United States Office of Air Quality EMB Report 91 -MWI-8
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards Volume I
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 December 1981
Air
Medical Waste Incineration
Emission Test Report
Morristown Memorial Hospital
Morristown, New Jersey
-------
DCN: 92-275-026-60-01
MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATION
EMISSION TEST REPORT
Morristown Memorial Hospital
Morristown, New Jersey
Prepared for:
Dennis P. Holzschuh
Emissions Measurement Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
1300 Nelson Highway/Chapel Hill Road
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
September 11, 1992
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Objectives 1-1
1.3 Test Matrix 1-3
1.4 Process Description 1-9
1.5 Description Of Report Contents 1-9
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2-1
2.1 Emissions Test Log 2-1
2.2 CDD/CDF Results 2-1
2.3 Toxic Metals Results 2-15
2.4 Particulate Matter/Particle Size Distribution 2-41
2.5 Mercury Emissions By Method 101A 2-58
2.6 Halogen Gas Emissions 2-66
2.7 CEM Results 2-77
2.8 Microbial Survivability Results 2-81
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Process Description for MMH Incineration System 3-1
3.3 Pretest Activities 3-13
3.4 Process Operation During Testing 3-16
4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS 4-1
4.1 Spray Dryer Inlet 4-1
4.2 Baghouse Exit (Stack) 4-1
4.3 Ash Sampling Locations 4-5
4.4 Water and Slurry Samples ; 4-5
5. 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 5-21
5.3 Mercury Emissions By Method 101A 5-33
5.4 Hydrogen Chloride/Hydrogen Bromide/Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions
Testing By EPA Method 26 5-40
5.5 EPA Methods 1-4 5-44
5.6 Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Methods 5-45
5.7 Microbial Survivability Testing 5-55
5.8 Particulate Size Distribution Sampling Methods 5-70
5.9 Process Sampling Procedure 5-72
JBS343 U
-------
CONTENTS, continued
Section _Page
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 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 6-21
6.4 Analytical Quality Assurance 6-22
6.5 CEM Quality Assurances 6-31
VOLUME n
APPENDICES
A FIELD DATA SHEETS
A.1 Traverse Point Location
A.2 Dioxins/Furans
A.3 Paniculate Matter/Metals
A.4 Mercury
A.5 Hydrogen Chloride
A. 6 Microbial
A.7 Particle Size Distribution
A.8 Opacity
B PROCESS DATA SHEETS
C SAMPLE PARAMETER CALCULATION SHEETS
C. 1 Dioxins/Furans
C.2 Particulate Matter/Metals
C.3 Mercury
C.4 Microbial
D CEM DATA
D.I Tables
D.2 Calibration Drifts
D.3 QC Gas Responses
JBS343 U1
-------
CONTENTS, continued
Section Page
E ANALYTICAL DATA
E.I Dioxins/Furans
E.2 Particulate Matter/Metals
E.3 Mercury
E.4 Hydrogen Chloride
E.5 Microbial
E.6 Particle Size Distribution
E.7 Sample ID Log
F CALIBRATION DATA SHEETS
G SAMPLE EQUATIONS
H PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
I SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS
1.1 Dioxins/Furans
1.2 Particulate Matter/Metals
1.3 Mercury
1.4 Hydrogen Chloride
1.5 Microbial
1.6 Particle Size Distribution
JBS343
iv
-------
FIGURES
Page
2-1 Run 1 Particle Size Distribution Results 2-54
2-2 Run 2 Particle Size Distribution Results .....-•• 2'55
2-3 Run 3 Particle Size Distribution Results 2"56
2-4 Run 4 Particle Size Distribution Results 2-57
2-5 Hydrogen Chloride Results Comparison - Spray Dryer Inlet 2-72
2-6 Hydrogen Chloride Results Comparison - Baghouse Outlet 2-73
3-1 Schematic of Medical Waste Incinerator/Waste Heat Recovery
Boiler System • • • 3-2
3-2 Schematic of Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Air Pollution Control System ...... 3-3
3-3 Temperature Profiles for Run 1 (11-18-91) .......................... 3-21
3-4 Temperature Profiles for Run 2 (11-19-91) 3-22
3-5 Temperature Profiles for Run 3 (11-20-91) 3-23
3-6 Temperature Profiles for Run 4 (11-21-91) 3-24
3-7 Temperature Profiles for Run 5 (11-22-91) 3-25
3-8 Temperature Profiles for Run 6 (11-23-91) 3-26
4-1 Sample Port Locations at the Spray Dryer Inlet 4-2
4-2 Spray Dryer Inlet Traverse Point Layout 4-3
4-3 Sample Port Location of the Exhaust Stack 4-4
4-4 Traverse Point Layout at the Exhaust Stack 4-6
5-1 CDD/CDF Sampling Train Configuration 5-4
5-2 Impinger Configuration for CDD/CDF Sampling 5-9
JBS343 V
-------
FIGURES, continued
Page
5-3 CDD/CDF Field Recovery Scheme 5-14
5-4 Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples 5-18
5-5 Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train 5-22
5-6 Impinger Configuration for Particulate Matter/Metals Sampling 5-24
5-7 Metals Sample Recovery Scheme 5-26
5-8 Metals Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme 5-31
5-9 EPA Method 101A Sampling Train 5-34
5-10 Method 101A Sample Recovery Scheme 5-37
5-11 Method 101A Sampling Preparation and Analysis Scheme 5-39
5-12 Chlorine Sample Train Configuration 5-41
5-13 HCl/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme 5-43
5-14 Schematic of CEM System 5-47
5-15 Sampling Train for Determination of Indicator Spore Emissions 5-58
5-16 Sample Recovery Scheme for Microbial Viability Testing 5-60
5-17 Modified (Mesh) Ash Quality Assembly 5-63
5-18 Sample and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing of Ash Samples 5-65
5-19 Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Microbial Viability Tests 5-66
5-20 Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing 5-68
5-21 PM/CPM Sampling Train 5-71
6-1 Spray Dryer Inlet HC1 Results With Control Limits 6-17
JBS343
-------
FIGURES, continued
(\ 18
6-2 Baghouse Outlet HC1 Results With Control Limits
Vll
JBS343
-------
TABLES
Page
1-1 Test Matrix 1-4
2-1 Test Log 2-2
2-2 CDD/CDF Inlet and Outlet Stack Gas Emissions and Removal Efficiencies
For Condition 1 2-6
2-3 CDD/CDF Inlet and Outlet Stack Gas Emissions and Removal Efficiencies
For Condition 2 2-7
2-4 CDD/CDF Inlet and Outlet Stack Gas Concentrations for Condition 1 2-8
2-5 CDD/CDF Inlet and Outlet Stack Gas Concentrations for Condition 2 2-9
2-6 CDD/CDF Inlet and Outlet Stack Gas Concentrations Corrected to
7 Percent O2 for Condition 1 2-10
2-7 CDD/CDF Inlet and Outlet Stack Gas Concentrations Corrected to
7 Percent O2 for Condition 2 2-11
2-8 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies Corrected to 7 Percent
O2 for Condition 1 2-12
2-9 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies Corrected to 7 Percent
O2 for Condition 2 2-13
2-10 Summary of CDD/CDF Hue Gas Sampling Parameters 2-14
2-11 CDD/CDF Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations
in Baghouse Residue for Condition 1 2-16
2-12 CDD/CDF Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations
in Baghouse Residue for Condition 2 2-17
2-13 CDD/CDF Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations
in Bottom Ash for Condition 1 2-18
2-14 CDD/CDF Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivlent Concentrations
in Bottom Ash for Condition 2 2-19
JBS343
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-15 CDD/CDF Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations
in Spray Dryer Residue for Condition 1 2-20
2-16 CDD/CDF Concentrations and 2378 Toxic Equivalent Concentrations
in Spray Dryer Residue for Condition 2 2"21
2-17 CDD/CDF Concentrations in Make-Up Water and Lime Slurry for Run 1 . . 2-22
2-18 Average Metals Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies, Without
Carbon Injection 2-24
2-19 Average Metals Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies, With
Carbon Injection ............................................. 2-25
2-20 Metals Concentrations • • • 2-28
2-21 Metals Concentrations Corrected to 7 Percent O2 2-29
2-22 Ratio of Metals to Paniculate Matter, Without Carbon Injection 2-30
2-23 Ratio of Metals to Paniculate Matter, With Carbon Injection ............ 2-31
2-24 Metals Amounts in Inlet Flue Gas - Sample by Sample Fraction .......... 2-32
2-25 Metals Amounts in Outlet Flue Gas - Sample By Sample Fraction ........ 2-35
2-26 Metals/Particulate Matter Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas
Parameters at Inlet 2-37
2-27 Metals/Particulate Matter Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas
Parameters at Outlet 2-38
2-28 Metals in Ash Concentrations - Bottom Ash 2-39
2-29 Metals in Ash Concentrations - Baghouse Ash 2-40
2-30 Metals in Ash Concentrations - Spray Dryer Ash 2-42
2-31 Metals in Make-Up Water Concentrations 2-43
JBS343
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-32 Metals in Lime Slurry Concentrations 2-44
2-33 Paniculate Matter Concentrations and Emission Rates 2-45
2-34 Particle Size Distribution Run 1 Results 2-48
2-35 Particle Size Distribution Run 2 Results 2-49
2-36 Particle Size Distribution Run 3 Results 2-50
2-37 Particle Size Distribution Run 4 Results 2-51
2-38 Summary of Particle Size Distribution Results 2-52
2-39 Particle Size Distribution Flue Gas and Sampling Parameters 2-53
2-40 Summary of Mercury 101A Results 2-59
2-41 Mercury 101A Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at the
Spray Dryer Inlet 2-62
2-42 Mercury 101A Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at the
Baghouse Outlet 2-63
2-43 Comparison of Mercury 101A Data to Digested Lab Filters 2-64
2-44 Comparison for Mercury Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies,
Method 101A versus Toxic Metals 2-65
2-45 Summary of Hydrogen Chloride Results 2-67
2-46 Summary of Hydrogen Chloride CEM Results 2-69
2-47 Comparison of Manual and CEM Hydrogen Chloride Results 2-71
2-48 Summary of Hydrogen Fluoride Removal Results 2-74
2-49 Summary of Hydrogen Bromide Results 2-76
2-50 Continuous Emission Monitoring Test Averages 2-79
JBS343
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-51 Continuous Emission Monitoring Test Averages Normalized to
7 Percent O2 2-80
2-52 Summary of Incinerator Feed and Ash Generation ......••• 2-83
2-53 Overall Microbial Survivability 2-85
2-54 Summary of Flue Gas Sampling Parameters for Indicator Spore Emissions . . 2-86
2-55 Spore Pipe Sample Recovery and Analysis Results 2-88
3-1 Operating Setpoints During the Test 3-14
3-2 Incinerator Process Data Summary 3-17
3-3 Spray Dryer and Fabric Filter Process Data Summary . 3-18
5-1 Test Methods Used For Morristown Memorial Hospital 5-2
5-2 Sampling Times, Minimum Sampling Volumes, and Detection Limits 5-3
5-3 CDD/CDF Glassware Cleaning Procedure 5-6
5-4 CDD/CDF Sampling Checklist .............. 5-11
5-5 CDD/CDF Sample Fractions Shipped to Analytical Laboratory 5-15
5-6 CDD/CDF Congeners Analyzed 5-17
5-7 CDD/CDF Blanks Collected 5-20
5-8 Approximate Detection Limits for Metals 5-29
5-9 CEM Operating Ranges and Calibration Gases . 5-52
5-10 Indicator Spore Testing QA/QC Checks ... 5-69
6-1 Sumary of Data Quality 6-4
6-2 Leak Check Results For CDD/CDF Sample Trains ................... 6-6
XI
JBS343
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
6-3 Isokinetic Sampling Rates for CDD/CDF, TM, M101A, and
Microorganism Test Runs 6-7
6-4 Dry Gas Meter Post-Test Calibration Results 6-8
6-5 CDD/CDF Field Blank Results Compared to Average Run Results 6-9
6-6 Leak Check Results for Toxic Metals Sample Trains 6-11
6-7 Metals Field Blank Results Compared to Average Run Results 6-12
6-8 Leak Check Results for Mercury Sample Trains 6-13
6-9 Mercury 101A Field Blank and Method Results 6-14
6-10 Halogen Field, Method, and Reagent Blank Results 6-16
6-11 Leak Check Results For Microorganisms Sample Trains 6-19
6-12 Spore Spike Solution Confirmation Analysis 6-20
6-13 CDD/CDF Method Blank Results 6-24
6-14 Standards Recoveries for the CDD/CDF Modified Method 5 Inlet
Analyses 6-25
6-15 Standards Recoveries for the CDD/CDF Modified Method 5 Outlet
Analyses 6-26
6-16 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Bottom Ash and Scrubber
Water Analyses 6-27
6-17 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Baghouse Residue Analyses .... 6-28
6-18 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Spray Dryer Residue Analyses . . 6-29
6-19 Standards Recovery Results for CDD/CDF Blank Analyses 6-30
6-20 Metals Ash and Flue Gas Method Blank Results 6-33
Xll
JBS343
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
6-21 Metals Method and Matrix Spike Results . 6-3
6-22 Mercury 101A Matrix Spike Results 6"35
6-23 Halogen Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicates Recovery Results 6-36
6-24 CEM Internal QA/QC Checks 6"37
6-25 Daily Calibration Drifts • • • 6"38
6-26 QG Gas Responses • 6"40
6-27 CEM Linearity Results ................ % 6-42
JBS343
-------
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 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 MWIs
will be 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, a series of 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.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the testing program at the Morristown Memorial Hospital in
Morristown, New Jersey, is to obtain uncontrolled and controlled emission data from a
semi-continuous ram-fed MWI. These data will be used in the regulatory development
program for MWIs.
The MWI located at Morristown Memorial Hospital was selected for emissions
testing for the following reasons:
• This facility is the first known installation of a spray dryer/fabric filter air
pollution control system controlling emissions from a MWI;
• The rotary kiln MWI of this facility is typical of well-designed, rotary kiln
MWI's currently being installed and for which no uncontrolled emission
test data are available; and
JBS343
-------
• This facility provides a unique opportunity to obtain both uncontrolled
emissions test data for a rotary kiln as well as control device performance
data for a spray dryer/fabric filter at one test site.
The specific objectives of the test program are:
• Determine what levels of CO, PM, SO2, NOX, HC1, metals, THC and
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (CDF) are emitted from the combustor when burning
medical wastes;
• Determine the levels of PM, acid gases, metals including mercury (Hg),
and CDD/CDF emissions associated with a spray dryer/fabric filter control
technology;
• Calculate the control efficiencies for PM, acid gases, metals, and
CDD/CDF;
• Investigate the mercury and dioxin removal efficiency capabilities of carbon
injection;
• Determine the degree of combustion of the feed wastes based on percent
carbon and loss on ignition (LOI) of the bottom ash, spray dryer flyash,
and fabric filter flyash;
• Determine particle size distribution of uncontrolled emissions; and
• Determine the microbial survivability based on a surrogate indicator
organism that is spiked into the incinerator feed.
Key process operating variables including flue gas oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), primary and secondary chamber temperatures, air flows, lime feed rates,
baghouse pressure drop, 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 are of
known precision and accuracy, and that they are complete, representative, and
comparable.
1*2
•JBS343 ^
-------
1.3 TEST MATRIX
The sampling and analytical matrix that was performed is presented in Table 1-1.
Both manual emissions tests and CEMs were employed for the Morristown Memorial
Hospital MWI test program. In addition to flue gas sampling, incinerator bottom ash,
spray dryer flyash, and fabric filter flyash samples were also taken. Each of the tests are
briefly described in the following paragraphs.
Tests were conducted under two operating conditions. The first condition called
for normal operation of the incinerator and SD/FF. Three test runs were conducted at
a frequency of one 4-hour run per day. All test runs at each sampling location were
conducted simultaneously. The second condition called for carbon to be injected into
the lime slurry at a rate of 4 Ib/hr. This was done to examine the effects of in-duct
carbon injection on flue gas mercury removal. Three test runs were conducted under
this condition at a frequency of one 4-hour run per day. The carbon used for all tests
was a coal-based carbon manufactured by American Norit with a surface area of
900 m2/gram. The carbon was mixed into the lime slurry and introduced to flue gas in
the spray dryer prior to the baghouse.
Total PM emissions along with a series of 13 metals [lead (Pb), chromium (Cr),
cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), antimony (Sb),
barium (Ba), silver (Ag), thallium (Tl), copper (Cu), and aluminum (Al)], were
determined using a single sample train. Paniculate loading on the filter and front half
(nozzle/probe, filter holder) rinse were determined gravimetrically. Metals analyses
were then completed on the filter front half rinses and back half impinger catches using
atomic absorption (AA) and inductively coupled argon plasma (ICAP) techniques.
Mercury emissions were also determined by EPA Method 101A so that a comparison of
results between the multi-metals train and the Method 101A train could be made.
Flue gas samples for CDD/CDF were collected using EPA Method 23. Flue gas
was extracted isokinetically and CDD/CDF was collected on a filter and a chilled
adsorbent trap. Recovery procedures were completed using toluene rinses as per the
latest update of EPA CDD/CDF testing methodology. The analysis was completed using
JBS343
-------
TABLE 1-1. MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI TEST MATRIX
Sample
Location
Spray Dryer
Inlet
Number
of
Runs
6
6
6
6
3
6
4
Sample Type
Particulate/Metals
(As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb,
Be, Sb, Ba, Ag, Tl, Cu,
Al)
Hg
CDD/CDF
HC1
Indicator Spores
HC1
NOX
SO2
02/C02
THC
CO
PSD
Sample Method
EPA Method 5/
Combined Metals Train
EPA Method 101A
EPA Method 23 and
GC/MS Method 8290
EPA Method 26
EPA Draft Method
HC1 CEM
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method 25A
EPA Method 10
Diagnostic Technique/
EPA Method 202
Sample
Duration
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
Three 1-hour
samples per
run
4 hours
Continuous
0.25 hour
Analysis Method
Gravimetric/Atomic
Absportion/ICAP
Atomic Absorption
Gas Chromatography and
High Resolution MS for
CDD/CDF
Ion Chromatography
, Microbial Draft Method
NDIR CEM
Chemiluminescence CEM
UV Analyzer CEM
Zirconium Oxide
Cell/NDIR CEM
FID CEM
NDIR CEM
Gravimetric
Laboratory
Radian
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
Radian
American
Type
Culture
Collection
Radian
Radian
JBS343
-------
TABLE 1-1. CONTINUED
Sample
Location
Baghouse
Outlet
Stack
Number
of
Runs
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
6
3
Sample Type
Particulate/Metals
(As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb,
Be, Sb, Ba, Ag, Tl, Cu,
Al)
CDD/CDF
HC1
02/C02
THC
HCI
SO2
Speciated HC
CO
NO
Hg
Opacity
Sample Method
EPA Method 5/
Combined Metals Train
EPA Method 23 and
GC/MS Method 8290
EPA Method 26
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method 25A
HCI CEM
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 18
EPA Method 10
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 101A
EPA Method 9
Sample
Duration
4 hours
4 hours
»
Three 1-hour
samples per
run
Continuous
3 injections
per hour
Continuous
Continuous
4 hours
1 hour
Analysis Method
Gravimetric/Atomic
Absorption /ICAP
Gas Chromatography and
High Resolution MS for
CDD/CDF
Ion Chromatography
SW 846 9057
Zirconium Oxide
Cell/NDIR CEM
FID CEM (heated)
NDIR CEM
UV Analyzer CEM
Gas Chromatograph/FIame
lonization Detector
(GC/FID)
NDIR CEM
Chemiluminescence CEM
Atomic Absorption
Laboratory
Radian
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
Radian
JBS343
-------
TABLE 1-1. CONTINUED
Sample
Location
Rotary Kiln
Spray Dryer
Number
of
Runs
6
6
3
6
6
3
Sample Type
Kiln Bottom Ash
Kiln Bottom Ash
Kiln Bottom Ash
Spray Dryer Catch
Spray Dryer Catch
Spray Dryer Catch
Sample Method
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Sample
Duration
1 day
1 day
1 day
Iday
1 day
1 day
Analysis Method
LOI, Carbon, Metals
Dioxins/Furans
Microbial Draft Method
LOI, Carbon, Metals
Dioxins/Furans
Microbial Draft Method
Laboratory
Radian,
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
American
Type
Culture
Collection
Radian,
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
American
Type
Culture
Collection
JBS343
-------
TABLE 1-1. CONTINUED
Sample
Location
Baghouse
Lime
Injection
Number
of
Runs
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
Sample Type
Fabric Filter Catch
Fabric Filter Catch
Fabric Filter Catch
Lime Slurry Feed
Lime Slurry Feed
Slurry Water Supply
Slurry Water Supply
Sample Method
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Representative Composite
Sample
Sample
Duration
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
Analysis Method
LOI, Carbon, Metals
Dioxins/Furans
Microbial Draft Method
Metals, Lime
Dioxins/Furans
Metals, Lime, Chlorine
Dioxins/Furans
Laboratory
Radian,
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
American
Type
Culture
Collection
Radian,
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
Radian,
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
JBS343
-------
high resolution gas chromatography coupled with high resolution mass spectrometry
detection (HRGC/HRMS).
Hydrogen chloride, hydrogen bromide (HBr), and hydrogen fluoride (HF)
concentrations in the stack gas were determined using EPA Method 26. Flue 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
determined using ion chromatography (1C) analyses.
Gaseous emissions (NOX, CO, SO2, THC, and HC1) were measured using CEMs
continuously during the day at the spray dryer inlet. The diluent gases (O2, CO2) were
measured using CEMs at all times when tests were being performed so that the emission
results could be normalized to a reference O2 or CO2 basis. The O2 and CO2 results
were also used for flue gas molecular weight calculations for stack gas flow rate
calculations. Gaseous emissions of SO2, THC, HC1, O2, and CO2 were measured at the
baghouse outlet using an additional CEM system.
Three types of microbial survivability tests were performed on the incinerator.
These tests were intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the MWI in destroying
microbial elements in the waste. Indicator spore spikes were loaded onto material
commonly found in the medical waste stream and then charged into the incinerator to
determine the ability of the indicator organisms to survive in the combustion gases and
the incinerator bottom ash. Surrogate indicator spore spikes were also encased in
insulated double pipe containers. Spores were added when no carbon was injected and
no spores were added when the carbon was injected. Flue gas testing for spore
emissions were conducted simultaneously with the other emissions testing. The next day
following the daily burn cycle, ash samples and pipe samples were recovered and
subsequently analyzed for spore viability. Direct ash sampling and pipe sampling were
conducted daily. 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
1 8
JBS343 1"°
-------
as outlined in the EPA draft method "Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste
Incinerator Ash."
In addition to the flue gas samples, incinerator bottom ash, baghouse flyash, and
spray dryer flyash were also sampled during the test program. Daily composites were
directed to laboratories for LOI/carbon content analyses as well as metals, CDD/CDF,
and microbes.
Additional descriptions of the sampling and analytical procedures are provided in
Section 5.
1.4 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The MWI at the Morristown Memorial Hospital is comprised of a rotary kiln and
a ram feeder. Waste is fed to the kiln at approximately 800 Ib/hr and is ignited by an
auxiliary burner at the charging end. Ash falls from the discharge end of the kiln, where
it is sprayed with water and collected into an ash cart. Combustion gas flows from the
kiln to a secondary chamber with a gas residence time of 2.5 seconds at 2000°F.
The flue gas then flows to a waste heat recovery boiler which cools the gas to
approximately 400°F. The cooled gases proceed to the emission control system which
consists of a spray dryer and a baghouse. Lime slurry is injected into the spray dryer by
a rotary atomizer. Lime and ash that fall to the bottom are collected. After the gas
passes through the spray dryer it enters the baghouse where the fly ash, unreacted lime,
and reacted lime are also collected. The gas stream subsequently passes to the stack
through an induced draft fan.
1.5 DESCRIPTION OF REPORT CONTENTS
Section 1 of this report provides an introduction to the medical waste testing
program conducted at Morristown Memorial Hospital in Morristown, New Jersey. This
section includes the test objective, an overview of the emissions measurement program, a
brief process description, and this description of the report contents.
Section 2 gives a summary of the test results. Included in the contents of this
section are the emissions test log, CDD/CDF results, toxic metals results, PM/PSD
emissions results, halogen results, CEM results, microbial results, and ash LOI and
carbon results.
JBS343
-------
Section 3 details the process and operation of the Morristown MWI and gives
process results. (This section is being provided by Midwest Research Institute (MRI).)
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, PSD method, microbial draft testing method, the
manual halogen emissions testing method, EPA Methods 1 through 4, CEM methods,
and process sampling procedures.
Section 6 provides the 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
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.
JBS343
-------
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section provides results of the test program conducted at the Morristown
Memorial Hospital from November 18 through 23, 1991. Included in this section are:
• The results of manual flue gas tests conducted for CDD/CDF, toxic metals,
Hg, PM, PSD, microbes, and halogens;
• The results of continuous emissions monitoring for O2, CO2, CO, NO^ SO2,
THC, and HC1 gases; and
• The results from analyses of incinerator bottom ash, spray dryer ash, and
baghouse ash.
The test conditions were defined by the injection of carbon into the lime slurry.
Condition 1 was conducted with the process running under normal steady-state
conditions without carbon being introduced into the lime slurry. Condition 2 was
conducted the same as Condition 1, but with a carbon concentration present in the lime
slurry that produced a carbon injection rate of 4 Ib/hr into the spray dryer. Test Runs 1
through 3 were operated under Condition 1, and test Runs 4 through 6 were operated
under Condition 2.
2.1 EMISSIONS TEST LOG
Six test runs were conducted over six test days. Flue gas sample locations were at
the spray dryer inlet" and baghouse outlet. One test run was conducted on each day with
all sampling trains operated concurrently. Gas concentrations were monitored with the
CEM instruments during the testing period. Table 2-1 presents the emissions test log.
This table shows the test date, run number, test type, and run times for all the flue gas
testing conducted during this period.
2.2 CDD/CDF RESULTS
Simultaneous CDD/CDF emission tests were conducted at the spray dryer inlet
and baghouse exit under the two operating conditions. Testing protocol followed EPA
Method 23.
Daily ash samples were taken from the kiln, spray dryer, and baghouse. Scrubber
water samples were also taken. These samples were analyzed for tetra- through
octa-CDD/CDF isomers.
2-1
JBS343 ^ x
-------
Table 2-1
Test Log
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Date
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
Location
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Stack
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Parameter
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
Microbes
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
Opacity
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
Microbes
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
Ron
Number
1
1
1
1A
IB
1C
1
1
1
1
1A
IB
1C
2
2
2
2A
2B
2C
2
2
2
2
2A
2B
2C
3
3
3
Start
Time
14:10
14:09
14:09
14:08
15:35
17:40
14:14
14:02
14:01
14:01
14:00
15:35
17:40
14:00
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:53
17:23
19:55
15:50
15:52
15:51
15:51
15:50
17:20
19:55
12:30
12:30
12:30
Stop
Time
18:40
18:40
18:40
15:08
17:10
18:40
18:08
18:41
18:40
18:40
15:00
17:10
18:40
16:00
20:55
20:55
20:55
17:16
19:25
20:55
19:50
20:55
20:55
20:55
16:50
19:25
20:55
22:50
22:50
22:50
JBS343
2-2
-------
lable 2-1, continued
Test Log
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Date
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
Location
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Parameter
HC1
HC1
HC1
Microbes
PSD
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
PSD
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
Run
Number
3A
3B
3C
3
1
3
3
3
3A
3B
3C
4
4
4
4A
4B
4C
2
4
4
4
4A
4B
4C
5
5
5
5A
5B
5C
Start
Time
12:30
13:50
21:32
12:30
21:31
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
14:00
21:35
12:45
12:45 -
12:45
12:45
14:45
16:37
14:30
12:45
12:45
12:45
12:45
14:45
16:40
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
13:36
17:45
Stop
Time
13:30
21:22
22:32
16:54
21:51
22:50
22:50
22:50 ,
13:30
21:20
22:35
17:50
17:50
17:50
14:20
16:15
17:37
14:45
17:50
17:50
17:50
14:20
16:15
17:40
18:45
18:45
18:45
13:25
17:10
18:45
JBS343
2-3
-------
Table 2-1, continued
Test Log
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Date
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/1V91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
Location
Spray Dryer Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Spray Dryer Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Baghouse Outlet
Parameter
PSD
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
PSD
CDD/CDF
PM/Metals
Mercury
HC1
HC1
HC1
Run
Number
3
5
5
5
5A
5B
5C
6
6
6
6A
6B
6C
4
6
6
6
6A
6B
6C
Start
Time
12:45
12:15
12:00
12:00
12:15
13:34
17:45
09:30
09:30
09:35
09:30
11:10
12:45
10:40
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
11:10
12:45
Stop
Time
13:00
___ •
18:44
18:44
18:44
13:15
17:20
18:45
13:50
13:50
13:50
10:30
12:25
13:45 -
10:55
13:50
13:50
13:50
10:30
12:25
13:45
2-4
-------
Tables 2-2 through 2-5 present the flue gas mass flow rates of CDD/CDF, flue
gas concentrations, and removal efficiencies for each of the six runs. All CDD/CDF
congeners were detected in every run in the inlet flue gas throughout the program.
2378 TCDD was detected in only one of the six runs at the baghouse outlet. Runs 3 and
5 showed substantially higher CDD/CDF at the inlet with total CDD/CDF at 223.0 and
212.3 ng/dscm versus 101.88, 91.19, 182.6, and 46.0 ng/dscm for Runs 1, 2, 4, and 6,
respectively. All test runs showed a decrease in CDD/CDF concentrations from the
spray dryer inlet to the baghouse outlet. Average inlet CDD/CDF concentrations
ranged from 0.763 ng/dscm for 2378 TCDF for Condition 1 to 0.141 ng/dscm for
Condition 2. The average concentration of 2378 TCDF for Conditions 1 and 2 at the
baghouse outlet was 0.342 and 0.009 ng/dscm, respectively. Average inlet mass rates of
2378 TCDF for the two conditions were 4.427 and 0.813 /ug/hr, respectively. Removal
efficiencies of 2378 TCDF for Conditions 1 and 2 were 37.17 and 95.39 percent,
respectively. Removal efficiencies of total CDD/CDF for Conditions 1 and 2 were 83.97
and 98.29 percent, respectively. Removal efficiencies were substantially higher for all
runs in test Condition 2 with carbon injection compared to runs in Condition 1 with no
carbon injection.
The CDD/CDF concentrations normalized to 7 percent O2 for each test condition
are shown in Tables 2-6 and 2-7. The results show the same trends as discussed with
uncorrected values. The normalized concentration of 2378 TCDD at the outlet for
Condition 1 was 0.014 ng/dscm. The concentration of 2378 TCDD at the outlet for
Condition 2 was below the detection limit.
The 2378 Toxic Equivalencies corrected to 7 percent O2 for each run in test
Condition 1 and 2 are presented in Tables 2-8 and 2-9.
The flue gas sample parameters are shown in Table 2-10. Values for sampling
rate, metered volume, stack temperature, gas O2/CO2/H2O concentrations, stack gas
flow rates, and isokinetics are shown.
Daily ash samples were collected from the kiln, baghouse, and spray dryer at the
end of the test run and composited into a single sample per test run. The ash was
passed through a one-half inch mesh sieve to remove large pieces of glass, metal, or
other large objects. The shifted ash was sorted in a pre-cleaned stainless steel drum and
JBS343
-------
TABLE 2-2. CDD/CDF INLET AND OUTLET STACK GAS EMISSIONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR CONDITION 1;
MORRISTOWN 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 CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678- HpCDF
1234789- HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD + CDF
RUN1
Inlet
(ug/hr)
0.117
0.507
0293
2.438
0.410
0.566
1.014
5.032
8.972
9.947
43.103
72397
8.777
41.932
3.121
8.582
63.386
20.479
5266
21.454
0.566
43.902
38.032
14.238
55.195
186.063
510,991
583,388
Outlet
(u£/hr)
(0.070)
1.135
0.162
2.386
0.209
0.301
0.440
3.452
2.549
3.244
4.634
18.581
7.414
47.959
2.317
6.719
51.666
12.279
3.244
8.341
0.301
25.647
16.681
3.475
24.327
27.570
237.940
256,521
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
>40.18
-123.88
44.56
2.12
49.09
46.75
56.60
31.40
71.59
67.39
8925
74.33
15.53
-14.37
25.76
21.71
18.49
40.04
38.40
61.12
46.75
41.58
56.14
75.59
55.93
85.18
53.44
56.03
RUN 2
Inlet
(ug/hr)
0.090
0.513
0295
2.014
0.500
0.616
1.167
5.412
9.106
9.875
36295
65.882
2.693
22.572
2.309
7.054
45.914
22.957
6.413
21.931
2.565
41.810
43.092
16.160
61.817
175.704
472.989
53&871
Outlet
(ug/hr)
(0.023)
0205
(0.045)
0.387
0.068
0.068
0.114
0.933
0.591
0.682
1.433
4.550
0.523
11.079
0.364
1.297
14.036
3.640
0.955
3.185
(0.114)
9.623
4.095
1.137
6.370
6.142
62.561
67.111
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
> 74.38
60.09
>84.74
80.79
86.36
88.91
90.25
82.77
93.50
93.09
96.05
93.09
80.57
50.92
84.23
81.62
69.43
84.14
85.10
85.48
>95.56
76.98
90.50
92.%
89.70
96.50
86.77
87.55
RUN3
Inlet
(ug/hr)
0.142
1.540
0.595
4.581
1203
1.294
2.976
13.160
25.363
26.010
94.334
171.199
1.812
52.7%
3.364
10.611
100.933
49.949
13.458
51.502
1.242
109.008
105.074
38.691
85.276
543.487
1167.20
1338.40
Outlet
(ug/hr)
0.091
0.362
(0.068)
0.407
0.045
0.068
0.091
0.882
0.430
0.475
1.199
4.118
0.407
19.730
0.385
1.380
18.598
3.394
0.882
2.715
(0.136)
9.842
2.715
0.611
2.104
3.846
66.745
70.863
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
36.42
76.49
> 88.58
91.11
9624
94.75
96.%
9329
98.31
98.17
98.73
97.59
77.52
62.63
88.57
86.99
81.57
9321
93.44
94.73
> 89.05
90.97
97.42
98.42
97.53
99.29
94.28
94.71
Average
Inlet
(ug/hr)
0.116
0.853
0.394
3.011
0.704
0.825
1.719
7.868
14.480
15.277
57.911
103.159
4.427
39.100
2.931
8.749
70.078
31.128
8.379
31.629
1.458
64.907
62.066
23.029
67.429
301.751
717.061
820.221
Outlet
(us/hr)
0.030
0.567
0.054
1.060
0.107
0.146
0.215
1.756
1.190
1.467
2.422
9.083
2.781
26.256
1.022
3.132
28.100
6.438
1.694
4.747
0.100
15.038
7.830
1.741
10.934
12.520
121415
131.498
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
74.08
33.51
8629
64.79
84.76
82.33
87.50
77.69
91.78
90.40
95.82
9120
37.17
32.85
65.14
64.20
59.90
79.32
79.78
84.99
93.11
76.83
87.38
92.44
83.79
95.85
82.93
83.97
Note: Condition 1 is no carbon injection.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
-------
TABLE 2-3. CDD/CDF INLET AND OUTLET STACK GAS EMISSIONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR CONDITION 2;
MORRISTOWN 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 CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678- HpCDF
1234789- HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDDtCDF
RUN 4
Inlet
(ug/hr)
0.105
0.828
0.368
1.865
0.723
0.828
1.708
7.383
16.026
18.522
66.470
114.826
1.169
30.0%
2.102
6.962
67.653
35206
9.590
38.753
1.012
79.646
76.848
29.163
115.995
428248
922.441
103727
Outlet
Ottfltt)
[0.011]
0.034
(0.011)
0.011
0.014
0.020
0.045
0.124
0271
0226
0.745
1.500
(0.113)
2.821
0.068
0226
2.415
0.632
0.181
0.722
0.023
1.602
0.925
0293
1264
1.647
12.931
14.432
Removal
Efficiency
...(*)
> 89.53
95.91
> 97.01
99.40
98.13
97.55
97.36
98.32
98.31
98.78
98.88
98.69
> 90.33
90.63
96.78
96.76
96.43
98.21
98.12
98.14
97.77
97.99
98.80
98.99
98.91
99.62
98.60
98.61
RUNS
Inlet
(ug/nr)
0.078
1.347
0.350
3277
0.945
1.114
2.331
11.929
23.573
25.774
93.124
163.842
0.868
40.837
2.072
7.901
76.675
47.663
11268
57.895
1.062
85.457
98.953
37.561
153.610
446.842
1068.66
1232.51
Outlet
(ug/nr)
[0.011]
0.000
[0.011]
0.102
0.045
0.045
0.090
0.452
0.679
0.611
1.832
3,857
0.068
1290
0.045
0.113
1.176
0.498
(0.136)
0.566
0.023
0.860
1.086
0.430
1.425
3.620
11.334
15,192
Removal
Efficiency
..(%),
> 85.85
100.00
> 96.85
96.89
9521
95.94
96.12
96.21
97.12
97.63
98.03
97,65
92.18
96.84
97.82
98.57
98.47
98.%
> 98.79
99.02
97.87
98.99
98.90
98.86
99.07
99.19
98.94
98.77
RUN6
Inlet
(ug/hr)
0.039
0.766
0.130
1.168
0.273
0.324
0.597
3.868
5.192
5.581
22.065
40.003
0.402
15.043
0.727
2.336
20.430
11.811
3.115
12.071
0.350
22.364
24.142
8.047
32.968
79.564
231371
273.374
Outlet
(ug/hr)
(0.007)
0.009
0.009
0.080
(0.022)
0.045
0.089
0.467
0.645
0.712
1.669
3.747
0.045
0.912
0.022
0.111
0.467
0.467
0.156
0.490
(0.018)
0.828
1.135
0.378
1.380
3.783
10.191
13,938
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
> 82.02
98.84
93.14
93.14
>91.93
86.28
85.09
87.92
87.57
8724
92.44
90.63
88.94
93.94
96.94
95.24
97.71
96.04
95.00
95.94
>94.86
96.30
95.30
95.30
95.82
9525
95.63
94.90
Average
Inlet
(u«/hr)
0.074
0.980
0.282
2.103
0.647
0.755
1.545
7.726
14.930
16.626
60.553
106.224
0.813
28.659
1.634
5.733
54.919
31.560
7.991
36.240
0.808
62.489
66.648
24.924
100.858
31&218
741.492
847.716
Average
Outlet
(uft/hr)
[0.001]
0.014
0.003
0.064
0.020
0.037
0.075
0.348
0.532
0.516
1.415
3.035
0.037
1.674
0.045
0.150
1.353
0.532
0.112
0.592
0.015
1.097
1.049
0.367
1.356
3.017
11.486
14.521
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
>98.6
98.55
98.95
96.94
96.97
95.14
95.15
95.50
96.44
96.90
97.66
97.14
95.39
94.16
9724
97.38
97.54
98.31
98.60
98.37
98.14
9825
98.43
98.53
98.66
99.05
98.45
9829
Note: Condition 2 is with carbon injection.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
-------
TABLE 2-4. CDD/CDF INLET AND OUTLET STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONDITION 1;
MORRISTOWN 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 CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789 -HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION a
/
Run 1
0.020
0.089
0.051
0.426
0.072
0.099
0.177
0.879
1.567
1.737
7.527
12.643
1.533
7323
0.545
1.499
11.069
3.576
0.920
3.747
0.099
7.667
6.642'
2.486
9.639
32.493
89.237
101.880
ng/dscm, as measured)
Run 2
0.015
0.087
0.050
0.341
0.085
0.104
0.197
0.916
1.540
1.671
6.140
11.146
0.456
3.819
0.391
1.193
7.767
3.884
1.085
3.710
(0.434)
7.073
7.290
2.734
10.458
29.724
80.017
91.163
Run 3
0.024
0.257
0.099
0.763
0.201
0.216
0.4%
2. 193
4.227
4.335
15.721
28.531
0.302
8.799
0.561
1.768
16.821
8.324
2.243
8.583
0.207
18.167
17.511
6.448
14.212
90.576
194.522
223.054
Average
0.020
0.144
0.067
0.510
0.119
0.140
0.290
1.329
2.445
2.581
9.7%
17.440
0.763
6.647
0.499
1.487
11.886
5.261
1.416
5347
0.247
10.%9
10.481
3.889
11.436
50.931
121.259
138.699
OUTLET CONCENTRATION a
t
Run 1
(0.009)
0.140
0.020
0.295
0.026
0.037
0.054
0.426
0.315
0.401
0.572
2.295
0.916
5.923
0.286
0.830
6381
1516
0.401
1.030
0.037
3.167
2.060
0.429
3.004
3.405
29385
31.680
ng/dscm, as measured)
Run 2
(0.003)
0.024
(0.005)
0.046
0.008
0.008
0.013
0.110
0.070
0.081
0.170
0539
0.062
1.312
0.043
0.154
1.663
0.431
0.113
0377
(0.013)
1.140
0.485
0.135
0.755
0.728
7.410
7.949
Run 3
0.011
0.043
(0.008)
0.048
0.005
0.008
0.011
0.105
0.051
0.056
0.142
0.489
0.048
2343
0.046
0.164
2.208
0.403
0.105
0.322
(0.016)
1.169
0.322
0.073
0.250
0.457
7.926
8.415
Average_
0.007
0.069
0.011
0.130
0.013
0.018
0.026
0.214
0.145
0.179
0.295
1.108
0.342
3.193
0.125
0382
3.417
0.784
0.206
0.577
0.022
1.825
0.956
0.212
1.336
1530
14.907
16.015
Note: Condition 1 is no carbon injection.
