8
4995
5949
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUIV.
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 756 O2)
RUN 2
1.685
0.000
3.543
0.000
0.927
1.456
2.528
0.000
1.256
0.000
0.316
.11*71
0.578
0.000
1.335
17.735
0.000
15.858
6.971
15.973
0.391
0.000
3.539
0.559
0.000
0.827
63 Jt
75.5
RUN 3
7.728
0.000
16.006
0.000
3.425
4.054
7.349
0.000
1.883
0.000
0.183
40.63
3.175
0.000
6.914
70.653
0.000
47.355
29.777
26.897
1.826
0.000
7.312
1.000
0.000
0.350
*: •:'•:?' 195
::-':tl!:¥236;
RUN 4
4.258
0.000
9.271
0.000
1.990
2.349
4.953
0.000
1.045
0.000
0.078
23.94
2.014
0.000
4.726
52.244
0.000
32.011
20.746
18.784
1.305
0.000
4.741
0.661
0.000
0.214
137
-•;:' •••..:••• :16*
AVERAGE
4.557
0.000
9.607
0.000
2.114
2.620
4.943
0.000
1.395
0.000
0.192
25.43
1.922
0.000
4.325
46.877
0.000
31.741
19.165
20.551
1.174
0.000
5.197
0.740
0.000
0.464
132
158
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 (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
[ ] = minimum detection limit. ( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-67
-------
TABLE 2-47. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 3 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RINSE VALUES; CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDEHCDF
CONCENTRATION a
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7% O2)
RUN 7
6.15
72.5
24.0
126.1
26.4
29.7
55.9
155.1
128.5
117.4
101.3
• .M-843."
24.9
605.0
81.1
104.8
1013.5
284.2
191.0
242.4
11.9
928.4
405.7
54.9
260.0
163.8
4372
5215
RUNS
[1.739]
12.6
7.8
38.0
9.6
10.0
21.5
66.1
57.5
50.1
59.8
;.?••. ; 333
10.8
324.6
39.8
48.2
504.7
153.7
100.2
89.5
5.7
512.9
238.6
35.1
158.1
122.3
2344
? 2677
RUN 9
4.83
64.6
29.4
147.8
36.9
42.0
88.2
286.3
220.1
225.0
137.7
1283
18.0
610.1
91.5
114.4
1299.9
457.6
275.8
253.3
14.1
1332.8
682.2
87.8
436.4
240.9
5915
7198
AVERAGE
5.49
49.9
20.4
104.0
24.3
27.2
55.2
169.1
135.4
130.8
99.6
820
17.9
513.3
70.8
89.1
939.4
298.5
189.0
195.1
10.6
924.7
442.2
59.3
284.8
175.6
4210
5030
2378-TCDD b
TOklCEQUIV.
:;:<:;. 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
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
- ' ' (ingTdiwm, adjusted to 7% &fyisy:^ ; ;: • ••
RUN 7
6.148
0.000
12.019
0.000
2.641
2.968
5.594
0.000
1.285
0.000
0.101
30,8
2.495
0.000
4.057
52.412
0.000
28.423
19.100
24.240
1.194
0.000
4.057
0.549
0.000
0.164
137
167
RUNS
[1.739]
0.000
3.912
0.000
0.963
0.996
2.152
0.000
0.575
0.000
0.060
%7*-S.66
1.083
0.000
1.991
24.090
0.000
15.370
10.024
8.955
0.569
0.000
2.386
0.351
0.000
0.122
65
74
RUN 9
4.830
0.000
14.684
0.000
3.694
4.201
8.819
0.000
2.201
0.000
0.138
38:6
1.801
0.000
4.576
57.197
0.000
45.758
27.579
25.333
1.410
0.000
6.822
0.878
0.000
0.241
V:M72
::- •-:'Sx-210
AVERAGE
5.489
0.000
10.205
0.000
2.432
2.722
5.521
0.000
1.354
0.000
0.100
. , s::: :26.0
1.793
0.000
3.541
44.566
0.000
29.850
18.901
19.509
1.058
0.000
4.422
0.593
0.000
0.176
;.-.-.. -. : 124
::.. -ISO
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 (TTEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related
Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
[ ] = minimum detection limit. () = estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-68-
-------
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Cape Fear Memorial Hospital is a 109-bed hospital located in Wilmington, North
Carolina. The medical waste incinerator (MWI) at this facility is a Joy Energy Systems
Model 480E/SR-12H with a design capacity rating of 325 Ib/hr of hospital waste at
8,500 Btu/lb of waste. The hospital burns a mixture of red bag (infectious) waste and
white bag (noninfectious) waste as defined by the hospital. Cafeteria waste and
cardboard boxes are separated from the waste stream, compacted, and landfilled.
The primary combustion chamber has a volume of 136 cubic feet (ft3) and is
operated in a substoichiometric (starved-air) mode. The primary chamber auxiliary
burner is fired with natural gas, has a capacity of 1.2 x 106 Btu/hr, and is controlled,
either on or off, according to the temperature in the primary chamber. This burner is
used to preheat and to maintain the primary chamber temperature above a specified
setpoint. The waste is manually loaded into a hopper and fed to the primary chamber by
a mechanical ram charging system. The ram, which is controlled by a timer, allows the
waste to be charged only once in a preset interval of time.
The secondary chamber volume of this MWI is 84 ft3 with a gas retention time of
approximately 1.0 second. The secondary chamber gas-fired auxiliary burner has a
capacity of 2.5 x 106 Btu/hr and is turned on or off and modulated from low fire to high
fire according to the temperature in the secondary chamber. The secondary chamber
burner is on high fire as long as the secondary chamber temperature is below the
secondary burner modulation temperature setpoint. Once the secondary chamber
temperature climbs above this setpoint and approaches the Flameport Air Modulation
temperature setting, the secondary burner starts modulating down towards the low fire
setting. The secondary chamber burner is turned off once the temperature in the
secondary chamber climbs above the secondary chamber high setpoint. The ram feeder
is locked out if the secondary chamber temperature is higher than the secondary
chamber stop load setpoint, or if the primary chamber temperature climbs above the
primary chamber high setpoint. Locking out the feeder prevents the introduction of
additional waste (and its heat content) into the primary chamber. Once the waste in the
JBS226 ^
-------
chamber has burned down to the point where the temperature drops, the feeder lockout
is released.
Combustion air is introduced into the primary chamber through air ports that are
equally spaced around the periphery of a 2 foot (ft) diameter mound (mushroom)
located in the center of the hearth. The height of the mushroom is 10 inches (in.) from
the hearth and the air ports are approximately 3 in. from the hearth. The amount of
underfire air introduced to the primary chamber from the primary chamber combustion
air blower is controlled by a modulating underfire air control valve. This valve is in its
full open position while the temperature in the primary chamber is below the primary
chamber low setpoint. As the primary chamber temperature climbs above the low
setpoint to the underfire air modulation control setpoint, the underfire air control valve
starts modulating towards the fully closed position. As long as the primary chamber
temperature is above the underfire air modulation control setpoint, there will be no
underfire air introduced to the primary chamber.
Additional combustion air is introduced from the secondary chamber blower into
the passage, between the upper and lower chambers, called the flameport. The amount
of this secondary combustion air, which maintains the secondary chamber in an excess-air
condition, is controlled by the modulating flameport air control valve. The flameport air
control valve is fully closed until the secondary chamber temperature reaches the
secondary chamber low setpoint. At this point, the flameport air control valve starts
modulating towards fully open as the temperature in the secondary chamber approaches
the flameport air modulation setpoint. As long as the temperature in the secondary
chamber remains above this setpoint, the flameport air control valve will remain in the
full open position. Also, during charging, the primary chamber blower and burner is
turned off and the flameport air control valve is fully opened for a preset amount of time
(Flameport Air Timer) before returning to temperature control.
The incinerator was operated by hospital personnel who had familiarized
themselves with the incinerator operating and service manual. Typical operational
QA/QC procedures and incinerator maintenance routines are presented in Appendix L.
JBS226
3-2
-------
There is no add-on air pollution control device on this MWI. Because of the
inadequate length of the original stack and the existence of only two sampling ports, a
12 ft extension with nine sampling ports was added prior to testing.
3.2 PRETEST ACTIVITIES
A pretest was conducted on July 30 and 31, 1990, to determine the operational
readiness of the incinerator and the ability of the incinerator to operate successfully at
the desired operating conditions of feed rate and temperature.
3.2.1 Proposed Test Condition Trials
The three proposed test conditions to be verified cover the potential range of
operation for this type of incinerator. Also, they are the same as the test condition at
another test site with a similar, but older, MWI. This would show the possible effect of
MWI design changes on emissions. A trial run at each condition was performed during
the pretest and the process parameters such as charge rate, primary chamber tempera-
ture, and secondary chamber temperature were observed and recorded.
3.2.1.1 Condition I. The proposed Condition I was to operate at a below-design
feed rate with frequent charges and a high secondary chamber temperature. The charge
rate was 200 Ib/hr with 20 Ib charges every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber setpoint
temperature of 1900°F.
After the MWI was cleaned out and allowed to preheat for about 30 minutes,
13 charges were loaded in 1 hour and 20 minutes. The primary chamber temperature
fluctuated between 1400° and 1500°F while the secondary chamber temperature
fluctuated between 1900° and 2000°F. The charging door jammed a number of times
during this test, and the adjustments and repairs were not effective. It was decided that
the charge door limit switch should be replaced before the test program began.
3.2.1.2 Condition II. The proposed Condition n was to operate at the design
feed rate with frequent charges and a high secondary chamber temperature. The charge
rate was 300 Ib/hr with 30 Ib charges every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber setpoint
temperature of 1900°F.
Twenty-one charges were loaded in 2 hours and 5 minutes. The primary and
secondary chamber temperatures seemed to level out at about 1900°F and 2000°F,
respectively. There was one ram feeder lockout during the pretest when the secondary
3-3
JBS226 J J
-------
chamber temperature climbed above the secondary stop load setpoint of 2100°F. This
setpoint was then moved up to 2200°F. There were large puffs of black smoke on
several occasions when the charging door stuck partially open after a charge. The smoke
cleared immediately after the door was closed by using the manual override button.
3.2.1.3 Condition III. The proposed Condition HI was to operate at the design
feed rate with infrequent charges and a low secondary chamber temperature. The
charge rate was 300 Ib/hr with 50 Ib charges every 10 minutes and a secondary chamber
setpoint temperature of 1600°F.
Fourteen charges were loaded in 2 hours and 20 minutes. The temperature in the
primary chamber ranged between 1700° and 1850°F. The temperature in the secondary
chamber would drop to approximately 1650°F just before charging and, after charging,
would climb to approximately 1800°F before beginning to drop again. The temperatures
might have climbed higher, but there were continual problems with the charging door
jamming, and on two occasions charging had to be stopped for repairs and adjustments
to the charging door limit switch. At the end of this pretest, the unit went into the
burndown mode at 20:30. At this point, there were flames exiting the top of the 16-foot
stack. The flames were still visible for at least 30 minutes after burndown was initiated.
When the incinerator was opened the following morning (July 31, 1990), there was
a large mass of smoldering, unburned material in the ash bed between the mushroom
and the charging door. The material burst into flames upon agitation during cleanout.
3.2.2 Selected Test Conditions
Based on the pretests conducted at Cape Fear Memorial Hospital on July 30 and
31, 1990, all three of the proposed test conditions appeared to be feasible and were
selected for the actual tests. Also, it was recommended that the charge door limit switch
be replaced and a refrigerated truck or building be obtained, in addition to the storage
room already onsite, so that enough waste could be accumulated for the test program.
3.3 PROCESS CONDITIONS DURING TESTING
The primary purpose of this source test was to characterize the uncontrolled
emissions from a MWI with a 1 second retention time secondary chamber over a range
of operating conditions. The MWI at Cape Fear Memorial Hospital was installed in
1988 and is the same make and model (Joy Energy Systems 480E) as another MWI
JBS226
3-4
-------
tested during the EPA test program. The newer MWI at Cape Fear Memorial has a
longer retention time in the secondary chamber, higher capacity burners and blowers,
and a more advanced combustion control system. This will allow a comparison of the
effectiveness of longer gas residence times and various combustion control measures on
emissions from the same model MWI.
Equipment problems plagued the test program at the onset, requiring control
system adjustments, controller replacements, electrical rewiring, and a complete hydraulic
system rebuild before the MWI began operating correctly. The incinerator ran properly
during the remainder of the test program except for test Condition n (300 Ib/hr charge
rate at 30 Ib every 6 minutes with a high secondary chamber temperature). After 3 or 4
hours of operation at these conditions, both the primary and secondary chamber
temperatures climbed above the lockout temperature setpoints causing frequent charging
system lockouts. It appears that a feed rate of 300 Ib/hr (30 Ib every 6 minutes) may be
too high for this hospital waste. The lockout problem was much less for the 200 Ib/hr
charge rate, and also for the 300 Ib/hr charge rate at 50 Ib every 10 minutes. Burndown
was a problem for all conditions though it was better for the 200 Ib/hr feed rate than the
300 Ib/hr feed rate.
For the first three runs, the manual testing was started from 1 to 2.5 hours after
charging began, giving the secondary chamber time to level out at the desired setpoint
temperature. For the remainder of the runs, it was decided to start the manual testing at
the same time as the beginning of charging. The primary reasons for this were to
provide a better representation of the actual hospital operating procedures, to cover
emissions during "startup," and to develop a routine daily testing schedule that would
allow within-condition comparative data.
The incinerator operating parameters monitored during each test run were the
charge weight, charge frequency, type of waste, primary and secondary chamber
temperatures, actual times the burners and blowers were on, ash weights, and air velocity
in the primary and secondary chamber combustion air inlet pipes. A data logger was
used to record all the above parameters except for the charge weight, type of waste, and
ash weight, which were manually recorded. Averages for the recorded operating
parameters are presented in Table 3-1, and the data sheets documenting the recorded
JBS226
-------
Table 31 Process Data Summary lor Emissions Testing at Cape Fear Memorial Hospital
Test
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
Test
Dale
8/15/90
8/1 8AM
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/21/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
Target Test Condition*
Charge Rate
(ib/nr)
200
300
300
300
200
200
300
300
300
(lorcnrg)
20
30
30
30
20
20
60
60
60
Charge
Freq
(min)
10
10
10
Dally Operation (a)
Secondary
Chamber
Setpoint
Temp
-------
parameters are presented in Appendix B. Figures 3-1 through 3-9 show the temperature
profiles for each run. A summary of each test run is given below.
3.3.1 Condition I. Run 1 (Test Run 1)
For this condition, the target operating parameters were a charge rate of
200 Ib/hr at 20 Ib charges every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of
about 1900°F. The controller setpoints for the three runs at this temperature were:
upper burner modulation temperature, 1900°F; upper chamber stop load temperature,
2250°F; flameport air modulation temperature, 2000°F; upper burner on/off temperature,
2150°F; upper chamber warmup temperature, 1000°F; underfire air modulation
temperature, 1500°F; lower chamber stop load temperature, 2200°F; lower burner on/off
temperature, 1000°F; burndown timer, 4 hours; charge frequency timer, 6 minutes; and
flameport air timer, 2 minutes.
