-------
                  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.

-------
                                  EPA-600/7-87-012 a
                                  March 1987
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF A WOOD-WASTE-FIRED
          INDUSTRIAL WATERTUBE BOILER
          Volume I:  Technical Results
                      by
                                   /
       C. Castaldini and L. R. Waterland
              Acurex Corporation
        Environmental Systems Division
               485 Clyde Avenue
                 P.O. Box 7555
       Mountain View, California  94039
          EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188
         Project Officer:  R. E. Hall
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
                Prepared for:

      OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             WASHINGTON, DC  20460

-------
                               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     The authors wish to extend their gratitude to P.  B.  Wainwright of the
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and
to R. Weeks of the Ethan Allen Corporation.   Their interest  and cooperation
in working with Acurex are gratefully acknowledged. The  cooperation of D. 6.
Harris and J. Montgomery of EPA/AEERL and R.  Encke of  GCA was also
Instrumental to the success of the test program.  Special  recognition is also
                                                                  i
extended to the Acurex field test team under  the supervision of B. C. DaRos,
assisted by M. Chips, R. Best, and J. Holm.
                                     ii

-------
                                  CONTENTS
Section                                                                 Page

          ACKNOWLEDGMENTS   	    ii
          FIGURES	    iv
          TABLES	  .    v
   1      INTRODUCTION	    1-1

   2      SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND  OPERATION  	    2-1

          2.1  BOILER DESCRIPTION  	    2-1
          2.2  BOILER OPERATION   	    2-4

   3      EMISSION RESULTS	,	    3-1
                                                  /
          3.1  SAMPLING PROTOCOL  	    3-1
          3.2  CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND  OTHER VAPOR SPECIES
               EMISSOINS	    3-4
          3.3  TRACE ELEMENT EMISSIONS 	  .    3-8
          3.4  ORGANIC  SPECIES EMISSIONS  	    3-15
          3.5  RADIONUCLIOE EMISSIONS   	    3-34

   4      ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 	  . 	    4-1

          4.1  EMISSIONS  ASSESSMENT  	    4-1
          4.2  BIOASSAY RESULTS   	    4-4
          4.3  SUMMARY	    4-5

          APPENDIX A — SAMPLING  AND  ANALYSIS  METHODS   	    A-l
          APPENDIX B — TRACE ELEMENT  CONCENTRATIONS 	    B-l
                                    iii

-------
                                   FIGURES
Number                                                                  Page
'2-1  Schematic of coal-fired boiler converted to wood
        burning	2-3
 3-1  Sampling sites and analysis matrix 	  3-2
 3-2  CO and NOX versus Og	3-6
                                    iv

-------
                                   TABLES
Table                                                                  page
 1-1  Completed test during the current program  	  1-4
 2-1  Original boiler design specifications   	  2-2
                                                i
 2-2  Summary of boiler operation and fuel	2-5
 2-3  Boiler thermal efficiency	2-7
 3-1  Emission measurements	3-3
 3-2  Criteria and other gas species emissions 	  3-5
 3-3  Comparative particulate emission results 	  3-9
 3-4  Particle size distribution data, percent total particulate
      (SASS) catch 	  3-9
 3-5  Trace element concentrations — test 1  	  3-11
 3-6  Trace element concentrations — test 2  	  3-13
 3-7  Trace element and Teachable anlon concentrations in
        aqueous leachate of mechanical collector hopper ash —
        test 1	3-16
 3-8  Summary of total organic emissions in the gas stream 	  3-19
 3-9  XAD-2 extract TCO results  	  3-20
 3-10  Summary of total organic content of the mechanical
         collector hopper ash  	  3-20
 3-11  Summary of IR spectra of total sample  extracts  	  3-22
 3-12  Compounds sought in the GC/MS and their detection
         limits	3-24

-------
                             TABLES (continued)


Table                                                                   Page

 3-13  POM and other organic species emission summary —
         total flue gas	3-25

 3-14  Comparison of POM emission results of the wood-fired
         boiler tests	3-27

 3-15  GRAV and TCO results of column chromatography for
         test 1 (dry wood) XAO-2 extract 	  3-28

 3-16  GRAV and TCO results of column chromatography for
         test 2 (green wood) XAD-2 extract 	  3-29

 3-17  Summary of IR spectra for LC fractions of XAD-2
         extract	  3-31

 3-18  Summary of LRMS analyses	3-33

 3-19  Organic extract summary — test 1 (dry wood) XAD-2 and
         OMC extracts	3-35

 3-20  Organic extract summary — test 2 (green wood) XAD-2
         and OMC extracts  	  3-37

 3-21  Radiometric activity of SASS particulate and collector
         ash samples	3-38

 4-1   Flue gas species emitted at levels exceeding 10 percent of
         their occupational exposure guidelines  	  4-3

 4-2   Mechanical collector hopper ash species with leachate
         concentrations exceeding a water quality criterion  .....  4-3

 4-3   Bioassay results (Health Effects) 	 ....  4-6

 4-4   Bioassay results (Ecological Effects) 	 . 	  4-7
                                    vi

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                INTRODUCTION

     This report describes and presents results for a set of environmental
assessment tests performed for the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/Research Triangle Park (IERL-RTP)* 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 objectives:
     •   Identify potential multimedia environmental effects of stationary
         combustion sources and combustion modification technology
     •   Develop and document control application guidelines to minimize
         these effects
     •   Identify stationary source and combustion modification R&D
         priorities
     •   Disseminate program results to intended users
                              i
     During the first year of the NOX EA, data and methodologies for the
environmental assessment were compiled.  Furthermore, priorities for the
schedule and level of effort for developing emission data for the various
source/fuel/control combinations were identified.  This effort revealed major
*Now known as EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL)
                                     1-1

-------
data gaps, particularly for noncriteria pollutants (organic emissions and
trace elements) for virtually all combinations of stationary combustion
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 CNEA program has, as major objectives, the continuation of
multimedia environmental  field tests initiated in the original NOX EA
program.  These new tests, using standardized sampling and analytical
procedures (Reference 1-9) are aimed at filling remaining data gaps and
addressing the following priority needs:
     •   Advanced NOX controls
     •   Alternate fuels
     •   Secondary sources
     *   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)
     •   Nonsteady-state operations
     In recent years, wood has experienced a revival  as a primary or
alternate source of energy for steam raising in industrial boilers and for
space heating in the commercial and residential sector.  The increase in the
use of wood waste, originating primarily from the forest products
                                     1-2