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 F.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-5. CDD/CDF INLET AND OUTLET STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONDITION 2;
MORRISTOWN 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 CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789 -HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION a
(nfi/dscm, as measured]
Run 4
0.019
0.146
0.065
0.328
0.127
0.146
0.301
1.300
2.821
3.261
11.702
20.215
0.206
5.298
0370
1.226
11.910
6.198
1.688
6.822
0.178
14.022
13.529
5.134
20.421
75.393
1623%
182.611
Run 5
0.013
0.232
0.060
0.564
0.163
0.192
0.402
2.055
4.061
4.440
16.042
28.224
0.149
7.035
0.357
1361
13.208
8.211
1.941
9.973
0.183
14.721
17.046
6.470
26.461
76.975
184.092
212316
Run 6
0.007
0.129
0.022
0.197
0.046
0.055
0.101
0.652
0.875
0.940
3.717
6.738
0.068
2.534
0.122
0.394
3.441
1.990
0.525
2.033
0.059
3.767
4.066
1.355
5.553
13.402
39309
46.047
Average
0.013
0.169
0.049
0.363
0.112
0.131
0.268
1.335
2.586
2.880
10.487
18392
0.141
4.956
0.283
0.993
9.520
5.466
1385
6.276
0.140
10.837
11.547
4320
17.478
55.257
128.599
146591
OUTLET CONCENTRATION a
t
Run 4
[0.001]
0.004
(0.001)
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.015
0.033
0.027
0.091
0.182
(0.014)
0.343
0.008
0.027
0.293
0.077
0.022
0.088
0.003
0.195
0.112
0.036
0.154
0.200
1.572
1.755
ng/dscm, as measured)
.Run 5
[0.001]
0.000
[0.001]
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.011
0.053
0.079
0.071
0.213
0.449
0.008
0.150
0.005
0.013
0.137
0.058
(0.016)
0.066
0.003
0.100
0.126
0.050
0.166
0.421
1319
1.771
Run 6
[0.001]
0.001
0.001
0.009
(0.003)
0.005
0.011
0.055
0.076
0.084
0.197
0.443
0.005
0.108
0.003
0.013
0.055
0.055
0.018
0.058
(0.002)
0.098
0.134
0.045
0.163
0.447
1.205
1.649
Average
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.008
0.003
0.004
0.009
0.041
0.063
0.061
0.167
0359
0.009
0.200
0.005
0.018
0.162
0.063
0.019
0.070
0.002
0.131
0.124
0.043
0.161
0356
1365
1.725
Note: Condition 2 is with carbon injection.
a Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 F.
() - Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-6. CDD/CDF INLET AND OUTLET STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONDITION 1;
MORRISTOWN 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 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
Qcta-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7% O2)
Runl
0.029
0.126
0.072
0.604
0.101
0.140
0.251
1.246
2.222
2.464
10.676
17.932
2.174
10387
0.773
2.126
15.701
5.072
1.304
5.314
0.140
10.874
9.420
3.527
13.672
46.087
126.571
144.503
Run 2
0.022
0.123
0.071
0.483
0.120
0.148
0.280
1.299
2.185
2.370
8.709
15.809
0.646
5.416
0.554
1.693
11.017
5.509
1.539
5.262
(0.615)
10.032
10340
3.878
14.833
42.160
113.494
129303
Run 3
0.032
0.346
0.134
1.030
0.271
0.291
0.669
2.960
5.704
5.850
21.216
38.504
0.407
11.874
0.757
2386
22.700
11.234
3.027
11.583
0.279
24317
23.632
8.702
19.179
122.233
262311
301.01
Average
0.028
0.198
0.092
0.706
0.164
0.193
0.400
1.835
3.370
3.561
13.534
24.082
1.076
9.226
0.695
2.068
16.473
7.272
1.957
7386
0.345
15.141
14.464
5369
15.895
70.160
167325
191.607
OUTLET CONCENTRATION
(na/dsan, adjusted to 7% O2)
Run 1
(0.018)
0.287
0.041
0.602
0.053
0.076
0.111
0.871
0.643
0.819
1.170
4.691
1.872
12.107
0385
1.6%
13.043
3.100
0.819
2.106
0.076
6.475
4.211
0.877
6.141
6.960
60.066
64.757
Run 2
(0.006)
0.050
(0.011)
0.094
0.017
0.017
0.028
0.226
0.143
0.165
0.347
1.102
0.127
2.683
0.088
0.314
3399
0.881
0.231
0.771
(0.028)
2.330
0.991
0.275
1342
1.487
15.148
16.249
Run 3
0.020
0.080
(0.015)
0.090
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.194
0.095
0.105
0.264
0.906
0.090
4342
0.085
0304
4.093
0.747
0.194
0.598
(0.030)
2.166
0398
0.134
0.463
0.846
14.689
15.60
Average
0.014
0.139
0.022
0.262
0.026
0.036
0.053
0.430
0.294
0.363
0.594
2233
0.696
6377
0.253
0.771
6.845
1.576
0.415
1.158
0.044
3.657
1.933
0.429
2.716
3.098
29.968
32201
Note: Condition 1 is no carbon injection.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-7. CDD/CDF INLET AND OUTLET STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONDITION 2;
MORRISTOWN 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 CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
INLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, adjusted to 7% O2)
Run 4
0.024
0.193
0.086
0.435
0.168
0.193
0.398
1.721
3.735
4.317
15.491
26.761
0.272
7.014
0.490
1.623
15.767
8.205
2.235
9.032
0.236
18.562
17.910
6.797
27.033
99.806
214.981
24L742
Run 5
0.018
0.319
0.083
0.777
0.224
0.264
0.553
2.828
5.588
6.110
22.078
38.843
0.206
9.682
0.491
1.873
18.178
11.300
2.671
13.726
0.252
20.260
23.459
8.905
36.417
105.935
253354
292,197
Run 6
0.009
0.176
0.030
0.268
0.063
0.074
0.137
0.888
1.192
1.281
5.065
9.182
0.092
3.453
0.167
0.536
4.689
2.711
0.715
2.771
0.080
5.133
5.542
1.847
1561
18.263
53.568
62.75
Average
0.017
0.229
0.066
0.493
0.152
0.177
0.363
1.812
3.505
3.903
14.211
24.929
0.190
6.716
0383
1344
12.878
7.405
1.874
8.509
0.189
14.652
15.637
5.850
23.673
74.668
173.968
198.897
OUTLET CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm. adjusted to 7% O2)
Run 4
[0.003]
0.008
(0.003)
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.011
0.030
0.064
0.054
0.177
0357
(0.027)
0.671
0.016
0.054
0.575
0.150
0.043
0.172
0.005
0381
0.220
0.070
0.301
0392
3.077,
3.434
Run 5
[0.003]
0.000
[0.003]
0.023
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.100
0.150
0.135
0.406
0.855
0.015
0.286
0.010
0.025
0.261
0.110
(0.030)
0.125
0.005
0.191
0.241
0.095
0316
0.802
2.512
3367
Run 6
[0.001]
0.002
0.002
0.018
(0.005)
0.010
0.020
0.104
0.143
0.158
0.371
0.832
0.010
0.203
0.005
0.025
0.104
0.104
0.035
0.109
(0.004)
0.184
0.252
0.084
0.306
0.840
2.263
3.096
Average
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.014
0.006
0.008
0.017
0.078
0.119
0.116
0.318
0.684
0.017
0387
0.010
0.034
0.313
0.121
0.036
0.135
0.005
0.252
0.238
0.083
0.308
0.678
2.618
3301
Note: Condition 2 is with carbon injection.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-8. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES CORRECTED TO
7% 02 FOR CONDITION 1; MORRISTOWN 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 CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
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
,,:" ... : ": .V;;- INLET;,;,.,..--:: . .,
TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm@7%:O2) : ^
Run 1
0.029
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.010
0.014
0.025
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.011
0.147
0.217
0.000
0.039
1.063
0.000
0.507
0.130
0.531
0.014
0.000
0.094
0.035
0.000
0.046
, 2.678
2.825
Run 2
0.022
0.000
0.035
0.000
0.012
0.015
0.028
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.009
0.142
0.065
0.000
0.028
0.846
0.000
0.551
0.154
0.526
(0.062)
0.000
0.103
0.039
0.000
0.042
2.415
2.558
Run 3
0.032
0.000
0.067
0.000
0.027
0.029
0.067
0.000
0.057
0.000
0.021
0.300
0.041
0.000
0.038
1.193
0.000
1.123
0.303
1.158
0.028
0.000
0.236
0.087
0.000
0.122
4.330
4.630
Average
0.028
0.000
0.046
0.000
0.016
0.019
0.040
0.000
0.034
0.000
0.014
0.197
0.108
0.000
0.035
1.034
0.000
0.727
0.196
0.739
0.034
0.000
0.145
0.054
0.000
0.070
3.141
3.338
.... ..,.::.;... -;.- OUTLET ! ; ; .. . --
- TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
.(ng/Ascta.&>7% O2)
Run 1
(0.018)
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.005
0.008
0.011
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.001
0.070
0.187
0.000
0.029
0.848
0.000
0.310
0.082
0.211
0.008
0.000
0.042
0.009
0.000
0.007
,1.732
1.802
Run2
(0.006)
0.000
(0.006)
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.019-
0.013
0.000
0.004
0.157
0.000
0.088
0.023
0.077
(0.003)
0.000
0.010
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.379
0,398
Run 3
0.020
0.000
(0.007)
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.009
0.000
0.004
0.152
0.000
0.075
0.019
0.060
(0.003)
0.000
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.001
: 0.330
; 0.363
Average
0.014
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.001
:: 0.041
0.070
0.000
0.013
0.386
0.000
0.158
0.041
0.116
0.004
0.000
0.019
0.004
0.000
0.003
V"1: 0.8 14
::'.—0.854
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.
Note: Condition 1 is no carbon injection.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-9. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES CORRECTED TO
7% O2 FOR CONDITION 2; MORRISTOWN 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 CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
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
; :^. .,-:••, +•.../• ,..,INLET'. ••':•;•;:;;;.-- ,.<,•.;•••
TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm @ "7 % O2) ?
Run 4
0.024
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.017
0.019
0.040
0.000
0.037
0.000
0.015
: 0.196
0.027
0.000
0.024
0.811
0.000
0.820
0.223
0.903
0.024
0.000
0.179
0.068
0.000
0.100
3.181
¥ 3,377
Run 5
0.018
0.000
0.041
0.000
0.022
0.026
0.055
0.000
0.056
0.000
0.022
0.242
0.021
0.000
0.025
0.937
0.000
1.130
0.267
1.373
0.025
0.000
0.235
0.089
0.000
0.106
4.206
4.448
Run 6
0.009
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.006
0.007
0.014
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.005
0.068
0.009
0.000
0.008
0.268
0.000
0.271
0.072
0.277
0.008
0.000
0.055
0.018
0.000
0.018
1.006
1.074
Average
0.017
0.000
0.033
0.000
0.015
0.018
0.036
0.000
0.035
0.000
0.014
0.169
0.019
0.000
0.019
0.672
0.000
0.741
0.187
0.851
0.019
0.000
0.156
0.058
0.000
0.075
2.797
•2.966
OUTLET
{ TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm @ 7% 62)
Run 4
[0.003]
0.000
(0.001)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.004
(0.003)
0.000
0.001
0.027
0.000
0.015
0.004
0.017
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.071
0.074
Run 5
[0.003]
0.000
[0.001]
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.013
0.000
0.011
(0.003)
0.013
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.046
::: 0.052
Run 6
[0.001]
0.000
0.001
0.000
(0.000)
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
?:-:: 0.006
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.010
0.003
0.011
(0.000)
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.001
-£-- 0.043
::>< -0.049
Average
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
: 0.006
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.017
0.000
0.012
0.004
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.001
: 0.053
« 0.059
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modem Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity
Equivalency Factor (I-TEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and
Related Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
Note: Condition 2 is with carbon injection.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-10. SUMMARY OF CDD/CDF FLUE GAS SAMPLING PARAMETERS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Total Sample Time (min)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Dry Standard Meter Volume (dscf)
Dry Standard Meter Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (F)
Oxygen Concentration (% V)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (% V)
Percent Moisture (% V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic (%)
Total Sample Time (min)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Dry Standard Meter Volume (dscf)
Dry Standard Meter Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (F)
Oxygen Concentration (% V)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (% V)
Percent Moisture (% V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic (%)
Spray Dryer Inlet
Run 1
240
0.43
104
2.9
407
11.1
6.4
15.8
3370
95.4
102.6
Run 2
240
0.68
163
4.6
408
11.1
7.8
15.3
3479
98.5
102.0
Run3
240
0.68
164
4.6
405
10.6
6.7
14.8
3531
100.0
101.1
Average
240
0.60
143
4.1
407
10.9
7.0
15.3
3460
98.0
NA
Run 4
240
0.64
153
4.3
409
10.4
6.6
14.4
3343
94.7
99.6
Run 5
240
0.66
158
4.5
401
10.8
6.5
13.7
3416
96.8
101.0
Run 6
240
0.67
162
4.6
407
10.7
6.5
13.3
3494
98.9
100.8
Average
240
0.66
157
4.5
406
10.6
6.5
13.8
3418
96.8
NA
Bag House Outlet
Run 1
240
0.51
123
3.5
279
14.1
5.0
14.7
4765
135.0
92.7
Run 2
240
0.55
131
3.7
292
14.1
5.0
14.7
4968
140.7
94.4
Run 3
240
0.55
131
3.7
293
13.4
5.3
14.6
4956
140.4
94.9
Average
240
0.54
129
3.6
288
13.9
5.1
14.6
4897
138.7
NA
Run 4
240
0.55
129
3.6
293
13.8
5.2
15.0
4842
137.1
96.7
Run5
240
0.56
134
3.8
291
13.6
5.0
13.3
5055
143.2
94.9
Run 6
240
0.56
134
3.8
292
13.5
5.3
13.3
4978
141.0
96.5
Average
240
0.56
132
3.7
292
13.6
5.2
13.8
4958
140.4
NA
NA : Not applicable
-------
allowed to cool. An approximately one liter bottle was filled 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. All CDD/CDF congeners were detected in the test run
samples. Tables 2-11 and 2-12 gives CDD/CDF concentrations and toxic equivalencies
in the baghouse residue for Condition 1 and 2. The average total CDD/CDF
concentrations were 24.2 and 32.7 parts per billion for Conditions 1 and 2. Test Run 5
had the highest total CDD/CDF concentration at 44.7 ppb.wt. Run 5 also showed the
highest removal efficiency of 98.77 percent for total CDD/CDF in the flue gas.
Tables 2-13 through 2-16 present the CDD/CDF concentrations and toxic
equivalencies in the bottom ash and spray dryer residue. Total CDD/CDF values for
Conditions 1 and 2 in the bottom ash were 96.5 and 73.1 ppb.wt, and 9.2 and 6.2 ppb.wt
in the spray .dryer residue, respectively.
Table 2-17 presents the CDD/CDF make-up water and lime slurry tank analysis
results. Spray dryer make-up water was sampled every test day. However, only one
sample was analyzed with the results assumed to represent all test days. Results are
given in units of parts per trillion by weight (ppt,wt). All congeners were present below
the detection limit except for octa-CDD and CDF which were detected at very low
levels.
2.3 TOXIC METALS RESULTS
2.3.1 Overview
A single sampling train was used to determine emission rates of a series of
13 metals [aluminum (Al), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be),
cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), silver
(Ag), thallium (Tl)], and paniculate matter (PM). Mercury was also sampled by
Method 101A and will be discussed in Section 2.5. Three sampling runs were performed
under both test conditions (without carbon injection and with carbon injection) in order
to ensure representative test results.
Sampling locations, method, and QA/QC are discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 6,
respectively. The average metals emission rates and removal efficiencies are summarized
in Section 2.3.3. The results for each individual run are presented in Section 2.3.4.
JBS343 ~*
-------
TABLE 2-11. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN BAGHOUSE RESIDUE FOR CONDITION 1; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
1 23478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
1 23478 HxCDF
1 23678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CDD/CDF ASH CONCENTRATIONS
RUN1
(ppb)
0.003
0.034
0.014
0.124
0.029
0.036
0.080
0.399
0.644
0.656
2.490
4.508
0.040
1.350
0.096
0.264
2.470
1.300
0.392
1.180
0.041
3.008
3.300
0.942
4.448
13.140
31.970
36.478
RUN 2
-------
TABLE 2-12. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN BAGHOUSE RESIDUE FOR CONDITION 2; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
1 23478 HxCDD
1 23678 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
1 23478 HxCDF
1 23678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CDD/CDF ASH CONCENTRATIONS
RUN 4
(ppbj
0.003
0.031
0.015
0.113
0.030
0.039
0.083
0.363
0.705
0.755
2.570
4.707
0.039
1.431
0.078
0.306
2.976
1.460
0.445
1.590
0.040
3.085
3.450
1.440
5.700
13.040
35.080
39.787
RUNS
(ppb)
0.002
0.039
0.012
0.157
0.028
0.037
0.065
0.442,
0.733
0.857
3.710
6.083
0.030
1.210
0.073
0.259
2.719
1.290
0.371
1.180
0.027
3.062
3.790
1.050
5.860
17.690
38.610
44.693
RUN6
(ppb)
0.001
0.029
0.006
0.081
0.012
0.020
0.029
0.232
0.300
0.352
1.010
2.073
0.013
0.443
0.034
0.104
1.062
0.506
0.160
0.526
0.012
1.187
1.280
0.392
1.898
4.040
11.656
13.729
Average
-------
TABLE 2-13. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN BOTTOM ASH FOR CONDITION 1; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378PCDD
Other PCDD
1 23478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1 234678 -HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
1 23678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1 234678- HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD + CDF
CDD/CDF ASH CONCENTRATIONS
RUN1
(ppb)
(0.015)
3.764
0.165
3.875
0.351
0.359
0.893
5.447
3.740
4.930
12.200
35.740
0.349
16.591
0.465
1.100
7.495
5.030
1.400
2.860
0.078
0.182
7.600
1.310
7.850
10.400
62.710
98.450
RUN 2
(ppb)
0.009
0.183
0.077
0.587
0.184
0.126
0.418
1.082
2.150
2.200
1 1 .780
18.796
0.148
7.422
0.311
0.696
9.733
5.490
1.160
2.800
0.079
9.161
12.080
1.030
8.260
26.440
84.810
103.606
RUN 3
(ppb)
0.018
0.253
0.108
0.761
0.242
0.155
0.499
1.364
1.790
1.890
6.480
13.560
0.263
11.507
0.491
1.090
12.759
6.440
1.310
2.920
0.104
10.466
7.050
0.878
6.052
12.610
73.940
87.500
Average
(ppb)
0.015
1.400
0.117
1.741
0.259
0.213
0.603
2.631
2.560
' 3.007
10.153
22.699
0.253
11.840
0.422
0.962
9.996
5.653
1.290
2.860
0.087
6.603
8.910
1.073
7.387
16.483
73.820
96.519
P37H TOXIC FQi l| VALENCIES
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
RUN1
(ppb)
(0.015)
0.000
0.083
0.000
0.035
0.036
0.089
0.000
0.037
0.000
0.012
0.308
0.035
0.000
0.023
0.550
0.000
0.503
0.140
0.286
0.008
0.000
0.076
0.013
0.000
0.010
1.644
1.953
RUN 2
(ppb)
0.009
0.000
0.039
0.000
0.018
0.013
0.042
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.012
0.154
0.015
0.000
0.016
0.348
0.000
0.549
0.116
0.280
0.008
0.000
0.121
0.010
0.000
0.026
1.489
1.643
RUNS
(ppb)
0.018
0.000
0.054
0.000
0.024
0.016
0.050
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.006
0.186
0.026
0.000
0.025
0.545
0.000
0.644
0.131
0.292
0.010
0.000
0.071
0.009
0.000
0.013
1.765
1.952
Average
(ppb)
0.015
O.ooo
0.058
0.000
0.026
0.021
0.060
0.000
0.026
0.000
0.010
0.216
0.025
0.000
0.021
0.481
0.000
0.565
0.129
0.286
0.009
0.000
0.089
0.011
0.000
0.016
1.633
1.849
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on Challenges of Modem Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxicity
Equivalency Factor (I - TEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures Of Dioxins
and Related Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-14. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN BOTTOM ASH FOR CONDITION 2; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378PCDD
Other PCDD
1 23478 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
1 23478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CDD/CDF ASH CONCENTRATIONS
RUN 4
(PPb)
0.007
0.178
0.046
0.431
0.088
0.073
0.199
0.661
0.511
2.869
3.830
8.892
0.110
4.600
0.165
0.364
4.661
2.110
0.488
1.030
0.037
3.495
4.570
(0.260)
2.668
5.250
29.810
38.702
RUNS
(ppb)
0.012
0.285
0.099
0.764
0.236
0.157
0.543
1.394
2.370
2.460
10.440
18.760
0.185
8.885
0.385
0.917
11.428
6.800
1.340
3.080
0.125
9.895
7.760
7.760
1.590
17.810
77.960
96.720
RUN 6
(PPb)
0.016
0.193
0.114
0.723
0.202
0.122
0.383
1.033
1.510
1.660
5.910
11.866
0.206
8.744
0.463
0.920
10.997
4.970
1.250
2.270
0.105
9.295
12.170
0.940
7.540
12.180
72.050
83.916
Average
(ppb)
0.012
0.219
0.086
0.639
0.175
0.117
0.375
1.029
1.464
2.330
6.727
13.173
0.167
7.410
0.338
0.734
9.029
4.627
1.026
2.127
0.089
7.562
8.167
2.987
3.933
11.747
59.940
73.113
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
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
RUN 4
(ppb)
0.007
0.000
0.023
0.000
0.009
0.007
0.020
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.004
0.075
0.011
0.000
0.008
0.182
0.000
0.211
0.049
0.103
0.004
0.000
0.046
(0.003)
0.000
0.005
0.621
0.696
RUNS
(ppb)
0.012
0.000
0.050
0.000
0.024
0.016
0.054
0.000
0.024
0.000
0.010
0.189
0.019
0.000
0.019
0.459
0.000
0.680
0.134
0.308
0.013
0.000
0.078
0.078
0.000
0.018
1.804
1.993
RUN 6
(PPb)
0.016
0.000
0.057
0.000
0.020
0.012
0.038
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.006
0.165
0.021
0.000
0.023
0.460
0.000
0.497
0.125
0.227
0.011
0.000
0.122
0.009
0.000
0.012
1.507
1.672
Average
(PPb)
0.012
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.018
0.012
0.038
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.007
0.143
0.017
0.000
0.017
0.367
0.000
0.463
0.103
0.213
0.009
0.000
0.082
0.030
0.000
0.012
1.311
1 .454
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on 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.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-15. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN SPRAY DRYER RESIDUE FOR CONDITION 1; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378PCDD
Other PCDD
1 23478 HxCDD
1 23678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD :
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
1 23478 HxCDF
1 23678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD+CDF
CDD/CDF ASH CONCENTRATIONS
RUN1
(ppb)
(0.001)
0.006
0.004
0.027
0.008
0.011
0.021
0.105
0.233
0.239
1.180
1.833
0.007
0.202
0.020
0.059
0.543
0.280
0.108
0.329
0.076
0.727
1.140
0.268
1.292
3.060
8.109
9.942
RUN 2
-------
TABLE 2-16. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN SPRAY DRYER RESIDUE FOR CONDITION 2; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
1 23478 HxCDD
1 23678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
1 23478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF :
Total CDD+CDF
CDD/CDF ASH CONCENTRATIONS
RUN 4
"(ppb)
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.016
0.005
0.006
0.011
0.054
0.103
0.100
0.468
0.769
0.005
0.146
0.012
0.036
0.328
0.166
0.051
0.156
0.006
0.377
0.463
0.130
0.577
1.390
3.843
4.612
RUN 5
(PPb)
(0.001)
0.005
0.003
0.028
0.007
0.009
0.018
0.098
0.183
0.176
0.921
1.449
0.007
0.214
0.016
0.050
0.503
0.259
0.081
0.271
0.006
0.623
0.796
0.211
0.983
2.500
6.520
7.969
RUN 6
(PPb)
0.001
0.007
0.002
0.026
0.005
0.008
0.014
0.089
0.169
0.157
1.050
1.528
0.004
0.119
0.010
0.029
0.260
0.161
0.052
0.173
0.006
0.347
0.576
0.161
0.683
1.980
4.561
6.089
Average
(PPb)
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.023
0.006
0.008
0.014
0.080
0.152
0.144
0.813
1.249
0.005
0.160
0.013
0.039
0.364
0.195
0.061
0.200
0.006
0.449
0.612
0.167
0.748
1.957
4.975
6.223
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
Toxic Equiv.
Factor a
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
O.OOQ
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
RUN 4
(PPb)
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.018
0.000
0.017
0.005
0.016
0.001
0.000
0.005
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.064
0.070
RUNS
(PPb)
(0.001)
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.025
0.000
0.026
0.008
0.027
0.001
0.000
0.008
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.101
0.109
RUNG
-------
TABLE 2-17. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS IN
MAKE-UP WATER AND LIME SLURRY FOR RUN 1
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
1 23678 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
1 23478 HxCDF
1 23678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
MAKE-UP
WATER
RUN 1
(ppt.wt)
[0.0081
0.000
[0.0051
0.000
[0.005]
[0.003]
(0.010)
0.000
0.030
0.020
0.140
0.196
[0.005]
0.008
[0.005]
[0.003]
0.000
[0.005]
[0.003]
0.006
[0.005]
0.000
0.004
[0.005]
0.005
0.009
0.032
0.228
LIME SLURRY
TANK
RUN 1
(ppt.wt)
[0.500]
0.000
[0.600]
0.000
[1.500]
[0.900]
[1.300]
0.830
5.200
3.300
20.800
30.130
[0.400]
0.000
[0.500]
[0.500]
0.000
[0.900]
[0.600]
0.620
[1.000]
0.000
[0'.9CO]
[1.600]
0.000
(2.300)
2.890
33.020
[ ] : Minimum detection limit.
(): Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-22
-------
Concentrations at dry, standard conditions, 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 are presented in Section 2.3.6, metals concentrations in ash samples is
presented in Section 2.3.7, and metals in make-up water and lime slurry are presented in
Section 2.3.8.
2.3.2 Metals Data Reduction
The values reported in the following toxic metals results include 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 any fraction of the sample train but not in all
fractions, only the detected values were used to determine total sample
mass (i.e., non detects = zero).
• If a metal was not detected in any fraction of a sample train, the sum of
the non-detects for each 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
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.
The ash samples were analyzed for the same series of metals as the emission test
samples. These results are reported in Section 2.3.7.
2.3.3 Metals Emissions
Tables 2-18 and 2-19-present the metals emissions results for Conditions 1 and 2,
respectively. During Condition 1, where carbon was not injected into the Lime slurry, Al
had the highest average mass rate at the inlet of 98.4 g/hr, followed by Cu with a mass
rate of 25.4 g/hr. Thallium was not detected in any of the samples at the spray dryer
2-23
JBS343 ^ ^
-------
TABLE 2-18. AVERAGE METALS EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
* WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION *
Condition
Location
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Without Carbon Injection
Run 1
Inlet
(fc/br)
52.4
2.59
0.0450
12.2
0.00544
2.14
0.541
22.2
16.4
9.51
0.327
0.0148
[0.1251
Outlet
te/hr)
0.507
0.0567
[0.00322
0.0258
0.00114
0.00797
0.0162
0.105
0.0170
4.67
0.0134
0.0138
[0.0802
RE
(%)
99.0%
97.8%
>92.9<%
99.8%
79.0%
99.6%
97.0%
99.5%
99.9%
50.9%
95.9%
6.97%
NA
Run 2
Inlet
te/hr)
96.2
2.60
0.0521
11.2
0.00808
1.57
0.476
27.7
15.2
2.73
0.534
0.0190
[0.1231
Outlet
(ft/hr)
0.431
0.0242
[0.00318]
0.0160
[0.000798
0.00346
0.0122
0.0631
0.00457
2.76
0.0214
0.00975
[0.07981
RE
(%)
99.6%
99.1%
>93.9
99.9%
>90.19?
99.8%
97.4%
99.8%
100%
NA
96.0%
48.8%
NA
Run 3
Inlet
(K/hr)
147
1.89
0.0665
18.0
0.00651
2.60
0.733
263
16.1
23.4
0.463
0.0578
[0.123]
Outlet
(e/hr)
0.785
0.0238
[0.003071
0.0637
[0.000662
0.0105
0.0142
0.0980
0.0499
17.6
0.00573
0.0154
[0.0770]
RE
(%)
99.5%
98.7%
>95.4%
99.6%
>89.8%
99.6%
98.1%
99.6%
99.7%
24.6%
98.8%
73.4%
NA
Average Emissions
Inlet
fR/hr)
98.4
2.36
0.0545
13.8
0.00668
2.10
0.583
25.4
15.9
11.9
0.441
0.0305
[0.1231
Outlet
(Kfrr)
0.574
0.0349
[0.00316
0.0352
0.00114
0.00730
0.0142
0.0887
0.0238
8.35
0.0135
0.0130
[0.0770
RE
(%)
99.4%
98.5%
>94.29?
99.7%
82.9%
99.7%
97.6%
99.7%
99.9%
29.6%
96.9%
57.5%
NA
K)
NJ
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-19. AVERAGE METALS EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
* WITH CARBON INJECTION *
Condition
Location
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
With Carbon Injection
Run 4
Inlet
(fi/hO
106
4.57
0.0792
16.3
0.00794
2.48
0.809
35.8
20.1
11.5
0.824
0.00739
[0.1781
Outlet
(R/hr)
0.379
0.0226
[0.00303
0.0171
[0.000760
0.00367
0.00660
0.0410
0.0117
1.84
0.00233
0.0136
[0.0760
RE
(%)
99.6%
99.5%
>%.29?
99.9%
> 90.49?
99.9%
99.2%
99.9%
99.9%
83.9%
99.7%
NA
NA
RunS
Inlet
f£/hr)
49.4
2.27
0.0159
9.95
0.00785
1.90
0.666
31.1
22.4
10.6
0.481
0.00193
[0.0991]
Outlet
(ft/hr)
0.445
0.0221
[0.00317
0.0225
[0.0007%
0.00419
0.0130
0.0853
0.0135
0.436
0.00659
0.0106
[0.07961
RE
(%)
99.1%
99.0%
>80.0%
99.8%
> 89.99?
99.8%
98.1%
99.7%
99.9%
95.9%
98.6%
NA
NA
Ron 6
Inlet
fR/hr)
72.5
4.23
0.0321
9.83
0.00692
2.54
0.652
30.4
19.7
14.9
0.515
0.00103
0.0200
Outlet
(R/hr)
0.364
0.0193
[0.00313
0.0169
[0.000784
0.00310
0.0156
0.0583
0.00807
1.40
0.00734
0.0127
[0.0784
RE
(%)
99.5%
99.5%
>90.29?
99.8%
>88.79?
99.9%
97.6%
99.8%
100%
90.6%
98.6%
NA
>-292%
Average Emissions
Inlet
(R/hr)
76.1
3.69
0.0424
12.0
0.00757
2.31
0.709
32.4
20.7
12.3
0.607
0.00345
0.0200
Outlet
fR/hr)
0.3%
0.0214
[0.00311
0.0188
[0.000780
0.00366
0.0117
0.0615
0.0111
1.23
0.00542
0.0123
[0.0778]
RE
(%)
99.5%
99.4%
>92.79?
99.8%
> 89.7 9?
99.8%
98.3%
99.8%
99.9%
90.0%
99.1%
NA
>-2899?
N)
N)
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
inlet during these emissions tests. At the baghouse outlet, Hg was the most prevalent
element collected during Condition 1 with an average emission rate of 8.35 g/hr,
followed by Al with an average emission rate of 0.574 g/hr. Low levels of Ag were
detected at both the spray dryer inlet and baghouse outlet locations. The emission rate
at the outlet averaged 0.012 g/hr, which was higher than the average inlet emission rate
of .0035. This may be due to trace amounts of silver introduced to the flue gas in the
lime slurry at the spray dryer (see Table 2-32). Arsenic and Tl were not detected during
any of the runs at the baghouse outlet.
During Condition 2, where carbon was injected into the lime slurry, Al had the
highest average mass rate of the metals at the spray dryer inlet with 76.1 g/hr, followed
by Cu with 32.4 g/hr. Consistent with Condition 1, Tl was the only metal not detected in
any of the runs at the spray dryer inlet. At the baghouse outlet, Hg was the most
prevalent element collected with an average emission rate of 1.23 g/hr. Arsenic, Be, and
Tl were not collected in detectable amounts for any of the runs at the baghouse outlet.
A detectable amount of Tl occurred during only one of the runs at the inlet or outlet.
The emission mass rates at the spray dryer inlet for all of the metals varied only
slightly between conditions. This was also true for all of the metals at the baghouse
outlet, except Hg. Therefore, all of the elements maintained basically the same removal
efficiency with and without carbon injected into the lime slurry, except Hg. During
Condition 1, Hg had a removal efficiency of 29.6 percent; whereas, during Condition 2,
the removal efficiency increased to 90.0 percent. The results of this test show that the
injection of carbon into the spray dryer positively effects the removal of Hg from the flue
gas.
Sample results for Hg showed a negative removal efficiency for Run 2 which can
be attributed to round-off error. A removal efficiency for Tl could not be calculated for
most of the runs because all of the results were detection limits. All of the average
removal efficiencies for Condition 2 were greater than 89 percent except for Ag and Tl.
A removal efficiency is misleading for Tl because such a small amount is detected. This
is also true of the removal efficiencies associated with Ag. Although it is detected during
all the runs, the removal efficiencies are misleading because the values reported are only
slightly higher than detection limits.
JBS343 2-26
-------
2.3.4 Metals Flue Gas Concentrations
Table 2-20 reports the flue gas concentrations for each of the 6 runs at the spray
dryer inlet and baghouse outlet in /ig/dscm. Table 2-21 contains the same data except
corrected to //g/dscm at 7 percent O2. Oxygen concentrations were calculated from
CEM data averaged over the same time period as the manual testing was performed.
2.3.5 Flue Gas Metals to Particulate Matter Ratios
A summary of the ratio of total metals to PM for the emission tests without
carbon injection is presented in Table 2-22. Metals to PM ratios are given in units of
milligrams of metal to grams of PM collected by the sampling train. The metal with the
highest ratio at the inlet was Al with an average of 19.8 mg/g and the lowest paniculate
ratio was Tl, which was not detected. At the outlet, the largest ratio was contributed to
Hg, 363 mg/g. Such a large ratio occurred because without carbon injection, Hg is not
substantially removed from the flue gas; whereas, the amount of PM is greatly decreased
by the emission controls.
Table 2-23 presents a summary of the ratio by weight of total metals to PM for
the emission tests with carbon injection. Average spray dryer inlet ratios ranged from
0.000804 mg/g for Ag to 13.7 mg/g for Al. Average ratios at the baghouse outlet ranged
from non-detected metals to 166 mg/g of Hg.
A comparison between the spray dryer inlet ratios of both conditions shows that
the ratios for each metal do not differ significantly. A comparison of the ratios at the
baghouse outlet displays the same conclusion for all the metals except Hg. Without
carbon injection, the average Hg ratio increases from 2.41 mg/g at the spray dryer inlet
to 363 mg/g at the baghouse outlet. Whereas, with carbon injection, the average Hg
ratio increases from 1.99 mg/g at the spray dryer inlet to 166 mg/g at the baghouse
outlet. The metals/partiailate ratio increases going from inlet to outlet for most of the
metals; and for some, this increase is several orders of magnitude.
2.3.6 Flue Gas Metals by Sample Fraction and Sample Parameters
Table 2-24 presents the metal amounts in the inlet flue gas samples by fraction for
each run. The highest proportion of Hg and Ag was consistently collected in the nitric
acid impingers (Impingers 1-3), although Hg was the only metal to have a large majority
of its total mass collected in the nitric acid impingers. All other metals detected, except
2-27
JBS343 ^ ^'
-------
TABLE 2-20. METALS CONCENTRATIONS; MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Toxic Metals Concentration (ug/dscm)
Without Carbon Injection
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 1
Inlet
8540
422
7.33
1993
0.887
348
88.2
3620
2680
1550
53.3
2.41
[20.3]
Outlet
63.9
7.15
[0.405]
3.25
0.144
1.00
2.05
13.2
2.14
588
1.69
1.74
[10.1]
Run 2
Inlet
16000
433
8.66
1860
1.34
260
79.1
4600
2520
453
88.8
3.17
[20.4]
Outlet
53.3
2.99
[0.394]
1.98
[0.0987]
0.427
1.51
7.80
0.565
341
2.64
1.21
[9.87]
Run 3
Inlet
22900
294
10.4
2810
1.02
406
114
4100
2510
3650
72.2
9.02
[19.2]
Outlet
97.0
2.94
[0.380]
7.87
[0.0818]
1.29
1.75
12.1
6.16
2180
0.709
1.90
[9.52]
Average Concentrations
Inlet
15813
383
8.8
2221
1.08
338
94
4107
2570
1884
71.5
4.87
[19.97]
Outlet
71.4
4.36
[0.393]
4.37
0.144
0.91
1.77
11.0
2.96
1036
1.678
1.61
[9.83]
With Carbon Injection
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 4
Inlet
17000
730
12.7
2610
1.27
396
129
5720
3210
1830
132
1.18
[28.5]
Outlet
47.0
2.80
[0.375]
2.12
[0.0941]
0.455
0.818
5.08
1.45
228
0.288
1.69
[9.41]
Run 5
Inlet
7590
349
2.44
1530
1.21
292
102
4780
3440
1630
74.0
0.297
[15.2]
Outlet
52.0
2.59
[0.371]
2.63
[0.0930]
0.490
1.51
9.97
1.58
50.9
0.770
1.24
[9.30]
Run 6
Inlet
11500
672
5.09
1560
1.10
403
104
4830
3130
2360
81.8
0.164
3.18
Outlet
42.8
2.27
[0.367]
1.98
[0.0921]
0.364
1.83
6.84
0.948
164
0.861
1.50
[9.21]
Average Concentrations
Inlet
12030
584
6.7
1900
1.19
364
112
5110
3260
1940
95.8
0.5
3.18
Outlet
47
2.55
[0.371]
2.2
[0.0931]
0.44
1.39
7.3
1.3
148
0.64
1.47
[9.31]
[] = Detection limit
-------
TABLE 2-21. METALS CONCENTRATIONS; MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Toxic Metals Concentration (ug/dscm @ 7 % O2)
Without Carbon Injection
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 1
Inlet
12100
599
10.4
2820
1.26
494
125
5134
3801
2200
75.6
3.42
[28.8]
Outlet
131
14.6
[0.828]
6.65
0.294
2.05
4.18
27.0
4.37
1200
3.4
3.55
[20.6]
Run 2
Inlet
22700
614
12.3
2640
1.91
369
112
6520
3570
643
126
4.49
[28.9]
Outlet
109
6.12
[0.805]
4.05
[0.202]
0.874
3.09
15.9
1.16
697
5.40
2.46
[20.2]
Run 3
Inlet
30900
397
14.0
3790
1.37
549
154
5530
3390
4930
97.5
12.2
[26.0]
Outlet
180
5.45
[0.704]
14.6
[0.152]
2.40
3.25
22.4
11.4
4040
1.31
3.52
[17.6]
Average Concentrations
Inlet
21900
537
12.2
3083
1.51
471
131
5728
3587
2591
99.7
6.7
[27.9]
Outlet
140
8.73
[0.779]
8.4
0.294
1.77
3.50
21.8
5.7
1979
3.39
3.18
[19.5]
With Carbon Injection
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 4
Inlet
22500
966
16.7
3460
1.68
524
171
7570
4250
2420
174
1.56
[37.7]
Outlet
92.0
5.49
[0.735]
4.15
[0.184]
0.890
1.60
9.94
2.84
446
0.564
3.30
[18.4]
Run 5
Inlet
10400
481
3.36
2110
1.66
401
141
6580
4730
2240
102
0.408
[21.0]
Outlet
99.1
4.92
[0.706]
5.00
[0.177]
0.933
2.88
19.0
3.00
97.0
1.47
2.36
[17.7]
Run 6
Inlet
15700
916
6.94
2130
1.50
549
141
6580
4260
3220
111
0.223
4.33
Outlet
80.4
4.27
[0.690]
3.72
[0.173]
0.683
3.43
12.9
1.78
309
1.62
2.81
[17.3]
Average Concentrations
Inlet
16200
787
9.0
2567
1.61
492
151
6910
4413
2627
129.2
0.7
4.33
Outlet
90
4.89
[0.710]
4.3
[0.178]
0.84
2.64
13.9
2.5
284
1.22
2.82
[17.8]
Ki
[] = Detection limit
-------
TABLE 2-22. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE MATTER;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
* WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION *
METALS/PARTICULATE RATIO
(mg metal per gram of particulate)
Location
Run
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
•-. .,. •* ,;. -:-•,,-:•• INLET -,- •>• .-v,-.;
Run 1
:(«ng/g)
10.6
0.522
0.00908
2.47
0.00110
0.431
0.109
4.48
3.32
1.92
0.0660
0.00299
[0.0251]
Run 2
;;;(mg/g)
18.8
0.508
0.0102
2.18
0.00158
0.306
0.0929
5.40
2.96
0.532
0.104
0.00372
[0.0239]
Run 3
> (mg/g)
30.0
0.385
0.0136
3.68
0.00133
0.532
0.150
5.37
3.29
4.78
0.0946
0.0118
[0.0252]
Average
••:'C(n»g/8)
19.8
0.472
0.0109
2.78
0.00134
0.423
0.117
5.08
3.19
2.41
0.0883
0.00617
[0.0247]
. v;;:i;:.j .:••:• :..:...;•..., •:.;-:'. OUTLET -.f'-:v
Run I
(mg/g)
68.7
7.68
[0.436]
3.50
0.155
1.08
2.20
14.2
2.30
632
1.8i
1.87
[10.9]
Run 2
(mg/g)
41.6
2.34
[0.306]
1.55
[0.0767]
0.334
1.18
6.10
0.442
266
2.06
0.942
[7.71]
Run 3
(mg/g) I
8.42
0.255
[0.0329]
0.684
[0.00710]
0.112
0.152
1.05
0.535
189
0.0615
0.165
[0.826]
: Average
(mg/g)
39.6
3.43
[0.258]
1.91
0.155
0.509
1.18
7.12
1.09
363
1.31
0.991
[6.47]
N)
OJ
O
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-23. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE MATTER;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
* WITH CARBON INJECTION *
METALS/PARTICULATE RATIO
(mg metal per gram of particulate)
Location
Run
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
INLET
Run 4
(mg/gj
17.7
0.760
0.0132
2.72
0.00132
0.413
0.135
5.96
3.35
1.91
0.137
0.00123
[0.0297]
Run 5
(mg/g)
9.66
0.445
0.00310
1.95
0.00154
0.371
0.130
6.09
4.38
2.08
0.0943
0.000378
[0.0194]
Run 6
(mg/g)
15.7
0.914
0.00693
2.12
0.00149
0.549
0.141
6.57
4.26
3.21
0.111
0.000223
0.00433
Average
(mg/g)
13.7
0.603
0.00815
2.33
0.00143
0.392
0.132
6.02
3.86
1.99
0.116
0.000804
0.00433
::- •- '•'. ' - »• OUTLET •• •'.. : , • :
Run 4
(mg/g)
63.5
3.79
[0.507]
2.87
[0.127]
0.615
1.10
6.86
1.96
308
0.389
2.28
[12.7]
Run 5
(mg/g)
24.0
1.19
[0.171]
1.21
[0.0428]
0.226
0.698
4.60
0.726
23.5
0.355
0.572
[4.28]
Run 6
(mg/g)
19.6
1.04
[1.68]
0.908
[0.0422]
0.167
0.838
3.14
0.435
75.4
0.395
0.686
[4.22]
Average
(mg/g)
35.7
2.49
[0.339]
2.04
[0.0850]
0.420
0.901
5.73
1.34
166
0.372
1.42
[8.50]
U)
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-24. METALS AMOUNTS IN INLET FLUE GAS - SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 1
Front
Half
(Total ug)
25500
1160
21.9
5950
2.65
1040
260
10800
8000
213
157
[3.00]
[50.0]
Impinger
w
(Total ug)
42.6
96.4
[0.425]
1.57
[0.106]
0.743
3.28
26.5
1.08
4400
2.25
7.21
[10.6]
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
8.55
Total
°8
(Total ug)
25500
1260
21.9
5950
2.65
1040
263
10800
8000
4620
159
7.21
[60.6]
Run 2
Front
Half
(Total ug)
47800
1230
25.8
5550
4.00
775
234
13700
7500
55.5
263
4.10
[50.0]
Impinger
1,2,3
(Total ug)
31.9
56.3
[0.427]
1.90
[0.107]
0.363
1.56
33.6
0.474
1290
1.45
5.33
[10.7]
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
5.03
Total
ug
(Total ug)
47800
1290
25.8
5550
4.00
775
236
13700
7500
1350
264
9.43
[60.7]
Run 3
Front
Half
(Total ug)
72000
885
32.7
8850
3.20
1280
357
12900
7900
867
225
28.4
[50.0]
Impinger
1,2,3
(Total ug)
42.3
41.4
[0.424]
2.12
*[0.106]
0.53
2.99
12.8
0.558
10600
2.45
[0.637]
[10.6]
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
3.86
Total
»g
(Total ug)
72000
926
32.7
8850
3.20
1280
360
12900
7900
11500
227
28.4
[60.6]
OJ
Note: Impingers 4,5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-24 (Continued). METALS AMOUNTS IN INLET FLUE GAS - SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 4
Front
Half
(Total ug)
65400
2760
48.9
10100
4.90
1520
496
22000
12400
148
506
[6.00]
[100]
Impingef
1,2,3
(Total ug)
230
62.6
[0.422]
3.35
[0.106]
11.1
3.03
74.7
26.5
6780
2.25
4.56
[10.6]
Impingef
4,5,6
(Total ug)
165
Total
V. ''"•' US ':$'•:
(Total ug)
65600
2820
48.9
10100
4.90
1530
499
22100
12400
7090
508
4.56
[110]
Run 5
; Front :
^'Half,:C;
(Total ug)
30200
1320
9.70
6100
4.80
1160
399
19000
13700
78.5
288
[3.00]
[50.0]
Impinger
• < -:w< •>'••••
(Total ug)
53.7
71.5
[0.423]
3.54
[0.106]
0.423
8.26
21.0
1.08
6400
6.54
1.18
[10.6]
/Impinger
4,5,6
(total ug)
1.98
Total
"g
(Total ug)
30200
1390
9.70
6100
4.80
1160
407
19000
13700
6480
295
1.18
[60.6]
Run 6
Front
Half
(Total ug)
44400
2500
19.7
6100
4.25
1560
398
18700
12100
30.0
313
[3.00]
[50.0]
Impinger
1,2,3
(Total ug)
43.6
100
[0.423]
1.88
[0.106]
0.338
2.55
18.9
0.904
9090
3.61
0.634
12.3
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
6.95
Total
ug
(Total ug)
44400
2600
19.7
6100
4.25
1560
401
18700
12100
9130
317
0.634
12.3
K)
Note: Impingers 4,5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only
-------
Tl in Run 6, were collected in the highest proportions in the front half (filter,
nozzle/probe rinse). This indicates that almost all of the Hg, and over half of the Ag in
the flue gas, was in a vapor phase at the filter temperature.
