&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality EMB Report 90-MWI-6
Planning and Standards Volume I
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 February 1991
Air
Medical Waste Incineration
Emission Test Report
Jordan Hospital
Plymouth, Massachusetts
-------
DCN: 90-275-026-25-07
MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATION
EMISSION TEST REPORT
VOLUME I
Jordan Hospital
Plymouth, Massachusetts
EMB Project No. 88-MWI-06
Work Assignment 1.25
Contract No. 68-D-90054
Prepared for:
Dennis Holzschuh
Work Assignment Manager
Emission Measurement Branch, MD-14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
3200 Nelson Highway/Chapel Hill Road
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
February, 1992
-------
RADIAN REPORT CERTIFICATION
This report has been reviewed by the following Radian personnel and is a true
representation of the results obtained from the sampling program conducted at the
Jordan Hospital Medical Waste Incinerator in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The testing was
conducted from March 5 to March 9, 1991. The sampling and analytical methods were
performed in accordance with EPA reference procedures or EPA approved modifications
to those procedures.
APPROVAL:
Ray Merrill, ProgTam Manage
Date
JJb
Winton Kelly, Project Director
Date
dkd.176
11
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
Volume I
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Test Objectives 1-1
1.2 Site Description 1-2
1.3 Air Emissions Control System 1-6
1.4 Emissions Measurement Program 1-8
1.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 1-13
1.6 Description of Report Contents 1-13
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 2-30
2.4 Particulate Matter/Visible Emissions 2-56
2.5 Halogen Gas Emissions 2-60
2.6 Hydrogen Chloride CEM Results 2-70
2.7 CEM Results , w 2-70
2.8 Ash Loss-on-Ignition and Carbon Content Results 2-76
2.9 Microbial Survivability Results 2-76
2.10 Particle Size Distribution Results 2-88
2.11 CDD/CDF Emission Values Incorporating the Toluene
Recovery Results 2-92
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF PROCESS
OPERATION DURING TESTING AT JORDAN HOSPITAL 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Process Description 3-1
3.3 Pretest Activities 3-6
3.4 Process Conditions During Testing 3-8
4.0 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 4-1
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 5-23
5.3 Microbial Survivability Testing 5-35
5.4 HCl/HBr/HF Emissions Testing by EPA Method 26 5-51
5.5 EPA Methods 1-4 5-55
dkd.176 HI
-------
CONTENTS, continued
Section Page
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 5-67
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) 6-1
6.1 QA/QC Definitions and Objectives 6-2
6.2 Manual Flue Gas Sampling and Recovery Parameters 6-3
6.3 QC Procedures for Ash and Pipe Sampling 6-22
6.4 Analytical Quality Assurance 6-23
6.5 CEM Quality Assurances 6-37
6.6 PSD Quality Assurance 6-40
6.7 Data Variability 6-40
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 Ash and Pipe Recovery Sheets
B.2 Field Data Sheets
Volume III
APPENDICES
C SAMPLE PARAMETER CALCULATION SHEETS
C.I CDD/CDF
C.2 PM/Metals
C.3 Microbial
C.4 HCl/HBr/HF
dkd.176 IV
-------
CONTENTS, continued
D CEM DATA
D.I CEM Plots
D.2 CEM Tables
D.3 CEM QA/QC
D.4 CEM Linearity Checks
D.5 CEM Cooldown Data
D.6 CEM Cooldown Plots
E ANALYTICAL DATA
E.I CDD/CDF
E.2 PM/Metals and PSD
E.3 Microbial
E.4 HCl/HBr/HF
E.5 Sample Identification Log
F MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY DATA REDUCTION
G CALIBRATION DATA SHEETS
H SAMPLE EQUATIONS
I PARTICIPANTS
J VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA AND AVERAGES
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
dkd.176
-------
FIGURES
Page
1-1 Jordan Hospital Incinerator 1-3
1-2 Inlet Sample Locations 1-7
2-1 Location of Microbe Spikes in Incinerator 2-87
2-2 Particle Size Distribution Run 2 Results With and Without
Condensable PM 2-93
2-3 Particle Size Distribution Run 3 Results With and Without
Condensable PM 2-94
3-1 Temperature Profile for Run 1 3-11
3-2 Temperature Profile for Run 2 3-12
3-3 Temperature Profile for Run 3 3-13
3-4 Temperature Profile for Run 4 3-14
3-5 Temperature Profile for Run 5 3-15
3-6 Temperature Profile for Run 6 3-16
3-7 Spore Placement Diagram 3-17
4-1 Inlet Sample Locations 4-2
4-2 Stack Gas Sample Locations 4-3
4-3 Traverse Point Layout (Stack Location) 4-4
4-4 Inlet Flue Gas Sample Location 4-5
4-5 Traverse Point Layout for Microbial Survivability 4-7
4-6 Traverse Point Layout for CDD/CDF and Metals (Inlet Location) 4-8
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 5-29
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 5-42
5-12 Modified (Mesh) Ash Quality Assembly and Pipe Ash Quality Assembly . . . 5-44
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 5-49
5-16 HC1 Sample Train Configuration 5-52
dkd.176 VI
-------
FIGURES, continued
Page
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 5-68
dkd.176
-------
TABLES
Page
1-1 Jordan Hospital MWI Test Matrix 1-9
2-1 Emissions Test Log 2-2
2-2 Summary of CDD/CDF Tests Showing Average Daily Flue Gas and
Incinerator Bottom Ash Mass Rates and Scrubber Water Concentrations ... 2-5
2-3 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Concentrations for Burn and Burndown
Conditions 2-6
2-4 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Concentrations Corrected to 7% O2 for Bum
and Burndown Conditions 2-9
2-5 CDD/CDF Stack Emissions and Outlet to Inlet Emissions Ratios for
Burn and Burndown Conditions 2-10
2-6 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies Corrected to 7% O2
for Burn and Burndown Conditions 2-11
2-7 CDD/CDF Emissions Averaged Over Each Test Day 2-12
2-8 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations at the Inlet and Outlet Sample
Location During the Burn Condition 2-13
2-9 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations Corrected to 7% O2 at the Inlet
and Outlet Sample Location During the Burn Condition 2-15
2-10 CDD/CDF Gas Toxic Equivalencies Corrected to 7% O2 for the Burn
Condition 2-16
2-11 CDD/CDF Stack Emissions for the Burn Condition 2-17
2-12 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations at the Inlet and Outlet Sample
Location During the Burndown Condition 2-18
2-13 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations Corrected to 7% O2 at the Inlet
and Outlet Sample Location During the Burndown Condition 2-19
2-14 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies Corrected to 7% O2 for the
Burndown Condition 2-20
2-15 CDD/CDF Stack Emissions for the Burndown Condition 2-22
2-16 CDD/CDF Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at Inlet 2-23
2-17 CDD/CDF Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at Outlet 2-24
2-18 CDD/CDF Concentrations in Ash 2-25
2-19 CDD/CDF Toxic Equivalencies in Ash 2-27
2-20 CDD/CDF Daily Discharge Rate in the Ash Stream 2-28
2-21 CDD/CDF Concentrations in Absorber Make-up Water and Discharge
Water 2-29
2-22 CDD/CDF Toxic Equivalencies in Absorber Make-up Water
and Discharge Water 2-31
2-23 Summary of Toxic Metals Flue Gas Emission Rates and Metals
in Ash 2-33
2-24 Average Metals Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies for
Burn and Burndown Conditions 2-35
2-25 Daily Average Toxic Metals Flue Gas Mass Rates and Removal
Efficiencies 2-37
dkd.i76 viii
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-26 Metals Concentrations, Emission Rates, and Removal Efficiencies
for Run 1 (Burn Condition) 2-38
2-27 Metals Concentrations, Emission Rates, and Removal Efficiencies
for Run 2 (Burndown Condition) 2-39
2-28 Metals Concentrations, Emission Rates, and Removal Efficiencies
for Run 3 (Burn Condition) 2-40
2-29 Metals Concentrations, Emission Rates, and Removal Efficiencies
for Run 4 (Burndown Condition) 2-41
2-30 Metals Concentrations, Emission Rates, and Removal Efficiencies
for Run 5 (Burn Condition) 2-42
2-31 Metals Concentrations, Emission Rates, and Removal Efficiencies
for Run 6 (Burndown Condition) 2-43
2-32 Ratio of Metals to Particulate Matter for Burn Condition 2-44
2-33 Ratio of Metals to Particulate Matter for Burndown Condition 2-46
2-34 Comparison of Outlet to Inlet Metals/PM Ratios for Burn and
Burndown Conditions 2-47
2-35 Metals Amounts in Inlet Flue Gas Samples by Sample Fraction 2-48
2-36 Metals Amounts in Outlet Flue Gas Samples by Sample Fraction 2-49
2-37 Metals/PM Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at Inlet 2-51
2-38 Metals/PM Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at Outlet 2-52
2-39 Metals in Ash Concentrations 2-53
2-40 Metals Daily Discharge Rates in the Ash Stream 2-54
2-41 Metals and Solids in Absorber Make-up and Discharge Water 2-55
2-42 Average Particulate Matter Concentrations, Emission Rates, and
Removal Efficiency 2-57
2-43 Particulate Matter Concentrations and Emissions for Burn Condition 2-58
2-44 Particulate Matter Concentrations and Emissions for Burndown
Condition 2-59
2-45 Percent Opacity Observations Summary 2-61
2-46 Hydrogen Chloride Removal Efficiency 2-62
2-47 Summary of HC1 Results at the Inlet 2-64
2-48 Summary of HC1 Results at the Outlet 2-65
2-49 Summary of HF Results at the Inlet 2-66
2-50 Summary of HF Results at the Outlet 2-67
2-51 Summary of HBr Results at the Inlet 2-68
2-52 Summary of HBr Results at the Outlet 2-69
2-53 Comparison of Manual and CEM HC1 Results at the Inlet Sample
Location 2-71
2-54 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Test Averages 2-73
2-55 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Test Averages Corrected to 7% O2 2-74
2-56 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Averages for the Cooldown Period 2-75
dkd.176 IX
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-57 Summary of Ash Carbon Content, LOI, and Moisture Results 2-77
2-58 Summary of Incinerator Feed Amounts and Ash Generation Per Run 2-80
2-59 Overall Microbial Survivability 2-82
2-60 Viable Spore Emissions 2-83
2-61 Indicator Spore Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters 2-85
2-62 Viable Spores in Ash 2-86
2-63 Viable Spores in Pipes 2-89
2-64 Particle Size Distribution Run 2 Results 2-91
2-65 Particle Size Distribution Run 3 Results 2-95
2-66 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations Corrected to 7% O2 During the
Burn Condition (Runs 1, 3, 5) Incorporating the
Toluene Recovery Results 2-96
2-67 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies Corrected to 7% O2
During the Burn Condition (Runs 1, 3, 5) Incorporation the
Toluene Recovery Results 2-97
2-68 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations Corrected to 7% O2 During the
Recovery Results Burndown Condition (Runs 2, 4, 6)
Incorporating the Toluene Recovery Results 2-98
2-69 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies Corrected to 7% O2
During the Burndown Condition (Runs 2, 4, 6) Incorporating
the Toluene Recovery Results 2-99
3-1 Process Data Summary for Emissions Testing at Jordan Hospital 3-10
5-1 Test Methods used for the Jordan Hospital MWI 5-2
5-2 Sampling Times, Minimum Sampling Volumes, and Detection Limits 5-3
5-3 CDD/CDF Glassware Cleaning Procedure 5-6
5-4 CDD/CDF Sampling Checklist 5-12
5-5 CDD/CDF Sample Fractions Shipped to Analytical Laboratory 5-17
5-6 CDD/CDF Congeners Analyzed 5-18
5-7 CDD/CDF Blanks Collected 5-21
5-8 Approximate Detection Limits for Metals of Interest
Using EMB Draft Method 5-32
5-9 Indicator Spore Testing QA/QC Checks 5-50
5-10 CEM Operating Ranges and Calibration Gases 5-63
6-1 Summary of Precision, Accuracy, and Completeness Objectives 6-4
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 6-7
6-4 Dry Gas Meter Post-Test Calibration Results 6-8
6-5 CDD/CDF Field Blank Results 6-9
dkd.176
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
6-6 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Full Screen Analytical Results Compared
to MM5 Analytical Results for Condition 1 6-11
6-7 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Full Screen Analytical Results Compared
to MM5 Analytical Results for Condition 2 6-12
6-8 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Full Screen Analytical Results Compared
to MM5 Analytical Results for Condition 3 6-13
6-9 CDD/CDF Toluene Rinse Confirmation Analytical Results
Compared to MM5 Analytical Results for All Conditions 6-14
6-10 CDD/CDF Toluene Field Blank Results 6-15
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 6-21
6-16 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Analyses; Test Run Samples . . . 6-26
6-17 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Analyses; Blank Samples 6-27
6-18 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Toluene Analyses;
Test Run Samples 6-28
6-19 Standards Recovery Results for the CDD/CDF Toluene Analyses;
Blank Samples 6-29
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
Spike Recovery 6-34
6-24 Wet Spore Spike Solution Confirmation Analysis 6-35
6-25 Dry Spore Spike Material Confirmation Analysis 6-36
6-26 CEM Internal QA/QC Checks 6-38
6-27 Coefficients of Variation for the CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations 6-42
6-28 Coefficients of Variation of the Flue Gas Metals Concentrations
at the Inlet 6-43
6-29 Coefficients of Variation of the Flue Gas Metals Concentrations
at the Outlet 6-44
6-30 Coefficients of Variation for Halogen Flue Gas Concentrations 6-45
6-31 Coefficients of Variation of CEM Gas Concentrations 6-47
dkd.176 XI
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that
medical waste incinerator (MWI) emissions may reasonably be anticipated to contribute
to the endangerment of public health and welfare. As a consequence, new source
performance standards (NSPS) for new MWIs and emission guidelines for existing
MWI's are being developed under Sections lll(b), lll(d), and 129 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended November 1990.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), through its
Industrial Studies Branch (ISB) and Emissions Measurement Branch (EMB), is
responsible for reviewing the existing air emissions data base and gathering additional
data where necessary. As a result of this review, several MWI emission tests are being
conducted to support the regulatory development program.
The emissions that are being studied for standards development are the criteria
pollutants-paniculate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon
monoxide (CO), and total hydrocarbons (THC); as well as other acid gases, such as
hydrogen chloride (HC1); chlorinated organics, including dioxins and furans; trace metals;
and pathogens.
1.1 TEST OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the testing program at the Jordan Hospital facility in Plymouth,
Massachusetts, was to obtain uncontrolled and controlled emission data from a
controlled, batch-fed MWI. These data are used in the regulatory development program
for MWIs. In addition, certain data will be used by Jordan Hospital to show compliance
with applicable Massachusetts regulations. The specific objectives were:
Determine what levels of CO, PM, SO2, NOX, HC1, metals, THC and
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (CDF) were emitted from the combustor when burning
medical wastes;
Determine the levels of PM, acid gases, metals, and CDD/CDF emissions
associated with a fabric filter/packed bed absorber control technology;
dkd.176 1-1
-------
• Calculate the control efficiencies for PM, acid gases, metals, and
CDD/CDF;
• Determine the microbial survivability based on a surrogate indicator
organism that was spiked into the incinerator feed during each test run.
• Determine the degree of combustion of the feed wastes based on percent
carbon and loss on ignition (LOI) of the bottom ash and fly ash collected
in the fabric filter;
• Determine if there are differences in the uncontrolled and controlled
emissions between the two distinct operating modes of the batch cycle
(burn and burndown) based on analysis of continuous emission monitors
(CEMs) data; and
• Determine the relationship, if any, between visible emissions and other
emissions, such as PM.
The measurements described above were repeated in triplicate at the design
operating condition while the incinerator was burning red bag and pathological hospital
wastes. The test conditions were near the design burning rate of a nominal 750 Ibs per
batch of Type 0-4 mixed waste with a secondary chamber temperature setpoint of
1800°F.
Key process operating variables including flue gas oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), primary and secondary chamber temperatures, air flows, and the total amount of
waste charged 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 were
of known precision and accuracy, and that they were complete, representative and
comparable.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
Jordan Hospital is located in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The MWI at this facility
is a batch-burn Simonds Model 215 IB. It has a rated volume of 215 cubic feet in the
primary combustion chamber, which corresponds to a nominal 750 Ib/batch of Type 0-4
waste. A front view of the incinerator is shown in Figure 1-1. One natural gas-fired
burner in the primary chamber is used to light the waste after a preset temperature
dkd.176 1-2
-------
Control Panel
000
00
Ignition
Burner
Combustion Air Blower
000
000
Charglng/Cleanout
Door
0
Exhaust Duct
Figure 1-1. Jordan Hospital Incinerator
(Air Pollution Control System Not Shown)
JBS246
1-3
-------
condition is met in the secondary chamber. The primary chamber temperature is
controlled by modulating the combustion air according to timers and the primary
chamber temperature. The primary chamber temperature varies between ambient and
> 1500°F during a typical 24 hour operating cycle. For approximately 16 hours, the
temperature is below 1000°F and for approximately 8 hours, the temperature is above
1000°F. The unit is charged manually by opening a large refractory-lined charging door
at the front of the primary chamber. The unit is designed for approximately 22 hours of
operation each day, and ashes must be periodically removed manually when the unit is
cool.
The secondary chamber on this unit is calculated to have a gas retention time of
about two seconds. A gas-fired auxiliary burner in the secondary chamber is activated
automatically when the temperature falls below a preset level, normally 1800°F. Set
point and actual temperatures in each chamber are displayed on a dial in the control
panel.
The unit has air pollution control devices, namely a fabric filter for particulate
removal and a packed bed absorber (scrubber) for acid gas removal. The hot gas from
the incinerator is drawn by means of a fan through the hot side of a heat exchanger
where it is cooled to below 400°F. The gas then passes through the fabric filter to
remove particulates. Passing through the fan and damper system (which is used to
maintain uniform pressure in the incinerator) the gas is then passed through a packed
bed wet scrubber. The cooled gas is then directed through the cold side of the heat
exchanger where it extracts heat from the hot flue gas and then passes to the stack.
There is no full time operator for this facility per se. The hospital housekeeping
staff is currently responsible for charging the incinerator with waste and seeing that the
incinerator is started. Once the incinerator is started, the operator is free to leave and
go about other duties, checking in occasionally to monitor key parameters to make sure
that the unit is operating properly.
The typical hours of supervised operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. During
this time or what is called the "Burn" operational mode, the primary chamber is supplied
with low-fire (low flow) air and the secondary chamber modulates between high-fire
(high flow) and low-fire conditions to maintain the set point temperatures. After ~
dkd.176 1-4
-------
approximately 7 hours at this condition the unit moves into what is called the "burndown"
operation with the primary chamber cycling between high-fire and low-fire air according
to primary chamber temperature. After about 5l/2 hours of burndown operation, the
secondary chamber burner shuts off. However, the air flow is maintained in both
chambers during a burn out or cool down period which lasts about KM hours.
The incinerator is typically fired three times per week (about every other day) and
the ash is removed once per week after it is allowed to cool.
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 and dressings; lab
wastes; disposable surgical tools; sharps; diagnostic devices; and human tissue. Only red
bag and sharps containers are fed into the incinerator. Pathological waste is estimated at
from 5 to 10 percent of the total waste weight.
Non-red bag wastes such as cafeteria and office wastes are collected by the
housekeeping staff and placed in standard 30-gallon plastic trash bags, and deposited in a
dumpster. Red bags are transported via plastic bin-type carts from the collection area to
the incinerator area. The hospital incinerator operator hand feeds and stacks the bags in
the incinerator prior to ignition.
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). A gas-fired pilot burner is only used to ignite 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.
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
combustible gases and maintain secondary chamber temperatures within a specified
temperature range. The upper burner modulates between a low-fire and high-fire
dkd.176 1-5
-------
condition to maintain upper chamber temperatures. 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.
1.3 AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL SYSTEM
Jordan Hospital's MWI is equipped with an air emissions control system. The
system is shown schematically in Figure 1-2. A more detailed description of each of the
system components and its function is given below:
• Cooling Device. A heat exchanger is used to accomplish the cooling from
the secondary temperature of about 1600 to 1800°F to the fabric filter
temperature of 365-400°F. Jordan's system consists of a tube and shell
air-to-air heat exchanger. The 1600-1800°F gases exit the incinerator and
enter the heat exchanger. Cooling of the gases is performed by the 130°F
air exiting the packed bed absorber passing over the tube bundle hi which
the incinerator flue gas is flowing. In addition to the heat exchanger there
is also a water injection system upstream at fabric filter in the heat
exchanger ductwork as well as an air damper system upstream of the fabric
filter for additional cooling capabilities.
• Fabric Filter. At 365 to 400°F, the exhaust gases go into a fabric filter.
This contains thirty-six P-84 bags to retain useability at 450°F, with a SOOT
maximum temperature and a 350°F operating temperature. The P-84 bags
are a woven synthetic material with a polyamide coating which has been
felted to smooth the bag surface. The fabric filter is made of 316 L
stainless steel. The fabric filter has a compressed air pulse cleaning
system, to remove PM. The cleaning system is made up of seven pulse jet
solenoids that operate at 30-second intervals to clean the bags and
maintain a differential pressure of less than 6 inches water column (in.
w.c.).
• Blower. After the fabric filter is the main blower, which provides the air
movement for:
the two combustion chambers, serving as an induced draft fan;
the packed bed absorber and the fabric filter;
the ductwork;
heat exchanger; and,
the stack.
There are dampers at fan and inlet to fabric filter. The damper at the fan
is used for draft adjustments to maintain uniform incinerator pressure
while exhausting the flue gases. The fabric filter damper is used for rapid
cooling of flue gases entering the fabric filter.
dkd.176 1-6
-------
Stack
Metals
Dioxins
HCI
Air Damper
| (normally closed)-
I.D. Blower
Packed Bed Absorber
(Malta not >hown tor clarity)
By-Pass CEM<3
Valve -"—
Heat Exchanger
Figure 1-2. Generalized Schematic Showing Incinerator, Air Polution Control Devices,
and Sampling Locations; Jordan Hospital (1991)
-------
• Packed Bed Absorber. The gases leave the blower and enter a packed bed
absorber which is made of fiberglass. The absorber consists of three
sections made up of a Kimre woven polypropylene packed bed. The
absorber is cylindrical, and mounts horizontally above the floor. The two
front beds have a manifold which houses four nozzles each that spray water
onto and against the bed at a total flow of 60-80 gpm (8-10 gpm at each
nozzle).
The liquid for the packed bed scrubber is held in the polypropylene tanks
directly below the scrubber. There are three cascaded tanks with absorber
liquor flowing into the left tank and then directed into a central tank where
caustic (50% NaOH) is added. The liquor goes from the central tank to
the third tank where make-up water is added and pH is monitored. The
pH is maintained at 6.5 - 9.5. From the third tank, the absorber liquor is
directed to the system pump and to the manifold of nozzle feed lines.
There is a manual bleed, located on the left return tank, (3 - 5 gpm) to
control the buildup of salts in the system. The tanks are maintained at an
appropriate level as determined by hydraulic conditions.
• By-Pass Damper. A damper to bypass the air pollution control system and
vent directly out the stack is located at the heat exchanger outlet. This
damper is provided so that in the event of a breakdown, the absorber, the
fabric filter, and the rest of the air pollution control system are not
destroyed by excessive temperatures. The bypass damper is open during
the pre-heat cycle when the emissions system is not in operation and is also
interlocked to open upon failure of the ID fan, or upon excessively high
temperature at the fabric filter or absorber inlet when the air pollution
control system is in bperation.
• Controls. The entire system is controlled by a programmable controller
and separate process controllers. This control is integrated into the
incinerator controls so that interlocks, operating controls, and dump
controls are handled in a coordinated fashion.
1.4 EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
This section provides an overview of the emissions measurement program
conducted at Jordan Hospital. Included in this section are summaries of the test matrix,
sampling locations, sampling methods, and laboratory analysis.
1.4.1 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 CEMs
were employed for the Jordan Hospital MWI test program. Flue gas was sampled at
both the inlet and outlet to the air pollution control system (APC system). In addition to
dkd.176 1-8
-------
TABLE 1-1. JORDAN HOSPITAL MWI TEST MATRIX
Sample
Location
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Inlet
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Inlet, Stack
Incinerator
Incinerator
Absorber
Absorber
Number
of
Runs
3
3
27a
18b
3C
3°
3°
3°
3C
3°
3d
3
3
3
27
1
1
Sample Type
Particulates/Metals
(Pb, Cr, Cd, Be, Hg, Ni, As, Sb,
Ag, Ba, TI)
CDD/CDF
HCl/HBr/HF
Indicator Spores
SO2
02/co2
NOX
CO
THC
HC1
Opacity
2
Incinerator Ash
Indicator Spore Pipes
Make Up Water
Discharge Water
Sample Method
EPA Method 5/Combined Metals
Train
EPA Method 23 and
GC/MS Method 8290
EPA Method 26
Draft EPA Method
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 10
EPA Method 25A
CEM
EPA Method 9
Representative Composite Sample
Representative Composite Sample
Representative Composite Sample
Manual
Grab
Grab
Sample
Duration
4 hours
4 hours
1 hour3
2 hoursb
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
Continuous0
daylight hoursd
I/day
I/day
I/day
I/day
I/day
I/day
Analysis Method
Gravimetric Atomic
Adsorption/ICAP
Mass Spectrornetry and High
Resolution MS for CDD/CDF
Ion Chromatography
Microbial Draft Method
UV Analyzer CEM
Zirconium Oxide Cell/NDIR CEN
Chemiluminescence CEM
NDIR CEM
FID CEM
NDIR CEM
Visual
LOI, Carbon, Metals
CDD/CDF
Microbial Draft Method
Microbial Draft Method
CDD/CDF, Metals
CDD/CDF, Metals
Laboratory
Radian
Trianlge Labs,
Inc.
Radian
RTI
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Triangle Labs,
Inc.
RTI
RTI
Triangle Labs,
Radian
Triangle Labs,
Radian
aOne-hour runs per test day.
bTwo hour runs per test day.
thrnnethoi't biirnrlown cvcle (Approximately 20 hr/day.)
-------
flue gas sampling, incinerator bottom ash and ash quality pipe samples were taken as
well as absorber make-up and discharge water. Each of these tests are briefly described
in Sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4.
1.4.2 Sampling Locations
Flue gas samples were collected at the exhaust stack using three sets of ports and
at the APC inlet using six sets of ports.
Sampling at the exhaust stack was conducted as shown in Figure 4-2. The lower
set of ports was used for the CEM, HC1/CEM, and manual HC1 tests. The center set of
ports was used for CDD/CDF testing. The upper set of ports was used for PM/metals
testing.
Figure 4-4 shows sampling locations at the APC inlet piping. The first port on the
down-flow section of piping was used for CEMs. The lower two ports were used for
microbial testing. The lower port on the up-flow section was used for manual HC1
testing. The middle port accommodated CDD/CDF testing and the uppermost port was
used for PM/metals testing.
Incinerator ash was sampled each day following operation. Ash was completely
removed from the incinerator manually and screened through Vz" mesh. The ash was
then placed in bulk ash containers and mixed to provide a nearly uniform mass of which
representative grab samples were taken. Fly ash sampling from the baghouse was also
conducted but not enough material was acquired to conduct a full set of analyses on.
Absorber water samples were also taken. Grab samples were taken from a water
supply tap (make-up water) and the absorber discharge line (discharge water).
1.4.3 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
(Sb), barium (Ba), silver (Ag), and thallium (Tl)], were determined using a single sample
train. Particulate loading on the filter and front half (nozzle/probe, filter holder) rinse
was determined gravimetrically. Metals analyses were then completed on the filter front
half rinses and back half impinger catches using atomic absorption (AA) and inductively
coupled argon plasma spectroscopy (ICAP) techniques. Flue gas samples for CDD/CDF
were collected using EPA Method 23. Flue gas was extracted isokinetically and
dkd.176 1-10
-------
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 (HRGC)
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 an acidified collection solution which
stabilized the respective halogen ions (Cl~, Br, F). The quantity of ions collected was
then determined using ion chromatography (1C) analyses.
Two types of Microbial Survivability testing were completed. These tests were
intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the MWI in destroying microbial elements in
the waste. The first was aimed at determining microbial survivalibity in the combustion
gases (emissions) and bottom ash. Indicator spores in solution (wet-spores) 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. The second microbial survivability test
utilized freeze dried indicator spores (dry-spores) encased in insulated double pipe
containers (pipe-samples) which were spiked to the MWI. Flue gas testing for spore
emissions was conducted simultaneously with the other emissions testing were also
loaded into the incinerator. 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 were conducted daily when the ash was removed manually
from the incinerator. Flue gas samples were collected isokinetically and passed through
a circulating phosphate buffer solution. Following the test, the buffer solution samples
were analyzed for viable spores using microbiological identification, culturing, and
quantification techniques outlined in the EPA draft method "Microbial Survivability Test
for Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions." Ash samples and pipe samples were analyzed
as outlined 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.
dkd.176 1-11
-------
Gaseous emissions (NO^ CO, SO2, THC, and HC1) were measured using CEMs
continuously during the day. The diluent gases (O2, CO2) were measured using CEMs at
all times when tests were being performed so that the emission results could be
normalized to a reference O2 or CO2 basis. The O2 and CO2 results were also used in
the calculation of flue gas molecular weight 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: loss-on-ignition (LOI), carbon, toxic
metals, dioxins, and microbial analysis. An archive sample was also saved for each test
condition. Indicator spore pipes were charged daily (prior to the start of incineration)
into the incinerator and recovered manually for microbial analysis. Detailed descriptions
of the sampling and analytical procedures are provided in Section 5.
1.4.4 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 HRGC/HRMS analytical procedures.
Samples from paniculate matter/metals emission tests were analyzed by Radian's
Perimeter Park (PPK) laboratory. Analytical procedures were completed using 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 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
dkd.176 1-12
-------
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.
1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
All flue gas testing procedures followed comprehensive QA/QC procedures as
outlined in the Jordan Hospital MWI test plan and EPA reference methods. A full
description of the resulting QA parameters is given in Section 6.
Post-test leak check criteria were met for the majority of outlet manual sampling
trains. The inlet sampling trains did not meet all of the leak checks and sample volumes
needed to be leak corrected. The corrections resulted in minimal changes in sample
volume (1-6%) and would therefore did not significantly change the emission values.
The allowable isokinetic QC range of ± 10 percent of 100 percent was met for 21 of the
30 emission test runs. The exceedances mostly fell within 20 percent of 100 percent and
were not expected to affect the overall quality of the data. All post-test dry gas meter
calibration checks were within 5 percent of the full calibration factor. Field blanks (FB)
results showed very little CDD/CDF contamination. The halogen FB showed virtually
no contamination. Final toluene rinses of the CDD/CDF samples showed only small
amounts of residual CDD/CDF isomers remaining after the methylene chloride rinse.
From an analytical QA perspective, all analyses were completed under a strict
QA/QC regimen. Outlet CDD/CDF flue gas and CDD/CDF ash samples had to be
diluted because of analytical saturation problems. Matrix spike values for all metals
except silver were within the acceptable range.
1.6 DESCRIPTION OF REPORT CONTENTS
Section 1 of this report provides an introduction to the medical waste testing
program conducted at Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, Massachusetts. 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.
dkd.176 1-13
-------
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 Jordan incinerator and gives
process results. Included in the process results are the waste feed amounts and
incinerator 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
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.
dkd.176 1-14
-------
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section provides results of the test program conducted at the Jordan Hospital
MWI from March 5 to March 9, 1991. Included in this section are results of manual flue
gas 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, CO,, CO, NOX, SO2, THC, and HC1 gases as well as particle size
distribution (PSD) results. Results from analyses of ash and scrubber water are also
included.
2.1 EMISSIONS TEST LOG
Six test runs were conducted during 3 test days. Flue gas sample locations were
at the inlet and outlet (stack) to the air pollution control devices (APCD). Two test runs
were conducted on each day with the first corresponding to the incinerator burn
condition and the second to the burndown condition. The CEM instruments monitored
gas concentrations during burn, burndown, and cooldown periods of each test day.
Table 2-1 presents the emissions test log. This table shows the test date, run number
and condition, test type, run times, and port change times for all the flue gas testing
conducted during this program.
2.2 CDD/CDF RESULTS
2.2.1 Overview
Simultaneous CDD/CDF test runs were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
Jordan Hospital MWI APCD. Two runs were conducted each day. The first run,
conducted during the burn cycle, typically lasted seven hours. Testing was initiated
approximately 0-5 minutes before the incinerator reached the initial secondary chamber
burn temperature set point. Following the burn cycle, a second test run was conducted
to determine emissions during burndown. These test runs were started within 5 minutes
of burndown initiation except for Day 2 (Run 4). For this run, the inlet run was started
45 minutes after the burn period was initiated.
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 these
dkd.176 2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
RUN NO./
coNDmbN
I/Burn
I/Burn
1 A/Bum
IB/Burn
IC/Burn
ID/Bum
I/Burn
I/Bum
Bum Period
2/Burndown
2/Burndown
2A/Bumdown
2B/Burndown
2/Burndown
Burndown Period
3/Burn
3/Burn
3A/Bura
SB/Burn
3C/Burn
3D/Burn
3/Burn
Burn Period
4 /Burndown
4/Burndown
4A/Burndown
4B/Burndown
4C/Burndown
4/Burndown
4/Burndown
Burndown Period
TEST
TYPE *
PM/TM
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
PSD
PM/TM
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
Spore
PM/TM
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
PM/TM
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
PSD
%:V •:.*,!::•••.•;:•:,.•:. INLET 1 k'4£. £:"
RUNTIME
09:50-16:49
09:44-16:49
09:56-11:26
12:43-13:43
14:21-15:51
16:20-16:49
09:38-16:18
11:28-11:58
09:47-16:49
17:35-22:10
17:35-22:10
17:45-19:15
19:23-20:53
16:45-22:05
16:49-22:11
09:32-16:30
09:30-16:30
09:31-11:01
11:12-12:42
12:53-14:23
14:35-16:05
09:31-16:11
09:30-16:38
16:35-21:57
16:34-21:58
16:59-18:29
18:42-20:12
20:20-21:57
16:30-22:59
15:02-17:42
16:38-21:58
PORTCHANGES
13:26-14:10
13:20-14:09
20:23-20:48
20:23-20:48
13:08-13:22
13:06-13:22
19:23-19:34
19:22-19:34
;. -?/-:::; . :,;,, ^ OlfTlJS^^^^^&i
RUNTIME
09:47-16:49
09:45-16:49
09:45-11:15
11:25-12:55
14:21-15:51
16:21-16:49
16:49-22:13
16:49-22:13
17:45-19:15
19:24-20:54
09:32-16:30
09:32-16:30
09:32-11:02
11:13-12:43
12:58-14:28
14:35-16:05
16:34-22:00
16:33-21:59
17:00-18:30
18:42-20:12
20:20-21:50
PORT CHANGES
13:07-13:10
13:06-13:15
20:09-20:12
20:09-20:14
12:52-13:01
13:01-13:04
19:54-20:15
19:53-20:15
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSIONS TEST LOG (continued);
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
RUN NO J
CONDITION
5/Bura
5/Burn
5A/Bum
SB/Bum
5C/Burn
5D/Burn
5/Burn
Burn Period
6/Burndown
6/Burndown
6A/Burndown
6B/Burndown
6C/Burndown
6/Burndown
6/Burndown
Burndown Period
TEST
TYPE*
PM/TM
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
PM/TM
CDD/CDF
HC1
HC1
HC1
Spore
PSD
INLET
RUNTIME
09:25-16:30
09:25-16:29
09:43-11:13
11:33-13:03
13:19-14:49
15:08-16:29
09:26-16:06
09:25-16:25
16:31-21:44
16:29-21:44
17:03-18:33
18:48-20:18
20:26-21:44
16:28-21:46
11:14-13:46
16:25-21:44
PORT CHANGES
13:01-13:08
13:01-13:08
19:19-19:27
19:17-19:27
•• OUTLET ; f i-r :-
RUNTIME
09:27-16:32
09:27-16:32
09:37-11:07
11:33-13:03
13:19-14:49
15:08-16:32
16:44-21:46
16:42-21:46
17:08-18:38
18:48-20:18
20:26-21:46
PORT CHANGES
12:47-12:53
12:47-12:52
20:04-20:11
20:02-20:10
* HC1 = manual HCl/HBr/HF tests
PM/TM = Paniculate Matter/Toxic Metals tests
CDD/CDF = Tetra - Octa polychlorinated debenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzo furans tests
Spore = Indicator Spore Microbial Survivability tests
PSD = Particle Size Distribution tests
2-3
-------
data were not incorporated into the final emission results, they will be presented with the
sampling QA parameters in Section 6.2.1. A brief summary of the gas phase CDD/CDF
concentrations incorporating both the pooled Modified Method 5 results with the toluene
rinse results is given in Section 2.11.
As well as flue gas samples, daily incinerator bottom ash and scrubber water
samples were also taken. Each ash sample was also analyzed for tetra through octa
CDD/CDF isomers. Results are given as quantitated values, non-detected values, or
estimated maximum possible concentrations (EMPCs). The EMPC values are flagged by
parentheses. These values were only incorporated into the emission calculations for
isomers where the EMPC flags were noted in the analytical results summary sheet. (See
Appendix E.I for analytical results). The CDD/CDF isomers categorized as "other" did
not normally include EMPC values.
Table 2-2 presents a summary of the CDD/CDF emissions, CDD/CDF ash
concentrations, mass of CDD/CDF isomers discharged in the ash stream, and scrubber
water concentrations. Flue gas emission rates were found to be much higher at the
outlet than at the inlet. Inlet averages ranged from 0.24 ,wg/hr for 2378 TCDD to
73.4 //g/hr for Octa-CDF. Outlet values ranged from 0.64 /*g/hr for 123789 HxCDF to
937 ^g/hr for Other TCDF. All CDD/CDF congeners were detected in both the ash
and scrubber water samples. Average rates of removal of CDD/CDF isomers in the ash
stream ranged from 24 //g/day for 2378 TCDF to 16,500 //g/day for Other TCDF.
Scrubber water concentrations ranged from 0.12 to 137 parts per trillion by weight
(ppt. wt).
The following sections report CDD/CDF average emissions test results in
Section 2.2.2, results from each run in Section 2.2.3, sample parameters are shown in
Section 2.2.4, incinerator ash CDD/CDF concentrations in Section 2.2.5, and scrubber
water CDD/CDF concentrations in Section 2.2.6. All field data and analytical data are
shown in Appendices A.1 and E.I, respectively.
2.2.2 CDD/CDF Emission Results
Tables 2-3 through 2-6 present the average CDD/CDF emission parameters for
the test program. Daily emission averages calculated by averaging the burn and
burndown runs on a time weighted basis are shown in Table 2-7. Emission tests analyses
dkd.176 2-4
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF CDD/CDF TESTS SHOWING AVERAGE DAILY FLUE GAS
AND INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH MASS RATES AND SCRUBBER WATER
CONCENTRATIONS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD b
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF b
TOTAL CDD+CDF b
AVERAGE DAILY
EMISSION RATES a
Met
(ug/hr)
0.240
3.110
1.510
7.185
2.151
1.403
4.840
12.628
17.247
0.025
59.809
97.0
1.647
49.924
4.590
4.883
55.359
20.163
9.812
10.535
1.538
48.961
32.477
7.117
24.220
73.359
343.8
440.9
Outlet
(ug/hr)
1.316
534.503
7.936
486.266
5.185
7.961
13.613
255.961
17.767
29.915
6.537
1367.0
13.103
936.526
17.851
34.317
498.020
59.564
17.491
24.864
0.637
145.208
26.461
2.031
15.127
3.184
1794.4
3161.3
AVERAGE BOTTOM ASH
PARAMETERS
CONC.
(ppb.wt)
0.700
111.580
5.500
140.867
5.633
7.867
15.100
141.433
48.633
56.667
50.433
584.4
11.167
476.167
10.100
21.967
222.933
78.533
19.000
30.367
0.510
115.257
59.267
3.700
27.867
20.800
1097.6
1682.0
DISCHARGE
(mg/day)
0.024
4.027
0.191
4.959
0.202
0.279
0.537
5.106
1.750
2.057
1.751
20.9
0.385
16.503
0.342
0.742
7.613
2.755
0.660
1.066
0.018
4.044
2.078
0.129
0.977
0.703
38.0
58.9
AVERAGE ;
SCRUBBER:
DISCHARGE:
WATER ebNC;
(pptwt)e: ;
0.123
28.643
1.873
114.127
3.030
5.067
8.500
126.170
37.367
136.833
28.967
::; ::;-.-t.;::;;;;490Vr
12.300
29.033
2.570
8.633
87.097
28.600
7.567
16.567
0.543
57.257
31.867
4.233
28.533
13.867
328.7
819.4
a Flue gas mass rates were averaged from incinerator burn test run averages
(duration ~ 7 hrs) and incinerator burndown test run averages (~5.5 hrs).
b Values represent the average of the totals (not the sum of the averages)
c Scrubber discharge water had an approximate flow rate of 3-5 gpm.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-3. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
FOR BURN (RUNS 1, 3, & 5) AND BURNDOWN
(RUNS 2, 4, & 6) CONDITIONS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
BURN CONDITION
GAS CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm)a ,-
IN
0.041
0.498
0.128
0.485
0.220
0.185
0.596
1.521
1.064
0.114
3.567
6.40
0.155
4.448
0.143
0.450
3.344
0.923
0.309
0.700
0.060
1.476
1.240
0.418
0.829
2.818
17.1
23.5
OUT
0.746
324.705
3.921
255.393
2.683
4.114
7.010
133.057
9.206
15.562
3.494
759.89
7.201
554.843
9.286
17.739
262.462
30.214
8.852
12.673
0.295
74.125
13.703
1.083
7.817
1.708
1002.0
1761.9
BURNDOWN CONDITION
GAS CONC^rrRATION
(ng/dscm) ; ;-
IN
0.464
6.372
3.002
16.034
3.887
3.140
8.021
27.481
40.356
0
122.711
226.50
3.763
111.651
11.286
11.254
131.792
48.540
24.064
24.686
3.075
120.080
78.940
17.078
59.143
178.420
822.7
1049.2
OUT
0.283
92.540
2.419
135.257
1.416
2.227
3.817
70.661
4.835
8.005
1.677
323.14
3.134
175.632
4.844
9.225
129.937
17.438
5.130
7.080
0.218
41.768
7.348
0.527
4.234
0.828
407.3
730.5
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
2-6
-------
were targeted for the tetra through octa 2378 substituted CDD/CDF isomers. Results
are presented for each isomer as well as for each tetra-octa homologue total (Total
CDD, Total CDF).
Average CDD/CDF inlet and outlet gas concentrations for the burn and
burndown test conditions are presented in Table 2-3. Stack gas concentrations of all
target CDD/CDF congeners were detected during each test condition throughout the
program at both the inlet and outlet. In comparing gas concentrations at the inlet to
those found at the outlet, higher concentrations for the majority of congeners were
observed at the outlet (stack). With low inlet paniculate loading and high inlet
temperatures (~1100°F or 600°C), this phenomenon is not surprising. Dioxins and
furans are theorized to form through several chemical mechanisms. One mechanism
proposes that CDD/CDF forms from heavy organics and a chlorine donor (2). The
optimum temperature window for this reaction ranges from 500 to 600°F. At
temperatures above 750°F, this reaction is slowed considerably (2). The additional
amounts of CDD/CDF species found at the outlet may have formed downstream of the
inlet sample location where lower temperatures occurred. Additionally, the PM inlet
loading was relatively low during these tests (Averages = 0.007 and 0.05 g/dscm at burn
and burndown, respectively), and the absence of this available surface area for catalytic
reactions involving organics may also help explain the low inlet CDD/CDF
concentrations.
Average inlet CDD/CDF congener concentrations ranged from 0.041 ng/dscm for
2378 TCDD during the burn condition to 178 ng/dscm for octa-CDF during burndown
conditions. Inlet CDD + CDF loading was higher during the burndown condition with
Total CDD + CDF concentrations at 1,049 ng/dscm versus 23.5 ng/dscm during the
burn condition.
Outlet burndown concentrations on the other hand, were generally lower than
during the burn conditions. Total CDD + CDF values were 730 and 1,762 ng/dscm for
burndown and burn tests, respectively. A possible explanation may be that with the
higher inlet PM loading during the burndown condition, the inlet CDD/CDF isomers
associated with the PM were removed more effectively by the fabric filter.
dkd.176 2-7
-------
Average CDD/CDF concentrations corrected to 7 percent oxygen are presented
in Table 2-4. Corrected concentrations were approximately 4 times higher than the
uncorrected values at the outlet and 1.2 to 1.4 times higher at the inlet. Average oxygen
concentrations at the outlet and inlet were 17.5 and 9.6% by volume/dry, respectively.
Average CDD/CDF emission rates for each condition are shown in Table 2-5.
Average inlet mass rates of 2378 TCDD for the burn and burndown condition were 0.05
and 0.44 ^g/hr, respectively. Outlet 2378 TCDD values were 1.8 and 0.67 /zg/hr for
burn and burndown, respectively. In order to present added perspective into the
comparison of outlet and inlet CDD/CDF mass rates, an outlet to inlet mass rate ratio is
also shown. Average ratios for the burn condition range from 10 for OCDF to 28,900
for Other HxCDD. Burndown values are somewhat lower. The outlet to inlet ratios for
Total CDD + CDF for the burn and burndown conditions are 1,235 and 122,
respectively. These values highlight the relatively lower outlet mass rates which occurred
during the burndown versus burn condition.
