United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
AiF
Office of Air Quality EMB Reoort 91 -MWI-9
Planning and Standards Volume I
Researcn Triangle Park NC 27711 December 1991
Medical Waste Incineration
Emission Test Report
Borgess Medical Center
Kaiamazoo, Michigan
&EPA
-------
MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATION
EMISSION TEST REPORT
Borgess Medical Center
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Prepared for:
Michael L. Toney
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 1992
-------
CONTENTS, continued
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 Sampling ........ ............... ... 6-13
6.4 Analytical Quality Assurance .... ................... . ...... 6-16
6.5 CEM Quality Assurances .............. .... ........ . ...... 6-27
6.6 Data Variability ..... ............... ..... . ............. 6-31
Volume n
APPENDICES
A EMISSIONS TESTING FIELD DATA SHEETS
A.1 Dioxins/Furans
A.2 Paniculate Matter
A.3 Metals
A. 4 Mercury
A.5 Hydrogen Chloride
A.6 Miscellaneous
B PROCESS DATA SHEETS
C SAMPLE PARAMETER CALCULATION SHEETS
C.I Dioxins/Furans
C.2 Paniculate Matter
C.3 Metals
C.4 Mercury
Volume m
D CEM DATA
D.I CEM Tables
D.2 CEM Plots
D.3 Calibration Drifts
D.4 Calibration and QC Gas Responses
D.5 Response Time, NOX Converter Tests and
Linearity Calculations
JBS335 U1
-------
CONTENTS, continued
E ANALYTICAL DATA
E.I Dioxins/Furans
E.2 Particulate Matter
E.3 Metals
E.4 Mercury
E.5 Hydrogen Chloride
E.6 Sample Identification Log
E.7 LOI and Carbon Data
F CALIBRATION DATA SHEETS
G SAMPLE EQUATIONS
H PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
JBS335 1V
-------
FIGURES
Page
3-1 Schematic of MWI/Waste Heat Boiler System 3-7
3-2 Schematic of Dry Lime Injection/Fabric Filter Air
Pollution Control System 3-8
4-1 Borgess Medical Waste Incinerator Boiler Inlet Location 4-2
4-2 Traverse Point Layout - Boiler Inlet 4-3
4-3 Borgess MWI Baghouse Inlet Location 4-4
4-4 Traverse Point Layout - Baghouse Inlet 4-5
4-5 Borgess MWI Baghouse - Outlet Location 4-6
4-6 Traverse Point Layout - Baghouse Outlet 4-7
5-1 CDD/CDF Sampling Train Configuration 5-4
5-2 Impinger Configuration for CDD/CDF Sampling 5-9
5-3 CDD/CDF Field Recovery Scheme 5-15
5-4 Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples 5-19
5-5 Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train 5-24
5-6 Impinger Configuration for PM/Metals 5-25
5-7 Metals Sample Recovery Scheme 5-28
5-8 Metals Sample Preparation and Analysis Scheme 5-32
5-9 EPA Method 101A Sampling Train 5-35
5-10 EPA Method 101A Sample Recovery Scheme 5-38
5-11 EPA Method 101A Sampling Preparation and Analysis Scheme .......... 5-40
5-12 HC1 Sample Train Configuration . 5-42
JBS335 V
-------
FIGURES, continued
Page
5-13 HCl/HF/HBr Sample Recovery Scheme 5-44
5-14 Schematic of CEM System 5-48
JBS335
-------
TABLES
Page
1-1 Borgess Medical Center MWI Test Matrix 1-5
2-1 Sampling Test Log 2-3
2-2 Summary of CDD/CDF Tests 2-5
2-3 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Concentrations as Measured 2-8
2-4 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Concentrations Corrected to 7% O2 2-9
2-5 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies 2-10
2-6 CDD/CDF Average Flue Gas Emissions and Baghouse Inlet to
Boiler Inlet Emission Ratios 2-12
2-7 CDD/CDF Average Stack Emissions and Baghouse Removal Efficiencies . . 2-13
2-8 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentration as Measured 2-14
2-9 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentration Corrected to 7% O2 2-17
2-10 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Toxic Equivalencies . 2-20
2-11 CDD/CDF Emissions with Baghouse to Boiler Ratios 2-23
2-12 CDD/CDF Baghouse Inlet and Outlet Emissions and Removal
Efficiencies; Condition 1 2-25
2-13 CDD/CDF Baghouse Inlet and Outlet Emissions and Removal
Efficiencies; Condition 2 2-26
2-14 CDD/CDF Baghouse Inlet and Outlet Emissions and Removal
Efficiencies; Condition 3 2-28
2-15 CDD/CDF Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters; Boiler Inlet .... 2-29
2-16 CDD/CDF Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters; Baghouse Inlet . . 2-30
2-17 CDD/CDF Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters; Baghouse Outlet 2-31
JBS335 V11
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-18 CDD/CDF Concentrations in the Incinerator Bottom Ash 2-33
2-19 CDD/CDF TCDD Toxic Equivalency Concentration in Bottom Ash 2-34
2-20 CDD/CDF Daily Discharge Rate in the Bottom Ash 2-35
2-21 CDD/CDF Concentrations in Baghouse Ash 2-36
2-22 CDD/CDF 2378 TCDD Toxic Equivalency Concentrations in Baghouse
Ash 2-37
2-23 CDD/CDF Daily Discharge Rate in the Baghouse Ash 2-38
2-24 Summary of Toxic Metals Flue Gas Emission Rates and Metals in Ash .... 2-40
2-25 Average Metals Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies; Without
Carbon Injection 2-42
2-26 Average Metals Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies; Carbon
Injection at 1 Ib/hr 2-43
2-27 Average Metals Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies; Carbon
Injection at 2.5 Ib/hr 2-44
2-28 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 2 ... 2-46
2-29 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 3 . 2-47
2-30 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 4 2-48
2-31 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 5 2-49
2-32 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 6 2-50
JBS335 VU1
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-33 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 7 .... .................. . ....... . ....... . ....... . ...... 2-51
2-34 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 8 .......................................... . .......... 2-52
2-35 Metals Concentration Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies;
Run 9 .... ............ . .................................... 2-53
2-36 Ratio of Metals to Paniculate Matter without Carbon Injection .......... 2-55
2-37 Ratio of Metals to Paniculate Matter with Carbon Injection at 1 Ib/hr ..... 2-56
2-38 Ratio of Metals to Paniculate Matter with Carbon Injection at 2.5 Ib/hr . . . 2-57
2-39 Metals Amount in Inlet Flue Gas ................................. 2-59
2-40 Metals Amounts in Outlet Gas .................. . ................ 2-62
2-41 Paniculate Matter Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at the
Boiler Inlet ............................................ ..... 2-65
2-42 Metals/Particulate Matter Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters
at the Baghouse Inlet .......................................... 2-66
2-43 Metals/Particulate Matter Emissions Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters
at the Baghouse Outlet ... ..................................... 2-67
2-44 Metals in Ash Concentrations ................................... 2-68
2-45 Metals Daily Discharge in the Ash Stream .......................... 2-70
246 Average Paniculate Matter Concentration Emission Rate and Removal
Efficiencies ................................................. 2-71
2-47 Paniculate Matter Concentration and Emissions ...................... 2-72
2-48 Mercury 101A Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies ........... .... 2-74
2-49 Mercury 101 A Concentration and Emission Rates by Runs .............. 2-75
JBS335
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
2-50 Mercury 101A Amounts in Flue Gas Samples 2-77
2-51 Mercury 101A Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at Inlet 2-78
2-52 Mercury 101A Sampling and Flue Gas Parameters at Outlet 2-79
2-53 Comparison for Mercury Emission Rates and Removal Efficiencies 2-80
2-54 Measured HC1 Concentration and Emission Rates for the Baghouse Inlet . . . 2-82
2-55 Measured HC1 Concentration and Emission Rates for the Baghouse Outlet . 2-83
2-56 HC1 Removal Efficiency 2-84
2-57 Measured HF Concentration and Emission Rates for the Baghouse Inlet . . . 2-85
2-58 Measured HF Concentration and Emission Rates for the Baghouse Outlet . . 2-86
2-59 HF Removal Efficiency 2-88
2-60 Measured HBr Concentration and Emission Rates for the Baghouse Inlet . . 2-89
2-61 Measured HBr Concentration and Emission Rates for the Baghouse Outlet . 2-90
2-62 HBr Removal Efficiency . . 2-91
2-63 Continuous Emission Monitoring Daily Test Average for Actual
Concentration 2-94
2-64 CEM Daily Test Average Corrected to 7% O2 2-96
2-65 Hourly Average of Actual CEM Measurements, Run 4, Burndown 2-97
2-66 Comparison of Manual and CEM HC1 Results; Baghouse Inlet 2-98
2-67 Comparison of Manual and CEM HC1 Results; Baghouse Outlet ......... 2-99
2-68 Bottom Ash LOI and Carbon Content 2-101
2-69 Baghouse Ash LOI and Carbon Content 2-102
JBS335
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
3-1 Daily Operating Schedule 3-4
3-2 Fabric Filter Design Parameters 3-14
3-3 Incinerator Process Data 3-20
3-4 Lime Injection/Carbon Injection/Fabric Filter Process Data 3-21
5-1 Test Methods 5-2
5-2 Sampling Times, Minimum Sampling Volumes, and Detection Limits 5-3
5-3 CDD/CDF Glassware Cleaning Procedure 5-6
5-4 CDD/CDF Sampling Checklist 5-12
5-5 CDD/CDF Sample Fractions Shipped to Analytical Laboratory 5-17
5-6 CDD/CDF Congeners Analyzed 5-18
5-7 CDD/CDF Blanks Corrected 5-21
5-8 CEM Operating Ranges and Calibration Gases 5-54
6-1 Summary of Precision, Accuracy and Completeness Objectives 6-4
6-2 Leak Check Results for CDD/CDF Sample Trains 6-5
6-3 Isokinetic Sampling Rates for Manual Sampling Test Runs 6-6
6-4 Dry Gas Meter Post-Test Calibration Results 6-8
6-5 CDD/CDF Field Blank and Reagent Blank Results Compared to Average
Run Results 6-9
6-6 Leak Check Results for Toxic Metals Sample Trains 6-10
6-7 Leak Check Results for Method 5 Sample Trains 6-11
6-8 Leak Check Results for Mercury Sample Trains 6-12
JBS335 **
-------
TABLES, continued
Page
6-9 Mercury Method 101A Blank Results 6-14
6-10 Halogen Field Blank and Method Blank Results 6-15
6-11 Standards Recoveries for the CDD/CDF MM5 Boiler Inlet Analyses 6-18
6-12 Standards Recoveries for the CDD/CDF MM5 Baghouse Inlet Analyses ... 6-19
6-13 Standards Recoveries for the CDD/CDF MM5 Baghouse Outlet Analyses . . 6-20
6-14 Standards Recoveries for the Baghouse Ash and Incinerator Ash
CDD/CDF Analyses ... 6-21
6-15 Metals Ash and Hue Gas Method Blank Results 6-23
6-16 Metals Amount in Field Blank Flue Gas by Sample Fraction 6-24
6-17 Metals Method and Matrix Spike Results 6-25
6-18 Halogen Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicates Recovery Values 6-26
6-19 CEM Internal QA/QC Checks 6-28
6-20 Coefficients of Variation for CDD/CDF Flue Gas Emissions; Boiler Inlet . . 6-33
6-21 Coefficients of Variation for CDD/CDF Flue Gas Emissions;
Baghouse Inlet 6-34
6-22 Coefficients of Variation for CDD/CDF Rue Gas Emissions;
Baghouse Outlet 6-35
6-23 Coefficients of Variation of the Flue Gas Metals Concentration at the
Inlet and Outlet 6-36
6-24 Coefficients of Variation of the Mercury 101A Concentration at the
Inlet and Outlet 6-37
6-25 Coefficients of Variation for Halogen Manual Flue Gas Concentration ..... 6-38
6-26 Coefficients of Variation for the CEM Data 6-40
JBS335 XU
-------
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 are being developed under
Sections lll(b), lll(d), and 129 of the Clean Air Act, as amended November 1990.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), through its
Industrial Studies Branch (ISB) and Emissions Measurement Branch (EMB), is
responsible for reviewing the existing air emissions data base and gathering additional
data where necessary. A series of MWI emission tests were conducted to support the
regulatory development program. One testing program was conducted at the MWI
facility at Borgess Medical Center in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The pollutants 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 acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride
(HC1); chlorinated organics, including dioxins and furans; and trace metals.
1.1 TEST OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the testing program at the Borgess Medical Center was to obtain
uncontrolled and controlled emission data from a well designed controlled-air,
continuous ram-fed MWI. These data will be used in the regulatory development
program for MWIs.
The MWI located at Borgess Medical Center was selected for emissions testing
for the following reasons:
• The MWI system is representative of well-designed, controlled-air MWIs
currently in use;
• Of known MWI systems, this MWI possesses the proper combination of
hardware and operations to facilitate testing of dry carbon injection directly
into the flue gas duct as a means of mercury (Hg) and dioxin control. The
MWI system employs a waste heat recovery boiler to cool flue gas
upstream of the dry lime injection/fabric filter (DI/FF) air pollution
control system (APCS); and
JBS335
-------
• This MWI system was tested last year in a joint test program between EPj
and the State of Michigan. EPA and Midwest Research Institute (MRI)
personnel are familiar with the facility. Test ports were already in place
and a large body of test data (23 runs) is available with which to compare
the test data from this test.
Another consideration in performing emissions testing at this facility was the
cooperative attitude of the hospital personnel. All parties involved expressed an interes|
in and a willingness to cooperate in the source test program.
Eight tests were conducted; three without carbon injection, two with carbon
injection at 1 Ib/hr, and three with carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr. Only two tests were
conducted at 1 Ib/hr of carbon injection due to time and budgetary restraints.
The specific objectives of the test program are to:
• Determine the levels of uncontrolled CO, PM, SO2, NO^ HC1 (acid gases
metals, THC and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF) emitted from the combustor when
burning medical wastes (measured at the APCS inlet);
• Determine the levels of controlled PM, acid gases, metals including Hg,
and CDD/CDF emissions associated with a dry lime injection fabric filter
(DI/FF) control technology (measured at the APCS outlet);
• Determine the levels of PM and CDD/CDF at the waste heat boiler inlet
upstream of the APCS inlet location;
• Calculate the control efficiencies for PM, acid gases, metals, and
CDD/CDF and investigate Hg and CDD/CDF removal efficiency of
in-duct carbon injection at two injection rates; and
• Determine the degree of combustion of the feed wastes based on percent
carbon and loss on ignition (LOI) of the bottom ash and fly ash collected
in the fabric filter.
Key process operating variables, including flue gas oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), primary and secondary chamber temperatures, air flows, and the total amount of
waste charged, were monitored and recorded to document the operating conditions
during each test.
JBS335
1-2
-------
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 SITE DESCRIPTION
Borgess Medical Center is located in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The MWI at this
facility is a Cleaver Brooks Model 780-A/31 controlled (starved)-air incinerator that
consists of a primary chamber, a thermal reactor (secondary chamber), and a retention
chamber (tertiary chamber). The MWI is designed for intermittent duty, and the unit
must be shut down and the primary chamber opened to remove the bottom ash from the
chamber. The incinerator is rated at a heat input rate of 5.8 x 106 kJ/hr
(5.5 x 106 Btu/hr).
A mechanical hopper/ram charging system feeds waste into the primary chamber
of the incinerator. Ash is manually removed from the primary chamber of the
incinerator on the morning after each burning day.
The waste heat boiler is a 200 horsepower (1960 kilowatt) Cleaver-Brooks unit
with a maximum steam production rating of 6800 Ib/hr (3090 kg/hr).
The air pollution control system (APCS) consists of dry lime injection for HC1 gas
control and a fabric filter baghouse for PM control. Hydrated lime is injected into the
duct between the waste heat boiler and the fabric filter baghouse. The fabric filter
baghouse is a MicroPul pulse-jet baghouse with continuous cleaning.
Both the incinerator/boiler system and the APCS are described in greater detail
in Section 3 of this report.
1.3 PROCESS DATA ACQUISITION
During the emissions tests performed at the Borgess Medical Center MWI facility,
process data were collected to document the operating conditions. Process data
acquisition was the primary responsibility of the MRI Process Monitor.
Waste charges were weighed on a scale and recorded manually on log sheets by
the MRI representative. Natural gas flow rates were read from the utility gas meter and
recorded on log sheets. Primary and secondary temperatures, as indicated by the
temperature controllers, were recorded manually by MRI. Other pertinent conditions
JBS335
-------
and equipment positions were observed at the control panel and manually recorded by
the MRI process monitor.
Primary and secondary chamber temperature signals from the unit's process
controller were wired to a data acquisition system. The data logger provided a hard
copy record of the temperatures measured. A portable PC computer was connected to
the data logger via a parallel port connection. Commercial software was used to collect
the output from the data logger and record it on the PC's hard drive.
1.4 EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
This section provides an overview of the emissions measurement program
conducted at Borgess Medical Center. Included in this section are summaries of the test
matrix, sampling locations, sampling methods, and laboratory analysis.
1.4.1 Test Matrix
The sampling and analytical matrix performed at the Borgess Medical Center is
presented in Table 1-1. Both manual emissions tests and continuous emission monitors
(CEMs) were employed for the MWI test program. In addition to flue gas sampling,
incinerator bottom ash and fabric filter fly ash samples were taken.
1.4.2 Sampling Methods
Total PM emissions and emissions of 13 toxic metals [aluminum (Al), lead (Pb),
chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), arsenic (As),
beryllium (Be), antimony (Sb), barium (Ba), silver (Ag), and thallium (Tl)] were
determined using a single sample train. Paniculate loading on the filter and front half
(nozzle/probe, filter holder) rinses was determined gravimetrically. Metals analyses were
then completed on the filter front half rinses and back half impinger catches using
atomic absorption (AA) and inductively coupled argon plasma (ICAP) techniques. Flue
gas samples for CDD/CDF were collected using EPA Method 23. Flue gas was
extracted isokinetically, and CDD/CDF were collected on the filter, on a chilled
adsorbent trap, and in the impingers. The analysis was completed using high resolution
gas chromatography (HRCG) coupled with high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS)
detection.
1-4
JBS335 L
-------
TABLE 1-1. BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER MWI TEST MATRIX
Sample
Location
Boiler Inlet
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse
Inlet
Baghouse
Inlet
Baghouse
Inlet
Baghouse
Inlet
Number
of
Runs
8
8
' 8
8
24
8
Sample Type
CDD/CDF
PM
Particulates/Metals
(Pb, Cr, Cd, Be, Hg,
Ni, As, Sb, Ag, Ba,
Tl)
CDD/CDF
HCl/HBr/HF
SO2
o27co2
NOX
CO
THC
HC1
Sample Method
EPA Method 23 with
EPA Method 5
EPA Method
5/Combined Metals
Train
EPA Method 23
EPA Method 26
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 10
EPA Method 25A
HC1 CEM using
dilution probe
Sample
Duration
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
1 hour
Continuous
Analysis Method
GCMS 8290
Mass Spectromelry
and High Resolution
MS for CDD/CDF
Gravimetric
Gravimetric; Atomic
Adsorption/ICAP,
respectively
GCMS 8290
Mass Spectrometry
and High Resolution
MS for CDD/CDF
Ion Chromatography
UV Analyzer CEM
Zirconium Oxide
Cell/NDIR CEM
Chemiluminescence
CEM
NDIR CEM
FID CEM
NDIR CEM
Laboratory
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
Radian
Radian
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
Radian
Radian
JBS335
-------
TABLE 1-1. CONTINUED
Sample
Location
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Incinerator
Incinerator
Incinerator
Incinerator
Number
of
Runs
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Sample Type
Particulates/Metals
(Pb, Cr, Cd, Be, Hg,
Ni, As, Sb, Ag, Ba,
Tl)
CDD/CDF
HCI/HBr/HF
so2
o2/co2
THC
HC1
Incinerator Bottom
Ash
Incinerator Bottom
Ash
Baghouse Flyash
Baghouse Flyash
Sample Method
EPA Method
5/Combined Metals
Train
EPA Method 23 and
GC/MS Method 8290
EPA Method 26
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method 25A
HC1 GEM using
dilution probe
Representative
Composite Sample
Representative
Composite Sample
Representative
Composite Sample
Representative
Composite Sample
Sample
Duration
4 hours
4 hours
1 hour
Continuous
I/day
I/day
I/day
I/day
Analysis Method
Gravimetric; Atomic
Adsorption/ICAP,
respectively
Mass Spectrometry
and High Resolution
MS for CDD/CDF
Ion Chromatography
UV Analyzer CEM
Zirconium Oxide
Cell/NDIR CEM
FID CEM
NDIR CEM
LOI, Carbon, Metals
Dioxins/Furans
LOI, Carbon, Metals
Dioxins/Furans
1
Laboratory
Radian
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
Radian
Radian
Radian,
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
Radian,
McCoy
Labs
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
-------
TABLE 1-1. CONTINUED
Sample
Location
Lime
Lime
Number
of
Runs
8
8
Sample Type
Lime
Lime
Sample Method
Representative
Composite Sample
Representative
Composite Sample
Sample
Duration
I/day
I/day
Analysis Method
Metals
Dioxins/Furans
Laboratory
Radian
Triangle
Labs, Inc.
JBS335
-------
Hydrogen chloride, hydrogen bromide (HBr), and hydrogen fluoride (HF)
concentrations in the stock gas were determined using EPA Method 26. Gas was
extracted from the stack and passed through an acidified collection solution which
stabilized the respective halogen ions (Cr, Br', F). The quantity of ions collected was
then determined using ion chromatography (1C) analyses.
Gaseous emissions (NO,, CO, SO2, THC, and HC1) were measured using CEMs
continuously during the day. Hydrogen chloride emissions were measured both manually
and with CEMs. The concentration of diluent gases (O2> CO2) were measured using
CEMs while all tests were being performed so that the emission results could be
normalized to a reference O2 or CO2 basis. The O2 and CO2 results were also used in
the calculation of flue gas molecular weight for stack gas flow rate calculations.
In addition to the flue gas samples, incinerator bottom ash and baghouse flyash
were also sampled during the test program. Daily composites were directed to one
laboratory for LOI/carbon content analyses and to another laboratory for metals and
CDD/CDF analyses. Lime was also collected and analyzed for metals and CDD/CDF.
Additional descriptions of the sampling and analytical procedures are provided in
Section 5.
1.4.3 Laboratory Analyses
All manual flue gas test samples were submitted for extensive laboratory analyses.
Samples from CDD/CDF emission tests were analyzed for tetra-octa CDD/CDF isomers
by Triangle Laboratories, Inc (Triangle). Ash samples were also analyzed by Triangle
for these compounds. Analytical procedures followed EPA Method 23 protocols
(Analytical Method 8290X). This technique incorporates HRGC/HRMS analytical
procedures.
Samples from paniculate matter/metals emission tests were analyzed by Radian's
Perimeter Park (PPK) laboratory. Analytical procedures included inductively coupled
argon plasma spectroscopy (ICAPS), graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy
(GFAAS), and cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS). Incinerator ash
was also analyzed for metals content using these techniques. Particulate matter was
analyzed using gravimetric techniques following EPA Method 5 guidelines. Samples
from halogen emission tests were also analyzed at Radian's PPK laboratory. Quantities
JBS335
1-8
-------
of chloride, bromide, and fluoride ions in the impinger solutions were determined using
1C techniques.
The incinerator ash was analyzed by McCoy Labs for volatile matter (LOI) by
ASTM D3174 and for carbon content by ASTM Method D 3178.
1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
All flue gas testing procedures followed comprehensive QA/QC procedures as
outlined in the Borgess Medical Center Test Plan and the EPA reference methods. A
full description of the resulting QA parameters is given in Section 6 of this report. All
post-test leak check criterion were met for all 10 trains. The allowable isokinetic QC
range of ± 10 percent was met in all test runs except for two runs with the PM/MM5
train at the boiler inlet. Since the deviation was minor, the runs were accepted. All
post-test dry gas meter calibration checks were within 5 percent of the full calibration
factor.
Field blank results showed CDD/CDF levels similar to the levels in the samples
taken from the baghouse outlet during Conditions 2 and 3. This indicates that
CDD/CDF emissions at the baghouse outlet during these conditions were near to or
below the levels measurable by the testing procedures. The halogen field blank showed
no contamination. No contamination was found in the mercury 101A field blank. The
front halves of the metals field blanks contained high levels of Al, Cr, and Ni relative to
the inlet samples, and high levels of all metals relative to the outlet samples. The back
halves of the metals field blanks also showed similar contamination levels relative to the
samples especially for Cu and As at the inlet, and for all metals at the outlet. This
means that the reported emissions for these metals at the inlet and outlet are probably
biased high. Furthermore, where measured levels of metals at only the outlet location
were similar to the levels in the field blanks, reported removal efficiencies are lower
than the actual removal efficiencies of the metals. This can explain the high degree of
dissimilarity between the removal efficiencies of different metals in some runs.
1.6 DESCRIPTION OF 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 emissions
results, halogen results, CEM results, and ash LOI and carbon results.
JBS335
-------
Section 3 details the process and operation of the Borgess incinerator and give
process results. Included in the process results are the waste feed amounts and
incineration chamber temperatures.
Section 4 provides a detailed description and drawings of the sample locations.
Section 5 presents detailed descriptions of sampling and analytical procedures.
The descriptions that are covered in this section are the CDD/CDF testing method, th{
PM and toxic metals testing method, the manual halogen emissions testing method, EF)
Methods 1 through 4, CEM methods, and process sampling procedures.
Section 6 provides details of the QA/QC procedures used on this program and
the QC results. Included in this section is a summary of QA/QC objectives, QC
procedures for the manual flue gas sampling methods, QC procedures for the ash
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 an
contained in a separate volume.
JBS335
1-10
-------
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section presents results of the test program conducted at the Borgess Medical
Center from September 7 through 16, 1991. Included in this section are results of
manual flue gas tests conducted for CDD/CDF, toxic metals, mercury, PM, and
halogens. This section also contains the results of continuous emissions monitoring for
O2, CO2, CO, NOX, SO2, THC, and HC1 gases. Results from analyses of incinerator
bottom ash and baghouse ash are also included.
Test conditions are defined by the rate of carbon injection into the duct at the
baghouse inlet. The carbon injection point was just upstream of a venturi where lime
was also injected. Carbon injection rates were 0 Ib/hr for 3 tests, 1 Ib/hr for the next
2 tests, and 2.5 Ib/hr for the last 3 tests. A dry solids screw feeder was used to feed
carbon into a funnel and pipe connected to the duct. The carbon was drawn into the
duct by negative pressure and mixed with the flue gas in the venturi. The venturi was
about 50 feet upstream of the baghouse, which allowed a residence time of
approximately 1.4 seconds in the duct before entering the baghouse. Test conditions
were as follows:
Condition
1
2
3
Carbon Injection Rate
(Ib/hr)
0
1
2.5
Runs
2 through 4
5 through 6
7 through 9
The ID fan was adjusted during Run 1 so that the volumetric flow rate of gas through
the system was above the target range for the test. Results from Run 1 were, therefore,
archived and are not included in this report.
JBS335
2-1
-------
2.1 EMISSIONS TEST LOG
Eight test runs were conducted over eight test days. Flue gas sample locations
were at the waste heat boiler inlet, baghouse inlet, and baghouse outlet. One test run
was conducted on each day with all sampling trains except the HC1 train running
simultaneously. Gas concentrations were monitored with the CEMS during the testing
period. Table 2-1 presents the emissions test log. This table shows the test date, run
number and condition, test type, run times, and port change times for all the flue gas
testing conducted during this program.
2.2 CDD/CDF EMISSIONS
2.2.1 Overview
Simultaneous CDD/CDF test runs were conducted at the boiler inlet, baghouse
inlet, and baghouse outlet of the Borgess MWI. One 4-hour run was conducted each
day, with all trains sampling at the same time.
Daily ash samples from the incinerator and baghouse were also collected. Each
ash sample was analyzed for tetra through octa CDD/CDF isomers.
Table 2-2 presents a summary of the CDD/CDF flue gas emissions and ash
discharge rates. Flue gas emission rates were found to be higher at the baghouse inlet
than at the boiler inlet, indicating that CDD/CDF were formed in the boiler. Baghoust
outlet values were lower than baghouse inlet values, indicating a removal of CDD/CDF
in the baghouse. Boiler inlet CDD/CDF averages ranged from 101.6 /^g/hr to
231.6 /^g/hr. Baghouse inlet values ranged from 325.0 /^g/hr to 590.7 /^g/hr. Baghouse
outlet values ranged from 10.24 ^g/hr to 201.4 /^g/hr.
All CDD/CDF congeners were detected in both the baghouse and bottom ash
samples. CDD/CDF baghouse ash discharge rates were higher for Conditions 2 and 3
than Condition 1 indicating that the carbon injection removed CDD/CDF from the flue
gas.
Dioxins/furans average emission test results are reported in Section 2.2.2, results
from each run in Section 2.2.3, sample parameters are shown in Section 2.2.4, and
incinerator ash and baghouse ash CDD/CDF concentrations in Section 2.2.5. All field
data and analytical data are shown in Appendices A and E, respectively,
JBS335 2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. BORGESS MWI SAMPLING TEST LOG
,:• ••,-:::•• SAMPLE
VH LOCATION
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
SAMPLE.
TRAIN
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
BHO-D4
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
RUN*
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
DATE
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/09/91
09/09/91
09/09/91
09/09/91
09/09/91
09/09/91
09/09/91
09/09/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/11/91
09/11/91
09/11/91
09/11/91
09/11/91
09/1 1/91
09/11/91
09/11/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
STAFtT
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1130
1130
1132
1132
1130
1130
1130
1130
1205
1205
1207
1207
1205
1207
1207
1206
1115
1115
1117
1117
1115
1115
1115
1115
1230
1230
1230
1230
1230
1230
1230
1230
STOP
1415
1415
1415
1415
1415
1415
1415
1415
1425
1425
1425
1425
1423
1424
1424
1424
1405
1405
1407
1407
1405
1407
1407
1406
1315
1315
1317
1317
1315
1315
1315
1315
1510
1510
1512
1512
1510
1512
1512
1512
RESTART
1528
1528
1525
1525
1525
1525
1525
1525
1540
1540
1542
1542
1540
1540
1540
1540
1515
1515
1518
1518
1516
1516
1516
1516
1415
1415
1417
1417
1415
1415
1415
1415
1620
1620
1512
1512
1510
1620
1620
1620
END
1728
1728
1725
1725
1725
1725
1725
1725
1745
1745
1748
1748
1747
1746
1746
1746
1715
1715
1718
1718
1716
1716
1716
1716
1615
1615
1617
1617
1615
1615
1615
1615
1820
1820
1622
1622
1620
1820
1820
1820
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTD). BORGESS MWI SAMPLING TEST LOG
••>:i;:;: -SAMPLE'::..
*:: LOCATION
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Boiler Inlet
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
i-.: SAMPLE.
'STRAIN
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
BHO-D4
PM
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
CDD/CDF
Mercury
PM/Metals
BHO-D4
RUfc#
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
OATH
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/16/91
09/16/91
09/16/91
09/16/91
09/16/91
09/16/91
09/16/91
09/16/91
START
948
945
947
947
945
945
945
945
1015
1015
1015
1015
1015
1015
1015
1015
1030
1030
1030
1030
1030
1030
1030
1030
STOP
1148
1145
1147
1147
1145
1145
1145
1145
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1215
1305
1305
1305
1305
1305
1305
1305
1305
RE-START
1245
1246
1245
1245
1245
1245
1245
1245
1425
1425
1425
1425
1425
1425
1425
1425
1415
1415
1416
1416
141.6
1416
1416
1416
e*£>
1445
1446
1445
1445
1445
1445
1445
1445
1625
1625
1625
1625
1625
1625
1625
1625
1615
1615
1616
1616
1616
1616
1616
1616
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF CDD/CDF TESTS
(FLUE GAS)
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
AVERAGE DAILY EMISSION RATES
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 CDB
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDF * CDF
Ccsutttioo i
Boilftt
Met
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONT'D). SUMMARY OF CDD/CDF TESTS
(INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH AND BAGHOUSE ASH)
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE RATES (ug/day)
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 ODD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
'tiekGBP
'op: CDF *• CDF
Condition I
Incinerator
Bottom
Ash
4.38
249.36
27.03
388.29
44.42
52.77
111.86
588.79
435.17
425.32
822.53
344?<9
55.28
1,974.16
76.41
186.56
1,861.19
690.34
178.30
380.86
8.18
892.31
930.28
79.79
478.26
500.79
5,292.7
U,442tt
23.16
699.28
55.31
98.54
1,165.05
326.92
160.46
267.00
8.96
715.94
972.06
164.20
910.14
1,898.27
1 ?,4$5.3
9^3S<4
Conditions
incinerator
Bottom
A«b
4.01
260.45
25.43
391.40
32.92
42.55
82.71
497.80
348.94
364.90
556.41
2»<5Q7<5
57.25
1,933.02
67.30
144.64
1,519.66
335.35
136.00
231.62
4.78
397.88
544.73
29.76
288.63
287.90
$425*$
8J3&1 ;
Bftgjhcwse
Asi
4.41
104.92
22.43
233.01
53.05
57.75
114.99
690.82
957.49
877.91
1,979.81
$,Q9&59
44.83
1.662.17
108.52
232.94
2,181.66
892.13
306.62
658.52
24.12
1,846.06
1,879.45
434.69
1,932.58
3,021.15
is»ms
2Q422.0
Baghouse ash discharge rate assumes 12 hr/day operation of the baghouse.
2-6
-------
2.2.2 CDD/CDF Average Emission Results
Tables 2-3 through 2-6 present the average CDD/CDF emissions for the test
program. Emission tests analyses were targeted for the tetra through octa 2378
substituted CDD/CDF isomers. Results are presented for each isomer as well as for
each tetra through octa homologue total (total CDD, total CDF).
Average CDD/CDF gas concentrations measured at the boiler inlet and the
baghouse outlet for the three test conditions are presented in Table 2-3. Stack gas
concentrations of all target CDD/CDF congeners were detected during each test
condition throughout the program at both the boiler inlet and baghouse inlet. Higher
concentrations for the majority of congeners were observed at the baghouse inlet than at
the boiler inlet, which indicates that CDD/CDF were formed in the boiler. Dioxins and
furans are known to form through several chemical mechanisms. One mechanism is
CDD/CDF formation from heavy organics and a chlorine donor (2). The optimum
temperature window for this reaction is 500 to 600°F. At temperatures above 750°F, this
reaction is slowed considerably (2). The CDD/CDF species may have formed inside the
boiler where temperatures of 500 to 600°F occurred. The average boiler inlet
temperature was about 1150°F, and the average baghouse inlet temperature was about
360°F. Thus, the flue gas passed through the temperature window of optimum
CDD/CDF formation in the boiler.
Average CDD/CDF concentrations corrected to 7 percent O2 are presented in
Table 2-4. Average boiler inlet CDD/CDF concentrations ranged from 70.79 ng/dscm
at Condition 1 to 134.9 ng/dscm for Condition 3.
Average total CDD/CDF concentrations at 7 percent O2 at the baghouse inlet
ranged from 237 ng/dscm at Condition 1 to 415 ng/dscm at Condition 3.
Average total CDD/CDF concentrations at 7 percent O2 at the baghouse outlet
ranged from 6.3 ng/dscm for Condition 3 to 131.9 ng/dscm for Condition 1, indicating
significant reductions resulting from carbon injection.
JBS335
-------
TABLE 2-3. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
AS MEASURED FOR CONDITION 1, 2. AND 3
- BORGESS MEDIC AL CENTER (1991)
rnn/CDF CONCENTRATION AS MEASURED (ng/dscm)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL C-DDfCEH?
coNbrnoisr i
Bolter
Inl«t ;
0.023
0.234
0.080
0.308
0.055
0.069
0.121
0.410
0.666
0.577
2.200
4,742
2.282
4.504
0.490
0.542
4.371
1.486
0.592
1.042
0.072
2.719
2.811
0.688
2.984
5.602
30J84
34<£W
BaghottSfc
inlet
0.053
0.406
0.157
0.725
0.182
0.269
0.519
1.533
4.086
3.117
14.022
25
-------
TABLE 2-4. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
CORRECTED TO 7% O2 FOR CONDITIONS 1, 2, AND 3
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF CONCENTRATION AT 7 PERCENT OXYGEN (ng/dscm @ 1% O2)
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
To«il COD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+C0F
CQNBIFIQW i
Boiler
Met
0.048
0.481
0.164
0.626
0.111
0.142
0.247
0.829
1.354
1.170
4.503
SKS75
4.561
9.216
1.005
1.103
8.819
3.025
1.206
2.124
0.147
5.440
5.698
1.396
6.024
11.349
$UW
7WS»
B»gbo»»fc
Met
0.110
0.860
0.327
1.517
0.378
0.565
1.058
3.177
8.593
6.755
29.319
5&S59
1.829
12.775
1.373
2.255
18.388
12.262
3.732
12.856
0.722
20.681
26.019
8.174
31.006
32.226
tS4.298
m957
Baghouse
Outlet
0.042
0.440
0.168
0.956
0.308
0.357
0.596
2.428
4.636
4.540
10.105
24<5?5
0.367
10.022
0.802
1.628
12.320
6.681
2.175
7.792
0.224
8.814
14.380
3.319
15.728
23.085
107.336
m<$t4
CONDITION 2
Bottet
Met
0.043
2.718
0.158
1.017
0.110
0.140
0.262
1.031
1.515
1.422
6.376
J4.793
2.891
10.256
0.856
1.109
8.937
3.012
1.234
2.653
0.145
5.559
6.498
1.370
6.486
12.671
6J<67$
7S.469
BftglWHtt*
Met
0.291
2.513
0.691
3.492
0.925
0.975
1.714
5.712
13.924
12.872
46.352
59,460
1.828
28.521
2.693
4.767
40.717
18.509
6.655
19.088
0.679
34.939
34.343
8.375
35.869
84.887
J21-870
4».330
Bagtenise.
Outlet
c
[0.030]
0.036
[0.086]
0.108
[0. 102]
0.140
0.117
0.553
1.073
1.140
2.720
5*818
0.072
0.940
0.116
0.168
0.885
0.715
0.239
0.792
[0.073]
0.732
1.745
0.280
1.562
2.022
JQ<209
tt.02S
cocromoN1 5
Boiler
Met
0.028
0.924
0.180
1.375
0.203
0.305
0.618
2.099
3.823
3.617
11.571
24.745
1.225
11.959
0.970
1.549
11.864
5.931
2.195
5.509
0.316
9.740
14.018
3.396
13.454
27.995
m
-------
TABLE 2-5. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCY CONCENTRATIONS (ng/dacm adjusted to 7 percent O2)
a.b.c
CONGESER
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 C&&
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CJDDXa&F
237STC00
Toxic
Bqulvaieacy
Factor
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
Cottd&oal
Boiler
Met
(Hg/rdsent)
0.048
0.000
0.082
0.000
0.011
0.014
0.025
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.005
-------
TABLE 2-6. CDD/CDF AVERAGE FLUE GAS EMISSIONS AND BAGHOUSE INLET TO
BOILET INLET-EMISSIONS RATIOS FOR CONDITIONS 1, 2, AND 3;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TutaJCBQ
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
Con&tknt i(N& Carbon InJ.)
1RiYriflfHi>P^
Baitef
Met
<"8&r)
0.075
0.749
0.256
0.987
0.175
0.222
0.389
1.310
2.136
1.853
7.075
15.226
7.378
14.381
1.573
1.741
13.972
4.787
1.901
3.365
0.231
8.694
9.058
2.212
9.614
18.025
96.931
I12.1S*
Bagtema
lukt
(agfct)
0.150
1.175
0.446
2.052
0.519
0.767
1.455
4.363
11.634
9.087
39.822
7L471
2.493
17.490
1.899
3.083
25.124
16.716
5.099
17.430
0.987
28.233
35.487
11.166
42. 128
46.225
msss'
323.030
Bagbottdfcf
BeSet
Ratio
2.009
1.569
1.743
2.079
2.972
3.453
3.744
3.330
5.447
4.905
5.629
4.<»4
0.338
1.216
1.207
1.770
1.798
3.492
2.683
5.179
4.275
3.247
3.918
5.049
4.382
2.565
"- 2.616
&m
5.708
0.769
3.715
2.887
7.119
5.956
5.612
4.729
7.945
7.836
6.401
1224
0.557
2.360
2.665
3.654
3.875
5.279
4.602
6.144
4.021
5.368
4.582
5.330
4.822
5.882
4,360
4,523
Cxiwfgtoi* 3 {CArtwaH *2,Slb/hr)
EtaiaSKin*
BO&*
Met
iptftx)
0.027
1.077
0.214
1.560
0.228
0.354
0.651
2.611
4.010
3.979
9.789
24JSOO
1.728
13.194
1.208
1.953
13.963
6.631
2.530
6.214
0.361
11.787
14.898
3.873
15.475
27.964
121,778
14^^78
Bughouse
Infct
(agte)
0.384
2.975
0.896
4.972
1.210
1.417
2.729
9.019
20.238
19.659
66.655
130JS2
3.634
31.626
3.454
6.082
54.517
25.529
9.120
25.276
1.041
42.335
59.024
12.398
53.261
118.465
445.763
575^16
ttegbotttt/
Boiler
Ratio
14.294
2.763
4.182
3.188
5.313
4.001
4.189
3.454
5.047
4.941
6.809
5.312
2.102
2.397
2.858
3.115
3.904
3.850
3.605
4.068
2.884
3.592
3.962
3.201
3.442
4.236
3.660
3.937
Detection limits are not considered when calculating averages.
2-11
-------
Table 2-5 presents average corrected CDD/CDF gas concentrations in 2378
TCDD Toxic Equivalents. The concentration of each congener corrected to 7 percent
O2 was multiplied by its respective Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) to determine 2378
Toxic Equivalents. The TEFs used in this report are the international TEF (I-TEF)
developed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee on the Challenges of
Modern Society (NATO/CCMS) (1). The average 2378 Toxic Equivalent concentrations
(TEC) for total CDD/CDF for Conditions 1, 2 and 3 at the baghouse outlet were
3.1 ng/dscm, 0.34 ng/dscm and 0.11 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2, respectively.
Table 2-6 presents the boiler inlet and baghouse inlet average CDD/CDF mass
emission rates. The ratio of baghouse inlet emissions divided by boiler inlet emissions
indicates the amount of CDD/CDF formed in the boiler. This ratio ranges from 2.9 to
4.5 for total CDD/CDF; thus, approximately three to five times more CDD/CDF exited
the boiler than entered the boiler.
Table 2-7 shows average CDD/CDF mass emission rates and removal efficiencies
for the baghouse inlet and outlet. Total average CDD/CDF removal efficiency for
Condition 1 is 38.0 percent, which may be attributable to CDD/CDF adsorption onto the
lime and flyash particulate, and subsequent removal in the baghouse. For Conditions 2
and 3, removal efficiencies are 96.0 percent and 98.2 percent, respectively, which
indicates improved removal due to carbon injection.
2.2.3 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Results for Each Run
Tables 2-8 through 2-13 present results for the individual CDD/CDF flue gas test
runs (Runs 2 through 9). Table 2-8 presents uncorrected CDD/CDF flue gas
concentrations at the boiler inlet, baghouse inlet, and baghouse outlet. All congeners
were detected at the boiler inlet and baghouse inlet. For Condition 1 with no carbon
injection, all congeners were also detected at the baghouse outlet. For Conditions 2
and 3, with carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr and 2.5 Ib/hr, respectively, several congeners were
not detected. Fewer congeners were detected for Condition 3 than for Condition 2,
indicating that the additional carbon injection improved removal efficiency for
Condition 3. Table 2-9 presents the CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations corrected to
7 percent oxygen.
