&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality EMB Report 90-MWI-5
Planning and Standards Volume I
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 December 1990
Air
Medical Waste Incineration
Emission Test Report
AMI Central Carolina Hospital
Sanford, North Carolina
-------
DCN: 90-275-026-26-06
MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATION
EMISSION TEST REPORT
VOLUME 1
Central Carolina Hospital
Sanford, North Carolina
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 vii
Volume I
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Test Objectives 1-1
1.2 Brief Site Description 1-4
1.3 Emission Measurement Program 1-6
1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 1-11
1.5 Description of Report Contents 1-12
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 2-18
2.4 Particulate Matter/Visible Emissions 2-28
2.5 Halogen Gas Emissions 2-32
2.6 CEM Results 2-39
2.7 CEM Burn Down Results 2-42
2.8 Ash Loss-on-Ignition and Carbon Content Results 2-44
2.9 Microbial Survivability Results 2-46
2.10 Particle Size Distribution Results 2-58
2.11 CDD/CDF Emission Values Incorporating the
Toluene Recovery Results
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 3-10
4.0 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 4-1
kal.034 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 5-55
5.6 Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Methods 5-56
5.7 Visible Emissions 5-66
5.8 Process Sampling Procedure 5-66
5.9 Particle Size Distribution Sampling Methods 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 6-4
6.3 QC Procedures for Ash and Pipe Sampling 6-19
6.4 Analytical Quality Assurance 6-21
6.5 CEMs Quality Assurance 6-35
6.6 PSD Quality Assurance 6-42
6.7 Data Variability 6-48
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
kal.034
-------
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 Burn Down CEM Tables and Plots
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 SURVIV ABILITY DATA REDUCTION
G CALIBRATION DATA SHEETS
H SAMPLE EQUATIONS
I PARTICIPANTS
J VISIBLE EMISSIONS OBSERVATIONS PLOTS
K SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS
K.1 EPA Proposed Method 23 - Determination of CDDs and
CDFs from Stationary Sources
K.2 Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions
in Exhaust Gases from Incineration Processes
K.3 Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste
Incinerator Emissions
K.4 Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste
Incinerator Ash
K.5 Determination of HC1 Emissions from Stationary Sources
L ON-SITE EXTERNAL QA/QC DAILY REPORTS
kal.034
-------
FIGURES
1-1 Central Carolina Hospital Incinerator 1-2
1-2 Sampling Locations 1-8
2-1 Run 3 (Test 7) PSD Results - Log Particle vs Mass Fraction Less than
Particle Size 2-64
2-2 Run 4 (Test 7) PSD Results - Log Particle vs Mass Fraction Less than
Particle Size 2-65
2-3 Run 5 (Test 9) PSD Results - Log Particle vs Mass Fraction Less than
Particle Size 2-66
2-4 Run 6 (Test 10) PSD Results - Log Particle vs Mass Fraction Less than
Particle Size 2-67
3-1 Temperature Profile for Run 1 3-12
3-2 Temperature Profile for Run 2 3-13
3-3 Temperature Profile for Run 3 3-14
3-4 Temperature Profile for Run 4 3-15
3-5 Temperature Profile for Run 5 3-16
3-6 Temperature Profile for Run 6 3-17
3-7 Temperature Profile for Run 7 3-18
3-8 Temperature Profile for Run 8 3-19
3-9 Temperature Profile for Run 9 3-20
3-10 Temperature Profile for Run 10 3-21
4-1 Stack Extension Specifications 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
kal.034
-------
FIGURES (continued)
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 III In-Stack Impactor with Particle Pre-Separator
Sampling Train 5-67
kal.034 VI
-------
TABLES
Page
1-1 Central Carolina Hospital MWI Test Matrix 1-7
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 Average Metals Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates at Each
Condition 2-19
2-15 Metals Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 1 2-20
2-16 Metals Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 2 2-21
2-17 Metals Stack Gas Concentrations and Emission Rates for
Condition 3 2-22
2-18 Ratio of Metals to Particulate Matter 2-25
2-19 Metals Amounts in Flue Gas Samples by Sample Fractions 2-26
2-20 Metals and PM Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters 2-27
2-21 Metal and Ash Concentrations 2-29
2-22 Particulate Matter Concentrations and Emissions Results 2-30
2-23 Percent Opacity Observations Summary 2-31
kal.034 VL1
-------
TABLES, continued
2-24 Summary of Halogen Acid Testing Results 2-33
2-25 Summary of HC1 Results for Each Run 2-34
2-26 Summary of HF Results for Each Run 2-35
2-27 Summary of HBr Results at Each Run 2-37
2-28 Comparison of Manual and CEM HC1 Results 2-38
2-29 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Daily Test Run Averages;
O2, CO, C02 and HC1 2-40
2-30 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Daily Test Run Averages;
O2, SO2, NOX and THC „ 2-41
2-31 CEM Burn Down Averages 2-43
2-32 Summary of Ash Carbon Content, LOI and Moisture Results 2-45
2-33 Summary of Incinerator Feed Amounts and Ash Generation Per Run 2-48
2-34 Overall Microbial Survivability 2-51
2-35 Viable Spore Emissions 2-53
2-36 Indicator Spore Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameter 2-54
2-37 Viable Spores in Ash 2-55
2-38 Viable Spores in Pipes 2-56
2-39 PSD Run 3 Results (Test 7) 2-59
2-40 PSD Run 4 Results (Test 7) 2-60
2-41 PSD Run 5 Results (Test 9) 2-62
2-42 PSD Run 6 Results (Test 10) 2-63
2-43 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for
Condition 1 Incorporating the Toluene Recovery Results 2-64
2-44 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for
Condition 2 Incorporating the Toluene Recovery Results 2-65
2-45 CDD/CDF Stack Gas Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent
Stack Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 7 Percent O2 for
Condition 3 Incorporating the Toluene Recovery Results 2-66
3-1 Process Data Summary 3-11
5-1 Test Methods for the Central Carolina Hospital MWI 5-2
5-2 Sampling Times, Minimum Sampling Volumes and Detection Limits
for the Central Carolina Hospital MWI Tests 5-3
5-3 CDD/CDF Glassware Cleaning Procedure 5-6
5-4 CDD/CDF Sampling Checklist 5-11
5-5 CDD/CDF Sample Fractions Shipped to Analytical Laboratory 5-17
5-6 CDD/CDF Cogeners Analyzed 5-18
kal.034 Vlll
-------
TABLES, continued
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 ................... 6-5
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 .............................. 6-16
6-12 Metals Field Blank Results Compared to Average Amounts Collected
During the Test Runs ......................................... 6-17
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 ....... 6-20
6-15 Method Blank and Field Blank Results for the MM5 and Toluene
Flue Gas Samples ............................................ 6-24
6-16 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Analyses; Test Run Samples . . . 6-25
6-17 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Analyses; Blank Samples ...... 6-26
6-18 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Toluene Analyses;
Test Run Samples ............................................ 6-27
6-19 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Toluene Analyses;
Blank Samples ............................................... 6-28
6-20 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Ash Analyses ............ 6-30
6-21 Metals Ash and Flue Gas Method Blank Results ..................... 6-31
6-22 Metals Method Blank Spike Results ............................... 6-32
6-23 Halogen Method Blank, XAD Proof Blank, Reagent Blank and Matrix
-------
TABLES, continued
6-24 Wet Spore Spike Solution Confirmation Analysis 6-34
6-25 Dry Spore Spike Material Confirmation Analysis 6-36
6-26 CEM Internal QA/QC Checks 6-38
6-27 Daily Calibration Drifts 6-39
6-28 QC Gas Responses 6-43
6-29 Linearity Results 6-46
6-30 Coefficients of Variation for the CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations 6-50
6-31 Coefficients of Variation of the Flue Gas Metals Concentrations 6-51
6-32 Coefficients of Variation for the Halogen Flue Gas Concentrations 6-52
6-33 Coefficients of Variation of CEM Gas Concentrations 6-53
kal.034
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Under Section 11008 of the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 (MWTA), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must prepare a series of reports
to Congress that provide information concerning the characterization of medical wastes,
treatment and disposal technologies, and an assessment of the impact of medical waste
on human health and the environment. The MWTA specifically requires that
incineration methods be evaluated to determine their advantages and disadvantages,
including their ability to render a medical waste non-infectious or less infectious, and
unrecognizable.
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is responsible for implementation of the
MWTA and for managing the various studies that are required to prepare the report to
Congress. One of the basic needs in the evaluation of incineration as a treatment
technology is a characterization of emissions and ash from existing MWI's. 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 the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
are working jointly to perform additional studies at typical existing medical waste
incinerator (MWI) facilities. The emission test program described in this report is one
of the studies.
The MWI facility at Central Carolina Hospital in Sanford, North Carolina, was
selected for emissions testing because it is typical of many existing units in which
pathological wastes are burned with a secondary chamber gas retention time of 0.3 to 0.4
seconds, and with no add-on emission control equipment (see Figure 1-1). Other factors
in the selection were that the proximity to Research Triangle Park (RTP),
North Carolina minimized travel expenditures and because the hospital administration
had expressed an interest in cooperating with the EPA in the emission test program.
1.1 TEST OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the testing program at the Central Carolina Hospital MWI
were:
JBS238
-------
Secondary Chamber
Manual
FeedTJoor
Figure 1-1. AMI Central Carolina Hospital Incinerator
1-2
-------
To obtain emission data from a facility that is not equipped with air
pollution control devices and is typical of the existing population of
medical waste incinerators.
To collect data and evaluate the impact of incinerator operation variations
on the emissions and ash 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 paniculate matter (PM), selected
metals, carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrogen chloride (HC1), and polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF).
Determine, 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:
Condition 1 - 100 percent pathological wastes at a charge rate of 100
pounds per hour (Ib/hr) with a 15 minute charge cycle (25 Ib/charge) and
a secondary chamber temperature setpoint between 1800°F and 1900°F.
Condition 2 - A mix of pathological and red bag waste typically burned at
this facility (between 5 and 10 percent pathological waste) at a charge rate
of 250 Ib/hr (manufacturer's rating) with a 15 minute charge cycle and a
1600°F secondary chamber temperature setpoint.
JBS238
-------
Condition 3 - 100 percent pathological wastes at a charge rate of 160 Ib/hr
with a 15 minute charge cycle (40 Ib/charge) and a 1600T secondary
chamber temperature setpoint.
(These conditions were revised from those listed in the final test plan.)
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
AMI Central Carolina Hospital is located in Sanford, North Carolina. The MWI
at this facility is a Consumat Model C-75P. It has a rated capacity of 175 Ib/hr of
Type IV (pathological) waste. A plan view of the facility is shown in Figure 1-1. Two
natural gas-fired auxiliary burners in the primary chamber are used to maintain a preset
minimum combustion temperature. Primary chamber temperatures normally vary
between 1200°F and 1600°F. The unit is charged manually by operating a large
refractory-lined charging door that opens at the front of the primary chamber. It is
designed for 8 to 12 hours of operation each day, and ashes must be removed manually
after cooldown.
The secondary chamber on this unit is sized for a design gas retention time of
about 0.3 to 0.4 seconds. A gas-fired auxiliary burner in the secondary chamber is
activated automatically when the temperature falls below a preset level, normally 1600°F.
Setpoint and actual temperatures in each chamber are displayed on a dial in the control
panel. There is no add-on air pollution control device on this MWI. The stack is about
16 to 18 feet high and has no sampling ports. The unit is located outside, at the rear of
the hospital.
There is a full time operator for the AMI Central Carolina Hospital MWI. The
typical hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. A burn down period of
JBS238 1-4
-------
5 hours on gas-firing is timed by the control panel. The gas is then extinguished and the
incinerator is allowed to cool. The ash is typically removed from the incinerator from
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and stored in 30 gallon metal cans. Two to five cans are filled
each day.
Waste materials are collected by the hospital housekeeping staff. Waste is
collected from all patient contact areas, including patient rooms, examination rooms,
operating and recovery rooms, and laboratories. Included in the waste stream are waste
drugs and chemicals; patient contact items such as disposable garments, dressings,
disposable surgical tools and sharps and diagnostic devices; and human and animal
tissue. Pathological waste is generally from 5 to 10 percent of the total waste weight.
Non-red bag wastes are collected by the housekeeping staff and placed in
standard 30 gallon plastic trash bags, which are twist tied. The bags are transported via
plastic bin type carts from the collection area to the incinerator area. Red bag wastes
bags can be and are mixed with the other bags. The hospital incinerator operator hand
feeds the bags through the incinerator feed door.
The combustion process utilized to incinerate wastes in this type of incinerator is
known as controlled or "starved" air incineration. The unit is designed with two separate
chambers (a primary chamber and a secondary chamber) in which controlled amounts of
combustion air and combustible material are admitted. The lower chamber, known as
the primary air ignition chamber, is operated at below stoichiometric or air starved
conditions when operating on mixed medical waste (dry mode). Excess air conditions
exist when the unit is operated on pathological waste (wet mode). A gas-fired pilot
burner is used to drive moisture and volatiles from the wastes, and initiate the ignition of
the fixed carbon portion of the waste material. Limited amounts of underfire air are
admitted through ports in the lower chamber so that combustion of the fixed carbon
matter can be sustained. Heat input from the gas burner is modulated to keep the lower
chamber temperature within a certain range and to maintain the oxidation of fixed
carbon at varying levels of waste moisture only when burning pathological waste (wet
mode).
The volatile matter is vaporized in the lower chamber and passes into the
secondary combustion chamber. A second gas-fired burner is used to ignite the
JBS238
-------
combustible gases and maintain secondary chamber temperatures within a specified
temperature range. In the secondary chamber, excess air is supplied to achieve more
complete combustion of the volatile matter and entrained solids by providing an
adequate oxygen supply and turbulent mixing.
Detailed descriptions of the MWI facility, its operation, the waste and waste
handling procedures are given in Section 3.
1.3 EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
This section provides an overview of the emissions measurement program
conducted at Central Carolina Hospital. Included in this section are 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 Central Carolina 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
PM/metals tests as well as CDD/CDF tests. The bottom set of ports was used for
halogen emission tests and for the CEM probes. Incinerator ash was sampled every day.
Ash was completely removed from the incinerator every day, 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 PM emissions along with a series of 11 toxic metals [lead (Pb), chromium
(Cr), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), antimony
JBS238
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-1. AMI CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL MWI TEST MATRIX
Sample Number of
Location Runs Sample Type
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Incinerator
Incinerator
9
9
25a
18b
9c
90
9c
90
90
9C
9d
9
9
9
54
Particulates/Metals
(Pb, Cr, Cd, Be, Hg,
Ni, As, Sb, Ag, Ba, Tl)
CDD/CDF
HCl/HBr/HF
Indicator Spores
SO2
02 /C02
NOX
CO
THC
HC1
Opacity
Incinerator Ash
Indicator Spore Pipes
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 Meihod
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method IE
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 houra
2 hoursb
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
4 hourd
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
Radian
Triangle
Labs,
Inc.
RTI
RTI
a3 one-hour runs per test day (2 runs out of 27 planned were not completed).
b2 one-hour 45 minute runs per test day.
Continuous during test periods.
dFour-hour run concurrent with particulate/metals run.
-------
Stack
Particulates
Metals
HO/HBr/HF
Indicator Spores
CUD/CDF
co2
CO
THC
Hd
Incinerator
Bottom Ash
Indicator Spore Pipes
Fugitive Emissions (MRI)
Figure 1-2. Sampling Locations at the
AMI Central Carolina Hospital MWI
1-8
-------
(Sb), barium (Ba), silver (Ag), and thallium (Tl)], were determined using a single sample
train. Paniculate 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, on a chilled adsorbent trap, and in the impingers. The
analysis was completed using High Resolution Gas Chromatography (HRCG) coupled
with High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) detection.
Hydrogen chloride, 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 a 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 types of microbial survivability tests were completed on the incinerator.
These tests were intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the MWI in destroying
indicator organisms in the waste. This was achieved by direct ash sampling and by
spiking the incinerator with surrogate indicator spores encased in insulated double-pipe
containers. Indicator spore spikes were 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 next day following the daily burn cycle, ash samples and pipe
samples were recovered and subsequently 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 culturing, identification, 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
JBS238
-------
in the EPA draft method "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator
Ash."
Visual opacity measurements were also taken continuously during the particulate
test periods. A certified observer documented incinerator stack gas opacity by following
EPA Method 9 protocol.
Gaseous emissions (NOX, CO, SO2, THC, and HC1) were measured using CEMs
continuously during the day. The diluent gases (O2, CO2) were measured using CEMs at
all times when tests were being performed so that the emission results could be
normalized to a reference O2 or CO2 basis. The O2 and CO2 results were also used for
flue gas molecular weight calculations for stack gas flow rate calculations.
Ash was sampled manually and mixed to provide a representative composite
sample. Samples were taken for analysis as follows: LOI, carbon, toxic metals, dioxins,
and microbial analysis. An archive sample was also saved for each test condition.
Indicator spore pipes were charged at regular intervals into the incinerator and
recovered manually for microbial analysis. Detailed descriptions of the sampling and
analytical procedures are provided in Section 5.
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 (Triangle). 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.
Samples from particulate matter/metals emission tests were analyzed by Radian's
Perimeter Park (PPK) laboratory. Analytical procedures were completed using
Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Spectroscopy (ICAPS), Graphite Furnace Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy (GFAAS), and Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
(CVAAS). Incinerator ash was also analyzed for metals content using these techniques.
Particulate matter was analyzed using gravimetric techniques following EPA Method 5
guidelines. Samples from halogen emission tests were analyzed by Radian's PPK
JBS238 1-10
-------
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 (B. stearothermophilus)
by Research Triangle Institute (RTI). Impinger samples (emissions), ash, and pipe
samples were cultured and enumerated using analytical techniques recently developed
specific for this test method. This protocol is given in the EPA draft methods "Microbial
Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions" and "Microbial Survivability
Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Ash.
The incinerator ash was analyzed by McCoy Labs for volatile matter (LOI) by
Standard Methods of Water and Wastes, Method 209G, and for 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 Central Carolina 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 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 no contamination in the CDD/CDF MM5; sample however, the toluene
FB had relatively high concentrations. The halogen FB showed virtually no
contamination; however, the PM/metals FB had high levels of arsenic, chromium, and
nickel. Also the front half analysis for metals Run 10 has not been completed at this
time. Final toluene rinses of the CDD/CDF samples collected only a small portion of
the total MM5 catch.
JBS238
-------
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 Runs 2, 4, and 8 (Condition 2) MM5 samples.
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 64.4 percent
for CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations to 65.0 percent for metals flue gas concentrations.
The overall pooled CV for the CEM data was 159 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 Central Carolina Hospital in Sanford, North Carolina. This
section includes the test objective, a brief site description, an overview of the emissions
measurement program, a brief overview of the QA/QC program, and this description of
the report contents.
Section 2 gives a summary of the test results. Included in the contents of this
section are the emissions test log, CDD/CDF results, toxic metals results, 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 Central Carolina 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, particle size distribution tests, 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
JBS238 1-12
-------
pipe (microbial) sampling, analytical QC procedures and QA parameters, and CEM QC
procedure and QA parameters.
Appendices containing the actual field data sheets and computer data listings are
contained in a separate volume.
1.17
JBS238 x LJ
-------
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section provides results of the emissions test program conducted at the
Central Carolina Hospital MW1 from September 20 to October 2, 1990. Included in this
section are results of manual tests conducted for CDD/CDF, 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 as
well as particle size distribution (PSD) results.
2.1 EMISSIONS TEST LOG
Ten tests were conducted over a 13 day period. A probe liner for the CDD/CDF
sampling train broke during Run 7 and the entire run was invalidated and repeated
(samples from other sampling trains for Run 7 were not analyzed). Table 2-1 presents
the emissions test log. This table shows the test date, run number, test type, run times
and port change 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 Central Carolina
Hospital during the September 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. Because this data was not incorporated into the final emission results, it will be
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
JBS238 2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
9/20/90
9/20/90
9/20/90
9/20/90
9/20/90
9/20/90
9/20/90
9/21/90
9/21/90
9/21/90
9/21/90
9/21/90
9/21/90
9/22/90
9/22/90
9/22/90
9/22/90
9/22/90
9/22/90
9/22/90
9/23/90
9/23/90
9/23/90
9/23/90
9/23/90
9/23/90
9/23/90
9/24/90
9/24/90
9/24/90
9/24/90
9/24/90
9/24/90
9/24/90
LOCATION
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack,
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
RUN
NUMBER
1
1
1A
1B
1C
1A
1B
2
2
2A
2B
2A
2B
3
3
3A
3B
3C
3A
3B
4
4
4A
4B
4C
4A
4B
5
5
5A
SB
5C
5A
SB
a
OPERATING
CONDITION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TEST
TYPE
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
RUN
TIME
14:00-18:18
14:00-18:18
14:09-15:09
15:21-16:21
16:35-17:35
13:58-15:58
15:58-17:58
09:46-13:57
09:45-13:57
09:53-11:43
12:23-14:36
09:43-11:28
11:28-13:43
09:47-14:00
09:45-14:00
09:53-11:53
12:22-13:22
13:35-14:35
09:43-11:43
11:43-13:43
11:40-15:47
11:40-15:47
11:42-12:42
12:52-13:52
14:03-15:03
11:38-13:40
13:40-15:40
11:45-15:52
11:45-15:52
11:54-12:54
13:17-14:17
14:29-15:29
11:44-13:44
13:44-15:44
PORT
CHANGES
"16:10-16:18
16:10-16:18
11:47-11:58
11:45-11:57
11:47-12:00
11:45-12:00
13:40-13:47
13:40-13:47
13:45-13:52
13:45-13:52
a Condition 1: 100 percent pathological wastes (100 Ib/hr, 15 min. cycle, 1800-1900° F)
Condition 2: Pathological/red bag waste mix (250 Ib/hr, 15 min. cycle, 1600°F)
Condition 3: 100 percent pathological wastes (160 Ib/hr, 15 min. cycle, 1600°F)
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG (continued);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/26/90
9/26/90
9/26/90
9/26/90
9/26/90
9/26/90
9/26/90
9/27/90
9/27/90
9/27/90
9/27/90
9/27/90
9/27/90
9/27/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
10/02/9
10/02/9
10/02/9
1 0/02/9
10/02/9
1 0/02/9
10/02/9
LOCATION
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
RUN
NUMBER
6
6
6A
6B
6C
6A
6B
7b
7b
7Ab
7Bb
7Cb
7Ab
7Bb
8
8
8A
8B
8C
8A
8B
9
9
9A
9B
9C
9A
9B
10
10
10A
10B
10C
10A
10B
a
OPERATING
CONDITION
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TEST
TYPE
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
Toxic Metals
CDD/CDF
HCI
HCI
HCI
Spore
Spore
RUN
TIME
10:10-14:15
10:10-14:15
10:22-11:22
11:33-12:33
12:41-13:41
10:08-12:08
12:08-14:08
10:00-14:06
10:00-14:06
10:06-11:06
11:17-12:17
12:27-13:27
09:58-11:58
11:58-13:58
13:45-17:50
13:45-17:50
13:51-14:51
15:01-16:01
16:12-17:12
13:43-15:44
15:44-17:56
11:00-15:05
11:00-15:05
11:11-12:11
12:22-13:22
13:32-14:32
10:58-12:58
12:58-14:58
10:15-14:21
10:15-14:21
10:26-11:26
11:38-12:38
12:47-13:47
10:13-12:13
12:13-14:13
PORT
CHANGES
12:10-12:15
12:10-12:15
12:00-12:06
12:00-12:06
15:45-15:50
15:45-15:50
13:00-13:05
13:00-13:05
12:15-12:21
12:15-12:21
a Condition 1: 100 percent pathological wastes (100 Ib/hr, 15 min. cycle, 1800-1900° F)
Condition 2: Pathological/red bag waste mix (250 Ib/hr, 15 min. cycle, 1600°F)
Condition 3: 100 percent pathological wastes (160 Ib/hr, 15 min. cycle, 1600°F)
b Run 7 data were invalidated due to an incomplete data set (CDD/CDF sampling probe
broke during run)
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2. AVERAGE CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOR EACH
TEST CONDITION; CENTRAL CAROLINA 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)
CONDITION
1
0.26
22.5
0.85
19.1
0.80
1.35
2.49
16.6
8.27
9.89
10.4
92.5
1.43
73.6
2.14
5.27
58.7
8.44
3.74
7.33
0.24
25.0
13.4
2.23
12.0
14.6
22*
321
CONDITION
2
11.7
242
47.01
311
45.5
53.4
98.6
410
249
270
259
2,000
32.2
934
149
184
2367
474
294
233
18.4
1614
681
86.9
500
285
7,850
9,850
CONDITION
3
0.38
23.9
0.94
18.2
0.58
0.89
1.58
10.8
4.75
5.51
6.21
73.8
1.75
67.2
2.03
3.28
38.1
4.26
2.21
3.03
0.15
13.5
6.71
0.94
5.15
5.82
154
228
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; CENTRAL CAROLINA 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
0.72
64.6
2.41
54.6
2.27
3.83
7.07
47.4
23.3
27.9
29.4
264
4.06
210
6.06
14.9
167
24.0
10.6
20.9
0.67
71.0
38.2
6.32
34.2
41.5
650
914
CONDITION
2
29.35
613
118
782
115
135
248
1034
631
683
661
5,050
80.1
2324
373
461
5906
1189
736
585
46.1
4045
1716
219
1262
728
19,700
24,700
CONDITION
3
0.97
60.3
2.37
46.0
1.46
2.25
4.01
27.4
12.1
14.0
15.8
187
4.40
169
5.13
8.29
96.0
10.8
5.61
7.70
0.38
34.2
17.1
2.41
13.1
14.9
389
576
a dscm = dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68°F.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-4. AVERAGE CDD/CDF STACK GAS EMISSIONS FOR EACH
TEST CONDITION; CENTRAL CAROLINA 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 OMHCDF
EMISSIONS
(ng/hr)
CONDITION
1
0.41
36.7
1.38
31.1
1.30
2.20
4.05
27.1
13.4
16.1
16.9
151
2.32
120
3.48
8.56
95.5
13.7
6.08
11.9
0.39
40.6
21.8
3.63
19.6
23.8
371
522
CONDITION
2
18.6
387
75.6
499
73.3
85.9
159
658
402
435
416
3,210
51.2
1481
240
296
3,799
764
473
374
29.6
2,598
1,097
140
805
457
12,600
15,800
CONDITION
3
0.64
39.7
1.56
30.3
0.96
1.48
2.63
18.0
7.90
9.18
10.3
123
2.91
112
3.38
5.45
63.44
7.09
3.69
5.05
0.25
22.5
11.2
1.57
8.57
9.71
256
379
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-5. AVERAGE CDD/CDF 2378 TOXIC EQUTVELENT STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS
ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR EACH TEST CONDITION;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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
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
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, @ 7 percent O2) b
CONDITION
I
0.719
0.000
1.203
0.000
0.227
0.383
0.707
0.000
0.233
0.000
0.029
3.50
0.406
0.000
0.303
7.471
0.000
2.405
1.063
2.089
0.067
0.000
0.382
0.063
0.000
0.041
14.3
17.8
CONDITION
2
29.348
0.000
59.161
0.000
11.505
13.457
24.807
0.000
6.310
0.000
0.661
145
8.014
0.000
18.642
230.514
0.000
118.859
73.562
58.528
4.612
0.000
17.155
2.195
0.000
0.728
533
678
CONDITION
3
0.967
0.000
1.183
0.000
0.146
0.225
0.401
0.000
0.121
0.000
0.016
3.06
0.440
0.000
0.257
4.143
0.000
1.081
0.561
0.770
0.038
0.000
0.171
0.024
0.000
0.015
7.50
10.6
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity Equivalency
Factor (I-TEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. ,
Report No. 176, August 1988.
b ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions defined as 1 atm. and 680F.
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-6. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 1;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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, as measured)
RUN I
0.22
6.17
0.52
5.45
0.34
0.52
1.10
5.12
2.93
3.52
3.45
29.3
0.72
24.7
1.10
2.11
23.5
2.59
1.35
1.66
0.06
7.98
3.31
0.41
2.38
2.00
73.9
103
RUN 3
(0.419)
54.5
1.61
44.9
1.57
2.55
4.89
35.4
14.6
17.9
18.7
197
2.73
165
3.95
10.4
125
18.2
7.55
15.65
0.45
51.5
28.4
4.40
24.8
29.0
4*7
684
RUN 10
(0.130)
6.77
0.42
6.84
0.49
0.99
1.48
9.45
7.30
8.21
9.13
51.2
0.85
30.9
1.37
3.31
27.4
4.55
2.33
4.69
0.20
15.4
8.49
1.87
8.81
12.9
123
174
AVERAGE
0.26
22.5
0.85
19.1
0.80
1.35
2.49
16.6
8.27
9.89
10.4
92.5
1.43
73.6
2.14
5.27
58.7
8.44
3.74
7.33
0.24
25.0
13.4
2.23
12.0
14.6
228
321
EMISSIONS
(ug/hr)
RUN!
0.34
9.73
0.82
8.61
0.53
0.82
1.74
8.07
4.63
5.56
5.45
46.3
1.14
38.9
1.74
3.32
37.1
4.08
2.12
2.61
0.10
12.6
5.23
0.65
3.76
3.16
117
163
RUN 3
(0.688)
89.5
2.64
73.7
2.58
4.19
8.03
58.1
23.9
29.4
30.6
323
4.47
271
6.48
17.0
205
29.8
12.39
25.7
0.75
84.5
46.6
7.23
40.8
47.6
800
1,120
RUN 10
(0.208)
10.8
0.68
11.0
0.79
1.58
2.37
15.1
11.7
13.2
14.6
82.1
1.36
49.5
2.20
5.31
44.0
7.29
3.73
7.51
0.32
24.7
13.6
2.99
14.1
20.6
197
279
AVERAGE
0.41
36.7
1.38
31.1
1.30
2.20
4.05
27.1
13.4
16.1
16.9
151
2.32
120
3.48
8.56
95.5
13.7
6.08
11.9
0.39
40.6
21.8
3.63
19.6
23.8
371
522
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
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-7. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 2;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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 2
7.27
171
22.6
150
21.5
25.4
45.1
209
120
126
156
1,050
22.1
659
63.5
88.3
1015
189
114
111
7.88
649
RUN 4
19.2
341
75.1
503
64.6
82.3
156.4
614
335
365
254
2,810
70.8
1991
288
341
4596
831
524
372
32.5
2809.6
301 1058
45.5
242
210
3,720
4,770
128
743
324
14,100
16,900
RUN 8
8.54
215
43.4
280
50.5
52.5
94.2
406
292
318
366
2,130
3.86
151
96.5
123
1491
403
244
214
14.8
1382.9
684
87.4
516
322
5,730
7,860
AVERAGE
11.7
242
47.0
311
45.5
53.4
98.6
410
249
270
259
2,000
32.2
934
149
184
2367
474
294
233
18.4
1613.8
681
86.9
500
285
7,850
9,850
EMISSIONS
(ug/hr)
RUN 2
10.8
254
33.6
223
32.0
37.8
67.3
312
180
188
233
1,570
32.9
982
94.6
132
1512
282
169
166
11.7
967
449
67.8
361
313
5,540
7,110
RUN 4
30.9
549
121
810
104
133
252
990
540
589
409
4,530
114
3210
465
550
7409
1339
844
600
52.5
4529
1706
206
1197
523
22,700
27^00
RUNS
14.2
357
72.0
465
83.8
87.2
156
674
485
528
608
3,530
6.41
250
160
205
2476
670
406
356
24.6
2297
1137
145
856
535
9,520
13,100
AVERAGE
18.6
387
75.6
499
73.3
85.9
159
658
402
435
416
3,210
51.2
1481
240
296
3799
764
473
374
29.6
2598
1097
140
805
457
12,600
15,800
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
() = estimated maximum possible concentration
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-8. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RATES AT CONDITION 3;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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, as measured)
RUNS
0.25
19.7
0.66
12.4
0.42
0.63
1.29
8.25
4.31
4.66
5.98
58.6
1.18
44.7
1.43
2.44
22.1
3.17
1.64
2.26
0.11
9.28
6.19
0.80
4.63
4.18
104
163
RUN 6
(0.074)
3.77
0.23
3.87
0.19
0.32
0.61
3.93
2.12
2.49
2.56
20.2
0.29
9.77
0.54
0.94
8.31
1.62
0.81
1.28
0.06
4.62
2.86
0.57
2.32
4.51
38.5
58.7
RUN 9
0.83
48.1
1.92
38.4
1.12
1.72
2.84
20.3
7.80
9.39
10.1
143
3.77
147
4.13
6.45
84.0
8.00
4.20
5.56
0.27
26.6
11.08
1.46
8.50
8.76
320
462
AVERAGE
0.38
23.9
0.94
18.2
0.58
0.89
1.58
10.8
4.75
5.51
6.21
73.8
1.75
67.2
2.03
3.28
38.1
4.26
2.21
3.03
0.15
13.5
6.71
0.94
5.15
5.82
154
228
EMISSIONS
(ug/hr)
RUN 5
0.41
32.6
1.09
20.5
0.69
1.04
2.13
13.6
7.14
7.71
9.90
96.9
1.96
74.0
2.36
4.03
36.6
5.24
2.71
3.74
0.19
15.4
10.2
1.32
7.66
6.91
172
269
RUN 6
(0. 125)
6.38
0.39
6.56
0.32
0.55
1.03
6.65
3.59
4.22
4.33
34.1
0.49
16.6
0.91
1.60
14.1
2.74
1.37
2.17
0.10
7.82
4.84
0.97
3.93
7.64
65.2
99.3
RUN 9
1.37
80.0
3.19
63.9
1.87
2.86
4.73
33.8
13.0
15.6
16.8
237
6.27
245
6.87
10.72
140
13.3
6.98
9.24
0.45
44.3
18.4
2.42
14.1
14.6
532
769
AVERAGE
0.64
39.7
1.56
30.3
0.96
1.48
2.63
18.0
7.90
9.18
10.3
123
2.91
112
3.38
5.45
63.4
7.09
3.69
5.05
0.25
22.5
11.2
1.57
8.57
9.71
256
379
a ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter. Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68° F.