(Wednesday, August 15, 1990.) Preheat began at 09:34 and the first charge was
introduced into the incinerator at 09:51. Testing began at approximately 12:30 when the
secondary chamber temperature had leveled out between 1900° and 2000°F. The
primary chamber temperature at this time was about 1800°F. At 13:03 and again at
14:50, the ram feeder, after completing the charging cycle, immediately started another
cycle (double-load cycle) to clear the burning waste from the charging door area.
Apparently, when the burning waste bed in the primary chamber gets large enough,
burning waste will tend to fall back through the charging door into the charging ram
chute. This can also happen before the waste bed gets large if a piece of burning
material should happen to stick to the ram face and be dragged back into the chute. In
almost all cases during the test program, however, the multiple ram cycles were caused
by very large burning waste beds in the primary chamber.
At 15:09 the charging door jammed open and testing was halted until the problem
could be corrected. At 15:32 the door was again operational and testing resumed. The
hydraulic pump was making a high-pitched squeal at the beginning and end of the ram
and door movement cycles. At 16:28 the charging door stuck in the closed position and
it was determined that the hydraulic pump had broken. Testing was completed at 16:50
and the unit was placed into buradown at 16:54. The pump was to be removed and
rebuilt Thursday morning (August 16, 1990).
JBS226 3"'
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 1 (8-15-90)
2200f
2100
2000
UJ
oc
I
UJ
CL
UJ
1900
1800
1700
1600
-i—i—i—I—r
~T—I—i—i
-i—r—i—i—r
-i—i—i—i—r
-i—i—i—i—r
-i—i—i—i—r
1 ' I
17:00
12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00
TlME(24 HOUR)
15:30
16:00
16:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-1. Temperature Profile for Run 1
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 2 (8-18-90)
2300
2200
2100
UJ
cc
I2000
Q.
LU
1900
1800
1700
-i 1—i r
9:30
10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30
TIME(24 HOUR)
14:30
15:30
16:30
17:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-2. Temperature Profile for Run 2
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 3 (8-19-90)
I
I-*
o
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
S 1800
| 1700
£ 1600
m 1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00
T1ME(24 HOUR)
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3 — 3. Temperature Profile for Run 3
-------
2300J
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
UJ
§ 1700
1600
£ 1500
UJ
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 4 (8-20-90)
HAf-'vMr
>\
11
12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30
14:00 14:30 15:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-4. Temperature Profile for Run 4
-------
UJ
cc
1
LU
Q.
I
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
11(XH
1000
900
800
700
600
500
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUNS (8-21-90)
-i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—r-
10:30 11:30 12:30
i—i—I—i—i—I—I—I—I—I—i—i—i—I—I—i—i—i—i—r-
-1—i—I—i—i—i—i—I—r-
i—P—i—i—i—i—i—r
13:30 14:30 15:30 16:30 17:30 18:30 19:30 20:30
TlME(24 HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3 — 5. Temperature Profile for Run 5
-------
U)
t—k
U)
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
uj 1700
or
=> 1600
2| 1500
§E 1400
K 1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 6 (8-22-90)
, f
i », >
,
V '<
10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00
12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Rgure 3-6. Temperature Profile for Run 6
-------
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
S 1600
| 1500
£ 1400
u 1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 7 (8-26-90)
\
1 - 1 - 1 - - 1
11:30
-I - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - |
12:00 12:30 13:00
13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30
TIME(24 HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3 — 7. Temperature Profile for Run 7
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 8 (8-27-90)
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
£ 1400
S 1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
" '
, , - i
i.iii
10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30
TIME(24 HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-8. Temperature Profile for Run 8
-------
UJ
cc
D
UJ
CL
I
t—'
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
10CX
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 9 (8-28-90)
10:00
11:00
-i—i—i—i—i—i—i
12:00
13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3 — 9. Temperature Profile for Run 9
-------
The incinerator was still operating on the gas burners the following morning at
06:00 when the operators arrived. The primary chamber temperature was 1200°F and
the secondary chamber temperature was 1925°F. It was assumed that since the hydraulic
system could not move the charging door, the unit remained in the load cycle and never
entered the burndown cycle. This means that instead of having a burndown time of
4 hours and the unit then shutting off, the burners operated for 13 hours before the unit
was manually shut off at 06:00.
The incinerator was opened at 07:40 and the ash bed looked good in the front
near the ash door, but there was a large clump of unburned material in the lower back
between the mushroom hearth and charging door. This was unexpected because the
incinerator had been burning at a high temperature for approximately 13 hours. The
testing contractor began removing the ash at 09:50 and finished at 12:00. The large
clump of unburned material began to burn once the ash was agitated, greatly increasing
the time required for ash removal and hearth cleaning. This problem was discussed with
the ISB representative and it was agreed that, for the next tests, if necessary, the testing
contractor would remove all the ash that can possibly be removed and close the
incinerator door and begin operation for the next test. This is the normal procedure for
the hospital personnel.
It was determined that the hydraulic pump could not be rebuilt. A new pump had
to be ordered, which should arrive Friday morning (August 17, 1990). Testing for
Thursday, August 16, 1990, was canceled. While the unit was down and the hydraulic
system was being cleaned, the maintenance foreman was asked to check the charging
door and the ram cylinder seals to see if they might be deteriorated from use of the
wrong type of hydraulic fluid. He agreed to look at the charging door cylinders and
charging ram seals and discovered that the seals were badly deteriorated and sent them
to be rebuilt.
The total ash weight was 102.3 Ib, the total waste charged was 1,228.4 Ib, and the
percent burndown was 91.7. The actual charge rate was 185.2 Ib/hr.
The rebuilt hydraulic cylinders and the new pump arrived at 14:00 on Friday,
August 17, 1990. The incinerator operators installed the equipment and bled the
hydraulic lines. The incinerator was started at 17:18.
JBS226
-------
The charging door started to stick because of a problem with the solenoid
hydraulic valve that the Joy Service representative had cleaned on Monday. This
problem was solved and the door operated properly. The testing contractor decided at
17:30 that it was too late to begin testing.
The incinerator had operated for two cycles with no problems and was placed in
the burndown cycle at 17:45. The foreman was asked to order a new solenoid valve and
he agreed to order the part Saturday morning.
3.3.2 Condition II. Run 1 (Test Run 2)
For the second condition, the target operating parameters were a charge rate of
300 Ib/hr at 30 Ib charges every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of
about 1900°F. The controller setpoirits for these three runs at this condition were:
upper burner modulation temperature, 1900°F; upper chamber stop load temperature,
2250°F; flameport air modulation temperature, 2000°F; upper burner on/off temperature,
2150°F; upper chamber warmup temperature, 1000°F; underfire air modulation
temperature, 1500°F; lower chamber stop load temperature, 2200°F; lower burner on/off
temperature, 1000°F; burndown timer, 4 hours; charge frequency timer, 6 minutes; and
flameport air timer, 2 minutes.
(Saturday, August 18, 1990.) The hearth was cleaned, air ports cleared, and
preheat started at 07:00. Charging began at 07:09 and testing began at approximately
09:45.
Testing was stopped at 10:44 because of a power loss in the CEM instrument
trailer. At this time, the temperature in the primary and secondary chambers were
approximately 1950° and 2100T, respectively.
The charge frequency of 30 Ib every 6 minutes was maintained until 11:17 when it
was changed to 7.5 minute intervals. The temperature in the secondary chamber was
reaching 2200°F. The secondary chamber lockout temperature is 2250°F. At 11:36 the
primary chamber temperature was approaching the lockout temperature of 2200°F.
At 12:05 the charging frequency was changed to 9 minute intervals because of the
excessive temperatures in the secondary chamber. Testing was resumed at 13:10. At
13:40 there was a charging system lockout because the secondary chamber temperature
had reached 2268°F. The primary chamber temperature was also approaching 2200°F.
JBS226
3-18
-------
At 13:53 charging was resumed and the charge frequency was changed to 10 minute
intervals, because of the excessive temperatures in both chambers. The incinerator
operated smoothly for the remainder of the test day. Incinerator burndown cycle was
started at 16:33. A charge was skipped at 15:05 and there were two double-load cycles
at 10:05 and 10:52.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 19, 1990) at 06:30.
The ash appeared to be of good quality in the front by the ash removal door, with a
large clump of unburned smoldering material in the back between the mushroom and
the charging door. There was also a small clump of unburned material to the left of the
mushroom.
Approximately 1.5 ft3 of the ash, that was too hot to be removed, was left in the
incinerator. The ash was moved to the right corner of the incinerator directly in line
with the flame from the gas burner.
Because all of the ash could not be removed, a percent burndown could not be
determined. The total waste charged was 1,997.1 Ib and the actual charge rate was
212.5 Ib/hr. The weight of the ash that was removed was 108.5 Ib.
3.33 Condition II. Run 2 (Test Run 3)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 300 Ib/hr at 30 Ib charges
every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of about 1900°F.
(Sunday, August 19, 1990.) Preheat began at 08:48 and charging began at 08:57.
Testing started at approximately 10:00. At 11:27, testing was stopped because of the
plugging of the CEM sampling probe. The CEMS plugged immediately after charging a
foam bed pad. There was also a large amount of black smoke coming from the stack for
approximately 45 to 60 seconds. It was decided not to bum any more bed pads in the
white bags. The hospital does not normally burn them because of the smoking problems.
The foam bed pads in the red bags, however, are burned. The CEMS were cleared at
12:16 and testing was resumed.
At 12:37 a charge was skipped and the charge frequency was changed from
6 minute intervals to 8.5 minute intervals. The charging system did not lockout but the
secondary chamber temperature was within 4°F of the lockout temperature. At 13:18,
the charge frequency was changed to 10 minutes because of the excessive temperatures
JBS226
-------
in both chambers. At 14:13, the charge interval was again changed from 10 to 9 minute
intervals. The unit was able to maintain this feed rate for the remainder of the test
period. Testing was completed at 15:20 and the unit was placed into the burndown cycle
at 15:26. There were two double-load cycles during the test run, one at 10:26 and one at
11:46.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 20, 1990) at 09:45.
There was a large clump of unburned smoldering material in the back between the
mushroom and the charging door and a small clump of unburned material to the left of
the mushroom.
The total waste charged was 1,549 Ib and the actual charge rate was 236.5 Ib/hr.
The weight of the ash removed was 120 Ib.
3.3.4 Condition II. Run 3 (Test Run 4^
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 300 Ib/hr at 30 Ib charges
every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of about 1900°F.
(Monday, August 20, 1990.) Prior to opening the incinerator, the QA team and
MRI agreed to operate the incinerator gas burner for approximately 15 minutes and then
begin charging the waste. This is the startup sequence controlled by the incinerator
automatic control system. The manual sampling and the monitoring by the CEM units
would begin at the same time as the initial charging of waste. This is different from the
first three runs where the waste was charged for 1 to 2 hours prior to the start of the
manual testing.
The primary reasons for this testing change were to save waste and to reduce the
operating time which would increase the chance of completing the test before reaching
charging system lockout. Also, because of the electrical power interruptions, CEMS
plugging, and various testing delays, the manual test trains had not been operated on a
routine daily schedule where the same test condition time data could be compared to
each other. This new operational procedure represents the way the hospital staff
operates the incinerator, instead of the earlier procedure of allowing the unit to heatup
to a specified temperature and stabilize before conducting the manual testing.
The incinerator door was closed at 11:09 and preheat began at 11:56. Charging
began at 12:10, the same time as the testing began. Testing stopped at 13:50 when the
JBS226
3-20
-------
CEMS plugged, but resumed at 13:58 when the CEMS probe was cleared. The CEMS
plugged again at 15:47 and the tests were stopped until 16:01 when the CEMS probe was
cleared. Only one charge had to be skipped during this test run (at 16:25) because the
temperature in the secondary chamber was approaching the lockout temperature. There
were still three lockouts, however, near the end of the test run lasting approximately
2 minutes each when the secondary chamber temperature climbed above 2250°F. There
were also six double-load cycles occurring at 12:43, 14:13, 14:27, 15:38, 15:52, and 16:18.
Testing was completed at 16:50 and the unit was placed into burndown at 16:55.
At the end of this test run, all the waste that had been collected the previous
week had been burned. This waste had a higher percentage of red bags then is normally
incinerated at this facility. Because of the small storage space available, the red bag
waste, which could not be disposed of in a landfill, was placed in the storage room, and
the white bag waste was placed in the dumpster. The remaining waste was the amount
that had been generated that day and is a more representative mix of red bag and white
bag waste.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 21, 1990) at 07:15.
There was a large clump of unburaed material in back between the mushroom and the
charging door. There was also a glass-like material covering part of the hearth and
mushroom and blocking some of the air injection ports. This material had to be chipped
away and when doing so, a small part of the refractory was removed. The material may
have come from a large bag of test tubes and glass bottles that was charged during
testing. It was decided at this time that, for the remainder of the tests, small pieces of
cardboard would be placed in the hearth at the beginning of each test. This would
hopefully build up a small ash layer to prevent the slag from sticking to the refractory.
The total waste charged was 1,304.7 Ib and the actual charge rate was 270.9 Ib/hr.
All of the ash was removed and the total weight was 211.5 Ib.
3.3.5 Condition I. Run 2 (Test Run 5)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 200 Ib/hr at 20 ib charges
every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of about 1900°F.
(Tuesday, August 21, 1990.) Pieces of cardboard were placed in the hearth floor
before starting the incinerator to build up a small ash layer to help prevent slag from
JBS226 3"21
-------
sticking to the refractory. The hearth was clean and the air ports were clear. Preheat
started at 10:15 and charging began at 10:30. The incinerator operated smoothly. Only
one charge was omitted at 14:46 because of high temperatures. The temperatures in
both the primary and secondary chamber climbed to about 2200°F. Also, there was a
double-load cycle at 11:08 and two triple-load cycles at 13:37 and 14:14 to clear burning
waste from the charge door area.
The incinerator was placed into the burndown cycle at 15:15 after testing was
completed. The CEMS continued to monitor the burndown cycle during this test
condition.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 22, 1990) at 07:05.
There was less ash in the incinerator and the material seemed to have burned more
completely than on previous tests. The small unburned clump of material in the back of
the incinerator was not smoldering initially. Ash removal began at 08:10 and was
completed at 08:52. All of the ash was removed.
The total ash weight was 138.1 Ib, the waste charged was 906.5 Ib, and the percent
burndown was 84.8. The actual charge rate was 188.9 Ib/hr.
3.3.6 Condition I. Run 3 (Test Run 6)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 200 Ib/hr at 20 Ib charges
every 6 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of about 1900°F.
(Wednesday, August 22, 1990.) Preheat began at 09:56 and charging began at
10:20. The incinerator ran well throughout the test. The primary chamber lockout
temperature of 2200°F was reached only once. The secondary chamber temperature
seemed to level out at a temperature ranging between 2000° and 2100°F. There were
two double-load cycles at 13:23 and 15:30, and the unit was placed into the buradown
cycle at 15:59.