JBS335
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-7. CDD/CDF AVERAGE STACK EMISSIONS AND BAGHOUSE REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR CONDITIONS 1. 2, AND 3;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
COt*3EJ*ER
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 CBD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDI*CDF
Coo4ftioa t 3
EmJssfeas
BagJiDHse
Mf*
Jag^ur)
0.150
1.175
0.446
2.052
0.519
0.767
1.455
4.363
11.634
9.087
39.822
71-471
2.493
17.490
1.899
3.083
25.124
16.716
5.099
17.430
0.987
28.233
35.487
11.166
42.128
46.225
253-559
325-030
Bughouse
daft*
(Hg/ltf)
0.064
0.672
0.259
1.469
0.466
0.542
0.907
3.682
7.093
6.927
15.604
37,687
0.560
15.166
1.225
2.477
18.679
10.108
3.303
11.794
0.346
13.325
21.928
5.107
24.033
35.702
163,753
2W-439
Kmov*
Efifcfeoey
Ratio
57.3%
42.8%
41.9%
28.4%
10.2%
29.3%
37.6%
15.6%
39.0%
23.8%
60.8%
47,3*
77.5%
13.3%
35:5%
19.6%
25.7%
39.5%
35.2%
32.3%
65.0%
52.8%
38.2%
54.3%
43.0%
22.8%
3$,4*
3»,Q*
Cafl#a763:
57&916
RaghoLue
OHtJtct
frfiforj
[0.041]
0.055
[0.090]
0.090
[0.096]
0.055
[0.084]
0.203
0.617
0.473
2.330
3>6?9
0.060
0.744
0.090
0.114
0.175
0.342
0.120
0.413
[0.078]
0.096
1.061
0.251
0.753
2.395
$.554
J&24?
Rejwvrf
Effipwmry
Ratio
89.3%
98.2%
90.0%
98.2%
90.4%
96.1%
96.9%
97.7%
97.0%
97.6%
96.5%
97,2$
98.3%
97.6%
97.4%
98.1%
99.7%
98.7%
98.7%
98.4%
92.5%
99.8%
98.2%
98.0%
98.6%
98.0%
98.5$
9?.Z$
Detection limits are not considered when calculating averages.
[] = Average was calculated entirely from detection limits.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-8. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AS MEASURED FOR CONDITION 1;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AS MEASURED (ne/dscm)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAEBD]?
TOTAfcVCDD+CEF
Condition: 1 Oto Garbc* Inaction}
Boiler Inl<*
RON 2
b
(0.020)
0.166
0.062
0.297
0.046
(0.062)
0.114
0.395
0.652
0.619
2.087
4J20
(3.554)
3.261
0.424
0.554
4.434
1.630
0.587
1.206
0.065
3.195
3.326
0.750
3.750
6.423
33,159
31*619
RJLTN3
(0.031)
0.362
0.116
0.420
0.080
0.094
0.170
0.595
0.894
0.715
2.772
6.24*
(1.833)
7.242
0.671
0.671
6.303
1.699
0.760
1.073
0.094
3.706
3.084
0.849
3.174
6.527
37.685
43.334
RUK4
0.019
0.174
0.061
0.207
0.038
0.052
0.080
0.240
0.452
0.395
1.740
3.457
(1.458)
3.010
0.376
0.400
2.375
1.129
0.428
0.847
0.056
1.256
2.023
0.466
2.027
3.857
19.7m
23.1^5
AV&
0.023
0.234
0.080
0.308
0.055
0.069
0.121
0.410
0.666
0.577
2.200
4,742
2.282
4.504
0.490
0.542
4.371
1.486
0.592
1.042
0.072
2.719
2.811
0.688
2.984
5.602
30.184
34.926
Bagkntse Inlet
RttN2.
0.030
0.109
0.109
0.588
0.126
0.174
0.566
1.093
2.657
0.000
10.192
15.645
(0.375)
2.308
0.523
0.697
4.878
5.618
1.394
7.709
0.566
6.969
10.235
4.181
12.848
10.976
60.277
84.922
RtJNS
0.066
0.597
0.181
0.691
0.230
0.304
0.523
1.909
4.361
4.361
14.969
28.19*
(1.151)
8.653
0.872
1.326
11.200
5.792
2.024
4.396
0.216
11.542
13.433
3.733
14.655
31.193
tmsa
I3S.3S1
JRWK4
0.061
0.513
0.179
0.897
0.190
0.330
0.467
1.597
5.240
4.989
16.906
31,371
(1.077)
7.251
0.610
1.220
10.266
6.389
1.974
6.676
0.294
11.263
13.927
4.020
17.229
6.210
88.407
119.778
AVO.
0.053
0.406
0.157
0.725
0.182
0.269
0.519
1.533
4.086
3.117
14.022
2SJ069
0.868
6.071
0.668
1.081
8.781
5.933
1.797
6.261
0.359
9.925
12.532
3.978
14.911
16.126
89,291
114.360
Baghouse Outlet v
turns
0.022
0.220
0.094
0.535
0.117
0.144
0.256
1.011
1.753
1.663
4.719
1&53S
0.189
4.396
0.409
0.764
5.524
2.831
0.944
2.742
0.126
3.649
5.798
1.573
6.787
11.416
4T14*
57.681
RONE 5
(0.013)
0.172
0.066
0.374
0.150
0.181
0.286
1.101
3.126
2.950
6.605
tS.024
0.137
3.782
0.313
0.661
4.795
2.686
0.969
4.271
(0.101)
3.611
8.190
1.937
8.631
14.443
54,526
6^550
HtffeU
(0.014)
0.123
(0.038)
0.218
0.090
(0.090)
0.152
0.706
0.521
0.663
0.568
3.183
0.104
3.449
0.218
0.474
3.998
2.226
0.616
1.990
0.038
2.946
2.748
(0.388)
2.937
1.374
23.505
16.688
AVft
0.016
0.17!
0.0ft
0.376
0.11!
0.13J
0.231
0.939
1.800
1.759
3.964
$.581
0.143
3.876
0.313
0.633
4.772
2.581
0.843
3.001
0.088
3.402
5.578
1.300
6.118
9.077
41,726
3IJO*
Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
0 = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration
2-14
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONT'D). CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AS MEASURED FOR CONDITION 2;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AS MEASURED (ng/dscm)
C01SGEKER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CBI>
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL d>D+CDF
ConditiOB 2 (Carbon Injection = 1 1bAr)
Boiler W«
RUN?
0.015
0.147
0.044
0.235
0.034
0.049
0.103
0.352
0.684
0.684
3.861
&2Q7
(1.760)
3.030
0.239
0.347
2.835
1.222
0.420
0.929
0.049
1.877
2.933
0.635
3.226
7.429
2&931
33438
WIN*
0.027
2.448
0.106
0.734
0.071
0.084
0.146
0.627
0.751
0.663
2.165
7.82.1
(0.972)
6.717
0.574
0.707
5.656
1.635
0.751
1.591
0.088
3.403
3.226
0.663
2.916
4.551
33.4$t
41.272'
AjnefcACfc
0.021
1.297
0.075
0.484
0.052
0.066
0.124
0.490
0.718
0.674
3.013
7,014
1.366
4.874
0.407
0.527
4.246
1.428
0.586
1.260
0.069
2.640
3.079
0.649
3.071
5.990
30,191
h~" 37,205
Ba^hauwlntet
*W5
0.063
0.507
0.168
0.529
0.215
0.263
0.475
1.548
4.655
4.148
21.089
$)Mt
(0.823)
6.365
0.570
1.108
9.500
5.351
1.678
5.035
0.225
9.782
13.521
4.085
15.643
36.415
I10.1QJ
S143JS2
RWNS
0.213
1.885
0.490
2.798
0.665
0.665
1.154
3.882
8.569
8.080
22.840
51.242
0.909
20.776
1.994
3.428
29.241
12.242
4.652
13.116
0.420
23.435
19.063
3.847
18.363
44.071
195-558
msqo
AVERAGE
0.138
1.196
0.329
1.663
0.440
0.464
0.815
2.715
6.612
6.114
21.965
42.451
0.866
13.571
1.282
2.268
19.370
8.797
3.165
9.076
0.322
16.608
16.292
3.966
17.003
40.243
I52-S2?
$5,281
Bft^house Outlet c
1WTNS
b
[0.013]
0.013
[0.036]
0.049
[0.044]
(0.053)
0.089
0.324
0.533
0.621
1.110
£792
0.036
0.542
(0.044)
(0.084)
0.533
0.342
0.124
0.382
[0.031]
0.484
0.799
0.098
0.613
0.533
4-611
7.4Q2
RON*
[0.010]
0.015
[0.030]
0.034
[0.034]
[0.020]
[0.025]
0.098
0.290
0.251
0.984
1.672
0.020
0.177
[0.015]
0.044
0.143
0.207
0.059
(0.226)
[0.025]
0.074
0.541
(0.118)
0.590
1.033
3.231
*.904
AVERAGE
[0.012]
0.014
[0.033]
0.042
[0.039]
0.053
0.089
0.211
0.411
0.436
1.047
2.232':.
0.028
0.359
0.044
0.064
0.338
0.274
0.092
0.304
[0.028]
0.279
0.670
0.108
0.601
0.783
3.92 1
6.153
Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68 °F.
[] = Minimum detection limit; 0 = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
Detection limits are not considered when calculating averages.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONT'D). CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AS MEASURED FOR CONDITION 3;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS AS MEASURED (ng/dscm)
CO^
-------
TABLE 2-9. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 7% O2
FOR CONDITION 1; BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 7 PERCENT OXYGEN (ng/dscm @ 7% O2)
COfffiENEK
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD/
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL d>P*CDJP
CcwiBi^
Baiter Met
BBN2 :
b
(0.037)
0.309
0.115
0.551
0.085
(0.115)
0.212
0.732
1.210
1.150
3.873
3,387
(6.596)
6.051
0.787
1.029
8.229
3.025
1.089
2.239
0.121
5.930
6.172
1.392
6.959
11.920
6J.53S
$9.925:
KOK3
(0.062)
0.729
0.234
0.847
0.162
0.189
0.342
1.198
1.801
1.441
5.583
12.588
(3.693)
14.589
1.351
1.351
12.698
3.422
1.531
2.161
0.189
7.465
6.214
1.711
6.394
13.148
7S-9te
88,504
RW4
0.044
0.405
0.142
0.482
0.088
0.120
0.186
0.559
1.051
0.920
4.052
3.049
(3.395)
7.009
0.876
0.931
5.531
2.628
0.997
1.971
0.131
2.924
4.709
1.084
4.720
8.980
45.837
53.937
AV<5.
0.048
0.481
0.164
0.626
0.111
0.142
0.247
0.829
1.354
1.170
4.503
9,$75
4.561
9.216
1.005
1.103
8.819
3.025
1.206
2.124
0.147
5.440
5.698
1.396
6.024
11.349
61114
..
m7»
Btt^Kwebtec
mmi
0.057
0.202
0.202
1.091
0.234
0.323
1.051
2.029
4.930
0.000
18.914
29,033
(0.696)
4.284
0.970
1.293
9.053
10.427
2.586
14.307
1.051
12.932
18.995
7.759
23.844
20.369
m.5<#
157.599
RUN 3
0.131
1.183
0.360
1.370
0.457
0.602
1.038
3.784
8.648
8.648
29.681
5&903
(2.282)
17.158
1.730
2.629
22.209
11.485
4.013
8.717
0.429
22.887
26.637
7.403
29.058
61.853
218.439
274.392
RUN 4
0.142
1.195
0.418
2.089
0.443
0.769
1.086
3.719
12.201
11.616
39.362
73-043
(2.508)
16.881
1.421
2.841
23.902
14.876
4.596
15.544
0.685
26.225
32.426
9.360
40.114
14.458
205335
278J8
AW,
0.110
0.860
0.327
1.517
0.378
0.565
1.058
3.177
8.593
6.755
29.319
52.659
1.829
12.775
1.373
2.255
18.388
12.262
3.732
12.856
0.722
20.681
26.019
8.174
31.006
32.226
184.298
236957
B^hoase Outlet
RUN 2.
0.053
0.523
0.224
1.271
0.278
0.342
0.609
2.403
4.165
3.951
11.213
25.031
0.449
10.444
0.972
1.815
13.124
6.728
2.243
6.514
0.299
8.671
13.776
3.738
16.125
27.125
num.
1*7,054
RUNS
(0.034)
0.456
0.175
0.993
0.397
0.479
0.759
2.920
8.293
7326
17.521
39.35*
0.362
10.034
0.829
1.752
12.720
7.125
2.570
11.330
(0.268)
9.578
21.726
5.139
22.894
38.312
I44.34J
184.49
RUN 4
(0.039)
0.342
(0.106)
0.606
0.250
(0.250)
0.421
1.962
1.449
1.844
1.580
3,850
0.290
9.587
0.606
1.317
11.115
6.189
1.712
5.531
0.105
8.191
7.638
(1.079)
8.165
3.819
$5.344
T4.W
AV
-------
TABLE 2-9 (CONT'D). CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 7% O2
FOR CONDITION 2; BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 7 PERCENT OXYGEN (og/dscm @ 1% O2)
COfKJEI'JEK
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TotolCDJ}
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD-KW
Contfitfw Wtofom J^jMoa * I IMtf)
Batter fob*
RWS
0.031
0.312
0.094
0.499
0.073
0.104
0.218
0.749
1.457
1.457
8.219
13-213
(3.746)
6.450
0.510
0.739
6.034
2.601
0.895
1.977
0.104
3.995
6.242
1.353
6.867
15.814
$7-326
7Q-539
RUNS
0.056
5.125
0.222
1.536
0.148
0.176
0.305
1.314
1.573
1.388
4.533
I&373
(2.035)
14.061
1.203
1.480
11.841
3.423
1.573
3.330
0.185
7.123
6.753
1.388
6.105
9.528
moas
?&
-------
TABLE 2-9 (CONT'D). CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 1% O2
FOR CONDITION 3; BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS CORRECTED TO 7 PERCENT OXYGEN (ng/dscm @ 7% O2)
CCW3EKER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CB/O
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
Cood&Oft 3 #r}
Boiler Inlet
BJW7
0.005
0.855
0.199
0.823
0.167
0.290
0.489
1.581
2.903
2.634
6.129
16.07*
(1.720)
10.107
1.129
1.720
10.322
5.698
2.204
5.376
0.317
8.069
12.472
3.226
13.547
22.955
98.863
114.937
R«H*
0.042
1.104
0.193
1.994
0.245
0.354
0.677
3.202
4.270
4.530
10.674
27.284
(1.510)
13.694
1.093
1.874
15.100
6.300
2.395
5.884
0.338
13.460
14.267
3.801
14.579
26.712
12J.009
148,293
RUN 9
0.036
0.814
0.150
1.309
0.199.
0.271
0.689
1.515
4.295
3.687
17.909
30,875
(0.446)
12.075
0.689
1.053
10.170
5.794
1.985
5.267
0.292
7.690
15.316
3.160
12.237
34.319
UQ.495
141 .37~
Avq,
0.028
0.924
0.180
1.375
0.203
0.305
0.618
2.099
3.823
3.617
11.571
34.74$
1.225
11.959
0.970
1.549
11.864
5.931
2.195
5.509
0.316
9.740
14.018
3.396
13.454
27.995
110422.
-I34.S67
Ba^bouselob*
RW7
0.364
3.044
0.852
4.415
1.007
1.317
2.246
7.823
17.195
17.040
53.135
108.439
(2.092)
30.131
2.943
5.809
43.143
21.146
7.591
20.061
0.775
27.884
47.171
9.759
43.763
100.693
3$2,96t
471.40
RUN 8
0.274
2.232
0.681
3.078
0.940
1.018
2.036
6.657
14.490
14.333
48.560
94,300
(1.566)
24.045
2.506
4.073
38.456
19.267
6.892
21.617
0.721
35.308
45.192
9.555
40.023
85.371
334,592
42*,«9
RUN?
0.197
1.229
0.421
3.246
0.679
0.747
1.630
5.093
12.154
11.272
42.439
79.10$
4.006
14.803
2.037
3.327
36.124
14.938
5.296
13.309
0.747
28.247
35.513
7.537
31.642
70.618
268.144
347J49
Avq.
0.278
2.168
0.651
3.580
0.875
1.027
1.971
6.524
14.613
14.215
48.044
93,94$
2.555
22.993
2.496
4.403
39.241
18.450
6.593
18.329
0.747
30.480
42.625
8.951
38.476
85.561
321,899
415,847
BagfaowOtffet
RUN 7
b
[0.043]
[0.043]
[0.098]
[0.098]
[0.098]
[0.055]
[0.088]
(0.130)
0.403
0.305
(1.305)
2.142
0.044
0.501
[0.065]
0.076
0.163
0.250
0.098
0.316
[0.088]
0.065
0.805
(0.163)
0.501
1.741
4.723
$.?$&
KW?
[0.023]
(0.036)
[0.036]
(0.059)
[0.036]
(0.036)
[0.036]
0.131
0.416
0.321
1.426
2.425
0.048
0.666
0.059
(0.083)
0.166
0.214
0.083
0.190
[0.023]
0.119
0.594
0.154
0.321
1.307
4>QD5
6,429
-------
TABLE 2-10. CDD/CDF FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES FOR CONDITION 1
a,b,c
217« T<"»Yir. FQIJTVAI.ENCY CONCENTRATIONS (ne/dscm adjusted to 7 percent O2)
llllSl:;::lllpi|il|
•^•i^^W
loliisiiisllilill
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAt:.O)l^»iS^;
TOfAL::CCp^D%i:l:i:
mmm&m
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100-
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
x . .;:;X::j:;:;:; :;X::;:;:j.x";t'xj>:::;:;: jxj:
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
b:7;l?lml*il;::
tmmmm
mm^mmimmmmm^^iim
SRUsiiJ
(0.037)
0.000
0.057
0.000
0.008
(0.012)
0.021
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.004
mwim
(0.660)
0.000
0.039
0.514
0.000
0.303
0.109
0.224
0.012
0.000
0.062
0.014
0.000
0.012
«$49I
IPi-lQiSi
:;Rli&3l
(0.062)
0.000
0.117
0.000
0.016
0.019
0.034
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.006
i?&272t
(0.369)
0.000
0.068
0.675
0.000
0.342
0.153
0.216
0.019
0.000
0.062
0.017
0.000
0.013
mzm?:
;i;RU**;*;'
0.044
0.000
0.071
0.000
0.009
0.012
0.019
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.004
(0.340)
0.000
0.044
0.465
0.000
0.263
0.100
0.197
0.013
0.000
0.047
0.011
0.000
0.009
m$$w
::W<&8¥
mm®
0.048
0.000
0.082
0.000
0.011
0.014
0.025
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.005
mmm
0.456
0.000
0.050
0.552
0.000
0.303
0.121
0.212
0.015
0.000
0.057
0.014
0.000
0.011
w&m
W^^M^mmmmmmmm
g$$M&
0.057
0.000
0.101
0.000
0.023
0.032
0.105
0.000
0.049
0.000
0.019
%mm
(0.070)
0.000
0.048
0.647
0.000
1.043
0.259
1.431
0.105
0.000
0.190
0.078
0.000
0.020
11$***
J:::*;277:.i
?Rlli*S£:
0.131
0.000
0.180
0.000
0.046
0.060
0.104
0.000
0.086
0.000
0.030
(0.228)
0.000
0.086
1.315
0.000
1.148
0.401
0.872
0.043
0.000
0.266
0.074
0.000
0.062
l;P®i
P5HI33;::
;;:Ru!;;i:;
0.142
0.000
0.209
0.000
0.044
0.077
0.109
0.000
0.122
0.000
0.039
m.®3m
(0.251)
0.000
0.071
1.421
0.000
1.488
0.460
1.554
0.069
0.000
0.324
0.094
0.000
0.014
::::iS;745:;;:
P$v487;:
Wfflffim
0.110
0.000
0.163
0.000
0.038
0.056
0.106
0.000
0.086
0.000
0.029
m:&589J;
0.183
0.000
0.069
1.127
0.000
1.226
0.373
1.286
0.072
0.000
0.260
0.082
0.000
0.032
•mmm
mmmt
m^mm
mm®
0.053
0.000
0.112
0.000
0.028
0.034
0.061
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.011
Pos37S;;;:
0.045
0.000
0.049
0.908
0.000
0.673
0.224
0.651
0.030
0.000
0.138
0.037
0.000
0.027
wzam
mmm
m$%3$
(0.034)
0.000
0.088
0.000
0.040
0.048
0.076
0.000
0.083
0.000
0.018
mmm.
0.036
0.000
0.041
0.876
0.000
0.713
0.257
1.133
0.000
0.000
0.217
0.051
0.000
0.038
mmW'
iRMt
(0.039)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.002
w&m
0.029
0.000
0.030
0.658
0.000
0.619
0.171
0.553
0.011
0.000
0.076
0.000
0.000
0.004
l«5l;
m%m
m
0,1
0,1
0,1
0.1
0,1
0.1
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1
1$
0.1
0,1
0,1
0,1
0.1
O.i
0,1
0.1
0,0
0,8
0.
0.0
1
1
IIP
«?l
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxiciry
Equivalency Factor (I-TEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and
Related Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
b Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68°F.
c Non-detects are not included in the totals.
2-20
-------
TABLE 2-10 (CONT'D). CDD/CDF FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES FOR CONDITION 2
a,b,c
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCY CONCENTRATIONS (ng/dscm adjusted to 7 percent O2)
CQIfGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TotatC&D-
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD^CDJF
amtCDD i
Toxic
Bqaivakaey \
Factor
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
Coa£^&^^ :
BOILER INLET
JHIN5
0.031
0.000
0.047
0.000
0.007
0.010
0.022
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.008
0.1*9
(0.375)
0.000
0.025
0.369
0.000
0.260
0.089
0.198
0.010
0.000
0.062
0.014
0.000
0.016
1M9
J,#»
RUN£ i
0.056
0.000
0.111
0.000
0.015
0.018
0.031
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.005
0*31*
(0.204)
0.000
0.060
0.740
0.000
0.342
0.157
0.333
0.019
0.000
0.068
0.014
0.000
0.010
1,94$
Z258
AVERAGE
0.043
0.000
0.079
0.000
0.011
0.014
0.026
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.006
0,195
0.290
0.000
0.043
0.555
0.000
0.301
0.123
0.265
0.014
0.000
0.065
0.014
0.000
0.013
i.«B
1. 873
BAoeousE INLET
RUN!*
0.135
0.000
0.179
0.000
0.046
0.056
0.101
0.000
0.099
0.000
0.045
fcaso
(0.175)
0.000
0.061
1.180
0.000
1.139
0.357
1.072
0.048
0.000
0.288
0.087
0.000
0.078
4.48*
5.144
RUN 6
0.447
0.000
0.513
0.000
0.139
0.139
0.242
0.000
0.179
0.000
0.048
1,70$
0.190
0.000
0.209
3.588
0.000
2.563
0.974
2.746
0.088
0.000
0.399
0.081
0.000
0.092
10.929
12.635
AVERAGE
0.291
0.000
0.346
0.000
0.092
0.098
0.171
0.000
0.139
0.000
0.046
1.183
0.183
0.000
0.135
2.384
0.000
1.851
0.666
1.909
0.068
0.000
0.343
0.084
0.000
0.085
7.70$
8.890
B AGJKHJS5 DUH£T
RW*
[0.034]
0.000
[0.048]
0.000
[0.012]
(0.014)
0.023
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.003
0,148
0.009
0.000
[0.006]
[0.111]
0.000
0.090
0.033
0.101
[0.008]
0.000
0.021
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.383
0,531
Rim 6
[0.026]
0.000
[0.039]
0.000
[0.009]
[0.005]
[0.006]
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.003
0.095
0.005
0.000
[0.002]
0.057
0.000
0.053
0.015
(0.058)
[0.006]
0.000
0.014
[0.003]
0.000
0.003
0,2t5
0.310
AVERAGE
[0.030]
0.000
[0.044]
0.000
[0.011]
0.014
0.023
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.003
0,051
0.007
0.000
0.006
0.084
0.000
0.071
0.024
0.079
[0.007]
0.000
0.017
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.291
0.342:
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. Pilot Study on
International Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds: International Toxiciry
Equivalency Factor (I-TEF) Methods of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and
Related Compounds. Report No. 176, August 1988.
b Standard conditions are defined as 1 atm and 68°F.
c Non-detects are not included in the totals.
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-10 (CONT'D). CDD/CDF FLUE GAS TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES FOR CONDITION 3
a.b.c
2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCY CONCENTRATIONS (njs/dacm adjusted to 7 percent O2)
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 CD1> •
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF ;
2378 TOJD
BqafraJeacy
Factor
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
;
CMdtoStfMNMte-lHft*!) ,..v ^
BOILEfc INLET
RUH7
0.005
0.000
0.099
0.000
0.017
0.029
0.049
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.006
0.235
(0.172)
0.000
0.056
0.860
0.000
0.570
0.220
0.538
0.032
0.000
0.125
0.032
0.000
0.023
5,319
5.55*
RUN*
0.042
0.000
0.096
0.000
0.024
0.035
0.068
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.011
0,319
(0.151)
0.000
0.055
0.937
0.000
0.630
0.240
0.588
0.034
0.000
0.143
0.038
0.000
0.027
4.95*
5.275
RUK$
0.036
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.020
0.027
0.069
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.018
.0.288
(0.045)
0.000
0.034
0.527
0.000
0.579
0.199
0.527
0.029
0.000
0.153
0.032
0.000
0.034
2.J59
2.447;
AYG,
0.028
0.000
0.090
0.000
0.020
0.031
0.062
0.000
0.038
0.000
0.012
0,281
0.123
0.000
0.049
0.775
0.000
0.593
0.219
0.551
0.032
0.000
0.140
0.034
0.000
0.028
Z543:
2,824
BACB00SE INLET
RUN?'
0.364
0.000
0.426
0.000
0.101
0.132
0.225
0.000
0.172
0.000
0.053
1.472
(0.209)
0.000
0.147
2.905
0.000
2.115
0.759
2.006
0.077
0.000
0.472
0.098
0.000
0.101
. #.889
10.360
RUN*
0.274
0.000
0.341
0.000
0.094
0.102
0.204
0.000
0.145
0.000
0.049
1.208
(0.157)
0.000
0.125
2.036
0.000
1.927
0.689
2.162
0.072
0.000
0.452
0.096
0.000
0.085
7.801
9.009
RUN*
0.197
0.000
0.210
0.000
0.068
0.075
0.163
0.000
0.122
0.000
0.042
0.877
0.401
0.000
0.102
1.664
0.000
1.494
0.530
1.331
0.075
0.000
0.355
0.075
0.000
0.071
$.097
4974
AYG,
0.278
0.000
0.326
0.000
0.088
0.103
0.197
0.000
0.146
0.000
0.048
1.18$
0.256
0.000
0.125
2.202
0.000
1.845
0.659
1.833
0.075
0.000
0.426
0.090
0.000
0.086
7.595
#.781
BA
-------
TABLE 2-11. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS WITH BAGHOUSE TO BOILER RATIOS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CONGENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CBD-KZD
RON 2 ;
Boiler
Met.
{ajBfcrJ
a
(0.065)
0.541
0.201
0.965
0.148
(0.202)
0.371
1.283
2.121
2.015
6.786
14.6$$
(11.558)
10.603
1.378
1.803
14.421
5.302
1.909
3.923
0.212
10.391
10.815
2.439
12.194
20.889
107.829
122.527
Baghoiise
Inlet \
(as/fa)
0.079
0.283
0.283
1.530
0.329
0.453
1.474
2.845
6.915
0.000
26.527
40.72ft
(0.976)
6.008
1.360
1.814
12.697
14.624
3.628
20.065
1.474
18.138
26.640
10.883
33.442
28.567
J86.31S
22.1 .033
iaghouECj
Boiler
Ratio
tag/to)
1.221
0.524
1.407
1.586
2.215
2.245
3.971
2.218
3.261
0.000
3.909
2.77ft
0.085
0.567
0.987
1.006
0.880
2.758
1.901
5.114
6.949
1.745
2.463
4.462
2.743
1.368
1.£»
1.86*
RUN 3
Hotter
Inlet
(Hg/fer)
(0.096)
1.119
0.359
1.299
0.249
0.290
0.525
1.837
2.763
2.210
8.565
1$.312
(5.665)
22.380
2.072
2.072
19.479
5.250
2.349
3.316
0.290
11.452
9.532
2.625
9.808
20.170
J 16.45$
135.772
Bsg£tous«
met
C«»srt»}
0.196
1.764
0.536
2.043
0.681
0.897
1.547
5.643
12.895
12.895
44.256
83.353
(3.403)
25.584
2.579
3.920
33.114
17.125
5.983
12.998
0.640
34.125
39.717
11.038
43.327
92.225
325.77?
40$. 131
Eaghouse/
Boiler
Ratio
(Hg&r)
2.042
1.576
1.493
1.573
2.738
3.094
2.948
3.071
4.667
5.834
5.167
4.31$
0.601
1.143
1:245
1.892
1.700
3.262
2.548
3.920
2.205
2.980
4.167
4.205
4.417
4.572
2.W
3.013
RUN*
Boiler
Met
C»fiftf>
0.063
0.587
0.206
0.698
0.127
0.175
0.270
0.809
1.524
1.333
5.873
11 .666
(4.920)
10.158
1.270
1.349
8.016
3.809
1.444
2.857
0.190
4.238
6.825
1.571
6.841
13.015
66.505
?*.i7i
Bagnouse-
Inlet
(Hg/iir)
0.176
1.478
0.517
2.584
0.548
0.951
1.344
4.600
15.091
14.367
48.684
90.339
(3.101)
20.879
1.757
3.514
29.562
18.399
5.685
19.226
0.848
32.435
40.105
11.577
49.614
17.882
254.584
344.923
3&ghoiucj
Boiler
Ratio
C»gtar>
2.768
2.517
2.505
3.700
4.314
5.447
4.980
5.682
9.904
10.776
8.290
7J744
0.630
2.055
1.384
2.605
3.688
4.830
3.936
6.729
4.450
7.654
5.876
7.367
7.253
1.374
3.828
4.412
RUN 5
Boiler
Inlet
(«»ter>
0.050
0.498
0.149
0.797
0.116
0.166
0.349
1.195
2.324
2.324
13.114
21.082
(5.978)
10.292
0.813
1.179
9.628
4.150
1.428
3.154
0.166
6.374
9.960
2.158
10.956
25.232
91 .468
112.55ft
Bsgbotne
MA
(ugrtar)
0.200
1.596
0.529
1.666
0.678
0.828
1.496
4.878
14.664
13.068
66.439
J06.043
(2.593)
20.051
1.796
3.492
29.927
16.859
5.287
15.862
0.708
30.815
42.597
12.869
49.280
114.722
346.85$;
452.961
Baghouse/
Boiler
Ratio
(ng/fer)
4.006
3.205
3.539
2.091
5.838
4.988
4.293
4.081
6.310
5.623
5.066
5.030:
0.434
1.948
2.208
2.962
3.108
4.062
3.704
5.029
4.267
4.834
4.277
5.963
4.498
4.547
3.792
4.024
[ ] = Detection limit; Q = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-11 (CONT'D). CDD/CDF EMISSIONS WITH BAGHOUSE TO BOILER RATIOS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CONVENER
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
iFotetCDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF/ ;:• s/
TOTAL CTJD+CDF
Xm"t :
Boiler
lalet
fag/bf}
0.095
8.818
0.382
2.642
0.255
0.302
0.525
2.260
2.706
2.387
7.799
i 28,172
a
(3.501)
24.193
2.069
2.547
20.373
5.889
2.706
5.730
0.318
12.256
11.619
2.387
10.505
16.394
;.:i20,486:
:;148,658
Bagho**!
Jalet
(ue/Itf)
0.630
5.566
1.446
8.261
1.962
1.962
3.407
1 1 .462
25.298
23.852
67.427
151,272!
2.685
61.335
5.886
10.119
86.323
36.140
13.733
38.721
1.239
69.182
56.275
11.358
54.210
130.104
? 577,3 10
;::728,5a2
3aghous
(tig/la)
5.493
1.688
2.952
1.288
3.206
2.400
2.511
1.735
2.833
2.641
3.797
2,885
0.866
1.466
1.913
1.814
2.126
2.553
2.402
3.067
1.777
2.190
2.644
2.098"
2.291
2.668
2,30$
2,414
Boik*
lalet
(»g/!tf>
0.071
1.595
0.294
2.564
0.389
0.532
1.349
2.968
8.413
7.222
35.080
waif;
(0.875)
23.651
1.349
2.064
19.921
11.349
3.889
10.318
0.571
15.064
30.001
6.191
23.969
67.223
216,434
276,912
B*gho««
lalet
..fafifl1*}
0.294
1.837
0.629
4.851
1.015
1.116
2.436
7.612
18.168
16.848
63.434
:lliii:
5.988
22.126
3.045
4.973
53.995
22.329
7.917
19.893
1.116
42.222
53.082
11.266
47.297
105.555
400,80*
519,044
1
BaJ
1
W
M
4,1
1.1
2,1
1,1
2.1
2,1
1.1
2,i
2,1
1
1,1
!ii;U
6.IJ
O.)|
2,l|
2.41
2,11
.91
2,0)
1.9!
1.9S
2,8)
.71
1.81
.91
1
i 1,851
iM
a
( ) = Estimated maximum possible concentration
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-12. CDD/CDF BAGHOUSE INLET AND OUTLET EMISSIONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR CONDITION 1; BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
COKGEHEfc
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
®m$B&
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
:T:OTAt CDF
TOTAL C0IH»
409U
OUTLET
2%
32496
RUN 4 EMISSIONS
: INLET
£«#**)
0.18
1.48
0.52
2.58
0.55
0.95
1.34
4.60
15.09
14.37
48.68
90<34
(3.101)
20.88
1.76
3.51
29.56
18.40
5.68
19.23
0.85
32.44
40.10
11.58
49.61
17.88
;:,:;;a;354><>.-
344^
OUTLET
-------
TABLE 2-13. CDD/CDF BAGHOUSE INLET AND OUTLET EMISSIONS AND REMOVAL
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR CONDITION 2;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CON0ENBK
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
:TotttC01>
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL C0D+CDF
RtfWS EMISSIONS
INLET
<»g/lsi)
0.20
1.60
0.53
1.67
0.68
0.83
1.50
4.88
14.66
13.07
66.44
106,04
(2.593)
20.05
1.80
3.49
29.93
16.86
5.29
15.86
0.71
30.82
42.60
12.87
49.28
114.72
346#
•4S2*?
OUTLET
274
0.143
2.187
(0.178)
(0.339)
2.151
1.380
0.502
1.542
[0.125]
1.954
3.227
0.394
2.474
2.151
1SJ622
29>«9«
REMOVAL
JKPFICIENCr
73.5%
96.6%
72.6%
88.2%
73.8%
74.2%
76.0%
73.2%
85.3%
80.8%
93.3%
9M%
94.5%
89.1%
90.1%
90.3%
92.8%
91.8%
90.5%
90.3%
82.4%
93.7%
92.4%
96.9%
95.0%
98.1%
94,6*
*&4%
fctfNtfJBMISSIQH*
StLET
(ttg/hr)
0.63
5.57
1.45
8.26
1.96
1.96
3.41
11.46
25.30
23.85
67.43
I5t<27
2.68
61.33
5.89
10.12
86.32
36.14
13.73
38.72
1.24
69.18
56.28
11.36
54.21
130.10
577>3
m«
OUTLET
(*g/fc>
[0.036]
0.053
[0.108]
0.124
[0.123]
[0.072]
[0.090]
0.355
1.048
0.906
3.553
«<040
0.071
0.640
[0.054]
0.160
0.515
0.746
0.213
(0.816)
[0.090]
0.266
1.954
(0.426)
2.132
3.731
lt*«7Q/
I7,7t0
REMOVAL
BE*j(CSBSNECY
94.3%
99.0%
92.6%
98.5%
93.7%
96.3%
97.4%
96.9%
95.9%
96.2%
94.7%
9&03&
97.4%
99.0%
99.1%
98.4%
99.4%
97.9%
98.4%
100.0%
92.7%
99.6%
96.5%
100.0%
96.1%
97.1%
SSXJ*
97,6*
[ ] = Detection limit; Q = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-26
-------
Table 2-10 presents 2378 TCDD TEC in the flue gas for the 3 conditions. Total
CDD/CDF TECs at the boiler inlet range from 1.6 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for Run 5
to 5.6 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for Run 7. Baghouse inlet TECs at 7 percent O2 ranged
from 4.3 ng/dscm for Run 2 to 12.6 ng/dscm for Run 6. Baghouse outlet TEC values at
7 percent O2 ranged from 0.13 ng/dscm for Run 9 to 3.7 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for
Run 3.
Table 2-11 presents the CDD/CDF mass emission rates for the boiler inlet and
baghouse inlet. The ratio of baghouse inlet to boiler inlet is given to show the
magnitude of CDD/CDF formation in the boiler.
Table 2-12 presents the flue gas CDD/CDF mass emission rates for the baghouse
inlet and outlet at test Condition 1. Baghouse inlet and outlet mass rates are presented
with removal efficiencies to show the effectiveness of CDD/CDF removal through the
baghouse. For Condition 1, total removal efficiency ranged from no removal for Run 2
to almost 70 percent for Run 4.
Tables 2-13 and 2-14 present the CDD/CDF mass emission rates for the
baghouse inlet and baghouse outlet at Conditions 2 and 3, respectively. As shown in
Table 2-13, with carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr, total CDD/CDF removal efficiency for
Run 5 was 93.4 percent, and the removal efficiency for Run 6 was 97.6 percent.
Table 2-14 shows total CDD/CDF removal efficiencies (with carbon injection at
2.5 Ib/hr) over 98 percent for Runs 7, 8, and 9.
2.2.4 CDD/CDF Flue Gas Sample Parameters
The CDD/CDF flue gas sample parameters for each of the 8 runs at the 3
sampling locations are shown in Tables 2-15 through 2-17. Sampling rate, meter volume,
stack gas temperature, gas O2/CO/H2O concentrations, stack gas flow rates, and
isokinetic parameters are shown.
2.2.5 CDD/CDF Ash Results
Daily samples were taken of both the incinerator bottom ash and the baghouse
ash.
7-77
JBS335 L L'
-------
TABLE 2-14. CDD/CDF BAGHOUSE INLET AND OUTLET EMISSIONS AND
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR CONDITION 3;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CONGEHEfc
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 CM*
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL C0£>*C0F
RUN 7 EMISSIONS
INLET
(9g#B)
0.49
4.10
1.15
5.95
1.36
1.77
3.03
10.54
23.18
22.97
71.61
144,15
(2.819)
40.61
3.97
7.83
58.15
28.50
10.23
27.04
1.04
37.58
63.57
13.15
58.98
135.71
439,2
6353
OUTLET
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
93.9$
99.0%
91.7%
98.9%
93.1%
96.7%
97.9%
97.4%
97.0%
97.5%
95.8%
&)M
99.4%
98.2%
98.8%
98.2%
100.0%
98.7%
99.1%
97.9%
95.3%
100.0%
98.2%
97.8%
98.0%
97.8%
98>6*
95.2*
[ ] = Detection limit; Q = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-15. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
AT THE BOILER INLET; BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
RUN SJUMBER
IDATE
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
CONDITION I
Rim 2
09/07/91
240
0.45
108.31
3.067
1377
13.4
5.0
13.0
1914
54.20
109.6
RUNSiUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)*
CO2 Concentration (%V)*
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)*
CO2 Concentration ( % V) *
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Ruo7
09/13/91
240
0.59
142.67
4.04
1166
14.5
3.3
13.5
2006
56.81
92.9
Ruft?
09/09/91
239
0.33
79
2.237
1205
14.0
5.0
21.9
1819
51.51
109.9
Rue 4
09/10/91
240
0.31
75.07
2.126
1122
14.9
4.1
12.9
1986
45.24
98.9
AVERAGE
239.67
0.36
87.46
2.477
1234
14.1
4.7
16.0
1906
50.32
106.1
CONDITlpN 2
ItuaS
09/Ii#l
240
0.3
72.26
2.046
1127
14.4
4.2
13.1
1999
56.61
94.6
Rua<5
09/12/91
240
0.33
79.92
2.263
1086
14.3
3.9
15.1
2120
60.03
98.6
AVERAGE
240.00
0.32
76.09
2.15
1106
14.3
4.1
14.1
2059
58.32
96.6
CONDITIONS
IUm8
09/14/91
240
0.61
145.7
4.126
1166
14.4
3.1
13.6
2025
57.35
94.0
Ru09
09/16/91
240
0.66
157.51
4.461
1302
13.2
5.0
15.9
2084
59.01
98.8
AVERAGE
240.00
0.62
148.63
4.209
1211
14.0
3.8
14.3
2038
57.72
95.2
* O2 and CO2 were measured at the baghouse inlet.
2-29
-------
TABLE 2-16. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
AT THE BAGHOUSE INLET; BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
!RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
CONDITION 1
Run 2
09/07/91
240
0.34
81.07
2.296
365
13.4
5.0
12.3
1532
43.38
104.6
;RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
Run?
09/13/91
240
0.41
99.01
2.804
368
14.5
3.3
13.1
1723
48.79
101.5
Hw3
09/09/91
240
0.42
101.19
2.866
359
13.9
4.2
12.5
1740
49.28
102.7
Run 4
09/10/91
240
0.41
98.36
2.786
357
14.9
4.1
12.1
1695
48.00
102.5
AVERAGE
240
0.39
93.54
2.649
360
14.1
4.4
12.3
1655
46.88
103.3
CONDITION 2
RunS
09/11/91
240
0.46
111.51
3.158
359
14.4
4.2
12.4
1854
52.51
106.3
Run 6
09/12/91
240
0.42
100.96
2.859
369
14.3
3.9
13.5
1737
49.20
102.7
CONDITIONS
Bwi?
09/14/91
240
0.40
96.86
2.743
360
14.4
3.1
13.3
1690
47.69
101.2
Run 9
09/16/91
240
0.39
93.98
2.662
373
13.2
5.0
15.1
1590
45.03
104.4
AVERAGE
240
0.44
106.24
3.01
364
14.3
4.1
13.0
1796
50.85
104.5
AVERAGE
240
0.40
96.62
2.736
367
14.0
3.8
13.8
1668
47.17
102.4
2-30
-------
TABLE 2-17. CDD/CDF EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS
AT THE BAGHOUSE OUTLET, BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
RUKS&IMBER
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
CONDITION 1
Km%
09W9I
240
0.33
78.57
2.225
292
15.05
4.69
14.49
2274
64.40
103.15
RUNiKUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
RUN NUMBER
DATE
Total Sampling Time (min.)
Average Sampling Rate (dscfm)
Metered Volume (dscf)
Metered Volume (dscm)
Average Stack Temperature (°F)
O2 Concentration (%V)
CO2 Concentration (%V)
Stack Gas Moisture (%V)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm)
Percent Isokinetic
B*»3
09/09/91
240
0.33
80.21
2.271
296
15.66
4.19
9.06
2349
66.53
101.93
Run 4
! 09/10/91
240
0.31
74.56
2.111
290
15.90
4.19
9.78
2290
64.84
97.22
AVERAOB
240.00
0.32
77.78
2.202
293
15.5
4.4
11.1
2304
65.25
100.77
CONDITION 2
i Run 5
! 09/J1/9J
240
0.33
79.57
2.253
286
15.63
4.23
8.98
2376.76
67.31
99.94
Rua 6
09/12/91
240
0.3
71.78
2.033
291
15.46
4.42
8.45
2125.53
60.195
100.82
i AVERAGE
240.00
0.32
75.68
2.14
289
15.55
4.33
8.72
2251.15
63.75
100.38
; CONDITION 3
Ru»7
09/13/91
240
0.34
81.1
2.297
292
15.34
4.45
10.00
2458
69.62
98.49
RunS
! 09/14/91
240
0.32
76.75
2.174
280
15.52
4.48
10.45
2301
65.16
99.59
Rua9
09/K5/9I
240
0.31
73.63
2.085
289
14.45
5.2
11.17
2169
61.43
101.35
AVERAGE
240.00
0.32
77.16
2.185
287
15.1
4.7
10.54
2309
65.40
99.81
2-31
-------
2.2.5.1 Incinerator Bottom Ash. All bottom ash was removed from the
incinerator on the morning after each test day. A 50-gallon stainless steel drum was
filled 2/3 full with ash, the lid was fastened, and the drum was rolled to mix the ash
thoroughly. The lid was removed and three 1-liter bottles were filled with the ash. Two
of these bottles were archived and one was sent to the laboratory for CDD/CDF
analysis. Attempts were made to shovel representative portions of ash from all points of
the incinerator. This procedure was performed for each test run.
Table 2-18 presents the CDD/CDF concentrations in the bottom ash for all runs.
Total CDD/CDF concentrations range from approximately 6,000 ppt.wt for Run 6 to
approximately 80,000 ppt.wt for Run 3. Table 2-19 presents the 2378 TCDD TEC in the
bottom ash. Total CDD/CDF TEC's range from 169.5 ppt.wt to 2040.1 ppt.wt.