0 = estimated maximum possible concentration
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-9. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION I;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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)
RUN1
0.59
16.7
1.40
14.7
0.91
1.40
2.99
13.8
7.93
9.52
9.33
79.3
1.96
66.7
2.99
5.69
63.6
7.00
3.64
4.48
0.17
21.6
8.96
1.12
6.44
5.41
200
279
RUN 3
(1.221)
159
4.68
131
4.58
7.43
14.3
103
42.5
52.2
54.4
574
7.94
482
11.51
30.2
365
52.9
21.99
45.6
1.32
150
82.8
12.8
72.4
84.5
1,420
1,990
RUN 10
(0.349)
18.2
1.14
18.3
1.32
2.65
3.97
25.3
19.6
22.0
24.5
137
2.27
82.9
3.69
8.89
73.6
12.2
6.24
12.6
0.53
41.4
22.8
5.01
23.6
34.5
330
468
AVERAGE
0.72
64.6
2.41
54.6
2.27
3.83
7.07
47.4
23.3
27.9
29.4
264
4.06
210
6.06
14.9
167
24.0
10.6
20.9
0.67
71.0
38.2
6.32
34.2
41.5
650
914
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
0.588
0.000
0.700
0.000
0.091
0.140
0.299
0.000
0.079
0.000
0.009
1.91
0.196
0.000
0.149
2.847
0.000
0.700
0.364
0.448
0.017
0.000
0.090
0.011
0.000
0.005
4.83
6.73
RUN 3
(1.221)
0.000
2.342
0.000
0.458
0.743
1.425
0.000
0.425
0.000
0.054
6.67
0.794
0.000
0.575
15.120
0.000
5.295
2.199
4.561
0.132
0.000
0.828
0.128
0.000
0.085
29.7
36.4
RUN 10
(0.349)
0.000
0.568
0.000
0.132
0.265
0.397
0.000
0.196
0.000
0.024
1.93
0.227
0.000
0.184
4.446
0.000
1.220
0.624
1.258
0.053
0.000
0.228
0.050
0.000
0.035
8.32
10.3
AVERAGE
0.719
0.000
1.203
0.000
0.227
0.383
0.707
0.000
0.233
0.000
0.029
3.50
0.406
0.000
0.303
7.471
0.000
2.405
1.063
2.089
0.067
0.000
0.382
0.063
0.000
0.041
14J
17.8
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.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-10. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 2;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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 2
19.4
455
60.2
399
57.2
67.6
120
558
321
337
417
2,810
59.0
1,757
169
236
2,707
505
303
297
21.0
1,731
803
121
647
560
9,920-
12,700
RUN 4
46.4
825
182
1,217
157
199
379
1,487
812
885
614
6,800
171
4,822
698
826
11,130
2,011
1,268
901
78.8
6,804
2,562
310
1,798
785
34,200
41,000
RUN 8
22.2
560
113
728
131
137
245
1,056
760
827
952
5,530
10.1
392
251
321
3,881
1,049
636
558
38.5
3,600
1,781
227
1,342
838
14,900
20,500
AVERAGE
29.3
613
118
782
115
135
248
1,034
631
683
661
5,050
80.1
2,324
373
461
5,906
1,189
736
585
46.1
4,045
1,716
219
1,262
728
19,700 j
24,700
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR
1.000
1.000
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 2
19.385
0.000
30.097
0.000
5.724
6.764
12.039
0.000
3.214
0.000
0.417
77.6
5.897
0.000
8.468
117.839
0.000
50.502
30.301
29.689
2.102
0.000
8.029
1.214
0.000
0.560
255
332
RUN 4
46.438
0.000
90.952
0.000
15.654
19.940
37.868
0.000
8.116
0.000
0.614
220
17.141
0.000
34.894
413.220
0.000
201.144
126.808
90.078
7.880
0.000
25.624
3.096
0.000
0.785
921
1140
RUN 8
22.221
0.000
56.434
0.000
13.138
13.667
24.513
0.000
7.601
0.000
0.952
139
1.005
0.000
12.565
160.483
0.000
104.931
63.576
55.816
3.853
0.000
17.812
2.275
0.000
0.838
423
562
AVERAGE
29.348
0.000
59.161
0.000
11.505
13.457
24.807
0.000
6.310
0.000
0.661
145
8.014
0.000
18.642
230.514
0.000
118.859
73.562
58.528
4.612
0.000
17.155
2.195
0.000
0.728
533
678
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 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.
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-11. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK
GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 3;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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 \
RUNS
0.66
51.7
1.73
32.5
1.10
1.64
3.38
21.6
11.3
12.2
15.7
154
3.10
117
3.74
6.39
57.9
8.30
4.29
5.93
0.30
24.3
16.2
2.10
12.1
11.0
273
427
RUN 6
(0.198)
10.1
0.62
10.4
0.51
0.86
1.62
10.5
5.67
6.66
6.84
54
0.77
26.1
1.44
2.52
22.2
4.32
2.16
3.42
0.16
12.3
7.65
1.53
6.21
12.1
103
157
RUN 9
2.04
119
4.74
95.0
2.78
4.25
7.03
50.2
19.3
23.2
24.9
353
9.32
364
10.2
15.9
207.7
19.8
10.4
13.7
0.67
65.8
27.4
3.60
21.0
21.7
791
1,140
jercent O2)
AVERAGE
0.97
60.3
2.37
46.0
1.46
2.25
4.01
27.4
12.1
14.0
15.8
187
4.40
169
5.13
8.29
96.0
10.8
5.61
7.70
0.38
34.2
17.1
2.41
13.1
14.9
389
576
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 1 percent O2)
RUN 5
0.657
0.000
0.867
0.000
0.110
0.164
0.338
0.000
0.113
0.000
0.016
2.26
0.310
0.000
0.187
3.194
0.000
0.830
0.429
0.593
0.030
0.000
0.162
0.021
0.000
0.011
5.77
8.03
RUN 6
(0.198)
0.000
0.310
0.000
0.051
0.086
0.162
0.000
0.057
0.000
0.007
0.87
0.077
0.000
0.072
1.260
0.000
0.432
0.216
0.342
0.016
0.000
0.076
0.015
0.000
0.012
2.52
3.39
RUN 9
2.045
0.000
2.372
0.000
0.278
0.425
0.703
0.000
0.193
0.000
0.025
6.04
0.932
0.000
0.511
7.974
0.000
1.979
1.039
1.374
0.067
0.000
0.274
0.036
0.000
0.022
14.2
20.3
AVERAGE
0.967
0.000
1.183
0.000
0.146
0.225
0.401
0.000
0.121
0.000
0.016
3.06
0.440
0.000
0.257
4.143
0.000
1.081
0.561
0.770
0.038
0.000
0.171
0.024
0.000
0.015
7.50
10.6
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.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-12. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
torn No.
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Rim No.
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Rim No.
Date
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (F)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V)
Oxygen Concentration (%V)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume.Vm (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Test Condition 1
1
9/20/90
240
753
3.14
15.8
0.426
2.897
9.42
2359
929
26.3
101
3
9/22/90
240
734
3.07
16.1
0.421
2.862
9.24
2431
966
27.4
95.7
10
10/02/90
240
697
3.37
15.7
0.417
2.837
7.61
2311
943
26.7
97.2
Average
NA
728
3.19
15.9
0.422
2.87
8.76
2367.28
946.07
26.8
NA
Test Condition 2
2
9/21/90
240
813
3.76
15.7
0.385
2.61
7.60
2293
877
24.8
96.3
4
9/23/90
240
773
4.01
15.2
0.407
2.77
6.93
2405
949
26.9
94.3
8
9/27/90
240
750
3.86
15.6
0.434
2.95
6.71
2404
978
27.7
97.6
Avenge
NA
779
3.88
15.5
0.409
2.78
7.08
2367
934
26.5
NA
Test Condition 3
5
9/24/90
240
748
3.46
15.6
0.423
2.87
7.60
2415
974
27.6
95.4
6
9/25/90
240
727
3.4
15.7
0.437
2.97
8.08
2424
997
28.2
96.9
9
9/23/90
240
735
3.67
15.3
0.445
3.02
8.83
2432
979
27.7
99.9
Average
NA
736
3.51
15.5
0.435
2.96
8.17
2424
983
27.8
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 have
been formatted to three significant figures.
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. However, flue gas concentrations
from Condition 2 (250 Ibs/hr-medical waste) were substantially higher than for either of
the other conditions. The average 2378 TCDD concentration for Condition 2 was
11.7 ng/dscm compared to 0.26 and 0.38 for Conditions 1 and 3, respectively. The Total
CDD/CDF concentrations for Condition 2 was 9,850 ng/dscm compared to 321 and
228 ng/dscm for Conditions 1 and 3, respectively.
Average oxygen concentrations for the 3 conditions varied by only 0.9 percent by
volume (see Section 2.7). Therefore, relative corrected flue gas concentrations for each
condition are proportionately similar to the uncorrected values. Corrected 2378 TCDD
flue gas concentrations for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 0.72, 29.35, and 0.97 ng/dscm at 7
percent 02, respectively. Total CDD/CDF corrected concentrations for the above
conditions were 914, 24,700, and 576 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 0.41, 18.6, and
0.64 ug/hr, respectively. Average Total CDD/CDF emissions for Conditions 1, 2, and 3
were 522, 15,800, and 379 /^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 TEFs used in this report are the international TEF (I-TEF) developed
by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee of the Challenges of Modern
Society (NATO/CCMS(l)).were developed by EPA.(1) The average 2378 Toxic
Equivalent Concentrations for Total CDD/CDF for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were 17.8,
678, and 10.6 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2, respectively.
JBS238
-------
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, 3, and 10, whereas Conditions 2 and 3 were made
up of Runs 2, 4, and 8 and Runs 5, 6, 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 hi
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 one-half 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 composite ash samples were
then taken using a 4 foot sample thief. Three daily ash samples from each run from a
given condition were composite into a single ash sample per Condition.
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.
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. As was the
case with CDD/CDF flue gas emissions, ash from Condition 2 had the highest
concentration of congeners. The 2378 TCDD concentration for Conditions 1, 2, and 3
JBS238 2-16
-------
TABLE 2-13. CDD/CDF AVERAGE ASH RESULTS FOR EACH CONDITION;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL 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
COND 1
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.030
1.070
0.110
1.190
0.120
0.110
0.350
1.120
0.620
0.780
0.830
6.330
7.100
22.700
0.830
2.500
24.570
6.000
1.200
3.300
0.030
8.570
6.000
0.210
2.590
1.300
86,9
93.2
COND 2
ASH
(ppb.wt)
0.120
13.080
0.630
18.970
0.810
1.400
2.500
26.090
10.800
14.900
12.500
101.800
9.900
32.900
1.400
4.000
37.800
10.300
3.200
7.500
(0.180)
19.800
15.600
1.300
8.400
8.000
160
262
COND 3
ASH
(ppb.wt)
(0.010)
0.350
0.030
0.550
0.040
0.050
0.100
0.490
0.270
0.380
0.360
2.630
1.700
4.100
0.160
0.650
5.890
1.700
0.360
1.200
0.010
2.430
2.100
0.090
1.010
0.550
22.0
24.6
2378-TCDD h
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
CONDI
TEF
(Ppb.wt)
0.030
0.000
0.055
0.000
0.012
0.011
0.035
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.001
0.150
0.710
0.000
0.042
1.250
0.000
0.600
0.120
0.330
0.003
0.000
0.060
0.002
0.000
0.001
3.118
3.268
COND 2
TEF
(ppb.wt)
0.120
0.000
0.315
0.000
0.081
0.140
0.250
0.000
0.108
0.000
0.013
1.027
0.990
0.000
0.070
2.000
0.000
1.030
0.320
0.750
(0.0180)
0.000
0.156
0.013
0.000
0.008
5.355
6.382
COND 3
TEF
(ppb.wt)
(0.0100)
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.004
0.005
0.010
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.047
0.170
0.000
0.008
0.325
0.000
0.170
0.036
0.120
0.001
0.000
0.021
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.852
0.900
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 (I-TEF)
Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176,
August 1988.
2-17
-------
were 0.03, 0.12 and 0.010 ppb, respectively. Total CDD/CDF concentrations for the
three conditions were 93.2, 262, and 24.6 ppb, respectively. The total CDD/CDF TEF
concentrations for the three conditions were 3.27, 6.38, and 0.90 ppb wt., 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, Cr, 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 2-14. The results for each individual
run are presented in Tables 2-15 through 2-17. Concentrations at dry, standard
conditions, and concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown.
The values reported in Tables 2-14 through 2-17 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.
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.
JBS238 2-18
-------
TABLE 2-14. AVERAGE METALS STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND
EMISSION RATES AT EACH CONDITION;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST CONDITION
RUN NUMBERS
Antimony (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
la
1,3,10
51.9
142
0.078
16.1
43.9
0.026
8.43
23.9
0.013
[0.080]
[0.222]
[0.0001]
89.5
260
0.130
8.74
25.0
0.013
234
663
0.356
22.5
60.3
0.034
10.0
29.2
0.014
[1.312]
[3.634]
[0.002]
2.34
6.34
0.004
2
2,4,8
237
612
0.368
4.29
11.1
0.007
33.5
86.2
0.052
0.442
1.11
0.001
21.3
55.0
0.033
14.1
36.3
0.022
726
1878
1.12
3.08
7.96
0.005
10.0
25.8
0.016
5.516
14.233
0.008
[2.116]
[5.428]
[0.003]
3
5,6,9
22.8
59.0
0.037
33.5
83.3
0.056
11.5
29.7
0.019
[0.075]
[0.196]
[0.0001]
7.91
20.5
0.013
71.61
190
0.112
119
307
0.197
69.6
182
0.115
112
298
0.177
[1.230]
[3.189]
[0.002]
[2.005]
[5.196]
[0.003]
a Condition 1 averages do not include Run 10, front half, and therefore are biased low.
NOTE: Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits for compounds
not detected in the samples. Detection limits are only presented if the compound
was not detected in any of the three test runs.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-15. METALS STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES FOR
CONDITION 1;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
TIME
RUN NUMBER
O2 CONCENTRATION (%V)
FLOW RATE (dscmm)
Antimony (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @1% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
09/20/90
14:00-18:18
RUN1
15.8
27.1
20.8
56.3
0.034
43.7
118
0.071
8.82
23.9
0.014
[0.076]
[0.206]
[0.0001]
5.94
16.1
0.010
5.87
15.9
0.010
189
512
0.308
1.60
4.32
0.003
[0.763]
[2.063]
[0.001]
[1.249]
[3.378]
[0.002]
2.34
6.34
0.004
09/22/90
09:47-14:00
RUN 3
16.1
24.1
32.3
94.1
0.047
4.20
12.2
0.006
16.2
47.2
0.023
[0.084]
[0.245]
[0.0001]
173
504
0.250
19.84
57.8
0.029
279
814
0.404
[0.316]
[0.921]
[0.000]
10.0
29.2
0.014
[1.376]
[4.010]
[0.002]
[2.254]
[6.568]
[0.003]
10/02/90
10:15-14:21
RUN 10
15.7
25.0
103
275
0.154
0.48
1.30
0.001
0.275
0.737
0.000
[0.080]
[0.215]
[0.0001]
[0.197]
[0.529]
[0.000]
0.509
1.37
0.001
[0.116]
[0.311]
[0.000]
43.3
116
0.065
[0.801]
[2.149]
[0.001]
[1.310]
[3.515]
[0.002]
[2.111]
[5.665]
[0.003]
AVERAGE
51.9
142
0.078
16.1
43.9
0.026
8.43
23.9
0.013
[0.080]
[0.222]
[0.0001]
89.5
260
0.130
8.74
25.0
0.013
234
663
0.356
22.5
60.3
0.034
10.0
29.2
0.014
[1.312]
[3.634]
[0.002]
2.34
6.34
0.004
Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits for compounds not detected
in the samples. Detection limits are included in the averages unless otherwise indicated.
2-20
-------
TABLE 2-16. METALS STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES FOR
CONDITION 2;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
TIME
RUN NUMBER
O2 CONCENTRATION (%V)
FLOW RATE (dscmm)
Antimony (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/br)
Barium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7 % O2)
(gnu)
Beryllium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm ©7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
09/21/90
09:46-13:57
2
15.69
24.45
265
706
0.388
6.40
17.1
0.009
40.3
108
0.059
[0.083]
[0.221]
[0.0001]
20.8
55.4
0.030
16.3
43.6
0.024
891
2380
1.31
4.02
10.7
0.006
5.34
14.2
0.008
7.11
19.0
0.010
[2.180]
[5.816]
[0.003]
09/23/90
11:40-15:47
4
15.16
26.26
164
398
0.259
3.81
9.23
0.006
31.4
76.1
0.049
0.446
1.08
0.001
17.5
42.4
0.028
12.9
31.2
0.020
500
1210
0.787
2.14
5.19
0.003
5.28
12.8
0.008
3.93
9.51
0.006
[2.106]
[5.100]
[0.003]
09/27/90
13:45- 17:50
8
15.56
27.04
282
733
0.457
2.65
6.90
0.004
28.9
75.1
0.047
0.437
1.14
0.001
25.8
67.1
0.042
13.1
34.1
0.021
786
2050
1.28
[0.266]
[0.692]
[0.0004]
19.4
50.5
0.031
[1.258]
[3.275]
[0.002]
[2.062]
[5.367]
[0.003]
AVERAGE
237
612
0.368
4.29
11.1
0.007
33.5
86.2
0.052
0.442
1.11
0.001
21.3
55.0
0.033
14.1
36.3
0.022
726
1880
1.12
3.08
7.96
0.005
10.0
25.8
0.016
5.52
14.2
0.008
[2.116]
[5.428]
[0.003]
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.
2-21
-------
CONDITION 3;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
TIME
RUN NUMBER
O2 CONCENTRATION (%V)
FLOW RATE (dscmm)
Antimony (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
"hallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @1% O2)
(g/hr)
09/24/90
11:45-15:52
5
15.60
27.49
22.0
57.6
0.036
3.78
9.92
0.006
9.00
23.6
0.015
[0.075]
[0.197]
[0.0001]
5.11
13.4
0.008
14.1
37.1
0.023
125
329
0.207
69.6
182
0.115
12.2
32.0
0.020
[1.226]
[3.215]
[0.002]
[2.010]
[5.272]
[0.003]
09/25/90
10:10-14:15
6
15.70
25.90
21.0
56.1
0.033
4.90
13.1
0.008
13.5
36.0
0.021
[0.078]
[0.209]
[0.0001]
9.72
26.0
0.015
189
506
0.294
75.6
202
0.117
[0.273]
[0.730]
[0.0004]
292
780
0.454
[1.277]
[3.414]
[0.002]
[2.057]
[5.499]
[0.003]
Note: ' "
09/28/90
11:00-15:05
9
15.2*
2S.21
25.6
63.3
0.043
91.7
227
0.155
11.9
29.4
0.020
[0.073]
[0.181]
[0.0001]
8.91
22.0
0.015
11.5
28.4
0.019
157
389
0.266
[0.215]
[0.532]
[0.0004]
33.3
82.4
0.056
[1.188]
[2.938]
[0.002]
[1.947]
[4.816]
[0.003]
AVERAGE
22.8
59.0
0.037
33.5
83.3
0.056
11.5
29.7
0.019
[0.075]
[0.196]
[0.0001]
7.91
20.5
0.013
71.6
190
0.112
119
307
0.197
69.6
182
0.115
112
298
0.177
[1.230]
[3. 189]
[0.002]
[2.005]
[5.196]
[0.003]
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.
2-22
-------
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 2-14 presents the metals emission parameters averaged for each condition.
Concentrations at standard conditions, concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2, and
emission rates are shown. No condition consistently had higher emission rates of all
metals. Average emissions of antimony, barium, beryllium, lead, and silver were highest
for Condition 2. Emissions of cadmium and thallium were highest during Condition 1
and emissions of arsenic, chromium, mercury, and nickel were highest during Condition
3. Lead had the highest emission rates of all metals under each condition at 0.356, 1.12,
and 0.197 g/hr for Conditions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Beryllium, silver, and thallium
were not detected in two out of the three test conditions.
Table 2-15 presents the metals emission results for Condition 1 (100 Ib/hr
pathological waste, 15 minute cycle, 1800-1900°F secondary setpoint). The results for
Run 10 do not include the front half catch (probe rinses, filter). The results for this run
should therefore be considered suspect low. Lead had the highest emission rates during
Runs 1 and 3 at 0.308 and 0.404 g/hr, respectively. Arsenic emissions during run 1 were
substantially higher than those from run 3 with values of 0.071 and 0.006 g/hr,
respectively.
The metals emission results for Condition 2 (250 Ib/hr-medical waste, 15 minute
cycle) are presented in Table 2-16. Lead showed the highest metals flue gas
concentrations of 891, 500, and 786 ^g/dscm (1.31, 0.787, and 1.28 g/hr) for Runs 2, 4,
and 8, respectively.
2-23
JBS238 L ^°
-------
Table 2-17 presents the metals emission results for Condition 3 (160 Ib/hr
pathological waste, 15 minute cycle). Emission rates of nickel during Run 6 at 0.454
g/hr were higher than any other metals. Arsenic emissions during Run 9 at 0.155 g/hr
were substantially higher than for Runs 5 and 6 (0.006 and 0.008 g/hr), respectively.
A summary of the ratio by weight of metals to PM is presented in Table 2-18.
Metals to PM ratios are given in units of milligrams of metal to grams of PM collected
by the sampling train. The range of values were 0.001 mg beryllium per gram of PM
during run 4 to 8.092 mg lead per gram of PM during Run 3.
Table 2-19 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 thallium (Run 1),
silver (Runs 2 and 4) and mercury, (Run 5), the higher proportion of most metals was
collected in the front half fractions. The above metals had higher catches in the
Impingers 1 and 2 fractions. 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 2-20. Total sampling times, sample volumes, and isokinetic results for each
sampling run are presented. Appendix C.2 contains a complete listing of these and
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.
JBS238
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-18. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICIPATE MATTER;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
MET ALS/P ARTICULATE RATIO
(rag metal per gram of particulate)
TEST CONDITION
RUN NUMBER
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
CONDITION 1
I
0.592
1.244
0.251
ND
0.169
0.167
5.392
0.046
ND
ND
0.067
3
0.936
0.122
0.469
ND
5.013
0.575
8.092
0.000
0.290
ND
ND
10
2.896
0.014
0.008
ND
ND
0.014
ND
1.222
ND
ND
ND
AVERAGE
1.475
0.460
0.243
ND
2.591
0.252
6.742
0.422
0.290
ND
0.067
CONDITION 2
2
1.709
0.041
0.260
ND
0.134
0.105
5.755
0.026
0.034
0.046
ND
4
0.187
0.004
0.036
0.001
0.020
0.015
0.568
0.002
0.006
0.004
ND
8
1.320
0.012
0.135
0.002
0.121
0.061
3.686
ND
0.091
ND
ND
AVERAGE
1.072
0.019
0.144
0.001
0.092
0.061
3.336
0.014
0.044
0.025
ND
CONDITION 3
5
0.657
0.113
0.269
ND
0.153
0.423
3.749
2.082
0.365
ND
ND
6
0.401
0.093
0.257
ND
0.186
3.612
1.442
ND
5.573
ND
ND
9
0.579
2.075
0.269
ND
0.202
0.260
3.561
ND
0.754
ND
ND
AVERAGE
0.546
0.761
0.265
ND
0.180
1.432
2.918
2.082
2.231
ND
ND
to
ND = Metal not detected in the flue gas.
-------
TABLE 2-19. METALS AMOUNTS IN FLUE GAS SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
CONDITION I
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUN!
FRONT
HALF
60
126
25.0
[0.500]
16.2
14.6
546
[2.400]
[5.000]
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1,2
[6.900]
[0.430]
0.433
[0.220]
0.92
2.33
[3.200]
[6.500]
[2.200]
[3.600]
6.76
IMPINGER
3,4 b
4.61
RUR3
FRONT
HALF
76.5
11.0
41.8
[0.500]
452
48.0
731
[2.400]
26.2
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1.2
8.05
[0.440]
0.544
[0.220]
0.871
3.92
[3.300]
[6.000]
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.900]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
[0.826]
RUN 10
FRONT
HALF
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IMPINGERS
1,2
282
1.33
0.755
[0.220]
[0.540]
1.4
[0.320]
119
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
[0.550]
CONDITION 2
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUN 2
FRONT
HALF
655
15.8
106.0
[0.500]
55.2
40.0
2370
[2.400]
14.2
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1.2
49.0
1.23
1.19
[0.220]
[0.540]
3.45
[3.200]
[6.700]
[2.200]
18.9
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
10.7
RUN 4
FRONT
HALF
412
8.93
85.8
1.25
49.0
27.0
1400
6.00
14.8
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1,2
47.8
1.75
2.18
[0.220]
[0.540]
9.05
[3.300]
[5.900]
[2.200]
11.0
[5.900]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
[0.670]
RUNS
FRONT
HALF
748
6.80
80.2
1.25
73.8
32.8
2250
[2.400]
55.5
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1,2
58.0
0.780
2.39
[0.220]
[0.540]
4.68
[3.300]
[6.100]
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.900]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
[0.760]
CONDITION 3
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUNS
FRONT
HALF
64.5
11.1
26.0
[0.500]
15.0
41.5
368
4.80
35.8
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1,2
[7.000]
[0.440]
0.435
[0.220]
[0.540]
[1.100]
[3.300]
113
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.900]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
86.5
RUN 6
FRONT
HALF
59.2
13.8
33.2
[0.500]
26.0
532.0
213
[2.400]
823
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1,2
[6.900]
[0.430]
4.76
[0.220]
1.41
1.41
[3.200]
[6.400]
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.800]
IMPINGER
3.4 b
[0.770]
RUN 9
FRONT
HALF
77.5
278
34.8
[0.500]
27.0
33.5
477
[2.400]
101
[8.200]
[14.00]
IMPINGERS
1,2
[7.000]
[0.440]
1.20
[0.220]
[0.540]
1.30
[3.300]
[6.100]
[2.200]
[3.600]
[5.900]
IMPINGER
3,4 b
[0.650]
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.
NC = Analysis not completed at this time.
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-20. METALS AND PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
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
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
09/20/90
240
0.42
101.81
2.883
751.5
15.8
3.1
9.4
956.00
27.07
97.0
3
09/22/90
240
0.39
92.41
2.617
759.0
16.1
3.1
9.9
850.54
24.09
98.9
10
10/02/90
240
0.40
97.02
2.748
749.4
15.7
3.4
8.1
882.08
24.98
100
AVERAGE
NA
0.40
97.08
2.749
753.3
15.9
3.2
9.1
896.21
25.38
NA
TEST CONDITION 2
2
09/21/90
240
0.39
93.92
2.660
809.4
15.7
3.76
8.4
863.34
24.45
99.1
4
09/23/90
240
0.41
98.89
2.801
778.9
15.2
4.0
7.8
927.14
26.26
97.1
8
09/27/90
240
0.42
101.01
2.861
766.3
15.6
3.9
6.8
954.69
27.04
96.3
AVERAGE
NA
0.41
97.94
2.774
784.9
15.5
3.9
7.7
915.05
25.91
NA
TEST CONDITION 3
5
09/24/90
240
0.43
103.67
2.936
746.4
15.6
3.5
8.3
970.52
27.49
97.3
6
09/25/90
240
0.42
99.55
2.819
724.6
15.7
3.4
8.6
914.65
25.90
99.1
9
09/28/90
240
0.45
106.98
3.030
770.9
15.3
3.7
9.0
996.12
28.21
97.8
AVERAGE
NA
0.43
103.40
2.928
747.3
15.5
3.5
8.6
960.43
27.20
NA
NA = Not Applicable
2-27
-------
The metals in ash results are shown in Table 2-21 for each test condition. Barium
was the most prevalent metal found in the ash from all test conditions at 2,630, 7,260,
and 245 mg/kg for Conditions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. All metals except silver were
detected in at least 1 of the samples. Analytical results of the ash analyses are contained
in Appendix E.2.
2.4 PARTICULATE MATTER/VISIBLE EMISSIONS
2.4.1 Paniculate Matter Results
Paniculate 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, as well as averages
for each test condition are presented in Table 2-22. Unconnected concentrations and
concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown. Test Condition 2 had the highest
concentrations and emission rates (0.182 gr/dscf and 1.439 Ib/hr) while Test Condition 1
had the lowest (0.015 gr/dscf and 0.118 Ib/hr). A brief summary of the sampling and
flue gas parameters for the PM runs is given in Table 2-20 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.
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 2-23. Test Conditions 1 and 3 both had an average percent opacity
of 0 and Test Condition 2 had an average percent opacity of 13.
JBS238
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-21. METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
Test Condition
Run No/s
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
1
1,3,10
(mg/kg)
9.60
11.7
2630
1.60
3.30
30.4
78.4
[0.039]
7.20
[3.3]
72.7
2
2,4,8
(mg/kg)
19.2
45.5
7260
4.10
1.20
26.7
232
0.0450
15.1
[3.3]
1820
3
5,6,9
(mg/kg)
[6.4]
[4.0]
245
1.00
[0.50]
8.30
[15.7]
[0.039]
[2.0]
[3.3]
410
a Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits
for elements not dectected in the samples.
2-29
-------
TABLE 2-22. PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/22/90
10/02/90
09/21/90
09/23/90
09/27/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/28/90
SAMPLING
CONDITION
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
RUN NUMBER
1
3
10
2
4
8
5
6
9
TIME
14:00-18:18
09:47-14:00
10:15-14:21
AVERAGES:
09:46-13:57
11:40-15:47
13:45-17:50
AVERAGES:
11:45-15:52
10:10-14:15
11:00-15:05
AVERAGES:
FLUE GAS CONCENTRATION
(grains/dscf)
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.068
0.384
0.093
0.182
0.015
0.023
0.019
0.019
(grains/dscf
©7% 02)
0.042
0.044
0.042
0,043
0.181
0.931
0.243
0,451
0.038
0.061
0.048
0.049
(grams/dscm)
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.155
0.879
0.213
0.416
0.033
0.052
0.044
0.043
(grams/dscm
@7% O2)
0.095
0.101
0.095
0.097
0.413
2.129
0.555
1.033
0.088
0.140
0.109
0.112
FLUE GAS EMISSION RATE
(Ib/br)
0.126
0.110
0.117
0.118
0.501
3.054
0.763
1.439
0.122
0.179
0.165
0.155
(kg/hr)
0.057
0.050
0.053
0.053
0.227
1.385
0.346
0.653
0.055
0.081
0.075
0.070
-------
TABLE 2-23. PERCENT OPACITY OBSERVATIONS SUMMARY;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN NUMBER
DATE
TIME
Range of Individual Observations (% opacity) (a)
Range of Set Averages ( % opacity) (b)
Run Average (% opacity) (c)
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
09/20/90
14:00-18:18
0-5
0
0
3
09/22/90
09:47-14:00
0-5
0-1
0
0
10
10/02/90
10:15-14:21
0-10
0-1
0
TEST CONDITION 2
2
09/21/90
09:46-13:57
0-100
0-23
5
4
09/23/90
11:40-15:47
0-100
0-71
28
13
8
09/27/90
13:45-17:50
0-80
0-21
6
TEST CONDITION 3
5
09/24/90
11:45-15:52
0-25
0-1
0
6
09/25/90
10:10-14:15
0-25
0-3
0
0
9
09/28/90
11:00-15:05
0-25
0-2
0
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.
2-31
-------
2.5 HALOGEN GAS EMISSIONS
Hydrogen chloride (HC1), 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", bromide (Br~), and fluoride (F) ions present in the sample. Three test runs were
performed at each of the three operating conditions described previously.
2.5.1 Halogen Gas Emissions Results
Table 2-24 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 1 and 3 had similar average HC1 concentrations at 45.1 and 43.7 ppmV,
respectively. The Condition 2 average was 593 ppmV HC1. 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 2.15, 9.96, and 1.28 ppmV.
respectively. Average HBr concentrations were 0.20, 0.55, and 0.16 ppmV for the above
conditions, respectively.
Table 2-25 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 19.4 ppmV for Run 1A to 943 ppmV for
Run 8C. The corresponding HC1 emission rates were 47.1 and 2,347 g/hr, respectively.