There was approximately 400 Ib of waste remaining at the end of the test and 200
to 300 Ib of waste to be delivered overnight. The best estimate of waste to be generated
on Thursday, according to the hospital staff, was 500 to 1,000 Ib. There was not enough
waste on hand for the remaining three tests which require a minimum of 1,500 Ib each.
After consultation with the project team, it was decided to delay the test until Sunday
JBS226
3-22
-------
morning, August 26, 1990. This would allow time to accumulate enough waste for the
remaining test runs, which would now be completed on Tuesday, August 28, 1990.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 23, 1990) at 09:20.
There was a large clump of unburned smoldering material in the back of the incinerator
between the mushroom and the charging door. Ash removal started at 09:30 and was
completed at 10:48. All of the ash was removed.
The total ash weight was 93.3 Ib, the total waste charged was 1,165.1 Ib, and the
percent burndown was 92.0. The actual charge rate was 202.6 Ib/hr.
3.3.7 Condition m. Run 1 (Test Run 1}
For the third and final condition, the target operating parameters were a charge
of 300 Ib/hr at 50 Ib charges every 10 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of
about 1600°F. The controller setpoints for these three runs at this condition were:
upper burner modulation temperature, 1500°F; upper chamber stop load temperature,
2250°F; flameport air modulation temperature, 1600°F; upper burner on/off temperature,
1700°F; upper chamber warmup temperature, 1000°F; underfire air modulation
temperature, 1500°F; lower chamber stop load temperature, 2200°F; lower burner on/off
temperature, 1000°F; burndown timer, 4 hours; charge frequency timer, 10 minutes; and
flameport air timer, 2 minutes.
(Sunday, August 26, 1990.) The previous test was run on Wednesday (August 22,
1990) and the testing had to be postponed to accumulate enough waste to finish the
remaining three test runs.
The incinerator was opened at 08:00 and the hearth was clean and the air ports
were clear. The waste storage room was full. Pieces of cardboard were placed on the
hearth and the door was closed.
After discussions with the testing contractor and EPA representatives, it was
decided to extend the natural gas warmup cycle until the HC1 CEMS was on-line, and
then begin charging. This was estimated to add another 5 to 15 minutes to the startup
time.
Startup began at 10:40. The HC1 monitor was still not operational after almost an
hour from startup and it was uncertain when it would be operational. It was decided to
begin charging at 11:40 and to bring the HC1 monitor on-line as soon as possible.
3-
JBS226 J
-------
The unit ran smoothly throughout the test with burndown being initiated at 16:03
after all testing had been completed. Near the end of the testing period, the primary
chamber temperature was approaching 2100T and the secondary chamber temperature
was cycling between 1650° and 1900°F.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 27, 1990) at 07:39.
There was a small clump of unburned material in the back of the incinerator that was
still smoldering. Ash cleanout began at 08:10 and finished at 09:06. There appeared to
be a smaller amount of unburned material remaining than in previous tests and all of the
ash could be removed.
The total ash weight was 118.5 Ib, the total waste charged was 1,346.0 lb, and the
percent burndown was 91.2. The actual charge rate was 296.9 Ib/hr.
3.3.8 Condition III. Run 2 (Test Run 8)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 300 Ib/hr at 50 lb charges
every 10 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of about 1600°F.
(Monday, August 27, 1990.) Preheat was started at 10:18 with the first charge
occurring at 11:00. The extra 30 minutes of preheat was the time required to calibrate
the HC1 CEMS and bring it on-line.
At 15:07 testing was stopped because of a violent thunderstorm. Charging to the
incinerator was discontinued during the thunder storm because it was located under a
metal-roofed shed surrounded by metal scaffolding. At approximately 16:00 the storm
began to subside. A decision was made to call this test complete and continue with the
final test on Tuesday. This decision was made because charging to the incinerator was
discontinued for about an hour (this condition is not considered representative of normal
operating procedures), the remaining waste needed to be conserved for the final test run,
and EPA representatives stated that sufficient samples had been collected for analysis.
The burndown cycle was initiated at 15:58.
There were four double-load cycles during this test run, at 11:30, 11:42, 12:54, and
14:27.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 28, 1990) at 07:20.
There was a small amount of unburned material at the back of the unit between the
mushroom and the charging door. The unburned material was not smoldering at the
JBS226
3-24
-------
time the door was opened and the ash seemed to be of a better quality than during
previous runs. The ash removal started at 07:58 and was completed at 08:20. All of the
ash was removed.
The total ash weight was 111.2 Ib, the total waste charged was 1,248.2 Ib, and the
percent burndown was 91.1. The actual charge rate was 281.1 Ib/hr.
3.3.9 Condition HI. Run 3 (Test Run 9^
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 300 Ib/hr at 50 Ib charges
every 10 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature of about 1600°F.
(Tuesday, August 28, 1990.) Preheat began at 09:20 and testing was delayed
because of calibration problems with the HC1 monitor. It was decided to start the test at
10:05 and bring the HC1 monitor on-line when the calibrations were completed.
The test ran smoothly and was completed at 14:31. The incinerator was placed
into the burndown mode at 14:32. The burndown emissions were monitored until 18:30,
at which time a final calibration was conducted.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (August 29, 1990) at 08:39.
There was a clump of smoldering unburaed material at the back of the incinerator
between the mushroom and the charging door. Ash removal started at 08:45 and
finished at 09:28. Approximately 3 ft3 of unburned material was left in the incinerator.
The weight of ash taken out was 102.6 Ib and the total waste charged was 1,382.2 Ib.
The actual feed rate was 302.7 Ib/hr.
JBS226 3-25
-------
4. SAMPLE LOCATIONS
The sampling locations that were used during the emission testing program at the
Cape Fear 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 21 inches. The existing stack is 16 feet in
height above the secondary chamber. A spark arrester was located at the stack exit prior
to pretest modifications.
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 21 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.
JBS226
-------
144"
192"
42"
t
60"
42"
t 12'
21"
-1 •+•: •
@
Figure 4-1. Sample Port Location at the Exhaust Stack
4-2
-------
Port A
A
9
\
i
PortB
Diameter = 21 inches
Point Percent Inches from
of Diameter Inside Wall
1
2
3
4
6.7
25.0
75.0
933
1.4
5.25
15.75
19.6
Figure 4-2. Traverse Point Layout at the Exhaust Stack
4-3
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES BY ANALYTE
The sampling and analytical procedures used for the Cape Fear Memorial
Hospital 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
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., RTP, North Carolina, who performed 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 A.1 of the test plan.
JBS219
-------
TABLE 5-1. TEST METHODS FOR CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI
Analyte
Method
CDD/CDF
Participates
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Beryllium
Antimony
Barium
Silver
Thallium
SO2
02/C02
CO
NOX
THC
HC1
HC1
HBr
HF
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
JBS226
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. SAMPLING TIMES, MINIMUM SAMPLING VOLUMES AND DETECTION
LIMITS FOR THE CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI TESTS
Sampling
Train
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
HCl/HBr/HF
Microorganisms
Sampling Minimum
Time Sample Volume
(hours) (dscf)
4a 120
4a 120
1.0 120 liters'5
3.2 30
Analyte
CDD/CDF
PM
As
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Be
Ba
Sb
Ag
Tl
Cl
Br
F
Indicator
spores'1
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
0.40C g/ml
1 viable soore
aliquot
a An average sampling rate of 0.5 ft3/rnin 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.
e Based on average detection limits for tetra-octa CDD/CDF congeners.
J8S226
-------
Water Cooled
•*«—•— Qfthm^A*
rrooeaneevi
Twnparatura Swwor
. FlUer Hotter
Temperature Seneor
XAD-2Trap
Temperature Seneor
S-TypePMotTube
HMI Traced
QuvtzProtM
Umr
Vacuum
Une
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 air 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. The XAD-H* 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 the analysis 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-lT 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, pitot tubes, and umbilicals. Referenced
calibration procedures are followed when available. The results are properly
documented in a laboratory notebook or project file and retained. If a referenced
calibration technique for a particular piece of apparatus is not available, then a
JBS219 -)"'
-------
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. Assembling 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-H*
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, and the initial weight and contents of each impinger are
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 is 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
-------
Slidtt for Attftcnmg
to H«attd lox
h
\
imping* lucfctt
SIM* for AttAching QoeMn«ek
Figure 5-2. Implngtr Configuration for COO/COP Sampling
5-9
-------
(capped) into the impinger bucket. A supply of pre-cleaned foil and socket joints is also
placed in the bucket in a clean plastic bag for the convenience of the samplers. To
avoid contamination of the sample, sealing greases are not used. 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 leakchecks and recommends pre-test
leakchecks.) Radian protocol also incorporates leak checks before and after every port
change. An acceptable pre-test leak rate is less than 0.02 acfm (ftVmin) at
approximately 15 inches of mercury (in. 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 in. 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, initial data is recorded (dry gas meter 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
JBS219
-------
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 COj/Oj needs to be ready except when using CEMs
for CO2/O2 determinations.
5. Examine meter box - level it, zero the manometers and comfinn 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, Oj), 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.
JBSKO 5'13
-------
resin trap must be below 20°C (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, pilot 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 a cooler 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 HRGC and 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.
5-15
JBS219 J ij
-------
Prate Lkw Cyctarw HtarHouM Htar export
t * * I I I J
„.*•«&. ftjjjiJgrt BMftgd RlnMiigi HhM««h HhiMvMfi RkiH^h CmUw
toM^JoM iSm* •£«• *T*f* *tjgt* *•**•** •**•• ramwtihr
^^•**"* ^*^i^ ^^yP^ f^V w^f ^»
Tap
i I
ChMklkw
toflM*
3Mteioto 3A«9Uofc 3
flMrMTO oftMlMm of
CMsriS CHorS
^WS rTOV IWi
* TS- -*
-in v?
t
»\
«"
Bnah IOOM
M^ ....
IMtwitM
M tttrsr
ir-tt**'
—*ln «H
anterior
SM
Mknpbiov
valght
^ j^j
i
IOOT
31
J I I J I
Dtanl SM«
Note: SMTabte 5-5 tor Sample Fractions ktenlWcatton
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 PR* Acetone and methylene chloride rinses of
nozzle/probe, cyclone, front half/back half
filter holder, filter support, connecting
glassware, condenser
3 PRT* Toluene rinse of nozzle/probe, cyclone, front
CRT* half/back half filter holder, filter support,
connecting line and condenser
4 SM XAD-H* 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).
JB8U
-------
TABLE 5-6. CDD/CDF CONGENERS ANALYZED
DIQXINS:
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^,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)
1,23,6,7,8 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',23,4,7,8,9 heptachlorodibenzofuran (l',2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
-------
FMra
Concentrate
MT«mp«ralura
1-5 mL Solution
SHea Q4 Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Suite to 1 '
wtthN,
mL
Beete Aluminium Column
Chrematograpny Cleanup;
Conotravt* EhMtt to
O.SmLwtthN,
FK-21 Cwtxxi/C^to 545
Column Chronutogaphy
Otanup; Conccnra*
Rotaiy Evaporator
Conecntnt*
200mLw«hN;
Stem m Fnmr
TCOF
Anaynwtth
CaptiUry col
OFls Found,
column; f
Found, Continu*
Anajyz*
SP2331
Column
QuwTtify RMuto
AccofdioQ to
Section S.3.2.S
of R«f*r*nc« Method
wtthDB-5
; column; If
TCOF la Found, Continue
Arariyn
SP2331
Column
OuandryRMute
to
^.6
Figure 5^. 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, condensor coil, and impinger set, is loaded as if
for sampling and then quantitatively recovered exactly as the samples are. Analysis of
the generated fractions is 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 are used as QA/QC indicators.
In addition to the three types of blanks that are required for the sampling
program, the analytical laboratory analyzes a method blank with each set of flue gas
samples. This consists 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 between 25 to 130 percent for the hepta- and octachlorinated
homologues. If these requirements are not met, the data is 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 is notified
immediately to determine if the surrogate results can be used to adjust the results of the
native species.
Duplicate analysis is 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 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 protocol is
presented in Appendix K. This method is applicable for the determination of
JBS219
5-22
-------
particulates 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 Cape Fear Memorial
Hospital MWI test samples was performed for As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Ag, Ba, Be,
andTl.
The PM emissions are also determined from this sampling train. Particulate
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
HNO3/10 percent H2O2 solution, two impingers with a 4 percent 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 HNO3 solution for a minimum of 4 hours;
• Rinse with deionized distilled water rinse (3X); and
• Rinse with acetone rinse.
JBS219 5-23
-------
Twnp*ratur* Swwor
Twnparatura Somor
bnpkNMra wtth Absorbing Solution
S-Typ»P*otTub»
Biyty (OpMond Knockout)
T«np«ratura
a^Simon *
4%KMnq/10%H^O4
(OpttoiMl Knockout)
Vacuum
Una
Figure 5-5. Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train
-------
SOdM for Attaching
toHMtedBox
Imping* Bucket
SU* for AttaeNng
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 contamination-free 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 H2O2 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 Wattman 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 condensor coil so coil temperatures are not recorded and glass caps,
Teflon® tape, or parafihn 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 leakcheck 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 then- bucket. Each of these sections is capped with Teflon® tape or
parafihn 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 its upper end so that all inside surfaces
are wetted. The acetone will be quantitatively collected into the appropriate bottle.
5-27
-------
1st Implnger
Probe Lkier
and Nozzle
Rinse win
Acetone Into
Tared Container
Front Hal of
Ffter Housing
Bnjshwth
Brush and
fDffeM*AMJtt*
moOTi
Aoetonslnio
FMer
fcom
Cerefuly
move Filer
Brash Lkwr
wtoNonmstallc
Brush end Rkise
wth Acetone
3Tbnse
ISI
Container Place to PttrtOsh
Brash Loose
ParMculal*
OntoFttsr
Check Uner
to see V
Removed: II
not Repeat
p Above
I
FUtor Support
IBecfcHaff
ofFMer
Housing
Rinse Three
Tbnss wtt)
0.1 N
NMricAdd
Into Tared
Contakwr
2nd & 3rd
rs
4lhft5lh
tyS3K2
(KMnOJ
knplngsf
Contents
I
Contents
I
Calculate
SealPetrl
Oshwtti
Tape
Recover
Mo Sample
ContaJnsr
Rinse Three
Tkmewih
aiN
NKric add Into
Tared Container
Rinse Three
Tbmewfth
ttlN
NMe add Into
Tared Container
I
Weigh to
CalrisaH
Rinse Volume
I
APR
(3)
Wstghto
Calculate
Rinse Volume
I
PH F
(2) 0)
Weigh
to Calculate
Rinse Amount
Gain
I
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Container
Rinse Three
Tkneswkh
0.1 N
MtricAdd
I
Recover Into
Sample
Container
I
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Amount
Gsin
I
Empty
Content*
Into
Tared
Container
Rinse Three
Time* with
0.1 N
NMrtcAdd
I
Recover Into
Sample
Container
I
Weigh to
Measure
Implnger
Contents
Calculale
MoMure
Oak)
I
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Container
Rinse Three
Times with lOOmL
Permanganate
Lset Implnger
Weigh for
Moisture
Gain
I
Discard
Rinse Amount
I
Recover Into
Sample
Container
I
Remove any
Osaldus win S6 mL
eNHdsoTn
I
Weigh to I
Sample and
Rbwee Volume
HN
W
KM
(5)
S3
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 particulate
will be caught in the sample container. This procedure is repeated until no visible
particulate 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 particulate 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. The bottle is capped tightly,
the weight of the combined rinse recorded, and the liquid level marked. 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. An H2O2 reagent
blank of approximately the same volume as the rinse volume is analyzed with the
samples.