Table 2-20 presents the hourly discharge rate of CDD/CDF in the incinerator
bottom ash based on the weight of the total ash collected from the incinerator. The
total CDD/CDF generated ranged from 166 ^g/hr to 1944 //g/hr.
2.2.5.2 Baghouse Ash. Baghouse ash was collected each test day during the test
period. After each test period, a composite sample of the baghouse ash was mixed in a
55 gallon stainless steel drum. Three 1-liter bottles were filled with ash. Two of these
were archived and one was sent to the laboratory for CDD/CDF analysis. This
procedure was repeated for each test run.
Table 2-21 presents the CDD/CDF concentrations in the baghouse ash for all
runs. Total CDD/CDF concentrations range from 10,420.6 ppt.wt for Run 2 to
62,084 ppt.wt for Run 7. Concentrations of CDD/CDF increase from
Condition 1 to Condition 3 due to the removal of CDD/CDF in the baghouse.
Table 2-22 presents the 2378-TCDD toxic equivalencies of the baghouse ash, which
range from 117.2 ppt.wt to 1254.1 ppt.wt for total CDD/CDF.
Table 2-23 presents an estimate of the hourly discharge rate of CDD/CDF in the
baghouse ash based on the weight of the ash collected from the baghouse during the test
period. Total CDD/CDF ranges from 258 //g/hr to 1767 pg/hr.
JBS335
2-32
-------
TABLE 2-18. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS IN THE INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
DATE;
K8K NUMBER ;
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
ii3^epP:f:::::;: Cl -!•
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL :CDF i J; "..;:.
TOT:iSL CDD*CDE:
«wff
2
14.0
1,266.0
82.7
1,267.3
114.0
169.0
273.0
1,744.0
1,420.0
1,290.0
3,240.0
;::1Qi88&;&:
144.0
4,786.0
192.0
483.0
5,585.0
2,080.0
484.0
1,450.0
18.3
2,367.7
2,800.0
156.0
1,194.0
1,980.0
;23i72G.O
;34^0&twt>
29.9
1,240.1
191.0
2,639.0
334.0
372.0
870.0
4,244.0
3,040.0
3,030.0
5,110.0
ili^iii&fr:
408.0
15,222.0
550.0
1,420.0
12,920.0
4,850.0
1,310.0
2,460.0
62.4
6,207.6
6,520.0
684.0
3,606.0
2,970.0
:;39;J9&$
m&m
o&io
4.
3.2
153.8
15.1
224.9
18.3
23.2
44.1
2224
209.0
193.0
431.0
«S3Kd
37.9
1,302.1
40.1
94.9
1,035.0
278.0
81.0
230.0
308.0
44.0
403.0
44.0
229.0
294.0
:;:,£421.a
f;!$#$fcO*
05W13
7
(pptwt)
11.7
717.3
86.6
993.4
91.3
141.0
208.0
729.7
1,080.0
1,040.0
1,840.0
•:::6i939.0
181.0
6,239.0
209.0
467.0
4,874.0
(1260.0)
463.0
858.0
19.2
(500.2)
1,230.0
143.0
767.0
1,100.0
:j7i3Km
•;24ifc#;fr
<»rf*
$
(ppfcwt)
14.7
489.3
73.6
784.4
103.0
106.0
252.0
1,279.0
895.0
925.0
1,710.0
"i$js&&;
159.0
5,001.0
189.0
411.0
3,950.0
1,370.0
378.0
588.0
(15.90)
1,498.1
1,890.0
153.0
947.0
734.0
:"i3|2S4;0;
23,916.0
0»f&
9
(ppt«t>
13.7
1,426.3
95.6
2,174.4
136.0
182.0
370.0
2,992.0
1,540.0
1.710.0
2,040.0
5.12*680.0
236.0
8,234.0
279.0
577.0
6,484.0
1,960.0
528.0
890.0
29.8
2,952.2
2,330.0
(241.0)
1,179.0
1,070.0
:.i£$9&a
;;3$;67Q:fr:
AVERAGE
(ppt.wt>
12.9
751.3
80.9
1,176.0
119.0
146.8
298.5
1,637.3
1,208.3
1,213.8
2,141.8
8»786;S^
173.0
6,022.0
224.6
515.2
5,294.0
1,773.3
491.8
960.3
60.9
2,047.7
2,336.6
211.8
1,224.8
1,256.8
::,;i2£58l.6.
^Slv^J
ppt.wt = Parts per trillion by weight.
() = Estimated maximum possible concentration.
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-19. CDD/CDF 2378 TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCY CONCENTRATIONS IN BOTTOM ASH;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
a,b
2378 TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCY (ppt.wt)
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 OW>
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAtC00*CI>F:
Toxic
Factor
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
CondMoa i
i Riml
14.0
0.0
41.4
0.0
11.4
16.9
27.3
0.0
14.2
0.0
3.2
12&4
14.4
0.0
9.6
241.5
0.0
208.0
48.4
145.0
1.8
0.0
28.0
1.6
0.0
2.0
700,3
®*?7
Run 3
29.9
0.0
95.5
0.0
33.4
37.2
87.0
0.0
30.4
0.0
5.1
ms
40.8
0.0
27.5
710.0
0.0
485.0
131.0
246.0
6.2
0.0
65.2
6.8
0.0
3.0
1,721*$
2>mi
Rua4
12.1
0.0
35.8
0.0
12.8
12.7
30.5
0.0
10.4
0.0
1.9
U&J
16.7
0.0
13.3
252.0
0.0
193.0
51.1
82.7
2.7
0.0
26.3
1.9
0.0
1.4
64t.l
757.2
eaBditi»2
Run 5
4.0
0.0
15.6
0.0
2.8
5.4
6.6
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.9
39.7
5.1
0.0
3.6
82.5
0.0
45.8
17.9
37.9
0.7
0.0
8.9
0.8
0.0
0.6
20X7
243.4
RUH*
3.2
0.0
7.6
0.0
1.8
2.3
4.4
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.4
21.8
3.8
0.0
2.0
47.5
0.0
27.8
8.1
23.0
30.8
0.0
4.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
147.7
ms
Coad2KH
Run?
11.7
0.0
43.3
0.0
9.1
14.1
20.8
0.0
10.8
0.0
1.8
llt.7
18.1
0.0
10.5
233.5
0.0
0.0
46.3
85.8
1.9
0.0
12.3
1.4
0.0
1.1
410.9
522,&
Rua*
14.7
0.0
36.8
0.0
10.3
10.6
25.2
0.0
9.0
0.0
1.7
10&3
15.9
0.0
9.5
205.5
0.0
137.0
37.8
58.8
0.0
0.0
18.9
1.5
0.0
0.7
4S5.&
59X9
t3
Rim?
13.7
0.0
47.8
0.0
13.6
18.2
37.0
0.0
15.4
0.0
2.0
147,7
23.6
0.0
14.0
288.5
0.0
196.0
52.8
89.0
3.0
0.0
23.3
0.0
0.0
1.1
$91.2
*3*,9
Average
12.9
0.0
40.5
0.0
11.9
14.7
29.9
0.0
12.1
0.0
2.1
124.0
17.3
0.0
11.2
257.6
0.0
177.3
49.2
96.0
6.1
0.0
23.4
2.1
0.0
1.3
-------
TABLE 2-20. CDD/CDF DISCHARGE RATE IN THE INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
DATE?
KUNHUMBER
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDB
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDEHCOF
09/0?
2
tugfbf}
1.69
50.53
2.32
35.48
3.19
4.73
7.64
48.82
39.75
36.11
90.70
304,5?
4.03
133.98
5.37
13.52
156.34
58.23
13.55
40.59
0.51
66.28
78.38
4.37
33.42
55.43
664.01
964.5*
09/09
3
(ag/fer)
3.22
38.59
4.63
63.91
8.09
9.01
21.07
102.78
73.62
73.38
123.75
510.99
9.88
368.64
13.32
34.39
312.89
117.46
31.73
59.58
1.51
150.33
157.90
16.56
87.33
71.93
1433.45
1944.44
09/10
4
(ug/hr)
0.82
11.84
1.30
18.91
2.33
2.31
5.55
28.04
18.94
20.21
34.41
141.52
3.04
102.74
4.82
9.18
99.79
35.14
9.30
15.06
0.50
57.98
47.88
3.53
25.96
24.58
439.51
581.03
09/11
5
(ag/tir)
0.43
6.85
0.74
6.74
0.65
1.28
1.55
8.19
10.43
9.72
20.60
64.88
1.20
41.26
1.71
3.89
47.72
10.81
4.22
8.94
0.15
14.80
21.00
1.87
10.63
13.12
181.34
346.22
09/1J
6
fog/bf)
0.36
4.26
0.42
6.26
0.51
0.65
1.23
6.19
5.81
5.37
11.99
42.79
1.05
36.23
1.12
2.64
28.79
7.73
2.25
6.40
8.57
1.22
11.21
1.22
6.37
8.18
123.00
165.74
09/13
?
(Hg/fer)
1.59
22.06
2.01
23.03
2.12
3.27
4.82
30.83
25.04
24.12
42.67
1*1.56
4.20
144.67
4.85
10.83
113.02
0.00
10.74
19.90
0.45
37.56
28.52
3.32
17.79
25.51
450.54
634.10
09/14
8
C«gtor>
1.34
17.00
1.87
19.88
2.61
2.69
6.39
32.41
22.68
23.44
43.33
168.06
4.03
126.73
4.79
10.42
100.10
34.72
9.58
14.90
0.00
37.96
47.89
3.88
24.00
18.60
437.99
406.06
09/16
9
(agftr)
1.74
26.61
2.17
49.32
3.08
4.13
8.39
67.86
34.93
38.78
46.27
287.5*
5.35
186.75
6.33
13.09
147.06
44.45
11.98
20.19
0.68
66.96
52.84
0.00
26.74
24.27
612.13
899.22
AVERAGE
Cagfer}
1.40
22.22
1.93
27.94
2.82
3.51
7.08
40.64
28.90
28.89
51.71
212.75/
4.10
142.62
5.29
12.24
125.71
38.57
11.67
23.19
1.55
54.14
55.70
4.34
29.03
30.20
542:7:$
755:4$;;
( ) = Estimated Maximum Possible Detection Limit.
2-35
-------
TABLE 2-21. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS IN BAGHOUSE ASH;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
DATE:
R^HHCMBER.
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TQt^!;epD:^p:
as/or
%
a
(0.740)
14.4
5.7
47.8
11.7
18.8
34.7
151.8
417.0
388.0
1990.0
3080.6
6.9
199.1
21.3
47.6
445.1
205.0
93.3
296.0
13.1
492.6
972.0
231.0
987.0
3330.0
7340.6
£$$&Bi
""<»#»
3
(pptwt)
1.5
19.9
9.2
56.0
15.1
21.4
37.3
159.2
407.0
396.0
1850.0
S&JS.fr
12.3
278.7
32.3
66.0
598.7
214.0
126.0
216.0
12.7
461.3
1080.0
246.0
1094.0
2850.0
7288.0
iflP&il
&/10
4
<£{*-**>
(2.100)
18.4
14.4
97.6
33.5
39.2
80.0
298.3
656.0
644.0
2040.0
3923.S
19.5
621.5
53.6
145.0
1191.4
431.0
260.0
450.0
17.1
931.9
1860.0
383.0
1867.0
3830.0
12061.6:
il#*P::;:
<»/11
5
(pptwt)
4.6
73.1
54.7
133.3
41.0
43.6
83.5
384.9
689.0
721.0
2420.0
4648.7
37.5
982.5
90.8
172.0
1697.2
470.0
298.0
465.0
(17.80)
889.2
2060.0
442.0
2228.0
4980.0
14S30.6
mmm
09/12
$
15.5
356.5
82.2
849.8
158.0
167.0
377.0
1938.0
2350.0
2230.0
5310.0
13834.0
155.0
5195.0
378.0
793.0
7359.0
2760.0
975.0
2050.0
84.5
5800.5
5680.0
1400.0
5790.0
9830.0
4*250.6
;:::;630M&>
05/14
9
{pptwt)
12.7
211.3
57.9
488.1
125.0
122.0
276.0
1287.0
1820.0
1950.0
4650.0
JtOOB.O
123.0
4557.0
291.0
625.0
5974.0
2400.0
814.0
1560.0
(46.70)
5019.3
5120.0
1010.0
4940.0
8440.0
40920.6
::;;5i920,0
<»/16
*
-------
TABLE 2-22. CDD/CDF 2378 TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCY CONCENTRATIONS IN BAGHOUSE ASH;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
2378 TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCY (ppt.wt)
COtGENER
Dioxms
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
•£oat:.eDI>
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDDX23-F
2J7STCDD
Toxic
B^ofraleacy
Factor
1.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.100
0.000
0.050
0.500
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.001
CoaditioH i
:
Run. 2
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
1.2
1.9
3.5
0.0
4.2
0.0
2.0
15,5;
0.7
0.0
1.1
23.8
0.0
20.5
9.3
29.6
1.3
0.0
9.7
2.3
0.0
3.3
10J.T
J17.2-
RuaJ
1.5
0.0
4.6
0.0
1.5
2.1
3.7
0.0
4.1
0.0
1.9
»,4
1.2
0.0
1.6
33.0
0.0
21.4
12.6
21.6
1.3
0.0
10.8
2.5
0.0
2.9
IQfcS
128,2
Run. 4
0.0
0.0
7.2
0.0
3.4
3.9
8.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
2.0
31.1
2.0
0.0
2.7
72.5
0.0
43.1
26.0
45.0
1.7
0.0
18.6
3.8
0.0
3.8
••••?m2:.:
: .250.3 •;
CofidiSaaZ
RuaS
4.6
0.0
27.4
0.0
4.1
4.4
8.4
0.0
6.9
0.0
2.4
5&.1
3.8
0.0
4.5
86.0
0.0
47.0
29.8
46.5
0.0
0.0
20.6
4.4
0.0
5.0
tms-
: 305.7;
Run.6
11.7
0.0
28.6
0.0
8.3
9.2
19.2
0.0
12.6
0.0
3.2
92.8
9.7
0.0
11.5
201.0
0.0
141.0
64.1
109.0
0.0
0.0
36.9
5.5
0.0
6.5
;f 585,2
:£$*?.*
ConditioaS
Riffi?
15.5
0.0
41.1
0.0
15.8
16.7
37.7
0.0
23.5
0.0
5.3
155.fr
15.5
0.0
18.9
396.5
0.0
276.0
97.5
205.0
8.5
0.0
56.8
14.0
0.0
9.8
:.£Q9»:.S.
£254; i.:
Run. «
12.7
0.0
29.0
0.0
12.5
12.2
27.6
0.0
18.2
0.0
4.7
116.8
12.3
0.0
14.6
312.5
0.0
240.0
81.4
156.0
0.0
0.0
51.2
10.1
0.0
8.4
i'SS&S:
:;!»003.3>
RUH?
0.0
0.0
24.5
0.0
16.3
19.7
31.5
0.0
38.8
0.0
6.7
137,4;
9.9
0.0
12.2
270.5
0.0
233.0
78.7
193.0
7.3
0.0
49.7
12.5
0.0
7.1
*:''$&&•
::l#li.3:
ppt.wt = Parts per trillion by weight
NOTE: Condition 1: No Carbon Injection
Condition 2: Carbon Injection = 1 Ib/hr
Condition 3: Carbon Injection = 2.5 Ib/hr
2-37
-------
TABLE 2-23. CDD/CDF DISCHARGE RATE IN THE BAGHOUSE ASH
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CDD/CDF Discharge Rate (ue/hr)
CONGENER
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDCHCDF
Condition 1
Run 2
0.02
0.36
0.14
1.18
0.29
0.46
0.86
3.75
10.31
9.60
49.22
76.19
0.17
4.92
0.53
1.18
11.01
5.07
2.31
7.32
0.32
12.18
24.04
5.71
24.41
82.36
181.5
257.7
Run 3
0.05
0.64
0.30
1.81
0.49
0.69
1.21
5.15
13.16
12.81
59.83
96.14
0.40
9.01
1.04
2.13
19.36
6.92
4.08
6.99
0.41
14.92
34.93
7.96
35.38
92.17
235.7
331.8
Run 4
0.06
0.52
0.41
2.76
0.95
1.11
2.27
8.45
18.58
18.24
57.79
111.14
0.55
17.61
1.52
4.11
33.75
12.21
7.37
12.75
0.48
26.40
52.69
10.85
52.89
108.49
341.7
452.8
Avg.
0.04
0.51
0.28
1.92
0.58
0.76
1.44
5.78
14.02
13.55
55.61
94.49
0.37
10.51
1.03
2.47
21.37
8.07
4.58
9.02
0.41
17.83
37.22
8.17
37.56
94.34
253.0
347.5
Condition 2
Run 5
0.11
1.71
1.28
3.12
0.96
1.02
1.95
9.00
16.12
16.87
56.61
108.75
0.88
22.99
2.12
4.02
39.71
11.00
6.97
10.88
0.42
20.80
48.19
10.34
52.12
116.50
346.9
455.7
Run 6
0.36
6.27
1.76
13.08
2.57
2.84
5.92
28.15
38.86
38.86
98.09
236.76
2.98
93.56
7.09
12.40
154.47
43.49
19.77
33.62
1.08
98.52
113.82
17.03
99.57
199.87
897.3
1,134.0
Avg.
0.23
3.99
1.52
8.10
1.76
1.93
3.94
18.58
27.49
27.87
77.35
172.76
1.93
58.27
4.61
8.21
97.09
27.24
13.37
22.25
0.75
59.66
81.00
13.68
75.84
158.19
622.1
794.9
Condition 3
Run?
0.44
10.15
2.34
24.19
4.50
4.75
10.73
55.16
66.89
63.47
151.14
393.76
4.41
147.87
10.76
22.57
209.46
78.56
27.75
58.35
2.41
165.10
161.67
39.85
164.80
279.80
1,373.4
1,767.1
Run 8
0.40
6.61
1.81
15.27
3.91
3.82
8.64
40.27
56.94
61.01
145.48
344.16
3.85
142.58
9.10
19.55
186.91
75.09
25.47
48.81
1.46
157.04
160.19
31.60
154.56
264.06
1,280.3
1.624.4
Run 9
0.27
9.47
1.46
18.79
4.85
5.87
9.38
77.28
115.54
94.99
198.33
536.23
2.95
125.10
7.27
16.11
149.04
69.38
23.44
57.47
2.16
139.37
148.00
37.22
163.78
211.43
1.152.7
1 ,689.0
Avg.
0.37
8.74
1.87
19.42
4.42
4.81
9.58
57.57
79.79
73.16
164.98
424.72
3.74
138.51
9.04
19.41
181.80
74.34
25.55
54.88
2.01
153.84
156.62
36.22
161.05
251.76
1,268.8
1,693.5
( ) = Estimated Maximum Possible Detection Limit.
2-38
-------
2.3 TOXIC METALS EMISSIONS
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. Two to three sampling runs were
performed under each of the three test conditions (without carbon injection, carbon
injection at 1 Ib/hr, and carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr) to ensure representative test
results.
Sampling for metals was conducted at the fabric filter inlet and fabric filter outlet.
The average metals emission rates and removal efficiencies are summarized in
Section 2.3.2. The results for each individual run are presented in Section 2.3.4.
Concentrations at dry, standard conditions are shown, both actual and adjusted to 7
percent O;. Emission rates are also 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, and
metals concentrations in ash samples are presented in Section 2.3.7.
A summary of the Borgess Hospital toxic metals sampling results is presented in
Table 2-24. Inlet mass emission rates ranged from not detected for Be and Tl to
21.6 g/hr for Hg. Outlet emissions ranged from not detected for As, Be, Ag, and Tl to
17.4 g/hr for Hg. The associated removal efficiencies were above 30 percent for the test
runs without carbon injection, above 40 percent for test runs with carbon injection at
1 Ib/hr, and above 27 percent for test runs with carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr.
2.3.2 Metals Data Reduction
The values tabulated in the toxic metals test report section include detection
limits for samples in which specific metals were not detected. 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:
JBS335
-------
Table 2-24
SUMMARY OF TOXIC METALS FLUE GAS EMISSION RATES AND METALS IN ASH - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Without Carbon
Inlet
(g/hr)
1.42
0.448
0.0100
0.155
0.00100
0.612
: 0.0510
1.47
2.32
10.7
0.0720
0.0151
[0.0311]
Outlet
(g/hr)
0.341
0.0237
0.00131
0.00826
[0.000355]
0.00274
0.0333
0.147
0.00708
12.5
0.0504
0.00791
[0.0362]
RE
(*)
76.1%
94.7%
91.3%
94.7%
>64.5%
99.6%
34.8%
90.0%
99.7%
-16.6%
30.1%
47.5%
NA
Carbon Injection @ 1 Ib/hr
Inlet
(£/hr)
1.12
0.788
0.0101
0.218
[0.000306]
3.00
0.0768
1.55
3.21
11.3
0.161
0.0188
[0.0306]
Outlet
78.4%
94.6%
NA
98.4%
70.9%
97.4%
99.5%
95.1%
27.9%
49.6%
NA
Baghouse Ash
Average
Cone.
(mg/kg)
692
32.6
1.29
13.6
0.260
154
13.8
157
116
270
4.37
3.52
[20.0]
Average
Discharge
(g/day)
79.6
3.77
0.149
1.57
0.0326
18.7
1.58
18.0
13.4
30.9
0.503
0.405
[2.30]
Bottom Ash
Average
Cone*
(mg/kg)
48500
15.2
47.5
2880
0.268
12.0
39.7
30800
162
11.2
47.1
3.52
[20.0]
Average
Discharge
(g/day)
12200
5.04
11.8
. 824
0.0939
3.44
10.7
11600
38.9
2.67
12.5
0.970
[5.44]
Ki
A
O
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
• If a metal was detected in one or more fractions of the sample
train but not in all fractions, only the detected values were used to
determine total sample mass (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 the metal was detected 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 result was 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 2-25 through 2-27 present the metals emissions results for
each test condition. During the emission tests without carbon injection, Hg had the
highest average mass rate at the inlet with 10.7 g/hr, followed by Pb with 2.32 g/hr.
Beryllium and Tl were not collected in detectable amounts for any of the runs at the
inlet or outlet during these emissions test conditions. Mercury was the most prevalent
element collected for the three runs at the outlet during this condition with an average
emission rate of 12.5 g/hr, followed by Al with 0.341 g/hr. Sample results for Ag
showed negative removal efficiencies for two of the three runs. Analysis of samples from
Run 2 indicated a substantially higher mass emission rate of Ag at the outlet of
0.0140 g/hr versus 0.00750 g/hr at the inlet. Run 4 showed similar outlet and inlet mass
emission rates of Ag of 0.00726 g/hr and 0.00517 g/hr , respectively. Chromium showed
a negative removal efficiency in Run 4 with inlet and outlet mass rates of 0.00343 g/hr
JBS335
-------
Table 2-25
AVERAGE METALS EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR- BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
* WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION *
CtmjiMfcftx
Locattsa
v^ -
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Wttbmrt CarixHt Ittjectioa
Snwf " ' '
iftfe*
fe&r*
1.22
0.214
0.00839 '
0.139
[0.000312]
0.623
0.0431
1.20
1.50
15.1
0.0521
0.00750
[0.0312]
Ottttet
fc&ri
0.328
0.0267
[0.00148]
0.00697
[0.000370]
0.00161
0.0152
0.284
0.00501
17.4
0.0290
0.0140
[0.0369]
RE
.m
73.1%
87.5%
> 82.4%
95.0%
NA
99.7%
64.8%
76.3%
99.7%
-15.5%
44.4%
-87.3%
NA
W«*9
iftkt
: &I&
1.82
0.631
0.0119
0.234
0.00100
0.595
0.0756
2.00
3.57
11.9
0.0849
0.0325
[0.0311]
Ottttei
ftftlft :
0.342
0.0239
0.000782
0.00900
[0.000329]
0.00285
0.0502
0.0919
0.004%
14.1
0.0550
0.00241
[0.0352]
Hf
m ....
81.2%
96.2%
93.5%
96.1%
> 67.1%
99.5%
33.6%
95.4%
99.9%
-18.4%
35.2%
92.6%
NA
Km*
Itttet :
&fa& I
1.23
0.500
0.00977
0.0934
[0.000311]
0.619
0.0343
1.20
1.91
5.23
0.0790
0.00517
[0.0311]
Ott&ii
&&r)
0.352
0.0205
0.00184
0.00880
[0.000365]
0.00377
0.0344
0.0637
0.0113
6.06
0.0672
0.00726
[0.0365]
m
m
71.3%
95.9%
81.2%
90.6%
NA
99.4%
-0.238%
94.7%
99.4%
-15.9%
15.0%
-40.3%
NA
Average fturp £ajissit>n$
inlet
&&r> :
1.42
0.448
0.0100
0.155
0.00100
0.612
0.0510
1.47
2.32
10.7
0.0720
0.0151
[0.0311]
««*&*
Cafctf
0.341
0.0237
0.00131
0.00826
[0.000355]
0.00274
0.0333
0.147
0.00708
12.5
0.0504
0.00791
[0.0362]
*m
m
76.1%
94.7%
86.9%
94.7%
>64.5%
99.6%
34.8%
90.0%
99.7%
-16.6%
30.1%
47.5%
NA
to
NA = Not Applicable
J | = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
KJ
-k
OJ
Table 2-26
AVERAGE METALS EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR- BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
* CARBON INJECTION AT 1 Ib/hr *
Condition
, Loeattoa
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Carfeoa Itijectkm at 1 Ib/hr
Hun 5
Inlet
&/feri
1.30
0.944
0.00995
0.187
[0.000306]
p.517
0.0518
1.88
3.89
9.43
0.116
0.0201
[0.0306]
Outlet
(«#*)
0.356
0.0177
[0.00148]
0.00704
[0.000362]
0.00376
0.0175
0.0312
0.0108
1.39
0.0206
[0.00217]
[0.0362]
KB
m
72.7%
98.1%
> 85.1%
96.2%
NA
99.3%
66.2%
98.3%
99.7%
85.3%
82.2%
> 89.2%
NA
Kt»tt$
Inltt
*}
0.941
0.633
0.0102
0.249
[0.000306]
5.48
0.102
1.22
2.52
13.2
0.205
0.0175
[0.0306]
Outlet
(fi/tW)
0.338
0.0171
0.00234
0.00842
[0.000338]
0.00384
0.0324
0.0304
0.00603
1.66
0.0294
0.0113
[0.0338]
«E
m
64.1%
97.3%
77.0%
96.6%
NA
99.9%
68.2%
97.5%
99.8%
87.4%
85.7%
35.8%
NA
A¥isW*|
Inlet
<8/fcr>
1.12
0.788
0.0101
0.218
[0.000306]
3.00
0.0768
1.55
3.21
11.3
0.161
0.0188
[0.0306]
e&i^l&iftMw
OtflM
(a/fetf
0.347
0.0174
0.00234
0.00773
[0.000350]
0.00380
0.0249
0.0308
0.00840
1.52
0.0250
0.0113
[0.0350]
HE
M
69.1%
97.8%
76.8% .
96.5%'
NA
99.9%
67.6%
98.0%
99.7%
86.5%
84.4%
39.9%
NA
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
Table 2-27
AVERAGE METALS EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR- BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
* CARBON INJECTION AT 2.5 Ib/hr *
Omdttfem ';
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
fete*
0.843
0.116
0.00236
0.0603
[0.000292]
0.341
0.0746
0.271
0.652
12.0
0.0495
0.0135
[0.0292]
Oattet
0.304
0.0175
[0.00144]
0.00774
[0.000360]
0.00172
0.0159
0.0228
0.00350
1.36
0.0503
0.0166
[0.0360]
ftE
64.0%
84.9%
> 39.0%
87.2%
NA
99.5%
78.7%
91.6%
99.5%
88.7%
-1.52%
-23.0%
NA
,„, Mm&fc*.«&M«
* ***
1.24
0.500
0.00771
0.301
[0.000307]
1.74
0.0790
1.59
3.28
9.83
0.0687
0.0293
[0.0307]
Ottttei
0.392
0.0171
[0.00135]
0.00956
[0.000336]
0.0468
0.0193
0.0528
0.0185
0.174
0.0328
0.00281
[0.0336]
m
68.4%
%.6%
> 82.5%
%.8%
NA
97.3%
75.5%
89.1%
99.4%
98.2%
52.2%
90.4%
NA
, , ,,, BWK*
***
0.862
0.323
0.00927
0.138
[0.000290]
1.12
0.0344
1.68
2.86
21.6
0.0461
0.0152
[0.0290]
Outtet
0.293
0.0158
[0.00141]
0.00%3
0.000897
0.00357
0.0195
0.0161
0.0152
0.603
0.0354
0.00983
[0.0352]
M
I
66.0%
95.1%
> 84.8%
93.0%
NA
99.7%
43.2%
99.0%
99.5%
97.2%
23.3%
35.3%
NA
'JiiwJra
fukt
0.982
0.313
0.00645
0.167
[0.0002%]
1.07
0.0627
1.18
2.26
14.5
0.0548
0.0193
[0.02%]
j^J&FH&BtSiSKms
Ottffet
0.329
0.0168
[0.00139]
0.00898
0.000897
0.0174
0.0182
0.0306
0.0124
0.714
0.0395
0.00975
[0.0349]
m !
66.4%
94.6%
> 78.4%
94.6%
NA
98.4%
70.9%
97.4%
99.5%
95.1%
27.9%
49.6%
NA
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
and 0.00344 g/hr, respectively. The differences can be attributed to round-off error.
Analytical values for Ag and Cr showed values less than five times the detection limit.
The test results also showed negative Hg removal efficiencies.
During the emission tests with carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr, Hg had the highest
average mass rate for the inlet runs with 11.3 g/hr, followed by Pb with 3.21 g/hr. As
with the emission tests without carbon injection, Be and Tl were not collected in
detectable amounts for any of the runs at the inlet and outlet. Mercury was emitted at
the highest rate for the runs at the outlet during this condition, with an
average emission rate of 1.52 g/hr.
During the emission tests with carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr, Hg had
the highest average mass rate for the inlet runs at 14.5 g/hr, followed by Pb at 2.26 g/hr.
As with the conditions above, Be and Tl were not collected in detectable
amounts for any of the runs at the inlet and outlet. Mercury was again emitted at the
highest rate for these runs at the outlet with an average emission rate of
0.714 g/hr. Sample results for Ag and Ni showed negative removal efficiencies for
Run 7. Results for Ag showed a substantially higher mass rate at the outlet of
0.0166 g/hr versus 0.0135 g/hr at the inlet. Results for Ni showed similar outlet and
inlet mass rates of 0.0503 g/hr at the outlet, and 0.0495 g/hr at the inlet.
The average removal efficiencies calculated for Cr increased with increasing
carbon injection from 34.8 percent without carbon, to 67.6 percent with carbon injection
at 1 Ib/hr, to 70.9 percent with carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr. The removal efficiencies
calculated for Hg increased from -16.6 percent without carbon, to 87.0 percent with
carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr, to 95.1 percent with carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr. For the
other metals analyzed, the removal efficiencies did not change significantly with carbon
injection rates.
2.3.4 Metals Flue Gas Concentrations
Metal concentrations, mass rates, and removal efficiencies are presented for each
run in Tables 2-28 through 2-35. Also shown for each run are the location, date,
metered volume, O2 concentration, and flow rate. Flue gas concentrations are given in
JBS335
-------
Table 2-28
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 2 - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION
Location
Dae
Metend Volume (dacm)
O2 Concentration (XV)
Flow Rate (dtctnm)
Aluminum (ug/dscm)
(ug/dtcm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Antimony (ug/cUcm)
(ug/d*cm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dscm)
(ug/dicm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/cm)
(ug/d*cm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dicm)
(ug/dacm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/d>cm)
(ug/dicm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/d»cm)
(ug/dacm@7* O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/d*cni)
(ug/dicm @ 1% O2)
(g/hr)
fokt
09/07/91
3.354
13.41
4».M3
417
775
1.22
73.3
136
0.214
2.87
5.33
0.00839
47.7
88.5
0.139
[0.107]
[0.198]
[0.000312]
213
396
0.623
14.8
27.4
0.0431
411
764
1.20
513
952
1.50
5160
9580
15.1
17.9
33.1
0.0521
2.57
4.77
0.00750
[10.7]
[19.8]
[0.0312]
Outlet
09/07/91
Z394
15.05
69.208
78.9
18S
0.328
6.43
15.3
0.0267
[0.356]
[.846]
[0.00148]
1.68
3.99
0.00697
[0.089]
[0.211]
[0.000370]
0.388
0.923
0.00161
3.65
8.67
0.0152
68.5
163
0.284
1.21
2.87
0.00501
4180
9930
17.4
6.98
16.6
0.0290
3.38
8.04
0.0140
[8.90]
[21.1]
[0.0369]
Removal
Efficienciei
(»)
73.1*
87.5*
> 82.4*
95.0*
NA
99.7*
64.8*
76.3*
99.7*
-15.5*
44.4*
-87.3*
NA
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
2-46
-------
Table 2-29
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 3 - BORGESS MECICAL CENTER (1991)
WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION
Location
Date
Meteied Votane (d*cm)
O2 Coocarintiaa («V)
Flow Rate (dcemm)
Aluminum (ug/dacm)
(ug/dicm & 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Antimony (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm@7* O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/d>cm)
(ug/d>cm & 1% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/dicm)
(ug/dacm ©7* O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/dicm)
(ug/dacm @ 1% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dicm)
(ug/dacm @7* O2)
(g/hr)
Copper (ug/d»cm)
(ug/dwrn @ 7X O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/d>cm)
(ug/dacm©7* O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @7* O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7.3$ O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Wet
09/07/91
3.719
13.S9
$4.055
562
1110
1.82
195
386
0.631
3.68
7.30
0.0119
72.1
143
0.234
0.309
0.613
0.00100
183
364
0.595
23.3
46.2
0.0756
616
1220
2.00
1100
2180
3.57
3680
7300
11.9
26.2
51.9
0.0849
10.0
19.9
0.0325
[9.60]
[19.0]
[0.0311]
Outlet
09AJ7/9I
2J79
15.66
72.453
78.7
209
0.342
5.51
14.6
0.0239
0.180
0.477
0.000782
2.07
5.49
0.00900
[0.0810]
[0.215]
[0.000329]
0.655
1.74
0.00285
11.6
30.7
0.0502
21.1
56.1
0.0919
1.14
3.02
0.00496
3250
8620
14.1
12.6
33.5
0.0550
0.554
1.47
0.00241
[8.10]
[21.5]
[0.0352]
Removal
Efficieaciea
<*>
81.2*
96.2%
93.5*
96.1%
>67.1%
99.5%
33.6%
95.4*
99.9%
-18.4%
35.2*
92.6%
NA
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] =: Minimum Detection Limit
2-47
-------
Table 2-30
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 4 - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION
Location
Date
Metercd Voiune (dacm)
O2 Cdnceatntkn (*V)
Flow Rate (dacnun)
Aluminum (ug/dicm)
(ug/dicm@7» O2)
(g/hr)
Antimoay (ug/d*cm)
(ug/dacm®7% O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dicm)
(ug/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/dacm)
(ug/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/d*cm)
(ug/d«cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/d«cm)
(ug/dicm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dacm)
(ug/tUcm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Copper (ug/d«cm)
(ug/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/dicm)
(ug/d»cm ® 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/d«cm)
(ug/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/cUcm)
(ug/d«cm@7% O2) -
(g/hr)
Silver (ugAUcm)
(ug/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dacm)
(ug/dicm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
mlet
09/07/91
3.702
,:•: : •:/ ":'--: 14.93
: 53.«29
3S1
8*7
1.23
155
360
0.500
3.03
7.04
0.00977
28.9
67.3
0.0934
[0.0962]
[0.224]
[0.000311]
192
447
0.619
10.6
24.7
0.0343
373
868
1.20
592
1377
1.91
1620
3770
5.23
24.5
57.0
0.0790
1.60
3.73
0.00517
[9.62]
[22.4]
[0.0311]
Outlet
09/07/91
Z619
: 15.9
76.539
76.7
213
0.352
4.47
12.4
0.0205
0.401
1.11
0.00184
1.92
5.33
0.00880
[0.0794]
[0.221]
[0.000365]
0.821
2.28
0.00377
7.48
20.8
0.0344
13.9
38.5
0.0637
2.46
6.83
0.0113
1320
3670
6.06
14.6
40.7
0.0672
1.58
4.39
0.00726
[7.94]
[22.1]
[0.0365]
Removal
Efficfenciea
(*>
71.3%
95.956
81.2%
90.6%
NA
99.4%
-0.238%
94.7%
99.4%
-15.9%
15.0%
-40.3%
NA
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
2-48
-------
Table 2-31
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 5 - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CARBON INJECTION @ 1 Ib/hr.
Location
Date
Metered Volume (dacm)
O2 Caoceatntiott (»V)
Flow Rate (dacmm)
Aluminum (ug/dicm)
(ug/dacm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Antimony (ug/dicm)
(ug/dicm ® 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Arsenic (ug/dacm)
(ug/dicm ® 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/dicm)
(ug/dacm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/dacm)
(ug/dicm ® 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Copper (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/d*cm)
Tug/dacm ® 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/djcm)
(ug/dacm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7% O2) ~
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7* O2)
(g/hr)
Thallium (ug/dacm)
(ug/dacm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
rakt
OW07W
S.714
M.37
53.117
409
871
1.30
296
630
0.944
3.12
6.65
0.00995
58.7
125
0.187
[0.0961]
[0.205]
[0.000306]
162
346
0.517
16.3
34.6
0.0518
590
1255
1.88
1220
2600
3.89
2960
6300
9.43
36.3
77.4
0.116
6.30
13.4
0.0201
[9.61]
[20.5]
[0.0306]
Outlet
09/07/91
2.747
15.63
79.401
74.6
197
0.356
3.71
9.79
0.0177
[0.310]
[0.818]
[0.00148]
1.48
3.90
0.00704
[0.0761]
[0.201]
[0.000362]
0.790
2.08
0.00376
3.68
9.70
0.0175
6.55
17.3
0.0312
2.26
5.96
0.0108
291
767
1.39
4.33
11.4
0.0206
[0.455]
[1.20]
[0.00217]
[7.61]
[20.1]
[0.0362]
Removal
Efficieociea
(*>
72.7*
98.1%
>85.1%
96.2%
NA
99.3%
66.2%
98.3%
99.7%
85.3%
82.2%
> 89.2%
NA
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
2-49
-------
Table 2-32
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 6 - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CARBON INJECTION @ 1 Ib/hr.
Location
D<"=
Melcrcd Vohme (dm)
O2 Concartntioo
-------
Table 2-33
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 7 - BOROESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CARBON INJECTION @ 2.5 Ib/hr.
.ocatks
Date
Meiered Volume (d»cm)
O2 CoaeentratJoB (*V)
?VOW Rate ftU™m)
Aluminum (ug/dftcm)
(ug/dicm <3 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Antimony (ug/dicm)
(ug/dicai © 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Anenic (ug/d«cm)
(ug/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Barium (ug/dscm)
(ug/d«cm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Beryllium (ug/dscm)
(ug/tUcm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Cadmium (ug/djcm)
(i^/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Chromium (ug/dicm)
(ug/d»cm @7% O2)
(g/hr)
Copper (ug/d»cm)
(ug/d»cm @ 7% O2)
(g/hr)
Lead (ug/dscm)
(ug/djcm @7X O2)
(g/hr)
Mercury (ug/dicm)
(ug/d»cm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Nickel (ug/d»cm)
(ug/djcm@7% O2)
(g/hr)
Silver (ug/d»cm)
(ug/d»cm @ 7 % O2)
(g/hr)
Th»llium (ug/djcm)
(ug/d»cm @7* O2)
(grtir)
Inlet
09AJ7/91
3.745
14.5
5J.3«I
274
594
0.843
37.7
81.9
0.116
0.765
1.66
0.00236
19.6
42.5
0.0603
[0.0948]
[0.206]
[0.000292]
111
241
0.341
24.2
52.6
0.0746
87.9
191
0.271
211
459
0.652
3904
8480
12.0
16.1
34.9
0.0495
4.38
9.52
0.0135
[9.48]
[20.6]
[0.0292]
OuUet
09W7/91
2.619
1534
74.922
67.6
169
0.304
3.89
9.74
0.0175
[0.320]
[0.800]
[0.00144]
1.72
4.31
0.00774
[0.0802]
[0.200]
[0.000360]
0.382
0.955
0.00172
3.53
8.83
0.0159
5.08
12.7
0.0228
0.779
1.95
0.00350
304
759
1.36
11.2
28.0
0.0503
3.70
9.24
0.0166
[8.02]
[20.0]
[0.0360]
Removal
Efficiencies
<*)
64.0%
84.9%
>39.0%
87.2%
NA
99.5%
78.7%
91.6%
99.5%
88.7%
-1.52%
-23.0%
NA
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
2-51
-------
Table 2-34
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 8 - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CARBON INJECTION @ 2.5 Ib/hr.
Location
Date
Metered Volume (d»cm)
02C6nceolntioa
68.4%
96.6%
> 82.5%
96.8%
NA
97.3%
75.5%
89.1%
99.4%
98.2%
52.2%
90.4%
NA
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
2-52
-------
Table 2-35
METALS CONCENTRATION EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR RUN 9 - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CARBON INJECTION @ 2,5 Ib/hr.
JocatiflB
Date
Metered Volume ( 3.616
13.21
49.0U
293
530
0.862
110
198
0.323
3.15
5.70
0.00927
47.0
85.0
0.138
[0.0987]
[0.178]
[0.000290]
382
690
1.12
11.7
21.1
0.0344
572
1040
1.68
973
1760
2.86
7330
13200
21.6
15.7
28.3
0.0461
5.17
9.35
0.0152
[9.87]
[17.8]
[0.0290]
Outlet
09/07/91
::'- -;? 2.545
14.45
71.42
68.4
147
0.293
3.69
7.95
0.0158
[0.328]
[0.707]
[0.00141]
2.25
4.84
0.00963
0.2094
0.451
0.000897
0.833
1.80
0.00357
4.56
9.82
0.0195
3.77
8.12
0.0161
3.54
7.63
0.0152
141
303
0.603
8.25
17.8
0.0354
2.29
4.95
0.00983
[8.21]
[17.7]
[0.0352]
Removal
Efficiencies
<*>
66.0%
95.1%
>84.8%
93.0%
NA
99.7%
43.2%
99.0%
99.5%
97.2%
23.3%
35.3%
NA
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
2-53
-------
terms of ^g/dscrn, both with and without correction to 7 percent O2. Oxygen
concentrations were calculated from CEM data, which were averaged over the time
period in which manual testing was performed.
2.3.5 Flue Gas Metals to PM Ratios
A summary of the ratio of metals to PM for the emission tests without
carbon injection is presented in Table 2-36. Metals to PM ratios are given in units of
milligrams of metal to grams of PM collected by the sampling train. The inlet values
range from 0.0208 mg Ag per gram of PM during Run 4 to 57.2 mg Hg per gram during
Run 2. Mercury had the highest inlet ratios for Runs 3 and 4 also, with 39.9 and 21.0
mg metal/gram PM, respectively. Outlet values range from 0.0912 mg Cd per gram of
PM during Run 2 to 2270 mg Hg per gram of PM during Run 3. High Hg-to-PM ratios
can be misleading, however, since most Hg is in a volatile form at the particulate filter
temperature, and is, therefore, not associated with PM, but is captured in the back-half
impinger solutions.
Table 2-37 presents a summary of the ratio by weight of metals to PM for
the emission tests with carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr. Inlet values range from 0.037 mg
As per gram of PM in Run 5 to 53.4 mg Hg per gram of PM in Run 6. Mercury had the
highest ratio for Run 5 also, with 34.9 mg metal per gram of PM. Values at the outlet
range from 0.293 mg of As per gram of PM in Run 6 to 316 mg of Hg per gram of PM
in Run 5. Mercury also had the highest outlet ratio for Run 6 with 208 mg of metal per
gram of PM.
Table 2-38 presents a summary of the ratio by weight of metals to PM for the
emission tests with carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr. Inlet values range from 0.009 mg As
per gram of PM in Run 7 to 86.3 mg Hg per gram of PM in Run 9. Mercury also had
the highest ratio for Runs 7 and 8 with 46.4 and 34.3 mg Hg per gram of PM,
respectively. Outlet values range from 0.188 mg Ag per gram of PM in Run 8 to 172 mg
of Hg per gram of PM in Run 7. Aluminum had the highest ratio in Run 8 with 26.2 mg
metal per gram of PM, and Hg in Run 9, with 87.4 mg metal per gram of PM.
