6EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
                         EPA-600/7-86-004a

                         February 1986
Research  and
Development

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
A WATERTUBE BOILER
FIRING A COAL/WATER SLURRY
Volume I. Technical Results
            Prepared for
            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Prepared by
            Air and Energy Engineering Research
            Laboratory
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711

-------
                  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.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                   EPJA-600/7-86-004a
                                   February 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
    A WATERTUBE BOILER FIRING
        A COAL-WATER SLURRY
                    Volume I
               Technical Results
                       By
              R. DeRosier and L R. Waterland
                  Acurex Corporation
              Energy & Environmental Division
                  555 Clyde Avenue
                   P.O. Box 7555
              Mountain View, California 94039
               EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188
               EPA Project Officer: R. E Hall
         Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
          Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                       For

         US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             Office of Research and Development
                 Washington, DC 20460

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

       This test program was performed in cooperation with the Pittsburgh
Energy Technology Center (PETC).  The help and cooperation of Y. S. Pan, D.
Snedden, G. Bellas, D. Wildman, and D. Wieczenski of PETC is greatly
appreciated.  Special  recognition is also extended to the Acurex field test
team of M. Chips, M. Murtiff, R. Klug, and P. Kaufmann, under the supervision
of 3. OaRos.

-------
                             CONTENTS
   Acknowledgment   	      ii
   Figures  	      v
   Tables	     vl
1  Introduction   	     1-1

   References for Section  1	     1-9

2  Test Facility  Description  	     2-1
3  Emission Results   	     3-1

   3.1  Boiler Operation and  Test  Arrangements  	     3-1
   3.2  Criteria  Pollutant and  Other  Gas  Phase  Emissions  .  .     3-5
   3.3  Trace Element Analysis  Results  	     3-8
   3.4  Organic Emissions  	     3-13

        3.4.1  Total Organic  Analyses   	     3-15
        3.4.2  Infrared  (IR)  Spectra  of Total Extracts  .  .  .     3-17
        3.4.3  LC Fractional on of Extracts	     3-17
        3.4.4  IR Spectra of  LC Fractions	     3-19
        3.4.5  Low Resolution Mass Spectrometry Analysis  of
               LC Fractions	     3-24
        3.4.6  Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
               Analysis of Total Sample Extracts  	     3-26

   References for Section 3	     3-31

4  Environmental  Assessment   	     4-1

   4.1  Emission Assessment	     4-1
   4.2  Bioassay Results 	     4-2
   4.3  Summary	     4-4

   References for Section, 4	    4-6

5  Test Quality Assurance and Quality Control   	     5-1

   5.1  Cj to Cg Hydrocarbon  Precision	     5-1
   5.2  NoO Precision	     5-3
   5.3  TCQ Precision	     5-3
   5.4  GC/MS Precision	     5-3
   5.5  Mercury Analysis 	     5-3
   5.6  QA Summary	     5~5
                             iii

-------
                   CONTENTS  (continued)


Reference for Section  5	     5-6

Appendix A  Test Equipment and Procedures  	     A-l

A.I  Continuous Monitoring System  	     A-l
A.2  Particulate and Sulfur Oxide  Emissions  	  .  .     A-l
A.3  Trace Element and Organic Emissions   	     A-4
A.4  GI to C5 Hydrocarbon Sampling and Analysis	     A-6
A.6  N20 Emissions	     A-ll
A.7  Fuel and Ash Sampling	     A-12

Reference for Appendix A	     A-12

Appendix B  Trace Element Concentrations   	     B-l
                           iv

-------
                                   FIGURES

Number                                                                  Page
  2-1    PETC combustion test facility flow diagram	       2-2
  3-1    N20 versus NOX emissions for external combustion
         sources	       3-9
  A-l    Schematic of particulate and SOX sampling train (EPA
         Method 5 and 8)	       A-3
  A-2    SASS train schematic	       A-5
  A-3    Flue gas analysis protocol for SASS samples	       A-7
  A-4    Flue gas analysis protocol  	       A-8
  A-5    Organic analysis methodology  	 ...       A-9
  A-6    GI to Cg hydrocarbon sampling system	       A-10

-------
                                    TABLES
Number                                                                  Page
 1-1     Completed Tests During the Current Program   	       1-4
 2-1     Boiler Specifications 	       2-3
 3-1     Boiler Operating Conditions 	       3-3
 3-2     Fuel  Analyses (Percent by Weight)	       3-4
 3-3     Criteria Pollutant and Other Gas Species Emissions   .  .  .       3-6
 3-4     Flue  Gas Particle Size Distribution (Uncontrolled)   ...       3-8
 3-5     Fuel  and Ash Stream Trace Element Analysis Results   .  .  .      3-10
 3-6     Trace Element Emissions  in the Flue Gas	      3-14
 3-7     Summary of Flue Gas Total Organic Emissions	      3-16
 3-8     Summary of Ash Stream Total Organic Content  	      3-17
 3-9     Summary of Infrared Spectra of Total  Sample  Extracts   .  .      3-18
 3-10     LC  Fractional on of the  XAD-2 Extract	      3-20
 3-11     LC  Fractionation of the  Bottom Ash Extract	      3-21
 3-12     IR  Spectrum Summary:  XAD-2 Extract,  LC 7	      3-22
 3-13     IR  Spectra Summary:  Bottom Ash Extract LC Fractions   .  .      3-23
 3-14     LRMS  Analysis Results	      3-25
 3-15     Compounds Sought in the  GC/MS Analysis and their
         Detection Limits (ng/yl  injected) 	      3-27
 3-16     PAH and Other Semivolatile Organic Priority  Pollutant
         Species	      3-28
                                    VT

-------
                              TABLES (continued)
Number                                                                 Page
 3-17    Other Compounds Tentatively Identified in GC/MS
         Analysis	      3-29
 4-1     Flue Gas Pollutants Emitted at Concentrations Exceeding
         10 Percent of Their Occupational Exposure Guideline ...       4-3
 4-2     Bioassay Results  	       4-4
 5-1     Area Counts and Relative Standard Deviations for Cj to         5-2
         Cg Analyses 	
 5-2     Area Count and Relative Standard Deviations for ^0
         Analyses	       5-4
 5-3     Duplicate Analysis Results and Relative Standard
         Deviations for the GC/MS Analyses 	       5-4
 A-l     Continuous Monitoring Equipment	       A-2
 A-2     Gas Chromatograph Specifications  	      A-12
                                     vii

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                INTRODUCTION

     This report describes and presents results of environmental  assessment
tests performed for the  Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory (AEERL)    of EPA under the Combustion Modification
Environmental Assessment (CMEA) program, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188.   The
CMEA started in 1976 with a 3-year study, the NOX Control Technology
Environmental Assessment (NOX EA,  EPA Contract No. 68-02-2160), having the
following four objectives:
     o   Identify potential multimedia environmental effects of stationary
         combustion sources and combustion modification technology
     o   Develop and document control application guidelines to minimize
         these effects
     »   Identify stationary source and combustion modification R&D
         priorities
     9   Disseminate program results to intended users
     During the first year of the NOX EA, data for the environmental
assessment were compiled and methodologies were developed.  Furthermore,
                                \
priorities for the schedule and level of effort for the various
source/fuel/control combinations were identified.  This effort revealed major
data gaps, particularly for noncriteria pollutants (organic emissions  and
trace elements) for virtually all  combinations of stationary combustion
                                     1-1

-------
sources and combustion modification techniques.  Consequently, a series of
seven environmental field test programs was undertaken to fill these data
gaps.  The results of these tests are documented in seven individual reports
(References 1-1 through 1-7) and in the NOX EA final report summarizing the
entire 3-year effort (Reference 1-8).
     The current CMEA program has, as major objectives, the continuation of
multimedia environmental  field tests initiated in the original NOX EA
program.  These new tests, using standardized Level 1 sampling and analytical
procedures (Reference 1-9) are aimed at filling the remaining data gaps and
addressing the following priority needs:
     o   Advanced NOX controls
     »   Alternate fuels
     o   Secondary sources
     o   EPA program data needs
         —  Residential  oil combustion
         —  Wood firing in residential, commercial, and industrial sources
         —  High interest emissions determination  (e.g., listed and
             candidate hazardous air pollutant species)
     o   Nonsteady-state operations
     Coal-water slurries (CWS) have received attention in recent years as an
alternative to oil fuels.  CWS has the advantage of allowing certain
oil-fired boilers to eliminate their oil requirements without completely
redesigning the boiler-  Thus, CWS has the potential for application as a
near-term technology for conversion of certain oil-burning facilities to coal
firing and thereby offsetting high oil prices and frequently uncertain supply
situations.
                                     1-2

-------
     In response to the need for environmental data on burning CWS, as well
as other coal-liquid mixtures such as coal-oil-water  (COW) and coal-oil
mixtures (COM), tests of two COW-fired firetube industrial boilers
(References 1-10 and 1-11), a COM-fired watertube boiler  (Reference 1-12),
and two CWS-fired watertube industrial boilers (this  report and
Reference 1-13) have been performed.  This report presents the results of  the
emissions assessment of a CWS-fired watertube boiler.  The objective of this
test was to assess flue gas emissions during  typical  boiler operating
conditions while firing CWS.
     Table 1-1 lists all sources  tested in the CMEA effort, outlining  the
combustion modificaton controls implemented and the level of  sampling  and
analysis performed in each case.  Results of  these test  programs  are
discussed in separate reports.
                                      1-3

-------
                  TABLE  1-1.   COMPLETED TESTS  DURING  THE CURRENT  PROGRAM3
Source
Spark-ignited natural -
gas-fired reciprocating
internal combustion
engine
Compression Ignition
diesel -fired
reciprocating Internal
combustion engine
Low-N0x residential
condensing heating
system furnished by
Karl sons Blueburner
Systems Ltd. of Canada
Description
Large bore, 6 cylinder,
opposed piston, 186 kU
(250 Bhp)/cyl. 900 r\tm
Hode) 38TDS8-1/8
Large bore, 5 cylinder
opposed piston, 261 kW
(350 Bhp)/cyl. 900 rpm
Model 3BTDD8-1/B
Residential hot water
heater equipped with
M.A.N. low-NO.. burner,
0.55 ml/s (0.5 gal/hr)
firing capacity, con-
densing flue gas
Test points
unit operation
— Baseline (pre-NSPS)
— Increased air-fuel
ratio aimed at
meeting proposed NO,
NSPS of 700 ppm
corrected to 15
percent 02 and
standard atmospheric
conditions
— Baseline (pre-NSPS)
-- Fuel Injection retard
aimed at meeting pro-
posed NOX NSPS of
600 ppm corrected to
IS percent 02 and
standard atmospheric
conditions
Low-NO, burner design
by M.A.N.
Sampling protocol
Engine exhaust:
- SASS
- Method S
-- Gas sample (C,-C6 IIC)
— Continuous NO, NO CO,
C02, 02. CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Lube oil
Engine exhaust:
— SASS
— Method 8
- Method 5
— Gas sample (C,-C6 HC)
— Continuous NO. NOX, CO,
C02. 02. CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Lube oil
Furnace exhaust:
- SASS
- Method 8
- Method S
- Gas grab (Ci-C6 HC)
— Continuous NO, NO,, CO,
C02. 02. CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Waste water
Test col laborator
Fairbanks Horse
Division of Colt
Industries
Fairbanks Morse
Division of Colt
Industries
New test
Rocketdyne/EPA
low-NOx residential
forced-warm-air  furnace
Residential warm-Air
furnace with modified
high-pressure burner and
firebox. 0.83 ml/s
(0.75 gal/hr) firing
capacity
Low-NO, burner design
and integrated furnace
system
Furnace exhaust:
  —  SASS
  —  Method 8
  ~  Controlled condensation
  —  Method 5
  —  Gas sample (C^Cg HC)
  —  Continuous NO. NO,, CO,
                                                                                                         New test
                                                                                CO... 0
                                                                            Fuel
                                                                                      2.
                                                                                                               TconYtTTuVd")'

-------
                                                           TABLE  1-1.    (Continued)
Source
Pulverl zed-coal -fired
utility boiler.
Conesville station
Description
400-MH tangential ly
fired; new HSPS design
aimed at meeting 301 ng/J
MOX limit
Test points
unit operation
ESP inlet
one test
and outlet -
Sampling protocol
ESP inlet and outlet
— SASS
— Method 5
— Controlled condensation
Test collaborator
Exxon Research and
Engineering (ER4E)
conducting cor-
rosion tests
                                                                                                  — Gas sample (Ci  -  C6 HO
                                                                                                  — Continuous NO,  NO... CO,
                                                                                                     C02. 02
                                                                                                Coal
                                                                                                Bottom ash
                                                                                                ESP ash
Nova Scotia Technical
College Industrial
boiler



1.14 kg/s steam
(9,000 lb/hr)fired with a
mixture of coal-oil-water
(COM)


-- Baseline (COW)
— Controlled S02
emissions with
limestone injection


- Boiler outlet
— SASS
— Method 5
— Method 8
— Controlled
— Gas sample




condensation
(C,-C6 HO
Envirocon per-
formed participate
and sulfur
emission tests


                                                                                                     C02,
                                                                                                Fuel
                                                               NO,
 I
in
Adelphi University
industrial boiler
1.89 kg/s steam
(15,000 Ib/hr) hot water
firetube fired with a
mixture of coal -oil -water
(COH)
— Baseline (COH)
-- Controlled S02
emissions with soda
ash (Na2C03) injection
Boiler outlet
— SASS
~ Method 5
-- Method 8
— Controlled
— Gas sample
— Continuous
S02, CO
Fuel
condensation
(Cj-C« HC)
02, C02, NOX,
Adelphi University
                 Pittsburgh Energy
                 Technology Center (PETC)
                 industrial holler
3.03 kg/s  steam
(24,000 Ib/hr) watertube
fired with a mixture of
coal-oil  (COM)
Baseline test  only
with COM
Boiler outlet
  -- SASS
  -- Method  &
  — Controlled condensation
  — N20 grab sample
  ~ Continuous 02, C02. NO.,
     CO. TUHC
Fuel
PETC and General
Electric (GE)
                                                                                                                                      (continued)

-------
TABLE  1-1.   (Continued)
Source
TOSCO Refinery vertical
crude oil heater
Mohawk-Getty Oil
Industrial boiler
Industrial boiler
Industrial boiler
Description
2. 54 Ml /day
(16.000 bbl/day) natural
draft process heater
burning oil/refinery gas
8.21 kg/s steam
(65,000 Ib/hr) watertube
burning mixture of
reflnroy gas and
residual oil
2.52 kg/s steam
(20,000 Ib/hr) watertube
burning wood waste
3.16 kg/s steam
(29.000 Ib/hr)
flretube with refractory
firebox burning wood waste
Test points
unit operation
— Baseline
— Staged combustion
using air Injection
lances
— Baseline
-- Ammonia Injection
using the noncatalytic
Thermal DeHOx
process
— Dasellne (dry wood)
— Green wood
— Baseline (dry wood)
Sampling protocol
Heater outlet
— SASS
— Method 5
— Controlled condensation
~ Gas sample (Ci-C6 HO
— H2° 9rab sample
— Continuous 02, NOX,
CO. COZ. HC
Fuel oil
Refinery gas
Economizer outlet
— SASS
-- Method 5. 17
-- Controlled condensation
— Gas sample (Cj-C6 HC)
— Ammonia emissions
-- MgO grab sample
— Continuous 0?, NO,,
CO, C02
Fuels (refinery gas and
residual oil)
Boiler outlet
— SASS
-- Method 5
— Controlled condensation
— Gas sample (Cj-Cg HC)
~ Continuous Oo. MO.,, CO
Fuel
Flyash
Outlet of cyclone participate
collector
— SASS
— Method 5
— Controlled condensation
-- Gas sample (Cj-Ce HC)
— Continuous Oj, NOX, CO
Fuel
Bottom ash
Test collaborator
KVB coordinating
the staged com-
bustion operation
and continuous
emission
monitoring
Mohawk-Getty Oil
North Carolina
Department of
Natural Resources,
EPA IERL-RTP
North Carolina
Department of
Natural Resources,
EPA IERL-RTP
                                                   (continued)

