United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA BOO 7 78 232
December 1978
Research and Development
Source Emission
Tests at the
Baltimore
Demonstration
Pyrolysis Facility
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78-232
December 1978
SOURCE EMISSION TESTS
AT THE BALTIMORE DEMONSTRATION
PYROLYSIS FACILITY
by
John L. Haslbeck
Billy C. McCoy
TRW
800 Foil in Lane, S. E.
Vienna, Virginia 22180
Contract No. 68-01-2988
Project Officer
W. W. Liberick, Jr.
Energy Systems Environmental Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution con-
trol methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
This report describes the results of a comprehensive field test program
designed to characterize air emissions from the Baltimore Maryland demonstra-
tion pyrolysis plant. The results of this study will be useful to design
appropriate pollution control equipment for this and similar waste-as-fuel
plants. Requests for further information concerning air emissions from waste-
as-fuel systems should be directed to the Fuels Technology Branch, lERL-Ci.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
TRW was retained by EPA/IERL Cincinnati in May of 1976 to conduct source
emission tests at a solid waste treatment plant in Baltimore, Maryland. The
plant is designed to recover low-grade fossil fuel from non-toxic solid waste
by the use of a process known as pyrolysis. When plant construction was
completed in January, 1975, it was determined that the pollutant control equip-
ment did not meet particulate emission standards. A permit was issued to
operate out of compliance, while various modifications were implemented to
reduce emissions. When this permit expired in January, 1976, its renewal was
contingent upon a comprehensive test program designed to quantify the extent
of the pollution and evaluate the environmental impact of a newly proposed
control system on air quality in the surrounding area.
The emission tests were conducted at two locations, one at the inlet and
one at the outlet of the particulate scrubber. The test program was designed
to measure the following flue gas parameters: particulate; S02/S03;NOX; HC1;
HF; total hydrocarbons; hydrocarbon compounds exceeding 1% of the total hydro-
carbon value, but not more than 20; and trace metals.
Average grain-loading for the series of three tests at the outlet location
was 0.255 grains per dry standard cubic foot of stack gas. The average concen-
trations of S02 and $03 at the scrubber outlet were 10 ppm and 8 ppm, respec-
tively. Measurements of S02/S03 in and out of the scrubber show that approxi-
mately 93% of the S02 and a negligible amount of $03 was removed by the
scrubber. Average concentration of NOX in the flue gas was 4 ppm at the inlet
and 5 ppm at the outlet. These results are somewhat suspect in that the amount
of NOX collected is close to the lower limit of precision inherent in the
method.
One sampling train was used to measure both hydrocarbons and trace ele-
ments at each location. Hydrocarbons were extracted and subsequently analyzed
by gas chromatography in two fractions. Samples of fly ash collected on 4 inch
filters were taken for spark-source, mass spectrometric elemental analysis.
High concentrations of the metals iron, zinc, tin, and lead were found in the
particulate samples taken at each location.
Atmospheric diffusion models were employed to assess the environmental
impact of both the existing plant configuration and the proposed pollution
control system. The proposed system consists of an electro-static precipita-
tor exhausting to a 220 ft. stack. Results of this analysis indicate that the
proposed pollution control system represents a considerable improvement over
the existing system, particularly in the sense that it should completely
eliminate the downwash problem, which currently contributes to high levels of
particulate in the area surrounding the pyrolysis facility.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Discussion of Results 3
3. Sampling Equipment and Methodology 15
4. Analytical Procedures 19
5. Dispersion Analysis 21
Appendices
A. Raw Test Data 32
B. Detailed Dispersion Modeling Results 66
C. Aerodynamic Downwash Analysis for Baltimore
City Pyrolysis Plant 78
-------
Figures
Number Page
1 Schematic Diagram of Sampling Sites 2
2 Hydrocarbon/Trace Element Sampling Train 9
3 Particulate Sampling Train 16
4 S02/S03 Sampling Train 17
Tables
Number Page
1 Plant Operating Data 4
2 Particulate Results, Scrubber Outlet 5
3 Gas Sampling Results, Scrubber Inlet 7
4 Gas Sampling Results, Scrubber Outlet 8
5 Results of Hydrocarbon Analysis 10
6 Results of SSMS Analyses of Filters 12
7 Stack Parameters Used for Dispersion Analysis 24
8 Meteorological Parameters Used for Dispersion Analysis .... 25
9 Maximum One-Hour Ground Level Pollutant Concentrations
at the Critical Wind Speed 27
10 Downwind Pollutant Concentrations at Various Distances -
Existing Source Configuration 29
11 Downwind Pollutant Concentrations at Various Distances -
Proposed Source Configuration 30
VI
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
TRW Environmental Engineering, a division of Energy Systems Group, was
retained by EPA/IERL Cincinnati, Fuels Technology Branch, to conduct source
emission tests at a solid waste treatment plant in Baltimore, Maryland. This
plant is a demonstration unit based upon Monsanto1s Landgard system, a process
whereby non-toxic solid waste is subjected to pyrolysis in order to produce a
fuel capable of generating steam energy.
The emission tests were conducted at a location directly downstream from
the pyrolysis vessel known in the plant as the boiler discharge duct, and at a
location on the outlet side of the particulate scrubber known as the C-8 duct
(see Figure 1). For the purpose of simplification, these locations will here-
after be referred to as the inlet and outlet of the particulate scrubber,
respectively. Emission tests were conducted to determine concentrations of
the following constituents in the flue gas: particulates; S02/S03; HC1; HF;
total hydrocarbons; hydrocarbon compounds exceeding 1% of the reported total
hydrocarbon value, but not more than 20; antimony and compounds; arsenic and
compounds; cadmium and compounds; lead and zinc chromates; iron oxide; lead;
molybdenum; nickel compounds; selenium compounds; rhodium; soluble salts; tin
oxide; tungsten and compounds; vanadium oxide; zirconium compounds; and mercu-
ry. With the exception of particulate which was measured only at the outlet,
all of the preceding flue gas constituents were measured at each location.
After numerous delays in the test program due to plant malfunctions, the
actual field testing was begun on November 15, 1976. Sampling for particu-
late, SO , NOV, HC1, HF, and total acidity was completed on November 17, 1976.
X X
After an additional delay in plant operation, samples of hydrocarbons and
trace elements in the flue gas were collected on December 10, 1976.
-------
PYROLYSIS
I
O
SCRUBBER
GAS SAMPLING
PORT
\
\
E •
O
/-" "^ /*" "^
1 FAN ) I FAN J
x^< ^"^
/ CONDENSERf )
FAN y STACKS \ FAN '
v^ -X "^
/ \ / \
| FAN » ' FAN .
BOILER DISCHARGE C-8
SAMPLING PORT DUCT Fiow .-„ oi-mnsnhp™
is 140,000 ACFM per
fan based on estimates
by Dave Sussmao OSW-EPA
A B
DIAMETER 8 FEET
C-8 DUCT
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of sampling sites.
-------
SECTION II
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The entire test program progressed smoothly with no significant problems
encountered in the collection of samples. The sampling and analytical method-
ology employed in this test program is described in detail in the following
two sections of this report. Operation of the pyrolysis plant was fairly con-
stant throughout the test period, and, hence, the results are intended to
reflect the composition of the flue gas under steady state conditions. A
summary of plant operation during the test periods is presented (Table 1).
All samples in this report are designated by a three-letter code followed
by a number indicating the order in which the sample was taken. For example:
PLANT SAMPLE TYPE LOCATION SAMPLE *
(-P=PYROLYSIS) (P=PARTICULATE, (E=EXHAUST, (FIRST IN
S=SULFUR OXIDES, I=INLET) SAMPLE
ETC.) SERIES)
Flue gas particulate was measured only at the outlet of the particulate
scrubber. A complete listing of particulate results is presented (Table 2).
Average grain-loading for the series of three tests was 0.410 g/dscm (0.179
gr/dscf). The pyrolysis unit is considered to be a solid waste incinerator.
Emission rates for this type of unit are typically adjusted to 12°: C02 to
negate any air inleakage between the incinerator and the point at which gas is
discharged to the atmosphere. Average grain-loading for the three tests
adjusted to 12% C02 is 0.584 g/dscm (0.255 gr/dscf). Particulate emissions
during the first test were approximately 30% higher than the other two. How-
ever, when the emission rates are corrected to 12% C02, this degree of differ-
ence becomes less acute, and the results are fairly consistent considering the
accuracy of the method.
3
-------
TABLE 1. PLANT OPERATING DATA
DATE
TIME
PLANT OPERATING
CONDITIONS
THROUGHPUT
(TONS/HR)
TEMPERATURES (°F)
KILN FEED END
KILN FIRE END
GAS PURIFIER
BOILER INLET
(81)
BOILER INLET
(B2)
BOILER OUTLET
ID FAN INLET
ID FAN OUTLET
KILN (RPM)
SCRUBBER FLOW
(GPM)
SCRUBBER OUTLET
(PH)
ID FAN, DAMPER
SFTTING (*.-)
ID FAN, AMPS
REMARKS
11/15/76
1500 1600 1700
30 30 30
1650 1650 1620
1700 1680 1650
2560 2550 2660
1780 1750 1920
1600 1600 1780
610 640 680
142 141 151
143 141 150
0.75 0.75 0.75
9Ann 9finn ?finn
67 fi A fi fi
20 20 20
135 135 135
STEADY OPERATION; BLEW
BOILER TUBES AT 1430
11/16/76
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
31 31 31 31 31 31
1630 1640 1690 1580 1500 ' 1720
1550 1500 1500 1550 1600 1550
2570 2650 2460 2460 2350 2550
1700 1720 1670 1700 1630 1720
1560 1600 1530 1580 1520 1600
590 600 600 600 600 500
146 148 147 147 147 146
148 148 148 148 147 147
0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 0.75 0.75
9?nn ?7nn 9?nn --
5fi fifi fi Q 7? 7 ? 7fl
20 25 20 25 28 24
150 150 150 175 180 165
1140 - C5 FAN ON
1505 - RAM JAM
12/10/76
1100 1200 1300 1400 1 BOO 1600
20 25 23 25 35 3*
1530 1510 1480 1490 1360 1420
2080 2050 2100 2050 2050 1850
2650 2600 2640 2510 2500 2540
1500 1560 1540 1470 1600 1400
1410 1490 1480 1500 1660 1520
490 520 520 520 520 520
140 144 143 144 144 144
141 146 145 146 145 146
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
?inn ?inn ?inn ?inn ?inn 7inn
7 c c c
22 20 20 22 25 22
135 145 140 145 165 163
1 SCRUBBER PUMP INOPERATIVE
BLEW BOILER TUBES PRIOR TO TEST
-------
TABLE 2. PARTICULATE RESULTS, SCRUBBER OUTLET
RUN NUMBER
DATE
TEST TIME (24 HOUR CLOCK)
PLANT THROUGHPUT (TONS/HR)
FLUE GAS VOLUME (SCFM-Dry)
PERCENT MOISTURE
PERCENT C02
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (gr/scf)
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (Ib/hr)
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (gr/scf)
(CORRECTED TO 12% C02)
PERCENT ISOKINETIC
PPE-1
11/15/76
1540-1700
30
113,868
12.3
9.5
0.213
208.1
0.297
90
PPE-2
11/16/76 -
1120-1240
31
90,321
15.3
9.5
0.163
126.0
0.227
97
PPE-3
11/16/76
1440-1555
31
92,623
13.0
8.0
0.160
127.3
0.241
95
-------
The average concentrations of SCL and S03 for the series of three tests
at the inlet of the participate scrubber were 149 ppm and 10 ppm, respectively.
Average SO- concentration at the outlet location was 10 ppm, representing
approximately 93% removal of SOp in the scrubber. Virtually no S03 was
removed in the scrubber. The average concentration of SO-^ at the scrubber
outlet was 8 ppm. Results of individual tests at the same location were
reproducible well within the analytical precision of the method used.
Grab samples of flue gas at each location were taken and analyzed for
nitrogen oxides. Average concentration of NO was 4.1 ppm at the inlet loca-
/\
tion, and 5.0 ppm at the outlet. An average of three NO samples was taken
/\
for each test series. Agreement among these results was fairly good, consider-
ing that the amount of NO collected was close to the lower limit of precision
7\
in the method.
Samples of flue gas at each location were slowly bubbled through dilute
alkali to capture the halogens, F and Cl~, and measure total acidity. The
average concentration of chloride ion at the scrubber inlet was measured at
762 ppm. Chloride concentration at the outlet location averaged 68 ppm, show-
ing a significant reduction in chloride across the scrubber. Fluoride concen-
tration averaged 5.2 ppm inlet and 0.6 ppm outlet. Only two samples were
found to be acidic, PGI-1 and PGI-2, therefore only two results for total
acidity are reported.