-------
industries, has emerged due to increasing costs for the traditional  fossil
fuels, oil and gas.  Wood has been projected to supply as much as  5  to
10 percent of the year 2000 national energy needs (References 1-10 and 1-11).
Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy is actively encouraging increased use
of wood for industrial, as well as utility and residential energy
requirements (Reference 1-12).
     Emissions from wood combustion and associated air quality impacts have
received attention since recent studies have suggested that wood combustion
can produce significant emissions of potentially hazardous organic
                                              /
pollutants.  In response to these concerns, a small industrial watertube
boiler capable of burning wood waste, originating primarily from furniture
manufacturing facilities, was selected for testing under the CMEA  program.
The objective of the tests were to quantify multimedia emissions from the
boiler burning dry wood waste (low-moisture chips and sawdust) and green wood
waste (high-moisture chips and sawdust).  The data presented in this report
quantify stack and collected flyash emissions and identify pollutants of
potential concern using results from standardized sampling and analytical
procedures (Reference 1-9).
     Concurrent with this test program, one other wood-fired (firetube)
boiler was tested to further evaluate the environmental impact of  this fuel.
                              i
Test results on this unit are documented in a separate report
(Reference 1-13).
     Table 1-1 lists all the tests performed in the CMEA program,  outlining
the source tested, fuel used, combustion modifications 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 PROGRAM
        Source
       Description
      Test points
     unit operation
      Sampling protocol
Test collaborator
 Spark Ignited natural
 gas-fired reciprocating
 Internal combustion
 engine
Large bore, 6-cyUnder,
opposed piston, 186 kW
(250 BhpJ/cyl, 900 rpm.
Model 38TDS8-1/8
   Baseline (pre-NSPS)
   Increased air-fuel
   ratio aimed at
   meeting proposed
   NSPS of 700 ppm
   corrected -to 15
   percent 02 and
   standard atmospheric
   conditions
Engine exhaust:
  - SASS
  — Method 5
  — Gas sample  (Ci  - C6  HC)
  — Continuous  NO.  NOX,  CO,
     C02, 02, CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Lube oil
Fairbanks Morse
Division of Colt
Industries
 Compression ignition
: diesel-fired
' reciprocating internal
i combustion engine
Large bore, (-cylinder
opposed piston, 261-kH
(350 BhpWcyl, 900-rpm,
Model 38TDD8-1/8
   Baseline (pre-NSPS)
   Fuel Injection retard
   aimed at meeting pro-
   posed NSPS of 600 ppm
   corrected to 15 per-
   cent 0? and standard
   atmospheric conditions
Engine exhaust:
  - SASS
  — Method 8
  — Method 5
  ~ Gas sample (Cj - C6 HC)
  — Continuous NO, NO., CO,
     C02, 02, CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Lube oil
Fairbanks Morse
Division of Colt
Industries
. Low-N0x residential
! condensing heating
 system furnished by
 Karl sons Blueburner
 Systems Ltd.  of Canada
Residential hot water
heater equipped with
M.A.N. low-NOx burner,
0.55 ml/s (0.5 gal/hr)
firing capacity, con-
densing flue gas
Low-NO. burner design
by M.A.N.
Furnace exhaust:
  ~ SASS
  — Method 8
  - Method 5
  ~ Gas sample (Cj - Cg HC)
  — Continuous NO, NO., CO,
     C02, 02, CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Waste water
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-NOx burner design
and Integrated furnace
system
Furnace exhaust:
  — SASS
  — Method 8
  — Controlled condensation
  — Method 5
  « Gas sample (Ci - CB HC)
  ~ Continuous NO, NOX, CO,
     C02, 02, CH4, TUHC
Fuel
New test

-------
                                                         TABLE 1-1.   (continued)
       Source
       Description
      Test points
     unit operation
      Sampling protocol
Test collaborator
Pulverized coal-fired
utility boiler,
Conesvllle station
400-MH tangentlally
fired; new NSPS '
design aimed at
meeting 301 ng/J
NO- limit
ESP Inlet and outlet,
one test
ESP Inlet and outlet:
  — SASS
  — Method 5
  — Controlled condensation
  — Gas sample (C\ - Ce HC)
  — Continuous NO, NOX, CO,
     C02. 02
Coal
Bottom ash
ESP ash
Exxon Research and
Engineering (ER4E)
conducting cor-
rosion tests
Nova Scotia Technical
College Industrial
boiler
1.14 kg/s steam
(9.000 Ib/hr) fire tube
fired with a mixture
of coal-oil-water (COM)
   Baseline (COW)
   Controlled SO?
   emissions wltn
   limestone Injection
Boiler outlet:
  - SASS
  — Method 5
  — Method 8
  — Controlled condensation
  — Gas sample (C} - Cg HC)
  '- Continuous 02, CO?,
     CO, NO
Fuel
Envlrocon per-
formed partlculate
and sulfur
emission tests
Adelphl University
Industrial boiler
1.89 kg/s steam
(15,000 Ib/hr)
hot water
flretube fired with a
mixture of coal -oil -
water (COW)
— Baseline (COW)
— Controlled SO?
emissions with
Na2C03 Injection
Boiler outlet:
— SASS
— Method 5
— Method 8
— Controlled
— Gas Sample
— Continuous
CO
Fuel
condensation
(Ci - C6 HC)
02, C02, NO,
Adelphl University
Pittsburgh Energy
Technology Center (PETC)
Industrial boiler
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 5
  — Controlled condensation
  — Continuous 02, CO?,  NO,
     TUHC. CO
  — N20 grab sample
Fuel
PETC and General
Electric (GE)