-------
TABLE  1-1.   (Continued)

Source
Enhanced oil recovery
steam generator






Pittsburgh Energy
Technology Center
(PETC) Industrial
boiler





Spark-Ignited, natural
gas-fired reciprocating
Internal combustion
engine — nonselective
NOX reduction catalyst



Industrial boiler











Description
15-MH (50 million Btu/hr)
steam generator burning
crude oil equipped with
HHI low-NOx burner




3.03 kg/s steam
(24.000 Ib/nr) watertube
fired with a mixture of
coal-water (CHM)





610-kH (818-hp) Haukesha
rich-burn engine equipped
with DuPont HSCR system





180 kg/hr steam
(400 Ib/hr) stoker, fired
with a mixture of coal
and waste plastic
beverage containers







Test points
unit operation Sampling protocol Test collaborator
— Performance mapping Steamer outlet: Getty Oil Company,
— Low-N0x operation — SASS CE-«atco
— Method 5
— Method 8
— Gas sample (C]-Ce HC)
— Continuous 0?, NO.. CO,
CO,
— NpO grab sample
Fuel
— Baseline test only Boiler outlet: PETC and General
with CHM — SASS Electric
— Method 5
— Method 8
— Gas sample (CrC6 HC)
— Continuous 02, NO,, CO,
C02. TUHC
— NpO grab sample
Fuel
Bottom ash
Collector hopper ash
— Low NO, (with Catalyst inlet and outlet Southern California
catalyst) — SASS Gas Company
— 15-day emissions — NHi
monitoring — HCN
— NjO grab sample
— Continuous 0?. CO?. NOX
TUHC
Lube oil
— Baseline (coal) Boiler outlet Vermont Agency of
— Coal and plastic waste — SASS Environmental
— VOST Conservation
~ Method 5
— Method 8
~ HC1
— Continuous Oj, NOX. CO,
CO,. TUHC
— NpO grab sample
Fuel
Bottom ash
Cyclone ash
                                                     (continued)

-------
 I
00
                                                                  TABLE  1-1.    (Continued)
Source
Industrial boiler
Enhanced oil
recovery steam
generator
Description
7.6 kg/s steam
(60.000 Ib/hr) waterlulie
retrofit for coal water
mixture firing
15-HW (SO million Btu/hr)
steam generator burning
crude oil, equipped with
Test points
unit operation
— Baseline test with CHS
-- 30-day emissions
monitoring
-- Low NOX (with burner)
— 30-day emissions
monitoring
Sampling protocol Test collaborator
Holler outlet EPHl. DuPont
- SASS
— VOST
— Method 6
— Method U
- Gas sample (Ci-C6 HC)
-- N2U grab sample
-- Continuous NOX, CO, COo,
o2, rune. so2
Fuel
Steamer outlet Chevron U.S.A..
- SASS EEHC
- vosr
                                             bile  trn/ tti*  iun-iiuy
                                             burner
  — Method 8
  -- Controlled condensation
  -- Anderson impactor
  — Gas sample (Ci-C6 HC)
  -- 820 grab sample
  -- Continuous NOX. CO, C02,
                                                                                                   Fuel
                                                                                                        02>  S02
Spark-ignited natural -
gas-fired reciprocating
internal combustion
engine — selective NOX
1.490-kW (2,000-hp)
Inyersol 1 -Rand lean-burn
engine equipped with
Englehard SCR system
— Low NOX (with
catalyst)
-- 15-day emissions
monitoring
Catalyst Inlet and outlet
— SASS
— VOST
— NH-j
Southern
California Gas
Company
                  reduction catalyst
  - HCN
  — N20 grab sample
  — Continuous 02,  COo,  CO,
     HO. NOX. NOX+NH3
Lube oil
                 aAcronymns  used  In  the table:  EEKC, The Energy and Environmental  Research Corporation; EPA IEKL-RTP, The Environmental  Protection
                  Agency's  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory — Research Triangle Park; EPHl, The Electric Power Research Institute;
                  HC,  hydrocarbons;  NSCH, nonselective catalytic reduction; NSPS, new  source performance standard; SASS, source assessment  sampling
                  system; SCR,  selective catalytic reduction; TUHC,  total  unburned  hydrocarbon; VOST, volatile organic sampling trvin

-------
                          REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1


1-1.    Larkin, R. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Combustion Modification Controls
       for Stationary Gas Turbines:  Volume II.  Utility Unit Field Test,"
       EPA-600/7-81-122b, NTIS PB82-226473, July 1981.

1-2.    Higginbotham, E. 8., "Combustion Modification Controls for Residential
       and Commecial Heating Systems:  Volume II.  Oil-fired Residential
       Furnace Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-123b, NTIS PB82-231175, July 1981.

1-3.    Higginbotham, E. B. and P. M. Goldberg, "Combustion Modification NOX
       Controls for Utility Boilers:  Volume I.  Tangential Coal-fired Unit
       Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-124a, NTIS PB82-227265, July 1981.

1-4.    Sawyer, J. W. and E. 8. Higginbotham, "Combustion Modification NOX
       Controls for Utility Boilers:  Volume II.  Pulverized-coal Wall-fired
       Unit Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-124b, NTIS PB82-227273, July 1981.

1-5.    Sawyer, J. W. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Combustion Modification NOX
       Controls for Utility Boilers:  Volume III.  Residual-oil Wall-fired
       Unit Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-124c, NTIS PB82-227281, July 1981.

1-6.    Goldberg, P. M. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Industrial Boiler Combustion
       Modification NOX Controls:  Volume II.  Stoker Coal-fired Boiler Field
       Test -- Site A,   EPA-600/7-81-126b, NTIS PB82-231085, July 1981.

1-7.    Lips, H. I. and E. B. Higginbotham,  "Industrial Boiler Combustion
       Modification NOX Control:  Volume III.  Stoker Coal-fired Boiler Field
       Test — Site B,  EPA/600/7-81-126c, NTIS PB82-231095,  July 1981.

1-8.    Waterland, L. R., etal., "Environmental Assessment of Stationary
       Source NOX Control Technologies — Final Report," EPA-600/7-82-034,
       NTIS PB82-249350, May 1982.

1-9.    Lentzen, D. E., et al., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:  Level 1
       Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201, NTIS
       PS293795, October 1978.

1-10.  Castaldini, C., "Environmental Assessment of an Industrial Boiler
       Burning Coal/Oil/Water Mixture," Acurex Report TR-81-86/EE, August
       1984.

1-11.  OeRosier, R., "Environmental Assessment of a Firetube Boiler Firing
       Coal/Oil/Water Mixtures," Acurex Report TR-81-89/EE, June 1984.
                                     1-9

-------
1-12.  DeRosier,  R.,  "Environmental  Assessment of a Watertube Boiler Firing a
       Coal/Oil  Mixture," Acurex Report TR-81-87/EE, March 1984.

1-13.  VanBuren,  D.,  and L.  R.  Waterland,  "Environmental  Assessment of a
       Coal-Water-Slurry-Fired  Industrial  Boiler," Acurex Draft Report
       TR-84-155/EE,  March 1985.
                                     1-10

-------
                                  SECTION 2
                          TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION

     The Department of Energy's Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center  (PETC)
combustion test facility consists of a 3.0 kg/s  steam  (24,000 Ib/hr)
watertube boiler, an air-cooled steam condenser  and deaerator, CWS
preparation and storage facilities, and pollution control devices.
Figure 2-1 presents a flow diagram of the test facility.  The boiler is a
package, two-drum, "D"-type watertube boiler with the  specifications listed
in Table 2-1.  The boiler was originally designed by Nebraska Boiler Company
to fire Mo. 6 fuel oil.  The furnace section has a flat integral water-cooled
floor, ceiling, side walls, and target wall.  The burner wall is comprised of
13-cm (5-in.) thick interlocking tongue and groove refractory tile laid in
high temperature bonding mortar.  The convection section incorporates a Boyer
type VH valve-in-head soot blower.  This is a standard design normally
incorporated in the boiler by the manufacturer for firing no. 6 fuel oil.  It
has kept the convective section free of ash buildup during all previous
combustion tests performed in the unit.
     The coal-water slurry (CWS)1 fired in these  tests was prepared in a
6,800 1  (1,800 gal) steam-jacketed mix tank which incorporated an agitator
comprised of two sets of turbine blades.  A predetermined amount of water was
charged to the tank before pulverized coal was added through a vertical
gravimetric coal feeder at 910 kg/hr (2,000 Ib/hr).  The CWS was then
                                     2-1

-------
                                                                   •01 KIM
                                                                     Mil

                                              0«IIIM»            I
                                              lll«»             1


                                                       ...«M  »f^«-J


                                              Lg    I    MIUAIOI     A
                 COM HID fUMP
Figure  2-1.  PETC  combustion  test facility  flow diagram.

-------
                      TABLE 2-1.  BOILER SPECIFICATIONS
        Convection heating surface, m2 (ft2)       182 (1,956)
        Radiant heating surface, m2 (ft2)          48 (518)
        Furnace dimensions, m (ft)                 1.92 x 4.05 x 2.26
                                                   (6.3 x 13.3 x 7.4)
        Design steam capacity, kg/s (Ib/hr)        3.0 (24,000)
        Design pressure, MPa  (psig)                1.7 (250)
        Operating pressure, MPa  (psig)             1.2 (175)
        Soot blower                                One Boyer-type VH
                                                   valve-in-head
        Year installed                             1978
transferred to a 10,600 1  (2,800-gal)  hold  tank  incorporating  an agitator
with one set of turbine blades.  The CWS was  recirculated  from the  bottom  to
the top of the tank by a Viking rotary pump.
     The fuel was driven by a  variable speed  CWS feed  pump through  flow
meters and fuel preheaters before  reaching  the burner.   The CWS flowrate was
regulated by the adjustable-speed-drive motor driving  the  progressive  cavity
Moyno pump.  A Micro-Motion mass flow  meter and  a Floco  positive displacement
meter measured the mass and volume flowrates.
     A packaged, single-burner Model Fyr-Compak, manufactured  by the Coen
                                i
Company, comprised the firing  equipment.  The original Coen Model no.  2mV,
inside-mix, steam-atomized burners were replaced with  slightly different
                                      2-3

-------
no.  2mV  burners modified  for  abrasive  service.   The  changes  consisted of an
optional pintle in the  burner body,  to reduce carbon buildup inside the
burner cap, and the  substitution  of  440C  case-hardened  steel  as  the
construction material.
     The four valves originally installed  in the  fuel train  were removed or
replaced to avoid clogging with coal particles.   The oil  pressure
differential regulator  and oil flow  control valve were  removed and  the
variable speed drive CWS  feed  pump was  used to control  the fuel  flowrate.
The safety shutoff solenoid valve and  the  oil return solenoid valve were
replaced by pneumatically actuated stainless steel full-ported ball  valves.
The packaged burner incorporated an  automatic air register louver control
that closed in on  the register louvers  at  low fire to maintain air  velocity
and swirl.   Combustion air was supplied by a forced-draft fan.
                                     2-4

-------
                                  SECTION 3
                              EMISSION RESULTS

     The objective of this test program was to measure flue gas emissions
from tne boiler during typical operation while burning a coal-water slurry
(C'dS).  This section describes the test arrangement and presents emissions
results.  Section 3.1 summarizes boiler operating conditions.  Sections 3.2
through 3.5 summarize emission results by pollutant grouping; criteria and
other gas phase emissions are discussed in Section 3.2, trace elements in
Section 3.3, and organic species emissions in Section 3.4.  Section 4
discusses the potential environmental significance of emissions measured and
presents results of biological testing of samples collected.
3.1  BOILER OPERATION AND TEST ARRANGEMENTS
     The sampling matrix called for in the test plan consisted of the
following:
     o    Fuel grab sample
     o    Bottom ash grab sample
     o    Baghouse ash grab sample
     o    Flue gas:
         —  Continuous monitors for 02, COg, NOX, CO, S02» and total
             unburned hydrocarbons (TUHC)
         —  Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) sampling
                                     3-1

-------
         ~  Combined EPA Method 5/8 sampling for particulate and sulfur
             species emissions
         --  Gas grab sampling for onsite measurement of Cj to Cg hydrocarbon
             emissions
         —  Gas grab sampling for laboratory ^0 analysis
     All flue gas sampling was performed at the boiler outlet, upstream of
the facility's particulate control device (baghouse).  Details of the
specific sampling protocols used are given in Appendix A.
     Two separate tests were performed on the unit.  During the first test,
performed with a CWS fuel containing 60.9 percent (weight) coal, difficulties
were experienced with the SASS sampling equipment.  As a consequence, a
complete set of test data was not obtained for this test.  Specifically, SASS
train samples were not collected in this first test.  Therefore a second set
of tests, performed with the unit firing a CWS fuel containing 58.9 percent
coal, was subsequently performed.  A complete set of test data was obtained
during the second test.
     Table 3-1 summarizes the boiler operating conditions for both tests
performed.  As noted, conditions for both tests were similar, although the
second test was run at lower excess air level.
     Table 3-2 summarizes the fuel analysis results for both tests.  Results
supplied for the parent coal by PETC as well as those obtained by independent
analyses of the test 2 fuel through this study are both shown.
     The independent CWS compositions for the test 2 fuel (measured in this
study and calculated based on the coal ultimate analysis reported by PETC and
the CWS proportions of water and additive) were generally similar,
although the water content of the fuel in this study's analysis was lower
                                     3-2

-------
         TABLE 3-1.  BOILER OPERATING CONDITIONS
                                      Test 1    Test 2
Steam flow, kg/s                     3.03       3.03
            (Ib/hr)                  (24,000)   (24,000)

Drum pressure, MPa                   1.3        1.3
               (psi)                 (189)      (189)

Furnace draft, Pa                    112        116
               (in. H20)             (0.47)     (0.466)

Fuel flow, kg/s                      0.410      0.39
           (Ib/min)                  (54.2)     (51.8)

Steam temperature, °C                186        188
                   (°F)              (367)      (371)

Boiler feedwaten temperature,  °C     101        —a
                               (°F)   (213)

Combustion air temperature,  °C       24         28
                             (°F)     (76)       (83)

Flue gas temperature °C              272        291
furnace exit,          (°F)           (522)      (556)

Excess air percent15                  14         11
aNot available
Calculated from PETC fuel composition and flue gas
 02 levels
                           3-3

-------
      TABLE 3-2.  FUEL ANALYSES (PERCENT BY WEIGHT)
                                    CWS  (as fired)
                              Test 1
Test 2




Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen (by
difference)
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Ash
Additive
Water
Higher heating
value, kJ/kg
(3tu/lb)
Coal
(dry
basis)
PETCa
82.23
5.60
6.76

1.60
1.19
2.62
—
—

34,459
(14,829)



PETCb
50.08
3.41
4.12

0.97
0.72
1.60
0.50
38.60

20,986
(9,031)


This
study3
47.90
3.34
8.56

1.02
0.80
1.93
—
36.45

21,341
(9,184)



PETCb
48.43
3.30
3.98

0.94
0.70
1.54
0.50
40.6

20,296
(8,734)
aMeasured
^Calculated based on coal ultimate analysis and
 reported proportion of coal, additive, and water
 in the CWS formulation
                           3-4