Analytical results for all gaseous samples taken (SO , NO , F~, Cl~, and
/\ /\
total acid) are presented (Tables 3 and 4).
Two integrated gas samples, one at each location, were taken in Tedlar
bans for subsequent C-j-Cg hydrocarbon analysis. Samples of flue gas to be
analyzed for Cy-C-^ hydrocarbons were collected in a sorbent trap containing
XAD-2 polymer resin (see diagram of sampling train, Figure 2). Gaseous samples
had to be taken for the low molecular weight hydrocarbons since these compounds
are typically too volatile to be completely captured in the sorbent trap.
Results of hydrocarbon analyses are presented (Table 5). C-j-Cg hydrocarbons
are given in terms of milligrams of n-alkanes, as butane, per cubic meter of
sample gas. C--C..- hydrocarbons were extracted in pentane from the sorbent
trap and reported as micrograms of n-alkane, as decane, per milliliter of
extract. To obtain the total amount of each hydrocarbon in the sample, this
-------
TABLE 3. GAS SAMPLING RESULTS, SCRUBBER INLET
Sulfur Oxides
Sample #
Date
Time
Sample Volume (SCFD)
S02 (PPM)
S03 (PPM)
Nitrogen Oxides
Sample #
Date
Time
NOx (PPM)
Total Acids
Sample #
Date
Time
pH
Cl~ (PPM)
F" (PPM)
Acidity (mg/1 CaC03)
Test #1
PSI-1
11/15/76
1535-1635
43.7
171
11
PNI-1 PNI-2
-•-11/15/76 — *
1600 1615
18.9 1.3
PGI-1
11/15/76
1548-1618
3.6
445
7.6
63.5
Test #2
PSI-2
11/16/76
1115-1215
35.5
157
11
PNI-3 PNI-4 PNI-5 PNI-6
* 11 /lfi/7fi »-
^ 1 1 / 1 O/ /O ^
1152 1222 1245 1250
8.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
PGI-2
11/16/76
1118-1148
2.4
590
4.8
293.3
Test #3
PSI-3
11/16/76
1450-1550
48.4
120
7
PNI-7 PNI-8 PNI-9
< 1 1 /lfi/7fi >
* 1 1 / 1 O/ / O *
1450 1430 1625
0.3 5.3 2.5
PGI-3
11/16/76
1459-1529
7.2
1250
3.3
Basic
-------
TABLE 4. GAS SAMPLING RESULTS, SCRUBBER OUTLET
Sulfur Oxides
Sample #
Date
Time
Sample Volume (SCFD)
S02 (PPM)
S03 (PPM)
Nitrogen Oxides
Sample #
Date
Time
NOx (PPM)
Total Adds
Sample #
Date
Time
PH
Cl" (PPM)
F" (PPM)
Acidity (mg/1 CaCOg)
Test #1
PSE-1
11/15/76
1537-1637
38.1
8
9
PNE-1 PNE-2
«-l 1/1 5/76— •>
1540 1620
10.8 3.9
PGE-1
11/15/76
1614-1644
8.0
33
0.3
Basic
Test #2
PSE-2
11/16/76
1113-1213
36.1
15
8
PNE-3 PNE-4 PNE-5 PNE-6
< 11/1fi/7fi >
1138 1215 1230 1255
7.9 1.4 2.7 8.4
PGE-2
11/16/76
1232-1302
7.7
32
0.2
Basic
Test #3
PSE-3
11/16/76
1452-1552
37.0
7
7
PNE-7 PNE-8 PNE-9
1 11/1C/7C ,
1456 1536 1610
2.5 5.6 2.3
PGE-3
11/16/76
1605-1635
7.8
140
1.2
Basic
CD
-------
vo
INCINERATOR
WALL
HEATED AREA
QUARTZ
LINER
/
V
THERMOMETERS
ORIFICE
4 INCH
FILTER
HOLDER
SOLID
SORBENT
TRAP
GAS
SAMPLE
VALVE
THERMOMETER
CHECK
VALVE
ICE
BATH
BY-PASS
VALVE IMPINGERS VACUUM
(MAXIMUM SIX) GAUGE
MAIN
VALVE
\
DRY TEST METER AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
Figure 2. Hydrocarbon/trace element sampling train.
-------
TABLE 5. RESULTS OF HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS
Cl - C6 ANALYSIS
SAMPLE # DATE TIME
PPIN-1 11/17/76 1130-
1215
PPEX-1 11/17/76 1215-
1725
CONCENTRATION (mg/m3) n-ALKANES,
CALCULATED AS BUTANE
Cl
85
13
C2
<0.6
<0.6
C3
833
234
C4
1634
564
C5
<0.6
<0.6
C6
682
584
C7 - C12 ANALYSIS
SAMPLE # DATE TIME
PPIN-1 11/17/76 1210-
1640
PPEX-1 11/17/76 1215-
1725
BLANK
CONCENTRATION (yg/ml)*,
CALCULATED AS n-DECANE
C7
37
<1.8
<1.8
C8
29
<1.8
<1.8
C9
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
CIO
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
cn
<1.8
<1.8
40
C12
<1.8
<1.8
15
*MULTIPLY BY 200 (SIZE OF EXTRACT) TO OBTAIN TOTAL yg IN SAMPLE.
10
-------
concentration must be multiplied by the amount of sample extracted, 200 ml.
The sample blank showed abnormally high amounts of C-,-, and C-,? hydrocarbons.
Though the exact cause of these peaks in the blank are unknown, possible
explanations are: (a) contamination of blank during preparation and (b) con-
taminated syringe. Owing to time pressure, the analysis could not be repeated.
The results of spark-source mass spectrometric elemental analysis are
presented (Table 6). One sample at each location plus a blank were analyzed.
In addition, two samples collected in previous work done by Koppers at the
Baltimore pyrolysis plant were analyzed at the request of Dave Sussman, EPA.
These samples are labelled 76-13 and 76-14, and were taken upstream from the
particulate scrubber. Concentrations of each element are reported in micro-
grams per milliliter of extract. To find the total weight extracted from the
filter, multiply the concentration by 100 ml, the final extract volume. The
major elements contained in samples collected by TRW personnel were the metals;
iron, zinc, tin, and lead. High amounts of chlorine, potassium, and calcium
were also found on the filters, but these elements also appeared in high con-
centration on the filter blank, thus no conclusion can be drawn from these
results. No significant differences in trace element analysis between inlet
and outlet samples were discernible.
A discussion of atmospheric dispersion analysis based upon emission rates
measured in this test program for both the existing plant and the proposed
stack is presented in Section V of this report.
11
-------
TABLE 6. RESULTS OF SSMS ANALYSES OF FILTERS
ELEMENT
H
Li
Be
B
C
N
0
F
Na
Mq
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
CONCENTRATION, pg/ml
B-INLET
NR
8
0.007
0.2
NR
NR
NR
MC
>23
MC
>9
MC
MC
>55
MC
MC
MC
0.1
MC
0.3
MC
91
MC
17
29
1
MC
1
0.2
2
0.5
0.6
B-OUTLET
NR
0.2
0.005
0.4
NR
NR
NR
:so
>30
MC
>11
15
MC
>70
MC
MC
MC
0.07
6
0.2
3
1
54
0.2
3
10
MC
0.9
0.6
2
0.1
0.2
B-BLANK
NR
0.1
0.004
0.4
NR
NR
NR
:70
>26
MC
>10
MC
6
2
MC
MC
MC
0.06
5
0.2
0.9
0.1
6
0.08
0.6
0.09
0.4
0.1
<0.01
0.4
<0.05
0.2
76-13
NR
0.05
<0.005
1
NR
NR
NR
10.8
>15
60
>6
4
7
5
7
>72
MC
<0.007
7
0.009
0.7
0.1
3
0.02
0.5
0.5
4
0.02
£0.006
0.05
<0.02
0.02
76-14
NR
0.05
<0.001
2
NR
NR
NR
;7
>21
25
>8
19
14
10
18
MC
MC
£0.006
21
0.02
0.7
0.08
4
0.06
0.3
2
11
0.03
£0.02
0.3
0.08
0.07
f'C r. Major Component, >100 vg/ml
NR = Not Reported, <0.005 yg/ml
12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
ELEMENT
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Ru
Rh
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Rd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
CONCENTRATION, pq/ml
B-INLET
0.3
6
0.07
0.1
0.01
2
<0.008
<0.008
<0.008
0.9
3
STD
MC
28
0.03
0.02
0.06
MC
0.9
1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.006
0.05
0.009
B-OUTLET
2
2
0.07
0.7
£0.01
0.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
0.8
STD
20
7
^0.02
£0.01
0.7
10
0.3
0.3
0.04
0.1
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
B-BLANK
0.03
0.4
0.03
0.3
^0.01
0.05
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
£0.01
0.02
STD
0.09
£0.03
£0.02
£0.01
0.4
1
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
76-13
0.04
0.9
<0.004
0.1
0.008
0.02
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.05
0.04
STD
1
0.2
<0.005
0.006
1
1
<0.005
0.009
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
76-14
0.07
1
0.007
0.2
£0.009
0.2
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
0.08
0.1
STD
2
0.3
<0.007
0.02
0.5
0.9
£0.02
0.01
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
MC = Ma.ior Component, >100 yg/ml
STD = Standard
13
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
ELEMENT
Hf
Ta
W
Re
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg*
Tl
Pb
Bi
Th
U
B-INLET
0.05
0.05
0.09
<0.008
<0.008
<0.008
<0.008
^0.008
0.16
^0.03
MC
0.3
0.1
<0.06
CONCENTRATION, yg/ml
B-OUTLET
<0.01
<0.01
^0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.20
£0.03
MC
0.4
0.2
£0.09
MC = Major Component, >100 yg/ul
* = Hg analyzed by cold vapor atomic
B-BLANK
<0.009
<0.009
£0.05
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.005
£0.02
0.1
£0.02
£0.1
£0.07
absorption
76-13
<0.005
<0.005
£0.03
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.11
£0.02
14
0.05
0.005
<0.005
76-14
<0.007
<0.007
£0.06
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007 .
i
<0.007
<0.007
0.025
£0.03
12
0.05
<0.08
£0.06
spectrophotometry .
14
-------
SECTION III
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT AND METHODOLOGY
All raw test data are included in Appendix A to this report.
PARTICULATE
Flue gas particulate concentrations were measured only at the outlet
location. The sampling procedure used was EPA Method 5 as outlined in the
Federal Register (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A). A diagram of the sampling
apparatus is shown (Figure 3).
CARBON DIOXIDE
Flue gas samples were taken through a sampling tube at each location and
aspirated into a Fyrite analyzer from which the percentage of C0~ present in
the flue gas can be read directly.
SULFUR OXIDES
S02/S03 concentrations were measured using a modified version of EPA
Method 6. In this method, S03 is collected in an impinger containing a solu-
tion of 80% isopropanol. Any S03 carryover is collected on a filter located
between the first and second impingers. The second and third impingers
collect S02 in a solution of 3% hydrogen peroxide. Sampling is carried out
isokinetically at a single point in the stack. A diagram of the sulfur oxide
sampling train is shown (Figure 4).
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
Oxides of nitrogen were sampled according to EPA Method 7. This method
calls for a grab sample of the flue gas to be collected in an evacuated flask
containing 25 ml of a dilute sulfuric acid-hydrogen peroxide absorbing solu-
tion. An average of three NO samples were taken during each one-hour test
A
period.
15
-------
s
HI
(Ti
X
X
X
X
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
x
X
X
y
GREENBURG
IMPINGERS
GLASS LINED SS PROBE
Figure 3. Particulate sampling train.
-------
THERMOMETER
FILTER HOLDER
REVERSE-TYPE
PITOTTUBE
VACUUM
LINE
VACUUM
GAUGE
DRY TEST METER
Figure 4. S02/S03 sampling train.
-------
HC1, HF, ACIDITY
A modified version of EPA Method 6 was used to determine the acid content
of the flue gas. In this case, a dilute solution of sodium hydroxide
(0.1N NaOH) was used as the absorbing solution. Results are reported in terms
of parts per million F~ and Cl~ and total acidity.
HYDROCARBONS AND TRACE ELEMENTS
One sampling train was used to measure both hydrocarbons and trace
elements at each location. A diagram of this train is shown (Figure 2). The
technique employed in extracting and analyzing these samples is similar to
procedures developed by TRW for the EPA, known as a Level 1 Environmental
Assessment.* The sample was extracted at a constant flow rate for about 4 to
5 hours to produce a sample size of approximately 7.1 SCMD (250 SCFD) of stack
gas. The gas sample passes through an unheated probe on to a filter which
collects all non-volatile particulate matter, which is recovered for trace
metal analysis. After passing through this filter, the sample gas immediately
enters a solid sorbent trap designed to capture high molecular weight hydro-
carbons (C7-C12)- The trap contains XAD-2 sorbent, a porous polymer resin with
the capability of absorbing a wide range of organic species. Following the
sorbent trap, the sample gas passes through a series of impingers in which
moisture is removed before entering the dry gas meter by which sample volume
is recorded. Low molecular weight hydrocarbons (C-,-Cg) were collected in an
evacuated, airtight gas sample bag using a time integrated sampling rate
employed at intervals throughout the test period.