The impingers that contain the acidified KMnO4 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 recovery bottle. A final
5-29
JBS219 ° zy
-------
weight is recorded and the liquid level is marked on the bottle. The bottle cap is loosley
tightened to allow venting.
After final weighing, 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 HNO3 blank - 1000 ml sample size;
• 5 percent HNO3/10 percent H2O2 blank - 200 ml sample size;
• Acidified KMnO4 blank - 1000 ml sample size; this blank should have a
vented cap;
• 8N HC1 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 Limits6
Metal
Chromium
Cadmium
Arsenic4
Lead"
Mercury
Nickel
Barium
Beryllium
Silver
Antimony
Thallium
a ICAP = Inductively
GFAAS = Graphite
Method*
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
size).
( g/m3)
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.03C
1.8
0.3
0.04
0.9
3.8
4.8
Coupled Argon Plasma
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.
0 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
-------
The acetone rinses are evaporated under a clear hood at 20°C (68°F) in a tared
beaker temperature silica gel. 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, and must be 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 HNO3 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 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 ICAP using EPA Method 200.7. All target
metals except mercury, iron, and aluminum are quantified. If iron and aluminum are
present, the samples are diluted to reduce their interferences on arsenic and lead. If
arsenic or lead levels are less than 2 ppm, 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 Rlnee
(Labeled APR)
Contained
Action* Probe Rim*
(Labeled PR)
Cortalnerl
Ffter
(Labeled F)
Reduce lo Drynee*
htaTarad-
Deelccateto
Conetant Weight
Delairnlne fleelriui
Determine Fitter
PwtoutatoVWghl
wMiConaHNO,
1
Ack%topH2
w»h Cone. HMO,
Swtfora and DkJMt
EKhSMtfonwtti
Cone. HF and HNCd
ftoduo»Voium»lo
ConaHNO,
L
Contakwr4
ContalrarS
flncud* oondwwal*
lmpln0«,MuMd)
I
Atquot Taken
TakantorCVAAS
Addtttf
Ramalnlng
SanutotopH
of2w«h
Cone HNC^
Fraction 2A
atosrcibr2h
andAnaVza
kwHgbyCVAAS
Fiacfiona
OlgaatwthAcId
!96>Cfor2h
and Analyze
forHgbyCWAS
Reduce Volume
to Nee/
Dryneeeand
Obaatwllh
FlerandDaula
to Known Vokme
Remove SO to 100 mL
AlquotforHg
AneJvelibyCWAS
FraoaonIB
Otoeat wait Add end
Parmangenate at WC In
e Water Bat
r Bath tor 2 h
Analyze by CAP for
Target Metato
FrecttonlA
Analyze for
Metato by QFASS
FrecttonlA
I
for
Analyze Aftouot fa
HgUekigCVAAS
I
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 /
-------
destruction efficiency. 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 assessed. Testing procedures used here follow an
EPA draft method entitled "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator
Ash." The following sections detail both spiking procedures (emissions/ash and pipe) as
well as the spore flue gas sampling and analytical techniques.
5.3.1 Spiking Procedure for Emissions and Ash Microbial Loading
In addition to the pipe samples, a series of waste materials inoculated with
indicator spores are charged into the incinerator. A known quantity of
B. stearothermophilus spores in solution were 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 the next morning after the ash has
cooled sufficiently.
5.3.1.1 Equipment. A 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 x 1011 to 1 x 1012 spores are charged into the incinerator per sample run
(the exact quantity is recorded). The total charge is separated into four culture batches.
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,and 3 hours from the start of testing.
5.3.2 Indicator Spore Flue Gas Sampling
Flue gas is extracted from the incinerator stack during the burn cycle to determine
spore emissions. The testing procedure follows the previously mentioned, draft EPA
method. 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 cultured and colonies are identified using gram stains to establish cellular
JBS219
5-36
-------
Fermentation Fermentation Fermentation
Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3
1
1 1
1 1
Runl ROB! Rnn3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run? Run 8
cttMia • • •
rtfaab b b b
itfMC C
t*m6 4
c c
6 6
a a a
b b b
c c c
44 4
a
b
c
d
1
Run 9
a
b
c
6
Erartiaae c c -if required to get IXlOspores —
Notes: Each fraction will be loaded into the incinerator at equally spaced
intervals over the duration of the test run during norsmal charge periods.
At least twelve fractions or doses per test condition. Additional fractions
Figure 5-9. Indicator Spore Spiking Scheme for Combustion Gas
Destruction Efficiency Testing
-------
morphology, and possibly other biochemical tests as needed. The colonies are then
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 I^Oj/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 H2O2/alcohol.
After completing this procedure, all components are sealed with Parafilm® to prevent
contamination. Additional sample containers, recovery items, and analytical equipment
are sterilized by autoclaving or another equivalent method. Some of the items which
need to be sterilized are wash bottles, two liter glass 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 leakcheck on the impinger
train is completed at approximately 15 in. Hg. Leakage rates in excess of 4 percent of
the average sampling rate or 0.02 cfm, whichever is less, are unacceptable.
JBS219
5-38
-------
t/rUMonLIn*
(Reaching lo i«w ol
buMon-hooli
Quarti-GlM*
PmtwUMf/
T«np«ialui«
S«iuor
d20U
Phosphate
IOO«L Empty *• SJNca
2.0 M
ThMHtOIMtW*
Figure 5-10. Sampling Train for DetermlnaUon of Indicator
Spore Emissions
-------
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 (A P, gas meter readings, stack temperature, meter temperatures,
meter A H, meter vacuum, first impinger temperature, and silica gel impinger
temperature) are periodically monitored, adjusted, and recorded throughout the test run.
Two different trains are used. When the first traverse is completed, the second
traverse is immediately started 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 leakchecks are completed at a vacuum equal to
or greater than the maximum vacuum reached during the sampling run. Acceptable
post-test leakcheck criterion is the same as was previously mentioned for the pre-test
leakchecks.
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. The probe is disconnected from 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 sodium hydroxide (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
(39°F), for shipment to the laboratory.
JBS219
5-40
-------
Probe
and M
Rinsi
brush
buffei
•tei
conti
Liner
lozzle
» and
using
• into
•lie
ilnar
1st Ii
(200
bufl
Eapty
Into
coni
Rlnw
with
into c<
ipinger
•1 of
er)
contents
sterile
*iner
i twice
buffer
Miteiner
2nd li
(100
bufl
Empty
into
conl
Rins<
with
into cc
ipinger
ml of
'er)
contents
sterile
.ainer
i twice
buffer
mtainer
>d (•[
(E.|
Eepty <
into f
conti
Rinse
with 1
into coi
>inger
>ty)
: on tents
iterlle
liner
twice
Niffer
itainer
Silica
Gel
Weigh
Discard
Liquid Saaple
Figure 5-11. Sample Recovery Scheme for Microbial Viability Testing
-------
5.3.3 Direct Ash Sampling for Tndicator 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 A of the test plan. 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 while the third sample is used
to determine the pH of the material. Laboratory samples are tested in accordance with
proposed Draft Method found in Appendix A of the test plan.
5.3.3.1 Equipment. Ash samples are taken using a precleaned plastic scoop 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. Samples are cultured to preclude
growth of contaminants hi accordance with the draft method found in Appendix K.4 of
the test report. Colonies of B. stearothermophilus are then gram stained to ensure
correct cellular morphology and further identified using biochemical tests as needed.
Enumeration of B. stearothermophilus is then completed.
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 106 spores is
prepared and placed in a small glass vial. Each pipe sample uses the contents of 1 spore
vial.
The sample is placed in a short piece (2-4 inch) of 3/8 stainless steel tubing
capped on both ends 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
JBS219
5-42
-------
Inner Container
(Containing *»"•>
Vermlcullte
Outer Container Cap
Two ilies will be used:
2" diameter x ff tomg and 11/2" diameter x long
Figure 5-12. Ash Quality Pipe Assemblies
-------
inner container to maintain its position in the center of the outer container and to
protect it from thermal shock (simulating insulated articles of easte in the combustion
chamber. 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
106) inside the inner container and then sealed using the 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 spike varies according to the loading
procedure. The Cape Fear Memorial Hospital MWI is a 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 the morning following a test run. The ash cleanout door is opened
at about 7:00 a.m. During this period, the 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. 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 (30°F)
in an ice cooler with care to protect them from contamination from melting ice.
JBS219
5-44
-------
5.3.5 Microbial Analysis
The quantity of viable spores from the pipe samples, flue gas samples and the
direct ash samples is then tested. 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 5-13 and 5-14. 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 separate sterile incubation tubes. The inside of the pipe 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 5-15. 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 5-13. Three 10 ml aliquots, three 100 ml aliquots, and three equal
volumes of the remaining solution is prepared. The aliquots are placed hi sterile
incubation tubes, filtered and placed onto agar plates as discussed in the following
sections.
5.3.5.3 Colonial Enumeration and Identification Procedure. 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 well. Each filter is removed from the filtering unit using sterile forceps and
placed face up on an agar plate. The plates are incubated hi plastic bags at 65°C
(149°F) for 18 to 24 hours prior to colonial examination.
5-45
-------
1 screened liter ash
sample mixed well
Measure pH on-site
Make 3 aliquot* by adding
1 g ash to 100 ml
buffer solution
Prepare six log
serial dilutions
Vacuum Biter each serial dilution
through separate sterile cellulose nitrate
filter «U urn)
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubate plates at 6JC for 24 hours
Recheck at 48 hours
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 snores remaining viable
through incinerator cycle
Add 10 g ash to 20 ml sterile
deionized water. Allow ash
to settle
Calibrate pH meter and measure
pH of liquid portion of sample
Figure 5-13. Sample and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing of Ash Samples
5-46
-------
Recovered Inner
container
Transfer content*
to • Incubator tub*
Rinse Inner tub*
with sterile phosphate
Buffer Into the
Incubator tube
Vacuum filter through seprate sterile
Naigene* cellulose nitrate 0-2urn
filter unit
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubator plates at 65°C for 24 hours
Recheck at 48 hours
Enumerate colonies of B. stearothermophllus
on filters
Figure 5-14. Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Mlcroblal Viability Tests
5-47
-------
Recovered
liquid sample
3 10-ml aliquot*
3 100-ml aliquots
3 equal aliquots
of remaining sample
Vacuum filter through seprate sterile
Nalgene*cellulose nitrate
filter unit
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubator plates at 6^ C for 24 hours
Recheck at 48 hours
Enumeradc colonies of B. stearothennophllus
on filters
Figure 5-15. Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Mlcrobial Testing
5-48
-------
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. The 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 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 is 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, HBr, and 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 Cl" ions. Ion
chromatography is used to detect the Cl" ions present in the sample. For this test
program, the presence of Br" and F ions will also be detected by 1C. The method is
included in Appendix K.
5.4.1 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Equipment
A diagram of the HCl/HBr/HF sampling train is shown in Figure 5-16. The
sampling train consists of a quartz probe with a pallflex Teflon/glass filter to remove
PM, 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 dewpoint, the probe is not heated. The train consists of an
optional knockout impinger followed by two impingers containing 0.1 N sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) to collect HC1, HBr, and HF; two impingers containing 0.1 N NaOH to capture
5-49
JBS219 J
-------
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
-------
A
y*
C/l
3-Way Glass
Heated Probe Stopcock
Midget Implngers
Thermometer
Drying Tube
or
Mae West
Impinger
Knockout Impinger
(optional)
Pump
Surge Tank
Figure 5-16. HCi Sample Train Configuration
-------
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 was not
used for testing at this facility. The first two impingers contained 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 the
same 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 leakchecked 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
leakcheck 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 and 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 5-17.
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 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.
JBS219
-------
lat
Probe Uwr
andNooto
Do Not Rinse
or Brush
(~ 2Dm| 2ndlmpinger
I
Empty Contents
Mo 100ml
Volumetric Flask
1
1
MakeUp
Volume to 100ml
using 01
1
Transfer to Sample
Container
1
ardbnplnger 4thlmplr
(~ 20mT NaOH) (~ 20mlM
i
1
Empty Contents
Mo Sample
Containers once
Run Conditioner
1
1
Rinse 3x
InOI
1
1
Archive for
Possible Analysis
tger Sttce
laOH)
Inspect to
CoiorC
Repk
ifNen
(dtocar
port*
iGel
r Indicator
3wnge
wish
96sary
dused
ons)
Liquid Sampto
Figure 5-17. HCI/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme
S
-------
5.5 EPA METHODS 1-4
5.5.1 Traverse Point Location By 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 bv 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 and 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 O3 and CO3 Concentrations bv EPA Method 3A
The O2 and CO2 concentrations are determined by CEMs following EPA
Method 3A. Flue 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 5-55
-------
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 5-18.
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,,, SO^ 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
-------
HNlTrao*
UnhMted QM Urn*
SgntfWIra
Rgure 5-18. Scematlc of CEM System
5-57
-------
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. The 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 5-18). A nominal dilution ratio of 200:1 is used.
5.6.2 CEM Principles of Operation
5.6.2.1 SO3 Analysis. The Western 721A SO2 analyzer is essentially a continuous
spectrophotometer in the ultraviolet (UV) range. The SO2 selectively absorbs UV light
at a wavelength of 202.5 nm. To take advantage of this property of SO^ 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). The SO2 measurements are performed using EPA Method 6C.
5.6.2.2 NOj, 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 (O^ 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. The 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 HI measures O2 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 O2
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 (m, = ± 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 COj Analysis. Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) CO2 analyzers emit a
specific wavelength of infrared (IR) 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 was
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 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 tne
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. The 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 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 calibrating for each
test run.
After each initial calibration, midrange gases for all instruments are analyzed,
with no adjustment permitted, as a 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.
JBS09
-------
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%
J
10%
5%
ppm
CO-dry
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
£Q - wet
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
TECO 48H
0-50,000 ppm
1000, 9000 or 19,000 ppma
N,
1000 or 9000 ppm
2100 ppm
TECO 48
0-100, 0-200, 0-5000
1000, 180 or 90 ppma
N
18*0 ppm
90 ppm
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Thennox WDG HI
0-25%
20%
0.2% 02
10%
5%
50.2
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
idOppm
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 IGO 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 90t> ppm
Low Range QC Gas Value 100 ppm
a Several sets of calibration/QC gases were acquired in order to closely approximate
stack gas concentrations.
5-63
JBS219
-------
5.6.4 Data Acquisition
The data acquisition system (DAS) used for the Cape Fear 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 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 hi 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 and DAS 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.
JBS219
5-64
-------
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.
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.
5-65
-------
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 leakcheck 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.