Table 2-6 presents average corrected CDD/CDF gas concentrations in
2378 TCDD Toxic Equivalents. The concentration of each congener corrected to
7 percent O2 was multiplied by its respective Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) to
determine 2378 Toxic Equivalents. The TEF's used in this report are the international
TEF (I-TEF) developed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee of the
Challenges of Modern Society (NATO/CCMS)(1). The average outlet 2378 Toxic
Equivalent Concentrations for Total CDD + CDF for the burn and burndown were 75.4,
and 44.1 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2, respectively.
Table 2-7 presents burn and burndown mass emission rates averaged on a daily
basis using time weighing averaging techniques. Typically, the incinerator burn lasted for
7 hours and the burndown lasted for 5.5 hours. Day 2 inlet and outlet values were the
highest of the three test days. Daily Total CDD + CDF emission rates at the outlet
were 2,744, 4,499, and 2,241 //g/hr for Days 1-3, respectively.
2.2.3 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Results for Each Run
Tables 2-8 through 2-11 present CDD/CDD flue gas results for the burn
condition test runs (Runs 1, 3, & 5). Table 2-8 presents uncorrected flue gas
concentrations at the inlet and outlet. Only one of these runs detected 2378 TCDD" at
dkd.176 2-8
-------
TABLE 2-4. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
CORRECTED TO 7% O2 FOR BURN (RUNS 1, 3, & 5)
AND BURNDOWN (RUNS 2, 4, & 6) CONDITIONS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL PCDF
TOTAL PCDD+PCDF
BURN CONDITION
CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm © 7 % O2) a
IN
0.059
0.704
0.184
0.677
0.315
0.262
0.854
2.159
1.508
0.140
5.081
9.08
0.214
6.285
0.202
0.632
4.736
1.298
0.435
0.985
0.085
2.086
1.746
0.593
1.176
3.998
24.2
33.3
OUT
2.885
1263.921
15.112
993.744
10.300
15.863
26.973
512.775
35.279
59.641
13.427
2949.9
27.919
2156.605
35.803
68.068
1008.992
116.853
34.186
48.825
1.131
286.731
52.705
4.159
30.075
6.590
3878.6
6828.6
BURNDOWN CONDITION
CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm @ 7% O2)
IN
0.533
7.763
3.465
19.293
4.530
3.724
9.435
32.747
47.054
0
141.181
263.9
4.385
132.588
12.894
13.053
151.850
55.892
27.542
28.679
3.553
137.513
90.615
19.657
67.748
204.653
949.4
1213.4
OUT
1.191
389.280
10.161
567.949
5.927
9.311
15.954
295.232
20.140
33.435
6.991
1355.6
13.203
739.513
20.343
38.652
544.506
73.057
21.494
29.689
0.912
175.254
30.687
2.194
17.683
3.446
1710.6
3066.2
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well.
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-5. CDD/CDF STACK EMISSIONS AND OUTLET TO INLET EMISSIONS RATIOS
FOR BURN (RUNS 1,3,5) AND BURNDOWN (RUNS 2,4,6) CONDITIONS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD :
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
BURN CONDITION
EMISSIONS
INLET
(ng/hr)
0.05
0.60
0.15
0.58
0.26
0.22
0.72
1.83
1.28
0.00
4.29
7.68
0.19
5.34
0.17
0.54
4.02
1.11
0.37
0.84
0.07
1.77
1.49
0.50
0.99
3.38
20.56
28.24
OUTLET
(ug/bt)
1.80
772.15
9.54
611.20
6.55
9.97
17.03
322.47
22.55
38.12
8.49
1820
17.33
1328.31
22.57
43.50
639.86
73.06
21.44
30.80
0.72
179.25
33.22
2.62
18.94
4.12
2416
4236
OUTLET/INLET
RATIO
(Runs 13;5) *
110
7,625
294
3,973
153
241
472
28,886
140
NA
81
; 2962> a
232
1,751
629
405
4,937
391
319
217
32
2,454
121
22
151
10
885 a
1235 a
BURNDOWN CONDITION
EMISSIONS
INLET
0»g/br)
0.44
6.45
2.81
15.95
3.69
3.06
7.72
26.94
38.35
0.00
114.40
,:;-" 215
3.58
108.98
10.41
10.62
123.12
45.31
22.26
23.34
2.88
111.19
73.36
15.95
54.85
165.66
>: 771
986
OUTLET
(Og/hr)
0.67
221.12
5.80
320.58
3.38
5.29
9.08
167.76
11.41
19.01
3.95
:: 768
7.49
417.16
11.57
22.10
309.55
41.66
12.25
16.98
0.52
100.04
17.50
1.24
10.07
1.94
970
: X738
OUTLET/INtJET
RATIO
(Runs 2,4,6) a
6.25
2,868.8
147.8
1,464.5
47.9
72.5
194.3
6,678.2
34.3
NA
3.1
-. . ---:^.-v..|4201p
51.3
245.9
112.0
87.2
307.3
75.8
67.2
49.9
11.6
101.7
15.5
1.4
3.8
0.45
78.9 a
122.1 *
a Calculated from the average of the indivdual test run ratios as shown on Tables 2-11 and 2-15.
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-6. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES CORRECTED
TO 7% 02 FOR BURN (RUNS 1, 3, & 5) AND BURNDOWN
(RUNS 2, 4, & 6) CONDITIONS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
ToM.cDDt;i:|:/-r,?:
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF :
TOTAL CDD+CDF
TOXIC
EQUIVALENCY
FACTOR a
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
BURN CONDITION
TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dsctit&7%O2)b
IN
0.059
0.000
0.092
0.000
0.032
0.026
0.085
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.005
0.125
0.021
0.000
0.010
0.316
0.000
0.130
0.043
0.098
0.009
0.000
0.017
0.006
0.000
0.004
0.647
0.772
OUT
2.885
0.000
7.556
0.000
1.030
1.586
2.697
0.000
0.353
0.000
0.013
16:121
2.792
0.000
1.790
34.034
0.000
11.685
3.419
4.882
0.113
0.000
0.527
0.041
0.000
0.007
59.291
75.412
BURNDOWN CONDITION
TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dsoni@7%O2)
IN-*' •••••
0.533
0.000
1.732
0.000
0.453
0.372
0.943
0.000
0.471
0.000
0.141
3.603
0.438
0.000
0.645
6.527
0.000
5.589
2.754
2.868
0.355
0.000
0.906
0.197
0.000
0.205
20.365
23.968
OUT
1.191
0.000
5.081
0.000
0.593
0.931
1.595
0.000
0.201
0.000
0.007
;-;i!:M;9399::
1.320
0.000
1.017
19.326
0.000
7.306
2.149
2.969
0.091
0.000
0.307
0.022
0.000
0.003
34.511
44.110
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 Standard conditions are defined as 1 atrn and 68°F.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-7. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS AVERAGED OVER EACH TEST DAY;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
DAY1
(RUNS1&2)
Inlet
(Ug/hr)
(0.064)
0.053
[0.029]
(0.109)
[0.043]
0.020
[0.036]
0.153
0.110
0.000
0.312
0.775
0.063
0.737
(0.034)
0.093
0.523
0.207
0.070
0.143
[0.026]
0.347
0.299
0.270
0.433
0.651
3.718
4.493
Outlet
(ug/hr)
1.121
471.472
6.789
470.229
3.700
6.109
9.932
191.522
11.851
20.692
4.378
1197.793
12.188
867.766
15.112
26.177
379.780
50.956
14.560
19.901
0.474
126.954
18.140
1.247
10.465
2.242
1545.961
2743.754
DAY 2
(RUNS 3 & 4)
Inlet
(ug/hr)
(0.156)
4.504
0.890
9.374
1.700
1.410
4.590
13.426
11.566
0.074
46.470
63,372
1.078
51.160
1.125
2.709
23.153
8.304
2.781
6.262
0.960
14.396
11.247
2.854
7.240
24.180
156.900
220.272
Outlet
(Ug/hr)
1.906
648.288
12.871
663.518
8.506
12.533
21.776
401.833
30.664
51.356
10.265
i 1863.517
18.700
1254.464
28.469
60.423
810.764
93.655
27.595
40.393
1.108
227.011
41.591
3.099
23.565
4.760
2635.596
; 4499. 113
DAY 3
(RUNS 5 & 6)
Inlet
(ug/hr)
0.499
4.774
2.131
12.072
2.602
2.781
5.090
24.306
40.064
0.000
132.643
226.961
3.799
97.873
12.611
11.846
142.402
51.977
26.587
25.201
2.115
132.138
85.886
18.227
64.989
195.247
870.898
1097.859
Outlet
(ug/hr)
0.922
483.748
4.147
325.052
3.348
5.240
9.130
174.528
10.787
17.698
4.969
1039.568;
8.420
687.347
9.972
16.351
303.518
34.080
10.317
14.297
0.328
81.657
19.651
1.746
11.352
2.551
120L589
2241.157
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-8. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AT THE INLET AND OUTLET
SAMPLE LOCATION DURING THE BURN CONDTION (RUNS 1,3,5);
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, as measured) a
RUN 1
[0.019]
0.057
[0.033]
(0.104)
[0.047]
[0.033]
[0.043]
(0.218)
0.100
0.000
0.214
0.692
0.052
0.612
(0.024)
0.081
0.536
0.180
0.062
(0.133)
[0.028]
0.280
(0.214)
[0.043]
0.066
0.142
2.383
3.08
RUN 3
[0.010]
0.062
[0.021]
0.103
[0.026]
0.026
[0.021]
0.005
(0. 1 14)
0.000
[0.052]
0.319
0.052
0.444
0.026
0.077
0.067
0.114
0.041
0.088
[0.015]
0.036
0.160
0.057
0.083
0.382
1.626
1.94
RUNS
(0.041)
1.375
0.128
1.247
0.220
0.344
0.596
4.340
2.979
0.000
6.920
18.189
0.362
12.287
0.380
1.192
9.427
2.475
0.825
1.879
0.060
4.111
3.346
0.779
2.337
7.929
47.388
65.58
AVERAGE
0.041
0.498
0.128
0.485
0.220
0.185
0.596
1.521
1.064
0.000
3.567
6.397
0.155
4.448
0.143
0.450
3.344
0.923
0.309
0.700
0.060
1.476
1.240
0.418
0.829
2.818
17.132
23.53
OUTLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, as measured):;:: ; :; ;
RUN 1
0.63
291.35
3.28
252.44
1.85
3.21
5.10
100.92
6.28
10.71
2.35
678.11
6.64
523.89
7.77
13.59
196.20
26.72
7.48
10.10
0.21
66.18
9.27
(0.649)
5.32
1.26
875.29
1553.40
RUN 3
1.02
352.70
6.08
323,18
4.08
5.87
10.20
188.69
14.81
25.08
4.99
936.69
9.76
693.90
14.15
29.73
403.91
43.27
12.81
19.00
0.49
106.55
19.00
1.45
10.78
2.24
1367.06
2303.74
RUNS
(0.592)
330.06
2.40
190.56
2.12
3.27
5.74
109.56
6.53
10.90
3.15
664.88
5.20
446.73
5.94
9.90
187.27
20.65
6.26
8.92
(0.186)
49.64
12.83
1.15
7.35
1.62
763.66
1428.54
AVERAGE
0.75
324.71
3.92
255.39
2.68
4.11
7.01
133.06
9.21
15.56
3.49
759189
7.20
554.84
9.29
17.74
262.46
30.21
8.85
12.67
0.30
74.13
13.70
1.08
7.82
1.71
1002.00
1761.89
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
( ) = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
2-13
-------
the inlet. All three runs detected 2378 TCDD at the outlet. Run 3 results showed
substantially higher dioxins and furans at the inlet with the Total CDD + CDF at 65.6
ng/dscm versus 3.08 and 1.94 for Runs 1 and 2, respectively. Outlet concentrations of
Total CDD + CDF were more comparable between the three runs at 1,553, 2,304, and
1,429 ng/dscm for Runs 1, -2, and 3, respectively.
Table 2-9 presents the burn condition flue gas concentrations corrected to
7 percent oxygen. Results show the same trends as discussed with the uncorrected
values.
Table 2-10 presents 2378 TCDD Toxic Equivalency Concentrations of the flue gas
for the burn condition. Total CDD + CDF Toxic Equivalencies for the inlet range from
0.093 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for Run 3 to 2.12 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for Run 5.
Outlet values ranged from 48.2 for Run 5 to 112 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for Run 3.
Table 2-11 presents the flue gas CDD/CDF mass rates for the burn condition test
runs. Inlet and outlet mass rates are presented for Runs 1, 3, and 5. Outlet to inlet
mass rate ratios are also presented.
Tables 2-12 through 2-15 present CDD/CDF flue gas emissions test results for the
test runs conducted during burndown condition. These included test runs 2, 4, and 6.
Inlet and outlet flue gas CDD/CDF concentrations are presented in Table 2-12. Inlet
Total CDD + CDF values were 4.29, 457, and 2,687 ng/dscm for Runs 2, 4, and 6,
respectively. Outlet values for the three runs were more comparable at 740, 993, and
458 ng/dscm.
Table 2-13 presents the oxygen-corrected flue gas CDD/CDF concentrations for
the burndown condition. Trends follow the same pattern as the uncorrected values with
inlet Total CDD + CDF concentrations ranging from a low of 4.97 ng/dscm at 7 percent
O2 for Run 2 to 3,036 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for Run 6. Outlet values were 3,320,
4,061, and 1,818 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for Runs 2, 4, and 6, respectively.
Table 2-14 presents the 2378 TCDD toxic equivalent flue gas concentrations.
Total CDD + CDF Toxic Equivalencies for the inlet were 0.15, 11.5 and 60.2 ng/dscm
at 7 percent O2 for Runs 2, 4, and 6, respectively. Outlet values were 43.8, 68.0, and
20.4 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2.
dkd.176 2-14
-------
TABLE 2-9. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 7% O2
AT THE INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE LOCATION DURING THE
BURN CONDITION (RUNS 1,3,5); JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2) a
RUN1
[0.022]
0.065
[0.038]
(0.119)
[0.054]
[0.038]
[0.049]
(0.250)
0.114
0.000
0.245
0.794
0.060
0.703
(0.028)
0.093
0.616
0.207
0.071
(0.153)
[0.032]
0.322
(0.246)
[0.049]
0.076
0.164
2.739
3.533
RUN 3
[0.012]
0.076
[0.026]
0.127
[0.032]
0.032
[0.026]
0.006
(0.140)
0.000
[0.064]
0.381
0.064
0.546
0.032
0.095
0.083
0.140
0.051
0.108
[0.018]
0.044
0.197
0.070
0.102
0.470
2.000
2.382
RUNS
(0.059)
1.970
0.184
1.786
0.315
0.493
0.854
6.219
4.269
0.000
9.917
26.066
0.519
17.607
0.545
1.708
13.509
3.546
1.182
2.693
0.085
5.891
4.794
1.116
3.349
11.361
67.906
93.97
AVERAGE b
0.059
0.704
0.184
0.677
0.315
0.262
0.854
2.159
1.508
0.140
5.081
9.080
0.214
6.285
0.202
0.632
4.736
1.298
0.435
0.985
0.085
2.086
1.746
0.593
1.176
3.998
24.215
33.295
OUTLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm^ adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 1
2.65
1227.22
13.83
1063.32
7.80
13.50
21.46
425.07
26.45
45.10
9.89
2856.28
27.97
2206.70
32.72
57.23
826.43
112.54
31.51
42.52
0.88
278.77
39.07
(2.734)
22.43
5.31
3687
6543
RUN 3
3.72
1290.14
22.23
1182.16
14.93
21.47
37.30
690.22
54.16
91.74
18.24
3426.31
35.72
2538.23
51.75
108.74
1477.47
158.29
46.87
69.51
1.79
389.74
69.51
5.30
39.44
8.19
5001
8427
RUNS
(2.286)
1274.40
9.28
735.75
8.17
12.61
22.15
423.04
25.23
42.09
12.16
2567.17
20.06
1724.89
22.94
38.23
723.08
79.73
24.18
34.44
(0.718)
191.68
49.54
4.44
28.36
6.27
2949
5516
AVERAGE
2.89
1263.92
15.11
993.74
10.30
15.86
26.97
512.77
35.28
59.64
13.43
W294932V:
27.92
2156.61
35.80
68.07
1008.99
116.85
34.19
48.82
1.13
286.73
52.71
4.16
30.08
6.59
; 3879
, : 6829
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration
b Detection limits are considered zeros for calculating averages.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-10. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES CORRECTED TO 7% O2 FOR
THE BURN CONDITION (RUNS 1, 3, & 5); JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTALCDD4CDF
2378-TCDD
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR a
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
INLET 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ag/dscmi; adjusted to 7 percent 02) b "&*:
RUN1
[0.022]
0.000
[0.019]
(0.000)
[0.005]
[0.004]
[0.005]
(0.000)
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.000
(0.001)
0.046
0.000
0.021
0.007
(0.015)
[0.003]
0.000
(0.002)
[0.000]
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.100
RUN 3
[0.012]
0.000
[0.013]
0.000
[0.003]
0.003
[0.003]
0.000
(0.001)
(0.000)
[0.000]
0.004
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.048
0.000
0.014
0.005
0.011
[0.002]
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.089
0.093
RUNS
(0.059)
0.000
0.092
0.000
0.032
0.049
0.085
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.010
0.370
0.052
0.000
0.027
0.854
0.000
0.355
0.118
0.269
0.009
0.000
0.048
0.011
0.000
0.011
1.754
2.124
AVERAGEc
0.059
0
0.092
0
0.032
0.026
0.085
0
0.015
0
0.005
0.125
0.021
0
0.010
0.316
0
0.130
0.043
0.098
0.009
0
0.017
0.006
0
0.004
0.647
0.772
OUTLET 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
;: Sisi: •! (itg/dscmi adjusted to?p«c«t 02)
;; RUN 1
2.65
0.00
6.91
0.00
0.78
1.35
2.15
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.01
. 14.12
2.80
0.00
1.64
28.62
0.00
11.25
3.15
4.25
0.09
0.00
0.39
(0.027)
0.00
0.01
52.22
66.33
RUNS
3.72
0.00
11.11
0.00
1.49
2.15
3.73
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.02
{ 22.76
3.57
0.00
2.59
54.37
0.00
15.83
4.69
6.95
0.18
0.00
0.70
0.05
0.00
0.01
88.93
11L69
RUNS
(2.286)
0.00
4.64
0.00
0.82
1.26
2.22
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.01
11.48
2.01
0.00
1.15
19.12
0.00
7.97
2.42
3.44
(0.072)
0.00
0.50
0.04
0.00
0.01
36.72
48.21
AVERAGE
2.89
0
7.56
0
1.03
1.59
2.70
0
0.35
0
0.01
16.12
2.79
0
1.79
34.03
0
11.69
3.42
4.88
0.11
0
0.53
0.04
0
0.01
59,29
75.41
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International Information Exchangee
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 Standard conditions are defined as 1 aim and 68 °F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated maximum Possible Concentration
c Detection limits are considered zeros for calculating averages.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well.
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-11. CDD/CDF STACK EMISSIONS AND OUTLET/INLET EMISSIONS RATIOS FOR
THE BURN CONDITION (RUNS 1,3,5); JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTALCDJD+CDF
RUN 1 EMISSIONS
INLET
(ug/hr)
[0.023]
0.07
[0.040]
(0.126)
[0.057]
[0.040]
[0.052]
(0.263)
0.12
0.00
0.26
0.84
0.06
0.74
(0.029)
0.10
0.65
0.22
0.07
(0.161)
[0.034]
0.34
(0.258)
[0.052]
0.08
0.17
2.88
•%:•., 3.71
OUTLET
;(ug/hr)
1.34
622.16
7.01
539.07
3.95
6.85
10.88
215.50
13.41
22.86
5.01
:.: 1448.0
14.18
1118.72
16.59
29.02
418.97
57.05
15.97
21.56
0.45
141.33
19.81
(1.386)
11.37
2.69
1869
;;» 3317
1 OUT/IN
"':: ^'" RATIO ••:'"- :"
58.47
9051.36
175.23
4278.30
69.35
171.16
272.02
819.38
111.46
NA
19.45
1810
225.08
1514.00
571.93
297.97
647.29
262. 1 1
214.53
133.90
13.18
418.18
76.77
2.62
141.78
15.65
'Si*., J;V. ••>*:. 650
;:;:::;::;,,,;:-. .-i, . 894
RUN 3 EMISSIONS
INLET
(ug/hr):
[0.011]
0.07
[0.024]
0.12
[0.029]
0.03
[0.024]
0.01
(0.129)
0.00
[0.059]
0.35
0.06
0.50
0.03
0.09
0.08
0.13
0.05
0.10
[0.017]
0.04
0.18
0.06
0.09
0.43
;?.S3
:2.2Q
OUTLET
(ug/hr)
2.69
933.35
16.08
855.23
10.80
15.53
26.99
499.34
39.18
66.37
13.19
2479
25.84
1836.28
37.44
78.67
1068.88
114.52
33.91
50.29
1.29
281.96
50.29
3.83
28.53
5.92
3618
60%
OUT/IN
';:":: RATION' •
244.42
13363.33
670.08
7346.91
372.56
533.79
1124.41
85791.65
303.75
NA
223.63
7082
443.97
3668.53
1286.58
901.06
14126.53
894.32
728.19
508.23
76.15
6920.48
278.71
59.88
306.35
13.76
1973
2771
RUN 5 EMISSIONS
INLET
(ug/hr)
(0.049)
1.65
0.15
1.50
0.26
0.41
0.72
5.22
3.58
0.00
8.32
21-87
0.44
14.77
0.46
1.43
11.33
2.98
0.99
2.26
0.07
4.94
4.02
0.94
2.81
9.53
57,0
78.8
OUTLET
,3293
OUT/IN
RATIO
27.86
460.36
35.92
293.14
18.44
18.23
18.47
48.41
4.21
NA
0.87
70.10
27.52
69.72
29.95
15.94
38.09
16.00
14.56
9.10
5.99
23.16
7.35
2.83
6.03
0.39
30,9
4L8
BURN AVG EMISSIONS
INLET
(ugrtw)
0.05
0.60
0.15
0.58
0.26
0.22
0.72
1.83
1.28
0.00
4.29
t 7.68
0.19
5.34
0.17
0.54
4.02
1.11
0.37
0.84
0.07
1.77
1.49
0.50
0.99
3.38
20.56
28,24
OUTLET
(ug/hr)
1.80
772.15
9.54
611.20
6.55
9.97
17.03
322.47
22.55
38.12
8.49
1,820
17.33
1328.31
22.57
43.50
639.86
73.06
21.44
30.80
0.72
179.25
33.22
2.62
18.94
4.12
2.416
* 4,236
OUT/IN
RATIO
110.2
7625.0
293.7
3972.8
153.5
241.1
471.6
28886.5
139.8
NA
81.3
296L6
232.2
1750.7
629.5
405.0
4937.3
390.8
319.1
217.1
31.8
2453.9
120.9
21.8
151.4
9.9
f-:^>.^ 884.6
1235,5
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
-------
TABLE 2-12. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AT THE INLET AND
OUTLET SAMPLE LOCATION DURING THE BURNDOWN
CONDITION (RUNS 2, 4, & 6); JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
-- ,
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, as measured) a
RUN 2
(0.050)
0.02
[0.012]
(0.068)
[0.019]
0.02
[0.012]
0.01
0.07
0.00
0.30
0.54
0.05
0.57
(0.031)
0.07
0.28
0.15
0.05
0.09
[0.012]
0.28
0.27
0.21
0.70
1.00
3.75
4.29
RUN 4
(0.139)
9.31
0.79
19.41
1.52
2.90
4.09
27.99
23.96
0.00
41.45
131.56
2.18
106.07
2.31
5.54
48.18
17.16
5.74
12.94
0.86
29.97
23.23
5.87
14.98
49.90
324.95
456.51
RUN 6
1.20
9.78
5.21
28.63
6.26
6.50
11.95
54.45
97.03
0.00
326.38
547,39
9.06
228.31
31.52
28.15
346.91
128.31
66.40
61.03
5.29
329.99
213.31
45.15
161.75
484.36
2139.53
2686.93
AVERAGE
0.46
6.37
3.00
16.03
3.89
3.14
8.02
27.48
40.36
0.00
122.71
; 226.50
3.76
111.65
11.29
11.25
131.79
48.54
24.06
24.69
3.08
120.08
78.94
17.08
59.14
178.42
822.75
1049.24
OUTLET CONCENTRATION ~~
(ng/dscmT as measured)
RUN 2
0.31
101.82
2.42
141.23
1.25
1.91
3.23
59.50
3.65
6.63
1.32
•> 323.26 ;
3.56
200.26
4.90
8.35
122.05
15.97
4.72
6.59
0.19
40.18
5.93
0.40
3.45
0.61
! 417.15
740.41
RUN 4
(0.361)
112.26
3.61
171.15
2.28
3.58
6.23
114.11
8.10
13.15
2.67
!: 437.50
3.85
200.24
6.92
15.14
195.72
27.64
8.05
11.42
0.36
64.54
12.60
0.89
7.12
1.35
555.84
993.34
RUN 6
0.18
63.54
1.24
93.39
0.71
1.19
2.00
38.37
2.76
4.23
1.05
|208i65
2.00
126.39
2.71
4.18
72.04
8.70
2.62
3.23
0.10
20.58
3.52
(0.295)
2.14
0.52
249^03
457.69
AVERAGE
0.2!
92.54
2.42
135.2S
1.42
2.23
3.82
70.«
4.83
8.0(1
1.61
323.W
3,13
175.8
4.84
9.21
129.94
17.44
5,1!
7,01
0,21
41.71
7.3i
0.53
4,21
0,8!
407.34
;,/y 730.4!
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
( ) = Estimated Maxiumum Possible Concentration.
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-13. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO
7% O2 AT THE INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE LOCATION
DURING THE BURNDOWN CONDITION (RUNS 2, 4, & 6);
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2) a
RUN 2
(0.058)
0.03
[0.014]
(0.079)
[0.022]
0.02
[0.014]
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.35
0.63
0.06
0.66
(0.036)
0.08
0.32
0.17
0.06
0.11
[0.014]
0.32
0.32
0.25
0.81
1.15
4.35
4.97
RUN 4
(0.182)
12.20
1.04
25.45
1.99
3.81
5.37
36.70
31.42
0.00
54.36
172.51
2.86
139.10
3.03
7.27
63.19
22.50
7.53
16.96
1.13
39.30
30.47
7.70
19.65
65.44
426.11
598.63
RUN 6
1.36
11.06
5.89
32.35
7.07
7.34
13.50
61.53
109.66
0.00
368.84
618.60
10.24
258.01
35.62
31.81
392.04
145.00
75.04
68.96
5.98
372.92
241.06
51.02
182.79
547.37
2417.85
3036.45
AVERAGE
0.53
7.76
3.46
19.29
4.53
3.72
9.43
32.75
47.05
0.00
141.18
263.91
4.38
132.59
12.89
13.05
151.85
55.89
27.54
28.68
3.55
137.51
90.61
19.66
67.75
204.65
949.44
1213.35
OUTLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm( adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN 2
1.38
456.56
10.83
633.24
5.61
8.57
14.48
266.79
16.35
29.74
5.91
1449.45
15.95
897.96
21.96
37.42
547.26
71.60
21.17
29.54
0.85
180.16
26.59
1.77
15.46
2.76
1870.46
3319.92
RUN 4
(1.476)
458.94
14.74
699.72
9.34
14.64
25.45
466.51
33.12
53.76
10.91
1788.60
15.72
818.63
28.30
61.91
800.15
113.02
32.92
46.68
1.47
263.87
51.50
3.64
29.09
5.50
2272.41
4061.02
RUN 6
0.72
252.34
4.91
370.89
2.83
4.72
7.93
152.40
10.95
16.81
4.15
828.66
7.93
501.95
10.76
16.62
286.10
34.56
10.39
12.84
0.42
81.73
13.97
(1.172)
8.50
2.08
989.02
1817.68
AVERAGE
1.19
389.28
10.16
567.95
5.93
9.31
15.95
295.23
20.14
33.44
6.99
1355.57
13.20
739.51
20.34
38.65
544.51
73.06
21.49
29.69
0.91
175.25
30.69
2.19
17.68
3.45
::• 1710.63
! 3066.20
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low aa well.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-14. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES CORRECTED TO
7% O2 FOR THE BURNDOWN CONDITION (RUNS 2, 4, & 6);
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF :
TOTALCDD+CDF
2378-TCDD
TOXIC EQUIV.
FACTOR a
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
INLET 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIE
(ng/dscm, ^adjusted to 7 percent 02} >
RUN 2
(0.058)
0.000
[0.007]
(0.000)
[0.002]
0.002
[0.001]
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.061
0.006
0.000
(0.002)
0.040
0.000
0.017
0.006
0.011
[0.001]
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.088
0.149
RUN 4
(0.182)
0.000
0.519
0.000
0.199
0.381
0.537
0.000
0.314
0.000
0.054
2.186
0.286
0.000
0.151
3.635
0.000
2.250
0.753
1.696
0.113
0.000
0.305
0.077
0.000
0.065
9.332
11.519
RUN 6
1.359
0.000
2.945
0.000
0.707
0.734
1.350
0.000
1.097
0.000
0.369
8.561
1.024
0.000
1.781
15.905
0.000
14.500
7.504
6.896
0.598
0.000
2.411
0.510
0.000
0.547
:: 51.676
60.237
AVERAGE
0.533
0.000
1.732
0.000
0.453
0.372
0.943
0.000
0.471
0.000
0.141
: 3.603
0.438
0.000
0.645
6.527
0.000
5.589
2.754
2.868
0.355
0.000
0.906
0.197
0.000
0.205
20.365
A 23.968
OUTLET 2378 TOXK2 EOUiyALENGIES
:;K:::I7; •.;;--
-------
Table 2-15 presents the mass emission rates for the test runs during burndown
condition. Outlet to inlet ratios of mass rate are also presented. The most noticeable
observation is that almost all of the inlet CDD/CDF species during Run 6 had mass
rates higher than the associated outlet values. This may be correlated to the relatively
higher inlet PM loading that occurred during Run 6. Only during this run were filters
and/or impinger solutions noticeably discolored by "soot" type deposits. The Run 6 inlet
Total CDD + CDF mass rate was 2,440 //g/hr compared to 859 //g/hr at the outlet.
2.2.4 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Sample Parameters
The flue gas sample parameters for Runs 1, 3, and 5 are shown in Table 2-16.
Values such as sampling rate, meter volume, stack gas temperature, gas O2/CO2/H2O
concentrations, stack gas flow rates, and isokinetics are shown. Values for the burndown
condition (Runs 2, 4, and 6) are shown in Table 2-17. Five out of twelve CDD/CDF test
runs did not meet the isokinetic criterion of being within 10 percent of 100. This is
further discussed in Section 6.
2.2.5 CDD/CDF Ash Results
Incinerator bottom ash was completely removed from the incinerator on the
afternoon following each of the three test days. Fabric filter fly ash sampling was
attempted however not enough material was available to complete the analyses and
therefore any reference to ash in this report is referring to incinerator bottom ash. After
collection, 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. An approximately 1 liter bottle was filled with ash and sent
to the laboratory for CDD/CDF analyses.
Ash samples were analyzed for the same CDD/CDF isomers that the flue gas
samples were analyzed for. Ash CDD/CDF concentrations for each test day as well as a
pre-test sample are presented in Table 2-18. Concentrations are given in units of
parts-per-billion by weight (ppb.wt).
All CDD/CDF congeners were detected in the test run samples as well as the
pre-test sample. Pre-test incinerator operation had a slightly shorter burndown cycle
(approximately 4 hours). Concentrations of 2378 TCDD in the test run samples ranged
dkd.176 2-21
-------
TABLE 2-15. CDD/CDF STACK EMISSIONS AND OUTLET/INLET EMISSIONS RATIOS FOR
THE BURNDOWN CONDITION (RUNS 2,4,6); JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTALCDtKCDP
RUN 2 EMISSIONS
INLET
(ug/hr)
(0.064)
0.03
[0.015]
(0.087)
[0.024]
0.02
[0.015]
0.01
0.10
0.00
0.38
0.7
0.06
0.74
(0.040)
0.09
0.36
0.19
0.06
0.12
[0.015]
0.36
0.35
0.27
0.90
1.28
4XL
«- S.S2
OUTLET
(Ug/hr)
0.83
274.0
6.5
380.0
3.4
5.1
8.7
160.1
9.8
17.8
3.5
869.8
9.6
538.9
13.2
22.5
328.4
43.0
12.7
17.7
0.5
108.1
16.0
1.1
9.3
1.7
s 1122.5
1992.3
OUT/mis;
RATIO
12.93
8567.17
433.40
4367.96
140.36
214.36
579.18
20024.55
102.25
NA
9.24
1252.14
149.69
732.60
329.48
255.36
912.81
223.91
198.66
147.84
33.88
300.50
45.36
3.91
10.36
1.29
232.82
361.20
:; RUN 4 EMISSIONS
INLET;
(ug/hjp
(0.156)
10.4
0.9
21.8
1.7
3.3
4.6
31.4
26.9
0.0
46.5
147.5
2.4
118.9
2.6
6.2
54.0
19.2
6.4
14.5
1.0
33.6
26.0
6.6
16.8
55.9
364.3
511.8
tOUTLET
(iig/hr)
(0.859)
267.0
8.6
407.1
5.4
8.5
14.8
271.4
19.3
31.3
6.3
1040.6
9.1
476.3
16.5
36.0
465.5
65.8
19.2
27.2
0.9
153.5
30.0
2.1
16.9
3.2
1322.1
-;s;::2362.7i
OUT/IN •::•:•;;.
RATIO i
5.51
25.59
9.66
18.71
3.19
2.62
3.23
8.65
0.72
NA
0.14
R 7.06
3.75
4.01
6.36
5.80
8.62
3.42
2.98
1.87
0.89
4.57
1.15
0.32
1.01
0.06
3.63
&,:••:-••.• 4.62
RUN 6 EMISSIONS
INLET
(og/far)
1.09
8.9
4.7
26.0
5.7
5.9
10.8
49.4
88.1
0.0
296.3
497,0
8.2
207.3
28.6
25.6
315.0
116.5
60.3
55.4
4.8
299.6
193.7
41.0
146.9
439.8
1942.5
%2439.S
OUTLET
(Ug/hr)
0.34
122.4
2.3
174.6
1.3
2.2
3.7
71.7
5.2
7.9
2.0
393.7
3.7
236.3
5.1
7.8
134.7
16.3
4.9
6.0
0.2
38.5
6.6
(0.552)
4.0
1.0
465.6
859.3
OUT/IN ;
RATIO
0.31
13.77
0.49
6.72
0.23
0.38
0.34
1.45
0.06
NA
0.01
0.79
0.45
1.14
0.18
0.31
0.43
0.14
0.08
0.11
0.04
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.00
0,24
0.35
BURNDOWN AVG EMISSIONS
INLET
(ug/hrj
0.44
6.45
2.81
15.95
3.69
3.06
7.72
26.94
38.35
0.00
114.40
215.06
3.58
108.98
10.41
10.62
123.12
45.31
22.26
23.34
2.88
111.19
73.36
15.95
54.85
165.66
770,3
985.6
OUTLET
(ug/ibr)
0.39
221.12
5.80
320.58
3.38
5.29
9.08
167.76
11.41
19.01
3.95
768.05
7.49
417.16
11.57
22.10
309.55
41.66
12.25
16.98
0.52
100.04
17.50
1.06
10.07
1.94
;
-------
TABLE 2-16. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
AT INLET; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
vletered Volume (dscf)
Vletered 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 ^ ;U>i$. .••:-•".! - ; - -;
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
BURN CONDITION ; 1;
Run!
03/05/9! -
370
0.20
74.41
2.107
1170
8.8
7.5
9.58
710
20.12
117
Run 3
03/07/91
404
0.17
68.4
1.937
1220
9.6
5.9
8.33
663
18.79
106
Run 5
03/09/91
423
0.18
77.03
2.182
1122
11.2
5.1
6.94
708
20.04
107
AVERAGE
• :v'''tV;£:;||:-:f
NA
0.18
73.28
2.075
1170
9.9
6.2
8.3
694
19.65
NA
BURNDOWN CONDITION
Run 2
03/05/91 ;
248
0.23
56.75
1.607
1096
8.9
8.9
8.33
756
21.4
130
r Run 4
f 03/07/91
311
0.17
53.5
1.515
1173
10.3
6.3
6.36
660
18.7
109
Run 6
03/09/91
305
0.14
44.04
1.247
1223
8.6
7.7
6.57
534
15.1
112
AVERAGE
NA
0.18
51.43
1.456
1164
9.3
7.6
7.1
650.00
18.40
NA
NA = Not Appliable.
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-17. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
AT OUTLET; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
.' ;-
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
vletered 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
BURN CONDITION
Run 1
03/05/91
415
0.45
184.93
5.24
174
17.6
1.8
27.37
1257
35.59
112
Run 3
03/07/91
404
0.46
187.66
5.315
186
17.1
2.2
7.84
1557
44.11
94
Run 5
03/09/91
415
0.50
208.61
5.908
171
17.3
2.2
12.63
1357
38.42
115
AVERAGE
NA
0.47
193.73
5.488
177
17.3
2.1
15.9
1390
39.37
NA
BURNDOWN CONDITION
Run 2
03/05/91
324
0.50
160.77
4.553
183
17.8
1.9
14.63
1584
44.85
98
Run 4
03/07/91
306
0.48
146.89
4.16
186
17.5
2.1
14.6
1400
39.64
99
Run 6
03/09/91
296
0.25
74.26
2.103
172
17.4
2.4
15.74
1100
31.16
103
AVERAGE
NA
0.41
127.31
3.605
180
17.6
2.1
15.0
1361
38.55
NA
NA = Not Applicable.
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-18. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS IN INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLE ED:
DATE:
RUNNo.s
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
PRE-TEST ASH
03/01
(ppb.wt)
0.450
64.150
3.000
65.100
2.700
3.700
7.400
67.000
22.400
30.000
30.900
296.800
7.000
178.000
5.000
11.100
123.900
42.200
10.900
16.400
0.240
68.260
29.300
1.400
14.400
10.900
519,000
815.800
ASH COLLECTED DURING TEST PROGRAM
03/05
; 1&2;; ;:,,
(ppb.wt) r
0.960
136.040
6.900
169.100
7.100
9.800
18.700
156.400
53.200
57.800
55.300
671.300
15.000
609.000
13.300
30.700
267.000
103.000
23.400
37.000
0.640
135.960
73.100
4.300
31.600
21.200
1365.200
2036.500
03/07
.^.'3&49,
(ppb.wt)
(0.650)
147.000
5.700
162.300
7.000
9.400
18.300
191.300
64.900
80.100
55.000
741.650
10.800
488.200
8.800
18.100
212.100
86.100
20.100
34.300
0.600
130.900
66.100
4.000
31.900
19.500
1131,500
1873.150
03/09
5 & 6
(ppb.wt)
(0.490)
51.700
3.900
91.200
(2.800)
4.400
8.300
76.600
27.800
32.100
41.000
340.290
7.700
331.300
8.200
17.100
189.700
46.500
13.500
19.800
0.290
78.910
38.600
2.800
20.100
21.700
796.200
1136.490
AVERAGE
(ppb.wt)
0.700
111.580
5.500
140.867
5.633
7.867
15.100
141.433
48.633
56.667
50.433
584,413
11.167
476.167
10.100
21.967
222.933
78.533
19.000
30.367
0.510
115.257
59.267
3.700
27.867
20.800
1097,633
1682.047
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
2-25
-------
from 0.49 to 0.96 ppb.wt. Test Day 1 had the highest Total CDD + CDF concentrations
at 2,036 ppb.wt as compared to 1,873 and 1,136 ppb.wt for Days 2 and 3, respectively.
The daily ash results do not appear to vary as much as the flue gas values. The highest
values for each respective species appear to be within a factor of 2 of the lowest value.
Further discussion on data variability can be found in Section 6.
Table 2-19 presents the 2378 TCDD Toxic Equivalencies for the Jordan
incinerator ash. Total CDD + CDF values for Days 1, 2, and 3 were 43.3, 33.1, and 22.5
ppb.wt 2378 TCDD toxic equivalents, respectively.
Table 2-20 presents the mass of CDD/CDF isomers discharged in the ash stream.
Ash removed weights for the 3 Test Days were 70.34, 94.82, and 60.35 Ibs for Days 1
through 3, respectively. Average 2378 TCDD discharged in the ash stream was 0.024
mg/day. The highest average value for an individual isomer or "other" designated
isomers was 16.5 mg/day for Other TCDF compounds.
2.2.6 CDD/CDF Concentrations in Absorber Water
The liquor used in the packed bed absorber drains into a three tank, cascaded
system. Overall flow rates were not measured during this test program however
manufacturer's specifications state liquor flow to be 8-10 gpm through each of eight
nozzles (64 80 gpm). Liquor drains from the scrubber into the first holding tank.
There is a 3-5 gpm blow-down (discharge) off this first holding tank which is drained into
a floor drain in the incinerator room. The liquor remaining in the first tank flows into
the second tank where the pH is buffered with 50% caustic (NaOH) to maintain the acid
removing capacity. Absorber discharge liquor (water) samples were collected from the
No. 1 tank blow-down line. Absorber make-up water was sampled during each test day.
However, only one sample was analyzed with the results assumed to represent all test
days. Absorber discharge water samples were taken on each test day by collecting a grab
sample from the drain pipe located underneath as floor drain. All three absorber water
discharge samples were analyzed. Results are given in units of parts per trillion by
weight (ppt.wt).
Table 2-21 presents the results for the CDD/CDF absorber water analyses. The
make-up water showed positive detections of more than half the target CDD/CDF
dkd.176 2-26
-------
TABLE 2-19. CDD/CDF ASH TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLEIDi
DATE: :;: ;
RUN No.
CONGENER :
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD ..;•.•
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD4CDF
TOXIC EQUIV.
FACTOR a
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
PRE-TEST ASH
03/0!
1&.2
TEF - (ppb.wt)
0.450
0.000
1.500
0.000
0.270
0.370
0.740
0.000
0.224
0.000
0.031
/: : 3,585:
0.700
0.000
0.250
5.550
0.000
4.220
1.090
1.640
0.024
0.000
0.293
0.014
0.000
0.011
13,792
•.:•••: 17,377
ASH COLLECTED DURING TEST PROGRAMS
03/05
1&2
TEF-{ppb.wr)
0.960
0.000
3.450
0.000
0.710
0.980
1.870
0.000
0.532
0.000
0.055
* :':::,:>••;:; -8.557
1.500
0.000
0.665
15.350
0.000
10.300
2.340
3.700
0.064
0.000
0.731
0.043
0.000
0.021
34.714
« 43.271
03/07
3&4
TEF '"- (ppb.wt)
(0.6500)
0.000
2.850
0.000
0.700
0.940
1.830
0.000
0.649
0.000
0.055
• v:,:--;?: 7,674
1.080
0.000
0.440
9.050
0.000
8.610
2.010
3.430
0.060
0.000
0.661
0.040
0.000
0.020
25.401
-I: 33,075
03/09
5&6
TEF -{ppb.wt}
(0.4900)
0.000
1.950
0.000
(0.2800)
0.440
0.830
0.000
0.278
0.000
0.041
! 4.309
0.770
0.000
0.410
8.550
0.000
4.650
1.350
1.980
0.029
0.000
0.386
0.028
0.000
0.022
18.175
22,484
AVERAGE
TEF -{ppb.wt)
0.700
0.000
2.750
0.000
0.563
0.787
1.510
0.000
0.486
0.000
0.050
6.847
1.117
0.000
0.505
10.983
0.000
7.853
1.900
3.037
0.051
0.000
0.593
0.037
0.000
0.021
•;;s:.::
-------
TABLE 2-20. CDD/CDF DAILY DISCHARGE RATE IN THE ASH STREAM;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE:
RUNNb;
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
MASS REMOVED IN ASH
03/05
1&2
(mg/day)
0.031
4.340
0.220
5.395
0.227
0.313
0.597
4.990
1.697
1.844
1.764
21.418
0.479
19.430
0.424
0.979
8.519
3.286
0.747
1.181
0.020
4.338
2.332
0.137
1.008
0.676
43.557
64.976
03/07
3&4
(mg/day)
(0.028)
6.326
0.245
6.984
0.301
0.405
0.787
8.232
2.793
3.447
2.367
31.915
0.465
21.008
0.379
0.779
9.127
3.705
0.865
1.476
0.026
5.633
2.844
0.172
1.373
0.839
48.691
80.606
03/0*
5&6
(tog/day)
(0.013)
1.415
0.107
2.497
(0.077)
0.120
0.227
2.097
0.761
0.879
1.122
••#. ;;•;;;;"-:..;? 9.3 15
0.211
9.069
0.224
0.468
5.193
1.273
0.370
0.542
0.008
2.160
1.057
0.077
0.550
0.594
21J95
31.110
AVERAGE
(mg/day)
0.024
4.027
0.191
4.959
0.202
0.279
0.537
5.106
1.750
2.057
1.751
20.883
0.385
16.503
0.342
0.742
7.613
2.755
0.660
1.066
0.018
4.044
2.078
0.129
0.977
0.703
38.015
58.897
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-21. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS IN ABSORBER MAKE-UP WATER
AND DISCHARGE WATER; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLE ED:
DATE:
RUN No.