-------
                                                          TABLE 1-1.   (continued)
Source
Description
Test points
unit operation
Sampling protocol
Test collaborator
   TOSCO Refinery vertical
   crude oil heater
2.54 Ml/day
(16,000 bbl/day) natural
draft process heater
burning oil/refinery gas
   Baseline
   Staged combustion
   using air Injection
   lances
Heater outlet:
  ~ SASS
  ~ Method 5
  ~ Controlled condensation
  — Gas sample (Cj - £5 HC)
  — Continuous 0?, NO, CO.
     COg, HC
  — "go, grab sample
Fuel oil
Refinery gas
KVB coordinating
the staged com-
bustion operation
and continuous
emission monitoring
   Mohawk-Getty Oil
   industrial  boiler
i
at
8.21 kg/s steam
(65,000 Ib/hr)
watertube burning
mixture of refinery gas
and residual oil
   Baseline
   Ammonia Injection
   using the noncatalytlc
   Thermal DeNOx
   process
Economizer outlet:
  — SASS
  - Method 5, 17
  — Controlled condensation
  — Gas Sample (Ci - C6 HC)
  — Ammonia emissions
  — NgO grab sample
  ~ Continuous Oo, NO,
     CO, C02
Fuels (refinery gas and
  residual oil)
Mohawk-Getty 011
   Industrial  boiler
2.52 kg/s steam
(20,000 Ib/hr) watertube
burning woodwaste
   Baseline (dry wood)
   Green wood
Boiler outlet:
  - SASS
  ~ Method 5
  — Controlled condensation
  — Gas sample (C^ - C6 HC)
  — Continuous 02, NO, CO
Fuel
Flyash
North Carolina
Department of
Natural Resources,
EPA IERL-RTP
   Industrial  boiler
3.16 kg/s steam
(29,000 Ib/hr)
flretube with refractory
firebox burning woodwaste
— Baseline (dry wood)
Outlet of cyclone participate
collector:
  — SASS
  — Method 5
  — Controlled condensation
  — Gas sample (Ci - Cg HC)
  — Continuous 02, NOX, CO
Fuel
Bottom ash
North Carolina
Department of
Natural Resources,
EPA IERL-RTP

-------
                                                     TABLE  1-1.   (continued)
        Source
      Description
   Test points
  unit operation
      Sampling protocol
 Test collaborator
Enhanced oil recovery
steam generator
15-MW (50 million Btu/hr)
steam generator burning
crude oil equipped with
HHI 1ow-NOx burner
Performance mapping
Low NOX operation
Steamer outlet
  ~ SASS
  — Method 5
  ~ Method 8
  — Gas sample (Cj - C6 HC)
  — Continuous Og, NOX> CO,
     CO?
  ~ N?o grab sample
Fuel
Getty Oil Company,
CE-Natco
Pittsburgh Energy
Technology Center
(PETC) Industrial
boiler
3.03 kg/s steam
(24,000-lb/hr) watertube
fired with a mixture of
coal-water (CMM)
Baseline test only
with CWM
Boiler outlet
  ~ SASS
  - Method 5
  - Method 8
  — Gas sample (Cj - 65 HC)
  — Continuous 02, NOX, CO,
     C02, TUHC
  -- NoO grab sample
Fuel
Bottom ash
Collector hopper ash
PETC and General
Electric
Internal combustion
engine — nonselectlve
NOX catalyst
818-hp Maukesha engine
equipped with DuPont NSER
catalyst
Baseline
15-day emissions
monitoring
Catalyst Inlet and outlet
  — SASS
  -- NH3
  -- HCH
  — Grab sample ^0
  — Continuous 0?, CO?, NOX
     TUHC
Fuel
Southern California
Gas Company

-------
                                                                           Table  1-1.    (concluded)
Source
Industrial boiler
Enhanced oil
recovery item
generator
Description
7.6 kg/s steam
(60.000 Ib/hr) watertuhe
retrofit for coal water
Mixture firing
IS-MI (SO Mil lion Btu/hr)
steae) generator burning
crude oil, equipped with
Test points
unit operation
— Baseline test with CHS
-- 30-day emissions
Monitoring
— IOM NO, (with burner)
— 30-day Missions
Monitoring
Sampling protocol
Boiler outlet
- SASS
— VOST
— Method 5
•- Method 8
— Gas Sinple (CI-CB HC)
-- NjO grab sample
-- Continuous MO,, CO, C0»,
02, TUHC, SOZ
Fuel
Steamer outlet
-- SASS
- VOSF
Test collaborator
EPRI, OuPont
Chevron U.S.A.,
EERC
 I
CO
                                                   burner
                                                         — Method 8
                                                         — Controlled condensation
                                                         — Anderson Impactor
                                                         - Gas sample (C,-C6 HC)
                                                         — NjO grab sample
                                                         — Continuous NOK, CO, COj,

                                                       Fuel
                        Spark-Ignited natural*
                        gas-fired reciprocating
                        Internal combustIon
                        engine — selective HO,
                        reduction catalyst
1.490-kH (2.000-hp)
Ingersoll-Rand lean-burn
engine equipped with
Englehard SCR system
— low HO, (with
   catalyst)
— 15-day missions
 •  Monitoring
Catalyst Inlet and outlet
  ..SASS
  -- VOST
                                                                                                            — H-0 grab sample
                                                                                                            — Continuous 0»,  CO*. CO,
                                                                                                               HO, NO,. NO,»NH,
                                                                                                          Lube oil
Southern
California Gas
Company
                       'Acronymns used In the table:   EERC,  The Energy and Environmental Research Corporation; EPA IERL-RTP,  The  Environmental Protection
                        Agency's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory — Research Triangle Park; EPRI, the Electric Power Research  Institute;
                        He, hydrocarbons; HSCR,  nonselectlve catalytic reduction; KSPS, new source performance standard; SASS,  source  assessment sampling
                        system; SCR, selective catalytic  reduction; TUHC. total unburned hydrocarbon; VOST, volatile organic  sampling  train

-------
                          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. B., "Combustion Modification Controls for Residential
       and Commercial Heating Systems:  Volume II.  Oil-fired Residential
       Furnace Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-123b, NTIS PB82-231176, 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. B. Higginbotham, "Combustion Modification NOX
       Controls for Utility Boilers:  Volume II.  Pulverized-coal Wall-fired
       Unit Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-124b, NTJS 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 Controls:  Volume  III.  Stoker Coal-fired Boiler
       Field Test —Site B," EPA-600/7-81/126c, NTIS PB82-231093,
       July 1981.