-------
than  the  proportion  as  reported by PETC.  The fuel  composition measured in
this  study,  when  available,  were used in the calculations reported herein.
3.2   CRITERIA  POLLUTANT AND  OTHER GAS PHASE EMISSIONS
      Table  3-3 summarizes  emissions of CO, C02,  02,  NOX,  S02,  TUHC,  N20,  and
particulate  in the flue gas  for the tests.  As shown, average  NOX  (NO + N02)
emissions (corrected to 3  percent 02) with the CWS  fuel  ranged from  an
average of  231 ppm in test 1 to 312 ppm in test  2.   This  difference  in NOX
emissions between the two  tests is not considered  significant.  Differences
of this magnitude often accompany minor changes  in  boiler operation  or fuel
properties.  CO and TUHC emissions were also similar for  the two tests —
averaging 172  ppm and 1.1  ppm respectively in test  1, and 196  ppm  and
2.8 ppm respectively (all  corrected to 3 percent 02) in  test 2.
      S02 emissions measured  using the PETC continuous monitor  were slightly
lower in the second test,  averaging 885 ppm, than  in the  first test,
averaging 957  ppm.  S02 emissions measured by EPA  Method  8 were  similar
(though lower)  to the continuous  monitor reading for test 2.  However,
results of the  Method 8 tests  for test 1 were significantly lower  than the
monitor reading.  Measured 503 emissions for both tests were quite low.
      Particulate levels  in the  boiler outlet gas, as measured  by EPA
Method 5, apparently nearly  doubled  in test  2 over test  1.   It is  possible
that the higher mass emissions  for  the second test were due to lower
combustion efficiency with higher combustible losses in the flyash.   The
particulate levels at the boiler  outlet  for  test 2 corresponds to  an  emission
rate over 2.3 times that accountable  by  the  ash  content of  the fuel  (i.e., if
all the fuel ash were discharged  as  flyash).   Although the  boiler  outlet  flue
gas particulate was not  analyzed  for  carbon  content,  the  baghouse  hopper  ash
                                      3-5

-------
        TABLE 3-3.   CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND OTHER GAS SPECIES EMISSIONS
                               Test 1
                                   Test  2
      Species
Range
Average
Range
Average
As measured by
continuous gas
analyzers
Oo, percent dry
C02, percent dry
N0xa, pom
CO, ppm
TUHC, ppm
S02, ppm
Grab sample
N20, ppm
Method 8
S02, ppm
S03, ppm
Corrected gaseous
emissions
NO a (as NO?)
CO
TUHC (as CH4)
S02e
N20
so2f
so3f
Solid parti cul ate
mass emissions
Method 5
SASS


2.3 to 2.9
14.6 to 15.2
196 to 293
130 to 213
0.03 to 2.6
846 to 1,060

29 to 35

— b
__b
ppmc ng/Jd

231 136
172 62
1.1 0.2
957 786
30 18
310 255
0.84 0.86
mg/dscm ng/Jd

3,485 1,064
— 9 —9


2.8
14.9
234
174
1.1
968

31

310
0.85
lb/106 Btud

0.316
0.14
0.0005
1.83
0.041
0.592
0.002
lb/106 Btud

2.47
~9


1.9 to 2.7
15.1 to 15.9
255 to 437
151 to 358
2.3 to 5.0
888 to 964

45 to 110

__b
— b
ppmc ng/Jd

312 172
196 66
2.8 0.53
885 680
76 41
760 582
<0.5 <0.5
mg/dscm ng/Jd

7,255 1,991
6,820 1,872


2.1
15.7
327
206
2.9
931

81

800
<0.5
lb/106 Btud

0.400
0.15
0.00012
1.58
0.095
1.35
<0.001
lb/106 Btud

4.63
4.35
aNO + N02
DExtractive sample over test duration; range not applicable
^Corrected to 3 percent 02, dry
"Heat input basis
^Continuous monitor
fMethod 8
9No SASS test for test 1
                                     3-6

-------
was.  This ash contained  61.6  percent  carbon  (dry  basis,  average  of two
analyses).  The  bottom  ash  was  high  in carbon  content  as  well,  35.7 percent
dry basis.  Unfortunately,  no  sample of the test  1 baghouse  ash was
analyzed.  However,  if  the  carbon  content  of  the  test  1  participate was
significantly lower  than  that  for  test 2,  the  difference  in  measured
particulate levels might  be explained  on this  basis.   In  any case, it  bears
emphasis that the high  (for both tests) particulate levels measured
reflect the fact that sampling  was performed  at the boiler outlet.  Levels
measured would not be indicative of  those  downstream of  a particulate  control
device.  Table 3-3 also shows  quite  good (within  6 percent)  agreement  between
the Method 5  (isokinetic  traverse) and the SASS  (single  point)  particulate
measurement result.
     Table 3-4 shows the  relative  size distribution of the particulate as
measured by the  SASS train. As shown, well over  half  the particulate  (by
weight) was greater  than  10 urn, and  almost 70 percent  greater than 3  urn  in
diameter.
     Three gas grab  samples were taken during  the  first  test and  four  during
the second test  for  N20 analysis.  These averaged  30 ppm  and 76 ppm
(3 percent 02, dry)  respectively,  as shown in  Table 3-3.
     Analysis results for all  seven  samples taken  are  shown  plotted versus
the corresponding NOX (NO + Nt^) emission  level, at the time the  samples
were taken, in Figure 3-1.   (NOX was measured  using a  chemiluminescent
continuous analyzer; this method does  not  respond  to ^0.)   Data  from  tests
performed on several  other  fossil-fuel-fired external  combustion  sources are
also shown in the figure.   The  data  show that  ^0  emission levels are
generally about  20 percent  of the  corresponding NOX emission  level.  In fact,

                                     3-7

-------
                    TABLE  3-4.   FLUE  GAS PARTICLE SIZE
                                DISTRIBUTION   (UNCONTROLLED)
Emission rate
Particle size
>10ym
3 to lOum
1 to Sum
Filter (
-------
                  140
co
VO
                  120
                  100
                   80
                 C Coal-fired commercial boiler (Reference 3-4)
                                      O Coal-water-slurry-fired industrial boiler (Reference 3-5)
                                      V EOR steamer equipped with a low-NO  burner  (Reference 3-6)
                                      O EOR steamer equipped with the EPA low-NO  burner  (Reference 3-7)
                                           I          r        J                x	
                              100        200       300        400
                                             NOX  (ppm, 3% 02, dry)
                                                    500
600
                               Figure 3-1.   ^0  versus  NOX emissions  for  external  combustion sources.

-------
     TABLE 3-5.   FUEL AND ASH STREAM TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
                                     Concentration (yg/g)
Flue gas parti cul ate
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bi smuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadnri urn
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Col bait
Copper
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europl urn
Fluorine
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Gold
Hafnium
Hoi mi urn
lodi ne
Iridium
Iron
Lanthanium
Lead
Lithium
Lutecium
Magnesium
Manganese
Fuel a
13,400
0.40
1.0
25
0.40
0.03
0.50
1.0
<0.04
38,100
1.0
0.20
3.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
0.10
0.10
0.07
5.0
0.20
2.0
0,50
__
<0.30
0.10
0.70
—
700
2.0
2.0
0.70
0.01
>100
2.0
Bottom
ash
60,700
21
110
1,000
7.0
3.0
54
8.0
9.0
14,200
120
1.0
110
620
21
270
8.0
4.0
1.0
71
5.0
45
5.0
__
5.0
5.0
4.0
-_
43,500
93
5,200
38
0.80
2,800
500
10 + 3 urn
31,300
11
30
1,000
8.0
__b
8.0
35
6.0
4,400
85
3.0
410
170
14
110
9.0
4.0
2.0
160
5.0
15
4.0
_-
4.0
6.0
4.0
_-.
24,100
75
150
25
2.0
1,200
92
1 ym + filter
73,300
18
440
1,600
4.0
2.0
120
30
30
2,380
61
0.30
8,400
170
270
710
3.0
1.0
1.0
180
2.0
430
53
__
0.80
2.0
3.0
__
40,500
54
77
74
0.60
4,500
>530
Baghouse
hopper ash
43,000
13
100
1,000
16
0.80
51
85
4.0
8,300
140
2.0
620
230
190
330
6.0
3.0
4.0
86
7.0
160
22
_-
2.0
4.0
5.0
--
36,100
200
450
35
1.0
1,900
500
                                                           (continued)
aAsh content of fuel was 1.93 percent
'•'Double dashes denote less than detection limit,  generally 0.1  ug/g
                                 3-10

-------
                        TABLE  3-5.   (continued)
                                     Concentration  (ug/g)
Flue gas parti cul ate
Element
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymi urn
Nickel
Niobium
Osmium
Palladium
Phosphorus
Platinum
Potassium
Praesodymium
Rhenium
Rhodium
Rubidium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Si 1 ver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantal urn
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Fuel a

1.0
0.60
2.0
0.50
—
__
377
—
10,300
0.30
—
--
0.20
__
0.30
0.30
0.30
69,200
0.20
100
34
8,000
0.10
0.20
0.06
0.20
0.50
<0.02
0.04
63
0.10
0.50
3.0
0.10
Bottom
ash
„
57
23
190
35
--
--
6,000
—
5,000
11
—
—
39
--
9.0
47
11
104,000
<3.0
13,300
300
5,500
8.0
1.0
2.0
7.0
22
0.20
41 '
2,500
9.0
18
2,000
4.0
10 + 3 um
„
70
16
30
19
--
—
1,600
—
2,100
21
—
—
39
--
17
11
15
60,600
<0.60
8,200
1,000
5,500
15
1.0
3.0
—
31
0.30
1.0
2,500
9.0
16
180
6.0
1 urn + filter

76
6.0
480
9.0
--
--
2,800
—
4,500
6.0
—
—
18
—
5.0
61
29
124,000
4.0
34,600
300
5,200
4.0
0.40
0.60
6.0
9.0
0.40
6.0
4,000
3.0
8.0
400
3.0
Baghouse
hopper ash

28
55
60
51
--
--
2,300
—
2,500
51
—
—
21
--
21
32
44
63,000
<2.0
11,600
300
5,500
100
0.60
2.0
3.0
42
0.30
9.0
3,000
12
19
2,000
6.0
aAsh content of fuel was 1.93 percent
bDouble dashes denote less than detection limit, generally 0.1 ug/g
                                 3-11

-------
TABLE 3-5. (continued)
Concentration (ug/g)
Flue gas part icul ate
Element
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Fuel a
4.0
2.0
2.0
Bottom
ash
270
4,600
130
10 + 3 ym
79
88
230
1 urn + filter
120
73
45
Baghouse
hopper ash
320
160
160
aAsh content of fuel was 1.93 percent
''Double dashes denote less than detection limit,  generally  0.1  yg/g
                                 3-12

-------
residue of  the  fuel  (the  fuel  levels  noted in  Table  3-5 divided  by the  ash
content of  the  fuel  —  1.93 percent).
     Given  the  trace  element concentrations as determined  by laboratory
analysis, trace element flue gas  emission  concentrations (mg/dscm) and
flowrates normalized  to heat input  (ng/J)  were computed.  Table  3-6 shows
the emission  results  on these  bases.   (Elemental  mass  balances were not
computed since  bottom ash and  baghouse  hopper  ash flowrates  were not
measured).
     As shown in Table  3-6, the elements  silicon, aluminum,  iron,  sodium,
calcium, titanium,  potassium,  magnesium,  and phosphorus were present in
concentrations  exceeding  10 mg/dscm (2.7  ng/J) in the  flue gas.   These  10
elements were also  found  in high  concentrations in the fuel, as  noted in
Table 3-5.  Most of the element emission  levels noted  were associated with
the flue gas particulate  sample.  Recalling that  sampling  was done at the
boiler outlet,  the  levels noted in  Table  3-5 would not reflect those
downstream  of a particulate control device.
3.4  ORGANIC EMISSIONS
     Organic analyses were  performed on specified flue gas samples according
to EPA Level 1  protocol (Reference  3-8) as outlined  in Appendix  A.  The SASS
train particulate, organic  module sorbent  (XAD-2), and organic module
condensate  (OMC)  samples  were  extracted with methylene chloride  in a Soxhlet
apparatus.  The  extracts  (the  XAD-2 and OMC extracts were  combined)  were then
subjected to total chromatographable organic (TCO) and gravimetric (GRAV)
analyses to determine species  within the 100°  to  300°C (212° to  572°F), and
greater than 300°C  (572°F)  boiling point ranges,  respectively.   Infrared (IR)
spectra of the  GRAV residue  of the extracts were  also  obtained.  The  XAD-2
                                     3-13

-------
           TABLE  3-6.   TRACE  ELEMENT EMISSIONS  IN THE FLUE GAS
Emissions
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmi urn
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Fluorine
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Gold
Hafnium
Hoi mi urn
lodi ne
Iridium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
(mg/dscm)
297,000
90
1,060
7,950
45
4
290
238
34
25,300
526
14
19,600
1,190
640
2,030
47
20
11
1,300
27
978
130
__
20
32
26
__
201,000
470
850
270
10
15,000
>1,700
—a
200
(ng/J)
82
0.02
0.3
2
0.01
0.001
0.08
0.06
0.009
6.9
0.14
0.004
5.4
0.33
0.17
0.56
0.01
0.006
0.003
0.36
0.007
0.27
0.03
__
0.005
0.009
0.007
--
55
0,13
0.23
0.07
0.003
4.1
>0.47
_.a
0.05
Element
Neodynrium
Nickel
Niobium
Osmium
Palladium
Phosphorus
Platinum
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rhenium
Rhodium
Rubidium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Urani urn
Vanadium
Ytterbi urn
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium

Emissions
(mg/dscm)
87
1,330
107
«
—
13,200
—
19,300
113
—
—
220
—
88
185
167
537,000
9.6
>111,000
1,090
>37,900
77
5
15
13
161
2
23
19,900
48
90
1,670
34
618
632
1,160

(ng/J)
0.024
0.37
0.03
—
—
3.6
—
5.3
0.03
—
--
0.06
—
0.02
0.05
0.04
148
0.003
>31
0.3
>10.4
0.02
0.001
0.004
0.003
0.04
0.0006
0.006
5.4
0.01
0.02
0.46
0.009
0.17
0.17
0.32

aDouble dashes indicate that emissions were below detection limit
                                  3-14

-------
and  boiler  bottom  ash  extracts  were  subjected  to further separation  by liquid
column  (LC)  chromatography followed  by TCO,  GRAV,  and  IR analysis  of eluted
fractions.   Direct insertion  probe  low resolution  mass  spectrometry  (LRMS)
analyses were  also performed  on selected LC  fractions.   In  addition, volatile
organic gas  phase  species  with  boiling points  in the nominal  C^ to £5 range
-160 to 100°C  (-260° to  212°F)  were  measured by multiple analyses  of flue  gas
samples onsite  using gas chromatography.  A  discussion  of the analytical
results follows.
3.4.1  Total Organic Analyses
     TCO and gravimetric analyses were performed on  the SASS  train cyclone,
filter, XAD-2  sorbent, and organic module  condensate (OMC)  extracts.  The
results of  these and the onsite GC analyses  for Cj to CQ hydrocarbons are
summarized  in  Table 3-7.   The total  concentration  of organic  matter  in the
flue gas was 48 mg/dscm.   Approximately 70 percent of the organic  matter was
in the nonvolatile  (C^5+)  boiling point range.   Total organic emissions in
these tests were over  an order  of magnitude  higher than the range  of 0.12 to
4.3 mg/dscm reported for oil- and coal-fired boilers in a report summarizing
results of other comprehensive  field tests (Reference 3-9).  These high
emissions are consistent with the poor boiler  efficiency and  high  combustible
losses (especially high carbon  carryover in  the flyash) noted previously.
     Table  3-7 also shows  the Cj, to  CQ hydrocarbon data obtained during
test 1 (the SASS train sampling  was  not successful for  test 1).  The test  1
data are quite comparable  to those of  test 2.   Most  of  the  hydrocarbon
emitted in this volatile boiling point  range was low molecular  weight  Cj and
G£ compounds.
                                     3-15