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
MAKEUP
03/05
1 &2
(ppt.wt)
(0.003)
0.007
0.001
0.005
[0.005]
[0.003]
[0.005]
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.260
0.336
0.040
0.040
[0.003]
[0.003]
[0.003]
0.002
[0.003]
0.004
[0.003]
0.003
0.004
[0.005]
0.001
0.010
0.104
0.440
DISCHARGE
03/05
1 & 2
(pptwt)
0.050
10.050
0.380
26.620
0.700
1.400
1.900
28.800
12.500
28.900
12.100
123.400
4.300
10.900
0.700
2.000
20.900
6.700
1.900
3.700
0.140
14.560
9.600
1.400
9.000
6.600
92.400
215.800
03/07
<•;;•'•• j& 4-" >
(ppUWt)
0.290
69.310
4.900
293.100
7.800
12.600
22.000
327.600
93.400
369.600
69.700
1270.300
28.800
68.000
6.300
22.200
221.500
71.700
18.600
41.900
(1.300)
142.800
80.000
10.200
71.800
31.200
816.300
2086.600
03/09
5&6
(pptwt)
0.030
6.570
0.340
22.660
0.590
1.200
1.600
22.110
6.200
12.000
5.100
78.400
3.800
8.200
0.710
1.700
18.890
7.400
2.200
4.100
0.190
14.410
6.000
1.100
4.800
3.800
77.300
155.700
AVERAGE
(pptwt)
0.123
28.643
1.873
114.127
3.030
5.067
8.500
126.170
37.367
136.833
28.967
; ; 490.700
12.300
29.033
2.570
8.633
87.097
28.600
7.567
16.567
0.543
57.257
31.867
4.233
28.533
13.867
328.667
819.367
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
2-29
-------
isomers. Concentrations of 2378 TCDD in the make-up water were 0.003 ppt.wt. The
Total CDD + CDF concentration was 0.44 ppt.wt.
Absorber discharge water CDD/CDF concentrations were higher than the
make-up water. Concentrations of 2378 TCDD for Days 1, 2, and 3 were 0.05, 0.29 and
0.03 ppt.wt, respectively. The Total CDD + CDF values were 216, 2,087, and
156 ppt.wt, respectively. Day 2 (03/07/91) concentrations for all isomers were
approximately 5 to 10 times higher than either Day 1 or Day 3 values.
Table 2-22 shows the absorber water CDD/CDF concentrations as 2378 TCDD
toxic equivalents. The Total CDD + CDF 2378 TCDD toxic equivalents for Days 1, 2,
and 3 were 3.60, 35.6, and 3.34 ppt.wt, respectively. The make-up water 2378 TCDD
toxic equivalents for Total CDD + CDF was determined to be 0.009 ppt.wt.
The flow rates of absorber make-up water and discharge water were not measured
during this test program. However, manufacturing specifications state that discharge
water flow rates to be 3-5 gpm. Based on a 5 gpm flow, approximate mass rates for
CDD/CDF congeners can be estimated. At the average 2378 TCDD concentration of
0.123 ppt. wt, the corresponding mass rate at 5 gpm would be 0.314 ^g/hr. Total CDD
+ CDF mass rates calculated in this fashion using the average value of 819 ppt. wt at
5 gpm would be 930 /^g/hr.
2.3 TOXIC METALS RESULTS
2.3.1 Overview
A single sampling train was used to determine emission rates of a series of 11
metals Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Pb, Hg, Ni, Ag, and Tl, and PM. Three sampling runs were
performed under each of the two test conditions (burn and burndown) in order to ensure
representative test results. Sampling locations, methods, and QA/QC procedures and
results are discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The average metals emission
rates and removal efficiencies are summarized in Section 2.3.2. The results for each
individual run are presented in Section 2.3.4. Concentrations at dry, standard conditions,
concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2, and emission rates are shown. The metals to
PM ratios are presented in Section 2.3.5, flue gas metals by sample fraction in
Section 2.3.6, and metals concentration in ash in Section 2.3.2.
dkd.i76 2-30
-------
TABLE 2-22. CDD/CDF TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES OF ABSORBER
MAKE-UP WATER AND DISCHARGE WATER;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLE ID:
DATE; : !;/ .;..,.
RUN No.
CONGENER*
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD: : :
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
TOXIC EQimr.
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
MAKEUP
03/05 .;:
I & 2
XEF~(ppfcwt)
(0.0030)
0.000
0.001
0.000
[0.0005]
[0.0003]
[0.0005]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
; 0.004
0.004
0.000
[0.0002]
[0.0015]
[0.0000]
0.000
[0.0003]
0.000
[0.0003]
0.000
0.000
[0.0001]
0.000
0.000
0.005
: 0.009
DISCHARGE WATER
••:•• 03/05'-:: K>-
'• ^ I'&Zl: V.
TEF~
-------
A summary of the Jordan Hospital toxic metals results is presented in Table 2-23.
Inlet mass rates ranged from not detected for Be and Tl, to 4.8 grams/hr (g/hr) during
the burndown period for Pb. Outlet emissions ranged from not detected for Be and Tl
to 0.57 g/hr for Pb. The associated removal efficiencies were all above 70 percent for
the burndown and generally above 50 percent for the burn period. Average metals
discharge amounts in the ash stream are presented on a daily basis (includes bum and
burndown periods). Mercury, Ag, and Tl were not detected. Other values of metals in
ash ranged from 0.073 g/day for Be to 31.4 g/day for Pb. Further details on flue gas and
ash toxic metals results are given in the following sections.
2.3.2 Metals Data Reduction
The values reported in the following toxic metals results include 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.)
If the metal was not detected in any of the three runs, then the average
results were reported as not detected at the average detection limit.
2-32
-------
N)
TABLE 2-23. SUMMARY OF TOXIC METALS FLUE GAS EMISSION RATES AND IN METALS IN ASH
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
AVERAGE BURN EMISSIONS
INLET
(g/hr)
0.019
0.001
0.010
[0.0001]
0.033
0.015
0.798
1.297
0.007
0.002
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/far)
0.004
[0.0002]
0.002
[0.00005]
0.002
0.004
0.009
0.263
0.010
0.003
[0.0005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY *
(*)
76.1
>80
68.6
NA
92.8
77.2
98.8
78.7
-165.4
54.0
NA
AVERAGE BURNDOWN EMISSIONS
INLET
(g/hr)
0.087
0.004
0.059
[0.0001]
0.172
0.021
4.791
2.520
0.011
0.003
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.003
[0.0002]
0.004
[0.00006]
0.002
0.003
0.038
0.572
0.002
0.001
[0.001]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY *
<*>
92.6
>90.1
89.7
NA
98.6
84.3
99.2
70.3
81.4
NA
NA
AVERAGE
CONG,
IN ASH
(rag/kg)
518
5.37
3835
2.12
46.4
685
901
[9.80]
86.8
[1.20]
[1.50]
AVERAGE
DISCHARGE
IN ASH
(grams/day) *
18.06
0.23
135.32
0.073
1.57
22.44
31.38
[0.334]
2.8
[0.04]
[0.05]
* Both a burn and burndown run were conducted each day. Typical durations
of the burn periods were 7 hours and bumdown periods were 5.5 hours.
fj = Minimum Detection Limit.
a Average removal efficiency calculated from individual run values shown in Table 2-24.
-------
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 samples. These results will be reported in Section 2.3.7.
2.3.3 Metals Emissions
Table 2-24 presents the metals emissions results for each test condition. Two
incinerator operating conditions were tested. The first was the initial ~7 hour burn
period of the batch load of approximately 750 Ibs of Type 0 to 4 waste (see Section 3 for
an explanation of waste type) with a secondary chamber temperature setpoint of 1800°F.
The second condition or "burndown" occupied the next ~5l/i hours following the burn
condition. The primary chamber operated on low-fire air during the burn test condition,
and on high-fire air and low fire (depending on primary chamber, temperature) during
the burndown test condition. The emission test results include a mass rate for each
metal at the inlet and outlet, and the associated removal efficiencies.
During the burn condition, Hg had the highest average mass rate at the inlet, with
1.297 g/hr, followed by Pb with 0.798 g/hr. Beryllium and Tl were not detected in any
of the runs at the inlet or outlet during the burn condition. Mercury was the most
prevalent element collected for the three runs at the outlet during the burn condition
with an average emission rate of 0.263 g/hr. Sample results for Ni during the burn
condition showed negative removal efficiencies for two of the three runs. The Run 1
value resulted from similar inlet and outlet mass rates of Ni at 0.003 and 0.004 g/hr,
respectively. Run 3 showed a substantially higher mass rate of Ni at the outlet of
0.019 g/hr versus 0.003 g/hr at the inlet. All other metals showed positive removal
efficiencies for this run. Analytical QA showed good Ni standards recovery and no
contamination in the blank samples was found. Further explanation is beyond the scope
of this data report.
During the burndown condition, Pb had the highest average mass rate for the
inlet runs with 4.791 g/hr, followed by Hg at 2.520 g/hr. As with the burn condition, Be
and Tl were not collected in detectable amounts for any of the runs at the inlet and
outlet during the burndown condition. Mercury was the most prevalent element
dkd.176 2-34
-------
TABLE 2-24. AVERAGE METALS EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR BURN AND BURNDOWN CONDITIONS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONDITION
RUN NO,
LOCATION
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
CONDITION
RUN NO,
LOCATION
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
BURN
;:RUN1
INLET
(g/hr)
0.023
0.001
0.007
[0.0001]
0.059
0.019
0.966
0.710
0.003
[0.0005]
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.004
[0.0002]
0.002
[0.00005]
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.241
0.004
0.007
[0.0005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (*)
82.5
>80
62.3
NA
93.8
72.9
99.3
66.1
-28.9
NA
NA
RUN 3
INLET
(g/hr)
0.016
[0.0002]
0.018
[0.0001]
0.023
0.013
0.642
2.897
0.003
0.003
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.004
[0.0002]
0.002
[0.00005]
0.002
0.003
0.011
0.514
0.019
0.001
[0.0005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (%)
77.3
NA
89.1
NA
92.1
78.0
98.2
82.3
-517.5
54.0
NA
RUN 5
INLET
(g/hr)
0.017
[0.001]
0.004
[0.0001]
0.017
0.014
0.787
0.283
0.016
0.002
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.005
[0.0002]
0.002
[0.00005]
0.001
0.003
0.008
0.035
0.008
[0.0003]
[0.0005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (%)
68.4
NA
54.4
NA
92.5
80.8
98.9
87.8
50.3
>85
NA
.. :•../ "V AVERAGE ?:• : •:;.;, .'.
INLET
(g/hr)S
0.019
0.001
0.010
[0.0001]
0.033
0.015
0.798
1.297
0.007
0.002
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.004
[0.0002]
0.002
[0.00005]
0.002
0.004
0.009
0.263
0.010
0.003
[0.0005]
; REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (*)
76.1
>80
68.6
NA
92.8
77.2
98.8
78.7
-165.4
54.0
NA
BURNDOWN
RUN 2
INLET
(g/hr)
0.053
0.003
0.015
[0.0001]
0.168
0.031
5.75
0.725
0.011
0.002
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.004
[0.0002]
0.003
[0.00005]
0.002
0.002
0.039
0.285
0.001
0.004
[0.001]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (%)
92.1
>93.3
80.1
NA
98.9
94.3
99.3
60.7
91.7
-95.2
NA
RUN 4
INLET
(g/hr)
0.089
0.001
0.103
[0.0001]
0.179
0.016
3.57
6.12
0.008
[0.001]
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.006
[0.0002]
0.003
[0.00006]
0.002
0.004
0.022
1.22
0.002
[0.0003]
[0.001]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY <%)
93.0
>80
97.0
NA
98.9
76.9
99.4
80.1
79.9
NA
NA
RUN 6
INLET
(g/hr)
0.118
0.007
0.058
[0.0001]
0.170
0.017
5.06
0.716
0.015
0.006
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
[0.001]
[0.0002]
0.005
[0.00007]
0.003
0.003
0.051
0.214
0.004
[0.0004]
[0.001]
REMOVAL
i EFFICIENCY (%)
>99.2
>97.1
92.0
NA
98.1
81.7
99.0
70.1
72.7
>93.3
NA
AVERAGE
INLET
(g/hr)
0.087
0.004
0.059
[0.0001]
0.172
0.021
4.791
2.520
0.011
0.003
[0.001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.003
[0.0002]
0.004
[0.00006]
0.002
0.003
0.038
0.572
0.002
0.001
[0.001]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (»)
92.6
>90.1
89.7
NA
98.6
84.3
99.2
70.3
81.4
NA
NA
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.
NA = Not applicable
[] = Minimum Detection Limit.
-------
collected for the three outlet runs during the burndown condition with an average
emission rate of 0.572 g/hr, with Pb having the next highest emission rate at 0.038 g/hr.
As with Ni, results for Ag also showed a negative removal efficiency for Run 2, with a
mass rate of 0.002 g/hr at the inlet and 0.004 g/hr at the outlet. Sample results for the
other metals showed positive removal efficiencies for Run 2, and therefore, sampling
error or analytical error is probably not the cause of these values. Other reasons which
could cause this value can not be given at this time.
Of the metals for which an average removal efficiency could be calculated, the
removal efficiencies for the burndown condition were generally higher than those for the
burn condition. Barium had an average removal efficiency of 68.6 percent during the
burn condition and an average of 89.7 percent during the burndown condition. Lead has
an average removal efficiency of 98.8 percent during the burn condition and 99.2 percent
for the burndown condition.
Flue gas mass rates of metals are presented as daily averages in Table 2-25.
Emission rates from the burn and burndown runs from each day were averaged on a
time weighted basis using the total minutes of burn and burndown incinerator operation.
(These durations were almost identical to the respective run sample times.)
2.3.4 Metals Flue Gas Concentrations
Metals concentrations, mass rates, and removal efficiencies are presented for each
run in Tables 2-26 through 2-31. Also shown for each run are the location, date, time,
O2 concentration, and flow rate. Flue gas concentrations are given in terms of ^g/dscm,
and //g/dscm corrected to 7 percent O2. Oxygen concentrations were calculated from
CEM data as shown in Section 2.7.
2.3.5 Flue Gas Metals to PM Ratios
A summary of the ratio of metals to PM for the burn condition is presented in
Table 2-32. Metals to PM ratios are given in units of milligrams of metal to grams of
PM collected by the sampling train. The inlet values range from 0.090 mg arsenic per
gram of PM during Run 1 to 362 mg Hg per gram of PM during Run 3. Lead had the
highest inlet ratios for Runs 1 and 5, with 77.8 and 113 mg metal/g PM, respectively.
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-25. DAILY AVERAGE TOXIC METALS FLUE GAS MASS RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONDITION
RUN NO,
LOCATION
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
DAY 1 AVERAGE
INLET
(g/br)
0.0361
0.0018
0.0105
[0.0001]
0.1063
0.0240
3.0363
0.7163
,0.0068
0.002
[0.0001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.0041
[0.0002]
0.0027
[0.00005]
0.0029
0.0037
0.0208
0.2598
0.0028
0.0060
[0.00005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
(%) ;
86.65
85.76
70.00
NA
96.01
82.16
99.30
63.76
23.30
-95.20
NA
DAY 2 AVERAGE
INLET
(g/hr)
0.0471
0.002
0.0544
[0.0001]
0.0898
0.0142
1.8941
4.2754
0.0052
0.003
[0.0001]
OUTLET
(g/hr)
0.0047
[0.0002]
0.0025
[0.00005]
0.0019
0.0032
0.0160
0.8152
0.0115
0.001
[0.00005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
(*)
84.02
>80.00
92.48
NA
95.01
77.53
98.71
81.36
-261.93
54.00
NA
DAY 3 AVERAGE
INLET
(g/ht)
0.0606
0.007
0.0274
[0.0001]
0.0827
0.0156
2.6294
0.4699
0.0153
0.0037
[0.0001]
OUTLET
(g/to)
0.0030
[0.0002]
0.0030
[0.00006]
0.0021
0.0029
0.0268
0.1118
0.0062
[0.0004]
[0.00005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
(*)
81.70
>97.1
70.63
NA
94.92
81.19
98.94
80.16
59.97
>88.6
NA
K)
NOTE: Emission rate averages were calculated using the the individual test run
values and weighting them by the respective incinerator burn and burndown durations.
-------
TABLE 2-26. METALS CONCENTRATIONS, EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR RUN 1 (BURN CONDITION)
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
LOCATION
DATE ' - - ' v V; :"
TIME
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)
Thallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7 % O2)
(g/hr)
INLET
03/05/91
09:50^16:49
8-80
25.8
15.0
17.3
0.023
0.718
0.825
0.001
4.52
5.20
0.007
[0.052]
[0.060]
[0.0001]
38.3
43.9
0.059
12.2
14.0
0.019
625
718
0.966
459
527
0.710
2.11
2.43
0.003
[0.313]
[0.360]
[0.0005]
[0.523]
[0.601]
[0.001]
OUTLET
03/05/91
09:47-16:49
17.6
38.7
1.75
7.37
0.004
[0.084]
[0.354]
[0.0002]
1.04
4.40
0.002
[0.021]
[0.088]
[0.00005]
1.58
6.64
0.004
2.20
9.26
0.005
2.82
11.9
0.007
104
436
0.241
1.81
7.63
0.004
3.14
13.2
0.007
[0.210]
[0.885]
[0.0005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (%)
82.5
> 80
65.3
NA
93.8
72.9
99.3
66.1
-28.9
NA
NA
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.
NA = Not applicable -^ ^o
-------
TABLE 2-27. METALS CONCENTRATIONS, EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR RUN 2 (BURNDOWN CONDITION)
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
LOCATION
DATEf - ^ ••••:••" •••"•//. v—x*.':
TIME
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)
Thallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
INLET
: 03/05/91
17:35-22:10
8.90
21.4.
41.2
47.7
0.053
2.08
2.40
0.003
11.7
13.6
0.015
[0.085]
[0.098]
[0.0001]
131
152
0.168
24.0
27.7
0.031
4478
5187
5.75
564
654
0.725
8.90
10.3
0.011
1.72
1.99
0.002
[0.852]
[0.987]
[0.001]
OUTLET
03/05/91
16:40-22:13
17.8
40.6
1.70
7.64
0.004
[0.098]
[0.439]
[0.0002]
1.03
4.62
0.003
[0.024]
[0.108]
[0.00005]
0.761
3.41
0.002
0.719
3.22
0.002
16.2
72.5
0.039
117
525
0.285
0.387
1.74
0.001
1.77
7.94
0.004
[0.244]
[1.094]
[0.001]
REMOVAL;
EFFICIENCY (%)
92.1
>93.3
80.1
NA
98.9
94.3
99.3
60.7
91.7
-95.2
--
NA
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.
NA = Not applicable 2 ^Q
-------
TABLE 2-28. METALS CONCENTRATIONS, EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR RUN 3 (BURN CONDITION)
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
LOCATION
DATE
TIME
O2 CONCENTRATION (#V)
FLOW RATE (dscmtn)
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)
INLET
03/07/91
09:32-16:30
9.60
20.7
12.5
15.3
0.016
[0.196]
[0.241]
[0.0002]
14.6
18.0
0.018
[0.049]
[0.060]
[0.0001]
18.5
22.8
0.023
10.2
12.5
0.013
516
634
0.642
2327
2862
2.897
2.46
3.02
0.003
2.34
2.88
0.003
[0.490]
[0.603]
[0.001]
OUTLET
03/07/91
09:32-16:30
17.1
34.9
1.68
6.15
0.004
[0.090]
[0.329]
[0.0002]
0.946
3.46
0.002
[0.022]
[0.080]
[0.00005]
0.870
3.18
0.002
1.33
4.87
0.003
5.38
19.7
0.011
245
898
0.514
9.03
33.0
0.019
0.640
2.34
0.001
[0.224]
[0.819]
[0.0005]
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (%)
77.3
NA
89.1
NA
92.1
78.0
98.2
82.3
-517.5
54.0
NA
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.
NA = Not applicable j ^,-.
-------
TABLE 2-29. METALS CONCENTRATIONS, EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR RUN 4 (BURNDOWN CONDITION)
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
LOCATION
DATE
TIME
O2 CONCENTRATION (»V)
I^WRATE80
97.0
NA
98.9
76.9
99.4
80.1
79.9
NA
NA
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.
NA = Not applicable
-------
TABLE 2-30. ME, _. j CONCENTRATIONS, EMISSION RATES . _ j REMOVAL
EFFICIENCffiS FOR RUN 5 (BURN CONDITION)
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
LOCATION
DATE
TIME
02 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)
Tiallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Note: Values enclosed In brackets repres
samples. Detection limits are not
NA = Not applicable
INLET
03/09/91
09:25-16:30
1L2
17.7
16.0
23.0
0.017
[0.557]
[0.798]
[0.001]
3.63
5.20
0.004
[0.060]
[0.086]
[0.0001]
15.6
22.3
0.017
13.6
19.4
0.014
742
1063
0.787
267
383
0.283
14.7
21.1
0.016
2.28
3.27
0.002
[0.602]
[0.863]
[0.001]
ent the minim^m detect
included in the averagei
OUTLET
03/09/91
09:25-16:30
17.3
37.8
2.37
9.15
0.005
[0.084]
[0.324]
[0.0002]
0.776
3.00
0.002
[0.021]
[0.081]
[0.00005]
0.547
2.11
0.001
1.22
4.71
0.003
3.73
14.4
0.008
15.2
58.9
0.035
3.42
13.2
0.008
[0.126]
[0.487]
[0.0003]
[0.211]
[0.815]
. [0.0005]
ion limits for compoum
s unless otherwise indie
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (%)
68.4
NA
54.4
NA
92.5
80.8
98.9
87.8
50.3
>85
NA
Is not detected in the
ated.
2-42
-------
z-Ji. MJiTALS CONCENTRATIONS, EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR RUN 6 (BURNDOWN CONDITION)
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
LOCATION
DATE .' "' :-.-:-,-••- •-'
TIME " ••••'•••• ••;:•••
02 CONCENTRATION (%V)
FLOW RATE (dscmm)
Antimony (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Jarium (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 @1% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dscm)
(ug/dscm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
INLET
03/09/91
16:31-2h44 I
8 60
. L 14,8
•'•:
''''•' ,'*•:•;' -.
133
150
0.118
8.24
9.31
0.007
65.6
74.1
0.058
[0.114]
[0.129]
[0.0001]
191
216
0.170
19.4
21.9
0.017
5674
6412
5.06
803
908
0.716
16.7
18.9
0.015
6.54
7.40
0.006
[1.145]
[1.294]
[0.001]
OUTLET
03709/91
16:44-2li46
:- /-:-"v:f":i7,4
_/;?,::/>::': 29,1.
[0.637]
[2.530]
[0.001]
[0.170]
[0.675]
[0.0002]
2.66
10.6
0.005
[0.042]
[0.167]
[0.00007]
1.80
7.15
0.003
1.81
7.20
0.003
29.1
116
0.051
122
486
0.214
2.33
9.26
0.004
[0.255]
[1.013]
[0.0004]
[0.425]
[1.688]
[0.001]
REMOVAL: 1
EFFICIENCY \%)
>99.2
>97.1
92.0
NA
98.1
81.7
99.0
70.1
72.7
>93.3
NA
samples. Detection limits are not included in the averages unless otherwise indicated.
NA = Not applicable 2-43
-------
TABLE 2-32. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE MATTER FOR BURN CONDITION
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
METALS/PARTICULATE RATIO
{mg metal per gram of paniculate)
LOCATION
RUN NUMBER
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
INLET
'vM^-;'Run t
1.874
0.090
0.564
a ND
4.769
1.519
77.899
57.228
0.263
ND
ND
Run 3
1.942
ND
2.274
ND
2.888
1.588
80.283
362.366
0.383
0.364
ND
Run 5
2.447
ND
0.555
ND
2.378
2.072
113.307
40.791
2.247
0.349
ND
Average
2.053
0.035
1.134
ND
3.486
1.693
88.369
154.948
0.845
0.217
ND
OUTLET
Runt
b NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
Run 3
1.631
ND
0.919
ND
0.845
1.293
5.223
238.178
8.760
0.621
ND
Run5
1.795
ND
0.588
ND
0.415
0.925
2.830
1 1 .554
2.594
ND
ND
Average
2.490
ND
1.183
ND
1.284
2.038
5.069
152.216
5.983
1.632
ND
N)
a ND = Metal not detected in the flue gas.
b NA = Not applicable, paniculate matter was not detected in this sample.
-------
Outlet values range from 0.415 mg Cd per gram of PM during Run 5 to 238 mg
Hg per gram of PM during Run 3. There was no measurable amount of PM collected
during Run 1 and ratios for that run were not calculated.
Table 2-33 presents a summary of the ratio by weight of metals to PM for the
burndown condition. Inlet values range from 0.036 mg As per gram of PM to 174 mg
Hg per gram of PM. Lead had the highest ratios for Runs 2 and 6 with 138 and 67 mg
per gram of PM, respectively. Values at the outlet range from 0.824 mg Ni per gram of
PM to 624 mg Hg per gram of PM. Mercury had the highest ratios for all three runs at
the outlet.
A comparison of the metals to PM ratios at the outlet to those at the inlet is
given in Table 2-34. The values were calculated by dividing the outlet metal to PM ratio
by the inlet metal to PM ratio. A number close to 1 would indicate no relative change
in the proportion of metals in the flue gas paniculate across the APCD. A number less
than 1, or high inlet metal to PM versus low outlet metal to PM, indicates higher
removal of the metals in the gas stream than its associated PM. Values greater than 1
indicate less removal of the metals species compared to its associated PM. There can
also be other interpretations of the data as well.
There appears to be a distinct difference between the burn and burndown outlet
to inlet ratios. The average burn outlet to inlet values are mostly less than 1, whereas
the burndown values with the exception of Pb, are all greater than 1. This difference
may reflect the higher inlet PM loading during burndown coupled with high removal
efficiency of non-metal containing PM.
2.3.6 Flue Gas Metals by Sample Fraction and Flue Gas Sample Parameters
Table 2-35 presents the metals amounts in the inlet flue gas samples by sample
fraction for the burn and burndown conditions. The highest proportion of Hg was
consistently collected in the nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide impingers (Impingers 1-3). All
of the other metals, except Ni in Run 5 and Sb in Run 6, were collected in the highest
proportions in the front half (filter, nozzle/probe rinse).
The metals amounts in the outlet flue gas samples are presented in Table 2-36 by
sample fraction. As at the inlet, the highest proportion of Hg was consistently collected
in the nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide impingers. All of the other metals were collected in
dkd.176 2-45
-------
TABLE 2-33. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE MATTER FOR BURNDOWN CONDITION
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
f METALS/PARTICULATE RATIO
J (mg metal per gram of paniculate)
LOCATION
RUN NUMBER
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
INLET
Run 2
1.266
0.064
0.361
a ND
4.023
0.736
137.631
17.347
0.273
0.053
ND
Run 4
2.536
0.036
2.916
ND
5.078
0.460
101.232
173.570
0.220
ND
ND
Run 6
1.575
0.098
0.779
ND
2.266
0.230
67.418
9.544
0.199
0.078
ND
:.
Average
1.711
0.075
1.152
ND
3.364
0.415
93.522
48.681
0.223
0.054
ND
OUTLET
Run 2
4.401
ND
2.662
ND
1.964
1.856
41.731
301.964
1.000
4.569
NA
Run 4
3.224
ND
1.598
ND
0.994
1.916
1 1 .426
623.821
0.824
ND
ND
Run 6
ND
ND
1.249
ND
0.845
0.851
13.656
57.380
1.094
ND
ND
Average
1.739
ND
1.587
ND
1.072
1.353
17.431
278.264
0.992
0.731
ND
N>
a ND = Metal not detected in the flue gas.
-------
TABLE 2-34. COMPARISON OF OUTLET TO INLET METALSfPM RATIOS FOR BURN AND BURN DOWN CONDITIONS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
(OUTLET METALS/PM)/aNLET METALS fPM)
RUN I
NA a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RUN 3
0.84
b ND
0.40
ND
0.29
0.81
0.07
0.66
22.88
1.70
ND
RUNS
0,73
ND
1.06
ND
0.17
0.45
0.02
0.28
1.15
ND
ND
AVERAGE
BURN
0.79
ND
0.73
ND
0.23
0.63
0.05
0.47
12.02
0.85
ND
' (OUTLET METALS/PM)/(INLET METALS fi»M)
RUNZ
3.48
ND
7.38
ND
0.49
2.52
0.30
17.41
3.66
86.39
ND
RUN 4
1.27
ND
0.55
ND
0.20
4.16
0.11
3.59
3.75
ND
ND
RUN 6
ND
ND
1.60
ND
0.37
3.69
0.20
6.01
5.50
ND
ND
AVERAGE
BURNDOWN
2.37
ND
3.18
ND
0.35
3.46
0.21
9.00
4.30
86.39
ND
(-J
-L
a The amount of PM collected during Run 1 was not measureable.
b ND = metal not detected in the sample.
-------
TABLE 2-35. METALS AMOUNTS IN INLET FLUE GAS SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRAi
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
•CM
:-— .r -••:;;,••-.-:- • BURN
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUHKtotelwg)
FRONT
HALF
19.9
1.51
8.95
[0.250]
80.0
22.2
1312
11.4
3.98
[1.500]
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1,2,3 $ :
11.7
b [0.438]
0.559
[0.110]
0.406
3.41
1.38
947
0.460
[0.658]
[1.100]
IMPINGER
4,5,6*
6.47
RUN 3 (total ug)
FRONT
HALF
22.9
[1.000]
32.4
[0.250]
41.2
21.5
1156
8.48
4.88
5.25
[1.250]
IMPINOERS
1,2,3
5.09
[0.440]
0.374
[0.110]
0.418
1.38
0.876
5208
0.638
[0.660]
[1.100]
IMPINGER
4,5.6
5.21
RUN 5 (total v*
FRONT
HALF
20.6
[1.000]
5.85
[0.250]
27.0
17.5
1330
[2.450]
7.6
4.10
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1,2,3
8.15
[2.000]
0.667
[0.108]
0.936
6.85
1.36
478
18.8
[0.645]
[1.080]
),
IMPWoi
~J£L
u
BURNDOWN
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUN 2 (total ng)
FRONT ;
. .HALF-*!
48.5
2.63
14.4
[0.250]
164
28.8
5672
[2.450]
9.98
2.18
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1,2,3
3.67
[0.433]
0.466
[0.108]
1.831
1.55
1.15
713
1.29
[0.650]
[1.080]
IMPINGER
4,5,6
2.03
RUN 4 (total ug)
FRONT
HALF
75.5
1.29
103
[0.250]
180.0
14.0
3588
2.50
6.90
[1.500]
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
L2.3
14.4
[0.445]
0.367
[0.111]
[0.222]
2.32
0.663
6148
0.900
[0.667]
[1.110]
IMPINGER:
4.S.&
2.57
RUK6(totaiug] j
FRONT
HALF
58.5
6.95
61.9
[0.250]
181
17.1
5400
9.65
15.6
6.23
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1.2,3
67.7
0.892
0.534
[0.109]
0.556
1.36
1.52
755
0.338
[0.654]
[1.090]
IMPINGE
4&1
[O.ffl
a Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits for compounds not detected in the samples.
b Impingers 4, 5, 6 analyzed for mercury content only.
2-48
-------
TABLE 2-36. METALS AMOUNTS IN OUTLET FLUE GAS SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
BURN
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
barium
3ery Ilium
Cadmium
Chromium
-ead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
RUN! (total ug
FRONT
HALF
8.75
[1.000]
4.70
[0.250]
3.93
10.1
13.0
3.70
8.38
15.7
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
"V' i;2,rv:-
b[ 1.580]
[0.420]
0.515
[0.105]
3.952
0.883
1.11
465
0.673
[-631]
[1.050]
).....,;. : . •-,
IMPJNGER
4,5,6 a
48.7
RUN 3 (totd tig)
FRONT
HALF
7.88
[1.000]
4.08
[0.250]
4.08
5.45
24.6
3.10
38.0
3.00
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1,2,3
[1.570]
[0.420]
0.357
[0.105]
[0.210]
0.797
0.626
1061
4.31
[0.630]
[1.050]
IMPINGER
4,5.6
86.3
RUNS (total «g}
FRONT
HALF
11.9
[1.000]
3.9
[0.250]
2.75
6.13
18.2
[2.450]
17.2
[1.500]
[1.250]
IMPINGERS;
1,2.3
[1.590]
[0.423]
[0.106]
[0.106]
[0.211]
[0.634]
0.560
57.8
[0.317]
[0.634]
[1.060]
IMPINGER
4.5.6
18.8
BURNDOWN
METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SUver
Thallium
RUN 2 (total tig)
FRONT
HALF
7.35
[1.000]
4.15
[0.250]
3.28
2.00
68.5
[2.450]
[0.750]
7.63
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1.2.3
[1.580]
[0.422]
0.295
[0.105]
[0.211]
1.10
1.19
499
1.67
[0.632]
[1.050]
IMPINGER
4.5,6
5.28
RUN 4 (total tig)
FRONT
HALF
10.8
[1.000]
5.15
[0.250]
3.33
4.78
37.5
[2.450]
2.43
[1.500]
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1.2,3
[1.600]
[0.426]
0.203
[0.107]
[0.213]
1.64
0.777
2061
0.331
[0.640]
[1.070]
IMPINGER
4.5.6
28.8
RUN6(totelt»g)
FRONT
HALF
[3.750]
[1.000]
6.48
[0.250]
4.58
3.55
73.3
[2.450]
5.93
[1.500]
[1.250]
IMPINGERS
1.2,3
[1.620]
[0.433]
0.292
[0.108]
[0.216]
1.06
0.717
298
[0.325]
[0.649]
[1.080]
IMPINGER
4.5,6
13.0
i Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits for compounds not detected in the samples.
b Impingers 4, 5, 6 analyzed for mercury content only.
2-49
-------
the highest proportions in the front half fraction, except for Cd in Run 1 (3.95 ^g in the
back half versus 3.93 /ig in the front half). Laboratory analytical results for each sample
fraction are presented in detail in Appendix E.2.
Sampling and flue gas parameters for the PM/metals runs at the inlet are shown
in Table 2-37, and Table 2-38 presents the parameters for the runs at the outlet. Total
sampling times, sample volumes, and isokinetic results for each sampling run are
presented. Three out of the twelve metals runs did not meet the isokenitic criterion of
being within 10 percent of 100 percent. This is further discussed in Section 6.
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.
2.3.7 Metals in Ash and Absorber Water
A sample of the incinerator bottom ash was collected the following afternoon
after each test day. The test day 1 sample includes flue gas Runs 1 and 2, test day 2
includes Runs 3 and 4, and test day 3 includes Runs 5 and 6. Each sample represented
the ash generated for both the burn and burndown conditions. The metals of interest
were the same as those sampled for in the flue gas. Concentrations of the metals in the
ash in units of mg/kg were determined by extracting the metals from 1 gram of ash in
100 ml of extraction fluid. The analyses were then completed as discussed in Section 5.
The metals in ash results are shown in Table 2-39. Chromium was the most
prevalent metal in the ash from Day 1 with 1,087 mg/kg. Later days showed Cr values
much lower at 394 and 573 mg/kg for Day 2 and 3, respectively. Barium showed the
highest concentration of metals in the ash from Days 2 and 3, with 5,694 and 5,394
mg/kg, respectively. Silver was detected in the pretest ash sample, but not in the run
samples. Thallium and Hg were not detected in any of the ash samples. Analytical
results of the ash analyses are contained in Appendix E.2.
Table 2-40 shows the mass of each metal removed from the incinerator in the ash
stream.
Table 2-41 presents the metals concentrations in the absorber water. Water solids
concentrations is also included.
dkd.176 2-50
-------
TABLE 2-37. METALS/PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS
PARAMETERS AT INLET; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
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 ?t
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
BURN CONDITION
Run 1
03/05/91
375
0.20
74.21
2.102
1171
8.8
7.5
9.0
910
25.77
90.9
Ron 3
03/07/91
403
0.20
79.22
2.244
1195
9.6
5.9
10.8
733
20.75
111
Run 5
03/09/91
418
0.15
63.4
1.795
1183
11.2
5.1
9.6
625
17.69
101
AVERAGE
NA
0.18
72.28
2.047
1183
9.9
6.2
9.8
756
21.40
NA
< BURNDOWN CONDITION f;f
Run 2
03/05/91
250
0.18
44.74
1.267
1108
8.9
8.9
8.0
756
21.40
99.0
Run 4
03/07/91
311
0.11
33.07
0.936
1130
10.3
6.3
10.2
548
15.52
81.1
Run 6
03/09/91
305
0.11
33.63
0.952
1228
8.6
7.7
6.5
524
14.85
87.1
AVERAGE
NA
0.13
37.15
1.052
1155
9.3
7.6
8.3
609
17.26
NA
NA = Not applicable.
2-51
-------
TABLE 2-38. METALS/PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS
PARAMETERS AT OUTLET; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscftn)
VIetered Volume (dscf)
vIetered 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
BURN CONDITION
Run 1
03/05/91
415^
0.43
176.47
4.998
181
17.6
1.8
15.8
1368
38.74
96.4
Run 3
03/07/91
404
0.41
165.54
4.688
192
17.1
2.2
16.2
1232
34.90
103
Run 5
03/09/91
419
0.42
177.41
5.024
176
17.3
2.2
13.2
1333
37.75
100
AVERAGE
NA
0.42
173.14
4.903
183
17.3
2.1
15.0
1311
37.13
NA
BURNDOWN CONDITION
Run 2
03/05/91
321
0.47
152.22
1.311
187
17.8
1.9
13.92
1434
40.60
103
Rutx4
03/07/91
305
0.39
118.72
3.362
193
17.5
2.1
14.65
1153
32.66
105
Run 6
03/09/91
295
0.3
89.84
2.544
180
17.4
2.4
11.95
1028
29.12
93.3
AVERAGE
NA
0.39
120.26
2.406
186
17.6
2.1
13.5
1205
34.13
NA
NA = Not applicable
2-52
-------
TABLE 2-39. METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
Sample
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Pretest Ash
(mg/kg)
638
10.8
927
0.37
11.9
123
867
[9.80]
29.7
2.28
[1.50]
Day 1
(mg/kg)
290
[4.46]
416
1.14
64.8
1087
678
[9.80]
96
[1.20]
[1.50]
Day 2
(mg/kg)
660
5.37
5694
2.46
39.4
394
1093
[9.80]
53.4
[1.20]
[1.50]
Day 3
(mg/kg)
604
[4.00]
5394
2.76
35
573
931
[9.80]
111
[1.20]
[1.50]
Average
Days 1,2,3
(mg/kg)
518
5.37
3835
2.12
46.4
685
901
[9.80]
86.8
[1.20]
[1.50]
NOTES:
-Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits
for samples not detected in the samples.
-Day 1 = Runs 1,2; Day 2 = Runs 3,4; Day 3 = Runs 5,6.
2-53
-------
TABLE 2-40. METALS DAILY DISCHARGE RATES IN THE ASH STREAM;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
Sample
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
LBS ASH
Day 1
(grams/day)
9.25
[0.14]
13.27
0.04
2.07
34.68
21.63
[0.313]
3.06
[0.038]
[0.048]
70.34
Day 2
(grams/day)
28.40
0.23
245.02
0.11
1.70
16.95
47.03
[0.422]
2.30
[0.052]
[0.065]
94.87
Day 3
(grams/day)
16.53
[0.11]
147.66
0.08
0.96
15.69
25.49
[0.268]
3.04
[0.033]
[0.041]
60.35
AVERAGE
(grams/day)
18.06
0.23
135.32
0.07
1.57
22.44
31.38
[0.334]
2.80
[0.041]
[0.051]
75.20
Note: Values enclosed in brackets represent the minimum detection limits
for compounds not detected in samples.
NA = Not applicable
2-54
-------
TABLE 2.41. METALS AND SOLIDS IN ABSORBER MAKE-UP AND DISCHARGE WATER;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
K>
Ui
Sample
Test Day
Date x:.".. :'"::: •
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Solids (mg/l)
Make-up Water
Pre-test
03/03/91
(ug/l) a
[7.50] b
[2.00]
1.75
[0.50]
[12.0]
[3.00]
[1.50]
[1.96]
[1.50]
[3.00]
[2.50]
NDc
Day!
03/05/91
(Ug/l)
[7.50]
[2.00]
1.95
[0.50]
[12.0]
[3.00]
2.62
[1.96]
[1.50]
[3.00]
[2.50]
ND
Day 2
03/07/91
(ug/l)
[7.50]
[2.00]
2.00
[0.50]
[12.0]
[3.00]
[1.50]
[1.96]
[1.50]
[3.00]
[2.50]
49.0
Day 3
03/09/91
(ug/l)
[7.50]
[2.00]
3.05
[0.50]
[12.0]
[3.00]
5.40
[1.96]
[1.50]
[3.00]
[2.50]
29.0
; Discharge Water
Pre-test
03/03/91
(ug/l)
[7.50]
[2.00]
5.20
[0.50]
[12.0]
[3.00]
36.3
251
[1.50]
[3.00]
[2.50]
ND
Dayl
03/05/91
(ug/l)
[7.50]
[2.00]
5.30
[0.50]
18.4
3.80
86.5
636
[1.50]
[3.00]
[2.50]
1656
Day 2
03/07/91
(ug/l)
[7.50]
[2.00]
3.70
[0.50]
[12.0]
3.50
59.0
286
3.20
[3.00]
[2.50]
459
Day 3
03/09/91
(ug/l)
[7.50]
[2.00]
3.25
[0.50]
[12.0]
[3.00]
15.4
65.8
[1.50]
[3.00]
[2.50]
36.0
a Concentrations are in ug of metal per liter of water
b Values enclosed in brackets represent minimum detection limits for metals not detected in the samples
c ND = non detects
-------
2.4 PARTICULATE MATTER/VISIBLE EMISSIONS
2.4.1 Particulate Matter Results
Particulate matter emissions were determined from the same sampling train as used
for metals determinations. Before metals analysis, PM collected on the filter and in the
front half acetone rinse (probe, nozzle, filter holder) was analyzed gravimetrically as
discussed in Section 5.
The average PM stack gas concentrations and mass rates for the inlet runs and
outlet runs, for both the burn and burndown conditions, are presented in Table 242.
Uncorrected concentrations and concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown.
Removal efficiencies, based on the mass rates at the inlet and outlet, for both test
conditions, are also shown. The average concentration and average mass rate at the
inlet were higher for the burndown condition than for the bum condition (0.052 g/dscm
and 0.051 kg/hr versus 0.007 g/dscm and 0.0091 kg/hr). The average concentration and
emission rate at the outlet did not vary as much for the two test conditions
(0.0012 g/dscm and 0.0022 kg/hr for burndown condition, 0.00078 g/dscm and
0.0017 kg/hr for burn condition). The removal efficiency for the burndown condition
was 95.7 percent compared to a removal efficiency of 64.8 percent for the bum
condition.
Particulate matter concentrations, emission rates, and removal efficiencies_for the
individual runs during the burn condition are summarized in Table 2-43. There was no
measurable amount of PM collected at the outlet during Run 1. Run 5 showed the
highest PM concentration and emission rate at the outlet with 0.0013 g/dscm and
0.0030 kg/hr, respectively. Removal efficiencies ranged from 56.9 percent for Run 5 to
72.7 percent for Run 3.
Table 2-44 shows the PM concentrations, emission rates, and removal efficiencies
for the runs during the burn condition. Run 2 has the lowest concentration and emission
rate at the outlet with 0.00039 g/dscm and 0.0009 kg/hr, respectively. Run 6 outlet had
the highest concentration and emission rate at 0.0021 g/dscm and 0.0037 kg/hr,
respectively.