Table 2-26 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. Run 2B had a concentration substantially higher than the rest of the runs
at 23.7 ppmV, respectively. The range of concentrations for the other runs was 0.755 to
10.7 ppmV for Runs 1A and 8A, respectively. Emissions rates ranged from 1.006 to 29.1
g/hr.
JBS238 2-32
-------
N)
U)
TABLE 2-24. SUMMARY OF HALOGEN ACID TESTING RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
AVERAGE 1
AVERAGE 3
AVERAGE 10
AVERAGE COND 1
AVERAGE 2
AVERAGE 4
AVERAGE 8
AVERAGE COND 2
AVERAGE 5
AVERAGE 6
AVERAGE 9
AVERAGE COND 3
HC1 CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
32.1
65.3
38.1
45.1
487
647
644
593
37.6
31.1
62.3
43.7
(ppmv
@7% 02)
84.1
186
99.0
123
1,277
1,583
1,753
1,537
100
81.2
153
111
HF CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
(1.17)
3.11
2.16
1.76
16.2
5.75
7.95
9.96
(1.431)
(0.942)
(1.456)
0.00
(ppmv
@7% 02)
(3.07)
8.96
5.64
4.87
46.6
13.44
20.06
26.7
(3.771)
(2.46)
(3.58)
0.00
HBr CONCENTRATION
(ppmv)
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.47
0.47
0.71
0.55
[0.032]
(0.158)
0.17
0.16
(ppmv
@7% 02)
0.54
0.60
0.49
0.54
1.15
1.09
1.88
1.37
[0.084]
(0.412)
0.42
0.42
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-25. SUMMARY OF HC1 RESULTS FOR EACH CONDITION;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE
RUN5A
RUN5B
RUN5C .
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
RUN 10A
RUN 10B
RUN IOC
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
29.4
54.1
62.3
48.6
802
674
NA
738
101
96.7
NA
99.0
327
1,276
1,342
981
49.7
48.1
73.1
57,0
47.8
43.3
50.5
47.2
630
868
1,430
976
120
60.0
104
94.5
97.0
40.0
36.1
57.7
(mg/dscm
@7% O2)
79.3
135
169
128
1,764
2,109
NA
1,936
278
285
NA
282
715
3,068
3,415
2,399
131
117
206
151
125
111
134
123
1,334
2,436
4,201
2,657
283
141
271
232
252
97.9
100.5
150.1
(ppmv)
19.4
35.7
41.1
32,1
529
444
NA
487
66.8
63.8
NA
65.3
216
841
885
647
32.8
31.7
48.2
37.6
31.5
28.6
33.3
31.1
416
572
943
644
79.1
39.6
68.4
62.3
64.0
26.4
23.8
38.1
(ppmv
@7% 02)
52.3
88.9
111
84.1
1,164
1,391
NA
1,277
184
188
NA
186
471
2,024
2,253
1,583
86.4
77. 1
136
100
82.2
73.1
88.2
81.2
880
1,607
2,771
1,753
187
93.0
179
153
166
64.6
66.3
99.0
EMISSION
RATE
(g/hr)
47.1
86.6
99.8
77.8
1,186
996
NA
1,091
156
149
NA
153
521
2,033
2,138
1,564
82.0
79.4
121
94.1
77.6
70.3
82.0
76.6
1,035
1,424
2,347
1,602
201
101
174
159
150
62.0
56.0
89.5
NA = Not Applicable (Runs not completed)
2-34
-------
TABLE 2-26. SUMMARY OF HF RESULTS FOR EACH CONDITION;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE
RUN5A
RUN5B
RUN5C
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
RUN10A
RUN 10B
RUN IOC
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
(0.628)
(1.075)
(1.216)
0.97
7.23
19.7
NA
13.5
(1.825)
3.35
NA
2.59
7.17
2.98
4.21
4.79
(0.835)
(1.296)
(1.439)
1.19
(0.734)
(0.670)
(0.948)
0.7*
8.89
6.96
3.99
6.61
(0.939)
(1.279)
(1.416)
1.21
3.32
(0.955)
(1.117)
1.80
(mg/dscm
@7% O2)
(1.695)
(2.678)
(3.288)
2.55
15.9
61.7
NA
38. g
(5.013)
9.90
NA
7.45
15.7
7.17
10.7
11.2
(2.202)
(3.149)
(4.057)
3.14
(1.914)
(1.715)
(2.510)
2.05
18.8
19.5
11.7
16.7
(2.220)
(3.008)
(3.707)
2.98
8.63
(2.337)
(3.111)
4.69
(ppnnr)
(0.755)
(1.292)
(1.462)
1.17
8.69
23.7
NA
16.2
(2.194)
4.03
NA
3.11
8.61
3.58
5.06
5.75
(1.004)
(1.558)
(1.730)
1.43
(0.882)
(0.805)
(1.140)
0.94
10.7
8.37
4.79
7.95
(1.129)
(1.538)
(1.702)
1.46
3.99
(1.148)
(1.343)
2.16
(ppmv
©7% O2)
(2.038)
(3.218)
(3.954)
3.07
19.1
74.2
NA
46.6
(6.027)
11.9
NA
8.96
18.8
8.62
12.9
13.4
(2.648)
(3.786)
(4.878)
3.77
(2.300)
(2.061)
(3.018)
2.46
22.6
23.5
14.1
20.1
(2.669)
(3.617)
(4.455)
3.5*
10.4
(2.809)
(3.741)
5.64
EMISSION
RATE
(g/br)
(1.006)
(1.721)
(1.947)
1.56
10.7
29.1
NA
19.9
(2.817)
5.18
NA
4.00
11.4
4.75
6.71
7.63
(1.379)
(2.141)
(2.377)
1.97
(1.192)
(1.088)
(1.539)
1.27
14.6
11.4
6.54
10.9
(1.576)
(2.146)
(2.376)
2.03
5.15
(1.481)
(1.732)
2.79
NA = Not Applicable (runs not completed)
( ) = Maximum estimated concentration
2-35
-------
Table 2-27 presents the HBr emission results for all test runs. Hydrogen bromide
was detected in the flue gas in 19 out of 25 test runs. Detected concentrations ranged
from 0.18 to 0.76 ppmV for Runs 10A and 8C, respectively. Corresponding emission
rates were 0.96 to 4.21 g/hr.
2.5.2 HC1 CEM-Manual Comparison
Continuous emissions monitoring was performed to measure HC1 in addition to
other gas concentrations. The average HC1 CEM concentrations 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 2-28 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 results show generally good agreement between the manual and CEM
concentrations. The CEM values in 7 out of 18 runs were within 30 percent of the
manual values. Eleven out of 18 runs were within 40 percent. Only did Run 10 exhibit
deviations greater than 100 percent. Recent state-of-the art HC1 CEM sampling and
instrument methods were employed during this test program. Especially important
hardware developments included the use of a high temperature in-stack probe which
allowed for fast, accurate responses to extreme and quick changes in stack gas HC1
concentrations.
Additional agreement may have been gained if more post-test HC1 calibrations
could have been performed. The HC1 CEM calibrations needed to be completed at the
same stack gas temperature as during the test. However, following several tests, the
incinerator went into a burn down mode (decrease in temperature) before final
calibrations could be performed. Post-test calibrations may have revealed slight
calibration drift which could be incorporated into data drift corrections for more
accurate data.
For the purpose of determining the most accurate HC1 flue gas concentrations,
data generated by the EPA test protocol (EPA Method 26) should be used.
JBS238 2-36
-------
TABLE 2-27. SUMMARY OF HBr RESULTS AT EACH CONDITION;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE
RUN5A
RUN5B
RUN5C
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
RUN 10A
RUN 10B
RUN IOC
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
0.69
0.73
0.66
0.69
2.32
0.85
NA
1.58
0.66
0.74
NA
0.70
1.80
2.02
0.89
1.57
[0.108]
[0.109]
[0.108]
[0.108]
(0.530)
[0.109]
[0.111]
0.53
2.10
2.48
2.57
2.38
0.63
[0.113]
(0.521)
0.5*
0.62
0.73
(0.541)
0.63
(mg/dscm
@7% O2)
1.85
1.82
1.78
1.82
5.11
2.65
NA
3.88
1.82
2.20
NA
2.01
3.93
4.85
2.26
3.6*
[0.285]
[0.265]
[0.305]
[0.285]
(1.382)
[0.279]
[0.294]
1.3*
4.43
6.96
7.54
6.31
1.49
[0.266]
(1.364)
1.43
1.60
1.80
(1.507)
1.64
(PPM*)
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.21
0.69
0.25
NA
0.47
0.20
0.22
NA
0.21
0.53
0.60
0.26
0.47
[0.032]
[0.032]
[0.032]
[0.032]
(0.158)
[0.032]
[0.033]
0.16
0.62
0.74
0.76
0.71
0.19
[0.034]
(0.155)
0.17
0.18
0.22
(0.161)
0.19
(ppmv
@7%O2)
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.54
1.52
0.79
NA
1.15
0.54
0.65
NA
0.60
1.17
1.44
0.67
1.09
[0.084]
[0.078]
[0.090]
[0.084]
(0.412)
[0.082]
[0.087]
0.41
1.32
2.07
2.24
1.88
0.44
[0.080]
(0.406)
0.42
0.48
0.53
(0.448)
0.49
EMISSION
RATE
(g/br)
1.10
1.17
1.05
1.11
3.43
1.25
NA
2.34
1.02
1.15
NA
1.09
2.86
3.22
1.41
2.50
[0.178]
[0.180]
[0.178]
[0.179]
(0.861)
[0.177]
[0.180]
0.86
3.44
4.07
4.21
3.91
1.06
[0.190]
(0.874)
0.%
0.96
1.14
(0.839)
0.98
NA = Not applicable (runs not completed)
[ ] = Minimum detection limit; () = maximum estimated concentration
2-37
-------
TABLE 2-28. COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND CEM HC1 RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
RUN 1A
RUN IB
RUN 1C
AVERAGE
RUN2A
RUN2B
RUN2C
AVERAGE
RUN3A
RUN3B
RUN3C
AVERAGE
RUN4A
RUN4B
RUN4C
AVERAGE
RUN5A
RUN5B
RUN5C
AVERAGE
RUN6A
RUN6B
RUN6C
AVERAGE
RUN8A
RUN8B
RUN8C
AVERAGE
RUN9A
RUN9B
RUN9C
AVERAGE
RUN 10A
RUN 10B
RUN IOC
AVERAGE
MANUAL HC1 RESULTS
(ppmV/
dry)
19.4
35.7
41.1
32,1
529
444
NC
487
66.8
63.8
NC
65.3
216
841
885
647
32.8
31.7
48.2
37.6
31.5
28.6
33.3
31.1
416
572
943
644
79.1
39.6
68.4
62.3
64.0
26.4
23.8
38.1
(ppmV
@7% 02)
52.3
88.9
111
84.1
1164
1391
NC
1277
184
188
NC
186
471
2024
2253
1583
86.4
77.1
136
99.8
82.2
73.1
88.2
81.2
880
1607
2771
1753
187
93.0
179
153
166
64.6
66.3
99.0
CEM Ha RESULTS
(ppmV/
dry)
NC
NC
42.7
NA
548
397
NC
473
93.8
18.6
32.7
NA
NC
625
659
NA
NC
39.9
31.0
NA
NC
41.5
55.2
NA
NC
351
594
NA
NC
74.2
65.1
NA
NC
84.9
55.2
NA
(ppmV
@7fc02)a
NC
NC
120
NA
1279
1253
NC
1266
284
60.0
123
NA
NC
1441
1633
NA
NC
89.3
81.0
NA
NC
107
148
NA
NC
1006
1737
NA
NC
179
185
NA
NC
225
181
. NA
a Averages of corrected 30 second readings
NC = Run not completed.
NA = Averages not valid for comparisons.
2-38
-------
2.6 CEM RESULTS
Three test runs were performed at each of three operating conditions while the
incinerator was burning hospital waste. Continuous emissions monitoring was performed
using an extractive sample system and instrument methods to measure NO^ CO, SO2,
THC, and HC1 concentrations. The diluent gases (O2, CO2) were measured using CEMs
at all times so that the emission results could be normalized to a reference 7 percent O2.
Concentrations of NOX, SO2, CO, CO2, and O2 were measured on a dry basis with the
sample stream conditioned as shown in Figure 5-16. Concentrations of HC1 using a
separate monitor were measured using a dilution probe system and were on a wet basis.
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 2-29
and 2-30. Actual concentrations are presented as they were measured (NO^ SO2, CO,
CO2, and O2-dry; THC and HCl-wet). 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 only 0.9 percent by volume during the 9 test
runs, ranging from 15.2 to 16.1 percent/dry. The average percent O2 values for each set
of tests was 15.9 (Condition 1), 15.5 (Condition 2), and 15.5 (Condition 3). The CO2
concentrations varied inversely with the O2 concentrations at 3.19, 3.88, and 3.51 percent
by volume (%V) for Conditions 1 through 3, respectively. The CO2 run averages ranged
from 3.07 to 4.01 percent by volume over the nine test runs.
Average CO concentrations ranged from 14.9 ppmV to 42.1 ppmV under
Condition 1, with the overall average concentration at 29.2 ppmV. For the second
2-39
JBS238
-------
TABLE 2-29. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING TEST AVERAGES FOR O2, CO2, CO, and HC1;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/22/90
10/02/90
09/21/90
09/23/90
09/27/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/28/90
RUN
NUMBER/
MANUAL
TEST TYPE
1
3
10
CONDITION
1
1
1
TEST
TIME a
14:00- 18:18
9:47 - 14:00
10:15-14:21
MOISTURE
9.39
9.57
7.88
AVERAGE 8.95
2
4
8
2
2
2
9:45 - 13:57
11:43- 15:47
13:45 - 17:50
7.98
7.35
6.78
AVERAGE 7.37
5
6
9
3
3
3
11:45- 15:52
10:10- 14:15
11:00- 15:05
7.96
8.29
8.93
AVERAGE 8.39
OXYGEN
(%vol.dry)
15.8
16.1
15.7
15.9
15.7
15.2
15.6
15.5
15.6
15.7
15.3
15,5
CO2
(%vol.dty)
3.14
3.07
3.37
3.19
3.76
4.01
3.87
3.88
3.46
3.40
3.67
3.51
CO
actual
(ppmV.dry)
42.1
14.9
30.6
29.2
132
1187
181
500
37.6
65.3
36.1
46,3
CO
corrected b
(ppmV.dry)
@7%O2
119
40.6
81
80.2
407
2780
453
1213
104
196
107
136
HCL c
actual
(ppmV.wet)
107
33.6
64.6
68.4
413
568
445
475
33.9
45.8
55.6
45.1
HCL c
corrected d
(ppmV.dry)
@7%02
305
110
143
186
1273
1480
1350
1368
90.3
138
164
131
N>
^
O
a For metals/CDD/CDF runs.
b Averages are corrected to 7% oxygen (corrected value = actual * (13.9 /(20.9 - O2)). 30 second values were corrected and then averaged.
c HC1 concentrations were determined by manual methods as well. A comparison of CEM vs. manual results is presented in Section 2.6.
d Averages are corrected to 7% oxygen and for moisture, where the corrected value = actual * 13.9/(20.9 - O2) * (1/(1 - moist). Thirty second values
were corrected and then averaged.
-------
TABLE 2-30. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING TEST AVERAGES FOR O2, SO2, NOx, and THC;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/22/90
10/02/90
RUN
NUMBER
1
3
10
CONDITION
1
1
1
TEST
TIME 8
14:00-18:18
9:47-14:00
10:15-14:21
AVERAGE
MOISTURE
(% volume)
9.39
9.57
7.88
":>•'••; 1 8.95
OXYGEN
(%vol.dry)
15.8
16.1
15.7
15.9
SO2
actual
(ppmV.dry)
40.2
42.1
31.4
37.9
SO2
corrected b
(ppmV.dry)
106
119
80.7
102
NOX
actual
mV,d
132
109
125
122
NOX
corrected b
(ppmV,dry)
340
289
313
314
THC
actual
(ppmC.wet)
7.15
9.84
2.52
6.50
THC
corrected c
(ppmC..17.4
37.2
44.2
47.0
42.8
79.9
62.9
73.7
72.2
208
143
195
182
23.0
60.2
30.0
37.7
82.7
183
91.3
119
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/28/90
5
6
9
3
3
3
11:45-15:52
10:10-14:15
11:00-15:05
AVERAGE:
7.96
8.29
8.93
8.39
15.6
15.7
15.3
15.5
51.5
51.1
43.1
48.6
134
135
108
126
150
153
165
156
384
402
397
394
3.79
5.63
3.62
4.35
11.7
17.9
11.7
13.8
N)
a Time is for metals and CDD/CDF runs.
b SO2 and NOx are corrected to 7.0% oxygen, where the corrected value = actual * 13.9/(20.9 - O2).
c THC is corrected to 7.0% oxygen and corrected for moisture where the
corrected value = actual * 13.9/(20.9 - O2) * 1/(1 - moist).
NOTE: For all CEM Data, 30 second values were corrected and then averaged.
-------
condition, the CO run averages ranged from 132 ppmV to 1187 ppmV, with an overall
average CO concentration of 500 ppmV. For the third condition, the CO run averages
ranged from 36.1 ppmV to 65.3 ppmV, with the overall average for this condition being
46.3 ppmV.
The average NOX concentrations varied from 62.9 ppmV to 165 ppmV over the
nine test runs. Averages for Condition 1 ranged from 109 to 132 ppmV, with an overall
average of 122 ppmV. Averages for Condition 2 ranged from 62.9 to 79.9 ppmV, with
an overall average of 72.2 ppmV, and the Condition 3 range was 150 to 165 ppmV, with
the average value being 156 ppmV.
The SO2 run averages for each condition ranged from 31.4 to 42.1 ppmV for
Condition 1, 15.0 to 19.0 ppmV for Condition 2, and 43.1 to 51.5 ppmV for Condition 3.
The condition averages were 37.9 ppmV, 17.4 ppmV, and 48.6 ppmV SO2 for
Conditions 1 through 3, respectively.
Average THC concentrations varied from 2.52 to 60.2 ppmV-wet over the nine
runs. The average THC for each condition ranged from 2.52 to 9.84 ppmV for
Condition 1, 23.0 to 60.2 ppmV for Condition 2, and 3.62 to 5.63 ppmV for Condition 3.
The Condition 1 average was 6.50 ppmV, the Condition 2 average was 37.7 ppmV, and
the Condition 3 average was 4.35 ppmV.
2.7 CEM BURN DOWN 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 no waste was fed to the incinerator. The primary and secondary chambers operated
under burn down set point routines. Two days of burn down conditions were monitored
with all CEM analyzers operational. Concentrations of O2, CO2, SO2, NOX, CO, HC1,
and THC were monitored. The 30-second CEM averages were reported in ppm or
percent by volume as measured and also corrected to 7 percent O2.
Table 2-31 reports the burn down CEM data. Burn down parameters were
measured after test Run 6 (9/25/90) and Run 10 (10/2/90). Oxygen values were 17.5
and 17.7 percent by volume for these two runs. Carbon dioxide values were 2.14 and
1.92, respectively. The CO concentrations were 8.5 and 6.2 ppmV dry and NOX values
JBS238 2-42
-------
TABLE 2-31. CEM BURN DOWN AVERAGES
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/25/90
10/02/90
09/25/90
10/02/90
RUN CQND,
NUMBER
6 3
10 1
6 3
10 1
BURNDOWN
TEST,:vsi
TIME •
OXYGEN SO2 SO2 NOX NOX THC
actual corrected b actual corrected b actual
(ftvot.dry) (ppmV^dry) (ppmV,dry) (ppmV.dry) (ppn^dry) (ppm C, wet)
14:15-17:28 17.5 26.1 92.6 62.8 217 1.1
14:22-17:35 17.7 7.10 24.6 38.5 154 0.0
•:•..:•. .•.•i;;'CO^';" CO HCL c»d HCL c,d
CO2 actual corrected b actual corrected
(%vol.dry) (ppmV.dry) (ppmV,dry) (ppmV,wet) (ppmV.dry)
@7% 02
-------
were 62.8 and 38.5 ppmV dry, respectively. The THC average concentrations were
below 2 ppm for both runs.
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, LOI, and
carbon content.
Samples were collected for three replicate tests at the three different incinerator
operating conditions (total of 9 runs).
Table 2-32 presents a summary of the ash analysis results. The moisture content
of the samples ranged from 0.27 percent for Run 10 (Test Condition 1) to 44.26 percent
for Run 8 (Test Condition 2). The average moisture values for each test condition are
shown. The lowest value shown was for Condition 1 (0.33 percent) and the highest value
for Condition 2 (27.10 percent). The ash from Runs 4, 8, and 6 were cooled down in the
incinerator using a water spray. This was done in order to allow the ash to be removed
and the next test run to be started. Ash moisture values for these runs reflect the
presence of this additional water.
Loss-on-ignition results varied from 17.8 percent for Run 10 (Condition 1) to
78.0 percent for Run 8 (Condition 2). Average values for each test condition ranged
from 22.2 percent for Condition 1 to 53.2 percent for Condition 2.
Carbon content in the ash samples varied from 9.77 percent for Run 10
(Condition 1) to 35.7 percent for Run 8 (Condition 2). Average values for each test
condition showed a low value of 14.2 percent for Condition 1 and a high value of
27.4 percent for Condition 2.
JBS238 2-44
-------
TABLE 2-32. SUMMARY OF ASH CARBON CONTENT, LOI AND MOISTURE RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
CONDITION •
PRE TEST 1
PRE TEST 2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
TEST
PATB
PRE TEST
PRETEST
9/20/90
9/22/90
10/02/90
9/21/90
9/23/90
9/27/90
9/24/90
9/24/90
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/28/90
TEST
NUMBER
NA
NA
1
3
10
2
4
8
5-MCc
5-MF
6-MC
6-MF
9
SAMPLE
PATB
9/20/90
9/20/90
AVERAGE
9/21/90
9/23/90
10/03/90
AVERAGE
9/22/90
9/24/90
9/25/90
AVERAGE
9/25/90
9/25/90
9/26/90
9/26/90
9/29/90
AVERAGE
MOISTURE
(*)
28.55
15.83
22.19
0.41
0.30
0.27
0.33
2.12
34.92 b
44.26b
27,10
3.16
0.64
30.03 b
0.47
1.13
7.09
L.O.I.
(*)
62.68
58.88
60.78
29.66
19.19
17.80
22.22
45.72
35.90
78.02
53.21
23.64
23.79
40.39
32.45
27.63
29.58
TOTAL LOSS
(*)
73.34
65.39
69.37
24.17
19.48
18.02
20.56
46.87
58.28
87.75
64.30
26.05
24.28
50.29
32.77
28.45
32.37
CARBON
(*)
18.12
28.25
23.19
15.03
17.87
9.77
14.22
30.17
16.39
35.70
27.42
20.36
22.80
21.85
16.66
20.41
20.42
N)
4-
a CONDITIONS:
(1) ' 100 lb/hr., 1800-1900° F, 25 lb/15 min.
(2) 250 lb/hr., 1600° F, 62.5 lb/15 min.
(3) 160 lb/hr., 1600° F. 40 lb/15 min.
b For these runs, a water spray was used to extinguish the fire in order to allow ash to be removed.
c MF = Fine Ash (sifted through 1/2" mesh) MC = Course Ash (would not pass through 1/2" mesh). Course and fine ash comparison was only completed during Runs 5 and 6 to examine any
relative differences in properties.
-------
2.9 MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY RESULTS
This section provides the background and test matrix for microbial survivability
testing and presents the test results for microbial survivability in emissions, in ash and in
ash quality pipes.
2.9.1 Background and Test Matrix
One of the objectives of this test program was to further develop testing methods
to determine microbial survivability in incinerator processes. As part of the MWI test
program at Central Carolina Hospital, testing was conducted to determine microbial
survivability based on a surrogate indicator organism that was spiked into the incinerator
feed during each test run. The surrogate indicator organism used was a type of soil
spore known as Bacillus stearothermophilus. This organism as chosen because it survives
at high temperatures and it is easy to culture and identify. Also, it is non-pathogenic and
is not commonly found in medical waste streams.
Two types of testing were performed. The first test method was aimed at
determining microbial survivability in the combustion gases (emissions) and the bottom
ash. For these tests, a known quantity of B. stearothermophilus in solution was absorbed
onto materials commonly found in the medical waste stream (i.e., gauze, paper,
bandages, etc.) and introduced into the incinerator 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). Spiked waste was charged into the incinerator four times during a 4-hour
test run (essentially once per hour). Ash samples were taken daily each morning
following the previous days' 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).
The second Microbial Survivability test method utilized freeze dried spores
encased in double pipes which were insulated. These tests were performed as a
comparison to the direct ash method. Two sizes of pipes were used during this test
program to determine if pipe size was a determining factor in microbial survivability.
JBS238 2-46
-------
Large pipes samples (6 in. x 2.0 in. diameter) were compared to small pipes (6 in. x 1.25
in. diameter). Three spiked pipes sets (1 large, 1 small) were charged daily at nearly
even intervals: (1) the first charge of the day, (2) midday, and (3) last charge of the day.
Complete details of the microbial spiking, recovery and analysis procedures are
given in Section 5.3.
Three triplicate runs were performed at the three different incinerator operating
conditions for a total of nine runs. Four medical waste (wet spore) spikes and three pipe
samples (dry spore) spikes were added during each run. One run was performed daily.
Table 2-33 summarizes the spore spiking times and quantities as well as waste
feed and total ash quantities.
2.9.2 Overall Microbial Survivability
By comparing the number of spores spiked to 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:
Sf + A,
MS = (-^ ?) x 100
MS = spore microbial survivability (wet)
Se = Number of viable spores exiting the stack
A^ = Number of viable spores detected in the incinerator ash
Ss = Number of viable spores spiked in the waste feed
This is an adaptation of the destruction efficiency (DE) calculation presented in the
reference test protocol which calculates DE based only on stack emissions and a separate
DE based on spores in ash. By combining the two DE estimates a more complete
estimate of Microbial Survivability (1 - DE) is obtained. The total number of spores in
the ash was calculated by multiplying the number of spores found in 1 gram of ash by
the total weight of ash removed from the incinerator per day. The values presented in
JBS238 2-47
-------
TABLE 2-33. SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR FEED AMOUNTS AND ASH GENERATION PER RUN;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
CONDITION
1
2
1
2
3
WET
SPORE SPIKES »
TIMES
14:00
15:15
16:00
17:00
09:45
11:00
12:03
12:45
09:45
11:00
12:00
13:00
11:40
12:45
13:45
14:45
11:45
12:40
13:45
14:40
AMOUNTS
(TOTAL SPORES)
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
.5E+12
.5E+12
.5E+12
.5E+12
.5E+12
.5E+12
1.5E+12
DRY SPORE
(PIPE) SPIKES «
TIMES
14:00
16:15
16:00
09:45
12:03
15:45
09:45
12:15
14:30
11:40
14:15
17:15
11:45
13:45
15:50
AMOUNTS
(TOTAL SPORES)
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
TOTAL WASTE
FEED (ttw)
AND TYPE
21.2
PATHOLOGICAL
139
MEDICAL
22.4
PATHOLOGICAL
172.7
MEDICAL
45.1
PATHOLOGICAL
TOTAL ASH
WEIGHT (fl»)
503.4
1015.8
649.5
905.3
674.6
00
-------
TABLE 2-33. SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR FEED AMOUNTS AND ASH GENERATION PER RUN; (continued)
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
6
8
9
10
DATE
09/25/90
09/27/90
09/29/90
10/02/90
CONDITION
3
2
3
1
WET
SPORE SPIKES a
TIMES
10:10
11:15
12:10
13:15
13:45
14:45
15:56
16:45
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
10:15
11:15
12:15
13:15
AMOUNTS
(TOTAL SPORES)
1.5Etl2
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
1.5E+12
DRY SPORE
(PIPE) SPIKES a
TIMES
10:10
12:10
14:15
13:45
16:15
18:00
11:00
13:15
15:53
10:15
12:15
14:30
AMOUNTS
(TOTAL SPORES)
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
5.2E+06
TOTAL WASTE
FEED (Ibs)
AND TYPE
411.4
PATHOLOGICAL
137.3
MEDICAL
77
PATHOLOGICAL
17.2
PATHOLOGICAL
TOTAL ASH
WEIGHT (Ibs)
697.2
727.3
867.2
453.5
NOTE:
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
100 Ib/hr; 1800-1900°F; 25 lb/15 min
250 Ib/hr; 1600°F; 62.5 lb/15 min
160 Ib/hr; 1600°F; 40 lb/15 min
a Spike amounts were taken from the confirmation analysis results (see Tables 6-24 and 6-25).
-------
this section were taken from a "quantitative summary" performed on the raw analytical
data by the analytical laboratory. These results are included in the analytical results
shown in Appendix E.3, and calculations are shown in Appendix F.
Table 2-34 presents the overall survivability of the indicator spores. Four test run
results had viable spores found in the stack gas. Spores were found in several isolated
ash aliquots; however, definitive quantitative results could not be provided and all test
run results were assigned no spores detected. For those runs in which positive Microbial
Survivability values could be calculated, the numbers ranged from survivability for 3.1 x
10~5 percent Run 6 to >2.6 x 10"4 percent for Run 8. 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 emission tests were conducted to quantify the number of
viable spores exiting the stack during the test run. The formulas used for calculating the
number of viable spores existing in the stack, Se is calculated as shown in Appendix F,
and in the EPA draft method in Appendix K.
Each test run for viable spore emissions was actually made up of 2 "sub-runs" (A
and B). Each sub-run sample was collected for 120 minutes through one of the 2 sample
ports. An approximate 1.5 liter sample of impinger collection solution was generated for
each sub-run. These 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 first count
was conducted after approximately 24 hours incubation, and the second after
approximately a 48 hour incubation period. Additional research showed that the spore
count did not increase after the 48-hour count incubation period. Therefore, all values
presented here are from the second (typically a 48-hour) count.
JBS238
2-50
-------
TABLE 2-34. OVERALL MICROBIAL SURVTVABILITY;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NO*
1
3
10
2
4
8
5
6
9
FEED RATE/
FREQUENCY/TY!>E
Ob/nr/min)
100/15-P
100/15-P
100/15-P
2507 15-M
250/15-M
250/15-M
160/15-P
160/15-P
160/15-P
TOTAL NUMBER OF
WET SPORES SPIKED
TOlNCBNlERATOR*
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
6.0E+12
NUMBER INDICATOR
SPORES EXITING
THE STACK b
O.84E+04
M3.8E+06
O.22E+04
<4.36E+04
<4.31E+04
>15.5E+06 e
<13.5E+06
M8.5E+05
~6.94E+06
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN ASH c
<9.6E+05
<1.0E+06
O.9E+03
<6.3E+06
<7.8E+06
<6.2E+06
<1.0E+04
<1.9E+06
<1.8E+04
SPORE
SURVTVABUJTY
(*)d
<1.7E-05
~2.3E-04
<6.0E-07
<1.1E-04
<1.3E-04
>2.6E-04
<2.3E-04
•V3.1E-05
~1.2E-04
MICROBIAL
IfX^-^
REDUCTION?
>6.8
~5.7
>8.2
>6.0
>5.9
<5.6
>5.6
~6.5
~5.9
to
a Four 500 ml wet spore aliquots were spiked during each test run. This value represents the total spores spiked/test run as determined by the
confirmation count (see Table 6-24).
b Values taken from repetitive analytical runs as detailed in Appendix E.3. Detection limits are presented in Table 2-35.
c Detection liits are presented in Table 2-37.
d Calculated using (number spores in flue gas + number of spores in ash/number wet spores spiked) x 100. If spores were not detected
in either fraction, the non-detected values were used in calculation. Otherwise non-detects were considered zero.
e Maximum value could not be determined for this flue gas sample (see Appendix E.3).
f MLR = log(spiked spores) - log(stack spores + ash spores)
P = Pathological Waste M = Medical Waste
-------
Table 2-35 presents the Microbial Survivability in Emissions test results. There
were four test runs where viable spores were determined to be present in the flue gas
(Runs 3, 8, 6, and 9).
The Microbial Survivability sampling and flue gas parameters are shown in
Table 2-36.
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 drum using a sample thief and deposited in a sterilized, amber glass
sample bottles. The composite samples were then submitted to the laboratory for
filtering culturing, and enumeration of B. stearothermophilus.
Microbial Survivability in ash for the Central Carolina MWI tests are presented in
Table 2-37. 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. However, because
repetitive analyses of these aliquots did not consistently reveal B. stearothermophilus
colonies, the final values were determined to be < 100 spores per gram of ash. (Several
samples had no spores detected at all, ND, and were assigned < 0.5 spores per gram of
ash). A quantitative summary of the analytical data used to compile this data is shown
in Appendix E.3.
2.9.5 Microbial Survivability in Pipes
Three pipe samples were loaded into the incinerator during each test day. The
pipes were recovered 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.
Microbial Survivability in pipes is presented in Table 2-38. Results ranged from
not-detected to too numerous to count (TNTC). The TNTC results were assigned a
value of greater than 200 spores (>200). All runs except Run 6 showed some spore
Survivability in the pipe samples.