1-8.   Waterland, 1. R., et al., "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),'1 EPA-600/7-78-201,
       NTIS PB293795, October 1978.

1-10.  "Energy from Biological Processes," Congress of the United States,
       Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C., July 1980.

1-11.  "Annual Report to Congress  1979, Volume Three:  Projections,"
       OOE/EIA-0173(79)/3, U.S.  Department of Energy, Energy Information
       Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979.

1-12.  Ounwoody, J. E., et al.,  "Wood Combustion Systems,  Status of
       Environmental Concerns,"  DOE/EV-006, U.S. Department of Energy, Office
       of Technology, Washington,  D.C., January 1980.
                                     1-9

-------
                          REFERENCES (concluded)


1-13.   DeRosler, R., "Environmental  Assessment of a Wood Waste-fired
       Industrial Flretube Boiler, Volumes I and II, "  EPA-600/7-87-
       OlOa and -OlOb, March 1987.
                                   1-10

-------
                                   SECTION 2
                        SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

     The  tests were performed on a Wlckes stoker coal-fired industrial boiler
modified  to  burn wood chips.  The boiler, located at a furniture
manufacturing  plant, was selected because of Its capability of burning both
dry  and green  wood chips and because it was the site of an organic emissions
evaluation program by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development (DNR).  Results, from the CMEA test program on this
unit provided  additional data to the DNR program as well as duplicate data
allowing  for complete environmental  assessment and data validity evaluation
to the mutual  benefit of both programs.
2.1  BOILER  DESCRIPTION
     The  original  Industrial boiler was rated at 6.3 kg/s (50,000 Ib/hr) of
superheated  steam at 1.7 MPa (250 pslg) pressure and 338°C (640°F)
temperature  when burning bituminous  coal.  Table 2-1 summarizes the design
specification  of the original  boiler.  The boiler had been modified to burn
waste wood chips from the plant's manufacturing facilities and from other
local sources.   Combustion of the wood waste entirely eliminated the plant's
need for  oil as  a plant fuel  resulting In substantial  savings  and decreased
dependence on  outside sources  of energy.
     Figure  2-1  illustrates the boiler configuration after the modifications
were Implemented to  burn wood  chips.   Modifications consisted  primarily of

                                      2-1

-------
       TABLE 2-1.  ORIGINAL BOILER DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Manufacturer                                      Wickes
Fuel feed                                         Stoker*
Boiler heating surface. m2 (ft*)                  460  (4,950)
Furnace volume, ra3 (ft3)                          34.7 (1,225)
Economizer surface, m2 (ft2)                      168  (1,810)

Maximum steam rating, kg/s (103 Ib/hr)            6.3  (50)
Drum pressure, MPa (pslg)                         1.79 (260)
Steam temperature at S.H. outlet, °C (°F)         338  (640)
Steam pressure at S.H. outlet, MPa (pslg)         1.73 (250)
Water temperature at econ. Inlet, °C (°F)         105  (220)
Water temperature at econ. outlet, °C (°F)        156  (312)
Air temperature entering the boiler, °C (°F)      27   (82)
Air temperature leaving the boiler, °C (°F)       335  (635)

Furnace draft, Pa (In. H20)                       -25  (-0.10)
Draft loss through boiler and S.H., Pa (In. H20)  453  (1.82)
Draft loss through collector, Pa (In. HoO)        809  (3.25)
Draft loss through economizer, Pa (1n. f^O)       660  (2.65)

Excess air, percent                               30
Boiler efficiency, percent                        83.7
aName plate on this unit did not specify coal feed mechanism.
 It Is likely, however that a single retort underfeed stoker
 was In the original design.
                              2-2

-------
                                                                                    Stack
ro
               To ash bin
        Primary air
        to feeder
        from FD fan
V
                       Undergrate
                       air duct
                 Access
                 doors
                                                             ID fan
                                                                              Cyclone
                                                                              dust
                                                                              collector
                                                                               Upper water - Steam drum

                                                                        I.J..S... .JHSliSI.»!!!!!;s£i!!.sis;.(J
                                                                               Firebox
                                                                               (refractory)
                                                                                grate
                                        — Economizer
                                           section
Materwall
headers
                                                                                                 OFA ports
                                                                                                              .Lower water
                                                                                                               drum
                               -- Front View —
                                                — Side View —
                       1   Figure 2-1.   Schematic of  coal-fired  boiler converted to wood burning
                                         (not to  scale).

-------
 raising  the  entire  unit off its base by approximately 1.5m (5 ft)  and
 installing a refractory-lined firebox equipped with a refractory hearth in
 place of the coal retort,  and access ports  for manual  feed of dry  wood for
 start up and ash  removal.   The wood  chips arid  sawdust are fed to the boiler
 with a single helical wood screw feeder.  Air  from the forced draft fan 1s
 bled to  the  feeder  to blow the wood  into the firebox.   The wood chips and
 sawdust  ignite partially in suspension  but  the bulk of the combustion takes
 place on the grate.  Two sets  of air ports  located approximately 0.45m
 (1.5 ft)  above the  grate provide overfire air  injection from the rear and
 left side of the  furnace.   Orientation  of these overfire air ports 1s skewed
 to promote a cyclonic flow in  the firebox.  Primary combustion air is
 injected  under the  hearth  through 0.6-cm (0.25-in.)  slots separating
 refractory bricks.  Modification  of  the boiler for wood burning resulted in a
 decrease  in  steam capacity  to  about  3.2 kg/s (25,000 Ib/hr), with  lower
 superheater  steam pressure  and  temperature*
2.2  BOILER  OPERATION
     The test program consisted  of emission measurements when dry  wood chip s
and sawdust  were burned (Test  1)  and  during combustion of green wood chips
and sawdust  (Test 2).  Table 2-2  summarizes boiler operating data  from
available boiler room meters,  and ultimate  analyses  of the fuels as fired in
each test.   Some Important  aspects of boiler operation during these tests can
be summarized as follows.
     Steam requirements In  the  furniture manufacturing plant are primarily
for the  drying kilns used  to "cure"  the wood.   The total  amount of steam'
needed for the kilns varies on  a daily  basis according to quantity of wood in
the kiln and the ambient temperatures.  Because of these varying conditions
                                      2-4