A brief summary of the sampling and flue gas parameters for the PM runs was
given in Tables 2-37 and 2-38. Appendix C.2 presents a detailed listing of the
dkd.176 2-56
-------
TABLE 2-42. AVERAGE PARTICIPATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS,
EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST CONDITIONS
CONCENTRATIONS
grains/dscf
grains/dscf @ 7 % O2
grams/dscm
grams/dscm @ 7 % O2
EMISSION RATES
(Ib/hr)
(kg/hr)
BURN 4
INLET
AVERAGE
0.0031
0.0039
0.0070
0.0088
0.020
0.0091
OUTLET
AVERAGE
0.00034
0.0013
0.00078
0.0030
0.0038
0.0017
REMOVAL
EFF. (%)a
64.8
BURNDOWN
INLET
AVERAGE
0.023
0.027
0.052
0.061
0.112
0.051
OUTLET
AVERAGE
0.00051
0.0021
0.0012
0.0048
0.0049
0.0022
REMOVAL
EFF.(%)
95.7
a = Average removal efficiency calculated from individual test run values,
which are based on PM emissions rates (see Tables 2-43 & 2-44)
-------
TABLE 2-43. PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS FOR BURN CONDITION;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE LOCATION
03/05/91 INLET
03/07/91 INLET
03/09/91 INLET
03/05/91 OUTLET
03/07/91 OUTLET
03/09/91 OUTLET
RUN
NUMBER
1
3
5
1
3
5
TIME
09:50-16:49
09:32-16:30
09:25-16:30
AVERAGES
09:47-16:49
09:32-16:30
09:25-16:30
AVERAGES
FLUE GAS CONCENTRATION
(grains/dscf) {grain$/4scf (grams/dscm) (gnuus/dscm
@7%O2) <&7%O2)
0.0035 0.0040
0.0028 0.0035
0.0029 0.0041
0.0031 0.0039
NA NA
0.00045 0.0016
0.00058 0.0022
0.00052 0.0019
0.0080 0.0092
0.0064 0.0079
0.0065 0.0094
0.0070 0.0088
NA NA
0.0010 0.0038
0.0013 0.0051
0.0012 0.0044
FLUE GAS EMISSION RATE
(Ib/hr) (kg/hr)
0.027 0.012
0.018 0.0080
0.015 0.0069
0.020 0.0091
NA NA
0.0048 0.0022
0.0066 0.0030
0.0057 0.0026
a REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY (%)
NA
72.7
56.9
64.8
K)
<^>
00
NA = Not applicable, participate matter was not detected in this sample.
a = Removal efficiency is based on inlet and outlet emission rates. {(1-out/in)* 100}
-------
TABLE 2-44. PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS FOR BURNDOWN CONDITION;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE LOCATION
03/05/91 INLET
03/07/91 INLET
03/09/91 INLET
03/05/91 OUTLET
03/07/91 OUTLET
03/09/91 OUTLET
RUN
NUMBER
2
4
6
2
4
6
•„.:,.. TIME :;
17:35-22:10
16:35-21:57
16:31-21:44
AVERAGES
16:49-22:13
16:34-22:00
16:44-21:46
AVERAGES
FLUE GAS CONCENTRATION
(grains/dscf) (grain$/dscf (gifaras/dsctn) (grams/dsctn
@75SO2) @7%O2)
0.014 0.016
0.017 0.022
0.037 0.042
0.023 0.027
0.00017 0.00076
0.00044 0.0018
0.00093 0.0037
0.00051 0.0021
0.033 0.038
0.038 0.050
0.084 0.095
0.052 0.061
0.00039 0.0017
0.0010 0.0041
0.0021 0.0085
0.0012 0.0048
FLUE GAS EMISSION RATE
(lb/hr)
-------
parameters for each sampling run. Appendix E.2 shows the gravimetric PM analytical
results.
2.4.2 Visible Emissions
The opacity of emissions from the stack were determined visually by a qualified
observer following EPA Method 9 protocol. Sets of observations were recorded typically
for 1 hour durations, separated by 10 to 15 minute intervals for observer breaks. Data
was recorded for 6 hours on Day 1, 5 hours on Day 2, and 6 hours on Day 3.
Observations were curtailed each day at approximately 1700 hours due to darkness and
were therefore only taken during a partial period of the burndown test duration.
Observations were recorded at 15-second intervals to the nearest 5 percent
opacity. Rolling 6 minute averages of the 15-second field observations were calculated
by taking the average of each 15-second observation and the 23 previous readings.
Table 2-45 presents a summary of the highest 15-second observation and highest
6 minute average for each observation set. The highest 6 minute average recorded on
Day 1 and Day 2 was 1 percent, while the Day 3 high was 4 percent.
2.5 HALOGEN GAS EMISSIONS
Hydrogen chloride, HF, and HBr gas concentrations were manually sampled at
the inlet and at the stack, following EPA Method 26 procedures. In this method, flue
gas was extracted from the sample location 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.
Testing was conducted on three test days at the operating conditions described
previously.
2.5.1 Halogen Gas Emissions Results
Table 2-46 presents a summary of HC1 inlet and outlet concentrations and
emission rates and presents the HC1 removal efficiency for the absorber system. Twenty
runs were completed, 12 runs during the burn cycle and 8 runs during the burndown
cycle. The removal efficiency for Run IB could not be calculated because the inlet and
outlet sampling was not conducted at the same time. One sample for Run 5B was
recovered improperly and, therefore, a HC1 removal efficiency could not be calculated.
The HC1 removal efficiencies ranged from 45.9 percent to 97.5 percent.
2-60
-------
TABLE 2-45. PERCENT OPACITY OBSERVATIONS SUMMARY;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
Test
Day
Day 1
(03/05/91)
Day 2
(03/07/91)
Day 3
(03/09/91)
Observation
Set
M9-01
M9-02
M9-03
M9-04
M9-05
M9-06
M9-07
M9-08
M9-09
M9-10
M9-11
M9-12
M9-13
M9-14
M9-15
M9-16
M9-17
M9-18
M9-20
Time
0942-1042
1056-1156
1214-1314
1354-1438
1448-1548
1600-1700
1705-1720
0931-1008
1056-1156
1211-1311
1348-1448
1453-1603
1614-1714
0920-1020
1031-1131
1207-1307
1318-1418
1444-1544
1603-1703
Condition
'•":-:'-":'a
Burn
Burn
Burn
Burn
Burn
Bum
Burndown
Bum
Burn
Burn
Burn
Burn
Burndown
Burn
Burn
Burn
Burn
Burn
Burndown
Highest
15 second
Observation
{% Opacity)
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
5
5
0
0
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
Highest
6 mir^tg
Average
(% Opacity)
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
3
3
4
3
3
a Opacity readings could only be taken during the first part of the burndown condition
due to darkness.
2-61
-------
Table 2-46. HYDROGEN CHLORIDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
HCt
RUN NO
1
1B
1C
1D
AVG
2A
2B
AVG
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVG
4A
4B
4C
AVG
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVG
6A
6B
6C
AVG
DATE
3/5/91
3/5/91
3/5/91
3/5/91
3/5/91
3/5/91
3/7/91
3/7/91
3/7/91
3/7/91
3/7/91
3/7/91
3/7/91
3/9/91
3/9/91
3/9/91
3/9/91
3/9/91
3/9/91
3/9/91
CONDmON
BURN
BURN
BURN
BURN
BURNDOWN
BURNDOWN
BURN
BURN
BURN
BURN
BURNDOWN
BURNDOWN
BURNDOWN
BURN
BURN
BURN
BURN
BURNDOWN
BURNDOWN
BURNDOWN
INLET
SAMPLING • 1GAS EMISSION
TIME ; CONC, RATE
1 (ppmV) (fb/hr)
09:56-11:26 39.9 0.184
12:43-13:43 43.4 0.200
14:21-15:51 122.6 0.566
16:20-16:49 99.6 0.428
76.3 0.345
17:45-19:55 403.0 1.731
19:23-20:53 30.8 0.132
216.9 0.932
09:31-11:01 18.3 0.073
11:12-12:42 50.4 0.200
12:53-14:23 155.8 0.618
14:35-16:05 117.5 0.466
85.5 0.339
16:59-18:29 216.0 0.743
18:42-20:12 198.4 0.682
20:20-21:57 178.0 0.612
197.5 0.679
09:43-11:13 21.0 0.079
11:33-13:03 9.4 0.036
13:19-14:49 92.9 0.352
5:08-16:28 133.8 0.507
64.3 0.243
7:03-18:33 272.1 0.818
8:48-20:18 262.3 0.789
20:26-21:44 378.9 1.140
304.4 0.916
OUTLET
SAMPLING GAS EMISSION
TIME CONC, RATE
-------
Table 2-47 provides a summary of the HC1 results at the inlet. Concentrations
are reported in mg/dscm and parts per million by volume/dry (ppmv), both at measured
conditions and corrected to a 7 percent O2 basis.
Average values for the burn periods were similar, ranging from 87 to 158 ppmv at
7 percent O2. Likewise, average HC1 values for the burndown periods were similar,
ranging from 236 to 367 ppmv at 7 percent O2.
Table 2-48 shows the HC1 results at the outlet (stack) for the same test periods
shown in the previous table. The average HC1 during a test period at the outlet
varied from a low of 12 ppmv at 7 percent O2 during a burn period to 111 ppmv at
7 percent O2 during a burndown period.
Data from Tables 2-47 and 2-48 were used to generate the HC1 removal
efficiencies in Table 2-46.
Table 2-49 summarizes the HF results at the inlet. Measurable quantities of HF
were found in only 1 out of 20 runs (Run 14 during Day 3 burndown period). A
concentration of approximately 3 ppmv at 7 percent O2 was calculated for this run. All
other values shown in brackets represent minimum detection limits for HF.
Table 2-50 presents the HF results at the outlet. As shown, no measurable
quantities of HF were found in any of the test runs. All the values shown in the brackets
represent minimum detection limits.
Table 2-51 provides the HBr results at the inlet for all runs conducted at the
Jordan Hospital MWI. Measurable quantities of HBr were found in only 1 out of 20 test
runs. A concentration of 0.05 ppmv at 7 percent O2 was detected for Run 9 (during the
burn period on Day 2). The calculated values for this run are shown in parenthesis to
signify that these values are less than five times the detection limit in the analytical
laboratory.
A summary of the HBr results is presented in Table 2-52. Very small amounts
were detected in 2 out of 20 runs (Run 8 and Run 9 during the burn period on Day 2).
Even though these values are above five times the detection limit, they are under 1 ppmv
at 7 percent O2 and are, therefore, insignificant. All other values shown in brackets
represent detection limits.
dkd.176
2-63
-------
TABLE 2-47. SUMMARY OF HC1 RESULTS AT THE INLET;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
HQ TEST
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
ID
AVERAGE
2A
2B
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVERAGE
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
60.5
65.7
185.9
150.9
115.7
610.9
46.6
328.8
27.8
76.5
236.2
178.2
194.4
327.6
300.8
269.8
299.4
31.81
14.2
140.9
202.9
97.3
412.5
397.7
574.5
461.5
(mg/dscm
@7S£O2)
65.2
75.5
228.6
189.0
139.6
653.2
61.1
357.2
32.5
90.1
285.6
223.1
238.9
367.2 .
394.5
364.1
375.3
68.025
18.5
179.6
261.1
131.5
374.7
536.7
760.5
557.3
(ppmv)
39.9
43.4
122.6
99.6
76.3
403.0
30.8
216.9
18.3
50.4
155.8
117.5
128,2
216.1
198.4
178.0
••'••: •;..'&?iyj;$
20.982
9.4
92.9
133.8
•;:•.-. :*-:;;64.2
272.1
262.3
378.9
304.4
(ppmv
@7% O2)
43.0
49.8
150.8
124.7
92.1
430.9
40.3
235.6
21.4
59.4
188.4
147.2
157.6
242.2
260.2
240.2
247.5
44.870
12.2
118.5
172.3
86.7
247.2
354.0
501.7
367.6
EMISSION RATES
<9/hr) {Ib/tVt
83.5
90.8
256.7
194.0
156.3
785.4
59.9
422.7
33.0
90.8
280.4
211.4
230.7
336.8
309.4
277.5
: ; ::; 307.9
36.054
16.1
159.7
230.0
1103
371.2
357.9
517.1
415.4
0.184
0.200
0.566
0.428
D345
1.731
0.132
0.932
0.073
0.200
0.618
0.466
0,500
0.743
0.682
0.612
$,679
0.0795
0.036
0.352
0.507
0.243
0.818
0.789
1.140
0.916
2-64
-------
TABLE 2-48. SUMMARY OF HC1 RESULTS AT THE OUTLET (STACK);
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
HC1 TEST
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
ID
AVERAGE
2A
2B
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVERAGE ;
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
4.12
5.19
5.76
8.68
5.94
47.82
7.94
27.88
3.84
6.16
21.71
9.73
10.36
40.39
49.50
38.48
42,79
8.48
NC
4.86
6.20
:v;^;m51
15.16
10.45
7.16
10.92
(mg/dscm
<®7%O2)
15.47
20.62
26.68
38.91
& :> 25.42
207.70
38.07
122.88
12.12
21.96
86.24
38.63
; f 39.74
160.41
208.52
137.14
168.69
22.36
NC
13.70
17.49
•S'K.::;:::,.17:85
39.53
26.75
18.97
: 28.42
(ppmv)
;
2.72
3.43
3.80
5.72
3.92
31.54
5.24
18.39
2.53
4.06
14.32
6.42
6.83
26.64
32.65
25.38
28.22
5.59
NC
3.20
4.09
4.30
10.00
6.89
4.73
•.-. ., 7.21
(ppmv
<&7#O2)
10.21
13.60
17.60
25.66
16.77
137.00
25.11
: s: 81.05
7.99
14.49
56.88
25.48
26.21
105.81
137.54
90.46
111.27
14.75
NC
9.03
11.54
11.77
26.07
17.65
12.51
18.74
EMISSION RATES
fe/hr)
-------
TABLE 2-49. SUMMARY OF HF RESULTS AT THE INLET;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
AVERAGE
2A
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVERAGE
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
[0.4448]
[0.6348]
[0.4368]
; [0,505]
[1.1489]
[0.4339]
[0.4098]
: £0,6642]
[0.4408]
[0.4328]
[0.4680]
[0.4419]
[0.445]
[0.5119]
[0.4520]
[0.3990]
10^54]
1.165
[0.4430]
[0.4430]
[0.4680]
: 1.165
[0.4169]
[0.4312]
[0.4792]
[0.442]
(mg/dscm
@1% 02)
[0.4788]
[0.7288]
[0.5368]
PUSH
[1.4389]
[0.4639]
[0.5368]
JP. 8132];
[0.5148]
[0.5098]
[0.5660]
[0.5529]
[0-5351
[0.5739]
[0.5930]
[0.5380]
flU$«}
2.491
[0.5750]
[0.5650]
[0.6020]
: ; 2.491
[0.3789]
[0.5822]
[0.6342]
; [0.531]
(ppmv)
[0.5348]
[0.7628]
[0.5248]
1 [0.607J
[1.3809]
[0.5219]
[0.4928]
:t!P.7985]!
[0.5298]
[0.5198]
[0.5630]
[0.5309]
[0^35]
[0.6149]
[0.5430]
[0.4800]
PU46J
1.400
[0.5330]
[0.5330]
[0.5630]
1.400
[0.5009]
[0.5182]
[0.5762]
f [01531]
(ppmv i
<&!% 02):
[0.5758]
[0.8758]
[0.6458]
f|i[pr698]
[1.7289]
[0.5579]
[0.6458]
ffp.9775]|
[0.6188]
[0.6118]
[0.6800]
[0.6649]
[0.643]
[0.6889]
[0.7120]
[0.6480]
IQ,6«3]
2.995
[0.6920]
[0.6800]
[0.7250]
2.995
[0.4549]
[0.6992]
[0.7632]
[0.639]
EMISSION RATE
-------
TABLE 2-50. SUMMARY OF HF RESULTS AT THE OUTLET;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
AVERAGE
2A
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVERAGE
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
[0.2579]
[0.2438]
[0.2218]
[0.240]
[0.7188]
[0.2216]
[0.2216]
4 £0.38731
[0.2198]
[0.2198]
[0.2199]
[0.2258]
! ;[Q-22i]
[0.2048]
[0.2699]
[0.2008]
[0,224]
[0.2401]
[0.2138]
[0.2188]
[0.2391]
[0.228]
[0.2239]
[0.2228]
[0.2428]
[0.229]
(mg/dscm
@7% O2)
[0.9659]
[0.9658]
[1.0248]
[0,985]
[3.2198]
[0.9606]
[0.9606]
[1.7137]
[0.6928]
[0.7818]
[0.8709]
[0.8948]
[0.809]
[0.8108]
[1.1339]
[0.7138]
[0,885]
[0.6331]
[0.5188]
[0.6158]
[0.6741]
[0.610]
[0.5829]
[0.5688]
[0.6418]
[0.597]
(jppmv)
[0.3099]
[0.2928]
[0.2668]
:i [0,289]
[0.8638]
[0.2666]
[0.2666]
|;tQ>4657]|
[0.2638]
[0.2638]
[0.2639]
[0.2708]
:ill$265]
[0.2458]
[0.3239]
[0.2408]
[0,269]
[0.2891]
[0.2568]
[0.2628]
[0.2871]
J IP.274]
[0.2689]
[0.2678]
[0.2918]
•r IP275]
(pprav
@7% 02)
[1.1619]
[1.1608]
[1.2328]
ifV[084];:
[3.8708]
[1.1556]
[1.1556]
%; {2:06071
[0.8318]
[0.9378]
[1.0449]
[1.0728]
[0:971]
[0.9738]
[1.3619]
[0.8558]
[1,063]
[0.7621]
[0.6228]
[0.7398]
[0.8091]
[0.733]
[0.6999]
[0.6838]
[0.7708]
: [0,717]
EMISSION RATE
(g/hr)
[0.5739]
[0.5428]
[0.4938]
i [0.536]
[1.8418]
[0.5676]
[0.5676]
j; {0.9923]
[0.5198]
[0.5198]
[0.5199]
[0.5348]
f } [0.523]
[0.4428]
[0.5839]
[0.4348]
[OC486]
[0.5481]
[0.4878]
[0.4988]
[0.5461]
: (0.520]
[0.4049]
[0.4028]
[0.4388]
[0=415]
flbAr)
[0.0019]
[0.0018]
[0.0018]
1 [0,001]
[0.0048]
[0.0016]
[0.0016]
;f:tQ.002TJ
[0.0018]
[0.0018]
[0.0019]
[0.0018]
[0,001]
[0.0018]
[0.0019]
[0.0018]
[0,001]!
[0.0011]
[0.0018]
[0.0018]
[0.0011]
;;i [0.001]
[0.0019]
[0.0018]
[0.0018]
[02001]
[ ] = Minimum detection limit.
2-67
-------
TABLE 2-51. SUMMARY OF HBr RESULTS AT THE INLET;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
^ RUN" •••.)::;..:
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
AVERAGE
2A
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVERAGE
4A
4B
4C
•AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/dscm)
[0.1306]
[0.1867]
[0.1286]
[0.148]
[0.3367]
[0.1277]
[0.1207]
[0.1950]
[0.1296]
[0.1266]
(0.1569)
[0.1297]
fe&£CO;l56
[0.1507]
[0.1297]
[0.1147]
[0,131]
[0.1257]
[0.1277]
[0.1267]
[0.1346]
[0.128]
[0.1227]
[0.1237]
[0.1376]
[0.127]
(mg/dscm
@7&02)
[0.1406]
[0.2147]
[0.1576]
PI7Q]
[0.4217]
[0.1367]
[0.1577]
[0,2387]
[0.1516]
[0.1486]
(0.1899)
[0.1627]
0489
[0.1687]
[0.1697]
[0.1547]
[0,1641
[0.2677]
[0.1657]
[0.1617]
[0.1726]
[0.191]
[0.1117]
[0.1667]
[0.1816]
:::;:? [0,153]
-------
TABLE 2-52. SUMMARY OF HBr RESULTS AT THE OUTLET;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
AVERAGE
2A
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVERAGE
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
;"::;:• --^f- -: .
(mg/dscm)
[0.0757]
[0.0716]
[0.0656]
[0.070]
[0.2106]
[0.0656]
[0.0656]
[0.1139]
[0.0646]
0.910
1.036
[0.0666]
:;; : i 0.973
[0.0606]
[0.0797]
[0.0596]
tPX)66]
[0.0697]
[0.0626]
10.0646]
[0.0687]
[0.066]
[0.0657]
[0.0656]
[0.0716]
?; [0.067]
(mg/dscm
@7% 02)
[0.2827]
[0.2826]
[0.3016]
[0.288]
[0.9426]
[0.2826]
[0.3126]
: [0.5126]
[0.2026]
3.244
4.114
[0.2626]
V ;: ? 3,679;
[0.2386]
[0.3337]
[0.2106]
IP.26GI
[0.1827]
[0.1516]
[0.1806]
[0.1927]
1 ;;:: [0,176]
[0.1707]
[0.1666]
[0.1886]
H [0.175]
:
(ppmv)
'
[0.0227]
[0.0216]
[0.0196]
: [0.021]
[0.0626]
[0.0196]
[0.0196]
UX0339]
[0.0196]
0.271
0.308
[0.0206]
P ; 5 0.289
[0.0186]
[0.0237]
[0.0186]
PQ2QJ
[0.0217]
[0.0186]
[0.0196]
[0.0207]
[0.020}
[0.0197]
[0.0196]
[0.0216]
[0.020]
(ppmv
&7% O2)
[0.0837]
[0.0836]
[0.0886]
f? 10.085]
[0.2786]
[0.0836]
[0.0916]
[0.1513]
[0.0606]
0.964
1.223
[0.0796]
1.094
[0.0716]
[0.0977]
[0.0646]
p);077J
[0.0557]
[0.0446]
[0.0546]
[0.0567]
[0.052]
[0.0507]
[0.0496]
[0.0566]
[0.052]
EMISSION RATE
Cg/hr)
[0.1677]
[0.1586]
[0.1456]
: [0.157]
[0.5386]
[0.1676]
[0.1676]
[0:2913]
[0.1526]
2.158
2.457
[0.1566]
2.307
[0.1306]
[0.1717]
[0.1286]
tO.143]
[0.1587]
[0.1426]
[0.1466]
[0.1557]
:: [0.150]
[0.1187]
[0.1186]
[0.1286]
[0.121]
(IMir)
[0.0007]
[0.0006]
[0.0006]
to.ooo]
[0.0016]
[0.0006]
[0.0006]
[0.0009J
[0.0006]
0.005
0.005
[0.0006]
::0;005:
[0.0006]
[0.0007]
[0.0006]
¥¥:[0^()00r|!:
[0.0007]
[0.0006]
[0.0006]
[0.0007]
;;;: [0.000]
[0.0007]
[0.0006]
[0.0006]
[0.000]
[ ] = Minimum detection limit.
2-69
-------
Since no significant quantities of HF and HBr were detected, no removal
efficiencies were calculated.
2.6 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE CEM RESULTS
Simultaneous flue gas determinations of HC1 flue gas concentration was made by
both the manual method (EPA Method 26) as well as by a CEM analyzer.
Measurements were made at both the inlet and outlet. The analyzers were TECO
Model 15 instruments employing dilution probe extractive techniques.
Because of the dilution probe system, the HC1 CEMs had to be calibrated after
the incinerator had reached its steady state operating temperature. Post-test calibrations
could not be performed after the burndown run because flue gas temperatures would
decrease so quickly. However, QC gas challenges were made on the system and are
documented in Appendix D.
The inlet results comparison is made in Table 2-53. Averages are presented for
the time interval corresponding to the manual test runs. These runs were typically
1 hour to ll/2 hours in duration. All of the CEM averages appear to be substantially
higher than the manual values.
The outlet HC1 CEM flue gas concentrations could not be determined using the
HC1 CEM analyzer because the concentrations were too low to resolve using the dilution
probe extractive system. An undiluted sample stream could not have been used either as
HC1 gas would have been removed along with the moisture during conditioning
procedures.
2.7 CEM RESULTS
Continuous emissions monitoring was conducted at the inlet and outlet to the
APCD during all three test runs. The CEMs were operated from the beginning of the
test run until the morning of the following day. 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. The THC concentrations were also
monitored on a wet basis, by allowing the sample stream to bypass the conditionersrAll
dkd.176 2-70
-------
TABLE 2-53. COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND CEM HC1 RESULTS
AT THE INLET SAMPLE LOCATION;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
1A
IB
1C
ID
AVERAGE
2A
2B
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
3D
AVERAGE
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
5D
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
MANUAL HCl RESULTS
(ppnW)
39.9
43.4
122.6
99.6
76.3
403.0
30.8
216.9
18.3
50.4
155.8
117.5
128.2
216.1
198.4
178.0
197.5
21.0
9.4
92.9
133.8
64.2
272.1
262.3
378.9
304.4
(ppmV
®7% O2)
43.0
49.8
150.8
124.7
92.1
430.9
40.3
235.6
21.4
59.4
188.4
147.2
157.6
242.2
260.2
240.2
247.5
44.9
12.2
118.5
172.3
86.7
247.2
354.0
501.7
367.6
CEM HCl RESULTS
(ppmV)
249.2
350.4
330.2
371.6
325.4
NC
NC
NA
NC
229.8
215.8
197.1
214.2
825.1
252.4
201.5
426.3
NC
272.0
305.3
404.5
327.3
NC
534.9
482.6
508.7
(ppmV
©7% O2>
266.7
411.0
427.4
485.2
397.6
NC
NC
NA
NC
269.6
270.8
254.8
265.1
1174.8
346.6
282.6
601.3
NC
300.9
401.1
544.1
415.4
NC
686.0
665.5
675.8
NC= Run not completed.
ND = Not Determined.
2-71
-------
CEM data were recorded as 30-second averages over each sampling interval, copies of
which are included in Appendix D.
Two additional CEM analyzers were used during this program to monitor HC1
concentrations at the inlet and outlet to the APCD. These systems used separate gas
extractive systems employing dilution probe techniques. The resulting concentrations
were calculated on a ppm by volume, wet basis.
The 30-second CEM values were averaged over the sampling interval for each test
run. The run averages summarized in Tables 2-54 and 2-55 present actual and corrected
values, respectively. Actual concentrations are presented as they were measured (NO,,,
SO2, CO, CO2, and Cydry; THC and HCl-wet). 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, the corrected values are still
on a wet basis. Overall averages are presented for each CEM parameter under each of
the six test runs.
Of the two HC1 CEM analyzers, only the inlet unit produced valid data. Both
systems used a dilution probe extracting system which on the outlet sample location,
rendered the HC1 concentration too low to be detected by the analyzer. Valid inlet and
outlet HC1 testing was also performed by the manual EPA reference method 26 with
results reported in Section 2.5 and 2.6.
All CEM analyzers were left operative while the unit was cooling down. This
period (cool-down) occurred for approximately ~ 10 hours from 22:00 hours to 09:00
hours the next day. The average CEM gas concentrations for the cooldown periods are
shown in Table 2-56. Cooldown CEM data and time plots are shown in Appendices D.5
and D.6 Because stack temperatures were substantially cooler than during the test
phase, the HC1 CEM data can not be used for calculating accurate emission averages for
the cooldown period. This is because the dilution ratio of the HC1 dilution probes are
proportional to the stack temperature and any deviations from the temperature exhibited
during calibration procedures (i.e. burn temperature) would cause inaccuracies in the
data.
dkd.176 2-72
-------
TABLE 2-54. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING TEST AVERAGES AS MEASURED;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TIME
RUN1BURN
AVG
RUN 2 BURNDOWN
AVG
RUN 3 BURN
AVG
RUN 4 BURNDOWN
AVG
RUN 5 BURN
AVG
RUN 6 BURNDOWN
AVG
INLET OUTLET
SO2 SO2
(ppmV/dry)
6.16 0.71
33.29 3.50
8.84 0.35
23.05 1.11
4.60 0.53
41.30 5.27
INLET OUTLET
02 02
(ppmV/dry)
8.80 17.63
8.85 17.77
9.56 17.06
10.32 17.46
11.18 17.26
8.61 17.41
INLET OUTLET
C02 C02
(ppmV/diy)
7.51 1.78
8.88 1.86
5.91 2.20
6.30 2.11
5.13 2.16
7.75 2.38
INLET
NOx
(ppmV/dry)
76.74
108.85
65.28
75.43
60.41
103.41
INLET
CO
(ppmV/dry)
7.03
6.16
8.87
0.09
1.72
53.46
INLET OUTLET
HCl HC1
(ppmV/wet) a
323.00 NA
266.40 NA
211.02 NA
452.24 NA
422.47 NA
485.98 NA
INLET OUTLET
THC THC
(ppmV/wet)
12.11 0.85
5.58 0.84
NA NA
NA NA
5.94 NA
8.58 NA
NJ
a HCl concentrations were determined by manual methods as well. A comparison of CEM vs. manual results is presented in Section 2.6.
NA = Not available: THC instrument was not operating during that time interval.
The outlet HCl instrument showed poor resolution in the lower concentration ranges.
-------
TABLE 2-55. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING TEST AVERAGES CORRECTED TO 7 PERCENT OXYGEN;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TIME
RUN1BURN
AVG
RUN 2 BURNDOWN
AVG
RUN 3 BURN
AVG
RUN 4 BURNDOWN
AVG
RUN 5 BURN
AVG
RUN 6 BURNDOWN
AVG
INLET OUTLET
SO2 SO2
(ppmV/diy)
7.41 3.08
33.92 14.95
11.23 1.24
29.63 4.49
6.75 2.05
36.33 18.27
INLET OUTLET
O2 O2
(ppmV/diy)
8.80 17.63
8.85 17.77
9.56 17.06
10.32 17.46
11.18 17.26
8.61 17.41
INLET OUTLET
CO2 C02
(ppmV/dry)
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
INLET
NOx
(ppmV/diy)
89.71
120.43
81.43
97.32
86.21
109.15
INLET
CO
(ppmV/dr
7.79
7.23
7.28
0.27
2.19
36.21
INLET OUTLET
MCI HC1
(ppmV/wet) a
387.36 NA
73.71 NA
288.54 NA
778.28 NA
302.14 NA
375.73 NA
INLET OUTLET
THC THC
(ppmV/wet)
16.32 3.71
6.44 3.83
NA NA
NA NA
8.77 NA
10.45 NA
N)
a HC1 concentrations were determined by manual methods as well. A comparison of CEM vs. manual results is presented in Section 2.6.
NA = Not available: THC instrument was not operating during that time interval.
CO2 is not presented on a corrected basis.
The outlet HC1 instrument showed poor resolution in the lower concentration ranges.
-------
TABLE 2~5
tsj
61
n^-ET INLET OUTLET I INLET OUTLET
SO2
(ppmV/dfy
CQ2 C02
DAY 1 (post Run$
(3/5-3/6; 22:12-08:32'>
PAY 2 (post Runs 3&4)
(3/7-3/8; 21:59~Q8:14>
DAY 3 (post Runs 5&6)
(3/9*3/10; 21:45^08:00^
All cool-down CEM data and plots are shown in Appendix D
NA = Not available: THC instrument was not operating during that time interval
Both HC1 instruments were not calibrated for the low stack temperatures exibited during
the Cooldown penod. The outlet HC, instrument showe, pr resolution in the lower concentration ranges.
-------
2.8 ASH LOSS-ON-IGNITION AND CARBON CONTENT RESULTS
This section presents results of laboratory analyses of ash samples collected.
During the testing, ash was removed manually from the incinerator each morning
following a test day, screened through 1/2-inch mesh, weighed, and placed in clean
55-gallon metal cans. After the ash was allowed to cool, samples were taken manually
and composited to obtain as representative a sample as possible. 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 test days at rated operating conditions
(total of three runs).
Table 2-57 presents a summary of the ash analysis results. The moisture content
of the samples ranged from 0.86 percent for Test Day 2 to 20.33 percent for Test Day 1.
The ash moisture content for Test Day 1 was exceptionally high due to the fact that a
water spray was used to quench the ash prior to removal. The average moisture values
for the two test days, excluding Test Day 1 was 3.02 percent.
Loss-on-ignition results varied from 17.15 percent for Test Day 3 to 24.21 percent
for Test Day 1. The average LOI for all 3 test days was 19.5 percent.
Carbon content in the ash samples varied from 5.61 percent for Test Day 3 to
9.34 percent for Test Day 1. The average value for Test Days 2 and 3 was 6.21 percent.
The test Day 1 value was not used in calculating the average carbon content because of
the water used to cool the ash may have biased that day's value.
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 Jordan 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
dkd.176 2-76
-------
TABLE 2-57. SUMMARY OF ASH CARBON CONTENT, LOI, AND MOISTURE RESULTS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONDITION a
Pretest
Rated
Rated
Rated
TEST
DATE
Pretest
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
TEST DAY
NUMBER
Pretest
1
2
3
SAMPLE
DATE
03/01/91
03/06/91
03/08/91
03/09/91
AVERAGE:
MOISTURE b
(*)
0.96
20.33 e
0.86
5.18
3.02(5)
L.O.L c
(*)
18.48
24.21
17.34
17.15
19.56
TOTAL LOSS d
<*>
19.26
39.61 e
18.05
21.44
19.75 e
CARBON b
(*>
7.48
9.34 e
6.81
5.61
6.21 e
N>
a Rated conditions of 750 Ibs of waste per batch.
b As received basis.
c L.O.I, reported on a dry basis.
d Total Loss is the sum of moisture and L.O.I, values.
e Water spray was used to cool ash prior to removal. These values are not used for moisture total loss and carbon averages.
-------
Bacillus stearothermophilus. This organism was 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 (wet spores)
was absorbed onto materials commonly found in the medical waste stream (i.e., gauze,
paper, bandages, etc.), placed in plastic trash bags, and charged to the MWI along with
the medical waste. Emissions testing was conducted at the incinerator exit upstream of
the air pollution control system using the protocol described in the EPA draft method
"Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions" (Appendix K).
This testing was performed concurrently with other emissions testing (PM/Metals,
CDD/CDF, halogens, and CEMs) during the burn and burndown periods. Ash samples
were taken daily each morning following a test 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 (dry
spores) encapsulated in metal pipes which were insulated and contained in two designs
of outer containers. These tests were used to aid in the assessment of microbial
survivability in the ash. Two types of outer containers were used for comparison to each
other. One type used a large (6 inch by 2 inch diameter) metal pipe capped at both
ends and filled with vermiculite insulation. Another type utilized high temperature
ceramic insulation contained by wire mesh.
Complete details of the microbial spiking, recovery and analysis procedures are
given in Section 5.3.
Two emissions test runs were performed at the rated incinerator operating
conditions (burn and burn down) each day for three test days. Each test day the
incinerator was spiked with the wet spore stock as well as the dry spore samples. Liquid
spores were poured into mock garbage bags containing absorbent materials and placed in
eight locations as shown in Figure 2-1. Each of the eight bags also contained a wire
mesh package containing freeze-dried spores encased in the small metal tubes. Nine"
dkd.176
2-78
-------
metal pipes containing freeze-dried spores encased in the metal tubes were placed on the
floor of the incinerator as shown prior to charging the incinerator with waste. Eight
liquid spore bags were spiked in the same manner for Test Day 2. Nine metal pipes
were placed on the floor in the same locations as in Test Day 1. No mesh packages
were charged for this test. Prior to Test Day 3, eight liquid spore bags and nine metal
pipes were placed in the same locations as in both previous tests. Each of the eight bags
also contained a wire mesh package. Nine additional wire mesh packages containing dry
spores were placed on the incinerator floor next to each metal pipe.
Table 2-58 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 wet 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:
S + A
MS - (— ^) x 100
Ss
MS = spore microbial survivability (wet)
Se = Number of viable spores detected 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
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.
dkd.176
2-79
-------
TABLE 2-58. SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR FEED AMOUNTS AND ASH GENERATION PER RUN;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN a
NUMBER
1,2
3,4
5,6
TEST
BAY
1
2
3
DATE
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
DESIGN LOAD
RATE
(Ibs)
750
750
750
TIMES
08:45
08:30
08:25
WET SPORE b
SPIKE AMOUNTS
(total spores)
1.71E+12
1.71E+12
1.58E+12
DRY SPORE
SPKE AMOUNTS
(total spares)
1.7E+8d
9.0E+7 e
2.6E+8 f
TOTAL WASTE
FEED
(Ibs)
719.07
702.21
729.38
TOTAL ASH
WEIGHT
(lbs)c
70.34
94.87
60.35
K)
do
o
a Two indicator spore emissions test runs were conducted every day. One during the Burn and one during the Burndown.
b Wet spores were added in eight ~250 ml aliquots spread over separate waste bags.
c Total ash weight includes relatively large pieces of material (glass, metal, etc.)
d Eight mesh containers were placed in each of the eight wet spike bags. Nine pipes were placed on the floor.
e Nine pipes were placed on the floor.
f Eight mesh containers were placed in each of eight wet spore spike bags. Nine pipes and nine mesh containers were placed on the floor.
-------
Table 2-59 presents the overall survivability of the indicator spores. Several stack
gas samples had viable spore colonies on the culture plate. However, because there was
only quantitative consistency shown in one of these samples (Run 3) and the fact that the
field blank showed some positive detects, the other samples were assigned relatively high
less than values (< 1000, < 10,000 spores/analysis). Spores were found in most of the ash
samples, including the background ash sample. As with the flue gas samples, two test
day samples were assigned less than values (Days 1 and 3). These numbers were based
on the consistency of detected values as well as a method recovery efficiency factor. The
Day 2 sample showed some spores present on the plate. Incorporating both the flue gas
and ash results, the associated Microbial Survivalities were < 0.06, 0.0005 and < 1.76
percent for Days 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 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 emissions 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 day for viable spore emissions was actually made up of 2 runs; one
during the burn period and one during the burndown period. An approximate 1.5 liter
sample of impinger collection solution was generated for each run. These run samples
were recovered in a disinfected mobile laboratory, sealed, and sent to the analytical
laboratory.
For each run performed, 6 aliquots were prepared for analysis: three 10 ml and
three 100 ml aliquots. The filter plates were examined and colonies counted after a
48-hour period. For 2 test runs samples and the field blank sample, additional aliquots
were counted on 2 serial dilutions (1:10) on 1 ml of the original impinger solution. All
of these results were used to determine the final test run values.
Table 2-60 presents the Microbial Survivability in Emissions test results. There
were several test runs where viable spores were found on the culture plate. Runs 1-3
dkd.176
2-81
-------
TABLE 2-59. OVERALL MICROBIAL SURVTVABILITY;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
TEST
DAY
1
1
TOTAL
2
2
TOTAL
3
3
TOTAL
DATE
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
CONDITION
BURN
BURNDOWN
BURN
BURNDOWN
BURN
BURNDOWN
NUMBER OF INDICATOR
SPORES SPIKED
TO THE INCINERATOR
(total spores)
1.71E+12
1.71B+I2
1.58E+12
NTJMBER INDICATOR
SPOKES EXITING
THE STACK
(total spores)
< 1.03E+08
< 8.37E+08
<9.40E+08
1.05E+05
< 1.18E+05
1.05E-M35
< 1.02E+05
< 1.52E+05
<2.54E-K)5
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
MASH
(total spores)
<4.62E-K)6
<0;56to7.70)E406 c
<2i78EtlO ;
MICROBIAL
SURVIVABUJTY
(*)a
<5.52E-02
4.63E-04
3.2 ,
••- ^-..5.3,-... :..
-•*•>. 1.8-
to
C50
N)
a MS = (stack spores + ash spores)/(spiked spores) * 100
b MLR = Iog(spiked spores) - log(stack spores + ash spores)
c This range of numbers was based on the value presented in the quantitative analytical summary shown in Appendix E.3 (See Table 2-62).
NOTE: All MS and MLR calculations are shown in Appendix F.
-------
TABLE 2-60. VIABLE SPORE EMISSIONS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
CONDITION,
BURN
BURNDOWN
BURN
BURNDOWN
BURN
BURNDOWN
NUMBER OF
INDICATOR SPORES
IN ALIQUOT (100 ml)
< 1,000
< 10,000
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
NUMBER OF
WDiCATORSPORES
IN SAMPLE
< 3 1,227
< 295,523
35
26
30
34
CXJMCENTRATION OF
INDICATOR SPORES
!NFLUE<3AS(#/dscm)
< 15,723
< 207,968
18
<29
<16
<39
NUMBER OF INDICATOR
SPORES ExmNa STACK
BORING TEST PERIOD
< 1.03E+08
< 8.37E+08
1.05E+05
< 1.18E+05
< 1.02E+05
< 1.52E+05
00
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.
-------
samples were determined to have < 1000, < 10,000, and 1 spore per 100 ml aliquot of
impinger solution. The values were then factored by the total impinger solution volume,
meter volume, stack gas flow rate and test duration to calculate total spores emitted per
test run.
The Microbial Survivability sampling and flue gas parameters are shown in
Table 2-61.
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. Composite ash samples were pulled
from the drum using a sample thief and then mixed and deposited into clean, amber
glass sample bottles. The composite samples were then submitted to the laboratory for
culturing and enumeration of B. stearothermophilus.
The microbial Survivability in ash results for the Jordan MWI tests are presented
in Table 2-62. Three one gram ash aliquots were taken from each sample and extracted
in 100 mis of phosphate butter solution. Three one ml aliquots were taken from each
100 ml aliquot and separately filtered, cultured, and counted. Three serial dilutions were
prepared on the test day 3 sample and also triple plated. B. stearothermophilus colonies
were found in several of the cultures. After reviewing counts from replicate analyses and
incorporating a standard recovery efficiency value, the final sample values were
determined. Test days 1 and 3 were assigned less than values of < 145 and < 1,014,493
spores/gram, respectively. The Test day 2 sample was assigned a value of 96 ± 83
spores/gram. 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
Pipe and wire mesh samples which were loaded with days indicator spores were
placed into the incinerator during each test day. The approximate location of the
samples in the incinerator is shown in Figure 2-1. The pipes were recovered the
following morning during ash removal. After allowing the samples to cool, the inner
containers were removed from the outer containers and sent to the laboratory for
analysis. The entire contents of the inner pipe were rinsed, filtered, and cultured.
dkd.176 2-84
-------
TABLE 2-61 INDICATOR SPORE EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
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 (dscfm)
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 (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER:-;; AiHT^'£ -M.;. -'-
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 (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN 1 (BURN)
400
1638
7.50
8.80
0.18
1.986
9.31
576
16.3
101.4
RUN 3 --(BURN)
400
1613
5.90
9.60
0.17
1.870
9.57
513
14.5
107.2
;.;*RUN:-5:-?;:(BURN)^::-::..\
400
1644
5.10
11.20
0.16
1.866
8.26
562
15.9
102.6
RUN 2 (BURNDOWN)
320
1592
8.90
8.90
0.16
1.421
8.18
444
12.6
118.8
:; RUN 4 (BURNDOWN) ?
330
1614
6.30
6.30
0.09
0.869
8.28
435
12.3
92.5
RUN 6 (BURNDOWN)
320
1649
7.75
8.61
0.10
0.870
6.50
431
12.2
96.5
2-85
-------
TABLE 2-62. VIABLE SPORES IN ASH;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
DAY
0
1
2
3
RUN
NUMBER
Pre-Test
1,2
3,4
5,6
CONCENTRATION OF
INDICATOR SPORES
INASH
(spotes/g ash)
16 +/- 48
< 145
96 +/- 83
< 1,014,493
NUMBER OF INDICATOR
SPORES EXITING
INCINERATOR IN ASH
(total spores)
NA
< 4.62E+06
4.13E+06
< 2.78E+10
2-86
-------
NJ
AUXILIARY
BURNER
Note: Numbers in circles indicate
XYZ locations from front left
comer of incinerator.
WIRE MESH SPDRE PACKAGES
COMBUSTION AIR
INJECTION PORTS
COMBUSTION AIR INJECTION PORTS
FIGURE 2.A. Location of Microbe Spikes in Incinerator
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
-------
The number of viable spores found in the pipes is presented in Table 2-63. In
comparing the number of indicator spores found in the pipe and mesh samples to the
quantity of dry spores loaded into each sample, the survivability is very low. Three out
of 17 samples from day 1 had viable spores found. Two out of 9 Day 2 samples and 4
out of 26 Day 3 samples had several spores found. Only a small amount of spores were
found in those samples (highest value was 8 spores).
2.10 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS
Three PSD test runs were conducted during the Jordan Hospital MWI test
program. An in-stack eight stage MK III cascade impactor sampling device was used
(See Section 5.9 for PSD Method). The PSD sampling location was downstream of the
test exchanger, immediately upstream of the fabric filter. Condensable PM was also
determined by placing an ambient temperature back-up filter downstream of the
impactor and recovering the aqueous impinger fraction and solvent impinger rinse.
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 particulate
"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" (evidence of PM 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
three PSD runs, the first one did not meet recovery QC objectives and, therefore, was
not included in these results. The test results for PSD Runs 2 and 3 will be reported in
the following section.
Figures in this section show the log-normal plots of the PSD runs. 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 regression
analyses were conducted and the correlation coefficients (R2) are shown on each figure.
Table 2-64 reports the Run 2 PSD results. Test 2 was conducted during the last
hour of burn and the first hour of burndown on March 7, 1991 (Test Day 2). The size
distribution results are given for total PM, including the condensable fraction, as well as
dkd.176 2-£
-------
TABLE 2-63. VIABLE SPORES IN PIPES;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
:-::'DAY""
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SPIKE
DATE,
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
NUMBER
OF SPORES
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
LOCATION
(XYZ)a
111
211
311
121
221
321
131
331
231
213
112
113
223
123
212
222
122
111
211
311
121
221
321
131
231
331
SAMPLE
TYPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
MESH
MESH
MESH
MESH
MESH
MESH
MESH
MESH
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
PIPE
a See Figure 2-1
NOTE: All pipe and mesh sample containers were spiked with 9.0E+07 to 2.6E+08
freeze-dried spores at approximately 08:30 am (See Table 2-58)
and recovered the following day.
2-89
-------
TABLE 2-63. VIABLE SPORES IN PIPES (continued);
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
TEST
DAY
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
SPIKE :
• ' DATB^'.';-
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
NUMBER
OF SPORES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
NFb
1
0
>274
1
>274
LOCATION
•."'ri^PCYZja
311
213
231
321
331
112
123
111
111
112
113
121
121
122
131
131
211
211
212
221
221
222
223
231
311
321
331
NAc
NAc
NAc
SAMPJLE
TYPE
PIPE
MESH
MESH
PIPE
MESH
MESH
MESH
MESH
PIPE
MESH
MESH
MESH
PIPE
MESH
MESH
PIPE
MESH
PIPE
MESH
MESH
PIPE
MESH
MESH
PIPE
MESH
MESH
PIPE
AMBIENT
BLANK
DRYSTOCK
a See Figure 2-1
NOTE: All pipe and mesh sample containers were spiked with 9.0E+07 to 2.6E+08
freeze-dried spores at approximately 08:30 am (See Table 2-58)
and recovered the following day.
b NA - Not Charged Into Incinerator.
c NF - Not Found in Ash After Test.