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 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 Cape Fear 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 16 out of 18 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. The CEM quality assurance is
presented in Section 6.5. Microbial indicator spore analyses were completed using a high
number of enumerations per sample. Microbial Survivability in emissions Quality
Assurance is further discussed in Sections 6.2.3, 6.3, and 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.
-------
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
JBS226
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF PRECISION, ACCURACY,
AND COMPLETENESS OBJECTIVES3
Parameter
Dioxins/Furans Emissions
Metals Emissions
Particulate Matter Emissions
HCl/HBr/HF Concentrations
Indicator Spore Emissions
CEM Concentrations
Velocity/Volumetric Flow Rate
Fixed Gases/Molecular Weight
Flue Gas Moisture
Flue Gas Temperature
Precision
(RSD)
±40d
±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 + 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
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
:08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PRE-TEST
LEAK RATE
(acfm)
0.007
0.014
0.018
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.010
0.018
0.015
INCHES FOR
PRE-TEST
CHECK
15
16
15
15
14
15
16
22
16
AVG, SAMPLE
RATE
(dscfm)
0.49
0.39
0.47
0.51
0.53
0.50
0.44
0.41
0.41
4% SAMPLE
RATE
(dscfm) a
0.0196
0.0156
0.0188
0.0204
0.0212
0.0200
0.0176
0.0164
0.0164
ACCEPTABLE
LEAK LEVEL
(acfm)
0.0196
0.0156
0.0188
0.0204
0.0200
0.0200
0.0176
0.0164
0.0164
MEASUREMENTS
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.007
0.012
0.016
0.010
0.011
0.010
0.007
0.016
0.012
INCHES
FOR
SECOND CHECK
9
12
11
7
7
8
10
5
10
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) and may be slightly different than actual cfm (acfm).
-------
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 Survivability 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 2 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, leakchecked, 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). No 2378 TCDD, Other
TCDD, 12378 PCDD, 123478 HxCDD, or 123789 HxCDF were detected in the MM5
field blank. The other 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.
JBS226 6'5
-------
TABLE 6-3. ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RATES FOR CDD/CDF, METALS, AND
MICROORGANISMS TEST RUNS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN ;
NUMBER
1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
5B
6A
6B
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
CDD/CDF
ISOKINETIC SAMPLE
RATE
(*)
101
98.6
98.1
102
99.3
101
101
99.6
100
TOXIC METALS
ISOKINETIC SAMPLE
RATE
(%)
101
101
100
100
101
101
101
99.8
102
MICROORGANISMS
ISOKINETIC SAMPLE
RATE
(*)
102
102
108
99.9
99.3
98.6
99.8
94.1
110.7
112.3
99.2
92.5
103
104
103
99.4
102
102
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-4. DRY GAS METER POST-TEST CALIBRATION RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLING
TRAIN
CDD/CDF
PM/Metal
Microorganisms
METER BOX
NUMBER
N-30
N-31
N-32
FULL
CALIBRATION
FACTOR
0.989
0.9992
1.002
POST-TEST
CALIBRATION
FACTOR
0.9902
0.9993
0.99971
POST-TEST
DEVIATION
(*) a
0.12
0.01
-0.05
(Post-Test) - (Full) x 100
(Full)
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-5. CDD/CDF FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED
TO AVERAGE RUN RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
2378 TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378 PCDD
TOTAL PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL HpCDD
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 HpCDF
Octa-CDF
CONFIRMATION ANALYSES:
2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
TOTAL TCDD
TOTAL TCDF
MM5
FIELD
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.020]
0.02
[0.040]
0.03
0.04
0.13
0.14
0.28
0.29
0.070
0.350
(0.090)
0.080
0.073
0.270
0.160
0.200
[0.050]
1.300
(0.510)
0.060
0.150
0.300
[0.030]
0.02
[0.030]
0.10
MM5
CONDI
AVG
(total ng)
1.0
29.0
6.2
67.6
17.4
21.3
41.3
202.7
189.2
361.5
389.7
77.7
528.4
65.5
88.1
1099.3
320.7
195.1
315.2
12.6
1805.0
739.0
100.0
1397.3
1010.3
4.0
11.8
30.3
460.2
MM5
COND2
AVG
(total fig)
13.0
245.0
54.8
396.7
60.2
74.3
141.3
727.3
390.3
779.0
522.3
275.3
2140.0
249.2
270.5
3696.7
908.0
551.7
583.0
19.5
4773.3
1474.7
209.7
2683.3
1264.3
29.0
55.2
269.0
1832.3
MM5
COND3
AVG
(total ng)
7.9
113.9
43.3
264.2
47.1
58.3
118.4
588.7
290.0
573.0
207.2
36.3
1087.3
146.9
185.0
2295.7
631.3
397.3
408.0
22.0
3396.7
934.0
124.1
1658.7
362.3
19.0
36.3
151.9
1087.3
[ ] = minimum detection limit
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration
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, 5, and 6), T/M ratios range from 0.002 to 2.16 percent.
Condition 2 values range from 0 to 1.54 percent and Condition 3 T/M ratios ranged
from 0 to 0.63 percent. The T/M ratios for 2378 TCDD for all conditions range from
0 to 0.61 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. The T/M
values ranged from 0 to 0.605 percent (Run 1).
The toluene field blank analytical results are compared to the toluene test run
analytical results in Table 6-10. No CDD congeners and few CDF congeners were
detected in the toluene field blank.
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 2 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 0.01 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. Barium, chromium, and silver were detected at
relatively low levels compared to the total amounts collected during the tests. No blank
corrections were made.
JBS226 6-9
-------
TABLE 6-6. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION 1 (total pg); CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
,s I
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total GDD
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 HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CPD+CDF
RUN 1
MM5
(PS)
(4600)
48400
(18200)
90900
23500
28500
62400
191600
221000
224000
405000
i.mioo
92900
613100
92700
103000
1254300
423000
242000
299000
14100
1231900
929000
114000
667000
1040000
7,116,000
8,434,109
TOLUENE
(Pg)
28
117
166
420
(0.510)
177
382
721
2230
1940
6510
•m^n,&2
401
1709
697
688
7325
2490
1770
2810
135
6145
9290
1490
6810
18970
60.730
73,422
TOL/MM5
(*>
0.609
0.242
0.912
0.462
0.002
0.621
0.612
0.376
1.009
0.866
1.607
0.963
0.432
0.279
0.752
0.668
0.584
0.589
0.731
0.940
0.957
0.499
1.000
1.307
1.021
1.824
0.853
0,871
RUNS
MM5
(Pg)
2900
35600
18700
93300
28700
35300
61600
176400
314000
293000
598000
11,657,500
129000
713000
98600
152000
1499400
539000
322000
580000
23800
1575200
1140000
186000
844000
1470000
$.272.000
10,929,500
TOLUENE
(Pg)
(7.600)
24.5
46.5
144.5
46.2
66.6
71.3
385.9
783
577
2390
4,543
156
746
254
294
2662
1060
647
914
89.9
2559
2950
834
2266
6310
21.742
20,285
TOL/MM5
(*>
0.262
0.069
0.249
0.155
0.161
0.189
0.116
0.219
0.249
0.197
0.400
0.274
0.121
0.105
0.258
0.193
0.178
0.197
0.201
0.158
0.378
0.162
0.259
0.448
0.268
0.429
043+
0,24
RUN 6
MM5
(Pg)
[3500]
[3500]
[4100]
[4100]
[11100]
[9600]
[11600]
[10700]
32500
0.0
166000
19»,500
11200
25900
5200
9200
83400
(46300)
21400
66500
[11800]
77100
148000
(23900)
164000
521000
1,203,100
1,401,600
TOLUENE
(Pg)
[6.000]
[6.000]
[9.200]
[9.200]
10.7
17
(18.80)
100.3
489
342
3190
4,168
51.1
50.9
(45.90)
70.4
502.6
278
144
446
(23.70)
602
1320
517
1273
7020
I2.34S
i6,$ta
TOL/MM5
(*>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.505
NA(a)
1.922
2,100
0.456
0.197
0.883
0.765
0.603
0.600
0.673
0.671
NA
0.781
0.892
2.163
0.776
1.347
L026
1,178
AVERAGE
MM5
(PS)
3750
42000
18450
92100
26100
31900
62000
184000
189168
258500
389667
:1,058;Q33;
77700
450667
65500
88067
945700
336100
195133
315167
18950
961400
739000
107967
558333
1010333
5,863,700
6*921,733
TOLUENE
(Pg)
17.8
70.75
106.3
282.3
19.1
86.9
157.4
402.4
1167
953
4030
P:'- 7,134
202.7
835.3
332.3
350.8
3497
1276
853.7
1390
82.9
3102
4520
947
3450
10767
31,606
;!: 38.740
TOL/MM5
(*>
0.475
0.168
0.576
0.306
0.073
0.272
0.254
0.219
0.617
0.369
1.034
0.674:
0.261
0.185
0.507
0.398
0.370
0.380
0.437
0.441
0.437
0.323
0.612
0.877
0.618
1.066
0.539
0.56
a Amount detected for total isomer equaled amount for specific isomer resulting in a zero value for the "other" category.
-------
TABLE 6-7. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION 2 (total pg); CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
TotalCDF
Total CDD+CDF
RUN 2
MM5
(Pg)
4400
195600
18500
183500
24200
38000
66000
246800
328000
339000
824000
2,268,000
140000
800000
69500
92600
1237900
414000
182000
417000
10200
1106800
924000
146000
810000
2160000
8,510.000
10,778,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
[17.70]
(78.70)
53.1
0
53.1
63.3
147.0
353.6
948.0
782.0
3670
6,m
218
862
(197.0)
192
1848
823
374
709
35.6
1688.4
2980
585
2195
6890
19,59?
25,708
TOL/MM5
<*)
0.000
0.040
0.287
NA
0.219
0.167
0.223
0.143
0.289
0.231
0.445
0,269
0.156
0.108
0.283
0.207
0.149
0.199
0.205
0.170
0.349
0.153
0.323
0.401
0.271
0.319
\.L.:-.j0.33*;.j?>-
T 6,239
RUN 3
MM5
(Pg)
20400
301600
84500
475500
90400
107000
194000
628600
497000
501000
484000
3,384,000
369000
2551000
365000
373000
4112000
1250000
786000
710000
48200
3525800
1930000
264000
1196000
923000
18,403.000
21,787,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
119
1421
568
2612
698
741
1180
5511
6340
6010
7440
32,640
1460
10180
2460
1760
23820
9060
5340
3260
439
23241
20190
2450
11180
7100
121,940
1$4,5$Q
TOL/MM5
<*)
0.583
0.471
0.672
0.549
0.772
0.693
0.608
0.877
1.276
1.200
1.537
: 0.965
0.396
0.399
0.674
0.472
0.579
0.725
0.679
0.459
0.911
0.659
1.046
0.928
0.935
0.769
0,663
0.71
RUN 4
MM5
(Pg)
14100
198900
61400
366600
65900
77800
164000
479300
346000
326000
259000
2,359,000
317000
2243000
313000
346000
4181000
1060000
687000
622000
(43200)
3501000
1570000
219000
991000
710000
16.80?,200
19,162,200
TOLUENE
(Pg)
28.2
188.8
133
468
119
128
212
731
849
651
905
4,413
373
2377
615
646
5649
1990
1330
1280
141
5119
3720
750
2260
2090
28,340
32,753
TOL/MM5
<*)
0.200
0.095
0.217
0.128
0.181
0.165
0.129
0.153
0.245
0.200
0.349
: OJ87
0.118
0.106
0.196
0.187
0.135
0.188
0.194
0.206
0.326
0.146
0.237
0.342
0.228
0.294
0,169
0.171
AVERAGE
MM5
(Pg)
12967
232033
54800
341867
60167
74267
141333
451567
390333
388667
522333
2,670,333
275333
1864667
249167
270533
3176967
908000
551667
583000
33867
2711200
1474667
209667
999000
1264333
14472,067
7,242,400
TOLUENE
(Pg)
73.6
562.8
251.4
1014
290.0
310.8
513.0
2199
2712
2481
4005
14,388
683.7
4473
1091
866.0
10439
3958
2348
1750
205.2
10016
8963
1262
5212
5360
56,626
71,014
TOL/MM5
(*)
0.568
0.243
0.459
0.297
0.482
0.418
0.363
0.487
0.695
0.638
0.767
Ot539
0.248
0.240
0.438
0.320
0.329
0.436
0.426
0.300
0.606
0.369
0.608
0.602
0.522
0.424
0.389
0.412
[] = minimum detection limit (not used in the averages or summations)
() = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
-------
TABLE 6-8. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION 3 (total pg); CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDIXCDF
RUN?
MM5
{Pg)
12200
143800
47700
250300
52400
58900
111000
307700
255000
233000
201000
l,673;000
49500
1200500
161000
208000
2011000
564000
379000
481000
23700
1842300
805000
109000
516000
325000
8.675.000
10,348,000
TOLUENE
(Pg)
12.5
54.3
64.8
140.2
51.8
73.7
142
300.5
537
419
1190
2,98$
168
722
213
303
1994
693
490
654
64.4
1408.6
1750
457
1233
2050
12.200
l$,l«5
TOLMMS
(#)
0.102
0.038
0.136
0.056
0.099
0.125
0.128
0.098
0.211
0.180
0.592
0.178
0.339
0.060
0.132
0.146
0.099
0.123
0.129
0.136
0.272
0.076
0.217
0.419
0.239
0.631
&14I
0,1*7
RUN 8
MM5
tad
[2600]
18800
11700
56900
(14400)
14900
32200
98900
86100
74900
89500
498,300
16200
485800
59600
72100
755300
230000
150000
134000
8500
767500
357000
52400
236600
183000
3.508,000
4,006,300
TOLUENE
(Pg)
[5.100]
[5.100]
(8.800)
(8.800)
(8.300)
(11.10)
13.6
54.4
137
102
339
683
28.5
39.1
31.2
43.8
336
116
77.2
140
(12.10)
254.8
302
(97.90)
151
455
2,085
2,768
TOL/MMS
(*)
NA
0.000
0.075
0.015
0.058
0.074
0.042
0.055
0.159
0.136
0.379
0.137
0.176
0.008
0.052
0.061
0.044
0.050
0.051
0.104
0.142
0.033
0.085
0.187
0.064
0.249
0.059
0.069
RUN 9
MM5
tad
11600
155400
70600
355400
88800
101000
212000
688200
529000
541000
331000
3,084,000
43300
1466700
220000
275000
3125000
1100000
663000
609000
(43200)
3238000
1640000
211000
1049000
579000
14562,200
17,346,200
TOJLUENE
(Pg)
(11.80)
45.5
87.4
286.6
99.9
121
149
770.1
803
677
679
3,730
136
571
251
353
2916
1320
839
855
63.2
3722.8
3120
497
1103
1310
|7,
-------
TABLE 6-9. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE CONFIRMATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARED TO MM5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ALL CONDITIONS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
RUN1
MM5
(Pg)
7,000
45,800
15,700
583,300
TOLUENE
(Pg)
39.2
267.8
95.0
2295.0
TQL/MM5
(&)
0.560
0.585
0.605
0.393
RUN 2
MMS
g)
12,400
199,600
15,100
771,900
TOLUENE
(Pg)
[16.20]
[16.20]
28.1
852.9
RUN 7
MMS
(Pg)
24,800
170,200
49,500
1,200,500
TOLUENE
g)
[4.500]
[4.500]
9.2
212.8
TOL/MMS
(%)
NA
NA
NA
0.581
RUN 4
MMS
(Pg)
32400.0
184600.0
66700.0
2123300.0
TOLUENE
(Pg)
33.7
277.3
111.0
2789.0
RUN 9
MMS
(Pg)
28,100
210,900
43,300
1,466,700
TOLUENE
-------
TABLE 6-10. CDD/CDF TOLUENE FIELD BLANK RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
2378 TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378 PCDD
TOTAL PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL HpCDD
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 HpCDF
Octa-CDF
CONFIRMATION ANALYSES:
2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
TOTAL TCDD
TOTAL TCDF
TOLUENE
HELD
BLANK
(total pg)
[4.600]
[4.600]
[7.100]
[7.100]
[3.800]
[3.700]
[4.300]
[3.900]
[5.100]
[5.100]
(29.50)
[3.000]
[3.000]
[4.900]
[5.200]
[5.000]
4.800
3.400
8.100
[4.300]
23.900
(13.000)
[4.600]
(15.90)
[8.100]
TOLUENE
CONDI
AVG
(total pg)
11.9
56.5
70.8
259.0
19.0
86.9
157.4
659.3
1167.3
2120.3
4030.0
202.7
1038.0
332.3
350.8
4164.3
1276.0
853.7
1390.0
82.9
6696.7
4520.0
947.0
8916.7
10766.7
16.3
47.3
120.2
1207.3
TOLUENE
COND2
AVG
(total pg)
13.0
245.0
54.8
396.7
60.2
74.3
141.3
727.3
390.3
779.0
522.3
275.3
2140.0
249.2
270.5
3696.7
908.0
551.7
583.0
33.9
4773.3
1474.7
209.7
2683.3
1264.3
60.6
167.4
813.7
5290.3
TOLUENE
COND3
AVG
(total pg)
7.9
113.9
43.3
264.2
51.9
58.3
118.4
588.7
290.0
573.0
207.2
174.8
1153.0
146.9
185.0
2295.7
631.3
397.3
408.0
22.0
3396.7
934.0
124.1
1658.7
362.3
10.1
33.3
68.1
669.0
[ ] = minimum detection limit
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration
6-14
-------
TABLE 6-11. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR TOXIC METALS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
?DATE
08/18/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PRELIMINARY
LEAK RATE
(acftn)
0.016
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.012
0.010
INCHES
FOR PRELIM.