*
Hamersma, J. W., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental
Assessment," EPA-600/2-76-160 a, June 1976.
18
-------
SECTION IV
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
PARTICIPATE, SO. AND N0¥
/\ A
Particulate, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides were sampled and analyzed
according to standard reference methods published in the Federal Register
(40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A) on October 6, 1975, with subsequent modifications
and additions.
TOTAL ACIDS
A sample of flue gas was taken to determine concentrations of the halo-
gens, fluorine and chlorine, and total acidity. Fluorine and chlorine were
measured directly from the sample absorbing solution with the use of a specif-
ic ion electrode. To determine total acidity the pH of the sample was mea-
sured and an amount of standard acid added, as needed, to lower the pH to 4 or
less. The sample was then titrated electrometrically with standard calcium
carbonate to pH 8.2. Acidity is reported in terms of mg/1 CaCOo-
HYDROCARBONS
A flue gas sample was taken in a Tedlar bag for C-|-Cg hydrocarbon analy-
sis. Analysis was accomplished by the use of gas chromatography. A standard
n-butane in helium mixture was used for calibration. The minimum detectable
o
quantity was calculated to be 0.6 mg/m . A mixture of methane, propane,
butane, pentane and hexane was used to establish retention times. Concentra-
tions are reported in terms of milligrams of alkane per cubic meter of gas
sample and are expressed in units of the n-alkanes calculated as butane.
Hydrocarbons in the C7 to C12 range were captured in XAD-2 sorbent. The
samples were extracted with pentane and then analyzed by GC. The minimum
detectable quantity was calculated to be 1.8 ug/ml. Serial dilutions of a
19
-------
known amount of n-decane in pentane were used for calibration. Results are
calculated as n-decane and are reported in terms of micrograms per milliliter.
TRACE ELEMENTS
Flue gas particulate samples were collected for trace metal analysis.
The filter samples were extracted in constant-boiling aqua regia. The ex-
tracts were made to 100 ml in volumetric flasks, and 20 ml aliquots were
taken for spark-source, mass spectrometric elemental analysis.
20
-------
SECTION V
DISPERSION ANALYSIS
PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
For the comparison of alternative emission control options or for pre-
dicting the effects of changes in an emission source, one of several pro-
cedures might be used:
• Ground level pollutant concentration measurements
can be made for each source configuration of
interest so that air quality impacts are determined
directly.
• Observed results from other similar systems can
sometimes be used to implement decisions.
• Air quality diffusion modeling may be used for
the assessment.
The first technique is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and has been
used in relatively few instances. In addition to these disadvantages, this
method is not easily applicable to situations where other sources may be con-
tributing to the air quality measurements, as would be true in most urban
and industrial areas. Using results from other sources is generally not
applicable where the source being investigated is based on novel technology,
as exemplified by the pyrolysis unit. However, even if a similar source could
be located where the needed tests had been performed, it would be highly un-
likely that the meteorological parameters and operating characteristics would
be sufficiently similar to those of the pyrolysis unit.
By process of elimination, diffusion modeling is the only generally
applicable technique for making predictions of the air quality impacts of
changes in emission source configurations. Moreover, diffusion analysis can
21
-------
also give an indication of the effects of changes in meteorology, and the
technique is very conservative of both labor and materials.
In making use of modeled air quality data, some caveats should be noted:
1. Even apparently sophisticated models represent only
crude approximations of highly complex atmospheric
processes.
2. In using an uncalibrated model, one should not
place too much emphasis on the absolute values
of predicted air quality levels. Instead, the
differences or ratios of pollutant concentrations
should receive the most attention.
3. In most cases—including the present one—one
must make use of meteorological data obtained at
a site some distance from the source being modeled,
and there may be large differences in such param-
eters as wind speed.
Irregardless of these limitations, the comparison of various source con-
figurations under identical meteorological and operating conditions is the
problem which diffusion modeling is best equipped to handle when care is taken
in interpreting the results. The methodology used for modeling the pyrolysis
unit is briefly described in the following paragraphs, and a discussion of the
results concludes Section V.
METHODOLOGY
Violations of ambient air quality standards resulting from relatively
small emission sources such as the pyrolysis unit normally occur as localized
short-term excursions, such as 1-hour or 24-hour violations. Although the
unit contributes to the total annual pollution burden in the Metropolitan
Baltimore Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), the impact is minimal in com-
parison with other emissions in the Region.* Consequently, with the
For example, at design rate (680 metric tons/day [750 tons/day], 280 days per
year), the pyrolysis unit particulate emissions represent less than 1% of the
AQCR total.
22
-------
concurrence of representatives of the Maryland Bureau of Air Quality and Noise
Control (BAQNC), it was decided that only short-term modeling would be per-
formed.
Two types of air quality models were used for the analysis:
• PTMAX, which determines the maximum, short-term,
ground level pollutant concentration from a
single point source as a function of atmospheric
stability and wind speed.
• PTDIS, which computes short-term, ground level
pollutant concentrations downwind from a point
source for distances and stability classes chosen
by the user.
Each of these models is included in the User's Network for Applied Modeling of
Air Pollution (UNAMAP) available from EPA. The results from both models are
considered valid for averaging times from ten minutes to an hour. If the
source parameters and meteorological conditions are assumed to be constant,
the modeled values can be converted to expected 24-hour averages by multiply-
ing the former by 0.58.*
Two source configurations were modeled in the study:
• The existing operation, in which the pyrolysis
boiler exhaust gases are water-scrubbed prior
to passage over condenser tubes and then
emitted from an 11.4 m (37.5 ft) by 7.6 m
(25 ft) horizontal area.
• A proposed system consisting of an electrostatic
precipitator and a 67.1 m (220 ft) stack.
The stack parameters used for the dispersion analysis are given (Table 7).
Because the ground level concentration of each pollutant is proportional to
its emission rate if all other factors are held constant, it was only
*See Turner, D. B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, 999-AP-26,
U.S. Public Health Source, Revised 1969.
23
-------
necessary to perform a set of diffusion runs for a single emission rate.
Results for other emission rates were obtained by a simple ratio technique.
For convenience, a rate of 100 grams per second (794 Ib per hour) was used in
every case.
TABLE 7. STACK PARAMETERS USED FOR DISPERSION ANALYSIS
PARAMETER EXISTING PROPOSED
Ambient Temperature 69°F 69°F
Source Strength 794 Ib/hr* 794 Ib/hr*
Stack Height 25 ft 220 ft
Stack Temperature 120°F 450°F
Volume Flow Rate 840,000 ACFM** 365,000 ACFM
Gas Velocity 900 ft/min 1800 ft/min
*This rate corresponds to 100 grams/sec which was chosen
for convenience, as discussed in the text.
**This flow rate is based on the estimated dilution air in the
water condensers.
The meteorological parameters used in the analysis were based on stabil-
ity wind rose data for Baltimore Friendship International Airport. In order
to get a broadly based perspective, five year average data for the period 1969
through 1973 were used. PTMAX requires no meteorological data, because it
automatically makes calculations for all stability classes. For PTDIS, both
"most probable" and "unfavorable" meteorological conditions were chosen as
follows:
• Most probable conditions
- stability class D (neutral) occurs almost
50% of the time, much more than any other
single class.
- under class D stability, the wind speed is
between 4 knots and 16 knots 85% of the time.
24
-------
• Unfavorable conditions
- stability class F (highly stable) occurs 20%
of the time, much more than any other stable
class.
- under stability class F, the wind speed is
between 0 and 6 knots 100% of the time.
The average height of the mixing layer was chosen as 700 meters (2,297 feet)
for the most probable cases and 300 meters (984 feet) for the unfavorable
cases on the basis of information contained in Stern.* The meteorological
data are summarized (Table 8).
TABLE 8. METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS USED FOR DISPERSION ANALYSIS
GENERAL
CONDITIONS
Most Probable
Unfavorable
STABILITY
CLASS
D
D
D
F
F
WIND
KNOTS
4
8.5
16
2
6
SPEED
(m/sec)
(2.1)
(4.4)
(8.2)
(1.03)
(3.09)
MIXING
HEIGHT (m)
700
700
700
300
300
For PTDIS, the downwind distances at which concentration calculations are
to be made must be specified. These were selected as 0.8 km (0.5 mile), 1.6 km
(1.0 mile), 2.4 km (1.5 miles), 3.2 km (2 miles), 4.8 km (3 miles), 6.4 km (4
miles), 8.0 km (5 miles), 9.6 km (6 miles), 11.3 km (7 miles), and 12.9 km (8
miles), in accordance with a request from Mr. Don Andrew of Maryland BAQNC.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The detailed results of the diffusion analysis are given in Appendix B.
As noted earlier, these runs were made for a nominal emission rate of 100
grams per second, in order to minimize the number of computer runs required.
Stern, Arthur C., Air Pollution. Volume I, Air Pollution and Its Effects,
2nd edition, Academic Press, New York, 1968.
25
-------
To convert the data in the appendix to actual levels, the conversion factors
below should be used:
Existing Proposed
Pollutant Conditions Configuration
Particulate Matter 0.1937 0.0320
Sulfur Oxides 0.0252 0.2015
Nitrogen Oxides 0.0049 0.0049
The differences in these factors between the existing and proposed configu-
rations reflect differences in the control equipment to be used:
• The existing scrubber removes SO quite well,
y\
but particulate removal is inadequate.
t The proposed electrostatic precipitator is
assumed to meet the Maryland particulate
matter emission standard (0.069 grams per
standard cubic meter [0.03 grains per
standard cubic foot] [dry]), but it is
assumed to remove no SO or NO .
X A
The predicted maximum one-hour ground level concentrations of each of
the modeled pollutants are shown (Table 9). The values given are for the
critical wind speed for each stability class, that is, the wind speed which
gives the highest predicted ground level concentration. The downwind location
of the maxima are also listed. The prominent features of these results are as
fol1ows:
1. Based on this analysis, no Maryland or Federal Air Quality
Standards should be violated by the pyrolysis unit in their
configuration. (It should be noted that no truly effective
means for assessing the downwash problem of the existing con-
figuration was available. Nevertheless, both Briggs and
Turner have studied this phenomenon and a brief analysis is
presented in Appendix C. The proposed configuration should
completely alleviate this problem). However, during these
tests of the "existing configuration," Maryland and Federal
Particulate Emission Standards were exceeded.
26
-------
TABLE 9. MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR GROUND LEVEL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AT THE CRITICAL WIND SPEED*
STABILITY
CLASS
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND
3.0
5.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
EXISTING
LOCATION
0.41
0.59
0.35
0.49
4.45
8.30
CONFIGURATION
PM
36.8
33.0
68.2
66.4
36.7
32.8
S0x
4.8
4.3
8.9
8.7
4.8
4.3
NOX
0.9
0.8
1.7
1.7
0.9
0.8
WIND
3.0
5.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
PROPOSED
LOCATION
0.54
1.07
1.00
2.37
12.43
39.04
CONFIGURATION
PM
2.7
1.7
1.7
0.9
1.2
0.4
S0x
17.0
10.4
10.5
5.5
7.3
2.8
NOX
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
ro
COMMENTS: (1) CONCENTRATION UNITS ARE MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
(2) WIND SPEED IS METERS PER SECOND
(3) LOCATION IS THE DOWNWIND DISTANCE TO THE POINT OF
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION IN MILES
-------
2. Except for SO , the proposed configuration shows
/\
greatly reduced maxima and they are further
displaced from the source than is true for the
existing system.
3. Although SO levels are somewhat increased for
/\
the proposed system—a result of eliminating
the scrubber--they are still very low in
comparison to the Maryland one-hour standard
(920 yg/m3).
The predicted one-hour average, ground level concentrations of the same
three pollutants are shown (Tables 10 and 11) for the existing and proposed
configurations, respectively. Again, there appear to be no particular air
quality problems for either source arrangement. Concentrations of all three
pollutants are greatly reduced in most cases for the proposed configuration
in comparison with the existing system. The only exceptions are for SO at
/\
the 16 knot (8.2 m/sec) wind speed and distances of 3.2 km (2 miles) or more
from the origin. The taller stack and higher wind speed move the point where
the plume contacts the ground further downwind. The greater SO content of
7\
the proposed system accounts for most of the difference, however.
In summary, the results of this analysis indicate that the tall stack/
electrostatic precipitator combination will alleviate the problem of downwash,
which is the main drawback associated with the existing system. Although SO
/\
emissions are higher for the proposed system, they are still very low in
comparison with local ambient standards.