2-90
-------
TABLE 2-64. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RUN 2 RESULTS ;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE:
STAGE
03/07/91 Net Weight Mass
Dp50 Fraction
(microns) (grams)
Mass Frack Interval
Less Geometric
Than Midpoint
(microns)
dM/dlog DP
(gr/dscf)
INCLUDING CONDENSABLE PM
Preim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BCK-UP
11.93 0.005986 0.1404
7.82 0.000285 0.0067
5.10 0.000155 0.0036
3.60 0.000105 0.0025
2.13 0.000225 0.0053
1.21 0.000525 0.0123
0.74 0.001020 0.0239
0.47 0.002270 0.0532
0.032068 0.7521
TOTAL 0.042639 1.0000
0.8596 * 24.42
0.8529 9.66
0.8493 6.31
0.8468 4.29
0.8416 2.77
0.8292 1.61
0.8053 0.95
0.7521 0.59
0.0000 * 0.05
2.472E-03
3.992E-04
2.148E-04
1.786E-04
2.539E-04
5.485E-04
1.228E-03
2.906E-03
4.184E-03
CONG
:
;
(gr/dscf)
0.001538
0.000073
0.000040
0.000027
0.000058
0.000135
0.000262
0.000583
0.008241
0.010958
NOT INCLUDING CONDENSABLE PM
Preim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BCK-UP
11.93 0.005986 0.2246
7.82 0.000285 0.0107
5.10 0.000155 0.0058
3.60 0.000105 0.0039
2.13 0.000225 0.0084
1.21 0.000525 0.0197
0.74 0.001020 0.0383
0.47 0.002270 0.0852
0.016080 0.6034
TOTAL 0.026651 1.0000
0.7754 * 24.42
0.7647 9.66
0.7589 6.31
0.7549 4.29
0.7465 2.77
0.7268 1.61
0.6885 0.95
0.6034 0.59
0.0000 * 0.05
* these values asume top end and bottom end dpSOs of 50 and .005
2.472E-03
3.992E-04
2.148E-04
1.786E-04
2.539E-04
5.485E-04
1.228E-03
2.906E-03
2.098E-03
um.
0.001538
0.000073
0.000040
0.000027
0.000058
0.000135
0.000262
0.000583
0.004132
0.006849
FLUE GAS AND SAMPLING PARAMETERS
Sampling Time
Test Condition
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Metered Volume, Vm(std)
Standard Metered Volume,Vm(std)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Percent Isoldnetic
15:02-17:42 (150 MIN)
BURN and BURNDOWN
393
0.40
(dscf) 60.05
(dscm) 1.701
12.2
117.9
2-91
-------
for PM not including the condensable fraction. The results are presented graphically in
Figure 2-2. Approximately 80 percent of the total PM was less than 1 //m.
Table 2-65 reports the results from PSD Run 3. This test run was conducted
during the burn conditions on March 9, 1991 (Test Day 3). The Run 3 PSD results are
presented graphically in Figure 2-3. Slightly larger particle sizes were found in this run
as approximately 80 percent of the particles were less than 10
2.11 CDD/CDF EMISSION VALUES INCORPORATING THE TOLUENE
RECOVERY RESULTS
In accordance with EPA Method 23, a final toluene rinse was completed on the
CDD/CDF sampling train after the methylene chloride (MeCl2) rinse procedure. This
was done to determine how well the MeCl2 was collecting all of the CDD/CDF material.
As prescribed in the method, these values were to be used only as a QA indicator and
were 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
effected the gas phase CDD/CDF concentrations, stack gas CDD/CDF concentrations
incorporating the toluene recovery amounts are given in Tables 2-66 through 2-69.
Tables 2-66 and 2-67 present results for the burn condition and 2-68 and 2-69 show the
burndown results. 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 and 2-10 for the burn condition and
Tables 2-13 and 2-14 for the burndown condition.
dkd.176 2-92
-------
^^
£
in
Q.
Q
2
X
h-
CO
CO
LU
2
O
^ P
vb O
w ^
U_
CO
CO
*>
«b
CJ57.I7
99.8
99.5
99-
98
95_
90
80-
70
60
50-i
40
30
20"
10
5"
2
1-
0.5
0.2
OH ,
. 1 T
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I | - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1
-
-
-
-
/x_____cx—— e- o o
o -
-
-
-
PSD RUN 2 OCV07/91
SAMPLE LOCATION: BAGHOUSE INLET
SAMPLE TIME: 15:02-17:42
LINEAR REGRESSION CORRELATION R *
WTTH CONDENSABLE PM: R1 - 0.81 1
WTTHOUT CONDENSABLE PM: R* - 0.802
-
PSD REGRESSION MLLONQ CONDENSABLE PM
PSD REGRESSION NOT MLLONQ CONDENSABLE PM
-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 ' I ' ' ' ' 10 ' ' ' ' ii
Dp 50 (urn)
FIGURE 2-2. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RUN 2 RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT CONDENSABLE PM;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
-------
\o
C73.C7
99.8
99.5
_ 99^
& 98
o
8 95
Q.
Q 90
z
< 80-
*- 70
$> 60
LU 50-
z 40
0 30
i_ on~
0 ^U
L? 10
LL
CO 5
CO
< 2
^ 1-
0.5
0.2
01
• 1 T
0.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | ! 1 1 1 ! [ 1 1
-
-
-
-
^ ° ° * °
o-
_ -•
-
-
PSD RUN 3 03/09/91
SAMPLE LOCATION: BAGHOUSE INLET
SAMPLE TIME; 1 1 :1 4-1 3:46
2
LINEAR REGRESSION CORRELATION R
WTTH CONDENSABLE PM: Ra = 0.968
WTTHOUT CONDENSABLE PM: Ra = 0.966
-
— — PSD REGRESSION INLUDING CONDENSABLE PM
PSD REGRESSION NOT WLUDWQ CONDENSABLE PM
i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 ' ' I ' 10 ' li
Dp 50 (urn)
FIGURE 2-3. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RUN 3 RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT CONDENSABLE PM;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
-------
TABLE 2-65. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RUN 3 RESULTS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE:
STAGE
03/09/91 Net Weight Mass
Dp50 Fraction
(microns) (grams)
Mass FracU Interval
Less Geometric
Than Midpoint
(microns)
dM/dlogDF
(gr/dscf)
INCLUDING CONDENSABLE PM
Preim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BCK-UP
11.88 0.004352 0.1929
7.79 0.000045 0.0020
5.08 0.000035 0.0016
3.59 0.000505 0.0224
2.12 0.000320 0.0142
1.20 0.000385 0.0171
0.74 0.000415 0.0184
0.46 0.000505 0.0224
0.015997 0.7091
TOTAL 0.022559 1.0000
0.8071 24.37
0.8051 9.62
0.8035 6.29
0.7812 4.27
0.7670 2.76
0.7499 1.60
0.7315 0.94
0.7091 0.58
-0.0000 0.05
1.687E-03
5.934E-05
4.567E-05
8.086E-04
3.399E-04
3.785E-04
4.699E-04
6.063E-04
1.968E-03
CONG
-------
TABLE 2-66. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 7% O2
DURING THE BURN CONDITION (RUNS 1,3,5) INCORPORATING
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD s
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF ::
TOTAL CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
;;.; (ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2) a
RUN I
[0.024]
0.065
[0.041]
(0.134)
[0.059]
[0.041]
[0.053]
(0.250)
0.114
0.000
0.269
0.83
0.060
0.703
(0.028)
0.093
0.616
0.207
0.071
0.155
[0.036]
0.322
(0.246)
[0.049]
0.076
0.164
; 2.74
3.57
RUN 3
[0.016]
0.076
[0.031]
0.158
[0.038]
0.032
[0.031]
0.006
(0.140)
0.000
0.022
0:43
0.064
0.546
0.032
0.095
0.083
0.140
0.051
0.108
[0.026]
0.044
0.197
0.070
0.102
0.470
2.00
¥ 2;43
RUNS
(0.059)
1.974
0.184
1.796
0.315
0.493
0.854
6.227
4.274
0.005
9.932
26,11
0.520
17.628
0.545
1.708
13.519
3.546
1.182
2.699
0.085
5.896
4.799
1.116
3.350
11.361
67.96
94.07
AVERAGE b
0.059
0.705
0.184
0.696
0.315
0.262
0.854
2.161
1.510
0.005
3.408
9.13
0.214
6.293
0.202
0.632
4.739
1.298
0.435
0.987
0.085
2.087
1.747
0.593
1.176
3.998
;* 24.23
-v* •::fi:33;3&.:
OUTLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent 02}
RUN 1
2.653
1227.233
13.826
1063.332
7.797
13.505
21.463
425.100
26.446
45.095
9.887
;:;285&34
27.976
2206.742
32.716
57.233
826.446
112.538
31.511
42.523
0.884
391.326
39.067
(2.734)
19.694
5.305
:379&69
6653.03
RUN 3
3.716
1290.582
22.239
1182.453
14.947
21.494
37.326
690.549
54.285
91.956
18.325
; 3427.87
35.733
2539.129
51.774
108.774
1477.965
158.400
46.902
69.621
1.789
548.373
69.616
5.311
39.449
8.223
-5161.06
:S588;93
RUNS
(2.286)
1274.416
9.280
735.760
8.169
12.613
22.155
423.083
25.235
42.088
12.180
;2567.27
20.064
1724.914
22.939
38.234
723.092
79.741
24.183
34.448
(0.718)
191.696
49.547
4.444
28.366
6.274
,2948.66
5515.92
AVERAGE
2.885
1264.077
15.115
993.848
10.304
15.871
26.981
512.911
35.322
59.713
13.464
2950,45
27.924
2156.928
35.810
68.081
1009.168
116.893
34.198
48.864
1.131
377.132
52.743
4.163
29.170
6.601
3968,80
6919.305
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration
b Detection limits are considered zeros for calculating averages.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well.
2-96
-------
TABLE 2-67. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES CORRECTED TO 7% O2 FOR
THE BURN CONDITION (RUNS 1, 3, & 5) INCORPORATING THE TOLUENE
RECOVERY RESULTS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TotalCDD ;: : : : ?
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD4CDF
2378-TCDD
TOXIC EQUIV.
FACTOR a
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
INLET 2378 "TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, iwJjitetied to 7 percent 02) b
RUN}
[0.024]
0.000
[0.021]
(0.000)
[0.006]
[0.004]
[0.005]
(0.000)
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.000
(0.001)
0.046
0.000
0.021
0.007
0.016
[0.004]
0.000
(0.002)
[0.000]
0.000
0.000
0.099
0.100
RUN 3
[0.016]
0.000
[0.016]
0.000
[0.004]
0.003
[0.003]
0.000
(0.001)
0.000
0.000
;: 0.004
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.048
0.000
0.014
0.005
0.011
[0.003]
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.089
: 0.093
RUN 5
(0.059)
0.000
0.092
0.000
0.032
0.049
0.085
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.010
: 0.370
0.052
0.000
0.027
0.854
0.000
0.355
0.118
0.270
0.009
0.000
0.048
0.011
0.000
0.011
:.•::>•:• 1,75
':•"•". :;;2. 12
AVERAGE
0.059
0.000
0.092
0.000
0.032
0.026
0.085
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.003
0.125
0.021
0.000
0.010
0.316
0.000
0.130
0.043
0.099
0.009
0.000
0.017
0.006
0.000
0.004
.:. :;•• ;• 0.65
; ; 0.77
OUTLET 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent O2)
RUN1
2.653
0.000
6.913
0.000
0.780
1.350
2.146
0.000
0.264
0.000
0.010
?M42
2.798
0.000
1.636
28.617
0.000
11.254
3.151
4.252
0.088
0.000
0.391
(0.027)
0.000
0.005
•• : 52.22
: :6634
RUN 3
3.716
0.000
11.120
0.000
1.495
2.149
3.733
0.000
0.543
0.000
0.018
;::::22;77
3.573
0.000
2.589
54.387
0.000
15.840
4.690
6.962
0.179
0.000
0.696
0.053
0.000
0.008
88.98
111.75
RUNS
(2.286)
0.000
4.640
0.000
0.817
1.261
2.215
0.000
0.252
0.000
0.012
11.48
2.006
0.000
1.147
19.117
0.000
7.974
2.418
3.445
(0.072)
0.000
0.495
0.044
0.000
0.006
V36173
:»4g$l
AVERAGE
2.885
0.000
7.558
0.000
1.030
1.587
2.698
0.000
0.353
0.000
0.013
16;12
2.792
0.000
1.790
34.040
0.000
11.689
3.420
4.886
0.113
0.000
0.527
0.042
0.000
0.007
'59.31.
75:43
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on International Information Exchange o
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 Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated maximum Possible Concentration
Detection limits are considered zeros for calculating average*.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well.
2-97
-------
TABLE 2-68. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO
7 % O2 DURING THE BURNDOWN CONDITION (RUNS 2, 4, & 6);
INCORPORATING THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER ; :i ;
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD * :
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent'O2) a
RUN 2
(0.058)
0.029
[0.019]
(0.079)
[0.027]
0.022
[0.019]
0.007
0.086
0.000
0.356
f 0.637
0.058
0.663
(0.036)
0.079
0.324
0.173
0.058
0.112
[0.019]
0.324
0.317
0.245
0.807
1.153
4.35
4.99
RUN 4;i
(0.182)
12.204
1.039
25.613
1.991
3.808
5.366
36.709
31.437
0.000
54.414
: 172.76
2.858
139.114
3.029
7.271
63.192
22.512
7.533
16.973
1.125
61.809
30.575
7.703
19.651
65.467
448.81
?: 621.58
;;RUN6
1.367
11.078
5.923
32.415
7.123
7.395
13.632
61.980
111.014
1.441
375.265
1628,63
10.282
258.871
35.793
31.954
393.556
146.041
75.567
69.579
6.039
521.227
243.461
51.658
184.680
554.891
2583.60
32l2i23
AVERAGE
0.536
7.770
3.481
19.369
4.557
3.742
9.499
32.899
47.513
0.720
143.345
26734
4.399
132.883
12.953
13.101
152.358
56.242
27.719
28.888
3.582
194.453
91.451
19.869
68.379
207.170
? 1012.25
! : ::? 1279.60
OUTLET CONCENTRATION""
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent02) „
RUN 2
1.379
456.572
10.833
633.250
5.613
8.568
14.477
266.806
16.348
29.741
5.909
iP49i50;:
15.963
897.956
21.961
37.423
547.263
71.596
21.174
29.545
0.847
180.162
26.590
1.773
15.462
2.757
1870.47
1331937
RUN 4
(1.476)
457.644
14.762
699.846
9.359
14.700
25.519
467.397
33.386
54.261
11.092
:1789.44
15.837
818.814
28.337
61.991
801.045
113.281
33.009
46.848
1.474
264.390
51.698
3.655
29.119
5.587
2275.08
4064.53
RUN 6
0.718
259.906
4.910
370.951
2.833
4.736
7.941
152.417
10.993
16.866
4.235
1836.50
7.957
501.966
10.764
16.628
286.146
34.590
10.397
12.874
0.415
81.751
14.003
(1.172)
8.498
2.077
989.24
1825.75
AVERAGE5
— .
1.191
391.374
10.168
568.016
5.935
9.335
15.979
295.540
20.242
33.623
7.079
- 1358.4$
13.252
739.579
20.354;
38.681
544.81!
73.156'
21.521
29.755 :
0.912
175.435,
30.764;
2.200
17.693
3.474
' > ITll-W
" 3070-081
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well
2-98
-------
TABLE 2-69. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES CORRECTED TO
7% O2 FOR THE BURNDOWN CONDITION (RUNS 2, 4, & 6) INCORPORATE
THE TOLUENE RECOVERY RESULTS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF ;
TOTALCDD+CDF
2378-TCDD
TOXIC EQUTV.
FACTOR a
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
INLET 2378 TOXIC EQUTVALENCffi
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent 02) fc
RUN 2
(0.058)
0.000
[0.010]
(0.000)
[0.003]
0.002
[0.002]
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.061
0.006
0.000
(0.002)
0.040
0.000
0.017
0.006
0.011
[0.002]
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.088
0.150
RUN 4
(0.182)
0.000
0.519
0.000
0.199
0.381
0.537
0.000
0.314
0.000
0.054
2.187
0.286
0.000
0.151
3.635
0.000
2.251
0.753
1.697
0.113
0.000
0.306
0.077
0.000
0.065
9.335
11.522
RUN 6
1.367
0.000
2.961
0.000
0.712
0.740
1.363
0.000
1.110
0.000
0.375
8.629
1.028
0.000
1.790
15.977
0.000
14.604
7.557
6.958
0.604
0.000
2.435
0.517
0.000
0.555
-::52.02
60.65
AVERAGE
0.536
0.000
1.740
0.000
0.456
0.374
0.950
0.000
0.475
0.000
0.143
3.626
0.440
0.000
0.648
6.551
0.000
5.624
2.772
2.889
0.358
0.000
0.915
0.199
0.000
0.207
:::: 20.48
24.11
OUTLET 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7 percent 02)
RUN 2
1.379
0.000
5.416
0.000
0.561
0.857
1.448
0.000
0.163
0.000
0.006
9.830
1.596
0.000
1.098
18.712
0.000
7.160
2.117
2.954
0.085
0.000
0.266
0.018
0.000
0.003
: 34.01
43.84
RUN 4
(1.476)
0.000
7.381
0.000
0.936
1.470
2.552
0.000
0.334
0.000
0.011
14.160
1.584
0.000
1.417
30.996
0.000
11.328
3.301
4.685
0.147
0.000
0.517
0.037
0.000
0.006
54.02
68.18
RUNS
0.718
0.000
2.455
0.000
0.283
0.474
0.794
0.000
0.110
0.000
0.004
4.838
0.796
0.000
0.538
8.314
0.000
3.459
1.040
1.287
0.042
0.000
0.140
(0.012)
0.000
0.002
;; 15^63
:;: : 2O.47
AVERAGE
1.191
0.000
5.084
0.000
0.594
0.933
1.598
0.000
0.202
0.000
0.007
9.609:
1.325
0.000
1.018
19.340
0.000
7.316
2.153
2.976
0.091
0.000
0.308
0.022
0.000
0.003
34,55
44.16
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 Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68°F.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
NOTE: Inlet oxygen measurements were made upstream of the CDD/CDF sample port and may
have been lower than the actual value encountered at the sample location.
The associated inlet CDD/CDF oxygen corrected values may be biased slightly low as well.
2-99
-------
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF PROCESS OPERATION
DURING TESTING AT JORDAN HOSPITAL
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Jordan Hospital is a 162-bed hospital located in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The
medical waste incinerator (MWI) at this facility is a batch-burn Simonds Model 215IB.
The MWI system at Jordan Hospital also has a heat exchanger for flue gas cooling, a
baghouse for particulate matter (PM) removal, and a packed-bed scrubber for acid gas
removal that was designed and installed by B. G. Wickburg Company. The hot gas from
the incinerator is drawn by means of the main blower through a heat exchanger, where it
is cooled below 204°C (400°F) before passing through the baghouse. After moving
through the main blower and the automatic controlled damper system, which is used to
maintain a uniform draft in the primary chamber, the gas passes through the packed-bed
wet scrubber, the cold side of the heat exchanger, and then out the stack.
The following sections describe the MWI system as tested and the process
operations during the pretest and actual testing. Section 3.2 describes the incinerator,
the heat exchanger, the baghouse, the main blower, and the packed-bed scrubber;
provides a description of the hospital waste management practices; and describes the
typical daily operation of the system by the operators. Section 3.3 discusses the pretest
activities deemed necessary to ensure the success of the test program. Finally, Section
3.4 describes the process conditions encountered during testing.
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.2.1 Incinerator
The Simonds Model 215 IB is a dual-chamber, controlled-air, batch-burn MWI.
The rectangular primary chamber has a volume of 6.1 cubic meters (rrP) (215 cubic feet
[fp]) and operates in a starved-air mode. The combustion air is injected into the
primary chamber through 28 air injection ports distributed evenly around the side and
back walls 15 centimeters (cm) (6 inches [in]) above the hearth and another 8 air
injection ports evenly spaced from front to back in a straight line down the center of the
hearth. The waste is charged to the primary chamber one time for each complete
incineration cycle. The primary chamber is fully loaded to within 15 cm (6 in) of the top
while also leaving a 15 cm (6 in) clearance channel between the primary chamber burner
dkd.176
3-1
-------
and the waste bed. The combustion air modulates between either high or low flow
according to preset timers and the temperature in the primary chamber. One natural
gas-fired burner in the primary chamber ignites the waste charge once a preset
temperature has been reached in the secondary chamber. The primary chamber burner
operates for a small amount of time (typically 60 seconds) according to a preset timer.
The secondary chamber has a volume of 2.60 irr^ (91.7 fF) and is operated in an
excess-air mode. The calculated secondary chamber residence time, according to the
permit application form, is 1.16 seconds at 871°C (1600°F). The combustion air for the
secondary chamber, which is supplied by the same blower that provides the primary
chamber combustion air, is controlled by a manually set valve and remains constant
throughout the entire incineration cycle. One natural gas-fired burner in the secondary
chamber ignites and shuts off according to a preset timer and, while burning, modulates
between either high or low fire according to the secondary chamber temperature.
Seven timers, TD1 through TD7, and two thermocouples control the various
processes for incinerating a batch charge of medical waste in this unit. The following is
a brief description of a typical incineration cycle for this facility.
After the waste has been loaded and the charge door secured, the incinerator is
manually started. When the incinerator is turned on, TD7 (purge timer) starts. This
timer starts the combustion air blower, and the primary chamber combustion air goes to
high flow to purge any combustible gases from the unit. When TD7 times out (typically
45 seconds), the combustion air blower stops and the secondary chamber burner ignites
and modulates to high fire since the secondary chamber temperature is below the high
secondary chamber temperature set- point of 1010°C (1850°F). This is the beginning of
the preheat cycle. Once the secondary chamber temperature reaches the low secondary
chamber temperature set-point of 871°C (1600T), TD5 (primary ignition timer) starts,
the primary chamber burner fires, the combustion air blower starts, and the primary
chamber combustion air modulates to low flow. This is the beginning of the burn cycle.
When TD5 times out (typically 60 seconds), the primary chamber burner turns off and
TD6 (pathological on timer) starts. The TD6 timer is used to ignite the primary
chamber burner if the pathological waste switch is in the on position and to time the
actual burn cycle no matter what position the pathological switch is in. (The
dkd.176 3-2
-------
pathological switch was in the off position for the three test runs performed at
Jordan Hospital). When TD6 times out (typically 6.5 hours), TD3 (carburetor extend
timer) and TD4 (pathological duration timer) start. The TD4 timer is used to set the
amount of time that the primary chamber burner stays on if the pathological switch is in
the on position. If the pathological switch is in the off position, TD4 still times, but the
primary chamber burner does not fire. When TD3 times out (typically 30 minutes), the
primary chamber combustion air changes to the high flow setting if the primary chamber
temperature is still below the high primary chamber temperature set-point of 677°C
(1250°F), TD2 (carburetor off timer) starts, and the burndown cycle begins.
During the burndown cycle, the primary chamber combustion air modulates
between either high or low flow, depending on whether the primary chamber
temperature is below or above the high primary chamber temperature set-point. The
secondary chamber burner modulates between either high or low fire, depending on
whether the secondary chamber temperature is below or above the high secondary
chamber temperature set-point. When TD2 times out (typically 5.3 hours), the secondary
chamber burner turns off, and TD1 (shutdown timer) starts. This is the beginning of the
cooldown cycle.
During the cooldown cycle, all burners are turned off, the combustion air blower
remains on, and the primary chamber combustion air modulates between either high, or
low flow, depending on the primary chamber temperature. When TD1 times out
(typically 10.25 hours), the combustion air blower turns off and all timers are reset for
the next burn.
3.2.2 Heat Exchanger
A shell and tube air-to-air heat exchanger is used to cool the flue gases leaving
the secondary chamber before they enter the baghouse. These gases are at a
temperature of about 871°C (1600°F) to 982°C (1800°F) and are cooled to 185°C (365°F)
to 204°C (400°F) by the 54°C (DOT) flue gases exiting the wet scrubber. The flue gases
from the packed-bed scrubber are warmed to about 149°C (300°F) and then passed out
the stack. If the heat exchanger exit temperature climbs above the temperature set-point
of 182°C (360°F), a water spray is started in order to drop the flue gas temperature.
dkd.176
3-3
-------
3.2.3 Baghouse
A pulse-jet, single-chamber horizontal baghouse with 36 P-84 bags is used to
remove PM from the flue gases. The outer shell of the baghouse is made of 316L
stainless steel. The baghouse is designed to operate at 177°C (350°F) with a maximum
temperature excursion to 260°C (SOOT). Six rows of six bags each collect PM on the
outside of each bag. The compressed-air pulse cleaning system is composed of a row of
six tubes, each controlled by a diaphragm, self-piloted valve, to blow the dust off the
bags and into a bottom chute, and another valve and control solenoid to blow the dust
down the bottom chute towards the cleanout door. The system was programmed so that
the pulse jet solenoids operated at 30-second intervals once the baghouse pressure drop
exceeded 0.5 kilopascals (kpa) (2 inches of water column [in w.c.]). The total cleaning
time for the baghouse should have been 3.5 minutes; however, the system was mistakenly
programmed for a total of eight solenoids and a total cleaning time of 4 minutes. The
cleaning system should maintain a differential pressure of less than 1.5 kpa (6 in. w.c.)
across the baghouse. Also, in order to protect the baghouse against high temperatures, a
temperature-controlled air damper is used. If the baghouse inlet temperature exceeds
the temperature set-point of 204°C (400°F), the baghouse air damper opens, allowing
ambient air in to cool the flue gases. If the baghouse inlet temperature remains above
the set-point temperature for more than 2 minutes, the bypass valve opens, the main
blower turns off, and the flue gases go directly to the stack.
3.2.4 Main Blower
A centrifugal blower is used to provide the air movement as an induced draft fan
for the two combustion chambers, the hot side of the heat exchanger, and the baghouse
and as a forced draft fan for the wet scrubber, the cold side of the heat exchanger, and
the stack. An automatic controlled damper at the outlet of the fan is used to maintain a
uniform draft in the primary chamber. The blower was designed for a capacity of 42.5
dry standard cubic meters per minute (dscmm) (1,500 dry standard cubic feet per minute
[dscfm]) at 2.7 kpa (11 in w.c.) and a speed of 1,200 revolutions per minute (rpm).
dkd.176 3-4
-------
3.2.5 Packed-Bed Scrubber
A horizontal packed-bed crossflow scrubber is used to remove acid gases. The
scrubber shell is made of fiberglass and consists of two removal sections and one
demister section with each section being 71 cm (28 in) in diameter and comprised of
kimre woven polypropylene packing. The two removal sections are each 15 cm (6 in)
thick and the demister section is 10 cm (4 in) thick. At the entrance to the scrubber, a
water spray is used to cool the flue gases by evaporation. The amount of water spray is
adjustable with a manual valve. The temperature of the flue gas is monitored just after
the water spray before entering the first removal section. If this temperature is above
the scrubber inlet temperature set-point of 80°C (176°F) for more than 2 minutes, the
bypass valve opens, the main blower turns off, and the flue gases go directly to the stack.
The two front removal beds have a manifold that houses four nozzles that spray a liquid
solution onto and against the bed at a rate of approximately 208 liters per minute
(f /min) (55 gallons per minute [gal/min]). E.G. Wickburg claims that the design liquid-
to-gas contact time is adequate for the liquid to remove the hydrochloric acid (HC1) to a
level in excess of 97.5 percent, or below 20 parts per million (ppm). The liquid solution
is held in three polypropylene tanks directly below the scrubber and consists of a mixture
of salts, caustic soda, and water maintained at a design pH of 6.5 to 9.5. The pH is
controlled by the injection of caustic soda into the end tank which is controlled according
to a pH sensor located in the middle tank. All these tanks are connected by overflow
pipes. According to the representative from E.G. Wickburg, three tanks were used
instead of one due to space limitations. This solution is pumped by the main pump
throughout the system. A manual bleed to the sewer to the left of the return tank of up
to 11 C/min (3 gal/min) controls the buildup of salts in the system. The tanks are
maintained at an appropriate level as determined by hydraulic conditions.
3.2.6 Waste Management Practices
The waste materials are collected by the hospital housekeeping staff. The red
bag, or infectious, waste is collected from all patient contact areas including patient
rooms, examination rooms, operating and recovery rooms, and laboratories. This red
bag waste is composed of drugs and chemicals; patient contact items such as disposable
garments, dressings, and disposable surgical tools; sharps; diagnostic devices; and human
dkd.176 3-5
-------
tissue. Pathological waste is estimated to be from 5 to 10 percent of the total waste
weight. Only red bag wastes and sharps containers are fed into the incinerator.
The non-red bag wastes such as cafeteria and office wastes are placed in standard
30-gallon plastic trash bags and placed in a dumpster.
3.2.7 Typical Daily Operation
The hospital maintenance staff is responsible for operating the MWI. The typical
hours of supervised operation are from 7:00 to 15:00 and consist of charging the
incinerator in the morning (approximately 20 minutes), starting the incinerator, and
occasionally monitoring key parameters to make sure the unit is operating properly. The
time required for the entire burn, which includes the preheat cycle, the burn cycle, the
burndown cycle, and the cooldown cycle, is approximately 24 hours. At the end of the
burn, the primary and secondary chamber temperatures are approximately 288°C (550T).
At these temperatures, the charge door can be opened, but the MWI is too hot for the
ash to be removed or another waste charge to be added. Typically the incinerator is
fired three times a week (about every other day) with the ash being removed only once a
week. The ash is then put into red bags, placed into boxes, and shipped to a medical
waste disposal facility.
3.3 PRETEST ACTIVITIES
A pretest was conducted on March 1, 1991, to determine the operational
readiness of the incinerator and the ability of the incinerator to operate successfully at
the desired conditions of feed rate and temperature. The test conditions were the design
burning rate of a nominal 340 kilograms (kg) (750 pounds [lb]) per batch of mixed Type
0-4 waste with a secondary chamber temperature set-point of 982°C (1800T).
For the pretest on March 1, 1991, 318.4 kg (702 lb) of waste were loaded into the
primary chamber, and the unit was started at 13:30. At 14:37, the secondary chamber
had reached the low secondary chamber set-point temperature of 871°C (1600°F), and
the primary chamber burner fired for 60 seconds. At 14:38, the primary chamber burner
turned off and TD6 started, which was the beginning of the burn cycle. At 21:10,
6 hours and 32 minutes later, TD6 timed out and TD4 started. At 21:36, TD4 timed out
and TD2 started. This was the end of the burn cycle, which lasted 6 hours and 58
minutes, and the beginning of the burndown cycle. At this time, the primary chamber air
dkd.176 3_6
-------
changed to the high flow rate because the primary chamber temperature was below the
low primary chamber set-point of 621°C (1150°F). At 02:04 on March 2, 1991, TD2
timed out, TD1 started, and the secondary chamber burner turned off. This was the end
of the burndown cycle, which lasted 4 hours and 28 minutes, and the beginning of the
cooldown cycle. During the cooldown cycle, both the primary and secondary chamber
burners were off, and the combustion air remained on in both chambers. The primary
chamber combustion air, however, was still controlled between high and low flow based
on the temperature in that chamber. At 12:20, the cooldown cycle was completed, and
the unit shut down.
During the preheat cycle, while the secondary chamber temperature was below
871°C (1600°F), the main blower was not operating and there was no draft in the primary
chamber. The heat and flames from the secondary chamber ignited some of the waste in
the primary chamber, however, which caused considerable smoking from around the
charge door seals and the primary chamber burner.
During the burn cycle, the temperature in the primary chamber increased slowly
from 121°C (250°F) to 566°C (1050T). The temperature in the secondary chamber
increased from 871°C (1600°F) to 982°C (1800°F) and was maintained at that
temperature by the secondary chamber burner's switching between high and low fire.
At the beginning of the burndown cycle (21:36), the primary chamber combustion
air switched to the high flow rate and the primary chamber temperature began to
increase more rapidly. At 22:21, the primary chamber temperature reached 621°C
(1150°F), and the primary combustion air switched back to the low flow rate. The
primary chamber temperature then continued to increase slowly until reaching 704°C
(1300°F) at 02:04, which was the end of the burndown cycle. Also at the beginning of
the burndown cycle, the secondary chamber temperature increased until 22:00, when it
peaked at about 1093°C (2000°F). The secondary chamber temperature then decreased
until 22:26, when it reached 982°C (1800°F), and then cycled between 982°C (1800°F)
and 1010°C (1850°F) as the secondary chamber burner cycled between high and low fire.
At 02:04, the beginning of the cooldown cycle, the secondary chamber burner
turned off and the secondary chamber temperature began to decrease. At the same
time, the primary chamber temperature started to increase. At 03:15 the primary
dkd.176
3-7
-------
chamber temperature reached 927°C (1700°F) and started to decline. Both chamber
temperatures continued to decrease until 12:20, when the cooldown cycle was over and
the unit shut down.
Nils Anderson of Resource Technology Corporation, the company that installed
the MWI, recommended an increase in both the time and temperature of the buradown
cycle during the actual test program. This recommendation was made because of the
rapid increase in the primary chamber temperature during the pretest when the unit
changed from the burn cycle to the burndown cycle and when the unit changed from the
burndown to the cooldown cycle.
The primary chamber low temperature set-point was changed from 621°C
(1150T) to 677°C (1250°F), and the burndown time was changed from 4 hours 28
minutes to 5 hours 20 minutes. The settings were maintained for the entire test period
and were also the recommended operational settings for the hospital to use after the
testing program was completed.
3.4 PROCESS CONDITIONS DURING TESTING
The primary purpose of this source test was to characterize uncontrolled and
controlled emissions from a batch-fed MWI operating at design conditions with emissions
controlled by a fabric filter/packed-bed scrubber. The measurements were repeated in
triplicate at the design conditions while the incinerator burned red bag hospital waste.
The incinerator and air pollution control system seemed to operate properly
during all three test runs with the exception of the smoking problem from around the
door seals. This seemed to be a problem with the main blower and the draft control
system's being able to maintain a negative draft in the primary chamber. Also, this
problem seemed to be aggravated by the air leakage due to the modifications made to
the secondary chamber exhaust section for testing purposes and through the test ports
around the test probes during the actual sampling period.
The incinerator and air pollution control system operating parameters monitored
during each test run were the charge weight, the primary and secondary chamber
temperatures, the incinerator draft, the baghouse inlet temperature, the baghouse
pressure drop, the scrubber temperature, the scrubber pH, the scrubber pressure drop,
the flameport temperature, the temperatures at various positions within the primary '
dkd.176 3_g
-------
chamber, the ash weights, the opacity, and the actual times for the various incinerator
operating cycles. A data logger was used to record all the above parameters except for
the charge weight, the ash weight, the scrubber pH, the baghouse pressure drop, and the
opacity, 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 3-6 show the data-logged temperature
profiles for each run. A summary of each test run is given below.
3.4.1 Test Run 1: March 5. 1991
The loading of the waste into the incinerator for Run 1 began at 08:00 on March
4, 1991. Nine indicator spore pipes with thermocouples placed inside were positioned on
the floor of the primary chamber. Also, eight wire mesh indicator spore packages with
thermocouples were placed inside the separate indicator spore bags and located within
the waste bed (see Figure 3-7). The loading procedure was completed at 12:00, with 326
kg (719 Ib) of waste having been loaded into the primary chamber. At this time it was
discovered that the automatic data loggers were not operating, and the test was
postponed until March 5, 1991. Dry ice was loaded into the primary chamber in order to
cool the indicator spores until the test could begin.
The loading process, which normally takes only 20 minutes, took approximately
4 hours due to the careful placement of the thermocouples within the waste so that a
three-dimensional temperature profile of the burning waste bed could be obtained. Due
to the increased loading time and the increased cooldown time necessary to facilitate the
careful placement of the waste bags, Mr. Bill Maxwell of EPA decided to perform this
three-dimensional temperature profile test only once. The remaining two tests had the
nine thermocouples within the spore pipes on the floor of the incinerator, but no
thermocouples were placed within the wire mesh packages.
At 08:33 on March 5, 1991, the automatic data logging system had been repaired,
and the MWI was started. The primary chamber low temperature set-point was 371°C
(700°F), the primary chamber high temperature set-point was 677°C (1250°F), the
secondary chamber low temperature set-point was 871°C (1600°F), the secondary
chamber high temperature set-point was 1010°C (1850°F), the baghouse cleaning cycle
dkd.176
3-9
-------
Table 3-1. Process Data Summary for Emissions Testing at Jordan Hospital
Test
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Test
Date
3/05/91
3/05/91
3/07/91
3/07/91
3/09/91
3/09/91
Target Conditions
Charge
Rate
(Ib/batch)
750
750
750
Secondary
Chamber
Temp
(F)
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
Daily Operation
Total
Waste
Charged
(Ib/batch)
719.1
702.2
729.4
Ash
(%of
Waste
Charged)
9.8
13.5
8.3
Actual Test Conditions (a)
Avg
Primary
Chamber
Temp
(F)
653
11%
600
1205
640
1197
Avg Sec.
Chamber
Temp
(F)
1788
1866
1789
1846
1799
1922
Stack Gas Conditions
Inlet
Flow
Rate
(acfm)
2758
2434
2439
2010
2214
1806
Avg
Temp
(F)
1171
1102
1208
1152
1153
1226
Outlet
Row
Rate
(acfm)
2025
2150
1942
1838
1853
1489
Avg
Temp
(F)
178
185
189
190
174
176
Avg. gas
Res. time
In Sec.
Chamb (b)
(sec)
1.45
1.52
1.67
1.91
1.77
2.16
(a) Includes port changes and times for all trains; not just the method 5 trains.
(b) Residence time is based on the secondary chamber volume of 2.60 m3 (91.7 ft3) and is calculated as follows for Run 1:
Res. time, sec
(91.7 fl3)(60s/min)(l 171 +460 R)
(2758 acfm)( 1788+460 R)
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR JORDAN HOSPITAL
RUN 1 BURN (3-05-91)
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
MPERATURE
g 800
700
600
500
400^
300^
200
100
9
^^1
^^^^
v^-x^"'~~^
_ — . _ -
r "
^\^/V^^Wf^^^
, _ - - '
-~~'
WtvW^j^jtfr
T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i I i i i ' i [ ' ' ' ' i | i i ' i F r
00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
T1ME(24 HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
-------
UJ
to
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
§1500
Q.
S 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR JORDAN HOSPITAL
RUN 2 BURNDOWN (3-05-91)
•-^^^^f^^
16:45
17:15 17:45 18:15 18:45 19:15 19:45 20:15 20:45 21:15 21:45 22:15
T1ME(24HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
-------
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
J£ 1200
1100
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR JORDAN HOSPITAL
RUN 3 BURN (3-07-91)
£ 1000
j§ 900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
9:00
1 r"—i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r~
-i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—1~
10:00
11:00
12:00 13:00 14:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
15:00
~l| 1 1 1 1 1 1^
16:00 17:00
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR JORDAN HOSPITAL
RUN 4 BURNDOWN (3-07-91)
UJ
DC
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
T—I—i—I—I—I—I—I—i—i—I—I—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—I—i—i—I—i—i—I—i—i—i—I—i—I—i—i—i—i—i—1—i—i—i—i—r-
16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00
T1ME(24 HOUR)
Upper Chamber Temperature
-------
Ln
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
LU 1200
£ 1100
§1000
jjb 900
P 800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
9:25
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR JORDAN HOSPITAL
RUN 5 BURN (3-09-91)
10:25
-i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
11:25
12:25 13:25
T1ME(24 HOUR)
14:25
15:25
16:25
Upper Chamber Temperature
Lower Chamber Temperature
-------
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
B 1300
CL 1100
U)
900
700
500
300
100
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR JORDAN HOSPITAL
RUN 6 BURNDOWN (3-09-91)
~i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—I—i—i—i—r~
"1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T
16:15
16:45 17:15 17:45 18:15 18:45 19:15 19:45 20:15 20:45
T1ME(24 HOUR)
21:15 21:45
-------
WIRE MESH SPDRE PACKAGES
COMBUSTION AIR
INJECTION PORTS
OMBUSTION AIR INJECTION PORTS
SPORE PIPE
ISOMETRIC VIEW
15'
1
10'
-48'
-16' 1 32'
5'
_13.-O ' T
15'
10'
PLAN VIEW
-24'
-16'
SIDE VIEW
58'
-61
Figure 3-7. Spore Placement Diagram
3-17
-------
was 30 seconds, the baghouse inlet temperature set-point was 204°C (400°F), the heat
exchanger exit temperature set-point was 185°C (365°F), the scrubber temperature set-
point was 80°C (176°F), and the timer set-points were as follows: TD1 = 10, TD2 = 5.5,
TD3 - 2.0, TD4 = 3.5, TD5 = 3.75, TD6 = 6.5, and TD7 = 2.5.
A considerable amount of smoke came from around the charge door seals and the
primary chamber burner while the secondary chamber temperature was below 871°C
(1600°F) during the preheat cycle.
At 09:46, the secondary chamber temperature reached 873°C (1603°F) and TD5
started. The TD5 timer timed out 60 seconds later, and the primary burner did not light.
Therefore, the timer was reset by unplugging and replugging it. At this time, the primary
burner fired and burned for 60 seconds until TD5 timed out again. This was the
beginning of the burn cycle and the burn cycle testing.
At approximately 12:20, the secondary chamber temperature reached 1010°C
(1850°F), and the secondary chamber burner changed to low fire. The secondary
chamber temperature then began to cycle between 982°C (1800°F) and 1010°C (1850°F)
as the secondary chamber burner cycled between high and low fire. Also at this time,
the primary chamber draft cycled between -0.07 and +0.12 kpa (-0.3 and +0.5 in. w.c.).
When the primary chamber draft changed to positive, smoke leaked from around the
charge door and the primary chamber burner. Apparently, when the secondary chamber
burner changed to high fire, the main blower could not remove all the flue gases until
the control damper had opened sufficiently. Once the control system recognized the
positive pressure in the primary chamber, the damper opened, the primary chamber draft
increased, and the smoking stopped. Also, if ports were left open, or the port area
around the probes was not sealed tightly, the smoking was much worse. The smoking
problem also occurred during the pretest, when no testing was being performed, but
seemed to be in smaller amounts. Increased diligence was exercised in keeping the test
ports sealed during the remainder of the test program.
At 16:49, the burn cycle ended and the burndown cycle began. At this time, the
primary chamber air flow, which up until this point had been in low flow, changed to
high flow, and the smoking from the doors and primary burner increased. Apparently,
when the primary chamber blower is on high flow and the secondary chamber burner is
dkd.176 3-18
-------
on high fire, the main blower cannot remove all the flue gases and maintain a negative
draft in the primary chamber even when the control damper is at the full open setting.
This smoking problem then cycled on and off as the secondary chamber cycled between
high and low fire until 18:45, when the primary chamber temperature climbed above
677°C (1250°F) and the primary chamber combustion air changed to low flow. At this
time, the ID fan and control damper were able to maintain a slightly negative draft and
control the smoking problem fairly well.
At 22:11, the burndown cycle ended and the cooldown cycle began. At 08:30 on
March 6, 1991, the cooldown cycle ended and the unit shut down. The incinerator door
was opened at 08:35, and the main blower was turned on to help cool the incinerator
more quickly. A white to gray ash covered the hearth to a depth of 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4
in) with one small clump of smoldering material. The burnout appeared to be very
good.
At 15:20, the ash cleanout began. A small amount of water was sprayed onto the
ash bed to minimize the dust. The total weight of the ash removed was 31.91 kg
(70.34 Ib).
Once the incinerator had been cleaned, nine indicator spore pipes with
thermocouples were placed on the hearth in preparation for Run 2.
3.4.2 Test Run 2: March 7. 1991
The loading of the waste into the incinerator for Run 2 began at 07:30 on March
7, 1991, and 318.5 kg (702.21 Ib) of waste were loaded. Nine indicator spore pipes with
thermocouples were on the floor of the incinerator. The eight wire mesh indicator spore
packages, however, were inadvertently left out of the spore bags during the loading
procedure. See Figure 3-7 for the location of the pipes.
At 08:27, the incinerator was started and the preheat cycle began. All the
setpoints were the same as those for Run 1 except that TD5 was increased from 3.75 to
7.5. This was due to the primary chamber burner not igniting before TD5 had timed out
in Run 1.
During the preheat cycle, before the burn cycle began, there was smoke coming
from around the door seals and the primary chamber burner. At 09:36, the secondary
dkd.176
3-19
-------
chamber temperature reached 872°C (1602T), TD5 started, the primary chamber burner
fired for 120 seconds, and the burn cycle began.
At approximately 11:45, the secondary chamber temperature reached 1010°C
(1850°F) and the secondary chamber burner changed to low fire. As the secondary
burner began to cycle between low and high fire, the smoking around the door seals and
the primary burner became much worse. The incinerator draft was cycling between -0.07
and +0.01 kpa (-0.3 and +0.05 in. w.c.) as the control damper cycled with the secondary
chamber burner, trying to maintain a draft in the primary chamber. At 12:50,
Ms. Maureen Pellegrini from B. G. Wickburg Company, Inc., changed the full open
position of the control damper. The damper was opened as much as possible for the full
open setting. The impact of this change on the primary chamber draft was minimal, and
the smoking continued to cycle with the secondary chamber burner. At 16:38, the burn
cycle ended and the burndown cycle began. The primary chamber combustion air
changed to high flow, and the smoking problem increased. The smoking problem
continued until approximately 18:20, when the primary chamber temperature reached
677°C (1250°F) and the primary chamber combustion air changed to low flow.