JBS335
2-54
-------
Table 2-36
RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICIPATE MATTER - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
* WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION *
!SSSSS ' : ; - :
Raft
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
mm
Hun 2
(a»g%>
4.63
0.814
0.0319
0.529
[0.00118]
2.37
0.164
4.56
5.69
57.2
0.198
0.0285
[0.118]
ifcns
{ra^/g}
6.10
2.11
0.0400
0.782
0.00336
1.99
0.253
6.68
11.9
39.9
0.284
0.109
[0.104]
Run 4
*lii .PF T TV F '
jSBtflt Jf-
(mg/g)t
18.5
1.51
[0.0837]
0.394
[0.0209]
0.0912
0.857
16.1
0.283
984
1.64
0.794
[2.08]
Sw»3
(rag/g)
55.0
3.85
0.126
1.45
[0.0529]
0.458
8.08
14.8
0.797
2270
8.84
0.388
[5.66]
Km*
(jEBg/g)
47.1
2.74
0.246
1.18
[0.488]
0.504
4.59
8.50
1.51
810
8.97
0.970
[4.88]
Average
fH*g&}
40.2
2.70
0.186
1.01
[0.187]
0.351
4.51
13.1
0.862
1354
6.48
0.717
[4.20]
K)
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
Table 2-37
RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE MATTER - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
* CARBON INJECTION AT 1 Ib/hr *
l*0««*$0a
Ran
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Sun $
4.83
3.49
0.0369
0.693
[0.00113]
1.92
0.192
6.96
14.4
34.9
0.429
0.0743
[0.113]
t?CBT
M*
3.81
2.56
0.0412
1.01
[0.00147]
22.2
0.412
4.92
10.2
53.4
0.832
0.0708
[0.147]
M£?A1£/£AJ01
(»)$ metiti pxsr^ifi
ts?
4.32
3.03
0.0391
0.851
[0.00130]
12.1
0.302
5.94
12.3
44.2
0.630
0.0726
[0.130]
fCUlAtEKAtlO
Mtt of prtkttlate)
^
81.1
4.04
[0.338]
1.61
[0.0698]
0.859
4.00
7.12
2.46
316
4.71
[0.495]
[6.98]
•OWLES*
j[\£]f tjt ~&
42.3
2.14
0.293
1.05
[0.0423]
0.480
4.05
3.81
0.755
208
3.69
1.41
[4.23]
13?
61.7
3.09
0.293
1.33
[0.0560]
0.670
4.02
5.46
1.61
262
4.20
1.41
[5.60]
tn
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
-------
Table 2-38
RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE MATTER - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
* CARBON INJECTION AT 2.5 Ib/hr *
(nog mM per gram^j^ttltcwtofcs)
Leesrtott
Kan
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
mtm
IN* 7
(»«&> '
3.25
0.448
0.00909
0.233
[0.00112]
1.32
0.288
1.04
2.51
46.4
0.191
0.0521
[0.112]
HUB 8
(o^S)
4.34
1.75
0.0269
1.05
[0.00107]
6.08
0.276
5.57
11.4
34.3
0.240
0.102
[0.107]
Ktttt^
-------
2.3.6 Flue Gas Metals bv Sample Fraction and Sample Parameters
Table 2-39 presents the metal amounts in the inlet flue gas samples by fraction for
each run. The highest proportion of Hg was consistently collected in the nitric acid
impingers (Impingers 1-3). All other metals detected, except Cr in Runs 2, 7, and 8, and
Ni in Runs 2 and 3, were collected in the highest proportions in the front half (filter,
nozzle/probe rinse).
The amounts of metals in the outlet flue gas samples are presented in Table 240
by sample fraction. As in the inlet, the highest proportion of Hg was collected in the
nitric acid impingers for all runs. Other metals were collected in the highest proportions
in the front half fraction, except for Cr in Run 2, As, Cr, Cu, and Ni in Run 3, Ba, Cr,
and Cu in Run 4, Cr and Cu in Runs 5 and 7, As, Cr, Cr, Ni, and Ag in Run 6, and Cr
in Runs 8 and 9. Laboratory analytical results for each sample fraction are presented in
detail in Appendix E.
Sampling and flue gas parameters for the PM/metals runs at the three sampling
locations are shown in Tables 2-41 through 2-43. Total sampling times, sample volume
and isokinetic results for each sampling run are presented. Appendix A contains a
complete listing of these and additional sampling and flue gas parameters for each run,
along with the field data sheets.
2.3.7 Metals in Ash
A sample of the baghouse ash was collected in the afternoon following each test
day. Incinerator bottom ash was collected in the morning following its respective test
run. Concentrations of the metals in the ash in units of mg/kg were determined by
microwave digesting a half gram in acid and hydrogen peroxide and diluting the solution
to 100 mL. The analyses were then completed as discussed in Section 5.
The metals in the ash are shown in Table 2-44. Aluminum was the metals with
the highest concentration in the baghouse ash for every run. Beryllium and Tl were not
detected in any of the baghouse ash samples. Copper was the most prevalent metal in
the bottom ash from Day 6 with 232,000 mg/kg. Aluminum showed the highest
concentration of metals in the ash for the other runs sampled. Thallium was not
detected in any of the bottom ash samples.
JBS335
2-58
-------
Table 2-39
METALS AMOUNT IN INLET FLUE GAS - SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
METAtfc
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
jRSttS
ftatt
1300
187
9.13
153
[0.250]
715
18.1
1350
1720
7.38
29.3
4.85
[25.0]
*7tT
98.6
58.8
0.511
6.76
[0.108]
0.986
31.4
33.8
2.55
17200
30.6
3.77
[10.8]
**sr
78.9
Kg
1400
246
9.64
160
[0.358]
716
49.5
1380
1720
17300
59.9
8.62
[35.8]
»t*4 i
! Half
2010
669
12.8
263
[0.250]
680
53.8
2190
4090
[2.45]
92.8
6.35
[25.0]
1&3
79.0
55.0
0.891
4.79
1.15
2.44
32.9
97.7
0.601
13700
4.51
30.9
[10.7]
**isr
16.6
T i
2090
724
13.7
268
1.15
682
86.7
2290
4090
13700
97.3
37.3
[35.7]
fjwai
H*U
1330
548
9.65
106
[0.250]
710
23.7
1350
2190
[2.45]
38.8
5.93
[25.0]
w .
83.4
24.8
1.56
0.819
[0.106]
[0.213]
15.6
31.3
0.734
5960
51.8
[0.638]
[10.6]
*«*»*
46.2
^
1410
573
11.2
107
[0.356]
710
39.3
1380
2190
6000
90.6
5.93
[35.6]
NOTE: Impingers 4,5, and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only.
[ ]= Minimum Detection Limit
-------
Table 2-39 (Continued)
METALS AMOUNT IN INLET FLUE GAS - SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
METALS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
8W*5
t>
176
63.9
0.601
9.90
[0.107]
2.34
17.1
36.5
0.601
11000
23.6
[0.641]
[10.7]
&ttj»h»g0r
W
{TSfflnIflgJ
19.6
Thttl
»S
1520
1100
11.6
218
[0.357]
603
60.4
2200
4520
11000
135
23.4
[35.7]
B**4 . -
Vtaat
Half
887
640
11.2
288
[0.250]
6420
61.0
1400
2950
12.0
184
15.8
[25.0]
bttpfag#r
IAS
fFetekwg)1
208
98.9
0.6%
2.62
[0.107]
0.522
58.3
22.6
0.464
15400
56.3
4.67
[10.7]
Inyrf&fter
w
(T«teln$
43.8
TotoJ
»«
1100
739
11.9
291
[0.357]
6420
119
1420
2950
15500
240
20.5
[35.8]
y&Mmw;
Vt«tA
imt
P*Mi*g>
468
30.0
[1.00]
15.8
[0.250]
8.93
47.5
46.5
27.3
[2.45]
59.5
[1.50]
[25.0]
fpigiittger
w
£F«t»itig}
22.0
[1.85]
0.655
1.03
[0.124]
[0.247]
4.21
9.65
0.538
20.0
3.49
[0.742]
[12.4]
tntpteger
w
(Tfttoi^
30.6
f*tt!l
««
490
30.0
0.655
16.8
[0.374]
8.93
51.7
56.2
27.8
50.6
63.0
[2.24]
[37.4]
N)
ON
O
NOTE: Irnpingers 4,5, and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only.
[ ]= Minimum Detection Limit
-------
Table 2-39 (Continued)
METALS AMOUNT IN INLET FLUE GAS - SAMPLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
METALS!.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
mu m , R*ft7
ffttttif
Raff
10.7
TotaJ
»S
1030
142
2.88
73.7
[0.357]
417
91.1
331
796
14700
60.5
16.5
[35.7]
; fc*»r i
; >Vi>Hi
Hair
i iToJalwgy
1330
528
8.50
349
[0.250]
2010
27.5
1830
3800
7.38
61.3
34.0
[25.0]
tatpfager
U*
CfttoEtigji
105
52.3
0.454
1.17
[0.107]
5.91
64.2
20.8
6.06
11400
18.5
[0.640]
[10.7]
Kmjj|&g«r
*&*
(Taking
29.3
T«toi|
»«
1440
580
8.95
350
[0.357]
2020
91.7
1850
3810
11400
79.8
34.0
[35.7]
, „. .., „ *»**
$&&.
, Hal* '
CT«toiHg)
939
251
10.8
163
[0.250]
1380
23.6
2070
3520
22.0
48.3
18.7
[25.0]
iNpNpr
w
m>tt»JBg>
123
146
0.649
7.27
[0.107]
[0.213]
18.7
4.44
0.464
26400
8.39
[0.640]
[10.7]
fmptegeF
<&*
CTotelttg)
44.8
t*t^
»«
1060
397
11.4
170
[0.357]
1380
42.3
2070
3520
26500
56.7
18.7
[35.7]
NOTE: Impingers 4,5, and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only.
[ ]= Minimum Detection Limit
-------
Table 2-40
METALS AMOUNTS IN OUTLET FLUE GAS - SAMLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION -
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
MSXM&
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
$r#fi*
Raff
C&
172
11.7
[0.400]
4.83
[0.100]
1.07
5.14
19.6
1.78
[0.980]
7.11
1.43
[10.0]
»«a
intptagtt
IAS
{Total wgji
30.9
2.45
0.464
0.511
[0.109]
0.620
24.7
34.9
1.16
8340
25.5
[0.653]
[10.9]
tmpfeger
W
(TM»iT»sJ
45.8
TetoJ :
Kft i
203
14.2
0.464
5.34
[0.209]
1.69
29.8
54.5
2.94
8390
32.6
1.43
[20.9]
1to«i
iMt
ff*MSS>
179
11.7
[0.400]
4.64
[0.100]
1.73
4.00
9.37
5.61
[0.980]
22.2
4.14
[10.0]
Ittttt*
faiffo&t
w
{TfltelBg>
22.2
[1.62]
1.05
0.379
[0.108]
0.422
15.6
26.9
0.816
3460
16.1
[0.649]
[10.8]
JtajriHger
w
-------
Table 2-40 (Continued)
METALS AMOUNTS IN OUTLET FLUE GAS - SAMLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION -
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
«r**
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
••••^ •••••"• ' RTO5
Ha*
186
10.2
[0.400]
3.77
[0.100]
1.54
2.89
8.00
5.04
[0.980]
5.97
[0.600]
[10.0]
IAS
18.5
[1.64]
[0.436]
0.294
[0.109]
0.633
7.21
10.0
1.17
786
5.88
[0.655]
[10.9]
*i*r
13.1
T
205
10.2
[0.852]
4.06
[0.209]
2.17
10.1
18.0
6.21
799
11.9
[1.25]
[20.9]
«*»<£ :
Half
176
10.5
[0.400]
4.69
[0.100]
1.89
4.61
6.44
2.83
[0.980]
7.80
0.710
[10.0]
1A* " j
31.8
[1.62]
1.44
0.486
[0.108]
0.465
15.3
12.3
0.884
1010
10.3
6.22
[10.8]
***r
4.68
T 1
208
10.5
1.44
5.18
[0.208]
2.36
19.9
18.7
3.71
1020
18.1
6.93
[20.8]
%&&!&*&
imt
152
10.2
[0.400]
3.79
[0.100]
0.490
4.90
16.2
2.62
[0.980]
94.3
4.72
[10.0]
^sr
23.2
[1.71]
[0.457]
0.503
[0.114]
0.263
6.63
79.8
1.04
18.5
6.48
0.800
[11.4]
lEtfitttuUHfl^
[0.529]
1 ^
175
10.2
[0.857]
4.29
[0.214]
0.753
11.5
96.0
3.66
18.5
101
5.52
[21.4]
NOTE: Impingers 4,5, and 6 sample fractions analyzed for mercury content only.
[ ]= Minimum Detection Limit
-------
Til hie 2-40 (Continued)
METALS AMOUNTS IN OUTLET FLUE GAS - SAMLES BY SAMPLE FRACTION -
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
SJETAIJS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
..., , , »«>? . ...
¥*»Bt
»atf
-------
Table 2-41
METALS/PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT THE BOILER INLET
BQRGESS MEDICAL CENTER (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
Paniculate Catch (grams)
Kua 2
wwm
240
0.62
148.38
4.202
1329
13.4
5.0
13.9
1923
54.47
95.6
1.0073
Run 3
wjwm
241
0.34
81.45
2.31
1255
13.9
4.2
11.7
2132
60.39
133.3
0.4649
Hun 4
Q9/1W
240
0.35
85.14
2.411
1082
14.9
4.1
15.0
1960
55.50
109.5
0.2839
Rim 5
09/U&L
240
0.33
78.17
2.214
1230
14.4
4.2
12.6
1959
55.49
104.4
0.3577
I Rontf
Wt&frl
240
0.28
66.55
1.885
1272
14.3
3.9
14.7
1941
54.98
89.7
0.2469
Una 7
09/13/91
240
0.26
62.60
1.773
1206
14.5
3.3
13.4
1979
56.05
108.0
0.1567
RtmK
09/iW
240
0.26
62.52
1.770
1216
14.4
3.1
13.5
1947
55.13
109.6
0.3064
Rnȣ
wfitm
240
0.27
65.56
1.857
1247
13.2
5.0
15.8
1963
55.59
114.0
0.291
Average
NA
0.34
81.30
2.302
1230
14.1
4.1
13.8
1976
55.95
NA
0.3894
ON
NA = Not Applicable
* O2 and CO2 values were obtained fonn the baghouse inlet.
-------
Table 2-42
METALS/PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT BAGHOUSE INLET
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Raft J4o<
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
Paniculate Catch (grams)
Run 2
09/07/91
240
0.49
118.42
3.354
361
13.4
5.0
12.8
1718
48.64
95.3
0.3023
ROD a
09/09/91
240
0.55
131.32
3.719
356
13.9
4.2
11.7
1909
54.06
97.3
0.3427
It urt 4
4SWWL
240
0.54
130.71
3.702
354
14.9
4.1
12.0
1901
53.83
95.8
0.2852
Kim 5
wn&i
240
0.55
131.16
3.714
357
14.4
4.2
12.2
1876
53.12
97.4
0.3148
thunS i
0#*3/at!
240
0.56
134.67
3.814
369
14.3
3.9
13.4
1921
54.41
96.2
0.2885
Rim?
09/15/91
240
0.55
132.93
3.765
363
14.5
3.3
12.8
1814
51.38
100.6
0.3168
KuflS
89/14/91
240
0.53
126.70
3.588
357
14.4
3.1
13.0
1819
51.50
95.6
0.3322
Bin* 4
we/91
240
0.53
127.68
3.616
372
13.2
5.0
14.8
1731
49.01
101.3
0.3071
Average i
NA
0.54
129.20
3.659
361
14.1
4.1
12.8
1836
51.99
NA
0.3112
Os
ON
NA = Not Applicable
* Moisture values are average values from the CDD/CDF and M101A sampling trains. Moisture data obtained from the metals
trains was determined to be inaccurate.
-------
Table 2-43
METALS/PM EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT OUTLET
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
RaaJfo,
Bate
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)
Ran 2
wf&?m
240
0.35
84.52
2.394
294.42
15.05
4.69
10.56
2443.77
69.208
103.26
0.0102
Bund
«£/fl9#l
240
0.38
91.08
2.579
295.60
15.66
4.19
12.84
2558.37
72.453
106.28
0.0037
Hun 4
wtimi
240
0.39
92.48
2.619
292.25
15.90
4.19
9.14
2702.66
76.539
102.15
0.0044
RnnS
Q9/LWI
240
0.40
96.99
2.747
288.98
15.63
4.23
9.20
2803.72
79.401
103.28
0.0058
Run 6
99/l2#l
240
0.37
88.48
2.506
293.33
15.46
4.42
15.03
2397.63
67.901
110.17
0.0049
Run 7
«9/l3/?H
240
0.39
92.48
2.619
295.42
15.34
4.45
10.20
2645.55
74.922
104.36
0.0046
RunH
$9/14/91
240
0.39
92.88
2.630
282.44
15.52
4.48
15.76
2515.55
71.240
110.23
0.0092
fton*
toffit&SL
240
0.37
89.86
2.545
292.52
14.45
5.20
11.59
2521.88
71.420
106.38
0.0041
Average
NA
0.38
91.10
2.580
291.87
15.38
4.48
11.79
2573.64
72.886
NA
0.0059
NA = Not Applicable
to
-------
Table 2-44
METALS IN ASH CONCENTRATIONS
BAGHOUSE ASH AND BOTTOM ASH - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Mt-tal
»umxi3m*m
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
BOTTOM MH
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Sun 2
CJHB/NK!
682
22.6
1.30
12.0
[0.200]
22.2
13.6
178
85.2
7.80
4.16
3.40
[20.0]
56500
[3.00]
60.0
2350
0.400
6.00
58.8
4000
105
[1.96]
37.4
3.80
[20.0]
RUB a
..&BK/fctfj
692
41.2
1.16
12.6
[0.200]
27.4
13.2
196
151
6.32
3.26
5.36
[20.0]
55600
[3.00]
51.8
2510
0.400
5.68
44.0
3200
246
11.2
191.0
3.00
[20.0]
i Run 4
'..fasted.
583
25.8
0.976
8.40
[0.200]
40.0
13.1
135
80.0
4.84
3.06
1.98
[20.0]
59100
[3.00]
60.0
1460
0.400
5.58
34.2
462
87.6
[1.96]
18.8
2.02
[20.0]
BoaS
-------
Table 2-45 shows the hourly mass rate of each metal removed from the
incinerator in the baghouse ash and the daily mass rate of metals removed from the
incinerator in the bottom ash.
2.4 PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS
Participate matter emissions were determined from the same sampling train used
for metals determinations at the baghouse inlet and outlet. At the boiler inlet, PM
emissions were sampled with a standard Method 5 train. 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 average PM stack gas concentrations and mass rates for the boiler and
baghouse inlets and baghouse outlet are presented in Table 2-46. Uncorrected
concentrations and concentrations adjusted to 7 percent O2 are shown. As shown,
average removal efficiency, based on the mass rates at the baghouse inlet and outlet, is
96.5 percent.
Particulate matter concentrations, emission rates, and removal efficiencies for the
individual runs are summarized in Table 2-47. Run 2 showed the highest PM
concentration and emission rate at the outlet with 0.00426 g/dscm and 0.0177 kg/hr,
respectively. Removal efficiencies ranged from 93.3 percent for Run 2 to 98.4 percent
for Run 5.
A brief summary of the sampling and flue gas parameters for the PM runs is
given in Table 2-41 and 2-42. Appendix A2 presents a detailed listing of the parameters
for each sampling run. Appendix E.2 shows the gravimetric PM analytical results.
2.5 MERCURY EMISSIONS BY METHOD 101A
A Method 101A train was used to sample Hg because a toxic metals train cannot
be used if particulate sampling is run in conjunction with the multi-metal trains. A
comparison of the Method 101A Hg values to the multi-metals train is discussed in more
detail in Section 2.5.6.
JBS335 2-69
-------
Table 2-45.
METALS DAILY DISCHARGE RATES IN THE ASH STREAM
BAGHOUSE ASH AND BOTTOM ASH BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Run
BAGHOUSE ASH
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Total Ash Collected (Ib)
BOTTOM ASS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Total Ash Collected (Ib)
I
fefctf
12.7
0.420
0.0242
0.223
[0.00371]
0.413
0.253
3.31
1.58
0.145
0.0774
0.0632
[0.371]
218.1
}
12.3
0.542
0.0205
0.177
[0.00420]
0.841
0.275
2.84
1.68
0.102
0.0643
0.0416
[0.420]
249.8
{#*#)
9350
[0.475]
9.49
231
0.0633
0.883
5.41
73.1
13.9
0.310
2.97
0.320
[3.16]
348
$
tB*r)
11.6
0.821
0.0205
0.221
[0.00355]
0.414
0.232
2.99
2.58
8.42
0.0732
0.0761
[0.355]
206.3
Cg/tJay>
6590
[0.828]
5.68
988
[0.0552]
0.364
5.38
148
32.0
0.541
2.57
1.66
[5.52]
607
7760
8.77
6.52
549
[0.0669]
14.4
6.22
77600
24.4
0.656
4.55
1.35
[6.69]
736
i 7
&*r*
17.9
0.402
0.0308
0.400
[0.00428]
3.08
0.280
3.29
2.50
8.24
0.0911
0.0988
[0.428]
251.0
(g/
16700
[0.871]
16.4
1500
0.0988
3.69
13.6
831
65.1
0.569
9.29
0.651
[5.81]
639
8
<&*>
14.6
0.994
0.0328
0.317
0.00499
1.61
0.257
2.74
2.73
6.45
0.0994
0.0568
[0.384]
275.9
(S/day)
15300
1.30
14.4
1210
0.0940
1.63
16.3
636
47.6
0.614
11.8
0.376
[6.26]
689
i 9
CS/torJ
14.6
0.459
0.0318
0.241
[0.00393]
1.28
0.347
2.88
2.20
11.7
0.1381
0.0334
[0.378]
262.6
-------
Table 2-46
[AVERAGE PARTICIPATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS, EMISSION RATES,
AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
\ ;
.. CwimtoxtiMW .
grains/dscf
grains/dscf @ 7% O2
grams/dscm
grams/dscm @ 7% O2
EMISSION K&mS
Ib/hr
kg/hr
Boiler
Inlet j
Average
0.0694
0.141
0.159
0.323
1.17
0.533
Baghouse
Inlet
Average i
0.0372
0.0767
0.0852
0.175
0.584
0.265
Baghoase
Outlet
Average
0.00100
0.00252
0.00213
0.00535
0.0202
0.00919
Removal
EB5cie»cy<%)
96.5%
NOTE: Removal Efficiency based on emission rate.
2-71
-------
TABLE 2-47. PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSIONS; BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER
Run
Number
Date
Flue Gas Concentration
grains/dscf
grains/dscf
@7%02
grams/dscm
grams/dscm
@7%02
Flue Gas Emission Rate
Ib/hr
kg/hr
Carbon
Injection"
(Ib/hr)
Removal
Efficiency1'
(%)
Boiler Inlet
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9/07/91
9/09/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
Average
0.105
0.0881
0.0515
0.0706
0.0573
0.0386
0.0756
0.0685
0.0694
0.194
0.175
0.120
0.150
0.120
0.0839
0.163
0.124
0.141
0.240
0.202
0.177
0.162
0.131
0.0880
0.173
0.157
0.159
0.445
0.400
0.273
0.344
0.274
0.192
0.372
0.283
0.323
1.72
1.61
0.860
1.18
0.951
0.654
1.26
1.15
1.17
0.783
0.730
0.391
0.538
0.432
0.297
0.572
0.523
0.533
Baghouse Inlet
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9/7/91
9/9/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
Average
0.0394
0.0403
0.0337
0.0370
0.0331
0.0368
0.0405
0.0371
0.0372
0.0731
0.0799
0.0784
0.0789
0.0692
0.0799
0.0869
0.0671
0.0767
0.0901
0.0922
0.0771
0.0848
0.0756
0.0842
0.0926
0.0849
0.0852
0.167
0.183
0.179
0.180
0.158
0.183
0.199
0.154
0.175
0.579
0.658
0.547
0.594
0.543
0.571
0.629
0.549
0.584
0.263
0.299
0.249
0.270
0.247
0.259
0.286
0.250
0.265
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.07
1.06
2.60
2.87
2.85
Baghouse Outlet
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9/7/91
9/9/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/13191
9/14/91
9/16/91
Average
0.00186
0.000630
0.000730
0.000920
0.000850
0.000770
0.00153
0.000700
0.00100
0.00443
0.00166
0.00204
0.00243
0.00218
0.00192
0.00395
0.00152
0.00252
0.00426
0.00143
0.00163
0.000920
0.00196
0.00176
0.00350
0.00161
0.00213
0.0101
0.00379
0.00453
0.00243
0.00501
0.00440
0.00904
0.00347
0.00535
0.0389
0.0137
0.0165
0.00964
0.0176
0.0174
0.0329
0.0152
0.0202
0.0177
0.00622
0.00749
0.00438
0.00799
0.00791
0.0150
0.00690
0.00919
93.3
97.9
97.0
99.4
98.9
99.5
99.1
99.6
98.1
Carbon was injected at the baghouse inlet only.
»Rcmo™l ^ffirf^oy = 0 -J°-tl« ««>/ 0~.« ,^» H. o^b— ^oiio- ^tc>l> ~ *00-
N)
-------
2.5.1 Overview
A single sampling train was used to determine emission rates of Hg by
Method 101A. Two to three sampling runs were performed under each of the three test
conditions (without carbon injection, carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr, and carbon injection at
2.5 Ib/hr) to ensure representative test results. Sampling locations, method, and QA/QC
are discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The average Hg emission rates and
removal efficiencies are summarized in Section 2.5.3. The results for each individual run
are presented hi Section 2.5.4. Concentrations at dry standard conditions, adjusted to 7
percent O2, and emission rates are shown. A comparison of the Hg collected in Method
101A versus the toxic metals trains is presented in Section 2.5.6.
2.5.2 Mercury Data Reduction
The following mercury results were calculated using the same guidelines outlined
for the metals in Section 2.3.2.
2.5.3 Mercury Emissions
Table 2-48 presents the mercury emission rate results for each test condition. No
Hg removal was observed during the emission tests without carbon injection. The
removal efficiencies during the emission tests with carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr were
higher, at an average of 86.4 percent. Average emission rates were 10.3 g/hr at the inlet
and 1.40 g/hr at the outlet. The removal efficiencies during the emission tests with
carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr were even higher, at an average 96.3 percent. Average
emission rates were 14.9 g/hr at the inlet and 0.557 g/hr at the outlet.
2.5.4 Mercury Flue Gas Concentrations
Mercury concentrations, mass rates, and removal efficiencies are presented for
each run in Table 2-49. Also shown for each run are the location, date, metered volume,
O2 concentration, and flow rate. Flue gas concentrations are given in terms of //g/dscm,
both with and without correction to 7 percent O2. Oxygen concentrations were
calculated from CEM data.
2-73
JBS335 IJ
-------
Table 2-48
MERCURY 101A EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CODtfitioB 1
)• \
Without Carbon
Injection
Carbon Injection
@ 1 Ib/hr
Carbon Injection
@ 2.5 Ib/hr
Ran !
2
3
4
Average
5
6
Average
7
8
9
Average
Ifltei
Cg/kr) -•
12.8
11.5
5.18
9.83
8.41
12.1
10.3
12.9
10.3
21.5
14.9
Outk*
- fts/fcr) \
12.9
11.5
5.19
9.87
1.25
1.55
1.40
0.880
0.180
0.610
0.557
RE
W
-0.781%
0.0%
-0.193%
-0.407%
85.1%
87.2%
86.4%
93.2%
98.2%
97.2%
96.3%
2-74
-------
Table 2-49
MERCURY 101A CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES BY RUNS
BQRGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
&<*»
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X*K«&»t
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Butt
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/07/91
09/10/91
09/10/91
09/11/91
09/11/91
09/12/91
09/12/91
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/14/91
09/14/91
09/15/91
09/15/91
H«e
(atiflu)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
O^OffiK,
. IW> ....
13.41
15.05
13.89
15.66
14.93
15.90
14.37
15.63
14.26
15.46
14.50
15.34
14.43
15.52
13.21
14.45
Flow
tat*
(dsenJiflt)
48.483
69.787
53.533
75.021
52.595
76.567
51.940
79.491
51.741
67.287
51.467
74.774
49.864
75.352
49.074
71.343
mmmnm fwfififi&flf fj^^^^
-------
2.5.5 Flue Gas Mercury by Sample and Sample Parameters
Table 2-50 presents the amounts of Hg in the inlet and outlet flue gas samples for
the emission tests. Sampling and flue gas parameters for Hg at the inlet are shown in
Table 2-51, and Table 2-52 presents the parameters for the runs at the outlet. Total
sampling times, sample volume, and isokinetic results for each sampling run are
presented. Appendix A.4 contains a complete listing of these and additional sampling
and flue gas parameters for each run, as well as the field data sheets.
2.5.6 Mercury Emissions Comparison
Table 2-53 presents the comparison of Hg emission rates and removal efficiencies
for Method 101A to multi-metal trains. During the emission tests without carbon
injection, most values are fractionally higher for the multi-metals trains with the
exception of Run 2 inlet. For the emission tests with carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr, all of
the multi-metal runs are also slightly higher than the Method 101A samples. For the
emission tests with carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr, the multi-metal values are lower on the
inlet on Run 7 and 8, and the outlet on Runs 8 and 9.
The table shows an increasing Hg removal efficiency as the carbon injection rate
is increased, showing that adding carbon to the process increases the removal of Hg.
2.6 HALOGEN GAS EMISSIONS
Hydrogen chloride, HF, and HBr gas concentrations were manually sampled at
the baghouse 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 HC1 dissociates and form ions in acidified water. Ion chromatography was
used to detect the chloride ions (C1-), bromide ions (Br-), and fluoride ions (F-) present
in the sample. Testing was conducted on eight test days at operating conditions
described previously.
JBS335 2-76
-------
TABLE 2-50
MERCURY 101A AMOUNTS IN FLUE GAS SAMPLES - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Ideation
Inlet
Outlet
(total u#)
13900
7310
Rim 3
12500
6470
5760
2990
(total ag)
9550
719
(totelug)
14400
955
15200
517
12200
106
Run 9
26000
361
to
-------
Table 2-51
MERCURY 101A SAMPLING AND FLUE GAS PARAMETERS AT INLET - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
SttnNtK
Sate
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
Rim I
&&1&1
240
0.46
111.26
3.151
361.02
13.41
5.01
13.39
1711.99
48.483
93.31
Ran 3
w/i&m
240
0.51
123.30
3.492
355.52
13.89
4.18
10.90
1890.29
53.533
95.09
Hun 4
WfiWi
240
0.52
123.98
3.511
354.40
14.93
4.05
11.93
1857.15
52.595
97.32
RttttS
ww&i
240
0.52
124.90
3.537
356.90
14.37
4.20
12.02
1834.05
51.940
99.28
Klin 4
<#M2#i
240
0.54
130.09
3.684
369.15
14.26
3.90
13.25
1827.01
51.741
103.80
R»»7
wta&i
240
0.53
128.17
3.630
363.13
14.50
3.33
12.47
1817.34
51.467
102.81
Kun8
fci/44#i
240
0.52
125.52
3.555
357.29
14.43
3.10
12.67
1760.73
49.864
103.92
Run 9
ti$fi#gi
240
0.52
125.54
3.555
371.67
13.21
4.98
14.47
1732.84
49.074
105.61
Average
NA
0.52
124.10
3.514
361.14
14.12
4.09
12.64
1803.92
51.087
NA
-------
Table 2-52
K)
^"'sampling Time (mta) —
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 (dscmrn)
Percent Isokinetic
TW^S^ISESS^O.TLET
MWi
240
0.35
83.91
2.376
294.44
15.05
4.69
9.64
2464.22
69.787
100.37
240
0.37
89.06
2.522
295.40
15.66
4.19
9.08
2649.04
75.021
101.01
240
0.39
93.06
2.636
292.25
15.90
4.19
9.10
2703.63
76.567
101.46
240
0.40
97.00
2.747
288.98
15.63
4.23
9.07
2806.89
79.491
101.87
_
240
0.37
87.63
2.482
293.33
15.46
4.42
15.95
2375.96
67.287
108.72
I J ^+.1*^.^. . I »«"<•"£ | *\MJl:V i *vV<5£{|g|l
240
0.39
93.13
2.637
295.42
15.34
4.45
10.14
2640.32
74.774
104.63
ftuM
3i_
240
0.39
93.78
2.656
282.44
15.52
4.48
9.82
2660.74
75.352
104.56
SttttS
^40
0.37
89.47
2.534
292.52
14.45
5.20
11.70
2519.18
71.343
105.35
NA
0.38
90.88
2.574
291.85
15.38
4.48
10.56
2602.50
73.703
NA
-------
Table 2-53
COMPARISON FOR MERCURY EMISSION RATES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENIES
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
I Omditktn
Without Carbon
Injection
Carbon Injection
@ 1 Ib/hr
Carbon Injection
@ 2.5 Ib/hr
Method «HA
i mm
2
3
4
Average
5
6
Average
7
8
9
Average
intet
(ffctf
12.8
11.5
5.18
9.83
8.41
12.1
10.3
12.9
10.3
21.5
14.9
Outlet
(S&r) =
12.9
11.5
5.19
9.87
1.25
1.55
1.40
0.880
0.180
0.610
0.557
RE
' m
-0.781%
0.00%
-0.193%
-0.407%
85.1%
87.2%
86.4%
93.2%
98.2%
97.2%
96.3%
Toxic Metal Trains
inlet
<«/iir>
15.1
11.9
5.23
10.7
9.43
13.2
11.3
12.0
9.83
21.6
14.5
Outlet
(gfcr)
17.4
14.1
6.06
12.5
1.39
1.66
1.52
1.36
0.174
0.603
0.714
: HE
! !»)-
-15.5%
-18.4%
-15.9%
-16.6%
85.3%
87.4%
86.5%
88.7%
98.2%
97.2%
95.1%
2-80
-------
2.6.1 Halogen Gas Emissions Results
Table 2-54 provides a summary of the HC1 results at the baghouse inlet.
Concentrations are reported in mg/dscm and ppmv, both at measured conditions and
corrected to a 7 percent O2 basis. The HC1 concentrations at 7 percent O2 ranged from
341.1 ppmv to 3591.0 ppmv with a mean of 1912.3 ppmv. The calculated emission rates
ranged from 1.62 Ib/hr to 17.57 Ib/hr with a mean of 9.55 Ib/hr.
Table 2-55 provides a summary of the HC1 results at the baghouse outlet. The
HC1 concentrations at 7 percent O2 ranged from 1.4 ppmv to 204.3 ppmv with a mean of
49.9 ppmv. Emission rates ranged from 0.007 Ib/hr to 1.16 Ib/hr at the baghouse outlet.
Table 2-56 presents a summary of HC1 inlet and outlet concentrations and
emission rates determined by manual sampling and provides the HC1 removal
efficiencies across the baghouse. Twenty-four runs were completed during eight days of
testing. The removal efficiency for Run 8A could not be properly validated because the
inlet and outlet sampling was not conducted at the same time. Hydrogen chloride
removal efficiencies ranged from 82.4 percent to 99.9 percent with a mean of
96.6 percent.
Table 2-57 presents a summary of HF results obtained through sampling at the
baghouse inlet. Noticeable concentrations of HF were detected during all the runs. The
HF concentrations at 7 percent O2 ranged from 6.0 ppmv to 49.6 ppmv with a mean of
18.3 ppmv. Calculated emission rates for HF ranged from 0.015 Ib/hr to 0.147 Ib/hr and
averaged 0.051 Ib/hr.
Table 2-58 provides the HF results at the baghouse outlet for all of the runs
conducted. Detectable quantities of HF were present in only 2 of the 24 samples.
Within the 24 runs, the concentrations at 7 percent O2 ranged from 0.39 ppmv to
2.7 ppmv with a mean of 0.73 ppmv. Hydrogen fluoride emission rates recorded at the
baghouse outlet ranged from 0.001 Ib/hr to 0.009 Ib/hr with an average of 0.002 Ib/hr.
9 81
JBS335 ^~OL
-------
TABLE 2-54. MEASURED HYDROGEN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE BAGHOUSE INLET
; TEST
i RW
i NUMBER
A
2 B
C
mm&t&&\
A
3 B
C
1 AVERAGE
A
4 B
C
m#m$m>\
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE i
A
6 B
C
iAVERACSE
a
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
'mmMK
A
9 B
C
; AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATiOWS j
(fltgAJscat)
1825
838
1297
1320
930
1860
1727
1506:
317
910
1551
92$
969
2128
2558
; 1885
1100
1469
1370
1313
238
1708
1481
1142
854
1628
2116
.'•..I;' ,;;:;:;.;,-> J532
2428
1196
1469
i 1698
(mg/daun ;
©7% 02) i
3388
1555
2408
3450
1844
3688
3425
2986
737
2118
3610
2155J
2062
4529
5444
; 4012;
2303
3075
2869
2749
517
3709
3216
24S1
1834
3497
4545
3292
4389
2163
2656
1 3069
988:
1.621
11.626
10.081
7.776?
5.631
10.735
13.954
10,106-i
15.762
7.767
9.539
; 11.023
a The results for Runs 7B and 7C were originally reported as baghouse outlet results.
b An average of the flow rates determined by the Method 101A sampling trains was used for HC1
emission rate calcultions.
2-82
-------
TABLE 2-55. MEASURED HYDROGEN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE BAGHOUSE OUTLET
:
TEST
RUN 1
NUMBER
A
2 B
C
AVERAGES
A
3 B
C
AVERAGE
A
4 B
C
AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE
A
6 B
C
AVERAGE
a
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
S B
C
AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
;
124.9
62.92
8.797
h^^vSS^1
116.8
8.816
40.78
•r •:• - 5S.4S
2.446
3.813
7.943
- 4,734
7.368
74.10
25.62
:i : 35.69
0.828
4.551
6.494
5.958
8.016
32.95
14.85
13.60
3.360
8.145
22.39
11.30
42.06
87.80
22.66
50.84
Gng/4se«
&t% 02>
296.7
149.5
20.90
:;-:;:f:;,:::-^$s3|;
309.8
23.38
108.2
;- • ::::£47;r;
6.799
10.60
22.08
13;16
19.43
195.4
67.56
•"'I , ,: 94.15
2.115
11.63
16.59
•JtCUi
20.04
82.37
37.12
4&.SI
8.681
21.04
57.84
29.19
90.65
189.2
48.84
, 109,6
(H>mv)
82.36
41.50
5.803
;:;•:•' .--.>;f43^:-
77.02
5.815
26.90
: 36.58
1.613
2.515
5.239
r 3.122.
4.860
48.88
16.90
- ': :V:..23^4^
0.546
3.002
4.284
2.610
5.288
21.732
9.795
12.272.
2.216
5.373
14.766
7,452.
27.75
57.91
14.95
; 3334
-------
TABLE 2-56. HYDROGEN CHLORIDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
RUN
NO.
A
2 B
C
i:AVERAGE
A
3 B
C
AVERAGE
A
4 B
C
AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE
A
6 B
C
AVERAGE
b
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
•AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
AVERAGE
DATE
9/7/91
9/7/91
9/7/91
9/9/19
9/9/19
9/9/19
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
BAGHOtfSB INLET
SAMPLING
TIME
12:15-13:15
15:15-16:15
16:25-17:25
11:41-12:44
15:30-16:30
16:40-17:49
12:05-13:05
15:00-16:00
16:16-17:16
11:15-12:15
14:05-15:05
15:14-16:15
12:30-14:11
16:10-17:15
17:20-18:20
09:45-10:45
12:35-13:35
13:45-14:45
12:15-13:15
14:15-15:15
15:25-16:25
10:30-11:30
14:06-15:06
15:16-16:16
QAS
CQNC.
<&wV}
1204.1
552.6
855.7
870,8
613.3
1227.0
1139.3
$93.2
208.9
600.1
1022.8
$10,6
638.9
1403.5
1687.0
J243,J
725.7
969.0
903.9
866,2
157.1
1126.5
976.7
753,4
563.1
1073.5
1395.4
IOJ0,7
1601.6
789.2
969.3
J 120.0
EMISSION
RATE a
$>/ht>
11.707
5.373
8.320
8,447
6.584
13.172
12.231
10.662
2.204
6.329
10.788
4440
6.655
14.619
17.572
12.949
7.530
10.055
9.379
8.988
1.621
11.626
10.081
7.776
5.631
10.735
13.954
10.106
15.762
7.767
9.539
11,023
BAGHOUSEOtfTLBT
SAMHJNO
TIME
12:15-13:15
15:15-16:15
16:25-17:25
11:32-12:44
15:30-16:30
16:40-17:46
12:05-13:05
15:00-16:00
16:16-17:16
11:15-12:15
14:05-15:05
15:15-16:15
12:30-14:07
16:10-17:10
17:20-18:20
09:45-10:45
12:35-13:35
13:45-14:45
10:15-11:15
14:15-15:15
15:25-16:25
10:30-11:30
14:06-15:06
15:16-16:16
GAS
CONC.
{ppmV}
82.36
41.50
5.803
43,22
77.02
5.815
26.90
36,58
1.613
2.515
5.239
3J22
4.860
48.88
16.90
23,54
0.546
3.002
4.284
2,610
5.288
21.73
9.795
12,27
2.216
5.373
14.77
7.452
27.75
57.91
14.95
33.54
EMISSION:
RATE
(Ife/ftr)
1.153
0.581
0.081
0.605
1.159
0.087
0.405
0.550
0.025
0.039
0.080
0.048
0.077
0.779
0.269
0-575
0.007
0.041
0.058
0.035
0.079
0.326
0.147
0.184
0.033
0.081
0.223
O.J13
0.397
0.829
0.214
0.480
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
<*)
90.2
89.2
99.0
92.8
82.4
99.3
96.7
9X8
98.9
99.4
99.3
99,2
98.8
94.7
98.5
97,3
99.9
99.6
99.4
99,6
95.1
97.2
98.5
96,9
*99.4
99.2
98.4
99,0
97.5
89.3
97.8
94,9
a An average of the flow rates determined by the Method 101A sampling trains was used for HC1 emission rate calculations.
b The results for Runs 7B and 7C were originally recorded as results at opposite locations.
* Run 8A at the inlet and outlet was not conducted at the same time.
2-84
-------
TABLE 2-57. MEASURED HYDROGEN FLOURIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE BAGHOUSE INLET
TEST
RUN
NUMBER
A
2 B
C
iSVEKAGE.:
A
3 B
C
JiAVERAGE
A
4 B
C
MVERAGE:
A
5 B
C
:;AVERAGfi
A
6 B
C
AVERAGE;
a
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
;AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS ;
(aig/dscm) i
2.781
3.406
9.542
5,243:
4.403
20.81
12.85
12.69
2.509
5.206
3.990
!':. :-U £902.
8.107
10.25
4.026
7.46Q;
7.256
9.638
8.474
: -: -44 ;: &456'
4.554
7.393
4.147
5.365
2.323
7.585
4.543
-::;.- ?.:-:;::4i817.:
17.50
11.17
8.390
12.35
£mg/dseia I
@7* 02)
5.160
6.320
17.71
9.729;
8.731
41.27
25.49
25.16
5.841
12.12
9.291
9,085
17.26
21.81
8.570
15.88 ;
15.19
20.18
17.74
i::::. r' --Si.: 17:70":
9.890
16.057
9.007
i1:v':: "<•••: :::i:-T IJi&S*
4.990
16.29
9.759
;i .:- : : :iOv35::
31.64
20.19
15.16
22.33
(jprav)
3.343
4.094
11.47
6,302
5.293
25.02
15.45
15.25
3.016
6.259
4.797
4W&
9.746
12.32
4.840
S.96S
8.722
11.59
10.19
: .;: v :•: 103$
5.474
8.888
4.985
- 'ft. y::|::; ..;.:. &.449
2.792
9.118
5.461
• H: :;:.;:.5<790:
21.04
13.43
10.09
14.85
: - .. 14,41
51.54
32.89
24.70
3-6,38:
b;
OWht) \
0.018
0.022
0.061
0,034;
0.031
0.147
0.091
0.090
0.017
0.036
0.028
0<027;;
0.056
0.070
0.028
o.osi
0.050
0.066
0.058
::. ..-. : , mOSS?