-------
      TABLE  3-7.   SUMMARY  OF FLUE  GAS TOTAL ORGANIC EMISSIONS

Volatile orgam'cs analyzed in the field
by gas chroma tography
Cl
£2
r3
r4
r5
C6
Total Ci to Cg
Semi volatile orgam'cs analyzed by TCO
XAO-2 and organic module condensate
Total Cy to Cis
Nonvolatile organics analyzed by
gravimetry
10 + 3um cyclones
lum cyclone + filter
XAO-2 and organic module condensate
Total Cis+
Total organics
Test 1 Test
(mg/dscm) (ng/J) (rag/dscm)
3.5 1.07 3.0
10.5 3.20 5.8
0.3
14.0 4.27 9.1
~a —a 5.9b
5.9
0.67
0.45
32.0
~a —a 33.1
48.1
2
(ng/J)
0.82
1.60
0.08
2.50
1.62P
1.62
0.18
0.12
8.78
9.09
13.2
aSASS train  sampling not performed for test 1
"Average of  duplicate analyses
                                   3-16

-------
      Table  3-8  summarizes  the  total  organic analysis results for the ash
stream  samples  taken.   As  noted,  the organic content of the bottom ash sample
was quite high,  again  consistent  with the evident poor combustion efficiency
existing during  test  2.   The  relative organic contents of the bottom ash and
the baghouse  hopper ash  was consistent with their relative carbon content
(61.0 percent for  the  bottom  ash  and 35.7 percent for the baghouse hopper
ash).
3.4.2   Infrared  (IR)  Spectra  of Total  Extracts
     The results of the  IR analyses  of the GRAV residue of the total  extract
samples are summarized  in  Table 3-9.  As  noted, only the spectra of the
XAD-2 and bottom ash extracts  were  sufficiently strong to be interpreted.
The spectra for  both extracts  were  consistent with the presence of aliphatic
hydrocarbons and oxygenated species, such as carboxylic acids, aldehydes, and
alcohols.
3.4.3  1C Fractionation  of Extracts
     The XAD-2 and bottom  ash  sample extracts contained greater than  15 mg of
total  organic, so they were separated  into seven  polarity fractions via

          TABLE  3-8.  SUMMARY  OF ASH STREAM TOTAL ORGANIC CONTENT

                                                       Test  2 (mg/kg)

        Semi volatile organics  analyzed by  TCP
          Bottom ash                                       1,600
          Baghouse hopper  ash                                7.2
        Nonvolatile organics analyzed by gravimetry
          Bottom ash                                      6,400
          Baghouse hopper ash                                <100
                                     3-17

-------
       TABLE  3-9.   SUMMARY  OF  INFRARED SPECTRA OF TOTAL SAMPLE EXTRACTS
Extract
sample
10y + 3n
participate
Filter + In
participate
Wave number
(cm-1) Assignment
No peaks
No peaks
Possible compound
categories present


XAD-2 + OMC
3600 to 3000
1640
1410
1160 to 1060
1000
0-H stretch
C=Ca stretch
0-H bend
C-0 stretch
Not assigned
Oxygenated hydrocarbons such
as carboxylic acids,
aldehydes, alcohols; possible
aromatics.
Bottom ash    3400
              2940
              2860
              1730
              1610
              1460
              1380
              1280
               820
               750

Baghouse ash  No peaks
               0-H stretch
               C-H alkyl
               C-H alkyl
               C=0 stretch
               C*"C aromatic3
               C-H bend
               C-C stretch
               C-0 stretch
               Not assigned
               C-H rock
                  Aliphatic hydrocarbons;
                  oxygenated hydrocarbons such
                  as carboxylic acids, ketones,
                  aldehydes, alcohols; possible
                  aromatics.
tentative assignment, not supported by other absorbances
                                     3-18

-------
liquid column chromatography.   The  gravimetric  and  TCO  content  of  each
fraction are summarized  in  Tables  3-10  (XAD-2)  and  3-11 (bottom ash).
Table 3-10  shows that  very  poor recovery  was  achieved in  the  LC fractionation
of the XAD-2 extract  (about 16  percent),  with  recovery  of the TCO  fraction
being especially poor-   Most  of the material  appeared to  be  retained on  the
chromatography column.   The analyst noted that  the  XAD-2  extract appeared to
consist of  two distinct  liquid  phases.   It is  possible  that  one of these
phases could not be eluted  from the column with the specified series of
solvents.   Most of the  XAD-2  extract which did  elute from the column occurred
in LC fraction 7.  This  fraction generally contains carboxylic  acids and
other polar (e.g. oxygenated) compounds.
     The bottom ash extract exhibited a more  even distribution  of  organic
content among the LC fractions.  LC 1 accounted for most  of  the total organic
and virtually all of the semivolatile (TCO) content. Other  fractions showed
considerable, though lesser,  amounts of nonvolatile (GRAV) organics.
Fractionation recovery,  at  119  percent, was considerably  better for this
sample.
3.4.4  IR Spectra of LC  Fractions
     The results of the  IR  analysis of  the GRAV residue of the  eluted LC
fractions are summarized in Table  3-12  (XAD-2 extract)  and in Table 3-13
(bottom ash extract).  For  the  XAD-2 extract, only  the  LC 7  residue had  an IR
                                 \
spectrum sufficiently strong  to interpret.  This spectrum is  consistent  with
the presence of polar oxygenated species  such as carboxylic  acids,  which
elute in LC 7.  Comparing Table 3-12 with  Table  3-9 confirms  that  the LC 7
IR spectrum is essentialy the same  as that obtained  for the total  sample
extract.
                                      3-19

-------
              TABLE 3-10.   LC FRACTIONATION OF THE XAD-2 EXTRACT


TCO
(mg)
Total sample 53


Fraction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Taken for
Recovered

TCO (
Analyzeda
<0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.13
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.16
LC 15
0.16

mg)
Corrected
to total
sample
<0.07
<0.03
<0.03
0.45
0.10
<0.03
<0.03
0.55
GRAV
(mg)
285
83
15.4

GRAV
Analyzed9
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
12.0
15.4
TCO + GRAV
(mg)
338
98
16

(mg)
Corrected
to total
sample
2.8
1.4
2.1
2.1
1.4
2.1
41.2
53.1
Concentration
(mg/dscm)
37.8
11.0
1.8

TCO + GRAV
(mg)
2.8
1.4
2.1
2.6
1.5
2.1
41.2
53.7




Concentration
(mg/dscm)
0.31
0.16
0.23
0.29
0.17
0.23
4.62
6.01
aBlank corrected
                                     3-20

-------
           TABLE  3-11.   LC  FRACTIONATION  OF  THE  BOTTOM  ASH  EXTRACT


TCO
(mg)
Total sample 40


Fraction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Taken for
Recovered

TCO
Analyzed3
3.3
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
3.6
LC 20
3.6

(mg)
Corrected
to tbtal
sample
6.6
0.20
0.12
0.18
0.18
<0.02
<0.02
7.3
GRAV
(mg)
160
80
115.8

GRAV
Analyzed3
34.0
23.0
15.6
10.4
11.0
16.2
5.6
115.8
TCO + GRAV
(mg)
200
100
119.4

(mg)
Corrected
to total
sample
68.0
46.0
31.2
20.8
22.0
32.4
11.2
231.6
Concentration
(mg/kg)
8,000
4,000
4,780




TCO + GRAV Concentration
(mg) (mg/kg)
74.6
46.2
31.3
21.0
22.2
32.4
11.2
238.9
2,980
1,850
1,250
850
890
1,300
450
9,560
aBlank corrected
                                     3-21

-------
 TABLE  3-12.   IR  SPECTRUM  SUMMARY:   XAD-2 EXTRACT,  LC 7a
Wave
number
(cra-1)
3400
1640
1550
1390
1220
1100

Intensity15
S
S
w
M
W
W

Assignment
0-H stretch
C=C stretch
Not assigned
0-H bend
C-0 stretch
C-0 stretch

Possible compound
categories present
Oxygenated hydro-
carbons such as
carboxylic acids




aOnly LC 7 had a spectrum sufficiently strong to interpret
bS = strong, M = moderate, W = weak
                           3-22

-------
      TABLE 3-13.   IR SPECTRA SUMMARY:  BOTTOM ASH  EXTRACT  LC  FRACTIONS
Wave number
(cm-1)
3500
3450
3300
3060
2950
2870
1740
1620
1480
1390

1290
1200
1140
1080
1040
960
880
820
760
710

to


to
to
to
to
to
to

to



to



to


3400


2940
2860
1720
1610
1460
1380

1270



1020



750

Intensity3
Assignment
0-H
0-H
0-H
C-H
C-H
C-H
C=0
C=C
C-H
C-H
0-H
C-0
C-0
C-0
C-0
C-0
C-C
C-H
C-H
C-H
Not
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
bend
bend,
bend
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
stretch
rock
rock
rock
assigned
LC 1




S
M

W
M
W







W
W
W

LC 2 LC 3
W
W

M
S S


M
M S
M

W
W


W
W
W M
W M
M M
W
LC 4

W


S

M
W
M
W

M

W
W
W
W

W
W
W
LC 5

M


S

S
M
M
W

M

M
M
W


W
W
W
LC 6

M


S

M
M
M
M

M






W
W
W
LC 7


W

S


M
M
W

W







W

aS = strong, M   moderate, W = weak, blank = absorbance  not  in  spectrum
                                     3-23

-------
      The  IR  spectra  of the  bottom ash  fractions  are summarized in Table 3-11.
 The  spectra  of  LC  1  and 2 are  consistent  with  the presence of aliphatic
 hydrocarbons, which  elute in those fractions.   The spectra of LC 3 and 4 are
 consistent with  the  possible presence  of  aldehydes and  ethers which elute in
 those  fractions.   The  spectra  of  LC  5,  6,  and  7  suggest the presence of more
 polar  oxygenates,  such as ketones, esters,  phenols, and carboxylic acids
 which  elute  in those fractions.
     Comparing the Table  3-13  summary  with  Table  3-9 shows that  all
 absorbences  found  in the  total extract  sample  are accounted for  among the
 eluted LC fractions.   In  fact, a  few fractions had  weak to moderate
 absorbences that could  not be elucidated in the total extract spectrum.
 3.4.5  Low Resolution  Mass Spectrometry Analysis  of LC  Fractions
     Direct injection  probe LRMS was performed on  various  combinations of LC
 fractions of the XAD-2  and bottom ash extract  samples and  the total  baghouse
 hopper ash extract.  The  results of these analyses  are  presented  in
 Table 3-14.  Specific compound categories were identified  as  being present
 only in two LC fractions  of the bottom ash extract  and  the  baghouse  ash
extract.  Alkyl  aromatics were identified in all three  samples.   The  results
from the bottom ash extract  are in reasonable agreement  with  the  IR  spectra
 results in that they indicate carboxylic acids and  alkyl aromatics in  the LC
fraction where they are expected to be found.
     The inability to identify any compound categories  in  the LRMS analyses
of the XAD-2 extract LC fraction is no doubt due to  the  very  poor recovery of
the LC fractionation performed, although one might have expected some
 identifications in the total extract and perhaps the LC 7  extract, as  these
contained moderate organic content.  Similarly, some identifications  might

                                     3-24

-------
                     TABLE  3-14.   LRMS  ANALYSIS  RESULTS
           Sample
  Compound category
 MW range   Intensity
Composite particulate
extract
None identified
XAD-2 + condensate:
  Total extract
  LC 1 + 2 + 3
  LC 4 + 5 + 6   ,
  LC 7
None identified
None identified
None identified
None identified
Bottom ash extract:
  LC 1
  LC 2
  LC 3
  LC 4
  LC 5
  LC 6

  LC 7
None identified
None identified
None identified
None identified
Alkyl aromatics
Alkyl aromatics
Carboxylic acids
None identified
106 to 148
106 to 148
100
100
100
Baghouse ash extract
Alkyl aromatics         106 to 148     100
Halogenated aliphatics      —         100
                                     3-25

-------
 have  been  expected  for  the  LC  1  through  4 fractions  of  the  bottom ash
 extracts.   The  authors  have  no explanation  for  these Inabilities  to  identify
 major component  categories.
 3.4.6  Gas  Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Total  Sample
        Extracts
      6C/MS  analyses of  the SASS  train sample extracts (10 plus  3  urn
 particulate,  1  urn plus  filter particulate,  XAD-2 and organic module
 condensate) and extracts of  the  bottom ash and  baghouse ash were  performed  to
 detect  and  quantify the 58 semi volatile organic priority pollutant species,  a
 class which contains several polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon  (PAH) compounds
 of interest in combustion source emissions.  The compounds sought  in  the
 analysis and their detection limits are listed  in Table  3-15.   Table  3-16
 lists the compounds detected in terms of a mass concentration  (mg/kg) and a
 flue  gas concentration  (yg/dscm), as appropriate.  The  greatest quantity of
 PAH and other organic priority pollutant compounds occurred in  the bottom
 ash.  This is consistent with the high TCO and  6RAV  analysis results  noted  in
 Section 3.4.1.  In fact, of the PAH compounds, only  naphthalene was found in
 samples other than the bottoh ash.  The phthalates noted in the table are
 suspected contaminants.
      In addition to specific quantification of semivolatile organic priority
pollutants in the GC/MS analyses, major peaks representing other organic
 species in the GC chromatograms present at significant concentrations were
 identified and approximately quantitated.  Table 3-17 shows the organic
compounds identified in each sample and their concentrations.   Most of those
noted are aromatic organics, fused ring aromatics, or alkyl  derivatives of
these.  As in other analyses, the greatest number and greatest  quantities of
                                     3-26

-------
TABLE 3-15.  COMPOUNDS SOUGHT  IN THE GC/MS ANALYSIS AND THEIR DETECTION
             LIMITS  (ng/yl injected)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
                             Acid  Compounds

                                 5      2-nitrophenol
                                 5      4-nitrophenol
                                 5      2,4-dinitrophenol
                                 5      4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
                                 5      pentachlorophenol
                                        phenol

                        Base  Neutral  Compounds
1,
1,

1,
1,
2,
                                 1
  2-dichlorobenzene              1
  2-diphenylhydrazine            1
  (as azobenzene)
  3-dichlorobenzene              1
  4-dichlorobenzene              1
  4-dim"trotoluene               1
2,6-dinitrotoluene               1
2-chloronaphthalene              1
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine           5
3-methyl cholanthrene            40
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether       1
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether      1
7,12-dimethyl benz(a)anthracene  40
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine        5
N-nitrosodimethylamine           NA
N-nitrosodiphenylamine           1
acenaphthene                     1
acenaphythylene                  1
anthracene                       1
benzo(ghi)perylene               5
benzidine                        20
benzo(b)fluoranthene             1
benzo(k)fluoranthene             1
benzo(a)anthracene               1
benzo(a)pyrene                   1
benzo(c)phenathrene
bi s(2-chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl )ether
bi s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
chrysene
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
dibenzo(c,g)carbazole
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
fluoranthene
fluorene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadi ene
hexachloroethane
i ndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
perylene
phenanthrene
pyrene
                              5
                              20
                              20
                              20
                              5
                              1
40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
40
1
1
                                  3-27

-------
 TABLE 3-16.   PAH AND OTHER  SEMIVOLATILE  ORGANIC  PRIORITY  POLLUTANT  SPECIES
                 DETECTED
          Species
                                                             Sample

10 + 3 mi
participate

1 um + filter
parti cul ate
XAD +
condensate
extract

Bottom
ash

Baghouse
ash
(nig/kg)  (ug/dscm)   (mg/kg)   (pg/dscm)  (ug/dscm)    (mg/kg)  (mg/kg)
PAH'S