While the smoking problem around the door seals and through the primary
chamber burner occurred during the pretest, the amount of smoke released was much
greater when the manual test trains were operating, and especially during port changes
when the ports had to be open for a short time. It was decided that some effort to
compensate for the decrease in draft from the testing procedures was necessary because
the amount of smoke being released was substantial and was causing problems not only
in the incinerator room but throughout the hospital. Ms. Pellegrini had already changed
the control damper full open position to its maximum setting, but it was a small change
in damper position and the effect on the smoking problem was minimal. Ms. Pellegrini
then suggested a slight increase in the ID fan speed in order to increase the ID fan
capacity. It was agreed to try this for the next test on March 9, 199.1.
At 21:58, the burndown cycle ended and the cooldown cycle began. At 08:14 on
March 8, 1991, the cooldown cycle ended and the unit shut down.
The incinerator was opened at 08:20, and the main blower was turned on to cool
the incinerator for. ash removal. The hearth was covered with a light-gray ash with "some
dkd.176 3-20
-------
dark black spots to a depth of 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in). There were no visible smoldering
clumps, and the burnout appeared to be very good.
At 13:50 the ash cleanout began. A small amount of water was sprayed onto the
ash bed to minimize the dust. The total weight of the ash removed was 43.03 kg
(94.87 Ib).
Once the incinerator had been cleaned, nine indicator spore pipes with
thermocouples were placed on the hearth in preparation for Run 3.
At 15:00, the main blower pulleys were changed in order to increase the fan speed
from 1,740 to 1,839 rpm. According to Ms. Pellegrini, this adjustment should increase
the fan capacity by approximately 5 percent.
3.4.3 Test Run 3: March 9. 1991
The loading of the waste into the incinerator for Run 3 began at 07:30 on March
9, 1991. The eight wire mesh indicator spore packages that were inadvertently left out of
Run 2 plus one more were placed beside the nine indicator spore pipes on the
incinerator hearth, and 330.7 kg (729.38 Ib) of waste were then loaded into the
incinerator. Also, eight wire mesh indicator spore packages were placed inside the
separate indicator spore bags and located within the waste bed. See Figure 3-7 for
placement of the pipes and mesh packages.
At 08:18, the incinerator was started and the preheat cycle began. All the
setpoints were the same as those for Run 2.
At 09:26, the secondary chamber temperature reached 872°C (1602°F) and TD5
started, but the primary chamber burner did not fire during the entire 120-second cycle.
The timer was reset, the burner fired, and the burn cycle began.
At 10:04, the main blower shut down and the bypass valve opened, sending the
flue gases directly to the stack. This bypass happened because the scrubber inlet
temperature exceeded the scrubber inlet temperature set-point of 80°C (176°F) for more
than 2 minutes. Within about one minute, the gases cooled, the bypass valve closed, and
the flue gases were again being passed through the baghouse and scrubber by the main
blower. At this point, the scrubber inlet water flow rate was increased so that a scrubber
inlet temperature of approximately 49°C (120°F) would be maintained. When the main
dkd.176
3-21
-------
blower capacity had been increased by increasing the blower rpm, the scrubber cooling
water flow had not been increased.
The primary chamber draft increased with the increase in the main blower rpm.
However, the smoking problem continued, though it appeared to be in smaller amounts.
At 12:04, the secondary chamber temperature reached 1010°C (1850T) and the
secondary chamber burner changed to low fire. The secondary chamber temperature
then alternated between 982°C (1800°F) and 1010°C (1850°F) as the secondary chamber
burner cycled between low and high fire.
At 16:25, the burn cycle ended and the burndown cycle began. The secondary
chamber temperature continued increasing until it finally peaked at 1193°C (2180°F) at
17:41 and then started to decline. By 18:45, the secondary chamber temperature had
dropped below 1010°C (1850°F), and the secondary chamber burner was again cycling
between low and high fire.
At 21:44, the burndown cycle was over and the cooldown cycle began. At 07:59
on March 10, 1991, the cooldown cycle ended and the unit shut down.
The incinerator was opened at 07:59, and the main blower was turned on to cool
the incinerator for ash removal. The hearth was covered with a light-gray ash mixed
with more black spots than were present in the ash from the other two runs. The ash
depth varied between 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in). No smoldering clumps were visible. The
total weight of the ash removed was 27.37 kg (60.35 Ib).
dkd.176 3-22
-------
4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
The sampling locations used during the emission testing program at the Jordan
Hospital MWI are described in this section. Flue gas samples were collected at the inlet
to the APCD and at the exhaust stack.
An unlined steel stack extension was fabricated and temporarily installed at the
top of the existing stack. The existing stack is also a 21 inches inside diameter (ID) steel
stack housed in a brick shell. The existing stack has ample straight run for meeting
Method 1 sample point requirements; however, only a single set of ports was in place
and the extension had to be installed. The existing stack was 40 feet high. The general
configuration of the stack/extension placement is shown in Figure 4-1.
The extension was 21 in. ID and 16 feet high. Three sets of test ports were
provided as shown in Figure 4-2. The lower set of ports were used for the CEM,
HC1/CEM, and manual HC1 tests. The upper two sets of ports were used for both
CDD/CDF and PM/Metals testing. The two upper sets of ports were aligned with each
other in the vertical plane, while the lowest set was offset by 45° to prevent flow
disturbances. The test ports were located in an ideal location according to EPA
Method 1. There were at least two stack diameters of undisturbed flow downstream of
the ports, and greater than eight diameters of undisturbed flow upstream of the ports.
(NOTE: CDD/CDF and metals sampling probes are not treated as upstream
disturbances for the upper set of ports.)
The number of traverse points required for the CDD/CDF and PM/Metals
testing is eight. Four points on each of two diameters were used as shown in Figure 4-3.
The sampling location at the inlet to the air pollution control system is shown hi
Figure 4-4. Four manual flue gas sampling trains were employed at the inlet as well as
both the main CEM and HC1/CEM extractive systems. The manual trains consisted of
microbial, CDD/CDF, PM/Metals, and the midget HC1 trains. Immediately after the
gas exited the incineration chamber, it was directed downward in a 4.75 x 19.25 inch
refractory-lined duct. Eight inches below the gas entrance to this duct, two sample
probes were located for inlet CEMS (O2, CO2, CO, NOX, SO2, and THC), and inlet HC1
CEM. Estimated temperature at this locations probably ranged from 1500 to 2000°F.
dkd.176 4-1
-------
Stack
I.D. Blower
HCI
Air Damper
(normally close
Packed Bed Absorber
(D«talhi not shown tor clarity)
By-Pass CEM's
Valve -*—
Heat Exchanger
Figure 4-1. Generalized Schematic Showing Incinerator, Air Polution Control Devices,
and Sampling Locations; Jordan Hospital (1991)
-------
J
204*
'
i t
72"
1
72'
48'
12-
r
r
L
D
r r
L
B
' "'J
21 •
.
:-i-;
c
•'' i '• _•
A
CDD/COF
*~PM/METALS
tt«ok
Extension
CDD/CDF
PM/METALS
-^-HCVHBr/HF
HdCEM
Stick
Figure 4-2. Stack Gas Sample Locations
Jordan Hospital (1991)
4-3
-------
Port A
Point
1
2
3
4
Percent
of Diameter
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3
Inside Diameter • 2
Inches from
Inside Wall
1.4
5.25
15.75
19.6
Figure 4-3. Traverse Point Layout (Stack Location)
Jordan Hospital (1991)
4-4
-------
INCINERATOR
WALL
I
•©
MAIN OEM
& HCI/CEM
PORT
SPORE PORT
22
15
TO HEAT
EXCHANGER
t
TM & CDD/CDF
PORTS
HCI/HBr/HF
PORT
-i-
8"
T
18'OD
(15' ID)
48"
32'
Figure 4-4. Inlet Flue Gas Sample Location;
Jordan Hospital (1991)
4-5
-------
The microbial train accessed flow gases through a single port in a
4.75 x 19.25 inch ID duct, with an equivalent diameter of 7.6 inches. This location was
approximately 5 equivalent diameters downstream and 2.9 diameters upstream from the
closest flow disturbances. A 1 x 4 sampling matrix was used as shown in Figure 4-5.
The inlet manual HCl/HBr/HF tests were conducted in a port downstream of the
microbial port located in the 15-inch ID cylindrical duct. These tests were not isokinetic
and hence, Method 1 sample location criteria did not apply.
The inlet CDD/CDF sample train and the PM/Metals train accessed flue gas
through ports in a refractory-lined 15 inch ID duct. There were two sets of two sampling
ports established for isokinetic sampling. The lower set was 2.1 duct diameters
downstream and approximately 2 diameters upstream from the closest flow disturbance.
The upper set was 3.2 duct diameters downstream and approximately 1.5 duct diameters
upstream from the closest flow disturbance. Both CDD/CDF and PM/Metals inlet tests
were conducted simultaneously through one set of ports (same level). Traverse points
were used for CDD/CDF and PM/Metals tests as shown in Figure 4-6. Twenty points
were actually used as Points 1 and 2 were combined and Points 11 and 12 were
combined, because they were located within 1 inch of the duct wall.
Ash, scrubber make-up water, and scrubber blowdown water were also sampled
during this test program. Ash was removed from the incinerator bed the day (afternoon)
following a test series (burn run and burndown run). Ash was placed in a large
(55 gallon) stainless steel drum where it was later composited into 1 liter samples using a
sample thief. Scrubber make-up water samples were collected from a hose tap located
inside the incinerator room. Scrubber blowdown water was collected from a scrubber
liquor discharge line.
dkd.176 4-6
-------
4.75'
3.8
3.8
3.8"
1.9
V
19.25'
Figure 4-5 Traverse Point Layout for Flue Gas
Microbial Survivability (Inlet Location)
4-7
-------
Port A
5 4 3 1,2
PortB
Inside Diameter * 15 Inches
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Percent
of Diameter
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.8
64.4
75.0
82.3
86.2
93.3
97.9
Inches from
Inside Wall
1.0
1.0
1.8
2.7
3.75
5.4
9.7
11.25
12.3
12.9
14.0
14.0
Figure 4-6. Traverse Point Layout for CDD/CDF and Metals (Inlet Locatio
4-8
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES BY ANALYTE
The sampling and analytical procedures used for the Jordan Hospital MWI test
program were the most recent revisions of the published EPA methods. Where
published methods were not available, state-of-the-art sampling and analytical methods
were used. In this section, descriptions of each sampling and analytical method by
analyte were provided.
A summary of the sampling methods that were 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 was 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 was 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 report.)
5.1.1 CDD/CDF Sampling Equipment
The CDD/CDF sampling method used 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:
• Used all components (quartz probe/nozzle liner, all other glassware,
filters) which were pre-cleaned using solvent rinses and extraction
techniques; and
• Used a condensing coil and XAD-II* resin absorption module located
between the filter and impinger train.
All sampling equipment specifications are detailed in the reference method shown
in Appendix K.
dkd.176
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1 TEST METHODS USED FOR THE JORDAN HOSPITAL MWI
Analyte
Method
CDD/CDF
Particulates
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Beryllium
Antimony
Barium
Silver
Thallium
SO2
02/C02
CO
NOX
THC
HC1
HC1
HBr
HF
EPA Proposed Method 23 with GC/MS
Method 8290
EPA/EMSL Multimetals Train
EPA Instrument Methods 6C
3A
10
7E
25 A/ 18
NDIR CEM Analyzer
EPA Draft Method 26
EPA Draft Method 26
EPA Draft Method 26
Microorganisms in Emissions
Microorganisms in Pipe Test
and Direct Ash Test
Opacity
Loss On Ignition
Carbon
EPA Draft Method "Microbial
Survivability Tests for MWI Emissions"
EPA Draft Method "Microbial
Survivability Tests for MWI Ash"
EPA Method 9
Standard Methods of Water &
Wastes 209G
ASTMD 3178-84
JBS282
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. SAMPLING TIMES, MINIMUM SAMPLING VOLUMES AND DETECTION
LIMITS FOR THE JORDAN HOSPITAL MVVI TESTS
Sampling Sampling Minimum
Train Time Sample Volume
(hours) (dscf)
CDD/CDF 4a 120
PM/Metals 4s 120
HCl/HBr/HF 1.0 120 liters"
Microorganisms 3.2 30
Analyte
CDD/CDF
PM
As
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Be
Ba
Sb
Ag
Tl
Cl
Br
F
Indicator
sporesd
Detection Limit
Flue Gas
0.3 ng/dscm
0.006 gr/dscf
0.3 g/dscm
0.6 g/dscm
1.6 g/dscm
0.2 g/dscm
25 g/dscm
1.6 g/dscm
0.3 g/dscm
0.2 g/dscm
3.3 g/dscm
0.71 g/dscm
4.2 g/dscm
28 g/dscm
32 g/dscm
100 g/dscm
30 viable sporesc
dscm
Analytical
0.01 ng
50-100 mge
0.002 g/ml
0.006 g/ml
0.015 g/ml
0.002 g/ml
0.25 g/ml
0.015 g/ml
0.0003 g/ml
0.002 g/ml
0.032 g/ml
0.007 g/ml
0.040 g/ml
0.1 1 g/ml
0.127 g/ml
0.40C g/ml
1 viable spores
aliquot
a An average sampling rate of 0.5 ft3/min was used to calculate sampling time.
b An average sampling rate of 2 liters/min was used to calculate the sample volume.
c Detection limit based on 100 ml aliquot. Method is still under development. Actual limit may vary.
3 The indicator spore will be Bacillus stearothermophilus. (only 1 I)
e Based on average detection limits for tetra-octa CDD/CDF congeners.
-------
Water CooM
Proba Shaath
Stack
Wai
Tamparatura /
Sanaor
Tamparalura Sanaor
S-TypaPHolTuba
Tamparaiura Sensor
XAO-2Trap
Tamparatura Sanacx
HaatTracwi
(kjaittPreba
Unar
Radrculatton
Pump
Watar Knockout lOOmlHPLCWalar Empty SgcaGal
(300 grams)
vacuum
Qauga
Vacuum
Una
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 included several unique preparation steps which ensured that the
sampling train components were not contaminated with organics that may interfere with
analysis. The glassware, glass fiber filters, and absorbing resin were cleaned and the
filters and resin were checked for residuals before they were packed.
5.1.2.1 Glassware Preparation. Glassware was cleaned as shown in Table 5-3.
Glassware was washed in soapy water, rinsed with distilled water, baked, and then rinsed
with acetone followed by methylene chloride. Clean glassware was allowed to dry under
a hood loosely covered with foil to prevent laboratory contamination. Once the
glassware was dried, the air-exposed ends were 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
were used during sampling and recovery were 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) were cleaned
following the same procedure except that no baking was 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-lf Resin and Filters Preparation. The XAD-II* absorbing resin and
glass fiber filters were pre-cleaned by separate procedures according to the specified
method. Only pesticide-grade solvents and HPLC-grade water were used to prepare for
organic sampling and to recover these samples. The lot number, manufacturer, and
grade of each reagent used was recorded in the laboratory notebook.
To prepare the filters, a batch of 50 was placed in a soxhlet pre-cleaned by
extraction with toluene. The soxhlet was charged with fresh toluene and refluxed for
16 hours. After the extraction, the toluene was 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 were found, the filters were
dkd.176
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-3. CDD/CDF GLASSWARE CLEANING PROCEDURE
(Train Components, Sample Containers and
Laboratory Glassware)
NOTE: USE VTTON® GLOVES AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION WHEN
RINSING WITH SOLVENTS
1. Soak all glassware in hot soapy water (Alconox®).
2. Tap water rinse to remove soap.
3. Distilled/deionized H2O rinse (X3).a
4. Bake at 450°F for 2 hours."
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.
b 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).
JBS282
-------
re-extracted until no TCDD or TCDF was detected. The filters were then dried
completely under a clean nitrogen (N2) stream. Each filter was individually checked for
holes, tears, creases, or discoloration, and if found, was discarded. Acceptable filters
were 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 was 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 was completely dry, it was 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 were found, the resin was re-extracted. If methylene chloride was
found, the resin was dried until the excess solvent was removed. The absorbent was to
be used within four weeks of cleaning.
The cleaned XAD-II* resin was spiked with five CDD/CDF internal standards.
Due to the special handling considerations required for the CDD/CDF internal
standards, the spiking was performed by Triangle Laboratories. For convenience and to
minimize contamination, Triangle Laboratories also performed the resin and filter
cleanup procedures and loaded the resin into the glass traps.
5.1.2.3 CDD/CDF Method 5 Equipment Preparation. The remaining
preparation included calibration and leak checking of all sampling train equipment. This
included: meterboxes, thermocouples, nozzles, pitot tubes, and umbilicals. Referenced
calibration procedures were followed when available. The results were properly
dkd.176 5-7
-------
documented in a laboratory notebook or project file and retained. If a referenced
calibration technique for a particular piece of apparatus was not available, then a
state-of-the-art technique was 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
were required to ensure isokinetic sampling. These included determining the traverse
point locations, performing a preliminary velocity traverse, cyclonic flow check, and
moisture determination. These measurements were used to calculate a "K factor." The
K factor was used to determine an isokinetic sampling rate from stack gas flow readings
taken during sampling.
Measurements were then made of the duct inside diameter, port nozzle length,
and the distances to the nearest upstream and downstream flow disturbances. These
measurements were then used to determine sampling point locations by following EPA
Reference Method 1 guidelines. The distances were then marked on the sampling probe
using an indelible marker.
5.1.3.2 Assembling the Train. Assembling the CDD/CDF sampling train
components was completed in the recovery trailer and final train assembly was
performed at the stack location. First, the empty, clean impingers were assembled and
laid out in the proper order in the recovery trailer. Each ground glass joint was carefully
inspected for hairline cracks. The first impinger was a knockout impinger which has a
short tip. The purpose of this impinger was to collect condensate which forms in the coil
and XAD-II* resin trap. The next two impingers were modified tip impingers which each
contain 100 ml of HPLC-grade water. The fourth impinger was empty, and the fifth
impinger contains 200 to 300 grams of blue indicating silica gel. After the impingers
were loaded, each impinger was weighed, and the initial weight and contents of each
impinger were recorded on a recovery data sheet. The impingers were connected
together using clean glass U-tube connectors and arranged in the impinger bucket as
shown in Figure 5-2. The height of all the impingers was approximately the same to
obtain a leak free seal. The open ends of the train were sealed with methylene
chloride-rinsed aluminum foil or clean ground glass caps.
dkd.176 5-8
-------
ShdM 'or Atttcnmg
tO M«tt«4
\
imping* lucut
SIM* tor Attaching QoQMfttck
Ffgura 5-2. lmplng«r Cortlflurttlon for COO/COF Sampling
5-9
-------
The second step was to load the filter into the filter holder in the recovery trailer.
The filter holder was then capped off and placed with the resin trap and condenser coil
(capped) into the impinger bucket. A supply of pre-cleaned foil and socket joints was
also placed in the bucket in a clean plastic bag for the convenience of the samplers. To
avoid contamination of the sample, sealing greases were not used. The train components
were transferred to the sampling location and assembled as previously shown in
Figure 5-1.
5.1.3.3 Sampling Procedures. After the train was assembled, the heaters were
turned on for the probe liner and heated filter box and the sorbent module/condensor
coil recirculating pump was turned on. When the system reaches the appropriate
temperatures, the sampling train was 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 was maintained at 120
± 14°F (248 ±25°F). The probe temperature was maintained above 100°C (212°F).
The sampling trains were 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 incorporated leak checks before and after every port
change. An acceptable pre-test leak rate was 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 was performed before the glassware piece
was removed, and after the train was re-assembled.
To leak check the assembled train, the nozzle end was capped off and a vacuum
of 15 in. Hg was pulled in the system. When the system was evacuated, the volume of
gas flowing through the system was timed for 60 seconds. After the leak rate was
determined, the cap was slowly removed from the nozzle end until the vacuum drops off,
and then the pump was turned off. If the leak rate requirement was not met, the train
was systematically checked by first capping the train at the filter, at the first impinger,
etc., until the leak was located and corrected.
After a successful pre-test leak check had been conducted, all train components
were at their specified temperatures, initial data were recorded [dry gas meter (DGM)
reading], the test can be initiated. Sampling train data were recorded periodically on
dkd.176 5-10
-------
standard data forms. A checklist for CDD/CDF sampling is included in Table 5-4. A
sampling operation that was unique to CDD/CDF sampling was that the gas
temperature entering the resin trap must be below 20°C (68°F). The gas was cooled by a
water jacket condenser through which ice water was circulated.
The leak rates and sampling start and stop times were recorded on the sampling
task log. Also, any other events that occur during sampling were 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 wa not running (i.e., during port changes
or after the run was completed), the probe liner was replaced, the run was completed,
and sample recovery done on both the broken sections of the glass liner and the
replacement liner. If the break occurred while the DGM was running and the exact time
of the break was noted, the test was stopped so that the probe liner could be replaced.
The run was then completed and sample recovery done on all liner sections. If the
recovered sample appeared unusual, the sample was discarded and an additional run was
performed later. If the recovered sample appeared normal, the run was tentatively
acceptable.
At the conclusion of the test run, the sample pump (or flow) was turned off, the
probe was removed from the duct, a final DGM reading was taken, and a post-test leak
check was completed. The procedure was 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 was less than 4 percent of the average sample
rate or 0.02 acfm (whichever was 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 was 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" was then subtracted from the measured gas volume in order to
determine the final gas sample volume.
dkd.176 5-11
-------
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 confirm 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.)
JBS282
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
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.
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 if expecting mositure entrapment.
6. Change filter if vacuum suddenly increases or exceeds 15 inches Hg.
7. Check impinger solutions every 1/2 hour; if the knockout impinger is approaching
full, stop test and empty it into a pre-weighed bottle and replace it in the train.
8. Check impinger silica gel every 1/2 hour; if indicator color begins to fade, request
a prefilled, preweighed impinger from the recovery trailer.
9. Check the ice in the impinger bucket frequently. If the stack gas temperatures
are high, the ice will melt at the bottom rapidly. Maintain condenser coil and
silica gel impinger gas temperatures below 68°F.
After test is completed:
1. Record final meter reading.
2. Do final leak check of sampling train at maximum vacuum during test.
3. Do final pitot leak check.
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
4. Check completeness of data sheet. Verify that impinger bucket identification is
recorded on the data sheets. Note any abnormal conditions.
5. Leak check function (level, zero, etc.) of pitot tubes and inspect 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.
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 particulate 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.
8. Cap both ends of nozzle/probe liner for the next day, and store in dry safe place.
9. Make sure data sheets are completely filled out, legible, and give them to the
Crew Chief.
JBS282
-------
5.1.4 CDD/CDF Sample Recovery
To facilitate transfer from the sampling location to the recovery trailer, the
sampling train was 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 was capped with methylene chloride-rinsed
aluminum foil or ground glass caps before removal to the recovery trailer. Once in the
trailer, field recovery followed the scheme shown in Figure 5-3. The samples were
recovered and stored in cleaned amber glass bottles to prevent light degradation.
The solvents used for train recovery were all pesticide grade. The use of the
highest grade reagents for train recovery was 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 was stored in a cooler on ice at all times. The samples were 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 were by HRGC and HRMS (resolution from 8000-10000 m/e). The
target CDD/CDF congeners are listed in Table 5-6. The analyses were performed by
Triangle Laboratories, Inc., by Method 8290X.
The flue gas samples were analyzed in two fractions according to the scheme in
Figure 5-4. One fraction was the total train methylene chloride and acetone rinses,
filter(s), and sorbent module; the other fraction was comprised of the toluene rinse of
applicable portions of the sampling train. For the CDD/CDF analysis,
isotopically-labeled surrogate compounds and internal standards were added to the
samples before the extraction process was initiated. The internal standards and
surrogates that were used are described in detail in EPA Method 23.
Data from the mass spectrometer were 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 were calculated by
dkd.176
5-15
-------
Probe Nozzle Probe Uner Cyclone
Back Half
Front Half of Fitter Connecting
Filter House Filter Support Housing Une Condenser
Filter
Flesln Trap
1st Implnger
(knockout)
CO
*
»—•
0\
Rinse wtth Attach Brush and Brush and Rinse with Rinse wtth Rinse with Rinse wtth Carefully Secure XAD Weigh
Acetone 250 mL Rask rinse with rinse wtth acetone acetone acetone acetone remove finer trap Implnger
until all to Ball Joint acetone acetone (3x) (3x) (3x) (3x) from support openings ,
Paniculate i (3x) (3x) V V' V with tweezers wtthglass 1
Is Removed | T T T balls and *
1
Rinse wtth
Acetone
Empty Flask
Into 950 ml
Bottle
i
Brus
i
T
T Uner
and Rinse
wr
th3
Allquots of
Acetone
1
Check Uner
to See It
Partt
culate
Is Removed.
tt Not Repeat
*
i
Rinse with Rinse wtth Rinse wtth Rinse wtth
3 Allquots 3 Allquots 3 Allquots 3 Allquots
of Memylene of Metnylene of Memylene of Metnylene
Chloride Chloride Chloride Chloride
^
: : i
: : FteCOV
i
Rinse wtth Rinse with Rinse wtth Brush loose
methylene metnylene metnylene partjculate
chloride chloride chloride onto fitter
damps Record
weight
Place In and
(3x) (3x) (3x) cooler tor calculate
(at least once
let the rinse
stand 5 minutes
In unit)
'
'
(at least once
let the rinse Seal In
stand 5 minutes petrl dish
In unit)
1
F
er Into _. :
storage gain
t
T
Discard
SM
Note: See Ta
; i '• prewelghed «nse Rinse
; : : botfle with with
:
•
Toluene • Toluene
(3x) : (3x)
Rinse Rinse Rinse Rinse , — ' — , (at toast once Rinse (at least once
with with wtth w«h PR I let the rinse wtth let the rinse
Toluene Toluene Toluene Toluene '
(3X) (3x) (3X) (3x)
— ' stand 5 minutes Toluene stand 5 minutes
In unit) (3x) In unit)
2nd Implnger
Weigh
Implnger
Record
weight
and
calculate
gain
Discard
3rd Implnger
I
Weigh
Implnger
I
Record
weight
and
calculate
gain
Discard
4th Implnger
Weigh
Implnger
Record
weight
and
calculate
gain
t
Discard
5th Impinger
(silica gel)
Weigh
Impinger
Ftecord
weight
and
calculate
gain
Save
for
regeneration
Note: See Table 5-5 for Sample Fractions Identification
PRT/CRT
Figure 5-3. Flue Gas CDD/CDF Field Recovery Scheme (Method 23)
-------
b
TABLE 5-5. CDD/CDF SAMPLE FRACTIONS SHIPPED
TO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Container/ Code Fraction
Component
F Filter(s)
PRa Acetone and methylene chloride rinses of
nozzle/probe, cyclone, front half/back half
filter holder, filter support, connecting
glassware, condenser
PRT5 Toluene rinse of nozzle/probe, cyclone, front
CRT* half/back half filter holder, filter support,
connecting line and condensor
SM XAD-II® resin trap (sorbent module)
Rinses include acetone and methylene chloride recovered into the same sample bottle.
Rinses of toluene recovered into separate sample bottle (sometimes toluene probe
rinse (PRT) and coil rinse (CRT) are recovered separately).
JBS282 -)"
-------
TABLE 5-6. CDD/CDF CONGENERS ANALYZED
DIOXINS:
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Total tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD)
Total pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PeCDD)
1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD)
Total hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDD)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDD)
Total octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD)
FURANS:
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzofurans (2,3,7,8 TCDF)
Total tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF)
1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF)
2,3,4,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF)
Total pentachlorinated dibenzofurans (PeCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF)
2,3,4,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF)
Total hexachlorinated dibenzofurans (HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF)
l',2,3,4,7,8,9 heptachlorodibenzofuran (l',2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
cio
JBS282 J"10
-------
Silica Gel Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Eluate to 1 mL
withN2
Basic Aluminium Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Eluate to
O.SmLwithfsL
FK-21 Carbon/Celrte 545
Column Chromatogaphy
Cleanup; Concentrate
Eluate 1.0 ml in
Rotary Evaporator
Concentrate Eluate to
200 ml with N ;
Store In Freezer
Analyze with DB-5
Capillary column; if
TCDF is Found, Continue
Analyze with DB-5
Capillary column; if
TCDF is Found, Continue
Analyze with
SP2331
Column
Analyze with
SP2331
Column
Quantify Results
According to
Section 5.3.2.6
of Reference Method
Quantify Results
According to
Section 5.3.2.6
of Reference Method
Rgure 5-4. Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples
5-19
-------
computer. The chromatograms were 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 were checked against the Chain-of-Custody forms and then
assigned an analytical laboratory sample number. Each sample component was
reweighed to determine if leakage occurred during travel. Color, appearance, and other
particulars of the samples were noted. Samples were extracted within 21 days of
collection.
5.1.5.2 Calibration of GC/MS System. A five-point calibration of the GC/MS
system was performed to demonstrate instrument linearity over the concentration range
of interest. Relative response factors were calculated for each congener or compound of
interest. The response factors were verified on a daily basis using a continuing
calibration standard consisting of a mid-level mixed isomer standard. The instrument
performance was acceptable only if the measured response factors for the labeled and
unlabeled compounds and the ion-abundance ratios were 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 were followed. Blanks
were used to determine analytical contamination, calibration standards were used for
instrument calibration and linearity checks, internal standards were used to determine
isomer recoveries and adjust response factors for matrix effects, surrogate standards were
used to measure the collection efficiency of the sampling methodology, and an alternate
standard was used as a column efficiency check.
5.1.6.1 CDD/CDF Quality Control Blanks. Three different types of sample
blanks were collected for CDD/CDF analysis. The type of blanks that were required are
shown in Table 5-7.
Reagent blanks of 1000 ml of each reagent used at the test site were saved for
potential analysis. Each reagent blank was of the same lot as was used during the
sampling program. Each lot number and reagent grade was recorded on the field blank
label and in the laboratory notebook.
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.
JBS282
5-21
-------
A glassware blank (proof blank) was recovered from each set of sample train
glassware that was used to collect the organic samples. The precleaned glassware, which
consists of a probe liner, filter holder, condenser coil, and impinger set, was loaded as if
for sampling and then quantitatively recovered exactly as the samples were. Analysis of
the generated fractions was used to check the effectiveness of the glassware cleaning
procedure only if sample analysis indicates a potential contamination problem.
A field blank was collected from a set of CDD/CDF glassware that had been
used to collect at least one sample and had been recovered. The train was re-loaded
and left at a sampling location during a test run. The train was then recovered. The
purpose of the field blank was to measure the level of contamination that occurs from
handling, loading, recovering, and transporting the sampling train. The field blanks were
analyzed with the flue gas samples. The field blanks showed no problems with
contamination.
To verify the flue gas sample was quantitatively recovered, toluene rinses were
also analyzed separately from the other fractions.
In addition to the three types of blanks that were required for the sampling
program, the analytical laboratory analyzed a method blank with each set of flue gas
samples. This consisted of prepping and analyzing reagent water by the exact procedure
used for the samples analysis. The purpose of this was to verify that there was 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 were not met, the data was acceptable if the signal to
noise ratio was greater than or equal to ten. If these requirements were met, the results
for the native (sampled) species were adjusted according to the internal standard
recoveries.
Surrogate standard recoveries must be between 70 to 130 percent. If the
recoveries of all standards were less than 70 percent, the project director was notified
immediately to determine if the surrogate results can be used to adjust the results of the
native species.
dkd.176 5-22
-------
Duplicate analysis was performed for every ten samples. The purpose of this was
to evaluate the precision of the combined sample preparation and analytical
methodology.
5.2 PARTICULATE MATTER AND METALS EMISSIONS TESTING
METHOD
Sampling for PM and metals was 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 was
presented in Appendix K. This method was applicable for the determination of
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 Jordan Hospital MWI test samples were performed for As,
Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Ag, Ba, Be, and Tl.
The PM emissions were also determined from this sampling train. Paniculate
concentrations were based on the weight gain of the filter and the front half acetone
rinses (probe, nozzle, and filter holder). After the gravimetric analyses had been
completed, the sample fractions were then analyzed for the target metals as discussed in
Section 5.2.5. 5.2.1 PM/Metals Sampling Equipment
The methodology used the sampling train shown in Figure 5-5. The 5-impinger
train consisted 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 was not exposed to any metal surfaces in this train. The
contents of the sequential impingers were: 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 was added. The second impinger containing HNO3/H2O2 was of the
Greenburg-Smith design; the other impingers had straight tubes. The impingers were
connected together with clean glass U-tube connectors and were arranged in an impinger
bucket as shown in Figure 5-6. Sampling train components were recovered and analyzed
in separate front and back half fractions according to the described method.
dkd.176 5-23
-------
Temperature /
Sensor
Temperature Sensor
Sensor /
Gooseneck / /
Nozzle / /I
\ /
to
Stack
Wall Heat Traced
S.S. Probe
x
\
\
S-Type Pitot Tube \
^ Manometer
-/
Glass Filter Holder
Heated Area
C_l
Empty (Optional Knockout)
Temoerat
Impingers with Absorbing Solution
-—"^ ji~-- -%^ ^t** ' ~*+^
k
^ Temperature Sensor
/
Temperature
- Sensors -
^^/'~ \ ^^^ ^
5%HNq/10%H2 D. Empty 4% KMn04/10% H^O4 Silica Gel
(Optional Knockout)
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-5. Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train
-------
SOdM for AtUcrtng
toHMt*dBox
Bucket
SU* for Attaching Qoo*ww<*
Figure 5-6. Impinger Configuration for PM/Metals Sampling
(optional knock out impinger not shown)
5-25
-------
5.2.2 PM/Meials Sampling Equipment Preparation
5.2.2.1 Glassware Preparation. Glassware was washed in hot soapy water, rinsed
with tap water (3X), and then rinsed with deionized distilled water (3X). The glassware
was 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.
The cleaned glassware was allowed to air dry in a contamination-free
environment. The ends were 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 were cleaned according to this procedure.
5.2.2.2 Reagent Preparation. The sample train filters were Pallflex
Tissuequartz 2500QAS filters. The acids and H2O2 peroxide were Baker
Tnstra-analyzed" grade or equivalent. The peroxide was purchased specifically for this
test site and was kept cold until it was opened.
The reagent water was Baker "Analyzed HPLC" grade or equivalent. The lot
number, manufacturer, and grade of each reagent that was used was recorded in the
laboratory notebook.
The HNO3/H2O2 absorbing solution and the acidic KMnO4 absorbing solution
was prepared fresh daily according to Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the reference method.
The analyst wore both safety glasses and protective gloves when the reagents were mixed
and handled. Each reagent had its own designated transfer and dilution glassware. This
glassware was marked for identification with a felt tip glass marking pen and used only
for the reagent for which it was designated.
The acidic KMnO4 solution was prepared by the following procedure.
• Quantitatively remove 400 ml from a 4 liter bottle of Baker "Analyzed
HPLC" water so that 3.6 liters remained in the bottle. This bottle was
labeled 4.4 percent KMnO4 in water.
5.26
-------
• Quantitatively add 160 g of potassium permanganate crystals to the bottle;
a Teflon® stirring bar and stirring plate were used to stir as thoroughly as
possible. This reagent was stored on the counter in a plastic tub at all
times.
• Each morning the acidic reagent was needed, 900 ml of KMnO4 solution
was decanted into a 1000 ml volumetric flask. Carefully added 100 ml of
concentrated H,SO4 and mixed. This reagent was volatile and must be
mixed cautiously. The flask cap was held on the flask, mixed once, vent
quickly. Mixing was completed slowly until the mixture was homogenous.
The solution was allowed to cool and brought to a final volume to 1000 ml
with H,O.
• The reagent was filtered through Wattman 541 filter paper into another
volumetric flask or 2 liter amber bottle. This bottle was labeled 4 percent
acidic KMnO4 absorbing solution. The top was vented and the reagent was
stored in a plastic tub at all times.
5.2.2.3 Equipment Preparation. The remaining preparation included calibration
and leak checking of all train equipment as specified in EPA Method 5. This equipment
included the probe nozzles, pitot tubes, metering system, probe heater, temperature
gauges, leakcheck metering system, and barometer. A laboratory field notebook was
maintained to record these calibration values.
5.2.3 PM/Metals Sampling Operations
The sampling operations used for PM/Metals testing were virtually the same as
those for the CDD/CDF tests as discussed in Section 5.1.2. The only differences were
that there was no condenser coil so coil temperatures were not recorded and glass caps,
Teflon® tape, or parafilm was used to seal off the sample train components rather than
foil. Detailed instructions for assembling the metals sampling train were found beginning
on page 14 of the reference method.
5.2.4 PM/Metals Sample Recovery
The recovery procedures were begun as soon as the probe was removed from the
stack and the post-test leakcheck was completed.
To facilitate transfer from the sampling location to the recovery trailer, the
sampling train was disassembled into three sections: the nozzle/probe liner, filter
holder, and impingers in their bucket. Each of these sections was capped with Teflon®
tape or parafilm before removal to the recovery trailer.
dkd.176 5-27
-------
Once in the trailers, the sampling train was 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 was used
in the sample recovery procedures. The weight gain in each of the impingers was
recorded to determine the moisture content in the flue gas. Following weighing of the
impingers, the front half of the train was recovered, which included the filter and all
sample-exposed surfaces forward of the filter. The probe liner was rinsed with acetone
by tilting and rotating the probe while squirting acetone into its upper end so that all
inside surfaces were wetted. The acetone was quantitatively collected into the
appropriate bottle.
This rinse was followed by additional brush/rinse procedures using a non-metallic
brush; the probe was held in an inclined position and acetone was squirted into the
upper end as the brush was pushed through with a twisting action. All of the acetone
and particulate was caught in the sample container. This procedure was repeated until
no visible particulate remains and finished with a final acetone rinse of the probe and
brush. The front half of the filter was also rinsed with acetone until all visible
particulate was removed. After all front half acetone washes were collected, the cap was
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 was
analyzed with the samples.
The nozzle/probe liner, and front half of the filter holder was rinsed three times
with 0.1N HNO3 and placed into a separate amber bottle. The bottle was capped tightly,
the weight of the combined rinse recorded, and the liquid level marked. The filter was
placed in a clean, well-marked glass petri dish and sealed with Teflon® tape.
Prior to recovering the back half impingers, the contents were weighed for
moisture control determinations. Any unusual appearance of the filter or impinger
contents were noted. Pictures were taken to further document any abnormality.
5-28
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
Rinse with
Acetone Into
Tared Container
Front Half of
Filter Housing
Brush with
Nonmetallic
Brush and
Rinse with
Acetone into
Tared Container
DIU3I
ith Nor
rush ai
with A
atL
3Ti
Chech
to sc
Partic
Remo
not R
Step/
Rinse
Times
0.1
Jitric a<
ired C
imetallic
id Rinse
;etone
east
mes
Uner
»tf
ulate
\teti: if
9peat
Vbove
Three Rinse Three
, with Times with
N 0.1 N
;id into Nitric acid into
Dntainer Tared Container
I
Filter
Carefully
Remove Filter
from Support with
Teflon Coated
Tweezers and
Place In Petri Dish
Brush Loose
Particulate
Onto Filter
Seal Petri
Dish with
Tape
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Volume
I
APR
(3)
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Volume
I
PR
(2)
F
(1)
Filter Support
and Back Half
of Filter
Housing
Rinse Three
Times with
0.1 N
Nitric Acid
Into Tared
Container
Recover
Into Sample
Cont
ainer
Weigh
to Calculate
Rinse Amount
1st Impinger
(Empty at
beginning
of test)
Measure
Impinger
Contents
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Cont
Rinse
ainer
Three
Times with
0.1 N
Nitric Acid
Recover Into
Sample
Container
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse Amount
H
N
(4)
2nd
&3rd
Impingers
(HNQ/Hpi
Measure
Impinger
Contents
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Cont
Rinse
ainer
Three
Times with
0.1
N
Nitric Acid
Recover Into
Sample
Container
Weigh to
Calculate
Rinse A
mount
4th & 5th
Impingers
(Acidified
(KMnCg
Measure
Impinger
Contents
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
Empty
Contents
Into
Tared
Corrt
Rinse
ainer
Three
Times with 100mL
Permanganate
Reagent
Recover Into
Sample
Container
Remove any
Residue with 50 mL
8 N HCI sol'n
YAVairihi + *-. C^o\c-i i\ata
weign TO oaicuiate
Sample and
Rinses
Kf
i/olume
A
(5)
Last Impinger
Weigh for
Moisture
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
Discard
SG
(6)
Figure 5-7. Metals Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
The contents in the knockout impinger were recovered into a preweighed,
prelabeled bottle with the contents from the HNO3/H2O2 impingers. These impingers
and connecting glassware were rinsed thoroughly with 0.1N HNO3, the rinse was
captured in the impinger contents bottle, and a final weight was 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 was
analyzed with the samples.
The impingers that contain the acidified KMnO4 solution were poured together
into a preweighed, prelabeled bottle. The impingers and connecting glassware were
rinsed with at least 100 ml of the acidified KMnO4 solution (from the same batch used
for sampling) a minimum of three times. Rinses were added to the sample recovery
bottle. A final 50 ml 8N hydrochloric acid (HC1) rinse was conducted and placed into
the sample recovery bottle. A final weight was recorded and the liquid level was marked
on the bottle. The bottle cap was loosely tightened to allow venting.
After final weighing, the silica gel from the train was saved in a bag for
regeneration after the job has been completed. The ground glass fittings on the silica gel
impinger were wiped off after sample recovery to assure a leak tight fit for the next test.
A reagent blank was 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 was of the same lot as was used during the sampling program. Each
lot number and reagent grade was recorded on the field blank label.
5-30
-------
The liquid level of each sample container was marked on the bottle in order to
determine if any sample loss occurred during shipment.
Approximate detection limits for the various metals of interest are summarized in
Table 5-8.
5.2.5 Particulate Analysis
The same general gravimetric procedure described in Method 5, Section 4.3 was
followed. Both filters and precleaned beakers were weighed to a constant weight before
use in the field. The same balance used for taring was used for weighing the samples.
The acetone rinses were evaporated under a clear hood at 20°C (68°F) in a tared
beaker temperature silica gel. The filter was also desiccated under the same conditions
to a constant weight. Weight gain was reported to the nearest 0.1 mg. Each replicate
weighing agreed to within 0.5 mg or 1 percent of total weight less tare weight, whichever
was greater, between two consecutive weighings, and were 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 were digested with concentrated HNO3 and
hydrofluoric (HF) acid in either a microwave pressure vessel or a Parr® bomb. The
microwave digestion took place over a period of approximately 10 to 12 minutes in
intervals of 1 to 2 minutes at 600 watts; the Parr® bomb digestion was for 6 hours at
140°C (285°F). Both the digested filter and the digested probe rinses were combined to
yield the front half sample fraction. The fraction was diluted to a specified volume with
water and divided for analysis by applicable instrumentation.
The absorbing solutions from the HNO3/H2O2 impingers were combined. An
aliquot was removed for the analysis of mercury by CVAAS and the remainder was
acidified and reduced to near dryness. The sample was then digested in either a
microwave or by conventional digestion, with 50 percent HNO3 and 3 percent H2O2.
After the fraction had cooled, it was filtered and diluted to a specified volume with
water.
dkd.176
5-31
-------
TABLE 5.8 APPROXIMATE DETECTION LIMITS FOR METALS
OF INTEREST USING EMB DRAFT METHOD
Instack Method
Detection Limits'3
Metal
Chromium
Cadmium
Arsenicd
Leadd
Mercury
Nickel
Barium
Beryllium
Silver
Antimony
Thallium
Method3
ICAP
ICAP
GFAAS
GFAAS
CVAAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
Analytical
Detection
Limits
(wg/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
(300 ml
sample
size)
C"g/m )
1.7
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.05
3.6
0.5
0.07
1.7
7.7
9.6
Back Half
(150ml
sample
size)
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.
JBS282
5-32
-------
Container 3
Acid Probe Rinse
(Labeled APR)
Container 2
Acetone Probe Rinse
(Labeled PR)
Container 1
Filter
(Labeled F)
Container 4
HNQ/HgCMmpingers
(labeled HN)
(include condensate
Impinger, if used)
Container 5
Permanganate Impingers
(labeled KM)
Reduce to Dryness
in a Tared Beaker
Desiccate to
Constant Weight
Determine Residue
Weight in Beaker
Aliquot Taken
Taken for CVAAS
for Hg Analysis
Fraction 2B
Determine Filter
Paniculate Weight
Solubilize Residue
with Cone. HNO3
Acidify to pH 2
with Cone. HNO,
U)
Digest with Acid
and permanganate
at 95°C for 2 h
and Analyze
for Hg by CWAS
Divide into 0.5 g
Sections and Digest
Each Section with
Cone. HF and HNQj
Reduce Volume to
Near Dryness and
Digest with HF and
Cone. HNO,
T
Filter and Dilute
to Known Volume
Fraction 1
Remove 50 to 100 mL
Aliquot for Hg
Analysis by CWAS
Fraction 1B
Digest with Acid and
Permanganate at 95°C in
a Water Bath for 2 h
Analyze by ICAP for
Target Metals
Fraction 1A
Analyze for
Metals by GFASS
Fraction 1A
Analyze Aliquot for
Hg Using CVAAS
Acidify
Remaining
Sample to pH
of 2 with
Cone. HNOa
Fraction 2A
Digest with Acid
and Permanganate
at 95°C for 2 h
and Analyze
for Hg by CVAAS
Fraction 3
Figure 5-8. Metals Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme
-------
Each sample fraction was analyzed by ICAPS using EPA Method 200.7. All
target metals except mercury, iron, and aluminum, were quantified. If iron and
aluminum were present, the samples were diluted to reduce their interferences on
arsenic and lead. If arsenic or lead levels were less than 2 ppm, GFAAS was 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 were measured and recorded in the field notebook.