-------
             TABLE  2-2.   SUMMARY  OF  BOILER  OPERATION  AND  FUEL
            Test parameter
  Test 1
(dry wood)
        Test 2
     (green wood)
                                               1.8-2.2
                                               227-274
                                              1.00-1.17
                                               63-69
                                               121-133
                                               216-238
                                               354-483
       (14-17)
      (440-525)
      (145-170)
      (145-155)
      (250-270)
      (420-460)
      (740-900)
0.88-1.4
 271-296
1.13-1.30
  66-69
 113-121
 216-233
 538-594
(7-11)
(520-565)
(165-190)
(150-155)
(235-250)
(420-450)
(1,000-1,100)
Boiler Operation;

  Steam load, kg/s (103 ib/hr)
  Superheater steam temp., *C (*F)
  Superheater steam press.,  HPa (psig)
  Economizer inlet water temp., °C  (*F)
  Economizer outlet water temp., °C (°F)
  Stack temperature after collect., °C  (*F)
  Bridgewall temperature, *C (°F)
  Silo A (dry wood) feed, rpnt                       390-700
  Silo 8 (green wood) feed,  rpro
  Furnace draft, Pa (In. H20)                 0 to-100   (0  to-0.4)
  Underfire air, Pa (In. H20)                   75-200    (0.3-0.8)
  Overflre air, kPa (In. H2o)                  5.5-5.6   (22.0-22.5)
  Pressure before collector, Pa (in. H20)      450-600    (1.8-2.4)
  Pressure after collector,  kPa (In. H20)      0.5-1.0 ,  (2.0-4.0)
  Wood feed rate*, kg/s (Ib/hr)                  0.29     (2,270)
  Excess air, percent                          387
  Boiler efficiency^, percent                         55.3

Wood fuel ultimate analysis
jPercent by weight as fired);

  Carbon                                              45.27
  Hydrogen                                             5.44
  Sulfur                                               0.04
  Nitrogen                                             0.12
  Oxygen                                              37.78
  Ash                                                  0.33   .
  Moisture                                            11.02
  Higher heating value kJ/kg (Btu/lb)       17,900         (7,719)
  Bulk density kg/m3 (lb/ft3)                  233         (14.52)
                                                                             500-620
                                                                      25 to-50   (-0.1 to-0.2)
                                                                                 (0.5-0.7)
                                                                                 (22.0-22.5)
                                                                                 (1.3-2.0)
                                                                                 (2.2-3.0)
                                                                                 (4,310)
                    125-175
                    5.5-5.6
                    320-500
                   0.55-0.75
                       0.54
                          213
                           61.3
                                                                      13,300
                                                                         192
                                                                               35.07
                                                                                3.60
                                                                                0.02
                                                                                0.10
                                                                               26.06
                                                                                1.29
                                                                               33.85
                                 (5,738)
                                 (11.95)
aAs-f1red (wet) basis (a calculated value)
''Based on heat loss method
                                       2-5

-------
of  kiln  operation  and ambient temperatures,  combined with the absence of
sufficient  steam venting  capability,  boiler  steam load could not be
maintained  constant during  the test program.  Table  2-2 indicates that the
steam load  during  Test 2  was  nearly half that of Test 1.  The actual  steam
flowrates during each test, however,  are probably not those indicated by the
boiler-room meter  since its operation was deemed unreliable by the plant
personnel.  In fact,  steam  feed  rates calculated from the boiler efficiency
(based on the heat loss method)  and the  wood flowrate would indicate
feedrates of approximately 1.1 kg/s (8,400 Ib/hr)  for Test 1 and 1.6  kg/s
(13,000  Ib/hr) for Test 2.
     Wood feed rates  were not  recorded by boiler room equipment.   Feed rates
listed in table 2-2 were instead calculated  based  on  wood fuel  ultimate
analyses, volumetric  stack gas flowrates  measured  with  pitot tube readings
and excess air levels measured with a continuous gas  analyzer.   Therefore,
noted wood and steam  flowrates should be  considered approximate rather than
actual.
     Boiler efficiency, calculated  using  the  ASME  heat  loss  method, was
55.3 percent for Test 1 and 61.3 percent  for  Test  2.  Table  2-3 summarizes
the heat losses as  a  percent of the total heat input  for each test.   As
indicated, the major  heat loss was  for the dry gas constituting about 70 and
50 percent of the  total heat loss,  respectively,  for  both  tests.   These high
gas losses were due to  the high excess air settings used in  the operation of
the boiler.  Excess air was calculated to be  about 390  percent  for Test 1 and
210 percent for Test  2.  The gain In  efficiency  during  Test  2 was mostly due
to the lower excess air level   used.   This gain was partially offset by a   '
larger heat, loss due  to the higher  moisture  content of  the green  wood waste.
                                      2-6

-------
        Table  2-3.   BOILER THERMAL  EFFICIENCY
Heat loss efficiency
(percent)
Heat loss due to dry gas
Heat loss due to moisture
in the fuel
Heat loss to water from
combustion of H2 in fuel
Heat loss due to
combustibles in the
flyash*
Heat loss due to
radiation
Unmeasured losses
Total loss
Efficiency (percent)
Test 1
(dry wood)
32.2
1.7
7.8
0
1.5
1.5
44.7
55.3
Test 2
(green wood)
20.4
7.1
6.8
0.9
2.0
1.5
38.7
61.3
aPercent combustible in the flyash is discussed
 in section 3.4
                        2-7