0.031
0.050
0.028
; O.037::
0.015
0.050
0.030
; ;; ; •, ; o.oxt
0.114
0.073
0.054
;:f ;, . .... :-. ,-o.oso*;
a The results for Runs 7B and 7C were originally reported as baghouse outlet results.
b An average of the flow rates determined by the Method 101A sampling trains was
used for HF emission rate calculations.
2-85
-------
TABLE 2-58. MEASURE HYDROGEN FLOURIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE BAGHOUSE OUTLET
TEST ;
! RON i
NUMBER
A
2 B
C d
AVERAGE
A
3 B
C
liSVERAGE :
A
4 B
C
AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
J&VERAGE
A
6 B
C
SAVERACE
a
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
lAVERAGE
A
9 B
C
^AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS j
{ttgAfcatt} :
c
[0.194]
[0.219]
[0.218]
[0,2103
[0.184]
[0.211]
[0.208]
[0.20t|
(0.198)
[0.211]
[0.191]
o,t<>s
[0.169]
0.865
0.816
; 0.84Q;
(0.180)
[0.255]
[0.180]
i 0,180 ;
(0.204)
[0.151]
[0.163]
o.m
[0.156]
[0.125]
[0. 126]
[OJ35J
[0.157]
[0.156]
[0. 156]
[0.136]
(tng/dscflJ
@7% 02) i
[0.461]
[0.519]
[0.519]
[0,5001
[0.488]
[0.560]
[0.553]
[0.534] ;
(0.550)
[0.587]
[0.532]
0,550
[0.445]
2.281
2.151
I 2.2J6
(0.460)
[0.652]
[0.459]
i 0,4
(0.510)
[0.377]
[0.407]
0.510
[0.404]
[0.324]
[0.325]
[0,351J
[0.339]
[0.335]
[0.336]
[0.336]
<&>«*> ;
[0.233]
[0.263]
[0.263]
[0,2531 i
[0.221]
[0.254]
[0.250]
[0.242};
(0.238)
[0.254]
[0.230]
0,233
[0.203]
1.040
0.980
; 1.01Q i
(0.216)
[0.307]
[0.216]
0.21(5
(0.245)
[0.181]
[0. 196]
0.245
[0.188]
[0.151]
[0.151]
; [0,163]
[0.189]
[0.187]
[0.187]
[0.188]
{pprtJV ;
^7*02)
[0.554]
[0.624]
[0.624]
[0,6011 ;
[0.587]
[0.673]
[0.664]
(0.661)
[0.706]
[0.639]
0,<&1;
[0.535]
2.742
2.586
2.664
(0.553)
[0.784]
[0.552]
0,553 :
(0.613)
[0.453]
[0.490]
0.613 :
[0.486]
[0.390]
[0.390]
[0.422J
[0.407]
[0.403]
[0.404]
[0-:4Q4]
EMISSION RATES i
Cg/&4 j
[0.813]
[0.915]
[0.914]
[0,8»i! i
[0.828]
[0.950]
[0.938]
IJi-iivWQSj ;
(0.909)
[0.970]
[0.879]
0,909^
[0.805]
4.125
3.890
4.007;
(0.727)
[1.030]
[0.725]
0,727
(0.916)
[0.676]
[0.731]
0.916 :
[0.707]
[0.567]
[0.568]
[0,614]
[0.673]
[0.666]
[0.667]
[0.668]
b
! QWue) \
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0,0021
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002];:;
(0.002)
[0.002]
[0.002]
0,002
[0.002]
0.009
0.009
O.Q09
(0.002)
[0.002]
[0.002]
: 0,002;
(0.002)
[0.001]
[0.002]
0.002
[0.002]
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0,OOIJ :
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.001]
; [0-OOIJI ;
The results for Runs 7B and 7C were originally reported as baghouse inlet results.
An average of the flow rates determined by the CDD/CDF sampling trains was
used for HBr emission rate calculations.
[] = Detection limit; () = Estimated maximum possible concentration
Detection limits are not considered when calculating averages.
2-86
-------
Table 2-59 presents a summary of HF inlet and outlet concentrations, emission
rates, and removal efficiencies determined by manual sampling. The removal efficiency
for Run 8A is not valid because inlet and outlet samples were not conducted at the same
time. The baghouse removal efficiencies for HF ranged from 69.0 percent to
99.4 percent with a mean of 94.1 percent.
Table 2-60 displays the HBr manual sampling results at the baghouse inlet.
Measurable quantities were detected in 20 of the 24 samples taken. The concentrations
of HBr in the samples, corrected to 7 percent O2, ranged from 0.027 ppmv to 5.37 ppmv
with a mean of 2.0 ppmv.
Table 2-61 summarizes the HBr manual sampling results from the baghouse
outlet. Detectable quantities of HBr were found in 6 of the 21 valid runs. Of these six
detectable quantities, only one measured greater than five times the detection limit. The
concentrations of HBr corrected to 7 percent O2 ranged from 0.0295 ppmv to
0.2667 ppmv. The average of the detected concentrations is 0.19 ppmv at 7 percent O2.
Table 2-62 summarizes the HBr inlet and outlet concentrations, emission rates,
and removal efficiencies for the baghouse. The results from Runs 16, 17, and 18 are
invalid due to reasons discussed previously. All of the runs exhibited removal
efficiencies greater than 80 percent except the 3 runs conducted on the last day of
testing. No HBr was detected at either the inlet or the outlet sampling location during
these runs. On runs when HBr was detected, the HBr removal efficiencies ranged from
81.1 percent to 91.1 percent, with an average of 93.9 percent.
2.7 CEM RESULTS
Continuous emissions monitoring was conducted at the inlet and outlet to the
APCS during eight days of testing (test runs). Concentrations of O2, CO2, CO, NOX, and
SO2 were determined on a dry basis by extracting the gas from the flue, transferring it to
the CEM trailer through heated teflon tubing (heat trace), passing it through gas
conditioners to remove moisture and directing it to each respective analyzer. A full
description of Radian's CEM system and methods is given in Section 5. Concentrations
of THC and HC1 were also monitored with gas concentrations determined on a wet
basis. This was accomplished on the THC system by allowing a slipstream from each
. 2-87
JBS335
-------
TABLE 2-59. HYDROGEN FLUORIDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
JWJN
HO.
A
2 B
C d
AVERAGE
A
3 B
C
AVERAGE
A
4 B
C
AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE
A
6 B
C
•AVERAGE
b
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
'AVERAGE
t>ATE
9/7/91
9/7/91
9/7/91
9/9/19
9/9/19
9/9/19
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
INLET
SAMHJNO
TIME
12:15-13:15
15:15-16:15
16:25-17:25
11:41-12:44
15:30-16:30
16:40-17:49
12:05-13:05
15:00-16:00
16:16-17:16
11:15-12:15
14:05-15:05
15:14-16:15
12:30-14:11
16:10-17:15
17:20-18:20
09:45-10:45
12:35-13:35
13:45-14:45
12:15-13:15
14:15-15:15
15:25-16:25
10:30-11:30
14:06-15:06
15:16-16:16
GAS
CONC,
(ppatV)
3.343
4.094
11.470
6.302
5.293
25.019
15.452
15.255
3.016
6.259
4.797
4,690
9.746
12.318
4.840
$.968
8.722
11.586
10.186
10.165
5.474
8.888
4.985
6.449
2.792
9.118
5.461
5.790
21.041
13.428
10.085
14.55 1
EMISSION
RATE *
(8>/hr)
0.018
0.022
0.061
0.034
0.031
0.147
0.091
0.090
0.017
0.036
0.028
0.027
0.056
0.070
0.028
0.051
0.050
0.066
0.058
0.058
0.031
0.050
0.028
0.037
0.015
0.050
0.030
0.032
0.114
0.073
0.054
0.080
SAMPLING
TIME
12:15-13:15
15:15-16:15
16:25-17:25
11:32-12:44
15:30-16:30
16:40-17:46
12:05-13:05
15:00-16:00
16:16-17:16
11:15-12:15
14:05-15:05
15:15-16:15
12:30-14:07
16:10-17:10
17:20-18:20
09:45-10:45
12:35-13:35
13:45-14:45
10:15-11:15
14:15-15:15
15:25-16:25
10:30-11:30
14:06-15:06
15:16-16:16
OUTLET
GAS
CONC
{pJJBtV)
C
[0.233]
[0.263]
[0.263]
[0.2531
[0.221]
[0.254]
[0.250]
10.2421
(0.238)
[0.254]
[0.230]
0.238
[0.203]
1.040
0.980
l.OJO
(0.216)
[0.307]
[0.216]
0.216
(0.245)
[0.181]
[0. 196]
0.245
[0.188]
[0.151]
[0.151]
[OJ631
[0.189]
[0. 187]
[0.187]
flUSSl
EMISSION
RATE
0fc/hr>
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.0021
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.0021
(0.002)
[0.002]
[0.002]
0.002
[0.002]
0.009
0.009
0.009
(0.002)
[0.002]
[0.002]
0.002
(0.002)
[0.001]
[0.002]
0.002
[0.002]
[0.001]
[0.001]
[o.oon
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.001]
{O.OXH1
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
(.*)
90.0
90.8
96.7
92,5
94.1
98.6
97.7
9^8
88.5
94.1
93.0
91.9
96.8
87.1
69.0
84,3s
96.8
96.6
97.2
9$M
93.5
97.0
94.3
94,9
+99.4
97.5
95.8
96.7
98.7
98.0
97.3
9*,0
a An average of the flow rates determined by the Method 101A sampling trains was used for HF emission rate calculations.
b The results for Runs 7B and 7C were originally recorded as results at the opposite location
c [] = Detection limit; () = Estimated maximum possible concentration
d Detection limits are not considered in the calculation of averages.
* The Runs 8A at the inlet and outlet were not conducted at the same time.
"> 88
Z-oo
-------
TABLE 2-60. MEASURED HYDROGEN BROMIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE BAGHOUSE INLET
TEST ;
JROK ;
NUMBER
A
2 B
C d
AVERAGE
A
3 B
C
|iSVE?|kGE
A
4 B
C
; AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
;SSiERMJE
A
6 B
C
AVERAGE
a
A
7 B
C
.AVERAGE;
A
8 B
C
i AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
^AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
img/dscm)
3.425
2.965
2.609
3,000;
0.520
3.288
3.024
; 2.277
3.502
2.386
2.648
2,845
4.786
5.601
1.846
4.078
6.218
4.547
2.322
4,362
3.112
[0.0519]
8.318
%&&$&m$
4.620
6.167
6.389
5,726
c
[0.057]
[0.050]
[0.058]
[0.055]
(mg/f)scw
@?% 02>
6.356
5.503
4.841
5.567 ;
1.032
6.519
5.997
4.516
8.154
5.554
6.164
; 6,624
10.187
11.923
3.930
s.680
13.016
9.519
4.860
9,132
6.758
[0.1128]
18.065
;f;;:--;£i*;:12;412.
9.926
13.250
13.727
12,301
[0.102]
[0.090]
[0.105]
[0,099]
(j?J>tttV>
1.018
0.881
0.775
0.892
0.155
0.977
0.899
0.677
1.041
0.709
0.787
0.84$
1.423
1.665
0.549
1.212
1.848
1.352
0.690
LWt
0.925
[0.0154]
2.472
B:;;4J 1*599-
1.373
1.833
1.899
t<702
[0.017]
[0.015]
[0.017]
[0.016]:!
-------
TABLE 2-61. MEASURED HYDROGEN BROMIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE BAGHOUSE OUTLET
TEST
i RUN
i NUMBER
A
2 B
C d
! AVERAGE;
A
3 B
C
AVERAGE ;
A
4 B
C
AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE
A
6 B
C
^AVERAGE
a
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
AVERAGE
MEASURED CONCENTRATIOISfS
{.Ifi^rOSOfil^ :
C
[0.0547]
0.378
(0.178)
0,278:
[0.0486]
[0.0645]
(0.224)
\ 0.224
[0.0578]
[0.0645]
[0.0584]
! 10.0602}
(0.213)
(0.295)
(0.230)
0.246
[0.0529]
[0.0779]
[0.0548]
[0X0619]
[0.0622]
[0.0460]
[0.0498]
\ 10.0527}
[0.0478]
[0.0383]
[0.0384]
10-.OU53
[0.0478]
[0.0475]
[0.0487]
£0*0480]
(fflg/dscm i
@?fcaa>
[0.1301]
0.897
(0.424)
0.661
[0.1290]
[0.1710]
(0.593)
0.593
[0.1606]
[0.1793]
[0.1624]
104674]
(0.563)
(0.778)
(0.607)
0.649
[0.1351]
[0.1990]
[0.1401]
; [CLtSSll
[0.1555]
[0.1149]
[0.1245]
; |0431$
[0.1235]
[0.0990]
[0.0993]
£040731
[0.1031]
[0. 1023]
[0.1049]
104034]
{pjwas) :
[0.0163]
0.112
(0.053)
0,083
[0.0145]
[0.0192]
(0.066)
0.066;
[0.0172]
[0.0192]
[0.0174]
10.0179]
(0.063)
(0.088)
(0.068)
0.073;
[0.0157]
[0.0232]
[0.0163]
P£184!
[0.0185]
[0.0137]
[0.0148]
10.0157]
[0.0142]
[0.0114]
[0.0114]
10.0123]
[0.0142]
[0.0141]
[0.0145]
10.0143]
-------
TABLE 2-62. HYDROGEN BROMIDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
RUN
NO,
A
2 B
C d
AVERAOE
A
3 B
C
AVERAGE
A
4 B
C
AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE
A
6 B
C
AVERAGE
b
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
AVERAGE
DATE
9/7/91
9/7/91
9/7/91
"•
9/9/19
9/9/19
9/9/19
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
INLET
SAMPUNO
TIME
12:15-13:15
15:15-16:15
16:25-17:25
11:41-12:44
15:30-16:30
16:40-17:49
12:05-13:05
15:00-16:00
16:16-17:16
11:15-12:15
14:05-15:05
15:14-16:15
12:30-14:11
16:10-17:15
17:20-18:20
09:45-10:45
12:35-13:35
13:45-14:45
12:15-13:15
14:15-15:15
15:25-16:25
10:30-11:30
14:06-15:06
15:16-16:16
OA&
COHC.
(ppiftV)
1.018
0.881
0.775
0,892
0.155
0.977
0.899
0.677
1.041
0.709
0.787
0.846
1.423
1.665
0.549
1.212
1.848
1.352
0.690
1.297
0.925
[0.0154]
2.472
1,699
1.373
1.833
1.899
1.702
c
[0.017]
[0.015]
[0.017]
J&D16J
EMISSION
RATE *
fjb/ltt)
0.022
0.019
0.017
0,019
0.004
0.023
0.021
0,016
0.024
0.017
0.018
0.020
0.033
0.038
0.013
&02S
0.043
0.031
0.016
0.030
0.021
[0.0004]
0.057
0,039
0.030
0.041
0.042
0.038
[0.0004]
[0.0003]
[0.0004]
[0.0004J
OUTLET
SAMPUNS
TIME
12:15-13:15
15:15-16:15
16:25-17:25
11:32-12:44
15:30-16:30
16:40-17:46
12:05-13:05
15:00-16:00
16:16-17:16
11:15-12:15
14:05-15:05
15:15-16:15
12:30-14:07
16:10-17:10
17:20-18:20
09:45-10:45
12:35-13:35
13:45-14:45
10:15-11:15
14:15-15:15
15:25-16:25
10:30-11:30
14:06-15:06
15:16-16:16
GA&
CONC.
(pp«aV)
[0.0163]
0.112
(0.053)
0,083
[0.0145]
[0.0192]
(0.066)
0.066
[0.0172]
[0.0192]
[0.0174]
IO,OI79J
(0.063)
(0.088)
(0.068)
0.073
[0.0157]
[0.0232]
[0.0163]
[0,01841
[0.0185]
[0.0137]
[0.0148]
|O.OIS7}
[0.0142]
[0.0114]
[0.0114]
[0.0123J
[0.0142]
[0.0141]
[0.0145]
IO.OI43J
EMISSION
RATE
flb/fer}
[0.0005]
0.003
(0.002)
0.003
[0.0384]
[0.0006]
(0.002)
0.002
[0.0006]
[0.0007]
[0.0006]
[0.0006J
(0.002)
(0.003)
(0.002)
0.003
[0.0005]
[0.0007]
[0.0005]
[0,00061
[0.0006]
[0.0005]
[0.0005]
[O.QOOSJ
[0.0005]
[0.0004]
[0.0004]
10.0004J
[0.0005]
[0.0004]
[0.0005]
(O.OOOSj
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
<*)
97.7
81.7
90.2
89.8
86.9
97.3
89.6
91.3
97.6
96.1
96.8
9&.S
93.2
91.9
80.9
88,7
98.9
97.8
96.9
yr.9
97.1
NA
99.1
S5.9
*98.4
99.1
99.1
98.9
e
NA
NA
NA
NA
a An average of the flow rates determined by the Method 101A sampling trains was used for HBr emission rate calculations.
b The results for Runs 7B and 7C were originally recorded as results at opposite locations.
c [] = Detection limit; () = Estimated maximum possible concentration
d Detection limits are not considered in the calculation of averages.
e NA = Results at the inlet and outlet are detection limits.
* Run 8A at the inlet and outlet was not conducted at the same time.
2-91
-------
respective heated sample line (inlet or outlet sample location) to bypass the sample
conditioners so that the wet flue gas was directed to the analyzer as it exited the flue.
The HC1 CEM system employed a dilution probe and sample gas transfer system
separate from the other CEMs. In this way, the stack gas was diluted by a known
amount using quartz critical orifice (500 ml at the outlet, 100 ml at the inlet) and
delivered to the analyzer without removing the moisture.
The following CEM analyzers shown below with their respective units of
concentration were employed during the Borgess MWI test program:
Baghouse Inlet
O2/CO2- %V/dry
CO - ppmv/dry
NOX - ppmv/dry
SO2 - ppmv/dry
THC - ppmv/wet
HC1 - ppmv/wet
Baghouse Outlet
O2/CO2 - %V/dry
CO - ppmv/dry
NOX - ppmv/dry (offline 9/14 & 16)
SO2 - ppmv/dry
THC - ppmv/wet (online 9/7 only)
HC1 - ppmv/wet
All CEM data were recorded as 30-second averages from multiple readings per second
by Radian's CEM data acquisition system (DAS). The resulting CEM data files were
averaged over the duration of each test run. The averages are presented in the following
section. The 30-second data are included in Appendix C along with the following
additional CEM information:
LOCATION CEM DATA TYPE
• Appendix C.I CEM Inlet/Outlet Graphs
• Appendix C.2 CEM 30-second averages
• Appendix C.3 CEM Calibration Drift Summary
• Appendix C.4 CEM Daily Cals and QC Gas Responses
JBS335
2-92
-------
• Appendix C.5 CEM Response Time & NOX Converter Checks
• Section 6.5 CEM Coefficients of Variation
The CEM run averages are presented In Table 2-63. Both inlet and outlet
concentrations are given. Moisture contents are also presented because these values
were used to correct the wet CEM values to a dry basis in the following tables. Inlet O2
run averages varied from 12.9 to 14.9, while outlet values were 1 to 2 percent higher by
volume. Inlet CO2 values were approximately 4 to 5 percent by volume, except for
Runs 6 through 8 which averaged near 3 percent. These latter values are lower than the
corresponding outlet averages. All QA/QC criterion for that monitor were met.
Nitrogen oxides concentrations were approximately 60 to 80 ppmv, dry at the inlet
and somewhat lower (approximately 40 to 70 ppmv dry) at the outlet. As detailed in
Section 6, the NOX converter for the inlet instrument used for Runs 2 through 7 only
showed about 50 percent conversion efficiency. When comparing the inlet NOX data to
the outlet NOX data, the lower NOX conversion efficiency did not appear to have affected
the quality of the inlet data. It is postulated that the majority of NOX in a flue gas
stream is typically in the form of NO and, therefore, does not need to be converted from
NO2 to NO for accurate measurement.
Average values for SO2 are also presented in Table 2-63. Both inlet and outlet
values were typically lower than 10 ppmv.
Concentrations of THC were also monitored, with the resulting inlet
concentrations consistently below 5 ppmv/wet. Outlet concentrations were only
monitored for one day with the resulting run average equaling 1.9 ppmv/wet.
Concentrations of HC1 were monitored and determined using EPA Reference
Method 26. Averages for the inlet concentrations ranged from approximately 500 to 800
ppmv/wet. Outlet concentrations ranged from 10 to 40 ppmv/wet. Hydrogen chloride
removal efficiencies based on the reference method results were presented in
Section 2.5.3.
2-
JBS335 ^
-------
TABLE 2-63. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING DAILY TEST AVERAGES FOR ACTUAL CONCENTRATIONS.
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
DATE
9/7
9/9
9/10
9/11
9/12
9/13
9/14
9/16
RUN
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TEST
TIME
12:15-17:25
11:32-17:48
12:07-17:18
11:17-16:17
12:30-16:22
09:47-14:45
10:15-16:25
10:30-16:16
H20 a
(%V^wetby
manual methods'
Inlet
12.8
11.7
12.0
12.2
13.4
12.8
13.0
14.8
Outlet
11.9
10.3
9.3
9.1
13.8
10.1
12.0
11.5
O2
<*Y,diy)
Inlet
13.5
13.8
14.9
14.4
14.3
14.4
14.4
12.9
Outlet
15.1
15.6
15.9
15.6
15.5
15.3
15.5
14.4
CO2
<#V,diy)
Inlet
4.9
4.2
4.0
4.2
b 2.2
3.2
3.1
5.3
Outlet
4.7
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
5.3
CO
{pptnv^dry)
Inlet
6.5
8.1
4.9
4.6
3.9
3.6
4.6
4.3
Outlet:
0.9
2.9
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.9
0.3
0.2
NO*
-------
All CEM average data are presented corrected to a 7 percent O2/dry basis in
Table 2-64. Each 30-second CEM reading was corrected to 7 percent O2 based on the
corresponding O2 value. Averages of the corrected values were then calculated. For
HC1 and THC, the corrected values incorporated a correction to a dry basis by dividing
the average corrected result by the average moisture content for that sample location.
The average moisture content was calculated from the Method 4 results from the
CDD/CDF, PM/Metals, and the Hg 101A sampling trains. The corrected run averages
show trends similar to those presented in the previous table.
Table 2-65 shows pollutant concentrations measured during a typical burndown
period (Run 4). During the burndown period, charging of waste into the incinerator is
stopped, and combustion continues until all combustible waste in the incinerator is
consumed. The data show that emissions of SO2, CO, HC1, and THC all decrease
significantly after the first hour, when most of the easily combusted material is oxidized.
Nitrogen oxide emissions decrease after the third hour of burndown. Oxygen content of
the flue gas approaches ambient concentrations during the last three hours of burndown,
as little combustion is taking place and combustion air continues to be fed at normal
operating rates. The pollutant concentrations are not corrected to 7 percent O2 for this
reason.
Comparisons of the manual HC1 test results and the CEM HC1 results are
contained in Tables 2-66 and 2-67. The CEM results are data averages that correspond
to the actual manual run time. These results were originally wet and were corrected to a
dry basis.
Results at the baghouse inlet showed an average relative percent difference
(RPD) between the manual and CEM measurements of 48 percent. Correlation
between the two measurement methods at the inlet was poor.
The average RPD of the manual and CEM measurements at the outlet was
66 percent, however, daily average values of HC1 concentrations differed by less than
16 ppm between the two methods. The correlation coefficient of the measurements
made during individual tests was 0.97, showing a relatively high correlation between the
two measurement methods at the baghouse outlet.
JBS335
-------
TABLE 2-64. CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING DAILY TEST AVERAGES CORRECTED TO 7 PERCENT OXYGEN, DRY.
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
DATE
9/7
9/9
9/10
9/11
9/12
9/13
9/14
9/16
RUN
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TEST
TIME
12:15-17:25
11:32-17:48
12:07-17:18
11:17-16:17
12:30-16:22
09:47-14:45
10:15-16:25
10:30-16:16
i H2O a
:X|v,wetby>f
manual methods)
Inlet
13.1
11.0
11.2
11.3
11.5
12.9
11.7
14.8
Outlet
11.9
10.3
9.3
9.1
13.8
10.1
12.0
11.5
02 b
(%V,dry)
Inlet
13.5
13.8
14.9
14.4
14.3
14.4
14.4
12.9
Outlet
15.1
15.6
15.9
15.6
15.5
15.3
15.5
14.4
C02
(*y.
-------
Table 2-65. Hourly Averages of Actual CEM Measurements
Run 4 Burndown
Borgess Medical Center (1991)
Time
1800-1859
1900-1959
2000-2059
2100-2159
2200-2259
2300-2332
02
%V
Inlet
6.89
15.80
15.94
17.48
18.53
18.61
Outlet
7.06
17.43
17.60
19.48
20.69
20.69
S02
ppmV
Inlet
12.1
-1.0
-1.1
-0.7
-0.1
-0.1
Outlet
11.1
-0.5
-0.2
-0.1
-0.4
-0.6
CO
ppmV
Inlet
7.9
4.3
4.2
5.1
3.8
3.9
Outlet
7.5
1.4
1.4
3.2
2.0
2.1
C02
%V
Inlet
2.10
2.29
2.06
0.96
0.19
0.12
Outlet
2.22
2.42
2.19
0.90
0.10
0.05
NOx
ppmV
Inlet
16.5
18.6
20.4
8.3
1.3
0.5
Outlet
16.3
18.0
19.8
7.1
0.7
0.2
HC1
ppmV
Inlet
200.5
141.4
63.2
38.8
36.8
37.4
Outlet
19.8
6.7
5.7
3.7
1.3
0.6
THC
ppmV
Inlet
9.2
1.9
1.7
2.4
3.0
3.0
Note: THC concentrations were not measured at the baghouse outlet location.
K)
MD
-4
-------
TABLE 2-66. COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND CEM HC1 RESULTS
BAGHOUSE INLET SAMPLING LOCATION ,
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
TEST
Rfctf
DUMBER.
A
2 B
C
AVERAGE
A
3 B
C
AVERAGE
A
4 B
C
AVERAGE
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE
A
6 B
C
AVERAGE
A
7 B
C
AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
AVERAGE
MANUAL HOt RESULTS
&pmV)
1204.1
552.6
855.7
8m,a
613.3
1227.0
1139.3
993.2
208.9
600.1
1022.8
610.6
638.9
1403.5
1687.0
1243.1
725.7
969.0
903.9
866.2
157.1
1126.5
976.7
753,4
563.1
1073.5
1395.4
1010,7
1601.6
789.2
969.3
1120,0
(ppmV
@716 02)
2234.6
1025.6
1588.0
1616.1
1216.0
2432.9
2259.1
1969.5
486.4
1397.1
2381.4
1421,6
1360.0
2987.5
3591.1
2646.2
1519.1
2028.5
1892.2
1813.5
341.1
2446.5
2121.4
1636.5
1209.7
2306.3
2997.9
2171.3
2895.0
1426.5
1752.0
2024,5
CEM HCt RESULTS
«J»
990.9
964.0
748.1
901.0
960.2
753.9
818.8
844,5
487.2
504.6
623.4
538.4
533.9
907.5
492.9
644.8
558.8
326.1
NA
442.5
496.8
732.2
616.6
615.2
NA
693.1
733.3
475.5
958.9
686.5
NA
822.7
(ppsaV
@7%02)
1843.3
1721.2
1362.4
1642.3
1778.7
1531.1
1752.6
I6a?,5
1115.3
1170.8
1447.3
1244,5
1114.8
1742.1
1084.2
1313.7
1183.1
781.0
NA
982,0
1049.3
1716.8
1309.6
135S.6
NA
1518.1
1463.4
993.a
1499.3
1356.4
NA
1427,9
NA = No results are available.
CEM Run concentrations are calculated as averages over the same time period as the manual sampling.
CEM daily concentrations are an average of the three test run concentrations.
2-98
-------
TABLE 2-67. COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND CEM HC1 RESULTS
BAGHOUSE OUTLET SAMPLING LOCATION *
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
TEST
JlCN
XVMBE&
A
2 B
C
AVERAGE
A
3 B
C
AVERAGE
A
4 B
C
K»AVEkAGE
A
5 B
C
AVERAGE
A
6 B
C
_•.- -.-.- -.-.-.• . -.- . .-.- -.- -.- - -.-
"SxpAVERAGE
A
7 B
C
:-: :--•:•:---:-• --:-• :-• •••-• •
•s.™ H:H AVERAGE
A
8 B
C
AVERAGE
A
9 B
C
!1|!!V36RAGE
MANUAL HCJ RESULTS
{ppmV)
82.36
41.50
5.803
43,22
77.02
5.815
26.90
36.58
1.613
2.515
5.239
3,122
4.860
48.88
16.90
25,54
0.546
3.002
4.284
2,610
5.288
21.73
9.795
12.27
2.216
5.373
14.77
7,452
27.75
57.91
14.95
33.54
(ppmV
@7* 02)
195.7
98.62
13.79
102.7
204.3
15.42
71.35
97.03
4.485
6.991
14.56
8.680
12.82
128.9
44.57
62. tO
1.395
7.670
10.95
&670
13.22
54.33
24.49
30;68.
5.726
13.88
38.15
19.25
59.79
124.8
32.22
72.27
CEM He! RESULTS
*1>
&p*v)
79.22
41.31
19.45
46.66
63.07
18.99
40.11
40.72
7.411
10.50
14.17
10.70
13.20
59.74
17.16
30.03
8.724
9.000
10.87
9.53 £
8.460
26.64
18.31
; £ff. •:;;;•; -IT.Stf
15.82
21.06
26.91
21*26
28.68
53.68
18.90
33.75
(ppmV
@7%02>
173.1
96.78
46.20
10S.4
156.7
52.17
119.3
K&A
20.28
28.59
38.31
29.06
35.20
135.4
46.56
I If, 172:39;.
23.28
24.50
27.52
25;io::
21.04
74.72
45.09
;:;.'"'::,4:V:-:;::i::46.95
41.22
57.65
63.81
5423)
54.05
119.5
46.06
73.20
NA = No results are available.
a CEM Run concentrations are calculated as averages over the same time period as the manual sampling.
b CEM daily concentrations are an average of the three test run concentrations.
2-99
-------
2.8 ASH ANALYSIS FOR LOSS-ON-IGNITION AND CARBON
Both baghouse ash and bottom ash were analyzed for loss-on-ignition (LOI) and
carbon content. Analysis for LOI was performed using procedures based on ASTM
Methods D3174. Method 3174 was modified to include an additional intermediate
weight measurement after heating for 1 hour at 410°F to drive off hydrated water.
Carbon content was determined using ASTM Method D3174.
Table 2-68 shows LOI and carbon content analysis results for the bottom ash.
Moisture content of the bottom ash was high variable between samples because of
intermittent use of the water spray ash quenching system by plant operators. The LOI
values varied from 5 to 11 percent during the test period. Carbon content of the bottom
ash on a dry basis varied from 1.4 to 5.9 percent.
Table 2-69 presents LOI and carbon content analysis results for the baghouse ash.
Carbon injection rates are shown for each sampling run for comparison with LOI and
carbon content values. Moisture content of the baghouse ash was less than 1 percent for
all samples. The LOI values ranged from 17.6 percent with no carbon injection to
22.3 percent at the highest carbon injection rate. Carbon content on a dry basis ranged
from 0.5 percent with no carbon injection, to 4.3 percent at the highest rate of carbon
injection.
JBS335 2-100
-------
TABLE 2-68. BOTTOM ASH LOI AND CARBON CONTENT
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Run
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Moisture
(%)
22.08
18.35
0.47
42.38
35.92
14.56
15.39
19.08
Hydrated
Water
(%)
1.51
1.24
0.46
2.66
1.64
1.38
2.14
0.91
LOI
(%)
8.57
5.12
6.28
10.55
10.22
9.96
8.44
9.61
Total
Loss
(%)
29.84
23.49
7.15
49.83
43.41
24.13
24.19
27.53
Carbon
As
Received
(%)
3.34
1.15
3.66
1.32
3.37
4.60
1.55
4.79
Dry
(%)
4.29
1.41
3.68
2.29
5.26
5.38
1.83
5.92
JBS335
2-101
-------
TABLE 2-69. BAGHOUSE ASH LOI AND CARBON CONTENT
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Run
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9'
Moisture
(%)
0.60
0.76
0.57
0.43
0.58
0.63
0.90
0.97
Hydrated
Water
(%)
0.91
0.89
0.90
0.86
0.95
0.89
1.06
1.09
LOI
(%)
17.63
18.45
21.27
20.51
20.53
21.42
22.32
22.30
Total
Loss
(%)
18.87
19.79
22.42
21.54
21.74
22.61
23.83
23.89
Carbon
As
Received
(%)
0.52
0.67
1.07
1.35
1.81
3.04
4.29
2.36
Dry
(%)
0.52
0.68
1.08
1.36
1.82
3.06
4.33
2.38
Carbon
Injection
Rate
(Ib/hr)
0
0
0
1.07
1.06
2.60
2.87
2.85
JBS335
2-102
-------
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF PROCESS OPERATION
DURING TESTING AT BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Borgess Medical Center is located in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and comprises
approximately 500 beds. Wastes generated at Borgess, including red bag and general
waste but excluding cafeteria waste, are incinerated in an on-site incineration facility.
This incineration facility consists of a Cleaver Brooks Model 780-A/31 MWI followed by
a Cleaver Brooks waste heat recovery boiler and dry lime injection system, and a
MicroPul pulse-jet baghouse.
This chapter presents both a description of the MWI process at Borgess and a
summary of the process operation during the emission test program. Section 3.2
describes the history of the test program at Borgess and presents the emission test
protocol. Section 3.3 describes the system tested including the equipment involved
(charging system, primary, secondary, and tertiary chambers, air handling system,
auxiliary burners, ash removal system, waste heat boiler, dry lime injection system, and
baghouse) and the processes involved including the daily operation by the operators, the
combustion process in each of the MWI chambers, the solids transfer process in the
primary chamber (charging and stoking), and the APCS process. Section 3.4 describes
the typical operating schedule for the MWI system. Finally, Section 3.5 describes the
test program at the facility by providing a summary of the MWI and APCS process data
collected and presents test run summaries that describe the operation of the system
during each test run and any process anomalies that occurred.
3.2 TEST PROGRAM HISTORY AND TEST PROTOCOL
3.2.1 Test Program History
This section describes the Borgess test program history including the previous test
program conducted in 1990, the results in general terms of the previous test program,
and the reasons for returning to Borgess to conduct this test program.
During April, May, and June 1990, a comprehensive emissions testing program
sponsored by EPA and the State of Michigan was conducted at Borgess. This test
program comprised 7 test conditions and a total of 23 test runs. Concentrations of PM,
JBS335 -3"1
-------
metals, CDD/CDF, and HC1 were measured simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the
APCS using manual sampling trains. Indicator spore sampling was also conducted at the
APCS inlet. Additionally, CEMs measured the stack gas concentrations of CO, QQ
SO2, HC1, NO^ O2, and THC. Prior to the start of the 1990 test program, a significant
amount of time and effort was expended in solving test-related issues on the MWI
system, in performing a pretest, and in preparing the facility to ensure the success of the
test program. These issues and site preparation activities are described in detail in the
final test report entitled "Michigan Hospital Incinerator Emissions Test Program.
Volume II: Site Summary Report, Borgess Medical Center Incinerator. April 15. 1991."
The results from the 1990 test showed that little or no control of CDD/CDF was
observed across the DI/FF. In fact, many of the test runs showed that the outlet
CDD/CDF concentrations were higher than the inlet CDD/CDF concentrations
indicating that formation of CDD/CDF was occurring across the DI/FF system.
Additionally, the percent reduction in Hg emissions measured at this facility was less
than 45 percent for all test runs.
Prior to the 1990 test program, it was anticipated that the DI/FF system would
provide significant control (approximately 70 percent) of CDD/CDF and that some level
of control (although small) of Hg would be realized. The results of the 1990 test showed
that, against expectations, CDD/CDF concentrations actually increased across the DI/FF
and that as expected a low level of control of Hg was found. Based on these results, on
similar findings from other emission performance tests on MWIs with DI/FF APCSs, and
on some European test data that showed significant control of both CDD/CDF and HG
when activated carbon was injected into the duct along with the hydrated lime, EPA
made the decision to return to Borgess and conduct another series of tests with and
without activated carbon injection.
3.2.2 Borgess MWI/DI/FF Operating Protocol for Emissions Testing
The following operating protocol was developed and proposed based on the
experience of the previous test program conducted in April and May, 1990. This
protocol is similar to the protocol developed for the previous test program.
JBS335 3-2
-------
3-2.2.1 Incinerator Operating Cycle. During the test, the following incinerator
operating cycles will be used:
• Charging period: 8 to 11 hours
• Buradown period: 6 hours
• Cooldown period: 5 to 8 hours
• Ash removal/preheat: 2 hours
The proposed operating schedule and key sampling events are summarized in
Table 3-1. Sampling will not commence within 2 hours of initiating charging of waste to
the incinerator.
3.2.2.2 Charge Rate. Based on previous experience, the incinerator will be
charged at a rate of 245 to 263 kg/hr (540 to 580 Ib/hr) for a period of 8 to 11 hours.
This charge rate corresponds to charging 7 to 9 charges per hour with each charge
weighing approximately 32 kg (70 Ib). The total weight of waste charged per day will be
limited to 2,722 kg (6,000 Ib).
3.2.2.3 Incinerator Temperatures
Primary Chamber --
The primary chamber temperature will be allowed to vary within its normal
operating range of 593° to 760°C (1100° to MOOT). Testing will be stopped only if a
very unusual temperature condition occurs in the primary chamber. The temperature
setpoint for the primary chamber quench water spray will be 704°C (1300°F).
Retention Chamber —
During testing, the setpoint temperature on the control panel will be set at 1010°C
(1850°F). The retention chamber temperature will be maintained within ±28°C (SOT)
of the setpoint. If the temperature exceeds ±28°C (±50°F) of the setpoint, 5 minutes
will be allowed for the trend to reverse prior to stopping the test. If the trend reverses
within 5 minutes, an additional 5 minutes will be allowed for the temperature to return
within the ±28°C (SOT) range prior to stopping the test.
JBS33S
-------
TABLE 3-1. DAILY OPERATING SCHEDULE
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER
Time
0500-0600
0600-0630
0630-0730
0730
0730-0930
0930
1530
1530-1630
1630-1730
1930
1930-0130
0130-0500
Incinerator
Clean out ash
Check hearth
Preheat; weigh bottom ash
Charge unit; establish
setpoints; boiler auxiliary
burner off
Line-out unit
Begin test
Complete test
Summarize process data
Stop charging
Burndown
Cooldown; boiler auxiliary
burner on when baghouse
temperature drops to
300°F
Fabric Filter
Fill lime hopper; fill
carbon hopper; check lime
injection; check carbon
injection; set lime rate; set
carbon rate; check
baghouse hopper
Begin lime injection
Check lime level;
calculate lime rate; reset
lime rate; calculate carbon
rate
JBS335
3-4
-------
Baghouse -
The pressure drop across the baghouse will be maintained between 747 and
1,992 Pa (1 and 8 in. w.c.).
The baghouse inlet temperature will be maintained within a range of 149° to
326°C (300° to 350°F).
3.2.2.4 Lime Injection Rate. The lime injection rate will be set to achieve better
than 95 percent removal (as measured by the HCL continuous emission monitoring
systems). Based upon the results of the previous test, the stoichiometric ratio (SR)
required to achieve 95 percent removal will be greater than 3:1. For this test program, it
is expected that a lime injection rate of 18 kg/hr (40 Ib/yr) will be adequate.
The lime injection rate will be set just prior to initiating charging. The rate will
be adjusted after the first hour of charging, if necessary, to maintain a lime flow rate of
18 kg/hr (40 Ib/hr). The lime injection rate will not be varied during the test; i.e., the
lime injection rate will not be varied during the test in an attempt to match a varying
HC1 emission rate. Upon the completion of each emission test run, the lime injection
rate will be reset to the facility's normal injection rate (7.7 kg/hr [17 Ib/hr]).
3.2.2.5 Carbon Injection System. The test contractor will make arrangements for
the installation of the activated carbon injection system. The system will be installed
downstream of the last pair of inlet ports to the DI/FF and just upstream of the lime
injection port. Based on information obtained from vendors and emissions tests at other
facilities, activated carbon injection rates of 0.45 and 1.13 kg/hr (1.0 and 2.5 Ib/hr) has
been established. During the test program, the emission test runs without carbon
injection will be completed first. The carbon injection system will be operated
continuously before, during, and after the emission test runs with carbon injection in
order to maintain a carbon cake on the FF bags.
Calibration of the carbon injection rate will be accomplished during the 2-hour
line-out period prior to testing to ensure that the target carbon injection rates are
maintained.
3.2.2.6 Boiler Auxiliary Burner. The boiler auxiliary burner will be off
throughout each day's test. The auxiliary burner will not be turned on until the point in
JBS335
-------
the incinerator cooldown period when the high temperature lockout is activated and the
incinerator is switched to bypass, or until the baghouse inlet temperature drops below
149°C (300°F), whichever occurs first.
3.3 INCINERATOR SYSTEM PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 are simplified schematics of the incinerator and APCS,
respectively. The key components of the system including the incinerator, the heat
recovery boiler, and the APCS are discussed in the sections that follow.
3.3.1 Incinerator
The Model 780-A/31 incinerator is a controlled (starved) -air unit that consists of
a primary chamber, thermal reactor (secondary chamber), and a retention chamber
(tertiary chamber). The incinerator is designed for intermittent duty and the unit must be
shut down and the primary chamber opened in order to remove the bottom ash from the
chamber. The incinerator is rated at a heat input rate of 5.8 x 106 kg/hr
(5.5 x 106 Btu/hr). This heat input rate roughly corresponds to a capacity of 295 kg/hr
(650 Ib/hr) for waste with a higher heating value (HHV) of 19,800 KG/kg
(8,500 Btu/lb).
The primary chamber is cylindrical in shape with refractory-lined walls. Eight
cast-iron plates supported by the frame of the primary chamber form the hearth. Gaps
between the plates and the refractory walls are sealed using a heat resistant ceramic
packing (rope).
The primary chamber combustion air is distributed as underfire air through small,
approximately 3 millimeter (mm) (0.125 inch [in.])-diameter holes in the cast-iron hearth
plates. The underfire combustion air holes are evenly distributed across the entire
surface of the hearth. A single primary air blower provides the air to the primary
chamber. The air damper controlling the air flow to the primary chamber is manually
set (i.e., the airflow rate to the primary chamber is not automatically modulated during
operation). Steam can be injected into the underfire air system (steam injection was
used during the test). Steam is used to help prevent clinker buildup and slagging that
could plug the underfire air ports. Steam injection was employed during the test because
this process is a normal function of the MWI system that helps maintain combustion air
JBS335
3-6
-------
EXHAUST GAS
FROM BAGHOUSE
COMBUSTION AIR
THERMAL
REACTOR
AUXILIARY
BURNER
THERMAL
THERMAL REACTOR
FtEACTOR
PILOT
BURNERS
RETENTION
CHAMBER
LOWER FLOW
CONTROL ORIFICE
STACK
EXHAUST GAS
TO BAGHOUSE
(SEE FIGURE 3-2)
WASTE
HEAT
RECOVERY
BOILER
FIGURE 3-1. SCHEMATIC OF MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATOR/WASTE HEAT BOILER
SYSTEM AT BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER.
-------
CARBON
INJECTION
STACK
VENTURI SECTION
BYPASS FROM INCINERATOR
FAN DAMPER
INDUCED-DRAFT
FAN
oo
BAGHOUSE
ROTARY AIRLOCK
LIME
HOPPER
BAGHOUSE
HOPPER
LIME INJECTION
PIPES
BLOWER
EXHAUST GAS
FROM WASTE
HEAT BOILER
FIGURE 3-2. SCHEMATIC OF DRY LIME INJECTION/FABRIC FILTER AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL SYSTEM AT BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER.
-------
flow to the primary chamber. Design combustion air requirements comprise a total
airflow of 50 dscm/min (1,750 scfm) with 30 percent of the air distributed as underfire
air to the primary chamber and 70 percent distributed to the secondary chamber.
The primary chamber is equipped with a thermocouple and a water spray that is
activated when the primary chamber temperature exceeds a preset value. A differential
pressure gauge is used to monitor the primary chamber pressure.
The primary chamber is equipped with an ash ram that is used to help push the
bottom ash from the chamber during ash removal. The ash ram is also used by the
operators to stoke the ash bed during operation. The bed is either "automatically
stoked" by activating an automatic stoke cycle that moves the ram into the chamber
about two thirds the length of the chamber or the bed is "manually stoked" by manually
activating the ram and moving it several feet into the chamber along the length of the
hearth (the distance depends upon the length of time the operator activates the ram).