To prepare for mercury analysis by CVAAS, an aliquot from the KMnO4
impingers, HNO3/H2O2 impingers, filter digestion, and front half rinses were digested
with acidic reagents at 95°C in capped BOD bottles for approximately 3 hours.
Hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution and stannous chloride was added immediately
before analysis. Cold vapor AAS analysis for mercury followed 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 were followed. All
field reagent blanks were processed, digested, and analyzed as specified in the test
method. To ensure optimum sensitivity in measurements, the concentrations of target
metals in the solutions were at least 10 times the analytical detection limits.
5.2.7.1 ICAP Standards and Quality Control Samples. The quality control
procedures included 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 were prepared daily; those with
concentrations greater than this were made weekly or bi-monthly.
dkd.176 5-34
-------
5.2.7.2 Graphite Furnace Standards and Quality Control Samples. Standards
used for GFAAS analysis were matrix matched with the samples analyzed and the matrix
modifiers that were added. Standards less than 1 //g/ml of a metal were prepared daily;
those with concentrations greater than this were made weekly or bi-monthly. A
minimum of five standards make the standard curve. Quality control samples were
prepared from a separate 10 /ug/m\ standard by diluting it into the range of the samples.
All samples were analyzed in duplicate. A matrix spike on one front half sample
and one back half sample for each 10 field samples was analyzed. If recoveries of less
than 75 percent or greater than 120 percent were obtained for the matrix spike, each
sample was analyzed by the method of additions. One quality control sample was
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 was prepared weekly; working standards were prepared daily. The calibration
curve was made with at least six points. Quality Control samples were prepared from a
separate 10 ^g/ml standard by diluting it into the range of the samples.
A quality control sample had to agree within 10 percent of the calibration, or the
calibration will be repeated. A matrix spike on one of every 10 samples from the
HNO3/H2O2 back half sample fraction must be within 20 percent or the samples were
analyzed by the method of standard addition.
5.3 MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY TESTING
The Jordan Hospital MWI was loaded with waste containing surrogate indicator
organisms which measured the ability of native microbes to survive the incineration
process. This ability of the surrogate indicator organisms to survive directly reflected
microbial destruction efficiency for a given incinerator. Several test methods were being
employed to measure microbial survivability. The first test method was aimed at
determining microbial survivability in the combustion gases and the ash. This method
involved inoculating a known quantity of spores in solution onto materials normally
found in the medical waste stream (i.e., gowns, petri dishes, gauze, etc.). Direct ash
sampling and flue gas testing were conducted in order to determine the destruction
dkd.176
5-35
-------
efficiency. Test procedures follow guidelines set forth by the EPA draft methods located
in Appendix K.
The second test method utilizes spiked spore samples encased in insulated metal
containers charged into the incinerator with the waste stream. These tests were aimed at
comparing this method with the direct ash sampling method and should provide a
general assessment of microbial survivability and destruction efficiency. Two types of
insulated outer containers were used for comparison to each other. One type utilizes
large (6 inch by 2 inch diameter) metal pipes filled with vermiculite insulation and
capped at both ends. Another type utilizes a 1/2-inch thick blanket of high temperature
ceramic insulation rolled and contained by a wire mesh wrap. Both outer containers
hold a smaller 3/8 inch diameter stainless steel tube capped at both ends. The smaller
tube contains a known quantity (approximately 1 x 107 spores) of freeze dried spores.
Following the test, the viability of the indicator spores in each sample was checked to
assess the destruction efficiency based on the number 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 order to conduct emissions and ash testing for microbe survivability, a series of
waste materials inoculated with indicator spores were charged into the incinerator. A
known quantity of B. stearothermophilus wet spores were inoculated onto or in materials
normally found in the medical waste stream such as gowns, petri dishes, test tubes,
gauze, towels, etc. The waste was loaded into the incinerator with the batch of wastes
charged prior to the emission tests conducted at the incinerator outlet. Direct ash
samples were collected after the incineration cycle has been completed and the ash has
cooled sufficiently.
5.3.1.1 Equipment. A "wet spore" culture solution was prepared by the University
of Alabama. The culture inoculum was divided between the three sampling days as
shown in Figure 5-9. The spore solution was prepared as a frozen slurry in 1-liter
dkd.176 5-36
-------
FERMENTATION
Batch 1
Run 1, Run 2 Run 3, Run 4 Run 5, Run 6
(Test Day 1) (Test Day 2) (Test Day 3)
Fraction a a a
Fraction b b b
Fraction c c c
Fraction d d d
Fraction e e e
Fraction f f f
Fraction g g g
Fraction h h h
Notes: Each Fraction is loaded Into the Incinerator as near
as possible to the centrold of each of eight equal
sub-volumes of the total Incinerator volume prior
to each batch run.
A minimum of 1 X 10 are spiked on each test day.
Figure 5-9. Indicator Spore Spiking Scheme for
Combustion Gas Destruction Efficiency Testing
Jordan Hospital (1991)
5-37
-------
amounts. Inoculation quantities were approximately 500 mis. The culture inoculum was
added directly to various materials using sterile gloves and the prepackaged containers.
5.3.1.2 Spiking Preparation and Procedure. The spiked waste sample was
prepared so that a minimum of 1 x 1012 spores were charged into the incinerator per test
day (the exact quantity was recorded). The total charge each day was separated into
eight nearly equal batches. The eight batches of spores were inoculated in eight mock
garbage bags and placed into the incinerator prior to each day's startup. Two sampling
runs were performed per test day, however, since Jordan was a batch-fed unit, more
spores could not be inoculated after the unit has started.
5.3.2 Indicator Spore Flue Gas Sampling
Flue gas was extracted from the incinerator stack during the burn and burndown
periods to determine spore emissions. The testing procedure followed the previously
mentioned, draft EPA method. Flue gas samples were collected isokinetically in a
buffered solution in impingers (no filter). The recovered samples were divided into
different volume aliquots. These samples were cultured and colonies were identified
using gram stains to establish cellular morphology, and possibly other biochemical tests
as needed. The colonies were then enumerated. The following sections describe the
flue gas sampling techniques used.
5.3.2.1 Equipment. A schematic of the spore sampling train is shown in
Figure 5-10. Flue gas samples were extracted isokinetically through a quartz
nozzle/probe system housed in a water-cooled sheath. A smaller tube was located inside
the sampling probe to deliver a buffered solution at the nozzle end of the probe. This
allowed the gas sample stream to be immediately buffered, preventing acid condensate
from killing viable spores. From the probe, the sample stream was delivered to a series
of chilled impingers. The first two contained 200 ml and 100 ml, respectively, of
phosphate-buffered solution to collect indicator spores. The third impinger served as a
knock-out (empty) and the fourth contained 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 was identical to a Method 5 system. (Meter box containing pump, meter,
velocity and sampling pressure manometers, etc.) -------
5.33
-------
Quarts Glau
PntwUnw/
BuNM-Hook Nutte
1
(Reaching to ntt ol
buUon hook nonto)
-------
A Peristaltic pump was used to deliver the buffer solution to the probe tip. The
pump was 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, was H2O2/alcohol disinfected and
washed before each run. The nozzle/probe liner, impingers, impinger connections, and
the nozzle/probe brush were first washed using the same procedure as discussed in
Section 5.3.4.2. Following washing, all components were disinfected with H2O2/alcohol.
After completing this procedure, all components were sealed with Parafilm® to prevent
contamination. Additional sample containers, recovery items, and analytical equipment
were sterilized by autoclaving or another equivalent method. Some of the items which
require sterilization were wash bottles, two liter glass sample storage bottles, incubation
tubes, petri dishes, filter units, reagent water (sterile deionized), and buffering reagent.
The train was assembled by first antiseptically adding the buffer solution to the
first two impingers. Silica gel was added to the fourth impinger and the impinger train
was connected to the meter box via an umbilical line. A pre-test leakcheck on the
impinger train was completed at approximately 15 in. Hg. Leakage rates in excess of
4 percent of the average sampling rate or 0.02 cfm, whichever was less, were
unacceptable.
5.3.2.3 Flue Gas Sampling. Before inserting the probe into the stack, the nozzle
cap was removed and alignment of the nozzle and pitot tube were checked. The probe
cooling water flow was started and adjusted. The buffering system pump was then
started making sure that the probe was slightly inclined so that the buffer solution
drained into the first impinger. The probe was inserted into the duct and located at the
first sampling traverse point. Isokinetic sampling commenced in accordance with
Method 5 guidelines. All sampling parameters (AP, gas meter readings, stack
temperature, meter temperatures, meter AH, meter vacuum, first impinger temperature,
and silica gel impinger temperature) were periodically monitored, adjusted, and recorded
throughout the test run.
Two different trains were used. When the first traverse was completed, the
second traverse was immediately started with the second train.
dkd.176 5-40
-------
After completion of the test run, the probe was removed from the stack and the
flow of buffering solution turned off. The final meter reading was recorded and the
sample train was leak checked. Post-test leakchecks were completed at a vacuum equal
to or greater than the maximum vacuum reached during the sampling run. Acceptable
post-test leakcheck criterion was 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 was turned off. The
nozzle tip was inspected for port scrapings or any external matter near the tip and
removed if found. The probe was disconnected from the impinger train. The probe and
probe buffer delivery tube, were rinsed and brushed with sterile buffer solution. All
rinses were collected in a sterile sample bottle.
The impingers were weighed and the contents were antiseptically transferred to
the sample bottle containing the nozzle/probe rinsings. The pH of the sample was
adjusted if necessary to between 6.0 and 7.5 with 1.0 N NaOH. The level of liquid in the
sample bottle was marked to determine later if leakage occurred during transport. The
bottle was then packed in ice so that sample temperatures were maintained at or below
4°C (39°F), for shipment to the laboratory.
5.3.3 Direct Ash Sampling for Indicator Spores
Direct ash sampling provided 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 was found in Appendix K. Ash samples were recovered from the
ash when it has cooled sufficiently. Ash samples were taken using a sampling thief,
composited and placed in clean sample jars. During each sampling run, two samples
were taken. One was transported to the laboratory for analysis and the second sample
was used to determine the pH of the material and the archived as a backup sample.
Laboratory samples were tested in accordance with proposed Draft Method found in
Appendix K.
dkd.176 5-41
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
Rinse and
brush using
buffer into
sterile
container
1st laplnger
(200 ml of
buffer)
2nd lapinger
(100 al of
buffer)
Eapty contents
into sterile
container
Eopty contents
into sterile
container
\ lapinger
(E-pty)
Silica
Gel
Empty contents
into sterile
container
Weigh
K)
Rins<
with
into cc
j twice Hins«
buffer with
Mitainer into cc
» twice Rinse
buffer with t
>ntainer into con
twice
Discard
Liquid Saaple
Figure 5-11. Sample Recovery Scheme for Microbial Viability Testing
-------
5.3.3.1 Equipment. Ash samples were taken using a disinfected sample thief and
placed in sample containers for transport to the laboratory. These samples were stored
on ice. The pH of the ash was 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 was charged into the incinerator with known quantities of Bacillus
stearothermophilus (B. stearothermophilus) contained in both kinds of insulated pipes.
Samples were cultured according to the Draft Method found in Appendix K. Colonies of
B. stearothermophilus were then gram stained to ensure correct cellular morphology and
further identified using biochemical tests as needed. Enumeration of
B. stearothermophilus was then completed.
5.3.4.1 Spiking Equipment. A diagram of the pipe sample assemblies used for
the pipe test is shown in Figure 5-12. The indicator organisms were freeze-dried spores
(lyophilized) that were prepared by American Type Culture Collection in
Rockville, Maryland. A small amount of lyophilized material equalling approximately
1 x 107 spores was prepared and packaged in the inner metal containers.
The inner metal container consisted of a short piece (2-4 inch) of 3/8 stainless
steel tubing capped on both ends with Swagelock™ caps. This inner container was then
placed in the outer container which was either a 2 inch diameter steel pipe nipple about
6 inches long, or the insulated mesh wrap. Each outer container was identified with a
unique identification number for tracking location. Enough vermiculite or other thermal
insulation surrounded the inner container to maintain its position in the center and to
protect it from thermal shock.
5.3.4.2 Spiking Preparation. The inner container and caps were cleaned and
disinfected before use. This procedure consisted 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
isopropyl alcohol.
The spiked sample was prepared by placing a known amount of spores (targeted
at 1 x 107) inside the inner container and then sealed using the end caps. The inner
dkd.176
5-43
-------
r
Innef Pipe (containing spores)
Riveted or stapled together
• Wire Mesh .
Kaowoot Insulation
Inner Container
(Containing Spore*)
Vermlcullte
7
Outer Container
Cap
FIGURE 5-12. Modified (Mesh) Ash Quality Assembly
and Pipe Ash Quality Assembly
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
5-44
-------
container was placed in the outer container with enough vermiculite or ceramic
insulation to position it in the center.
5-3.4.3 Spiking Procedure. The Jordan Hospital MWI was a batch-fed
intermittent incinerator that operates essentially around the clock on the days that it was
fired. The typical hours of operating were from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following day.
During this time, the unit operates in three distinct modes. The burn period was the
first mode, which generally lasts 51/2 to 6 hours. The second mode was the burndown
period which was almost 7 to 8 hours in duration. The cooldown period was the final
mode, which lasts from 10 to 12 hours.
Nine metal pipes were loaded onto the incinerator floor and covered with wastes
prior to the start of operating. The locations of the pipes are shown in Figure 2-1. Eight
mesh containers were placed in the wet spore spike bags and located nearly evenly
throughout the volume of the incinerator as shown.
5.3.4.4 Sample Recovery. The pipes were recovered from the incinerator
following a cool down period the morning following the test run. When the ash cleanout
door was opened, the location of the samples on the floor was recorded to the extent
possible. The samples were recovered and the hot ashes removed from the combustion
chamber. Excess debris was removed from the outer container. The inner pipe was then
recovered and identified and placed in labeled baggies. The pipe samples were
maintained at or below 4°C (39°F) in an ice cooler with care to protect them from
contamination from melting ice or cross-contamination from other samples or spike
materials.
5.3.5 Microbial Analysis
The quantity of viable spores were 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 were presented in
Figures 5-13 and 5-14. The analysis was performed within 96 hours after sample
recovery. The contents of the inner container of the pipe and the direct ash samples
were transferred to separate sterile incubation tubes. The inside of the sample
dkd.176 5-45
-------
1 screened liter ash
sample mixed well
Measure pH on-site
Make 3 allquoU 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 (
-------
Recovered Inner
container
Transfer contents
to a Incubator tub*
Rinse Inner tube
with sterile phosphate
Buffer Into the
Incubator tube
Vacuum filter through seprate sterile
NaJgene* cellulose nitrate 0.2um
filter untt
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubator plates at 6S°C for 24 hours
Recheck at 48 hours
Enumerate colonies of B. stearothermoohllm
on filters
Figure 5-14. Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Mlcrobial Viability Tests
5-47
-------
containers were rinsed with sterile phosphate buffer solution into the respective
incubation tube. Any glassware used for this transfer procedure was rinsed with sterile
deionized water into the respective incubation tubes. The direct ash samples were 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 Figure 5-15. The level of each sample
was checked to determine if leakage during shipment occurred. Each sample contains
approximately 1.5 to 2.0 liters of sample. The sample was 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 was prepared. The aliquots were placed in sterile
incubation tubes, one set was processed without heat-treatment, the other with heat-
treatment. Each aliquot was then filtered and placed onto agar plates as discussed in the
following sections.
5.3.5.3 Colonial Enumeration and Identification Procedure. Agar plates were
prepared by pouring the molten trypticase soy agar into a sufficient number of petri
dishes for both sample and field blanks. The media was then allowed to harden. Each
sample was then filtered through a separate vacuum filter unit employing a sterile
cellulose nitrate filter (0.2 ^m). The incubation tube was rinsed with sterile deionized
water and poured through the filter as well. Each filter was removed from the filtering
unit using sterile forceps and placed face up on an agar plate. The plates were
incubated in an air convection incubator at 65°C (49°F) for 18 to 24 hours prior to
colonial examination. The plates were removed from the incubator and colonies of B.
stearothermophilus were quantified. A variety of tests including a gram stain and
biochemicals may be used to confirm that the colonies were 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 was
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, were analyzed to check for contamination during preparation or recovery
procedures. Duplicates were analyzed for impinger samples from two test runs.
dkd.176 5-48
-------
Recovered
liquid sample
3 10-ml aliquots
3 IQO-ml aliquot*
3 equal aliquot*
of remaining sample
Vacuum filter through seprate sterile
Nalgene*cellulose nitrate 0«2um
filter unit
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubator plate* at 6&C for 24 hour*
Recheck at 48 hours
Enumentk colonies of B._
on filters
Figure 5-15. Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Mlcrobial Testing
5-49
-------
TABLE 5-9. INDICATOR SPORE TESTING QA/QC CHECKS
Sample Type
Number
QA/QC Check
Wet Spores
Field Blank
Impinger Sample
Field Blank
Pipe Sample
Duplicates
Impinger Sample
Field Duplicates •
Pipe Samples
Pre-Test Ash
Blank
Verify manufacturer's wet spore count by
sending an aliquot from one slurry to
RTI for count.
Prepare train through leakcheck, run
buffer solution for 2 hours, collect 1 field
blank sample
Fully prepare pipe sample without
placing spore charge inside to check for
handling contamination
Complete duplicate analyses on 2
impinger samples from 2 test runs
Load duplicate pipe samples on 3
separate occasions into incinerator and
analyze
Collect ash samples using the test
procedures prior to any spiking of
indicator spores
JBS282
5-50
-------
A blank ash sample was collected prior to the test program to check for the
presence of indicator spores in the background ash prior to any spiking.
5.4 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE/HYDROGEN BROMIDE/HYDROGEN
FLUORIDE EMISSIONS TESTING BY EPA METHOD 26
Hydrogen chloride, HBr, and HF sampling was accomplished using a single
sampling train. The procedure followed 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 was extracted from the stack and passed through
acidified water. In acidified water, HC1 solubilizes and forms Cl" ions. Ion
chromatography was used to detect the Cl" ions present in the sample. For this test
program, the presence of Br and F ions were also be detected by 1C. The method is
included in Appendix K.
5.4.1 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Equipment
A diagram of the HCl/HBr/HF sampling train is shown in Figure 5-16. The
sampling train consisted 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 the sample gas in the probe was kept above the acid
dewpoint, the probe was not heated. The train consisted of two impingers containing 0.1
N sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to collect HC1, HBr, and HF; two impingers containing 0.1 N
NaOH to capture any pollutants present in the flue gas that might cause DGM damage;
and finally one silica gel impinger.
5.4.2 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Preparation
5.4.2.1 Equipment Preparation. Sampling preparation included calibration and
leak checking of all train equipment. This included meterboxes, thermocouples, and
umbilicals. Referenced calibration procedures were followed when available, and the
results properly documented and retained. If a referenced calibration technique for a
particular piece of apparatus was not available, then a state-of-the-art technique was
used.
dkd.176 5-51
-------
to
Thermometer
Drying Tube
or
Mae West
Implnger
Knockout Implnger
(optional)
Pump
Surge Tank
Figure 5-16. HCI Sample Train Configuration
-------
5.4.2.2 Assembling the Train. Assembly of the sampling train was done both in
the recovery trailer and at the stack location. First, the empty clean impingers were
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 were
loaded, they were wrapped with Teflon® tape to secure the two sections of the impinger.
The impingers were connected together using U-tube connectors and arranged in the
impinger bucket. The height of all the impingers was approximately the same to easily
obtain a leak-free seal. The open ends of the train were sealed with aluminum foil.
5.4.3 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Operations
Prior to sampling, the HCl/HBr/HF train was leakchecked as required by
Method 26 protocol. The leak checking procedure was the same as that discussed in
Section 5.1. The leak rate, sampling start and stop times, and any other events were
recorded on the sampling task log. Upon completion of a sampling run, the leakcheck
procedure was repeated. Sampling train data were recorded every five minutes, and
include readings of the DGM, DGM temperature, flow rate meter, and vacuum gauge.
5.4.4 HCl/HBr/HF Sample Recovery
The impingers were disconnected from the probe and filter and moved to the
recovery trailer. Once in the trailer, the contents of the two acidified impingers were
quantitatively recovered with deionized distilled water and placed into a clean sample
bottle. The sample bottle was sealed, mixed and labeled, and the fluid level marked.
The contents of the second set of impingers (containing the 0.1 N NaOH) were
discarded for every triplicate series except for one. These were 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 were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and
then given an analytical laboratory sample number. Then, each sample was examined to
determine if any leakage occurred and any color or other particulars of the samples were
noted.
dkd.176 5-53
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
Do Not Rinse
or Brush
1st Impinger
20 ml)
2nd Impinger
Empty Contents
into 100ml
Volumetric Flask
Make Up
Volume to 100ml
using Dl
Transfer to Sample
Container
Liquid Sample
3rd Impinger
~ 20mrNaOH)
4th Impinger
~ 20ml NaOH)
Empty Contents
into Sample
Containers once
Run Conditioner
Rinse 3x
inDI
Archive for
Possible Analysis
Silica Gel
Inspect for Indicator
Color Change
Replenish
if Necessary
(discard used
portions)
Figure &-17. HCI/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
The 1C conditions were described by the type of analytical column and whether
suppressed or nonsuppressed 1C was used. Prior to sample analysis, a stable baseline
was established and water samples were injected until no Cl", Br", or F appears in the
chromatogram. Then, the 1C was calibrated using standards spanning the appropriate
concentration range, starting with the lowest concentration standard. Next, a QC check
sample was injected in duplicate, followed by a water blank and the field samples. The
calibration standards were 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 were 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 was calibrated with a minimum of three concentrations, not including
zero. A correlation coefficient of greater than or equal to 0.995 was achieved to have an
acceptable calibration. At least 10 percent of the total number of samples were analyzed
in duplicate. Ion concentrations in the duplicates must agree to within ±20 percent.
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 was dictated by EPA Method 1 protocol. These parameters were 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 was 4 (8 total sample points). Several sets of perpendicular
sampling ports were established in the incinerator outlet. Traverse point locations were
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 was measured according to EPA Method 2. A Type K
thermocouple and S-type pitot tube were used to measure flue gas temperature and
velocity, respectively. All of the isokinetically sampled methods that were used
incorporate Method 2 (CDD/CDF, PM/Metals, Microorganisms).
dkd.176 5-55
-------
5.5.2.1 Sampling and Equipment Preparation. For EPA Method 2, the pitot
tubes were calibrated before use following the directions in the method. Also, the pitots
were leak checked before and after each run.
5.5.2.2 Sampling Operations. The parameters that were measured include the
pressure drop across the pitots, stack temperature, and stack static and ambient pressure.
These parameters were measured at each traverse point, as applicable. A computer
program was used to calculate the average velocity during the sampling period.
5.5.3 O: and CO-. Concentrations bv EPA Method 3A
The O2 and CO2 concentrations were determined by CEMs following EPA
Method 3A. Flue gas was extracted from the duct and delivered to the CEM system
through heated Teflon® tubing. The sample stream was then conditioned (particulate
and moisture removed) and was directed to the analyzers. The O2 and CO2
concentrations were, therefore, determined on a dry basis. Average concentrations were
calculated to coincide with each respective time period of interest. More information on
the CEM system will be given in Section 5.6.
5.5.4 Average Moisture Determination by EPA Method 4
The average flue gas moisture content was determined according to EPA
Method 4. Before sampling, the initial weight of the impingers was recorded. When
sampling was completed, the final weights of the impingers were recorded, and the
weight gain was calculated. The weight gain and the volume of gas sampled were used
to calculate the average moisture content (percent) of the flue gas. The calculations
were performed by computer. Method 4 was incorporated in the techniques used for all
of the manual sampling methods that were used during the test.
5.6 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING (CEM) METHODS
EPA Methods 3A, 7E, 6C, and 10 were continuous monitoring methods for
measuring CO2, O2, NOX, SO2, and CO concentrations. Total hydrocarbons were
analyzed by EPA Method 25A. Flue gas HC1 concentrations were 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 were used to obtain flue gas samples for the CEM systems.
One system was for HC1 monitoring and the other system was for all other CEMs. For
dkd.176 5-56
-------
Stack Wall
NC%SO,,CO,,
O THC, CO
Cal/QC
Gases
Heat Trace
Unheated Gas Lines
Signal Wire
Rgure 5-18. Schematic of CEM System (only 1 of 2 systems shown;
separate inlet & outlet system)
5-57
-------
the main CEM extraction system, samples were 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 was conditioned (temperature lowered and moisture
removed) before the flue gas stream was split using a manifold to the various analyzers.
Hydrocarbon measurements were 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 consisted of a black iron pipe
mounted to a Swagelok® reducing union which was attached directly to the heat trace
tubing. The probe was 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 were used to transfer the flue gas
samples to the instrument trailer for O2, CO2, NOX, SO2, CO, and THC analyses. These
lines were 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.
All heat trace lines contained three 3/8 inch Teflon® tubes. One tube carried the
sample, one tube was used for calibration and QC gases, and the other was available as
a backup. These gases were then 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
were 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 was 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 operated under positive pressure eliminating the
possibility of a leak. The gas conditioner was located in the CEM trailer.
5.6.1.4 HC1 CEM Sample System. The HC1 flue gas concentrations were
monitored using a CEM analyzer as well as by manual test runs. The HC1 CEM
sampling system used a GMD Model 797 dilution probe. This probe could not be used
at the expected flue gas temperature ranges (approximately 1600-1900°F). Therefore, a
slip-stream of flue gas was extracted from the stack and allowed to cool to approximately
dkd.176 5-58
-------
400 to 500°F as it passed through a length of smaller pipe (i.e., 1 inch ID). The dilution
probe was placed in a sampling well in the slipstream pipe for HC1 CEM gas extraction.
A thermocouple was located adjacent to the probe to monitor gas temperatures (see
Figure 5-16). A nominal dilution ratio of 200:1 was used.
5.6.2 CEM Principles of Operation
5.6.2.1 SO-, Analysis. The Western 721A SO2 analyzer was 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, was
used to convert the absorbance into SO2 concentration (A = absorbance, a =
absorbitivity, b = path length, c = concentration). The SO2 measurements were
performed using EPA Method 6C.
5.6.2.2 NOX Analysis. The principle of operation of this instrument was a
chemiluminescent reaction in which ozone (O3) reacts with nitric oxide (NO) to form
oxygen (O2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). During this reaction, a photon was emitted
which was detected by a photomultiplier tube. The instrument was 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
were performed using EPA Method 7E.
5.6.2.3 O2 Analysis. Oxygen analysis was completed using one of the instruments
discussed below.
The Thermox WDG III measured O2 using an electrochemical cell. Porous
platinum electrodes were attached to the inside and outside of the cell which provided
the instrument voltage response. Zirconium oxide contained in the cell conducted
electrons when it was 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 produced a voltage. This response voltage was proportional to
the logarithm of the O2 concentration ratio. A linearizer circuit board was used to make
the response linear. Reference gas was ambient air at 20.9 percent O2 by volume.
dkd.176
5-59
-------
The Beckman 755 O2 analyzer used electron paramagnetic resonance to detect O2
molecules. Unlike most substances, O2 had a triplet electron ground state which left one
electron unpaired, making it a paramagnetic molecule. This electron may have had one
of two spin quantum states (ms = ± 1/2). By applying an alternating electromagnetic
field of the proper frequency, the Beckman 755 O2 analyzer induced resonance between
the two spin quantum states. In effect, the O2 analyzer measured the electromagnetic
energy absorbed by O2 molecules at the resonant frequency. Oxygen measurements were
performed using EPA Method 3A.
5.6.2.4 CO2 Analysis. Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) CO2 analyzers emitted a
specific wavelength of infrared (IR) radiation through the sample cell which was
selectively absorbed by CO2 molecules. The intensity of radiation which reached the end
of the sample cell was compared to the intensity of radiation through a CO2-free
reference cell. A reference cell was used to determine background absorbance which was
subtracted from the sample absorbance. The detector used two chambers filled with
CO2 which were connected by a deflective metallic diaphragm. One side received
radiation from the sample cell and the other side received radiation from the reference
cell. Since more radiation was absorbed in the sample cell than in the reference cell,
less radiation reached the sample side of the detector. This caused a deflection of the
diaphragm due to increased heat from radiation absorption on the reference side.
Deflection of the diaphragm created an electrical potential which was proportional to
absorbance. Absorbance was directly proportional to CO2 concentration in the gas.
Carbon dioxide measurements were performed using EPA Method 3A,
5.6.2.5 CO Analysis. Either a TECO Model 48 or a Model 48H analyzer was
used to monitor CO emissions. Both TECO analyzers measured CO using the same
principle of operation as CO2 analysis. The instruments were identical except that a
different wavelength of infrared radiation was used; 5 nm was selective for CO. Carbon
monoxide measurements were performed using EPA Method 10.
5.6.2.6 Total Hydrocarbon Analysis. Either a Beckman Model 400, 402 or 404
was used to monitor Total Hydrocarbon (THC) emissions. By allowing the THC sample
stream to bypass the gas conditioners, concentrations were determined on a wet basis.
All analyses employ Flame lonization Detectors (FID). As the flue gas entered the
dkd.176 5-60
-------
detector the hydrocarbons were combusted in a hydrogen flame. The ions and electrons
formed in the flame entered an electrode gap, decrease the gas resistance, and permitted
a current flow in an external circuit. The resulting current was proportional to the
instantaneous concentration of the total hydrocarbons. This method was not selective
between species. EPA Method 25A applied to the continuous measurement of total
gaseous organic concentrations of primarily alkanes, alkenes, and/or arenes (aromatic
hydrocarbons). The results were reported on a methane basis and methane was used as
the calibration gas.
5.6.2.7 HC1 CEM Analysis. HC1 flue gas concentrations were continuously
monitored using an NDIR/GFC instrument manufactured by Thermo Electron
Corporation (TECO). Detection of HC1 was 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 passed through the sample cell to the detector. The
difference in IR beam strength caused by the absorption of the IR beam was
proportional to the HC1 concentration.
5.6.3 CEM Calibration
All the CEM instruments were calibrated once during the test program (and
linearized, if necessary) using a minimum of three certified calibration gases (zero and
two upscale points). Radian performed 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 was a correlation coefficient (R2) of greater than or equal to 0.998,
where the independent variable was cylinder gas concentration and the dependent
variable was instrument response. If an instrument did not meet these requirements, it
was linearized by adjusting potentiometers on the linerarity card within the instrument or
by other adjustments, if necessary.
The CEM analyzers were 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
were used to calculate response factors used for sample gas concentration
determinations. Instrument drift as a percent of span was also determined using these
calibrating for each test run.
dkd.176 5-61
-------
After each initial calibration, midrange gases for all instruments were analyzed,
with no adjustment permitted, as a quality control (QC) check. If the QC midrange gas
concentration observed were within ±2 percent of full scale, the calibration was
accepted and the operator began sampling. If the QC check did not fulfill this
requirement, another calibration was performed and linearization may be performed if
deemed necessary. Calibration procedures were further detailed in the daily operating
procedure (Section 5.6.5).
Table 5-10 lists the concentration of all calibration and QC gases to be used on
this test program.
5.6.4 Data Acquisition
The data acquisition system used for the Jordan Hospital MWI test program
consisted of an Omega signal conditioner, a Tecmar A/D converter and a COMPAQ 286
computer. All instrument outputs were connected in parallel to stripchart recorders and
the Omega signal conditioner. The stripchart recorders were a back-up system to the
computer data acquisition system data. The signal conditioner adjusts the
voltage response range from the output range of the instrument (typically 0-100 mV or
0-10 mV) to 0-5 volts. The A/D converter then digitizes the analog inputs for use by the
computer. A Radian computer program was used to translate the digitized voltages into
relevant concentrations in engineering units (ppmV, %V, etc.). The computer program
had several modes of operation: calibration, data acquisition, data reduction, data view,
data edit, and data import. The import function was used to combine other data files for
comparison and correlation. On-line color graphics and data manipulation were 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.
dkd.176 5-62
-------
TABLE 5-10. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES
Analyte
Gas Concentration
CQ2
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Beckman 865
0-20%
18%
N2
10%
5%
CO dry
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
CO - wet
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
02
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
N2
1000 or 9000 ppm
2100 ppm
TECO 48
0-100, 0-200, 0-5000 ppm
1000, 180 or 90 ppma
N2
180 ppm
90 ppm
Thermox WDG HI
0-25%
20%
0.2% 02
10%
5%
5-63
JBS282
-------
TABLE 5-10. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES, continued
Analyte
Gas Concentration
SQ2
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas
Low Range QC Gas
NQ*
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Western 721A
0-500 or 0-5000 ppm
200 or 50 ppm
N2
100 ppm
30 ppm
TECO 10AR
0-250 ppm
200 ppm
N2
100 ppm
50 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 ppm
100 ppm as methane
N2
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
N2
900 ppm
100 ppm
Several sets of calibration/QC gases were acquired in order to closely approximate
stack gas concentrations.
JBS282
5-64
-------
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.
10. Enter these values in the computer calibration routine.
11. Introduce the NOX span gas.
12. Make adjustments to the NO, 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 were 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.
dkd.176 5-65
-------
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.
5.7 VISIBLE EMISSIONS
The opacity of emissions were determined visually by a qualified observer
following EPA Method 9. The observer was certified within 6 months before the test, as
required by the method. Opacity observations were recorded to the nearest 5 percent at
15-second intervals. Twenty-four observations were recorded and averaged per each
data set. Observation continued throughout the 4-hour test run each day.
5.8 PROCESS SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Incinerator ash was composited each test day into a cleaned, 55 gallon plastic
drum after initial cooling in 30 gallon cans that were used by the facility. After testing
was completed for that day, approximately 1 gallon of ash was taken from the
composited sample using a sample thief. This composite was then quartered. The
quarters were sent to respective laboratories for analyses of LOI/carbon, metals, and
CDD/CDF. The fourth quarter was archived or used as needed.
dkd.176 5-66
-------
5.9 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SAMPLING METHODS
Results from the PSD tests characterized paniculate 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 had 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-separato. A schematic of the sampling train
is shown in Figure 5-19. The impactor consisted of eight stages plus a final filter. Each
stage had a number of concentric round jets offset on each succeeding stage such that
the one plate served both as jet and impaction surface. The Anderson MK III was
operated in the range from 0.3 to 0.7 acfm and the flue gas was sampled isokinetically
(100 J: 20 percent) with a recommended weight gain of 50 mg.
The impactor was prepared by loading the substrates into the impactor and
recorded 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.
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.
dkd.176 5-67
-------
Temperature
Sensor
Straight Nozzle ^ / ,_
Andersen Marie III
8 Stage Impactor
S-Type Pitot Tube
ON
00
Orifice
Impinger Train Optional,
may be replaced by an equivalent condenser
Thermometer
Manometer
Figure 5-19. Anderson MK III In-Stuck Impactor with
Particle Pre-Separator Sampling Train
-------
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 Jordan 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.
Manual flue gas sampling at the inlet was conducted at low sample rates because of
unexpected low flue gas flow rates. Therefore, sample rates were also correspondingly
low at approximately 0.1 to 0.2 cfm. This resulted in several of the inlet CDD/CDF and
PM/metals test runs not meeting the post-test leak rate criterion of less than four
percent of the sample flow. These sample runs were leak corrected resulting in a
decreased sample volume of 0.1 to 6.8 percent of the total volume. Several outlet
CDD/CDF runs were also leak corrected resulting in decreased sample volumes of
0.3 to 0.9 percent. These procedures are discussed further in Section 6.2. All post-test
calibration checks of the dry gas meters were within acceptable limits. Manual isokinetic
sampling trains at the inlet and outlet met the isokinetic criterion of _+10 percent of 100
for the majority of test runs. Dioxin inlet and outlet field blanks showed very little
detection of the target CDD/CDF compounds. Comparisons of the amount of
CDD/CDF congeners collected in the toluene rinse versus the amount in the methylene
chloride/pooled MM5 sample fraction showed only a small amount of residual
CDD/CDF was present in the toluene rinses. The majority of standards recoveries for
the CDD/CDF analyses were within acceptable limits. Metals blank results showed
virtually no contamination. Method spike values for the metals analyzed were all within
acceptable limits except for silver. Silver had method spike recoveries of less than
5 percent. Gravimetric analyses of the 6 inlet and 6 outlet PM samples showed positive
weight gains for both the filter and rinse fractions for all runs except the Run 1 outlet
filter. A non-detect assignment was made to this run PM sample catch. The manual
halogen gas tests met acceptable reagent blank levels and method spike results. The
dkd.176 6-1
-------
CEM results showed good calibration drift values and QC gas responses. Excessive drift
(approximately 10 percent) was found on the inlet CO2 and THC monitors on Day 1 and
on the SO2 monitor on Day 3. This data was drift corrected. All monitors operated very
smoothly except for the HC1 and THC instruments. Outlet HC1 concentrations were so
low, that the dilution sample system did not allow for their resolution on the monitor.
The inlet HC1 CEM operated satisfactorily. However, this data did not match up well
with the Method 26 data (see Section 2.6). The THC analyzers only performed
acceptably for a portion of the test program. Microbial survivability test samples were
also analyzed. Flue gas, ash, and pipe samples showed good replicate analytical results.
One of the three PSD runs was not analyzed because of underloading. Runs 2 and 3
appeared to be adequately loaded and 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
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:
dkd.176 6-2
-------
Precision - A measure of mutual agreement among individual
measurements of the same property, usually under prescribed
similar conditions. Precision is best expressed in terms of the
standard deviation and in this report will be expressed as the
relative standard deviation or coefficient of variation.
Accuracy - The degree of agreement of a measurement (or an
average of measurements of the same thing), X, with an accepted
reference or true value, T, can be expressed as the difference
between two values, X-T, the ratio X/T, or the difference as a
percentage of the reference or true value, 100 (X-T)/T.
Completeness - A measure of the amount of valid data obtained
from a measurement system compared with the amount that was
expected to be obtained under prescribed test conditions.
Comparability A measure of the confidence with which one data
set can be compared with another.
Representativeness The degree to which data accurately and
precisely represent a characteristic of a population, variations of a
parameter at a sampling point, or an environmental condition.
A summary of the estimated precision, accuracy, and completeness objectives is
presented in Table 6-1.
6.2 MANUAL FLUE GAS SAMPLING AND RECOVERY PARAMETERS
The following section will report method-specific sampling QA parameters so that
insight can be gained at the quality of emissions test data produced from manual tests
during the test program.
6.2.1 CDD/CDF Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-2 lists both the pre-test and post-test leak checks completed on the
CDD/CDF sampling trains. The acceptance criterion is that all post-test leak checks
must be less than 0.02 cfm or 4 percent of the average sampling rate (whichever is less).
Flue gas flow rates were roughly 1000 cfm which was substantially lower than the
2500 cfm expected. One piece quart nozzles/probe liners had been fabricated and did
not allow for a wide selection of nozzle sizes. The largest nozzles present only allowed
isokinetic sampling at 0.1 to 0.2 cfm. Because this flow rate was so low, the 4 percent of
sample flow rate leak check criterion was also low. The criterion was not met on five of
the six inlet CDD/CDF test runs. Outlet CDD/CDF sample trains did not pass leak
dkd.176 6-3
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF PRECISION, ACCURACY,
AND COMPLETENESS OBJECTIVES3
Parameter
Dioxins/Furans Emissions
Metals Emissions
Participate Matter Emissions
HCl/HBr/HF Concentrations
Indicator Spore Emissions
CEM Concentrations
Velocity/Volumetric Flow Rate
Fixed Gases/Molecular Weight
Flue Gas Moisture
Flue Gas Temperature
Precision
(RSD)
±40d
±15d
±12
±10d
ND
±20
±6
±0.3%V
±20
±2°F
Accuracy5
(%)
±50
±30
±10
±15
ND
±15
±10
±0.5%V
±10
±5°F
Completeness0
(%)
100
100
100
95
100
95
95
100
95
100
RSD = Relative Standard Deviation. Uses worst case assumption that variation
amongst run results is not due to process variation.
ND = Not Determined at this time.
a Precision and accuracy estimated based on results of EPA collaborative tests. All values
stated represent worst case values. All values are absolute percentages unless
otherwise indicated.
b Relative error (%) derived from audit analyses, where:
Percent
Relative Error
Measured Value - Actual Value x 100
Actual Value
c Minimum valid data as a percentage of total tests conducted.
d Analytical phase only. Percent difference for duplicate analyses, where:
Percent
Relative Error
First Value - Second Value x 100
0.5 (First + Second Values)
e Minimum requirements of EPA Method 6C, based on percent of full scale.
f No measureable bias has been detected in the available literature.
dkd.176
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF SAMPLE TRAINS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
&ATE
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
mm
NUMBER
1 INLET
1 OUTLET
2 INLET
2 OUTLET
3 INLET
3 OUTLET
4 INLET
4 OUTLET
5 INLET
5 OUTLET
6 INLET
6 OUTLET
MAJdMtfM
VACUUM
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
3
2.5
2
7
8
1
1
8
10
1
1
4
4
1
2
4
4
PORT
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
AVC. SAMPLE
fcA-ra
(acfrfl)
.186
.222
.2138
.4724
.2314
.2414
.4913
.5164
NRb
NR
.4582
.4811
.1952
.1422
.4760
.4368
.1969
.1632
.5109
.4582
.1139
.1704
.2465
.2322
4% SAMPLE
ULAfE
(acftn) B
.007
.009
.009
.019
.009
.010
.020
.021
NR
NR
.018
.019
.008
.006
.019
.019
.008
.007
.020
.018
.005
.007
.010
.009
MEASURED
LEAK RATE
.001
.020
.014
.014
.010
.019
NR
.024
NR
NR
.020
.025
.008
.004
.012
.006
.009
.009
.008
.008
.008
.006
.004
.016
INCHES
FOR LEAK
CHECK
15
12
17
10
15
19
10
NR
15
NR
10
13
12
10
12
11
15
12
10
NR
12
10
10
10
LEAK
CORfcECTBfc
(TORN)
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
a Because these rates are lower than 0.02 cfm, these values are the acceptable criterion.
b NR = Not recorded.
-------
check for three of the sk test runs. The majority of leak rates were lower than 0.02 cfm
and therefore the amount of sample volume corrections were minimal.
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. Isokinetic rates were
outside of the 10 percent criterion for three of the six inlet test runs. Two out of six
outlet test runs were outside of the 10 percent criterion. Because the majority of particle
sizes were less than 1 m and 10 m (see PSD Run 2 and Run 3 results - Section 2),
non-isokinetic samples would not cause significant errors. This is due to the fact that as
the particles get smaller, they behave more like a gas and isokinetic sampling becomes
less important.
All dry gas meters are fully calibrated every sk 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 all meter boxes used for CDD/CDF,
PM/metals, microorganisms, and halogens were well within the 5 percent criterion of the
full calibration factor.
Field blanks were collected at both the inlet and outlet to verify the absence of
any sample contamination. The CDD/CDF sampling train was fully prepared, taken to
the sample location, leak checked, and then recovered. Table 6-5 compares the
CDD/CDF analytical results for the MM5 field blanks versus average MM5 catches for
the test runs (toluene field blank results are presented in the following section). No
2378 TCDD was detected in either the inlet or outlet MM5 field blank. A small amount
of 2378 TCDF was found in the outlet FB but only at levels ranging from 0.02 to
0.07 percent of average test run catches. Confirmation analysis reported a much lower
2378 TCDF value than the full screen at 0.005 ng versus 0.07 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, no field blank
dkd.176 6-6
-------
TABLE 6-3. ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RATES FOR CDD/CDF, METAL, AND
MICROORGANISM TEST RUNS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
i PATE_J
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
wm
NJJMBER
1 INLET
1 OUTLET
2 INLET
2 OUTLET
3 INLET
3 OUTLET
4 INLET
4 OUTLET
5 INLET
5 OUTLET
6 INLET
6 OUTLET
-------
TABLE 6-4. DRY GAS METER POST-TEST CALIBRATION RESULTS;
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
METER BOX
ID
SAC-03
SAC-02
SAC-01
Box-3
N-30
N-31
N-32
SAC-05
15
V-02729
V-5
SAMPLE
TEAMS
CDD/CDF-IN
METALS-IN
CDD/CDF-IN
METALS-IN
CDD/CDF-IN
METALS-IN
METALS-OUT
CDD/CDF-OUT
METALS-OUT
CDD/CDF-OUT
SPORE-IN
HALOGENS-OUT
HALOGENS-IN
FULL
CALJB&ATION
FACTOR
1.0012
1.0017
0.9960
0.99910
0.9926
1.0080
1.0000
1.0011
0.9913
0.9919
1.0104
POST-TEST
CALlBftATlON
FACTOR
0.9925
0.9918
0.9884
NR
0.9885
0.9851
0.9940
0.9978
NR
0.9870
1.0146
POST-TEST
EH&VtAflOtf
f*)a
-0.87
-0.99
-0.76
NA
-0.41
-2.3
-0.60
-0.33
NA
-0.49
0.42
a (Post-Test) - (Full) x 100
(Full)
NR = Not Recorded NA = Not Applicable
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-5. CDD/CDF FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED
TO AVERAGE RUN RESULTS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
LOCATION
CONDITION
CONGENER
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
2378-TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378-PeCDD
TOTAL PeCDD
123478-HxCDD
123678-HxCDD
123789-HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL HpCDD
Octa-CDD
2378-TCDF
TOTAL TCDF
12378-PeCDF
23478-PeCDF
TOTAL PeCDF
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
mm
MM5
muz
BLAN&
<&*#«£)
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.040]
[0.040]
[0.050]
0.03
[0.040]
0.03
(0.160)
(0.160)
0.43
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.030]
0.06
0.03
0.05
[0.040]
0.13
0.15
0.07
0.29
(0.530)
MM$
8UKN
AW
{&»•*»$
0.09
1.08
0.30
1.14
0.50
0.40
1.30
4.17
2.31
2.31
7.78
2.56
9.60
0.31
0.97
8.54
2.00
0.67
1.52
0.10
7.35
2.69
0.91
4.94
6.11
0.23
0.33
1.80
9.99
BURNDOWS
AVG
(total s^
0.60
9.28
3.85
24.30
5.05
4.18
10.6
51.3
52.5
52.5
156.8
20.6
132.4
14.3
14.5
197.5
62.1
30.5
32.0
3.95
279.6
100.5
21.8
197.6
227.1
1.73
4.89
14.3
153.7
OUTLET
MM5 !