Only the criteria (i.e., regulated) pollutants were considered in this
analysis. However, one pollutant which could be of major concern in the
design of the proposed electrostatic precipitator is chloride ion. If chloride
is present in the form of particulate, the negatively charged chloride ion w'll
aid the precipitators in capturing this particulate. If the chloride is present
in the form of gaseous HC1 (a likely possibility in the reducing atmosphere of
the precipitator), the chloride will not be collected by the ESP. In this study,
large amounts of chloride were found in the exhaust gas from the pyrolysis unit;
however, a more detailed analysis is needed to determine whether the majority
of the chloride was particulate or gaseous. In either case, care must be taken
28
-------
TABLE 10. DOWNWIND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES1
EXISTING SOURCE CONFIGURATION
DISTANCE
(MILES)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
POLLUTANT
PM
S(1x
N0x
PM
S0x
<
PM
S0x
N0x
PM
S0x
N0x
PM
S0x
N0x
PM
S0x
N0x
PM
S0x
N0x
PM
S0x
N0x
PM
S0x
NO*
PM
S0x
N0x
PROBABLE CONDITIONS
(D STABILITY)
4 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.3
0.1
2.9
0.4
0.1
3.4
0.4
0.1
8.5 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.5
0.1
7.4
1.0
0.2
11.2
1.5
0.3
11.8
1.5
0.3
11.0
1.4
0.3
10.0
1.3
0.3
8.9
1.2
0.2
8.0
1.0
0.2
16 KNOTS
2.6
0.3
0.1
22.0
2.9
0.6
26.6
3.5
0.7
24.6
3.2
0.6
18.4
2.4
0.5
13.9
1.8
0.4
10.8
1.4
0.3
8.7
1.1
0.2
7.2
0.0
0.2
6.1
0.8
0.2
UNFAVORABLE
CONDITIONS
(F STABILITY)
2 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.4
0.1
9.0
1.2
0.2
14.9
1.9
0.4
19.8
2.6
0.5
23.Q
3.1
0.6
27.0
3.5
0.7
6 KNOTS
O.G
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.F;
0.4
0.1
8.5
1.1
0.2
20.3
2.6
0.5
27.9
3.6
0.7
31.3
4.1
0.8
32.2
4.2
0.8
32.1
4.2
0.8
31.9
4.2
0.8
"-CONCENTRATIONS IN MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
29
-------
TABLE 11. DOWNWIND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES'
PROPOSED SOURCE CONFIGURATION
DISTANCE
(MILES)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
POLLUTANT
PM
SO
NO
X
PM
so¥
no
X
PM
SO
NO
X
PM
SO
MO?
X
PM
sox
NOX
PM
sov
N0x
PM
sov
N0x
PM
sov
N0x
PM
SOY
N0x
PM
so¥
N0x
PROBABLE CONDITIONS
(D STABILITY)
4 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
2.1
0.1
0.4
2.3
0.1
16 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
3.0
0.1
0.6
3.9
0.1
0.7
4.1
0.1
0.6
4.0
0.1
0.6
3.8
0.1
0.6
3.5
0.1
UNFAVORABLE
CONDITIONS
(F STABILITY)
2 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6 KNOTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
*CONCENTRATIONS IN MICR06RAMS PER CUBIC METER
30
-------
in selecting the materials for the construction of the precipitator, since
chloride ion is a highly corrosive substance. Wet electrostatic precipitators,
which use a continuous stream of water to remove particulate from the collec-
tion plates, have shown some success in removing these acid mists.
31
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-15-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. W
10'S.S.
SAMPLING LOCATION.
SAMPLE TYPE Part.
RUN NUMBER.
OPERATOR Me R
Exhaust
PPE-1
50
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.
STATIC PRESSURE, (P,) +7 -•
FILTER NUMBER(s)
29.91
ASSUMED MOISTURE, % JZ_
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER JI
METER BOX NUMBER 8
METER AH 2-°°
C FACTOR
.90
520.6571
PROBE HEATER SETTING _J
HEATER BOXSETTING_250
REFERENCE Ap -56
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY _5_ MINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
A-1
A-2
A-3
A4
A-5
A-6
B-1
B-2
B-3
B4
B-5
B-6
S.mp\c";e2;j;-
Tim.,min.\
i
3)
m
%
O
>
>
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-16-76
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLE TYPE Part-
RUN NUMBER
OPERATOR_
Exhaust
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. __!/!
10'S.S.
PPE-2
McR
45
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
STATIC PRESSURE, (Ps)_
FILTER NUMBERS 516.6542
ASSUMED MOISTURE, %_
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER _
METER BOX NUMBER JL
METER AH 1-90
C FACTOR
17
.90
30.16
+7'
PROBE HEATER SETTING 7JL
HEATER BOX SETTING 250
REFERENCE Ap -56
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY_5_MINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
A-1
A-2
A-3
A4
A-5
A-6
B-1
B-2
B-3
B4
B-5
B-6
S,mpl\CI°£Time
TimB'min\Sock)
~Q~~~~ — — _ji2o
5 25
10 30
15 35
20 40
25 45
30 1150
STOP
START 1210
35 15
40 20
45 25
50 30
55 35
60 1240
60
I
1
Gas Meter Reading
(Vm).ft3
881.74
884.80
887.50
890.70
893.50
897.10
899.75
899.75
902.15
905.10
908.30
911.35
914.80
917.685
35.945
Velocity
Head
(APs),in. H20
.35
.35
.40
.50
.45
.40
Orifice Pressure
Differential
(AH),n.H20)
Desired
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.65
1.5
1.3
Actual
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.65
1.5
1.3
PORT CHANGE
.25
.40
.45
.50
.50
.50
.83
.3
.5
.65
.65
.65
.83
1.3
1.5
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.39
Stack
Temperature
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-16-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE 1.0. W
10'S.S.
SAMPLING LOCATION _
SAMPLE TYPE Part.
RUM MIIMHER PPE-3
OPERATOR McR
Exhaust
ASSUMED MOISTURE, % _LL
8
50
30.16
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.
STATIC PRESSURE, (P,)_tZl_
FILTER NUMBERS 533.6581
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER^
METER BOX NUMBER
METER AH 1-90
C FACTOR
.90
70
PROBE HEATER SETTING
HEATER BOX SETTING 25°
REFERENCE Ap -56
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY_JL_ MINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
B-1
B-2
B-3
B4
B-5
B-6
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
s.mP.\cl°e2;T;n"'
Tim.,min.\«Jchk;
1) -— - J440
5 45
10 50
15 55
20 1500
25 05
30 10
STOP
START 1525
35 30
40 35
45 40
50 45
55 50
60 1555
60
Gas Meter Reading
(Vm).ft3
918.44
920.50
923.40
926.30
929.70
932.70
936.42
936.42
939.30
942.20
945.10
948.40
951.30
954.20
35.76
Velocity
Head
(APj),in. HjO
.25
.40
.45
.50
.50
.50
Orifice Pressure
Differential
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT Baltimore Pyrolysis
DATE H-15-76
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLE TYPE SOX
RUN NUMBER
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE 5' S-S-
1/4
Exhaust
PSE-1
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.
STATIC PRESSURE. (Ps)_
FILTER NUMBER(s) n.
50
NOZZLE I.D..
ASSUMED MOISTURE, % 17
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER ~
METER BOX NUMBER 4
METER AH I-87
C FACTOR 9
29.91
+2.0"
PROBE HEATER SETTING j>°_
HEATER BOX SETTIMG 250
REFERENCE Ap .56
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY_5 MINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
C-
C-
C-
C-
C-
C-
C-
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
S,mpl\CI«JJ;m8
Time.min\^chk;
0 — ~_J537
5 42
10 47
15 52
20 57
25 1602
30 07
35 12
40 17
45 22
50 27
55 32
61 1637
61
Gas Meter Reading
(Vm).ft3
814.19
817.25
820.60
823.40
826.60
830.25
832.75
836.00
837.30
841.90
845.20
848.30
851.80
37.61
Velocity
Head
(APj).in. H20
.45
.42
.42
.40
.40
.40
.40
.37
.37
.42
.42
.42
Orifice Pressure
Differential
(AH),n.H20)
Desired
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
Actual
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.25
1.25
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.37
Stack
Temperature
.°F
54
62
66
72
72
74
76
76
76
76
78
r 78
Outlet
(Tmout'« f
48
50
50
54
54
54
56
56
58
58
58
58
63.1
Pump
Vacuum,
in. Hg
8
8
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sample Box
Temperature,
°F
250
250
250
250
250
250
250 j
250
250
250
250
250
Impinger
Temperature,
°F
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
CO
01
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-16-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. 1/4
5' Glass
SAMPLING LOCATION Exhaust
SAMPLE TYPE
RUN NUMBER
OPERATOR _Mc_R
SO,
ASSUMED MOISTURE, % 1L
PSE-2
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE _4J>
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE_2&25_
STATIC PRESSURE, (Ps).
FILTER NUMBER(s)
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER _n_
METER BOX NUMBER 4
METER AH 1-87
C FACTOR.
.70
+7"
PROBE HEATER SETTING _7JL
HEATER BOX SETTING.
REFERENCE Ap _J>
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
OATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-16-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. 1/4
5' Glass
SAMPLING LOCATION Exhaust
SAMPLE TYPE S0x
RUN NUMBER.
OPERATOR
ASSUMED MOISTURE, % !Z_
PSE-3
McR
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 50
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE_30.16_
STATIC PRESSURE. (Ps> +7"
FILTER NUMBERS
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER _^
METER BOX NUMBER _1_
METER AH 1-87
C FACTOR .90
PROBE HEATER SETTING 60_
HEATER RnxSETTIMB 250
REFERENCE Ap -56
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY 5 MINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
s.mP,\ci'e2;Em'
Time.min\K
0 ' 1452
5 57
10 1502
15 07
20 12
25 17
30 22
35 27
40 32
45 37
50 42
55 47
60 1552
60
Gis Meter Reading
(Vm).ft3
887.70
890.60
893.40
896.40
899.30
902.30
905.40
908.40
911.50
914.60
917.60
920.60
923.53
35.83
Velocity
Head
(APs).in. H20
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
Orifice Pressure
Differential
(AH), n,H20)
Desired
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
Actual
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
1.3
Stack
Temperature
(TS).°F
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Dry Gas Meter
Temperature
Inlet
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-15-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE 1.0. -250
5' Pyrex
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLE TYPE S02/S03
RUN NUMBER
OPERATOR MWH
Inlet
ASSUMED MOISTURE, %
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-16-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE 5> PVrex
NOZZLE I.D. -250
SAMPLING LOCATION.
Inlet
SAMPLE TYPE.
RUN NUMBER.
OPERATOR
SO,
PSI-2
MWH
70
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE _
STATIC PRESSURE, -6"H,0
FILTER NUMBER(s) _
ASSUMED MOISTURE, % 8
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER New
METER BOX MllMBER New
METER AH J-92
C FACTOR _L2
PROBE HEATER SETTING.
80
HEATER BOX SETTING _300_
REFERENCE Ap -72
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY_5_ MINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
Same
s.mPi\cl«;j;me
Time.min.\«Jehh;
DOT— -— . -U115
05 1120
10 1125
15 1130
20 1135
25 1140
30 1145
35 1150
40 1155
45 1200
50 1205
55 1210
60 1215
60
]
Gas Meter Reading
(Vm).ft3
937.80
941.65
944.30
947.80
950.425
953.20
956.10
959.43
962.09
965.30
968.10
971.10
973.90
36.10
Velocity
Head
(APsJ.in. H20
.45
.50
.40
.60
.45
.45
.45
.40
.60
.40
.50
.40
- -•-
Orifice Pressure
Differential
(AH), n.H20)
Desired
1.25
.40
.05
.55
.20
.20
.20
.05
.55
.05
.30
1.05
Actual
1.25
.40
.05
.55
.20
.20
.20
.05
.55
.05
.30
.05
1.24
Stack
Temperature
(TS),°F
400
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
430
430
Dry Gas Meter
Temperature
Inlet
(Tmin).°F
71
79
82
85
89
86
87
87
88
90
89
89
Outlet
(Tm0ut'' ^
83
83
82
83
84
84
85
85
87
88
87
88
85.0
Pump
Vacuum,
in. Hg
6.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
9.5
9.5
10.5
10.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
. - -
Sample Box
Temperature,
°F
300
300
300
300
^_ 300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Impinger
Temperature,
°F
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
L 1
, — -_ i
u
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-16-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. -250
5' Pyrex
SAMPLING LOCATION _
SAMPLE TYPE S0x
RUM III UMBER PSI-3
OPERATOR MWH
Inlet
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE,
STATIC PRESSURE. (Ps)
FILTER NUMBER(s)
70°
ASSUMED MOISTURE, % §_
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER Naw
METER BOX NUMBER.