CHECK
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
AVG. SAMPLE
RATE
(dscfrn) a
0.47
0.39
0.42
0.54
0.57
0.56
0.48
0.45
0.43
4« SAMPLE
RATE
(acfin)
0.019
0.016
0.017
0.022
0.023
0.022
0.019
0.018
0.017
ACCEPTABLE
LEAK LEVEL
(acfin)
0.019
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.017
MEASUREMENT
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.008
0.011
0.000
0.005
b
0.008
0.002
b
0.004
INCHES
FOR
SEC. CHK.
5
7
b
12
b
7.5
6
b
8
ON
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfin) and may be slightly different than actual cftn (acfin).
b No data recorded.
-------
TABLE 6-12. METALS FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED TO AVERAGE AMOUNTS COLLECTED DURING THE TEST RUNS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
"METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SUver
Thallium
FffiLDBLANK
FRONT IMPINGERS IMPINGERS
HALF 1,2 3,4 b
a [16]
[3.0]
7.25
[0.50]
[1.2]
c (5.75)
[25]
[2.4]
[5.0]
(19.8)
[14]
[7.0]
20.0
3.42
[0.22]
[0.55]
(2.65)
(1.89)
[21]
(3.20)
[3.6]
[5.9]
[1.1]
CONDITION 1
FRONT IMPINGERS IMPINGERS
HALF 1,2 3,4 b
1520.33
29.17
695.67
0.00
833.67
92.27
13946.67
19.40
41.43
0.00
338.33
2254.67
4.78
33.57
0.00
0.00
5.79
1.26
507.00
1.03
23.64
0.00
1.47
CONDITION 2
FRONT IMPINGERS BMPtNGERS
HALF 1,2 3,4 h
1323.33
55.93
1643.33
0.00
1082.67
87.67
17833.33
62.13
21.43
0.00
339.00
3160.00
15.04
69.27
0.00
0.00
7.22
1.53
1214.00
0.00
48.00
5.33
5.59
CONDITION 3
FRONT IMPINGERS IMPINGERS
HALF 1,2 3,4 b
1420.67
23.37
581.33
0.92
1196.67
50.27
10670.00
369.33
18.43
0.00
779.33
2287.33
11.83
31.23
0.00
0.00
5.93
0.63
4469.00
0.78
21.70
0.00
695.65
o\
h-'
o\
a Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits for elements not detected in the samples.
b Impingers 3 and 4 only sample fractions analyzed for mercury content.
c Values enclosed in parenthesis represent estimates as they are less than five times the detection limit.
-------
6.2.3 Microbial Survivability in Emissions Quality Assurance
Table 6-13 presents the leak check results for the microbe train 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. Sixteen
out of the 18 test runs met the isokinetic criterion of ± 10 percent of 100 percent.
Runs 5A and 5B resulted in an isokinetic rates of 110.7 and 112.3 percent, respectively.
These slightly high values would not be expected to effect the results.
The microbial emissions field blank results are shown in Appendix E-3. One
enumeration out of 18 resulted in spores detected. Even though the result was "to
numerous to count" (TNTC), the contamination was not shown to be consistent enough
to suspect run sample contamination (especially with the run sample results being usually
non-detects).
The post-test dry gas meter calibration check for the microbial emissions dry gas
meter is shown in Table 6-4. Post-test calibration factors were within the 5 percent
acceptance criterion at -0.05 percent.
6.2.4 Halogen Flue Gas Sampling Quality Assurance
Halogen flue gas concentration tests did not 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.
Halogen field blank results are shown in Table 6-14. No Cl'. F, or Br were
detected in the field blank sample.
JBS226 6'17
-------
TABLE 6-13. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR MICROBIAL SURVTVABILITY IN EMISSIONS SAMPLING RUNS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
SB
6A
6B
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
PRE-TEST
LEAK RATE
(acfm)
0.018
0.013
0.008
0.003
0.018
0.011
0.010
0.006
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.005
0.004
0.009
0.008
0.002
0.006
0.005
INCHES FOR
PRE-TEST
CHECK
10
6
11
11
10
11
8
5
7
6
6
7
6.5
6
5
10
5
6
AVG, SAMPLE
RATE
(dscfm)
0.47
0.42
0.40
0.38
0.48
0.39
0.56
0.40
0.69
0.55
0.59
0.48
0.44
0.38
0.43
0.42
0.43
0.42
4% SAMPLE
RATE
(dscfin) 4
0.0188
0.0168
0.0160
0.0152
0.0192
0.0156
0.0224
0.0160
0.0276
0.0220
0.0236
0.0192
0.0176
0.0152
0.0172
0.0168
0.0172
0.0168
ACCEPTABLE
LEAKI^EVBL
(acfm)
0.019
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.019
0.016
0.020
0.016
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.015
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
MEASUREMENT
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.005
0.004
0.007
0.002
0.006
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.010
0.015
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.008
0.040
INCHES
FOR
SEC* CHK.
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
6
26
5
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfin) and may be slightly different than actual cfm (acfm).
-------
TABLE 6-14. HALOGEN LABORATORY PROOF BLANK RESULTS
COMPARED TO RUN RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ANALYTE
HC1
HF
HBr
LAB PROOF
BLANK
(total mg)
[0.11] a
[0.042]
[0.013]
CONDITION 1
AVERAGE
(total mg)
170
0.64
0.77
CONDITION 2
AVERAGE
{totaling)
172
1.29
0.69
CONDITIONS
AVERAGE
(total mg)
238
0.88
0.16
Values enclosed in brackes 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. stearothermophilus in both wet and dry forms. Solutions of B. stearothermophilus
(wet spores) were spiked to the incinerator to coincide with simultaneous emissions
testing and daily ash sampling. Assessments of B. stearothermophilus survivability could
then be made. A pre-aliquoted stock solution of wet spores of approximately 600 to
700 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 tunes. Freeze-dried quantities of B. stearothermophilus (dry spores) were
placed in sealed pipes (See Figure 5-12) to determine the viability of "thermally shaded"
microbial matter. A single pipe 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, LOI, moisture content, as well as indicator spores. All
of the ash was completely removed from the incinerator bed every morning, passed
through a 1/2 in. mesh stainless steel (SS) sieve and placed in a large 55-gallon drum.
Using a sample "thief, four samples were taken each approximately 500 grams and
JBS226
-------
placed in pre-cleaned, amber glass bottles. All material used for sampling, sample
compositing, and sample aliquoting was cleaned to prevent any sample contamination.
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 Rue 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 and to aid in the quantitation of native CDD/CDF
species. 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 at this stage. Recovery percentage of internal standards are
6'21
-------
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, just prior to the HRGC/HRMS
analysis. Internal standards recovery are determined relative to recovery standards
recovery. Recovery standards recovery efficiencies are not typically reported with the
analytical results.
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 analytical
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 Analytical Protocol Changes. Based on previous
Hospital MWI test programs, high levels of organics were expected to be found in the
CDD/CDF MM5 samples. Therefore a different analytical protocol was developed for
the analysis. One percent of the MM5 extract was used instead of the typical 50 percent.
This resulted in a diluted fraction which did not saturate the MS detector. However,
surrogate (pre-sample) spike recoveries could not be determined. Additional standards
were added at higher than normal amounts to allow full quantitation of the CDD/CDF
congeners.
6.4.1.3 CDD/CDF MM5 Blank Results. Both method blanks and field blanks
were analyzed for CDD/CDF isomers. Modified Method 5 samples as well as the
toluene rinses were submitted. A laboratory proof blank was also analyzed to
determined glassware contamination. Table 6-15 presents these results. The MM5 and
toluene method blanks had no CDD/CDF isomers. The toluene Lab Proof Blank had
several small quantities of HxCDF detected. All MM5 and toluene method blanks were
clean. Both toluene and MM5 field blanks showed small quantities of CDD/CDF
isomers. However, when compared to amounts in the test run samples (seee Table 6-5
and 6-10) the field blank amounts represent a very small proportion.
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
JBS226 6-22
-------
TABLE 6-15. METHOD BLANK AND FIELD BLANK RESULTS FOR THE MM5 AND TOLUENE FLUE GAS SAMPLES;
CAPE FEAR 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 HpCDD
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 HpCDF
Octa-CDF
MM5
TLI-METHOD
BLANK-!
(total ng)
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.060]
[0.060]
[0.060]
[0.060]
[0.070]
[0.060]
[0.100]
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.060]
[0.080]
[0.060]
[0.050]
[0.080]
[0.060]
[0.200]
MM5
TLI-METHOD
BLANK-2
(total ng)
[1.100]
[1.100]
[1.100]
[1.100]
[3.300]
[2.900]
[3.500]
[3.200]
[5.700]
[5.700]
[7.100]
[0.900]
[0.900]
[1.000]
[1.000]
[1.000]
[2.300]
[2.000]
[2.800]
[3.400]
[2.500]
[2.800]
[4.300]
[3.400]
[7.400]
MM5
TLI-METHOD
BLANK-3
(total ng)
[1.800]
[1.800]
[1.900]
[1.900]
[5.600]
[4.900]
[5.900]
[5.400]
[10.00]
[10.00]
[15.20]
[1.500]
[1.500]
[1.600]
[1.600]
[1.600]
[3.700]
[3.300]
[4.500]
[5.600]
[4.100]
[4.600]
[6.900]
[5.500]
[16.00]
MM5
LAB PROOF
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.060]
[0.050]
[0.080]
[0.080]
[0.100]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.040]
[0.030]
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.050]
[0.060]
[0.050]
[0.040]
[0.060]
[0.050]
[0.100]
MM5
TRIP
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.090]
[0.080]
[0.090]
[0.090]
[0.200]
[0.200]
[0.200]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.060]
[0.060]
[0.080]
[0.100]
[0.070]
[0.090]
[0.100]
[0.100]
[0.030]
MM5
FIELD
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.020]
.02
[0.040]
.03
.04
.13
.14
.28
.29
.07
.35
(0.090)
.08
.073
.27
.16
.2
[0.050]
.3
(0.510)
.06
.15
.3
TOL
TLI-METHOD
BLANK
(total pg)
[4.300]
[4.300]
[4.500]
[4.500]
[4.600]
[4.700]
[5.300]
[4.800]
[6.700]
[6.700]
[10.70]
[3.200]
[3.200]
[3.800]
[43.00]
[4.000]
[2.700]
[2.800]
[3.800]
[5.600]
[3.400]
[3.200]
[6.000]
[4.200]
[9.100]
TOL
LAB PROOF
BLANK
(total pg)
[2.900]
[2.900]
[2.200]
[2.200]
[2.200]
[2.300]
[2.600]
[2.300]
[3.500]
[3.500]
(32.30)
[2.100]
[2.100]
[2.300]
[2.600]
[2.400]
[1.500]
[1.500]
.5
[3.000]
.9
[1.800]
[3.300]
[2.300]
[4.800]
TOL
TRIP
BLANK
(total pg)
[3.300]
[3.300]
[2.700]
[2.700]
[2.600]
[2.500]
[2.900]
[2.700]
[4.200]
[4.200]
[9.200]
[2.400]
[2.400]
[3.500]
[3.700]
[3.600]
[2.100]
[2.000]
[2.600]
[3.200]
[2.400]
[2.400]
[3.700]
[2.900]
[8.000]
TOL
FIELD
BLANK
(total pg)
[4.600]
[4.600]
[7.100]
[7.100]
[3.800]
[3.700]
[4.300]
[3.900]
[5.100]
[5.100]
(29.50)
[3.000]
[3.000]
[4.900]
[5.200]
[5.000]
.8
.4
.1
[4.300]
3.9
(13.000)
[4.600]
(15.90)
[8.100]
[] = minimum detection limit
0 = estimated maximum possible concentration
-------
TABLE 6-16. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ANALYSES;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF678
13C12-HxCDD 678
I3C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY %
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY %
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
MMS-RUN I
88.9
109.0
84.9
80.9
65.7
64.4
77.8
89.4
72.5
67.5
50.8
81.1
76.4
MM5-RUN2
84.2
111.0
98.3
97.8
75.3
70.5
63.4
97.2
59.5
52.2
33.9
94.6
90.0
MM5-RUN3
84.9
108.0
80.7
78.2
68.7
71.9
75.7
91.5
62.3
58.9
38.0
73.1
69.7
MM5-RUN4
94.2
114.0
88.3
83.3
64.7
65.6
81.8
93.1
73.5
66.4
46.5
83.6
79.7
MMS-RUN 5
84.3
111.0
87.1
85.7
71.6
76.6
64.2
100.0
59.1
55.0
34.8
87.6
78.8
MMS-RUNtf
88.8
122.0
72.7
77.2
65.4
63.9
86.1
98.4
62.1
54.6
45.6
73.0
68.4
MM5-RUN7
88.2
126.0
75.6
82.8
82.4
96.3
78.0
99.5
65.9
60.2
57.9
80.1
76.9
MM5-RUN*
90.3
110.0
64.6
72.2
69.3
76.1
87.7
94.8
64.5
53.0
49.0
78.3
69.7
MM5-RUN9
88.0
111.0
77.3
81.7
71.2
81.6
88.4
93.6
58.1
48.5
35.1
76.7
74.1
MM5-FIELD
FIELD BLANK
90.3
120.0
70.1
78.8
75.5
95.5
83.2
111.0
60.8
58.8
55.5
102.0
74.5
72.8
-------
TABLE 6-16. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ANALYSES (continued);
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
fe
SAMPLE ID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
!3C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY %
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY %
13CI2-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
MM5-FIELD
TLI BLANK #1
100.0
102.0
108.0
106.0
82.8
73.9
92.4
71.1
70.6
55.5
52.6
69.1
89.1
59.2
55.0
41.0
MMS-FJELD
TLI BLANK #2
78.1
99.4
82.4
84.0
76.8
84.8
75.0
83.7
53.8
48.7
43.7
MM^FffiLpji
TLI BLANK #3
80.3
105.0
63.7
66.1
60.8
62.8
82.2
87.4
59.3
49.6
36.1
MM5?fTnBpC»
LABPtKXfl?