The metal amounts in the outlet flue gas samples are presented in Table 2-25 by
sample fraction. The highest proportion of Hg was collected in the nitric acid impingers
for all runs. Most other metals were collected in the highest proportions in the front
half fraction, except for Cu and Ni which had slightly more weight collected in the
impingers during four of the six runs, and Cu for three of the six runs.
Sampling and flue gas parameters for the PM/metals runs at both sampling
locations are shown in Tables 2-26 and 2-27. Total sampling times, sample volumes, and
isokinetic results for each sampling run are presented. Appendix C contains a complete
listing of these and additional sampling and flue gas parameters for each run.
2.3.7 Metals in Ash
Incinerator bottom ash, spray dryer ash, and baghouse ash were sampled daily as
described in Section 5. Concentrations of the metals in the ash in units of mg/kg were
determined by microwave digesting one-half gram of ash in acid and hydrogen peroxide,
diluting the solution to 100 mL, and then analyzed as stated in Section 5.
The metals concentrations in the incinerator bottom ash are shown in Table 2-28.
The most prevalent metal throughout all of the runs is Al with Cu being the second.
Four of the metals are not detected in any of the runs, Sb, Hg, Ag, and Tl. A
comparison of the metal to ash concentrations between the two conditions does not show
any significant differences.
Table 2-29 presents the metals concentrations in the baghouse ash collected each
day. As in the incinerator ash, Al is the most prevalent metal. Silver and Tl were not
detected in any of the six samples taken. All of the metals showed no significant
increase in average concentration in comparing the two conditions, except for Hg. The
JBS343
2-34
-------
TABLE 2-25. METALS AMOUNTS IN OUTLET FLUE GAS - SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 1
Front
Half
(Total ug)
193
13.5
[1.00]
8.58
[0.250]
1.90
3.25
23.8
6.85
[2.45]
2.58
4.05
[25.0]
Impinger
W
(Total ug)
34.0
11.9
[0.435]
2.98
0.511
1.67
4.02
23.2
0.752
2070
3.41
2.12
[10.9]
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
23.4
Total
«g
(Total ug)
227
25.4
[1.44]
11.6
0.511
3.57
7.27
47.0
7.60
2090
5.99
6.17
[35.9]
Run 2
Front
Half
(Total ug)
166
10.8
[1.00]
5.60
[0.250]
1.33
2.95
4.65
2.04
[2.45]
7.13
4.35
[25.0]
Impinger
1,2,3
(Total ug)
26.3
[1.59]
[0.424]
1.55
[0.106]
0.212
2.50
23.5
[0.318]
1230
2.40
[0.636]
[10.6]
Impinger
54,5,6U'.
(Total ug)
3.23
Total
: ' . Ug • <: .
(Total ug)
192
10.8
[1.42]
7.15
[0.356]
1.54
5.45
28.2
2.04
1230
9.53
4.35
[35.6]
Run 3
: Front
Half
(Total ug)
336
11.0
[1.00]
27.5
[0.250]
4.35
5.53
25.5
22.5
[2.45]
1.65
4.73
[25.0]
Impinger
1,2,3
(Total ug)
26.8
[1.59]
[0.424]
1.95
[0.106]
0.487
1.02
19.8
0.557
8160
1.00
2.38
[10.6]
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
6.33
Total
ug
(Total ug)
363
11.0
[1.42]
29.5
[0.306]
4.84
6.55
45.3
23.1
8170
2.65
7.11
[35.6]
N)
Note: Impingers 4,5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-25 (Continued). METALS AMOUNTS IN OUTLET FLUE GAS - SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
.:.--:
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Run 4
Front
••^Half^
(Total ug)
154
10.6
[1.00]
6.95
[0.250]
1.38
2.20
8.20
5.10
[2.45]
[0.750]
5.45
[25.0]
Impinger
&lfa%;;
(Total ug)
23.7
[1.59]
[0.425]
1.07
[0.106]
0.340
0.892
11.0
0.384
858
1.09
0.924
[10.6]
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
3.98
Total
ug
(Total ug)
178
10.6
[1.42]
8.02
[0.356]
1.72
3.09
19.2
5.48
862
1.09
6.37
[35.6]
Run 5
Front
Half
(Total ug)
167
9.90
[1.00]
8.15
[0.250]
1.43
1.85
6.68
5.30
[2.45]
[0.750]
4.75
[25.0]
Impinger
.'^ •!»?»&£
(Total iig)
32.2
[1.60]
[0.425]
1.91
[0.106]
0.447
3.95
31.5
0.735
195
2.95
[0.638]
[10.6]
Impinger
••:.-• 4,5,6' '
(Total ug)
[0.390]
Total
ug
(Total ug)
199
9.90
[1.42]
10.1
[0.356]
1.88
5.80
38.2
6.04
195
2.95
4.75
[35.6]
Run 6
Front
Half
(Total ug)
142
8.78
[1.00]
5.35
[0.250]
1.13
1.60
4.85
3.28
[2.45]
[0.750]
5.78
[25.0]
Impinger
1,2,3
(Total ug)
23.4
[1.60]
[0.425]
2.30
[0.106]
0.276
5.46
21.6
0.385
634
3.33
[0.638]
[10.6]
Impinger
4,5,6
(Total ug)
1.8
Total
«g
(Total ug)
165
8.78
[1-42]
7.65
[0.356]
1.41
7.06
26.5
3.67
636
3.33
5.78
[35.6]
K)
Note: Impingers 4,5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only
-------
TABLE 2-26. METALS/PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT INLET
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Run No.
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
Particulate Catch (grams)
Run 1
11/18/91
240
0.44
105
3.0
408
11.1
6.4
16.2
3610
102.2
96.4
2.4130
Run 2
11/19/91
240
0.44
105
3.0
408
11.1
7.8
15.9
3539
100.2
98.1
2.5373
Run 3
11/20/91
240
0.46
111
3.1
407
10.6
6.7
15.8
3771
106.8
97.3
2.4053
Run 4
11/21/91
240
0.57
136
3.9
399
10.4
6.6
16.1
3686
104.4
95.5
3.7079
Run 5
11/22/91
240
0.59
140
4.0
409
10.8
6.5
14.3
3827
108.3
94.7
3.1250
Run 6
11/23/91
240
0.57
137
3.9
407
10.7
6.5
14.4
3708
105.0
95.1
2.8438
Average
NA
0.51
122
3.5
406
10.8
6.8
15.5
3690
104.5
NA
2.8387
NJ
U)
NA = Not Applicable
Note: The accuracy of all calculated results is limited to three significant digits. Summary tables
generated by spreadsheet programs report additional digits that are not significant.
-------
TABLE 2-27. METALS/PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT OUTLET
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Run No.
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
Particulate Catch (grams)
Run 1
11/18/91
240
0.52
125
3.6
285
14.1
5.0
14.7
4671
132.3
101.0
0.0033
Run 2
11/19/91
240
0.53
127
3.6
285
14.1
5.0
12.3
4761
134.8
97.6
0.0046
Run 3
11/20/91
240
0.55
132
3.7
285
13.4
5.3
15.0
4762
134.9
99.2
0.0431
Run 4
11/21/91
239
0.56
134
3.8
289
13.8
5.2
14.7
4753
134.6
100.9
0.0028
Run 5
11/22/91
240
0.56
135
3.8
270
13.6
5.0
13.7
5036
142.6
96.1
0.0083
Run 6
11/23/91
240
0.57
137
3.9
287
13.5
5.3
12.0
5012
141.9
102.4
0.0041
Average
NA
0.55
132
3.7
284
13.8
5.1
13.7
4832
136.8
NA
0.0011
to
U)
00
NA = Not Applicable
Note: The accuracy of all calculated results is limited to three significant digits
generated by spreadsheet programs report additiona! digits that are not
, Summary tables
significant.
-------
TABLE 2-28. METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS - BOTTOM ASH
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
: Concentration (mg metal/kg ash)
::'•-.;,:)::• I Metals • .:...•.. ••'-...-
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
% Carbon
PH
Ash (in Ibs)
Run!
(mg/kg)
185000
[3.00]
65.4
3140
0.440
21.8
49.2
8900
208
[1.96]
66.8
[1.20]
[20.0]
7.01
9.90
325
Run 2
(mg/kg)
194000
[3.00]
84.8
4340
0.440
10.6
51.2
32200
296
[1.96]
148
[1.20]
[20.0]
1.62
9.50
256
Run 3
(mg/kg)
192000
[3.00]
194
3760
0.420
11.4
53.6
54800
404
[1.96]
160
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.38
10.4
404
Condition 1
Average
(mg/kg)
190333
[3.00]
114.7
3747
0.433
14.6
51.3
31967
303
[1.96]
125
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.67
9.9
328
Run 4
(mg/kg)
152000
[3.00]
54.8
6320
[0.200]
20.8
36.8
14300
476
[1.96]
71.6
[1.20]
[20.0]
1.04
9.62
213
Run 5
(mg/kg)
79600
[3.00]
80.4
10000
0.480
8.52
57.2
17400
592
[1.96]
74.4
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.83
10.1
241
Run 6
(mg/kg)
82200
[3.00]
90.8
6680
0.440
11.7
72.2
51000
430
[1.96]
476
[1.20]
[20.0]
1.52
10.2
248
Condition 2
Average
(mg/kg)
104600
[3.00]
75.3
7667
0.460
13.7
55.4
27567
499
[1.96]
207
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.13
10.0
234
NJ
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-29. METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS - BAGHOUSE ASH
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Concentration, (mg metal/kg ash)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
:'-:;>Vj .r!. ;.:,;.:; V *~ - ft /:- £' ''A^V
% Carbon
Ash (in Ibs)
Run 1
(mg/kg)
15200
11.4
2.44
1510
[0.200]
108
20.8
1100
292
34.8
22.2
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.21
185
Run 2
(mg/kg)
18400
4.34
2.22
1250
0.300
75.6
16.8
1230
162
10.1
27.4
[1.20]
[20.0]
1.22
122
Run 3
(mg/kg)
11500
3.56
2.06
1100
0.220
84.4
15.1
802
98.8
40.8
19.5
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.88
215
Condition 1
Average
(mg/kg)
15033
6.43
2.2
1287
0.173
89.3
17.6
1044
184
28.6
23.0
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.44
174.0
Run 4
(mg/kg)
12800
23.4
2.66
1110
0.220
98.0
17.8
1380
224
208
19.8
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.89
99.0
Run 5
(mg/kg)
12800
5.54
1.91
1240
0.220
53.2
15.3
884
156
288
16.5
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.22
292
RuQ6
(mg/kg)
12600
19.3
2.96
1200
0.320
80.6
17.6
1010
159
444
18.8
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.67
156
Condition 2
Average
(mg/kg)
12733
16.1
2.5
1183
0.270
77.3
16.9
1091
180
313
18.4
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.26
182.3
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
average concentration was 28.6 mg/kg for Condition 1 and 313.3 mg/kg for Condition 2,
almost a 1000 percent increase.
The metals concentrations in the spray dryer ash are summarized in Table 2-30.
Aluminum had the highest concentration of all the metals tested for Conditions 1 and 2,
averaging 35,933 mg/kg and 47,200 mg/kg, respectively. Antimony, Ag, and Tl were not
detected in any of the samples. Mercury was the only metal to exhibit a significant
change in concentration from Condition 1 to Condition 2. It had an average
concentration of 12.5 mg/kg for Condition 1 and 31.3 mg/kg for Condition 2.
2.3.8 Metals in Make-Up Water and Lime Slurry
Table 2-31 presents the amount of metals and chloride present in the water used
to make the lime slurry. The detected metals were Al, Sb, As, Ba, Cr, and Cu; as well as
chloride. Table 2-32 presents the concentration of metals detected in the lime slurry.
The metals detected were Al, Ba, Cu, Ni, and Ag. Of these metals, only Al and Ag were
introduced into the spray dryer at rates which were significant when compared to the
metals in the flue gas at the spray dryer inlet. The average mass flow rate of Al in the
lime slurry was approximately half of the average mass flow rate of Al in the inlet flue
gas, which was 76 g/hr. The mass flow rate of Ag in the lime slurry was approximately
100 times the mass flow rate of Ag in the inlet flue gas, although the total mass flow rate
of Ag into the spray dryer was only 0.3 g/hr.
2.4 PARTICULATE MATTER/PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
2.4.1 Particulate Matter Results
Paniculate matter emissions were determined from the same sampling train used
for metals determinations at the spray dryer inlet and baghouse outlet. Before metals
analysis, PM collected in the filter and in the front half acetone rinse (probe, nozzle,
filter holder) was analyzed gravimetrically as discussed in Section 5.
The PM stack gas concentrations and mass rates for the spray dryer inlet and
baghouse outlet are presented in Table 2-33. Concentrations at standard conditions,
concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2, emission rates, and removal efficiencies are
shown.
For Condition 1, where carbon was not added to the lime slurry, the PM
concentration and mass rate at the spray dryer inlet averaged 0.45 grains/dscf at
2-41
-------
TABLE 2-30. METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS - SPRAY DRYER ASH
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
; . . Concentration (mg metal/kg ash)
' -;-: ..' . ' .. V -
.,.••';.'.;:• '!.:.;- • Metals: :••::••::• :v;:J.:- -;:::':-
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
% Carbon
Ash (in Ibs)
Runl
(mg/kg)
43800
[3.00]
7.00
2400
0.400
37.8
20.2
1020
312
10.1
36.0
[1-20]
[20.0]
1.72
17.0
Rim 2
(mg/kg)
45600
[3.00]
7.36
2260
0.420
32.8
26.0
1080
306
10.6
40.2
[1.20]
[20.0]
1.57
15.0
Run 3
(mg/kg)
18400
[3.00]
2.80
1580
0.300
46.2
18.8
700
102
16.7
26.2
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.68
98.0
Condition 1
Average
(mg/kg)
35933
[3.00]
5.72
2080
0.373
38.9
21.7
933
240
12.5
34.1
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.32
43.3
Run 4
(mg/kg)
53200
[3.00]
3.56
1940
0.360
26.8
23.2
1020
248
42.0
33.0
[1.20]
[20.0]
3.18
13.0
Run 5
(mg/kg)
44000
[3.00]
6.10
2120
0.360
22.6
20.6
976
274
28.0
35.8
[1.20]
[20.0]
'•••••' ' v.-.: ".
2.92
10.0
Run 6
(mg/kg)
44400
[3.00]
4.00
3080
0.380
27.6
26.0
1300
234
24.0
46.2
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.67
8.00
Condition 2
Average
(mg/kg)
47200
[3.00]
4.55
2380
0.370
25.7
23.3
1099
252
31.3
38.3
[1.20]
[20.0]
2.92
10.3
N)
-^
N>
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-31. METALS IN MAKE-UP WATER CONCENTRATIONS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Chloride
% Solid
Runl
(ug/L)
37.7
4.13
3.04
73.6
[0.236]
[0.470]
3.32
71.7
[0.706]
[0.434]
2.10
45.7
[23.6
0.00881
0.024%
Run 2
(ug/L)
9.25
[3.48]
2.47
70.1
[0.231]
[0.464]
[1.39]
53.1
[0.694]
[0.434]
[0.694
1.95
[23.1
0.00951
0.017%
Run 3
(ug/L)
10.0
[3.38]
2.62
77:9
[0.225]
[0.451]
[1.35]
99.6
[0.678]
[0.432]
[0.678
[1.35}
[22.5
0.00981
0.030%
Run 4
(ug/L)
12.1
[3.33]
4.02
77.8
[0.222]
[0.444]
[1.34]
146
[0.667]
[0.432]
[0.667]
[1.34
[22.2]
0.00947
NSC
Run 5
(ug/L)
8.63
[3.56
2.53
71.3
[0.238]
[0.473]
1.57
311
[0.711]
[0.435]
1.09
[1.42
[23.8]
0.00925
0.034%
Run 6
(ug/L)
8.35
[3.38
2.34
79.4
[0.226
[0.453
1.47
184
[0.679]
[0.433]
0.837
[1.36]
[22.6
0.0103
NSC
Average
Runs 1—6
(ug/L)
14.3
4.13
2.84
75.0
[0.230]
[0.459
2.12
144
[0.689]
[0.433]
1.34
23.8
[23.0]
0.00953
0.026%
U)
[ ] Minimum Detection Limit
NSD = No Solid Detected
-------
TABLE 2-32. METALS IN LIME SLURRY CONCENTRATIONS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
% Hydrated Lime(w/w)
Concentration (mg metal/kg lime slurry)
Run 1
(rag/kg)
146
[1.50
[0.400
0.960
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.600]
2.40
[0.300
[0.392
0.340
0.850
[10.0
5.24%
Run 2
(mg/kg)
214
[L50]
[0.400]
1.40
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.600]
H. J
2.11
[0.300
[0.392
0.450
1.11
[10.0
8.35%
Run 3
(mg/kg)
80.9
[1.50]
[0.400]
1.03
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.600]
[0.400
[0.300
[0.392
[0.300
0.840
[10.0
3.07%
Run 4
(mg/kg)
42.9
[1.50]
[0.400]
0.860
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.600
[0.400
[0.300]
[0.392
0.310
[0.600]
[10.0
1.62%
Run 5
(mg/kg)
29.6
[1.50]
[0.400]
0.910
[0.100]
[0.200]
• [0.600
[0.400
[0.300
[0.392
[0.300
[0.600]
[10.0
1.06%
Run 6
(mg/kg)
113
[1.50]
[0.400]
1.10
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.600]
[0.400
[0.300
[0.392
0.320
[0.600
[10.0
3.75%
Average
Runs 1-6
(mg/kg)
104
[1.50
[0.400
1.04
[0.100
[0.200
[0.6001
2.26
[0.300
[0.392
0.355
0.933
[10.0
3.85%
[ ] Minimum Detection Limit
-------
TABLE 2-33. PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
:'• :--''::' -;i_
Date
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
Location
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Run
:#
1
2
3
Time
(min)
240
240
240
:; ;s v! 5 ; Condition 1 Averages
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
4
5
6
240
240
240
f : ; Condition 2 Averages ;
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
1
2
3
240
240
240
: ! Condition 1 Averages
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
4
5
6
239
240
240
; : Condition 2 Averages
CONCENTRATION
(grains/dscf)
0.353
0.372
0.334
0.353
0.419
0.343
0.321
-••• -p.::; 0.361
0.000410
0.000560
0.00504
0.002003
0.000320
0.000950
0.000460
0.000577
(grains/dscf
@7%02)
0.501
0.528
0.450
0.493
0.555
0.472
0.438
0.488
0.000838
0.00114
0.00934
0.003775
0.000626
0.001809
0.000864
0.001100
(grams/dscm)
0.808
0.852
0.764
0.808
0.959
0.786
0.735
0.827
0.000930
0.00128
0.0115
0.00458
0.00074
0.00217
0.00106
0.00132
(grams/dscm
; @ 7% O2)
1.15
1.21
1.03
1.13
1.27
1.08
1.00
1.12
0.00190
0.00262
0.0214
0.00862
0.00145
0.00413
0.00199
0.00252
EMISSION RATE
(Ib/hr)
10.9
11.3
10.8
11.0
13.2
11.2
10.2
11.5
0.0162
0.0228
0.205
0.0814
0.0131
0.0409
0.0199
0.0246
(kg/br)
4.96
5.12
4.89
4.99
6.01
5.11
4.63
5.25
0.00738
0.0104
0.0932
0.03698
0.00598
0.01857
0.00903
0.01119
Removal
Efficiency (%)
99.9%
99.8%
98.1%
99.2%
99.9%
99.6%
99.8%
99.8%
N>
NOTE: Removal efficiency is based on the inlet and outlet emission rates. [(1-out/in) x 100]
-------
7 percent O2 and 11.0 Ib/hr, respectively. At the baghouse outlet, the average
concentration and emission rate was 0.0038 grains/dscf at 7 percent O2 and 0.081 Ib/hr,
respectively.
For Condition 2, where carbon was added to the lime slurry, the average PM
concentration at the -spray dryer inlet was 0.49 grains/dscf at 7 percent O2. The average
emission rate for the three runs was 0.025 Ib/hr.
The results at the spray dryer inlet recorded for both conditions were very similar;
therefore, the removal efficiencies should not be biased. The results at the baghouse
outlet for both conditions were also similar except for Run 3 which had a significantly
higher emission rate. This might be explained by the fact that during the test day the
"cake" that forms on the baghouse bags was lost due to a pressure drop across the
baghouse. This would decrease the filtering performance of the baghouse. Aside from
this occurrence, the average removal efficiencies for both conditions was above
99 percent.
A summary of the sampling and flue gas parameters for the PM runs is given in
Tables 2-26 and 2-27 for the spray dryer inlet and baghouse outlet, respectively.
Appendix A.2 presents a detailed listing of the calculated results for each sampling run.
The gravimetric PM analytical results are included in Appendix E.2.
2.4.2 Particle Size Distribution Results
Four PSD test runs were conducted during the Morristown Memorial Hospital
MWI test program. An eight stage Andersen MK III in-stack cascade impactor sampling
device was used (see Section 5 for PSD method). The PSD sampling location was at the
spray dryer inlet. Following a test, the impactor was inspected to determine if there was
adequate particle loading on each of the filter stages. A properly loaded impactor has
distinct paniculate "piles" under each stage's acceleration jets (holes). An under-loaded
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, and all of the runs met the recovery QC objectives. The test results
for these runs are reported in the following section.
2.4.2.1 Overview
JBS343
2-46
-------
The figures in this section present the log-normal plot of the particle cut size
(Dp50) at each impactor stage versus the mass fraction of particulate less than that Dp50
for each PSD run. Linear regressions analyses were conducted and the correlation
coefficients (R2) are shown on each figure. The mass median particle size is calculated
from the graphical representation of the linear regression. It is a particle size that
represents a point on the distribution in which half of the weight of the particles
collected would be aerodynamically larger than, and half of the weight of the particles
collected would be aerodynamically smaller than. A weight percentage of the particles
collected less than 10 //m is also calculated from the linear regression.
2.4.2.2 Particle Size Distribution Results
Table 2-34 presents the Run 1 PSD results. Run 1 was conducted at the end of
the third day of testing. The results are presented graphically in Figure 2-1.
Approximately 71 percent of the total PM was less than 10 /im. The mass median
particle size for Run 1 is approximately 2.3 /*m.
Table 2-35 presents the results from PSD Run 2. This run was conducted during
the fourth day of testing, November 21, 1991. The Run 2 PSD results are presented
graphically in Figure 2-2. Slightly larger particle sizes were found in this run, as
approximately 49 percent of the particles were less than 10 ^m; as well as a mass median
particle size of 11.0 //m.
Table 2-36 presents the results for PSD Run 3 which was conducted on the fifth
day of testing, November 22, 1991. The graphical representation of this distribution,
illustrated in Figure 2-3, shows a mass median particle size of 9.6 /^m and has 51 percent
of the total PM less than 10 ^m.
Table 2-37 presents the results from Run 4 conducted on the sixth day of testing,
November 23, 1991. Figure 2-4 shows the particle size distribution of this run. The mass
median particle size as 11.1 //m, and approximately 48 percent of the weight was less
than 10 /^m.
Table 2-38 is a summary of the PSD results for the 4 test runs. Run 1 appears to
be different in size distribution from Runs 2, 3, and 4.
2-47
-------
TABLE 2-34. PSD RUN 1 RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE: 11/20/91
STAGE
Preim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BACK-UP
TOTAL
Dp50
(microns)
17.2126
11.2808
7.3596
5.1957
3.0731
1.7399
1.0579
0.6562
Net Weight
(grains)
0.00637
0.00144
0.00272
0.00276
0.00237
0.00223
0.00130
0.00215
0.01010
0.03144
Mass
Fraction
0.2026
0.0458
0.0865
0.0878
0.0754
0.0709
0.0413
0.0684
0.3212
:f; I:; 1.0000
Mass Fract.
Less
Than
0.7974 *
0.7516
0.6651
0.5773
0.5019
0.4310
0.3896
0.3212
0.0000 *
Interval
Geometric
Midpoint
(microns)
29.3365
13.9346
9.1117
6.1837
3.9959
2.3123
1.3567
0.8332
0.0573
dM/dlog DP
(gr/dscf)
5.698E-02
3.251E-02
6.075E-02
7.561E-02
4.305E-02
3.739E-02
2.492E-02
4.294E-02
1.975E-02
CONC
(gr/dscf)
0.026387
0.005965
0.011267
0.011433
0.009818
0.009238
0.005385
0.008906
0.041838
0.130237
N)
•K.
00
these values asume top end and bottom end dpSOs of 50 and .005 urn.
-------
TABLE 2-35. PSD RUN 2 RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE: 11/21/91
STAGE
Preim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BACK-UP
TOTAL
Dp50
(microns)
17.3944
11.4000
7.4373
5.2506
3.1055
1.7581
1.0689
0.6627
'•' Y •'•:. -; • y-., ; _-•':
^Weight
(grams)
0.01505
0.00110
0.00216
0.00193
0.00190
0.00147
0.00085
0.00069
0.00889
0.03404
Mass
Fraction •
0.4421
0.0323
0.0635
0.0567
0.0558
0.0432
0.0250
0.0203
0.2612
1.0000
MassFract,
Less
Than
0.5579 *
0.5256
0.4621
0.4054
0.3496
0.3064
0.2814
0.2612
0.0000 *
Interval
Geometric
Midpoint
(microns)
29.4910
14.0818
9.2079
6.2490
4.0380
2.3366
1.3708
0.8416
0.0576
dM/dlog DP
(gr/dscf)
1.839E-01
3.360E-02
6.526E-02
7.153E-02
4.669E-02
3.334E-02
2.204E-02
1.863E-02
2.348E-02
CONC
(gr/dscf)
0.084348
0.006165
0.012106
0.010817
0.010649
0.008239
0.004764
0.003867
0.049824
0.190777
* these values asume top end and bottom end dpSOs of 50 and .005 urn.
-------
TABLE 2-36. PSD RUN 3 RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE: 11/22791
STAGE
• .• .• :-
Preim & 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BACK-UP
TOTAL
Dp5Q
(microns)
17.6739
11.5831
7.5568
5.3349
3.1553
1.7861
1.0857
0.6728
Net Weight
(grams)
0.01386
0.00046
0.00125
0.00170
0.00145
0.00118
0.00074
0.00150
0.00859
0.03073
Mass
Fraction
0.4510
0.0150
0.0407
0.0553
0.0472
0.0384
0.0241
0.0488
0.2795
1.0000
MassFract.
Less
...',•: Than •• :: ;.::..
0.5490 *
0.5340
0.4933
0.4380
0.3908
0.3524
0.3283
0.2795
0.0000 *
Interval
Geometric
;-':v: Midpoint
: (microns)
29.7270
14.3080
9.3558
6.3494
4.1028
2.3740
1.3925
0.8546
0.0580
dM/cflogDP
(gr/dscf)
1.839E-01
3.360E-02
6.526E-02
7.153E-02
4.669E-02
3.334E-02
2.204E-02
1.863E-02
2.348E-02
CONC
i (gr/dscf)
0.079370
0.002634
0.007158
0.009735
0.008304
0.006757
0.004238
0.008590
0.049191
0.175978
K>
-------
TABLE 2-37. PSD RUN 4 RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
DATE: 11/23/91
STAGE
Preim& 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BACK-UP
TOTAL
Dp50
i,
, (microns)
17.5700
11.5150
7.5124
t
5.3035
3.1367
1.7757
1.0794
0.6690
Net Weight
(Rrams)
0.01162
0.00064
0.00175
0.00154
0.00160
0.00146
0.00049
0.00032
0.00583
0.02525
Mass
Fraction
0.4602
0.0253
0.0693
0.0610
0.0634
0.0578
0.0194
0.0127
0.2309
1 .0000
Mass Fract.
Less
Than
0.5398 *
0.5145
0.4451
0.3842
0.3208
0.2630
0.2436
0.2309
0.0000 *
Interval
Geometric
Midpoint
(microns)
29.6395
14.2239
9.3008
6.3121
4.0787
2.3601
1.3844
0.8498
0.0578
dM/dlog DP
(Rr/dscf)
1.839E-01
3.360E-02
6.526E-02
7.153E-02
4.669E-02
3.334E-02
2.204E-02
1.863E-02
2.348E-02
CONC
(Er/dscf)
0.0658
0.0036
, 0.0099
0.0087
0.0091
0.0083
0.0028
0.0018
0.0330
0.1431
* these values asume top end and bottom end dpSOs of 50 and .005 um.
-------
TABLE 2-38. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN NO.
i,
1
2
3
4
AVERAGE
MASS MEDIAN
PARTICLE SIZE
(urn)
2.3
11.0
9.6
11.1
8.5
WEIGHT PERCENTAGE
LESS THAN lOum
(%)
71
49
51
48
55
TOTAL PM
CONCENTRATION
(Rrains/dscf)
0.130
b,191
0.176
0.143
0.160
K)
-------
TABLE 2-39. PSD FLUE GAS AND SAMPLING PARAMETERS
MORRISTOWN MERMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
FLUE GAS AND SAMPLING PARAMETERS
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Standard Meteied Volume,Vm(std) (dscf)
Standard Metered Volume,Vm(std) (dscm)
Stack Moisture (%V)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN 1
20.0
410
0.200
4.00
0.121
0.149
104.5
RUN 2
15.0
410
0.198
2.96
0.090
0.147
103.0
RUN 3
15.0
410
0.192
2.89
0.087
0.139
101.8
RUN 4
15.0
410
0.194
2.91
0.088
0.140
102.9
AVERAGE
•NA
410
0.196
3.19
0.097
0.144
NA
-------
to
o
m
o.
a
c
to
t
a
a
o
i
CO
99.9
99.8
99.5
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
T r
0.1
o
PSD Run No. 1
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No. = 3; Condition - 1
Date =11/20/91
Correlation (R1) = .977060
i i i i
1
J I I I I I L_L
1 10
Particle Cut Size - Dp50 (um)
100
FIGURE 2-1. Run 1 PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
-------
g
o
IO
a
a
c
co
4—
CO
J
0)
•5
o
I
a.
N ?
i C
u< §
£
2
u.
CD
5
99.9
99.8
99.5
99
98
95
'r
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
i 1 1 1 — i — i — i — |— i 1 1 T 1 — i — i — i — r~| 1 1 1 1 — i i i r~
-
-
-
-
-
_
t
-
-
^ ""~0
: ^^-^^^^^ -
-
PSD Run No. 2
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No. = 4; Condition = 2
Date = 11/21/91
Correlation (R*) - .970936
-
-
It
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
0.1 1 10 10
Particle Cut Size - Dp50 (um)
FIGURE 2-2. Run 2 PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
-------
s*
£.
o
in
o.
Q
c
(0
*•*
M
J
§
3
O
t:
(0
Q.
"5
O
ts
a
£
(0
VZJ.ZJ
99.8
99.5
99
98
95
'
90
80
i
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
I I i i 1 1 — I — I — I T 1 1 i 1 1 — I — r~ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
^___J>- — ^
^-&-—^~<:r~~~~~C:r~~~^
<^
_
PSD Run No. 3
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No, = 5; Condition = 2
Date = 11/22/91
Correlation (R1) = .986695
-
-
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
0.1 1 10 1C
Particle Cut Size - Dp50 (urn)
FIGURE 2-3. Run 3 PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
-------
N)
£
o
in
Q.
O
a
£
W
0)
0)
_J
Q)
"5
CJ
a
CL
B
|
2
u_
g
a
99.9
99.8
99.5
99
98
95
do
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
' -
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
^^-—^^^^
_^^~^~~^^
xv^-^0^^^'^
PSD Run No. 4
Linear Regression Analysis
Test No. = 6; Condition = 2
Date = 11/23/91
Correlation (R1) = .965012
-
-
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
0.1 1 10 10
Particle Cut Size - DpSO (um)
FIGURE 2-4. Run 4 PSD Results - Log Particle Size vs Mass Fraction
Less Than Particle Size. Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
-------
Table 2-39 is a summary of the PSD flue gas and sampling parameters, including
the isokinetic sampling ratios. All of the sampling parameters are consistent throughout
the four runs, and the isokinetic ratios are all within ± 10 percent of 100 percent.
2.5 MERCURY EMISSIONS BY METHOD 101A
A Hg Method 101A sampling train was performed at the Morristown Memorial
Hospital to further validate the^Hg values from the toxic metal train. A comparison of
the Method 101A Hg values to the multi-metals Hg values is discussed in more detail in
Section 2.5.6.
2.5.1 Overview
A single sampling train was used to determine emission rates of Hg by
Method 101A. Three sampling runs were performed under both test conditions (without
carbon injection and with carbon injection) in order to ensure representative test results.
Sampling locations, method, and QA/QC are discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 6,
respectively. The results for each individual run are presented in Section 2.5.3.
Concentrations at dry standard conditions, adjusted to 7 percent O2, emission rates, and
removal efficiencies are reported. The sample and flue gas parameters are presented in
Section 2.5.4. The detected Hg weights separated by analytical filter digestion is
discussed in Section 2.5.5. A comparison of the Hg collected in Method 101A versus
the toxic metals trains is presented in Section 2.4.6.
2.5.2 Mercury Data Reduction
The values reported in the following Hg results were calculated using the same
guidelines that are outlined for the metals in Section 2.3.2.
2.5.3 Mercury Emissions
Table 2-40 presents a summary of the Hg total weights, standard concentrations,
concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2, and emission rate results for each test
condition.
For Condition 1, where carbon was not injected into the lime slurry, the Hg
emission rate at the spray dryer inlet ranged from 5.20 to 19.8 g/hr with an average of
9.28 g/hr. At the baghouse outlet the emission rate ranged from 3.56 to 20.2 g/hr with
an average of 10.4 g/hr.
JBS343
2-58
-------
TABLE 2-40. SUMMARY OF MERCURY 101A RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOPSITAL (1991)
Condition
Without
Carbon
Average
Run
1
2
3
t •'•':• f"\ •
. .- '.-' . '- :..•-?• .;, . , •"'•. Location ;: •;•... ' • • •:, . . : • - • •- .
Inlet
(total ugj
2630
1480
9760
4623
Outlet
(total ug)
;'" '.• •"• V .•:
3450
1640
9350
4813
Inlet
(ug/dscm)
902
492
3350
1581
Outlet
(ug/dscm)
943
449
2480
1291
Inlet
•:••/• ' • • '••'•
(ug/dscm
@ 7% O2)
1280
698
4520
2166
Outlet
(ug/dscm
@7%O2)
1930
918
4600
2483
Inlet
(g/hr)
5.20
2.88
19.8
9.28
Outlet
(g/fcr)
7.51
3.56
20.2
10.4
"•-.'•:. RE./J.
-44.5%
-23.5%
-2.10%
-12.2%
With
Carbon
Average 1
4
5
6
?;?.;:-.': '•••". ''
1500
4680
6470
4217
998
326
697
-.:> ••"*• 674
502
1630
2250
1461
264
83.7
177
175
664
2240
3070
1991
516
159
332
336
3.10
9.48
13.2
8.60
2.13
0.719
1.48
1.44
31.3%
92.4%
88.8%
83.2%
vo
-------
For Condition 2, where carbon was injected into the lime slurry, the Hg emission
rate at the spray dryer inlet ranged from 3.10 to 13.2 g/hr with an average of 8.6 g/hr.
At the baghouse outlet, the mass emission rate ranged from 0.72 to 2.13 g/hr with an
average of 1.44 g/hr.
The removal efficiencies during the emission tests without carbon injection display
a slight Hg gain across the emission controls. A recent study on the precision of Method
101A when measuring exhaust gases from a municipal waste combustor (EPA 450/4-92-
013) reported an average relative standard deviation (RSD) of the method of 15.6%
when used without carbon injection. Assuming that the same RSD applies to Runs 1, 2,
and 3 of this test program, all pairs of O2-corrected Hg concentrations at the inlet and
outlet agree within 2.6 standard deviations. The apparent gain in Hg concentrations over
the control device in Runs 1-3 may therefore be due primarily to inherent variability in
the sampling method.
The removal efficiencies during the emission tests with carbon injection present
an average removal efficiency of 83.2 percent. Therefore, from the Method 101A Hg
results, it is apparent that carbon injection into the spray dryer positively affects the
removal of Hg in the flue gas.
2.5.4 Mercury Sample Parameters
Sampling and flue gas parameters for the Method 101A sampling trains at the
inlet are shown in Table 2-41, and Table 2-42 presents the parameters for the runs
performed at the outlet. Total sampling times, sample volume, and isokinetic results for
each sampling run are presented. All of the runs were within the ± 10 percent
isokinetic range. Appendix C contains a complete listing of these and additional
sampling and flue gas parameters for each run.
2.5.5 Mercury Amounts by Sample Fraction
Table 2-43 presents the detected weights of Hg specific to both sample fractions
and reports the amount of total weight detected by the first and second filter digestions.
The first digestion-is performed on the first analytical filter with 8N HC1, and the second
digestion is performed on the second analytical filter with aqua regia (3/4 HC1 and
1/4 HNO3). Further details of this process are discussed in Section 5.
JBS343 2-60
-------
The first digestion of the front half of the sample train does detect significant
additional amounts of Hg at the inlet runs. None of the second filtrations add
significantly to the total Hg .detected, especially in the back half of the sample.
2.5.6 Mercury Emissions Comparison
Table 2-44 presents the comparison of Hg emission rates and removal efficiencies
for Method 101A to multi-metal trains. During the emission tests without carbon
injection, the results from the Method 101A and multi-metals do not agree, more
predominantly at the inlet. The fractional results of the multi-metals sample analysis
shown in Table 2-25 show that most of the Hg was captured in the first three nitric acid
impingers, before the gas reached the KMnO4 solution. This allows the possibility that
some forms of Hg may be captured more efficiently in the HNO3 than in the KMnO4,
and that the Method 101A train allows some Hg to break through. The municipal waste
incinerator cited previously (EPA 450/4-92-013) also showed higher concentrations of Hg
measured with the multi-metals train that with the Method 101A train. Differences in
the forms of Hg present at the inlet and outlet locations could account for the difference
in relative method performance at these two locations, however, speciation of Hg
compounds is beyond the scope of this study.
Valuable data might be gathered in future tests by adding HNO3 impingers to the
back end of a Method 101 train, and analyzing impingers individually to further
characterize Hg capture through the train fractions.
For Condition 1 at the spray dryer inlet, the average removal efficiency
determined by the Method 101A train was -12.2 percent; in comparison, the multi-metals
average removal efficiency was 29.7 percent.
For the emission tests with carbon injection, the results from Runs 5 and 6 display
similar emission rates for both methods. The average removal efficiency determined
from the Method 101A trains was 83.2 percent, and the average removal efficiency
determined from the multi-metals trains was 90.0 percent; therefore, portraying more
consistent results than the first three runs.
JBS343
-------
TABLE 2-41. MERCURY 101A SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT THE SPRAY DRYER INLET;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Run No.
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 1
11/18/91
240
0.43
103
2.9
409
11.1
6.4
15.6
3393
96.1
101.2
Run 2
11/19/91
240
0.44
106
3.0
410
11.1
7.8
15.3
3447
97.6
102.7
Run 3
11/20/91
240
0.43
103
2.9
410
10.6
6.7
14.1
3473
98.4
94.2
Run 4
11/21/91
240
0.44
106
3.0
412
10.4
6.6
13.6
3639
103.0
96.7
Run 5
11/22/91
240
0.42
102
2.9
410
10.8
6.5
13.9
3422
96.9
99.0
Run 6
11/23/91
240
0.42
101
2.9
407
10.7
6.5
14.2
3459
98.0
97.8
Average
NA
0.43
103
2.<9
410'
10.8
6.8
14.4
3472
98.3
NA
K)
ON
N)
NA = Not Applicable
Note: The accuracy of all calculated results is limited to three significant digits. Summary tables
generated by spreadsheet programs report additional digits that are not significant.