FIELD ;
ffiLANK !
(total n^) ;
[0.005]
0.11
[0.010]
0.28
[0.010]
0.01
0.02
0.16
0.06
0.12
0.13
0.07
0.16
(0.010)
0.02
0.13
0.05
0.01
0.04
[0.010]
0.13
0.05
[0.010]
0.06
(0.020)
(0.005)
0.01
0.05
0.09
MM5
BORN
AW
(toteU?)
4.07
1786.7
21.2
1410.0
14.6
22.4
38.3
801.7
50.1
134.7
19.1
499.0
2546.7
50.3
95.9
1573.3
164.0
48.1
68.9
1.60
684.3
75.1
5.97
122.8
9.37
MM5 :
BURNDOWN!
AVO I
j***^ !
1.09
355.3
9.53
526.7
5.57
8.70
14.93
304.6
18.7
50.0
6.43
130.3
571.7
18.9
36.6
562.7
68.7
20.2
28.1
0.860
282.7
28.9
2.04
47.4
3.17
3.00
4.20
138.0
270.0
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Detection Limit.
6-9
-------
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 through 6-9 compare the toluene recovery amounts of CDD/CDF
congeners to the respective MM5 amounts from full screen analyses (all units in
picograms). Table 6-6 and 6-7 report inlet results and 6-8 and 6-9 report outlet results.
The ratio of the toluene catch to the MM5 expressed as a percentage (T/M x 100), is
also given. The results reveal only a relatively small amount of CDD/CDF isomers
present in the toluene samples. For the inlet samples, average T/M ratios range from 0
to 2.9 percent (Other PCDD). Outlet average values range from 0 to 2.7 percent
(Octa CDF).
The confirmation toluene analytical results are compared to the confirmation
MM5 values in Tables 6-10 and 6-11. The T/M ratios presented here are also very low.
T/M values ranged from 0 to 1.03 percent.
The toluene field blanks analytical results are compared to the toluene test run
analytical results in Table 6-12. The inlet field blank did not detect any isomers except
Total PCDD and Total PCDF. The outlet toluene field blank detected a number of
CDD/CDF isomers but only at a fraction of the test run amounts.
6.2.2 PM/Metals Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-13 presents the leak check results for the PM/Metals. As was stated
earlier, because the inlet sample flow rates were so low, the 4 percent of sample flow
leak rate criterion was also low. All six PM/metals inlet test runs did not meet the leak
check criterion and were leak corrected. Corrections only decreased the sample volume
by a small percentage. All outlet tests passed post-test leak checks.
dkd.176 6-10
-------
TABLE 6-6. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR INLET, BURN CONDITION SAMPLES- JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
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 CDTJ
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 CD£
Total d>D*CDF
RUN1
MM3
NA
0.00
NA
12.32
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
NA
9.689
4,34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.536
0.00
-0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,099
1.314
RUN 3
MMS
(PS)
[20.00]
120
[40.00]
200
[50.00]
50
[40.00]
10.0
(220.0)
(220.0)
[100.0]
m
100
860
50
150
130
220
80
170
30
40
310
110
160
740
3150
3970
TOLUENE
(PS)
[5.500]
[5.500]
[8.100]
(49.00)
[10.80]
[7. 100]
[9.100]
[8.800]
[17.00]
[17.00]
34.1
S3M
[4.100]
[4. 100]
[5.600]
[5.300]
[5.500]
[8.600]
[6.600]
[8.500]
[9.500]
[8.100]
[7.400]
[12.10]
[9.200]
[22.70]
0.0
83,1
TQL/MM5
C#>
NA
0.00
NA
24.5
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
I&I3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.093
RUN 5
MMS
(PS)
[90.00]
3000
280
2720
480
750
1300
9470
6500
0.00
15100
39SJO
790
26810
830
2600
20570
5400
1800
4100
130
8970
7300
1700
5100
17300
103400
143000
TOLUENE
(PS)
[4.200]
5.70
[5.900]
(15.00)
[7.400]
[4.900]
[6.300]
(12.00)
(8.700)
7.90
23.5
72-8
1.80
32.5
[3.800]
[3.600]
14.5
[6.100]
[4.700]
(9.300)
[6.800]
(16.90)
7.40
[8.400]
1.70
[16.70]
S4.I
156:9
TQL/MM5
C#>
NA
0.19
0.00
0.551
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.127
0.134
NA
0.156
ft»4
0.228
0.121
0.00
0.00
0.070
0.00
0.00
0.227
0.00
0.188
0.101
0.00
0.033
0.00
o>oai
0.110
AVERAGE
MM5
(PS)
[50.000]
1080
280
1046
480
400
1300
3313
2310
220
7775
139#»
333
9653
310
973
7260
2000
670
1517
73.3
3087
2687
633
1620
6113
36930
5D89Q
TOLUENE
(PS)
[4.467]
5.70
[6.567]
30.4
[8.467]
[5.600]
[7.167]
12
8.70
7.90
33.7
75.5
1.8
32.5
[4.133]
[3.900]
14.5
[6.700]
[5.133]
6.8
[7.400]
8.4
7.4
[9.167]
1.7
[17.767]
44,15
104,967
TOUMM*
(#>
NA
0.528
0.00
2.901
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.362
0.377
3.591
0.434
&$*i
0.540
0.337
0.00
0.00
0.200
0.00
0.00
0.448
0.00
0.272
0.275
0.00
0.105
0.00
0.120
0.206
[ ] = minimum detection limit (not used in the averages or summations)
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
-------
TABLE 6-7. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR INLET, BURNDOWN CONDITION SAMPLES- JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CBP
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
toteiCDF
Total CDD+CDF
RUKZ
MM5
0.00
11.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
2.90
J,9?
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.67
NA
-0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.086
0.33?
mm 4
MM5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.650
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.025
0.055
NA
0.104
&J44
0.007
0.026
0.00
0.00
0.010
0.034
0.038
0.045
0.00
0.008
0.035
0.00
0.068
0.047
&027
0.064
RUNG
MM5
0.547
0.194
0.546
0.291
0.769
0.746
0.953
0.725
1.240
NA
1.742
t«Z7
0.139
0.379
0.499
0.456
0.387
0.719
0.707
0.891
0.968
0.608
0.996
1.249
1.035
1.374
&819
0.984
AVERAGE
MMS
1.37
0.160
1.380
0.679
1.777
1.446
2.017
0.684
1.448
NA
1.524
O93
0.117
0.436
1.372
1.101
0.498
0.933
0.964
0.722
1.618
0.548
1.324
3.218
1.398
1.835
&76S
6.*3$
[ ] = minimum detection limit (not used in the averages or summations)
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
-------
TABLE 6-8. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE FULL SCREEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS COMPARED TO MM5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR OUTLET, BURN CONDITION SAMPLES- JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
TVaaJOW}
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 GDI?
Total CDD+CDF
RUN 1
MMS
0.00
0.001
0.00
0.001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.011
0.032
0.00
0.199
&004
0.00
0.002
0.00
0.004
0.002
0.011
0.010
0.020
0.00
0.007
0.018
0.00
0.007
0.00
4003
0.004
AVERAGE
MM5
(re)
4067
1783767
21233
1388767
14633
22433
38267
726333
50067
84600
19133
4153300
499000
2047667
50333
95900
1427100
164000
48100
68867
1600
402133
75133
5967
42867
9367
4938033
9091333
TOLUENE
(re)
[4.633]
226
13.9
156
17.7
31.9
36.2
197
95.2
314
82.1
S35
11.4
467
28.8
27.1
265
86.4
26.4
85.8
[9.900]
126
83.7
16.9
20.1
48.2
ttW
1951
TOL/MM5
e#>
0.0
0.013
0.065
0.011
0.121
0.142
0.095
0.027
0.190
0.371
0.429
fcoaa
0.002
0.023
0.057
0.028
0.019
0.053
0.055
0.125
0.00
0.031
0.111
0.283
0.047
0.515
4
-------
T
^^^
CONGENER
i • • • •
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
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
RUH2
MMS i TOLUENE
1400
463600
11000
643000
5700
8700
14700
270900
16600
30200
6000
T™^.
179000
579000
22300
38000
555700
72700
21500
30000
860
182940
27000
1800
15700
2800
[5.900]
11.5
[10.00]
12.5
[14.60]
[9.700]
[12.40]
(19.80)
[30.30]
[30.30]
[68.60]
J—
43-B
(9.200)
(9.200)
[7.200]
[6.800]
[7.000]
[10.90]
[8.400]
[10.80]
[12.10]
[10.40]
[10.80]
[17.60]
[13.40]
[54.00]
H 172*300 I &4
.-.-.-.-.
TQJJMM5
0.00
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.007
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.005
0.002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(1500)
467000
15000
712000
9500
14900
25900
474700
33700
54700
11100
TOLUENE
[6.000]
177
21.4
131
23.3
58.1
66.8
902
272
513
(187.0)
171000
571000
28800
63000
814200
115000
33500
47500
1500
268500
52400
3700
29600
5600
~22flS300
TOL&JM5
(*L
0.00
0.038
0.143
0.018
0.245
0.390
0.258
0.190
0.807
0.938
1.685
115
187
(34.30)
79.2
941
270
88.5
170
[13.00]
532
205
(19.30)
49.0
85.2
0.067
0.033
0.119
0.126
0.116
0.235
0.264
0.358
0.0
0.198
0.391
0.522
0.166
1.521
380
133620
2600
196400
1500
2500
4200
80700
5800
8900
2200
JE.UN6
TOLUENE TQL/MM5
0.00
0.007
0.00
0.016
0.00
0.312
0.121
0.022
0.360
0.347
1.927
[3.300]
8.80
[5.200]
30.8
[6.400]
(7.800)
5.10
17.5
20.9
30.9
42.4
( ) = estimated
0.002
averages or summations)
maximum Possible concentration (included in averages and
40800
174200
5700
8800
151500
18300
5500
6800
220
43280
7400
(620.0)
4500
1100
mm
-..Li i .. 1 1 i
13.4
7.40
[4.000]
5.10
23.8
16.7
(5.800)
17.1
[5,900]
15.8
15.3
[6.900]
3.60
[14.40]
124
- - i
MM5
1093
354740
9533
517133
5567
8700
14933
275433
18700
31267
6433
AVERAGE
- - •
TOLUENE
[5.067]
65.8
21.4
58.0
23.3
33.0
36.0
313
146
272
115
0.00
0.019
0.224
0.011
0.419
0.379
0.241
0.114
0.783
0.870
1.783
0.033
0.004
0.00
0.058
0.016
0.091
0.105
0.251
0.00
0.037
0.207
0.00
0.08
0.00
130267
441400
18933
36600
507133
68667
20167
28100
860
164907
28933
2040
16600
45.9
67.9
34.3
42.2
482
143
47.2
93.6
[10.333]
274
110
19.3
26.3
3167 85.2
-------
TABLE 6-10. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE CONFIRMATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARED TO MM5 ANALYTICAL RFSTIT TQ
SAMPLE LOCATION; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
Tw^J-l^wJtijN J&l
'••••••• — _ — ii-ii,
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
ooifcaswsifc
—i- _
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
~ ~ .1 ... _
ttttM * tfctt *»£ —
"•I"' I'' II . I M.
MM5
(pg>
(80.00)
120.0
110.0
1290.0
••MHMMiMH
«.MJ.T f UtJL,
(Pg)
^"- Vr-r.
NC
NC
NC
NC
—••••-•••«•••—
t\t
TOL/MMS
NA
NA
NA
NA
^^^^^^ . i i
JUI«a INLET 1
MM5
_
(100.0)
60.0
80.0
920.0
TTOL1IEKE
(pg)
NC
NC
NC
NC
— • —
0L/MM5
t*\
NA
NA
NA
NA
— — _
; • r— —
(nt>\
\PSJf
(100.0)
190.0
100.0
860.0
"»«••••••••
"" MMS 1
fna\
... MfGt
2,400
19,500
3,300
60,700
HUNS m
/«w\
NC
NC
NC
NC
'tftl 4 ttat 1
^TOLUENE'
/n»V
Kg/
[1.500]
8.500
2.0
21.8
-.— —
tJT ~~T *» ~
fOUMM5 MM5'"|'TOt(JEM
— i2! L 1 f^
NA
NA
NA
NA
'T
520
4,580
790
26,810
[1.00]
14.6
1.8
32.5
—
MM? MM5 TOLtKEHE
— (%* tro> {pa>
NA
0.044
0.061
0.014
2,700
8,600
20,900
275,100
18.4
89.6
46.3
953.7
'|1X>L/MM5 MMS itOLtS
{*&) i (l«) j (DC* I t*\
0.681
1.042
0.222
0.347
— — i
1,733
9,387
8,093
145,573
— . . -»* wy
18.4
49.1
24.2
487.8
\ •"'**'/
— — _- - -
1.062
0.523
0.298
0.335
[ ] - minimum detection limit, (not used in the averages or summations)
( ) - estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
NA = not applicable '
NC = No confirmation analysis conducted
-------
TABLE 6-11. CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE CONFIRMATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARED TO MM5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE OUTLET
SAMPLE LOCATION; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CXM6ENE&
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
HUH 1 QtmJST
MM5
32,500
1,437,500
34,800
2,745,200
TOLtlENE
(Pg)
[1.200]
26.800
2.400
50.400
fOUMMf
m
NA
0.002
0.007
0.002
m& ^ OOTLET
MM5
12,600
475,400
16,200
911,800
TOLUENE
(Pg)
(6.700)
21.3
1.5
27.1
OLMMS
<*>
0.053
0.004
0.009
0.003
RUN 3 OtfttEt
MM5
42,900
1,777,100
51,900
3,688,100
TOLUENE
feg>
22.500
735.500
20.400
1309.600
TOL/MMS
m
0.052
0.041
0.039
0.036
&Uf44 OWLET
MM5
(11.3)
345.000
10.3
504.7
OL/MM5
<«)
0.001
0.074
0.064
0.061
HUN 5 OOtLBt
MM5
L/MMS
(«)
0.168
0.037
0.038
0.028
[ ] = minimum detection limit, (not used in the averages or summations)
( ) = estimated maximum possible concentration (included in averages and summations)
NA =not applicable
-------
TABLE 6-12. CDD/CDF TOLUENE FIELD BLANK RESULTS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
UJCATKJS '
eoNinrnaN
$
[4.500]
5.70
[6.600]
(30.4)
[8.500]
[5.600]
[7.200]
(12.0)
(8.700)
7.90
33.7
9.80
9.80
[4.200]
[3.900]
14.5
[6.700]
[5.100]
6.8
[7.400]
10.55
7.40
[9.200]
9.10
[17.800]
[1.000]
1.80
14.6
34.3
BtfflaSTDCWN
Avq
(tqftlpj^
8.20
18.15
(35.5)
147.5
60
60.4
142
382
760
1555
2389
68.3
512
196
160
1019
579
294
231
63.9
1669
1331
703
2728
4168
18.4
24.15
58.25
512
Oim-ET
imo
BJIANK
,te*MJ
[6.100]
[6.100]
[21.500]
136
[28.400]
[18.800]
[24.100]
136
29.9
76
70.3
5.40
5.40
[6.200]
[5.900]
8.90
15.2
4.30
15.5
[12.100]
62.1
21.0
[17.500]
26.0
[49.400]
BtfRH
AVO
(t0t4j»g)
[4.600]
226
(13.900)
155.6
(17.700)
31.9
36.2
220
95.2
252.2
82.05
85.6
435.9
(28.8)
27.05
282
86.35
26.35
85.75
[9.900]
257
83.7
(16.9)
103.8
(48.200)
22.5
11.4
266
475
BORNDOWN
AVG
;
[5.000]
65.8
21.4
65.1
23.3
32.95
35.95
364
146.45
418.4
114.7
45.9
111
(34.300)
42.15
524.45
143.35
47.15
93.55
[10.300]
554.8
110.15
(19.300)
136.45
85.2
[10.500]
4.633
133
195
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Detection Limit.
6-17
-------
TABLE 6-13. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR TOXIC METALS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
BATl
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
EON
NUMBER
1 INLET
1 OUTLET
2 INLET
2 OUTLET
3 INLET
3 OUTLET
4 INLET
4 OUTLET
5 INLET
5 OUTLET
6 INLET
6 OUTLET
MAMMUM
VACClftJM
1
1
3
4
1
1
3.5
3
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
PORT
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
AVC% SAMPLE
RATB
(acftn)
0.201
0.220
0.414
0.418
0.1657
0.206
0.480
0.437
0.187
0.226
0.409
0.422
0.118
0.110
0.391
0.343
0.182
0.127
0.457
0.372
0.114
0.115
0.306
0.266
4% SAMPLE
SAfE
(acftn) a
0.008
0.009
0.017
0.017
0.007
0.008
0.019
0.018
0.007
0.009
0.016
0.017
0.005
0.004
0.016
0.014
0.007
0.005
0.018
0.015
0.005
0.005
0.012
0.011
MEASURED
LEAK RATE
0.002
0.04
NR b
0.016
0.009
0.01
NR
0.014
0.012
0.009
0.006
0.016
0.01
0.012
NR
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.018
0.014
NR
0.012
mcms
FOR OAK
CHECK
6
5
NR
8
10
10
NR
8
15
12
10
10
14
2
NR
5
14
20
8
9
12
NR
8
LEAK
dORRECtSl>
(YOU*!)
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
a Because these rates are lower than 0.02 cfm, these values are the acceptable criterion.
b NR = Not recorded.
-------
The isokinetic sampling rates for the PM/Metals trains are listed in Table 6-3.
All isokinetic values were within 10 percent of 100 percent except three inlet runs.
The post-test dry gas meter calibration checks for boxes used for PM/Metals
sampling are shown in Table 6-4. The results are well within the 5 percent acceptance
criterion.
6.2.3 Microbial Survivability in Emissions Quality Assurance
Table 6-14 presents the leak check results for the Microbial Survivability in
emissions test runs. Several leak checks did not meet the leak rate criterion, however
the exceedances were so minimal that no leak correcting has been done.
Microbial emission testing isokinetic results are presented in Table 6-3. Five out
of six test runs met the isokinetic criterion of ± 10 percent of 100 percent.
The microbial emissions field blank results are shown in Appendix E.3. The
average count was determined to be 20 spores per 100 ml aliquot.
No post-test calibration was performed on meter box 15 which was used for the
microorganism in emissions tests.
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 6-15. A value of 3.06 total mg of
Cr was detected in the field blank. No Br' or F was detected in the field blank.
dkd.176
6-19
-------
TABLE 6-14. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR MICRORGANISMS IN FLUE GAS TESTING
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
ON
I
K)
O
BATE
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
RIM
NWMMR
1 INLET
2 INLET
3 INLET
4 INLET
5 INLET
6 INLET
MAKiMtlM
meeotM
3.5
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
3.0
AVG, SAMPLE
SATE
-------
TABLE 6-15. HALOGEN FIELD BLANK, REAGENT BLANK, AND
METHOD BLANK RESULTS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991) a
ANALYTE
Cl
F
Br
INLET
FtELD
BLANK
{totaling)
3.06
[0.040]
[0.0127]
H2SO4
REACENT
BLANK
{total tag)
[0.110]
[0.040]
[0.0127]
NaOH
KEAGENT
BLANK
(totaling)
0.131
[0.0414]
[0.0131
METHOB
BLANK I
(total mg)
[0.0103]
[0,0362]
[0.0115]
METHOD
BLANK 2
(total ffl£)
[0.0103]
[0.0362]
[0.0115]
a Values are reported as the respective anions.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
6-21
-------
6.3 QC PROCEDURES FOR ASH AND PIPE SAMPLING
As stated in Section 5.3, the incinerator waste charges were spiked with
B. stearothermophillus in both wet and dry forms. Solutions of B. stearothermophilhis
(wet spores) were spiked to the incinerator to coincide with simultaneous emissions
testing and daily ash sampling. Assessments of B. stearothermophillus 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. stearothermophillus (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
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 sieve and placed in a large 55-gallon drum.
Using a sample "thief, four approximately 500 gram samples were taken and placed in
6-22
-------
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
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 unless directed otherwise by the analytical "case
narratives" which are shown in Appendix E-l.
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
dkd.176 6-23
-------
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
inlet CDD/CDF MM5 samples. The inlet XAD-2 modules were spiked 10-20 times the
normal surrogate standard levels (100 ng). Outlet XAD-2 modules were spiked with
4 ng. Even though much lower levels of CDD/CDF isomers were detected at the inlet,
the high spike did not appear to create any analytical difficulties. Modified analytical
protocols were also developed for samples with saturated responses. One percent of the
MM5 extracts were used for resolving these saturated samples instead of the typical 50
percent. All ash and outlet MM5 samples showed saturation and were analyzed a
second time using these dilution techniques. This resulted in a diluted fraction which did
not saturate the MS detector.
6.4.1.3 CDD/CDF MM5 Blank Results. Both method blanks and field blanks
were analyzed for CDD/CDF isomers. A MM5 method blank was analyzed for each
batch of samples. All water samples showed no CDD/CDF isomers detected. Small
quantities of several isomers were detected in the method blanks for the inlet MM5,
outlet MM5, toluene rinses, and the ash samples. Levels were all less than one third the
"theoretical method quantitation limit" and were, therefore, within analytical QA
guidelines.
dkd.176 6-24
-------
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.
Confirmation analyses were only completed when positive detections of 2378 TCDD or
2378 TCDF were found in the full screen (DB-5) analysis. The analytical acceptance
criterion for internal standard recoveries is 40 percent to 130 percent for tetra- through
hexa-chlorinated compounds, while the range is 25 percent to 130 percent for hepta- and
octa-chlorinated compounds. Recoveries outside of these limits may still be acceptable if
other identification criteria are met.
Internal standard recoveries for MM5 Runs FS and C at both the inlet and outlet
all met the acceptable criteria. One internal standard recovery for HpCDD 678,
MM5-outlet Run 5 and outside the control limit at 163 percent. This high value was not
flagged for any other QA exceedances. All toluene internal standards recoveries were
within the acceptance criteria except for the field blank-outlet, HxCDD 678 isomer with
a recovery of 39.1 percent. This is not expected to impact the quality of the outlet
CDD/CDF data.
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, except for the pre-test ash 2378 TCDF internal standard
recovery at 175 percent. This is not expected to impact the quality of the data. 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. No metals were detected in the ash blank. Barium, Cr, and Hg were detected
in the flue gas method blank at low levels.
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 Sb
dkd.176 6-25
-------
TABLE 6-16. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE CDD/CDF MODIFIED METHOD 5 INLET ANALYSES
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLE ID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
MM5-RUNI
85.6
83.1
84.9
97,8
88.2
109.0
105.0
69.4
87.8
94.0
103.0
125.0
102.0
101.0
97.3
69.8
88.5
96.3
104
MMS-RUN2
88.1
86.2
84.1
88.6
106.0
117.0
114.0
63.7
78.6
106.0
122.0
147.0
136.0
107.0
115.0
87.4
92.1
84.4
93.2
MM5-RUN3
82.7
99.6
88.4
103.0
90.7
112.0
110.0
77.5
95.4
104.0
114.0
136.0
116.0
103.0
94.9
67.2
94.6
105
113
MM5-RUN4
76.9
79.8
89.6
88.2
86.3
109.0
108.0
73.8
88.1
119.0
118.0
122.0
117.0
109.0
100.0
78.9
88.1
95.9
98.8
MM5-RDN5
88.7
94.0
98.0
103.0
91.7
107.0
104.0
80.5
94.1
96.1
105.0
121.0
107.0
96.8
85.8
63.5
92.2
102
99.8
MM5-ROS6
92.0
77.3
96.5
94.9
81.7
107.0
108.0
77.6
94.1
109.0
118.0
122.0
109.0
118.0
101.0
77.9
87.0
82.3
96.9
MM5
FIEJUD BLANK
92.7
98.3
99.0
80.8
110.0
108.0
105.0
69.3
81.5
102.0
120.0
119.0
137.0
97.9
103.0
75.0
-------
TABLE 6-17. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE CDD/CDF MODIFIED METHOD 5 OUTLET ANALYSES
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLE ID .
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
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-HpCDD678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
MM5-RU&f 1
129.0
98.4
122.0
113.0
94.3
95.1
92.3
97.0
73.3
79.6
62.7
94.6
88.6
92.5
83.8
50.9
93.2
93.4
91.4
MM5-RON2
114.0
90.2
114.0
110.0
107.0
33.0
33.9
27.9
31.4
43.1
37.4
33.6
41.5
35.7
44.8
43.4
92.4
36.6
37.3
MM3-RUNS
142.0
130.0
120.0
122.0
101.0
95.2
98.5
98.6
86.4
95.5
104.0
83.7
88.3
84.6
90.3
82.4
86.3
84.9
98.8
MMS-RUN4
109.0
123.0
129.0
119.0
112.0
87.0
84.2
98.9
94.0
105.0
110.0
82.7
91.9
81.9
107.0
107.0
97.4
111
116
MMS-RUNS
126.0
95.8
107.0
128.0
103.0
107.0
112.0
136.0
107.0
118.0
105.0
124.0
110.0
97.4
163.0
87.8
91.4
116
118
MM5-RUN6
99.9
84.5
112.0
106.0
89.0
83.7
81.1
81.6
73.2
90.7
67.0
89.1
89.2
72.0
76.7
51.1
91.0
85.0
85.7
MM5
FIELD BLANK
108.0
105.0
107.0
105.0
96.5
84.4
83.0
81.0
79.7
93.7
80.7
86.4
101.0
80.9
90.6
67.1
-------
TABLE 6-18. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE INLET ANALYSES
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
00
SAMPLE ID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-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.-RBM1
55.5
66.3
72.0
69.9
61.5
67.2
72.3
55.8
61.0
94.0
92.8
70.6
87.7
74.0
73.7
56.1
TOL-RIHSS
58.0
63.0
73.2
77.0
64.0
71.0
72.0
63.2
58.1
66.8
97.7
69.2
95.4
68.5
71.9
54.8
TQL-RBMi
58.9
72.5
70.5
71.4
60.2
68.3
68.5
50.9
58.7
70.1
91.7
68.9
91.4
66.5
68.7
53.6
TGLHRUN4
45.8
47.0
64.0
65.1
49.8
56.7
60.1
42.9
50.8
56.7
72.0
66.3
90.0
63.5
62.4
42.3
44.5
52.2
54.8
TOL-RUN $
58.2
66.1
69.2
72.9
60.0
64.4
66.7
58.7
58.5
79.7
96.2
68.0
93.7
67.4
70.1
51.1
55.1
61.8
62.4
TOL-RUN 6
60.5
71.0
76.0
77.8
67.6
70.8
77.7
51.1
60.4
73.3
79.9
68.7
74.5
72.9
70.5
54.9
58.7
82.2
65.7
TOL
57.7
60.2
68.6
73.4
56.7
64.3
67.2
62.0
59.7
65.2
78.3
65.6
89.9
62.2
64.2
44.6
-------
TABLE 6-19. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR CDD/CDF TOLUENE RINSE OUTLET ANALYSES
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLE ID
FULL SCREEN ANALYSES
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF478
13C12-HxCDD478
13C12-HpCDF789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
13C12-HxCDF 234
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
CONFIRMATION DATA
SURROGATE STANDARD RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
TOL-RON1
58.1
52.2
92.7
80.4
64.3
75.6
81.3
55.5
67.3
63.6
81.2
90.9
113.0
77.5
67.7
47.4
55.3
60.1
66.3
TQL-KDS2
60.8
56.3
109.0
94.1
67.8
80.5
100.0
59.9
65.9
66.5
89.9
101.0
126.0
85.6
72.0
42.2
47.7
60.4
53.5
TOL-ROS 3-
58.9
59.5
75.3
87.8
59.6
67.6
117.0
59.4
69.2
63.6
94.9
72.9
103.0
68.9
65.7
48.3
58.5
67.7
70.3
TOL-RUN 4
56.4
73.0
70.0
72.9
63.1
68.2
70.3
48.3
61.3
80.3
77.4
67.8
64.3
68.6
69.8
55.1
45.2
58.8
54.4
TOL-RUN $
56.4
73.0
70.0
72.9
63.1
68.2
70.3
48.3
61.3
80.3
77.4
67.8
64.3
68.6
69.8
55.1
99.2
115
119
TOL-RITN «
52.1
55.4
67.8
87.4
56.2
56.4
84.7
57.5
51.9
51.9
74.5
59.0
80.7
61.6
61.5
44.9
42.4
59.4
44.4
TOL
58.9
66.3
73.6
72.9
45.5
60.4
65.7
42.4
53.0
64.2
34.8
61.2
39.1
51.8
46.6
27.9
-------
TABLE 6-20. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF ASH AND SCRUBBER WATER ANALYSES
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
OJ
o
SAMPLE H>
FULL SCREEN ANALYSIS
SURROGATE STANDARDS RECOVERY (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
ALTERNATE STANDARDS RECOVERY
13C12-HxCDF789
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 '
PRE-TEST
71.8
66.8
121.0
97.6
60.1
88.7
97.4
175.0
92.0
176.0
72.9
119.0
88.6
182.0
123.0
78.7
92.9
109
87.7
DAY1
91.9
92.5
142.0
94.2
112.0
106.0
109.0
105.0
84.1
115.0
77.6
81.6
81.5
93.6
94.5
74.4
85.3
89.6
75.4
DAY 2
76.3
66.7
109.0
91.8
55.4
71.9
80.1
102.0
77.5
84.6
50.3
88.7
77.0
85.8
80.1
58.1
71.5
75.7
71.8
DAY 3
70.1
42.3
115.0
76.7
118.0
98.8
109.0
77.2
73.5
88.2
78.2
78.1
77.1
78.7
80.9
62.8
72.4
82.3
69.8
SCRUBBER WATER
DAY!
72.6
76.0
135
121
86.7
85.2
90.4
85.1
72.6
71.7
64.5
115
120
99.0
93.6
29.8
66.3
75.0
73.7
DAY 2
88.0
123.0
96.6
96.4
77.7
83.9
85.6
125.0
79.6
87.5
74.2
75.4
82.5
72.0
73.0
54.3
104
107
95.2
DAY 3
77.0
95.2
126
107
90.0
91.5
95.2
77.5
76.6
92.7
87.9
88.0
96.7
103
101
30.9
88.3
87.5
87.8
MAKE-UP
WATER
(03/05/91)
68.1
59.1
75.4
74.1
65.7
45.2
73.8
60.6
59.3
45.9
67.7
70.9
69.0
66.6
67.3
47.3
65.5
87.6
75.3
-------
TABLE 6-21. METALS ASH AND FLUE GAS METHOD
BLANK RESULTS; JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
METAL \
Antimony
Arsenis
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
ASH
METHOD
BLASK
(sag/kg)
[1.50]
[4.00]
[0. 100]
[0. 100]
[0.200]
[0.600]
[0.30]
[9.80]
[0.300]
[0.600]
[1.50]
FLUB GAS METHOD BLANK
FRONT
HALF
(total «g)
[3.00]
[0.800]
(0.580)
[0.200]
[0.400]
(1.58)
[0.600]
(2.00)
[0.600]
[1.20]
[1.00]
IMPlNtfERS
1,2,3
flatalnig)
[1-61]
[0.130]
[0. 108]
[0.108]
[0.215]
[0.646]
[0.323]
2.77
[0.323]
[0.646]
[1.08]
IM1WJERS !
4,5,6 *
(total tig)
[0.647]
a Impingers 4, 5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for Mercury
content only.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
() = Estimated Maximum Possible Detection Limit.
6-31
-------
TABLE 6-22. METALS METHOD SPIKE RESULTS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
! METAL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
M&m®T> SPIKE i% ree-3
Ftowr
HALF
72.4
106
98.2
101
101
104
100
105
104
102
108
IMPIHGERS
132
68.6
93.0
97.0
103
106
104
102
102
106
3.08
104
MPIKGBRS
4A6
106
METHOD SHKB DtlPOCATE {% re*,)
FB0KT
HALF
71.8
103
95.3
98.6
99.3
102
98.2
106
101
86.8
104
IMPWJBRS
U£
57.8
90.0
101
108
109
107
105
102
109
4.30
100
IMPINGED
4,5,$
102
6-32
-------
and Ag. Silver especially had low recoveries at 3.08 and 4.3 percent for the back half
analyses. Silver was detected in very low amounts throughout the test program. No
matrix corrections were applied.
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, or the reagent blank. The field
blank revealed very low amounts of HC1 but only represented a small amount of the 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. One pre-aliquoted wet spore bag and a
10 ml vial filled with the spore slurry were submitted for confirmation analysis. The
confirmation counts of 7.2 x 108 and 1.4 x 1010 spores/ml were higher than the
manufacturer's respective count of 6.0 x 108 and 8.5 x 108 spores/ml for the two samples,
respectively. Because the final analyses were also completed by the same laboratory
conducting confirmation analyses, 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 of 6.0 x 107 exceeded the
manufacturer's count of 1.0 x 107.
A pipe which was loaded with spores and not charged to the incinerator (ambient
pipe) was also submitted for analysis (see Appendix E.3). The results were
6.0 x 107 spores.
dkd.176
6-33
-------
TABLE 6-23. MATRIX SPIKE AND MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATES
RECOVERY VALUES
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
ANALYTE
Cl
F
Br
RUN 3
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(*)
102.00
91.20
95.80
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
<*)
100.00
90.40
93.20
RUN1
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(*)
106.00
103.00
115.00
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
(*)
105.00
103.00
115.00
RUN 10
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(*)
105.00
106.00
109.00
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
(*)
105.00
106.00
109.00
-------
TABLE 6-24. WET SPORE SPIKE SOLUTION CONIRMATION ANALYSIS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLE H>
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-l
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-2
MAHWACTURErS
COUNT
($p^«$/jal)
6.0E+08
8.5E+08
CONHEMATIOH
AVERAGE
(viable spores/jfcf)
7.2E+08
1.4E+10
CONHKMATJOH
covm
STA*0>AIU> DEVIATION
(viabb sporeSj'm})
3.2E+07
2. 1E+08
NOTE: All values were taken from the average of the 1 ml, 48 hour counts.
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-l was labelled 3.00E+11 spores/bag at 500 ml/bag.
Spike Aliquot Spore Susp.-2 was labelled 4.27E+11 spores/bag at 500 ml/bag.
-------
TABLE 6-25. DRY SPORE SPIKE SOLUTION CONIRMATION ANALYSIS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
SAMPLES)
Dry Spore Stock
MANUFACTURER'S
COUNT
(spore/vial)
1.00+07
CONFIRMATION
AVERAGE
(viable spores/vial)
6.0E+07
CONFIRMATION
COUNT
STANDARD DEVIATION
(viable spores/vial)
6.7E+06
NOTE: All values were taken from the average of the 1 ml, 17 hour counts.
UJ
ON
-------
6.5 CEM QUALITY ASSURANCES
Flue gas was analyzed for carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and total hydrocarbons (THC), using
EPA Methods 10, 3A, 6C, 7E, and 25A, respectively. An additional CEM analyzer was
also employed for real time HC1 gas concentrations.
6.5.1 CEM Data Overview
CEM sampling system and instruments were operated performing daily QA/QC
procedures. These included QC gas challenges, sample systems blow back, probe
maintenance, filter replacement, conditioner inspection and maintenance, calibration
drift checks and others. The aim was to ensure a quality data product. 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 Jordan MWI 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 could
not be completed for the 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.
The zero and span calibration drift results for each CEM analyzer on each test
day are listed in Appendix D. Day 1 (March 5, 1991) showed excessive calibration drifts
on the inlet CO2 and the inlet THC. With span drifts of 8.79 and -50.7 percent for the
above two analyzers, drift corrections were employed. The Day 1 inlet SO2 CEM
analyzer showed high drift as well at 8.8 percent, however, no corrections were made
dkd.176
6-37
-------
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 Converter
Stratification Test
Once/Site
Before Each Test
Run
Daily
Every 3rd Day
3 point for O2, CO2, NOX,
SO2)HC1
4 point for CO, THC
Every 3rd Day
Zero and Span
Once/Site
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 ifjess
restrictive)
r = 0.998
< 5% Span
85% of time for
stable SO2
measurements
> 90% conversion
efficiency
Within 10% of
average
dkd.176
6-38
-------
because response to the final QC gases was slightly low (within 5 percent of the certified
concentrations).
Day 2 CEM responses showed no excessive calibration drift. All Day 3
instruments were within the 3 percent calibration drift criterion except the inlet CO2 and
-9.19 percent and the inlet NOX at 10.59 percent. The inlet CO2 values were not drift
corrected because responses from both the initial and final QC gases were almost
identical indicating very little drift. The inlet NOX values were drift corrected.
6.5.3 Daily PC Gas Challenges
After initial calibration, mid-range QC gases for all instruments were analyzed
with no adjustment, as a quality control check of daily calibrations and to provide
day-to-day precision estimates for each instrument. The calibration was considered
acceptable if the difference between the measured response and the certified
concentration was within ± 2 percent of full scale of the analyzer full range.
The results of the daily QC gas challenges all shown in Appendix D. 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.
The results of the CEM linearity checks are listed in Appendix d. All linearity
checks met the acceptance criteria.
dkd.176
6-39
-------
6.5.5 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 particulate loadings on every impactor stage. Assessments can then be made
on the validity of the test run. All PSD test runs were inspected during the Jordan
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 Run 1 was underloaded, and was not accepted as
valid test run. Runs 2 and 3 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 could 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
dkd.176 6-40
-------
where:
CV = Coefficient of variation
S = Standard deviation (calculated using LOTUS 123™ which uses n and
not n-1 where n = number of data points.)
M = mean
cv
p
En,
CVp = pooled coefficient of Variation
CVj = Coefficient of variation for a simple sample set i.
n; = Number of data points in that sample set.
The CV values expressed in the following tables are not intended to represent
sampling/analytical precision. They are more a reflection of the variability of the data
as a whole, including process caused emission variability.
6.7.2 CDD/CDF Data Variation
Table 6-27 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
six runs. Pooled CVs are also compiled for all of the congeners at each location and for
the entire test program (overall). The overall pooled CVs for the CDD/CDF flue gas
concentrations was 106 and 103 percent for the burn and burndown conditions at the
inlet. The pooled CVs for the outlet for the two conditions were 33.3 and 42.1 percent.
Table 6-28 and 6-29 presents CVs for the metal flue gas concentrations. The
overall pooled CV for the metals flue gas concentrations was 49.5 percent for the outlet
and 55.6 percent for the inlet sample location.
The halogen gas test CVs are listed in Table 6-30. Values were calculated for
each run as each run consisted of multiple "sub-runs" (Run 1 Burn = Halogen Runs 1
through 4). Only HC1 CV values were calculated. The overall pooled CVs for the HC1
gas concentrations was 57.5 percent at the inlet and 46.5 at the outlet.
dkd.176 6-41
-------
TABLE 6-27. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATIONS FOR THE CDD/CDF FLUE
GAS CONCENTRATIONS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Pooled CV
. .. , -:-. INLET ; :,:, -
RUNS
1,3,5
47.1
124.5
47.3
111.2
47.1
84.6
47.1
131.2
127.2
47.1
135.1
94.1
124.6
116.9
116.6
128.8
118.9
117.9
119.1
46.8
126.5
120.1
84.9
128.7
128.3
106.0
•:;RUNS:>
- 2,4,$
112.9
70.5
76.4
74.2
68.5
84.4
61.8
80.9
102.2
118.2
102.2
83.3
127.0
108.0
116.4
117.1
124.8
106.2
75.4
124.0
120.9
117.0
123.1
121.8
102.9
POOLED
CY (%)
86.5
101.2
63.5
94.5
58.8
84.5
55.0
109.0
115.4
47.1
126.9
98.3
106.0
122.0
112.4
122.7
118.0
121.4
112.9
62.8
125.2
120.5
102.2
125.9
125.1
OUTLET
RUNS
1,3,5
25.7
7.8
39.9
21.2
37.1
30.2
32.4
29.7
43.0
43.2
31.6
26.5
18.6
37.9
48.5
38.1
31.6
32.1
35.5
46.6
32.2
29.3
30.5
28.8
23.7
33.3
RUNS
2,4,6
26.7
22.6
40.0
23.7
46.0
45.0
46.5
45.2
48.3
47.1
42.3
25.9
19.8
35.5
49.0
39.1
44.7
43.6
47.4
48.9
43.1
52.2
49.3
49.7
44.5
42.1
POOLED
CV (%)
26.2
16.9
40.0
22.5
41.8
38.3
40.1
38.2
45.8
45.2
37.3
26.2
19.2
36.7
48.8
38.6
38.8
38.3
41.9
47.8
38.0
42.4
41.0
40.6
35.6
6-42
-------
TABLE 6-28. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF THE
FLUE GAS METALS CONCENTRATIONS AT THE INLET
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONDITION
RUN
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Pooled CV
Overall Pooled CV
BURN
1.3,5
CV
(*>
10.3
NC
65.6
NC
41.7
11.5
14.7
91.3
91.1
1.2
NC
543
55.6
BURNDOWN
2,4,6
CV
<*)
41.8
79.1
64.5
NC
16.7
13.5
16.4
105
33.9
58.4
NC
56.1
POOLED
: " : cv "
(«)
30.4
79.1
65.0
NC
31.8
12.5
15.6
98.4
68.8
41.3
NC
...
NC = Not Calculated
6-43
-------
TABLE 6-29. COEFFIECffiNTS OF VARIATION OF THE
FLUE GAS METALS CONCENTRATIONS AT THE OUTLET
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONDITION
RUN
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Pooled CV
Overall Pooled CV
BURN
U,5
CV
(*)
16.0
NC
12.0
NC
43.1
27.6
26.6
78.1
65.0
66.2
NC
, ' . -474,; - : ,:
49-5
BURNDOWN
2,4,*
CV
(*)
30.7
NC
38.4
NC
37.7
36.5
39.6
82.5
70.6
NC
NC
; 52.3 -^
POOLED
CV
<*)
23.0
NC
28.4
NC
40.5
32.3
33.7
80.3
67.9
66.2
NC
NC = Not Calculated
6-44
-------
TABLE 6-30. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR
HALOGEN (HC1) FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1990)
. ... fix'-''. .,-, 'TEST - • • ,^::,:p
:v • • . > RW : , ''" ,
NUMBER
Average 1-4
Average 4-6
Average 7-10
Average 11-13
Average 14-17
Average 18-20
Total Pooled Halogen
^INLETi. •
•:? CV • ,.
::•,(%>
46.74
85.82
63.26
7.87
79.88
17.36
57.49
OUTLET
:fe. CV
(*)
28.44
71.51
66.44
11.24
47.64
30.03
46.52
6-45
-------
Table 6-31 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 CVs for the
CEM data was 288 percent at the inlet sampling location and 144 percent at the outlet.
dkd.176 6-46
-------
TABLE 6-31. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF CEM GAS CONCENTRATIONS
JORDAN HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
DATE
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
Pooled Compound
COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION -INLET
(percent)
O2
18.37
30.11
22.27
29.31
20.19
36.72
26.9
Inlet CEM Overall Pooled 288. 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
03/05/91
03/05/91
03/07/91
03/07/91
03/09/91
03/09/91
Pooled Compound
2.71
2.99
5.12
3.77
3.91
4.62
3.9
Outlet CEM Overall Pooled 143.78
CO2
11.13
32.34
18.29
32.86
24.35
34.79
27.0
14.57
24.25
21.15
22.07
16.53
27.82
21.5
CO
333.21
66.68
891.57
590.44
1364.26
404.22
739.8
NX)x
10.99
50.83
18.69
56.49
29.30
44.97
39.0
S02
44.58
98.05
55.31
97.86
97.71
183.03
105.9
na
26.28
17.79
30.53
73.12
15.57
45.16
39.9
COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION - OUTLET
(percent)
77.08
82.86
191.43
117.09
104.94
149.09
126.8
THC
48.44
64.51
118.26
4.39
80.26
67.0
4.10
7.66
398.29
443.63
298.1
POOLED CV
BY RUN
129.1
57.4
365.2
233.8
517.3
173.2
39.3
43.4
221.2
229.7
61.4
87.6
-------
7. 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 CI-TEF') Methods
of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds.
Report No. 176, August 1988.
2. Radian Corporation, Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for
Proposed Guidelines for Existing Facilities. EPA 450/3-89-27e, August 1989.
dkd.176
------- |