Typically, the operators activate the ram until it reaches the end of the hearth during
"manual stoking."
The thermal reactor (secondary chamber) is cylindrical in shape and has a volume
of 1.1 cubic meters (m3) (38.1 cubic feet [ft3]). The thermocouple for the thermal
reactor is located just after the auxiliary thermal reactor burner. The thermal reactor
has three auxiliary burners. Two burners, Pilot Burner No. 1 and Pilot Burner No. 2, are
relatively small burners located near the entrance of the thermal reactor and are used to
provide a flame front and to help maintain a minimum temperature in the thermal
reactor. Each burner is controlled separately; each burner is automatically turned on
when the thermal reactor temperature falls below the preselected on/off setpoint for that
burner. The third burner, the Thermal Reactor Auxiliary Burner, is a larger fully
modulated burner used to maintain a minimum temperature within the retention
chamber. The rate of firing of this auxiliary burner is modulated by establishing set
points of a proportional controller keyed to the temperature measured at the outlet of
the retention chamber.
Secondary combustion air is supplied to the thermal reactor in two places.
"Premix" air is provided at the entrance of the thermal reactor just prior to the two pilot
JBS335
-------
burners; this air is supplied at a constant rate from the primary combustion air blower.
Additional secondary combustion air is provided from a separate secondary combustion
air blower and is injected into the thermal reactor just before the auxiliary thermal
reactor burner. The output of the secondary air blower is fully modulated using a
damper that is controlled using a proportional controller keyed to the retention chamber
temperature. Combustion air for the two pilot burners is provided by the primary air
blower at a constant rate. The auxiliary thermal reactor burner has its own combustion
air blower.
The retention (tertiary) chamber is cylindrical in shape and has a volume of
2.8 m3 (99.9 ft3). The retention chamber does not have any burners nor is additional
combustion air added to the chamber. The retention chamber thermocouple is located
just after the chamber in the duct leading to the waste heat boiler. Both the retention
chamber and the refractory-lined duct connecting the retention chamber and the boiler
provide additional residence time for the hot gases; the duct is 5.3 m (11.75 ft) long and
has a volume of 0.8 m3 (28.2 ft3).
Total residence time for the gases includes the combined residence times of the
thermal reactor, retention chamber, and ductwork leading to the boiler. Residence times
based on the design air flow of 210 m3/min (7,462 acfm) at 980°C (1800°F) are as
follows:
Volume, Volume, Residence
m3 ft3. time, sec
Thermal reactor 1.1 38.1 0.31
Retention chamber 2.8 99.9 0.80
Duct to boiler 0.8 28.2 Q.23
TOTAL 4.7 166.2 1.34
3.3.2 Charging System
The primary chamber of the incinerator is fitted with a mechanical hopper/ram
charging system. The wastes are transported to the incinerator in identical plastic carts.
Each cart load is weighed individually on a scale that is tared to account for the weight
of the cart and the net weight is recorded in a daily log. The incinerator is equipped
JBS335
3-10
-------
with an automatic cart dumper to lift each cart and dump the load into the hopper of the
hopper/ram charging system. Each charge consists of a single cartload typically weighing
between 27 and 39 kg (60 and 85 Ib). During the tests, the weight of each charge was
controlled.
3.3.3 Bottom Ash Removal System
Ash from the incinerator is removed manually from the primary chamber the
morning after the bum. The rear of the incinerator has a refractory-lined door that is
opened by sliding straight upward while remaining in position against the end of the
chamber. The rear of the incinerator also is hinged on one side and can be opened by
pulling the back end away from the chamber and pivoting the door assembly on the
hinges. An ash cart is placed against the rear of the incinerator such that the top of the
open cart is below the level of the hearth. The rear door assembly includes a three-
sided shroud that can be hydraulically lowered over the cart. The shroud contains a row
of water sprays which can be manually activated to wet the ash as it is being discharged
to the ash cart. (The water sprays were not used during testing so that the dry ash could
be weighed). During ash removal, the rear door assembly is raised such that there is
about a 0.9 m (2 ft) high opening along the width of the hearth; this opening between
the hearth and the ash cart is covered by the shroud. The ash ram is used to push ash
through the opening into the ash cart. Once the ash ram is no longer effective at
removing the ash, the rear door is unlatched and swung open exposing the primary
chamber hearth to the operator. The operator, wearing protective clothing and a full
face respirator, rakes the remaining ash from the hearth into the shrouded cart. After
all the ash is raked off of the hearth, the shroud is lifted and the cart rolled away from
the rear of the incinerator. A hoist is used to lift the cart and to dump the ash into a
large dumpster located outside. During the tests, the ash carts containing the bottom ash
from each run were weighed prior to dumping.
3.3.4 Waste Heat Boiler
The waste heat boiler is a 1,960 kilowatt (kW) (200 horsepower [hp]) Cleaver
Brooks unit rated at 3,090 kg (6,800 Ib) of steam per hour. The waste heat boiler design
includes an auxiliary gas burner, which is capable of providing about half of the rated
-------
output. The boiler can be operated in the waste heat recovery mode, auxiliary fuel
mode, or dual mode. During the tests, the boiler was operated in the waste heat
recovery mode only, i.e., the auxiliary burner was turned off during all testing so that
emissions from the boiler burner would not interfere with the emissions from the MWI.
The boiler is equipped with an automatic, continuous-cycle soot blowing system. The
soot blower was operated normally throughout the testing.
3.3.5 Air Pollution Control System
The APCS consists of dry lime injection for hydrochloric acid gas control followed
by a fabric filter baghouse for PM control.
3.3.5.1 Dry Lime Injection. Hydrated lime (Mississippi Lime Company) is
injected into the flue gas duct between the waste heat boiler and the baghouse. Lime is
received in 22.7 kg (50 Ib) bags. The lime is dumped by the operator, as needed, into a
feed hopper. The lime is discharged via gravity from the bottom of the feed hopper into
a flexible pipe that is connected to the discharge end of an air blower rated at
2.8 scm/min (98 scfm). The lime discharged from the hopper is blown through the pipe
by the blower (as well as pulled through the pipe by the draft created by the baghouse
induced-draft fan) and is injected into a venturi section of the duct about 15 m (50 ft)
upstream of the baghouse.
The rate of discharge of lime from the lime hopper is controlled by a rotary air
lock valve. To assist with gravity flow of the lime, the hopper is vibrated and a screw
auger is used within the hopper. Operation of the vibrator, auger, and rotary valve are
all controlled by a programmable microprocessor system. The primary control for the
feed rate is the frequency and duration of the operation of the rotary valve. The injector
system is designed to feed reagent in the range of 2.3 to 14 kg/hr (5 to 30 Ib/hr).
However, during the previous test program, lime injection rates greater than 27 kg/hr
(60 Ib/hr) were achieved. During the latest test program (September 1991), lime
injection rates of greater than 18 kg/hr (40 Ib/hr) were achieved.
One of the major drawbacks to this lime injection system discovered during the
previous test program was the piping system used to transport the lime to the inlet duct.
The lime feed hopper is located on the mezzanine adjacent to the waste heat boiler
JBS335
3-12
-------
inside the MWI building and the inlet duct is located on the roof of the building.
Therefore, the lime has to travel down from the hopper to the piping where it is blown
and pulled through the piping up to the roof (approximately 4.6 m [15 ft]). Previously,
the piping system used to transport the lime to the inlet duct consisted of 5-centimeter
(2-inch) ID metal pipe with seven 90° bends before it reached the inlet duct. This
configuration and the vertical orientation of the pipe created a high potential for lime
pluggage in the piping. The higher the lime rate was, the greater was the potential for
pluggage. A hammer was rapped on the pipes several times during the previous test
program to dislodge lime from the inside surface of the pipe to prevent pluggage. Since
the completion of the previous test program, Borgess installed a flexible pipe to replace
5 of the 90° bends inside the building. Additionally, prior to this year's test program,
EPA requested that Borgess also install a flexible pipe on the roof to eliminate the
remaining two 90° bends prior to injection into the duct. The addition of these flexible
ducts prevented pluggage during the test program.
3.3.5.2 Activated Carbon Injection. During this test program, activated carbon
was injected (for five of the eight runs) into the inlet duct to the baghouse just prior to
the venturi section where the lime is injected. The activated carbon injection system was
comprised of a screw feeder system that metered the activated carbon to a funnel welded
to the inlet duct. The activated carbon was drawn into the duct by the draft created by
the ID fan. The rate at which carbon was injected was adjusted using a controller that
adjusted the voltage and, thereby, the speed of the screw feeder. During this test
program, a coal-based thermally-activated carbon was used. This activated carbon has an
average surface area of 950 m2/gram (4.64 x 106 ft2/lb), an average pore radius of 1.5 nm
(5.9 x 10"8 in.), a particle size of 97.1 percent less than 200 mesh and 72.8 percent less
than 325 mesh, and a tamp density of 687.2 kg/m3 (42.9 lb/ft3).
3.3.5.3 Fabric Filter Baghouse. The fabric filter baghouse is a MicroPul pulse-jet
baghouse operated under negative pressure. The design specifications for the baghouse
are presented in Table 3-2. The baghouse is a single compartment baghouse with
continuous cleaning. Each row of bags is cleaned every 80 seconds, resulting in a
complete cleaning cycle about every 19 minutes. The system is designed such that a
JBS335
-------
TABLE 3-2. FABRIC FILTER DESIGN PARAMETERS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER
Design
Fabric Filter Type3
Construction Material8
Number of Compartments
Filter Bag Material3
Bag Material Maximum Temperature3
Number of Filter Bags3 b
Bag Size3
Cloth Area3
Total Cloth Area3
Design AirCloth Ratio"
Pressure Differential Range
Pulse Jet
Carbon Steel
One
Fiberglass, Teflon®-coated
475°F
168
10 ft x 4.5 in diameter
11.77 ftVbag
1977 ft2
3:1
1 to 6 in. w.c.
3Source of Information: MikroPul Owner's Manual and specifications.
bSource of Information: Notes from trip to facility.
3-14
-------
relatively constant differential pressure across the baghouse in the range of 249 to
1,245 pascals (1 to 5 inch water column [in. w.c.]) is maintained. Draft through the
system is maintained by a single ID fan downstream of the baghouse; an automatically
controlled damper on the ID fan is used for airflow control.
The ID-fan damper is controlled by a proportional controller based on the
measurement of primary chamber draft. Since the previous test, a new controller had
been installed. This new controller made adjustments to the ID-fan damper too quickly
and overcompensated for each change in primary chamber draft. As a result, the ID-fan
damper tended to fluctuate significantly as the proportional controller tried to maintain
the primary chamber draft within the upper and lower draft setpoints. This fluctuation
in the ID-fan damper also caused fluctuations in stack gas flow rate and baghouse
pressure drop. As a result of these fluctuations, a decision was made to remove the
ID-fan damper controller linkage and to tighten down the damper in one position that
produced the system design stack gas flow rate. Prior to testing each day, the flow rate
was measured and the damper position adjusted, as necessary, to maintain the design
stack gas flow rate.
The baghouse residue is continuously discharged from the collection hopper
through a rotary air lock valve into a 132.5 liter (L) (35 gallon [gal]) container. The
containers are lined with plastic bags and when a container is full, the bag is removed by
the operator, sealed, and discarded into a dumpster and later removed to a hazardous
waste landfill. The residue has a high lead content that classifies the waste as hazardous
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
3.4 TYPICAL OPERATING SCHEDULE
At the beginning of each day, the ash from the previous burn cycle is removed
from the incinerator. After the ash is removed, the hearth is covered with cardboard
and the chamber is sealed. The cardboard provides an ash bed that inhibits clinker
formation and slagging on the hearth. The thermal reactor burners are turned on to
preheat the thermal reactor and the retention chamber. After a minimum temperature
is achieved in the retention chamber, typically 968°C (1800°F), the primary chamber
burner is started and the waste bed ignited. The first three charges to the incinerator
-------
are cartloads of cardboard (to assist in developing a good ash bed) and are made in
rapid succession. The fourth charge is medical waste. Once the waste bed is ignited, the
primary chamber burner is no longer needed because combustion is self-sustaining.
Subsequent charges are made at regular intervals so that seven to eight charges per hour
are typically made. The charging is continued for up to 12 hours, but the manufacturer
recommends that not more than a total of 2,727 kg (6,000 Ib) is charged during any
single burn cycle. When charging is completed for the day, the incinerator is put into an
automatic burndown cycle. During the 6-hour burndown period, the large auxiliary
thermal reactor burner remains operational for 3 hours while the remaining two thermal
reactor pilot burners operate for the entire 6-hour period. The operating permit
specifies that tertiary chamber temperatures be maintained at a minimum of 871°C
(1600T) during burndown while any waste is still burning. The combustion air blowers
continue to operate until the unit is shut down for ash removal. After the incinerator
has gone through the burndown cycle and the primary chamber has cooled (usually about
4 to 6 hours after the burndown cycle is completed), the ash removal process begins.
During operation, the operators stoke the waste bed on a regular basis through
operation of the ash ram. The purpose of stoking is to agitate the waste bed thereby
exposing all waste surfaces to heat and air and resulting in improved burnout. Stoking is
initiated by the operator after every six charges. The first two stokes of each trio of
stokes are automatic stokes where the ash ram travels approximately two-thirds of the
length of the waste bed. Every third stoke is a manual stoke where the ash ram is
manually operated such that the ash ram travels to the end of the waste bed. The results
of stoking are increased temperatures in all three chambers as waste burns and volatiles
are released. The temperature surges in the tertiary chamber were unpredictable.
However, manual stokes typically caused larger temperature increases than automatic
stokes. Typically, manual stokes were not conducted during testing because manual
stokes tended to boost tertiary chamber temperature above the target temperature range.
Automatic stokes were conducted in some cases. The stoking cycles used during testing
are described in the test run summaries in Section 3.5.3.
JBS335
3-16
-------
3.5 PROCESS OPERATION DURING TESTING
3.5.1 Introduction
The test program at Borgess consisted of three test conditions (eight test runs).
For each test condition, the MWI and DI/FF systems were operated at the same
operating conditions as indicated in the test protocol in Section 3.2.2. The only
difference between the three test conditions was the carbon injection rate. In
Condition 1, no activated carbon was injected (three test runs). In Condition 2, activated
carbon was injected at a rate of 0.45 kg/hr (1 Ib/hr) (two test runs). In Condition 3,
activated carbon was injected at a rate of 3.1 kg/hr (2.5 Ib/hr) (three test runs).
During each test run, charges of approximately 32 kg (70 Ib) were made every
7.5 minutes to maintain a consistent charge rate of approximately 254 kg/hr (560 Ib/hr).
Every attempt was made to maintain the charge rate for each test conditions. However,
the primary process parameter in this test program was tertiary chamber temperature.
The main objective during each test run was to maintain tertiary chamber temperatures
in the 982° to 1038°C (1800° to 1900°F) range. Therefore, if temperatures exceeded this
temperature range, then waste charging would be suspended until such time as the
temperature dropped back into the range. Specific guidelines for the length of time
testing could continue at temperatures outside the target range are presented in the test
protocol in Section 3.2.2. In almost all cases, these high temperature excursions were
short-lived (i.e., less than 10 minutes), and testing continued without interruption.
Obviously, when charging was suspended because of high tertiary chamber temperatures,
the charge rate for the test period was lower than the target charge rate.
Another goal of the test program was to achieve the high HC1 removal rates
obtained during the previous test program. Based on the results of the previous test
program, a target lime injection rate of 18 kg/hr (40 Ib/hr) was used during each of the
test runs on this test program. While the microprocessor controller could be set to
establish the target lime injection rate, the actual lime injection rate achieved could be
more or less than the target rate.
-------
Because of the potential for pluggage of the lime injection system, the system was
disconnected, inspected, and cleaned, as necessary, before each test run. Typically, very
little lime buildup was observed during these inspections as a direct result of the
installation of the flexible lime transport pipes.
Prior to each test, the main control panel was checked to make sure that the
waste heat recovery boiler was operating in the waste heat recovery mode only.
However, at the end of the test, the boiler operator was instructed to place the waste
heat recovery boiler into dual mode so that in addition to receiving heat input from the
MWI, the boiler would also receive heat from the auxiliary fuel burner. The main
reason for switching to dual mode was to maintain a baghouse inlet temperature of
about 150°C (SOOT) thereby preventing moisture condensation in the baghouse and
blinded bags.
Other activities were conducted on a daily basis. Once the ash had been
removed, the air pressure from the combustion air ports was measured, and any ports
plugged with ash were rodded out. The hearth seals were inspected for air in-leakage
and any substantial leaks were repaired by tamping ceramic rope packing into the
leaking area. Other activities performed prior to testing included: checking the
baghouse hopper for bridging; checking to make sure that the waste heat boiler soot
blower was on and that the boiler auxiliary burner was off (i.e., that the boiler was in its
waste heat recovery only mode); and blowing back the various system draft pressure
lines.
The remainder of this section provides details of the process operation during
testing and for those days where CEMs were operated all night to measure emissions
during MWI startup and shutdown. Section 3.5.2 summarizes the MWI and DI/FF
process operation during each of the test runs conducted and during the all-night CEM
operation. Section 3.5.3 provides test run summaries that describe any process anomalies
that occurred during each test run. Section 3.5.4 describes the process operation during
the all-night CEM operation.
JBS335
-------
3.5.2 Summary of Process Operation
For the most part, the MWI system at Borgess performed well during the test
program. The most common process problem was high temperature excursions that
required withholding waste charges to allow the system to cool. Additionally, because
stoking generally caused high temperature excursions over 1038°C (1900°F), stoking was
often conducted during the port change. As a result, charging was not conducted during
the port change when temperatures exceeding 1038°C (1900°F) were experienced.
Therefore, in reporting the process data for each of the test runs, both total test period
(period of time from the beginning of the test to the end of the test including the port
change) and actual sampling period (same as the total test period with the process data
removed for the port change and for any sampling or process anomalies) process data
sets were developed. These data are presented in Appendix along with graphs of
the chamber temperature profiles during testing.
Tables 3-3 and 3-4 show the MWI process and DI/FF process data generated
during each of the test runs conducted at Borgess. The process data presented are
averages of all of the data collected during the actual sampling period of each test run.
Therefore, the averages do not include data taken during port changes or any anomalies
where sampling did not occur.
3.5.3 Test Run Summaries
The following paragraphs briefly summarize each test run by describing the
quantity of waste charged during both the total test period and the actual sampling
period, the weight of charges to the incinerator, and any process anomalies such as
stoppages and high temperature excursions. The high temperature excursions were those
periods of time when temperatures in the tertiary chamber exceeded the 982° to 1038°C
(1800° to 1900°F) target temperature range. Typically, manual stoking was not
conducted during testing. However, automatic stokes were conducted except where
tertiary chamber temperatures were close to the upper limit of the target temperature
range.
3.5.3.1 Test No. 1. Test No. 1 was conducted on September 6, 1991. Because of
problems with one of the sampling trains, this test was aborted.
JBS335 3'19
-------
TABLE 3-3. INCINERATOR PROCESS DATA
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER
Run
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
9/07/91
9/09/92
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
Testing
Charge
Rate
(Ib/hr)
TTP
548
443
510
523
484
526
454
522
ASP
577
506
565
554
551
591
528
525
Daily Operation
Charging
hr
9.8
9.8
8.6
11.6
11.3
12.1
12.2
13
Ib
5176
4690
4270
6075
6051
6085
5880
6720
Ib/hr
528
479
497
524
535
503
482
517
Ash
(%)
12.5
11.2
8.1
10
12.2
10.5
11.7
NA
Average Chamber Temperature
TO
Primary
1281
1220
1291
1298
1289
1294
1293
1305
Secondary
1854
1888
1860
1856
1883
1846
1850
1848
Tertiary
1839
1846
1831
1836
1866
1827
1819
1823
Boiler Inlet
Temperature
TO
1406
1236
1172
1280
1335
1293
1240
1452
NA = Not Available.
-------
TABLE 3-4. LIME INJECTION/CARBON INJECTION/
FABRIC FILTER PROCESS DATA
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER
Run
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
9/07/91
9/09/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
Fabric Filter Inlet Temperature
CF)
Average
332
334
329
326
338
335
326
336
Maximum
340
339
337
335
350
344
339
343
Minimum
304
320
309
283
306
322
303
327
Fabric
Flter
Pressure
(inuW.C.)
1.19
1.20
123
1.04
1.19
1.23
1.16
1.16
lime
Injection
Rate*
(Ib/hr)
40.5
43.9
42.4
41.2
43.8
42.2
40.0
40.4
Carbon
Injection
Rate"
(Ib/hr)
c
c
c
1.0
1.0
2.5
2_5
2_5
''Target lime rate is 40 Ib/hr.
bFor Runs 5 and 6, the target carbon injection rate is 1.0 Ib/hr. For Runs 7, 8, and 9, the target carbon
injection rate is 23 Ib/hr.
cNo activated carbon injection.
JBS335
3-21
-------
3.5.3.2 Test No. 2. Test No. 2 was conducted on September 7, 1991. The entire
lime system was plugged this morning. During the velocity traverse prior to testing, a rag
was drawn into the inlet duct, was lodged momentarily in the venturi section of the duct,
and ended up fouling the rotary air lock at the baghouse discharge. The average charge
rate for the total test period was 248.7 kg/hr (548.2 Ib/hr), while that for the actual
sampling period was 261.5 kg/hr. (576.5 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained between 31
and 34 kg/charge (69 and 75 Ib/charge) during testing with most charges weighing 32 kg
(70 Ib). Stoking was not conducted during this test. However, a manual stoke was
conducted during the port change.
3.5.3.3 Test No. 3. Test No. 3 was conducted on September 9, 1991. The
average charge rate for the total test period was 201.1 kg/hr (443.3 Ib/hr), while that for
the actual sampling period was 229.4 kg/hr (505.8 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained at
32 kg/charge (70 Ib/charge) throughout testing. All three scheduled automatic stokes
were conducted during the first traverse. A manual stoke was conducted during the port
change. Two of the three automatic stokes scheduled during the second traverse were
skipped.
3.5.3.4 Test No. 4. Test No. 4 was conducted on September 10, 1991. The
average charge rate for the total test period was 231.3 kg/hr (509.9 Ib/hr), while that for
the actual sampling period was 256.5 kg/hr (565.4 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained at
32 kg/charge (70 Ib/charge) throughout testing. Two of the three scheduled automatic
stokes were conducted during the first traverse. A manual stoke was conducted during
the port change. Two of the three automatic stokes scheduled during the second
traverse were skipped.
3.5.3.5 Test No. 5. Test No. 5 was conducted on September 11, 1991. The
average charge rate for the total test period was 237.2 kg/hr (522.9 Ib/hr) while that for
the actual sampling period was 251.4 kg/hr (554.2 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained
between 31 and 34 kg/charge (69 and 75 Ib/charge) during testing with most charges
weighing 32 kg (70 Ib). One of the three scheduled automatic stokes was conducted
during the first traverse. A manual stoke was conducted during the port change. One of
the two scheduled automatic stokes was conducted during the second traverse.
JBS335
3-22
-------
3.5.3.6 Test No. 6. Test No. 6 was conducted on September 12, 1991. The
average charge rate for the total test period was 219.6 kg/hr (484.1 Ib/hr), while that for
the actual sampling period was 249.7 kg/hr (550.6 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained
between 31 and 33 kg/charge (69 and 73 Ib/charge) during testing. Of the two
automatic stokes and one manual stoke scheduled during the first traverse, one of the
automatic stokes was conducted. A manual stoke was conducted during the port change.
One of the three scheduled automatic stokes was conducted during the second traverse.
3.5.3.7 Test No 7. Test No. 7 was conducted on September 13, 1991. The
average charge rate for the total test period was 238.7 kg/charge (526.2 Ib/hr), while that
for the actual sampling period was 267.6 kg/hr (590.5 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained
between 32 and 34 kg/charge (70 and 74 Ib/charge) during testing with most charges
weighing 32 kg (70 Ib). Two of the three scheduled automatic stokes were conducted
during the first traverse. A manual stoke was conducted during the port change. One of
the two scheduled automatic stokes was conducted during the second traverse.
3.5.3.8 Test No. 8. Test No. 8 was conducted on September 14, 1991. The
average charge rate for the total test period was 206.0 kg/hr (454.1 Ib/hr), while that for
the actual sampling period was 239.4 kg/hr (527.8 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained
between 32 and 35 kg/charge (70 and 78 Ib/charge) with most charges weighing between
32 and 33 kg/charge (70 and 72 Ib/charge). During the port change, another rag was
drawn through the baghouse system and was jammed in the rotary air lock. This
incident caused the rotary air lock fuses to be blown and testing to be delayed for about
an hour. The fuses were replaced and the system was placed back in operation. Stoking
was not conducted during this test. However, a manual stoke was conducted during the
port change.
3.5.3.9 Test No. 9. Test No. 9 was conducted on September 16, 1991. The
average charge rate for the total test period was 236.8 kg/hr (522.0 Ib/hr), while that for
the actual sampling period was 238.1 kg/hr (525.0 Ib/hr). Charges were maintained at
32 kg/charge (70 Ib/charge) throughout testing. During the first traverse, two scheduled
automatic stokes and one scheduled manual stoke were conducted. A manual and an
JBS335
-------
automatic stoke were conducted during the port change. One of the two scheduled
automatic stokes was conducted during the second traverse.
3.5.4 Process Operation During 24-Hour GEM Operation
In addition to operating the CEMS during the testing periods, several attempts
were made early in the test program to operate the CEMS for 24-hour periods in order
to measure emissions during the startup, burndown, and cooldown periods of the MWI
operating cycle. However, on each of these occasions, the system ID fan would
shutdown during burndown causing MWI exhaust gases to flow through the bypass
system instead of through the waste heat boiler and DI/FF system. Several different
hypotheses were postulated to explain the ID fan failure. The following paragraphs
explain the problem and solution in detail.
As explained earlier, when the system goes into burndown, the large auxiliary
thermal reactor burner and Pilot Burners No. 1 and No. 2 cycle on and off to maintain
their setpoint temperatures. After hours, the large auxiliary burner cycles off and
remains off while the two smaller pilot burners continue to cycle on and off to maintain
set point temperatures. During the early attempts to perform 24-hour CEMS
monitoring, the ID fan would shutdown a few minutes after the large auxiliary burner
cycled off for good (approximately 3 hours into the burndown period). The two small
pilot burners cannot maintain the approximately 982° to 1010°C (1800° to 1850°F)
setpoint temperatures without the auxiliary burner. Therefore, the secondary and
tertiary chamber temperatures drop quickly when the auxiliary burner remains off.
While several solutions were postulated regarding the ID fan shutdown, the problem
turned out to be the improper setting of the high temperature setpoint on the retention
chamber.
Almost all setpoints are adjusted using proportional controllers located behind the
main control panel. The exceptions include the high temperature setpoint and the
minimum temperature lockout for the retention chamber, and the high and low setpoints
for the fabric filter. These setpoints are adjusted using the retention chamber and fabric
filter LED readouts/controllers. These readouts/controllers are located on the front of
the control panel and are accessed by removing the plastic view-glass. The LED readout
JBS335 3-24
-------
ordinarily displays the instantaneously measured temperature (i.e., retention chamber or
fabric filter). The high or low read/reset buttons must be depressed to display the
appropriate setpoint on the LED readout. The setpoints can be adjusted using the
appropriate adjusting screw.
On Friday evening, September 13, 1991, the high temperature setpoint for the
retention chamber was found to be 1614T. Therefore, on the previous attempts to
perform 24-hour CEMS monitoring, when the large auxiliary burner cycled off, the two
pilot burners could not maintain setpoint temperatures, and when the thermal reactor
temperature dropped below 1614°F, the ID fan shut off allowing the MWI exhaust gases
to flow to bypass. With the waste heat boiler burner off, the 1614°F temperature is the
temperature above which the boiler recovers heat from the MWI and below which the
ID fan shuts off. Because testing was conducted with the waste boiler burner off, the
1614°F setpoint temperature controlled the operation of the ID fan.
For the 24-hour CEMS operation on Friday, September 13, 1991, the high
temperature setpoint for the retention chamber was adjusted from 1614°F to 1206°F
using the adjusting screw on the LED readout panel. This temperature closely paralleled
the 1215°F setpoint that was used during the previous test program. At this setpoint
temperature, even after the auxiliary burner shutdown, the ID fan stayed on, the waste
heat boiler continued to recover heat, and the CEMS continued to monitor the MWI
exhaust gases. At the conclusion of the burndown period (i.e., after the two pilot
burners had shutdown), temperatures dropped rapidly below the 1206°F setpoint
temperature causing the ID fan to shutdown again. The operator was asked to start up
the waste boiler burner (i.e., dual mode) after the end of burndown but before the
tertiary chamber temperature fell below 1206°F. Unfortunately there was a problem
with the boiler flame sensor that prevented the boiler from coming on line. As a result
of the ID fan shutdown, CEMs were measured only through the end of burndown and
for a short period afterwards.
-------
4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
The sampling locations used during the emission testing program at the Borgess
Medical Center MWI are described in this section. Flue gas samples were collected at
three sampling locations.
Flue gas samples for CDD/CDF and PM were collected at the boiler inlet. This
was a refractory-lined 21-inch ID duct with a gas temperature of approximately 1,400°F.
Two 3-inch ports were used to access the duct. A total of 20 sampling points were used.
A general schematic of this location is shown in Figure 4-1. The traverse point layout
for this location is shown in Figure 4-2.
Flue gas was also sampled at the baghouse inlet which consisted of a horizontal
16-inch ID duct located on top of the roof of the facility. There were three sets of two
4-inch port nipples used to gain access to the flue gas. A general schematic is shown in
Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4 gives the traverse point layout for this location.
The third sampling location was at the baghouse outlet. A schematic is presented
in Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6 depicts the traverse point layout for the baghouse outlet.
There were four sets of two ports (4-inch nipples) on this horizontal duct located on the
roof of the facility. A total of 24 sampling points was used at this location.
JBS335
-------
By-Pass to Stack
From Retention
Chamber
3"0
30-0.0.
21' I.D.
Figure 4-1. Borgess MWI Boiler Inlet Location
4-2
-------
Portl
Port 2
Duct Diameter 21.0"
Wall Thickness (including port length): 4"
Port Diameter: 3
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% of Diameter
2.6
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.4
Distance from Inner Wall
(inches)
0.5
1.7
3.1
4.7
7.2
13.8
16.3
17.9
19.3
20.5
Distance from
Outside of Port
(inches)
4.5
5.7
7.1
8.7
11.2
17.8
20.3
21.9
23.3
24.5
Figure 4-2. Traverse Point Layout - Boiler Inlet
4-3
-------
16"
o o o
Flow
Carbon Injection
To
Baghouse
From Boiler
Figure 4-3. Borgess MWI Baghouse Inlet Location
s
«
to
§
4-4
-------
Port 3, 5, 7
2
3
4
5
Port 4, 6, 8
12 11 10 9 8
Duct Diameter: 16"
Wall Thickness (including port length): 4'
Port Diameter 4"
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
% of Diameter
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.6
64.4
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
Distance from Inner Wall
(inches)
0.5
1.0
1.8
2.7
3.9
5.5
10.0
11.6
12.8
13.7
14.5
15.0
Distance from
Outside of Port
(inches)
4.5
5.0
5.8
6.7
7.9
9.5
14.0
15.6
16.8
17.7
18.5
19.0
Figure 4-4. Traverse Point Layout - Baghouse Inlet
4-5
-------
To Stack
19'
-\
9
7
zr
5
i
-------
Port 10, 12, 14, 16, 18
Port9,11, 13, 15,
Duct Diameter: 26.5*
Wall Thickness (including port length): 4'
Port Diameter: 4"
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
% of Diameter
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.6
64.4
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
Distance from Inner Wall
(inches)
1.0
1.8
3.1
4.7
6.6
9.4
17.1
19.9
21.8
23.4
24.7
25.5
Distance from
Outside of Port
(inches)
5.0
5.8
7.1
8.7
10.6
13.4
21.1
23.9
25.8
27.4
28.7
29.5
Figure 4-6. Traverse Point Layout - Baghouse Outlet
4-7
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The sampling and analytical procedures used for the Borgess Medical Center
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
are presented by analyte.
A summary of the sampling methods that were used is included in Table 5-1.
Sampling times, minimum sampling volumes, and detection limits are summarized for the
manual sampling methods in Table 5-2.
5.1 CDD/CDF EMISSIONS TESTING METHOD
The sampling and analytical method for determining flue gas emissions of
CDD/CDF is EPA Proposed Method 23. This methodology is a combination of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 1984 draft protocol and the EPA
Method 8290. The analytical method is designated as Method 8290X by Triangle
Laboratories, Inc., Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina, who performs the
analyses. (For proprietary reasons, Triangle Laboratories has requested that a copy of
their standard operating procedures not be included in this test report.)
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) are
pre-cleaned using solvent rinses and extraction techniques; and
• A condensing coil and XAD-II* resin absorption module are located
between the filter and impinger train.
All sampling equipment specifications are detailed in the reference method shown
in the Appendices.
-------
TABLE 5-1. TEST METHODS BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER MWI
Analyte
Method
CDD/CDF
Mercury
Particulates
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Beryllium
Antimony
Barium
Silver
Thallium
SO2
02/C02
CO
NOX
THC
HC1
EPA Proposed 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
HC1
HBr
HF
EPA Draft Method 26
EPA Draft Method 26
EPA Draft Method 26
Loss-On-Ignition
Carbon
ASTM D3174
ASTM D 3178
JBS335
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. SAMPLING TIMES, MINIMUM SAMPLING VOLUMES
AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER MWI TESTS
Detection Limit
Sampling Time
Sampling Train (hours)
CDD/CDF 4b
PM/Metals 4b
Minimum
Sample
Volume
(dscf)
120
60
Analyte
CDD/CDF
PM
As
CD
CR
Pb
Hg
Ni
Be
Ba
Sb
Ag
Tl
Flue Gasa
(Mg/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/mO
0.01 ngc
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
4
1
60
120 liters'1
Hg
cr
Br"
F
2.2
28
32
100
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.
JRS335
5-3
-------
Gooseneck /
Nozzle /
V
Stack
Wall
Temperature /
Sensor
1
Temperature Sensor
Filter Holder
Temperature Sensor
Temperature Sensor
S-Type Pitot Tube \J
(-r\
Heat Traced
Quartz Probe
Liner
Recirculation
Pump
Temperature /
Sensors „ Water Knockout 100 ml HPLC Water Empty Silica Gel
Impinger ^ (30° 9)
Vacuum
Gauge
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-1. CDD/CDF Sampling Train Configuration
-------
5.1.2 CDD/CDF Equipment Preparation
In addition to the standard EPA Method 5 requirements, the CDD/CDF
sampling method includes several unique preparation steps which ensure that the
sampling train components are not contaminated with organics that could interfere with
analysis. The glassware, glass fiber filters and absorbing resin were cleaned, and the
filters and resin were checked for residuals before they were packed.
5.1.2.1 Glassware Preparation. Glassware was cleaned as shown in Table 5-3.
Glassware was washed in soapy water, rinsed with distilled water, baked and then rinsed
with acetone followed by methylene chloride. Clean glassware was loosely covered with
foil and allowed to dry under a hood to prevent laboratory contamination. Once the
glassware was dry, the ends exposed to air were sealed with methylene chloride-rinsed
aluminum foil. All the glass components of the sampling train, including the glass
nozzles and 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 (Step 4 omitted).
This cleaning procedure deviates from the EPA proposed method. However,
Radian believes that the use of chromic acid solution may result in analytical
interferences with the compounds of interest.
5.1.2.2 XAD-IT* 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 filters were placed hi a soxhlet pre-cleaned by
extraction with toluene. The soxhlet was charged with fresh toluene and reflexed 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 are found, the filters are
re-extracted until no TCDD or TCDF is detected.) The filters were then dried
JBS335
-------
TABLE 5-3. CDD/CDF GLASSWARE CLEANING PROCEDURE
(Train Components, Sample Containers and
Laboratory Glassware)
NOTE: USE VTTON® GLOVES AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION WHEN
RINSING WITH SOLVENTS
1. Soak all glassware in hot soapy water (Alconox®).
2. Tap water rinse to remove soap.
3. Rinse with distilled/deionized H2O (X3).a
4. Bake at 450°F for 2 hours."
5. Rinse with acetone (X3), (pesticide grade).
6. Rinse with 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. Immediately rinse glassware 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 baking sufficiently removes organic artifacts. Baking 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).
JBS335
-------
completely under a clean nitrogen (N2) gas stream. Each filter was individually checked
for holes, tears, creases or discoloration. If any had been found, the filter would have
been 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:
• Rinse with HPLC grade water, discard water;
• Soak in HPLC grade water overnight, discard water;
• Extract in soxhlet with HPLC grade water for 8 hours, discard water;
• Extract with methanol for 22 hours, discard solvent;
• Extract with methylene chloride for 22 hours, discard solvent;
• Extract with methylene chloride for 22 hours, retain an aliquot of solvent
for gas chromatography analysis of TCDD and TCDF; and
• Dry resin under a clean N2 stream.
Once the resin was completely dry, it was checked for the presence of methylene
chloride, TCDD and TCDF as described in Section 3.1.2.3.1 of the reference method.
(If TCDD or TCDF are found, the resin is re-extracted. If methylene chloride is found,
the resin is dried until the excess solvent is removed.) The absorbent was used within
four weeks of cleaning as specified by the method.
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. The results were properly documented in a
JBS335
-------
laboratory notebook and retained. The techniques used to calibrate this equipment
followed EPA guidelines.
5.1.3 CDD/CDF Sampling Operations
5.1.3.1 Preliminary Measurements. Prior to sampling, preliminary measurements
were required to ensure isokinetic sampling. These included determining the traverse
point locations and performing a preliminary velocity traverse, cyclonic flow check and
moisture determination. These measurements were then used to calculate a K factor.
The K factor was used to determine an isokinetic sampling rate from stack gas flow
readings taken during sampling.
Measurements were made of the duct inside diameter, port nozzle length, and the
distances to the nearest upstream and downstream flow disturbances. These
measurements were used to determine sampling point locations by EPA Reference
Method 1 guidelines. The distances were then marked on the sampling probe with 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 assembled and
laid out in the proper order in the recovery trailer. Each ground glass joint was carefully
inspected for hairline cracks. The first impinger was a knockout impinger which had 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 and the initial weight and contents of each
impinger was recorded on a recovery data sheet. The impingers were connected using
clean glass U-tube connectors and were arranged in the impinger bucket as shown in
Figure 5-2. All the impingers were approximately the same height 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 capped and placed with the resin trap and condenser coil (capped)
JBS335
5-8
-------
SHdes 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
-------
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 use by 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 shown in Figure 5-1.
5.1.3.3 Sampling Procedures. After the train was assembled, the probe liner and
filter box heaters and the sorbent module/condenser coil recirculating pump were turned
on. When the system reached the appropriate temperatures, the sampling train was
ready for pre-test leak checking. The temperature of the sorbent module resin must not
exceed 50°C (120°F) at any time, and during testing it must not exceed 20°C (68°F). The
filter skin temperature was maintained at 120 ±14°C (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 incorporates leak checks before and after every port change.
An acceptable pre-test leak rate was less than 0.02 acfm (ft3/min) at approximately
15 inches of Hg. If a piece of glassware needed to be emptied or replaced during
testing, 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 subsided,
and then the pump was turned off. If the leak rate requirement was not met, the train
was systematically checked by capping the train first at the filter, then at the first
impinger, etc., until the leak was located and corrected.
After a successful pre-test leak check had been conducted and all train
components were at their specified temperatures, initial data were recorded (DGM
reading) and the test was initiated. Sampling train data were recorded periodically on
JBS335
-------
standard data forms. A checklist for CDD/CDF sampling is included in Table 5-4. A
sampling requirement 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 which circulated water at 0°C (32°F).
The leak rates and sampling start and stop times were recorded on the sampling
log. Any events occurring during sampling that could potentially affect sampling results
were also recorded on the sampling log.
At the conclusion of the test run, the sample pump (or flow) was turned off, the
probe was removed from the duct, a final DGM reading was taken, and a post-test leak
check was completed. The procedure was identical to the pre-test procedure, except that
the vacuum pulled was at least one inch Hg higher than the highest vacuum attained
during sampling. A leak rate of less than 4 percent of the average sample rate or
0.02 acfm (whichever is lower) is acceptable. If a final leak rate did not meet the
acceptable level, the test run could still be accepted upon approval of the EPA Test
Administrator. If approved, the measured leak rate was reduced by subtracting the
allowable leak rate and then multiplying by the period of time in which the leak
occurred. This "leaked volume" was then subtracted from the measured gas volume to
determine the final gas sample volume.
5.1.4 CDD/CDF Sample Recovery
To facilitate transfer from the sampling location to the recovery trailer, the
sampling train was disassembled into the following sections: the probe liner, filter
holder, filter to condenser glassware, condenser sorbent module, and the impingers in
their bucket. Each of these sections was capped with methylene chloride-rinsed
aluminum foil or ground glass caps before removal to the recovery trailer. Once in the
trailer, field recovery followed the scheme shown in Figure 5-3. The samples were
recovered and stored in cleaned amber glass bottles to prevent light degradation.
For the Borgess Medical Center 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
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST
Pretest:
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. Obtain data sheets and record barometric pressure on log sheet.
4. Bag sampling equipment for CO2/O2 needs to be ready if not using CEMs
for CO2/O2 determinations.
5. Examine the 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 pilot leak check, recheck manometer zero.
10. Do final leak check; record leak rate and vacuum on sampling log sheet.
11. Turn on variacs and verify 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.)
JBS335
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
Test:
1. Notify crew chief of any sampling problems immediately. The meterbox operator
must fill in sampling log and document any abnormalities.
2. Perform simultaneous/concurrent testing with other locations
(if applicable). Maintain filter temperature between 248°F ±25°F. Keep
temperature as steady as possible. Maintain the resin trap and impinger
temperatures below 68°F. Maintain probe temperature above 212°F.
3. Leak check between ports and record on sampling log. Leak check if the test is
stopped to change silica gel, to decant condensate, or to change filters.
4. Record sampling times, rate, and location for the fixed gas bag sampling (CO,
CO2, O2), if applicable.
5. Blow back pitot tubes periodically if moisture entrapment is expected.
6. Stop test and change filter if vacuum suddenly increases or exceeds 15 inches Hg.
7. Check impinger solutions every 1/2 hour; if the knockout impinger is approaching
full, stop test and empty it into a pre-weighed bottle and reinstate it in the train.
8. Check silica gel impinger every 1/2 hour; if indicator color begins to fade, request
a pre-filled, pre-weighed impinger from the recovery trailer, stop test and replace
silica gel impinger.
9. Check the ice in the impinger bucket frequently. If the stack gas temperatures
are high, the ice will melt at the bottom rapidly. Maintain condenser coil and
silica gel impinger gas temperatures below 68°F.
Post-test:
1. Record final meter reading and record on log sheet.
2. Do final leak check of sampling train at maximum vacuum during test and record
on log sheet.
3. Do final pitot leak check.
-------
TABLE 5-4. CDD/CDF SAMPLING CHECKLIST, continued
4. Check completeness of data sheet(s). Verify that impinger bucket identification is
recorded on the data sheets. Note any abnormal conditions experienced during
the test.
5. Leak check function (level, zero, etc.) of the pitot tubes and inspect for tip
damage.
6. Disassemble train, cap sections, and take each section and all data sheets to the
recovery trailer.
7. Probe recovery (use clean 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 with pre-rinsed
aluminum foil. (Rinsed with methylene chloride.)
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
Field Test Leader.
S-14
JBS335 J A^
-------
Frort Hat o) Filter Comoctng
Probe Nozde Probe Uner Cyclone Filar House FsUr Support Housing Una Condenser
» 1
II 1 1 I 1
FBTaewflh Attach Brushand Brushand Fansewrth Fttnsewrth Faroewith Ftnsewlti
Acetone 250 mL Rasfc rtnee wtth rnae wan acetone acetone acetone acetone
Untl si toBalJonl acetone acetone (3x) (3x) (3x) (3x)
Partcuteta I
wan
Acetone
Empty Flask
tntoKOml.