-------
                                   SECTION 3
                               EMISSION RESULTS

     The  objective of this test program was to measure flue gas emissions and
pollutant concentrations In the flyash from the watertube boiler burning dry
(low moisture)  wood chips and sawdust (Test 1) and to duplicate measurements
with the  boiler burning green (high moisture) flood chips and sawdust
(Test  2).   Emission measurements were performed in cooperation with the
North  Carolina  Department of Natural  Resources and Community Development
(DNR)  whose team was onsite to perform polycyllc organic matter (POM)
emissions  evaluation.
3.1  SAMPLING PROTOCOL
     Figure 3-1  illustrates a schematic of the steam plant at the test
facility  highlighting the flow path of the dry and green wood waste and the
sampling  locations.   Table 3-1 summarizes the samples taken, pollutants
measured,  measurement techniques used, and the test team performing the
sampling  and evaluation.   As Indicated, continuous monitoring of flue  gas 03,
CO, and NOX 1n  the stack  was performed by a team composed of EPA and GCA
Corporation personnel.  Both GCA and  the DNR have drafted separate reports
presenting  the emission results  (References 3-1 and 3-2).  These results are
discussed  in this  report  to the  extent that they aid in  the evaluation of the
emission data package  and improve  the validity of conclusions.
                                    3-1

-------
CO
I
ro
	 r^h
^ ( Conveyor
Silo Silo
1 2
(dry wood) (green wood)
=51 -Tr-
	 m** .A \ Screw feeder
Wood chips .x'rLrl
•Inlnt s' IllJ. 	 	

-J~L Stack
\)
^\Cyclone dust collectqr "~|
\S. - ,
VO" Boiler ff-\
o' 	 PHFlyash
^ hi"
Fan
QL> Fan
Sample Location Type of Sample Analyses Test Team Member
A — Silos screen feeders Grab sample — Hood Proximate and ultimate, trace Acurex
elements
6 — Stack Gas sample — Continuous monitors NOX, 0?, CO EPA/GCA
C -- Stack Grab sample -- Modified Method 5 Parti cul ate, organics DNR
D — Stack Grab sample — Method 5, Participate load and size, trace Acurex
            E — Flyash bin chute
controlled condensation
and grab sample for onsite
gas chromatography

Grab sample — Flyash from
mechanical  collector
elements,  organics,
Ci to C(j hydrocarbons, and
bioassay

Trace elements, anions, organics,
bioassay,  and radionuclides
Acurex
                                     Figure  3-1.   Sampling  sites  and  analysis matrix.

-------
                    TABLE 3-1.  EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
 Sample
location
Sample/pollutants
Measurement techniques3  Test team
   A       Wood fuel bulk composition

   B       Flue gas/02, co> N0x

   C       Flue gas/particulate
           and POM

   D       Flue gas/gaseous
           hydrocarbons Cj to 65

           Flue gas/S02, $03
           Flue gas/particulate
           mass

           Flue gas/NOx

           Flue gas/volatile and
           condensable organic
           species, Inorganic
           trace elements, and
           particle size
           distribution

           Flyash/inorganlc
           trace elements,
           and Teachable
           anions
                        Ultimate analysis         Acurex

                        Continuous monitors       EPA/GCAb

                        Modified Method 5         DNRC
                        with organic sorbent

                        Onsite gas                Acurex
                        chromatography

                        Controlled condensation   Acurex
                        system, (CCS)

                        EPA Method 5              Acurex


                        EPA Method 7              Acurex

                        Source assessment         Acurex
                        sampling system
                        (SASS)
                        Grab sample               Acurex
^Measurement and analysis techniques used are discussed in detail in
 Appendix A
bA more detailed presentation,of EPA/GCA results and measurement
 techniques is given in Reference 3-1
CA more detailed presentation of DNR results and measurement techniques
 Is given In Reference 3-2
                                  3-3

-------
3.2  CRITERIA POLLUTANT  AND  OTHER  VAPOR  SPECIES  EMISSIONS
     Table 3-2  summarizes  gaseous  and  participate  emissions measured during
both tests.  Continuous  monitoring equipment,  including  a gas  conditioning
system, was used to measure  Og, CO,  and  NOX.   Flue gas 02 was  quite high
during both tests, even  for  wood-fired boilers which  normally  operate with
high Og levels.  The excess  air level  for Test 1 was  387  percent,  and for
Test 2, 213 percent.  Some of this excess air  may  have come from air leakage
into the boiler or exhaust ducts since the unit  was under slightly negative
pressure, 0 to -100 Pa (0 to -0.4  in.  H^O).  Still, the  very high  CO
emissions from the unit  for both tests confirm that the  combustion zone  was
at very high excess air.
     NOX emissions, corrected to 3 percent Og, averaged  175 ppm and 194  ppm
for Test 1 and Test 2, respectively.   These concentrations correspond to
108 ng/J (1.93 g/kg) and 123 ng/J  (1.63  g/kg)  as N02, respectively.
Emissions per unit of fuel were lower  for the  second  test, in  part because of
the lower heating value  of the green wood.  However,  emission  levels for both
tests were higher than would be expected for a wood-fired industrial  boiler
as documented in AP-42 (Reference 3-3).  CO emission  results are of
significance because of  the extremely  high levels  measured. CO emissions
averaged 3.69 mg/J (66 g/kg) for Test  1  and 1.08 mg/a (14.4 g/kg)  for Test 2.
High emissions of CO during wood combustion are  often a  result of  poor
air/fuel mixing, short combustion  gas  residence  times In  the furnace, and
                      *
rapid combustion gas cooling.  As  noted  above, excess air levels during  these
tests were quite high," leading to  both short furnace  residence times and
rapid combustion gas cooling downstream  of the bridgewall.
                                    3-4

-------
            TABLE 3-2.  CRITERIA AND OTHER GAS SPECIES EMISSIONS


                                       Test 1                 Test 2
       Pollutant3                    (dry wood)            (green wood)


As measured by continuous
gas analyzers:

  02, dry percent               15.8 to  17.5  (16.4)b   11.7 to  15.8 (13.9)
  NOX, dry ppm                  19 to 62  (45)          37 to 131 (78)
  CO, dry ppm                   996 to 3,440  (2,440)   283 to 2,260 (988)
                                       ng/Jd    g/kge     ppmc   ng/Jd   g/kge
Corrected average gaseous
emissions:
N0xf
CO
Solid parti cu late
mass emissions:
— Method 5 solid
— Method 5 condensable
— Method 5 total
— SASS solid
175 108
9,810 3,690