JBS238 2-52
-------
TABLE 2-35. VIABLE SPORE EMISSIONS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
3
10
2
4
8
5
6
9
FEED RATE/
FREQUENCY/TYPE
(Ib/hr/min)
100/15-P
100/1 5-P
100/15-P
2507 15-M
250/15-M
2507 15-M
160/15-P
160/1 5-P
160/15-P
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN ALIQUOT
(spores/100 ml)
ND
~200
ND
ND
ND
>200a
<200b
~30
~100
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN SAMPLE
(spores)
ND
~8785
ND
ND
ND
>9761
<8378
~1166
~4567
CONCENTRATION OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN FLUE GAS
(spores/dscm)
ND
~2183
ND
ND
ND
>2572
<2289
~271
M120
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
EXITING STACK
DURING TEST PERIOD
(spores)
<3.84E+04
M3.8E+06
<3.22E+04
<4.36E+04
<4.31E+04
>15.5E+06
<13.5E+06
~18.5E+05
~6.94E+06
K)
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 0.5 spores/ 100ml (1 spore/100 ml aliquot / 2).
a Maximum value could not be determined for this flue gas sample (see Appendix E.3).
b One aliquot out of nine repitions resulted in "Too Numerous To Count" (TNTC), and, therefore, was assigned the above detection limit.
-------
TABLE 2-36. INDICATOR SPORE EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
N)
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
120
644
3.08
15.7
0.592
2.011
9.39
2180
26.7
95.2
2A
105
848
4.40
14.5
0.592
1.760
7.98
2604
27.3
93.1
5A
120
687
3.48
15.5
0.580
1.965
7.96
2186
26.2
95.0
IB
120
796
3.26
15.6
0.600
2.039
9.39
2472
26.6
96.9
2B
135
757
3.41
16.3
0.544
2.081
7.98
2177
24.6
93.6
SB
120
761
3.44
15.7
0.500
1.695
7.96
2024
22.8
92.6
AVERAGE
NA
720
3.17
15.7
0.596
2.025
9.39
2326
26.7
NA
AVERAGE
NA
802
3.91
15.4
0.568
1.921
7.98
2391
26.0
NA
AVERAGE
NA
724
3.46
15.6
0.540
1.830
7.96
2105
24.5
NA
3A
120
688
3.25
15.8
0.589
2.000
9.57
2279
26.6
95.1
4A
120
707
4.22
14.85
0.555
1.885
7.35
2141
25.2
94.8
6A
120
672
3.34
15.6
0.648
2.202
8.29
2414
29.4
94.7
3B
120
741
3.1
16.2
0.596
2.025
9.57
2349
26.2
96.1
4B
120
706
4.01
15.16
0.574
1.952
7.35
2238
26.3
92.2
6B
120
796
3.5
15.7
0.620
2.107
8.29
2507
27.5
95.2
AVERAGE
NA
714
3.175
16.0
0.592
2.012
9.57
2314
26.4
NA
AVERAGE
NA
706
4.12
15.005
0.565
1.919
7.35
2190
25.7
NA
AVERAGE
NA
734
3.42
15.7
0.634
2.154
8.29
2461
28.4
NA
10A
120
693
3.51
15.4
0.611
2.077
7.88
2381
27.5
95.4
BA
120
770
4.17
15.09
0.560
1.904
6.78
2268
25.7
93.8
9A
120
729
3.79
15.0
0.611
2.076
8.93
2345
26.8
97.9
10B
120
745
3.28
16.0
0.594
2.019
7.88
2358
26.1
96.3
8D
120
708
3.59
15.98
0.557
1.891
6.78
2056
24.5
95.9
9B
120
764
3.58
15.5
0.589
2.001
8.93
2232
24.8
10O.3
AVERAGE
NA
719
3.395
15.7
0.603
2.048
7.88
2370
26.8
NA
AVERAGE
NA
739
3.88
15.535
0.558
1.897
6.78
2162
25.1
NA
AVERAGE
NA
746
3.685
15.3
0.600
2.038
8.93
2289
25.8
NA
NA. = Not applicable.
-------
TABLE 2-37. VIABLE SPORES IN ASH;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
3
10
2
4
8
5
6
9
CONCENTRATION OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN ASH
(spores/g ash)
<100
<100
ND
<100
<100
<100
ND
<100
ND
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
EXITING INCINERATOR
IN ASH
<9.6E+05
<1.0E+06
<3.9+03
<6.3E+06
<7.8E+06
<6.2E+06
<1.02E+04
<1.9E+06
<1.75E+04
Note: Values were taken from the average of replicate analyses as
presented in the analytical quantitative summary in Appendix E.3.
ND = Not Detected. Detection limits for these samples were determined
to be 0.5 spores / gram ash(l spore/g ash/2). All calculations
are shown in Appendix F.
Detection limits for all other samples were determined
to be 1 spore/1 ml filtration or 100 spores/g ash.
2-55
-------
TABLE 2-38. VIABLE SPORES IN PIPES;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
SAMPLE
ID
CCH-085
CCH-086
CCH-087
CCH-088
CCH-089
CCH-090
CCH-096
CCH-097
CCH-098
CCH-099
CCH-100
CCH-101
CCH-154
CCH-155
CCH-156
CCH-157
CCH-158
CCH-159
CCH-175
CCH-176
CCH-177
CCH-178
CCH-179
CCH-180
CCH-193
CCH-194
CCH-195
CCH-196
CCH-197
CCH-198
LOADING
ORDER
2
3
2
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
PIPE
SIZE
L
L
S
S
L
S
S
S
S
L
L
L
L
S
L
S
S
L
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
L
S
S
APPROXIMATE
TEMPERATURE
RANGE
1750 - 2000
1750 - 2000
2000 - 2200
2000 - 2200
1750 - 2000
1500 - 1750
1750 - 2000
750 - 1000
750 - 1000
750 - 1000
1250 - 1500
750 - 1000
1750 - 2000
1750 - 2000
1500 - 1750
1750 - 2000
1750 - 2000
1750 - 2000
1500 - 1750
1750 - 2000
1500 - 1750
1250 - 1500
1000 - 1250
750 - 1000
1500 - 1750
750 - 1000
750- 1000
750 - 1000
1250 - 1500
750 - 1000
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
DETECTED
(spores)
14
3
0
1
20
>200
>1
>32
20
>20
3
7
0
>1
0
1
4
5
0
2
4
3
0
0
>200
0
>200
>166
79
0
NA = Not available at this time
L = Large (2.25" diameter); S = Small (1.5 " diameter)
2-56
-------
TABLE 2-38. VIABLE SPORES IN PIPES (continued);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
6
8
9
10
SAMPLE
ID
CCH-280
CCH-281
CCH-282
CCH-283
CCH-284
CCH-285
CCH-292
CCH-293
CCH-294
CCH-295
CCH-296
CCH-297
CCH-304
CCH-305
CCH-306
CCH-307
CCH-308
CCH-309
CCH-378
CCH-379
CCH-380
CCH-381
CCH-382
CCH-383
LOADING
ORDER
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PIPE
SIZE
L
S
L
S
L
S
S
L
L
L
S
S
L
S
L
L
S
S
L
L
S
L
S
S
APPROXIMATE
TEMPERATURE
-,,':•; RANGE :. ,:
(degF)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
DETECTED
(spores)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
17
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
NA = Not available at this time
L = Large (2.25" diameter); S = Small (1.5 " diameter)
2-57
-------
As part of the microbial survivability in pipes method development, a single pipe's
temperature was measured and recorded during four test runs (Runs 7 through 10). A
large pipe (2 in. ID) containing no spores was configured with a thermocouple placed
through a hole drilled in one of the capped ends. The pipe was placed in the incinerator
and internal pipe temperatures were measured and manually recorded. Temperatures
varied considerably. A general range was from 500 to 1500°F. However, no data
analysis has been completed (averages, standard deviation, etc.). All pipe temperature
data is listed in Appendix B.4.
2.10 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS
Six PSD test runs were conducted during the Central Carolina Hospital MWI test
program. An eight stage MK III cascade impactor sampling device was used (See
Section 5.9 for PSD Method). Following a test, the impactor was inspected to determine
if there was adequate particle loading on each of the filter stages. A properly loaded
impactor has distinct paniculate "piles" under each stage's acceleration jets (holes). An
underloaded impactor is evidenced by clean, undisturbed filters while an over-loaded
impactor has particulate piles which overlap and appear to have "broken-up"
(re-entrainment). An assessment of the quality of particulate loading was made by the
recovery technician with observations noted on the PSD field data sheets (See Appendix
A.6). Of those six PSD runs, the first two did not meet recovery QC objectives and
therefore are not included in these results (Raw Field Data and Analytical data are
shown in Appendix A.6 and E.5). The test results for PSD Runs 3 through 6 will be
reported in the following section.
The PSD Runs 3 and 4 were conducted on September 26, 1990 during test No. 7.
Other results from this test No. were not reported due to an invalidated CDD/CDF run
(See Section 2.2). Test No. 7 was conducted during Condition 2 (250 Ibs/hr, 15 minute
long cycle, 1600°F). The PSD Runs 5 and 6 were conducted on September 28, 1990 and
October 2, 1990 under Conditions 3 and 1, respectively.
Tables 2-39 and 2-40 report the results from PSD Runs 3 and 4 (Condition 2),
respectively. Approximately 70 percent of the particulate was less than 8.8 um.
JBS238 2-58
-------
TABLE 2-39. PSD RUN 3 RESULTS (TEST NO 7);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
FLUE GAS AND SAMPLING PARAMETERS
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscf)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Percent Isoltinetic
Date
STAGE
Prelim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Total
DpSO
(microns)
13.2
8.65
5.65
3.99
2.37
1.37
0.866
0.588
NET WEIGHT
(grams)
0.06236
0.03040
0.03014
0.03238
0.03334
0.02838
0.03056
0.03127
0.03639
0.31521
MASS
FRACTION
0.1978
0.0964
0.0956
0.1027
0.1058
0.0900
0.0970
0.0992
0.1154
1.0000
2.5
1122.00
0.2960
0.7320
0.021
6.8100
111.0
09/26/90
MASS
FRACTION
LESS THAN
0.8022*
0.7057
0.6101
0.5074
0.4016
0.3116
0.2146
0.1154
0.0000*
INTERVAL
GEOMETRIC
MIDPOINT
(microns)
25.7
10.7
6.99
4.75
3.08
1.80
1.09
0.714
0.054
dM/dlogDP
(gr/dscf)
2.1019
3.2332
3.1749
4.1935
2.8803
2.3096
3.0046
3.6283
0.3426
CONCENTRATION
(gr/dscf)
1.2161
0.5928
0.5877
0.6314
0.6501
0.5533
0.5959
0.6097
0.7095
* These values assume top end and bottom end dpSOs of 50 and .005 um.
-------
TABLE 2-40. PSD RUN 4 RESULTS (TEST NO 7);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
K)
ON
O
FLUE GAS AND SAMPLING PARAMETERS
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stock Temperature (°F)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscf)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscm)
Stock Moisture (%V)
Percent Isoltinetic
Date
STAGE
Jrelim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
Back-up
Total
DpSO
(microns)
13.7
8.97
5.86
4.14
2.45
1.40
0.865
0.559
NET WEIGHT
(grams)
0.07749
0.03221
0.03592
0.03533
0.03725
0.03849
0.03986
0.03836
0.04310
0.37799
MASS
FRACTION
0.2050
0.0852
0.0950
0.0935
0.0985
0.1018
0.1055
0.1015
0.1140
1.0000
15
773
0.305
4.57
0.129
6.81
111
9/26/90
MASS
FRACTION
LESS THAN
0.795*
0.710
0.615
0.521
0.423
0.321
0.215
0.114
0.000*
INTERVAL
GEOMETRIC
MIDPOINT
(microns)
26.2
11.1
7.25
4.92
3.19
1.85
1.10
0.696
0.053
dM/dlogDp
(gr/dscf)
0.4654
0.5932
0.6547
0.7908
0.5540
0.5329
0.6458
0.6841
0.0711
CONCENTRATION
gr/dscf
0.2618
0.1088
0.1213
0.1194
0.1258
0.1300
0.1347
0.1296
0.1456
* These values assume top end and bottom end dpSOs of 50 and .005 um.
-------
Table 2-41 reports the results for PSD Run 5 (Condition 3). Again,
approximately 70 percent of the particulate was less than 9 um. Grainloading
(concentration-grains/dry standard cubic foot) was much lower during this condition than
it was during Condition 2 (0.04 gr/dscf total PM for Condition 3 versus 0.7 and
0.1 gr/dscf for total PM for Condition 2).
Table 2-42 reports the results from PSD Run 6 (Condition 1). Again,
approximately 70 percent of the particulate is less than 9 um. Grainloading is
comparable to that observed during Condition 3.
Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show the log-normal plots of PSD Runs 3 through 6,
respectively. The log of Particle cut size (Dp50) at each impactor stage is plotted against
mass fraction of particulate less than that Dp50, on a probability (normal) scale. Linear
regressions analyses were conducted and the correlation coefficients (R2) are shown on
each figure.
2.11 CDD/CDF EMISSION VALUES INCORPORATING THE TOLUIENE
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 were to be used only as a QA indicator and
are not to be incorporated into the emission values. Therefore, a full presentation of the
data is given in Section 6. However, to gain perspective into how these values effect the
gas phase CDD/CDF concentrations, stack gas CDD/CDF concentrations incorporating
the toluene recovery amounts are given in Tables 2-43 through 2-45. 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.
JBS238
-------
TABLE 2-41. PSD RUN 5 RESULTS (TEST NO 9);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
FLUE GAS AND SAMPLING PARAMETERS
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscf)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Percent Isokinetic
Date
STAGE
Prelim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Total
DpSO
(microns)
13.8
9.07
5.92
4.18
2.48
1.41
0.875
0.566
NET WEIGHT
(grams)
0.05878
0.03241
0.03293
0.03372
0.03763
0.01637
0.03404
0.03203
0.04493
0.32283
MASS
FRACTION
0.1821
0.1004
0.1020
0.1045
0.1165
0.0507
0.1054
0.0992
0.1392
1.0000
45
789
0.299
13.5
0.382
6.78
85.6
9/28/90
MASS
FRACTION
LESS THAN
0.8179*
0.7175
0.6155
0.5111
0.3945
0.3438
0.2384
0. 1392
0.0000*
INTERVAL
GEOMETRIC
MIDPOINT
(microns)
26.3
11.2
7.33
4.98
3.22
1.87
1.11
0.704
0.053
dM/dlogDP
(gr/dscf)
0.1207
0.2024
0.2035
0.2559
0.1898
0.0769
0.1871
0.1939
0.0251
CONCENTRATION
(gr/dscf)
0.0673
0.0371
0.0377
0.0386
0.0431
0.0188
0.0390
0.0367
0.0515
s
* These values assume top end and bottom end dp50s of 50 and .005 urn.
-------
TABLE 2-42. PSD RUN 6 RESULTS (TEST NO 10);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
FLUE GAS AND SAMPLING PARAMETERS
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Average Sampling Rate (dacha)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std) (dscf)
Standard Metered Volume,Vm(std) (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Percent Isoltinetic
Date
STAGE
Prelim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Total
DpSO
(microns)
13.7870
9.0369
5.8974
4.1655
2.4684
1.4060
0.8677
0.5579
Net Weight
(grams)
0.05572
0.02918
0.02817
0.03175
0.02752
0.03336
0.02659
0.02842
0.04955
0.31023
MASS
FRACTION
0.1796
0.0941
0.0908
0.1023
0.0887
0.1075
0.0857
0.0916
0.1597
1.0000
60
723
0.293
17.6
0.498
7.88
88.8
10/02/90
MASS
FRACTION
LESS THAN
0.8204
0.7263
0.6356
0.5332
0.4445
0.3370
0.2513
0.1597
0.0000
INTERVAL
GEOMETRIC
MIDPOINT
(microns)
26.2555
11.1620
7.3002
4.9564
3.2066
1.8629
1.1045
0.6958
0.0528
dM/dtogDP
(gr/dscf)
8.406E-02
.343E-01
.283E-01
.775E-01
.022E-01
.152E-01
.071E-01
.250E-01
2.043E-02
CONCENTRATION
(gr/dscf)
0.047031
0.024632
0.023775
0.026797
0.023226
0.028160
0.022445
0.023986
0.041822
to
CTv
* These values assume top end and bottom end dpSOs of 50 and .005 um.
-------
N)
i
o
c
99.9
99.8
99.5
99
? 98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.
|
_o
"B
o
PSD Run No 3
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No. = 7 Condition = 2
Date- 09/26/90
Correlation (R2) = 0.9915
J , L—J 1 1, I I I
J I , I I i
10
I, I I
100
Particle Cut Size - Dp50 (urn)
FIGURE 2-1. Run 3 (Test No 7) PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Central Carolina Hospital (1990)
-------
N>
^"
!
99.9
99.8
99.5
99
98
95.
90
80.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
~i i i 1—i—i—r~r
n 1 1—i—i i r
0.
PSD Run No 4
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No. = 7 Condition = 2
Date= 09/26/90
Correlation (R2) = 0.9927
i i i i i
10
I I
i i i i i
160
Particle Cut Size - DpSO (urn)
FIGURE 2-2. Run 4 (Test No 7) PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Central Carolina Hospital (1990)
-------
N>
CO
*•
I
i
3
Q.
•5
O
I
UL
3
s
99.9
99.8
99.5
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
T T
1 1 T
0.
PSD Run No 5
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No. = 9 Condition = 3
Date= 09/28/90
Correlation (R2) = 0.9957
10
100
Particle Cut Size - Dp50 (urn)
FIGURE 2-3. Run 5 (Test No 9) PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Central Carolina Hospital (1990)
-------
K)
1
i
r
s.
u.
2
99.9
99.8
99.5
99
98
95,
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
T 1 1 1 1 1—T~T
~~l 1 1 1 I I I
1 1 1—r~T
0
"i——r
PSD Run No 6
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No. =10 Condition = 1
Date= 10/02/90
Correlation (R1) = 0.9944
J l__l l__L_
10
i —r
_J L I I
100
Particle Cut Size - DpSO (urn)
FIGURE 2-4. Run 6 (Test No 10) PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Central CaroRna Hospital (1990)
-------
TABLE 2-43. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 1 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; CENTRAL CAROLINA 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
0.59
16.68
1.40
14.76
0.91
1.41
2.99
13.83
8.02
9.60
9.62
79.8
1.97
66.75
2.99
5.70
63.59
7.01
3.64
4.48
0.17
21.60
8.99
1.12
6.46
5.41
2oa
280
RUN 3
(1.221)
159.08
4.69
130.98
4.59
7.45
14.28
103.21
42.62
52.43
54.75
575
8.21
482.41
11.53
30.31
365.18
53.07
22.05
45.72
1.35
150.10
83.02
12.85
72.60
84.72
1,420
2,000
RUN 10
(0.349)
18.25
1.14
18.47
1.37
2.72
4.05
25.43
20.06
22.47
25.57
140
2.47
83.37
3.74
9.02
74.40
12.46
6.36
12.82
0.60
41.92
23.44
5.17
23.32
36.81
336
476
AVERAGE
0.72
64.67
2.41
54.73
2.29
3.86
7.11
47.49
23.56
28.17
29.98
265
4.22
210.84
6.09
15.01
167.73
24.18
10.68
21.01
0.71
71.21
38.48
6.38
34.13
42.31
653
918
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 percent 02)
RUN I
0.588
0.000
0.700
0.000
0.091
0.141
0.299
0.000
0.080
0.000
0.010
1.909
0.197
0.000
0.149
2.852
0.000
0.701
0.364
0.448
0.017
0.000
0.090
0.011
0.000
0.005
4.84
6.74
RUN 3
(1.221)
0.000
2.347
0.000
0.459
0.745
1.428
0.000
0.426
0.000
0.055
6.681
0.821
0.000
0.577
15.156
0.000
5.307
2.205
4.572
0.135
0.000
0.830
0.129
0.000
0.085
29.8
36.5
RUN 10
(0.349)
0.000
0.568
0.000
0.137
0.272
0.405
0.000
0.201
0.000
0.026
1.957
0.247
0.000
0.187
4.511
0.000
1.246
0.636
1.282
0.060
0.000
0.234
0.052
0.000
0.037
8.49
10.4
AVERAG:
0.715;
o.ooc-
1.205
O.OOOi
0.2291
0.386
0.711'
0.000
0.236
0.000
0.030
3.516
0.422
0.000
0.304
7.506
0.000
2.418
1.068
2.101
0.071
0.000
0.385
0.064
0.000
0.042
14.4
17.9
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.
2-68
-------
TABLE 2-44. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 2 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; CENTRAL CAROLINA 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 2
19.38
455.05
60.21
398.94
57.25
67.67
120.43
557.79
321.62
336.68
417.74
2,810
59.03
1757.26
169.40
235.72
2706.91
505.16
303.09
296.98
21.02
1730.97
803.30
121.46
647.03
560.44
9,920
12,700
RUN 4
46.44
824.60
181.92
1217.39
156.57
199.42
378.72
1486.85
811.76
885.18
614.12
6,800
171.50
4822.55
697.96
826.53
11130.98
2011.66
1268.23
900.89
78.82
6804.35
2562.79
309.63
1798.33
785.47
34,200
41,000
RUNS
22.24
560.19
112.93
728.62
131.43
136.73
245.24
1056.77
760.44
827.45
952.82
5,530
10.49
394.11
251.50
321.24
3882.92
1049.81
636.07
558.40
38.56
3601.04
1782.03
227.63
1342.50
838.12
14,900
20,500
AVERAGE
29.35
613.28
118.35
781.65
115.08
134.61
248.13
1033.80
631.27
683.10
661.56
5,050
80.34
2324.64
372.95
461.16
5906.94
1188.88
735.80
585.42
46.13
4045.45
1716.04
219.57
1262.62
728.01
19,700
24,700
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR
1.00000
0.00000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
0.10000
0.00000
0.05000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 2
19.385
0.000
30.106
0.000
5.725
6.767
12.043
0.000
3.216
0.000
0.418
77.7
5.903
0.000
8.470
117.862
0.000
50.516
30.309
29.698
2.102
0.000
8.033
1.215
0.000
0.560
255
332
RUN 4
46.442
0.000
90.962
0.000
15.657
19.942
37.872
0.000
8.118
0.000
0.614
220
17.150
0.000
34.898
413.265
0.000
201.166
126.823
90.089
7.882
0.000
25.628
3.096
0.000
0.785
921
1,140
RUN 8
22.237
0.000
56.463
0.000
13.143
13.673
24.524
0.000
7.604
0.000
0.953
139
1.049
0.000
12.575
160.620
0.000
104.981
63.607
55.840
3.856
0.000
17.820
2.276
0.000
0.838
423
562
AVERAGE
29.355
0.000
59.177
0.000
11.508
13.461
24.813
0.000
6.313
0.000
0.662
145
8.034
0.000
18.648
230.582
0.000
118.888
73.580
58.542
4.613
0.000
17.160
2.196
0.000
0.728
533
678
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.
2-69
-------
TABLE 2-45. CDD/CDF STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT STACK GAS
CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 7 PERCENT O2 FOR CONDITION 3 INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; CENTRAL CAROLINA 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)
RUNS
0.66
51.72
1.73
32.51
1.10
1.64
3.38
21.63
11.32
12.23
15.70
154
3.12
117.35
3.74
6.39
57.97
8.30
4.29
5.93
0.30
24.36
16.27
2.10
12.14
10.95
273
427
RUN 6
(0.198)
10.08
0.62
10.38
0.51
0.86
1.62
10.50
5.69
6.66
7.15
54.3
0.78
26.13
1.44
2.52
22.23
4.32
2.16
3.42
0.16
12.35
7.66
1.53
6.21
12.09
103
157
RUN 9
2.05
119.00
4.75
95.08
2.79
4.26
7.05
50.28
19.30
23.28
25.06
353
9.41
363.91
10.25
15.99
208.09
19.85
10.42
13.78
0.67
65.93
27.48
3.61
21.08
21.74
792
1,150
AVERAGE
0.97
60.27
2.37
45.99
1.47
2.26
4.02
27.47
12.10
14.06
15.97
187
4.44
169.13
5.14
8.30
96.10
10.83
5.62
7.71
0.38
34.21
17.14
2.41
13.14
14.93
389
576
2378-TCDD b
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR
1.00000
0.00000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
0.10000
0.00000
0.05000
0.50000
0.00000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.10000
0.00000
0.01000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00100
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent 02)
RUNS
0.657
0.000
0.867
0.000
0.110
0.164
0.338
0.000
0.113
0.000
0.016
2.264
0.312
0.000
0.187
3.194
0.000
0.830
0.429
0.593
0.030
0.000
0.163
0.021
0.000
0.011
5.77
8.03
RUN 6
(0.198)
0.000
0.310
0.000
0.051
0.086
0.162
0.000
0.057
0.000
0.007
0.872
0.078
0.000
0.072
1.260
0.000
0.432
0.216
0.342
0.016
0.000
0.077
0.015
0.000
0.012
2.52
3.39
RUN 9
2.048
0.000
2.375
0.000
0.279
0.426
0.705
0.000
0.193
0.000
0.025
6.051
0.941
0.000
0.513
7.995
0.000
1.985
1.042
1.378
0.067
0.000
0.275
0.036
0.000
0.022
14.3
20.3
AVERAGE
0.968
0.000
1.184
0.000
0.147
0.226
0.402
0.000
0.121
0.000
0.016
3.062
0.444
0.000
0.257
4.150
0.000
1.083
0.562
0.771
0.038
0.000
0.171
0.024
0.000
0.015
7.51
10.6
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.
2-70
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
3.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Central Carolina Hospital is a 137-bed hospital located in Sanford, North Carolina.
The medical waste incinerator (MWI) at this facility is a Consumat C-75-P with a design
capacity of 176 pounds per hour (Ib/hr) of Type IV (pathological) waste. The unit is
also designed to burn general medical (nonpathological) waste at a rate of about
250 Ib/hr. Two natural-gas-fired auxiliary burners in the primary chamber are used to
maintain a pre-set minimum combustion temperature. Primary chamber temperatures
normally range between 1200 and 1600°F. The hospital burns red bag waste, sharps
containers, and a small amount of waste from nearby doctors' offices. Cafeteria waste,
cardboard boxes, and general waste is compacted and landfilled.
The MWI is charged manually by opening a large refractory-lined charging door that
opens at the front of the primary chamber. As a safety feature, the primary burners and
blowers switch off automatically when the charging door is opened. The MWI is
designed for 8 to 12 hours of operation each day, with ashes removed manually after
cooldown.
The secondary chamber on this unit is sized for a design gas retention time of about
0.3 to 0.4 second. A gas-fired auxiliary burner in the secondary chamber is activated
automatically when the temperature falls below a preset level, normally about 1600°F.
Setpoint and actual temperatures in each chamber are displayed on a dial in the control
panel.
Combustion air is supplied to the unit by two combustion air blowers, one for the
primary chamber and one for the secondary chamber. The primary chamber blower
supplies air to a plenum to which three separate air ducts are attached. One of these
ducts supplies air to the combustion air ports inside the primary chamber. The
20 primary chamber air ports are equally spaced around the wall of the chamber, about
8 inches off the floor. The other two ducts supply air to the primary chamber burners.
All three of these air ducts have manually adjustable dampers that are set at about
JBS238
-------
45 degrees (half way between totally open and totally closed) and were not moved during
the test program.
The secondary chamber combustion air blower supplies air to the secondary burner
and to the secondary chamber flameport area. The distribution of the airflow is
controlled by a manual damper that was set at about 45 degrees and not adjusted during
testing. The secondary chamber blower is on during operation of the MWI; there is no
modulation of the airflow.
The Consumat "P"-designated MWI's are dual-mode units that are designed to burn
either wet (pathological) or dry (general medical) waste. This is accomplished through
the use of a "wet waste"-"dry waste" switch on the control panel door. The switch
controls the operation of the primary chamber burners and the combustion air blowers.
Teting was conducted with the unit operating in the "wet waste" mode for both types of
waste. Burndown was set at 4 hours. The unit operates in the following manner while
on the "dry waste" setting. During the initial warmup period, the primary chamber
burners and blower are controlled by a timer that was set at 1.5 hours (adjustable up to
3 hours) and the temperature setpoint. If the temperature setpoint is reached before the
timer has cut off, burners and blower shut off until the temperature falls to about 50°F
below the setpoint, where both cut on again. Once the preset warmup time has elapsed,
the burners shut off, but the blower operation is controlled by the temperature setpoint.
If after 4 hours of operation, for example, the temperature falls SOT below the setpoint,
the blower (but not the burners) comes on until the setpoint is reached. The unit
operates in this manner until buradown is completed. The secondary chamber blower
runs continuously while the unit is in operation, and the burner cycles off and on based
on the secondary chamber temperature setpoint.
The warmup timer is not operative in the Vet waste" mode. In this mode the
primary chamber burners and blower always operate simultaneously. When started cold,
the burners and blower run until the temperature setpoint is reached, then both cutoff.
When the primary chamber temperature falls to SOT below the setpoint, the burners and
blower come back on. The unit operates in this manner until burndown is completed.
The time for burndown is set by the burndown timer and is the same for both wet and
JBS238 3-2
-------
dry settings. The secondary chamber blower is always on and the burner cycles off and
on based on the secondary chamber temperature setpoint.
There is no add-on air pollution control device on this MWI. Because of the
inadequate length of the original stack, a stack extension with sampling ports was added
for the test.
The general medical waste burned during the test program was red bag waste
generated by the hospital. Because the hospital does not generate sufficient pathological
waste to charge at the target test condition, pathological waste was obtained from two
research labs located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. This pathological
waste, comprised of animal carcasses, was transported to the site in double plastic bags
inside cardboard boxes.
3.2 PRETEST ACTIVITIES
The proposed test program at this MWI included operating the unit under three
different operating conditions. Condition I was a reduced rate of pathological waste
(about 100 Ib/hr, 15 minute charges, 1900°F secondary chamber setpoint). Condition II
was the design rate for general medical waste (about 250 Ib/hr, 15 minute charges,
1600°F secondary chamber setpoint). Condition HI was the design rate for pathological
waste (about 160 to 170 Ib/hr, 15 minute charges, 1600°F secondary chamber setpoint).
A pretest trial burn was conducted for the two design conditions (Conditions II and III)
to determine the operational readiness of the incinerator and the ability of the
incinerator to operate successfully at the desired operating conditions. Because
Condition I was defined as a "reduced" rate, it was decided that a pretest at this
condition was not necessary if Condition HI could be achieved.
3.2.1 Pretests-General Medical Waste
September 11. 1990
The purpose of this pretest was to investigate the operating procedures of the MWI
and to verify that it could be successfully operated for a period of at least 4 to 5 hours at
the waste charging rate specified for the test period. During this pretest, general medical
waste was to be charged at a rate of about 240 to 250 Ib/hr (60 Ib/charge, 15 minute
charging frequency). The secondary burner setpoint was 1600°F.
JBS238 3-3
-------
When Radian and MRI personnel arrived at the hospital at 9:00 am, the MWI was
not operating and, when opened, it was obvious that the unit was cold and had not been
operated for several days. Most of the loose ashes had been removed, exposing a 6- to
10-inch thick layer of solid, clinker-like material (slag) that had accumulated on the
hearth.
Hospital personnel explained that, although Consumat representatives indicated that
combustion capability of the unit would be improved if the air ports were routinely
cleaned, the hospital employees were not familiar with the proper cleaning procedures.
Loose ash was routinely cleaned out after each burn but the air ports were not cleaned.
At the request of EPA, removal of the slag was undertaken. By around 2 p.m. the
slag had been removed from the hearth and 19 of the 20 air ports had been located and
drilled out with a masonry drill bit. This was considered sufficient to allow the pretest
activities to continue.
Soon after completing the cleaning activities, an attempt was made to fire up the unit
to begin the preheat period. When the unit was switched on, the secondary burner and
primary chamber blower came on, but the primary burners did not ignite. After some
investigation, an engineering services employee from the hospital manually adjusted the
reset timer, and one of the primary burners came on. Hospital personnel indicated
earlier in the day that the second burner had not been functioning recently. This burner
would not ignite despite repeated attempts. Further efforts to identify the problem with
the second burner indicated that the relay that opens the main gas valve might be
malfunctioning.
At about 3:30, the decision was made to proceed with the burning of some waste
with only one burner on because the primary burners are not generally needed after the
initial few charges have brought the temperature up in the primary. Sixty-pound charges
were fed to the MWI every 15 minutes for the next 1.5 hours. At about 4:25, the
incinerator operator had to leave, and a decision was made to load only 1 or 2 more
charges and stop rather than locate another operator. The last charge was loaded at
4:52, and the last temperature was recorded at 5:07.
JBS238
3-4
-------
While a complete pretest was not performed during this visit, several important
observations were made. It was agreed that a service technician (from Consumat, if
possible) needed to be brought in to correct the problems with the inoperative primary
burner and the reset timer and to calibrate the thermocouples. The accuracy of the
thermocouples was questioned because the highest recorded secondary temperature was
only about 1400°F. This is essentially the lowest that the gauge will read when the
setpoint is 1600°F. The temperature gauge was, therefore, pegged at the bottom of the
scale during the burn period. The primary chamber temperature went up to about
1500T once during the burn. Based on previous experience and the fact that the MWI
was burning exclusively high-plastic, red bag waste, this indicated that the recorded
secondary chamber temperature seemed too low.