90.6
113.0
73.6
74.5
63.5
66.7
78.1
96.0
70.4
67.1
50.6
MMSrRELP
TRIP SLANK
95.4
95.3
106.0
99.2
79.0
88.0
111.0
75.6
80.8
68.1
65.4
92.3
106.0
59.5
53.1
43.6
-------
TABLE 6-17. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF TOLUENE ANALYSES;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
. .' «»*• •••>* ?? . .; •• *• s AMPLE ID; *r» :4-'f : ••• -xw;-;:
FULL SCREEN ANALYSIS
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
I3C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
I3C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
TOL-WJN!
104
134
125
221
76.9
95.5
230
135
103
121
171
142
217
100
105
77.3
108
129
111
TOLrRUN2
99.9
158
140
172
124
137
166
110
102
141
224
137
164
126
124
100
91.1
101
94.5
TOfc-«ON3
96.2
156
115
163
162
136
142
102
110
157
262
123
175
153
198
208
106
127
116
?TOI>RUN4
149
173
118
194
113
124
177
133
146
159
179
118
180
115
137
123
134
154
136
QD-RUN5R
89.8
108
72.6
116
72.2
75.8
93.7
83.6
90.8
104
179
71.1
111
69.8
90.6
87.4
81.1
89.7
83
TOEr-RiJN*
68.3
90.6
77.5
111
74.8
82.3
102
65
73.9
88
93.8
79
107
75.4
93.7
88.4
82.1
91.4
84.3
TOL^RUNr
62.1
82.2
62.5
93.8
58.6
62.3
82.5
58.9
61.2
76.6
88.9
63
87.9
58.9
73.3
65.8
67
76.5
68.1
TOL-RtiNl
68.7
99.1
67.4
113
66
73.2
101
65.8
70.8
88.9
148
68.7
106
64.2
81.6
73
72
81
74.2
TOL-RUN9
55
68.8
60.1
88.1
48.9
47.3
72.8
52
56.6
59.6
78.4
55.9
79.4
52
60.6
54.9
82.9
98.8
79.4
QL-WBLD
86.5
104
72
109
73.2
78.7
98.4
79.8
83.4
99.2
105
69.3
97.8
67
84.6
86
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 6-17. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS (continued)
FOR CDD/CDF TOLUENE ANALYSES;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
N)
-J
. : ••:- • • : -: • ::.. ' ;: ?• ::'::::S AMPLE. Ip ' ,:. ^ «$;:. ;;•;;•; ;; ..; :; ;
FULL SCREEN ANALYSIS
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-HxCDD678
13C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD678
13C12-OCDD
TR0f> BLANK
63.2
81.5
64.9
KM
52.3
61.4
92.1
55.4
64
75.7
150
64.5
98.2
56.2
70
59.6
PROpFBLANJC
71.6
137
86
147
137
105
127
60.2
63
99.2
175
78.6
121
99.9
137
150
^tOilPpBNE
••V"PLANKT;:
109
168
111
175
172
144
167
94.1
101
144
210
110
151
140
186
205
-------
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 MM5 Runs 1-9 FS all met the acceptable
criteria. Many Toluene FS internal standard recoveries were out of the acceptable
range, however these results were still accepted by the laboratory QA officer. (See
Appendix E-3 for QA validation flags.)
Surrogate recoveries are not listed for any MM5 samples.
Table 6-18 present the recovery standards for the ash samples. Further
information on standards recoveries can be found in Appendix E.I. Low internal
standards recoveries were found for Run 5 FS. The majority of the recoveries, however,
were within acceptable limits. At this point, no confirmation anlyses have been
completed on ash from runs 3 and 4.
6.4.2 Metals Analytical Quality Assurance
The analytical methods used for the flue gas samples, the ash samples, and the
metals samples are fully discussed in Section 5. The following paragraph will briefly
report to metals analytical QA parameters.
Table 6-19 present the method blank metals results for both the ash and flue gas
samples. Only barium was detected in the ash blank. No compounds were detected in
the flue gas method blank and small amounts of barium and chromium were found in
the field blank.
Table 6-20 presents the matrix spike results for the metals analyses. All spiked
recoveries were within the QA allowance of ±20 percent of 100 percent except for front
half fractions of thallium and one front half fraction of mercury. This does not appear to
be significant enough to affect the overall quality of the final results.
6.4.3 Halogen Analytical Quality Assessment
The analysis for Cl", F, and Br" incorporate stringent QA/QC guidelines.
Table 6-21 presents the method blank results for the 1C analysis. None of the target
halogen ions were detected in any of the method blanks.
The matrix spike recoveries are also shown in Table 6-21. Results for all 3 ions
were within the 20 percent criteria.
JBS226
-------
TABLE 6-18. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ASH ANALYSES;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
:&:?! p;:' :• • ::V :.:? SAMPLE ID'"' ; •. ':. :.•.•:
FULL SCREEN ANALYSIS
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF678
13C12-HxCDD678
13C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
PRE-TEST
ASH
99.1
100
70.4
72.5
14
22.3
36.1
109
98.6
92.7
84.9
47.6
55.5
17.3
17.6
8.8
77.9
93.8
75.6
ASH-RUN J
85.1
117
131
106
84.5
94.4
120
101
85.2
106
98
99.4
100
122
93.6
73
86.2
82.3
98.3
81.9
ASH-RUN 2
105
114
128
106
73
90.6
116
118
98.2
105
93.4
94.1
92.5
103
78.9
60.3
96.5
116
97.4
^H^RUIN^
99.6
152
147
109
79.1
85.7
137
129
95.7
125
95.5
109
93.7
174
118
182
ASH-RUN 4
94.6
88.3
134
96.9
61.8
80.7
97
109
93.4
90.6
70.3
96.7
86.7
102
75.9
70
ASH-RUNS
96
118
130
124
94.7
11.4
12.2
11.5
14.5
13.6
21.9
10.2
15.7
13.5
17.9
7.0
96.9
115
94.4
ASH-RUN 6
84.7
91
104
105
66.2
82.4
103
84.7
81.3
88.6
83
88.3
97.5
81.4
62.7
67
86
104
74.7
ASH-RUN 7
88.8
104
121
96.4
67.3
78.3
97.1
93.1
89
101
91.2
92.5
92.1
105
82.4
77.5
84.8
114
77.9
ASH-RUN?
82.2
101
128
100
81
83.6
106
90.8
84
97.7
89.6
98.9
96.7
116
91.5
109
82.6
99.9
74.6
ASH-RUN 9
84.6
77.4
119
99.4
72.1
86.8
104
86.6
81.2
78.3
79.3
99.8
98.3
85.7
76.4
61.1
87.6
111
79.9
-------
TABLE 6-19. METALS ASH AND FLUE GAS METHOD BLANK RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
ASH
METHOD
BLANK
(mg/kg)
[32]
[4.0]
4.30
[0.20]
[5.0]
[10]
[10]
[0.039]
[20]
[33]
[54]
FLUE GAS METHOD BLANK
FRONT
HALF
(total wg)
[16]
[3.0]
[0.50]
[0.50]
[1-2]
[2.5]
[25]
[2.4]
[5.0]
[8.2]
[14]
JMPINGERS
1,2
(total ug)
[7.2]
[2.4]
[0.22]
[0.22]
[0.56]
[1.1]
[1.8]
[18]
[2.2]
[3.7]
[6.0]
IMPINGERS
3,4*
(total ug)
[0.78]
FIELD BLANK
FRONT
HALF
(total ug)
[16]
[3.0]
7.25
[0.50]
[1.2]
(5.75)
[25]
[2.4]
[5.0]
(19.8)
[14]
IMHNGERS
1,2
(total og)
[7.0]
20.0
3.42
[0.22]
[0.55]
(2.65)
(1.89)
[21]
(3.20)
[3.6]
[5.9]
IMPINGERS
3,4 a
(total tig)
[1.1]
a Impingers 3 and 4 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only.
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 five times the detection limit.
-------
TABLE 6-20. METALS METHOD BLANK SPIKE RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
MATRIX SPIKE
FRONT
HALF
89.2
90.6
94.0
101
98.6
101
87.4
112
93.0
NC
72.4
IMPINGERS
U
92.8
98.0
94.2
103
105
112
102
94.3
97.0
NC
83.2
IMPINGERS
M
96.8
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
FRONT
HALF
84.0
97.6
93.8
102
98.6
102
94.6
126
92.2
NC
72.2
IMPINGERS
1,2
82.0
94.8
92.0
100
100
104
97.6
89.1
92.4
NC
82.6
IMPINGERS
3,4
95.8
NC = Not Calculated
6-31
-------
TABLE 6-21. HALOGEN METHOD BLANK, LAB PROOF BLANK AND
REAGENT BLANK AND MATRK SPIKE RECOVERY;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
ANALYTE
HC1
HF
HBr
METHOD
BLANK
I
(totaling)
[0.011]
[0.042]
[0.013]
METHOD
BLANK
2
(totaling)
[0.011]
[0.042]
[0.013]
LAB
PROOF
BLANK
(totaling)
[0.011]
[0.042]
[0.013]
REAGENT
BLANK
H2SO4
(totaling)
[11.1]
[0.042]
[0.013]
REAGENT
BLANK
NaOH
(totaling)
0.158
[0.042]
[0.013]
ANALYTE
HC1
HF
HBr
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(*>
98.20
100.00
95.20
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
<%)
101.00
85.60
116.00
NOTE:
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
6-32
-------
An additional QA procedure was employed during this test program to determine
if flue gas halogens were saturating the H2SO4 collection solution and breaking through
into the NaOH solution. The NaOH is not typically analyzed and is used mainly to
protect the dry gas meter from acid gases. The ratio of NaOH halogens to H2SO4
halogens was calcuated for each compound and are presented in Table 6-22. The
NaOH/H2SO4 ratios ranged from 4.09 to 23 percent. With heavier loading (i.e.
Run 4B), HC1 breakthrough appears to occur. However, this data is not consistent in its
patterns (i.e., low loading, Run 2B has one of the highest NaOH/H2SO4
ratios-15.3 percent). The reasons for this variation can not be given at this time. Ratios
of the other two compounds fluctuated a bit more probably because of low
concentrations involved (not really breakthrough, but analytical variation).
6.4.4 Microbial Survivability Quality Assurance
The stock wet spore solution that was used for spiking the incinerator was also
analyzed. These results are listed in Table 6-23. The first sample had a manufacturers
count and average confirmation count of 7.875 x 108 and 7.7 x 108 viable spores/ml,
respectively (all Method 5 calculations were based on the manufacturer's spore count in
units of total spores/bag spike).
A dry spore samples were also sent in for QA analysis. These results are shown
in Table 6-24. The sample was sent to the laboratory as it was received from the
manufacturer (in a glass vial). The confirmation count exceeded the manufacturer count
at 2.3 x 106 versus 3.45 x 105, respectively.
Several pipe samples that were not charged to the incinerator were also submitted
to the laboratory for analysis. These results are listed in Table 2-44. The relatively high
number of spores that were detected on the plate count (35) probably does not represent
the total spores present. This is because all pipe samples were rinsed and filtered
without any dilutions. Henceforth, quantitation of higher numbers of spores (i.e.,
3.45 x 105) is not feasible with this method.
-------
TABLE 6-22. COMPARISON OF HALOGEN RESULTS BETWEEN
H2SO4 IMPINGER CATCHES AND NaOH IMPINGER CATCHES;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE
n>
02B
03B
04B
05B
06B
07B
08B
09B
Reagent
Blanks
COMPOUND
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
HC1
HF
HBr
H2SO4
IMPINGER
CATCH
(totaling)
143
0.948
(0.0387)
203
0.693
0.419
313
4.70
1.22
214
0.537
[0.013]
181
0.440
[0.013]
217
0.493
[0.013]
312
(0.0671)
[0.013]
239
0.361
0.182
11.1
[0.042]
[0.013]
NaOH
IMPINGER
CATCH
(total mg)
21.8
(0.060)
(0.0273)
8.29
(0.0452)
[0.013]
72.0
0.354
0.166
11.4
[0.042]
[0.013]
23.9
[0.0911]
[0.0497]
16.7
[0.042]
[0.013]
16.0
[0.042]
[0.013]
9.91
[0.042]
[0.013]
0.158
[0.042]
[0.013]
NaOH/H2SO4
(*)
15.3
6.33
70.7
4.09
6.52
[3.10]
23.0
7.53
13.7
5.34
[7.82]
NA
13.2
20.7
378+
6.02
8.55
NA
5.15
62.8
NA
4.16
[11.7]
[7.22]
1.42
NA
NA
NOTE:
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
() = Estimated Value (< five times detection limit).
NA = Not Applicable (ratio can not be calculated).
6-34
-------
TABLE 6-23. WET SPORE SPIKE SOLUTION CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
10 ml Spore Suspension
Vial
MANUFACTURER'S
COUNT
(spore/ml)
7.875E+08
CONFIRMATION
AVERAGE ;
(viable spores/ml) :
7.7E+08
CONFIRMATION
COUNT
STANDARD DEVIATION
(viable spores/ml)
1.7E+08
NOTE: Microbial survivability calculations were based on the confirmation count
(7.7E+08 spores / ml in a 500 ml spike bag with four bags added per test run).
6-35
-------
TABLE 6-24. DRY SPORE SPIKE MATERIAL CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
Dry Spore Glass
Vial
MANUFACTURER'S
COUNT
(spores/vial)
3.45E+05
CONFIRMATION
AVERAGE
(viable spores/vial)
2.3E+06
CONFIRMATION
\ - ' COIJNT:' ••'''%:/;
STANDARD DEVIATION
(viable spores/vial):;:
6.0E+05
NOTE: Contents from one vial were used to load each pipe sample.