  Acenaphthene                 —a
  Acenaphthylene               —
  Anthracene                   —
  Benz{a)anthracene
  Benzo(j+k)f1uoranthenes
  Chrysene
  Fluoranthene
  Fluorene                    —
  Naphthalene                  0.2
  Phenanthrene
  Pyrene

Other priority pollutants

  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate   <0.15
  Butylbenzylphthalate         <0.07
  Diethylphthalate
          0.9
          <0.7
          <0.3
3.7
3.4
0.2
0.4
7.7
7.2
0.4
0.8
7.8
2
            1
            2
            1
            0.4
            0.4
            0.8
            2
            2
            42
            11
            2
84
120
         0.3
0.3
0.08
0.04
2, 4-dimethy! phenol
Detection limit
<0.2
0.05
<0.9
0.2
<0.4
0.05
<0.8
0.1
<7
1.1
5
0.4
<0.2
0.04
aDouble  dashes denote less than detection limit noted
                                              3-28

-------
TABLE 3-17.  OTHER COMPOUNDS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED  IN GC/MS ANALYSES
Concentration
Sample
10 + 3 urn parti cul ate
1 urn + filter participate



\
XAD + condensate extract


Bottom ash






Compound
No peaks identified
C3~alkyl benzene
Trimethyl benzene
C/^-aklyl benzene
Benzothiazole

Benzoic acid
Ethyl benzoic acid
Ethyl benzaldehyde
Sulfur
Methyl naphthalene
Ethyl naphthalene
Di methyl naphthal ene
Trimethyl naphthalene
Dibenzofuran
4-methyl di benzof uran
(mg/kg)

4.7
2.0
0.8
3.9


—
••—
100
110
14
29
47
13
17
(yg/dscm)

9.8
4.1
1.7
8.2

290
58
17

—
—
—
—
—
— —
 Baghouse ash
No peaks identified
                                 3-29

-------
these species were found in the bottom ash.  The presence of these compounds,
as indicated by GC/MS confirms the results of the LRMS analysis which
indicated the presence of alkyl aromatics in the bottom ash extract.
                                     3-30

-------
                           REFERENCES  FOR  SECTION  3


3-1.  DeRosier, R.,  "Environmental  Assessment  of a Watertube  Boiler  Firing  a
      Coal/Oil Mixture," Acurex  Report  TR-81-87/EE,  March  1984.

3-2.  DeRosier, R.,  "Environmental  Assessment  of a Crude-Oil  Heater  Using
      Staged Air Lances for  N0y  Reduction,"  Acurex Report  TR-82-94/EE,  March
      1984.                   X

3-3.  Castaldini, C., et a!., "Environmental Assessment  of NHq  Injection for
      an Industrial  Package  Boiler," Acurex  Draft  Report TR-82-94/EE, March
      1984.

3-4.  DeRosier, R.,  et al.,  "Environmental Assessment  of a Commercial
      Boiler Firing  a Coal/Plastic  Waste Mixture," Acurex  Draft  Report  under
      EPA Contract 68-02-3188, February  1985.

3-5.  VanBuren, D.,  and L. R. Water!and, "Environmental  Assessment of a
      Coal-Water-Slurry-Fired Industrial Boiler,"  Acurex Draft  Report
      TR-84-155/EE,  March 1985.

3-6.  Castaldini, C., et al., "Environmental Assessment  of an Enhanced  Oil
      Recovery Steam Generator Equipped with a Low-N0x Burner,"  Acurex  Draft
      Report TR-84-161/EE, September 1984.

3-7.  Castaldini, C., et al., "Environmental Assessment  of an Enhanced Oil
      Recovery Steam Generator Equipped with the EPA Low NOX Burner," Acurex
      Draft Report TR-85-174/33D, January 1985.

3-8.  Lentzen, D. E., et. al., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:   Level 1
      Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)",  EPA  600/7-78-201,  NTIS
      PB293795, October 1978.

3-9.  Waterland, L. R. et al., "Environmental Assessment of Stationary  Source
      NOX Control  Technologies — Final Report," EPA 600/7-82-034, NTIS
      PB82-249350,  May 1982.
                                     3-31

-------
                                  SECTION 4
                          ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

     This section discusses the potential environmental significance of
firing a coal-water slurry in the boiler tested and also discusses the
results of the bioassay testing of samples collected during the  tests.  As a
means of ranking species discharged for possible further consideration, flue
gas stream species concentrations are compared to occupational exposure
guidelines.  Bioassay analyses were conducted as a more direct measure of the
potential health effects of the emissions and effluent streams.  Both of
these analyses are aimed at identifying potential problem areas  and providing
the basis for ranking pollutant species and discharge streams for further
consideration.
4.1  EMISSION ASSESSMENT
     To obtain a measure of the potential significance of the discharge
streams analyzed in this test program, discharge stream concentrations were
compared to an available set of health-effects-related indices.  For the flue
gas discharge, the indices used for comparison were occupational exposure
guidelines.  Two sources of such guidelines were used:  the time-weighted-
average TLV's defined by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (AGCIH) (Reference 4-1) and 8-hr time-weighted-average exposure
limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration (OSHA)
(Reference 4-2).
                                     4-1

-------
     The comparisons of discharge stream species concentrations to these
indices should only be used for ranking species emission levels for further
testing and analyses.
     Table 4-1 lists those polluant species emitted in the flue gas at levels
greater than 10 percent of their occupational exposure guideline.  As noted
in the table, many trace elements were present at the boiler outlet at
significant levels.  However, flue gas particulate accounts for the major
fraction of these elements in the flue gas at this location.  Ultimate flue
gas discharge concentrations would be significantly reduced after passage
through a particulate control device.
     For comparison, the gaseous criteria pollutants $03 and NOX were emitted
at levels much higher than their occupational exposure guidelines.  NOX
emissions were at levels about 100 times its occupational exposure guideline.
S02 emissions were at levels about 500 times its occupational exposure
guidelines.
4.2  BIOASSAY RESULTS
     Health effects bioassay tests were performed on the SASS organic sorbent
(XAD-2) extracts and particulate sample, the bottom ash and the baghouse
hopper ash.  The bioassay tests performed were (Reference 4-3) (1) the Ames
assay, based on the property of Salmonella typhinurium mutants to revert due
to exposure to various classes of mutagens, and (2) the cytotoxicity assay
(CHO) with mammalian cells in culture to measure cellular metabolic
impairment and death resulting from exposure to soluble toxicants.
     Table 4-2 summarizes the results of these tests.  The results suggest
that the XAD-2 extract was of low mutagenicity and undetermined (low or less)
                                     4-2

-------
TABLE 4-1.  FLUE GAS POLLUTANTS EMITTED AT CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING
            10 PERCENT OF THEIR OCCUPATIONAL  EXPOSURE GUIDELINE
       Species
   Flue gas
concentration
  (mg/dscm)
Occupational exposure
     guideline*
       (mg/m3)
S02
Iron, Fe
Phosphorus, P
Aluminum, Al
NOX (as N02)
Arsenic, As
Silicon, Si
Vanadium, V
Chromium, Cr
Beryllium, Be
Copper, Cu
Lead, Pb
Barium, Ba
Nickel, Ni
Calcium, Ca
Lithium, Li
Potassium, K
Cobalt, Co
CO
Titanium, Ti
Uranium, U
Magnesium, Mg
Silver, Ag
Selenium, Se
Cadmium, Cd
Sodium, Na
Manganese, Mn
Germanium, Ge
Zirconium, Zr
Antimony, Sb
Zinc, Zn
Thallium, Tl

2,480
201
13.2
297
626
1.06
537
1.67
1.19
0.045
2.03
0.85
7.95
1.33
25.3
0.27
19.3
0.64
240
20
0.09
15
0.0095
0.167
0.0338
1.09
>1.7
0.13
1.16
0.0899
0.632
0.0126
t
5
1
0.1
2
6
0.01C
10b
0.05
0.05
0.002
0.1C
0.05C
0.5
0.1
2
0.025
2d
0.1
55
10b
0.05C
10
0.010
0.2
0.05d
2d
5d
0.6
5
0.5
1
0.1

    aTime-weighted-average TLV  (Reference  4-1)  unless  noted
    bFor nuisance  parti culate
    c8-hr  time-weighted-average OSHA exposure  limit (Reference  4-2)
    dCeiling  limit
                                4-3

-------
                         TABLE 4-2.  BIOASSAY RESULTS
Ames
Sample mutagenicity
10 + 3 urn parti cul ate
1 wn + filter participate
XAD-2 + organic module condensate
total extract
Bottom ash
Baghouse ash
NO
ND
L
ND
ND
CHU
clonal toxicity
L/M
ND/L
U(L)
L/M
L
     Note
     NU — No detectability mutagenicity/toxicity
      L — Low mutagenicity/toxicity
      M — Moderate mutagenicity/toxicity
      U — Undetermined toxicity.  Exact toxicity range could  not  be
           determined due to insufficient amount of sample.  Test  results
           indicate low toxicity or less.

toxicity.  The other samples showed no detectable mutagenicity and low  to
moderate toxicity.  The positive Ames response for the XAD-2 extract  is
typical for XAD-2 from SASS tests of combustion sources.  Current  studies
sponsored by EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, are investigating whether such a response is due to artifact
compounds formed when combustion product gas containing NOX is passed over
XAO-2 resin.
4.3  SUMMARY
     A comprehensive emissions testing program was performed on a  watertube
industrial boiler fired with a coal-water slurry (CMS).  The slurry fired
contained nominally 60 percent coal by weight.  Two tests were performed:   an
abbreviated set of tests with the unit fired at about  2.8 percent  flue  gas  02

                                     4-4

-------
(test 1), and a comprehensive set of tests with the unit fired at about
2.1 percent 02 (test 2).
     NOX, S02, CO, and TUHC emissions (corrected to 3 percent 03) averaged
about 230 and 310 ppm, 880 and 960 ppm, 170 and 200 ppm, and 1 and 3 ppm,
respectively for test 1 and 2, respectively.  The apparent emission
differences for these pollutants between the two tests are not considered
significant.  N20 levels in the flue gas were generally 15 to 25 percent of
the corresponding NOX emission level.
     Particulate levels at the boiler outlet (upstream of the unit's
particulate control device) were quite high.  These also apparently increased
from about 3.5 g/dscm in test 1 to 7.3 g/dscm in test 2.  The increase is
attributed to greatly increased combustible losses in the flyash in test 2.
Confirming this is the fact that the emitted particle size distribution was
dominated by coarse particulate; over 60 percent (weight) of the boiler
outlet particulate was larger than 10 pm, almost 70 percent was larger than
3 pm.
     Total organic emissions in test 2 (the comprehensive emissions test)
were quite high, almost 50 mg/dscm.  About 70 percent of this organic matter
was in the nonvolatile (greater than 300°C, ^5+) boiling point range.
     The bottom ash organic content was quite high as well, 8 g/kg, with
80 percent of this being in the nonvolatile boiling point range.  Alky!
aromatics and carboxylic acids were the major compound categories identified
in the bottom ash organic fraction.
     Of the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)  compounds analyzed, only
naphthalene was found in flue gas samples (on the particulate), with emission
                                     4-5

-------
levels of 8.6 yg/dscm.  Several PAH's were found in the bottom asti at  levels

ranging from 0.4 to over 40 mg/kg.
                           REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
4-1.  "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and  Physical  Agents  in
      the Work Environment with Intended Changes for 1983-84,"  American
      Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati,  Ohio,
      1983.

4-2.  OSHA Safety and Health Standards, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart  Z.

4-3.  Brusick, D. J., and R. R. Young, "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:   Level  1
      Environmental Assessment, Biological Tests," EPA-600/8-81-024,  NTIS
      PB81-228766, October 1981.
                                    4-6

-------
                                   SECTION 5
                  TEST QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

      Quality assurance (QA)  activities, implemented for this test included:
      9   Duplicate injections for Cj_ to C6 hydrocarbons
      9   Duplicate injections for N20
      »   Duplicate total  chromatographable organics (TCO)  analysis
      »   Duplicate gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)  analysis  for
          the semivolatile  organic priority pollutant
      »   Blind  standard  analysis  for Hg analysis
The following paragraphs  discuss  the results  of these  QA activities.
5.1   C]_ to  C6 HYDROCARBON  PRECISION
      Replicate  injections  were  performed  for  the  Ci to  C$  calibration
standards and at  least one duplicate injection of sample per test. The area
counts and  relative  standard  deviations  (RSD) from  these injections are
presented in Table 5-1.  The  replicate  standard injections  were  performed
with  a gas  mixture including  the  six normal C^ to C5 hydrocarbons.  In all
cases, the  percent  RSD is  below the  QA  objective  of 15  percent precison for
the standard injections  (Reference 5-1).   The duplicate  sample injection for
test  2 had  an RSD  of  26 percent, which  failed the QA objective.  Both
duplicate injections  from  test 1 met the QA objective.   Thus, of a total  of
15 determinations, all but one met the QA precision goal, for a percent
completeness of 93 percent, exceeding the QA objective of 90 percent.
                                     5-1

-------
TABLE  5-1.  AREA COUNTS  AND RELATIVE STANDARD DEVIATIONS
             FOR  Ci TO C6 ANALYSES
                      Test 1
              Injection number area count

Calibration
standards
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Samples
(total count)
1

7,192
9,299
10.211
17,917
23,420
29,567
1,560
4,808
2

6,605
9,263
10,239
17,874
23,095
30,115
1,554
4,316
3

7,076
9,184
10,107
17,819
23,103
30,902

4

7,195
9,215
10,477
18.212
23,603
29,835

5

6,966
9,235
10,258
17,996
24,080
29,104

RSD
(percent)

3.5
0.5
1.3
0.9
1.7
2.2
0.3
7.6
                          Test 2
                  Injection number area count

Calibration
standards
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Samples
(total count)
1

7,860
9,503
10,417
18,491
23,987
30.131
1,616
2

7,497
9,516
10,769
18.606
24,000
29,793
2,337
3

7,644
9.732
10,872
18,969
24,391
30,948

4

7,290
9,486
10,380
18,561
25,759
30,900

5

8,507
10,149
10,681
18,821
24,385
30,513

6

8,131
10,427
12,675
19,184
24,947
30,986

7

9,017
10,511
11,078
19,160
24,630
30,120

RSD
(percent)

7.6
4.5
7.2
1.5
2.5
1.6
25.8
                              5-2

-------
5.2  N20 PRECISION
     Replicate injections were performed for  N20 standards and  samples.
Table 5-2 summarizes the area counts for N20  and the percent RSU for these
runs.  All of the standard injections met the QA objective of 20 percent RSU
(Reference 5-1).  The replicate injections of the  samples also  met the QA
objectives.
5.3  TCO PRECISION
     Duplicate injections of the  XAD-2 plus organic module condensate extract
were performed in the quantisation of total semivolatile organics.  Results
of the duplicate injections were  57 and 49 mg TCO  per  SASS train.  This
corresponds to an RSD of 10.7 percent, just failing QA objective of
10 percent RSD for this analysis.
5.4  GC/MS PRECISION
     Duplicate injections of the  XAD-2 plus organic module condensate extract
were performed in the GC/MS analysis for the  semivolatile organic priority
pollutants.  Quantitation results  (only the two compounds identified and
quantitated) are summarized in Table 5-3.  The average RSD is within the QA
objective (Reference 5-1) of 50 percent for this analysis.  The objective was
failed for one compound quantitation; however, this compound was only found
at the detection limit of the analysis.
5.5  MERCURY ANALYSIS
     A NBS reference flyash with a 0.13 mg/kg mercury  concentration was
submitted to the analytical laboratory as a blind  sample for analysis.  The
reported concentration was 0.09 mg/kg, corresponding an accuracy of
-30 percent.  This is outside the QA objective of  ±20  percent.
                                     5-3