-------
TABLE 2-42. MERCURY 101A SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT THE BAGHOUSE OUTLET;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Run No.
Date
Total Sampling Time (min)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Staqk Temperature (F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Run 1
11/18/91
240
0.54
129
3.7
285
14.1
5.0
14.3
4687
132.7
97.6
Run 2
11/19/91
240
0.54
129
3.7
285
14.1
5.0
14.4
4664
132.1
98.9
Run 3
11/20/91
240
0.56
133
3.8
285
13.4
5.3
14.4
4790
135.6
99.6
Run 4
11/21/91
239
0.56
134
3.8
289
13.8
5.2
14.6
4758
134.7
100.9
Run 5
11/22/91
240
0.57
138
3.9
270
13.6
5.0
13.4
5051
143.0
97.4
Run 6
11/23/91
240
0.58
139
3.9
287
13.5
5.3
13.7
4932
139.7
101.0
Average
NA
0.56
134
3.8
284
13.8
5.1
14.1
4814
136.3
NA
NA = Not Applicable
Note: The accuracy of all calculated results is limited to three significant digits. Summary tables
generated by spreadsheet programs report additional digits that are not significant.
-------
TABLE 2-43. COMPARISON OF MERCURY 101A DATA TO DIGESTED LAB FILTERS;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Run
Inlet 1
Inlet 2
Inlet 3
Cond. 1 Avg.
Front Half
Total ug
without
Lab Filters
134
48.2
976
386
Total ug
with
1st
Lab Filter
147
51.3
1030
410
%
Diff.
9.09%
6.01 %
5.24%
6.78%
Total ug
with
2nd
Lab Filter
150
52.0
1060
421
%
Diff.
1.73%
1.35%
2.83%
1.97%
Back Half
Total ug
without
Lab Filters
2480
1430
8690
4200
Total ug
with
1st
Lab Filter
2480
1430
8690
4200
%
Diff.
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total ug
with
2nd
Lab' Filter
2480
1430
8700
4200
%
Diff.
0.0%
0.0%
0.115%
0.0383%
Inlet 4
Inlet 5
Inlet 6
Cond. 2 Avg.
219
1640
132
664
231
1690
143
688
5.07%
2.96%
7.82%
5.28%
233
1700
144
693
1.17%
0.588%
0.865%
0.874%
1270
2980
6320
3523
1270
2980
6320
3520
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1270
2980
6320
3520
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Outlet 1
Outlet 2
Outlet 3
Cond. 1 Avg.
0.378
0.293
2.88
1.18
1.50
0.701
3.99
2.06
74.8%
58.2%
27.8%
53.6%
1.66
0.701
3.99
2.12
9.60%
0.0%
0.0%
3.20%
3450
1640
9340
4810
3450
1640
9340
4810
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3450
1640
9340
4810
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Outlet 4
Outlet 5
Outlet 6
Cond. 2 Avg.
0.378
[0.206]
[0.206]
0.378
0.566
[0.835]
0.320
0.443
33.2%
0%
>36%
23.1%
0.566
0.159
0.320
0.348
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
33.33%
993
326
696
672
998
326
697
673
0.452%
0.0%
0.0754%
0.176%
998
326
697
673
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Ov
[ ] = Not detected at the limit shown
a The greater weight is used as a reference point for the calculation of % Difference.
-------
TABLE 2-44. COMPARISON FOR MERCURY EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
METHOD 101A VERSUS TOXIC METALS;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
NJ
Condition
Without Carbon
Run
1
2
3
Average
Method 101A
Inlet
(g/hr)
5.20
2.88
19.8
9.28
Outlet
(g/hr)
7.51
3.56
20.2
10.4
RE
-44.5%
-23.5%
-2.10%
-12.2%
Toxic Metal Trains ,
Inlet
(g/hr)
9.51
2.7
23.4
11.9
Outlet
(g/hr)
4.67
2.76
17.6
8.35
RE
50.9%
-1.1%
24.6%
29.7%
With Carbon
4
5
6
Average
3.10
9.48
13.2
8.60
2.13
0.719
1.48
1.44
31.3%
92.4%
88.8%
83.2%
11.4
10.6
14.9
12.3
1.84
0.436
1.40
1.23
83.8%
95.9%
90.6%
90.0%
-------
2.6 HALOGEN GAS EMISSIONS
Hydrogen chloride (HC1), HF, and HBr gas concentrations were manually
sampled at the spray dryer_inlet and the baghouse outlet, following EPA Method 26
procedures. In this method, flue gas is extracted from the sample location and passed
through acidified water. The halogen gases solubilize and form halide ions. Ion
chromatography was used to detect the chloride (Cl"), bromide (Br"), and fluoride (F)
ions present in the sample. Three 1-hour samples were collected during each of the 6
test runs. The results are reported as a concentration (ppmv) and an emission rate
(Ib/hr) at dry standard conditions. Since a flow rate is not calculated using EPA
Method 26, the corresponding flue gas flow rates determined from the CDD/CDF
sampling trains were used in the calculation of emission rates.
The results for all 3 halogens from Runs 1 and 2 at the inlet and Runs IB and 1C
at the baghouse outlet were rejected and not reported. A comparison of the Method 26
and the HC1 CEM data shows that these results are obvious outliers at a 90 percent
confidence level.
2.6.1 Hydrogen Chloride Emissions Results
Table 2-45 presents a summary of HC1 spray dryer inlet and baghouse outlet
concentrations and emission rates determined by manual sampling and provides the HC1
removal efficiencies for the emission control system. The removal efficiencies for the six
runs conducted on the first two days could not be calculated because the spray dryer
inlet results were outside acceptable control limits.
For Condition 1, where carbon was not added to the lime slurry, the HC1
concentration at the spray dryer inlet ranged from 398.6 to 952.7 ppmvd at 7 percent O2,
with an average of 723.7 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The HC1 mass rate entering the spray
dryer ranged from 5.9 to 14.1 Ib/hr with an average of 10.8 Ib/hr. At the baghouse
outlet, the HC1 concentration ranged from 3.9 to 8.5 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an
average of 6.0 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The HC1 emission rate at the baghouse outlet
ranged from 0.06 fo'O.lZlbytii with an average of 0,08 Ib/hr.
JBS343 2-66
-------
TABLE 2-45. SUMMARY OF HYDROGEN CHLORIDE RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
• RUN
NO.
1A
IB
1C
AVERAGE
2A
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
AVERAGE
COND. 1 AVG.
4A
4B
4C
.AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
COND. 2 AVG.
SPRAYDRYER INLET
02
CONC.
(% VOL),
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.9
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.6
FLUE GAS
FLOW
(dscmm)
95.4
95.4
95.4
98.5
98.5
98.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
94.7
94.7
94.7
96.8
96.8
96.8
98.9
98.9
98.9
96.8
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV)
b
t
t
NA
t
b
t
NA
607
295
706
536
536
892
866
1015
924
656
571
836
688
724
493
1043
753
788
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV
@7% O2)
b
b
b
NA
b
b
b
NA
820
399
953
724
724
1181
1146
1343
1224
902
786
1151
946
986
672
1421
1026
1065
EMISSION
RATE
(Ib/hr)
t
t
t
NA
t
t
t
NA
12.2
5.92
14.2
10.8
10.8
16.9
16.4
19.3
17.5
12.7
11.1
16.2
13.3
14.4
9.79
•20.7
14.9
15.3
BAGHOUSE OUTLET
O2
CONC.
(% VOL)
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.9
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.6
FLUE GAS
FLOW
(dscmm)
135.0
135.0
135.0
140.7
140.7
140.7
140.4
140.4
140.4
138.7
137.1
137.1
137.1
143.2
143.2
143.2
141.0
141.0
141.0
140.4
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV)
3.70
b
b
3.70
4.17
2.63
3.32
3.37
2.12
2.39
2.79
2.43
3.02
3.24
29.2
7.64
13.4
[0.026
[0.026
[0'025
[0.026
[0.023
[0.023
[0.026
[0.024
13.4
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV
@7% O2)
7.56
b
b
7.56
8.52
5.38
6.79
6.90
3.93
4.42
5.17
4.51
5.97
6.34
57.1
15.0
26.1
[0.049
[0.050
[0.047
[0.049
[0.044
[0.043
[0.049
(0.045
26.1
EMISSION
RATE
(Ib/hr)
0.100
b
b
0.100
0.118
0.074
0.094
0.095
0.060
0.067
0.078
0.068
0.084
0.089
0.803
0.210
0.367
[0.0007
[00008
[0.0007
[0.0007
[0.0007
[0.0007
(0.0007
(0.0007
0.367
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
(%)
NA
NA
NA
' NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
99.5
98.9
99.4
99.3
99.3
99 5
95.1
98.9
97.8
>99.99
>99.99
> 99.99
>99.99
>99.9?
> 99.99
> 99.99
>99.99
99.27
a The flow rales determined by ihe CDD/CDF sampling (rains were used for HCI emission rale calculations.
b The results are not reported because the data are not within acceptable control limits.
c [) = Not delected at Ihe limit shown.
d Detection limits are not considered when calculating averages.
-------
For Condition 2 where carbon was added to the lime slurry, the HC1
concentration at the spray dryer inlet ranged from 672.1 to 1420.9 ppmvd at 7 percent
O2, with an average of 1065.4 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The mass emission rate entering
the spray dryer ranged from 9.8 to 20.7 Ib/hr with an average of 15.3 Ib/hr. The HC1
concentration leaving the baghouse ranged from less than 0.04 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to
57.1 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of 26.1 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The mass
emission rate at the baghouse outlet ranged from less than 0.0007 Ib/hr to 0.8 Ib/hr with
an average of 0.37 Ib/hr.
The mass flow rate of HC1 into the spray dryer was approximately 42% higher
during Condition 2 than Condition 1, but the difference was not great enough to
significantly effect the removal efficiencies. Based on the results from Runs 5 and 6,
carbon injection appears to improve HC1 removal in the flue gas; however, the results
from Run 4 are similar to the results obtained without carbon injection. Therefore, it
cannot be concluded with confidence that carbon injection improves removal of HC1 in
the emission control system.
In addition to Method 26, the flue gas was analyzed for HC1 using a CEM
monitor as discussed in Section 5. Table 2-46 summarizes the CEM HC1 results,
including HC1 removal efficiencies based on ppmvd corrected to 7 percent O2. The HC1
data is corrected to a dry basis using an average moisture percentage taken from the
other manual trains. The values reported are averages of the CEM data that correspond
to the exact time in which the Method 26 trains were run.
For the runs without carbon injection, the HC1 concentration at the spray dryer
inlet ranged from 798.3 to 1087.9 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of 913.0 ppmvd
at 7 percent O2. At the baghouse outlet, the HC1 concentration ranged from 8.37 to
20.19 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of 15.6 ppmvd at 7 percent O2.
For the runs with carbon injection, the HC1 concentration at the spray dryer inlet
ranged from 961.9 to 1090.1 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of 1013.7 ppmvd at
7 percent O2. At the baghouse outlet, the concentration ranged from 10.6 to 30.7 ppmvd
at 7 percent O2 with an average for the 3 runs of 18.6 ppmvd at 7 percent O2.
JBS343 2-68
-------
TABLE 2-46. SUMMARY OF HCI CEM RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN NO.
1
2
3
COND. 1 AVG.
4
5
6
COND. 2 AVG.
SPRAYDRYER INLET
O2
, (%V)
a
11.1
11.2
10.7
11.0
10.4
10.7
10.6
10.6
H20
(%V)
15.9
15.5
14.9
15.4
14.7
13.9
14.0
14.2
HCI
(ppmV)
643
471
535
550
703
606
629
646
HCI
(ppmVd)
b
764
557
629
650
824
704
731
753
HCI
(ppmVd
@7% 02)
1088
798
853
913
1090
962
989
1014
BAGHOUSE OUTLET
O2
(%V)
14.2
14.2
13.6
14.0
14.2
13.8
13.9
14.0
H20
(%V)
14.6
13.8
14.7
14.4
14.8
13.4
13.0
13.7
HCI
(ppmV)
7.57
8.36
3.77
6.56
12.5
6.44
4.67
7.91
HCI
(ppmVd)
8.87
9.69
4.42
7.66
14.7
7.44
5.36
9.17
HQ
(ppmVd
@7% 02)
18.3
20.3
8.37
15.6
30.6
14.5
10.6
18.6
c
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
(%)
98.3%
97.5%
99.0%
98.3%
97.2%
98.5%
98.9%
98.2%
a The O2 results are averaged from CEM values corresponding to the three daily HCI runs.
b The HCI data is corrected to a dry basis using an average moisture percentage from the manual trains.
c Removal Efficiency is based on HCI values corrected to 7% O2.
-------
During Condition 1, the HC1 removal efficiency ranged from 97.5 to 99.0 percent
and averaged 98.3 percent for the 3 runs. During Condition 2, the HC1 removal
efficiency ranged from 97.5 to 98.9 percent and averaged 98.3 percent. At the spray
dryer inlet, an average increase of 11.0 percent in the HC1 concentration occurs from
Condition 1 to Condition 2; whereas, at the baghouse outlet, an average increase of
18.9 percent in the HC1 concentration occurs from Condition 1 to Condition 2. An
increase of HC1 at the spray dryer inlet is reflected as a similar increase at the baghouse
outlet. From this data, one could conclude that the injection of carbon does not increase
the removal of HC1 in the emission control system.
Table 2-47 presents a comparison of the manual and CEM HC1 concentrations
(ppmvd at 7 percent O2). The CEM values are data averages that correspond to the
exact time periods during which the manual sampling was conducted. At the spray dryer
inlet, the percent difference between the manual results and the CEM results ranged
from -15.5 to 107.1, with an average difference of -1.7 percent. At the baghouse outlet,
the percent difference ranged from -77.3 to 302.0 with an average difference of
42.3 percent.
Figure 2-5 presents a graphical representation of the manual and CEM HC1
concentrations at the spray dryer inlet. This table illustrates the common trend between
the results of both methods. Figure 2-6 presents a graphical representation of the
manual and CEM HC1 concentrations at the baghouse outlet. Here the common trend
between the two methods is discernable, but is not as obvious at the baghouse outlet as
it is at the spray dryer inlet. Actual correlation between methods on individual runs is
weak for both locations.
2.6.2 Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Results
Table 2-48 presents a summary of HF inlet and outlet concentrations and
emission rates determined by manual sampling, as well as providing emission control
removal efficiencies. The removal efficiencies could not be calculated for the first six
runs for reasons discussed previously.
For Condition 1, the HF concentrations at the spray dryer inlet ranged from less
than 0.7 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to 1.3 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of
1.3 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The HF emission rate entering the spray dryer ranged from
JBS343 2-70
-------
TABLE 2-47. COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND GEM HCI RESULTS;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
TFUSf
HUN
*NtJMB#fc
1A
IB
1C
..A^TEIIAQE
2A
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
AVERAGE
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
5C
AVESM*£
6A
6B
6C
AVBRAO^
TOTAL AVERAGE
s^ftAYtmYER INUBT
MANUAL
(ppmVd
m%>(m
t
t
b
KA
t
t
b
HA
820
399
953
724
1181
1146
1343
1224
902
786
1151
94$
986
672
1421
1026
980
CfcW
(ppmYd
W60i)
a
734
1060
1470
1088
781
767
847
7$8
779
825
954
853
998
1064
1208
WW
794
832
1260
9VZ
888
1056
1023
SS$:
%3
% mwe.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-4.9%
107%
0. 1 %
17.9%
-15.5%
-7.1%
-10.1%
~3UW%
-12.0%
5.8%
9.4%
\#&
-10.0%
57.2%
-28.0%
~M%'
" -O%
3JAOHOUSE ^QOt^lKT
MANUAt
(ppnaVd
W% 01)
7.56
b
b
7,56
8.52
5.38
6.79
&M
3.93
4.42
5.17
4.5J
6.34
57.1
15.0
2&i
[0.049]
[0.050]
[0.047]
mwa>\
[0.044]
[0.043]
(0.049J
C0.645I
ilo
CEM
{ppraVd
W% 02)
1.72
23.8
29.5
1O:
13.1
20.2
27.3
2O
7.71
7.03
10.4
8.57
6.26
59.8
25.9
?P,<5
6.19
8.11
29.1
1'4#
5.48
24.1
2.31
1&J5
17J
%BIFF.
+- — :
-77.3%
NA
NA
143^;
54.0%
275%
302%
193% ;
96.3%
59.0%
101%
85 J%
-1.31%
4.59%
73.4%
tf+1%
NA
NA
NA
NA;
NA
NA
NA
KA;
M3%\
a The CEM HCI data is corrected lo a dry basis using an average moisture percentage
from the manual trains.
b The results are not reported because the data is not within acceptable control limits.
c (1 = Not detected at the limit shown.
-------
1600
P
P
m
V
d
O
2
TESTING METHOD
-— MANUAL —h- CEM
3A
4B 4C 5A 5B
RUN NUMBER
5C 6A 6B 6C
Figure 2-5. HCI Results Comparison - Spray Dryer Inlet
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
-------
p
p
m
V
d
O
2
TESTING METHOD
MANUAL -t- CEM
2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C
RUN NUMBER
Figure 2-6. HCI Results Comparison - Baghouse Outlet
Morristowi Memorial Hosptial (1991)
-------
TABLE 2-48. SUMMARY OF HYDROGEN FLUORIDE REMOVAL RESULTS
MORRJSTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN
NO.
1A
IB
1C
AVERAGE
2A
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
AVERAGE
COND. 1 AVG.
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
AVERAGE
6A
6B
6C
AVERAGE
COND. 2 AVG.
SPRAYDRYER INLET
O2
CONC.
(% VOL)
11. 1
11.1
11.1
li.l
li.i
11.1
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.9
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.6
FLUE GAS
FLOW
t'dscmm)
95.4
95.4
95.4
98.5
98.5
98.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
94.7
94.7
94.7
96.8
96.8
96.8
98.9
98.9
98.9
96.8
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV)
t
t
t
NA
b
t
t
NA
(0.994
[0.721
(0.540
0.994
0.994
11.1
3.87
5.40
6.79
3.44
4.03
5.84
4.43
[0.238
1.82
2.67
2.24
4.77
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV
@7% O2)
b
h
t
NA
b
b
b
NA
(1.342
[0.972
[0.729
1.34
1.34
14.7
5.13
7.15
8.98
4.73
5.55
8.03
6.10
(0.324
2.48
3.64
3.06
6.42
EMISSION
RATE
(Ib/hr)
b
t
b
NA
b
b
b
NA
(o.oir
[0.008
[0.006
0.011
0.011
0.115
0.040
0.056
0.071
0.037
0.043
0.062
0.047
[0.003
0.020
0.029
0.024
0.050
BAGHOUSE OUTLET
O2
CONC
(% VOL)
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.9
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.6
FLUE GAS
FLOW
(dscmra)
135.0
135.0
135.0
140.7
140.7
140.7
140.4
140.4
140.4
138.7
137.1
137.1
137.1
143.2
143.2
143.2
141.0
141.0
141.0
140.4
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV)
(1.56
t
t
1.565
[0.308
[0.270
[0.254
[0.277
[0.246
(0.332
(0.225
[0.268
1.565
[0.284
[0.164
[0.178
[0.209
(0.168
[0.173
[0.163
[0.168
[0.154
[0.152
[0.170
(0.159
[0.178
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV
@7% O2)
(3.20
b
b
3.198
[0.629
[0.552
(0.520
(0.567
[0.457
[0.615
[0.417
[0.496
3.198
[0.556
(0.321
[0.349
[0.409
[0.320
(0.329
[0.310
[0.320
[0.288
[0.285
[0.320
[0.298
[0.342
EMISSION
RATE
Ob/hr)
(0.0232
b
b
0.023
[0.0048
[0.0042
[0.0039
(0.0043
(0.0038
[0.0051
(0.0035
[0.0041
0.023
[0.0043
[0.0025
[0.0027
[0.0032
[0.0027
[0.0027
(0.0026
[0.0027
[0.0024
[0.0024
[0.0026
[0.0025
[0.0028
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
r%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
65.2
c
c
65.2
65.2
96.3
93.9
95.2
95.1
92.8
93.7
95.9
94.1
c
88.1
90.9
89.5
93.3
a The flow rates determined by the CDD/CDF sampling trains were used for HCI emission rate calculations.
b The results are not reported because the data does not fall within acceptable control limits.
c The removal efficiency is not calculated because both inlet and outlet results are non-delects.
d [] = Not detected at the limit shown; () = Less than five times the detection limit.
e Detection limits are not considered when calculating averages.
-------
less than 0.006 Ib/hr to 0.01 Ib/hr with and average of 0.01 Ib/hr. The HF
concentrations exiting the baghouse ranged from less than 0.4 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to
3.2 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of 2.2 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The HF
emission rate at the baghouse outlet ranged from less than 0.004 Ib/hr to 0.02 Ib/hr with
an average of 0.016 Ib/hr.
For Condition 2, the HF concentration at the spray dryer inlet ranged from less
than 0.3 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to 14.7 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of
6.4 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The emission rate of HF entering the spray dryer ranged
from less than 0.003 Ib/hr to 0.1 Ib/hr with an average of 0.05 Ib/hr. The HF
concentration at the baghouse outlet ranged from less than 0.3 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to
less than 0.6 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of less than 0.34 ppmvd at 7 percent
O2. At the baghouse outlet, the HF emission rate ranged from less than 0.002 Ib/hr to
less than 0.004 Ib/hr with an average of less than 0.003 Ib/hr.
A comparison of the emission rates for both conditions at the spray dryer inlet
cannot be made because only one detectable value at the inlet is reported. The
baghouse outlet emission rates for both conditions are consistent. During Condition 1,
HF was not detected in any of the 9 samples. The removal efficiency of the only
reported run during Condition 2 ranged from 88.1 to 96.3 percent. With only one valid
removal efficiency for Condition 1, it cannot be concluded with confidence that the
injection of carbon into the lime slurry improves the HF removal efficiency of the
emission control system.
2.6.3 Hydrogen Bromide Results
Table 2-49 summarizes the HBr spray dryer inlet and baghouse outlet
concentrations and emission rates, as well as the removal efficiencies for the emission
control system. The removal efficiencies could not be calculated for the first six runs for
reasons discussed previously.
For Condition 1, the HBr concentration at the spray dryer inlet ranged from 8.4
to 14.4 ppmvd at 7 percent-C^ with an average of 11.0 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The HBr
emission rate at the spray dryer inlet ranged from 0.28 to 0.47 Ib/hr with an average of
0.36 Ib/hr. At the baghouse outlet, the HBr concentration ranged from less than
0.042 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to 2.01 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of
2-75
-------
TABLE 2-49. SUMMARY OF HYDROGEN BROMIDE RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
RUN
NO.
1A
IB
1C
AVERAGE
2A.
2B
2C
AVERAGE
3A
3B
3C
AVERAGE
COND.l AVG.
4A
4B
4C
AVERAGE
5A
5B
5C
AVERAGE
6A
6B
60
AVERAGE
COND. 2 AVG.
SPRAYDRYER INLET
02
CONC.
(% VOL)
11.1
11.1
11.1
h.i
li.i
11.1
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.9
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.6
FLUE GAS
FLOW
(dscmm)
95.4
95.4
95.4
98.5
98.5
98.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
94.7
94.7
94.7
96.8
96.8
96.8
98.9
98.9
98.9
96.8
GAS
CONC.
fppmV)
t
b
t
NA
t
t
b
NA
10.7
7.54
6.19
8.13
8.13
5.80
9.64
2.73
6.06
9.34
7.32
2.15
6.27
(0.018
[0.020
2.70
2.70
5.67
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV
@7% O2)
b
b
b
NA
b
b
b
NA
14.4
10.2
8.36
11.0
11.0
7.68
12.8
3.61
8.02
12.8
10.1
2.96
8.63
(0.024
(0.027
3.68
3.68
7.66
EMISSION
RATE
(Ib/hr)
b
b
b
NA
b
b
b
NA
0.474
0.335
0.276
0.362
0.362
0.244
0.406
0.115
0.255
0.402
0.315
0.093
0.270
J0.0008
{0.0009
0.119
0.119
0.242
BAG HOUSE OUTLET
02
CONC
(% VOL)
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.9
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.6
FLUE GAS
FLOW
(dscmm)
135.0
135.0
135.0
140.7
140.7
140.7
140.4
140.4
140.4
138.7
137.1
137.1
137.1
143.2
143.2
143.2
141.0
141.0
141.0
140.4
GAS
CONC.
fppmV)
[0.034
I
t
[0.034
[0.023
[0.020
0.168
0.168
0.287
0.357
1.08
0.576
0.474
0.348
0.277
0.256
0.293
[0.013
(0.013
[0.012
[0.013
[0.012
[0.011
[0.013
[0.012
0.293
GAS
CONC.
(ppmV
@7% 02)
[0.070
b
t
[0.070
[0.048
[0.042
0.343
0.343
0.532
0.661
2.01
1.07
0.886
0.680
0.541
0.502
0.574
[0.024
[0.025
[0.023
[0.024
[0.022
(0.021
(0.024
[0.022
0.574
EMISSION
RATE
(Wbr)
[0.0021
t
t
(0.0021
[0.0015
[0.0013
0.011
0.011
0.018
0.022
0.068
0.036
0.030
0.021
0.017
0.016
0.018
[0.0008
[0.0008
(0.0008
[0.0008
[0.0007
[0.0007
[0.0008
[0.0007
0.018
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
f%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
96.2
93.4
75.5
88.3
88.3
91.3
95.8
86.4
91.2
>99.6
>99.1
>99.2
>99.t
c
c
>99.3
>99.?
95.9
to
a The flow rates determined by the CDD/CDF sampling trains were used for HCI emission rate calculations.
b The results are not reported because the data is not within acceptable control limits.
c The removal efficiency is not calculated because both inlet and outlet results are non-delectible.
d [] = Not detected at the limit shown; () = Less than five times the detection limit.
' e Detection limits are not considered when calculating averages.
-------
0.89 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The emission rate of HBr exiting the baghouse ranged from
less than 0.0013 Ib/hr to 0.068 Ib/hr with an average of 0.030 Ib/hr.
For Condition 2, the HBr concentration at the spray dryer inlet ranged from less
than 0.024 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to 12.8 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of
7.7 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The emission rate of HBr entering the spray dryer ranged
from less than 0.0008 Ib/hr to 0.41 Ib/hr with an average of 0.24 Ib/hr. At the baghouse
outlet, the concentration of HBr ranged from less than 0.021 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 to
0.68 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 with an average of 0.57 ppmvd at 7 percent O2. The mass
emission rate of HBr exiting the baghouse ranged from less than 0.0007 Ib/hr to
0.021 Ib/hr, averaging 0.018 Ib/hr.
At the spray dryer inlet, the results for Conditions 1 and 2 are similar enough not
to bias the removal efficiencies between the two conditions. In comparing the results at
the baghouse outlet from both conditions, the average HBr emission rates for each
condition showed little difference, 0.03 Ib/hr for Condition 1 and 0.018 Ib/hr for
Condition 2. Although the average removal efficiency during carbon injection was
7.6 percentage points higher than the removal efficiency without carbon injection, there
is not enough evidence to show that carbon injection actually improves the removal of
HBr through the emission control system.
2.7 CEM RESULTS
Continuous emissions monitoring was conducted at the spray dryer inlet and
baghouse outlet during all test runs. The CEMs were operated from the beginning to
the end of the test run. 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 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. The THC concentrations were monitored on a
wet basis, by allowing the sample stream to bypass the gas conditioners. All CEM data
were recorded as one minute averages over each sampling interval.
Two additional CEM analyzers were used during this program to monitor HC1
concentrations at the inlet and outlet. These systems used separate gas extractive
2-77
JBS343
-------
systems employing dilution probe techniques. The resulting concentrations were
measured on a ppm by volume, wet basis.
A leak was detected in the inlet sample line for the NOX, SO2, CO, CO2, THC,
and O2 analyzers at the end of the second test run. The O2 values for these two test
runs were assumed to be 3 percent lower than the outlet O2 values. This assumption was
based on the average difference between inlet and outlet O2 values for Runs 3 through 6.
The measured values for NO^ SO2, CO, CO2, and THC for Runs 1 and 2 were corrected
for the leakage using the assumed O2 averages.
The one minute CEM values were averaged over the sampling interval for each
test run. The averages summarized in Tables 2-50 and 2-51 present actual and
normalized values, respectively. Actual concentrations are presented as they were
measured (NOX, SO2, CO, CO2, and O2 on a dry basis; THC and HCl-wet and dry).
Each one minute CEM reading was corrected to 7 percent O2 based on the
corresponding O2 value. Averages of the corrected values were then calculated.
The SO2 concentrations decreased from the inlet to the outlet for both test
conditions. The average concentrations for Conditions 1 and 2 at the inlet were 10.5 and
17.8 ppmv (at 7 percent O2) on a dry basis. The outlet concentrations were 9.2 and
3.9 ppmv. The removal was 78 percent for Condition 2 with carbon injection compared
to 12.4 percent for Condition 1. The CO concentrations were very low for all runs,
showing good combustion efficiency. The measured concentrations were lower at the
inlet than at the outlet. Records of the responses of the inlet and outlet CO monitors to
QC gases show that the outlet monitor responded with a slightly lower value that the
inlet monitor. The actual difference in CO concentrations at these locations, therefore,
is probably not significant. CO concentrations were less than 3 ppmv at the outlet for all
runs. The CO analyzer used had a scale of 0 to 500 ppm and hence readings near the
zero scale might be biased toward the lower end. The CO2 concentrations (at 7% O2)
were not significantly different between inlet and outlet. The outlet analyzer was off line
for Runs 1 and 2." The averages for the 2 test conditions at the inlet and outlet were 9.7,
8.8, 9.9, and 9.9 percent, respectively. The NOX concentrations (at 7% O2) were almost
the same at the inlet and outlet. The HC1 concentrations decreased from the inlet to the
outlet and are discussed in more detail in Section 2.6.
JBS343 2-78
-------
Table 2-50
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Test Averages
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Date
Run
Number
°2
(%V, dry)
CO
(ppmv, dry)
CO2
(%V, dry)
SO2
(ppmv, dry)
NOK
(ppmv, dry)
H2O
(%)
THC
(ppmv, wet)
THC
(ppmv, dry)
HC1
(ppmv, wet)
HC1
(ppmv.dry)
Spray Dryer Inlet Data
11-18-91
11-19-91
11-20-91
1
2
3
Condition 1 Avg
11-21-91
11-22-91
11-23-91
4
5
6
Condition 2 Avg
,, 11.1
11.1
10.6
t 10.93
10.4
10.8
10.7
10.63
15.5
8.5
7.1
1037
6.4
8.7
4.7
6.6
6.4
7.8
6.7
6.97
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.53
5.9
9.5
7.1
7.5
17.8
16.0
6.0
13.27
60.3
57.0
65.2
60.83
63.5
61.3
58.6
6L13
15.9
15.5
14.9
15.4
14.7
13.9
14.0
14.2
3.9
2.5
1.2
253
2.8
2.5
0.5
1.93
4.6
3.0
1.4
3.0
3.3
2.9
0.6
23
663.1
498.1
52f9
562.0
673.0
586.0
593.1
617.4
788.5
589.5
616.8
6643
788.9
680.6
689.7
719.6
Baghouse Outlet Data
11-18-91
11-19-91
11-20-91
1
2
3
Condition 1 Avg
11-21-91
11-22-91
11-23-91
4
5
6
Condition 2 Avg
14.1
14.1
13.4
13.87
13.8
13.6
13.5
13.63
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.1
1.5
0.6
0.73
a
a
5.3
53
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.17
2.6
9.3
1.7
453
2.8
2.6
0.6
2.0
49.6
45.7
47.5
47.6
47.1
45.6
46.4
46.4
14.6
13.8
14.7
14.4
14.8
13.4
13.0
13.7
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.17
1.3
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
9.2
8.5
3.7
7.13
10.5
5.6
4.0
6.7
10.8
9.9
4.3
83
12.3
6.5
4.6
7.8
Instrument off line.
Note: Data for 11/18/91 and 11/19/91 were corrected for inleakage.
O2 was made to be 3 prcent lower than the outlet O2 (3 percent is the average difference in inlet and outlet O2 for 11/19 through 11/23/91). CO, CO2, SO2,
NOX, and THC were corrected for the new O2 level.
JBS343
-------
Table 2-51
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Test Averages
Normalized to 7 Percent Oxygen
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
•Concentration, ppmv, dry at 7% O2
Date
Run
Number
CO
CO2
S02
N0r
THC
HC1
Spray Dryer Inlet Data
11-18-91
11-19-91
11-20-91
1
2
3
Condition 1 Avg.
11-21-91
11-22-91
11-23-91
4
5
6
Condition 2 Avg
21.9
12.0
9.7
14.5
8.4
11.9
6.4
8.9
9.0
11.0
9.1
9.7
8.7
9.0
8.8
8.8
8.4
13.5
9.6
105
23.4
22.0
8.1
17.8
85.2
81.1
88.4
84.9
83.7
84.4
79.6
82.6
6.5
4.3
1.9
42
4.4
4.0
0.8
3.1
1118.4
836.1
832.4
926.2
1044.4
936.7
939.9
973.9
Baghouse Outlet Data
11-18-91
11-19-91
11-20-91
1
—
3
Condition 1 Avg
11-21-91
11-22-91
11-23-91
4
5
6
Condition 2 Avg
2.0
0.6
0.9
12
0.2
2.9
1.2
1.4
a
a
9.9
9.9
10.3
9.6
10.0
9.9
5.2
19.1
3.2
92
5.5
5.1
1.2
3.9
101.0
93.9
88.2
94.4
92.7
87.4
87.8
893
2.7
1.6
2.0
22
2.1
2.7
2.4
2.7
22.1
20.2
7.9
16.4
24.1
12.4
8.6
14.9
Instrument off line.
Note: Data for 11/18/91 and 11/19/91 were corrected for inleakage.
O2 was made to be 3 percent lower than the outlet O2 (3 percent is the average difference in inlet
and outlet O2 for 11/19 through 11/23/91). CO,CO2, SO2, NOX, and THC were corrected for the
new O2 level.
JBS343
2-80
-------
2.8 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 pipes.
2.8.1 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 Morristown Memorial, testing was conducted to determine microbial
survivability based on a surrogate indicator organism that was spiked into the incinerator
feed during test Runs 1, 2, and 3. The surrogate indicator organism was the soil spore
Bacillus stearothermophilus (B. 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 purpose of the first test method was to
determine microbial survivability in the combustion gases (emissions) and the bottom
ash, spray dryer residue, and baghouse ash. For these tests, a known quantity of
B. stearothermophilus in solution was absorbed onto materials commonly found in the
medical waste stream and introduced into the incinerator at regular intervals during each
run. Emissions testing was conducted at the incinerator exit upstream of the air
pollution control system following the EPA draft method "Microbial Survivability Test
for Medical Waste Incinerator Emissions." This testing was performed concurrently with
other emissions testing (PM/Metals, CDD/CDF, halogens, and CEMs) during the burn
periods. Ash samples were taken following each test run after the ash was cool enough
to handle. The ash was sampled and analyzed as described in the EPA Draft Method
"Microbial Survivability Test for Medical Waste Incinerator Ash."
The second Microbial Survivability test method utilized freeze dried spores
encapsulated in metal pipes which were insulated with high temperature ceramic
insulation and wrapped in wife mesh. This test was used to aid in the assessment of
microbial survivability in the ash. Each pipe sample also contained five temperature
indicating pellets. The pellets were selected to melt at specific temperatures between
9 81
JRS343 ^"01
-------
400°F and 1200°F. They were used to record the maximum sample temperature reached
in the incinerator.
Complete details of the microbial spiking, recovery and analysis procedures are
given in Section 5.3.
Three test runs were performed at the rated incinerator operating conditions over
a period of three days. At the start of each four-hour test run, liquid spores were poured
into a plastic garbage bag containing absorbent materials and two dry spore pipe
samples. The bag was then charged into the incinerator with the normal waste stream.
This procedure was repeated each hour during the test, until a total of four bags of wet
spores and eight dry spore pipe samples had been charged into the incinerator. A final
dry spore pipe sample was charged into the incinerator at the end of the fourth testing
hour, bringing the total number of pipe samples per test to nine.
Table 2-52 summarizes the spore spiking times, the total weight fed to the
incinerator, and the total ash weights generated during each test run.
2.8.2 Overall Microbial Survivability
By comparing the number of spores spiked to the incinerator with the number of
viable spores exiting in both the stack gas and incinerator ash, an overall microbial
survivability value can be determined as follows:
S, + A,
MS = (-?- - ^) x 100
MS = spore microbial survivability (wet)
Se = Number of viable spores detected exiting the stack
Ag = 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
JBS343 2-82
-------
Table 2-52
Summary of Incinerator Feed and Ash Generation
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Test
Day
1
2
3
Date
•>
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
Run
Number
1
2
3
Time
1408
1506
1601
1703
1803
1552
1700
1756
1851
1958
1234
1331
1431
1648
2155
Wet
Spore3
Samples
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
Dry (Pipe)
Spore8
Samples
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
Total Waste
Feed (Ibs)
Total Ash Weight (Ibs)
Bottom
325
256
404
Spray
Dryer
17
15
98
Baghouse
!
185
122
215C
Each wet spore sample contained approximately 3.5 x lOhll spores in 500 ml of solution.
Each dry spore contained approximately 1 x 10E7 freeze-dried spores.
c Filter cake was removed during run on 11/20/91. Total ash dropped was 859 Ibs in 1-5 hours. The 215 Ibs shown in the table does not included any of the ash from cake removal.
-------
the total weight of ash removed from the incinerator per day. The analytical results are
shown in Appendix E.3.
Table 2-53 presents..the overall survivability of the indicator spores. No viable
spores were found either in the stack gas samples or in the incinerator ash. Flue gas
microbial survivability are further discussed in the following sections.
2.8.3 Microbial Survivability in Emissions
Microbial Survivability in emissions tests were conducted to quantify the number
of viable spores exiting the stack during each test run. The formulas normally used for
calculating the number of viable spores existing in the stack, Se are shown in Appendix F,
and in the EPA draft method in Appendix K.
Approximately 1.5 liters 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, 9 aliquots were prepared for analysis: three 10 ml
aliquots, three 100 ml aliquots, and 3 equal aliquots of a remaining filterable amount of
sample. Both a first and second count on each aliquot were performed. The first count
was conducted after approximately 24 hours incubation, and the second after
approximately a 48 hour incubation period. Previous research has shown that the spore
count does not increase after the 48-hour count incubation period. No viable spores
were seen in any of the run samples after the 48-hour incubation period.
The Microbial Survivability sampling and flue gas parameters are shown in
Table 2-54.
2.8.4 Microbial Survivability in Ash
Incinerator bottom ash was removed from the incinerator after each run and
stored in a pre-cleaned, disinfected covered steel hopper. A composite ash sample was
prepared by first removing large pieces of metal and glass from the hopper, then mixing
the remaining ash and placing samples into clean, amber glass sample bottles. Spray
dryer ash and baghouse ash were similarly composited into bottles after each run. The
composite samples were then submitted to the laboratory for culturing, and enumeration
of B. stearothermophilus.
JBS343
2-84
-------
Table 2-53
Overall Microbial Survivability
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
• ••• ' :- ..... . '-,
Test Day
i ;'
2
3
Date
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
Run Number
1
2
3
Number of
Indicator
Spores Spiked
14 x 10E11
14 x 10E11
14 x 10E11
Number Indicator
Spores Exiting
the Stack
0
0
0
Number of
Indicator
Spores in Ash
0
0
0
Spore
Survivability
(%)
i 0
0
0
to
oo
Ui
-------
TABLE 2-54. SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS SAMPLING PARAMETERS
FOR INDICATOR SPORE EMISSIONS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
••—
Total Sample" Time (min)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Dry Standard Meter Volume (dscf)
Dry Standard Meter Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (F)
Oxygen Concentration (% V)
Carbon Dioxide Concentration ( % V)
Percent Moisture (% V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic (%)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
231
0.61
140
3.96
413
11.1
6.4
15.9
3512
99.5
96.6
240
0.58
140
3.96
411
11.1
7.8
15.5
3414
96.7
95.7
151
0.61
91.4
2.59
410
10.6
6.7
14.9
3617
102
93.8
207
0.60
123.8
3.50
411
10.9
7.0
15.4
3514
99.4
NA
NA : Not applicable
2-86
-------
No viable spores were found in any ash sample from the Morristown MWI tests.
Three ash aliquots of approximately one gram were prepared from each sample. Six
serial dilutions were prepared on each ash aliquot and triple plated. A summary of the
analytical data is shown in Appendix E.3.
2.8.5 Microbial Survivability in Pipes
Pipe samples were loaded into the incinerator during each test run. The pipes
were recovered the following morning during bottom ash sampling. Approximately half
of the samples charged into the incinerator were recovered. The rest were lost, probably
after becoming imbedded in the masses of molten glass which roll through the
incinerator. Pipe samples which were recovered were removed from their insulating
wrappings. The condition of the temperature indicating pellets was noted and the inner
containers were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The analysis results from the
recovered pipes are shown in Table 2-55.
-------
Table 2-55
Spore Pipe Sample Recovery and Analysis Results
Run
Number
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Date
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91 "-"
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
Sample
Number
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
"33
34
36
37
. 38
Charge
Time
1408
1408
1506
1506
1601
1601
1703
1703
1803
1552
1552
1700
1700
1756
1756
1851
1851
1958
1234
1234
1331
1331
1431
1431
1648
1648
Sample
Recovery
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yesc
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Maximum
Temp.
<1200
<1000
a
>1200
>1200
>1200
>1200
d
>1200
d
<1200
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
>1200
d
d
Spores
Cultured
0
0
0
0
0
0
..
.
0
..
0
..
_.
„„
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
«
—
0
—
0
-------
Table 2-55 (Continued)
Run
Number
3
1
3
—
~
Date
11/20/91
11/18/91
11/20/91
—
—
Sample
- Number
39
?1a
72a
81b
82b
Charge
Time
2155
1631
2120
—
—
Sample
Recovery
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maximum
Temp.
d
>1200
>1200
ambient
ambient
Spores
Cultured
«
1
0
TNTCe
TNTC
a Pipe samples 71 and 71 were empty sample blanks.
Pipe samples 81 and 82 were field blank control samples, which were not charged into the incinerator.
c One sample was recovered from Run 3 without the sample identification tag. It was arbitrarily identified as No. 31.
Temperature pellets not recovered.
TNTC = to numerous to count.