METER AH ____L?2_
C FACTOR
New
1.0
•8"H,0
PROBE HEATER SETTING ZL
HEATER BOX SETTING _300_
REFERENCE Ap -72
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY JL MINUTES
Traversa
Point
Number
Same
Stop
s.mpi\c'«;;;m8
Tim.,min\goVk;
OOP- 1450
05 1455
10 1500
15 1505
20 1510
25 1515
30 1520
35 1525
40 1530
45 1535
50 1540
55 1545
60 1550
60
Ges Meter Reading
(Vm).ft3
974.491
978.35
982.80
986.90
991.60
994.70
999.90
100355
1008.20
1012.10
1016.20
1020.00
1023.75
49.259
Velocity
Head
(APs),in.H,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,
.
.
.2
,
.
Orifice Pressure
Differential
(AH). n,H20)
Desired
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.75
3.00
2.75
2.75
2.75
Actual
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.75
2.75
2.60
2.50
2.50
2.30
2.30
2.75
2.54
Stack
Temperature
-------
FIELD DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
BaltimorePyrolysis
11-17-76
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. -250
5' Pyrex
SAMPLING LOCATION '"let
SAMPLE TYPE Trace Metals & Hydrocarbons
RUN NUMBER PPIN-1
OPERATOR.
New
MWH
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 65
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE_3JL20_
STATIC PRESSURE, (Ps)_JObJL
FILTER NUMBER(s).^
ASSUMED MOISTURE. %
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER.
METER BOX MllMHER New
METER AH 1-92
C FACTOR.
1.0
PROBE HEATER SETTING 80
HEATER BOX SETTING_J50_
REFERENCE Ap -72
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERYJhli MINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
SempliX^r1118
*«. "h\£ii
000 1210
05 1215
10 1220
15 1225
20 1230
25 1235
30 1240
35 1245
40 1250
45 1255
50 1300
55 1305
60 1310
70 1320
80 1330
90 1340
100 1350
110 1400
120 1410
130 1420
140 1430
150 1440
160 1450
170 1500
Gas Meter Reading
-------
NJ
Traversa
Point
Number
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-1
sampi^'";^'
Tim..min.\«Jeh;)
-7— rr-=^
180 1510
190 1520
200 1530
210 1540
220 1550
230 1600
240 1610
250 1620
260 1630
270 1640
Gas Meter Reading
(Vm).ft3
302.60
310.80
318.40
325.70
332.40
339.90
346.80
354.40
361.20
367.40
373.50
STOP
Velocity
Head
(AP$),in. H,0
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
Orifice Pressure
Differential
(AH), n. H20)
Desired
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Actual
==W=
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
END TEST
Stack
Temperature
-------
FIELD DATA
Baltimore Pyrolysis
11-17-76
DATE_
SAMPLING LOCATION Exhaust
PROBE LENGTH AND TYPE 5>
NOZZLE I.D. 1/4
17
SAMPLE TYPE Trace Metal & Hydrocarbons
RUN MUMRFR PPEX-1
OPERATOR Henry
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.
STATIC PRESSURE, (Ps)_
FILTER NUMBER(s) =_
50
ASSUMED MOISTURE, %
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER :
METER BOX NUMBER ?_
METER AH 2-°°
C FACTOR
.90
30.20
+7"
PROBE HEATER SETTIMB 70
HEATER BOX SETTING __300_
REFERENCE Ap -56
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERYJLULMINUTES
Traverse
Point
Number
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
8.piP\0«JJ|«
Time.min.\gjehk;
ooo —
05 1220
10 25
15 30
20 35
25 40
30 45
35 50
40 55
45 1300
STOP
START
50 1340
55 45
60 50
70 1400
80 10
90 20
100 30
STOP
START
110 1505
130 1515
130 25
Gas Meter Reading
-------
Traverse
Point
Number
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-
A-1
s.mp\"°**™
Tim8-min-\aocS
~~ —
140 1535
150 45
160 55
170 1605
180 15
190 25
200 35
210 45
220 55
230 1705
240 15
250 25
STOP
Gas Meter Reading
(Vm),ft3
478.565
490.135
501.185
511.605
522.035
533.350
544.465
555.015
565.275
575.515
585.475
595.305
605.315
Velocity
Head
(APs»,in. H20
.68
.68
.60
.60
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.65
.55
Orifice Pressure
Differential
(AH), n,H70)
Desired
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.2
3.7
Actual
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.2
3.7
END TEST
Stack
Temperature
-------
NOX FIELD SAMPLING DATA
DATE
Nov. 15, 1976
SAMPLE NO.
PNE-1
PNE-2
PNI-1
PNI-2
SAMPLE
TIME
3:40
4:20
4:00
4:15
FLASK
#/VOMUME
20/2100
25/2102
22/2114
/2116
TEMPERATURE
°F
INITIAL
44
44
44
44
FINAL
38
38
40
40
FLASK PRESSURE
"Hg
INITIAL
25"
25"
25"
25"
FINAL
-0.8"
-0.5"
-1.5"
- 1.0"
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hg
INITIAL
29.91
29.91
29.91
29.91
FINAL
30.20
30.20
30.20
30.20
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
11/16 0930
11/16 0930
11/16 0930
11/16 0930
2116 — appeared to be less than 25" vacuum intake.
NOTES:
45
-------
NOX FIELD SAMPLING DATA
DATE Nov. 16, 1976
SAMPLE NO.
PNI-3
PNE-3
PNI-4
PNE-4
SAMPLE
TIME
11:52
11:38
12:22
12:15
FLASK
#/VOLUME
17/2094
21/2110
24/2109
19/2122
TEMPERATURE
°F
INITIAL
52
52
52
52
FINAL
38
38
38
38
FLASK PRESSURE
"Hg
INITIAL
26"
30"
25"
25.5"
FINAL
-1.1"
-3.7"
-3.8"
-2.4"
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hg
INITIAL
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
FINAL
30.26
30.26
30.26
30.26
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
NOTES:
46
-------
NOX FIELD SAMPLING DATA
DATE
Nov. 16, 1976
SAMPLE NO.
PNI-5
PNE-5
PNI-6
PNE-6
SAMPLE
TIME
12:45
12:30
12:50
12:55
FLASK
#/VOMUME
20/2100
23/2116
22/2114
25/2102
TEMPERATURE
°F
INITIAL
60
60
54
54
FINAL
38
38
38
38
FLASK PRESSURE
"Hg
INITIAL
25"
25"
25"
25"
FINAL
-3.1"
-1.2"
.2"
.5"
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hg
INITIAL
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
FINAL
30.26
30.26
30.26
30.26
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
NOTES:
47
-------
IMOX FIELD SAMPLING DATA
DATE
Nov. 16, 1976
SAMPLE NO.
PNI-7
PNE-7
PNI-8
PNE-8
PNI-9
PNE-9
SAMPLE
TIME
14:50
14:56
14:30
15:36
16:25
16:10
FLASK
#/VOMUME
4/2089
9/2083
12/2088
11/2090
6/2084
15/2100
TEMPERATURE
°F
INITIAL
50
50
50
50
50
50
FINAL
38
38
38
38
38
38
FLASK PRESSURE
"Hg
INITIAL
26"
25.5"
26.5"
26"
27.5"
28.0"
FINAL
-3.3"
-2.7
-3.6"
-1.9"
-1.9"
.1"
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hg
INITIAL
30.15
30.15
30.15
30.15
30.15
30.15
FINAL
30.26
30.26
30.26
30.26
30.26
30.26
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
11/17 1000
NOTES:
48
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled for TOTAL ACIDS
Date 11/15/76
Plant Baltimore Pyrolysis
Bar. Pressure 29-91
Ambient Temp.
Run No. pG[
Power Stat Setting 80
Filter Used: Yes No.
Operator
Location INLET
"Hg Comments:
°F
MWH
CLOCK
TIME
Start
15:48
15:53
15:58
16:03
16:08
16:13
Stop
16:18
30
METER (Ft.3)
273.125
273.480
273.800
274.185
274.480
274.770
275.025
1.900
FLOW METER
SETTING (LPM)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
METER TEMPERATURE
IN
74°
74°
78°
78°
80°
80°
80°
77.7°
Comments:
Impinger Bucket No..
Meter Box No. G-1
49
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled for TOTAL ACIDS
Date 11716/76
Plant Baltimore Pyrolysis
Bar. Pressure 30.25 1'Hg
Ambient Temp. 70 ° p
Run No. PGI-2
Power Stat Setting iP.
Filter Used: Yes No *_
Operator MWH__
I oration INLET
Comments:
CLOCK
TIME
11:11
Start
11:18
11:23
11:28
11:33
11:38
11:43
Stop
11:48
30
METER (Ft.3)
276.62
276.765
277.120
277.400
277.600
277.840
278.120
278.325
1.705
FLOW METER
SETTING (LPM)
.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
METER TEMPERATURE
IN
70°
70°
70°
70°
70°
70°
70°
70°
~W
Comments:
Impinger Bucket No..
Meter Box No. G-1
50
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled for TOTAL ACIDS
Data 11/16/76
Plant Baltimore Pyrolysis
Bar. Pressure 30.16
Ambient Temp. 70
Run No. PGI-3
Power Stat Setting 85
Filter Used: Yes No *_
Operator
MWH
L'Hg
°F
Location INLET
Comments:
CLOCK
TIME
Start
14:59
15:04
15:09
15:14
15:19
15:24
Stop
15:29
30
METER (Ft.3)
279.625
279.970
280.260
280.480
281.00
281 .30
281.70
2.075
FLOW METER
SETTING (LPM)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
METER TEMPERATURE
IN
79°
79°
79°
79°
79°
79°
79°
79°
Comments:
Impinger Bucket No..
Meter Box No. G-1
51
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled for TOTAL ACIDS
natP 11/15/76
Plant Baltimore Pyrolysis
Bar. Pressure __?JL9L
Ambient Temp. 50
Run No. PGE-1
Power Stat Setting 40
Filter Used: Yes No *_
Operator
McR
-Hg
I orating Exhaust
Comments:
Comments:
CLOCK
TIME
Start
16:14
Stop
16:44
30
METER (Ft.3 )
204.100
205.055
.955
FLOW METER
SETTING (LPM)
1.5
1.0
METER TEMPERATURE
IN
46°
50°
48°
Impinger Bucket No..
Meter Box No. G-2
52
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled for TOTAL ACIDS
Date 11/16/76
Plant Balitmore Pyrolysis
Bar. Pressure 30.25
Ambient Temp. 45
Run No. PGE-2
Power Stat Setting 40
Filter Used: Yes No *_
Operator.
McR
Location Exhaust
Comments:
CLOCK
TIME
Start
12:32
Stop
13:02
30
METER (Ft.3)
205.225
205.855
0.63
FLOW METER
SETTING (LPM)
2.0
.5
METER TEMPERATURE
IN
48°
52°
50°
Comments:
Impinger Bucket No
Meter Box No.
53
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled for TOTAL ACIDS
patB 11/16/76
Plant Balitmore Pyrolysis
Bar. Pressure 30.16
Ambient Temp. 50
Run No. PGE-3
Power Stat Sotting 50
Filter Used: Yes No *_
Operator.
McR
1'Hg
Location Exhaust
Comments:
CLOCK
TIME
Start
16:05
Stop
16:35
30
METER (Ft.3)
206.032
208.800
2.768
FLOW METER
SETTING (LPM)
2.0
2.0
METER TEMPERATURE
IN
48°
55°
51.5°
Comments:
Impinger Bucket No. _
Meter Box No. _
-------
ANALYTICAL DATA
PLANT Baltimore Pyrolysis
COMMENTS:
DATE 11-19-76
SAMPLING LOCATION Exhaust
SAMPLE TYPE Part.
RUN NUMBER _PPL2_
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
CLEAN-UP MAN _McJL
PROMT HALF
ACETONE WASH OF NOZZLE, PROBE, CYCLONE (BYPASS), CONTAINER
FLASK, FRONT HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
.8552
FILTER NUMBER .6542 CONTAINER
.2010
LABORATORY RESULTS
186.4 m,
201.0
. mg
FRONT HALF SUBTOTAL
387.4
. mg
BACK HALF
IMPINGER CONTENTS AND WATER WASH OF
IMPINGERS, CONNECTORS, AND BACK
HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
ACETONE WASH OF IMPINGERS, CONNECTORS.