The unit operated reasonably well during the 1.5-hour burn. On the second charge,
dense black smoke was emitted from the door seals, burner port assemblies,
thermocouple wire conduits, and stack for a period of about 90 seconds. The smoke
then gradually ceased. Subsequent charges did not cause a repeat of this heavy smoke,
although while the charging door was open, there was a significant amount of smoke
emitted from the door. When the door was closed, the unit operated without visible
emissions.
The following actions were planned as a result of this pretest: (1) the hospital would
attempt to arrange for a service technician to visit the site as soon as possible, (2) a
tentative schedule of test-related activities for the next 2 weeks would be prepared for
the hospital so that they could schedule the operators and the storage and burning of
their waste, and (3) if possible, a complete pretest on medical waste would be conducted
on Friday, September 14.
September 14. 1990
On Friday, September 14, 1990, a followup pretest was conducted at the hospital.
The purpose of this pretest was to observe the repairs made to the MWI as a result of
the problems that arose during the September 11, 1990, pretest visit. Southern
Electronic Controls, Inc., had been contracted by Consumat to service and repair the
unit.
JBS238 3-5
-------
The inspection and servicing of the MWI began by removing and checking the
secondary chamber burner assembly. This unit was basically in good condition. A minor
adjustment was made to the burner igniter so that a better spark would be produced.
The burner assembly was then returned to the secondary chamber burner housing.
Each of the primary burners was then removed, inspected, and returned, with only
minor adjustments to the igniters being required. The "flame rods," which detect the
presence of a flame from the burner and keep the gas valve open, were also removed
and cleaned.
The unit was then switched on and, as occurred on September 11, 1990, the
secondary burner ignited, but the primary burners did not. A check of the switches and
relays that control the operation of the burners followed. It was discovered that two of
the lead wires in the control box were cross-wired. This error prevented the correct
operation of the primary chamber burner timer. After the wiring problem was corrected,
one primary burner ignited, but the other did not. The relay boxes for each burner were
then inspected and a faulty relay was found that prevented the gas valve from opening
on the inoperative burner. The relay was removed and cleaned, the contact points were
realigned, and the unit was replaced. Upon restarting the unit, all burners ignited.
Although the equipment necessary to check the accuracy of the thermocouples was
not available, the upper and lower thermocouple assemblies were removed and
inspected. It was found that the upper unit was wired backwards and that some of the
insulation had chipped off. The result of these problems was that the secondary
chamber thermocouple did not work at all. After the unit was rewired, the indicated
temperature fluctuated drastically because of the damage to the insulation. Therefore, a
new thermocouple was installed. The lower unit appeared to operate properly.
After these repairs had been completed, the unit was restarted and appeared to
operate as designed. Red bag waste was charged to the MWI at a rate of 200 to
240 Ib/hr (50 to 60 Ib/charge, with a 15-minute charging frequency) for about 4 hours.
All of the MWI systems (burners, thermocouples, tuners, and temperature displays)
seemed to be operating properly; however, an accumlation of material in the primary
chamber indicated that the charging rate might be too high.
JBS238 3-6
-------
The extent of the repairs that were required for this MWI were unexpected. The
problems at this unit appear to have been compounded by a lack of routine
maintenance, recent changes in hospital personnel, and the fact that the operation of the
unit and the maintenance of the unit are under two different departments in the hospital
administration. It became apparent during the September 11, 1990, pretest that certain
basic repairs to the unit would be necessary prior to operating the unit in a manner that
would be considered "typical" of 6- to 10-year-old units.
The current Director of Engineering at the facility was aware that the MWI was not
in good working condition and was anxious for the unit to be repaired. Other hospital
personnel appeared to be interested in learning about the proper operation and
maintenance of the unit. It appears that the operating condition of this unit was poor,
but that most of the problems were easily corrected and that proper attention by hospital
staff is needed.
September 18. 1990
The target charge rate was revised based on observations made during the
September 14, 1990, pretest. The purpose of this pretest was to confirm that the MWI
could be operated at this revised target test condition (200 Ib/hr; 50 Ib every 15 minutes;
secondary chamber setpoint of 1600°F) for at least 5 hours. Red bag medical waste
generated at the hospital was charged to the unit during this pretest.
The MWI was cleaned out and allowed to preheat for about 15 minutes prior to
loading the first charge. At 11:15 am, the first charge of the day was placed in the
incinerator. Temperature readings were taken immediately after the loading door was
closed and at 5-minute intervals thereafter. Between 11:15 am and 4:15 pm, 19 charges
ranging from 45.3 to 56.7 Ib were loaded into the MWI at 15-minute intervals.
The following observations were made during the pretest bum:
1. The temperature in the primary chamber climbed to about 1300°F (the setpoint)
in about 30 minutes, and after about 1 hour it had reached 1500°F. The temperature
stayed between 1400° and 1500°F for the remainder of the bum period.
2. The secondary chamber temperature was very erratic and was influenced greatly
by the charging cycle and the condition of the primary burners/blowers. When the
-1.7
JBS238 ^ '
-------
primary burners are on, the secondary chamber temperature peaks are much higher than
if the primary burners are off. The secondary chamber temperature peaks about
5 minutes after each charge, and the peaks tended to get higher after the unit had been
operating for several hours. Very high peaks also occurred during the first hour while
the primary burners were operating.
3. Near the end of the bum period, the ash bed in the unit had become so high that
it was causing some difficulty in loading additional waste. Flames and dense black
smoke came out when the charging door was opened, and large bags were difficult to
load because the ash bed restricted access to the interior of the unit.
4. The unit appeared to operate well during the pretest; there was very little smoke
from the stack, the temperatures were fairly stable within the expected range, and the
burners/blowers cycled off and on as expected. The most obvious problem observed
during the pretest was the continuing accumulation of material in the primary chamber.
It was apparent that the unit was not capable of burning the waste completely at the
charge rate being used. By the end of the bum period, the primary chamber was so full
that it was difficult to charge.
When the incinerator was opened the following morning a large accumulation of hot,
smoldering material was found in the primary chamber. Burnout was poor in terms of
quality and quantity. The material flamed up immediately when efforts to remove it
began. As was the case with other MWI's tested, this unit appears to be significantly
overrated in terms of the quantity of red bag waste that can be burned per hour.
Therefore, the charge rate for actual testing was further reduced to 160 Ib/hr.
3.2.2 Pretests-Pathological Waste
September 19. 1990
The purpose of this pretest was to determine if the MWI could be operated at the
target test condition (160 Ib/hr; 40 Ib every 15 minutes; 1600°F secondary chamber
setpoint) for at least 4 hours. Pathological waste was charged to the unit during this
pretest.
After the ash had been removed, the unit was allowed to preheat for about
40 minutes before charging began. The first charge was loaded into the unit at 1:20 pm.
JBS238 3-8
-------
The first few boxes ranged from 43 to 57 Ib in weight. It was decided that 20-minute
charging cycles would be used because the boxes were somewhat heavier than expected
and no one believed that the boxes should be opened. The target feed rate was changed
to about 55 Ib every 20 minutes.
Because of the size of the large boxes, it was very difficult to load two in the same
charge. The first box ignited and flamed out the door before the second could be
pushed through the charging door. (The boxes are 16 in. x 16 in. x 30 in., generally
weigh 25 to 50 Ib, and must be placed through a waist-high opening about 24 in. x 24 in.)
After the first charge, the loads consisted of one large box and two to six smaller boxes
to total near the target weight. The smaller boxes could be tossed far enough into the
unit to allow charging of the one large box.
After about an hour, the temperatures leveled out around the setpoints. Deviations
occurred with each charge but were generally small and brief. After about 3 hours, the
primary burners cycled off and on occasionally but the temperature stayed between 1475°
and 1525°F. Each time the primary burners cut off, the secondary temperature fell
sharply to the 1400° to 1450°F range. Within a few minutes, the primary burners came
back on, and the increased airflow caused the secondary chamber temperature to return
to the 1600° to 1625°F range.
The unit operated in this pattern until charging was completed at 5:20 (out of waste).
There do not appear to be any temperature limitations that would affect the duration of
the bum period. The waste bed inside the unit appeared to have good burnout; only a
moderate amount of buildup from the 608 Ib of waste charged remained. The other
possible limitation is the size/weight of the boxes. The amount of variation in the
weight of the boxes may cause the individual charges to vary, but attempts were made to
maintain the target rate on a per hour basis.
During the period from 1:20 to 5:20 pm, 608 Ib of waste were burned (three charges
per hour for 4 hours) at an average rate of about 152 Ib/hr. During the actual test
period, the maximum target rate will be slightly higher. The "reduced rate" test will be
conducted with a target rate of about 100 Ib/hr. Neither of the pathological waste
conditions are believed to present an operational problem.
JBS238 ^
-------
3.3 PROCESS CONDITIONS DURING TESTING
The primary purpose of this source test was to characterize the uncontrolled
emissions from a pathological MWI when both pathological waste and general medical
waste are burned. Therefore, all testing was conducted with the unit operating in the
Vet-waste" (pathological) mode. Also, this facility is typical of the size and design of
many existing units in which pathological wastes are burned.
The incinerator appeared to operate properly throughout all the test runs for all
three test conditions. The burnout, however, was visibly good only for the 100 Ib/hr
pathological waste condition and was very poor for the 160 Ib/hr pathological waste
condition and the 160 Ib/hr medical waste condition.
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, and ash weights. 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 parameters are presented in Appendix B. Figures 3-1 through 3-10 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 of 100 Ib/hr of
pathological waste in 25-lb charges every 15 minutes and a secondary chamber
temperature setpoint of 1900°F. The controller setpoints for the three runs at this
condition were: primary chamber burner on/off temperature, 1500°F; primary chamber
blower on/off temperature, 1500°F; secondary chamber burner on/off temperature,
1900°F; burndown time, 3 hours.
Thursday, September 20, 1990: The hearth was cleaned and the air ports cleared in
preparation for the test. Preheat began at 1:40 p.m., and testing began when the first
charge was introduced at 2:00, in keeping with the typical warmup time of this facility.
This was also the recommended minimum warmup time by Consumat.
JBS238
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-1. PROCESS DATA SUMMARY FOR EMISSIONS TESTING AT AMI CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL
Ten
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
1
0
10
Tett
Date
8/20/80
0/21/90
a/22/00
a/23/ao
8/24/80
8/26/00
8/2fl/80
0/27/00
ana/oo
10/2/80
T«r a* TM! Common*
Charge Rat*
(IWhr)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
(Ib/chrg)
26
40
26
40
40
40
40
40
40
26
Charge
Typ*(c)
P
H
P
H
P
P
H
H
P
P
Charge
Fteq
(mln)
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Daily Operation (a)
Secondary
Chamber
Setpoint
Temp
(F)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Preheat
time
(mln)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Charge
Time
before
teet
(mln)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hour* of
Charging
(hrfa)
4.3
0
4.6
0.1
4.1
4.1
4.6
4.3
4.8
4.3
Total
Waete
Charged
(Ib/d)
603
1010
688
006
076
007
700
727
807
464
Art)
(
-------
00
I
Ui
§
Q.
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
140°
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 1 (9-20-90)
~l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~T—i—i—i—I—t—i—r~
~~|—i—i—i—i—i—I—i—i 1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00 16:30
T1ME(24 HOUR)
17:00
17:30
18:00
18:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3—1. Temperature Profile for Run 1
-------
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1800
§ 1700
5 1600
w 1500
OL
g 1400
P 1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 2 (9-21-90)
9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00
TlME(24 HOUR)
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Rgure 3-2. Temperature Profile for Run 2
-------
DC
111
00
I
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 3 (9-22-90)
-i—i—i—i—p—I—i—i—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—I—I—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
9:30
10:00 10:30
11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30
TIME(24 HOUR)
13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-3. Temperature Profile for Run 3
-------
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
B 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 4 (9-23-90)
T—i—i—i——I—F—i—r
i—i—i—i—I—i—i—i—T—r~
-I T 1 1-
"T 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 T V
11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-4. Temperature Profile for Run 4
-------
CO
I
1900
1800
1700
1600
£1500
I
UJ
£: 1300
1400
1200
1100
1000
900
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 5 (9-24-90)
-i—I—i—i—I—i—i—i—r
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
Figure 3 — 5. Temperature Profile for Run 5
-------
to
I
UJ
cc
i
LLJ
QL
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 6 (9-25-90)
10:00
1 ' ' i ' "
10:30
T—i—r—i—|—i—r
11:00
11:30
iiiir-
12:00 12:30
TIME(24 HOUR)
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Rgure 3-6. Temperature Profile for Run 6
-------
^
a:
lil
OJ
I
00
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 7 (9-26-90)
-I—I—I—r-
—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—p—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—
10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00
T1ME(24 HOUR)
13:30
14:00
14:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-7. Temperature Profile for Run 7
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 8 (9-27-90)
UJ
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
~I 1 1 1 T~
13:30
14:00 14:30
15:00 15:30 16:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
16:30
17:00
17:30
18:00
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-8. Temperature Profile for Run 8
-------
CO
r
PO
o
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400^
1300 \
12OO\
11CXH
1000 \
900
800
11
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 9 (9-28-90)
i • ' •
00
11:30
-i—i—i—i——i—i—r
12:00
12:30
13:00 13:30
TIME(24 HOUR)
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3 — 9. Temperature Profile for Run 9
-------
CO
I
IN}
2000
1900
1800
1700
(T 1600
g 1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
RUN 10 (10-2-90)
-i—i—i—r—i—i—r
-T—i—i—T—i—i—i—(—i—i—r
I—i—i—i——I—r
10:00
10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30
TIME(24 HOUR)
' i '
13:00
13:30
1 1 T T~
14:00
T
14:30
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
Figure 3-10. Temperature Profile for Run 10
-------
The incinerator ran smoothly with no problems. Because of the weight of the large
boxes of pathological waste, the charging frequency had to be varied in order to maintain
a charge rate of approximately 100 Ib/hr. The primary chamber temperature leveled out
at approximately 1500°F at 4:15. After approximately 1 hour of operation, the secondary
chamber had reached a temperature of 1500°F and then cycled between a temperature
of 1500°F and 1800°F for the remainder of the test. The incinerator secondary chamber
temperature approached the setpoint temperature of 1900°F only once, at 5:33, when the
temperature reached 1898°F.
The secondary chamber burner appears to be too small to consistently maintain a
temperature greater than the primary chamber temperature while burning a low-Btu,
high-moisture waste.
The last charge was introduced at 6:15, and testing was completed at 6:20.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 21, 1990) at 7:15, with
ash cleanout beginning at 8:08 and being completed at 9:05. There was fairly good
burnout of the waste, with only a few clumps of smoldering, unburned material. All of
the ash was removed.
The total waste charged was 503.4 Ib, and the total ash weight was 21.2 Ib. The
actual feed rate was 106 Ib/hr, and the percent burndown was 95.8.
3.3.2 Condition II. Run 1 (Test Run 2)
For this condition, the target operating parameters were a charge of 160 Ib/hr of
general medical waste (red bag) in 40-lb charges every 15 minutes, with a secondary
chamber temperature setpoint of 1600°F. The controller setpoints for these three runs at
this condition were: primary chamber burner on/off temperature, 1500°F; primary
chamber blower on/off temperature, 1500°F; secondary chamber burner on/off
temperature, 1600T; burndown time, 3 hours.
Friday, September 21, 1990: The hearth was cleaned and the air ports cleared
before testing began. Preheat began at 9:25, and testing began with the first charge at
9:45. The incinerator ran smoothly with no major problems. At 11:25, the primary
chamber temperature setpoint was changed from 1500°F to 1400°F in order to limit the
temperature increase in the secondary chamber just after the charging cycle. With the
JBS238 3-22
-------
primary chamber burners and blower still on just after the charging cycle, the secondary
chamber temperature was climbing above 2300°F. At 11:56, the primary chamber
temperature setpoint was changed again to 1300°F. After this change, the primary
chamber burner remained off for the remainder of the test, and the secondary chamber
temperature remained between 1300°F and 2100°F.
Testing was completed at 2:37 pm, and the last charge was introduced at 3:45.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 22, 1990) at 6:45, with
ash being removed starting at 7:33. There was a large amount of unburned, smoldering
material remaining in the incinerator; this material burst into flame upon agitation. The
ash bed had to be quenched with water in order to complete the ash removal. Ash
removal was completed at 9:12.
The total waste charged was 1,015.8 Ib, and the total wet ash weight was 139 Ib. The
actual feedrate was 162.5 Ib/hr.
3.3.3 Condition I. Run 2 (Test Run 3^
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 100 Ib/hr pathological waste
in 25-lb charges every 15 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature setpoint of
1900°F.
Saturday, September 22, 1990: The hearth was cleaned and the air ports cleared
before testing began. The incinerator was started at 9:25 am and charging as well as
testing began at 9:45. The charging periods varied from 15 to 30 minutes because of the
weight of the large boxes of pathological waste.
The incinerator ran smoothly with no problems. The primary chamber temperature
leveled out at 1500°F, and the secondary chamber temperature remained fairly low, only
climbing above 1900T twice at 2:05 and 2:35 pm. The last charge was introduced at
2:30 and testing was completed at 2:40.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (Sunday, September 23, 1990) at
9:20, and there was a small amount of unburned material in the ash bed. Ash removal
started at 10:01 and was completed at 11:07. All of the ash was removed.
The total waste charged was 588.3 Ib, and the total ash weight was 22.4 Ib. The
actual feed rate was 112.1 Ib/hr, with a 96.2 percent burndown.
JBS238 3-23
-------
3.3.4 Condition II. Run 2 (Test Run 4)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 160 Ib/hr of general medical
waste (red bag) in 40-lb charges every 15 minutes, with a secondary chamber
temperature setpoint of 1600°F.
Sunday, September 23, 1990: The ash removal door handle was broken during the
ash removal. It had broken during ash removal several times in the past, according to
the operator, and another handle latch pin had been welded on. The maintenance crew
was not working that day, so the ash door was closed and a wedge was driven into the
latching mechanism to hold the door closed tightly. The incinerator was started at 11:20
am, and charging as well as testing began at 11:40. The incinerator appeared to operate
smoothly throughout the test, with the exception of the smoking from the stack. There
was a constant stream of brown smoke, occasionally changing to dense, black smoke,
coming from the stack throughout the test. Because there appeared to be much more
smoke than in the previous medical waste test, the incinerator was inspected to
determine if everything was operating properly. Everything appeared normal, and the
wedge on the ash door was driven in tighter, but the smoking continued. The
temperature in the primary chamber during this test run climbed to over 1900°F before
the test was completed. During the other medical waste test runs, the primary chamber
only reached a temperature of between 1500°F and 1600°F. The testing was completed
at 3:54 pm, and the last charge was introduced at 5:45. It was decided to continue
burning red bag waste after the testing had been completed in order to dispose of some
of the red bag waste in the storage room. The process conditions were maintained
during this time.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 24, 1990) at 8:28, and
there were flaming and smoldering patches of unburned waste in the ash bed. Ash
removal started at 8:58 and was completed at 9:31. The waste bed had to be quenched
with water in order to complete the ash cleanout.
The total waste charged was 905.3 Ib, and the total wet ash weight was 172.7 Ib. The
actual charge rate was 142.9 Ib/hr.
JBS238
3-24
-------
3.3.5 Condition HI. Run 1 (Test Run 5}
The target operating parameters were a charge feed rate of 160 Ib/hr of pathological
waste in 40-lb charges every 15 minutes, with a secondary chamber temperature setpoint
of 1600°F. The controller setpoints for the three runs at this condition were: primary
chamber burner on/off temperature, 1500°F; primary chamber burner on/off
temperature, 1500T; secondary chamber burner on/off temperature, 1600T; burndown
time, 3 hours.
Monday, September 24, 1990: After the hearth was cleaned and the air ports
cleared, the maintenance personnel attempted to fix the ash door handle. They were not
able to fix the door handle until a latch pin could be obtained, so a large C-clamp was
used to clamp the door closed tightly. This method, which was more effective at sealing
the ash door than the original handle, was used for the remainder of the tests.
The incinerator was started at 11:25, and charging as well as testing was started at
11:45. The incinerator ran smoothly with no problems throughout the test. The primary
chamber temperature leveled out at around 1500°F, and the secondary chamber
temperature alternated between 1400°F and 1700°F. The secondary chamber reached a
temperature greater than 1800°F only twice during the test, at 1:47 and at 2:02. Testing
was completed at 3:45, and the last charge was introduced at 3:50.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 25, 1990) at 8:38, and
a large mound of smoldering, unburaed waste remained. Cleanout was started at 8:18
and completed at 9:41. There were recognizable remnants of the pathological waste in
the center of the waste bed. Burnout, which was fairly good on the 100 Ib/hr
pathological waste condition, appeared to be very poor on the 160 Ib/hr pathological
waste condition. Upon agitation, some of the waste burst into flame and had to be
quenched with water.
The total waste charged was 674.6 Ib, and the total wet ash weight was 45.1 Ib. The
actual charge rate was 150 Ib/hr.
3-25
-------
3.3.6 Condition HI. Run 2 (Test Run 6)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 160 Ib/hr of pathological
waste in 40-lb charges every 15 minutes, with a secondary chamber temperature setpoint
of 1600°F.
Tuesday, September 25, 1990: After the hearth was cleaned and the air ports
cleared, the incinerator was started at 9:50 am. Charging as well as testing began at
10:10. The incinerator operated properly with no problems throughout the test. Testing
was completed at 2:15, and the last charge was introduced at that time.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 26, 1990) and a large
amount of smoldering, unburned waste remained. Cleanout was started at 8:54 and
completed at 9:27. There were, again, recognizable remnants of the pathological waste
in the center of the waste bed. Burnout was very poor.
The total waste charged was 697.2 Ib, and the total ash weight was 41.4 Ib. The
actual charge rate was 156.7 Ib/hr, with a 94.1 percent burndown.
3.3.7 Condition II. Run 3 (Test Run 7^
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 160 Ib/hr of hospital waste in
40-lb charges every 15 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature setpoint of 1600T.
Wednesday, September 26, 1990: The hearth was cleaned and the air ports cleared
before testing began. The incinerator was started at 9:40 am, and charging as well as
testing began at 10:00. The incinerator operated smoothly throughout the test with no
apparent problems. There was occasionally some smoke from the stack, while Run 2 at
this condition smoked almost constantly. There was, however, during this run a 7-minute
period when heavy smoke emerged from the stack after a large bag of plastic sharps
containers had been charged.
A thermocouple sealed inside a pipe was placed in the suspected cold spot of the
incinerator to give a continuous readout of the temperature inside the waste bed. The
temperature within the pipe climbed from 119°F to 1245°F in approximately 1.5 hours
and then started to decline. Within 1 hour, the temperature had dropped to 424°F and
within another hour stabilized around 220°F. The temperature in the primary chamber
at this time was approximately 1400°F.
JBS238 3-26
-------
Testing was completed at 2:06, and the last charge was introduced at 2:30. At the
end of the test, it was discovered that the dioxin sampling probe had broken.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 27, 1990) and a large
amount of burning waste remained. Ash cleanout started at 9:56 and was completed at
11:45. The waste bed had to be quenched with water in order to complete the cleanout.
The total waste charged was 769.4 Ib, and the total wet ash weight was 146.7 Ib. The
actual charge rate was 162 Ib/hr.
3.3.8 Condition II. Run 4 (Test Run 8)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 160 Ib/hr of hospital waste in
40-lb charges every 15 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature setpoint of 1600T.
Thursday, September 27, 1990: The hearth was cleaned and the air ports cleared
before testing began. The incinerator was started at 11:20, but the secondary chamber
burner was flaming out every few seconds. The igniter and the pilot were taken out and
cleaned, and the unit was started again at 1:25. Everything appeared to be working
properly, so charging as well as testing began at 1:45. The pipe with the thermocouple
was placed in the center of the hearth in the line of fire of the primary burners. The
pipe heated to 1500°F very quickly and then started to cool as the height of the waste
bed was slowly increasing. At the end of the test, the pipe temperature was
approximately 440°F, and the primary chamber temperature was approximately 1500T.
The incinerator ran properly throughout the test with no problems. Testing was
completed at 5:56, and the last charge was introduced at 6:00.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 28, 1990) at 9:03, and
a large smoldering and burning mound of ashes and unburned waste remained. Ash
removal started at 9:30 and was completed at 10:30. The waste bed had to be quenched
with water in order to complete the cleanout.
The total waste charged was 727.3 Ib, and the total wet ash weight was 137.3 Ib. The
actual charge rate was 161.6 Ib/hr.
3-27
JBS238 J *"'
-------
3.3.9 Condition IF- Run 3 (Test Run 9)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 160 Ib/hr of pathological
waste in 40-lb charges every 15 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature setpoint
of 1600°F.
Friday, September 28, 1990: The hearth was cleaned and the air ports cleared
before testing began. The incinerator was started at 10:40, and charging as well as
testing began at 11:00. The incinerator operated smoothly with no apparent problems
throughout the test. The pipe thermocouple temperature climbed rapidly to 1400T and
then dropped slowly throughout the test as the waste bed depth increased. At the end of
the test, the pipe temperature was 685°F, while the primary chamber temperature was
1500°F. Testing was completed at 3:05, and the last charge was introduced at 3:55.
The incinerator was opened the following morning (September 29, 1990) at 9:20, and
there was a large mound of black, smoldering, unburned waste. Cleanout began at 9:45
and was completed at 10:56. Once again, many recognizable unburned items were
found.
The total waste charged was 867 Ib, and the total ash weight was 77 Ib. The actual
charge rate was 165.1 Ib/hr, with a 91.1 percent burndown.
3.3.10 Condition I. Run 3 (Test Run 10)
The target operating parameters were a charge rate of 100 Ib/hr of pathological
waste in 25-lb charges every 15 minutes and a secondary chamber temperature setpoint
of 1900°F.
Tuesday, October 2, 1990: The hearth was cleaned and the air ports cleared before
testing began. The incinerator was started at 9:55, and then it was discovered that the
temperature indicator pipe had not been placed in the incinerator. The incinerator was
shut down at 10:01, the pipe was placed on the hearth, and the incinerator was restarted
at 10:03. The first charge was introduced at 10:15, and testing began. The indicator
pipe temperature climbed rapidly to 1600°F and then fell slowly to approximately 800°F
at the end of the test. The primary chamber temperature was approximately 1500T at
the end of the test. The incinerator ran smoothly with no apparent problems throughout
the test. Testing was completed at 2:21, and the last charge was introduced at 2:30.
JBS238 3-28
-------
The incinerator was opened the following morning (October 3, 1990) at 9:25, and
there was one small smoldering mass of unburned material in the ash bed. Burnout
appeared to be very good.
The total waste charged was 453.3 Ib, and the total ash weight was 17.2 Ib. The
actual charge rate was 100.8 Ib/hr, with a 96.2 percent burndown.
3-29
JBS238 Jzy
-------
4. SAMPLE LOCATIONS
The sampling locations used during the emission testing program at the AMI
Central Carolina Hospital MWI are described in this section. Flue gas samples are
collected at the exhaust stack using three sets of ports.
The exhaust stack at this facility has a 22-inch steel shell with refractory lining.
The inside diameter of the refractory lining is about 18 inches. The existing stack is
approximately 8 feet in height above the secondary chamber.
An unlined steel stack extension was fabricated for temporary installation at the
top of the existing stack. The extension was 18 inches in diameter and 16 feet high.
Three sets of test ports were provided as shown in Figure 4-1. The lower set of ports
were used for the CEM, HC1/CEM, and manual HC1 tests. The center set of ports were
used for CDD/CDF and PM/Metals testing. The upper ports were 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 are
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 required for CDD/CDF, PM/metals, and
Microbial sampling is eight. Four points on each of two diameters were used as shown
in Figure 4-2.
JBS238 *
-------
1
204"
Jft* 1 f» gang*
- arbon «t««l
'
72"
,
i
/
'
72"
-
j
48"
1
12"
L
r ,
r
i
L
,
i
^
- t18J
!
18"
— - ^
' I V'
\ I J
^
+ \
*
n o
vJ O
^
^
Port*
4"Sch.4O
nfnA ninnfttQ
3rt-4"tojig
at 9O apart
Stack
-^ Extension
Port*
4r"S
-------
Port A
Diameter =21 inches
Point Percent
of Diameter
Inches from
Inside Wall
1
2
3
4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3
1.2
4.5
13.5
16.8
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 Central Carolina 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., Research Triangle Park, 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.
JBS238
-------
TABLE 5-1. PROPOSED TEST METHODS AMI CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL MWI
Analyte
Method
CDD/CDF
Participates
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Beryllium
Antimony
Barium
Silver
Thallium
SO2
O2/CO2
CO
NO_
THC
HC1
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
HC1
HBr
HF
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
JBS160
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. PROPOSED SAMPLING TIMES, MINIMUM SAMPLING VOLUMES AND DETECTION
LIMITS FOR THE AMI CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL MWI TESTS
Sampling Sampling
Train Time
(hours)
CDD/CDF 4a
PM/Metals 4a
HCl/HBr/HF 1.0
Microorganisms 3.2
a An average sampling rate of 0.5
Art O *r Arri rt £k r»r» rrv rslins* r-ntn /-if *} 1 •
Minimum
Sample Volume Analyte
(dscf)
120 CDD/CDF
120 PM
As
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Be
Ba
Sb
Ag
Tl
120 liters'3 Cl
Br
F
30 Indicator
sporesd
ft3/min was used to calculate sampling time.
tfirf 1 rvt in tifkD i ioa/~l t f~\ /T»1i-»iilofrj^ tit a r>o m rt 1 A «/i-ilti rv^ n
Detection Limit
Flue Gas
0.3 ng/dscm
0.006 gr/dscf
0.3 /ig/dscm
0.6 /Jg/dscm
1.6 ^ig/dscm
0.2 /Jg/dscm
25 /Jg/dscm
1 .6 jig/dscm
0.3 ^g/dscm
0.2 |ig/dscm
3.3 ng/dscm
0.71 /ig/dscm
4.2 jug/dscm
28 /ig/dscm
32 HB/dscm
100 /Jg/dscm
30 viable spores0
dscm
Analytical
0.01 ng
50-100 mge
0.002 Mg/ml
0.006 /Jg/ml
0.015 /ig/ml
0.002 /ig/ml
0.25 M8/ml
0.015 /ig/ml
0.0003 /ig/ml
0.002 Mg/ml
0.032 A«/ml
0.007 jug/ml
0.040 /ug/ml
0.11 /Jg/ml
0.127 ^g/ml
0.40C ^ig/ml
1 viable spores
aliquot
- — w ------ • ----- w ---- - _ ---- --/ --- --- -- «-- --------
Detection limit based on 100 ml aliquot. Method is still under development. Actual limit
The indicator spore will be Bacillus stearothermophilus. (only 1 1)
e Based on average detection limits for tetra-octa CDD/CDF congeners.
may vary.
JBS160
-------
Water Cootod
TwnfMratojro Samor
• FHtarHoktar
Twnpwatur* Swwor
Temparalura Swwor
S-Typ*PHolTUb*
HMlTraowi
QtMtzProb*
UMT
V-gjum
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, past
experience has shown 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-II* absorbing resin and
glass fiber filters are pre-cleaned by separate procedures according to the specified
method. Only pesticide-grade solvents and HPLC-grade water are used to prepare for
organic sampling and to recover these samples. The lot number, manufacturer, and
grade of each reagent used is recorded in the laboratory notebook.
To prepare the filters, a batch of 50 is placed in a soxhlet pre-cleaned by
extraction with toluene. The soxhlet is charged with fresh toluene and refluxed 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
JBS238
-------
TABLE 5-3. CDD/CDF GLASSWARE CLEANING PROCEDURE
(Train Components, Sample Containers and
Laboratory Glassware)
NOTE: USE VITON® 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).
a (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 inspection, 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-n* 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
JBS238
-------
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-II*
resin trap. The next two impingers are modified tip impingers which each contain
100 ml of HPLC-grade water. The fourth impinger is empty, and the fifth impinger
contains 200 to 300 grams of blue indicating silica gel. After the impingers are loaded,
each impinger is weighed, 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-rube 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
JBS238 5-8
-------
Siidtt 'or Atttcmng
to H««tM toi
SJtt* for AttAcning QeoMn«ek
Figure 5-2. lmplng«r Conllguritlon for COO/CDF 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 (ft3/min) 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 (DGM)
reading], the test can be initiated. Sampling train data are recorded periodically on
standard data forms. A checklist for CDD/CDF sampling is included in Table 5-4. A
sampling operation that is unique to CDD/CDF sampling is that the gas temperature
JBS238
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST
Before test starts:
1. Check impinger set to verify the correct order, orientation and number of
impingers. Verify probe markings, and remark if necessary.
2. Check that you have all the correct pieces of glassware. Have a spare probe
liner, probe sheath, meter box and filter ready to go at location.
3. Check for data sheets and barometric pressure.
4. Bag sampling equipment for CO2/O2 needs to be ready except when using CEMs
for CO2/O2 determinations.