2-89
-------
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF PROCESS OPERATION
DURING TEST AT MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Madison Avenue Division of the Morristown Memorial Hospital (MMH) is a
657-bed hospital located in Morristown, New Jersey. Wastes generated at MMH,
including red bag and general waste, sharps, and a small amount of pathological waste,
are incinerated in an onsite incineration system; cafeteria waste, batteries, and cardboard
are segregated for separate disposal. The system, which began operation in September
1991, was custom designed and sized by ThermAll, Inc. The incinerator consists of a
rotary kiln, or primary combustion chamber (PCC), followed by a secondary combustion
chamber (SCC). After the SCC, most of the energy provided by the waste and fuel is
extracted in a waste heat recovery boiler (WHRB). The cooled exhaust gas is then
routed sequentially through spray dryer/fabric filter air pollution control equipment for
acid gases, particulate matter, and metals control; an induced-draft (ID) fan; and a 30-
meter (m) (100-foot [ft]) stack. Most operating parameters are automatically monitored,
recorded, and controlled by the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC).
The following sections in this chapter present a description of the incineration
system, summarize the pretest activities needed to ensure the success of the emissions
test program, and summarize the process operation during the test program. Process log
data forms from the test are included in Appendix B.
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION FOR MMH INCINERATION SYSTEM
The main components of the MMH incineration system are the waste charging
system, the rotary kiln, the SCC, the WHRB, the bottom ash removal system, and the air
pollution control equipment (APCE). The APCE consists of a spray dryer followed by a
fabric filter. Figure 3-1 is a schematic of the incinerator and WHRB. Figure 3-2 shows
the APCE. Each component is discussed in the following subsections.
The incineration system is located inside a 9.1-m (30-ft) high open area next to
the boiler room. A large portion of the floor area (approximately 1/3) is allocated for
staging the carts containing the waste. The base of the kiln is about 2.4 m (8 ft) above
the floor, and the SCC and WHRB are parallel to each other above the kiln. The spray
JBS343
-------
Exhaust Gas
to Spray Dryer
Waste Heat
Recovery Boiler
Burner
Fuel/Air
Secondary Combustion
Chamber
U)
to
Burner
Fuel/Air
Ram Charger
Rotary Kiln
(primary combustion
chamber)
Ash Gate
Thermocouple Location
•—Spray Water
•—-Ash Cart
Fiaure 3-1 Schematic of medical waste incinerator/waste heat recovery boiler system at
Morristown Memorial Hospital.
-------
Ul
u>
Stack
Exhaust
Gas from
WHRB
Holding Tank
Lime Slurry Tanks
Ash J I
Collection—
Boxes
Rotary Air Lock
Rotary Air Lock
Figure 3-2. Schematic of spray dryer/fabric filter air pollution control equipment at
Morriatown Memorial Hospital.
-------
dryer is situated about 1.8 m (6 ft) from the discharge end of the kiln, and the fabric
filter is a few feet away from the spray dryer and in line with it and the kiln. Two
hydrated lime slurry feed tanks for the spray dryer also are located in this room.
Exhaust gas from the fabric filter is routed through an ID fan and a stack that discharges
above the roof of the 8-story hospital building. The stack contains two side-by-side flues-
-one for the medical waste incinerator (MWI) and one for the boilers.
JBS343
3-4
-------
3.2.1 Incinerator
The incinerator is a rotary kiln followed by a SCC. The incinerator is designed
for a heat input rate of 10.5 x 106 kilojoules per hour (kJ/hr) (10 x 106 British thermal
units per hour [Btu/hr]). This heat input rate roughly corresponds to a capacity of
454 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (1,000 pounds per hour [lb/hr]) for waste with a higher
heating value of 23,200 kJ/kg (10,000 Btu/lb). The State Solid Waste Permit limits the
feed rate to 363 kg/hr (800 lb/hr). The State Air Permit limits the feed rate to
354 kg/hr (780 lb/hr). The PLC ensures that the State Air Permit limit is not exceeded,
as described in Section 3.2.4.
3.2.1.1 Rotary Kiln. The rotary kiln is 7.9 m (26 ft) long, 2.6 m (8.4 ft) in
diameter, and is refractory-lined. It also is oriented at a 1.5° angle from the horizontal,
and it rotates at about one revolution/minute. Under these conditions, ash is discharged
about 45 minutes (min) after waste is introduced to the kiln. The primary (kiln) burner,
which was designed for 4.2 x 106 kJ/hr (3.99 x 106 Btu/hr) and a 10:1 turndown ratio, is
located beside the ram charger at the waste feed end of the kiln. The burner typically
is fired with natural gas. (The burner does have the capability to fire with fuel oil.) The
burner modulates to maintain the primary chamber setpoint temperature. Burner
combustion air is controlled by a damper and enters through the burner. When the
burner is not firing, the air damper is about 10 percent open. Control of air damper
position and fuel feed rate are synchronized.
The kiln is designed to operate with 230-percent stoichiometric (theoretical) air
when feeding 354 kg/hr (780 lb/hr) of waste. The setpoint to stop waste feed is a
minimum of 8 percent oxygen (O2) in the kiln. Virtually all air for combustion of the
organics in the waste enters through the mechanical seal at the charge end. Draft in the
kiln is monitored by a pressure transducer and is maintained at the desired setpoint by
PLC control of the ID fan damper.
A water spray above the burner is activated when the exhaust gas from the kiln
exceeds a setpointtemperature, and it continues until the temperature falls below
another setpoint. During the test, these setpoint temperatures typically were 813°C
(1495T) and 807°C (1485°F), respectively. The design maximum flow rate is 8.7 liters
(L)/min (2.3 gallons [gal]/min).
JBS343
-------
3.2.1.2 Secondary Combustion Chamber. The SCC is cylindrical in shape
and has a volume of 18.8 cubic meters (m3) (660 cubic feet [ft3]) based on an internal
length of 7.9 m (26 ft) and a diameter of 1.7 m (5.7 ft). The burner, which has a
capacity of 6.3 x 106 kJ/kg (6 x 106 Btu/hr) and a 10:1 turndown ratio, is located at the
upstream end of the SCC and is fueled with natural gas. The burner modulates to
maintain the setpoint temperature. Combustion air is introduced through the burner.
The exhaust gas temperature is monitored by a thermocouple in the 3-m (10-ft)
transition duct between the end of the SCC and the WHRB. The design combustion gas
flow rate is 547 actual cubic meters per minute (acmrn) (19,320 actual cubic feet per
minute [acfm]), at a temperature of 1093°C (2000°F), which yields a residence time of 2
seconds (sec).
3.2.2 Bottom Ash Removal System
At the discharge end of the kiln is a "rear panel." Exhaust gases pass out through
the top of the panel to the SCC, and ash is discharged through an opening in the floor of
the rear panel into an ash cart. Just above the base of the rear panel is a horizontal ash
gate. To prevent air leakage and/or escape of combustion gases, the ash cart is lifted
into position and held against the base of the rear panel by two hydraulic cylinders.
Both the ash gate and the cart movement are controlled by local, manual controls. The
ash gate must be closed before the cart can be lowered. A series of water injection
nozzles are located between the ash gate and the base of the rear panel. The PLC
automatically controls water spray into the ash cart in proportion with the amount of
waste fed. A manual control is also available to spray water as long as the button is
depressed.
3.2.3 Waste Charging System
The incinerator is equipped with an automatic waste charging system that
minimizes operator handling of the waste and, in conjunction with the PLC, ensures that
the feed rate does not exceed 354 kg/hr (780 Ib/hr). The major components of the
waste charging system are the'scale, elevator, hopper/chute, conveyor belt, ram hopper,
and ram. Wastes are transported to the incinerator in identical, wheeled, plastic "skip"
carts that have a 0.76-m3 (1-yd3) capacity. After the carts are weighed, they are rolled
onto the elevator. When the elevator reaches the top of its travel, the waste is dumped
JBS343
3-6,
-------
into a hopper/chute. At the bottom of the discharge of the hopper/chute is a conveyor
belt that transports the waste to the ram hopper; when the ram hopper door opens, the
belt advances and waste is dropped into the ram hopper. The ram hopper door closes;
the waste feed gate on the kiln face opens; and the ram then pushes the waste into the
rotary kiln. The PLC controls the process once the operator presses the "up" button on
the elevator.
To ensure that the 354-kg/hr (780-lb/hr) limit is not exceeded, the PLC maintains
a rolling, "first-in, first-out" (FIFO) stack of 60 weights, which correspond with each
minute in the past hr. The sum of the 60 weights for the 60-min period represents the
weight charged during the previous hr. The PLC utilizes an interlock to prohibit
charging if the FIFO sum is greater than 354 kg (780 Ib). More detail on this control
system is presented in the following paragraphs.
Each minute the PLC records whatever weight, including zero, that it finds in a
special register. During the first four runs, the cart weight was transferred to this
register once the elevator started to lift the cart. However, as noted in Section 3.4,
problems with the hydraulic system during Runs 3 and 4 caused some carts to come back
down before the waste had been dumped. Consequently, some charges were recorded in
the FIFO stack before the cart had actually been dumped. Double counting was avoided
by reweighing an empty cart, then rolling the full one back onto the elevator. To remedy
this problem, the programming was changed after Run 4 so that the weight would be
placed in the register after the cart had dumped the waste and was on its way back
down. Both programming methods are acceptable because the entire elevator cycle
takes more than 60 sec. Therefore, a weight can not be displaced from the register by
another weight before it has been added to the FIFO stack.
The carts are weighed on a floor scale that has previously been tared with an
empty cart. The operator also manually records the weight on a log and indicates
whether it is red bag or brown bag waste. The operator then opens the gate to the
elevator and rolls the cart onto it. The opening only clears the top of the cart by a
couple of inches (in.). This feature is designed to limit charge sizes (volumes).
When a cart is rolled onto the elevator and the operator pushes the "up" button,
its weight plus that in the FIFO stack is checked to determine whether the total exceeds
JBS343
-------
780 Ibs. If it does, the elevator does not activate until enough time passes for enough
weight to fall out of the FIFO stack so the total weight is less than 354 kg (780 Ib). The
elevator then lifts the cart to the top of its travel and starts to dump the waste into the
hopper/chute.
The waste is dumped by tipping the cart in a series of steps. A photoelectric cell
at the top of the hopper determines whether the chute is full. If it is not, the cart is
tipped to the next step. When the chute is full, the cart is not tipped further until the
waste level in the chute falls below the photoelectric cell. After all of the waste has
been dumped (the cart has been tipped almost completely upside down), the elevator
brings the empty cart back to the floor.
The hopper/chute feeds a conveyor belt that transfers the waste a distance of
about 1.8 m (6 ft) to the ram hopper. Another photoelectric cell is located at the end of
the conveyor where it meets the ram hopper. When waste is present in front of the
photocell and the ram hopper door is open, the conveyor is indexed to run for a
predetermined time (2.5 sec) to control the amount of waste feed to the ram hopper.
This cycle of waste feed to the charge ram hopper continues until the photocell indicates
that no waste is on the feed belt. If the 354 kg/hr (780 Ib/hr) charge limit has not been
reached and the feed belt is empty, an alarm will sound, indicating a demand for waste.
The ram, the ram hopper cover door, and the guillotine door on the kiln are
actuated by hydraulic cylinders. The ram feeder cycle is 90 sec. Typically, the ram is
activated remotely (by the PLC) but local, manual control is used when the sequence
does not proceed properly (e.g., when waste blocks the ram hopper door, preventing it
from closing properly). Interlocks prevent the ram from operating if, among other
things, the kiln rotation stops, the SCC temperature falls below 840°C (1550°F), the spray
dryer outlet temperature exceeds 149°C (300°F), the stack carbon monoxide (CO)
concentration corrected to 7 percent O2 exceeds 50 ppm for 1 min, or the kiln
temperature either falls below 677°C (1250°F) or exceeds 832°C (1530°F). The feed
cycle will continue^ to operate-automatically-one ram charge after another-until the PLC
halts charging as a result of any of the interlocks previously mentioned. If the 354 kg/hr
(780 Ib/hr) limit is reached, the PLC will prevent waste from being loaded to the
JBS343
-------
hopper/chute, which essentially shuts down charging once the residual waste in the
hopper/chute is charged.
3.2.4 Waste Heat Recovery Boiler
The WHRB is rated at 3,100 kg/hr (6,831 Ib/hr) of steam at 125 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig). The WHRB is operated at 100 psig. Exhaust gas enters the
WHRB at about 980°C (1800°F) and leaves at about 230°C (450°F). The boiler does not
have an auxiliary burner. The automatic soot blower activates every 30 min, and it
operated normally throughout the test period.
3.2.5 Air Pollution Control Equipment
The APCE consist of a spray dryer followed by a fabric filter. A hydrated lime
slurry is injected at the top of the spray dryer for hydrogen chloride (HC1) control. The
fabric filter controls particulate matter and metals emissions.
3.2.5.1 Spray Dryer. The spray dryer is a large cylindrical vessel with a
conical base. A slurry of hydrated lime and water is injected through a rotary atomizer
that is centrally located just below the roof of the vessel. Hot gases from the WHRB
also enter the top of the vessel. As the gases and slurry mix, all of the water evaporates,
and the gas is cooled to about 141°C (285°F). The hydrated lime slurry feed rate is
automatically controlled by the PLC. The control setpoint is the spray dryer outlet
temperature. The water contained in the hydrated lime slurry is used to cool the gas;
consequently, the slurry feed rate is increased or decreased as necessary to maintain the
desired outlet temperature. For this system, the hydrated lime concentration is not
independently controlled; as the slurry feed rate changes to maintain temperature, the
hydrated lime feed rate to the system also varies. Consequently, the initial hydrated lime
concentration of the slurry mix tank is an important factor that must be considered
carefully in conjunction with the estimated slurry feed rate necessary to maintain
temperature.
The reaction between the hydrated lime and acid gases occurs by: (1) contact
between the gases-and suspended particles of hydrated lime, (2) contact between the acid
gases and the hydrated lime deposited on the walls of the spray dryer, the duct
connecting spray dryer and fabric filter, and the fabric filter, and (3) passage of the acid
gases through the hydrated lime filter cake deposited on the fabric filter. The
3-9
JBS343
-------
instantaneous slurry feed rate can drop to zero with no apparent loss of control of acid
gases as long as the hydrated lime feed rate is adequate on average.
The slurry is mixed in two large (1.7 m [5.5 ft] diameter by 1.8 m [6 ft] height)
open-topped fiberglass tanks. A uniform slurry is maintained in both tanks by agitators
that are powered by 3-horsepower (hp) motors. The operator flips a two-position switch
to select the tank that will be used during operation. A premium hydrated lime is used,
with no coarse material to settle or plug screens or equipment. To further prevent
clogging, the spray dryer feed line is located about 15 to 20 centimeters (cm) (6 to 8 in.)
above the base of the tank. The hydrated lime purchased by MMH contains
95.1 percent calcium hydroxide, which is typical of commercial hydrated lime. It is
purchased in 22.7-kg (50-lb) bags and manually poured into the tanks. This procedure
results in hydrated lime dust in the incinerator room. The hospital is adding a
ventilation hood and filter to control the dust and protect personnel.
The slurry is pumped to a 18.9-L (5-gal) holding tank on top of the spray dryer.
According to ThermAll, about 40 percent of the flow from the holding tank is directed to
the rotary atomizer, and the remaining 60 percent is recirculated to the slurry mixing
tanks. According to the flow monitor in the system, the average slurry feed rate to the
spray dryer is about 4.9 L/min (1.3 gal/min), but this monitor is not believed to be
accurate.
The hospital records the amount of hydrated lime and water added to the tank to
determine the hydrated lime concentration, and monitors and records tank height to
determine the hydrated lime usage. The flow meter provides a relative indication of
feed line plugging, alerting the operator to the need for remedial action to avert a
shutdown. If the flow to the spray dryer is inadequate, the temperature of the flue gas to
the fabric filter will rise. At a flue gas temperature of 149°C (300°F) to the fabric filter,
the PLC will stop the incinerator from feeding waste, as described in Section 3.2.3.
During the tests, average slurry feed rates were estimated to be about 2.6 L/min
(0.7 gal/min), based on changes in the level (measured utilizing automatic level gauges)
in the slurry mixing tanks. The tests also showed that the gas was cooled from about
204°C (400°F) to 141°C (285°F) in the spray dryer. The measured slurry feed rate is less
than the amount needed to achieve this reduction in exhaust gas temperatures. Higher
JBS343 3-10
-------
slurry feed rates are not needed, however, because a considerable amount of ambient air
is entrained into the spray dryer around the rotary atomizer.
A small amount of residue is discharged from the base of the spray dryer. During
the emissions tests, the average discharge rate was about 12 kg/test (27 Ib/test). A
screw conveyor transfers this residue to a cardboard box that is lined with a plastic bag.
When the box is full, it is handled in the same manner described below for the boxes of
residue from the fabric filter.
3.2.5.2 Fabric Filter. The fabric filter is a pulse-jet baghouse operated
under negative pressure. It consists of one square compartment with 11 rows of bags
and 11 bags per row. The bag length is 3 m (10 ft), the diameter is 11.4 cm (4.5 in.),
and the material is P-84. All bags were replaced 2 weeks before the test.
The bag cleaning system is designed to keep the differential pressure across the
fabric filter between 747 and 996 Pascals (Pa) (3 and 4 inches water column [in. w.c.]).
When the differential pressure reaches 996 Pa (4 in. w.c.), one row is pulsed.' If, after
15 sec, the differential pressure is still above 747 Pa (3 in. w.c.), another row will be
pulsed. Typically, two pulses are enough, but additional rows would be pulsed if
necessary. The differential pressure returns to 996 Pa (4 in. w.c.) after about 45 to
75 min. At this point, the next row(s) would be pulsed. Therefore, completing the
cleaning cycle could be as long as 7.5 hr, if two rows are pulsed every 75 min.
Draft through the system is maintained by a single ID fan downstream of the
fabric filter; an automatically controlled damper in the duct after the fan is used to
control the airflow rate.
The system contains a bypass duct around the fabric filter and the ID fan. This
bypass is needed to allow natural draft to continue to exhaust the incinerator on the loss
of the ID fan when the incinerator shuts down. The damper in the bypass opens and the
dampers before the fabric filter and after the ID fan close to bypass the pressure drop
across the fabric filter and fan. The dampers are designed to assume these positions in
the event of a power failure, and they are activated by the PLC under certain conditions.
For example, an exhaust gas temperature out of the spray dryer that exceeds a nominal
204°C (400°F) is one limit that causes the PLC to shut down the incinerator and activate
-------
the bypass. This action is taken to protect the temperature-sensitive bags in the fabric
filter.
The fabric filter residue is currently discharged through a rotary valve into a
0.14-m3 (5-ft3) cardboard box that is lined with a plastic bag. This arrangement is being
used temporarily while more permanent equipment is fitted to the hopper. The hopper
was initially provided with a metal cart. However, the metal cart required modification
and will be fitted with a high-temperature fabric skirt between the hopper collar and the
cart to contain the dust without creating an air lock.
When the box (or cart) is full, the operator removes a sample of residue for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test and for 2,3,7,8-TCDD analysis, as required by the State of New Jersey. The
residue is classified on the basis of quadruplicate analysis of 4 weeks of composite daily
grab samples. Residue samples taken in October 1991 have been analyzed and classified
as nonhazardous. An analysis of quarterly composites of daily grab samples has
confirmed the classification. After the residue was sampled during the test period, the
operator closed the plastic bag, sealed the box with tape, and stored the box, pending
receipt of the sample analysis. The metal cart, when it is used, will be emptied into a
roll-off, with dust suppression as required.
During Run 3 and a few minutes after completing Run 6, the differential pressure
across the fabric filter began to fluctuate more rapidly over a wider range than normal.
These events are discussed further in Sections 3.4.1.3 and 3.4.1.6, but in both cases it
appears that the hopper was full of residue, possibly due to bridging across the hopper,
which resulted in an ineffective cleaning cycle; consequently, the cycles became more
frequent.
JBS343
-------
3.3 PRETEST ACTIVITIES
Pretest meetings and activities were conducted on November 7 and November 13
through 17, 1991. At that time, the MMH incinerator was in a start-up mode, having
operated for only 2 months. The MMH personnel were still becoming familiar with the
equipment, and operation was provided to a great extent by ThermAll personnel. The
State of New Jersey compliance emission pretest and test, which were to have
established operating parameter setpoints for the air permit, had not been performed.
The EPA, State of New Jersey, and MMH agreed to substitute the EPA emission test for
the compliance emission pretest and test.
The main objectives of the pretest were to: (1) identify control setpoints, and, if
necessary, determine whether changes could be made to match conditions established in
other EPA tests, (2) conduct some preliminary tests to measure the levels of HC1 present
at the control system inlet and outlet so that the desired hydrated lime concentration in
the slurry could be calculated to meet the design stoichiometric ratio (SR), and
(3) determine procedures for recording key process operating parameters and set up data
logging equipment. These activities are summarized below.
The key operating parameter setpoints that were established for the tests are
presented in Table 3-1. Values for each setpoint except for the SCC temperature are
the same as those that were used by MMH at the time of the pretest. The SCC
temperature setpoint was 954°C (1750°F), but EPA requested that this be raised to 982°C
(1800°F)~the value that was used in other EPA tests. The hospital agreed to this
change.
ThermAll indicated that the design SR was 2:1 and, in the absence of emissions
data, the unit has been operating with a slurry concentration of 9 percent hydrated lime,
based upon design calculations. Since the HC1 concentration was unknown, ThermAll
assumed a value and estimated that about a 9 weight percent hydrated lime slurry should
be prepared (i.e., 340 kg [750 Ib] of hydrated lime and 3,360 kg [7,410 Ib] of water. This
mass of water is based on 1.5 -m [5 ft] of water in the 1.7-m [5.5-ft] diameter tank). This
slurry was prepared for November 16, and Radian monitored the outlet HC1
concentration using a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The hospital
and ThermAll wanted to see if similar results could be achieved with a lower hydrated
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-1. OPERATING SETPOINTS DURING THE TEST
Parameter
PCC temperature, °C (°F)
SCC temperature, °C (°FJ
Spray dryer outlet temperature, °C (°F)
PCC draft, Pa (in. w.c.)
PCC minimum 02, percent
PCC idle temperature, °C (°F)
SCC idle temperature, °C (°F)
PCC water quench on, °C (°F)
SCC water quench off, °C (°F)
Fabric filter pulse on, Pa (in. w.c.)
Fabric filter pulse off, Pa (in. w.c.)
Setpoint value
774 (1425)
982 (1800)
138 (280)
-50 (-0.20)3
8
538 (1000)
649 (1200)
813 (1495)b
807 (1485)b
996 (4)
747 (3)
aFor some runs, the PCC draft setpoint was -45 Pa (-0.18
in. w.c.)
bFor Run 1, the PCC water quench turned on at a setpoint temperature of 799°C
(1470°F) and turned off at a setpoint temperature of 793°C (1460°F).
JBS343
3-14
-------
lime concentration (i.e., lower SR). Therefore, the trial on November 17 used about a
4.5 weight percent slurry (i.e., 170 kg [350 Ib] of hydrated lime in 1.5 m [5 ft] of water).
This trial ended with 30 min of operation on pure water. The fabric filters were given a
complete cleaning during mis test to minimize hydrated lime filter cake. Excellent HC1
control efficiency was achieved, as no measurable HC1 outlet emissions were noted
during either trial.
These preliminary results were used to decide on the hydrated lime slurry
concentration for Run 1. The EPA representatives desired to use an SR of 2.0:1. The
hospital/ThermAll representatives agreed that 2.0 was a good starting point but desired
to push the SR slightly lower, if possible, to test the system at a lower SR and,
consequently, in the future conserve hydrated lime. Based on the preliminary tests
indicating no measurable HC1 emissions, a decision was made to use a 4.5 weight
percent hydrated lime slurry for Run 1. The estimated SR for this calculation was
somewhere between 1.2:1 and 2:1 depending upon whether the average or maximum
measured flow rates and concentrations were used in the calculation.
The data acquisition system (DAS) generates an hourly report of several key
parameters, including the PCC and SCC temperatures. During the test, a more frequent
record of these temperatures was needed. ThermAll indicated that 1-min readings could
overload the DAS. Therefore, MRI agreed to supply a data logger to record these
temperatures.
The DAS also maintains a 60-min rolling record that shows each charge weight
(in the carts, not the ram hopper) and the number of minutes (from the current minute)
since it was charged. The hospital can display this record on a computer screen.
ThermAll indicated that a hard copy could be generated by using the print screen
command to dump the screen contents to a printer. Midwest Research Institute agreed
to supply a printer for this purpose.
Standard procedure at MMH is for housekeeping staff to deliver the filled waste
carts to the incinerator room. The incinerator operators avoid handling waste since it is
inefficient and risks injury from sharps that might inadvertently have been placed in a
bag. When sharps containers are available, they are evenly distributed by including no
more than one or two in each cart; this practice helps achieve uniform charges and
JBS34, 3'15
-------
emissions. The carts are charged such that the 354 kg/hr (780 Ib/hr) limit is reached in
40 to 45 min.
Midwest Research Institute indicated that, for purposes of the test, a steady,
consistent charge rate (i.e~ evenly timed charges of similar weight) was preferred and
that the rate should be as close as possible to the maximum hourly rate allowed. The
facility agreed and indicated they would instruct the waste handlers to work with the test
personnel monitoring the charging rate to assure as steady a charge rate as practicable.
Consequently, during the pretest and test, the operators handled the waste more than
they normally would.
For the runs with activated carbon, ThermAll requested that the carbon be mixed
into the slurry rather than injected dry into the duct. The EPA agreed to this procedure.
3.4 PROCESS OPERATION DURING TESTING
The test program at MMH consisted of two test conditions and three runs at each
condition. The operating parameters for each condition were identical to normal
operation except that activated carbon was added to the slurry during Runs 4 through 6,
the SCC temperature setpoint was increased from 954° (1750°F) to 982°C (1800°F), and
an effort was made to introduce uniform charges at regular intervals (i.e., to avoid
charging up to the 354 kg/hr [780 Ib/hr] ceiling in 40 min and then being unable to
charge for 20 min.
Table 3-2 shows the incinerator process parameters, and Table 3-3 shows the
APCE process parameters that were monitored during the tests. The charge rates are
presented for both the total test period (TIP) and the actual sampling period (ASP).
The TTP is the time from the start of the test to the end of the test, including downtime
caused by process malfunctions and the time for port changes. The ASP includes only
the time when sampling occurred.
The target charging rate was 354 kg/hr (780 Ib/hr), the permit ceiling. For
Runs 1 and 2 and the first traverse of Run 3, the charging rate during the ASP was
between 328 and 334 kg/hr (723 and 735 Ib/hr), or about 6 to 7 percent below the
maximum allowed rate. A major reason for this shortfall was that many times the system
would hold a cart on the elevator for several min because its weight plus that in the 60-
rnin FIFO stack exceeded 354 kg [780 lb]. Sometimes the DAS screen of the FIFO stack
JBS343 3-16
-------
TABLE 3-2. INCINERATOR PROCESS DATA SUMMARY FOR MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Test date
11/18/91
,11/19/81
11/20/91
11/21/91
.-11/22/91
11/23/91
Secondary
chamber
temperature
setpoint, °F
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
Average testing charge rate, Ib/hr
TTP
748
720
500
688
616
713
AS!*
723
734
789
663
638
716
Ash, %
9.2
7.0
7.8
6.1
6.0
8.0
Average chamber temperatures, °F
Primary
1476
1457
1444
1451
1438
1445
Secondary
1798
1789
1787
1787
1786
1787
Average primary
chamber draft,
in., w.c.
-0.19
-0.17
-0.19
-0.19
-0.19
-0.20
Natural gas
consumption,
ft'/hr
1,965'
2,195
2,376d
(2,096'
2,321'
2,405«
Total testing period, including downtime and the time between traverses.
'Actual sampling period.
'Includes the natural gas consumption during the time between traverses.
''Does not include the first 10 min of natural gas consumption in the second traverse before (he downtime.
'Includes the natural gas consumption during the downtime in the first traverse and during the time between traverses.
'Does not include the first 5 min of natural gas consumption in the second traverse before the downtime.
'Includes the natural gas consumption during the time between traverses.
-------
TABLE 3-3. SPRAY DRYER AND FABRIC FILTER PROCESS DATA SUMMARY FOR
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Test dale
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
Spray dryer inlet temperature, °F
Ave.
408
408
407
408
409
407
Min.
398
396
394
399
399
396
Max.
415
418
420
. 421
418
414
Fabric filter outlet temperature, °F
Ave.
285
285
285
289
281
287
Min.
277
278
275
280
272
278
Max.
293
292
294
301
298
294
Average
baghouse
pressure drop,
in. w.c.,
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.4
Hydrated lime slurry feed
rate, gal/hr
Tank level
44
41
46
45
41
44
Flow meter
79
80
97
86
87
86
Hydrated
lime feed rate,
Ib/hr"
23
34
37
34
31
32
Activated
carbon feed
rate, Ib/hr
-
1
-
2.8
2.5
2.5
oo
•Hydrated lime feed rate is based on the tank level. The hydrated lime concentration in the slurry is about 6 weight percent for Run 1; it is about 9 weight percent for Runs 2 through 6.
-------
was checked and enough weight was removed from the cart to bring the total to just
under 354 kg (780 Ib), thus allowing the charge to proceed. The hourly charging rates
could have been increased slightly if this procedure were followed every time a cart was
held. Many of the smaller charges noted in the charging record were due to this
procedure.
The highest charging rate, 358 kg/hr (789 Ib/hr), occurred during Run 3. This
rate is higher than 354 kg (780 Ib/hr) because a process malfunction interrupted the ASP
of the second traverse. In the 10 min before the interruption, two loads were charged at
an hourly rate that, if continued, would have been about 445 kg/hr (980 Ib/hr). After
the second traverse resumed there was a 10-min gap before a charge was introduced.
Then 345 kg (760 Ib) were charged in 40 min, and another 345 kg (760 Ib) were charged
in the 60 min after that. Consequently, the average hourly charging rate during the last
110 min of the second traverse was about 377 kg/hr (830 Ib/hr). Combining these rates
with the 334 kg/hr (735 Ib/hr) rate for the first traverse resulted in an overall rate
during the ASP for this run of 358 kg/hr (789 Ib/hr). At no time, however, did the
actual charge rate to the kiln exceed 354 kg/hr (780 Ib/hr).
The average charging rates during Runs 4 and 6 were lower than the others
(about 10 to 15 percent below the maximum allowed) because there were problems with
the hydraulic system that powered the elevator. These problems are discussed in the
summaries for these runs.
For Runs 3 through 6, there are several discrepancies between the charges
recorded in the operator log and those in the printout of the values in the FIFO stack.
One discrepancy is that a printout is unavailable for short portions of some runs. Other
discrepancies may have occurred when the elevator took a cart part of the way up but
did not dump it—either the cart was sent back up and the weight was recorded in the
operator log again, or weight was removed and the lower weight was not recorded. A
few times the operator may have accidentally forgotten to record charges. Average TTP
and ASP charging-rates in Table 3-2 are based on the printout values except where the
printout is unavailable; then the values in the operator log were used. Copies of both
logs are presented in Appendix B.
JBS343 •*
-------
The target SCC temperature was 982°C ± 10°C (1800°F ± SOT). Table 3-2
shows that the average temperature ranged from 974°C (1786°F) in Run 5 to 981°C
(1798°F) in Run 1. Except for a few minutes during each of Runs 3 through 6, the
temperature remained in this range. Typically, the temperature only dropped below
954°C (1750°F) after a 10- to 20-min interval with little or no waste being charged. It is
likely that a minor adjustment in the control programming would have enabled the
continuously modulating burner to achieve a slightly higher average temperature and to
maintain the temperature above 959°C (1750°F) at all times. The temperatures never
exceeded 1010°C (1850°F). Figures 3-3 through 3-8 show the kiln and SCC temperature
profiles during the ASP for each run.
3.4.1 Test Run Summaries
The following paragraphs summarize each test run by describing the quantity of
waste charged during both the TTP and the ASP, the charge sizes, the hydrated lime
feed rate, any process malfunctions that resulted in temperature excursions or downtime,
and any monitoring or data collection problems. Temperature excursions are any period
when the temperature in the SCC was below 954°C (1750°F) or above 1010°C (1850°F).
3.4.1.1 Run 1. Run 1 was conducted on November 18, 1991. The average
charge rate for the TTP was 339 kg/hr (748 Ib/hr), while that for the ASP was 328 kg/hr
(723 Ib/hr). Charge sizes ranged between 14 and 55 kg/load (31 and 122 Ib/load). The
data logger for recording the kiln and SCC temperatures was not operative. Therefore,
the temperatures monitored by the PLC were manually recorded every 5 min. During
the ASP, the SCC temperatures ranged from 958° to 1009°C (1756° to 1849°F), and the
combustion air damper was, on average, open about 56 percent. About 5 min before the
end of the test, the ash water quench was manually activated to extinguish flames in the
ash container. There were no process malfunctions during the TTP, and operation
continued normally during the 40-min port change.
Before the test, a 4.5 weight percent hydrated lime slurry was prepared in an
empty tank by mixing 159. kg (350 Ib) of hydrated lime with 1.5 m (5 ft) of water; the
target SR was slightly under 2:1. After about 4 hr of operation (but before the start of
emissions testing), another two bags (45 kg [100 Ib]) of hydrated lime were added to the
remaining slurry in the tank (approximately 1,3 m [50 in.]) because the outlet HC1
JBS343 3-2U
-------
N)
1900
1600
1700
1600
1500
I
I
1400
1300
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR MORRISTOWN
RUN 1 (11-18-91)
SCC
/ V
PCC
T~
TIME(24 HOUR)
14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00
Figure 3-3. Temperature profiles for Run 1 (11-18-91).
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR MORRISTOWN
RUN 2 (11-19-91)
1900
1800
£
Q_
Jj 1700
4
£ 1600
t
T3
1500
1400^1
1300
SCC
PCC
-i—i—i—i—r T ' i—i—r"i—i—i—r^n—i—i—r~p~T i i—r~ i ~|—i i i r i j~n i i i r~|-r T "i i i | i i r~r r~| i i i r~T"j ~
15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
Figure 3-4. Temperature profiles for Run 2 (11-19-21).
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR MORRISTOWN
RUN 3 (11-20-91)
1900
1800
Q.
.6 1700
0 1600
1500
1400
1300
sec
PCC
T—i—i—i—r—i—i—i—i—r 1 "~\—r~i—i—i—I—i—T—i—i—i—1—i—1~—T—i—i—I—i—T—i—i—i—i i i—i—
I ' ' ' ' ' I
12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
Figure 3-5. Temperature profiles for Run 3 (11-20-91).
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR MORRISTOWN
RUN 4 (11-21-91)
1900
1800
1700
0 1600
1500
I
1400
1300
SCC
PCC
"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—p
I ' ' ' ' ' I
12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
Figure 3-6. Temperature profiles for Run 4 (11-21-91).
-------
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR MORRISTOWN
RUN 5 (11-22-91)
1900
1800
e
ci
1700
to
1600
CO
1500
1400
1300
SCC
PCC
V
V
1 ' ' 1 ' r~ 1 ' '—J—' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' '~T
12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
Figure 3-7. Temperature profiles for Run 5 (11-22-91).
-------
ts>
1900
1800
e
cL
1700
0 1600
1400
1300
TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR MORRISTOWN
RUN 6 (11-23-91)
SCC
PCC
9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00
TIME(24 HOUR)
Figure 3-8. Temperature profiles for Run 6 (11-23-91).
-------
monitor showed "breakthrough" (about 80 ppm). The resulting concentration for Run 1
was approximately 6 percent hydrated lime, by weight. The average hydrated lime feed
rate for Run 1 was 10.4 kg/hr (23 Ib/hr).
3.4.1.2 Run 2. Run 2 was conducted on November 19, 1991. The average
charge rate for the TTP was 326 kg/hr (720 Ib/hr), while that for the ASP was 333 kg/hr
(734 Ib/hr). Charge sizes ranged between 24 and 41 kg/load (53 and 90 Ib/load). The
data logger was inoperative during the first traverse, so temperatures monitored by the
PLC were manually recorded every 5 min. During the second traverse, however, the
data logger was working. In the SCC, temperatures ranged from 956° to 998°C (1753° to
1829T), and the combustion air damper was, on average, about 66 percent open during
the ASP.
Before the test started there was a problem with the waste conveyor belt that took
about 5 hr to repair. During this time, hydrated lime slurry was prepared in an empty
tank by mixing 340 kg (750 Ib) of hydrated lime with 1.5 m (5 ft) of water for a
concentration of about 9 weight percent; the target SR was 2:1. The hydrated lime
concentration was increased from that used in Run 1 for two reasons. First, preliminary
calculations of the results from Run 1 indicated the SR for the previous day was closer
to 1:1 than to 2:1; the EPA wanted to run the tests near 2:1 to assure good performance
of the system. ThermAll and the hospital also wanted to ensure no "breakthrough."
Secondly, during Run 1 some "breakthrough" of HC1 emissions at the outlet were noted
during some of the periods when higher levels of HC1 at the control device inlet were
indicated by the CEMS; this was an indication that insufficient hydrated lime was
available to handle peak HC1 concentrations. Consequently, a decision was made to
increase the hydrated lime slurry concentration to the original design value
(approximately 9 percent by weight), which should result in an SR in the range of 1.75:1
to 2.0:1. The average hydrated lime feed rate for the run was 15.4 kg/hr (34 Ib/hr).
There were no process malfunctions during the TTP, and operation continued
normally during the-€5-min port change. During the port change, the draft set-point was
changed from -50 Pa (-0.20 in. w.c.) to -45 Pa (-0.18 in. w.c.).
3.4.1.3 Run 3. Run 3 was conducted on November 20, 1991. The average
charge rate for the TTP was 227 kg/hr (500 Ib/hr), while that for the ASP was 358 kg/hr
JBS343
-------
(789 Ib/hr). Charge sizes ranged between 19 and 51 kg/load (42 and 114 Ib/load). The
kiln and SCC temperatures monitored by the PLC were manually recorded during the
first traverse because the data logger was inoperative. During the second traverse,
however, the data logger was working. In the SCC, temperatures ranged from 946° to
997°C (1735° to 1827°F), and the combustion air damper was, on average, about
69 percent open during the ASP. The SCC temperatures were below 954°C (1750°F) two
times during the ASP for a total of 6 min. Both times waste had not been charged for
about 20 min because the 354 kg/hr (780 Ib/hr) limit was reached in a 40-min period.
Kiln temperatures also dropped significantly (about 38°C [100°F]) during these two
periods.
At 13:30, about 1 hr into the ASP, the strip chart record indicated a trend in the
fabric filter pressure. The differential pressure never remained at normal levels (i.e.,
<747 Pa [<3 in. w.c.]) after a pulse and consequently the fabric filter cleaning pulses
were occurring much more frequently than normal-almost continuously. The fabric
filter pressure meter lines were checked during the port change (at about 14:40), but no
problems were evident. At 14:50, testing was suspended because the system lost air
pressure at the ID fan damper. As a result, the ID fan tripped off and the gas flow went
to bypass around the fabric filter. When the differential pressure dropped to zero in the
fabric filter due to loss of flow, a large amount of residue dropped off the bags. The
massive quantity of material discharged from the hopper suggests that the earlier
fluctuations in the differential pressure may have occurred because the hopper was full
(possibly material had bridged over the discharge valve) and the material was simply
carried right back up onto the bags after each pulse. Both the fan and fabric filter were
back on line by 15:00, but charging was suspended until 15:45 to fully empty the fabric
filter hopper. The fabric filter appeared to operate normally for the rest of the day.
The second traverse started at 16:45. At 16:55, the unit shut down because of a
low WHRB water alarm. The problem was that the pressure at the WHRB water pump
had dropped. There are .three boilers, including the new WHRB, that draw makeup
from water flowing through a loop. Water is maintained under pressure in the loop by
two boiler feed water pumps. An oversized backup pump is also available. One of the
boilers was off line because hospital steam demand did not require its use. Experience
JBS343
-------
had shown that only one boiler feed water pump is required to maintain pressure in the
loop under those hospital steam demand conditions. Apparently, the boiler and the new
WHRB coincidentally attempted to draw substantial quantities of makeup water in
response to hospital steam demand. Pressure in the loop dropped. To restore pressure
quickly so that EPA could resume testing, the oversized backup pump was used. The
backup pump was turned off as soon as pressure was restored. The system returned to
normal operation and continued to operate on one pump for the rest of the test, with the
second pump held in reserve.
Before the second traverse could resume, a towel that had been wrapped around
one of the inlet probes was sucked into the duct and lodged in the rotary atomizer.
After the towel was extracted, the rotary atomizer would not restart. The atomizer
wheel was then removed and found to be clogged; during the down-time, the slurry in
the atomizer hardened. After cleaning, the atomizer wheel was reinstalled, and the unit
was back on line at 19:30. The second traverse resumed at 21:00 and was completed
without further incident.
There was a 63-min gap in the printout of the charges recorded in the FIFO stack
(14:00 to 15:03), during which the operator log showed nine charges. Before the test,
slurry was mixed in an empty tank by adding 340 kg (750 Ib) of hydrated lime to 1.5 m
(5 ft) of water, resulting in a slurry concentration of 9 weight percent; the average
hydrated lime feed rate for the run was 17 kg/hr (37 Ib/hr).
3.4.1.4 Run 4. Run 4 was conducted on November 21, 1991. The average
charge rate for the TTP was 312 kg/hr (688 Ib/hr), while that for the ASP was 301 kg/hr
(663 Ib/hr). Charge sizes ranged between 8 and 40 kg/load (17 and 88 Ib/load). During
the ASP, the SCC temperatures ranged from 948° to 996°C (1738° to 1824°F), and the
SCC combustion air damper was, an average, about 64 percent open. The kiln's
combustion air damper opened slightly (about 5 percent) for a few min at the end of the
test.
The hydraulic system w.as unable to generate design power levels during this run.
Several times the elevator brought the cart back down before it had dumped the waste.
Typically, this occurred when the ram charged while the elevator was lifting the cart; the
common hydraulic pumping unit did not have enough power to drive both mechanisms.
3-29
JBS343 3 ^
-------
There also was a leak from a hydraulic fitting on the feeder line. At 16:00, this fitting
was tightened to slow the leak. Charging was suspended for 10 min while the repair was
performed, but testing continued. ThermAll suspected the leak was only a minor
maintenance problem, but that the power loss was due to deteriorating seals. A special,
fire-retardant hydraulic fluid is being used in the pumping system supplied by ThermAll,
but the elevator system provided by another vendor was installed with seals for use with
regular fluid.
To compensate for the reduced power output, an effort was made to charge less
waste in the carts while increasing the frequency of charges. This effort may have
reduced the number of carts that did not dump, but there were still enough delays that
the hourly charge rate for this run was about 10 percent below the average rate for the
first three runs.
There were two low temperature excursions for a total of 6 min during the ASP.
The first excursion occurred at the end of a 20-min period during which only 36 kg
(80 Ib) had been charged, and the second occurred at the end of a 17-min period in
which only 34 kg (75 Ib), had been charged. In one case, the problems with the charging
system hydraulics delayed a charge. In the other case, the charge had to wait for the
weight to drop off the FIFO stack. Kiln temperatures dropped significantly (about
100°F) during the first case but not during the second.