AND BACK HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
ETHER-CHLOROFORM
FyTRAiyrmw
r.niUTAINER
BACK HA' FSNRTflTAl
TOTAI WFIRHT 387.4
mg
mg
mg
mg
MOISTURE
IMPINGERS
FINAL VOLUME
INITIAL VOLUME
NET VOLUME
424 ml
300 ml
1.24 ml
SILICA GEL
FINAL WEIGHT 215.9 g
INITIAL WEIGHT __2000_ g
NET WEIGHT —15JL- g
g
9
TOTAL MOISTURE
139.9
55
-------
ANALYTICAL DATA
PLANT Baltimore Pyrolysis
COMMENTS:
DATE 11-19-76
SAMPLING LOCATION Exhaust
SAMPLE TYPE Part
RUN NUMBER __PPEJ_
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER.
CLEAN-UP MAN _Mc_R_
FRONT HALF
ACETONE WASH OF NOZZLE, PROBE, CYCLONE (BYPASS), CONTAINER
FLASK, FRONT HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
.7752
FILTER NUMBER -6571 CONTAINER
.1181
LABORATORY RESULTS
465.6
118.1
. mg
mg
FRONT HALF SUBTOTAL
583.7
mg
BACK HALF
IMPINGER CONTENTS AND WATER WASH OF
IMPINGERS, CONNECTORS, AND BACK
HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
ACETONE WASH OF IMPINGERS, CONNECTORS,
AND BACK HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
CONTAINER
ETHER-CHLOROFORM
EXTRACTION
CONTAINER
RACK HALF SURTOTAL
TOTAL WEIGHT 583.7
mg
mn
mg
mg
MOISTURE
IMPINGERS
FINAL VOLUME
INITIAL VOLUME
NET VOLUME
SILICA GEL
FINAL WEIGHT
INITIAL WEIGHT
NET WEIGHT
305
200
105
219.9
200.0
19.9
.ml
.ml
.ml
.9
. g
TOTAL MOISTURE
124.9
56
-------
ANALYTICAL DATA
PLANT Baltimore Pyrolysis
COMMENTS:
DATE H-19-76
SAMPLING LOCATION Exhaust
SAMPLE TYPE Part-
RUNNUMBER_PP§J
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER.
CLEAN-UP MAN __McJ
FRONT HALF
ACETONE WASH OF NOZZLE, PROBE, CYCLONE (BYPASS),
FLASK, FRONT HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
.8283
FILTER NUMBER -6581
.1702
CONTAINER
CONTAINER
LABORATORY RESULTS
209.3
170.2
FRONT HALF SUBTOTAL
379.5
. mg
tng
. mg
BACK HALF
IMPINGER CONTENTS AND WATER WASH OF
IMPINGERS, CONNECTORS, AND BACK
HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
ACETONE WASH OF IMPINGERS, CONNECTORS,
AND BACK HALF OF FILTER HOLDER
rniUTAINFR
ETHER-CHLOROFORM
rniUTAIIUFR
BACK HALF SUBTOTAL
TOTAL WEIGHT
mg
mg
mg
mg
379.5 mg
MOISTURE
IMPINGERS
FINAL VOLUME
INITIAL VOLUME
NET VOLUME
SILICA GEL
FINAL WEIGHT
INITIAL WEIGHT
NET WEIGHT
300
200
100
214.6
200
14.6
ml
.ml
.ml
g
-fl
g
g
a
TOTAL MOISTURE
114.6
57
-------
LOAD SHEET
STACK TEST - PARTICULATE
PPE-1
Parti
Enter
Tf(Min)
(DM)2 (in2)
PS(in Hg)
VM(ft3)
VW(ml)
%CO2
%O2
%N2
4350V
As(ft 2)
(Ts+460)
mf (mg)
mt (mg)
VMSTDtf3)
PS ("Hg)
Md
(Ts+460)
Qs(scfm)
(Initially Only)
Value
0.0283
17.71
0.0474
1032
60
.0625
30.42
41.845
124.9
9.5
11.4
79.1
84560.00
50.26
598.8
Part 2
583.7
583.7
42.157
30.42
.877
598.8
113,868.0
Location
04
05
06
07
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
Test
Enter
Tf(Min)
(DM)2 (in2)
PS(in Hg)
VM(ft3 )
VW(ml)
%CO2
%O2
%N2
4350V
As(ft 2)
(Ts+460)
mf (mg)
mt (mg)
VMSTDff3)
PS ("Hg)
Md
(Ts+460)
Qs(scfm)
# PPE-2
Value
60
.0625
30.67
35.945
139.9
9.5
11.4
79.1
68780.66
50.26
599.2
Part 2
387.4
387.4
36.645
30.67
.847
599.2
90,321.1
Test
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
Enter
Tf(Min)
(DN)2(in2)
PS (in Hg)
VM(ft3 )
VW(ml)
%CO2
%O2
%N2
4350X/
As(ft2)
(Ts+460)
mf (mg)
mt (mg)
VMSTDtf3)
PS ("Hg)
Md
(Ts+460)
Qs(scfm)
# PPE-3
Value
60
.0625
30.67
35.760
114.6
8.0
12.9
79.1
68780.66
50.26
599.2
Part 2
379.5
379.5
36.443
30.67
.870
599.2
92,623.4
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
58
-------
RESULTS
STACK TEST - PARTICULATE
Test # PPE-1
Test g: PPE-3
Value
Vm (SCF)
Vm (SCM)
Vw gas (CF)
% Moisture
Md
MWd
MW
Vs (fpm)
ACFM
Flow (SCFM)
Flow (SCMM)
%l
%EA
Front gr/scf
Front gm/scm
Total gr/scf
Total gm/scm
Front gr/acf
Front gm/acm
Total gr/acf
Total gm/acm
Front Ib/hr
Front kg/hr
Total Ib/hr
Total kg/hr
42.157
1.193
5.920
12.314
.877
29.976
28.501
2871.793
144,336.4
113,868.0
3,222.46
90.02
118.2
.2132
.4883
.2132
.4883
.1681
.3850
.1681
.3850
208.08
94.38
208.08
94.38
Value
Vm (SCF)
Vm (SCM)
Vw gas (CF)
% Moisture
Md
MWd
MW
Vs (fpm)
ACFM
Flow (SCFM)
Flow (SCMM)
%l
%EA
Front gr/scf
Front gm/scm
Total gr/scf
Total gm/scm
Front gr/acf
Front gm/acm
Total gr/acf
Total gm/acm
Front Ib/hr
Front kg/hr
Total Ib/hr
Total kg/hr
36.645
1.037
6.631
15.322
Value
Vm (SCF)
Vm (SCM)
Vw gas (CF)
% Moisture
.847 , Md
29.976 MWd
28.141
2341.209
117,669.2
90,321.1
2,556.1
97.48
118.2
.1628
.3728
.1628
.3728
.1249
.2861
.1249
.2861
126.02
57.16
126.02
57.16
MW
Vs (fpm)
ACFM
Flow (SCFM)
Flow (SCMM)
%l
%EA
Front gr/scf
Front gm/scm
Total gr/scf
Total gm/scm
Front gr/acf
Front gm/acm
Total gr/acf
Total gm/acm
Front Ib/hr
Front kg/hr
Total Ib/hr
Total kg/hr
36.443
1.031
5.432
12.972
.870
29.976
28.266
2336.03
117,408.9
92,623.4
2,621.2
94.57
158.5
.1604
.3672
.1604
.3672
.1264
.2894
.1264
.2894
127.30
57.74
127.30
57.74
59
-------
BALTIMORE PYROLYSIS
LOAD SHEET
STACK TEST-SO2/SO3
Master #
Test * PSI-1
Master -
Test * PSI-2
Master ~
PSI-3
Enter
Vm(f3)
PbarC'Hg)
Tm,°F
VrVb(S02 )
N
Vsoln(S02 )
Valiq(S02)
Vt-Vb(S03)
Vsoln(S03)
Valiq(S03)
Value
45.35
29.91
88.9
2.5
0.01005
350
0.5
4.0
226
10
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Vm(scf)
SO2 (Ib/scf )
SO2 (ppm)
S03 (Ib/scf)
SO3 (ppm)
43.76
2.833 x10~5
171.4
2.242 X10"6
10.85
Enter
Vm(f3)
PbarC'Hg)
Tm,°F
VrVb(S02 )
N
Vsoln(S02)
Valiq(S02)
Vt-Vb(S03)
Vsoln(S03)
Valiq(S03)
Value
36.10
30.25
85.0
1.9
0.01005
342
0.5
2.8
273
10
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
RESULTS
Vm(scf)
SO2 (Ib/scf)
SO2 (ppm)
SO3 (Ib/scf)
SO3 (ppm)
35.49
2.595 x 1CT5
157.0
2.338 x 10""6
11.32
Enter
Vm(f3)
PbarC'Hg)
Tm.°F
VrVb(S02 )
N
VSoln(S02)
Valiq(S02)
VrVb(S03)
Vsoln(S03)
Valiq(S03)
Value
49.26
30.16
83.7
1.9
0.01005
358
0.5
3.0
216
10
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Vm(scf)
SO2 (Ib/scf)
SO2 (ppm)
SO3 (Ib/scf)
SO3 (ppm)
48.39
1.992x 10T5
120.5
1.453x 10""6
7.034
60
-------
BALTIMORE PYROLYSIS
LOAD SHEET
STACK TEST-SO2/SO3
Master =
Test = PSE-1
Master =
Test = PSE-2
Master -
Test = PSE-3
Enter
Vm
PbarC'Hg)
Tm.°F
Vt-Vb(S02 )
N
VSoln(S02)
Valiq(S02)
Vt-Vb(S03)
Vsoln(S03)
Va|iq(S03)
Value
37.61
29.91
63.1
1.9
0.01005
376
10
20.0
340
100
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
VmUcf)
S02 (Ib/scf )
SO2 (ppm)
SO3 (Ib/scf)
SO3(ppm)
38.08
1.329x TO'6
8.041
1.938x 1CT6
9.380
Enter
Vm(f3)
PbarC'Hg)
Tm,°F
Vt-Vb(S02 )
N
Vsoln(S02)
Va|jq(S02)
Vt-Vfa(S03)
VSoln(S03)
Valiq(S03)
Value
34.92
30.25
58.8
3.4
0.01005
378
10
20
291
10
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
RESULTS
Vm(scf)
S02 (Ib/scf)
SO2 (ppm)
SO3 (Ib/scf)
SO3 (ppm)
36.06
2.525 x 10"6
15.28
1.752x 1CT6
8.479
Enter
vm(f3)
PbarC'Hg)
Tm,°F
VrVb(S02 )
N
VSoln(S02 )
Valiq(S02 )
VrVb(S03)
Vsoln(S03)
Valiq(S03)
Value
35.83
30.16
57.8
1.6
0.01005
401
10
1.6
296
10
Location
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Vm(scf)
SO2 (Ib/scf)
SO2 (ppm)
SO3 (Ib/scf)
SO3(ppm)
36.96
1.230x 10~6
7.441
1.391 x 10"6
6.732
61
-------
LOAD SHEET
STACK TEST - NOx
Test* PNI-2
Enter
Pf"Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(ng)
Tes
Pf'Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(M9>
Value
28.70
40
44.91
44
63.7
Location
,* PNI-4
26.46
38
+0.2
52
1.8
Enter
Pf'Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(M9)
Tes
Pf'Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(pig)
Value
29.20
40
+4.91
44
4.6
Location
t* PNI-5
27.16
38
+4.2
60
1.8
Enter
Pf'Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(jug)
Tes
Pf'Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(ng)
Value
29.16
38
+4.2
52
30.4
Location
t* PNI-6
30.06
38
+4.2
54
1.8
Test#_PN±i
RESULTS
PNI-2
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx (gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test*
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx (gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1751.346
2.255 x 1CT6
3.61 2 x10~2
18.88
PNI-4
1946579
5.733 x 10~8
9.183 x 1CT4
0.4799
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx (gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test*
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx (gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1801.882
1.583x 1CT7
2.535 x10~3
1.325
PNI-5
1707.369
6.536 x 10~8
1.047x 10~3
0.5472
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx (gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test*
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx (gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1844.964
1.022x 10""6
1.036x 1CT2
8.551
PNI-6
1919.749
5.81 3 x 10T*
9.312 x 10"4
0.4866
62
-------
LOAD SHEET
STACK TEST - NOx
Test* PNI-7
Test
PNI-8
= PNI-9
Enter
Pf"Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(Mg)
Tes
Pf"Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(Mg)
Value
29.97
38
4.15
50
0.9
t*
Location
Enter
Pf"Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(M9)
Tes
Pf"Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(/ig)
Value
26.67
38
3.65
50
17.5
t*
Location
Enter
Pf"Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(wj)
Tes
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(A/g)
Value
28.36
38
2.65
50
9.2
t =
Location
RESULTS
PNI-7
» PNI-9
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test*
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1682.166
3.317 x10~8
5.313 xKT4
0.02776
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test*
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1695.161
6.401 x 10~7
1.025x10~2
5.358
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test*
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1887.121
3.023 x 10~7
4.842 x1CT3
2.530
63
-------
Test* PNE-1
LOAD SHEET
STACK TEST - NOx
Test = PNE-2
Test * PNE-3
Enter
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(jug)
Tes
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(Mg)
Value
29.4
38
+4.91
44
37.8
Location
t* PNE-4
27.86
38
+4.7
52
4.6
Enter
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(jug)
Tes
Pf"Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(jug)
Value
29.7
38
+4.91
44
13.8
Location
t* PNE-5
29.06
38
+5.2
60
9.2
Enter
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(jug)
Tes
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(Aig)
Value
26.56
38
+0.2
52
29.5
Location
t* PNE-6
29.76
38
+5.2
54
29.5
PNE-1
RESULTS
PNE-2
PNE-3
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test* f
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1811.471
1. 294x10"*
2.072 x 10~2
10.83
'NE-4
1736.718
1.642x1CT7
2.630 x 10~3
1.375
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test* f
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
N0x(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1835.376
4.662 x 10~7
7.467 x 1CT3
3.902
'NE-5
1790.604
3.186 x 1CT7
5.103 x 10"3
2.667
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Test* P
Vol (scf)
NOx (Ib/scf)
NOx(gm/m3)
NOx (ppm)
Value
1945.552
9.401 x 10~7
1.506x 10"2
7.870
NE-6
1826.026
1.002x 10"6
1.604x 10"2
8.384
64
-------
Test = PNE-7
LOAD SHEET
STACK TEST - NOx
^ PNE-8
er PNE-9
Enter
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(/jg)
Tes
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(/jg)
Value
27.56
38
+4.65
50
8.3
Location
t J?