6-36
-------
6-5 CEM QUALITY ASSURANCES
Flue gas was analyzed for CO, O2, CO2, SO2, NOX, and THC, using EPA
Methods 10, 3A, 6C, 7E, and 25A, respectively. An additional CEM analyzer was also
employed for real time HC1 gas concentrations.
6.5.1 CEM DATA OVERVIEW
The CEM sampling system and instruments were operated utilizing 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. Details of the
CEM QC procedures are fully outlined in this test program's test plan.
The CEM data is a unique form of emissions testing in that it gives you real time,
minute by minute indications of stack gas pollutant and diluent gas concentrations. The
Cape Fear incinerator stack gas emissions were characterized by extreme, very quick
fluctuations in gas concentrations. 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 6-25 presents the CEM internal QA/QC checks along with their respective
acceptance criteria which were conducted at the Cape Fear 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).
Daily drift requirements between calibrations for both zero and span was
± 3 percent of full scale as required by EPA Methods 6C and 3A. Although Method 10
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.
6-37
JBS226
-------
TABLE 6-25. CEM INTERNAL QA/QC CHECKS
Check
Frequency
Criteria
Initial Leak Check
Once/Site
< 4% of Total flow
while under vacuum
Daily Leak Checks
Calibration Drift
Multipoint Linearity
Check (Calibration
Error)
Sample System Bias
Response Time
Before Each Test
Run
Daily
Every 3rd Day
3 point for O2, CO2, NOX,
SO2, HC1
4 point for CO, THC
Every 3rd Day
Zero and Span
Once/Site
< 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 Converter
Stratification Test
Once/Site
Once/Site
> 90% conversion
efficiency
Within 10% of
average
JBS219
6-38
-------
Table 6-26 lists the zero and span calibration drift results for each CEM analyzer
on each test day. No drift corrections were made to the CEM data.
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 full range.
Table 6-27 presents the results of the daily QC gas challenges. One NOX value
exceeded the criterion on 8/22. However, two other QC challenges were made later in
the day with acceptable results.
6.5.4 Stratification Check
Following the tests, NOX concentrations were recorded at four sampling points to
check for possible flue gas stratification. The procedure called for NOX 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. However, the reference point NOX system deviated
from the traverse point NOX system when the probes were placed side by side in the
stack. Therefore only the traverse point NOX values will be reported.
Stratification is determined as the percent difference that a point concentration
deviates from the average of all point concentrations. Stratification is typically defined
as any point concentration deviating from the average concentration by more than
10 percent. As shown in Table 6-28, the largest deviation present during the test series
was 7.70 percent. This then shows that there was no flue gas stratification present.
6.5.5 Multipoint T .ine.aritv 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
6-39
JBS226
-------
TABLE 6-26. GEM DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER: O2
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: 0.2% O2
FULL SCALE: 25
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.02
0.14
-0.02
0.21
-0.09
-0.03
-0.83
-0.01
-0.80
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.23
0.74
0.19
0.10
0.17
-2.49
-0.12
0.66
-0.26
PARAMETER: CO
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 5000
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.00
0.01
-0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.04
0.00
0.02
0.00
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.04
-0.38
0.38
0.00
0.52
-0.16
-0.01
0.02
0.37
6-40
-------
TABLE 6-26. CEM DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS (continued)
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER: CO2
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 20
PATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.01
0.11
0.08
0.00
-0.48
-0.09
0.00
-0.08
0.00
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(& of Span)
-2.26
-0.12
0.23
0.00
-0.36
-0.61
-2.19
-1.85
-0.388 a
PARAMETER: HCL
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 2000
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.11
0.00
0.13
0.00
ND
0.62
ND
ND
0.27
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.13
0.82
0.32
0.03
ND
-9.43
ND
ND
0.72
a No calibration drift corrections were made
6-41
-------
TABLE 6-26. CEM DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS (continued)
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER: SO2
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 500
BATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
RUST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.25
0.00
0.11
0.00
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.00
0.04
-0.01
0.00
0.13
0.24
-0.07
0.07
-0.07
PARAMETER: NOX
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 250
ZERO SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT INSTRUMENT DRIFT
DATE RUN (% of Span) {% of Span)
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.28
0.20
0.28
0.00
0.40
0.15
0.00
-0.29
0.00
1.77
0.51
0.84
0.00
0.05
0.65
-0.26
0.13
2.22
6-42
-------
TABLE 6-26. CEM DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS (continued)
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER: THC
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 100
ZERO SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT INSTRUMENT DRIFT
DATE; RUN (% of Span) (% of Span)
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/28/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.27
-0.22
ND
0.00
-0.54
0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.71
0.40
0.19
ND
0.00
0.15
1.93
-0.65
-0.62
-0.20
ND = Not determined
6-43
-------
TABLE 6-27. QC GAS RESPONSES;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
J>ATE
8/15/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
8/15/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
PARAMETER
02 b
CO(diy) c
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
—
10.00
10.00
10.00
5.02
10.00
5.02
20.2
10.00
10.00
10.00
45.4
453.0
—
95.8
44.5
95.8
44.5
95.8
44.5
181.0
45.8
45.8
95.8
45.8
95.8
95.8
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
—
10.00
9.90
10.00
5.00
9.90
5.00
20.2
10.10
10.00
9.90
45.1
461.2
—
95.1
44.4
89.8
45.0
92.7
45.4
180.1
52.8
43.6
84.9
43.6
97.6
98.2
PERCENT
DIFFERENCE
<*)*
—
0.00
-0.40
0.00
-0.08
-0.40
-0.08
0.00
0.40
0.00
-0.40
-0.06
1.64
—
-0.14
-0.02
-1.20
0.10
-0.62
0.18
-0.18
1.40
-0.44
-2.18
-0.44
0.36
0.48
a percent difference = 100 * (measured value - true value)/span
b in units of percent
c in units of ppm
6-44
-------
TABLE 6-27. QC GAS RESPONSES (continued);
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
8/15/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
8/15/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
PARAMETER
C02b
S02c
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
—
9.00
9.00
5.01
9.00
5.01
9.00
5.05
17.97
9.00
9.00
9.00
—
102.0
50.0
102.0
102.1
50.0
102.1
50.0
197.0
102.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
—
8.80
8.90
4.90
8.80
5.00
9.00
5.02
17.97
8.80
8.80
8.70
—
99.3
50.9
98.4
99.8
50.9
98.0
50.1
197.0
98.8
45.8
45.8
43.6
PERCENT
DIFFERENCE
(%)»
—
-1.00
-0.50
-0.55
-1.00
-0.05
0.00
-0.15
0.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.50
—
-0.54
0.18
-0.72
-0.46
0.18
-0.82
0.02
0.00
-0.66
-0.84
-0.84
-1.28
a percent difference = 100 * (measured value - true value)/span
b in units of percent
c in units of ppm
6-45
-------
TABLE 6-27. QC GAS RESPONSES (continued);
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
I>ATE
8/15/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
8/15/90
8/18/90
8/19/90
8/20/90
8/22/90
8/26/90
8/27/90
8/28/90
PARAMETER
NOXc
THC (wet) c
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
—
49.6
91.0
49.6
91.0
49.6
91.0
49.6
222.0
90.1
49.6
90.1
49.7
49.6
9.93
100.6
45.0
5.00
10.00
45.0
45.0
10.00
45.0
10.00
10.00
45.0
10.00
45.0
100.6
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
—
50.8
90.9
49.3
91.5
49.6
80.4
49.2
222.0
88.9
48.3
88.0
48.5
48.3
10.6
100.8
47.4
5.30
10.6
44.7
44.9
9.90
46.5
8.80
8.80
45.7
9.00
44.6
100.6
PERCENT
DIFFERENCE
(%)»
—
0.60
-0.05
-0.15
0.25
0.00
-5.30
-0.20
0.00
-0.60
-0.65
-1.05
-0.60
-0.65
0.67
0.20
2.40
0.30
0.60
-0.30
-0.10
-0.10
1.50
-1.20
-1.20
0.70
-1.00
-0.40
0.00
a percent difference = 100 * (measured value - true value)/span
b in units of percent
c in units of ppm
6-46
-------
TABLE 6-28. NOx STRATIFICATION CHECK;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE: 8/29/90
POINT
NUMBER
Al
A2
A3
A4
DISTANCE
FROM WALL
(inches) b
1.4
5.25
15.75
19.6
TIME
INTERVAL
11:55- 11:57
11:58- 12:00
12:01 - 12:03
12:05 - 12:07
REFERENCE
AVG. NOx
CONCENTRATION
a
a
a
a
POINT
AVG. NOx
CONCENTRATION
49.3
45.0
44.3
44.5
PERCENT
DJFF. FROM
AVERAGE POINT
(%)
7.70
-1.72
-3.22
-2.79
AVERAGE: 45.78
a Reference probe NOx analyzer went down just prior to stratification check.
b 22" ID Stack.
6-47
-------
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 6-29 presents the results of CEM linearity checks. All linearity checks met
the acceptance criteria.
6.5.6 NO;[ 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 02 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 20 minutes
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. Less than 1 percent
attenuation was observed.
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.
JBS226 6-48
-------
TABLE 6-29. CEM LINEARITY RESULTS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER
02*
CO-lo **
CO-hi **
C02*
SO2 **
NOx**
THC ***
THC ***
DATE
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/22/90
8/19/90
8/28/90
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
0.20
5.02
10.00
20.20
0.00
44.50
95.80
181.00
0.00
453.00
1001.00
9000.00
450.00
0.00
5.05
9.00
17.97
0.00
50.00
102.10
197.00
0.00
4.96
91.00
222.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
45.00
0.00
10.00
45.00
100.60
MEASURE!? §
cx>NCE^^^RA3Ti6N
0.20
5.00
9.90
20.2
0.00
45.4
92.7
180.1
0.00
459.00
875.8
9000.0
475.8
0.00
5.02
9.00
17.97
0.00
50.10
98.00
197.00
0.00
49.2
80.4
222.0
0.00
5.30
10.60
47.4
0.00
9.00
44.6
100.6
CORRELATION
(R)
0.99998
0.99980
0.99990
0.999998
0.99970
0.99849
0.999999
0.99996
* in units of percent
** in units of ppm
*** reported as methane in units of ppm
6-49
-------
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. The 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
p
\
CVp = pooled coefficient of Variation
CVj = Coefficient of variation for a simple sample set i.
rij = 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.
6.6.2 CDD/CDF Data Variation
Table 6-30 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
JBS226
-------
TABLE 6-30. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATIONS FOR THE CDD/CDF FLUE
GAS CONCENTRATIONS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
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 HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Pooled CV
Overall Pooled CV
CONDI
CV
(*)
80.2
76.5
71.3
71.3
70.7
70.7
71.7
72.5
59.6
70.9
42.5
70.8
65.1
65.6
64.7
64.6
61.3
63.4
62.1
73.7
65.3
56.9
58.0
50.5
35.9
64.2
COND2
CV
(«)
52.8
28.9
51.3
34.9
46.3
38.6
36.6
34.7
27.0
29.2
60.2
53.8
38.1
51.2
43.7
37.5
37.3
46.4
20.6
48.1
36.5
27.6
23.5
20.7
67.4
41.5
50.5
COND3
CV
(*)
70.7
51.7
48.0
48.1
51.0
53.4
55.1
60.2
55.5
62.0
36.9
23.8
25.7
33.5
34.1
39.0
47.9
43.2
38.8
36.5
41.6
47.9
43.1
46.9
34.4
46.1
POOLED
CV
(*)
66.8
52.7
55.9
51.0
55.0
53.7
54.1
55.9
49.6
56.9
47.6
50.5
46.0
51.8
49.2
48.6
49.8
51.8
43.9
52.2
49.4
45.8
43.9
41.6
48.3
6-51
-------
program (overall). The overall pooled CV for the CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations
was 50.5 percent.
Table 6-31 presents CVs for the metal flue gas concentrations. The Condition 1
antimony CV and the Condition 3, mercury CV are uncharacteristicly high at 89.8 and
96.8 percent, respectively. The antimony value results from a high concentration of
2,688 ug/dscm for Run 1 compared to 731 and 176 ug/dscm for Runs 5 and 6,
respectively. The high mercury CV results from a run 7 value of 4298 ug/dscm versus
787 and 370 ug/dscm for runs 8 and 9, respectively. The overall pooled CV for the
metals flue gas concentrations is 42.1 percent.
The Halogen gas test CVs are listed in Table 6-32. 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 42.0 percent.
Table 6-33 presents the CV valves 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
90.2 percent. Results from the triplicate manual tests did not fluctuate nearly as much as
the 30 second CEM readings, therefore had much lower CVs.
JBS226 6-52
-------
TABLE 6-31. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF THE
FLUE GAS METALS CONCENTRATIONS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
FLOW HATE (dscmm)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Pooled CV
Overall Pooled CV
CONDnfON
1
CV
(%)
89.8
55.2
55.5
ND
21.2
37.2
32.0
43.9
73.2
57.7
19.3
52.9
42.1
CONDITION
2
CV
<*)
28,8
20.0
7.85
ND
6.32
6.97
15.8
66.4
9.19
30.6
18.0
27.2
CONDITION
1
CV
(%)
35.3
25.1
29.4
47.1
16.8
16.4
37.4
96.8
15.9
40.3
36.7
42.1:111
POOLED
CV
58.1
36.9
36.5
47.1
16.0
23.8
29.8
72.4
43.6
44.3
26.1
6-53
-------
TABLE 6-32. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR
HALOGEN FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
CV-1
CV-5
CV-6
Pooled Condition 1
CV-2
CV-3
CV-4
Pooled Condition 2
CV-7
CV-8
CV-9
Pooled Condition 3
Pooled Analyte
Total Pooled Halogen
na
(%)
6.06
39.11
25.81
28.85
31.84
12.01
15.42
22.22
21.40
25.69
12.42
19.86
23.95
HF
- (%y
22.02
76.14
10.39
48.33
9.88
13.07
73.34
38.02
53.52
87.52
95.72
80.16
58.33
42,00
HBr
(%)
22.44
22.44
61.46
46.53
53.01
10.78
10.78
41.21
6-54
-------
TABLE 6-33. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF CEM GAS CONCENTRATIONS;
CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DATE
08/15/90
08/18/90
08/19/90
08/20/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
08/26/90
08/27/90
08/27/90
Boiled Compound
Overall Pooled
COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION
(percent)
O2
30.6
50.8
39.1
35.2
27.3
18.6
25.4
30.3
32.9
33,4
338.0
C02
24.7
44.9
39.3
24.8
28.4
22.2
37.2
28.0
29.3
31,8
CO
731
529
340
368
643
887
397
528
476
571
NOX
33.6
55.1
60.3
38.6
44.4
37.1
64.3
55.3
57.3
50.7
SO2
125
221
111
68.0
180
73.8
153
323
405
214
Hd
50
123
72.9
186
217
79.1
153
101
83.4
130
THC
232
487
87.2
1668
228
75.0
175
616
332
638
POOLED CV
BY DAY
295
290
145
650
280
339
186
333
271
-------
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.
JBS226
------- |