5. Examine meter box - level it, zero the manometers and comfirm that the pump is
operational.
6. Verify the filter is loaded correctly and as tight as possible; place filter in line
with the train and leak check at 15 inches Hg.
7. Add probe to train.
8. Check thermocouples - make sure they are reading correctly.
9. Conduct pitot leak check, recheck manometer zero.
10. Do final leak check; record.leak rate and vacuum on sampling log.
11. Turn on variacs and check to see that the heat is increasing.
12. Check that cooling water is flowing and on. Add ice to impinger buckets.
13. Check isokinetic K-factor - make sure it is correct. (Refer to previous results
to confirm assumptions). (Two people should calculate this independently to
double check it.)
During Test:
1. Notify crew chief of any sampling problems ASAP. Train operator should
fill in sampling log and document any abnormalities.
2. Perform simultaneous/concurrent testing with other locations
(if applicable). Maintain filter temperature between 248°F ±25°F. Keep
temperature as steady as possible. Maintain the resin trap and impinger
temperatures below 68°F. Maintain probe temperature above 212°F.
JBS160
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
3. Leak check between ports and record on data sheet. Leak check if the test is
stopped to change silica gel, to decant condensate, or to change filters.
4. Record sampling times, rate, and location for the fixed gas bag sampling (CO,
CO2, O2), if applicable.
5. Blow back pitot 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 condensor coil and
silica gel impinger gas temperatures below 68°F.
After test is completed:
1. Record final meter reading.
2. Do final leak check of sampling train at maximum vacuum during test.
3. Do final pitot leak check.
4. Check completeness of data sheet. Verify the impinger bucket identification is
recorded on the data sheets. Note any abnormal conditions.
5. Leak check function (level, zero, etc.) of pitot tubes and inpsect for tip damage.
6. Disassemble train, cap sections, and take each section and all data sheets down to
recovery trailer.
7. Probe recovery (use 950 ml bottles)
a) Bring probes into recovery trailer (or other enclosed area).
b) Wipe the exterior of the probe to remove any loose material that could
contaminate the sample.
JBS160
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
c) Carefully remove the nozzle/probe liner and cap it off with prerinsed
aluminum foil.
d) For acetone rinses (all trains)
- Attach precleaned cyclone flask to probe to catch rinses
- Wet all sides of probe interior with acetone
- While holding the probe in an inclined position, put precleaned probe
brush down into probe and brush it in and out
- Rinse the brush, while in the probe, with acetone
- Do this at least 3 times until all the paniculate has been recovered.
- Recover acetone into a preweighed, prelabeled sample container
e) Follow the procedure outlined in (d) using methylene chloride. Recover the
solvent into the same acetone recovery bottle.
f) Follow the procedure outlined in (d) using toluene. Recover this solvent into
a separate preweighed prelabelled sample container.
7. Cap both ends of nozzle/probe liner for the next day, and store in dry safe place.
8. Make sure data sheets are completely filled out, legible, and give them to the
Crew Chief.
JBS160 5"13
-------
entering the 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, pitot cleaning, thermocouple malfunctions,
heater malfunctions, or any other unusual occurrences.
If the probe liner breaks while the DGM is not running (i.e., during port changes
or after the run is completed), the probe liner is replaced, the run is completed, and
sample recovery done on both the broken sections of the glass liner and the replacement
liner. If the break occurs while the DGM is running and the exact time of the break is
noted, the test is stopped so that the probe liner can be replaced. The run is then
completed and sample recovery done on all liner sections. If the recovered sample
appears unusual, the sample is discarded and an additional run is performed later. If the
recovered sample appears normal, the run is tentatively acceptable.
At the conclusion of the test run, the sample pump (or flow) is turned off, the
probe is removed from the duct, a final DGM reading is taken, and a post-test leak
check is completed. The procedure is identical to the pre-test procedure; however, the
vacuum should be at least one inch Hg higher than the highest vacuum attained during
sampling. An acceptable leak rate is less than 4 percent of the average sample rate or
0.02 acfm (whichever is lower). If a final leak rate does not meet the acceptable
criterion, the test run may still be accepted upon approval of the test administrator. If
so, the measured leak rate is reduced by subtracting the allowable leak rate from it and
then multiplied for the period of time in which the leak occurred. This "leaked volume"
is then subtracted from the measured gas volume in order to determine the final gas
sample volume.
5.1.4 CDD/CDF Sample Recovery
To facilitate transfer from the sampling location to the recovery trailer, the
sampling train is disassembled into the following sections: the probe liner, filter holder,
filter to condenser glassware, condenser sorbent module, and the impingers in their
bucket. Each of these sections is capped with methylene chloride-rinsed aluminum foil
or ground glass caps before removal to the recovery trailer. Once in the trailer, field
JBS238 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.
JBS238
-------
Pub* Nod* PMteLtar Cyctara
i I i
AMKh Bnahcnd
sfass1 *""*'
FranlhMI
rSupport
I
Qomctoo
u» *
I I I I
ChMkUrar
<_y) Mnw««h Hngl^wlgi
£ -fit <-:^'
•fir -wr
(Ml Top
I
• XAO
I
1.1
HnMtMi
-aasr
***
(*4 tgnayP*"* opjrt
± MMltMiHS Jhf
HraB viMli ftuih IOOBB otaH
-assr
-tar-
PHT/CHT
-«-
ka*
V*
J
8M
4t»lmj*v*
i I i
I I i
R*oofd HKXM! rtaoond
1111
Note: SMTabto 5-5 tor Svnpl* Fractom ktonUft^Uon
Figure 5-3. PCB/CDD/CDF/TCO Field Recovery Scheme
-------
TABLE 5-5. CDD/CDF SAMPLE FRACTIONS SHIPPED
TO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Container/ Code Fraction
Component
1 F Filter(s)
2 PRa Acetone and methylene chloride rinses of
nozzle/probe, cyclone, front half/back half
filter holder, filter support, connecting
glassware, condensor
3 PRTb Toluene rinse of nozzle/probe, cyclone, front
CRTb half/back half filter holder, filter support,
connecting line and condensor
4 SM XAD-II® resin trap (sorbent module)
a Rinses include acetone and methylene chloride recovered into the same sample bottle.
b Rinses of toluene recovered into separate sample bottle (sometimes toluene probe
rinse (PRT) and coil rinse (CRT) are recovered separately).
5-17
JBS160
-------
TABLE 5-6. CDD/CDF CONGENERS TO BE ANALYZED
DIOXINS:
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Total tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD)
Total pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PeCDD)
1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachiorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD)
Total hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDD)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDD)
Total octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD)
FURANS:
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzofurans (2,3,7,8 TCDF)
Total tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF)
1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF)
2,3,4,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF)
Total pentachlorinated dibenzofurans (PeCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF)
2,3,4,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF)
Total hexachlorinated dibenzofurans (HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF)
l',2,3,4,7,8,9 heptachlorodibenzofuran (l',2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
JBS160
5-18
-------
Concentrate
•ITemperaluni
<37"C (9fF)
MmLSolubcn
SiBce Qel Column
Chrometogniphy deer
Concent/ ate Suete to 1
wtthN,
BMie Ahflrtrtum Column
Cnronwtograpny O««nup;
ConotriraM BtMt* to
0.3 mL with N,
FK-21 Cwbon/C^to 549
Cojumn Chromato^aphy
CtMnupi ConowRnto
RoUwy Evipontor
Concentrate Buete to
Store In Fn
Analyn w«h DB4
CapUwry column; V
TCOF to Found, Condnu*
SP2331
Column
Section
c* Method
Concentrate
•tTempenBiffe
<37-C(9rf)
An*N» wtth 06-5
CfpMery column; If
TCOF to Found, Continu*
wtth
'2331
Column
Quantify
A •^••••Jfa.ja k.
Auuunjny to
Swtion 112.6
Figure 5-4. Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples
5-19
-------
5.1.5.2 Calibration of GC/MS System. A five-point calibration of the GC/MS
system is performed to demonstrate instrument linearity over the concentration range of
interest. Relative response factors are calculated for each congener or compound of
interest. The response factors are verified on a daily basis using a continuing calibration
standard consisting of a mid-level mixed isomer standard. The instrument performance
is acceptable only if the measured response factors for the labeled and unlabeled
compounds and the ion-abundance ratios are within the allowable limits specified in the
method (52200, 52201 FR 891220).
5.1.6 CDD/CDF Analytical Quality Control
All quality control procedures specified in the test method are followed. Blanks
are used to determine analytical contamination, calibration standards are used for
instrument calibration and linearity checks, internal standards are used to determine
isomer recoveries and adjust response factors for matrix effects, surrogate standards are
used to measure the collection efficiency of the sampling methodology, and an alternate
standard is used as a column efficiency check.
5.1.6.1 CDD/CDF Quality Control Blanks. Three different types of sample
blanks are collected for CDD/CDF analysis. The type of blanks that are required are
shown in Table 5-7.
Reagent blanks of 1000 ml of each reagent used at the test site are saved for
potential analysis. Each reagent blank is of the same lot as was used during the
sampling program. Each lot number and reagent grade is recorded on the field blank
label and in the laboratory notebook.
A glassware blank (proof blank) is recovered from each set of sample train
glassware that is used to collect the organic samples. The precleaned glassware, which
consists of a probe liner, filter holder, condenser coil, and impinger set, is loaded as if
for sampling and then quantitatively recovered exactly as the samples 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
JBS238 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 A This method is applicable for the determination of
JBS238
5-22
-------
particulates and Pb, Ni, zinc (Zn), phosphorus (P), Cr, copper (Cu), manganese (Mn),
selenium (Se), Be, Tl, Ag, Sb, Ba, Cd, As, and Hg emissions from various types of
incinerators. Analyses of the Central Carolina Hospital MWI test samples will be
performed for As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Ag, Ba, Be, and Tl.
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.
-------
Twnparature Swwor
Twnparatur* S«wor
S-lVfMPfcKTutw
EnfMy (OpHoral Knockout)
5%HNQ/10%H#Ot Enpty 4%KMnq/10%H^O4 SHctQ*
^ (Opttond Knockout)
K)
Vacuum
Un*
Figure 5-5. Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train
I
-------
SOdw for Attaching
toHaatadBox
ImpJngw Bucket
SMa tor Attaching
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 peroxide are Baker "Instra-analyzed"
grade or equivalent. The peroxide is purchased specifically for this test site and is kept
cold until it is opened.
The reagent water is Baker "Analyzed HPLC" grade or equivalent. The lot
number, manufacturer, and grade of each reagent that is used is recorded in the
laboratory notebook.
The HNO3/H2O2 absorbing solution and the acidic KMnO4 absorbing solution is
prepared fresh daily according to Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the reference method. The
analyst wears both safety glasses and protective gloves when the reagents are mixed and
handled. Each reagent has its own designated transfer and dilution glassware. This
glassware is marked for identification with a felt tip glass marking pen and used only for
the reagent for which it is designated.
The analyst may save tune 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.
JBS238
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 condenser coil so coil temperatures are not recorded and glass caps,
Teflon® tape, or parafilm is used to seal off the sample train components rather than
foil. Detailed instructions for assembling the metals sampling train are found beginning
on page 14 of the reference method.
5.2.4 PM/Metals Sample Recovery
Begin recovery procedures as soon as the probe is removed from the stack and
the post-test 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 their bucket. Each of these sections is capped with Teflon® tape or
parafilm before removal to the recovery trailer.
Once in the trailers, the sampling train is recovered as separate front and back
half fractions. A diagram illustrating front half and back half sample recovery
procedures is shown in Figure 5-7. No equipment with exposed metal surfaces is used in
the sample recovery procedures. The weight gain in each of the impingers is recorded to
determine the moisture content in the flue gas. Following weighing of the impingers, the
front half of the train is recovered, which includes the filter and all sample-exposed
surfaces forward of the filter. The probe liner is rinsed with acetone by tilting and
rotating the probe while squirting acetone into its upper end so that all inside surfaces
are wetted. The acetone will be quantitatively collected into the appropriate bottle.
5-27
-------
4th&5th
Probe Uner
andNaoto
Rlnaa wth
Acatonelnto
Tarad Conlalnar
Piter
Bruahand
BruahUnar
w*\ Nonmatalc
Bruah and Mma
••hAoatona
STtmaa
Front Hal of
FVarHouelng
Bruahwkh Caratulw
Remove Fher
from Support «4tti
TatonCoated
AoatonaMo Tnwazaraand
Tarad Conlalnar Place In PaalOeh
Bruah LOOM
ParttnaMe
OnloFttar
Chech Unar
to Me I
Pankutate
Ramovad: H
not Repeal
Step Above
FWar Support
and Back Haf
ofFMar
Hoiialng
Rkwa Three
Times wtti
aiN
NHricAdd
Into Tarad
Containar
letlmplngar
- tat
2nd & 3rd
Laallmptngar
Imping*
Contents
Calculate
Implnger
Contents
I
Calculate
MMMure
bnpingar
Contents
Calculala
W
for
Sea) Paul
Dtahwtti
Tap*
RtraeThrea
TbmawMh
aiN
Male add Into
Tared Container
MnaaThraa
TbnaawMi
ttlN
NMc add Into
Tamd Conlalnar
Weigh to
RtoM Volume
I
APR
Walghlo
Cdculals
RlnaaVoluma
I
PR
Recover
Into Sample
Conlalnar
Walgh
toCafcuMa
Fanaa Amount
Qdn
I
Empty
Contents
Into
Tarad
Containar
RlnMThraa
Umaawfch
aiN
NHricAdd
I
Racovarlnto
Sampto
Conlalnar
I
Walghlo
Canulata
RJnaa Amount
Oabi
I
Empty
Contenla
Into
Tarad
Conlalnar
Rinse True*
Tlmaawtth
0.1 N
NKricAdd
I
Racovarlnto
Sampla
Conlalnar
I
Walgh to
CahiiJata
Rlnaa Amount
Gain
I
Empty
Contante
Into
Tarad
Containar
Rlrwa Three
UmaawkhlOOmL
Pannanganata
Raaganl
I
Recover Into
Sampla
Containar
I
Remove any
flaaldua wth 56 mL
SNHCIaorn
Calculala
Uolatura
Qaki
I
Dlacard
Walgh to
Samp
I
mplaand
Rtneae Volume
(2)
F
0)
(4)
KM
(S)
SO
Figure 5-7. Metals Sample Recovery Scheme
fi
I
-------
This rinse is followed by additional brush/rinse procedures using a non-metallic brush;
the probe is held in an inclined position and acetone is squirted into the upper end as
the brush is pushed through with a twisting action. All of the acetone and paniculate is
caught in the sample container. This procedure is repeated until no visible paniculate
remains and finished with a final acetone rinse of the probe and brush. The front half of
the filter is also rinsed with acetone until all visible paniculate is removed. After all
front half acetone washes are collected, the cap is tightened, the liquid level marked, and
the bottle weighed to determine the acetone rinse volume. The method specifies a total
of 100 ml of acetone may be used for rinsing these components. However, Radian feels
that a thorough rinse requires more reagent. An acetone reagent blank of approximately
the same volume as the acetone rinses is 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. A HNO3 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 hydrochloric acid (HC1) rinse is conducted and placed into the sample recovery
5-29
JBS238 3 Ly
-------
bottle. A final weight is recorded and the liquid level is marked on the bottle. The
bottle cap is loosely 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 Paniculate 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.
JBS238
5-30
-------
TABLE 5.8 APPROXIMATE DETECTION LIMITS FOR METALS
OF INTEREST USING EMB DRAFT METHOD
Instack Method,
Detection Limits
Metal
Chromium
Cadmium
Arsenic
Leadd
Mercury
Nickel
Barium
Beryllium
Silver
Antimony
Thallium
Method2
ICAP
ICAP
GFAAS
GFAAS
CVAAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
Analytical
Detection
Limits
fag/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
(150 ml
sample
size!
kg/m3)
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.03C
1.8
0.3
0.04
0.9
3.8
4.8
a ICAP = Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma
GFAAS = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
CVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
b These detection limits are based on a stack gas sample volume of 1.25 m3. If 5 m3 are
collected, the instack method detection limits are 1/4 of the values indicated.
c The detection limit for mercury is the same in the HNO3/H2O2 fraction as it is in the
KMnO4 fraction.
d If Fe and Al are present, samples will be diluted which may raise analytical detection
limits.
IBS 160
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 ICAPS 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.
JBS238
5-32
-------
CorMrMNj)
Add Protoft RbiM
fjrtMMAJW)
Ack»ytopH2
w*hConc.HNQ,
RiduMVolumlo
rOrymM
MlwbiHF
Cora. HNO
Ao«lon« Prob* Rbw*
R»duc« to DiynM*
biaTcrwtBMhtr
wihConaHNO,
Container 1
FBar
ConrtvtfVMgM
Aloud Taken
TakwTforCVAAS
•igarClor2h
Conc.HF«ndHNC^
SmutotopH
af2w»
Conc.HNCb
Fracflon2A
HKtuocVolunw
toNMr
DiyfMMind
I
An^ynby
CAP tor 15
Twgrt
QFAASfor
wttiAdd
vidDlul*
RwnoMfiOtolOOML
AfcmiolfotHg
AniMBliyGWAS
FraoMonlB
AfMlynlMlCAPIor
TwgallyMA
FratonlA
iMtatatebyQFASS
Fraction 1A
DlBMlwihAddwid
MtotfSS'Cln
B*hfc»2h
lor
AfMlynAlguollo
HglMigCVAAS
ft
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 mea rements, 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-rnonthly. A
minimum of five standards make the standard curve. Quality control samples are
JBS238
5-34
-------
prepared from a separate 10 ^g/ml standard by diluting it into the range of the samples.
All samples are analyzed in duplicate. A matrix spike on one front half sample
and one back half sample for each 10 field samples is analyzed. If recoveries of less
than 75 percent or greater than 120 percent are obtained for the matrix spike, each
sample is analyzed by the method of additions. One quality control sample is analyzed
to check the accuracy of the calibration standards. The results must be within 10 percent
or the calibration repeated.
5.2.7.3 Mercury Standards and Quality Control. An intermediate mercury
standard is prepared weekly; working standards are prepared daily. The calibration
curve is made with at least six points. Quality Control samples are prepared from a
separate 10 //g/ml standard by diluting it into the range of the samples.
A quality control sample must agree within 10 percent of the calibration, or the
calibration repeated. A matrix spike on one of every 10 samples from the HNO3/H2O2
back half sample fraction must be within 20 percent or the samples are analyzed by the
method of standard addition.
53 MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY TESTING
The Central Carolina Hospital MWI was loaded with waste containing indicator
spores which measure the ability of microbes to survive the incineration process. This
directly reflects microbial destruction efficiency for that incinerator. The first test
method is aimed at determining microbial survivability in the combustion gases and the
ash. This method involves inoculating a known quantity of spores in solution onto
materials normally found in the medical waste stream (i.e., petri dishes, gauze, etc.).
Direct ash sampling and flue gas testing are conducted in order to determine the
destruction efficiency. Test procedures follow guidelines set forth by the EPA draft
methods located in Appendix A.3 and A.4 of the test plan.
The second test method utilizes spiked spore samples encased in insulated metal
containers charged to the incinerator with the waste stream. These tests are aimed at
comparing this method with the direct ash sampling method and should provide a
general assessment of microbial survivability and 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 checked to assess the destruction efficiency of spores that remain in the ash. 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 second series of waste materials inoculated with
indicator spores are charged into the incinerator. A known quantity of
B. stearothermophilus wet spores are inoculated onto or in materials normally found in
the medical waste stream such as petri dishes, test tubes, gauze, etc. The waste is loaded
into the incinerator to coincide with the emission tests conducted at the incinerator
outlet. Direct ash samples are collected after the ash has cooled sufficiently.
5.3.1.1 Equipment. A "wet spore" culture solution is prepared by the University
of Alabama, The culture inoculum is divided between the nine sampling runs as shown
in Figure 5-9. The spore solution is prepared as a frozen slurry in 1-liter amounts.
Inoculation quantities are approximately 600 to 700 mis. The culture inoculum is added
to various materials using sterile syringes or other implements as required.
5.3.1.2 Spiking Preparation and Procedure. The spiked waste sample is prepared
so that about 1 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
morphology, and possibly other biochemical tests as needed.
JBS238
5-36
-------
Fermentation Fermentation Fermentation
Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3
i - 1 - 1 i - 1 - i i
RUB! RUB 2 RBB3 Run 4 RUB 5 Run 6 Run? Run 8 Run 9
• a ••• a a a
b b b b b b b b
cc ccc e c c
44 444 444
ftaciiaac c c — if required to get IX lOspores-- c
Notes: Each fraction will be loaded into the incinerator at equally spaced
ia^errals over the donuJoB of the test nu during amval^
At least twelve fractions or doses per test condition. Additional fractions
will he added from Batch 4 (fraction e) If necessary to achieve 1
Figure 5-9. Indicator Spore Spiking Scheme for Combustion Gas
Destruction Efficiency Testing
-------
The colonies are then enumerated. The following sections describe the flue gas sampling
techniques to be used.
5.3.2.1 Equipmeri 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. In between the third and fourth impinger, a small
amount of quartz wool was placed to collect PM. This material was rinsed into the
impinger catch during recovery operations. 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 HjOj/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
JBS238
5-38
-------
R«wiM-Typ«
PMTub*
en
u»
•o
3618 2AM
Figure 5-10. Sampling Train for Determination of Indicator
Spore Emissions
-------
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.
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 along with the probe
buffer delivery tube, are rinsed and brushed with sterile buffer solution. All rinses are
collected in a sterile sample bottle.
The impingers are weighed and the contents are antiseptically transferred to the
sample bottle containing the nozzle/probe rinsings. The pH of the sample is adjusted if
necessary to 6.0 to 7.5 with 1.0 N NaOH. The level of liquid in the sample bottle is
marked to determine later if leakage occurred during transport. The bottle is then
packed in ice so that sample temperatures are maintained at or below 4°C (39°F), for
shipment to the laboratory.
JBS238
5-40
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
Rinse and
brush using
buffer into
•terlle
container
1st lapinger
(200 ml of
buffer)
Eapty content*
into sterile
container
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
2nd lapinger
(100 ml of
buffer)
Eepty contents
into sterile
container
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
lapinger
(Empty)
Silica
Gel
Eapty contents
into sterile
container
Weigh
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
Discard
Liquid Saaple
Figure 5-11. Sample Recovery Scheme for Microbial Viability Testing
-------
5.3.3 Direct Ash Sampling for Indicator Spores
Direct ash sampling provides an indication of the ability of the indicator organism
to survive the incinerator process under various conditions. An outline of the proposed
ash sampling protocol can be found in Appendix 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 to culture and identify and the third sample is used to
determine the pH of the material. Laboratory samples are tested in accordance with
proposed Draft Method found hi 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 Bacillus
stearothermophilus (B. stearothermophilus) contained in insulated pipes. Samples are
cultured according to the Draft Method found in Appendix A.4 of the test plan.
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 hi 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 1V4 inch or 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
JBS238
5-42
-------
Jnmr Container
(Confining Spo».) v.rjn/cu/«.
Outer Container Cap
r dluMtcr x ^ kMg and 1 ITT dianclcr x loag
Figure 5-12. Asb Quality Pipe Assemblies
-------
surrounds the inner container to maintain its position in the center of the outer container
and to protect it from thermal shock. Both ends of the outer container are capped.
5.3.4.2 Spiking Preparation. The inner container and caps are cleaned and
disinfected before use. This procedure consists of soaking the containers for at least one
hour in 1.0 N HNO3, washing with laboratory detergent, rinsing 3 times with tap water,
3 times with sterilized deionized water, and finally, rinsing with 90 percent alcohol.
The spiked sample is prepared by placing a known amount of spores (targeted at
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 Central Carolina 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 the 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 (39°F)
in an ice cooler with care to protect them from contamination from melting ice.
JBS238
5-44
-------
53.5 Microbial Analysis
The quantity of viable spores are determined from the pipe samples, flue gas
samples, and the direct ash samples. Sample preparation for the three sample types is
discussed below.
5.3.5.1 Pipe Sample and Ash Analytical Preparation Procedure. The sample
preparation and analysis scheme for the pipe and ash samples are presented in
Figures 5-13 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 sample containers are
rinsed with sterile phosphate buffer solution into the respective incubation tube. Any
glassware used for this transfer procedure is rinsed with sterile deionized water into the
respective 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 5-15. Three 10 ml aliquots, three 100 ml aliquots, and three equal
volume of the remaining solution is prepared. The aliquots are placed in sterile
incubation tubes, one set is processed without heat-treatment, the other with heat-
treatment. Each aliquot is then filtered and placed onto agar plates as discussed in the
following sections.
5.3.5.3 Colonial Enumeration and Identification Procedure. Agar plates are
prepared by pouring the molten trypticase soy agar into a sufficient number of petri
dishes for both sample and field blanks. The media is then allowed to harden. 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 in an air
convection incubator at 65°C (49°F) for 18 to 24 hours prior to colonial examination.
-------
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 filter each serial dilution
through separate sterile cellulose nitrate
filter (OJ urn)
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubate plates at 6&C 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 spores 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 Microblal Testing of Ash Samples
5-46
-------
Recovered inner
contain*
Tranefer content*
to • Incubator tub*
Rlne* Inner tub*
with sterile phoaphati
Buffer Into th*
Incubator tub*
Vacuum fitter through Morale sterile
Nalgene* ceHuloae nitrate O^um
filter untt
Lay each filter on a eepe/ate
agar plate
Incubator platea at 65°C for 24 hourt
Recheck at 43 houra
Enunwatic edonlea of B. atearothermoohJIua
onflitart
Figure 5-14. Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Mlcroblal Viability Tests
5-47
-------
Recovered
liquid sample
3 10-ml aliquots
3 100-ml aliquot*
3 equal allquots
of remaining sample
Vacuum filter through seprate sterile
Nalgene'ceUulose nitrate OJum
filter unit
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubator plates at 64" C for 24 hours
Reca«ckat48hours
Enumerate colonies of B. stcat
on filters
Figure 5-15. Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Mlcroblal Testing
5-48
-------
The plates are removed from the incubator and colonies of B. stearothermophihis 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 are also be detected by 1C. The method is
included in Appendix A
5.4.1 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Equipment
A diagram of the HCl/HBr/HF sampling train is shown in Figure 5-16. 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. A small amount of
quartz glass wool was placed in the front half of the filter holder to help remove
excessive PM found in this gas stream. 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,
5-49
JBS238
-------
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
JBS160
5-50
-------
Thermometer
Drying Tube
or
Mae West
Implnger
Knockout Implnger
(optional)
Pump
Figure 5-16. HCI Sample Train Configuration
-------
and HF; two impingers containing 0.1 N NaOH to capture any pollutants present in the
flue gas that might cause DGM damage; and finally one silica gel impinger.
5.4.2 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Preparation
5.4.2.1 Equipment Preparation. Sampling preparation includes calibration and
leak checking of all train equipment. This includes meterboxes, thermocouples, and
umbilicals. Referenced calibration procedures are followed when available, and the
results properly documented and retained. If a referenced calibration technique for a
particular piece of apparatus is not available, then a state-of-the-art technique is used.
5.4.2.2 Assembling the Train. Assembly of the sampling train is done both in the
recovery trailer and at the stack location. First, the empty clean impingers are
assembled and laid out in the proper order. The optimal knockout impinger 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.
JBS238
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.
5-53
-------
ProbaUnar
andNooto
IstbnplnQar
(~2DmV
DoNotRlnaa
orBruah
2nd
3i d
Empty Content*
Mo 100ml
VotumMoRaah
MakeUp
Voluma to 100ml
Tranatar to Sampla
Contatoar
Empty Contant*
Into Sampla
Contalnara onca
Run Condttonar
Rinse 3x
In CM
Archive for
PoaalblaAnaly*!*
SHIcaGal
Inspect for Indicator
Color Change
Raptenteh
HNacaMary
(dlacardusad
portkxw)
LJquUSampta
Figure 5-17. HCI/HBr/HF Sarriple Recovery Scheme
-------
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 by EPA Method 2
Volumetric flow rate is measured according to EPA Method 2. A Type K
thermocouple and S-type pilot 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 pitots
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 O2 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.
JBS238
-------
5.5.4 Average Moisture Determination bv 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 beat trace
tubing. The probe is placed approximately at a point of average velocity in the stack
determined by a prior velocity traverse.
5.6.1.2 Heated Lines. Heated sample lines are used to transfer the flue gas
samples to the instrument trailer for O2, CO2, NO^ SO2, CO, and THC analyses. These
lines are heated in order to prevent condensation. Condensate could clog sample lines
or provide a medium for the flue gas sample to react and change composition.
JBS238
5-56
-------
CLTVCOO
CB
HMlTraM
UnhMtwi QM UHM
Rgure 5-18. Scematic of CEM System
i
h»
I
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 5-16). 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 SO2, the analyzer
emits UV light at 202.5 nm and measures the absorbance (A) of the radiation through
the sample cell by the decrease in intensity. Beer's law, A = abc, is used to convert the
absorbance into SO2 concentration (A = absorbance, a = absorbitivity, b = path length,
c = concentration). The SO2 measurements are performed using EPA Method 6C.
5.6.2.2 NOX Analysis. The principle of operation of this instrument is a
chemiluminescent reaction in which ozone (O3) reacts with nitric oxide (NO) to form
JBS238
5-58
-------
oxygen (O2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). During this reaction, a photon is emitted which
is detected by a photomultiplier tube. The instrument is capable of analyzing total
oxides of nitrogen (NO + NO2) by thermally converting NO2 to NO in a separate
reaction chamber prior to the photomultiplier tube, if desired. The NOX measurements
are performed using EPA Method 7E.
5.6.2.3 Q2 Analysis. Oxygen analysis is completed using one of the instruments
discussed below.
The Thermox WDG III 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 CO3 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
JBS238
-------
radiation is absorbed in the sample cell than in the reference cell, less radiation reaches
the sample side of the detector. This causes a deflection of the diaphragm due to
increased heat from radiation absorption on the reference side. Deflection of the
diaphragm creates an electrical potential which is proportional to absorbance.
Absorbance is directly proportional to CO2 concentration in the gas. Carbon dioxide
measurements are performed using EPA Method 3A.
5.6.2.5 CO Analysis. Either a TECO Model 48 or a Model 48H analyzer will be
used to monitor CO emissions. Both TECO analyzers measure CO using the same
principle of operation as CO2 analysis. The instruments are identical except that a
different wavelength of infrared radiation is used; 5 nm is selective for CO. Carbon
monoxide measurements are performed using EPA Method 10.
5.6.2.6 Total Hydrocarbon Analysis. Either a Beckman Model 400, 402 or 404
will be used to monitor Total Hydrocarbon (THC) emissions. By allowing the THC
sample stream to bypass the gas conditioners, concentrations will be determined on a wet
basis. All analyses employ Flame lonization Detectors (FID). As the flue gas enters the
detector the hydrocarbons are combusted in a hydrogen flame. The ions and electrons
formed in the flame enter an electrode gap, decrease the gas resistance, and permit a
current flow in an external circuit. The resulting current is proportional to the
instantaneous concentration of the total hydrocarbons. This method is not selective
between species. EPA Method 25A applies to the continuous measurement of total
gaseous organic concentrations of primarily alkanes, alkenes, and/or arenes (aromatic
hydrocarbons). The results are reported on a methane basis and methane is used as the
calibration gas.
5.6.2.7 HC1 CEM Analysis. HC1 flue gas concentrations are continuously
monitored using an NDIR/GFC instrument manufactured by Thermo Electron
Corporation (TECO). Detection of HC1 is achieved by alternately passing an infrared
(IR) beam between reference HC1 gas and reference HC1 free gas contained in the filter
wheel. The "chopped" beam passes through the sample cell to the detector. The
difference in IR beam strength caused by the absorption of the IR beam is proportional
to the HC1 concentration.
JBS238
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 quality control (QC) check. If the QC midrange gas
concentration observed is within ±2 percent of full scale, the calibration is accepted and
the operator may begin sampling. If the QC check does not fulfill this requirement,
another calibration is performed and linearization may be performed if deemed
necessary. Calibration procedures are further detailed in the daily operating procedure
(Section 5.6.5).
Table 5-10 lists the concentration of all calibration and QC gases to be used on
this test program.
5.6.4 Data Acquisition
The data acquisition system used for AMI Central Carolina 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
JBS238 5'61
-------
TABLE 5-10. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES
Analyte
Gas Concentration
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Beckman 865
0-20%
18%
N,
5%
ppm
CD-dry
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
CO -wet
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
TECO 48H
0-50,000 ppm
1000, 9000 or 19,000 ppma
or 9000 ppm
2100 ppm
TECO 48
0-100, 0-200, 0-5000
1000, 180 or 90 ppma
N,
ISO ppm
90 ppm
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Thermox WDG HI
0-25%
20%
0.2% O2
10%
5%
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
ppm
30 ppm
JBS219
5-62
-------
TABLE 5-10. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES, continued
Analyte
Gas Concentration
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
TECO 10AR
0-250 ppm
200 ppm
N
ppm
50 ppm
ppm
THC
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Beckman 402
0-10, 0-50, 0-100
100 ppm as methane
N
45 ppm as methane
25 ppm as methane
HC1
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
TECO Model 15
0-2000 ppm
1800 ppm
N,
" PPm
100 ppm
a Several sets of calibration/QC gases were acquired in order to closely approximate
stack gas concentrations.