Enter
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(jug)
Tes
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
Ml/ng)
Value
28.36
38
+4.15
50
19.4
Location
t#
Enter
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(Mg)
Tes
Pf "Hg
Tf°F
Pi "Hg
Ti°F
M(pg)
Value
30.16
38
+2.15
50
9.2
Location
t =•
T»
-------
APPENDIX B
DETAILED DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS
Maximum Ground Level Concentrations from existing configuration Analysis of Concentration as a function of
stability and wind speed. 1971 Version D. B. Turner.
Emission Rate (G/sec) = 100.00
Physical Stack Height (M) = 67.10
Stack Gas Temp (Deg k) = 505.00
Ambient Air Temperature (Deg k) = 293.0
Volume Flow (m3/sec) = 172.30
Stability
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
.5
.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Max. Cone.
(G/m3)
99.0000E +00
58.5767 E -06
63.1151 E-06
71.5077 E-06
77.2308E -06
31.3361E-05
34.3072 E -05
99.0000 E +00
18.2399 E -06
21.2899 E-06
27.8516 E-06
33.2305E -06
37.7156E-06
41.5061E-06
47.4770E -06
51.8100E-06
22.1766 E-06
26.0315E -06
29.1181E-06
35.0835E -06
39.3322 E -06
45.3633E -06
50.0072E -06
51.3681E-06
51.9164E-06
99.0000E +00
99.0000 E +00
17.9712E-07
32.3392 E -07
43.6273 E -07
65.4472E -07
93.5756E -07
11.2424E-06
13.9327 E-06
18.3926 E -06
22.7665E -06
24.6242 E -06
26.3641 E -06
27.5105E -06
36.4435E -05
33.5310E -05
31.2410E-05
27.3017 E-05
25.2877 E -05
13.7779E -05
13.2732E -05
12.3231 E-05
12.0533 E-05
11.4154E-05
Dist. of Max.
(km)
999.000 (1)
1.525
1.330
1.156
1.023
0.934
0.863
999.000 (1)
7.414
6.113
4.340
3.423
2.871
2.494
2.015
1.723
7.377
6.372
5.391
4.163
3.443
2.647
2.061
1.338
1.615
999.000 (1)
999.000 (1)
196.025 (3)
93.415
56.066
33.934
30.023
19.742
14.723
9.350
6.736
5.724
4.733
3.315
20.009
18.233
17.105
15.375
14.192
62.333 (1)
56.056
51.190
44.541
40.172
Plume Height
(M)
2067.2 (2)
1317.2(2)
1067.2 (2)
733.3 (2)
567.1 (2)
467.1 (2)
400.5 (2)
2067.2 (2)
1317.2 (2)
1067.2 (2)
733.3 (2)
567.1 (2)
467.5 (2)
400.5 (2)
317.1 (2)
267.1 (2)
567.1 (2)
467.1 (2)
400.5 (2)
317.1 (2)
267.1 (2)
210.0 (2)
167.1
150.4
133.3
2067.2 (2)
1317.2 (2)
1067.2 (2)
733.3 (2)
567.1 (2)
467.1 (2)
400.5 (2)
317.1 (2)
267.1 (2)
210.0 (2)
167.1
150.4
133.3
117.1
199.7
190.2
182.9
172.3
164.9
177.1
169.2
163.2
154.4
149.2
(1)
The distance to the point of maximum concentrations is so great that the same stability is not likely to persist long enough for
the plume to travel this far.
(2) The plume is of sufficient height that extreme caution should be used in interpreting this computation as this stability type
may not exist to this height. Also wind speed variations with height may exert a dominating influence.
(3) No computation was attempted for this height as the point of maximum concentration is greater than 100 kilometers from
the source.
66
-------
Maximum Ground Level Concentrations from existing configuration Analysis of Concentration as a function of
stability and wind speed. 1971 Version, D. B. Turner.
Emission Rate (G/sec) = 100.00
Physical Stack Height (M) = 7.60
Stack Gas Temp (Deg k) = 322.0
Ambient Air Temperature (Deg k) = 293.0
Volume Flow (M3/sec) = 396.4
Stability
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Max. Cone.
93. 7429 E -06
11.3349E-05
1 2.4043 E -05
14. 5644 E -05
16.291 3 E -05
17.7366E-05
1 8.9894 E -05
29.1919E-06
42.1920E-06
50.2587 E -06
68.8766 E -06
86.0128E -06
10.1980E-05
11.7035E-05
14. 4995 E -05
1 7.0477 E -05
62.851 3 E -06
77.3996 E -06
91.5990E-06
1 1 .9038E -05
1 4.5203 E -05
19.4160E-05
25.9982 E -05
29.9283 E -05
35.21 32 E -05
99.0000 E +00
44.3245E -07
63.9775E -07
1 2.501 9 E -06
19.5546E-06
27.2463 E -06
35.6382E -06
53.5424 E -06
72.5102E -06
11.3116E-05
1 7.3222 E -05
21.3177E-05
27.1708E-05
34 .301 5E -05
1 8.9477 E -05
18.484 IE -05
1 8.0722 E -05
1 7.1 890 E -05
1 6.51 23 E -05
16.9332E -05
16.7940E -05
1 6.664 1E -05
16.4288E -05
1 6.21 98 E -05
Dist. of Max.
(km)
1.524
1.222
1.101
.912
.798
.720
.662
7.413
4.838
3.951
2.741
2.119
1.737
1.478
1.148
0.946
4.421
3.481
2.867
2.118
1.679
1.190
0.832
0.697
0.564
999.000 (1)
118.045 (3)
76.252
35.744
21.782
14.941
11.124
7.062
5.009
3.008
1.811
1.408
1.043
0.795
7.158
6.325
5.723
4.926
4.389
13.310
11.506
10.221
8.492
7.363
Plume Height
(M)
1317.0 (2)
826.0 (2)
662.3 (2)
444.1 (2)
334.9 (2)
269.5 (2)
225.8 (2)
1317.0(2)
826.0 (2)
662.3 (2)
444.1 (2)
334.9 (2)
269.5 (2)
225.8 (2)
171.3
138.5
334.9 (2)
269.5 (2)
225.8 (2)
171.3
138.5
101.1
73.1
62.2
51.2
1317.0(2)
826.0 (2)
662.3 (2)
444.1 (2)
334.9 (2)
269.5 (2)
225.8 (2)
171.3
138.5
101.1
73.1
62.2
51.2
40.3
112.4
104.9
99.1
90.8
84.8
94.6
88.3
83.6
76.6
71.7
(1)
The distance to the point of maximum concentration is so great that the same stability is not likely to persist long enough
for the plume to travel this far.
(2) The plume is of sufficient height that extreme caution should be used in interpreting this computation as this stability
type may not exist to this height. Also wind speed variations with height may exert a dominating influence.
(3) No computation was attempted for this height as the point of maximum concentration is greater than 100 kilometers
from the source.
67
-------
CASE 1 - MOST PROBABLE CONDITIONS - EXISTING CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M) = 7.6
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 322.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 396.4
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 293.0
STABILITY CLASS = 4
WIND SPEED (M/SEC)= 2.1
HEIGHT OF MIXING LAYER (M) = 700.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 319.4
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = .784
DISTANCE
(KM)
.805
1.609
2.414
3.219
4.828
6.437
8.047
9.656
11.265
12.875
HEIGHT
(M)
319.4
319.4
319.4
319.4
319.4
319.4
319.4
319.4
319.4
319.4
CONCENTRATION
(G/CU M)
0.
73.66E-16
21.70E-11
18.12E-09
71.16E-08
33.72E-07
74.71E-07
11.70E-06
15.01 E-06
17.43E-06
SIGY
(M)
55.89
105.03
151.72
196.77
283.43
366.84
447.89
526.95
604.42
680.57
SIGZ
(M)
26.92
43.60
56.61
67.95
86.83
103.33
118.27
132.06
144.29
155.62
CHI
(SEC/M3)
0.
15.47E-17
45.57E-13
38.05E-1 1
14.94E-09
70.80E-09
15.69E-08
24.57 E-08
31.52E-08
36.60E-08
68
-------
CASE 2 - MOST PROBABLE CONDITIONS - EXISTING CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M)= 7.6
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 322.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 396.4
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 293.0
STAB ILITY CLASS = 4
WIND SPEED (M/SEC) = 4.4
HEIGHT OF MIXING LAYER (M) = 700.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 156.4
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = .784
DISTANCE HEIGHT CONCENTRATION SIGY
(KM) (M) (G/CU M) (M)
.805 156.4 22.50E-11 55.89
1.609 156.4 25.36E-07 105.03
2.414 156.4 18.55E-06 151.72
3.219 156.4 38.28E-06 196.77
4.828 156.4 58.06E-06 283.43
6.437 156.4 60.71E-06 366.84
8.047 156.4 56.97E-06 447.89
9.656 156.4 51.56E-06 526.95
11.265 156.4 46.10E-06 604.42
12.875 156.4 41.22E-06 680.57
SIGZ
(M)
26.92
43.60
56.61
67.95
86.83
103.33
118.27
132.06
144.29
155.62
CHI
(SEC/M3)
98.98E-13
11.16E-08
81.60E-08
16.84E-07
25.55E-07
26.71E-07
25.07E-07
22.69E-07
20.28E-07
18.14E-07
69
-------
CASE 3 - MOST PROBABLE CONDITIONS - EXISTING CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M) = 7.6
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEG K) = 322.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 396.4
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEG K) = 293.0
STAB ILITY CLASS = 4
WIND SPEED (M/SEC) = 8.2
HEIGHT OF MIXING LAYER (M) = 700.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 87.4
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = .784
DISTANCE HEIGHT CONCENTRATION SIGY
(KM) (M) (G/CUM) (M)
.805 87.4 13.19E-06 55.89
1.609 87.4 11.34E-05 105.03
2.414 87.4 13.71 E-05 151.72
3.219 87.4 12.69E-05 196.77
4.828 87.4 95.00E-06 283.43
6.437 87.4 71.59E-06 366.84
8.047 87.4 55.76E-06 447.89
9.656 87.4 44.80E-06 526.95
11.265 87.4 37.04E-06 604.42
12.875 87.4 31.30E-06 680.57
SIGZ
(M)
26.92
43.60
56.61
67.95
86.83
103.33
118.27
132.06
144.29
155.62
CHI
(SEC/M3)
10.82E-07
93.01E-07
11.24E-06
10.40E-06
77.90E-07
58.70E-07
45.72E-07
36.74E-07
30.38 E-07
25.67 E-07
70
-------
CASE 4 - UNFAVORABLE CONDITIONS - EXISTING CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M) = 7.6
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 322.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 396.4
/
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEG K) = 293.0
STABILITY CLASS = 6
WIND SPEED (M/SEC)= 1.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 116.1
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = .095
DISTANCE HEIGHT CONCENTRATION SIGY
(KM) (M) (G/CU M) (M)
.805 116.1 54.59E-23 27.79
1.609 116.1 18.17E-11 52.26
2.414 116.1 13.69E-08 75.52
3.219 116.1 19.39E-07 97.96
4.828 116.1 16.97E-06 141.16
6.437 116.1 46.32 E-06 182.74
8.047 116.1 76.78E-06 223.15
9.656 116.1 10.24E-05 262.58
11.265 116.1 12.34E-05 301.22
12.875 116.1 13.96E-05 339.20
SIGZ
(M)
12.03
18.85
23.96
27.87
33.66
38.47
42.38
45.71
48.73
51.51
CHI
(SEC/M3)
56.23E-25
18.72E-13
14.10E-10
19.97E-09
17.48E-08
47.71E-08
79.08E-08
10.55E-07
12.71E-07
14.38E-07
71
-------
CASE 5 - UNFAVORABLE CONDITIONS - EXISTING CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M) = 7.6
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 322.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 396.4
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 293.0
STABILITY CLASS = 6
WIND SPEED (M/SEC)= 3.1
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 82.8
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = .284
DISTANCE HEIGHT CONCENTRATION SIGY
(KM) (M) (G/CUM) (M)
.805 82.8 15.58E-13 27.79
1.609 82.8 67.11E-08 52.26
2.414 82.8 14.50E-06 75.52
3.219 82.8 45.67E-06 97.96
4.828 82.8 10.50E-05 141.16
6.437 82.2 14.44E-05 182.74
8.047 82.8 16.14E-05 223.15
9.656 82.8 16.63E-05 262.58
11.265 82.8 16.56E-05 301.22
12.875 82.8 16L9E/-05 339.20
SIGZ
(M)
12.03
18.85
23.96
27.87
33.66
38.47
42.38
45.71
48.73
51.51
CHI
(SEC/M3)
48.14E-15
20.74E-09
44.82E-08
14.11E-07
32.44E-07
44.62 E-07
49.88E-07
51.38E-07
51.17E-07
50.03E-07
72
-------
CASE 1 - MOST PROBABLE CONDITIONS - PROPOSED CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M)= 67.1
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 505.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 172.3
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEG K) = 293.0
STABILITY CLASS = 4
WIND SPEED (M/SEC)= 2.1
HEIGHT OF MIXING LAYER (M) = 700.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 543.3
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = 1.040
DISTANCE HEIGHT CONCENTRATION SIGY SIGZ CHI
(KM) (M) (G/CUM) (M) (M) (SEC/M3)
•805 468.6 0. 55.89 26.92 0.