-------
  TABLE 5-2.  AREA COUNT AND RELATIVE STANDARD  DEVIATIONS
              FOR N20 ANALYSES
    Sample
                    Injection number area count
         RSD
4     (percent)
Calibration
standards

Test 1
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Test 2
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
79,597
10,258
71,978

24,016
28,974
21,196

55,252
73,009
88,851
36,812
79,456
10,154
60,990 67,879 57,102

23,984
28,501
27,177 23,624

78,040 81,048
72,283
91,203
37,539
0.1
0.7
10.9

0.1
1.2
12.5

19.7
0.7
1.8
1.4
TABLE 5-3.  DUPLICATE ANALYSIS RESULTS AND RELATIVE STANDARD
            DEVIATIONS FOR THE GC/MS ANALYSES
                         Analysis result  (pg/ml)
Compound quantitated
bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
Run 1
6
3
Run 2
6
1
RSD
(percent)
0
70.7
Average
     35.4
                             5-4

-------
5.6  QA SUMMARY
     In summary, of  all  QA  activities  performed  to  challenge  the  precision  of
analytical techniques employed,  results were within the  project QA  objectives
in all instances except  two.   One  failure was  in the duplicate TCO  analysis,
where measured precision was  10.7  percent compared  to  a  project objective of
10 percent.  This very small  failure to obtain the  QA  objective is  not
considered significant,  and has  no effect on conclusions derived  from data
obtained in the tests.
     The second failure  was in the GC/MS analysis,  where for  one  compound
method precision was 71  percent  compared to the  project  objective of
50 percent.  However, the quantisations for this compound were at the
detection limit of the analytical techniques,  an area  where precision is
always poor-  This QA objective  failure is also  not considered significant,
and has no effect on conclusions derived from  data  obtained in the  tests.
     In the one test performed to challenge the  accuracy of the cold vapor
AAS technique employed to measure mercury concentration, analysis of a blind
audit sample gave a result with  accuracy of -30  percent, compared to a
project objective of ±20 percent.  This failure  has no effect on  test program
conclusions since mercury was not detected in  any test sample analyzed.
                                     5-5

-------
                           REFERENCE FOR SECTION 5
5-1.  "Quality Assurance Plan for the Combustion Modification Environmental
      Assessment," prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188, September  10,
      1982.
                                     5-6

-------
                                 APPENDIX  A
                        TEST  EQUIPMENT  AND  PROCEDURES

A.I  CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEM
     Flue gas compositon of  02,  C02, CO, S02,  NOX,  NO,  and  unburned
hydrocarbons were measured continuously by instrumentation  at  the  test
facility.  Flue gas  samples  were drawn by  a  pump  suction  through a Pall
particulate filter into a compressed air dryer.   The  samples were  further
dried by a Perma Pure Dryer  before delivery  to the  gas  analyzers.   Table A-l
lists the instrumentation available at the test facility  for this  test
program.
A.2  PARTICULATE AND SULFUR  OXIDE EMISSIONS
     Particulate mass emissions  and sulfur oxides tests were conducted  in
accordance with EPA  Reference Methods  5 and  8.  The Acurex  High Volume  Stack
Samples (HVSS), illustrated  schematically  in Figure A-l,  was used  in  this
program.  A 1.52m (5-ft) heated  stainless  steel glass-lined probe  was
maintained at 120°C  (250°F)  as required by EPA Method 5.  A glass  fiber
142-mm (5.59-in.) diameter filter was used to capture the particulate in the
heated oven.  The impinger train consisted of four glass  impingers equipped
with Teflon caps and 316 stainless steel  stems, collector tubes, and
fittings.  The first impinger contained 100 ml  of 80 percent isopropanol in
distilled water, the second  and third impinger contained  100 ml of 3 percent
H202 and the fourth contained a known amount of silica gel.  A fritted glass
                                     A-l

-------
              TABLE A-l.  CONTINUOUS MONITORING EQUIPMENT
Flue gas                     Principle of
component     Analyzer        operation        Mode         Range^
 02        Beckman Oxygen  Magnetic          Model 755  0 to 25 percent
           Analyzer        susceptibility

 S02       MSA LIRA        Infrared          Model 303  0 to 2,000  ppm
 C02       Infrared        absorption                   0 to 25 percent
 CO        Analyzer                                     0 to 1,000  ppm

 NO/NOX    Beckman         Chemiluminescent  Model 951  0 to 1,000  ppm
           NO/NOX
           Analyzer

 THC       Beckman         Flame ionization  Model 400  0 to 100 ppm
           Hydrocarbon
           Analyzer
Operating ranges during the COM test burn on February 19, 1981
                                  A-2

-------
  -Sample nozzle
                          Probe
                              142 m (diameter)      Tcflon
                            /  filter



•V

\_ "S" type
pilot tube
r~ "]
-x

*/
4 '


J Filter
J 1 oven
U
<=T="

Oven
T.C.

w\


	 coiiuei,Lini|
/line
/

Ice/water
bath ^\^
100 ml -^_
80% I PA ^x
Smith-Greenberg ^Z-
impinger

"""" ' 1 1UU II
Proportional , 3j ){
temperature | 2
controllers [_

-1
$
X

^- —
1
°2
                                                                        Fritted
                                                                        glass
                                                                        filter
AP Magnehelic
gauge
                                            Gas meter  thermocouples
                        AH orifice
                        plate
                                                                                                Check
                                                                                                valve
                                                                                      linpinger
                                                                                      thermocouple
                                                                                            Silica gel
                                                                                            dessicant
                                                                                         Modified
                                                                                         Smith-Greenberg
                                                                                         impinger
                                                                  Fine  adjustment   |
                                                                  bypass valve
   Digital  temperature
   indicator
Control module
                         Orifice AH
                         Magnehelic
                                                                                      Vacuum line

                                                                                      Vacuum gauge
                                                                                   I
                                                                                   •J—Coarse adjustment valve
                                              Dry test meter
                                                                                      Airtight vacuum pump
              Figure  A-l.   Schematic of  participate and SQ% sampling train
                              (EPA Method  5 and 8).

-------
filter is placed between the first and second impingers.  The control module
was equipped with maynahelic gauges and digital thermocouple readouts, and a
dry gas flowmeter for monitoring pressure and temperature in the stack and
total gas sampled.
     Sample collection took place in the uninsulated stack above the  ID fan.
The particulate tests were performed at 12 sampling points in accordance with
EPA Method  1.  Each test point was sampled for 6 min, hence a 72-min total
sampling time.
     SU2 and $63 emissions were measured by titration of the impinger
solutions per EPA Method 8.  Sulfuric acid mist and any vapor phase 803 is
trapped in the isopropanol impinger with the backup filter trapping any
carryover mist.  S02 is absorbed in the \\-^2 impingers.  After completion of
a test, the filter is rinsed with isopropanol and the rinse solution added to
the isopropanol impinger solution.  Absorbed $03 in the isopropanol and SU2
in the ^02 are determined separately by barium-thorin titration.
A.3  TRACE ELEMENT AND ORGANIC EMISSIONS
     Emissions of inorganic trace elements and organic compounds were sampled
with the source assessment sampling system (SASS).  Designed for Level 1
environmental assessment (Reference A-l), the SASS collects large quantities
of gas and solid samples required for subsequent analyses of inorganic and
organic emissions as well as particle size measurement.
     The SASS, illustrated in Figure A-2, is generally similar to the system
utilized for total particulate mass emission tests (HVSS) with the exception
of:
     «   Particulate cyclones heated in the oven with the filter to 230°C
         (450°F)

                                     A-4

-------
Ul
                    Stack T.C.
      Stainless
        steel
        sample
        nozzle
                                  Heated oven
r
                                                    I iI lor
                  Stainless  steel
                  probe assembly
      Stack    ,
     velocity   TX.
   AP magnehelici
      gauges
                                         1/2" fefloJ
                                           I ine     I
                                         Isolation  |
                                         ball  valve
                                              Sorbent cartridge

                                           Heater controller
                                               Gas meter T.C.
                                                           Organic  module
                                       f>
                                       •j
                                       
-------
     •   The addition of a gas cooler and organic sampling module
     •   The addition of necessary vacuum pumps
     Schematics outlining the sampling and analytical procedures using the
SASS equipment are presented in Figures A-3 and A-4.  The following briefly
describes analytical procedures used in measuring boiler outlet trace
elements and organic emissions.
     Inorganic analyses of solid and liquid samples from the SASS train were
performed with spark source mass spectroscopy (SSMS) for most of the trace
elements.  Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) was used for analyses of
volatile mercury (Hg), antimony (Sb), and arsenic (As) and for backup
analyses for those elements identified as major components by SSMS.
     Quantitative information on total  organic emissions was obtained by gas
chromatography for total chromatographable organics (TCO) and by gravimetry
(GRAV)  of particulate, sorbent module (XAD-2), and condensate trap organic
extracts.  Infrared spectroscopy (IR) was used for identification of organic
functional  groups and gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) was used
to quantitate the semi volatile organic priority pollutant species in extract
samples.  This class contains several of the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) compounds of interest from combustion sources.  Figure A-6 illustrates
the organic analysis methodology followed during the current program.
A.4  G! TO C6 HYDROCARBON SAMPLING ANU ANALYSIS
     Samples of flue gas were collected for C^ to €5 hydrocarbon analysis
using a grab sampling procedure.
     The samples were collected using the apparatus illustrated in
Figure A-6.  The equipment consisted of a heated, 0.64-cm (1/4-in.) 00
pyrex-lined, stainless-steel probe fitted with a 0.7-wn sintered stainless

                                     A-6

-------











SAMPLE


3y CYCLONE • —






PROBE WA3M FTP



SORBENT CARTRIDGE -


AQUEOUS CONDENSATE

FIRST IMPINGES
SECOND AND THIRD
lutotuccoe rnntatucn
2 z
u o 2
u ST g y
 x
x u ce c a
u u o a M






^ g^ SPLIT
^^r ^^s^-



a. ^ ^^^

*
\
/
SPLIT \
5 GRAMS

.» AQUEOUS PORTION
\^_ ORGANIC EXTRACT



2
o
H
M
UI
a
a <

« y 5 >
J 5 < a
5 C «E tn > 4
< o t e S a 3
5^2 2 1 5 <


• .^






• ^


• A . -. A



•_^_ A A

COMBINE

\
» • « >* 	 •
/

  TOTALS
5   2   S
' If 'nuirad. lamol* should b. Mt aiida for biological analyin at tha point.

Thii 
-------
Figure A-4.  Flue gas analysis protocol.

-------

Organic Extract
or
Neat Organic Liquid
1


i

Concentrate
Extract

* t
GC/M.S Analysis,
POM, and other Infrared Analysis
organic species




t t
Repeat TCO
Gravimetric Analysis
if necessary
i
Aliquot containing
15-100 mg
\
Solvent
Exchanae
1
-
Liquid
Chroma tograohic
Separation

t M •

' t t t
Seven Fractions

t :
Infrared Analysis
,

»
Mass Snectra
Analysis
TCO
Gravimetric
Analysis
Figure A-5.  Organic analysis methodology.
                    A-9

-------
                                                 -Teflon diaphragm pump

                                                    Pressure gauge


                                                         Inlet valve
0.7 urn sintered stainless-steel filter
      l/4~1n. stainless-steel
       probe
500-crn  stainless-steel
  sample cylinder
                                         Ceramic Insulation
                                           and heat tape
                                                                                                 Outlet
                                                                                                   valve
                                                                                         Thermocouple
          Figure A-6.   Cj to  65  hydrocarbon  sampling  system.

-------
steel filter at the probe inlet.  The outlet of the  probe was directly
attached to a diaphragm vacuum pump which was in turn attached  to  a  500 ml
heated stainless steel sampling cylinder.  The sampling cylinder was
insulated with heat tape powered by a varying voltage controller.  The heated
jacket kept the sample gas above the dew point to minimize  sample  loss due  to
water condensation.
     Prior to sampling, the gas cylinder was purged  with stack  gas for 3  min
and then sealed.  The trapped flue gas was then analyzed onsite with  a Varian
Model 3700 gas chrornatograph (GC) equipped with a flame ionization detector.
Table A-2 lists the design specifications of the Varian GC.  A  1.85m  (6-ft)
long, 0.32-cm (1/8-in.) diameter stainless-steel column packed  with  Porapak
Q 60/80 mesh was used to separate the hydrocarbons into their respective
components (C]_ to C6).  The GC was calibrated with repeated  injections of a
standard yas containing C^ to Cg hydrocarbons (each  having  a concentration  of
15 ppm).  The chromatographic responses for the standards and the  samples
were recorded on a Hewlett-Packard Model 3390A reporting integrator.
A.6  N20 EMISSIONS
     Stack gas grab samples were extracted into stainless steel cylinders,
similar to those used for C^ to C5 hydrocarbon sampling, for laboratory
analysis for N20.  For the analysis, each sample cylinder was externally
heated to 120°C (250°F), then a 1-ml sample was withdrawn with  a gas-tight
syringe for injection into a gas chromatograph.  The analytical equipment
consisted of a Varian 3700 gas chromatograph equipped with a 63Ni
electron capture detector and a 5.5-m (18-ft) stainless-steel column  packed
for 3.7m (12-ft) with Poropak R 80/100 mesh and 1.8m (6-ft) with Poropak
Super Q.  The injector temperature was kept at 120°C, the detector at 350°C,

                                     A-ll

-------
                 TABLE A-2.  GAS CHROMATOGRAPH SPECIFICATIONS
                     Vari'an Model 3700 Gas Chromatograph
Sensitivity             1 x 10~12 A/mV at attenuation 1 and range  10~12  A/mV
Zero range              -10"11 to 10-9 A (reversible with  internal  switch)
Noise (input capped)    5 x 10~15 A; 0.5 yV peak to peak
Time constant           220 ms on all ranges  (approximate  is response  to
                        99 percent of peak)
Gas required            Carrier gas (helium), combustion air,  fuel  gas
                        (hydrogen)

and the column temperature at 39°C.  Elution  time for ^0  was  approximately
7.5 min.
A.7  FUEL AND ASH SAMPLING
     Fuel samples were taken from the line running between the fuel  tank and
the boiler.  Ash samples were collected from  the boiler and the  baghouse
after the test.
                            REFERENCE FOR APPENDIX A
  A-l.  Lentzen, D.E., et a!., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:   Level  1
        Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201,
        NTIS PB293795, October 1978.
                                     A-12

-------
                                APPENDIX B
                        TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS

     The following tables present sample trace element analysis results and
trace element discharge stream concentrations.  The tables labeled "ppm"
represent element analysis results (ug/g or ug/ml) for each sample analyzed.
The composition of the coal-water slurry fuel, the bottom ash, the baghouse
hopper ash, and all SASS train samples (10 + 3 urn particulate, 1 pm + filter
particulate, XAD-2, first impinger, and second and third impingers) are
noted.
     The tables labeled "concentration" give the calculated flue gas
concentration (yg/dscm) of each element corresponding to each SASS train
sample, along with the total flue gas concentration (the sum of individual
SASS train samples) in the column labeled "flue gas."  The tables labeled
"mass/heat input" give calculated flue gas concentrations (ng/J) of each
element in each SASS train sample, again with the total flue gas
concentration (sum of SASS train samples) in the column labeled "flue gas."
       Symbols appearing in the tables include:
           dscm    Dry standard cubic meter at 1 atm and 20°C
           meg     Microgram
           ppm     Part per million by weight
           ng/J    Nanogram per Joule
           <       Less than
                                     B-l