BoUe
Brush
LLnw
and Fame
W*l3
AkjuoHol
Acetone
Check
*
Uner
k>8ee>
Partkxsate
to Ftomoved,
INot Repeal
T 1
Fartse Fvnss Rrise Flnaa
w*l Ml
t\ win M»I
Toajana Tosjane Tokjene Tosjam
(3
«) (3
X) (3
*) (3
>)
* * t
Rln»« Rns* Rnsa
wrth vrth
TO.XJ.>O» Wltl To(uen»
(ax) Totuenn (3^
(at teas! onc« (3x) (at toast one*
let the rira« let the ira*
tUnd 5 minutes
Lnuiit)
,
itand 5 frtrutea
Lnirvt)
,
Ca-bfuty
remove War
baband
ctampt
Placa n
cooier tor
Seariin
petrldtsh
1st Irr-pingw
(knockout)
I
Weigh
T
Record
and
gan
SM
2nd Impingar
Weigh
3rd Impingar
Record
waght
and
calciiata
flan
bnpinger
Record
weight
and
caloJalo
gan
Impmger
Record
weight
and
I 1 j I
Sthlmpnger
(s«cagel)
Weigh
Impnger
Record
weight
and
calculate
flan
Note: See Table 5-5 for Sample Fractions Identification
Figure 5-3. CDD/CDF Field Recovery Scheme
-------
recovery is 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 on ice in coolers at all times. The samples were shipped with
written analysis instructions to the analytical laboratory by truck.
5.1.5 CDD/CDF Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedure used to obtain CDD/CDF concentrations from a single
flue gas sample was HRGC and HRMS (resolution from 8000-10000 m/e). The target
CDD/CDF congeners are listed in Table 5-6. The analyses were performed by Triangle
Laboratories, Inc., by Method 8290X.
The flue gas samples were analyzed in two fractions according to the scheme in
Figure 5-4. One fraction is the total train toluene and acetone rinses, filter(s) and
sorbent module; the other fraction is composed of the toluene rinse of applicable
portions of the sampling train. For the CDD/CDF analysis, isotopically-labeled
surrogate compounds and internal standards were added to the samples before the
extraction process was initiated. The internal standards and surrogates that were used
are described in detail in EPA Method 23.
Data from the mass spectrometer were recorded and stored on a computer file
and on paper. Results for the 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 were 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
JBS335
5-16
-------
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,
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.
5-17
JBS335
-------
TABLE 5-6. CDD/CDF CONGENERS ANALYZED
DIOXINS:
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Total tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD)
Total pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PeCDD)
1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD)
Total hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDD)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDD)
Total octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD)
FURANS:
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzofurans (2,3,7,8 TCDF)
Total tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF)
1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF)
2,3,4,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF)
Total pentachlorinated dibenzofurans (PeCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF)
2,3,4,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF)
Total hexachlorinated dibenzofurans (HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF)
l',2,3,4,7,8,9 heptachlorodibenzofuran (l',2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF)
Total heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
JBS335
-------
Acetone/Toluene
Rinses
Concentrate
at Temperature
<37°C(98°F)
Silica Gel Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Qua
luate to 1 mL
withN2
Basic Aluminum Column
Chromatography Cleanup;
Concentrate Eluate to
0.5 ml. with N2
FK-21 Carbon/Celrte 545
Column Chromatogaphy
Cleanup; Concentrate
Eluate 1.0 mL in
Rotary Evaporator
Concentrate Eluate to
200 ml with N2
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
S
3
3
Figure 5-4. Extraction and Analysis Schematic for CDD/CDF Samples
S-1Q
-------
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 is acceptable only if the measured response factors for the labeled and
unlabeled compounds and the ion-abundance ratios are within the allowable limits
specified in the method (52200, 52201 FR 891220).
5.1.6 CDD/CDF Analytical Quality Control
All quality control procedures specified in the test method were followed. Blanks
were used to determine analytical contamination; calibration standards were used for
instrument calibration and linearity checks; internal standards were used to determine
isomer recoveries and adjust response factors for matrix effects; surrogate standards were
used to measure the collection efficiency of the sampling methodology; and an alternate
standard was used as a column efficiency check.
5.1.6.1 CDD/CDF Quality Control Blanks. Three different types of sample
blanks were analyzed for CDD/CDF concentrations. The type of blanks that were
required are shown in Table 5-7.
Reagent blanks of 1,000 ml of each reagent used at the test site were saved for
analysis. Each reagent blank was of the same lot 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 is to measure the level of contamination that occurs from
handling, loading, recovering, and transporting the sampling train. The field blanks were
analyzed with the flue gas samples. If they were unsatisfactory in terms of
contamination, reagent blanks were analyzed to determine the specific source of
contamination.
In addition to the two types of blanks that are required for the sampling program,
the analytical laboratory analyzed a method blank with each set of flue gas samples.
This consists of preparing and analyzing reagent water by the exact procedure used for
JBS335
5-20
-------
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.
JBS335
5-21
-------
the samples analysis. The purpose of this procedure was to verify that there is no
laboratory contamination of the field samples.
5.1.6.2 Quality Control Standards and Duplicates. Recoveries of the internal
standards must be between 40 to 130 percent for the tetra- through hexachlorinated
compounds and 25 to 130 percent for the hepta- and octachlorinated homologues.
Surrogate standard recoveries must be between 70 to 130 percent. If these requirements
are not met, the data will be acceptable if the signal to noise ratio is greater than or
equal to ten. If these requirements are met, the results for the native sampled species
are adjusted according to the internal standard recoveries.
If the recoveries of all standards are less than 70 percent, the project director is
notified immediately to determine if the surrogate results can be used to adjust the
results of the native species.
Duplicate analysis was performed for every ten samples. The purpose of
duplicate analysis was to evaluate the precision of the combined sample preparation and
analytical methodology.
5.2 PARTICULATE MATTER AND METALS EMISSIONS TESTING
METHOD
Sampling for PM and metals was performed according to an EPA Emission
Measurement Branch (EMB) draft protocol entitled "Methodology for the Determination
of Metals Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Incineration Processes." The protocol is
presented in Appendix I. This method is applicable for the determination of PM and Pb,
Ni, zinc (Zn), phosphorus (P), Cr, Cu, manganese (Mn), selenium (Se), Be, Tl, Ag, Sb,
Ba, Cd, As, and Hg emissions from various types of incinerators. Analyses of the
Borgess Medical Center MWI test samples was performed for Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg,
Ni, Pb, Sb, Ag, Ba, Be, and Tl.
The 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 were completed,
the sample fractions were analyzed for the target metals as discussed in Section 5.2.5.
S-7?
JBS335 J <•*•
-------
5.2.1 PM/Metals Sampling Equipment
The methodology uses the sampling train shown in Figure 5-5. The 5-impinger
train consists of a quartz nozzle/probe liner followed by a heated filter assembly with a
Teflon® filter support, a series of impingers, and the standard EPA Method 5 meterbox
and vacuum pump. The sample is not exposed to any metal surfaces in this train. The
contents of the sequential impingers are: two impingers with a 5 percent
HNO3/10 percent H2O2 solution, two impingers with a 4 percent KMnO4/10 percent
sulfuric acid (H2SO4) solution, and an impinger containing silica gel. (An optional empty
knockout impinger may be added if the moisture content of the flue gas is high.) The
second impinger containing HNO3/H2O2 was of the Greenburg-Smith design; the other
impingers had straight tubes. The impingers were connected with clean glass U-tube
connectors and 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 PM/Metals Sampling Equipment Preparation
5.2.2.1 Glassware Preparation. Glassware was washed in hot soapy water, rinsed
three times (3X) with tap water, 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 HNO3 solution for a minimum of 4 hours;
• Rinsed with deionized distilled water (3X); and
• Rinsed with acetone.
The cleaned glassware was allowed to air dry in a contamination-free
environment. The ends were then covered with parafilm. All glass components of the
sampling train plus any sample bottles, pipets, Erlenmeyer flasks, petri dishes, graduated
cylinders, and other laboratory glassware used during sample preparation, recovery, and
analysis were cleaned using this procedure.
5-23
JBS335
-------
Temperature /
Sensor /
Glass / /
Temperature Sensor
Glass Filter
Holder
Temperature Sensor
Reverse-Type
, Pilot Tube
Impingers with Absorbing Solution
Probe Tip / /
Empty (Optional Knockout)
4% KMnq/10% H^O, Silica Gel
5% HNg /10%
Temperature
Sensors
Vacuum
Gauge
Vacuum
Line
Manometer
Figure 5-5. Schematic of Multiple Metals Sampling Train
-------
Slides for Attaching
to Heated Box
Impinger Bucket
Slide for Attaching Gooseneck
Figure 5-6. Impinger Configuration for PM/Meta!s Sampling
(optional knock out impinger not shown)
5-25
-------
5.2.2.2 Reagent Preparation. The sample train filters were Pallflex
Tissuequartz 2500QAS filters. The acids and H2O2 were Baker "Instra-analyzed" grade
or equivalent. The H2O2 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 used was recorded in the laboratory
notebook.
Fresh HNO3/H2O2 absorbing solution and acidic KMnO4 absorbing solution were
prepared daily according to Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the reference method. The
analyst wore 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 designated reagent.
The analyst saved time preparing the acidic KMnO4 solution each day by
observing the following procedure, beginning at least one day before the reagent was
needed.
• Quantitatively measured 400 ml from a 4 liter bottle of Baker "Analyzed
HPLC" water into a clean glass bottle. Labeled this bottle 4.4 percent
KMnO4 in water.
• Quantitatively added 160 g of KMnO4 crystals to the bottle; stirred with a
Teflon® stirring bar and stirring plate as thoroughly as possible. This
reagent was stored on the counter in a plastic tub at all times.
• Each morning the acidic reagent was needed, decanted 900 ml of KMnO4
solution into a 1000 ml volumetric flask. Carefully added 100 ml of
concentrated H2SO4 and mixed. This reagent was volatile and was mixed
cautiously. By holding the flask cap on the flask, it was mixed once and
vented quickly. Completed the mixing slowly until the mixture was
homogenous. Allowed the solution to cool and brought the final volume to
1000 ml with H2O.
• Carefully filtered this reagent through Wattman 541 filter paper into
another volumetric flask or 2 liter amber bottle. Labeled this bottle
4 percent acidic KMnO4 absorbing solution. Vented the top and stored the
reagent in a plastic tub at all times.
JBS335
-------
5.2.2.3 Equipment Preparation. The remaining preparation included calibration
and leak checking of all train equipment as specified in EPA Method 5. This equipment
included the probe nozzles, pilot 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 PM/Metals Sampling Operations
The sampling operations used for PM/Metals testing were virtually the same as
those for the CDD/CDF tests discussed in Section 5.1.2. The only differences were that
there was no condenser coil (so coil temperatures were not recorded) and glass caps,
Teflon® tape, or parafilm was used to seal the sample train components instead of foil.
Detailed instructions for assembling the metals sampling train can be found beginning on
page 14 of the reference method.
5.2.4 PM/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, which includes the filter and all sample-exposed
surfaces upstream of the filter was recovered. The probe liner was rinsed with acetone
by tilting and rotating the probe while squirting acetone into the higher end to wet all
inside surfaces. The acetone was quantitatively collected into the appropriate bottle.
This rinse was followed by additional brush/rinse procedures using a non-metallic brush;
the probe was held in an inclined position and acetone was squirted into the higher end
as the brush was pushed through with a twisting action. All of the acetone and PM were
5-27
JBS335
-------
N)
CO
4th & 5th
1 st Impinger 2nd & 3rd Impingers
Last Impinger
p , LJ „ i (Empty at Impinqers (Acidified
Probe Liner J^0™"811.0' Filter Filter Support beginning (HNO3
and Nozzle Filter Housing and Back Half of test)
of Filter
Housing
/H2Qj) (KMnOj.)
Measure Measure Measure
Rinse with orusn wnn Carefully
Acetone into Nonrnetallic Remove Fitter
Impinger Impinger Impinger
Weigh for
Moisture
Contents Contents Contents
Tared Container Brusn ana from Support with Rinse Three
Rinse with Teflon Coated Times with
Acetone into Tweezers and 0.1 N Calculate Calculate Calculate
Tared Container Place in Petri Dish Nitric Acid Moisture Moisture Moisture
Brush Liner Into Tared Gain Gain Gain
with Nonrnetallic
Brush and Rinse
with Acetone
at Least
3 Times
i
Check Liner
to see if
Particulale
Removed: if
not Repeat
Step Above
Container
Brush Loose
Particulale
from Holder
Onto Filter
Empty Empty Empty
Calculate
Moisture
Gain
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
Recover
Acid Reagent
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
>sent
Container Container Container Remove with 50 ml
8 N HO solution
Weigh Weigh to Weigh to Weigh to Calculate
to Calculate Calculate Calculate Sample and
Rin^A &rr\f\ttrtt DincA Am/Mint DinoA J
mi icw ~
111 INSMI 1* 1 III I««W * 1
APR PR F HN
(3) (2) (1) (4)
L mount RlriAAA V/sili ima
MIIWUI 11 1(11 IO99
WIUI I (W
Weight to calculate
Sample and Rinse
Volume
KM
(5) Cl
(6)
SG S
(7) §
Figure 5-7. Metals Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
caught in the sample container. This procedure was repeated until no visible paniculate
remained and was 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 collected with the
samples.
The nozzle/probe liner and front half of the filter holder were rinsed three times
with 0.1N HNO3, and the rinse was collected in a separate amber bottle. The bottle was
capped tightly, the weight of the combined rinse was recorded, and the liquid level was
marked. The filter was placed in a clean, well-marked glass petri dish and sealed with
Teflon® tape.
Prior to recovering the back half impingers, the contents were weighed for
moisture control determinations. Any unusual appearance of the filter or impinger
contents were noted.
The contents of the knockout impinger (if used) were recovered into a
preweighed, prelabeled bottle with the contents from the HNO3/H2O2 impingers. These
impingers and connecting glassware were rinsed thoroughly with 0.1N HNO3, the rinse
was captured in the impinger contents bottle, and a final weight was taken. The method
specified a total of 100 ml of 0.1N HNO3 may be used to rinse these components. A
HNO3 reagent blank of approximately the same volume as the rinse volume was
collected with the samples.
The impingers that contain the acidified KMnO4 solution were poured together
into a preweighed, prelabeled bottle. The impingers and connecting glassware were
rinsed with at least 100 ml of the acidified KMnO4 solution (from the same batch used
for sampling) a minimum of three times. Rinses were added to the sample recovery
bottle. A final 50 ml 8N hydrochloric acid (HC1) rinse was conducted and placed into
the sample recovery bottle. A final weight was recorded, and the liquid level was
marked on the bottle. The bottle cap was applied loosely to allow venting.
5-29
JBS335
-------
r
After final weighing, the silica gel from the train was saved in a bag for
regeneration. The ground glass fittings on the silica gel impinger were cleaned after
sample recovery to ensure a leak-tight fit for the next test.
A reagent blank was recovered in the field for each of the following reagents:
• Acetone blank - 100 ml sample size;
• 0.1N HNO3 blank - 1,000 ml sample size;
• 5 percent HNO3/10 percent H2O2 blank - 200 ml sample size;
• Acidified KMnO4 blank - 1,000 ml sample size; this blank required a
vented cap;
• 8N HC1 blank - 50 ml sample size;
• Dilution water; and
• Filter blank - one each.
Each reagent blank was of the same lot used during the sampling program. Each lot
number and reagent grade was recorded on the field blank label and recovery logbook.
The liquid level of each sample container was marked on the bottle to determine
if any sample loss occurred during shipment. If sample loss had occurred, the sample
would be voided or a method would be used to incorporate a correction factor to scale
the final results according to the volume of the loss.
5.2.5 Particulate Analysis
The same general gravimetric procedure described in Method 5 (Section 4.3) was
followed. Filters and precleaned beakers were weighed to a constant weight before use
in the field. The same balance used for taring was used for weighing the samples.
The acetone rinses were evaporated under a clear hood at 20°C (68°F) in a tared
beaker. The filter was also desiccated under the same conditions to a constant weight.
Weight gain was reported to the nearest 0.1 mg. Each replicate weighing agreed to
within 0.5 mg or 1 percent of total weight minus the tare weight, whichever is greater,
between two consecutive weighings at least 6 hours apart.
JBS335 5-30
-------
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 HNO3 and hydrofluoric
(HF) acid in a microwave pressure vessel. The microwave digestion took 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 with water to a specified volume and
divided for analysis.
The absorbing solutions from the HNO3/H2O2 impingers were combined. An
aliquot was removed for the analysis of Hg by CVAAS, and the remainder was acidified
and reduced to near dryness. The sample was then digested in a microwave with
50 percent HNO3 and 3 percent H2O2. After the fraction had cooled, it was filtered and
diluted with water to a specified volume.
Each sample fraction was analyzed by ICAPS using EPA Method 200.7. All
target metals except Hg, Fe, and Al, were quantified. If Fe and Al were present, the
samples were diluted to reduce interference with As and Pb analysis. If As or Pb levels
were less than 2 ppm, GFAAS was used to analyze for these elements by EPA
Methods 7060 and 7421. The total volume of the absorbing solutions and rinses for the
various fractions were 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 were 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.
Cold vapor AAS analysis for Hg followed the procedure outlined in EPA Method 7470
or in Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analysis. Method 303F.
5-31
JBS335
-------
Container 3
Acid Probe Rinse
(Labeled APR)
Acidify to pH 2
with Cone. HN03
U)
to
Reduce Volume to
Near Dryness and
Digest with HF and
Cone. HNO3
T
Container 2
Acetone Probe Rinse
(Labeled PR)
Container 1
Filter
(Labeled F)
Container 4
HNO,/HA Impingers
(labeled HN)
(include condensate
impinger, if used)
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 0.5g
Sections and Digest
Each Section with
Cone. HF and HNO,
Filter and Dilute
to Known Volume
Fraction 1
Remove 50 to 100mL
Aliq
alys
Fraction 1B
Aliquot for Hg
Analysis by CVAAS
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 5
Permanganate Impingers
(labeled KM)
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
-------
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 for an individual 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 for an individual metal were
prepared daily; those with concentrations greater than this were made weekly or
bi-monthly. A minimum of five standards are required to make the standard calibration
curve. Quality control samples were prepared from a separate 10 ^g/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 was analyzed. If recoveries of less
than 75 percent or greater than 120 percent were obtained for the matrix spike, each
sample was analyzed by the method of additions. One quality control sample was
analyzed to check the accuracy of the calibration standards. The results were 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
5-33
JBS335
-------
made with at least six points. Quality Control samples were prepared from a separate
10 /ig/ml standard by diluting it into the range of the samples.
A quality control sample agreed 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 was 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 was performed as specified in 40 CFR
Part 61, Appendix B. The method calls for isokinetic extraction of flue gas through a
sample train similar to the standard EPA Method 5 train. The sample stream passes
through the filter (optional) and bubbles through acidified KMnO4 solution. 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
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
MnO2 precipitate. This may be the case only when visible precipitate is present. For
this test program, the analytical filter was archived and analyzed at a later date. A
graphical representation was provided for each analysis.
The following sections 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/probe liner was used to
prevent the sample stream from touching any metal surfaces. Four 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 the
sampling train meter and pump. All reagent preparation followed strict QA/QC
guidelines as dictated by the Method 101A protocol.
JBS335
-------
OJ
Stack
T . Wall
Temperature /
Sensor
Temperature Sensor
Filter Holder
Gooseneck
Nozzle
\
Temperature Sensor
Heat Traced
Quartz Probe
Liner
S-Type Pilot Tube \
Temperature
Sensors
Acidified KMn O4 Solution Silica Gel
(300 grams)
Vacuum
Gauge
By-pass
Valve
Manometer
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-9. EPA Method 101A Sampling Train
-------
5.3.2 Equipment Preparation
All sampling equipment was calibrated accordancing to EPA Method 5 guidelines.
This included dry gas meters, pitot tubes, nozzle orifice, and other equipment.
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 used 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 = (Equal parts acid to DI H2O must be added very
slowly using extreme caution.)
Blank samples of all reagents used were taken 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 never
exceeded 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. The above data were collected at each sample point every 5 minutes. The test
JBS335
5-36
-------
duration was divided by the number of sample points to determine the interval of time
spent at each sample point.
Leak checks of the sampling train were performed prior to the test, following
train removal from a port (port change), and following completion of the test. The
maximum acceptable leak rate was 0.02 cfm or 4 percent of the average sample rate,
whichever was 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 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 950-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 950-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 (third if an HC1 rinse was performed) was collected. 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 were carefully
removed using a sharpened edge blade and/or nylon bristle brush so as not to lose any
material and added to this container. A filter and reagent blank were also collected.
5-37
JBS335
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
(front Half glass)
Impingers 1-3
(KMnO4)
Sample Filter
(optional)
Silica Gel
Rinse Glassware
(Brush Probe)
3x with 4% KmNO4
Solution
Measure and Record
Total Impinger Weight
Place Filter
into 125 ml
Sample Container
Empty Contents
- Into 1000 ml
Sample Container
Add 20-40 ml
4% KMnO4
Inspect for Indicator
Color Change
Determine Weight and
Replace if Necessary
(Discard Used Portion)
Rinse Impingers
3x with 4% KMn04
Solution
00
If Visible Residue
is Present, Remove
with 50 ml 8 N HCI
Measure and Record
Total Sample Volume
Measure and Record
Total Sample Volume
Measure and Record
Total Sample Volume
Seal and Identify
Sample Bottle
Seal and Identify
Sample Bottle
Seal and Identify
Sample Bottle
Figure 5-10. Method 101A Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
Following recovery operations, the samples were fully labeled and logged in the
sample log book, and chain of custody forms were filled out.
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: 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 was filtered. The filter was
washed, and the rinsings were combined with the filtrate for analysis. At this point the
filter is normally discarded. However, recent concern has arisen regarding this
procedure. It seems that if visible precipitate in the KMnO4 is 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.
The sample from the sample filter/KMnO4 was transferred to a beaker and
placed in a steam bath and evaporated until most of the liquid has disappeared (not
dryness). Twenty ml of concentrated HNO3 was then added to the sample; it was 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 increased to a fixed volume using DI
water. A 5 ml aliquot was removed and placed in 25 ml of DI water in an aeration
bottle. Then 5 ml of 15 percent HNO3 was added, followed by 5 ml of 5 percent
5-39
JBS335
-------
Probe/Front
Half KMnO4
Rinse
Impingar Contents
and Rinses
KMnO.
Combine
Archive
Filter
Filter and Wash
with KMnO4
.u
o
Sample Filter
((fused)
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
-------
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 nm.
5.4 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE/HYDROGEN BROMIDE/HYDROGEN
FLUORIDE EMISSIONS TESTING BY EPA METHOD 26
Hydrogen chloride, HBr, and HF sampling was accomplished using a single
sampling train. The procedure follows the EPA Method 26 draft protocol entitled "The
Determination of HC1 Emissions from Municipal and Hazardous Waste Incinerators." In
this method, an integrated gas sample was extracted from the stack and passed through
acidified water. In acidified water, HC1 becomes soluble and forms CT ions. Ion
chromatography was used to detect the Cl" ions present in the sample. For this test
program, the presence of Br" and F ions were also be detected by 1C. The method is
included in Appendix K.
5.4.1 HCl/HBr/HF Sampling Equipment
A diagram of the HCl/HBr/HF sampling train is shown in Figure 5-12. The
sampling train consisted of a quartz probe with a pallflex Teflon/glass filter to remove
PM, a series of chilled midget impingers, and a DGM system. A small amount of quartz
glass wool was placed in the front half of the filter holder to help remove excessive PM
in this gas stream. Because the high temperatures in the stack and the short sampling
probe kept the 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 one impinger containing silica gel.
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 including 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
-------
g s
Fitting
and Teflon Tube
(optional)
A
Teflon Union
(optinal)
/
Glass Liner
Wrapped
with Heat Tape
3-Way Glass
Stopcock
(optinar
u\
fe
Drying Tube
or
Mae West
Impinger
Knockout Impinger
(optional)
Pump
Surge Tank
Figure 5-12. HCI Sample Train Configuration
-------
particular piece of apparatus was not available, then a state-of-the-art technique was
used.
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
used for testing at this facility. The first two impingers each contained 15 to 20 ml 0.1 N
H2SO4. The following two impingers were filled with 15 to 20 ml each of 0.1 N NaOH,
and the final impinger contained 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 using U-tube connectors and arranged in the impinger
bucket. All the impingers were approximately the same height 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 was the same as that discussed in
Section 5.1. The leak rate, sampling start and stop times, and any other significant
events that occurred during sampling were recorded on the sampling 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 and labeled, and the fluid level marked.
The contents of the second set of impingers (containing the 0.1 N NaOH) were
discarded, except for one set from every triplicate series (i.e., 3 test runs). These were
archived for possible future analyses. The sample recovery scheme is shown in
Figure 5-13.
-------
Probe Liner
and Nozzle
1st Impinger
20ml)
2nd Impinger
(~ 20mft-l,5C;)
3rd Impinger
(~ 20mlNaOH)
4th Impinger
(~ 20m) NaOH)
Silica Gel
Do Not Rinse
or Brush
Empty Contents
into 100ml
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)
Archive for
Possible Analysis
Liquid Sample
£
Figrue 5-13. HCI/HBr/HF Sample Recovery Scheme
-------
5-4.5 HCl/HBr/HF Analytical Procedures
Before analysis, the samples were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and
then given an analytical laboratory sample number. Then, each sample was examined to
determine if any leakage occurred, and any discoloration or other particulars of the
samples were noted.
The 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 appeared 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 compensate for any
drift in the instrument response during analysis of the field samples. The CF, Br", and F"
sample concentrations were calculated from either the respective ion peak area or peak
height and the calibration curve.
5.4.6 HGl/HBr/HF Analytical Quality Control
The 1C was calibrated with a minimum of three concentrations, not including
zero. A correlation coefficient of greater than or equal to 0.995 was required for
acceptable calibration. At least 10 percent of the total number of samples were analyzed
in duplicate. Ion concentrations in the duplicates must agree to within ± 20 percent.
5.5 EPA METHODS 1-4
5.5.1 Traverse Point Location By EPA Method 1
The number and location of sampling traverse points necessary for isokinetic and
flow sampling was dictated by EPA Method 1 protocol. These parameters were based
upon how much duct distance separated 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 in diameter is 4 (8 total sample points). Several sets of
perpendicular sampling ports were established at each sampling location. Traverse point
locations were determined for each port depending on the distances to duct disturbances
(see Section 4).
-------
5.5.2 Volumetric Row Rate Determination bv EPA Method 2
Volumetric flow rate was measured according to EPA Method 2. A Type K
thermocouple and S-type pitot tube were used to measure flue gas temperature and
velocity, respectively. All of the isokinetically sampled methods that were used
(CDD/CDF, PM/metals, Mercury 101A) incorporate Method 2.
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 pitot
tubes were leak checked before and after each run.
5.5.2.2 Sampling Operations. The parameters that were measured include the
pressure drop across the pitot tubes, stack temperature, and stack static and ambient
pressure. These parameters were measured at each traverse point, as applicable. A
computer program was used to calculate the average velocity during the sampling period.
5.5.3 O2 and CO2 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 (PM and
moisture removed) and was directed to the analyzers. The O2 and CO2 concentrations
were, therefore, determined on a dry basis. Average concentrations were calculated to
coincide with each respective sampling time period. More information on the CEM
system is given in Section 5.6.
5.5.4 Average Moisture Determination by EPA Method 4
The average flue gas moisture content was determined according to EPA
Method 4. Before sampling, the initial weight of the impingers was recorded. When
sampling was completed, the final weights of the impingers were recorded, and the
weight gain was calculated. The weight gain and the volume of gas sampled were used
to calculate the average moisture content (percent) of the flue gas. The calculations
were performed by computer. Method 4 was incorporated in the techniques used for all
of the manual sampling methods that were used during the test.
JBS335
-------
5.6 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING (CEM) METHODS
EPA Methods 3A, 7E, 6C, and 10 are continuous monitoring methods for
measuring CO2, O2, NOX, SO2, and CO concentrations. Total hydrocarbons were
analyzed by EPA Method 25A. Flue gas HC1 concentrations were also monitored using
CEMs with 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
the main CEM extraction system, samples were withdrawn continuously from a single
point in 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 divided using a manifold and sent to
the various analyzers. Hydrocarbon measurements were made on a wet basis; therefore,
its sample stream bypassed the gas conditioner.
5.6.1 CEM Sampling Equipment
5.6.1.1 Sample Probes. The main CEM probe consisted of a black iron pipe
mounted to a Swagelok® reducing union which was attached directly to the heat trace
tubing. The probe was placed approximately at a point of average velocity in the stack
determined by a 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 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. With this system, calibration gases were directed to the sampling probe and
through the entire sampling/conditioning system during calibration procedures.
5.6.1.3 Gas Conditioning. Special gas conditioners are used to reduce the
moisture content of the flue gas. A Radian-designed gas conditioning system uses a
chiller (antifreeze liquid) system to cool a series of glass cyclones. The hot flue gas is
chilled by convecting cooling through the glass wall causing the moisture to condense
5-47
JBS335
-------
Stack Wall
A/D Conversion
and Computer
Data Acquisition
NOx, SQ,, CQ,,
O THC, CO
Cal/QC
Gasea
Heat Traca
Unheated Gas Lines
Signal Wire
Figure 5-14. Schematic of GEM System
(2 CEM systems will be used)
5-48
-------
into droplets. The droplets and any paniculate are flung outward toward the glass walls
by centrifugal force, impact the glass walls and fall to the bottom of the cyclone, where
they are drained from the system. In this manner, both moisture and PM are effectively
removed from the flue gas sample stream. This system operates under positive pressure,
eliminating the possibility of a leak. The gas conditioner is located in the CEM trailer.
5.6.1.4 HC1 CEM Sample System. The HC1 flue gas concentrations were
monitored using a CEM analyzer as well as by manual test runs (EPA Method 26). 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 SO2 Analysis. The Western 721A SO2 analyzer is essentially a continuous
spectrophotometer in the ultraviolet (UV) range. The SO2 selectively absorbs UV light
at a wavelength of 202.5 run. To take advantage of this property of SO2, the analyzer
emits UV light at 202.5 nm and measures the absorbance (A) of the radiation through
the sample cell by the decrease in intensity. Beer's law, A = abc, was used to convert
the absorbance into SO2 concentration (A = absorbance, a = absorbitivity, b = path
length, c = concentration). The SO2 measurements were performed in accordance with
EPA Method 6C.
5.6.2.2 NO;[ Analysis. The principle of operation of this instrument is a
chemiluminescent reaction in which ozone (O3) reacts with nitric oxide (NO) to form
oxygen (O2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). During this reaction, a photon is emitted and is
detected by a photomultiplier tube. The instrument is capable of analyzing total oxides
of nitrogen (NO + NO2) by thermally converting NO2 to NO in a separate reaction
chamber prior to the photomultiplier tube, if desired. The NOX measurements were
performed specified by EPA Method 7E.
5-49
JBS335
-------
5.6.2.3 O2 Analysis. Oxygen measurements were performed using EPA
Method 3A. Oxygen analysis was completed using the Thermox WDG III analyzer. This
instrument measures O2 using an electrochemical cell. Porous platinum electrodes,
which are attached to the inside and outside of the cell, provide the instrument voltage
response. Zirconium oxide contained in the cell conducts electrons when it is hot due to
the mobility of O2 ions in its crystal structure. A difference in O2 concentration between
the sample side of the cell and the reference (outside) side of the cell produces a
voltage. This response voltage is proportional to the logarithm of the O2 concentration
ratio. A linearizer circuit board is used to make the response linear. Reference gas is
ambient air at 20.9 percent O2 by volume.
5.6.2.4 CO2 Analysis. Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) CO2 analyzers emit a
specific wavelength of infrared (IR) radiation which is selectively absorbed by CO2
molecules through the sample cell. The intensity of radiation that reaches the end of the
sample cell is compared to the intensity of radiation through a CO2-free reference cell. A
reference cell is used to determine background absorbance, which is subtracted from the
sample absorbance. The detector uses two chambers filled with CO2 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 by EPA
Method 3A.
5.6.2.5 CO Analysis. A Thermo Electron Corporation (TECO) 48 analyzer was
used to monitor CO emissions. TECO analyzers measure CO using the same principle
of operation as CO2 analysis. The instruments are identical except that a different
wavelength of infrared radiation is used; 5 nm is selective for CO. Carbon monoxide
measurements were performed by EPA Method 10.
5.6.2.6 Total Hydrocarbon Analysis. A Ratfisch RS55 was used to monitor THC
emissions. By allowing the THC sample stream to bypass the gas conditioners,
JBS335 5-50
-------
concentrations were determined on a wet basis. This analyzer employs Flame lonization
Detectors (FID). As the flue gas enters the detector, the hydrocarbons are combusted in
a hydrogen flame. The ions and electrons formed in the flame enter an electrode gap,
decrease the gas resistance, and permit a current flow in an external circuit. The
resulting current is proportional to the instantaneous concentration of the total
hydrocarbons. This method is not selective between species. EPA Method 25A applies
to the continuous measurement of total gaseous organic concentrations of primarily
alkanes, alkenes, and/or arenes (aromatic hydrocarbons). The results were reported on
a methane basis, and methane was used as the calibration gas.
5.6.2.7 HC1 CEM Analysis. HC1 flue gas concentrations were continuously
monitored using an NDIR/GFC instrument manufactured by TECO. HC1 is detected 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 GEM Calibration
All the CEM instruments were calibrated once during the test program (and
linearized, if necessary) using a minimum of three certified calibration gases (zero and
two upscale points). Radian performed the multipoint calibrations with four general
categories of certified gases: zero gas (generally N2), a low scale gas concentration, a
midrange concentration, and a high scale concentration (span gas). The criterion for
acceptable linearity is a correlation coefficient (R2) of greater than or equal to 0.998,
where the independent variable is cylinder gas concentration and the dependent variable
is instrument response. If an instrument did not meet these requirements, it was
linearized by adjusting potentiometers on the linerarity card within the instrument or by
other adjustments, if necessary.
The CEM analyzers were calibrated before and after each test run (test day) on a
two point basis: zero gas (generally N2), and a high-range span gas. These calibrations
were used to calculate response factors used for sample gas concentration
determinations. Instrument drift, as a percent of span, was also determined using these
calibrations for each test run.
5-51
-------
After each initial calibration, midrange gases for all instruments were analyzed,
with no adjustment permitted, as a 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 necessary. Calibration
procedures are further detailed in the daily operating procedure (Section 5.6.5).
Table 5-8 lists the concentration of all calibration and QC gases used on this test
program.
5.6.4 Data Acquisition
The data acquisition system consists 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 were used to backup the data logger. The PC Acquisitor scanned the
instrument output and logged digitized voltages. A Radian computer program translated
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 CEMS:
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 SCR's as the day progresses).
4. Turn on the gas conditioners and blow back compressor. Blow back the
system.
5. Open all calibration gas cylinders so that they may be introduced to the
instruments via control panel valves.
5-S2
JBS335 J J^
-------
6. Perform daily pre-test leak check on CEM's 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 and 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 routine with the computer on standby.
18. Start the data acquisition system when signaled by radio that system is in
stack.
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.
5-53
-------
TABLE 5-8. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES
Analyte
Gas Concentration
CQ2
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Beckman 865
0-20%
18%
N2
10%
5%
CO-dry
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
CO - wet
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
TECO 48H
0-50,000 ppm
1000, 9000 or 19,000 ppma
N2
1000 or 9000 ppm
2100 ppm
TECO 48
0-100, 0-200, 0-5000 ppm
1000, 180 or 90 ppma
N2
180 ppm
90 ppm
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Thermox WDG III
0-25%
20%
0.2% 02
10%
5%
JBS282
5-54
-------
TABLE 5-8. CEM OPERATING RANGES AND CALIBRATION GASES, continued
Analyte
Gas Concentration
SQ2
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas
Low Range QC Gas
NQX
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Western 721A
0-500 or 0-5000 ppm
200 or 50 ppm
N2
100 ppm
30 ppm
TECO 10AR
0-250 ppm
200 ppm
N2
100 ppm
50 ppm
THC
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
Beckman 402
0-10, 0-50, 0-100 ppm
100 ppm as methane
N2
45 ppm as methane
25 ppm as methane
HC1
Instrument
Range
Span Gas Value
Zero Gas
Midrange QC Gas Value
Low Range QC Gas Value
TECO Model 15
0-2000 ppm
1800 ppm
N2
900 ppm
100 ppm
a Several sets of calibration/QC gases were acquired in order to closely approximate
stack gas concentrations.
JBS282
5-55
-------
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.
JBS335 5-56
-------
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Specific QA/QC procedures were strictly followed 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 Borgess Test Plan. This section will report the test
program QA parameters so that the degree of data quality may be ascertained.
Ten days of testing were conducted at Borgess Medical Center. During the first
day of testing, a miscue resulted in nonuniform sampling times between the APCS inlet
and outlet locations. Since one of the goals of this project was to run all testing
simultaneously for comparison purposes, the data from the first testing day were not
considered useful. During the second day, the ID fan flow rates drifted to unusually high
values during most of the sampling period. After the run (Run 1) was completed, it was
decided to archive the data and repeat the run at a more representative condition.
Eight runs were completed successfully at three different operating conditions.
The incinerator and APCS operating conditions were identical for all the runs except for
varying carbon injection rates. The first three runs (Runs 2, 3, and 4) were conducted
with no carbon injection (baseline). The last three runs (Runs 7, 8, and 9) were
performed at a carbon injection rate of 2.5 Ib/hr. The remaining 2 runs (Runs 5 and 6)
were executed at a carbon injection rate of 1 Ib/hr. Due to time and budgetary
restraints it was decided that a third run at this rate would not be performed.
In summary, a high degree of data quality was maintained throughout the project.
Post-test leak checks for all sampling trains were within acceptable limits except for one
instance. 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 100 ± 10 percent for all but 4 of the test runs. The deviation from this
criterion was so low that the runs were not repeated. Dioxin field blanks for all three
sample locations showed slight detection of the target CDD/CDF compounds. Most
recovery percentages met the acceptable criterion. An unusually high number of isomers
exhibited recovery percentages outside QA parameters for CDD/CDF Run 2 at the
baghouse inlet location, however. This analytical result was accepted as valid by
JBS335
-------
Triangle Laboratory's QA officer after an assessment of additional analytical QA
parameters (i.e., signal to noise ratio, etc.).
Metals blank results showed some contamination; these results are discussed in
Section 6.4.1. Method spike recovery values for the metals analyzed were all within
acceptable limits except for Ag in the ash analysis, which is also discussed in section
6.4.1. The manual halogen gas tests met acceptable reagent blank and field blank levels,
as well as acceptable method spike results.
The CEM results showed good calibration drift values and QC gas responses. All
CEM QC procedures and objectives were followed as described in the Borgess 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. Section 6.6
presents a discussion on data variability.
6.1 QA/QC DEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall QA/QC objective is to ensure precision, accuracy, completeness,
comparability, and representativeness for each major measurement parameter called for
in this test program. For this test program, quality control and quality assurance can be
defined as follows:
• Quality Control: The overall system of activities whose purpose is to
provide a quality product or service. QC procedures are routinely followed
to ensure high data quality.
• Quality Assurance: A system of activities whose purpose is to provide
assurance that the overall quality control is being done effectively.
Assessments can be made from QA parameters on what degree of data
quality was achieved.
• Data Quality: The characteristics of a product (measurement data) that
bear on its ability to satisfy a given purpose. These characteristics are
defined as follows:
Precision - A measure of mutual agreement among individual
measurements of the same property, usually under prescribed
similar conditions. Precision is best expressed in terms of the
standard deviation and in this report will be expressed as the
relative standard deviation or coefficient of variation.
JBS335 "~2
-------
Accuracy - The degree of agreement of a measurement (or an
average of measurements of the same thing), X, with an accepted
reference or true value, T, can be expressed as the difference
between two values, X-T, the ratio X/T, or the difference as a
percentage of the reference or true value, 100 (X-T)/T.
Completeness - A measure of the amount of valid data obtained
from a measurement system compared with the amount that was
expected to be obtained under prescribed test conditions.
Comparability - A measure of the confidence with which one data
set can be compared to another.
Representativeness - The degree to which data accurately and
precisely represent a characteristic of a population, variations of a
parameter at a sampling point, or an environmental condition.
A summary of the estimated precision, accuracy, and completeness objectives is
presented in Table 6-1.
6.2 MANUAL FLUE GAS SAMPLING AND RECOVERY PARAMETERS
The following section will report method-specific sampling QA parameters so that
insight can be gained 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; therefore, sample volume corrections
were not performed.
Table 6-3 presents the isokinetic sampling rates for CDD/CDF, PM/metals, and
Hg sampling trains. The acceptance criterion is that the average sampling rate must be
within 10 percent of 100 percent isokinetic. Isokinetic rates for the CDD/CDF trains
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
JBS335
-------
Table 6-1
Summary of Precision, Accuracy,
and Completeness Objectives2
Parameter
Dioxins/Furans Emissions
Metals Emissions
Particulate Matter Emissions
HCl/HBr/HF Concentrations
CEM Concentrations
Velocity/Volumetric Flow Rate
Molecular Weight
Flue Gas Moisture
Flue Gas Temperature
Precision
(RSD)
±40d
±15d
±12
±10d
±20
±6
±0.3%V
±20
±2°F
Accuracy5
(%)
±50
±30
±10
±15
±15
±10
±0.5%V
±10
±5°F
Completeness0
(%)
100
100
100
95
95
95
100
95
100
RSD = Relative Standard Deviation. Uses worst case assumption that variation
amongst run results is not due to process variation.
a Precision and accuracy estimated based on results of EPA collaborative tests. All values
stated represent worst case values. All values are absolute percentages unless
otherwise indicated.
b Relative error (%) derived from audit analyses, where:
Percent
Relative Error
Measured Value - Actual Value x 100
Actual Value
0 Minimum valid data as a percentage of total tests conducted.
d Analytical phase only. Percent difference for duplicate analyses, where:
Percent
Relative Error
First Value - Second Value x 100
0.5 (First + Second Values)
JBS335
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR CDD/CDF SAMPLE TRAINS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Date
9/07/91
9/07/91
9/07/91
9/09/91
9/09/91
9/09/91
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
Him ;
Number
2 BOI Inlet
2 BH Inlet
2 BH Outlet
3 BOI Inlet
3 BH Inlet
3 BH Outlet
4 BOI Inlet
4 BH Inlet
4 BH Outlet
5 BOI Inlet
5 BH Inlet
5 BH Outlet
6 BOI Inlet
6 BH Inlet
6 BH Outlet
7 BOI Inlet
7 BH Inlet
7 BH Outlet
8 BOI Inlet
8 BH Inlet
8 BH Outlet
9 BOI Inlet
9 BH Inlet
9 BH Outlet
Maximum
Vacuum.
5
5
3
4
5
4
4.5
4
7
8
3.8
3
2.1
2.9
6.8
7
2
2
5
6.2
3.6
4.4
4
3
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.8
2
2
4
7
4
3.6
4
3
4.2
9
3.8
3.4
2
2
8.0
9
4.2
5
3
2
"Port i
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Rate. ••
(acfen} ;
0.511
0.464
0.360
0.383
0.366
0.355
0.363
0.364
0.452
0.456
0.345
0.398
0.353
0.325
0.445
0.425
0.350
0.334
0.330
0.315
0.522
0.460
0.399
0.322
0.385
0.331
0.436
0.442
0.360
0.285
0.684
0.606
0.441
0.439
0.379
0.357
0.649
0.681
0.422
0.426
0.366
0.333
0.701
0.725
0.411
0.423
0.346
0.328
Measured ;
LeakRate.
0.008
0.009
0.015
0.006
0.018
0.018
0.008
0.008
0.014
0.008
0.014
0.004
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.018
0.016
0.012
0.004
0.010
0.008
0.014
0.012
0.014
0.006
0.008
0.004
0.016
0.014
0.008
0.012
0.014
0.008
0.018
0.012
0.008
0.008
0.014
0.006
0.018
0.019
0.014
0.008
0.016
0.004
0.016
0.010
Vacusaa
{to. Kg) !