1.609 543.3 0. 105.03 43.60 0.
2.414 543.3 17.61E-24 151.72 56.61 36.97E-26
3.219 543.3 14.86E-18 196.77 67.95 31.20E-20
4.828 543.3 19.40E-13 283.43 86.83 40.75E-15
6.437 543.3 39.69E-11 366.84 103.33 83.34E-13
8.047 543.3 74.83E-10 447.89 118.27 15.71E-11
9.656 543.3 45.96E-09 526.95 132.06 96.52E-11
11.265 543.3 14.50E-08 604.42 144.29 30.44E-10
12.875 543.3 32.28E-08 680.57 155.62 67.79E-10
73
-------
CASE 2 - MOST PROBABLE CONDITIONS - PROPOSED CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M) = 67.1
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 505.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 172.3
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 293.0
STABILITY CLASS = 4
WIND SPEED (M/SEC) = 4.4
HEIGHT OF MIXING LAYER (M) = 700.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 294.4
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = 1.040
DISTANCE HEIGHT CONCENTRATION SIGY
(KM) (M) (G/CUM) (M)
.805 258.7 42.00E-24 55.89
1.609 294.4 19.81E-14 105.03
2.414 294.4 11.31E-10 151.72
3.219 294.4 45.46E-09 196.77
4.828 294.4 93.84E-08 283.43
6.437 294.4 32.98E-07 366.84
8.047 294.4 61.66E-07 447.89
9.656 294.4 86.65E-07 526.95
11.265 294.4 10.35E-06 604.42
12.875 294.4 11.41E-06 680.57
SIGZ
(M)
26.92
43.60
56.61
67.95
86.83
103.33
118.27
132.06
144.29
155.62
CHI
(SEC/M3)
18.48E-25
87.17E-16
49.78E-12
20.00E-10
41.29E-09
14.51 E-08
27.13E-08
38.12 E-08
45.54E-08
50.22 E-08
74
-------
CASE 3 - MOST PROBABLE CONDITIONS - PROPOSED CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M) = 67.1
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 505.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 172.3
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEG K) = 293.0
STABILITY CLASS = 4
WIND SPEED (M/SEC)= 8.2
HEIGHT OF MIXING LAYER (M) = 700.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 189.1
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = 1.040
DISTANCE
(KM)
.805
1.609
2.414
3.219
4.828
6.437
8.047
9.656
11.265
12.875
HEIGHT
(M)
169.9
189.1
189.1
189.1
189.1
189.1
189.1
189.1
189.1
189.1
CONCENTRATION
(G/CU M)
57.43E-13
69.90E-09
17.11E-07
60.53E-07
14.74E-06
19.21E-06
20.42E-06
20.02E-06
18.87E-06
17.52E-06
SIGY
(M)
55.89
105.03
151.72
196.77
283.43
366.84
447.89
526.95
604.42
680.57
SIGZ
(M)
26.92
43.60
56.61
67.95
86.83
103.33
118.27
132.06
144.29
155.62
CHI
(SEC/M3)
47.10E-14
57.31 E-10
14.03E-08
49.63E-08
12.09E-07
15.75E-07
16.75E-07
16.42E-07
15.47E-07
14.37E-07
75
-------
CASE 4 - UNFAVORABLE CONDITIONS - PROPOSED CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PLYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M) = 67.1
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 505.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 172.3
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 293.0
STAB ILITY CLASS = 6
WIND SPEED (M/SEC)= 1.0
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 204.4
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = .095
DISTANCE HEIGHT CONCENTRATION SIGY
(KM) (M) (G/CUM) (M)
.805 204.4 0. 27.79
1.609 204.4 0. 52.26
2.414 204.4 27.36E-19 75.52
3.219 204.4 24.01 E-15 97.96
4.828 204.4 63.91 E-12 141.16
6.437 204.4 32.69E-10 182.74
8.047 204.4 29.19E-09 223.15
9.656 204.4 11.77E-08 262.58
11.265 204.4 31.95E-08 301.22
12.875 204.4 67.56E-08 339.20
SIGZ
(M)
12.03
18.85
23.96
27.87
33.66
38.47
42.38
45.71
48.73
51.51
CHI
(SEC/M3)
0.
0.
28.18E-21
24.73E-17
65.82E-14
33.67E-12
30.06E-11
12.12E-10
32.91 E-10
69.59E-10
76
-------
CASE 5 - UNFAVORABLE CONDITIONS - PROPOSED CONFIGURATION
SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) = 100.0
PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (M)= 67.1
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 505.0
VOLUME FLOW (M3/SEC) = 172.3
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEC K) = 293.0
STABILITY CLASS = 6
WIND SPEED (M/SEC)= 3.1
FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION (M) = 162.3
DISTANCE TO FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT (KM) = .284
DISTANCE
(KM)
.805
1.609
2.414
3.219
4.828
6.437
8.047
9.656
11.265
12.875
HEIGHT
(M)
162.3
162.3
162.3
162.3
162.3
162.3
162.3
162.3
162.3
162.3
CONCENTRATION
(G/CU M)
0.
83.57 E-20
62.58E-14
16.47E-11
19.38E-09
20.04E-08
71.40E-08
15.75E-07
27.44E-07
41.26E-07
SIGY
(M)
27.79
52.26
75.52
97.96
141.16
182.74
223.15
262.58
301.22
339.20
SIGZ
(M)
12.03
18.85
23.96
27.87
33.66
38.47
42.38
45.71
48.73
51.51
CHI
(SEC/M3)
0.
25.82E-21
19.34E-15
50.88E-13
59.88E-11
61.92E-10
22.06E-09
48.66E-09
84.80E-09
12.75E-08
77
-------
APPENDIX C
AERODYNAMIC DOWNWASH ANALYSIS FOR BALTIMORE CITY PYROLYSIS PLANT
A considerable plume downwash problem has been observed with the existing
stack configuration at the pyrolysis plant. As noted in Section V, this phe-
nomenon cannot be treated in a definitive analytic way. However, workers such
as Briggs^ '^ ' arid Turner^ ' have reported procedures for making first-order
approximations of ground level concentrations in situations where downwash
occurs. Empirical studies indicate that downwash becomes important when the
efflux velocity is less than 1.5 times the wind speed. With the existing con-
figuration, this occurs when the wind speed is more than 3 meters per second
(^6.7 miles per hour), a condition which occurs about 50% of the time at the
pyrolysis unit. The highest ground level concentrations will result when the
wind speed is just high enough to bring the emissions to ground level, because
in this case turbulent mixing should be at a minimum. This critical speed is
approximately 3 meters per second in the present case.
For a relatively non-elevated, low velocity, low temperature source such
as the pyrolysis exhaust, downwash results in a virtual ground level source
condition, and the maximum ground level concentrations will occur within the
plant boundaries. Consequently, it was considered more appropriate to estimate
the maximum levels at the monitoring site nearest the plant, about 700 meters
ENE of the boundary. Using the methodology of Briggs, the 1-hour and 24-hour
maxima for particulate matter (PM) and sulfur oxides (SO ) were predicted to be
y\
as tabulated below:
Concentration (yg/m )
Averaging Period PM SO
1-Hour 800 98
24-Hour 480 59
Briggs, G. A., Plume Rise, AEC Technical Information Series, 1969.
2
Briggs, G. A., "Diffusion Estimation for Small Emissions," Air Resources
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 1973.
Turner, D. B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, 999-AP-26,
U.S. Public Health Service, 1969.
78
-------
The SOV levels are within the state and national standards, but the 24-hour PM
* o
concentration is well above the Maryland serious level (160 yg/m ) and the
o
federal primary standard (260 yg/m ).
In view of these high short term concentrations, there appeared to be some
possibility that an annual standard might be violated. Hence, estimates of
expected annual average pollutant concentrations were made by using the Briggs
methodology with stability wind rose data. Predictions were made for both the
previously mentioned monitoring site and for the point where the maxima occur,
about 800 meters from the source. The results are shown below:
o
Concentration (yg/m )
Location PM SOV
X
Monitoring Site 7.7 1.0
Maximum Concentration Point 8.6 1.1
These concentrations are well below the Maryland and national standards for
these pollutants.
The following points should be considered in assessing the preceding
results:
t Downwash is a highly site-specific phenomenon and can be
handled in only a very approximate way by generalized
methodologies.
0 Terrain features which increase ground level turbulence
and reduce the measured pollutant concentrations are not
incorporated in the simple Briggs model.
• In spite of these deficiencies, the consideration of
downwash generally improves the predictive accuracy of
diffusion calculations for sources exhibiting essentially
neutral buoyancy such as the existing pyrolysis config-
uration.
In summary, plume downwash appears to greatly increase ground level concen-
trations with the existing configuration. The proposed tall stack-electrostatic
precipitator combination with its higher exhaust velocity and much higher gas
temperature should completely alleviate the downwash problem.
79
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-232
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Source Emission Tests at the Baltimore Demonstration
Pyrolysis Facility
5. REPORT DATE
December 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
John L. Haslbeck
Billy C. McCoy
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
TRW
Environmental Engineering Division
800 Foil in Lane, S.E.
Vienna, VA 22180
1NE 624
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-2988
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
- Cinn, OH
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer - Walter W. Liberick Jr.- 513/684-4363
16. ABSTRACT
TRW was retained by EPA/IERL Cincinnati in May of 1976 to conduct source
emission tests at a solid waste treatment plant in Baltimore, Maryland. The plant
is designed to recover low-grade fossil fuel from non-toxic solid waste by the use
of a process known as pyrolysis. When plant construction was completed in January,
1975, it was determined that the pollutant control equipment did not meet particulate
emission standards. This necessitated a comprehensive test program designed to
quantify the extent of the pollution and evaluate the environmental impact of this
plant. The test program was designed to measure the following flue gas parameters;
particulate; S02/S03;NOX;HC1:HF; total hydrocarbons; hydrocarbon compounds exceed-
ing 1% of the total hydrocarbon value, but not more than 20; and trace metals.
Atmospheric diffusion models were employed to assess the environmental
impact of both the existing plant configuration and the proposed pollution control
system. The proposed system consists of an electro-static precipitator exhausting
to a 220 ft. stack. Results of this analysis indicate that the proposed pollution
control system represents a considerable improvement over the existing system,
particularly in the sense that it should completely eliminate the downwash problem.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Assessments
Sampling
Pyrolysis
Pollution
Data
Waste-as-Fuel
Environmental Assessment
Air Emission Sampling
Laboratory Analysis
Air Emissions
Solid Waste
07A
07B
07C
10A
14B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
86
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 .(9-73)
80
1979-657-060/1566
------- |