-------
           >       Greater than
           N       Element not analyzed
       Trace elements having concentrations less than the detectable limit or
having a blank value greater than the sample value were given an arbitrary
concentration of zero.  Values in the form A < x < B were determined by
letting elements reported as less than some concentration be represented by a
concentration of zero for the low value and the reported (less than)
concentration as the high value.
       Detectability limits for the various samples were the following:
       o   Filter                 — <0.1 yg/g
       e   XAD-2                  — <0.01
           Impinger and organic
           module concentrate     — <0.002 yg/ml
       o   Coal-water slurry      — <0.01
       »   Bottom ash             — <0.2 yg/g
       o   Baghouse hopper ash    — <0.2 yg/g
       At standard conditions (20°C (68°F) and 1 atm), one molecular weight
of an ideal gas occupies 24.04&.
     Fuel feedrate               kg/s              0.410
                                 (Ib/hr)           (3,250)
     Heat input                  MW                8.75
                                 (million Btu/hr)  (29.9)
     Stack gas flowrate          dscm/s            2.40
                                 (dscfm)           (5,120)
     Gas collected (SASS)        dscm              8.93
                                 (dscf)            (317)
     Stack gas molecular weight  dry               30.36
                                 wet               28.44
                                     B-2

-------
Water in stack gas          (percent)         15.6
02                          (percent dry)     2.08
                                B-3

-------
O3
 PPM

 ELEMENT

 ALUMINUM
 ANTIMONY
 ARSENIC
 BARIUM
 BERYLLIUM

 BISMUTH
 BORON
 BROMINE
 CADMIUM
 CALCIUM

 CERIUM
 CESIUM
 CHLORINE
 CHROMIUM
 COBALT

 COPPER
 DYSPROSIUM
 ERBIUM
 EUROPIUM
 FLUORINE

 GADOLINIUM
 GALLIUM
 GERMANIUM
 HAFNIUM
 HOLMIUM

 IODINE
 IRON
 LANTHANUM
 LEAD
 LITHIUM

 LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM

NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM

PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
                                        PETC
                                  COAL-WATER-SLURRY
                                  PPM
  FUEL-CWS

  .134E+05
  .400E+00
  .100E+01
  .250E+02
  .400E+00

  .300E-01
  .500E+00
  .10.100E+03
  .200E+01
N.000E+00
  .100E+01

  .600E+00
  .200E+01
  .500E+00
  .370E+02
  .103E+05

  .300E+00
  . 200E+00
  . 300EH-00
  .300E+00
  .300E+00
BAGHOUSE ASH

  .430E+05
  .130E+02
  .100E+03
  .100E+04
  .160E+02

  .800E+00
  .510E+02
  .850E+02
  .400E+01
  .830E+04

  .140E+03
  .200E+01
  .620E+03
  .230E+03
  .190E+03

  .330E+03
  .600E+01
  .300Ef01
  .400E+01
  .860E+02

  .700E+01
  .160E+03
  .220E+02
  .200E+01
  .400E+01

  .500E+01
  .361E+05
  .200E+03
  .450E+03
  .350E+02

  .100E+01
  .190E+04
  .500E+03
N.000E+00
  .280E+02

  .550E+02
  .600E+02
  .510E+02
  . 230E+04
  . 250E+04

  .510E+02
  .210E+02
  .210E+02
  . 320E+02
  .440E+02
BOTTOM ASH

  .607E+05
  -210E+02
  .110E+03
  .100E+04
  .700E+01

  .300E+01
  .540E+02
  .800E+01
  .900E+01
  .142E+05

  .120E+03
  .100E+01
  .110E+03
  .620E+03
  .210E+02

  .270E+03
  .800E+01
  .400E+01
  .100E+01
  .710E+02

  .500E-I-01
  .450E+02
  .500E+01
  .500E+01
  .500E+01

  .400E+01
  .435E+05
  .930E+02
  .520E+04
  .380E+02

  .800E+00
  .280E+04
  .500E+03
N.000E+00
  .570E+02

  . 230E+02
  .190E+03
  .350E+02
  .600E+04
  .500E+04

  .110E+02
  .390E+02
  .900E+01
  .470E+02
  .110E+02

-------
    •PPM

    ELEMENT

    SILICON
    SILVER
    SODIUM
    STRONTIUM
    SULFUR

    TANTALUM
    TELLURIUM
    TERBIUM
    THALLIUM
    THORIUM

     THULIUM
     TIN
     TITANIUM
     TUNGSTEN
     URANIUM

     VANADIUM
     YTTERBIUM
     YTTRIUM
     ZINC
     ZIRCONIUM
               PETC
         COA L-WAT ER-S LURRY
         PPM
 FUEL-CWS

 .692E+05
 . 200E+00
 .100E+03
 .340E+02
 .440E+04

 .100E+00
 .200E+00
 .600E-01
 . 200E+00
 .500E+00

<.200E-01
 .400E-01
 .630E+02
 .100E+00
 .500E+00

 .300E+01
 .100E+00
 .400E+01
 .200E+01
 .200E+01
BAGHOUSE ASH

  .630E+05
 <.200E+01
  .116E+05
  .300E+03
  .550E+04

  .100E+03
  .600E+00
  .200E+01
  .300E+01
  .420E+02

  .300E+00
  .900E+01
  .308E+04
  .120E+02
  .190E+02

  .200E+04
  .600E+01
  .320E403
  .160E+03
  .160E+03
BOTTOM ASH

 .104E+06
<.300E+01
 .133E+05
 .300E+03
 .550E+04

 .800E+01
 .100E+01
 .200E+01
 .700E+01
 .220E+02

 .200E+00
 .410E+02
 . 250E+04
 .900E+01
 .180E+02

 .200E+04
 .400E+01
 .270E+03
 .460E+04
 .130E+03
DO
en

-------
      PPM

      ELEMENT

      ALUMINUM
      ANTIMONY
      ARSENIC
      BARIUM
      BERYLLIUM

      BISMUTH
      BORON
      BROMINE
      CADMIUM
      CALCIUM

      CERIUM
      CESIUM
      CHLORINE
      CHROMIUM
      COBALT

      COPPER
      DYSPROSIUM
      ERBIUM
      EUROPIUM
      FLUORINE

      GADOLINIUM
      GALLIUM
«,    GERMANIUM
l     HAFNIUM
01    HOLMIUM

      IODINE
      IRON
      LANTHANUM
      LEAD
      LITHIUM

      LUTETIUM
     MAGNESIUM
     MANGANESE
     MERCURY
     MOLYBDENUM

     NEODYMIUM
     NICKEL
     NIOBIUM
     PHOSPHORUS
     POTASSIUM

     PRASEODYMIUM
     RUBIDIUM
     SAMARIUM
     SCANDIUM
     SELENIUM
10
           PETC
     COAL-WAT ER-S LURRY
     PPM
3 MICRON       1U + FILTER
  .313E+05
  .110E+02
  .300E+02
  .100E+04
  .800E+01

  .000E+00
  .800E+01
  .350E+02
  .600E+01
  .440E+04

  .850E+02
  .300E+01
  .410E+03
  .170E+03
  .140E+02

  .110E+03
  .900E+01
  .400E+01
  .200E+01
  .160E+03

  .500E+01
  .150E+02
  .400E401
  .400E+01
  .600E+01

  .400E+01
  .241E+05
  .750E+02
  .150E+03
  .250E+02

  .200E+0I
  .120E-f04
  .920F+02
N.000E+00
  .200E+02

  .160E+02
  .300E+02
  .190E+02
  .160E+04
  .210E+04

  .210E+02
  .390EH02
  .170E+02
  .110E+02
  .150E+02
                 .733E+05
                 .180E+02
                 . 440E-4-03
                 .160E+04
                 .400E+01

                  200E+01
                  120E+03
                  300E+02
                 .300E+01
                 .238E+04

                 .610E+02
                 .300E+00
                 .840E+04
                 .170E+03
                 .270E+03

                 .710E+03
                 .300E+01
                 .100E+01
                 .100E+01
                 .180E+03

                 .200E+01
                 .430E+03
                 .530E+02
                 .800E+00
                 .200E+01

                 .300E+01
                 .405E+05
                 .540E+02
                 .770E+02
                 740E+02

                 600E+00
                 450E+04
               > 530E403
               N 060FI09
                    IF. 102
                 .600t+0l
                 480E+03
                 900E+01
                 .280E+04
                 .450E+04

                 .600E+01
                 .180E+02
                 .500E-I-01
                 .610E+02
                 .290E+02
    XAD

  .400E+00
  .000E+00
  .000E+00
  .300E+00
  .000E+00

  .000E+00
  .200E-01
  .140E+00
  .000E+00
  .100E+01

  .600E+00
  .000E+00
  .300E+01
  .300E+00
  .400E-01

  .100E+00
  .000E+00
  .000E+00
  .000E+00
  .800E+00

  .000E+00
  .200E+08
  .000E+00
  .000E+00
  .000E+00

  .900E-01
  .190E+02
  .900E+00
  .300E-01
  .100E-01

  .000E+00
  .250E+01
  .170E+00
N.000E+00
  .540E+00

  .700E-01
  .400E+00
  .000E+00
  .480E+00
  . 600E+01

  .300E+00
  .000E+00
  .000E+00
  .200E-01
  .600E-01
                                                           FIRST IMPINGER

                                                              .600E-01
                                                              .900E-02
                                                              . 200E-0?
                                                              .000E400
                                                              . 000E400

                                                              .000E400
                                                              .800E-02
                                                              .700E-01
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .700E+00

                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .291E+00
                                                              .480E-01

                                                              . 180E+00
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              . 000E+00
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              . 940E+00

                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .250E-01
                                                              . 200E-02
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              . 000E+00

                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .298E+02
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .000E+00

                                                              .000E+00
                                                              . 000E+00
                                                              .898E+00
                                                            N.000E+00
                                                              .250E+00

                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .990E+00
                                                              .800E-02
                                                              . 100E+00
                                                              .950E400

                                                              . 000E+00
                                                              .190E-01
                                                              .000E+00
                                                              .320E-01
                                                              . 196E+00

-------
     PPM
     ELEMENT
10 +
           PETC
     COAL-WATER-SLURRY
     PPM
3 MICRON       1U + FILTER
                                            XAD
                 FIRST 1MP1NGER
     SILICON
     SILVER
     SODIUM
     STRONTIUM
     SULFUR

     TANTALUM
     TELLURIUM
     TERBIUM
     THALLIUM
     THORIUM

     THULIUM
     TIN
     TITANIUM
     TUNGSTEN
     URANIUM

     VANADIUM
     YTTERBIUM
     YTTRIUM
     ZINC
     ZIRCONIUM
  .606E+05
 :.600E+00
  .820E+04
  .100E+03
  .550E+04

  .150E+02
  .100E+01
  .300E+01
  .000E+00
  .310E+02

  .300E+00
  .100E+01
  .250E+04
  .900E+01
  . 160E+02

  .180E+03
  .600E+01
  .790E+02
  .880E+02
  .230E+03
                 . 1 24E+06
                 .400E+01
                 .346E+05
                 . 300E+03
                 . 520E+04

                  400E+01
                 . 400E+00
                 . 600E+00
                 .600E+01
                  . 400E+00
                  .600E+01
                  . 400E+04
                  .300E+01
                  .800E+01

                  . 400E+03
                  .300E+01
                  . 1 20E+03
                  .730E+02
                  . 450E+02
. 100E+01
.800E-01
. 110E+01
. 000E+00
. 400E+01

. 000E+00
. 000E+00
. 000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00

. 000E+00
. 000E+00
. 600E+00
. 000E+00
. 000E+00

.300E-01
.000E+00
.400E-01
. 700E+00
. 600E+00
 .500E+00
 .000E+00
>.680E+01
 .350E-01
>.930E+01

 .000E+00
 .000E+00
 .000E+00
 .000E+00
 .000E400

 .000E+00
 .300E-01
 .200E-01
 .000E+00
 .000E+00

 .150E-01
 .000E400
 . 190E-01
 .350E+00
 .000E+00
CXI
i

-------
CO
I
00
      CONCENTRATION

      ELEMENT

      ALUMINUM
      ANTIMONY
      ARSENIC
      BARIUM
      BERYLLIUM

      BISMUTH
      BORON
      BROMINE
      CADMIUM
      CALCIUM

      CERIUM
      CESIUM
      CHLORINE
      CHROMIUM
      COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE

GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
HAFNIUM
HOLMIUM

IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM

LUTET1UM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM

NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM

PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
                   10
             PETC
       COA I.-WAT ER-S LURRY
       MCG/DSCM
+ 3 MICRON       1U + FILTER
 .144E+06
 .505E+02
 .138E+03
 .459E+04
 .367E+02

 .000E+00
 .367E+02
 .161E+03
 .275E+02
 .202E+05

 .390E+03
 .138E+02
 .188E+04
 .780E403
 .642E+02

 .505E+03
 .413E+02
 .183E+02
 .917E+01
 .734E+03

 .229E+02
 .688E+02
 .183E+02
 .183E+02
 .275E+02

 .183E402
 .111E+06
 .344E+03
 .688E+03
 .115E+03

 .917E+01
 .550E+04
 .422E+03
 .000E+00
 .917E+02

 .734E+02
 .138E+03
 .871E+02
 .734E+04
 .963EH-04

 .963E+02
 .179E+03
 .780E+02
 .505E+02
 .688E+02
.154E+06
.377E+02
.923E+03
.335E+04
.839E+01

.419E+01
.252F.+03
.629E+02
.629E+01
.499E+04

.128E+03
.629E+00
.176E+05
. 356E+03
 566E+03

.149E-f04
.629E+01
.210E+01
.210E+01
.377E+03

.419E+01
.902E+03
.111E+03
.168E+01
.419E+01

.629E-1-01
.849E+05
.113E+03
. 161F.+03
.155E+03

.126E+01
.944E+04
.111E+04
. 000E+00
,545E+02

.126E+02
.101E+04
.189E+02
.587E+04
.944E+04

.126E+02
.377E+02
.105E+02
.128E+03
.608E+02
XAD

.583E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.437E+01
.000E+00

.000E+00
.291E+00
.204E+01
.000E+00
. 146E-f02

.874E+01
.000E+00
.437E+02
.437E+01
. 583E+00

. 146E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.117E+02

.000E+00
.291E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00

.131E+01
. 277E+03
.131E+02
.437E+00
.146E+00

. 000E+00
.364E+02
.248E+01
. 000E+00
.786E+01

.102E+01
.583E+01
.000E+00
.699E+01
.874E+02

.437E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.291E+00
.874E+00
FIRST IMPINGER

     .111E+02
     .167E+01
     .371E+00
     .000E+00
     .000E+00

     .000E+00
     .148E+01
     .130E+02
     . 000E+00
     .130E+03

     .000E400
     .000E400
     .000E400
     .540E+02
     .890E+01

     .334E+02
     .000E+00
     .000E+00
     .000E400
     .174E+03

     .000E+00
     .464E+01
     .371E+00
     .000E+00
     .000E+00

     .000E+00
     .553E+04
     .000E400
     .000E+00
     .000E+00

     .000E400
     .000E400
     .166E403
  N  .000E+00
     .464E+02

     .000E+00
     .184E+03
     .148E+01
     .185E402
     .176E+03

     .000E+00
     .352E+01
     .000E+90
     .593E+01
     .363E+02
FLUE GAS

  . 297E+06
  .899E+02
  . 106E+04
  .795E+04
  .451E+02

  .419E+01
  . 290E+03
  . 238E+03
  .338E+02
  . 253E+05

  .526E+03
  .144E+02
  .195E+05
  .119E+04
  .640E+03

  .203E+04
  .476E+02
  .204E+02
  . 113E+02
  . 130E+04

  .271E+02
  . 978E+03
  . 130E+03
  .200E+02
  .317E+02

  .259E+02
  .201E+06
  .470E+03
  .850E403
  .278E+03

  .104E+02
  . 150E+05
> .170E+04
  .000E+00
  .200E+03

  .870E+02
  .133E+04
  .107E+03
  .132E+05
  .193E+05

  .113E+03
  . 220E+03
  .885E+02
  . 18SE+03
  .167E+03

-------
   "CONCENTRATION

    ELEMENT
10
             PETC
       COAL-WATER-SLURRY
       MCG/DSCM
+ 3 MICRON       1U + FILTER
    SILICON
    SILVER
    SODIUM
    STRONTIUM
    SULFUR