15
9
15
5
15
6
8
15
15
7
15
5
6
15
15
8
15
4
15
5
15
15
15
5
17
10
15
5
15
5
17
9
15
5
15
5
15
5
16
5
15
5
15
15
15
7
15
5
Lade :
Corrected
(YorN}
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-3. ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RATES FOR MANUAL SAMPLING TEST RUNS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Date
9/07/91
9/09/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
Roa
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Location
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
BOI Inlet
BH Inlet
BH Outlet
CDWCDF
Isokinctic
Sample Rate(%)
109.60
104.62
103.15
109.93
102.74
101.93
98.89
102.53
97.22
94.57
106.25
99.94
98.63
102.66
100.82
92.91
101.53
98.49
94.00
101.23
99.59
98.76
104.42
101.35
Toxic Metab
isokmedc
Sample Rate (%)
a
95.34
103.26
a
97.30
106.28
a
95.81
102.15
a
97.43
103.28
a
96.23
110.17
a
100.57
104.36
a
95.63
110.23
a
101.27
106.38
Mercury
IsoktHetie
Sample Rate (%)
a
93.31
100.37
a
95.09
101.01
a
97.32
101.46
a
99.28
101.87
a
103.80
108.72
a
102.81
104.63
a
103.92
104.56
a
105.61
105.35
JM
Isokinetie
Sample Rite (%}
95.62
b
b
103.29
b
b
109.49
b
b
104.39
b
b
89.69
b
b
107.97
b
b
109.62
b
b
113.99
b
b
a No test at this location.
b PM testing was performed with the toxic metals train at the baghouse inlet and outlet locations.
-------
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 boiler inlet, baghouse inlet, and
baghouse 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 and reagent blanks versus average MM5 samples for the test runs. No
2378 TCDD was detected in any of the field blanks. A small amount of 2378 TCDF was
found in all of the field blanks, but only at levels less than six times the detection limit.
The heavier CDD/CDF isomers were detected in the MM5 field blanks, with most
contamination found at the boiler inlet and baghouse outlet at levels much lower than
detected in the actual runs. However, field blank corrections were not made on the
emissions results. Analytical blank results are further discussed in Section 6.4.1.
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. Leak check results for the Method 5 train at the boiler
inlet are shown in Table 6-7. None of the leak checks were above 0.02 cfm, therefore, a
leak correction of the PM results was not made. The isokinetic sampling rates for the
PM/metals trains are listed in Table 6-3. All isokinetic values were within 10 percent of
100 percent except Run 6 and Run 8 at the baghouse outlet which had isokinetic
sampling rates of 110.17 and 110.23, respectively.
The post-test dry gas meter calibration checks for boxes used for PM/metals
sampling are shown in Table 6-4. The results were well within the 5 percent acceptance
criterion.
6.2.3 Mercury 101A Sampling Quality Assurance
Table 6-8 presents the leak check results for. the Hg trains. Only the leak check
for Run 2 did not meet the leak rate criterion. However, the exceedance was so small
that no leak correction was applied to the data.
Mercury isokinetic results are shown in Table 6-3. All of the test runs met the
isokinetic criterion of 100 ± 10 percent.
TBS335 6'7
-------
TABLE 6-4. DRY GAS METER POST-TEST CALIBRATION RESULTS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Meter Box
ID
A-36
N-33
R-4
N-34
N-31
N-32
N-30
A-35
Sample
Trains
CDD/CDF-BOI
CDD/CDF-BHI
CDD/CDF-BHO
Metals-BHI
Metals-BHO
Mercury-BHI
Mercury-BHO
Method 5-BOI
Full
CaKbratiofl
Factor
0.9968
0.9875
0.9912
1.0032
1.0108
1.0006
0.9998
1.0010
Post-Test
CaHhratam
Factor
1.0060
0.9788
0.9929
1.0147
0.9937
0.9897
1.0218
0.9972
Post-Test
Deviation
W
0.91
-0.89
0.17
1.13
-1.72
-1.10
2.15
-0.38
[(Post-Test)-(Full)]/(Full)* 100
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-5. CDD/CDF FIELD BLANK AND REAGENT BLANK RESULTS COMPARED TO AVERAGE RUN RESULTS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
CCKJENER
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
MMS
SEA<3ENT
BLANK
(total «&)
[0.008]
[0.008]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.008]
[0.010]
[0.008]
0.040
0.060
(0.022)
(0.008)
(0.008)
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.008]
(0.010)
[0.010]
(0.010)
[0.008]
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.020]
m m|| BOILERINLET
MMS
FDBtO
BLANK
(towtag)
[0.010]
[0.010]
[0.020]
(0.150)
0.010
0.030
0.040
0.170
0.500
0.900
1.500
(0.030)
0.050
(0.050)
(0.070)
0.260
0.330
0.160
0.390
0.030
1.200
1.300
0.440
3.300
3.500
MMS
CONtX 1
AVG.
(total 0$
0.057
0.577
0.193
0.957
0.133
0.170
0.300
1.557
1.653
3.100
5.433
6.033
10.867
1.200
1.350
13.467
3.733
1.470
2.633
0.177
14.933
7.133
1.730
16.500
14.167
MM5
COND.2
AVG,
Jtofctttg)
0.045
2.965
0.165
1.235
0.115
0.145
0.270
1.600
1.550
3.000
6.400
2.900
10.700
0.895
1.155
11.350
3.100
1.280
2.750
0.150
13.050
6.650
1.400
14.650
12.750
MMS
C0N1X3
AVQ.
(total 0$
0.060
1.967
0.370
3.233
0.423
0.630
1.303
6.633
8.067
15.633
25.367
2.400
24.967
1.967
3.133
29.533
12.333
4.533
11.433
0.653
48.900
29.467
7.033
64.300
59.567
fcA0HQir$E INLET
MMS
mu>
BLANK
imm*
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.020]
[0.030]
[0.030]
0.080
0.080
0.390
(0.020)
(0.020)
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.020]
0.030
[0.020]
0.030
0.100
[0.030]
0.130
0.200
MMS
com, i
AVQ.
(total og)
0.143
1.273
0.423
2.367
0.493
0.730
1.367
6.733
11.067
19.867
37.800
2.387
16.767
1.800
2.933
28.700
15.767
4.833
16.300
0.913
64.633
33.600
10.500
83.933
43.967
MMS
a>m2
AVG.
BLANK
(towang)
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.030]
(1.000)
[0.030]
(0.020)
[0.030]
(0.090)
0.270
0.540
0.900
0.020
0.240
(0.030)
(0.040)
0.260
0.210
0.070
0.210
[0.030]
0.540
0.640
(0.170)
1.100
1.500
MMS
£0NtM
Ava.
-------
TABLE 6-6. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR TOXIC METALS SAMPLE TRAINS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Date
9/07/91
9/07/91
9/09/91
9/09/91
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
Rua :
Number j
2 BH Inlet
2 BH Outlet
3 BH Inlet
3 BH Outlet
4 BH Inlet
4 BH Outlet
5 BH Inlet
5 BH Outlet
6BH Inlet
6 BH Outlet
7 BH Inlet
7 BH Outlet
8 BH Inlet
8 BH Outlet
9BH Inlet
9 BH Outlet
Maximum
Vacuum
2.5
3.2
1
1
2.5
3.3
1
1
2.2
3.1
1
1
2.3
3.3
1
1
2.8
3.8
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
Port
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Rate
(acfin)
0.529
0.536
0.408
0.356
0.571
0.600
0.413
0.391
0.563
0.589
0.411
0.399
0.562
0.581
0.428
0.410
0.577
0.588
0.397
0.362
0.573
0.597
0.419
0.382
0.550
0.556
0.419
0.383
0.560
0.555
0.405
0.379
MeasuttxJ
Leak Hate
0.012
0.004
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.006
0.007
0.003
0.010
0.006
0.008
0.006
0.008
0.004
0.010
0.012
0.016
0.004
0.014
0.012
0.016
0.004
0.016
0.006
0.008
0.004
0.018
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.006
0.005
Vacuum
{bung)
15
3.5
17
5
15
3.5
15
4
15
3.5
15
5
16
4
15
5
15
4
15
5
15
6
15
5
15
5
15
5
15
7
15
5
Liak "
Corrected
-------
TABLE 6-7. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR METHOD 5 SAMPLE TRAINS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Date
9/07/91
9/09/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
Him.
Number ;
2 BOI Inlet
3 BOI Inlet
4 BOI Inlet
5 BOI Inlet
6 BOI Inlet
7 BOI Inlet
8 BOI Inlet
9 BOI Inlet
Mtodmmtt
Vacuum
9
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
&Ht
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Avg, Sample
Rate
(acfm)
0.684
0.694
0.374
0.355
0.374
0.329
0.344
0.358
0.278
0.320
0.296
0.270
0.263
0.305
0.312
0.275
Measured
LeakRato
0.019
0.014
0.017
0.010
0.010
0.016
0.016
0.020
0.012
0.018
0.014
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.018
0.018
Yacawai
{is-Hg)
16
6
15
15
15
5
15
5
15
10
12
5
15
5
15
12
. !•££••
Corrected
(YorN)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
6-11
-------
TABLE 6-8. LEAK CHECK RESULTS FOR MERCURY SAMPLE TRAINS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Date
9/01/91
9/07/91
9/09/91
9/09/91
9/10/91
9/10/91
9/11/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/12/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/14/91
9/14/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
JRiat
Nm&ber
2 BH Inlet
2 BH Outlet
3 BH Inlet
3 BH Outlet
4 BH Inlet
4 BH Outlet
SBH Inlet
5 BH Outlet
6 BH Inlet
6 BH Outlet
7 BH Inlet
7 BH Outlet
SBH Inlet
8 BH Outlet
9 BH Inlet
9 BH Outlet
Maximum
Vacuum
3
3.6
1
1
2.4
2.8
1
1
2.5
3.1
1
1
2.2
3
1
1
2.7
3.5
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
Port
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Rate
(acfen)
0.499
0.521
0.403
0.354
0.537
0.566
0.411
0.380
0.535
0.566
0.416
0.401
0.538
0.562
0.437
0.407
0.552
0.568
0.399
0.360
0.554
0.576
0.426
0.384
0.541
0.547
0.426
0.385
0.557
0.541
0.398
0.384
Measured
Leak. Rate.
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.015
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.008
0.014
0.005
0.010
0.003
0.010
0.008
0.014
0.006
0.002
0.008
0.012
0.004
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.004
0.016
0.010
0.012
0.005
0.008
0.006
0.010
0.004
Vaeauat
{«-H#
15
4
17
5
15
6
15
4.5
15
3.5
15
5
15
4
15
5
15
4
15
5
15
7
15
5
15
6
15
5
15
5
15
5
Leak
Cojwecterf
(YorN}
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
6-12
-------
The Hg field blank results are presented in Table 6-9. The amount of Hg
detected in the field blanks was negligible compared 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. A slight
modification to the method (EPA Method 26) was incorporated into the test scheme by
placing a small amount of quartz wool into the upstream side of the HC1 filter housing.
Leak checks were completed before and after each halogen test run. They were
conducted by establishing approximately 10 inches of vacuum on the train, plugging the
end of the probe, turning off the flow, and checking for any detectable vacuum loss over
a 30-second period. If a leak was observed in the system, the run was invalidated.
There was no quantitation of leak rate. All halogen tests met the post-test leak check
criterion.
Halogen field blank results are shown in Table 6-10. No C1-, Br" or F was
detected in either the baghouse inlet or outlet field blanks. Neither were any of the
halogen ions detected in any of the three method blanks.
6.3 QC PROCEDURES FOR ASH SAMPLING
Daily samples of both incinerator bottom ash and baghouse ash were collected.
Incinerator ash was collected before each test day (from the previous test run), and
baghouse ash was collected on the afternoon of its respective test run. The ash was
analyzed for metals, CDD/CDF, carbon, loss on ignition, and moisture content. All ash
was removed from the incinerator bed every morning and placed in a large 55-gallon
drum. Three 1000-gram samples were taken and placed in pre-cleaned, amber glass
bottles. This same procedure was used to collect baghouse ash. All material used for
sampling, sample compositing, and sample aliquoting was cleaned to prevent sample
contamination.
-------
Table 6-9
Mercury Method 101A Blank Results
Blank Type
Baghouse Inlet Field Blank
Baghouse Outlet Field Blank
Method Blank
Matrix Spike (Outlet Run 6)
Matrix Spike Duplicate (Outlet Run 6)
Results
(total^g)
3.08
12.5
[0.2991
NA
NA
Percent Recovery
(%>
NA
NA
NA
97.8
92.7
NA = Not Applicable
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
JBS335
6-14
-------
TABLE 6-10. HALOGEN FIELD BLANK AND METHOD BLANK RESULTS;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991) a
ANALYTE
Cl
F
Br
INLET
FIELD
BLANK
(total mg)
[0.00342]
[0.012]
[0.00381]
OUTLET
FIELD
BLANK
(totaling)
[0.00405]
[0.0142]
[0.00451]
METHOD
BLANKl
(totelffig)
[0.595]
[0.180]
[0.444]
METHOD :
BLANKl !
(total mg) ;
[0.488]
[0.111]
[0.253]
METHOD
BLANKS
(total Bag)
[0.00484]
[0.0170]
[0.00539]
a Values are reported as respective anions.
[] = Detection limit.
6-15
-------
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 separates each class of chlorination (i.e.,
tetra, penta, 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 concentrations 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
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
JBS33S
6-16
-------
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 MM5 Blank Results. The method blank and the field blank
were analyzed for CDD/CDF isomers. Small quantities of several isomers were detected
in the method blanks. Levels were all less than one third the "theoretical method
quantitation limit" and were, therefore, within analytical QA guidelines. As discussed in
Section 6.2.1, some of the heavier CDD/CDF isomers were detected in the field blanks
at minute levels. These results are shown in Table 6-5. No correction was made for the
field blank contamination.
6.4.1.3 CDD/CDF Standard Recoveries. Tables 6-11, 6-12, and 6-13, present the
standard recovery values for the MM5 flue gas samples, respectively. Both full screen
and confirmation 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 boiler inlet,
baghouse inlet, and baghouse outlet met the acceptable criteria. A few isomers
exceeded the acceptance criterion for some test runs at each location. However, because
the majority of the standards recoveries are within acceptable QC limits, the quality of
the outlet CDD/CDF data appears reasonable.
All CDD/CDF data was inspected and released as valid by the Triangle
Laboratory QA officer.
Table 6-14 presents the recovery standards for the incinerator and baghouse ash
samples. For the flue gas, a few isomers exceeded the standard recoveries acceptance
6-17
-------
TABLE 6-11. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE CDD/CDF MODIFIED METHOD 5 BOILER INLET ANALYSE
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
H-»
00
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 (%)
13CI2-2378-TCDF
13C12-2378-TCDD
Run
^
97.4
89.5
104.0
84.8
94.2
88.2
103.0
82.0
73.8
83.2
91.3
96.7
117.0
92.4
77.6
72.5
86.4
80.2
61.3
Run
3
95.1
101.0
100.0
88.9
95.4
93.6
104.0
73.5
69.9
72.7
85.0
100.0
110.0
94.9
84.0
66.4
89.2
61.5
57.7
Run
4
90.2
101.0
111.0
81.3
105.0
104.0
122.0
78.2
76.9
93.3
121.0
87.3
135.0
105.0
105.0
92.0
90.8
57.6
53.3
Run
$
99.6
98.7
109.0
86.8
105.0
93.1
107.0
81.8
73.0
83.0
101.0
91.0
119.0
94.8
89.1
74.6
93.7
54.6
50.2
Run
$
94.2
106.0
98.8
85.7
94.4
90.2
122.0
82.1
81.0
94.7
126.0
85.6
128.0
96.9
95.4
86.5
90.8
71.6
65.9
Run
7
96.4
96.3
107.0
75.8
92.7
96.5
123.0
85.2
78.3
95.2
134.0
90.7
146.0
110.0
99.8
79.6
89.9
51.3
48.7
Run
8
87.7
90.4
101.0
93.7
97.0
98.3
125.0
80.3
74.7
85.7
93.6
95.6
115.0
110.0
96.8
90.0
84.8
75.6
66.6
Run
9
91.7
66.8
104.0
78.5
81.9
71.9
82.8
116.0
76.0
112.0
120.0
68.4
97.5
87.9
72.7
73.3
85.3
76.6
76.4
Field
Bftftk
94.5
91.0
95.4
75.7
95.8
96.8
129.0
89.5
84.3
92.1
133.0
89.7
148.0
103.0
104.0
95.3
86.1
45.1
45.5
TO
94.4
93.8
114.0
82.4
110.0
88.9
97.7
86.7
83.9
90.7
140.0
65.2
113.0
90.8
107.0
90.4
86.2
63.0
64.9
-------
TABLE 6-12. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE CDD/CDF MODIFIED METHOD 5 BAGHOUSE INLET ANALYSES
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
ON
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
13Cl2-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
Rita
a
94.8
78.9
134.0
82.0
185.0
63.8
40.2
69.5
75.0
37.9
44.1
14.5
41.8
17.5
43.1
59.1
100.0
95.7
87.2
Ron
3
102.0
101.0
115.0
81.5
96.9
94.7
108.0
92.2
81.5
65.9
103.0
92.1
126.0
90.0
82.6
55.4
103.0
88.3
82.3
Run
4
105.0
94.1
118.0
70.5
98.4
87.7
114.0
94.2
75.9
77.7
102.0
76.6
142.0
89.8
83.6
69.1
99.5
92.8
92.8
Ruti
5
102.0
96.6
114.0
81.9
112.0
70.7
86.2
70.0
61.3
68.5
107.0
62.0
93.3
74.5
80.0
75.1
100.0
66.0
62.0
Rwft
6
106.0
111.0
113.0
113.0
76.1
103.0
167.0
106.0
92.0
98.1
124.0
98.4
135.0
134.0
101.0
97.6
101.0
107.0
87.5
Rwft
7
101.0
102.0
107.0
87.9
85.8
94.5
133.0
88.9
77.9
91.2
119.0
96.5
117.0
110.0
88.8
79.1
99.2
91.7
78.3
Rita
8
42.0
38.5
48.1
46.4
40.8
94.3
143.0
89.5
75.6
83.5
97.0
80.4
98.7
91.5
77.7
68.6
41.6
92.8
78.4
Rim
*
106.0
94.3
113.0
106.0
85.5
114.0
117.0
102.0
80.6
90.4
87.0
89.4
99.9
96.0
74.0
67.1
101.0
82.1
85.7
PMd
Blank
104.0
103.0
97.2
115.0
101.0
99.4
131.0
81.7
79.3
76.3
90.1
91.9
99.1
85.4
85.2
79.0
94.6
65.4
66.5
TLf
101.0
99.3
107.0
86.0
119.0
88.1
108.0
71.7
68.4
78.0
126.0
74.6
107.0
86.2
97.5
78.2
92.7
106.0
116.0
-------
TABLE 6-13. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE CDD/CDF MODIFIED METHOD 5 BAGHOUSE OUTLET ANALYSES
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
o\
N>
O
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
2
97.7
109.0
107.0
95.8
108.0
99.7
126.0
102.0
96.1
93.3
115.0
84.9
111.0
85.6
86.1
81.8
93.8
81.1
77.1
Rtto
3
97.3
99.1
102.0
115.0
99.8
79.1
135.0
89.9
83.8
70.6
79.5
71.1
92.9
63.5
63.5
56.5
95.2
84.1
78.8
R
-------
TABLE 6-14. STANDARDS RECOVERIES FOR THE BAGHOUSE ASH AND INCINERATOR ASH CDD/CDF ANALYSES
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
-
•ull Screen Analyses
Surrogate Standards Recovery (%)
37C1-TCDD
13C12-PeCDF234
13C12-HxCDF 478
13C12-HxCDD 478
13C12-HpCDF 789
Alternate Standards Recovery (%)
13C12-HxCDF 789
13C12-HxCDF 234
nternal 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
JRua
2
BASIL
69.5
84.1
97.1
110.0
72.6
106.0
146.0
61.1
74.2
76.9
97.9
100.0
115.0
89.9
85.5
74.7
70.2
74.8
68.5
INdN.
58.3
98.6
135.0
114.0
75.1
88.0
190.0
64.9
63.3
103.0
111.0
116.0
114.0
135.0
109.0
98.2
63.5
74.3
69.4
Run
3
BACUL
50.9
67.2
105.0
114.0
69.9
95.5
120.0
46.3
55.7
59.3
78.6
128.0
115.0
87.5
84.2
70.6
60.5
60.5
57.8
mem.
70.8
101.0
101.0
106.0
84.1
86.0
95.8
66.3
78.2
97.5
104.0
92.9
91.4
85.4
99.5
110.0
75.6
86.8
76.8
Rua
4
BA&J9L
52.3
70.8
110.0
114.0
75.2
89.6
130.0
47.8
56.9
64.3
81.6
142.0
116.0
97.8
90.8
81.6
59.3
58.9
60.5
mCtti
77.9
85.0
103.0
103.0
54.8
86.5
92.0
79.0
89.5
90.5
94.9
94.4
86.2
81.8
70.1
44.8
94.0
94.7
102.0
Run
S
BAQH.
65.1
77.9
121.0
118.0
73.7
94.2
146.0
70.0
74.4
88.0
94.9
198.0
115.0
110.0
89.2
75.4
76.8
89.9
83.2
mem,
76.1
82.0
97.5
104.0
64.7
79.4
163.0
82.9
84.7
84.7
126.0
124.0
149.0
83.8
83.0
71.6
79.7
93.3
87.5
Run
6
BAOH,
63.0
75.8
128.0
113.0
70.8
93.8
128.0
63.0
67.9
75.3
90.2
132.0
110.0
107.0
85.3
66.6
77.8
77.3
80.0
mem.
66.5
84.1
88.1
100.0
61.3
77.6
138.0
66.9
69.3
82.2
90.2
90.6
97.0
74.4
77.7
62.3
74.1
76.5
75.6
Run
7
BAOKL
71.8
119.0
104.0
106.0
93.4
91.9
103.0
71.4
82.4
105.0
116.0
92.8
93.0
99.8
108.0
135.0
85.2
93.6
88.7
WON.
76.4
129.0
127.0
117.0
71.1
90.4
151.0
83.4
81.0
126.0
172.0
126.0
125.0
128.0
104.0
102.0
72.3
76.8
74.0
Rua
8
BAO1L
54.5
74.4
100.0
108.0
77.1
78.8
91.4
51.0
58.4
68.4
77.1
80.5
82.5
64.8
67.7
62.5
47.0
47.3
52.4
mCm*
59.1
78.5
88.2
96.1
73.5
79.3
83.7
54.9
65.0
79.3
80.8
78.9
82.4
71.5
84.7
94.7
66.3
75.2
65.3
. Rua
9
BAGH,
70.4
91.9
95.1
138.0
75.3
85.5
97.9
64.0
69.6
88.8
99.3
78.0
88.5
70.5
80.1
88.2
60.8
63.8
64.3
mem.
70.2
75.0
119.0
113.0
71.3
93.5
98.6
74.1
82.7
85.5
79.2
105.0
95.1
85.8
83.6
87.6
90.2
103.0
94.8
fU
39.1
88.7
45.2
55.9
52.2
51.9
77.0
36.4
41.8
75.0
110.0
51.8
61.2
49.9
5M
49.0
NA
NA
NA
-------
criterion. This is not expected to affect the quality of the data. More information on
standards recoveries can be found in Appendix E.
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 6-15 presents the metals method blank results for the ash and flue gas
samples. No metals were detected in the ash blank. Aluminum, Ba, and Pb were
detected in the flue gas method blank at low levels. Table 6-16 presents the field blank
metal results with the field blank for the flue gas samples. There was a noticeable
contamination in the field blanks. The front half samples were contaminated with Al,
Sb, Cr, and Ni. The back half samples were contaminated with Al, As, Cr, Cu, Hg, and
Ni. The samples were not blank corrected, but it should be noted that the
contamination is present.
Table 6-17 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 6-9 presents the matrix spike results. All spike recoveries were within
± 10 percent of 100 percent acceptance.
6.4.4 Halogen Analytical Quality Assessment
The analysis for Cl", F, and Br" incorporate stringent QA/QC guidelines.
Table 6-10 presented the method blank results for the 1C analysis. None of the target
halogen ions were detected in any of the method blanks or the reagent blank. The field
blank revealed very low amounts of HC1, which represented a small percentage of the
sample run amounts.
The matrix spike recoveries are shown in Table 6-18. Results for all 3 ions were
within the 20 percent criteria.
JBS335
-------
Table 6-15
METALS ASH AND FLUE GAS METHOD BLANK RESULTS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
:
Astl
Method
Blank
(nig/kg)
[3.00]
[0.600]
[0.800]
[3.00]
[0.200]
[0.200]
[0.400]
[1.20]
[1.20]
[1.96]
[0.600]
[0.600]
[1.20]
Flee £as Method Blank
Front
Hat
(total ng)
5.81
[1.50]
[0.400]
0.130
[0.100]
[0.200]
[0.600]
[0.400]
0.471
[2.45]
[0.300]
[0.600]
[10.0]
Implngers
J&*
(total ug)
8.04
[0.109]
[0.436]
[0.109]
[0.109]
[0.218]
[0.654]
[0.436]
[0.327]
[6.91]
[0.327]
[0.646]
[10.9]
Impiflgers
'MM*
^tejai fijrjt
[7.53]
NOTE: Impingers 4,5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for Mercury content only.
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit.
6-23
-------
Table 6-16
METALS AMOUNT IN FIELD BLANK FLUE GAS BY SAMPLE FRACTION
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
MEffALS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
UUUBT
fiXHtt
Half
{ta&lug)
468
30.0
[1.00]
15.8
[0.250]
8.93
47.5
46.5
27.3
[2.45]
59.5
[1.50]
[25.0]
impfeger
w
<*<***»$
22.0
[1.85]
0.655
1.03
[0.124]
[0.247]
4.21
9.65
0.538
20.0
3.49
[1.85]
[12.4]
JjnpiHgtyr
*M
<*>fc*«g>
30.6
total
B?
490
30.0
0.655
16.8
[0.374]
8.93
51.7
56.2
27.8
50.6
63.0
[3.35]
[37.4]
GOTLKF
Front
Half
{total «g)
152
10.2
[0.400]
3.79
[0.100]
0.490
4.90
16.2
2.62
[0.980]
94.3
4.72
[10.0]
Imjringer
W
{fetal wg)
23.2
[1.71]
[0.457]
0.503
[0.114]
0.263
6.63
79.8
1.04
18.5
6.48
0.800
[11.4]
Impinger
4£6
#et8lag:).. ..
[0.529]
Total
«?
175
10.2
[0.857]
4.29
[0.214]
0.753
11.5
96.0
3.66
18.5
101
5.52
[21.4]
[ ] = Minimum Detection Limit
NOTE: Analyzed impingers 4,5 and 6 for mercury only
-------
Table 6-17
METALS METHOD AND MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS - BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
\
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Method Spike (% rec)
Fr&at
Half
106%
101%
107%
95.0%
95.6%
101%
102%
99.6%
96.2%
97.8%
100%
86.2%
97.7%
Jmpingers
i&» !
107%
103%
103%
93.7%
97.2%
102%
103%
95.8%
97.0%
97.6%
102%
92.7%
102%
Iropingm
4&*
97.6%
MethtKi Spike Du plicate (% rec)
FtfHit
Half
106%
102%
105%
94.2%
95.6%
101%
103%
99.3%
93.2%
103%
101%
104%
106%
Impingers
W
109%
103%
93.8%
94.4%
98.0%
103%
103%
97.0%
101%
103%
102%
95.7%
99.0%
I m pi tigers
1 4&*
96.8%
Ash Samples (%ree)
\ Matrix
Spifce
85.4%
87.9%
97.9%
87.4%
83.1%
83.0%
85.3%
81.6%
85.6%
100%
82.2%
8.00%
85.9%
Matrix
Spike Dup
109%
91.2%
97.9%
90.2%
85.7%
85.2%
87.4%
86.2%
88.6%
105%
84.4%
35.2%
86.1%
NOTE: Impingers 4,5 and 6 sample fractions analyzed for Mercury content only.
-------
TABLE 6-18. HALOGEN MATRIX SPIKE AND MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATES RECOVERY VALUES;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
AttALIftfi
Cl
F
Br
mt*4A.
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
<*>
118.0%
91.2%
119.0%
MATRIX
: SPIKE
tHtttlCATfi
RECOVERY
<*>
118.0%
91.7%
119.0%
RUNS&
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
(*>
101.0%
81.4%
101.0%
MATRIX,
SPtKfi
milCyCATE
RECOVERY
(*>
101.0%
81.1%
103.0%
fcUWSC
MATRIX:
SPIKE
RECOVERY
c*>
160.0%
94.4%
114.0%
MATRIX
SPIKE
mjIfcLICAtE
RECOVERY
(*)
119.0%
112.0%
109.0%
KdttTKi
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
<*>
94.5%
91.7%
101.0%
MATRIX
SPIKE
IHI«JICAtB
RECOVERY
&)
97.3%
93.6%
105.0%
RUNSC
MATRIX
SPIKE
RECOVERY
<*>
107.0%
96.0%
127.0%
MATRIX
SPIKE
ItfH>yCAtB
RECOVERY
{%)
105.0%
94.1%
118.0%
-------
6.5 CEM QUALITY ASSURANCES
Flue gas was analyzed for O2, CO2, CO, SO2, NO^ and THC, using EPA
Methods 10, 3A, 6C, 7E, and 25A, respectively. An additional CEM analyzer was also
employed for real time HC1 gas concentrations. The following section will report the
CEM QA parameters specific for each of those methods and analyzers.
6.5.1 CEM 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 that quality data were produced.
Details of the CEM QC procedures and objectives are fully outlined in the Borgess Test
Plan. The following sections will report QA parameters specific to the previously
mentioned QA/QC procedures and also data variation.
Table 6-19 presents the CEM internal QA/QC checks along with their respective
acceptance criteria which were conducted at the Borgess 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 high 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.
JBS335 6'27
-------
TABLE 6-19. 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
3 point for O2, CO2, NOX,
S02, HC1
4 point for CO, THC
Once/Site
Once/Site
Once/Site
Once/Site
Before Each
Test Run
Once/Site
Daily
±2% Span
< 5% Span
85% of time for
stable SO2
measurements
> 90% conversion
efficiency
< 4% of Total flow
while under vacuum
< 0.5% O, with
0.2% 02 gas
Within 10% of
average
< ±3% Span
zero and upscale
gas (can use
±10 ppm limit for
HC1 if less
restrictive)
JBS335
6-28
-------
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 Appendix D.3. All analyzers met the drift criteria throughout the
program (over 100 drift checks), except the outlet CO monitor for Run 3. The outlet
CO drifts for this day were 6.76 and -3.24 percent of full scale, respectively. These data
were drift corrected assuming linear drift between calibrations.
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 shown in Appendix D.4. The QC
responses were not quantitated in terms of percent of full scale deviation; however, if a
QC gas challenge did show any calibration problems in the field, these would have been
noted and rectified.
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 (R2) of greater than or equal to
.998, where the independent variable is the cylinder gas concentration and the dependent
variable is the instrument response.
CEM linearity was calculated for the inlet and outlet instruments from calibration
and pre-test QC gas data from September 7, 1991; these calculations are listed in
Appendix D.5. All linearity checks met the acceptance criteria except the outlet HC1
6-29
-------
CEM, which had an R2 value of 0.997. No corrective action was taken for this
occurrence. The inlet HC1 linearity for that day was R2 = 0.9999. Linearity can be
calculated for any test day by using the calibration and QC data included in
Appendix D.4.
6.5.5 Sample Bias
Sample bias can be described as any CEM inaccuracies caused by the CEM
sampling system. Normal calibrations are performed by directing calibration gas straight
to the analyzers. Sample bias is determined by directing QC gases to the probe and
pulling them through the entire sampling system (heat trace, conditioner/pump,
manifold, etc.). Any deviation that the "through-the-system" response showed from the
QC response of a direct QC gas challenge would be defined as sample bias.
All HC1 calibrations were performed through the sampling system which would
correct for any bias which may have occurred. Sample bias on the other instruments was
checked on September 15 and 16, 1991. September 15 bias checks were completed on
the SO2 analyzers during the response time check. Bias checks were completed on all
analyzers on September 16, 1991 as each QC gas was directed to the probe and back
through the entire sampling system. The sample bias criterion for the Borgess test
program was that bias response deviation was to be no greater than ± 5 percent of span.
The sample bias data is listed in Appendices D.4 and D.5. The data have not been
quantitatively assessed in terms of percent of full scale but (as with the QC gas
challenges), if any sample bias was detected in the field, it would have been noted and
rectified.
6.5.6 Response Time
CEM response time was determined on September 15, 1991, and the results are
shown in Appendix D.5. Response time for the Borgess test program was defined as the
amount of time taken for the SO2 analyzer to reach 85 percent of a QC gas value when
the gas was directed through the entire sampling system. Both inlet and outlet extractive
systems had response times of approximately 2 minutes.
JBS335
-------
6.5.7 Stratification Checks
Because the size of the ducts sampled in the Borgess Test Program were so small
(inlet diameter = 15.5 inches, outlet diameter = 26.5 inches), stratification of CEM
gases in the ducts was assumed to be negligible.
6.6 DATA VARIABILITY
6.6.1 Overview
Coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated for all the final stack gas pollutant
concentrations. The CV or relative standard deviation (RSD) is calculated by dividing
the standard deviation by the mean and expressing it as a percentage. Coefficient of
variations from several distinct groups of data can be combined into a "Pooled CV". The
pooled CV is calculated as follows:
CV = — x 100
M
where:
CV = Coefficient of variation
S = Standard deviation (calculated using LOTUS 123™ which uses n and
not n-1 where n = number of data points.)
M = mean
cv . E (CV')Z "'
\
CV = Pooled coefficient of variation
j = Coefficient of variation for a simple sample set i.
rij = Number of data points in that sample set.
The CV values expressed in the following tables are not intended to represent
sampling/analytical precision. They reflect the variability of the data as a whole,
including process-caused emission variability.
6-31
-------
6.6.2 CDD/CDF Data Variation
Tables 6-20, 6-21, and 6-22 present the CVs for the CDD/CDF flue gas
concentrations. Values are listed for each congener for each triplicate run, as well as a
pooled CV for the entire eight runs. Pooled CVs are also compiled for all of the
congeners at each location and for the entire test program (overall). The overall pooled
CVs for the CDD/CDF flue gas concentrations was 16.67 percent at the boiler inlet,
19.07 percent at the baghouse inlet, and 26.03 percent baghouse outlet.
6.6.3 Metals and Mercury 101A Data Variation
Table 6-23 presents the CVs for the metal flue gas concentrations for the three
test conditions. Table 6-24 presents the CVs for the Hg 101A results for the three test
conditions.
6.6.4 Halogen Data Variation
The halogen gas test CVs are listed in Table 6-25. Values were calculated for
each run, which consisted of three "sub-runs" during the course of the day's test run. The
CVs were calculated for HC1, HF, and HBr for the runs at the baghouse inlet and outlet
The overall pooled CVs for the halogen gas results ranged from 38.32 percent
to 67.93 percent.
6.6.5 CEM Data Variation
The variability of the CEM data has been quantified in this section by calculating
CV for each analyzer on each day. The CVs were calculated by dividing the standard
deviation by the mean for each set of daily data and expressing it as a percentage. It is
important to note that the variability expressed by these values is not an indicator of the
precision of the test method. These values are mostly a reflection of the variability of
the process itself with respect to emissions of specific compounds. In addition to CV
values for data from one compound for one day, pooled CV values were also calculated
for various combined data sets. Pooled CVs are calculated by taking the square root of
the sum of the squares of the individual CV values. Pooled CVs were calculated for all
the data sets from each sample location per day, for each analyzer data set for the entire
test program (i.e., inlet CO), and for the entire CEM data set.
JBS335 0-32
-------
TABLE 6-20. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR CDD/CDF FLUE GAS EMISSIONS;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
BOILER INLET
CGN*ifi&ER
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 CDQ
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL dD£
TOTAL C&tt+CDJP
CfceSfciente vt Variation i(C V)
JU3NS 2,3,4
7.530
21.181
14.879
15.087
17.077
9.857
16.310
22.138
14.643
16.555
6.088
10.634
47.102
25.376
9.426
11.719
25.291
15.018
11.558
18.986
6.430
33.391
21.356
17.635
26.856
19.975
1&228
17.907
RWS 5,$ :
31.451
89.308
43.770
53.660
37.335
29.122
20.214
30.820
7.590
1.347
25.415
14.395
26.131
40.310
43.563
36.723
35.815
17.323
30.923
28.995
31.451
31.568
7.688
5.048
2.103
21.233
13^691
13,823
RUNS 7,5,9
58.633
11.169
2.630
33.692
17.488
8.978
22.275
32.640
23.981
23.592
51.876
33.375
40.156
16.314
11.979
15.114
16.231
9.702
5.133
8.177
5.636
22.869
18.033
8.813
5.067
27.530
13.424
17.110
PooIerfCV
39.468
47.000
23.761
35.084
23.928
16.694
19.697
28.649
17.620
17.662
34.417
22.626
40.092
27.340
23.697
21.779
25.677
13.961
17.293
19.246
16.574
29.383
17.543
12.334
16.769
23.378
15.908
16.667
6-33
-------
TABLE 6-21. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR CDD/CDF FLUE GAS EMISSIONS;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
BAGHOUSE INLET
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
TOteJCDI>
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
1 23478 HxCDF
1 23678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CD0+CDF
coefficients of Varfeifoft
RUNS 2,3.4
33.843
54.570
25.796
20.962
27.963
29.062
5.787
26.458
29.697
71.019
24.041
30.685
43.315
47.702
26.727
29.598
35.450
9.380
20.540
18.085
35.919
25.401
17.634
2.663
15.801
70.997
i 23.422
24.0*9
RUNS 5,6 ;
51.888
55.426
46.440
66.434
48.614
40.643
38.972
40.291
26.609
29.209
0.738
17.577
1.737
50.725
53.246
48.694
48.512
36.380
44.405
41.881
27.257
38.368
13.834
6.235
4.763
6.283
! 24.93$
23.333
RUNS7,8.a
21.124
31.094
23.674
15.167
11.871
19.165
8.851
13.303
10.546
12.831
5.338
9.031
46.535
23.886
11.102
20.554
5.089
9.888
10.383
15.357
6.008
9.279
7.447
6.575
8.962
10.709
6.006
8.249
Footed CV
35.636
47.405
31.605
36.803
30.609
29.452
20.534
27.106
23.440
46.545
15.085
21.469
38.941
41.358
31.982
32.859
32.701
20.013
26.298
25.487
26.136
25.343
13.611
5.347
11.376
44.081
I9.$4t
19.441
6-34
-------
TABLE 6-22. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR CDD/CDF FLUE GAS EMISSIONS;
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
B AGHOUSE OUTLET
CSHGBHER i
DIOXINS
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678-HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Other Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD4CDF
CoefficientB nf Variation. «
19.101
0.448
14.625
22.648
18.272
49.650
59.867
57.291
34.474
46.947
11.554
30.228
33.731
54.745
53.448
35.902
61.354
29.821
40.376
30.777
16.279
75.997
24.560
3.857
7.423
26.857
22.948
25.596
RUNS 7f*,9
53.457
46.242
57.370
45.305
49.761
37.330
51.726
4.891
8.395
7.570
9.731
4.641 ;
29.059
35.032
38.729
15.700
70.881
16.606
31.789
23.759
62.852
76.802
19.067
6.296
25.695
16.135
14.603
S.514
PwrferfCV
37.340
31.528
41.552
36.447
34.494
37.844
46.333
31.012
41.043
41.035
40.247
35.208
28.489
35.271
38.738
23.404
53.724
19.089
30.508
29.280
46.907
60.768
30.288
31.858
29.165
41.516
24.629
26.029
6-35
-------
Table 6-23
COEFFICEINTS OF VARIATION OF THE FLUE GAS METALS CONCENTRATIONS AT THE INLET AND OUTLET
BORGESS MEDICAL CANTER (1991)
CentlftJan
Run
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Without Cttrtom Inject ifw
Inlet
24.3%
47.6%
17.9%
46.0%
NA
2.51%
42.7%
31.3%
47.1%
46.7%
24.3%
101%
NA
Outlet
2 thru 4
3.63%
13.1%
71%
13.5%
NA
39.4%
52.8%
81.9%
51.3%
46.6%
38.7%
73.9%
NA
Oarfeaa I*I|JC&HI & 1 IfeflB-
Inlet
22.8%
27.9%
1.62%
20.1%
NA
117%
46.0%
30.3%
30.1%
23.5%
39.4%
9.52%
NA
Outlet
S&6
3.54%
2.52%
70.7%
12.6%
NA
1.36%
42.1%
1.87%
39.9%
12.7%
24.8%
70%
NA
Carh
-------
Table 6-24
COEFFICEINTS OF VARIATION OF THE MERCURY 101A
CONCENTRATIONS AT THE INLET AND OUTLET -
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
Condition
Rttft
Mercury
Coodifioa
Boa
Mercury
Mercury
Infet
CV{%)
41.6%
41.6%
Carbon Infection <§ 1 Ife/br
Inlet
25.6%
Cw-feoa
39.4%
Outlet
15.4%
63.3%
6-37
-------
TABLE 6-25. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR HALOGEN
MANUAL FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
TEST
mtt
mJMBER.
AVERAGE 1-3
AVERAGE 4-6
AVERAGE 7-9
AVERAGE 10-12
AVERAGE 13-15
AVERAGE 16-18
AVERAGE 19-21
AVERAGE 22-24
TOTAL FOOLED HALOGEN
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE
B.B, INLET
ev^*)
30.57%
27.29%
54.43%
35.61%
11.87%
56.55%
33.91%
31.11%
tf.69%
BJ*. OOTLET
cv,<«>
72.36%
81.65%
49.36%
78.89%
59.40%
56.54%
71.53%
53.71%
66.42%
HYDROGEN FLOVRJDB
B.JL KJLET
CVt(*>
58.19%
52.80%
28.27%
34.59%
11.50%
26.92%
44.78%
30.87%
38.71&
B,H, OOTLET
CV,<«)
5.49%
6.01%
4.14%
51.43%
17.25%
13.14%
10.60%
0.30%
2G.34&
HYDROaiN BROMIDE
BS» IHLET
cv^<%) i
11.14%
54.76%
16.75%
39.55%
36.59%
89.17%
13.74%
6.47%
42,56$
B,H, OtfTLET
CV,{«) !
65.61%
70.95%
5.18%
14.36%
18.60%
13.27%
10.35%
1.00%
' . " 33.7i«
oo
-------
The CEM CVs are listed in Table 6-26. The overall pooled CV value was
126 percent. Individual analyzer pooled CVs ranged from 4.7 percent for the outlet O2
values to 303 percent for the outlet SO2 values. Outlet CVs were generally higher than
the corresponding inlet values.
6-39
-------
TABLE 6-26. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR THE CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING DATA.
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER (1991)
DATE
9/7
9/9
9/10
9/11
9/12
9/13
9/14
9/16
BOOtEB
RUN
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C£ CV
m
Inlet
5.7
4.8
4.0
4.9
6.5
5.3
8.0
10.4
$.5
Outlet
4.7
4.3
3.6
4.7
4.6
4.9
4.7
5.9
4,7
GQZ CV
<*>
Inlet
13.1
12.5
11.9
15.3
43.4
23.2
22.6
20.8
22.6
Outlet
13.0
13.4
12.7
16.9
14.2
14.3
13.6
13.5
14,0
CO CV
m
Inlet
7.9
40.2
13.3
17.5
10.1
10.0
38.4
35.7
25J
Outlet
112.7
111.6
118.4
353.3
88.3
66.5
381.7
640.9
302.6
NO* CV
<*>
Inlet
29.3
21.2
21.5
29.8
31.0
27.4
25.2
26.0
26.6
Outlet
28.1
22.8
21.9
29.7
52.0
38.0
NR
NR
33,7
SOI CV
<#)
Inlet
77.4
111.8
467.5
205.1
212.8
57.8
148.3
60.2
210,2
Outlet
118.1
97.7
507.0
169.5
24.8
42.3
83.6
49.2
200.3
. THC CV
<%)
Inlet
10.7
32.8
15.3
24.4
17.7
30.3
13.3
16.4
21.5
Outlet
87.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
87,0
HC1 CV
(*>
Met Outlet
25.3
29.4
41.6
43.8
26.1
21.6
30.7
28.3
31J
114.7
114.9
135.9
124.0
45.1
62.1
33.4
67.4
94.7
Met
Pooled
by Day
m
33.5
48.8
177.8
81.1
83.9
29.6
60.7
32.0
Outlet
Footed
fey Day
m
83.1
77.4
219.9
168.4
47.2
44.2
175.5
289.1
'
Total
Pooled
by Day
m :
63.4
63.6
198.4
129.0
69.4
37.1
122.4
188.2
ON
4x
o
OVERALL
POOLED 121.6
NC = Data not compiled yet.
NR = Not recorded (instrument was inoperative for these test runs).
-------
|