204
16
220
198
1.93 194
66.0 2,810

3.64
0.29
3.93
3.55
123
1,080

267
4
271
310
1.63
14.4

3.55
0.05
3.60
4.12
aAppendix A discusses  continuous  monitor analyses used,  calibration  gases,
 sample gas conditioning system,  particulate sampling equipment and
 procedures
lumbers in parentheses  are  arithmetic averages of time-interval  readings
^Corrected to 3  percent  02,  dry
<>0n heat Input basis as  fired
eAs-fired  (wet)  basis; dry wood waste was 11.02 percent  moisture,  green
 wood waste was  33.85  percent moisture
fAs N02
                                    3-5

-------
    18,000
    16,000
    14,000
               O CO emissions dry wood test


               D NO emissions dry wood test

               • CO emissions green wood test

               • NO emissions green wood test
                                                                      300
o


CO
 CM  12,000
>,   10,000
$-
•o
8    8,000
     6,000
     4,000
     2,000
                     ^B  ^"

               v.   •
                               •  t
                                                          o
                                                      0@

                                                      0
                                                to
11       12       13       14       15       16


                 Flue gas  02, percent dry



             Figure  3-2.  CO and NOX versus  Og.
                                                             D
                                                                D
                                                            17
                                                                  CSi
                                                                  o
                                                                           CO
                                                                      200
                                                                      100
                                                                    13
                                    3-6

-------
     The effect of excess air (as measured by flue gas 03) on CO emissions
during these tests 1s shown 1n Figure 3-2 which compares the CO levels In the
flue gas at various times with the corresponding flue gas 02 reading.  The
figure shows that CO emissions (ppm dry at 3 percent Q£) varied from
approximately 600 to nearly 8,000 ppm with flue gas Q£ varying from about
12 to 16 percent In Test 2, and from 5,000 to over 17,000 ppm with flue gas
02 varying from 16 to 17.5 percent 1n Test 1.  In fact, the CO versus 02
curves for the two tests are contiguous.  This suggests that, under
conditions of these tests, the flame was being quenched by the large amount
of excess air fired, and that the added effect of fuel moisture was
Insignificant compared to the effect of high excess air*
     The NOX emissions data, also shown In Figure 3-2, exhibit no definite
variation with flue gas 02 over the range In 02 of 12 to 16 percent  (Test 2).
However, as flue gas 02 Increases from 16 to 17.5 percent (Test 1),
corresponding NOX emissions decrease.  This behavior Is consistent with flame
quenching by high excess air.
     S02 or $03 emissions in the flue gas were below a detection limit of
10 ppm using the controlled condensation system (CCS) with subsequent wet
chemical analysis.  This method normally has a detection limit of below
1 ppm.  However, problems encountered In the laboratory titration of samples
collected In the field (see Appendix A) resulted In an Increased detection
limit of 10 ppm.  The fact that S02 and $03 emissions were below 10 ppm Is
not surprising In light of the low sulfur content of the wood.  In fact,
assuming 100 percent conversion of fuel sulfur to S02» maximum S02
concentrations would be only 12 ppm for both tests at stack conditions.
                                    3-7

-------
      Participate mass  emissions  (summarized In Table 3-2)  obtained using two
methods, the  source  assessment sampling  system (SASS)  and  the multipoint EPA
Method 5, are  In relatively good  agreement.   Table  3-3 summarizes the
Method 5 flue  gas  flowrate and partlculate  emissions measured by Acurex and
the DNR field  test teams.  These  Independent measurements  generally agree
within 5 percent.  Only the calculated partlculate  emissions  rates (g/kg)  for
Test  1 differ  by more  than this.  Table  3-4  summarizes partlculate size
distribution data  obtained with the SASS equipment*  These data  show a
definite shift In  particle size distribution to larger sizes  for the green
wood  fuel.  However, based on data available In tills study, the  reasons for
such  a shift are not known.
3.3  TRACE ELEMENT EMISSIONS
      Inorganic trace element concentrations  were measured  In  the flue gas
samples and flyash collected by the mechanical  collector.  Laboratory
analyses Included atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS)  for mercury,  antimony,
arsenic, and spark source mass spectrometry  (SSMS) for 70  other  elements.
Once concentrations 1n the samples were  determined by  these analyses, trace
element concentrations 1n both flue gas  streams could  be computed.   These
concentrations are presented In Appendix B.  Trace element flowrates and mass
balance estimates could not be calculated since the  collected hopper ash flow
rate was not measured.
     Tables 3-5 and 3-6 give trace element concentrations  In  the wood fuel
(wet, as fired) and the ash streams (partlculate In  two size  ranges  and the
mechanical collector hopper ash)  for Test 1  and Test 2, respectively.  The
data  1n the tables Illustrate several interesting points.  The first Is that
the trace element composition of  the coarse  (10 pm + 3 \an) partlculate Is
                                    3-8

-------
         TABLE 3-3.  COMPARATIVE  PARTICULATE  EMISSION  RESULTS
Test
1
(Dry wood)
2
(Green wood)
Sampling
team
Acurex
DNRb
Acurex
DNRb
Flue gas flowrate
dscm/s
(dscf/mln)
6.37
(13,500)
6.51
(13,800)
5.99
(12,700)'
6.28
(13,300)
Solid particulate
g/kg fuel3
(Ib/hr)
3.64
(8.25)
2.87
(6.50)
3.55
(15.3)
3.45
(14.9)
   jAs-fired  (wet) basis
   bAverage of two runs per  test  (Reference  3-2)
      TABLE 3-4.  PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION  DATA,  PERCENT  TOTAL
                  PARTICULATE  (SASS)  CATCH
Parti cul ate cut size
Test

1
(Dry wood)
(10-pm cyclone
and probe)
i
30

10 to 3 um
(3-ym cyclone)

23

1 to 3 ym <1 ym
(1-jim cyclone) (filter)