Before the test, 0.9 m (3 ft) of water, 204 kg (450 Ib) of hydrated lime, and 27 kg
(59 Ib) of activated carbon were added to the tank that still had 0.6 m (2 ft) of slurry left
from Run 3. This resulted in a hydrated lime concentration of 9 weight percent. The
basis for the amount of carbon added was a target value of 250 milligrams of carbon per
dry standard cubic meter of flue gas. Based upon flue gas measurements from previous
runs, it was determined that the target carbon feed rate was 1.5 kg/hr (3.2 Ib/hr). Based
upon hydrated lime slurry feed rates from previous runs, it was determined that a carbon
concentration in the slurry of about 0.7 weight percent should result in the desired
carbon feed rate. -To conserve the limited supply of carbon, this tank was only used from
12:18, 22 min before the start of the test, to the end of the test at 17:50. It was not used
during the idle phase overnight. During the test, the average hydrated lime feed rate
was 15 kg/hr (34 Ib/hr), and the carbon feed rate was 1.3 kg/hr (2.8 Ib/hr).
JBS343 3-30
-------
At 13:09, testing was halted because a momentary power failure caused the spray
dryer to shut down. At 13:25, before sampling was resumed, the test crew reported that
the flue gas flows were low. A check revealed that the draft was zero because the
setpoint had not been reset after the equipment was back on line. The flow rate
returned to normal once the setpoint was set to -45 Pa (-0.18 in. w.c.). Ten min later it
was reset at -50 Pa (-0.20 in. w.c.) to match the setting at the start of the test.
Five charges in the operator log were not in the printout of charges recorded in
the FIFO stack. Two of the additional charges may have been due to double counting
by the operator. One charge may have been a case where the cart had not dumped,
some weight was removed from the cart, the cart was reweighed, and the operator wrote
the new weight down without crossing off the old weight. Two charges were not in the
printout because they would have occurred during separate 1-min gaps in the printout;
these two charges were included when determining the average IIP and ASP charging
rates.
3.4.1.5 Run 5. Run 5 was conducted on November 22, 1991. The average
charge rate for the TTP was 279 kg/hr (616 Ib/hr), while that for the ASP was 289 kg/hr
(638 Ib/hr). During the ASP, charge sizes ranged between 19 and 42 kg/load (41 and
92 Ib/load), the SCC temperatures ranged from 939° to 1001°C (1722° to 1833°F), and
the SCC combustion air damper was, on average, about 72 percent open. There was
enough carbon/hydrated lime slurry leftover from Run 4 that a new batch did not have
to be prepared for Run 5. The average hydrated lime feed rate for the test was 14 kg/hr
(31 Ib/hr), and the average carbon feed rate was 1.1 kg/hr (2.5 Ib/hr).
The fitting in the hydraulic system that was leaking during Run 4 was replaced at
mid-morning, delaying the first charge of the day until 10:28. However, as expected, this
repair did not improve the performance of the charging system. After a malfunction at
14:10, 5 min before the end of the first traverse, it was decided to make two changes to
reduce the strain on the hydraulic system. First, the 41-kg (90-lb) cart was abandoned in
favor of manually -loading just-the waste into the "skip." To prevent bags from snagging
on the wheel locks (and thus not dumping into the chute when the skip was tipped
upside down), the inside of the skip was lined with cardboard. Second, charge sizes
during the second traverse were limited to about 23 kg/load (50 Ib/load), and an
JBS343
-------
attempt was made to reduce the interval between charges to 4 min. This method of
operation was used only for Run 5 and was discontinued by the end of the run at the
request of the hospital in the interest of safety. Except for EPA's interest in completing
the emissions test, the hospital would have shut the unit down until repairs could have
been effected.
The average charge size for this run was lower than the others for three reasons.
First, there was a 14-min gap between charges (12:19 to 12:33) at the beginning of the
test because nearly 354 kg (780 Ib) of waste was added in the 45 min before the test, and
a 12-min gap occurred a few minutes later (12:42 to 12:54). Second, the loader
malfunction at 14:10 and the delay for subsequent modifications to the skip prevented
one or two charges from being added before the end of the first traverse. Third,
although the target charge sizes of 23 kg/load (50 Ib/load) were achieved during the
second traverse, the interval between charges was a little longer than the desired 4 min.
At 15:10, about 5 min into the second traverse, the hydraulic cylinder operating
the ram became disconnected from the ram head (a bolt loosened). Charging was
suspended until 15:52 while the equipment was repaired. Between 15:15 and 16:35,
slurry was pumped from the tank without carbon in order to conserve the carbon.
Emissions sampling resumed at 16:50, after the kiln had been operating normally for
about an hour.
Temperatures in the SCC were below 954°C (1750T) on three occasions for a
total of 11 min. In each case, the temperature excursions occurred after a relatively long
delay between charges.
There were five discrepancies between the operator log and the printout of
charges recorded in the FIFO stack during the TTP. Two charges in the printout were
not in the operator log; possibly the operators inadvertently did not record them. The
charge after the loader malfunction at 14:10 was higher in the operator log than in the
printout. Weight was probably removed before the charge was sent up the second time,
but the change was not noted-on the operator log. Two charges in the operator log are
each about 4.5 kg (10 Ib) lower than the corresponding charges in the printout; it is not
clear why.
JBS343
-------
3.4.1.6 Run 6. Run 6 was conducted on November 23, 1991. Despite the
continuing hydraulic system problems, the average charge rates for the TIP and ASP
were 324 kg/hr (713 Ib/hr) and 325 kg/hr (716 Ib/hr), respectively. Charge sizes ranged
between 10 and 54 kg/load (21 and 119 Ib/load). For this run, waste was again loaded
using the carts, and the target charge size at the start of the run was about 23 kg/load
(50 Ib/load). After the loader failed to lift a cart at 12:35 (about 25 percent of the way
through the second traverse), the charging strategy was revised to charge about
18 kg/load (40 Ib/load) at 3-min intervals. Since it would be difficult to maintain this
frequency, 36 kg (80 Ib) of sharps containers were weighed along with 18 kg (39 Ib) of
bagged waste at 12:37. The sharps containers were removed from the cart before it was
wheeled onto the elevator, but the total of 54 kg (119 Ib) was recorded in the FIFO
stack. These containers were then manually added to the ram hopper in charges
between 12:50 and 13:12.
Before the test, an additional 0.3 m (1 ft) of water, 68 kg (150 Ib) of hydrated
lime, and 5 kg (11 Ib) of activated carbon were added to the slurry left at the end of Run
5. This resulted in a hydrated lime concentration of about 9 weight percent and a
carbon concentration of about 0.7 weight percent. During the ASP, the SCC
temperatures ranged from 952° to 994°C (1745° to 1822°F), and the temperature was
below 954°C (1750°F) two times for a total of 2 min. The SCC combustion air damper
was, on average, about 71 percent open. The average hydrated lime feed rate during the
test was 15 kg/hr (32 Ib/hr), and the average carbon feed rate was 1.1 kg/hr (2.5 Ib/hr).
There were six discrepancies between the operator log and the printout of charges
recorded in the FIFO stack, in addition to the charge with the 36 kg (80 Ib) of sharps
containers. In four cases, the operator log shows charges 4.5 to 16 kg (10 to 35 Ib) lower
than the printout, while the operator log is 8.6 kg (19 Ib) higher in one case. The reason
for these differences is not known, but the impact on the average hourly charge rate is
less than 5 percent. Finally, there is a 6-min gap in the printout of the FIFO stack
record during which- a charge -is- noted in the operator log.
3-33
JBS343 J JJ
-------
4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
The sampling locations used during the test program at Morristown Memorial
Hospital are described in this section. Flue gas samples were collected at the spray
dryer inlet and at the baghouse outlet. Ash samples were collected from the kiln ash
hopper, the spray dryer ash conveyor, and the baghouse ash conveyor. Samples of the
slurry makeup water and the lime slurry were also collected.
4.1 SPRAY DRYER INLET
The layout for sampling ports at the spray dryer inlet duct is shown in Figure 4-L
Ports A and B were 4-inch diameter pipe nipples located one equivalent diameter
upstream of a bend and about 4 diameters downstream of a disturbance. These ports
were used for combined metals and Method 101A sampling. Twenty-four sample points
were used.
Ports C and D were 4-inch diameter pipe nipples located 2 diameters downstream
and 2 1/2 diameters upstream of a disturbance. These ports were used for CDD/CDF
sampling. Twenty-four point traverses were performed at these ports.
Ports E and F were used for microorganism and PSD sampling. For
microorganism sampling, only Port E was used. These ports were 4-inch pipe nipples
located 2 diameters downstream and one diameter upstream of disturbances.
Twenty-four point traverses were performed at these ports also. The traverse point
layout used at Ports A/B, C/D, and E/F is shown in Figure 4-2.
Ports G, H, and I are 2-inch pipe nipples that were used for CEM, HC1 CEM,
and Method 26 sampling. The probes for these measurements were located at a single
point 7 inches into the duct.
4.2 BAGHOUSE EXIT (STACK)
The sample point layout for the baghouse exit is shown in Figure 4-3. Sampling
ports were located after the induced draft fan, and prior to the stack entrance. These
ports were located mbre ;than--8 diameters downstream of the ED fan and 1.6 diameters
upstream of a bend. In order to fit a dual probe train into the port, Ports A and B were
JBS343 *
-------
p-20"-*j
h_
1 1 Port B
C - t
+ ', ; »•
\^ Port A |
t* 36" "\
| 1 PortD
; i
Port C
^x
To Spray Dryer
Note: Ports A, C, F are on Ihe bottom of the duct
Top View
PortH
From Heat
Recovery Boiler
Figure 4-1. Sample Port Locations at the Spray Dryer Inlet
-------
Port B, D, E
8 9 10 11 12
Port A, C, F
Duct Diameter = 18'
T ravers*
Point
Number
Distance
%
of Diameter
Distance
Inches
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U,
12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.6
64.4
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
0.50
1.20
2.12
3.19
4.50
6.41
11.59
13.50
14.80
15.88
16.79
17.50
Figure 4-2. Spray Dryer Inlet Traverse Point Layout
4-3
-------
To Stack
T
32"
c
53'
60"
Opacity
Meter
64"
o
•20--
°o
EO
FO
o
18'
12"
From ID Fan
Figure 4-3. Sample Port Location of the Exhaust Stack
4-4
-------
4-inch nipples. A dual probe/hot box assembly was used for metals and Method 101A,
and a separate probe/box assembly was used for CDD/CDF sampling at Ports A and B.
A 16-point traverse was performed at this location. The point layout used is
shown in Figure 4-4.
Ports D, E, and F were 2-inch nipples that were used for CEM, HC1 CEM, and
Method 26 sampling. The probes for these tests were located at a single point 8 inches
into the duct.
4.3 ASH SAMPLING LOCATIONS
The kiln ash, spray dryer ash, and baghouse ash were collected into separate
containers. The kiln ash was collected into a wheel cart and emptied daily. The weight
of ash collected each test day was measured, and the total ash was transferred to a
mixing table where it was mixed, coned and quartered, and representative aliquots were
collected.
The spray dryer and baghouse ashes were collected into separate plastic trash
bags. A clean bag was installed prior to each test run, and the total ash generated each
day was collected and weighed. Depending on the volume generated, the ashes were
mixed, divided, and placed in sample jars.
4.4 WATER AND SLURRY SAMPLES
Scrubber solution makeup water was sampled from a tap or valve in the water
supply line. Slurry samples was collected from a tap in the slurry injection line after the
spray dryer slurry pump and before the spray dryer.
JBS343 •
-------
PortC
PortB
Wall
Port A
Duct Diameter = 20*
Traverse
Point
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Distance
of Diameter
3.2
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.8
Distance
Inches
0.64
2.10
3.88
6.46
13.54
16.12
17.90
19.36
Figure 4-4. Traverse Point Layout at the Exhaust Stack
4-6
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES BY ANALYTE
The sampling and analytical procedures used for the Morristown Memorial
Hospital Medical Waste Incinerator (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 are 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 used for determining flue gas emissions of
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDD/CDF) was
EPA Method 23.
Sample recovery techniques incorporated the latest EPA development of replacing
the methylene chloride rinses with toluene rinses.
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 was similar to a Method 5 train with the exception of the
following:
• All components (quartz probe/nozzle liner, all other glassware, filters)
were pre-cleaned using solvent rinses and extraction techniques; and
• A condensing coil and an XAD-II* resin absorption module are located
between the filter and impinger train.
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.
JBS343 ~*
-------
TABLE 5-1. TEST METHODS USED FOR MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MWI
Analyte
Method
CDD/CDF
Mercury
Particulates
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Beryllium
Antimony
Barium
Silver
Thallium
S02
02/C02
CO
NOX
THC
HC1
EPA Method 23 with GC/MS
Method 8290
EPA Method 101A
EPA/EMSL Multi-Metals Train
EPA Instrument Methods
6C
3A
10
7E
25A
NDIR CEM Analyzer
HCI
HBr
HF
Particle Size Distribution
EPA Method 26
EPA Method 26
EPA Method 26
Diagonistic Technique/
EPA Method 202
Loss On Ignition
Carbon
Microorganisms in Emissions
Microorganisms in Pipe Test
and Direct Ash Test
Modified ASTM D 3174
ASTM D 3178-84
EPA Draft Method "Microbial
Survivability Tests for MWI Emissions.'
EPA Draft Method "Microbial
Survivability Tests for MWI Ash."
JBS343
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. SAMPLING TIMES, MINIMUM SAMPLING VOLUMES
AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL MWI TESTS
Detection Limit
Sampling Time
Sampling Train (hours)
CDD/CDF 4b
PM/Metals 4b
Minimum
Sample
Volume
(dscf)
120
120
Analyte
CDD/CDF
PM
As
CD
CR
Pb
Hg
Ni
Be
Ba
Sb
Ag
Tl
Flue Gasa
Cug/dscm)
0.3 ng/dscm
0.006 gr/dscf
3.2
1.2
1.8
4.9
2.2
4.2
0.4
0.7
13.6
6.9
11.8
Analytical
C^g/ml)
0.01 nge
25-50 mg
0.002
0.006
0.015
0.002
0.25
0.015
0.0003
0.002
0.032
0.007
0.040
101A
HCl/HBr/HF
Microorganisms
4 120
1 120 liters'1
4 30
Hg
cr
Br'
F
Indicator
Spores
2.2
28
32
100
30 viable spores
dscm
0.02
0.11
0.127
0.40e
aFlue gas detection limit is calculated conservatively by summing the front half and back half detection
limits. Solution volume for front half and back half fractions are typically 300 ml and 150 ml, respectively.
bAn average sampling rate of 0.5 ft3/min was used to calculate sampling time.
°Based on average detection limits for tetra-octa CDD/CDF congeners.
dAn average sampling rate of 2 liters/min was used to calculate the sample volume.
eDetection limit based on 100 ml aliquot. Method is still under development. Actual limit may vary.
fThe indicator spore will be Bacillus Stearothermophilus.
JBS343
5-3
-------
Gooseneck
Nozzle
Stack
_» Wall
Temperature >
Sensor /
A
Temperature Sensor
. Filter Holder
Heat Traced
Quartz Probe
Liner
Temperature Sensor
XAD - 2 Trap
Temperature Sensor
S-Type Pitot Tube
\
\
Ul
Manometer
Recirculation
Pump
Temperature
Sensors
Orifice
—I
7
Water Knockout 100ml HPLC Water Empty Silica Gel
Impinger ff± (30° 9)
I/ Vacuum
Gauge
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-1. CDD/CDF Sampling Train Configuration
-------
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. Onre the
glassware was dry, 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.
5.1.2.2 XAD-II* Resin and Filters Preparation. 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
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 analyses and sealed with
Teflon® tape.
To prepare the absorbing resin, the XAD-II* resin was cleaned in the following
sequential order:
• Rinsed with HPLC grade water, discarded water;
• Soaked in HPLC grade water overnight, discarded water;
JBS343
-------
TABLE 5-3. CDD/CDF GLASSWARE CLEANING PROCEDURE
(Train Components, Sample Containers and
Laboratory Glassware)
NOTE: USE VITON® GLOVES AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION WHEN
RINSING WITH SOLVENTS
1. Soak all glassware in hot soapy water (Alconox®).
2. Tap water rinse to remove soap.
3. Distilled/deionized H2O rinse (X3).a
4. Bake at 450°F for 2 hours.b
5. Acetone rinse (X3), (pesticide grade).
6. Methylene chloride (X3), (pesticide grade)
7. Cap glassware with clean glass plugs or methylene
chloride rinsed aluminum foil.
8. Mark cleaned glassware with color-coded identification
sticker.
9. Glassware is rinsed immediately before using with
acetone and methylene chloride (laboratory proof).
a (X3) = three times.
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).
JBS343
-------
• Extracted in soxhlet with HPLC grade water for 8 hours, discarded water;
• Extracted with methanol for 22 hours, discarded solvent;
• Extracted with methylene chloride for 22 hours, discarded solvent;
• Extracted with methylene chloride for 22 hours, retain an aliquot of solvent
for gas chromatography analysis of TCDDs and TCDFs; and
• Dried 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 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
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.
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 include 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.
JBS343
-------
Measurements were 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 marked on the sampling probe
using an indelible marker.
5.1.3.2 Assembling the Train. Assembly of 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 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 contained
100 ml of HPLC grade water. The fourth impinger was empty, and the fifth impinger
contained 200 to 300 grams of blue indicating silica gel. After the impingers were
loaded, each impinger was weighed, 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.
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.
Sealing greases were not used to avoid contamination of the sample. 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/condenser
coil recirculating pump was turned on. When the system reached the appropriate
temperature, the sampling train was ready for pre-test leak checking. The temperature
JBS343
5-8
-------
Slides for Attaching
to Heated Box
Impinger Bucket
Slide for Attaching Gooseneck
Figure 5-2. Impinger Configuration for CDD/CDF Sampling
(optional knock out impinger not shown)
5-9
-------
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 leak checks and recommends pre-test leak
checks.) Radian protocol also incorporates leak checks before and after every port
change. An acceptable pre-test leak rate is less than 0.02 acfm (ft3/min) at
approximately 15 inches of mercury ("Hg). If during testing, a piece of glassware needed
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 inches 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 dropped
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 (DGM reading), the test
was initiated. Sampling train data were recorded periodically on standard data forms. A
checklist for CDD/CDF sampling is included in Table 5-4. A sampling operation that is
unique to CDD/CDF sampling is that the gas temperature entering the resin trap must
be below 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 occurred 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.
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 is identical to the pre-test procedure, however, the
JBS343 5-10
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST
Before test starts:
1. Check impinger set to verify the correct order, orientation and number of
impingers. Verify probe markings, and remark if necessary.
2. Check that you have all the correct pieces of glassware. Have a spare probe liner,
probe sheath, meter box and filter ready to go at location.
3. Check for data sheets and barometric pressure.
4. Bag sampling equipment for CO2/O2 needs to be ready except when using CEMs
for CO2/O2 determinations.
5. Examine meter box - level it, zero the manometers and 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.)
5-11
JBS343
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
4. Check completeness of data sheet. Verify the impinger bucket identification is
recorded on the data sheets. Note any abnormal conditions.
5. Leak check function (level, zero, etc.) of pilot 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 pre-rinsed
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 pre-weighed, pre-labeled sample container
e) Follow the procedure outlined in (d) using toluene, except do not brush.
Recover the solvent into the same acetone recovery bottle.
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.
5"12
-------
vacuum should be at least one inch Hg higher than the highest vacuum attained during
sampling. An acceptable leak rate is less than 4 percent of the average sample rate or
0.02 acfm (whichever is lower). If a final leak-rate did 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.
Final decisions on the acceptability of a run were at the discretion of the EPA
Test Monitor.
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 were 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.
For the Morristown test program, all CDD/CDF recovery rinses were completed
using toluene instead of methylene chloride. This is the most recent development in
EPA CDD/CDF testing methodology. 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 resulted in the sample components listed in Table 5-5. The
sorbent module was stored in coolers 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 that was used to obtain CDD/CDF concentrations from
a single flue gas sample was high resolution gas chromatography (HRGC) and high
JBS343
-------
Back Half
Front Halt of Filter Connecting
1st Implnger 5th Implnger
Probe Nozzle Probe Uner Filter House Filter Support Housing Line Condenser Filter Resin Trap (knockout) 2nd Implnger 3rd Implnger 4th Implnger (silica gel)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I
1)11!
Rinse wtth Attach Brush and Rinse with Rinse with Rinse with Rinse with Carefully Secure XAD Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh
Acetone 250 mL Flask rinse with acetone acetone acetone acetone remove filter trap Implnger Implnger Impinger Implnger Implnger
Until all to Ball Joint acetone (3x
Particulate I (3x)
Is Removed f
i
Rinse with
Acetone
Empty Flask
Into 950 'mL
Bottle
'.'
Brush LJner
andFBnee
with 3,
Allquots of
Acetone
I
Check Uner
to See If
Paniculate
te Removed,
If Not Repeat
\
Rinse Rinse Rinse
wtth with with
Toluene Toluene Toluene
(3x) (3x) (3x)
. 1
1
(3x) (3x) (3x) from support openings
ill with tweezers with glass
T T T balls and
11111
Rinse Rinse Rinse Brush loose clamps Record Record Record Record Record
with with paniculate weight weight weight weight weight
Toluene wm Toluene onto filter Place In and and and and and
(3x) Toluene (3x)
(at least once I31*) (at least once
let the.rinse
stand 5 minutes
In unit)
i
!
cooler for calculate calculate calculate calculate calculate
storage gain gain gain gain gain
let the rinse Seal In
stand 5 minutes petrl dish
In unit)
F
II i
1 1 '
T T
Discard Discard Discard • Discard Save
for
regeneration
SM
Recover Into
preweighed
bottle
Note: See Table 5-5 for Sample Fractions Identification
Figure 5-3. CDD/CDF Field Recovery Scheme
-------
TABLE 5-5. CDD/CDF SAMPLE FRACTIONS SHIPPED
- TO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Container/ Code Fraction
Component
1
2
F
PRa
Filter(s)
Acetone and toluene rinses of nozzle/probe,
cyclone, front half/back half filter holder, filter
support, connecting glassware, condenser
SM XAD-II® resin trap (sorbent module)
Rinses include acetone and toluene recovered into the same sample bottle.
5-15
JBS343
-------
resolution mass spectrometry (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 one pooled fraction according to the
scheme in Figure 5-4. 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 was 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
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 accepted 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
JBS343
-------
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)
1',2,3,4,7,8,9 heptachlorodibenzofuran (l',2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
5-17
JBS343
-------
Acetone/Toluene
Rinses
Concentrate
at Temperature
<37°C(98°F)
1 -5 ml Solution
t
Silica Gel Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Eluate to 1 ml
with N2
Basic Aluminum Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Eluate to
0.5 mL with N,
FK-21 Carbon/Celite 545
Column Chromatogaphy
Cleanup; Concentrate
Eluate 1.0mL in
Rotary Evaporator
Concentrate Eluate to
200mLwithN2
Store in Freezer
Analyze with DB-5
Capillary column; if
TCDF is Found, Continue
Analyze with
DB-225
Column
Quantify Results
According to
Section 5.3.2.6
of Reference Method
Figure 5-4. Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples
5-18
-------
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 analyzed for CDD/CDF concentrations. 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.
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 occurred from
handling, loading, recovering, and transporting the sampling train. The field blanks were
analyzed with the flue gas samples. If they were unsatisfactory in terms of
contamination, reagent blanks would have been analyzed to determine the specific
source of contamination.
In addition to the two 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 preparing 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 hexa-chlorinated
compounds and the range is 25 to 130 percent for the hepta- and octa-chlorinated
homologues. If these requirements were not met, the data was accepted 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.
-------
TABLE 5-7. CDD/CDF BLANKS COLLECTED
Blank
Collection
Analysis
Field Blanks
Method Blank
Reagent Blanks
One run collected and
analyzed for each sampling
location.
At least one for each
analytical batch
One 1000 ml sample for each
reagent and lot.
Analyze with flue
gas samples.
Analyze with each
analytical batch of flue
gas samples
Archive for potential
analysis.
JBS343
5-20
-------
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 will be used to adjust the results of the
native species.
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
Particulate matter (PM) was collected using Method 5 in combination with the
EMB multi-metals back half. The metals sampling train 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."
This method is applicable for the determination of particulates and Pb, Ni, Zn, P, Cr,
Cu, Mn, Se, Be, Tl, Ag, Sb, Ba, Cd, As, and Hg emissions from various types of
incinerators. Analyses of the Morristown MWI test samples was performed for As, Cd,
Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Ag, Ba, Be, and Tl.
PM emissions were also determined from this sampling train. Particulate
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 have been
completed, the sample fractions were then analyzed for the target metals as discussed in
Section 5.2.5.
5.2.1 Particulate Matter/Metals Sampling Equipment
The methodology used the sampling train shown in Figure 5-5. The 7-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 nitric acid
(HNO3)/10 percent hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) solution, two impingers with a 4 percent
potassium permanganate (Kmno4)/10 percent sulfuric acid (H2SO4) solution, and an
impinger containing silica gel. The second impinger containing HNO3/H2O2 was of the
Greenburg-Smith design; the other impingers had straight tubes. The impingers were
5'21
-------
Glass
Probe Tip
Temperature /
Sensor
Temperature Sensor
Glass Filter
Holder
Temperature Sensor
Impingers with Absorbing Solution
Stack
Wall Glass Probe
Liner
Glass Filter Holder
Heated Area
Reverse-Type
PitotTube
fc
Empty (Optional Knockout)
Orifice
1—
Temperature
Sensors
5% HN03/10% Hj02 _ 4% KMn04/10% H,SO4 Silica Gel
tfA r y
Manometer
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-5. Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train
-------
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.
5.2.2 Particulate Matter/Metals 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:
• Soaked in a 10 percent nitric acid solution for a minimum of 4 hours;
• Rinsed with deionized distilled water rinse (3X); and
• Rinsed with acetone rinse.
The cleaned glassware was allowed to air dry in a contamination-free
environment. The ends were 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 hydrogen peroxide were Baker
"Instra-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.
5-23
-------
Slides for Attaching
to Heated Box
Slide for Attaching Gooseneck
Impinger Bucket
Figure 5-6. Impinger Configuration for PM/Metals Sampling
5-24
-------
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
includes the probe nozzles, pitot tubes, metering system, probe heater, temperature
gauges, leak check metering system, and barometer. A laboratory field notebook was
maintained to record these calibration values.
5.2.3 Paniculate Matter/Metals Sampling Operations
The sampling operations used for PM/Metals testing was virtually the same as
those for the CDD/CDF tests as discussed in Section 5.1.2. The only differences were
that there is no condenser coil so coil temperatures were recorded and glass caps,
Teflon® tape, or parafilm were used to seal off the sample train components rather than
foil. Detailed instructions for assembling the metals sampling train are found beginning
on page 14 of the reference method.
5.2.4 Particulate Matter/Metals Sample Recovery
Recovery procedures began as soon as the probe was removed from the stack and
the post-test leak check 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.
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
5'25
-------
4th & 5th Last Imping*
1st Impinqer 2nd & 3rd Impingers
.. _. . . „ , (Empty at Impingers (Acidified
Probe Liner .f!0"! ,Half • Filter Filter Support beginning (HNO3/H2O2) (KMnOJ
and Nozzle Fitter Housing and Back Half oTtest)
of Filter
Housing
Measure Measure Measure Weigh for
Rinse with brush with Carefully
Acetone into Nonmetallic Remove Filter
Impinger Impinger Impinger Moisture
Contents Contents Contents
Tared Container arusn ana from Suooort with Rinse Three
Hinse witn Teflon Coated Times with
Acetone into Tweezers and 0.1 N Calculate Calculate Calculate Calculate
Tared Container Place in Petri Dish Nitric Acid Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture
Brush Liner ' Into Tared Gain Gain Gain Gain
with Nonmetallic
Brush and Rinse
with Acetone
at Least
3 Times
Check Liner
to see if
Paniculate
Removed: if
not Repeat
Step Above
Container
Brush Loose
Paniculate
from Holder
Onto
Filter
Empty Empty Empty Discard
Contents Contents Contents ;
Into Into Into '
Tared Tared Tared
Container Container Container
Rinse
Three Rinse
Three Rinse
Three
Times with Times with Times with 100mL
0.1 N 0.1 N Permanganate
Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Reagent
Recover
Seal Petri Into Sample Recover Into Recover Into Recover Into If visible residue
Dish with Container Sample Sample San
Teflon Tape
Rinse Three Rinse Three
Times with Times with
0.1 N 0.1 N
Nitric acid Into Nitric acid into
Tared Container Tared Container
|
I
I
Weigh to Weigh to
Calculate Calculate
Rinse Volume Rinse Volume
I
Container Cont
ainer Container Remove with 50 ml
8 N HCI solution
Weigh Weigh to Weigh to Weigh to Calculate
to Calculate Calculate Calculate Sample and
RiriQA Amr« trA Pinco Am/Mint Rinco j
nil 100 r^
APR PR F HN
(3) (2) (1) (4)
Amount Rinsss Vnh im«
Weight to calculate
Sample and Rinse
Volume
KM
(5) Cl
(6)
SG
(7)
Figure 5-7. Metals Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
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 paniculate were caught in the
sample container. This procedure was repeated until no visible paniculate 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 paniculate 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 jiozzle/probe liner, and front half of the filter holder were rinsed three times
with 0.1N HNO3 and placed into a separate amber bottle. It was capped tightly, the
weight of the combined rinse was 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 was noted.
The contents in the knockout impinger was recovered into a pre-weighed,
pre-labeled bottle with the contents from the HNO3/H2O2 impingers. These impingers
and connecting glassware were rinsed thoroughly with 0.1N HNO3, the rinse was
combined in the impinger contents bottle, and a final weight was taken.
The impingers that contained the acidified potassium permanganate solution were
poured together into a pre-weighed, pre-labeled 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 then added to
the sample recovery bottle. A final 50 ml 8N HC1 rinse was conducted and placed into
the sample recovery, bottle. A final weight was recorded and the liquid level marked on
the bottle. The bottle cap was loosely tightened to allow venting.
After final washing, the silica gel from the train was saved in a bag for
regeneration after the job was completed. The ground glass fittings on the silica gel
JBS343
-------
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 nitric acid blank - 1000 ml sample size;
• 5 percent nitric acid/10 percent hydrogen peroxide blank - 200 ml sample
size;
• Acidified potassium permanganate blank - 1000 ml sample size; this blank
should have a vented cap;
• 8N hydrochloric acid blank - 50 ml sample size;
• Dilution water; and
ft,
• Filter blank - one each.
Each reagent blank was of the same lot as the solvents and acids that were used during
the sampling program. Each lot number and reagent grade was recorded on the field
blank label.
The liquid level of each sample container was marked on the bottle in order to
determine if any sample loss occurred during shipment. If sample loss occurred, the
sample may be voided or a method may be used to incorporate a correction factor to
scale the final results depending on the volume of the loss.
Approximate detection limits for the various metals of interest are summarized in
Table 5-8.
5.2.5 Particulate Analysis
The same general gravimetric procedure described in Method 5, Section 4.3 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 70°F in a tared beaker
to dryness. The residue was desiccated for 24 hours in a desiccator containing fresh
silica gel at room temperature. 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 must agree to within 0.5 mg or 1 percent of total weight less tare weight,
JBS343 5-28
-------
TABLE 5.8 APPROXIMATE DETECTION LIMITS FOR METALS
OF INTEREST USING EMB DRAFT METHOD
Instack Method
Detection Limits
Metal
Chromium
Cadmium
Arsenicd
Leadd
Mercury
Nickel
Barium
Beryllium
Silver
Antimony
Thallium
Copper
Aluminum
Method3
ICAP
ICAP
GFAAS
GFAAS
CVAAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
Analytical
Detection
Limits
C"g/ml)
0.007
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.0002
0.015
0.002
0.0003
0.007
0.032
0.040
0.006
0.035
Front Half
(300ml
sample
size)
(^g/m3)
1.7
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.05
3.6
0.5
0.07
1.7
7.7
9.6
1.4
8.4
Back Half
(150 ml
sample
size)
(^g/m3)
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.03C
1.8
0.3
0.04
0.9
3.8
4.8
0.7
4.2
a ICAP = Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma
GFAAS = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
CVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
b These detection limits are based on a stack gas sample volume of 1.25 m3. If 5 m3 are
collected, the instack method detection limits are 1/4 of the values indicated.
c The detection limit for mercury is the same in the HNO3/H2O2 fraction as it is in the
KMnO4 fraction.
d If Fe and Al are -present, samples will be diluted which may raise analytical detection
limits.
5-29
JBS246
-------
whichever is greater, between two consecutive weighings, and must be at least 6 hours
apart.
5.2.6 Metals Analytical Procedures
A diagram illustrating the sample preparation and analytical procedure for the
target metals is shown in Figure 5-8.
The front half fractions were digested with concentrated nitric acid and
hydrofluoric (HF) acid in a microwave pressure vessel. The microwave digestion takes
place over a period of approximately 10 to 12 minutes in intervals of 1 to 2 minutes at
600 watts. 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 Hg by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy (CVAAS) and the remainder was acidified and reduced to near dryness.
The sample was then digested in a microwave 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.
Each sample fraction was analyzed by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma
Spectroscopy (ICAP) using EPA Method 200.7. All target metals except Hg, iron and
Al, were quantified. If iron and Al were present, the sample was diluted to reduce their
interferences on As and Pb. If As or Pb levels were less than 2 ppm, Graphite Furnace
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (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 was measured and recorded
in the field notebook.
To prepare for Hg analysis by CVAAS, an aliquot from the KMnO4 impingers,
HNO3/H2O2 impingers, filter .digestion, and front half rinses was digested with acidic
reagents at 95°C in capped BOD bottles for approximately 3 hours. Hydroxylamine
hydrochloride solution and stannous chloride were added immediately before analysis.
JBS343 5-30
-------
Container 3
Acid Probe Rinse
(Labeled APR)
Acidify to pH 2
with Cone. HNO3
Reduce Volume to
Near Dryness and
Digest with HF and
Cone. HNO,
Container 2
Acetone Probe Rinse
(Labeled PR)
Container 1
Filter
(Labeled F)
Container 4
o/HA, Impingers
(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
Determine Filter
Particulate Weight
Solubilize Residue
with Cone. HNO3
Digest with Acid
and permanganate
at 95°C for 2 h
and Analyze
for Hg by CWAS
Fraction 2B
Divide into 0.5 g
Sections and Digest
Each Section with
Cone. HF and HNO,
Filter and Dilute
to Known Volume
Fraction 1
_L
Remove 50 to 100 mL
Aliquot for Hg
Analysis by CVAAS
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
Container 6
8 N HCI rinse of
Permanganate
Impingers
Digest with Acid
and Permanganate
at 95°C for 2 h
and Analyze
for Hg by CVAAS
Fraction 3
Digest with Acid
and Permanganate
at 95°C for 2 h
Figure 5-8. Metals Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme
-------
Cold vapor AAS analysis for Hg follows the procedure outlined in EPA Method 7470 or
in Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analysis. Method 303F.
5.2.7 Quality Control for Metals Analytical Procedures
All quality control procedures specified in the test method 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.
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 made the standard curve. Quality control samples were
prepared from a separate 10 /wg/ml 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 were 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 was repeated.
5.2.7.3 Mercury Standards and Quality Control. An intermediate Hg standard
was prepared weekly; working standards were prepared daily. The calibration curve was
JBS343
5-32
-------
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 must agree within 10 percent of the calibration, or the
calibration was 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 MERCURY EMISSIONS BY METHOD 101A
Mercury emissions testing by Method 101A is specified in 40 CFR Part 61,
Appendix B. Basically, the method calls for isokinetic extraction of flue gas through a
sample train similar to the standard EPA Method 5 train. Method 101A states that the
use of a filter is optional and may be employed in cases where the flue gas contains large
quantities of PM.
The sample stream passed through the filter (optional) and bubble through
acidified potassium permanganate solution (KMnO4). Not counting blanks, there were
two fractions of the sample train, the probe rinse/impinger catch and the filter.
Following sample recovery, the KMnO4 and filter solutions were shipped back to the
laboratory for analysis. The analytical preparation procedures basically consisted of
filtering the KMnO4 solutions and analyzing the filtrate by CVAAS. Studies recently
conducted by EPA show that after a certain sample hold time, the analytical filtering
procedures may remove a certain portion of the collected Hg contained in the
magnesium dioxide precipitate, which tends to form in the highly saturated KMnO4
solution. This may be the case only when visible precipitate is present. For this test
program, the analytical filter was archived.
The following sections will briefly describe Method 101A testing procedures.
5.3.1 Method 101A Sampling Equipment
The Method 101A sampling train, including the use of the optional heated filter,
is shown in Figure 5-9. The front half of this train is similar to an EPA Method 5 train
incorporating all isokinetic sampling apparatus. A glass nozzle and probe liner were
used so that the sample stream does not touch any metal surfaces. Typically, 4 impingers
were used with the first 3 containing 50 ml, 100 ml, and 100 ml, respectively, of acidified
4 percent KMnO4. The last impinger was filled with silica gel to remove water prior to
JBS343 ^
-------
Gooseneck
Nozzle
Stack
Wall
Temperature /
Sensor /
X
Temperature Sensor
Filter Holder
Temperature Sensor
Heat Traced.
Quartz Probe
Liner
S-Type Pitot Tube
Temperature
Sensors
Acidified KMn O4 Solution Sj|jCa Gel
(300 grams)
Vacuum
Gauge
Manometer
Figure 5-9. EPA Method 101A Sampling Train
Vacuum
Line
.
!
-------
the sampling train meter and pump. All reagent preparation followed strict QA/QC
guidelines as dictated in the Method 101A protocol.
5.3.2 Equipment Preparation
All sampling equipment was calibrated in accordance with EPA Method 5
guidelines. This included dry gas meters, pilot tubes, nozzle orifice, and others.
All glassware was cleaned as follows:
• Soaked in 10% HNO3 acid bath;
• Rinsed 3 times with 50% HNO3;
• Rinsed 3 times with tap water;
• Rinsed 3 times with 8N HC1;
• Rinsed 3 times with tap water; and
• Rinsed 3 times with deionized/distilled (or equivalent) water.
Glassware was then sealed with Parafilm™, wrapped in bubble wrap, packed, and shipped
to the testing facility.
All nozzles and probe liners were cleaned on site by following the above rinsing
procedures. Nozzles were then calibrated on site.
5.3.3 Reagent Preparation
The following reagents were needed during sampling operations:
• 8N HC1 = 67 ml concentrated HC1/100 ml deionized (DI) H2O;
• 4 percent KMnO4 = see Section 5.2.2.2; and
• 50 percent HNO3 = Add equal parts acid to DI H2O very slowly using
extreme caution.
Blank samples were taken of all reagents used to determine if Hg contamination was
present.
5.3.4 Sample Operation
The Method 101A sample train was operated similar to an EPA Method 5 train.
Care was taken to determine the proper isokinetic sample rate. Sampling rates should
never exceed 1.0 cfm. Temperatures of the stack gas, oven (filter skin), silica gel
impinger, and inlet and outlet to the gas meter were monitored. Additional recordings
-------
of dry gas meter readings, velocity head (AH), orifice pressure (Ap), and sample vacuum
were taken.
Leak checks of the sampling train were performed prior to the test, following
train removal from, a port (port change), after the train had been sited in the next port,
and following completion of the test. The maximum acceptable leak rate was 0.02 cfm
or 4 percent of the average sample rate, whichever is less.
5.3.5 Sample Recovery
The Method 101A flue gas samples were recovered as shown in Figure 5-10. The
first step after completion of the post-test leak check was to dismantle and seal the train
into the following components:
• Probe nozzle and liner,
• Filter holder, and
• Impinger train.
These components were transported back to the laboratory trailer for recovery
operations. The impingers were then weighed to determine flue gas moisture levels.
Two sample bottles were collected from each flue gas sample.
The contents of the KMnO4 impingers were poured into a 1000-ml sample bottle.
The nozzle and probe were then brushed/rinsed three times with fresh 4 percent KMnO4
and deionized water and added to the 1000-ml bottle. The front half filter holder was
also rinsed into the same sample bottle. If any visible deposits were left on these pieces
of glassware, a small amount (approximately 50 ml) of 8N HC1 was used to rinse them,
and the rinse was added to a separate sample bottle.
A second sample bottle was collected only from those Method 101A trains that
used a sample filter. The filter was carefully placed in a 150 ml sample jar and 20 to
40 ml of fresh 4 percent KMnO4 was added. Any residual filter pieces left on the filter
holder must be quantitatively removed using a sharpened edge blade and/or nylon bristle
brush and added tp this container. A filter and reagent blank were also collected.
Following recovery operations, the samples were fully labeled, logged in the sample log
book, and chain of custody forms were filled out.
JBS343 5-36
-------
Probe Liner Impinqers 1-3 Sample Filler Silica Gel
and Nozzle (KMnO4) (optional)
(front Half glass)
Inspect for Indicator
Measure and Record Place Filter Color Change
Rinse Glassware Total Impinger Weight into 125 ml
(Brush Probe) , . Sample Container
3x with 4% KmNO4 ,
Solution ' I
' I Determine Weight and
Empty Contents * Replace if Necessary
- into 1000 ml Add 20-40 ml (Discard Used Portion)
Sample Container 4% KMnO4
Rinse Impinqers Measure and Record
3xwith4%KMnO4 If Visible Residue Total Sample Volume
Solution is Present, Remove
with 50 ml 8 N HCI
Seal and Identify
Measure and Record T Sample Bottle
Total Sample Volume Measure and Record
Total Sample Volume
Seal and Identify
Sample Bottle Seal and Identify
Sample Bottle
Figure 5-10. Method 101A Sample Recovery Scheme
a:
si
-------
5.3.6 Analytical Preparation
A simplified diagram of the sample preparation and analysis scheme for the 101A
Hg analysis is shown in Figure 5-11. After the samples were recovered by the laboratory,
the chain of custody forms were signed and fluid levels checked to determine if any
sample loss occurred during transport. As stated in the previous section, there were two
sample containers if a filter was used: one for the front half rinse/impinger contents, and
one for the filter/KMnO4 digestion. However, all sample fractions were combined and
analyzed together.
Prior to analysis, the front half rinse/impinger sample were filtered. The filter
was washed and the rinsings were combined with the filtrate for analysis. Normally, at
this point the filter was discarded. However, recent concern has risen regarding this
procedure. It seems that if visible precipitate in the KMnO4 was present, a portion of
the sampled Hg contained in the precipitate may be lost if the filter is discarded. For
this test program, all analytical filters were archived pending a decision on analytical
procedure. If sample hold time is kept to a minimum (i.e., < 7 days), the precipitate has
typically not formed and this matter is not as critical. If, however, precipitate has formed
and is visible on the filter, a digestion of the filter in 8N HC1 may be warranted. If this
procedure is completed, the digestion solution is again filtered with the filtrate added to
the original KMnO4 filtrate. However, at this time, the analytical filter from each
sample was archived.