JBS219
5-63
-------
voltage response range from the output range of the instrument (typically 0-100 mV or
0-10 mV) to 0-5 volts. The A/D converter then digitizes the analog inputs for use by the
computer. A Radian computer program translates the digitized voltages into relevant
concentrations in engineering units (ppmV, %V, etc.). The computer program has
several modes of operation: calibration, data acquisition, data reduction, data view, data
edit, and data import. The import function is used to combine other data files for
comparison and correlation. On-line color graphics and data manipulation are included
in the data acquisition portion of the program so that the operator and on-site engineers
may monitor trends in the process.
5.6.5 Daily Operating Procedure
The following is a detailed standard operating procedure for calibrating and
operating the CEMS:
1. Turn on COMPAQ computer and EPSON printer, put printer on-line, and
load the CEM.EXE program. Be sure that the CEM instruments have
been on for at least 20 hours.
2. Synchronize watch with sample location leaders.
3. Turn on strip chart recorders (SCR) and make appropriate notes on charts
and in logbook (write down all procedures and observations in logbook and
on SCRs as the day progresses).
4. Turn on the gas conditioners and blow back compressor. Blow back the
system.
5. Open all calibration gas cylinders so that they may be introduced to the
instruments via control panel valves.
6. Perform daily pre-test leak check on CEMs by introducing ultra high purity
nitrogen to the system. Zero all instruments except the Thermox O2
analyzers. Make adjustments to the zero potentiometers as required to
zero the instruments. Be sure to check and maintain all flows throughout
calibration and operation.
7. Record the zero values in the computer calibration routine.
8. Introduce 0.2 percent O2 to set the low scale response for the Thermox O2
analyzers and repeat Step 7 for these instruments.
9. Introduce the mixed span gases for O2, CO2, and CO. Make adjustments
as required to these instruments.
JBS238
5-64
-------
10. Enter these values in the computer calibration routine.
11. Introduce the NOX span gas.
12. Make adjustments to the NOX instruments as required and enter the value
into the computer calibration routine.
13. Introduce the SO2 span gas for the SO2 analyzer, repeat Step 12 for the
SO2 analyzer. (Note that all calibration gases are passed through the entire
sampling system.)
14. Switch the Western SO2 analyzer range to 0-500 ppm introduce the span
gas for this range and repeat Step 12 for this instrument.
15. Introduce the HC1 span gas to the HC1 dilution probe/CEM analyzer.
Repeat Step 12 for this system.
16. Check the calibration table on the computer, and make a hardcopy. Put
the computer in the standby mode.
17. Introduce QC gases to instruments in the same sequence as the calibration
gases. Record three minutes of data for each, once the responses have
stabilized. If the QC gas response is not within ± 2 percent of the
instrument range the operator should recalibrate the instrument, or
perform other corrective actions.
18. Begin sampling routine, with the computer on stand by.
19. Start the data acquisition system when signaled by radio that system is in
stack.
20. Carefully check all flows and pressures during the operation of the
instruments and watch for apparent problems in any of the instruments,
such as unusual readings or unreasonable fluctuations. Check the gas
conditioning system periodically and drain the traps.
21. Stop the data acquisition system at the end of the test when signaled.
22. Perform final 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.
JBS238 5'65
-------
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.
5.9 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SAMPLING METHODS
Results from the PSD tests characterized particulate mass into ranges separated
by the PSD sampler's 50 percent effective cut points (Dp50) for each stage. The Dp50
represents the aerodynamic diameter of a particle that has been collected by that
respective PSD stage with 50 percent collection efficiency.
Particle size distribution measurements were obtained with Anderson Mark III
in-stack cascade impactor employing a pre-separator. A schematic of the sampling train
is shown in Figure 5-19. The impactor consists of eight stages plus a final filter. Each
stage has a number of concentric round jets offset on each succeeding stage such that the
one plate serves both as jet and impaction surface. The Anderson MK HI is operated in
the range from 0.3 to 0.7 acfm and the flue gas is sampled isokinetically (100 jf. 20
percent) with a recommended weight gain of 50 mg.
The impactor was prepared by loading the substrates into the impactor and
recording the identification number and tare weight. The stage order was checked for
correctness as the stages were assembled. The impinger train was prepared according to
EPA Method 5. Then, the impactor and preseparator/nozzle were attached to the probe
and the probe attached to the impinger train. Once assembled, the sampling train was
leak checked at 15 in. Hg. The leakrate had to be below 0.02 cfm.
JBS238
5-66
-------
Temperature
Sensor
Particle
Pre-separator
Straight Nozzle
Andersen Mark III
8 Stage Impactor
Stack
Wall
Impinger Train Optional,
may be replaced by an equivalent condenser
Thermometer
S-Type Pilot Tube
Temperature
Sensors
Impingers
r
i
Orifice
II 1
I ,
^A
A
H
i
Dry Gas
Meter
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-19. Anderson MK III In-Stack Impactor with
Particle Pre-Separator Sampling Train
-------
Prior to sampling, a preliminary velocity tranverse was conducted to determine a
point of average velocity. The nozzle was then selected to ensure both isokinetic
sampling as well as to give the desired particle separation. The impactor was preheated
to approximately stack temperature prior to placing it inside the duct. Sampling was
then conducted at a single point of average velocity at a fixed sampling rate. The
sampling rate was not adjusted during the run.
After sampling was completed, the impactor was cooled and each stage was
carefully recovered. Particles from the nozzle, pre-separator, and rinse were added to
the first stage catch. Each substrate was examined for particle bounce, overloading, and
re-entrainment. The substrates were weighted to a constant weight as detailed in
Section 5.2.
JBS238 5-68
-------
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Specific Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures were strictly
adhered to during this test program to ensure the production of useful and valid data
throughout the course of the project. A detailed presentation of QC procedures for all
manual flue gas sampling, process sample collection, and CEM operations can be found
in the Central Carolina 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, CDD/CDF, and Microbial
emission test runs. Metals analytical QA results revealed good spike recovery data.
However, substantial field blank contamination of arsenic and nickel were present.
Dioxins analytical procedures for Runs 2, 4, and 8 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 HC1 CEM data agreed fairly well with manual HC1 data. 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
Quality Assurance is further discussed in Sections 6.2.3, 6.3, and 6.4.4. Six Particle Size
Distributions (PSD) tests were conducted and the following on-site recovery assessment,
results from four test runs were reported.
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 QA discussion on the PSD tests. Section 6.7 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
JBS226
-------
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.
JBS226 6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF PRECISION, ACCURACY,
AND COMPLETENESS OBJECTIVES*
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)
±40°
±15"
±12
±10*
ND
±20
±6
± 0.3%V
±20
±2°F
Accuracy6
(%)
±50
±30
±10
±15
ND
±15
±10
±0.5%V
±10
±5°F
Completeness0
(%)
100
100
100
95
100
95
95
_00
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
0 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 6Q based on percent of full scale.
f No measureable bias has been detected in the available literature.
JBS219
6-3
-------
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
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 6 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 post-test calibration factor for the meter box used for CDD/CDF was well
within the 5 percent criterion of the full calibration factor at -0.08 percent.
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 compares the CDD/CDF analytical results for the MM5 field blank versus
average MM5 catches for the test runs (toluene field blank results are presented in the
following section). No 2378 TCDD was detected in the MM5 field blank. The
confirmation analysis reported a much lower 2378 TCDF value than the full screen at
0.070 ng versus 0.35 ng. 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
JBS226
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF EMISSIONS TESTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 j
10
PRE-TEST
LEAK RATE
(•cftn)
0.011
0.005
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.010
0.012
0.008
MAXIMUM
VACUUM DURING
TEST
6
6
6
15
4
6
5
8
6
6
AVO, SAMPLE
RATE
(dscftn)
0.43
0.38
0.42
0.41
0.42
0.44
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.42
4* SAMPLE
RATE
(dscftn) a
0.017
0.015
0.017
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.017
ACCEPTABLE
LEAK LEVEL
(acfm)
0.017
0.015
0.017
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.017
MEASUREMENTS
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.012 b
0.012
0.004
0.015
0.018
0.008
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.008
INCHES
FOR
SECOND CHECK
10 b
10
8
18
9
10
10
12
10
9
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) and may be slightly different than actual cfm (acfm).
b This value represents pre-port change leak change. Final value not recorded.
-------
TABLE 6-3. ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RATES FOR CDD/CDF, METALS, AND
MICROORGANISMS TEST RUNS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
36
4A
4B
5A
SB
6A
66
8A
86
9A
98
10A
106
CDD/CDF
ISOKINETIC SAMPLE
RATE
<*)
101
96.3
95.7
94.3
95.4
96.9
97.6
99.9
97.2
TOXIC METALS
ISOKINETIC SAMPLE
RATE
<*>
97
99.1
98.9
97.3
99.1
97.9
96.3
97.8
100
MICROORGANISMS
ISOKINETIC SAMPLE
RATE
<*)
95.2
96.9
93.1
93.6
95.1
96.1
94.8
92.2
95
92.2
95
92.6
94.8
95.2
93.8
95.9
97.9
100
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-4. DRY GAS METER POST-TEST CALIBRATION RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLING
TRAIN
CDD/CDF
PM/Metal
Microorganisms
(Runs A)
Microorganisms
(Runs B)
Halogens
METER BOX
NUMBER
N-30
N-31
N-32
9
V5
FULL
CALIBRATION
FACTOR
0.989
0.9992
1.0002
1.007
1.0104
POST-TEST
CALIBRATION
FACTOR
0.9882
0.9900
0.9971
NC
NC
POST-TEST
DEVIATION
(*) «
-0.08
-0.92
-0.31
NC
NC
a (Post-Test) - (Full) x 100
(Full)
NC = Not Conducted
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-5. CDD/CDF FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED
TO AVERAGE RUN RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
DIOXINS
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
MMS
FIELD
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.060]
(0.070)
[0.080]
0.29
[0.100]
[0.100]
(0.180)
0.85
0.58
0.58
(0.950)
0.35
0.63
0.14
0.23
1.9
(0.680)
0.38
(0.460)
[0.100]
0.72
1.60
[0.200]
3.00
0.91
-
[0.040]
(0.070)
0.05
0.84
MMS
CONDITION 1
AVERAGE
(total ng)
0.2
64.6
2.4
57.0
2.3
3.9
7.1
60.9
23.6
51.9
29.8
48.1
241.0
6.1
15.1
189.2
24.1
10.7
21.0
0.7
127.9
38.3
6.4
79.0
41.8
3.4
4.1
74.7
214.9
MMS
CONDITION 2
AVERAGE
(total ng)
32.4
707.0
131.7
1001.3
128.0
149.8
276.3
1702.3
701.7
1461.7
730.3
715.7
4716.7
416.3
513.3
7523.3
1328.3
822.7
651.3
51.5
7373.3
1912.3
243.7
3560.0
799.0
64.7
111.5
769.7
3286.7
MM5
CONDITION 3
AVERAGE
(total ng)
1.1
72.2
2.8
57.2
1.7
2.7
4.7
41.3
14.1
30.5
18.4
35.1
237.3
6.1
9.8
129.9
12.7
6.6
9.0
0.4
69.1
19.9
2.8
38.0
17.3
4.2
5.2
80.4
206.0
[ ] = minimum detection limit
() = estimated maximum possible concentration
6-8
-------
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 the
sample train glassware. Following the test, the nozzle/probe, filter housing, and
condenser coil were recovered using methylene chloride. This sample fraction was
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.
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, 3, and 10), T/M ratios range from 0 to 6.63 percent
(Octa-CDF - Run 10). Condition 2 values range from 0 to 0.111 percent. The Condition
2 toluene amounts are similar to Condition 1; however, the MM5 catches for Condition 2
are much higher resulting in overall lower T/M ratios. Condition 3 T/M ratios ranged
from 0 to 4.55 percent (Octa-CDD - Run 6).
The confirmation toluene analytical results are compared to the confirmation
MM5 values in Table 6-9. The T/M ratios presented here are also very low. T/M
values ranged from 0 to 1.03 percent (Run 10).
The toluene field blank analytical results are compared to the toluene test run
analytical results in Table 6-10. The field blank appears to have higher concentrations of
all congeners than the average run catches. The laboratory method blank results listed
in Section 6.4 did not show any contamination. Therefore, the toluene test results may
have been even lower than shown in the previous tables if this sample prep/recovery
contamination as revealed by the field blank was consistent throughout the test program.
-------
TABLE 6-6. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION I (total pg); CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
CONOENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
OcU-CDD
TotolCDD
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
RUNt
MM5
630
17,870
1,500
15,800
980
1,500
3,200
14,820
8,500
10,200
10,000
85,000
18,500
89,500
3,200
6,100
68,100
7.500
3,900
4,800
180
23,120
9.600
1,200
6.900
5,800
248,400
333,400
TOLUENE
(PS)
[10.90]
[10.90]
[11.10]
11.3
[13.30]
7.80
[14.70]
0.40
87.2
88.8
304.0
$00
14.5
11.7
[9.800]
9.50
24.5
13.3
[9.300]
[12.80]
[16.30]
17.5
27.2
[25.50]
23.1
[71.10]
141
641
TOL/MM3
<*>
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.072
0.000
0.520
0.000
0.003
1.026
0.871
3.040
O.S89
0.078
0.013
0.000
0.156
0.036
0.177
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.076
0.283
0.000
0.335
0.000
0.057
0.192
RUN 3
MM5
(PC)
(1200.)
156,000
4,600
128,400
4,500
7,300
14,000
101,200
41,700
51.300
53,400
563,600
104,000
388,000
11,300
29.700
358,000
52.000
21,600
44,800
1.300
147.300
81,300
12.600
71,100
83.000
1,406.000
1.969,600
TOLUENE
(PC)
[7.900]
235.0
(9.700)
247.0
(9.400)
(19.70)
25.0
193.0
155.0
189.0
376.0
1,459
267.0
594.0
28.0
71.0
659.0
122.0
(55.50)
104.0
(25.10)
204.0
241.0
24.7
207.3
203.0
2806
4264
TOUMM5
<*>
0.000
0.151
0.211
0.192
0.209
0.270
0.179
0.191
0.372
0.368
0.704
0.259
0.257
0.153
0.248
0.239
0.184
0.235
0.257
0.232
1.931
0.138
0.296
0.196
0.292
0.245
0.200
0.217
RUN 10
MM5
(PI)
(370.0)
19,200
1.200
19,400
1,400
2,800
4,200
26.800
20,700
23.300
25.900
145,270
21,700
101,300
3,900
9,400
77,800
12.900
6,600
13,300
560
43.740
24.100
5,300
25,000
36.500
382,100
527,370
TOLUENE
(PR)
[24.30]
97.1
[48.30]
123.0
(45.40)
(79.00)
(85.40)
295.0
506.0
453.0
(1130.)
2,814
209.0
540.0
51.1
138.0
860.9
271.0
128.0
252.0
[76.40]
659.0
(685.0)
(169.0)
510.0
2420.0
6.969
9,783
TQUMM5
(*>
0.000
0.506
0.000
0.634
3.243
2.821
2.033
1.101
2.444
1.944
4.363
1.937
0.963
0.533
1.310
1.468
1.107
2.101
1.939
1.895
0.000
1.507
2.842
3.189
2.040
6.630
1.824
1.855
AVERAGE
MM5
(w)
733
64,357
2,433
54,533
2,293
3,867
7.133
47,607
23,633
28,267
29,767
264,623
48,067
192,933
6,133
15,067
167.967
24.133
10,700
20.967
680
71,387
38,333
6,367
34.333
41,767
678.833
943,457
TOLUENE
(PO
[14.367]
166.1
9.7
127.1
27.4
35.5
55.2
162.8
249.4
243.6
603.3
1591
163.5
381.9
39.6
72.8
514.8
135.4
91.8
178.0
25.1
293.5
317.7
96.9
246.8
1311.5
3.305
4,896
TOL/MM5
(*)
0.000
0.258
0.399
0.233
1.195
0.918
0.774
0.342
1.055
0.862
2.027
0.601
0.340
0.198
0.645
0.483
0.306
0.561
0.857
0.849
3.690
0.411
0.829
1.521
0.719
3.140
0.487
0-519
[ ] = minimum detection limit (not used in the averages or summations)
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
-------
TABLE 6-7. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONDITION 2 (total pg); CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXD4S
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
MMS
(P«)
19,000
446,000
59,000
391,000
56,100
66,300
118,000
546,600
315,000
330,000
409,000
2,756,000
409,000
2,171,000
166,000
231,000
2.653.000
495,000
297,000
291.000
20,600
1,696,400
787.000
119,000
/ 634,000
549,000
10^19,000
13,275,000
TOLUENE
to)
[9.100]
19.9
16.4
20.1
16.4
24.8
40.6
122.2
(233.0)
195.0
454.0
1142
57.7
185.3
36.5
45.3
188.2
134.0
76.3
82.5
[13.40]
219.2
360.0
48.7
186.3
315.0
1,935
3,077
TQL/MM5
<*)
0.000
0.004
0.028
0.005
0.029
0.037
0.034
0.022
0.074
0.059
0.111
0.041
0.014
0.009
0.022
0.020
0.007
0.027
0.026
0.028
0.000
0.013
0.046
0.041
0.029
0.057
0.018
0.023
RUN 4
MM5
(PS)
53.100
996,000
208.000
1.392,000
179,000
228,000
433,000
1,700,000
928,000
1.012,000
702,000
7,778,000
1,130,000
6,810.000
798.000
945,000
12,727,000
2,300,000
1,450,000
1,030,000
90,100
7,779,900
2,930,000
354.000
2,056.000
898,000
41,298.000
49,076,000
TOLUENE
(pg)
4.6
0.0
(22.30)
52.6
25.5
26.4
49.4
149.7
210.0
162.0
216.0
919
107.0
386.0
90.7
101.0
808.3
251.0
164.0
130.0
(24.00)
615.0
442.0
50.4
308.6
155.0
3.633
4,552
TOL/MM5
(«)
0.009
0.000
0.011
0.004
0.014
0.012
0.011
0.009
0.023
0.016
0.031
0,012
0.009
0.006
0.011
0.011
0.006
0.011
0.011
0.013
0.027
0.008
0.015
0.014
0.015
0.017
0.009
0.009
RUN 8
MMS
4*)
25,200
660.000
128,000
826,000
149,000
155,000
278,000
1,198,000
862,000
938,000
1.080,000
6,274,000
608,000
3,022,000
285,000
364,000
4,401,000
1,190,000
721,000
633,000
43,700
4.082.300
2.020,000
258,000
1,522.000
950,000
20.100,000
26.374.000
TOLUENE
(PS)
18.6
497.4
67.8
312.2
54.9
68.0
125.0
457.1
398.0
391.0
574.0
2964
491.0
2349.0
222.0
310.0
2528.0
571.0
352.0
267.0
25.0
1555.0
962.0
146.0
502.0
489.0
10.769
13.733
TQL/MMS
<*)
0.074
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.037
0.044
0.045
0.038
0.046
0.042
0.053
0.047
0.081
0.078
0.078
0.085
0.057
0.048
0.049
0.042
0.057
0.038
0.048
0.057
0.033
0.051
0.054
0.052
AVERAGE
MMS
32,433
700,667
131,667
869,667
128,033
149,767
276,333
1,148,200
701,667
760,000
730.333
5,602,667
715,667
4.001.000
416,333
513,333
6.593,667
1,328,333
822,667
651,333
51,467
4,519,533
1,912.333
243,667
1.404,000
799,000
23.972,333
29,575,000
TOLUENE
(PK>
11.6
258.7
35.5
128.3
32.3
39.7
71.7
243.0
280.3
249.3
414.7
1675.0
218.6
973.4
116.4
152.1
1174.8
318.7
197.4
159.8
24.5
796.4
588.0
81.7
332.3
319.7
5,446
7,121
TOL/MM5
<*)
0.036
0.037
0.027
0.015
0.025
0.027
0.026
0.021
0.040
0.033
0.057
0.030
0.031
0.024
0.028
0.030
0.018
0.024
0.024
0.025
0.048
0.018
0.031
0.034
0.024
0.040
0.023
0.024
[ ] = minimum detection limit (not used in the averages or summations)
( ) = ffftirn"*^ ni"imiim 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 (toUl pg); CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
OcU-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
1
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
ToUlCDF
Total CDD+CDF
RUN 5
MM5
(P«)
720
56,680
1.900
35.600
1.200
1.800
3.700
23.700
12.400
13,400
17.200
168,300
28,000
162,000
4,100
7,000
63,500
9,100
4.700
6,500
330
26.670
17,800
2.300
13,300
12.000
357.300
525,600
TOLUENE
(P*>
[24.30]
[24.30]
[23.70]
(28.70)
[20.80]
[20.30]
[23.10]
[21.30]
[75.60]
[75.60]
[280.0]
28.7
20.9
0.0
[21.20]
[22.00]
(25.10)
[12.70]
[12.20]
[16.80]
[21.50]
(27.20)
32.9
[31.50]
8.2
[237.0]
114
143
TOUMMS
(*)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.081
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.075
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.102
0.185
0.000
0.062
0.000
0.032
0.027
RUN 6
MM5
(Pg)
(220.0)
11.200
690
11.510
570
960
1.800
11.670
6.300
7,400
7,600
S9,«0
8,000
35,800
1.600
2,800
24,700
4,800
2,400
3,800
180
13,720
8.500
1,700
6,900
13,400
128.300
188,220
TOLUENE
d*>
[5.900]
[5.900]
[7.200]
(22.70)
[6.100]
[6.000]
[6.800]
[6.300]
29.0
0.0
346.0
39$
(7.300)
(7.300)
[6.500]
[6.700]
9.8
6.7
[4.000]
[5.500]
[7.000]
1.3
15.4
[9.500]
3.8
(39.20)
90.8
489
TOUMMS
(*)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.197
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.460
0.000
4.553
0,664
0.091
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.140
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.181
0.000
0.055
0.293
0.071
0.260
RUN?
MM5
0.152
0.000
0.147
0.041
0.241
0.196
0.229
0.126
0.000
0.241
0.469
0.900
0.153
0.082
0.274
0.263
0.180
0.274
0.317
0.255
0.000
0.162
0.284
0.311
0.276
0.284
0.154
0.134
AVERAGE
MM5
1,147
71,960
2,797
54,437
1,723
2.653
4.700
32,257
14,100
16,400
18,433
219,773
35,067
202.200
6,067
9.767
114,067
12,700
6,600
9,033
443
40,290
19.933
2.800
15,300
17,300
491,567
711,340
TOLUENE
0.331
0.000
0.304
0.060
0.476
0.384
0.419
0.239
0.206
0.418
1.326
0,123
0.128
0.085
0.565
0.524
0.144
0.287
0.611
0.475
0.000
0.132
0.240
0.489
0.181
0.331
0.117
0.119
[ ] = minimum detection limit (not used in the averages or summations)
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
-------
TABLE 6-9. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE CONFIRMATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARED TO MM5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ALL CONDITIONS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA 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
RUN 1
MM5
(Pg)
1,600
18,600
2,100
71,500
TOLUENE
(Pg)
[24.40]
[24.40]
[9.100]
14.5
TOL/MM5
(*)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
RUN 2
MM5
(Pg)
32,700
449,300
57,800
1,722,200
MMS
(Pg)
2,900
56,300
3,400
128,600
TOLUENE
(Pg)
[20.80]
(97.70)
13.4
233.6
RUNS
TOLUENE
-------
TABLE 6-10. CDD/CDF TOLUENE FIELD BLANK RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
DIOXINS
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
FIELD
BLANK
(total pg)
10.0
245.0
53.0
360.0
60.0
82.2
175.0
895.0
618.0
1140.0
887.0
337.0
1430.0
149.0
289.0
2550.0
544.0
317.0
366.0
27.2
2450.0
1210.0
(219.0)
2160.0
1380.0
(24.10)
46.20
165.00
1080.00
TOLUENE
CONDI
AVO
(toUlpg)
0.0
102.2
3.2
127.1
18.3
35.5
36.8
173.7
249.4
493.0
603.3
163.5
545.4
26.4
72.8
614.0
135.4
61.2
118.7
33.8
590.3
317.7
64.6
344.4
874.3
4.5
8.2
110.0
459.3
TOLUENE
COND2
AVO
(total pg)
7.7
180.2
35.5
156.4
32.3
39.7
71.7
386.7
280.3
452.0
414.7
218.6
1192.0
116.4
152.1
1443.3
318.7
197.4
159.8
16.3
1480.7
588.0
81.7
1002.0
319.7
20.7
42.3
140.0
1130.0
TOLUENE
COND3
AVG
(total pg)
1.3
5.7
2.8
35.7
2.7
3.4
6.6
35.7
9.7
32.5
163.0
44.7
157.1
11.4
17.1
172.9
24.3
13.4
14.3
0.0
105.1
47.9
4.6
80.1
38.2
0.0
10.1
0.0
170.0
[ ] = minimum detection limit
() = estimated maximum possible
concentration
6-14
-------
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 4 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 -0.92 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. No metals were detected in the back half
fractions (impingers 1,2 and impingers 3,4) except for chromium. Front half field blank
results show detections of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. Only
nickel, chromium, and arsenic field blank amounts are greater than ~4 percent of any of
the average run amounts. Arsenic field blank results show the highest relative
contamination at 11.4 ^g which ranges from 21 to 50 percent of the front half run
catches. No arsenic was detected in the field blank back half fraction.
6.2.3 Microbial Survivability in Emissions Quality Assurance
Table 6-13 presents the leak check results for the Microbial Survivability in
emissions test runs. All leak checks met the "0.02 cfm or 4 percent of sample rate"
acceptance criterion.
Microbial emission testing isokinetic results are presented in Table 6-3. All
18 test runs met the isokinetic criterion of ± 10 percent of 100 percent.
The microbial emissions field blank results are shown in Table 38a. No spores
were detected in the 18 enumeration repetitions.
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 for the "A" runs were within
the 5 percent acceptance criterion at -0.31 percent. No post-test calibration was
performed on meter box 9 which was used for the "B" runs.
JBS226 6'15
-------
TABLE 6-11. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR TOXIC METALS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PRELIMINARY
LEAK RATE
(acfm)
0.009
0.011
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.010
0.005
0.004
MAXIMUM
VACUUM DURING
TEST
4
4
2
13
4
2
4
5
4
3
AVG. SAMPLE
RATE;
(dacfm)"
0.42
0.39
0.39
0.41
0.43
0.41
0.41
0.42
0.45
0.40
4« SAMPLE
: .:^RATE:.:;;:'
(acfm)
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.016
ACCEPTABLE
LEAK LEVEL
(acfm) :;
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.016
MEASUREMENT
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.005
0.010
0.006
0.018
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.006
0.006
INCHES
FOR
SEC. CHK,
9
10
10
17
10
8
7
10
11
7
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscftn) and may be slightly different than actual ctm (acfm).
-------
TABLE 6-12. METALS FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED TO AVERAGE AMOUNTS COLLECTED DURING THE TEST RUNS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
FIELD BLANK («g)
FRONT IMPINOERS IMPINOERS
HALF U 3,4 «
(59.5) a
11.7
22.5
[0.50]
17.0
16.0 c
32.0
[2.4]
44.0
[8.2]
[14]
[7.3] b
[0.46]
[0.23]
[0.23]
[0.57]
(1-25)
[3.4]
[6.1]
[2.3]
[3.8]
[6.2]
[0.67]
CONDITION | (ug)
FRONT IMPINOERS IMPINOERS
HALF 1,2 3.4 c
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 (ug)
FRONT IMPINOERS IMPINOERS
HALF 1,2 3,4 v
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 (ng)
FRONT IMPINOERS IMPINOERS
HALF 1,2 3,4 t
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
ON
a Value* enclosed in parenthesis represent raHmutum at they are leu than five times the detection limit.
b Values enclosed in bracket! represent minimum detection limits for elements not detected in the samples.
c Impingen 3 and 4 only sample fractions analyzed for mercury content.
-------
TABLE 6-13. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR MICROBIAL SURVTVABUJTY IN EMISSIONS SAMPLING RUNS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
SB
6A
6B
8A
8B
9A
9B
10A
10B
PRE-TEST
LEAK RATE
>*»>
0.002
0.008
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.008
0.003
0.008
0.012
0.004
MAXIMUM
VACUUM DURING
TEST
2.7
3
19
6
4.5
2
9
5
4.5
3
5
3
11.5
14
4
1
4.5
1
AVO, SAMPLE
RATE
(dscfm)
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.54
0.59
0.60
0.55
0.57
0.58
0.50
0.65
0.62
0.56
0.56
0.61
0.59
0.61
0.59
4% SAMPLE
RATE
(dftcfin) *
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.022
0.024
0.024
0.022
0.023
0.023
0.02
0.026
0.025
0.022
0.022
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
ACCEPTABLE
LEAK LEVEL
(•cfm)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
MEASUREMENT
POST-TEST
LEAK RATE
0.003
0.003
0.008
0.006
0.001
0.003
0.005
NR
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.008
0.006
0.01
0.006
0.008
0.014
0.008
INCHES
FOR
SEC. CHK.
5
6
28
10
6
6
8
7
9
9
8
9
15
18
9
5
7
3
a This value is in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) and may be slightly different than actual cfm (acfm).
NR = Data Not Recorded
-------
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". A slight modification to the
method (EPA Method 26) was incorporated into the test scheme by placing a small
amount of quartz wool into the upstream side of the HC1 filter housing.
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. A small amount of HC1 was
detected in the field blanks (0.245 and 0.25 mg for FB-A and FB-B). These amounts
only represent a maximum of 3 percent of the lowest run average amount.
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 500 ml was
deposited onto paper waste material and placed in a new, clean plastic garbage bags for
each spike. This package was then added to the normal waste loads at precise spiking
times. Freeze-dried quantities of B. steareothermophilus (dry spores) were placed in
sealed pipes (See Figure 5-12) to determine the viability of "thermally shaded" microbial
matter. Two pipes (one large and one small) were 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
JBS226
-------
TABLE 6-14. HALOGEN FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED TO RUN RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
ANALYTE
HC1
HF
HBr
FIELD
BLANXA
(totaling)
0.245
[0.042]
(0.0637)
FIELD
BLANK B
(totaling)
0.250
[0.042]
[0.013]
CONDITION 1
AVERAGE
(totaling)
7.31
0.19
0.08
CONDITION 2
AVERAGE
(total mg)
105
0.88
0.21
CONDITION 3
AVERAGE
(totaling)
7.85
0.13
0.07
a Values enclosed in brackes represent minimum detection
limits for compounds not detected in the samples.
( ) Denotes estimate as value is less than 5 times detection limit.
6-20
-------
during shipment or upon application. (The empty solution container was also placed in
the spiked waste charge.) The spiked charge was tied closed and deposited upright into
the incinerator. 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 seal, glass vials. This allowed for
easy and complete transfer of all the spore material to the inner container.
In conjunction with the wet spore/microbial survivability tests, incinerator ash was
collected before each test day (from the previous test run). The ash was also analyzed
for metals, CDD/CDF, carbon, loss on ignition, moisture content, as well as indicator
spores. All of the ash was completely removed from the incinerator bed every morning,
passed through a 1-inch mesh stainless steel (SS) sieve and placed in a large 55-gallon
drum. Using a sample "thief, four approximately 500 gram samples were taken and
placed in pre-cleaned, amber glass bottles. All material used for sampling, sample
compositing, and sample aliquoting was cleaned to prevent any sample contamination.
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. Further Microbial QA information is presented in
Section 6.4.4.
6.4 ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
The following section reports QA parameters for the CDD/CDF, Metals,
Halogen, and Microbial Survivability analytical results.
6.4.1 CDD/CDF Analytical Quality Assurance
6.4.1.1 Flue Gas (MM5) Analytical Procedure. There were two samples
generated for each flue gas (MM5) test run. One sample consisted of the pooled MM5
sample which received both the full screen and confirmation analyses.'-The second
sample was the post-recovery, toluene rinse, which also received a full screen and
confirmation analysis. The full screen analyses were conducted using a DB-5 GC column
JBS226 6'21
-------
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. (Toluene Runs 9 and 10,2378 TCDD, Total
TCDD were taken from confirmation analyses - see Section 6.4.1.2.)
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
used in quantifying the flue gas 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
JBS226
6-22
-------
CDD/CDF MM5 samples. Therefore a different analytical protocol was developed for
the analysis. One percent of the MM5 extract was used for Runs 2, 4, and 8
(Condition 2) 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 for Runs 2, 4 and 8.
A slight modification to the CDD/CDF data reduction protocol was also
incorporated into the toluene flue gas samples. Values for Runs 9 and 10,2378 TCDD
and Total TCDD (Other) were taken from the confirmation analysis as designated by
Triangle Laboratories. This is further explained in the TLI Project No. 16653T Case
Narrative shown in Appendix E3.
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. Table 6-15 presents these results. The MM5 method
blanks had no CDD/CDF isomers except for a small amount of Octu-TCDF (0.18 ng).
The toluene Field Blank had relatively high quantities of all isomers when compared to
the run results (picograms). The toluene method blanks were clean.