    TANTALUM
    TELLURIUM
    TERBIUM
    THALLIUM
    THORIUM

    THULIUM
    TIN
     TITANIUM
     TUNGSTEN
     URANIUM

     VANADIUM
     YTTERBIUM
     YTTRIUM
     ZINC
     ZIRCONIUM
    .278E+06
    .275E+01
    .376E+05
    .459E+03
    .252E+05

    .688E+02
    .459E+01
    . 138E-I-02
    . 000E400
    .142E40.3

    .138E401
    .459E+01
    .115E405
    .413E+02
    .734E+02

    .826E403
    .275E402
    .362E403
    .404E403
    .105E404
                     . 259E+06
                     .839E401
                     .725EH-05
                     .629E+03
                      109E+05

                     .839E+01
                      839E400
                     . 126E+01
                     . 126E+02
                     . 189E+02

                     .839E+00
                     . I26E+02
                     .839E+04
                     .629E+01
                     .168E+02

                     .839E403
                     .629E+01
                     .252E+03
                     .153E+03
                     .944E+02
D3
I
VO
                                            XAD
               FIRST IMPINGER
                                                                                   FLUE GAS
. 146E+02
. 117E+01
. 160E+02
. 000E+00
. 583E+02

. 000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00
. 000E+00

. 000E+00
.000E+00
.874E401
. 000E+00
. 000E+00

.437E+00
. 000E+00
. 583E+00
. 102E+02
.874E+01
.927E+02            .537E+06
.000E+00     .955E+0KX<.123E+02
.126E+04          > .111E+06
.649E+01            .109E+04
.172E+04          > .379E+05

.000E+00            .772E+02
.000E+00            .543E+01
.000E400            .150E+02
.000E+00            .126E+02
.000E+00            .161E+03

.000E+00            .221E+01
.556E+01            .227E+02
.371E+0t            .199E+05
.000E+00            .476E+02
.000E+00            .902E+02

.278E401            .167E+04
.000E+00            .338E+02
.352E+01            .618E+03
.649E+02            .632E+03
.000E+00            .116E+04

-------
03
I
 MASS/HEAT  INPUT

 ELEMENT

 ALUMINUM
 ANTIMONY
 ARSENIC
 BARIUM
 BERYLLIUM

 BISMUTH
 BORON
 BROMINE
 CADMIUM
 CALCIUM

 CERIUM
 CESIUM
 CHLORINE
 CHROMIUM
 COBALT

 COPPER
 DYSPROSIUM
 ERBIUM
 EUROPIUM
 FLUORINE

 GADOLINIUM
 GALLIUM
 GERMANIUM
 HAFNIUM
 HOLMIUM

 IODINE
 IRON
 LANTHANUM
 LEAD
 LITHIUM

 LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM

NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM

PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
                                       PI: re
                                     i -WAIER-SI
                        10
       :i'./J
1  3 MICRON

  39-H1+02
  l.'.8E-fll
 .378E-01
 . 126E4-01
 .101E-01

 .000E+00
 .101E-01
 .441E-01
 .755E-02
 .554E+01

 .107E+00
 . 378E-02
 .516E+00
 .214E-f00
 .176E-01

 .138E+00
 .113E 01
 .504E-02
 .252E-02
 .201E+00

 .630E-02
 .189E-01
 .504E-02
 .504E-02
 . 755E-02

 .504E-02
 .303E+02
 .944E-01
 .189E+00
 .315E-01

 .252E-02
 . 151E+01
 .116E+00
 .000E+00
 .252E-01

 .201E-01
 .378E-01
 .239E-01
 .201E+01
 .264E+01

 .264E-01
 .491E-01
 .214E-01
 .138E-01
 .189E-01
HI + FILTER

     -122EH02
     1R4F.--01
    .253EI00
     921IH 00
     ,'30F-02

    .1 I5E-02
    .691E-01
    .173E-01
    .173E-02
    .137E+01

    .351E-01
    .173E-03
    .483E+01
    .978E-01
    .155E+00

    .409E+00
    .173E-02
    .576E-03
    .576E-03
    .104E+00

    .115E-02
    .247E+00
    .305E-01
    .460E-03
    .115E-02

    .173E-02
    .233E+02
    .311E-01
    .443E-01
    .426E-01

    .345E-03
    .259E+01
 >  .305E+00
N   .000E+00
    .150E-01

    .345E-02
    .276E+00
    .51BE-02
    .161E+01
    .259E+01

    .345E-02
    .104E-01
    .288E-02
    .351E-01
    .167E-01
XAD

.160E-02
.000E+00
.000E+00
.120E-02
.000E+00

.000E+00
.800E-04
.560E-03
.000E+00
.400E-02

.240E-02
.000E+00
.120E-01
.120E-02
.160E-03

. 400E-03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.320E-02

.000E+00
.800E-03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00

.360E-03
.760E-01
.360E-02
.120E-03
.400E-04

.000E+00
.100E-01
. 680E-03
. 000E+00
.216E-02

. 280E-03
.160E-02
.000E+00
.192E-02
.240E-01

.120E-02
.000E+00
.000E+00
.800E-04
. 240E-03
FIRST IMPINGER

     . 305E-02
     . 458E-03
     . I02E-03
     .000E+00
     .000E+00

     .000E+00
     .407E-03
     .356E-02
     .000E400
     .356E-01

     .000E+00
     . 000E+00
     . 000E+00
     .148E-01
     .244E-02

     .916E-02
     . 000E+00
     .000E+00
     . 000E+00
     .478E-01

     .000E+00
     . 127E-02
     .102E-03
     .000E+00
     .000E+00

     .000E+00
     .152E+01
     .000E+00
     .000E+00
     .000E+00

     .000E+00
     .000E+00
     .457E-01
  N  .000E+00
     .127E-01

     .000E+00
     .504E-01
     .407E-03
     .509E-02
     .484E-01

     .000E+00
     .967E-03
     .000E+00
     .163E-02
     .998E-02
FLUE GAS

  .B16E+02
  .247E-01
  .291£400
  .218E+01
  .124E-01

  .115E-02
  .796E-01
  .655E-01
  .928E-02
  .695E401

  .145E-H00
  .395E-02
  .536E+01
  .328E+00
  .I76E+00

  .557E+00
  .131E-01
  .561E-02
  .309E-02
  .356E+00

  .745E-02
  . 268E+00
  .356E-01
  .550E-02
  .871E-02

  .712E-02
  . 552E+02
  . 129E+00
  .233E+00
  -741E-01

  .286E-02
  .411E+01
> .467E+00
  .000E+00
  .550E-01

  .239E-01
  .366E+00
  .295E-01
  .363E+01
  .531E+01

  .311E-01
  .604E-01
  .243E-01
  .507E-01
  .458E-01

-------
    MASS/HEAT  INPUT

    ELEMENT

    SILICON
    SILVER
    SODIUM
    STRONTIUM
    SULFUR

    TANTALUM
    TELLURIUM
    TERBIUM
    THALLIUM
    THORIUM

    THULIUM
    TIN
    TITANIUM
    TUNGSTEN
    URANIUM

    VANADIUM
    YTTERBIUM
    YTTRIUM
    ZINC
     ZIRCONIUM
10
             PETC
       COA L-WAT ER-S LURRY
       NG/J
+ 3 MICRON       1U + FILTER
    .763E402
    .755E-03
    .103E+02
    .126E+00
    .692E+01

    .189E-01
    .126E-02
    .378E-02
    .000E+00
    .390E-01

    .378E-03
    .126E-02
    .315E+01
    .113E-01
    .201E-01

    .227E+00
    .755E-02
    .995E-01
    .111E+00
    .290E+00
                     .712E+02
                     .230E-02
                     .199E+02
                     . 173E+00
                     .299E+01

                     .230E-02
                     .230E-03
                     .345E-03
                     . 345E-02
                     .518E-02

                     . 230E-03
                     .345E-02
                     . 230E+01
                     .173E-02
                     .460E-02

                     .230E+00
                     .173E-02
                     .691E-01
                     .420E-01
                     .259E-01
TO
i
XAD
FIRST IMPINGER
FLUE GAS
. 400E-02
. 320E-03
.440E-02
.000E+00
.160E-01

.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00

.000E+00
.000E+00
.240E-02
.000E+00
.000E+00

.120E-03
.000E+00
.160E-03
.280E-02
.240E-02
     .254E-01            .148E+03
     .000E+00     .262E-02 .306E+02
     .178E-02            .300E+00
     .473E+00          > .104E+02

     .000E+00            .212E-01
     . 000E-I-00            . 149E-02
     .000E+00            .412E-02
     .000E+00            .345E-02
     .000E+00            .442E-01

     .000E+00            .608E-03
     .153E-02            .624E-02
     .102E-02            .545E+01
     .000E+00            .131E-01
     .000E+00            .247E-01

     .763E-03            .458E+00
     .000E+00            .928E-02
     .967E-03            .170E+00
     .178E-01             173E+00
     .000E+00            .318E+00

-------
CO
I
ro
 MASS/HEAT INPUT

 ELEMENT

 ALUMINUM
 ANTIMONY
 ARSENIC
 BARIUM
 BERYLLIUM

 BISMUTH
 BORON
 BROMINE
 CADMIUM
 CALCIUM

 CERIUM
 CESIUM
 CHLORINE
 CHROMIUM
 COBALT

 COPPER
 OYSPROSIUM
 ERBIUM
 EUROPIUM
 FLUORINE

 GADOLINIUM
 GALLIUM
 GERMANIUM
 HAFNIUM
 HOLMIUM

 IODINE
 IRON
 LANTHANUM
 LEAD
 LITHIUM

 LUTETIUM
 MAGNESIUM
 MANGANESE
 MERCURY
 MOLYBDENUM

 NEODYMIUM
 NICKEL
 NIOBIUM
 PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM

PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
                          run
               I-"T 1C
         (OA|  WAITR-SIURRY
         Nf.,',1
      |'WS            FlUf GAS
   . I87C-OI
   .468F.-01
   .117E401
   .187E-01

   .140E-02
   .234E-01
    468E-01
 <  187E-02
    1 7RE-104

    •if.ni. • 01
    'U6E-02
    140E+00
   .936E-01
    468E-01

   .140E+00
   .468E-02
   . 468F.-02
   .328E-02
   .234E+00

   .936E-02
   .936E-01
   .234E-01
 < .140E-01
   .468E-02

   .936E-02
   .328E+02
   .936E-01
   .936E-01
   .328E-01

   ,468E-03
 > .468E+01
   .936E-01
I  .000E+08
   .468E-01

   .281E-01
   .936E-01
   .234E-01
   .173E+01
   .482E+03

   .140E-01
   .936E-02
   .140E-01
   .140E-01
   .140E-01
 .8ISE.+0?
 .247F -01
 .29 I El00
 218E4-0I
 . 124E-01

 .115E-02
 .796E-01
 .655E-01
 .928E-02
 .695E+01

 .145E+00
 .395E-02
 .536E+01
 .328E-f00
 .176E+00

 .557E+00
 .131E-01
 .561E-02
 .309E-02
 .356E+00

 .745E-02
 .268E+00
 .356E-01
 .550E-02
 .B71E-02

 .712E-02
 .552E+02
 .129E+00
 .233E+00
 .741E-01

 .286E-62
 .411E+01
 .467E+00
 .000E+00
 .550E-01

 .239E-0t
 .366E+00
 .295E-01
 .363E+01
 .531E+01

 .311E-01
.604E-01
.243E-01
.507E-01
.458E-01

-------
CO
I
    MASS/HEAT INPUT

    ELEMENT

    SILICON
    SILVER
    SODIUM
    STRONTIUM
    SULFUR

    TANTALUM
    TELLURIUM
    TERBIUM
    THALLIUM
    THORIUM

    THULIUM
    TIN
    TITANIUM
    TUNGSTEN
    URANIUM

    VANADIUM
    YTTERBIUM
    YTTRIUM
    ZINC
    ZIRCONIUM

COAI
HiV.I
FUFl -i. VI'..
V4I.»(U
q ,M.-*V
468EHH
1591.101
, 206F-I-03
. 468E-02
.936E-02
.281E-02
.936E-02
.234E-01
< .936E-03
. 187E-02
.295E+01
. 468E-02
.234E-01
. 140E+00
. 468E-02
.187E+00
.936E-01
.936E-01
f'LTC
WATTR SI 'WRY

Fllll f.AS
I48EI03
262E-02''X<. 338E-02
> .306Et02
. 300E+00
> .104E+02
.212E-01
.J49E-02
.412E-02
.345E-02
.442E-01
. 608E-03
.624E-02
545E-V01
. 1.31E-01
.247E-0)
. 458E+ 00
.928E-02
170E+00
173E400
318E400
OJ

-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          (Please read lauructions on the reverse before completing)
       NO.
 .
 EPA-600/7-86-004a
                           2.
                                                       3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Environmental Assessment of a Watertube Boiler
 Firing a Coal/Water Slurry; Volume I. Technical
 Results
            5. REPORT DATE
             February 1986
            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AUTHOR(S)

R.  DeRosier and L. R. Waterland
                                                       8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Aourex Corporation
P. O. Box 7555
Mountain View,  California  94039
                                                       10. PRC'GRAM ELEMENT NO.
            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                       68-02-3188
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                       13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                       Final; 1/84-3/85
            14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
              EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL project o'fflcer is Robert E.
2477.  Volume II is a data supplement.
             Hall,  Mail Drop 65, 919/541-
16. ABSTRACT
              repOrt describes results from field testing a watertube industrial boi-
ler firing a coal /water slurry (CWS) containing about 60% coal. Emission measure-
ments included continuous monitoring of flue gas emissions; source assessment  sam-
pling system (SASS) sampling of the flue gas, with subsequent analysis of samples to
obtain total flue gas organics in two boiling  point ranges, compound category infor-
mation within these ranges,  specific quantitation of the semivolatile organic priority
pollutants,  and flue gas concentrations of 73 trace elements;  EPA Methods 5/8 sam-
pling for particulate,  SO2, and SOS emissions; and grab sampling of fuel and ash for
inorganic composition.  NOx, SO2, CO,  and TUHC emissions were in the 230-310,
880-960, 170-200, and 1-3 ppm ranges (corrected to 3% O2),  respectively, over  the
two tests performed.  Particulate  levels at the boiler outlet (upstream of the unit's
baghouse) were 7.3 g/dscm in the comprehensive test. Coarse particulate (>3 mic-
rometers) predominated. Total organic emissions were almost 50 mg/dscm, with
about 70% of the organic matter in the nonvolatile (>300 C) boiling point range.  The
bottom ash organic content was 8  mg/g, 80% of which was in the nonvolatile range.
Of the PAHs, only naphthalene was detected in the flue gas particulate,  with emis-
sion levels of 8. 6 micrograms/dscm. Several PAHs were found in the bottom ash.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                          b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                         c. COSATI Held/Group
 Pollution
 Water Tube Boilers
 Slurries
 Coal
 Assessments
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Industrial Boilers
Environmental Assess-
  ment
13B
13 A
11G
08G, 21D
14B
is. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Release to Public
                                           19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
                                           Unclassified
                                                                    21. NO. OF PAGES
                              90
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                         B-14

-------