The sample from the sample filter/KMnO4 was transferred to a beaker and
placed in a steam bath and evaporated down to where most of the liquid had
disappeared (not dryness). Twenty ml of concentrated HNO3 was then added and placed
on a hot plate (with watch glass cover) and heated for 2 hours at 70°C. This solution
was allowed to cool and was then filtered. The filtrate was combined with the front half
rinse/impinger sample filtrate prior to analysis.
5.3.7 Analysis
The final combined "KMnO4 sample was brought up to a fixed volume using
deionized/distilled (DI) water. A 5 ml aliquot was removed and placed in 25 ml of DI
JBS343
5-38
-------
Probe/Front
Half KMnO4
Rinse
Impinger Contents
and Rinses
KMnO,
Combine
Archive
Filter
Fitter and Wash
with KMnO,
Sample Filler
(if used)
In KMnO4
Transfer to beaker
and evaporate to
near dryness in steam
bath
Add 20 Ml cone.
HNO3 and heat
for 2 hours @ 70° C
Allow to cool
and filter
Archive
Filter
Combine filtrates
and dilute to known
volume with Dl
Analyze for Hg
using CVAAS
Figure 5-11. Method 101 A
Sampling Preparation and Analysis Scheme
-------
H2O already located in the aeration bottle. Then 5 ml of 15 percent HNO3 was added
and followed by addition of 5 ml of 5 percent KMnO4. The solution was mixed
thoroughly with the exit arm stopcock closed. The reducing agents, sodium chloride
hydroxylamine and tin (II), were then added as specified in the method and aeration was
initiated. Absorbance was then read at 253.7 run.
5.4 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE/HYDROGEN BROMIDE/HYDROGEN
FLUORIDE EMISSIONS TESTING BY EPA METHOD 26
Hydrogen Chloride (HC1), Hydrogen Bromide (HBr), and Hydrogen Fluoride
(HF) sampling was accomplished using a single sampling train. The procedure followed
the EPA Method 26 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 Chloride (CT) ions. Ion chromatography (1C) was used to detect the Cl" ions
present in the sample. For this test program, the presence of Bromide (Br~) and
Fluoride (F) ions was also detected by 1C.
5.4.1 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Equipment
A diagram of the HCl/HBr/HF sampling train is shown in Figure 5-12. The
sampling train consisted of a quartz probe with a pallflex Teflon/glass filter to remove
particulate matter, and a series of chilled midget impingers and a DGM system. Because
the high temperatures of the stack and the shortness of the sampling probe kept sample
gas in the probe above the acid dewpoint, the probe was not heated. The train consisted
of an optional knockout impinger followed by two impingers containing 0.1 N H2SO4 to
collect HC1, HBr and HF, two impingers containing 0.1 N NaOH to capture any
pollutants present in the flue gas that might cause DGM damage, and finally one silica
gel impinger.
5.4.2 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Preparation
5.4.2.1 Equipment Preparation. Sampling preparation 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.
JBS343
5-40
-------
s s
Fitting
and Teflon Tube
(optional)
Glass Liner
Wrapped
with Heat Tape
3-Way Glass
Stopcock
(optional)
Drying Tube
or
Mae West I
Impinger
Knockout Impinger
(optional)
Pump
Figure 5-12. Chlorine 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 optional knockout impinger was not
being used for testing at this facility. The first two impingers contained 15 to 20 ml each
of 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 leak checked as required by
Method 26 protocol. The leak checking procedure is the same as that discussed in
Section 5.1. The leak rate, sampling start and stop times, and any other events were
recorded on the sampling task log. Upon completion of a sampling run, the leak check
procedure was repeated. Sampling train data were recorded every five minutes, and
included 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, labeled and the fluid level marked. The
contents of the second set of impingers (containing the 0.1 N NaOH) was discarded for
every triplicate series except for one. These were archived for possible future analyses.
The sample recovery scheme is shown in Figure 5-13.
5.4.5 HCl/HBr/HF Analytical Procedures
Before analysis, the sainples 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.
JBS343
5-42
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
1st Impinger
(~ 20 ml)
H2SQ,
2nd Impinger
~ 20ml H2Sq,)
3rd Impinger
~ 20ml NaOH)
4th Impinger
~ 20mlNaOH)
Silica Gel
Do Not Rinse
or Brush'
Empty Contents
into IpOml
Volumetric Flask
Make Up
Volume to 100ml
using Dl
Empty Contents
into Sample
Containers once
Run Conditioner
Rinse 3x
inDI
Inspect for Indicator
Color Change
Transfer to Sample
Container
Replenish
if Necessary
(discard used
portions)
OJ
Archive for
Possible Analysis
Liquid Sample
Figrue 5-13. HCI/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
The Ion Chromatographic (1C) conditions are 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 must be achieved to
have an acceptable calibration. At least 10 percent of the total number of samples was
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 will be 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 is 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 3).
5.5.2 Volumetric Flow Rate Determination by EPA Method 2
Volume trie" flow rate was measured according to EPA Method 2. A Type K
thermocouple and S-type pitot tube was used to measure flue gas temperature and
velocity, respectively. All of the isokinetically sampled methods that were used
incorporate Method 2 (CDD/CDF and PM/Metals).
JBS343
5-44
-------
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 jmd after each run.
5.5.2.2 Sampling Operations. The parameters that were measured included the
pressure drop across the pitots, stack temperature, 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 (paniculate
and moisture removed) and 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 bv EPA Method 4
The average flue gas moisture content of the flue gas 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 was 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, IE, 6C, and 10 are continuous monitoring methods for
measuring CO2, O2, NO^ 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 5-14.
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
5-45
JBS343
-------
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 stainless steel tubing
assembly 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. Calibration gases were then be directed up to the sampling probe and through
the entire sampling/conditioning system.
5.6.1.3 Gas Conditioning. Special gas conditioners were used to reduce the
moisture content of the flue gas. A Radian designed gas conditioning system utilized a
chiller system to cool a series of glass cyclones. An antifreeze liquid system was used to
chill the glass cyclones. The hot flue gas was chilled by heat conduction through the
glass wall causing the moisture to condense into droplets. The droplets and any
paniculate were flung outward toward the glass walls by the centrifugal force, impacted
the glass walls, and fell to the bottom of the cyclone where the were drained from the
system. In this manner, both moisture and paniculate matter were effectively removed
from the flue gas sample sfreSm. This system operated under positive pressure
eliminating the possibility of a leak. The gas conditioner was located in the CEM trailer.
JBS343
5-46
-------
Stack Wall
Dilution Probe
tor HCI CEM
l\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\v) El-..- i
CEM
Probe
/
73 1
I \
> | Gas
^ | Conditioner
1
1 * Outlet Manifold
I". 1 1 '
1
1 1 1
1 i
"
H
"
| i
1
!! !
11
'! '
II Clean
1 1 Dry
II Air
fi
CO NOx SO, CO2 Oa THC HCI
(wet) (wet)
i _____
Signal
i Conditioner
& X
HCI
Cal/QC
Gases
A/DConveraton 1 II Ch(£, |j ,
_and Computer | || RRrnrr1f,r [^ J-
NOx, SO., CQj,
O , THC, CO
CaVQC
Qases
L±U •(
I.
Figure 5-14. Schematic of CEM System
(2 CEM systems were used)
S-47
-------
5.6.1.4 HC1 CEM Sample System. 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. A nominal dilution ratio of 200:1 was used.
5.6.2 CEM Principles of Operation
5.6.2.1 Sulfur Dioxide Analysis. The Western 721A SO2 analyzer is essentially a
continuous spectrophotometer in the ultraviolet range. Sulfur dioxide selectively absorbs
ultraviolet (UV) light at a wavelength of 202.5 nm. To take advantage of this property
of SO2, the analyzer emits UV light at 202.5 nm and measures the absorbance (A) of the
radiation through the sample cell by the decrease in intensity. Beer's law, A = abc, is
used to convert the absorbance into SO2 concentration (A = absorbance, a =
absorbitivity, b = path length, c = concentration). Sulfur dioxide measurements were
performed using EPA Method 6C.
5.6.2.2 Nitrogen Oxide Analysis. The principle of operation of this instrument
was a chemiluminescent reaction in which ozone (O3) reacted with nitric oxide (NO) to
form oxygen (O2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). During this reaction, a photon is emitted
which is detected by a photomultiplier tube. The instrument is capable of analyzing total
oxides of nitrogen (NO + NO2) by thermally converting NO2 to NO in a separate
reaction chamber prior to the photomultiplier tube, if desired. Nitrogen oxide
measurements were performed using EPA Method 7E.
5.6.2.3 Oxygen Analysis. The Thermox WDG III measures O2 using an
electrochemical cell. Porous platinum electrodes are attached to the inside and outside
of the cell which provide the instrument voltage response. Zirconium oxide contained in
the cell conducts electrons when it is hot due to the mobility of O2 ions in its crystal
structure. A difference in O2 concentration between the sample side of the cell and the
reference (outside) side of the cell produces a voltage. This response voltage is
proportional to the logarithm of the oxygen concentration ratio. A linearizer circuit
board is used to make the response linear. Reference gas is ambient air at 20.9 percent
O2 by volume. Oxygen measurements were performed using EPA Method 3A.
5.6.2.4 Carbon Dioxide Analysis. Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) CO2 analyzers
emit a specific wavelength of infrared radiation through the sample cell which is
selectively absorbed by CO2 molecules. The intensity of radiation which reaches the end
JBS343
5-48
-------
of the sample cell is compared to the intensity of radiation through a CO2-free reference
cell. A reference cell is used to determine background absorbance which is subtracted
from the sample absorbance. The detector uses two chambers filled with CO2 which are
connected by a deflective metallic diaphragm. One side receives radiation from the
sample cell and the other side receives radiation from the reference cell. Since more
radiation is absorbed in the sample cell than in the reference cell, less radiation reaches
the sample side of the detector. This causes a deflection of the diaphragm due to
increased heat from radiation absorption on the reference side. Deflection of the
diaphragm creates an electrical potential which is proportional to absorbance.
Absorbance is directly proportional to CO2 concentration in the gas. Carbon dioxide
measurements were performed using EPA Method 3A.
5.6.2.5 CO Analysis. A TECO Model 48 analyzer was used to monitor CO
emissions. TECO analyzers measure CO using the same principle of operation as CO2
analysis. Detection of CO was achieved by alternately passing an infrared (IR) beam
between reference CO gas and reference CO free gas contained in the filter wheel. The
"chopped" beam passes through the sample cell to the detector. The difference in IR
beam strength caused by the absorption of the IR beam is proportional to the CO
concentration. Carbon monoxide measurements will be performed using EPA
Method 10.
5.6.2.6 Total Hydrocarbon Analysis. A Ratfisch Model 54 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 ionization detectors (FID). As the flue gas enters the detector the hydrocarbons
are combusted in a hydrogen flame. The ions and electrons formed in the flame enter
an electrode gap, decrease the gas resistance, and permit a current flow in an external
circuit. The resulting current is proportional to the instantaneous concentration of the
total hydrocarbons. This method is not selective between species. EPA Method 25A
applies to the continuous measurement of total gaseous organic concentrations of
primarily alkanes, alkenes, and/or arenes (aromatic hydrocarbons). The results are
reported on a methane basis and methane is used as the calibration gas.
5-49
JBS343
-------
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 ModeJ 15). Detection of HC1 was achieved by alternately passing
an IR beam between reference HC1 gas and reference HC1 free gas contained in the
filter wheel. The "chopped" beam passes through the sample cell to the detector. The
difference in IR beam strength caused by the absorption of the IR beam is proportional
to the HC1 concentration.
5.6.3 CEM Calibration
All the CEM instruments were checked for linearity once during the test program
(and linearized, if necessary) using a minimum of three certified calibration gases (zero
and two upscale points). Radian performed these multipoint calibrations with three
general categories of certified gases: zero gas (generally N2), a midrange concentration,
and a high scale concentration (span gas). The criterion for acceptable linearity is a
correlation coefficient (R2) of greater than or equal to 0.998, where the independent
variable is cylinder gas concentration and the dependent van > is instrument response.
If an instrument did not meet these requirements, it was Unearned by adjusting
potentiometers on the linearity card within the instrument or by other adjustments, if
necessary.
The CEM analyzers were calibrated before 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 (zero and span) as a percent of span was also determined using these
calibrating for each test run.
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 was 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 was performed if deemed necessary.
Calibration procedures are further detailed in the daily operating procedure
(Section 5.6.5).
JBS343-
-------
Hydrogen chloride CEMS were also operated at both the inlet and the outlet to
the baghouse. This system typically used a separate extractive system as it employed
dilution probe techniques.
Table 5-9 lists the concentration of all calibration and QC gases used on this test
program.
5.6.4 Data Acquisition
The data acquisition system consisted of a Dianachart PC Acquisitor data logger,
a signal conditioner, and a 386 Desktop computer. All instrument outputs were
connected in parallel to stripchart recorders and the data acquisition system. The
stripchart recorders are a back-up system to the' data logger. The PC Acquisitor scans
the instrument output and logs digitized voltages. A Radian computer program
translates the digitized voltages into relevant concentrations in engineering units (ppmv,
%V, etc.). The computer program has several modes of operation: calibration, data
acquisition, data reduction, data view, data edit, and data import. The import function is
used to combine other data files for comparison and correlation.
5.6.5 Daily Operating Procedure
The following is a detailed standard operating procedure for calibrating and
operating the CEM system:
1. Turn on computer and 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 DAS clock with sample location leaders and the test leader.
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.
5-51
JBS343
-------
TABLE 5-9. 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
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
TECO48
0-100, 0-200, 0-5000 ppm
1000, 180 or 90 ppma
N2
180 ppm
90 ppm
Thermox WDG III
0-25%
20%
0.2% O2
10%
5%
JBS343
5-52
-------
TABLE 5-9. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES, continued
Analvte
Gas Concentration
SO;
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas
Low Range QC Gas
NO.
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Ranee QC Gas Value
Western 721 A
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
JBS343
5-53
-------
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 2.0 percent O2 to set the low scale response for the Thermox O2
analyzers and repeat Step 7 for these instruments.
9. Introduce the mixed span gases for O2, CO2, and CO. Make adjustments
as required to these instruments.
10. Enter these values in the computer calibration routine.
11. Introduce the NOX span gas.
12. Make adjustments to the NOX instruments as required and enter the value
into the computer calibration routine.
13. Introduce the SO2 span gas for the SO2 analyzer, repeat Step 12 for the
SO2 analyzer. (Note that all calibration gases are passed through the
entire sampling system.)
14. Switch the Western SO2 analyzer range to 0-500 ppm, introduce the span
gas for this range and repeat Step 12 for this instrument.
15. Check the calibration table on the computer, and make a hardcopy. Put
the computer in the standby mode.
16. 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.
17. Begin sampling joutine, with the computer on standby.
18. Start the data acquisition system when signaled by radio that system is in
stack.
JBS343
5-54
-------
19. 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.
20. Stop the data acquisition system at the end of the test when signaled.
21. Perform final leak check of system.
22. Perform the final calibration (Repeat Steps 6-16) except make no
adjustments to the system.
23. Check for drift on each channel.
5.7 MICROBIAL SURVIVABILITY TESTING
The Morristown Memorial Hospital Medical Waste Incinerator was charged with
waste containing indicator spores which measure the ability of microbes to survive the
incineration process. This directly reflects microbial destruction efficiency for that
incinerator. The first test method is aimed at determining microbial survivability in the
combustion gases and the ash. In this method, absorbent materials normally found in
the medical waste were inoculated with a known quantity of spores on solution. Direct
ash sampling and flue gas testing were conducted in order to determine the destruction
efficiency.
The second test method used spiked spore samples encased in insulated metal
containers charged to the incinerator with the waste stream. These tests were designed
for comparison with the direct ash sampling method and should provided another
assessment of microbial survivability and destruction efficiency. The primary microbe
container was a 3/8-inch diameter stainless steel tube capped at both ends. The tube
contained a known quantity (approximately 1 x 107 spores) of freeze dried spores. The
tube was wrapped in a 1/2-inch thick blanket of high temperature ceramic insulation and
contained by a wire mesh outer wrap. Following the test, each sample was cultured in a
laboratory to determine the destruction efficiency based on the number of viable spores
remaining in the ash. Testing-procedures followed 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.
-------
5.7.1 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.
Absorbent materials, such as paper towels, disposable diapers, and toilet paper were
inoculated with a known quantity of B. stearothermophilus wet spores. Bags of this
simulated medical waste were loaded into the incinerator with a normal charge of
regular medical waste four times during each test run, at one-hour intervals. The first
bag was charged into the incinerator at the same time emissions tests were started at the
incinerator outlet. Direct ash samples were collected from the incinerator bottom ash
after each test run when the ash had cooled sufficiently (usually overnight). Ash samples
were also taken from the spray dryer residue and the baghouse filter ash collected during
each test run.
5.7.1.1 Equipment. A "wet spore" culture solution was prepared by the University
of Alabama. The culture inoculum was divided by the supplier into twelve 500 ml bags
containing approximately 3.5 x 1011 spores each. One bag of spore culture solution was
used to inoculate each hourly charge of simulated medical waste. Four charges were
used during each of three microbe survivability test runs at the incinerator.
5.1.1.2 Spiking Preparation and Procedure. The spiked waste sample was
prepared so that approximately 1.4 x 1012 spores were charged into the incinerator per
test run. Sample bags of simulated medical waste were inoculated by pouring a single
bag of prepared wet spore solution into a garbage bag filled with absorbent materials.
Inoculation was done immediately prior to charging each bag into the incinerator. Spore
solution bags were kept on ice until they were used.
5.7.2 Indicator Spore Flue Gas Sampling
Flue gas was extracted from the incinerator stack during the test periods to
determine spore emissions. The testing procedure followed the previously mentioned
draft EPA method. Flue gas samples were collected isokinetically in a pH-buffered
solution in impingers (no filter). The recovered samples were divided into different
volume aliquots. These samples are cultured and colonies were identified using gram
stains and possibly other biochemical tests to establish cellular morphology. The
JBS343 5-->0
-------
colonies identified as the indicator organism are then counted. The following sections
describe the flue gas sampling techniques.
5.7.2.1 Equipment. A schematic of the spore sampling train is shown in
Figure 5-15. 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
allows 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 impingers serves as
water knock-out (empty), and the fourth contains silica gel. In between the third and
fourth impinger, a small amount of quartz wool is placed to collect PM. This material
was rinsed into the impinger catch during recovery operations. The remainder of the
sampling train is identical to a Method 5 system. (Meter box containing pump, meter,
velocity, and sampling pressure manometers, etc.)
A Peristaltic pump was used to deliver the pH-buffer solution to the probe tip.
The pump was capable of accurately metering a 10 to 20 ml/flow rate.
5.7.2.2 Sampling Preparation. All equipment used for sampling and sample
recovery, which came into contact with the sample, were disinfected with 30 percent
H2O2 and alcohol 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 and 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 required 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 leak check on the
5-57
-------
Quartz-Glass
Probe Liner/
Button-Hook Nozzle
Temperature
Sensor >
A
1/8 Teflon Line
(Reaching to rear of
button-hook nozzle)
oo
Reverse-type
Pitot Tube
Orifice
T
Manometer
\
Stack Wall \
Temperature Sensor
Thermometer
1-Liter Reservoir
of 2.0 M
Phosphate Buffer
Pitot Manometer
or Differential
Pressure Gauge(s]
\ Empty
100mL2.0M
Phosphate Buffer
Silica Gel
2-Liter Impinger 200mL20M
Thermometers Phosphate Buffer
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-15. Sampling Train for Determination of Indicator Spore Emissions
-------
impinger train was conducted. Results of the leak checks and other QA procedures are
reported in Section 6.
5.7.2.3 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.
After completion of the test run, the probe was removed from the stack and the
flow of buffering solution was stopped. The final meter reading was recorded and the
sample train was leak checked.
5.7.2.4 Sample Recovery. Sample recovery procedures are summarized in
Figure 5-16. After the probe had cooled, the probe cooling water was turned off. The
nozzle tip was inspected for port scrapings and any external matter was 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 and 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.
5.7.3 Direct Ash 'Sampling for' Indicator Spores
Direct ash sampling provides an indication of the ability of the indicator organism
to survive the incineration process. Prior to the first test run, the retention time of the
incinerator was determined to be approximately 40 minutes. At the start of each test
5'59
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
i
1st Impinger
(200 ml of
buffer)
2nd Impinger
(100 ml of
buffer)
3rd Impinger
(Empty)
Silica
Gel
Rinse and
brush using
buffer into,
sterile
container
Empty contents
into sterile
container
Empty contents
into sterile
container
Empty contents
into sterile
container
Weigh
Ui
i
cr\
O
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
Rinse twice
with buffer
into container
Discard
Liquid Sample
Figure 5-16. Sample Recovery Scheme for Microbial Viability Testing
JBS343
-------
run, new ash containers were attached to the spray dryer residue outlet and the baghouse
ash outlet. Spray dryer and baghouse ash containers were cardboard boxes lined with
new polyethylene bags. The spray dryer residue from each run was collected in a single
container. The quantity of baghouse residue varied greatly between runs, and always
required multiple containers. New containers were added to the baghouse outlet during
the test run as needed.
At approximately 40 minutes (one retention time) after the first bag of wet spore
culture solution was charged into the incinerator, a clean ash hopper was attached to the
bottom ash discharge of the incinerator. The ash hopper was clean and disinfected with-
30 percent H2O2 before each microbe survivability test.
At the end of each test, the containers of ash were removed from the spray dryer,
baghouse, and incinerator discharge after waiting for the 40-minute retention time. The
spray dryer residue was thoroughly mixed in the container and samples were taken
directly from the container for analysis. Since the baghouse ash was in multiple
containers, a thief was used to composite the samples of baghouse ash.
The incinerator bottom ash was allowed to cool, usually overnight. Large pieces
of metal and masses of fused glass then were removed from the hopper. The remaining
ash was well-stirred in the hopper with a sterilized shovel, and samples were taken for
analysis.
One sample is transported to the laboratory for analysis and the second sample is
used to determine the pH of the material and is then archived as a backup sample.
Laboratory samples are tested in accordance with the proposed draft method found
Appendix 1.5.
5.7.3.1 Equipment. Ash samples are taken using a disinfected sample thief and
placed in sample containers for transport to the laboratory. These samples are stored on
ice. The pH of the ash is determined by adding a known amount of deionized water to a
weighed aliquot of ash and measuring the pH by specific ion electrode.
5.7.4 Pipe Spiking 'Procedure's
Samples of B. stearothermophilus were cultured according to the draft method
found in Appendix 1.5. Colonies of B. stearothermophilus were then gram stained to
ensure correct cellular morphology and further identified using biochemical tests as
JBS343 5-61.
-------
needed. The B. stearothermophilus spores are then enumerated. Known quantities of
spores, contained in insulated pipes, were charged into the incinerator.
5.7.4.1 Spiking Equipment. A diagram of the pipe sample assemblies used for
the pipe test is shown in Figure 5-17. The indicator organisms are freeze-dried spores
(lyophilized) that were prepared by American Type Culture Collection in Rockville,
Maryland. A small amount of lyophilized material equalling approximately
1 x 107 spores was prepared and packaged in the inner metal containers.
The inner metal container consists of a 3-inch piece of 3/8 stainless steel tubing
capped on both ends with Swagelock™ caps. This inner container was wrapped in the
outer container which is either a 2 inch diameter steel pipe nipple about 6 inches in the
insulated mesh. Each inner container was identified with an unique identification
number. Thermal insulation was used to maintain the inner container's position in the
center and to protect it from thermal shock.
5.7.4.2 Spiking Preparation. The inner container and caps were cleaned and
disinfected before use. This procedure consists of soaking the containers for at least one
hour in 1.0 H 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
container was placed in outer container with enough ceramic insulation to position it in
the center.
5.7.4.3 Spiking Procedure. The Morristown Memorial Hospital MWI is a
continuous feed, rotary kiln incinerator. The incinerator is normally run on a one-shift
basis. Waste incineration is started each morning after a warm-up period lasting
approximately one hour. All test runs were conducted after normal incineration had
started and measured process variables had stabilized. Nine pipes were charged into the
incinerator during-each test ran. Two pipes were charged at the beginning of each of the
first four hours of each run. A single pipe was charged at the beginning of the fifth
hour. Two blank (empty) pipes were charged at random times during the three test runs.
A total of eight pipe samples were charged into the incinerator by placing them into the
JBS343
5-62
-------
Inner Pipe (containing spores)
Wire Mesh ,
Laced together with high temperature wire
Kaowool Insulation
Figure 5-17. Modified (Mesh) Ash Quality Assembly
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
5-63
-------
wet spore solution sample bags. The wet spore solution was poured over the pipe
sample insulation as well as onto the absorbent materials in the bags. The ninth pipe
sample was charged without- placing it in the wet spore solution sample bag.
5.7.4.4 Sample Recovery. The pipes were recovered from the bottom ash hopper
following a cool down period the morning following the test run. Approximately half of
the pipe samples could not be found and recovered. Because of the high temperatures
and continuous ignition of the waste in the incinerator, semi-molten glass forms into
large log-shaped masses which roll across the incinerator floor. It is suspected that the
lost pipe samples become entrained in these masses of glass and were locked inside
when the glass cooled. At least one of the samples was recovered when one end of the
pipe was noticed protruding from a mass of solid .glass. The mass was broken with a
hammer to free the sample.
The high temperatures and heavy agitation due to kiln rotation also caused many
of the thermal insulation packages to break open. Several of the pipes were retrieved
without insulation, and several pieces of insulation were retrieved without pipes. The
inner pipes recovered were identified and placed in labeled bags. Insulation recovered
was placed in separate bags. The pipe samples were maintained at or below 4°C (30°F)
in an ice cooler with care to protect them from contamination from melting ice or
cross-contamination from other samples or spike materials.
5.7.5 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.
5.7.5.1 Pipe Sample and Ash Analytical Preparation Procedure. The sample
preparation and analysis scheme for the pipe and ash samples are presented in
Figures 5-18 and 5-19. 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
containers were rinsed with sterile phosphate buffer solution into the respective
incubation tube. Any glassware used for this transfer procedure was rinsed with sterile
JBS343 5-64
-------
1 screened liter isb
sample mixed well
Measure pH on-site
Make 3 aliquot* by adding
1 g ash to 100 ml
buffer solution
Prepare six log
serial dilutions
Vacuum filter each serial dilution
through separate sterile cellulose nitrate
filter (0.2 urn)
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Add 10 g ash to 20 ml sterile
deionized water. Allow ash
to settle
Calibrate pH meter and measure
pH of liquid portion of sample
Incubate plates at 6C for 24 hours
Recheck at 48 hours
Perform plate counts
Confirm indicator organism using gram stain,
colonial morphology and appropriate
biochemical tests as needed
Determine ratio of colonies to the total
volume of ash in drum and adjust to find
total number of spores remaining viable
through incinerator cyde
Figure 5-18. Sample and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing of Ash Samples
5-65
-------
Recovtrrt lnn*r
container
. Transfer conttnta
to a Incubator tub*
Rine* inner tub*
with sterile phoaphati
Buffer Into th*
Incubator tub*
Vacuum filter through a*prat* st*rll*
NaJg*n** c*lluloa* nttrata 02um
fllt*runtt
Lay *ach filter on a **parat*
aoarplat*
Incubator platM at 65*C for 24 hour*
R*ch*ck at 48 hours
Enum*ntic cdoni*a of B. at*afOth*rmoDhllu»
onfllUrt
Figure 5-19. Analysis Scheme for Pipe Sample Microbial Viability Tests
5-66
-------
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.
5.7.5.2 Flue Gas Sample Analytical Preparation Procedure. The sample
preparation and analysis scheme is presented in Figure 5-20. The level of each sample
was checked to determine if leakage during shipment occurred. Each sample contained
approximately 1.5 to 2.0 liters of sample. The sample was then aliquoted and prepared
as shown in Figure 5-20. 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.
5.7.5.3 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 allowed to harden. Each
sample was then filtered through a separate vacuum filter unit employing a sterile cellose
nitrate filter (0.2 //m). The incubation tubes were 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 55°C (131°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
biochemical procedures were used to confirm that the colonies are
B. stearothermophilus.
5.7.5.4 Indicator Spore Analytical Quality Control. The QA/QC procedures
followed during spore enumeration and verification procedures (analysis) are
documented in Table 5-10. An aliquot from one batch of the wet spore spiking slurry
was sent to the analytical laboratory to verify the manufacturer's count.
Field blanks fromra-flue-gas (impinger) sample as well as two charged pipe
samples were analyzed to check for contamination during preparation or recovery
procedures. Duplicate impinger samples from two test runs were analyzed.
. JBS343
-------
Recovered
liquid sample
3 10-ml aliquot*
3 100-ml aliquot*
3 equal aliquots
of remaining sample
Vacuum filter through seprate sterile
Nalgene'cellulose nitrate 0.2um
filter unit
Lay each filter on a separate
agar plate
Incubator plates at 6^C for 24 hours
Recheck at 48 hours
Enumerate colonies of B. stearothermophilus
on filters
Figure 5-20. Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme for Microbial Testing
5-68
-------
TABLE 5-10. INDICATOR SPORE TESTING QA/QC CHECKS
Sample Type
Number
QA/QC Check
Wet Spores
Verify manufacturer's wet spore count by
sending an aliquot from one slurry to
RTI for count.
Field Blank -
Impinger Sample
Field Blank -
Pipe Sample
Duplicates -
Impinger Sample
Control -
Pipe Samples
Pre-Test Ash
Blank
Prepare train through leak check, 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
Prepare pipe samples for transportation
to field, but do not charge into
incinerator. Analyze for viable spores.
Collect ash samples using the test
procedures prior to any spiking of
indicator spores
JBS343
5-69
-------
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. Two charged
pipe control samples were prepared and taken to the test site, but not charged into the
incinerator. These, were analyzed with the other samples to ensure microbe survivability
during test preparation, transportation, and handling of the samples.
5.8 PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SAMPLING METHODS
Particle size distribution measurements were obtained with Anderson Mark III
in-stack cascade impactors employing a pre-separator. A schematic of the sampling train
is shown in Figure 5-21. The impactor consists of eight stages plus a final filter. Each
stage has a number of concentric round jets offset on each succeeding stage such that the
one plate serves both as jet and impaction surface. The Anderson MK III is operated in
the range from 0.3 to 0.7 acfm and the flue gas was sampled isokinetically
(100 ±20 percent) with a recommended weight gain of 50 mg.
The impactor was prepared by loading the substrates into the impactor and
recording the identification number and tare weight. The stage order was checked as the
stages were assembled. The impinger train was prepared according to EPA Method 5.
Then, the impactor and pre-separator/nozzle were attached to the probe and the probe
attached to impinger train. Once assembled, the sampling train was leak checked at
15 in. Hg. The leak rate has to be below 0.02 cfm.
Prior to sampling, a preliminary velocity traverse 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
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 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 weighed to a constant weight as detailed in
Section 5.2.
JBS343 5-70
-------
Temperature
Sensor
Cyclone
Nozzle
Backup Filter Holder
Thermometer
Figure 5-21. PM/CPM Sampling Train
-------
5.9 PROCESS SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Ash samples were collected from the incinerator discharge, the baghouse, and the
spray dryer. Representative- samples were collected from the drums by means of a
sample thief. Laboratory samples were collected in 1 liter bottles using a 3 foot sample
thief. Sample replicates were sent to respective laboratories for analyses of pathogens,
loss-on-ignition, carbon, metals, and CDD/CDF. Lime samples were also collected and
analyzed for metals and CDD/CDF.
JBS343 5-12
-------
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Specific QA/QC procedures were strictly adhered to during'this test program to
ensure the production of useful and valid data. A detailed presentation of QC
procedures for all manual flue gas sampling, process sample collection, and CEM
operations can be found in the Morristown Test Plan. This section will report the test
program QA parameters so that the degree of data quality may be ascertained.
Six days of testing were conducted at Morristown Memorial Hospital. All runs
were completed successfully at two different operating conditions. The incinerator and
APCD operating conditions were not varied throughout the runs with the exception of
carbon injection rates. Incinerator charging rates were all within 11% of the average
rate for all six runs. Combustion chamber temperatures did not vary more than 2%
during the tests. Lime slurry feed rates were held within 13% of the average rate for all
the runs, and the baghouse pressure drop was held within 5%. The first three runs
(Runs 1, 2, and 3) were conducted with no carbon injection (baseline). The last three
runs (Runs 4, 5, and 6) were performed at a carbon injection rate of 4 Ib/hr.
In summary, the data was of acceptable quality throughout the project. Post-test
leak checks for all sampling trains were within acceptable limits, except for Run 3 at the
spray dryer inlet for the CDD/CDF sampling train. 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 out of 100 percent for all
test runs. Dioxin field blank at the inlet to the spray dryer showed only a slight
detection of the target CDD/CDF compounds. All of the critical recovery percentages
met the acceptable criterion. The precision, accuracy, and completeness criteria met the
pre-set goals.
Metals blank results showed some contamination, which is discussed in
Section 6.2.2. Method spike recovery values for the metals analyzed were all within
acceptable limits except for silver in the ash analysis, which is discussed in section 6.4.2.
The manual halogen gas tests met acceptable reagent blank and field blank levels, as
well as acceptable method spike results.
JBS343 ""
-------
The CEM results showed good calibration drift values and QC gas responses. All
CEM QC procedures and objectives were followed as described in the Morristown Test
Plan.
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 sampling and Section 6.4 presents method-specific
analytical QA parameters. Section 6.5 discusses the CEM QA parameters.
6.1 QA/QC DEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall QA/QC objective is to ensure precision, accuracy, completeness,
comparability, and representativeness for each major measurement parameter called for
in this test program. For this test program, quality control and quality assurance can be
defined as follows:
• Quality Control: The overall system of activities whose purpose is to
provide a quality product or service. QC procedures are routinely followed
to ensure high data quality.
• Quality Assurance: A system of activities whose purpose is to provide
assurance that the overall quality control is being done effectively.
Assessments can be made from QA parameters on what degree of data
quality was achieved.
• Data Quality: The characteristics of a product (measurement data) that
bear on its ability to satisfy a given purpose. These characteristics are
defined as follows:
Precision - A measure of mutual agreement among individual
measurements of the same property, usually under prescribed
similar conditions. Precision is best expressed in terms of the
standard deviation and in this report will be expressed as the
relative standard deviation or coefficient of variation.
Accuracy - The degree of agreement of a measurement (or an
average of measurements of the same thing), X, with an accepted
reference or true value, T, can be expressed as the difference
between -two values, X-T, the ratio X/T, or the difference as a
percentage of the reference or true value, 100 (X-T)/T.
Completeness - A measure of the amount of valid data obtained
from a measurement system compared with the amount that was
expected to be obtained under prescribed test conditions.
JBS343
-------
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 data quality 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 into the quality of the emissions test data produced from manual
tests during the test program.
6.2.1 Dioxin/Furan Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-2 lists both the pre-test and post-test leak checks completed on the
CDD/CDF sampling trains. The acceptance criterion is that all post-test leak checks
must be less than 0.02 cfm or 4 percent of the average sampling rate (whichever is less).
All of the leak rates were lower than 0.02 cfm, except for Run 3 at the spray dryer inlet.
The sample volume was leak corrected for this run.
Table 6-3 presents the isokinetic sampling rates for CDD/CDF, PM/metals,
microorganisms, and Hg sampling trains. The acceptance criterion is that the average
sampling rate must be within 10 percent of 100 percent isokinetic. Isokinetic rates were
within the 10 percent criterion for all of the test runs.
All dry gas meters were fully calibrated within the last six months against an EPA
approved intermediate standard. The full calibration factor or meter Y was used to
correct actual metered sample to true sample volume. To verify the full calibration, a
post-test calibration was 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, and Hg were well within the 5 percent criterion of the full
calibration factor.
Field blanks were collected at the spray dryer 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
JBS343
-------
Table 6-1
Summary of Data Quality
Criteria
Control Limits
Remarks
Manual Sampling
Isokinetics
Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor
Final Leak Rate (after each port)
100 ± 10 percent
Post-test average calibration
factor agree ±5 percent of
pre-test factor
_<0.02 acfm or 4 percent of
sampling rate
Criterion met for all runs
Within ±5 percent for all dry
gas meters
Sample volume adjusted for
Run 3 at inlet for CDD/CDF
train
CEM Measurements
Linearity
Daily Drift (zero and span)
Daily QC Check (midrange)
Line Leak Check
R > 0.9980 or ±2 percent of
full scale
±5 percent of full scale
±5 percent
.£.0.5 percent
SO2 analyzer linearity was
0.9961 but within ±2 percent of
full scale, all other analyzers had
linearity > 0.998
O2/CO2 inlet data was drift
corrected for Runs 2 and 5, SO2
outlet data drift corrected for
Run 3, (all drifts were between
3 to 5 percent)
THC and HC1 analyzers did not
meet this criterion on some
occasions
Leak detected in inlet sampling
line for O2/CO2, SO2, NOX,
CO, and THC at the end of
Run 2, data was corrected for
Runs 1 and 2 based on O2
values for Runs 3 through 6
CDD/CDF Analytical Results
Internal Standard Recoveries
40-130 percent tetra- through
hexa-chlorinated compounds
25-130 percent hepta- through
octa- chlorinated homologues
Some compounds had recoveries
less than 40 percent but more
than 20 percent and hence they
were not re-analyzed
Criterion satisfied for all
analysis
JBS343
6-4
-------
Table 6-1, continued
Criteria
Surrogate Standard Recoveries
Field Blank
Laboratory Proof Blank
Control Limits
70-130 percent
< 10 times the detection limit
< 10 times the detection limit
Remarks
Met for all Modified Method 5
analysis, recoveries were less
than 70 percent for a few
congeners in ash analysis
The inlet field blank showed
only a slight detection for furans
from penta through hepta
congeners
The ash and sludge lab blanks
showed slight detection for some
CDD/CDF congeners
Metals Analytical Results
Laboratory Proof Blank
Matrix Spikes
100 ±20 percent
All metals were below detection
limit in the blanks
Satisfied on all occasions except
for Ag in the ash sample
Cold Vapor Mercury Analysis
Matrix Spike Duplicate
Halogen Matrix Spikes
100 ±20 percent
100+20 percent
Satisfied
Satisfied
JBS343
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-2. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF SAMPLE TRAINS
MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
Date
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
Run
Number
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Maximum
Vacuum
5
4.5
7
9
9.5
10
4
4
6
7.5
10
9
10
14
6
6
7.5
10
5.5
4.5
9.5
12.5
4
4.5
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
Avg. Sample
Rate
(acfin)
0.484
0.429
0.508
0.564
0.705
0.730
0.593
0.552
0.756
0.700
0.577
0.579
0.624
0.731
0.562
0.574
0.699
0.692
0.586
0.586
0.694
0.749
0.591
0.582
4% Sample
Rate
(acfm)
0.019
0.017
0.020
0.023
0.028
0.029
0.024
0.022
0,030
0.028
0.023
0.023
0.025
0.029
0.022
0.023
0.028
0.028
0.023
0.023
0.028
0.030
0.024
0.023
Measured
Leak Rate
0.006
0.007
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.05*
0.015
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.010
0.006
0.010
0.015
0.007
0.015
0.010
0.013
0.016
0.002
0.010
Vacuum
(in-Hg)
6
8
10
10
12
13
6.5
10
7
10
11
12
12
14
10
10
15
12
9
10
10
15
• 8.5
10
Ov
ON
*Sample volume was leak corrected.
-------
TABLE 6-3. ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RATES FOR CDD/CDF, TM, M101A, AND
MICROORGANISM TEST RUNS; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
Date
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
CDD/CDF
Isokinetic
Sample Rate (%)
102.57
92.66
101.98
94.37
101.08
94.87
99.57
96.74
100.97
95.08
100.77
96.47
Toxic Metals
Isokinetic
Sample Rate (%)
96.37
100.97
98.07
97.62
97.29
99.23
95.53
100.94
94.71
96.06
95.09
102.37
Mercury
Isokinetic
Sample Rate (%)
101.22
97.63
102.69
98.88
98.79
99.62
96.74
100.89
98.96
97.63
97.82
100.99
Microorganisms
Isokinetic
Sample Rate (%)
96.91
a
95.67
a
93.79
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a No test at this location.
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-4. DRY GAS METER POST-TEST CALIBRATION RESULTS
MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
Meter Box
ID
N-34
N-32
A-35
N-33
8
18
A-36
Sample
Trains
CDD/CDF
CDD/CDD
Metals
Metals
Mercury
Mercury
Microorganism
Mercury
Location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Inlet
Full
Calibration
Factor
1.0115
1.0159
1.0010
0.9987
1.0075
0.9817
0.9968
Post-Test
Calibration
Factor
1.0118
1.0058
1.0053
0.9948
0.9953
0.9839
0.9917
Post-Test
Deviation
(*)'
0.03
-1.00
0.43
-0.39
-1.23
0.22
-0.51
[(Post-Test)-(Full)]/(Full)*100
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-5. CDD/CDF FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED TO AVERAGE RUN RESULTS
MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
COGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
TOTAL TCDD
12378 PCDD
TOTAL PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
TOTAL Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
TOTAL TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
TOTAL PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
TOTAL HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
TOTAL Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
INLET
MM5
FIELD
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.003]
[0.003]
[0.005]
0.010
0.006
[0.005]
0.007
0.040
0.150
0.280
0.760
[0.008]
0.030
(0.008)
0.020
0.090
0.140
(0.040)
0.160
0.003
0.560
0.490
(0.220)
1.200
2.900
MM5
COND. 1
AVG.
(total ng)
0.080
0.697
0.280
2.400
0.510
0.590
1.243
8.000
10.433
21.400
41.100
7.733
25.233
2.000
6.033
56.800
22.333
6.033
22.633
1.083
98.533
44.767
16.600
108.833
217.467
MM5
COND. 2
AVG.
(total ng)
0.057
0.810
0.217
1.833
0.497
0.580
1.187
8.200
11.467
24.233
46.500
0.623
22.633
1.253
4.400
47.800
24.233
6.133
27.833
0.620
106.767
51.167
19.133
147.733
244.100
OUTLET
MM5
FIELD
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.005]
0.008
[0.005]
[0.005]
[0.010]
[0.005]
[0.008]
(0.007)
(0.040)
(0.070)
0.180
[0.005]
[0.005]
[0.005]
[0.005]
(0.005)
[0.008]
[0.005]
0.008
[0.008]
0.007
[0.008]
[0.010]
[0.008]
(0.020)
MM5
COND. 1
AVG.
(total ng)
0.027
0.273
0.040
0.500
0.047
0.063
0.093
0.967
0.517
1.153
1.053
1.203
12.633
0.443
1.360
14.033
2.800
0.737
2.067
0.080
12.233
3.400
0.757
8.900
5.433
MM5
COND. 2
AVG.