6.4.1.4 CDD/CDF Standard Recoveries. Tables 6-16 and 6-17, and Tables 6-18
and 6-19 present the standard recovery values for the MM5 flue gas and toluene flue gas
samples, respectively. Both full screen (FS) and confirmation (C) values are presented.
The analytical acceptance criterion for internal standard recoveries is 40 percent to
130 percent for tetra- through hexa-chlorinated compounds, while the range is 25 percent
to 130 percent for hepta- and octa-chlorinated compounds. Recoveries outside of these
limits may still be acceptable if other identification criteria are met.
As stated before, surrogate recoveries for MM5 Samples 2, 4, and 8 could not be
determined because of the modified analytical routine. All other MM5 surrogate
recoveries were within ± 30 percent.
Internal standard recoveries for MM5 Runs 1-10 FS and C all met the acceptable
criteria. All toluene internal standards recoveries were within the acceptance criteria
except for Run 1 13C12-HxCDD 678 and several Run 5 isomers. The Run 5 toluene
sample had no native hexa-substituted isomers present in hence high standards recoveries
6-23
-------
TABLE 6-15. METHOD BLANK AND FIELD BLANK RESULTS FOR THE MMS AND TOLUENE
FLUE GAS SAMPLES;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL HOSPTIAL (1990)
FULL-SCREEN ANALYSIS
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378 PCDD
TOTAL PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL HpCDD
OcU-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)
[6.500]
[6.500]
[8.600]
[8.600]
[8.500]
[8.300]
[9.500]
[8.700]
[14.50]
[14.50]
[26.50]
[4.500]
[4.500]
[6.300]
[6.600]
[6.400]
[5.000]
[4.800]
[6.600]
[8.400]
[5.900]
[6.000]
[10.10]
[7.500]
[22.40]
MMS
TLI-METHOD
BLANK (1/2 OM-50*)
(total ng)
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.060]
[0.060]
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.080]
[0.080]
0.18
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.050]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.040]
[0.050]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.060]
[0.040]
[0.100]
MMS
FIELD
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.060]
(0.070)
[0.080]
0.29
[0.100]
[0.100]
(0.180)
0.85
0.58
0.58
(0.950)
0.35
0.63
0.14
0.23
1.9
(0.680)
0.38
(0.460)
[0.100]
0.72
1.60
[0.200]
3.00
0.91
TOL
TU-METHQP
BLANK
( total pg)
[25.50]
[25.50]
[31.20]
(34.40)
[44.40]
[43.40]
[49.30]
[45.60]
[160.0]
[160.0]
[453.0]
[19.20]
[19.20]
[25.50]
[26.60]
[26.00]
[27.30]
[26.20]
[36.20]
[46.20]
[32.30]
[48.50]
[80.70]
[60.60]
[383.0]
TOL
FIELD
BLANK
(total pg)
10.0
245.0
53.0
360.0
60.0
82.2
175.0
895.0
618.0
1140.0
887.0
337.0
1430.0
149.0
289.0
2550.0
544.0
317.0
366.0
27.2
2450.0
1210.0
(219.0)
2160.0
1380.0
[ ] = minimum detection limit
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration
-------
TABLE 6-16. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ANALYSES, TEST RUN SAMPLES;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ED
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13CI2-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
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY ft
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY %
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
MM5-RVNI
86.7
107.0
90.5
86.3
78.1
81.8
102.0
63.0
74.6
76.7
81.4
115.0
122.0
83.2
77.0
52.1
98.2
76.2
78.6
MM5-RUN2
84.7
104.0
78.3
84.3
96.1
120.0
105.0
106.0
84.1
75.3
55.4
91.3
91.6
MM5-RUN3
94.9
99.7
98.5
86.1
81.7
81.1
101.0
79.7
81.7
89.1
91.5
109.0
113.0
80.3
74.9
54.0
96.5
87.6
91.1
MM5-RUN4
91.0
105.0
81.7
89.1
97.9
128.0
103.0
102.0
90.9
78.1
62.2
98.7
98.0
MM5-RUN5
91.7
97.1
94.1
86.4
82.5
86.2
101.0
75.5
81.9
82.3
77.7
115.0
119.0
81.9
77.8
55.3
100.0
90.9
94.7
MMS-*UN6
91.0
100.0
94.3
71.6
87.7
86.5
97.4
78.6
85.1
92.2
124.0
97.5
129.0
77.5
78.3
58.4
101.0
90.8
93.8
MM5-*VN«
82.3
107.0
82.7
79.6
106.0
115.0
99.4
103.0
81.7
70.9
53.4
93.9
95.4
MM5-RUN9
90.2
88.0
95.0
90.6
76.2
89.6
108.0
87.2
82.6
99.8
98.9
113.0
119.0
81.6
74.1
54.4
97.2
87.5
96.2
MM5-IOJNIQ
89.9
97.4
93.0
86.8
75.9
85.2
109.0
67.4
71.4
79.1
87.6
119.0
125.0
93.7
86.1
70.8
96.9
85.0
82.6
-------
TABLE 6-17. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ANALYSES
BLANK SAMPLES;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
MM5-FIELD
BLANK
MM5-TLJ
BLANK
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY(%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY %
37CI-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY %
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
(1/2 10 OM)
90.4
78.1
91.6
86.1
65.8
65.1
87.0
66.2
73.8
102.0
98.4
104.0
116.0
59.9
49.7
32.8
100.0
79.8
75.8
76.3
98.8
69.1
72.0
83.4
101.0
80.1
83.2
68.8
65.9
53.6
6-26
-------
TABLE 6-18. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF TOLUENE ANALYSES, TEST RUN SAMPLES
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLED?
FULL SCREEN ANALYSIS
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PcCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF 789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
J3C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PcCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF678
13C12-HxCDD678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
TOL-RUNl
47.8
63.4
88.8
105.0
43.0
S4.6
85.3
44.9
52.8
65.9
96.5
103.0
149.0
67.5
60.9
42.1
50.4
60.9
48.8
TOL-RUN 2
53.3
75.6
76.4
93.8
44.6
54.3
82.8
49.8
58.7
74.6
103.0
81.0
118.0
61.0
58.9
47.4
59.1
69.1
56.4
TOL-RUN $
31.6
52.4
86.0
111.0
41.2
47.6
83.9
30.2
35.3
53.9
74.3
95.7
142.0
64.3
52.5
34.4
40.3
33.9
40.3
TOL-RUN 4
49.1
75.6
63.1
81.2
45.7
55.1
79.7
44.8
56.3
74.3
110.0
73.7
110.0
59.1
63.4
57.7
54.2
48.6
56.4
TOL-RUN $
31.9
48.3
170.0
171.0
71.0
78.1
128.0
33.8
33.5
43.2
63.6
180.0
218.0
126.0
72.2
28.9
43.0
39.4
49.1
TOL-RUN «
51.8
61.8
71.1
95.0
45.8
56.4
70.2
53.0
56.7
58.3
86.0
77.2
104.0
58.5
62.2
43.8
59.5
49.8
58.8
TOL-RUN 8
54.7
69.4
80.2
100.0
55.1
67.9
76.5
51.9
59.2
65.5
106.0
77.6
103.0
63.7
70.1
49.4
56.2
53.7
60.2
TOL-RUN 9
69.0
79.6
77.2
110.0
56.4
68.5
87.6
70.4
72.6
74.4
106.0
77.8
111.0
63.2
71.0
51.3
67.1
59.3
72.5
TOL-WN W
50.9
52.8
88.7
101.0
32.4
53.9
77.8
50.4
61.3
59.7
57.1
89.6
105.0
52.0
47.7
33.1
61.5
54.4
68.0
-------
TABLE 6-19. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF
TOLUENE ANALYSES, BLANK SAMPLES;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSIS
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
TOL-TLi
BLANK
31.3
37.0
73.1
83.7
24.7
35.6
61.8
30.0
34.4
38.6
52.2
78.2
95.5
45.8
31.9
16.7
TOL-FIELD
BLANK
58.1
73.5
84.9
103.0
53.2
71.9
80.8
54.6
59.8
67.4
90.5
86.3
112.0
63.4
64.0
30.6
63.7
58.8
62.9
6-28
-------
these compounds do not present a problem. All CDD/CDF data was inspected and
released as valid by the Triangle Laboratory QA officer.
Table 6-20 present the recovery standards for the ash samples. All recoveries
were within acceptable limits. Further information on standards recoveries can be found
in Appendix E.I.
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 6-21 present the method blank metals results for both the ash and flue gas
samples. Only barium was detected in the ash blank. Barium was also detected in the
flue gas method blank. Relatively high amounts of arsenic, chromium, and nickel were
found in the field blank. This was more fully discussed in Section 6.2.2.
Table 6-22 presents the method spike results for the metals analyses. All spiked
recoveries were within the QA allowance of ±20 percent of 100 percent except for the
back half fraction of mercury. This does not appear to be significant enough to affect
the overall quality of the final results. At this point, no front half method spike
duplicate values have been determined.
6.4.3 Halogen Analytical Quality Assessment
The analysis for Cl~, F, and Br incorporate stringent QA/QC guidelines.
Table 6-23 presents the method blank results for the 1C analysis. None of the target
halogen ions were detected in any of the method blanks, laboratory proof blanks, or the
reagent blank. The field blank revealed very low amounts of HC1 but only represented
3 percent of the average run amounts.
The matrix spike recoveries are also shown in Table 6-23. Results for all 3 ions
were within the 20 percent criteria.
6.4.4 Microbial Survivability Quality Assurance
The stock wet spore solution, that were used for spiking the incinerator was
analyzed. These results are listed in Table 6-24. Two pre-aliquoted wet spore bags were
-------
TABLE 6-20. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ASH ANALYSES;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSIS
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
ASH
CONDITION 1
73.3
88.8
121.0
119.0
74.4
81.3
112.0
98.0
74.0
83.9
73.6
98.1
92.1
89.6
73.0
48.8
77.3
67.2
75.9
ASH
CONDITION 2
77.3
94.1
108.0
114.0
68.4
86.2
109.0
99.5
77.8
84.7
72.1
90.5
94.2
81.4
75.8
57.5
88.0
79.0
84.9
ASH
CONDITION 3
68.0
88.5
93.2
107.0
59.0
67.4
92.7
95.2
69.3
77.7
66.7
79.5
85.7
71.8
63.3
37.6
71.8
61.5
70.6
ASH-TLI
BLANK
37.0
55.6
58.8
80.9
52.1
55.3
78.2
33.7
41.6
46.9
77.7
64.3
94.1
58.0
61.6
58.8
6-30
-------
TABLE 6-21. METALS ASH AND FLUE GAS METHOD BLANK RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
ASH
METHOD
BLANK
(mg/kg)
[6.4]
[4.0]
2.30
[0.20]
[0.50]
[1.0]
[3.0]
[0.039]
[2-0]
[3.3]
[5.4]
FLUE GAS METHOD BLANK
FRONT
HALF
(total ug)
[16]
[1.0]
6.75
[0.50]
[1.2]
[2.5]
[0.75]
[2-4]
[5.0]
[8.2]
[14]
IMPINGERS
1,2
(total ug)
[7.0]
[0.44]
[0.22]
[0.22]
(0.978)
[1.1]
[3.3]
[4.0]
[2.2]
[3.6]
[5.9]
IMPINGERS
3*4 a
(total ug)
[0.37]
FIELD BLANK
FRONT
HALF
(total ug)
(59.5)
11.7
22.5
[0.50]
17.0
16.0
32.0
[2.4]
44.0
[8.2]
[14]
IMPINGERS
1,2
(total ug)
[7.3]
[0.46]
[0.23]
[0.23]
[0.57]
(1.25)
[3.4]
[6.1]
[2.3]
[3.8]
[6.2]
IMPINGERS
3,4 a
(total ug)
[0.67]
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.
6-31
-------
TABLE 6-22. METALS METHOD BLANK SPIKE RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
METHOD SPIKE
FRONT
HALF
104
98.0
97.6
99.6
102
104
100
115
92.2
113
83.4
IMPINGERS
1,2
95.2
96.2
96.6
96.0
101
99.6
95.2
109
89.6
NC
89.2
IMPINGERS
3,4
64.1
METHOD SPIKE DUPLICATE
FRONT
HALF
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IMPINGERS
1,2
81.0
94.4
96.0
94.4
101
98.2
92.8
101
90.0
NC
85.8
IMPINGERS
3,4
80.1
NC = Analysis not completed
6-32
-------
TABLE 6-23. HALOGEN METHOD BLANK, LAB PROOF BLANK, REAGENT BLANK AND MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERY;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
ANALYTS
HC1
HF
HBr
METHOD
BLANK:
i
(tabling)
[0.011]
[0.042]
[0.013]
LAB PROOF
BLANK
SET!
(totaling)
[0.011]
[0.043]
[0.013]
LAB PROOF
BLANK
SET 2
(totaling)
[0.011]
[0.043]
[0.013]
REAGENT
BLANK
H2S04
(total rag)
[0.0099]
[0.037]
[0.011]
•/•:,.. FIELD ••:*,••
BLANK
: '.•.••••••: A ..;.•:•
(totaling)
0.245
[0.042]
(0.064)
HELD
BLANK
B
(totaling)
0.250
[0.042]
[0.013]
ANAlYTE
HC1
HF
HBr
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
<*>
97.20
96.20
106.0
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
<*)
106
96.80
96.20
OJ
NOTE:
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
( ) = Denotes estimated value as number is less than 5 times detection limit.
-------
TABLE 6-24. WET SPORE SPIKE SOLUTION CONIRMATION ANALYSIS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-l
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-2
MANUFACTURER'S
COUNT
(spore/ml)
6.72E+08
7.88E+08
CONFIRMATION
AVERAGE
(viable spotw/ml)
3.0E*09
3.0E+09
CONHRMATIpH
COUNT
STANDARD DEVIATION
i (viable •porac/ml)
l.OE+09
2.0E+09
NOTE: All Values were taken from the average of the 10 ml - 48-hour counts
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-l was labelled 3.68E+11 spores/bag at 500 ml/bag.
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-2 was labelled 3.94E+11 spores/bag at 500 ml/bag.
-------
submitted for confirmation analysis. The confirmation counts of 3 x 109 and 3 x
10 spores/ml were higher than the manufacturer's respective count of 6.72 x 108 and
7.88 x 108 spores/ml. However, because the final analyses were also completed by the
same laboratory conducting confirmation anlayses, the confirmation results were used to
calculate Overall Microbial Survivability.
A dry spore sample was also sent in for QA analysis. These results are shown in
Table 6-25. 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 5.2 x 106 versus 3.45 x 105, respectively.
Two empty pipe samples (blanks) that were not charged to the incinerator were
also submitted to the laboratory for analysis. These results are listed on Page 2 in
Appendix E.3 (CCH-298, CCH-299). One large and one small pipe field blank were
submitted. The results were 10 and >200 spores, respectively. Therefore, either the
sample recovery procedures or the analytical methods appear to have contaminated both
pipe field blanks.
Two pipes which were loaded with spores and not charged to the incinerator
(ambient pipes) were also submitted for analysis (see Apppendix E.3-CCH-300,
CCH-301). The results show that the large pipe sample has 10 spores detected and the
small pipe sample had > 200 spores found. The number of spores detected 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
(pipes were loaded with 5.2 x 106 spores) was not feasible without performing serial
dilutions.
6.5 CEM QUALITY ASSURANCES
Flue gas was analyzed for carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, and total hydrocarbons (THC), using
EPA Methods 10, 3A, 6C, 7E, and 25A, respectively. An additional CEM analyzer was
also employed for real time HC1 gas concentrations.
6-35
JBS226
-------
TABLE 6-25. DRY SPORE SPIKE SOLUTION CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
SAMPLE ID
Dry Spore Glass
Vial
MANUFACTURER'S
COUNT
. (iponM/vial)
3.45E+05
CONFIRMATION
AVERAGE
(viable »pore*/vial)
5.2E+06 a
CONFIRMATION
COUNT
STANDARD DEVIATION
(viable spora/vial)
l.OE+06
NOTE: All Values were taken from the average of the 10 ml - 48-hour counts
U)
-------
6-5.1 CEM Data Overview
CEM sampling system and instruments were operated performing daily QA/QC
procedures. These included QC gas challenges, sample systems blow back, probe
maintenance, filter replacement, conditioner inspection and maintenance, calibration
drift checks and others. The aim was to ensure a quality data product. Details of the
CEM QC procedures are fully outlined in this test program's test plan.
Table 6-26 presents the CEM internal QA/QC checks along with their respective
acceptance criteria which were conducted at the Central Carolina 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). Post-test calibrations were
not completed for 4 out of the 9 HC1 CEM test runs. This was because HC1 calibrations
had to be completed at stack gas temperatures and the incinerator would go into a
"burndown" mode (lower temperature) before the post-test calibration could be
performed.
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.
Table 6-27 lists the zero and span calibration drift results for each CEM analyzer
on each test day. All drifts met QC allowances except HCl-Runs 1 and 9, and THC-
Runs 7 and 9. The HC1 data for the above runs were drift corrected. The THC CEM
data for Run 7 were not included in the final results. No drift corrections were made on
the THC-Run 9 data.
6.5.3 Daily OC 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
6-37
JBS226
-------
TABLE 6-26. CEM INTERNAL QA/QC CHECKS
Check
Frequency
Criteria
Initial Leak Check
Daily Leak Checks
Calibration Drift
Multipoint Linearity
Check (Calibration
Error)
Sample System Bias
Response Time
NOX Convenor
Stratification Test
Once/Site
Before Each Test
Run
Daily
Every 3rd Day
3 point for Oj, COj, NO,,
SC^HCl
4 point for CO, THC
Every 3rd Day
Zero and Span
Once/Site
Once/Site
Once/Site
< 4% of Total flow
while under vacuum
< 0.5% O2 with
0.2% O2 gas
< ±3% Span
zero and upscale
gas (can use
± 10 ppm limit for
HC1 if less
restrictive)
r = 0.998
< 5% Span
85% of time for
stable SO2
measurements
> 90% conversion
efficiency
Within 10% of
average
JBS219
6-38
-------
TABLE 6-27. DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER: O2
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: 0.2% O2
FULL SCALE: 25
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.0100
0.0200
0.0100
0.0500
0.1600
0.0200
0.1900
0.0500
-0.0400
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.5900
-0.1000
-0.3300
-0.3200
-0.5000
-0.3100
-0.6100
-0.6500
-0.4400
PARAMETER: CO
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 5000
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
($ of Span)
-0.0500
0.0000
0.0800
0.0000
-0.0200
-0.0100
0.0900
-0.0500
-0.0200
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.2000
-0.0400
-0.2000
-0.2000
-0.0400
-0.0900
-0.1000
-0.0900
-0.1100
PARAMETER: CO2
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 20
-- ' -
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
• • ' - - :-i::
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.0600
0.0200
0.0700
-0.0200
0.0300
0.0500
-0.0400
-0.1700
-0.0200
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-1.4700
0.0700
0.6200
0.0300
0.0400
0.0100
0.2000
-0.0400
"o.oooo
6-39
-------
TABLE 6-27. DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS; (continued)
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER: HC1
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 2000
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.3700
0.6100
no final cal
-0.1200
-0.2600
no final cal
no final cal
1.4500
no final cal
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-20.0100
-0.1300
no final cal
-0.5400
-0.6900
no final cal
no final cal
9.5500
no final cal
PARAMETER: SO2
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 500
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
'::'; -'--RUN:;'-V-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.0200
-0.0100
0.0500
-0.0300
0.0400
-0.0200
0.0000
-0.0300
-0.0200
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-0.1900
0.0000
0.0800
-0.1400
-0.0100
-0.1600
-0.0500
-0.0800
-0.0700
PARAMETER: NOX
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 250
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.0200
-0.1200
-0.3800
no final cal
-0.0700
0.0900
-0.2900
0.1000
0.4500
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
-2.0900
-1.0500
-2.0000
no final cal
-1.9300
0.5700
-0.8200
0.0500
1.3200
6-40
-------
TABLE 6-27. DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS; (continued)
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER: THC
ZERO CALIBRATION GAS: N2
FULL SCALE: 100
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ZERO
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(% of Span)
0.8900
3.9500
-1.8700
-1.7100
-1.1600
-1.5100
-4.2700
-1.4200
-1.9600
SPAN
INSTRUMENT DRIFT
(96 of Span)
-0.8800
0.8700
0.9300
0.3700
-0.9700
-1.2500
-4.2400
-4.7800
-1.0600
6-41
-------
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 6-28 presents the results of the daily QC gas challenges. Several QC gas
responses exceeded the QC criterion. However, other QC challenges were made for
these instruments with acceptable results.
6.5.4 Multipoint Linearity Check
During the test program, the multipoint linearity was determined for each CEM
analyzer. This is important because flue gas concentrations are determined from a two
point linear regression analysis (zero calibration and span calibration gas). Multipoint
calibrations are performed with either three or four certified gases depending on the
instrument: a zero gas, a low scale gas concentration, a mid-range concentration, and a
high scale concentration (span gas). The QC criterion for acceptable linearity will be a
correlation coefficient (r) of greater than or equal to .998, where the independent
variable is the cylinder gas concentration and the dependent variable is the instrument
response.
Table 6-29 presents the results of CEM linearity checks. All linearity checks met
the acceptance criteria, except for one CO2 and one SO2 check. Other CO2 and SO2
linearity checks met the acceptance criteria.
6.5.4 Sample Bias
All calibrations and linearity checks were performed through the entire sampling
system. Therefore, any system bias which may have existed was compensated for in the
calibrations.
6.6 PSD QUALITY ASSURANCE
The most important QC procedure performed on a PSD test is inspecting the
quality of paniculate loadings on every impactor stage. Assesments can then be made
on the validity of the test run. All PSD test runs were inspected during the Central
Carolina Hospital MWI test program and observations were noted on the field data
sheets (see Appendix A.6). Only those runs with discrete "particulate piles", showing no
evidence of overloading, were accepted. The PSD Runs 1 and 2 were overloaded and
underloaded, respectively, and were, therefore, not accepted as valid test runs. Runs 3
JBS226
6-42
-------
TABLE 6-28. QC GAS RESPONSES;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
PARAMETER
O2 b
CO(dry) c
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
10.1
5.0
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
20.2
10.1
5.00
10.1
10.1
10.1
5.0
20.0
20.2
5.0
198.0
50.0
198.0
198.0
198.0
198.0
198.0
50.0
198.0
198.0
198.0
50.0
400.0
50.0
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
10.1
4.9
10.1
10.1
10.1
12.3
20.4
10.1
5.00
10.1
10.2
11.0
5.0
20.0
20.2
4.9
189.3
41.8
186.7
182.5
188.9
188.4
188.4
44.2
192.3
187.0
221.0
48.8
402.1
48.6
PERCENT
DIFFERENCE a
0.00%
-0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.80%
0.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.40%
3.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.40%
-0.17%
-0.16%
-0.23%
-0.31%
-0.18%
-0.19%
-0.19%
-0.12%
-0.11%
-0.22%
0.46%
-0.02%
0.04%
-0.03%
NOTE:
a percent difference = 100 * (measured value - true value)/span
b in units of percent
c in units of ppm
6-43
-------
TABLE 6-28. QC GAS RESPONSES (continued);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
PARAMETER
CO2b
SO2c
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
9.03
5.03
9.03
9.03
9.03
9.03
17.97
9.03
5.03
9.03
9.03
9.03
5.03
17.97
17.97
5.03
99.9
50.4
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
50.4
25.2
99.9
99.9
99.9
50.4
25.2
99.9
50.4
25.2
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
8.7
4.9
9.0
9.0
9.0
7.9
18.0
9.2
5.1
9.1
9.0
7.7
5.1
18.0
18.0
5.1
103.5
51.5
99.1
100.1
98.5
98.5
100.3
50.2
26.3
97.6
96.9
91.5
52.8
25.7
101.6
50.4
25.8
PERCENT
DIFFERENCE a
-1.65%
-0.65%
-0.15%
-0.15%
-0.15%
-5.65%
0.15%
0.85%
0.35%
0.35%
-0.15%
-6.65%
0.35%
0.15%
0.15%
0.35%
0.72%
0.22%
-0.16%
0.04%
-0.28%
-0.28%
0.08%
-0.04%
0.22%
-0.46%
-0.60%
-1.68%
0.48%
0.10%
0.34%
0.00%
0.12%
NOTE:
a percent difference = 100 * (measured value - true value)/span
b in units of percent
c in units of ppm
6-44
-------
TABLE 6-28. QC GAS RESPONSES (continued);
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
DATE
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
09/20/90
09/22/90
09/23/90
09/24/90
09/25/90
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/28/90
10/02/90
09/20/90
PARAMETER
NOXc
THC (wet) c
HCL (wet) c
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
102.0
51.7
51.7
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
51.7
250.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
51.7
102.0
51.7
91.6
15.0
91.6
91.6
91.6
91.6
15.0
91.6
91.6
15.0
240.0
15.0
1826.8
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
101.7
51.5
51.5
102.4
102.0
103.7
104.1
52.0
253.2
103.5
104.4
102.8
52.3
104.2
52.0
91.0
15.5
83.7
88.2
91.9
89.9
14.5
89.5
95.2
19.6
230.8
15.3
1845.0
PERCENT
DIFFERENCE a
-0.15%
-0.10%
0.20%
0.00%
0.85%
1.05%
0.15%
1.60%
0.75%
1.20%
0.40%
0.30%
1.10%
0.15%
-0.60%
0.50%
-7.90%
-3.40%
0.30%
-1.70%
-0.50%
-2.10%
3.60%
4.60%
-9.20%
0.30%
0.91%
NOTE:
-L-.
a percent difference = 100 * (measured value - true value)/span
b in units of percent
c in units of ppm
6-45
-------
TABLE 6-29. LINEARITY RESULTS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER
02*
02*
CO**
C02*
C02*
SO2**
SO2**
SO2**
DATE
9/25/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
9/25/90
9/28/90
9/25/90
9/28/90
10/02/90
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
0.20
5.00
10.10
20.20
0.20
5.00
10.10
20.20
0.00
50.00
198.00
400.00
0.00
5.03
9.03
17.97
450.00
0.00
5.03
9.03
17.97
0.00
25.20
50.40
99.90
0.00
25.20
50.40
99.90
0.00
25.20
50.40
99.90
MEASUREIJ
CONCENTRATION
0.2
5.0
10.1
20.4
0.2
5.0
11.0
20.2
0.0
48.8
221.0
402.1
0.0
5.1
9.2
18.0
475.8
0.0
5.1
7.7
18.0
0.0
26.3
50.2
100.3
0.00
25.70
52.80
91.50
0.00
25.80
50.40
101.60
CORRELATION
(R)
0.99980
0.99865
0.99815
0.99995
0.99596
0.99991
0.99674
0.99994
* in units of percent
** in units of ppm
*** u methane in units of ppm
6-46
-------
TABLE 6-29. LINEARITY RESULTS; (continued)
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
PARAMETER
NOx**
HCl(wet) **
THC***
THC ***
DATE
9/25/90
9/28/90
9/25/90
9/28/90
TRUE
CONCENTRATION
0.00
51.70
102.00
250.00
0.00
101.20
965.90
0.00
15.00
0
15
240
91.60
MEASURED
CONCENTRATION
0.0
52.0
104.1
253.2
0.0
120.2
964.1
0.00
14.50
0
19.6
230.8
89.90
CORRELATION
(R>
0.99999
0.99982
1.00000
0.99978
* in units of percent
** in units of ppm
*** as methane in units of ppm
6-47
-------
through 6 were validated by the recovery technician and the results are reported in
Section 2.9.
All PSD sample trains were carefully configured and a pre-test leak check was
completed on the system. In order to prevent sample particulate matter from being
disturbed, post-test leak checks can not be completed on a PSD sample train. All
pre-test PSD leak checks met the acceptable criterion of less than 0.02 cfm at 0 inches
Hg vacuum.
6.7 DATA VARIABILITY
6.7.1 Overview
Coefficients of Variation (CV) were calculated for all the final stack gas pollutant
concentrations. The CV or relative standard deviation (RSD) is calculated by dividing
the standard deviation by the mean and expressed as a percentage. CVs from several
distinct groups of data can be combined into a "Pooled CV". The pooled CV is
calculated as follows:
CV = — x 100
M
Where:
CV = Coefficient of variation
S = Standard deviation (calculated using LOTUS 123™ which uses n and
not n-1 where n = number of data points.)
M = mean
E (CV,)2 n,
CVp = pooled coefficient of Variation
j = Coefficient of variation for a simple sample set i.
= Number of data points in that sample set.
JBS226
6-48
-------
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.
6.7.2 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
program (overall). The overall pooled CV for the CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations
was 64.4 percent.
Table 6-31 presents CVs for the metal flue gas concentrations. The overall
pooled CV for the metals flue gas concentrations is 65.0 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 29.8 percent.
Table 6-33 presents the CV values for the CEM 30 second averages. 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 a
"smoothed" average concentration for that time period. The overall pooled CV for the
CEM data 159 percent. Results from the triplicate manual tests did not fluctuate nearly
as much as the 30 second CEM readings, therefore had much lower CVs.
-------
TABLE 6-30. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATIONS FOR THE CDD/CDF FLUE
GAS CONCENTRATIONS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
OcU-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
OcU-CDF
Footed CV
OvermU Pookd CV
CV:U,10
<*)
47.4
100.7
63.3
95.8
68.5
64.3
68.4
80.2
58.1
60.7
60.3
64.0
88.1
59.8
69.3
80.1
82.1
72.8
82.0
68.4
76.1
80.7
74.0
78.6
75.9
73.8
CV:2,4,*
<*)
45.8
29.7
46.0
46.9
39.5
43.6
46.2
40.4
37.2
38.3
33.1
87.6
83.1
66.3
60.7
67.1
56.2
58.2
46.1
56.4
55.6
45.4
38.7
40.9
18.7
51.4
CV:S,6^
<*)
83.8
76.8
76.3
80.6
68.7
67.4
59.3
64.0
49.3
52.2
49.6
84.5
86.7
75.2
71.0
86.3
63.8
65.2
60.3
60.0
70.1
50.3
39.7
49.5
35.9
66.6
POOLED
CV
<*)
61.5
75.1
63.1
77.2
60.5
59.4
58.7
63.7
48.9
51.2
48.9
79.4
86.0
67.4
67.1
78.2
68.3
65.7
64.5
61.8
67.8
60.8
53.4
58.6
49.6
•••.:••.•-• «4.4 ..-:// •.;,^."---... •'<•••• ••" ,;:^',
6-50
-------
TABLE 6-31. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF THE
FLUE GAS METALS CONCENTRATIONS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
FLOW RATE (dscmm)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Pooled CV
Overall Pooled CV
CONDITION
1
CV
<*>
69.7
121
77.1
ND
93.4
93.2
19.2
92.9
ND
ND
ND
87.6
65.0
CONDITION
2
CV
(*>
21.9
36.6
14.6
1.1
16.0
11.2
22.8
30.5
66.4
28.8
ND
30.8
CONDITION
3
CV
<*>
8.62
123
16.1
ND
25.4
116
28.2
ND
113.1
ND
ND
7S.6
POOLED
CV
42.4
102
46.3
1.1
50.2
86.2
24.2
69.1
92.7
28.8
ND
ND = Not Detected
6-51
-------
TABLE 6-32. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR
HALOGEN FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
CV-1
CV-3
CV-10
Pooled Condition 1
CV-2
CV-4
CV-8
Pooled Condition 2
CV-5
CV-6
CV-9
Pooled Condition 3
Pooled Analyte
Total Pooled Halogen
na
<%)
28.8
2.33
48.2
34.4
8.71
47.2
34.3
36.0
20.1
6.28
26.8
19.7
30.6
HF
(%)
25.8
29.5
60.0
42.6
46.3
36.7
30.5
37,3
21.7
15.2
16.5
18.0
33.8
HBr
<%)
4.40
5.89
12.6
8.67
46.6
31.3
8.61
30.6
ND
ND
9.36
9.36
21.4
29.8
6-52
-------
TABLE 6-33. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF CEM GAS CONCENTRATIONS;
CENTRAL CAROLINA HOSPITAL (1990)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
DATE
9/20/90
9/21/90
9/22/90
9/23/90
9/24/90
9/25/90
9/27/90
9/28/90
10/02/90
Footed Compound
Overall Pooled
COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION
'' ':•'-•".,.-. . " ••:';/":':".':"-' ' •••.:. (percent). .'•" • " '>•> • '•
O2
6.09
10.7
7.67
9.76
6.15
5.76
10.0
7.73
8.78
8.26
159
CO2
23.6
33.5
28.7
31.1
27.8
24.0
32.6
28.5
32.2
293
CO
325
248
235
201
252
254
283
296
228
260
NO*
51.3
49.7
71.2
68.7
46.9
49.0
46.6
44.8
61.3
55.2
SO2
58.8
122
55.8
88.7
43.3
41.0
133
42.6
57.4
78.6
HO
172
44.8
91.5
62.5
32.9
36.7
56.2
43.8
39.5
76.6
• '
THC
174
259
177
398
447
323
130
411
251
306
POOLED CV
BY DAY
157
146
122
176
196
158
131
194
133
ON
-------
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.
7-1
------- |