(total ng)
[0.004]
0.011
0.005
0.033
0.012
0.016
0.033
0.217
0.237
0.467
0.630
0.033
0.777
0.020
0.067
0.687
0.237
0.070
0.263
0.009
1.067
0.467
0.163
1.233
1.343
[ ] = minimum detection limit
() = estimated maximum possible concentration
Note: Condition 1 consists of Runs 1,2,3.
Condition 2 (Carbon Injection) consists of Runs
4,5,6.
6-9
-------
Modified Method 5 (MM5) samples for the two test conditions. No 2378 TCDD or
2378 TCDF was detected in any of the field blanks. The heavier CDD/CDF isomers
were detected in the MM5 field blanks, with most contamination found at the spray
dryer inlet at levels much lower than detected in the actual runs. However, field blank
corrections were not made on the emissions results.
6.2.2 PM/Metals Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-6 presents the leak check results for the PM/metals. All runs met the
leak rate criterion of 0.02 cfm. The isokinetic sampling rates for the PM/metals trains
were listed in Table 6-3. All isokinetic values were within 10 percent of 100 percent.
The post-test dry gas meter calibration checks for boxes used for PM/metals
sampling were shown previously in Table 6-4. The results were well within the 5 percent
acceptance criterion.
The metals field blank results compared to average run results are presented in
Table 6-7. There was a noticeable contamination in the field blanks. Aluminium was
detected at high concentrations in the inlet and outlet field blanks. The source of
contamination for Al appears to be the filter itself. No blank corrections were made.
6.2.3 Mercury 101A Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-8 presents the leak check results for the mercury trains. All runs met the
leak check criterion.
Mercury isokinetic results were shown in Table 6-3. All of the test runs met the
isokinetic criterion of ± 10 percent of 100 percent.
The Hg field blank results are contained in Table 6-9. The amount of Hg
detected in the field blanks was negligible in comparison to amounts detected in the run
samples.
6.2.4 Halogen Flue Gas Sampling Quality Assurance
Halogen flue gas concentration tests by EPA Method 26 did not require isokinetic
sampling. 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".
JBS343 6'10
-------
TABLE 6-6. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR TOXIC METALS SAMPLE TRAINS
MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
Date
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
Run
Number
1
1
: 2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Maximum
Vacuum
3.5
4
2
2
3.5
4
2
2
4.5
4
2
4
6
8
4
3.5
5.5
9
2.25
2.25
6
9
3
3.5
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
Avg. Sample
Rate
(acrm)
0.512
0.512
0.557
0.531
0.510
0.510
0.549
0.561
0.561
0.520
0.575
0.582
0.641
0.687
0.579
0.596
0.653
0.684
0.585
0.594
0.635
0.681
0.599
0.594
4% Sample
Rate
(acfm)
0.020
0.020
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.021
0.023
0.023
0.026
0.027
0.023
0.024
0.026
0.027
0.023
0.024
0.025
0.027
0.024
0.024
Measured
Leak Rate
0.008
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.006
0.005
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.009
0.011
0.005
0.014
0.006
0.010
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.005
Vacuum
(in. Hg)
10
10
17
18
20
11
11
10
10
10
15
16
12
12
11
9
10
12
12
15
11
12
11
12
-------
TABLE 6-7. METALS FIELD BLANK RESULTS COMPARED TO AVERAGE RUN RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
INLET
Metals
Aluminium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thalium
OUTLET
Aluminium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thalium
" Field Blank
Front
Half
(ug)
3900
24.3
4.85
323
0.275
14.1
11.7
131
87.8
[2.45]
12
4.48
[25.0]
Impinger
1,2,3
(Ug) :
36.5
2.87
[0.446]
1.64
[0.111]
0.591
3.97
24.7
1.14
11.2
1.77
5.49
[11-1]
Impinger
4,5,6
'(ug)
[0.181]
Total
(ug)
3937
27.2
4.85
325
0.275
14.7
15.7
156
88.9
11.2
13.8
9.97
[36.1]
166
12.6
[LOO]
5.35
[0.25]
0.725
2.63
15.4
[0.75]
[2.45]
1.85
5.83
[25.0]
16.3
[1.68]
[0.448]
0.806
[0.112]
[0.224]
1.14
14.7
[0.336]
[1.84]
1
10.6
[11.2]
[0.517]
182
12.6
[1.45]
6.16
[0.362]
0.725
3.77
30.1
[1.09]
[4.80]
2.85
16.4
[36.2]
Condition 1
(ug)
48433
1159
26.8
6783
3.28
1032
286
12467
7800
5823
217
15
[60.6]
Condition 2
(ug)
46733
2270
78.3
7433
4.65
1417
436
19933
12733
22700
373
2.12
4.1
261
15.7
[1.43]
16.1
0.17
3.32
6.42
40.2
10.91
3830
6.1
5.9
[35.7]
180.7
9.76
[1-42]
8.59
[0.356]
1.67
5.32
27.96
5.06
564.3
2.46
5.63
[35.6]
[ ] : Minimum detection limit
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-8. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR MERCURY SAMPLE TRAINS
MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
Date
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/23/91
Run
Number
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Maximum
Vacuum
3
3
3
3
2
2
3.25
3.75
2
2
3
4
2
2
3.5
3.75
2
2
4
4
2
2
3.75
4.25
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
Avg. Sample
Rate
(acfm)
0.458
0.466
0.585
0.555
0.486
0.467
0.560
0.583
0.469
0.470
0.592
0.598
0.489
0.481
0.592
0.608
0.483
0.440
0.617
0.604
0.473
0.456
0.621
0.618
4% Sample
Rate
(acfm)
0.018
0.019
0.023
0.022
0.019
0.019
0.022
0.023
0.019
0.019
0.024
0.024
0.020
0.019
0.024
0.024
0.019
0.018
0.025
0.024
0.019
0.018
0.025
0.025
Measured
Leak Rate
0.016
0.018
0.001
0.003
0.012
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.010
0.004
0.007
0.003
0.012
0.015
0.007
0.005
0.010
0.008
0.008
0.010
0.018
0.014
0.005
0.007
Vacuum
(in. Hg)
10
11
17
18
10
11
13
10
10
5
16
16
12
6
10
10
10
5
14
16
10
12
13
11
-------
TABLE 6-9. MERCURY 101A FIELD BLANK AND METHOD RESULTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
'
Mercury Fraction
Front Half
Front Half- 1st Filter
Front Half- 2nd Filter
Back Half
Front Half- 1st Filter
Front Half- 2nd Filter
Field Blank
Inlet
(total ug)
1.59
1.16
[0.123]
(0.826)
(0.525)
[0.188]
Outlet
(total ug)
[0.206]
[0.285]
[0.123]
3.98
(0.484)
[0.188]
Method Blank
(total ug)
[0.361]
[0.254]
[0.143]
[2.77]
[0.245]
[0.123]
[ ] : Minimum detection limit.
() : Estimated maximum possible concentration.
6-14
-------
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. There was no quantitation of leak rate. All halogen tests met the
post-test leak check criterion.
Halogen field blank and reagent blank results are shown in Table 6-10. Cl" was
detected at low concentration in the spray dryer inlet field blank. There was no
detection of halogen ions in the outlet field blank and method blanks. Figures 6-1 and
6-2 show a graph of ppmv versus run number. Any manual HC1 results outside the
control limit of ± 3 times the standard deviation based on CEM HC1 results were not
reported.
6.2.5 Microbial Survivability in Emissions Quality Assurance
The post-test dry gas meter calibration check for the microbial emissions meter is
shown in Table 6-4. Post-test calibration factors were within the 5 percent acceptance
criterion at 0.32 percent.
Table 6-11 presents the leak check results for microbial survivability in emissions
test runs. All leak checks met the "0.02 cfm or 4 percent of sample rate" acceptance
criterion.
Microbial emission testing isokinetic results are presented in Table 6-3. All run
met the isokinetic criterion of ± 10 percent of 100 percent.
Control samples of the wet spore solution and the dry spore pipes were analyzed
along with the test samples. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 6-12.
Approximately 20 ml of the spore solution was submitted for confirmation
analysis. The confirmation count of viable spores was 3.7 x 108 spores/ml. The
manufacturer's count of the same solution was 7.0 x 108 spores/ml.
Viable spores cultured from the dry spore confirmation sample were too
numerous to count. The EPA protocol for dry spore spike analysis does not require
dilution and enumeration of the spores.
JBS343 "" -*
-------
TABLE 6-10. HALOGEN FIELD, METHOD, AND REAGENT BLANK RESULTS;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
BLANK TYPE
•' - • - :'• '"• -
INLET FIELD BLANK
OUTLET FIELD BLANK
METHOD BLANK 1
METHOD BLANK 2
REAGENT BLANK 1
REAGENT BLANK 2
REAGENT BLANK 3
REAGENT BLANK 4
REAGENT BLANK 5
LAB PROOF BLANK 1
LAB PROOF BLANK 2
ANALYTEa
ci-
(total rag)
0.515
[0.00399]
[0.00576]
[0.00351]
[0.00391]
[0.00357]
[0.00389]
[0.00382]
[0.00325]
[0.00300]
[0.00285]
Br-
(total mg)
[0.00457]
[0.00445]
[0.00642]
[0.00391]
[0.00436]
[0.00398]
[0.00433]
[0.00425]
[0.00362]
[0.00334]
[0.00318]
•:l -F-- -' -
(total mg)
[0.0144]
[0.0140]
[0.202]
[0.0123]
[0.0137]
[0.0125]
[0.0136]
[0.0134]
[0.0144]
[0.0105]
[0.0100]
a: Values are reported as respective anions.
Q = Minimum detection limit.
6-16
-------
15
Is
CLO
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
RUN NUMBER
MANUAL
CEM
+3(STDEV)
-3(ST DEV)
FIGURE 6-1. SPRAY DRYER INLET HCI RESULTS WITH CONTROL LIMITS
-------
00
110
100
90
80
70
60
'd
Q. 40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
_L
_L
1 2 3
5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
• MANUAL
+ CEM
+3(STDEV)
-3(ST DEV)
FIGURE 6-2. BAGHOUSE OUTLET HCI RESULTS WITH CONTROL LIMITS
-------
TABLE 6-11. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR MICROORGANISMS SAMPLE TRAINS
MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
Date*
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
.: -:'":'' ";" •-
Run
Number
1
2
3
Location
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Maximum
Vacuum
22
3.5
2.5
-,•'•' ' .'•• .•
Port
A
A
A
Avg. Sample
Rate
(acftn)
0.663
0.644
0.671
4% Sample
Rate
(acftn)
0.027
0.026
0.027
Measured
Leak Rate
0.004
0.011
0.008
Vacuum
(m.Hg)
7
7
4
Leak
Corrected
(YorN)
N'
N '
N
-------
Table 6-12
Spore Spike Solution Confirmation Analysis
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Sample ID
Wet Spore Solution
Dry Spore Solution
Manufacturer's Count
(spore/ml)
7.0 x 108 spore/ml
1 x 10 spore/sample
Confirmation Average
(viable spores/ml)
3.7 x 108 spore/ml
TNTC
Confirmation Count
Standard Deviation
(viable spores/ml)
5.3 x 107 spores/ml
--
Note: All confirmation values were taken from the average of the 10 ml, 48 hour counts.
TNTC = Too Numerous To Count
JBSS43
6-20
-------
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. stearothermophillus
(wet spores) were spiked to the incinerator to coincide with simultaneous emissions
testing and daily ash sampling. 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 regular spiking intervals. 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.
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 by the manufacturer. This prevented any losses of material
during shipment or sample preparation. (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 sealed in clean plastic bags and shipped to the dry spore
manufacturer for charging. All inner containers were thermally sterilized by the spore
manufacturer immediately prior to charging. The containers were sealed after being
charged with spores and shipped back to Radian.
In conjunction with the wet spore/microbial survivability tests, ash was collected
from the incinerator bottom, spray dryer, and baghouse after each test run. The ash was
analyzed for viable indicator spores, as well as metals, CDD/CDF, carbon, loss on
ignition, and moisture content. All of the bottom ash from each test run was collected in
a disinfected steel hopper. After removing large objects from the hopper, the remaining
ash was mixed well with a disinfected shovel, and five one-liter samples were taken and
placed in pre-cleaned, amber glass bottles.
6'21
-------
Ash from the spray dryer and baghouse was collected during each run in
cardboard boxes lined with new plastic garbage bags. Following each run, the ash from
the spray dryer was mixed well, and five one-liter samples were taken from the bag.
Baghouse ash from each run filled several boxes. Samples from each run were
composited by using a thief to remove ash from each box and mixing the ash removed in
a separate container. The composite sample was placed into five one-liter bottles.
All material used for sampling, sample compositing, and sample aliquoting was
disinfected with 30 percent H2O2 to prevent any sample contamination.
During the ash removal process, the pipe samples were also recovered. The outer
containers were allowed to cool and then opened. The inner container was removed and
placed in a clean, dry Ziplock baggie, labeled and kept in a clean environment prior to
shipment to the laboratory.
6.4 ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
The following section reports QA parameters for the CDD/CDF, metals,
halogen, and Hg analytical results.
6.4.1 CDD/CDF Analytical Quality Assurance
6.4.1.1 Flue Gas (MM5*) Analytical Procedure. 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.I.
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 on
the XAD absorbent trap prior to the sampling session. (Toluene surrogates are added to
species. Four different type standards are added. Surrogate standards are usually spiked
in the sample prior to extraction.) Recovery of these compounds allows for the
JBS343
6-22
-------
evaluation of overall sample collection efficiency and analytical matrix effects. Internal
standards are spiked after the sampling session but prior to extraction. Alternate
standards are also spiked at-this stage. Recovery percentage of internal standards are
used in quantifying-the flue gas native CDD/CDF isomers. Recovery of alternate
standards allows for extraction/fractionation efficiencies to be determined. Finally,
recovery standards are added after fractionation, just prior to the HRGC/HRMS
analysis. Internal standards recovery are determined relative to recovery standards
recovery. Recovery standards recovery efficiencies are not typically reported with the
analytical results.
Poor recovery percentage of the various standards can reveal poor data quality.
In some cases, if an analysis with a poor recovery is also accompanied by a suitable
QA/QC "flag", the sample result can be validated. A full discussion of the analytical
QA/QC program cannot be presented in this summary report, but can be found in
Triangle's CDD/CDF Data User Manual.
6.4.1.2 CDD/CDF Standard Recoveries. Table 6-13 presents the CDD/CDF
method blank results. The few congeners that were detected were present at very low
concentrations. No 2378 TCDD or 2378 TCDF were detected. Tables 6-14, and 6-15,
present the standard recovery values for the MM5 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.
The majority of the CDD/CDF internal standard recoveries for the spray dryer
inlet and baghouse outlet met the acceptable criteria. A few isomers in the
tetra-chlorinated compounds range showed less than 40 percent recoveries. The
recoveries for hepta- and octa-chlorinated compounds were all well within the 25 to
130 percent range.
JBSM3
-------
TABLE 6-13: CDD/CDF METHOD BLANK RESULTS
'
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 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD-t-CDF
— TLIM23
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.008]
0.000
[0.005]
0.000
[0.005]
[0.005]
[0.005]
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.140
0,200
[0.005]
0.008
[0.005]
[0.003]
0.000
[0.005]
[0.003]
0.006
[0.005]
0.000
0.004
[0.005]
0.005
0.009
0.032
! 0.232
TL1 WATER
BLANK
(total ng)
[.008]
0.000
[0.008]
0.000
[0.008]
[0.005]
[0.005]
0.030
0.130
0.080
0.640
0.880
(0.003)
0.007
[0.005]
[0.003]
0.000
[0.005]
[0.003]
(0.006)
[0.005]
0.024
[0.003]
[0.005]
0.006
[0.008]
0.046
0.926
TLI ASH
BLANK
(total ng)
[0.300]
1.200
[0.300]
1.400
[0.500]
[0.300]
[0.400]
2.200
2.500
1.600
11.700
20.600
[0.200]
0.000
[0.200]
[0.200]
0.000
[0.300]
[0.300]
0.200
[0.400]
0.000
[0.300]
[0.500]
0.000
[0.600]
: A0;200
20.800
TLI SLUDGE
BLANK
(totalng)
[0.200]
0.000
[0.100]
0.000
[0.200]
(0.100)
[0.200]
0.250
2.300
1.400
9.800
13.850
[0.200]
0.000
[0.100]
[0.100]
0.000
(0.150)
[0.100]
0.350
[0.200]
0.000
(0.440)
[0.200]
0.000
1.300
: V 1.870:
,,,:;/S'::15.720;
[ ] : Minimum detection limit.
() : Estimated maximum possible concentration.
6-24
-------
TABLE 6-14. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE CDD/CDF MODIFIED METHOD 5
INLET ANALYSES; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
•
Full Screen Analyses
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
Alternate Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-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 Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
Run 1
11/18/91
115.0
139.0
120.0
130.0
109.0
84.9
106.0
15.1
17.4
49.4
77.7
82.5
90.4
95.6
88.1
85.7
93.0
21.7
25.8
Run2
11/19/91
105.0
135.0
126.0
120.0
119.0
78.8
82.6
21.6
23.5
57.4
85.1
73.1
81.0
104.0
103.0
118.0
89.3
28.4
32.2
Rnn3
11/20/91
115.0
121.0
128.0
132.0
111.0
89.2
103.0
39.0
38.3
59.9
69.4
89.6
86.4
105.0
94.7
93.5
92.7
48.7
48.2
Run4
11/21/91
106.0
127.0
128.0
123.0
103.0
86.3
102.0
28.4
30.2
59.2
101.0
85.5
92.3
118.0
96.0
110.0
88.2
33.4
35.8
Run5
11/22/91
107.0
113.0
129.0
140.0
107.0
90.5
112.0
39.1
40.7
68.0
78.3
87.9
89.9
117.0
103.0
124.0
88.6
46.1
47.5
Run 6
11/23/91
117.0
118.0
132.0
135.0
116.0
99.8
109.0
69.6
62.4
71.7
99.8
94.8
98.1
103.0
104.0
121.0
90.0
68.4
73.8
Field
Blank
116.0
107.0
121.0
135.0
108.0
84.8
98.3
72.8
60.6
71.3
81.7
83.4
102.0
90.4
91.0
74.2
'
86.7
67.2
70.9
TLI
85.4
117.0
107.0
128.0
97.8
71.1
69.4
17.7
24.8
57.9
75.9
69.4
79.9
74.4
90.3
103.0
a
a
a
a No confirmation recovery done on sample.
6-25
-------
TABLE 6-15. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE CDD/CDF MODIFIED METHOD 5
OUTLET ANALYSES; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
-
Full Screen Analyses
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
Alternate Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-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 Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
Run 1
11/18/91
102.0
127.0
114.0
125.0
110.0
85.0
87.9
22.6
26.7
56.7
79.2
84.3
85.9
93.7
93.9
85.5
87.3
31.1
36.7
Run 2
11/19/91
119.0
125.0
122.0
139.0
118.0
84.1
87.3
35.1
36.4
59.1
77.9
82.5
84.3
89.5
90.2
80.2
89.7
41.5
42.5
Run3
11/20/91
107.0
119.0
113.0
128.0
108.0
85.7
90.3
38.2
39.2
60.9
92.0
89.0
90.4
89.6
86.8
76.8
86.9
42.7
42.5
Run4
11721/91
113.0
129.0
123.0
128.0
121.0
91.3
95.4
29.6
31.5
60.1
107.0
82.9
93.9
102.0
111.0
116.0
'
88.3
33.9
38.6
Run 5
11/22/91
120.0
129.0
122.0
133.0
116.0
74.3
81.4
36.6
37.3
53.6
70.8
71.7
74.2
70.3
68.0
55.6
95.1
42.5
45.5
Run 6
11/23/91
111.0
110.0
115.0
114.0
102.0
89.4
95.5
55.9
52.8
62.5
72.4
92.4
96.2
97.6
88.2
69.3
- , .
85.9
58.1
61.5
: Field
Blank
114.0
123.0
117.0
119.0
108.0
83.5
92.4
38.0
37.4
52.6
86.2
84.9
92.1
87.9
86.2
72.5
'
a
a
a
TLI
85.4
117.0
107.0
128.0
97.8
71.1
69.4
17.7
24.8
57.9
75.9
69.4
79.9
74.4
90.3
103.0
a
a
a
a No confirmation recovery done on sample.
6-26
-------
TABLE 6-16. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF BOTTOM ASH AND'
SCRUBBER WATER ANALYSES; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
.. .. .... . ^
Full Screen Analysis
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
Alternate Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF 234
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
Confirmation Data
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
BOTTOM ASH
RUN1
11/18/91
100.0
112.0
76.4
88.8
58.2
67.2
74.0
82.2
95.0
118.0
128.0
74.6
75.6
50.9
63.5
70.9
81.6
81.6
80.7
RUN 2
11/19/91
59.5
76.4
107.0
101.0
60.5
73.0
90.3
53.5
70.2
79.7
72.1
91.9
84.4
99.4
78.5
86.2
53.9
53.0
59.5
RUN 3
11/20791
52.1
81.1
106.0
96.7
62.1
70.5
87.3
47.6
58.1
83.8
81.4
89.4
78.9
107.0
86.7
102.0
51.9
54.8
56.8
RUN 4
11/21/91
57.0
65.7
94.2
94.7
29.3
75.2
79.2
48.3
63.6
69.9
62.8
85.4
84.1
76.6
27.5
82.2
53.7
50.0
57.8
RUNS
11/22/91
44.1
84.3
105.0
100.0
73.0
77.3
90.1
39.4
50.1
80.7
74.8
84.5
77.5
102.0
93.4
126.0
48.5
44.2
48.3
RUN 6
11/23/91
46.6
72.6
97.3
97.5
102.0
85.0
92.4
37.2
42.4
63.2
94.1
82.6
88.2
99.2
93.6
92.1
52.4
51.8
58.3
MAKE-UP
WATER
11/18/91 ;
73.0
126.0
83.9
103.0
81.8
88.5
87.7
81.5
91.9
131.0
146.0
94.4
97.1
95.4
103.0
123.0
a
a
a
a No confirmation recovery done on sample.
6-27
-------
TABLE 6-17. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF BAGHOUSE RESIDUE
ANALYSES; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
.
Full Screen Analysis
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
Alternate Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF 234
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
Confirmation Data
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
BAGHOUSE RESIDUE
RUN 1
11/18/91
55.1
82.3
94.8
103.0o
65.6
78.1
87.5
48.4
6L9
83.3
92.6
87.4
88.0
85.0
86.2
91.7
• ~.:. ,- "::" ".
58.3
56.1
63.9
RUN 2
11/19/91
71.0
76.7
97.5
106.0
57.4
80.4
89.4
55.9
79.9
64.5
73.9
78.3
88.4
61.9
69.3
269.1
77.6
66.8
80.7
RUN 3
11/20/91
64.7
74.5
91.7
98.8
59.4
76.7
83.0
58.7
75.8
75.7
70.4
83.3
83.7
65.7
70.6
75.5
66.7
63.0
73.0
RUN 4
11/21/91
57.5
92.0
89.6
100.0
108.0
80.7
88.0
57.0
59.1
80.2
100.0
82.0
83.0
99.6
105.0
111.0
69.2
68.2
74.9
RUNS
11/22/91
73.0
73.2
94.7
103.0
49.9
74.8
85.4
61.7
74.9-
63.5
67.4
67.2
68.8
33.4
34.7
18.1
72.4
71.9
75.2
RUN 6
11/23/91
65.3
74.6
93.7
101.0
80.3
81.0
88.4
63.6
62.9
67.0
79.2
82.5
83.2
69.9
71.8
52.6
75.4
79.2
82.0
6-28
-------
TABLE 6-18. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF SPRAY DRYER
RESIDUE ANALYSES; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
,-.•••-•
Full Screen Analysis
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
Alternate Standards Recovery (%)
13012-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF 234
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
Confirmation Data
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
SPRAY DRYER RESIDUE
RUN1
11/18/91
55.5
75.8
88.7
109.0
88.6
81.9
88.7
44.5
50.9
51.8
85.6
67.5
80.6
73.4
86.5
83.6
62.7
53.4
65.1
RUN 2
11/19/91
55.2
92.1
82.5
96.0
61.6
75.2
77.3
51.0
66.2
84.0
125.0
80.2
84.0
75.1
82.7
85.5
58.8
60.3
66.8
RUN 3
11/20/91
50.1
57.6
74.2
86.3
43.1
62.8
67.5
40.9
54.9
53.5
73.5
62.8
71.4
51.8
54.6
45.1
53.8
52.4
57.0
RUN 4
11/21/91
57.6
92.6
76.7
99.9
70.8
77.2
75.9
52.0
68.2
84.3
110.0
69.9
80.8
68.4
80.8
75.9
57.1
57.3
65.8
RUNS
11/22/91
52.1
82.7
81.1
102.0
65.9
77.7
78.8
44.0
62.3
76.5
98.8
73.0
83.5
72.0
82.5
82.3
55.6
51.2
61.0
RUN 6
11/23/91
49.6
84.5
68.2
88.7
64.3
67.5
67.2
40.9
55.5
75.9
94.0
60.0
71.2
64.3
78.6
92.7
53.1
48.3
55.1
6-29
-------
TABLE 6-19. STANDARDS RECOVERY RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF BLANK
ANALYSES; MORRISTOWN HOSPITAL (1991)
•' -— •
Full Screen Analysis
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
Alternate Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF 234
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF 123
13C12-PeCDD 123
13C12-HxCDF 678
13C12-HxCDD 678
13C12-HpCDF 678
13C12-HpCDD 678
13C12-OCDD
Confirmation Data
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
Internal Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
TLI Water
Blank
58.5
93.5
72.7
98.2
, 75.4
80.1
81.5
53.7
58.6
77.8
74.4
69.9
79.3
69.7
79.7
83.9
a
a
a
TLI Ash
Blank
40.6
73.2
70.5
99.8
56.7
68.5
68.3
36.8
49.0
75.6
88.5
73.9
87.0
66.0
78.2
86.5
a
a
a
TLI Sludge
Blank
35.8
69.9
86.3
97.3
95.0
82.0
81.8
29.0
33.3
48.3
78.6
69.7
82.6
77.5
92.0
85.7
a
a
a
RUN!
Sludge :
-------
All CDD/CDF data was inspected and released as valid by the Triangle
Laboratory QA officer.
Tables 6-16, 6-17, 6-18, and 6-19 present the recovery standards for the kiln ash,
spray dryer,baghouse ash, and method blank samples. All isomers showed recoveries
that were within the acceptance criterion.
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 metals analytical QA parameters.
Table 6-20 presents the metals method blank results for the ash and flue gas
samples. No metals were detected in the ash blank or flue gas method blank.
Table 6-21 presents the method and matrix spike results for the metals analysis.
All spiked recoveries were within the QA allowance of ±20 percent of 100 percent.
Silver, in the matrix spike for the ash sample, had low recoveries probably due to the
presence of anions precipitating the Ag out of solution. No matrix corrections were
applied.
6.4.3 Mercury 101A Analytical Quality Assurance
Table 6-9 presents the method blank Hg 101A analysis. No Hg was detected in
the blank. Table 6-22 presents the matrix spike and duplicate results. The front half
second filter and back half second filter showed less than 90 percent recovery in the
matrix spike. The recoveries in the matrix spike duplicate were within the
100 ± 10 percent criterion.
6.4.4 Halogen Analytical Quality Assessment
The matrix spike recoveries are shown in Table 6-23. Results for all 3 ions were
within the 100 ±20 percent criteria.
6.5 CEM QUALITY ASSURANCES
Flue gas was analyzed for O2, CO2, CO, SO2, NOX, and THC, using EPA
Methods 10, 3A, 6C, 7E, and 25A, respectively. Additional CEM analyzer was also
employed for real time HC1 gas concentrations. The following section will report the
CEM QA parameters specific for each of those methods and analyzers.
6-31
-------
6.5.1 GEM Data Overview
Daily QA/QC procedures were performed on the CEM sampling system and
instruments. These included calibration drift checks and corrections (if necessary) , QC
gas challenges, sample system bias checks, response time checks, leak checks, sample
systems blow back, probe maintenance, filter replacement, conditioner inspection and
maintenance, and others. The aim was to ensure a quality data product. Details of the
CEM QC procedures and objectives are fully outlined in the Morristown Test Plan. The
following sections will report QA parameters specific to the previously mentioned
QA/QC procedures and also data variation.
Table 6-24 presents the CEM internal QA/QC checks along with their respective
acceptance criteria which were conducted at the Morristown 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).
Daily drift criteria between calibrations for both zero and span was ± 5 percent of
full scale. Although Method 10 for CO allows ± 10 percent of full scale drift, the CO
drift requirements were ± 5 percent for this test program, to ensure the quality of data
produced. The HC1 drift criteria was set at ± 10 percent of full scale. This was because
the calibration routines using the HC1 dilution probe necessitate a constant sample gas
temperature. While testing a fluctuating process like MWIs, this can be difficult to
achieve. Pre-test calibrations are typically conducted after the incinerator has reached
full operating temperature. The gas temperature during the post-test calibrations may
have differed enough to produce false calibration drift estimates. However, the constant
temperature problem was minimized during this test program by the use of a CEM
probe heater which minimizes probe gas temperature fluctuations. The zero and span
calibration drift results for each" CEM analyzer on each test day are listed in Table 6-25.
The span drift for the O2 inlet monitor was outside the ±3 percent limit for Runs 2 and
4. The span drift for the CO2 inlet monitor was excessive for Runs 2 and 5 and the span
JBS343
-------
Table 6-20
Metals Ash and Flue Gas Method Blank Results
Momstown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Metal :
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Chloride
-
Lime Slurry
Method
Blank
(mg/kg);
[4.45]
[1.50]
[0.400]
[0.240]
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.600]
[0.400]
[0.300]
[1.96]
[0.300]
[0.600]
[10.0]
Make-up
W*t$r
Method
Blank
(total tig)
[12.1]
[1.50]
[0.832]
[0.499]
[0.208]
[0.416]
[1.25]
[0.832]
[0.624]
[0.392]
[0.624]
[1.25]
[10.0]
[0.0000600]
FJue Gas Method Blank
Ash |
Method I
Blank \
(rag/kg) i
(8.90)
[3.00]
[0.800]
(0.480)
[0.200]
[0.400]
[1.20]
[0.800]
[0.600]
[1.96]
[0.600]
[1.20]
[20.0]
Front
Half
(total ug)
[8.75]
[3.75]
[1.00]
(0.350)
[0.250]
[0.500]
[1.50]
[1.00]
[0.750]
[2.45]
(1.45)
(3.98)
[25.0]
Impujgers
w
(total tig)
[3.73]
[1.60]
[0.427]
[0.107]
[0.107]
[0.213]
[0.640]
[0.427]
[0.320]
[3.13]
[0.320]
(2.29)
[10.7]
Impingers
4,5,6
(total ug)
[0.815]
NOTE: Impingers 4,5 and
[ ] = Minimum Detection
( ) = Estimated Value
6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only.
Limit.
6-33
-------
Table 6-21
Metals Method and Matrix Spike Results
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Chloride
,,_ * Metals Trains
Method Spike {% rec)
Front ;
Half
99.5%
98.8%
105%
86.7%
98.0%
112%
105%
91.5%
101%
103%
106%
36.4%
94.6%
Impingers
1,24
102%
92.6%
93.4%
90 'i %
96.0%
99.0%
98.5%
94.6%
94.4%
91.0%
98.3%
12.1%
93.4%
Lime Slurry
Matrix
Spike
94.5%
99.0%
95.2%
90.4%
93.0%
93.8%
95.2%
90.3%
108%
109%
93.8%
47.0%
95.3%
1 Matrix
Spike Dop
100%
98.0%
97.0%
87.8%
91.8%
90.4%
91.3%
91.9%
104%
104%
92.8%
68.8%
94.3%
Impingers
4,5,6
97.6%
Method Spike Duplicate (% rec)
front
Half
114%
99.7%
87.4%
87.0%
100%
113%
107%
91.8%
94.8%
99.6%
110%
64.1%
94.1%
Make-up Water
Method
Spike
98.8%
86.2%
93.6%
90.7%
94.4%
98.8%
97.9%
94.0%
101%
96.6%
97.0%
30.4%
99.4%
101%
Method
Spike Dup
99.4%
87.5%
102%
90.3%
94.6%
97.8%
97.2%
98.5%
101%
92.6%
97.4%
16.0%
101%
101%
Impingers ;
w \
99.8%
89.2%
96.4%
90.7%
95.6%
99.3%
98.7%
94.3%
96.0%
91.0%
98.3%
19.2%
99.1%
Impingers
4,5,6
96.8%
Ask Samples
Matrix ;
Spike
NA
83.7%
87.8%
67.5%
82.0%
93.4%
90.8%
90.4%
84.6%
95.0%
92.2%
2.50%
38.7%
Matrix
Spike Dup
NA
86.7%
93.8%
88.5%
83.5%
92.8%
90.2%
90.4%
90.4%
97.2%
92.0%
1.52%
40.5%
Note: Impingers 4,5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only
6-34
-------
Table 6-22
Mercury 101A Matrix Spike Results
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Mercury Fraction
Front Half
Front Half- 1st Filter
Front Half - 2nd Filter
Back Half
Back Half- 1st Filter
Back Fh.lf - 2nd Filter
Matrix Spike \
(% Recovery)
102%
97.0%
89.8%
103%
92.7%
83.5%
Matrix Spike Duplicate
(% Recovery) i
97.9%
100%
94.9%
101%
94.7%
92.1%
6-35
-------
TABLE 6-23. HALOGEN MATRIX SPIKE AND MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATES RECOVERY RESULTS;
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
ANALYTE
Cl-
F-
Br-
INLETRUN 1A
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(*)"-
102.0%
105.0%
115.0%
MATRIX
SPKE
DUPLICATE
t
RECOVERY
/(*)
100.0%
102.0%
118.0%
INLET RUN 2B
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(%)
93.6%
108.0%
125.0%
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
(%)
95.0%
105.0%
125.0%
OUTLET RUN 3A
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(%)
96.4%
86.7%
105.0%
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
(%)
97.2%
87.4%
105.0%
OUTLET RUN 4A
MATRIX
SPKE
RECOVERY
(%)
94.4%
113.0%
108.0%
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
(%)
94.4%
112.0%
106.0%
INLET RUN 5A
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(%)
101.0%
102.0%
95.3%
MATRIX
SPKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
(%)
100.0%
102.0%
98.4%
' INLET RUN 6B
MATRIX
SPKE
RECOVERY
<
(%)
102.0%
114.0%
86.8%
MATRIX
SPIKE
DUPLICATE
RECOVERY
(%)
98.4%
106.0%
105.0%
Js
>J
-------
TABLE 6-24. CEM INTERNAL QA/QC CHECKS
Check
Frequency
Criteria
Multipoint Linearity
Check (Calibration
Error)
Sample System Bias
Response Time
NOX Converter
Initial Leak Check
Daily Leak Checks
Stratification Test
Calibration Drift
Every 3rd Day ± 2% Span
3jpomt j:or O2, CO2, NOX,
SO2, HC1
4 point for CO, THC
Once/Site
Once/Site
Once/Site
Once/Site
Before Each
Test Run
Once/Site
Daily
< 5% Span
85% of time for
stable SO2
measurements
> 90% conversion
efficiency
< 4% of Total flow
while under vacuum
< 0.5% O2 with
0.2% O2 gas
Within 10% of
average
< ±3% Span
zero and upscale
gas (can use
± 10 ppm limit for
HC1 ifless
restrictive)
JBS343
6-37
-------
TABLE 6-25. DAILY CALIBRATION DRIFTS
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
^
Drift
Calibration Gas
Parameters
Parameter: O2
Zero Calibration Gas: 0.2% O2
Full Scale: 0-25%
Parameter: CO
Zero Calibration Gas: N2
Full Scale: 0-500ppm
Parameter: CO2
Zero Calibration Gas: N2
Full Scale: 0-20%
Parameter: SO2
Zero Calibration Gas: N2
Full Scale: 0-500ppm
Parameter: NOx
Zero Calibration Gas: N2
Full Scale: 0-1000ppm
Parameter: THC
Zero Calibration Gas: N2
Full Scale: 0-100ppm
Parameter: HC1
Zero Calibration Gas: N2
Full Scale: 0-2000ppm
Date
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
H/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Inlet
Zero
Instrument
Drift
(% of span)
0.50
0.70
1.50
-1.30
-0.70
0.90
0.65
-0.12
-0.46
-1.52
-0.15
-0.77
-0.01
0.06
0.48
0.00
0.08
0.14
0.00
0.00
-2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
-0.16
-0.04
0.12
0.05
0.06
0.94
-0.68
0.55
0.49
0.32
1.32
1.29
2.06
0.18
-0.23
0.22
0.39
Span
Instrument
Drift
(% of span)
0.00
4a
2.00
3a
-1.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.60
-0.30
0.60
4.10
0.10
2.70
-5.10
-1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.60
-0.70
-0.50
-0.10
-0.40
0.00
-2.25
-0.70
-1.96
-0.36
-2.66
2.08
4.71
1.07
0.01
0.14
-0.28
-0.40
Outlet
Zero
Instrument
Drift
(% of span)
0.13
0.06
0.20
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.16
0.00
-0.06
-0.20
0.00
-0.20
b
b
0.17
-0.05
0.06
-0.01
-0.87
2.10
-3.25
-0.30
-0.30
-0.16
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.05
-0.06
0.16
-1.65
-0.49
0.34
1.89
-0.54
-0.85
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.77
-0.19
Span
Instrument
Drift
(% of span)
0.39
0.00
0.47
1.46
0.73
-0.82
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
b
b
2.20
0.60
-0.60
1.50
-0.30
-1.20
-3.20
1.40
-1.00
-1.50
-0.50
-1.60
-0.50
-0.10
-0.50
0.30
0.58
0.00
-4.17
-0.76
1.37
2.56
1.37
0.00
-2.78
-0.86
0.09
1.33
6-38
-------
drift for the SO2 outlet monitor was -3.2 for Run 3. The CEM data was drift corrected
for these test runs.
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. 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. Post test
QC gases were analyzed after the test run ( with no adjustment ) as well.
The results of the daily QC gas challenges are all shown in Table 6-26.
6.5.4 Multipoint Linearity Check
Multipoint linearity can be determined for each CEM analyzer based on the
response of the calibration and QC gases. A linearity calibration is important because
flue gas concentrations are determined from a two point linear regression analysis (zero
calibration and span calibration gas) bracketing the expected flue gas concentrations.
Multipoint calibrations can be 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 was a correlation coefficient (r) of greater than or equal to
0.998, where the independent variable is the cylinder gas concentration and the
dependent variable is the instrument response.
CEM linearity was calculated for both the inlet and outlet instruments from
calibration and QC gas data from November 18, 1991 and are listed in Table 6-27. All
linearity checks met the acceptance criteria except the SO2 CEM which had an "r" value
of 0.9961, but was within ±2 percent of full scale. The CO2 outlet linearity was
calculated based on November 21 calibration data. Linearity can be calculated for any
test day by using the calibration and QC data included in Appendix D.4.
6.5.5 Response Time
CEM response time-was determined on November 17, 1991 and the results are
shown in Appendix D.5. Response time for the Morristown test program was defined as
the amount of time taken for the SO2 analyzer to reach 85 percent of a QC gas value
6'39
-------
TABLE 6-26. QC GAS RESPONSES
MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1991)
Date
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
Parameter
O2 b
COc
CO2b
•«—
True
Concentration
10
5
10
10
5
10
5
5
5
100
50
100
100
50
50
50
50
10
5
10
10
5
10
5
5
5
Inlet
Measured
Concentration
9.6
4.7
10.4
9.7
4.8
9.8
4.7
4.5
4.7
100.3
51.1
100.5
99.1
54.5
47.9
50.6
50.2
9.8
4.9
10.6
9.9
5.0
9.9
5.0
4.9
5.0
Percent
Difference a
-1.60
-1.20
1.60
-1.20
-0.80
-0.80
-1.20
-2.00
-1.20
0.06
0,22
0.10
-0.18
0.90
-0.42
0.12
0.04
-1.00
-0.50
3.00
-0.50
0.00
-0.50
0.00
-0.50
0.00
Outlet
Measured
Concentration
.9.9
4.9
10.4
10.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
100.0
48.6
104.5
99.9
48.3
45.0
45.8
46.5
10.3
5.2
10.3
5.1
5.0
5.2
Percent
Difference a
-0.40
-0.40
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.28
0.90
-0.02
-0.34
-1.00
-0.84
-0.70
1.50
1.00
1.50
0.50
0.00
1.00
a Percent Difference = [(measured - true)/span]*100
b in units of percent by volume
c in units of ppm by volume
6-40
-------
TABLE 6-26. (Continued)
Date
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/20/91
11/21/91
11/22/91
11/23/91
Parameter
SO2c
• NOxc
THC (wet) c
HC1 (wet) c
„
True
Concentration
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
48.6
10
48.6
48.6
10
10
10
10
177
48.6
177
48.6
48.6
177
177
48.6
48.6
Inlet
Measured
Concentration
71.0
72.0
68.8
75.0
71.5
70.1
82.2
79.0
79.4
81.8
79.7
80.5
46.5
10.0
46.8
45.9
9.6
9.2
9.8
9.4
213.2
193.6
215.8
201.6
Percent
Difference a
-1.80
-1.60
-2.24
-1.00
-1.70
-1.98
0.22
-0.10
-0.06
0.18
-0.03
0.05
-2.10
0.00
-1.80
-2.70
-0.40
-0.80
-0.20
-0.60
1.81
0.83
1.94
Outlet
Measured
Concentration
71.4
67.3
66.5
75.6
72.7
76.2
82.4
75.5
81.9
82.4
80.8
81.4
45.7
9.1
43.8
43.9
4.7
9.5
9.1
9.0
42.2
46.8
43.8
49.2
46.4
Percent
Difference a
-1.72
-2.54
-2.70
-0.88
-1.46
-0.76
0.24
-0.45
0.19
0.24
0.08
0.14
-2.90
-0.90
-4.80
-4.70
-5.30
-0.50
-0.90
-1.00
-3.20
-0.90
-2.40
0.30
-1.10
a Percent Difference = [(measured - true)/span]*100
b in units of percent by volume
c in units of ppm by volume
6-41
-------
Table 6-27
CEM Linearity Results
Morristown Memorial Hospital (1991)
Parameter
02
CO
CO2
SO2
NOX
THC
HC1
Inlet
0.9995
0.9999
0.9999
0.9961
0.9999
0.9999
0.9998
Outlet
0.9999
0.9998
0.9980
0.9961
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
JBS343
6-42
-------
when the gas was directed through the entire sampling system. Both inlet and outlet
extractive systems had response times of approximately 2 minutes.
6.5.7 Stratification Checks -
Because the size of the ducts sampled were small, stratification of CEM gases in
the ducts was assumed to be negligible.
6-43
JBS343
------- |