15 32

(Green wood)
                    47
29
8
16
                                 3-9

-------
 similar  to  that  of  the mechanical  collector hopper ash,  and the composition
 of both  these  ash samples  Is  somewhat  different from that of the fine
 (1 ym +  filter)  participate.  This  suggests that,  as expected,  the mechanical
 collector Is removing the  coarse partlculate from  the flue gas  more
 efficiently.
     Secondly, the  concentrations of most elements In the fine  partlculate
 are less than  those In the coarse partlculate.   (Barium,  Iron,  manganese,
 phosphorus, and  potassium were the major constituents of  both partlculate
 fractions.)  This Is somewhat surprising In  that the opposite occurs  for
 efficiently operating coal-fired sources.   In these  an enrichment In  the fine
 partlculate is generally noted for several  trace elements.
     Comparing the  data in Tables 3-5  and 3-6 shows  that  the trace element
 composition of the  two fuels is very similar.  Furthermore,  the composition
of the mechanical collector hopper ash for  the two tests  is  also very
 similar.
     In addition to trace element analyses  of the  solid mechanical  collector
 hopper ash, analyses of a leachate prepared  from the hopper  ash of Test  1
were performed.  The leachate was prepared  following Level 1 procedures
 (Reference 3-4) which specify leaching a given weight of  sample in four  times
 this weight of water for 48 hr at 20°C.  The leachate was  then  subjected to
 SSMS analysis  for trace elements and analysis for  certain  leachable anions
 using wet chemical  test kits.
     Results of  the leachate analysis  are given  in Table  3-7.   Given  the
 similarity between  the solid composition of  the  mechanical collector  hopper
 ash between Tests 1 and 2, leachate compositions are expected to be likewise
 similar.

                                    3-10

-------
TABLE 3-5.  TRACE  ELEMENT  CONCENTRATIONS  — TEST 1  (DRY WOOD)
Concentration 1n sample (ug/g)
Parti cul ate

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
Hoi ml urn
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium

Mood fuel
>4.0
—
—
21
—
— —
0.04
0.4
0.03
>100
0.10
0.06
10
0.10
0.10

6.0
—
„
..
0.6
»*
<0.01
„
__
—
0.09
11
0.20
0.40
0.03

10 pm + 3 ym
>1,000
~
-.
>1,000
<0.1
_ _
190
8.0
0.70
>1,000
13
0.60
680
26
2.0

98
2.0
0.40
0.50
>1,000
1.0
7.0
0.50
—
O.SO
1.0
>1,000
42
41
0.30

1 um + filter
—a
—
_.
>1,000
<0.1
<0.1
—
—
, 0.20
—
5.2
0.20
92
4.0
0.10
1
29
0.20
<0.10
0.10
~
0.3
0.69
0.20
—
0.10
0.10
>960
9.1
16
<•_
Mechanical
collector
hopper ash
>1,000
—
_
>1,000
0.3
__
140
6.0
1.0
>1,000
20
0.60
870
4.0
3.0

52
~
._
4.0
24
2.0
5.0
0.30
0.90
"-
0.70
>1,000
16
28
5.0
        aDashes Indicate trace element concentration was below the detection
         Unit or had concentrations In the blank greater than In the  sample.
         See Appendix B for detectabflity levels applicable to each stream.
                                   3-11

-------
                    TABLE  3-5.   (concluded)
                          Concentration in sample (pg/g)
                                   Participate
  Element
            	   Mechanical
                                            collector
Wood fuel     10 uni + 3 ym   1 gin + filter    hopper ash
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
..
MOO
>45
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
19
>54
0.02
0.40
<0.02
—
0.01
MOO
0.20
Ml
7.0
>27
— ^
0.03
—
0.03
0.04
— —
<0.01
0.05
~
0.03
0.08
„
0.04
29
0.07
0.10
M.OOO
M.OOO
<0.83
10
4.0
17
5.0
M.OOO
M,000
2.0
79
5.0
0.50
| 0.50
M.OOO
4.0
M.OOO
M.OOO
>1,000
— —
0.30
1.0
__
4.0
0.10
0.4
M.OOO
0.50
1.0
17
0.90
7.0
M.QOO
6.0
<0.10
—
>990
<1.0
0.39
0.90
3.5
-.
>980
>980
0.90
59
0.80
—
3.0
— _
3.9
200
>980
0.20
^^

0.10
_„
0.20
<0.10
0.10
_-
5.9
<0.10
1.0
0.01
2.7
390
~
__
M.OOO
M.OOO
<0.05
2.0
4.0
60
4.0
M.OOO
M.OOO
4.0
130
3.0
0.90
, 5.0
M.OOO
„
>1,000
620
>1,000
^^
0.50
0.90
«...
7.0
^^
0.50
M.OOO
0.90
1.0
29
__
11
410
10
aDashes indicate  trace element concentration was below the detection
 limit or had concentration in the blank greater than  in the sample.
 See Appendix B for  detectability levels applicable to each stream.
                               3-12

-------
TABLE  3-6.   TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS  —  TEST  2 (GREEN  MOOD)
                                Concentration  1n sample (pg/g)
         Element
                                         Parti culate
Wood fuel
	   Mechanical
                               collector
 10  pin + 3 yin   1 um * filter    hopper ash
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
>7.0
—
__
36
<0.01
i
__
0.03
0.07
0.10
MOO
0.20
0.03
4.0
0.04
0.50
3.0
~
~
—
7.0
— —
0.10
<0.01
0.08
..
0.04
MOO
0.20
0.30
0.05
— _
MOO ,
>76
<0.05
0.07
M.OOO
—
__
M.OOO
0.30
0.30
150
14
3.0
M.OOO
41
1.0
880
8.0
3.0
84
3.0
0.60
0.70
55
2.0
5.0
0.40
2.0
0.80
1.0
M.OOO
72
63
22
0.20
M.OOO
M.OOO
<1.1
4.0
..a
__
__
>710
<0.07
0.29
__
—
' 0.14
—
0.22
<0.07 '
17
0.79
—
14
<0.07
<0.07
<0.07
—
<0.07
0.50
0.07
<0.07
<0.07
0.07
>700
0.86
12
0.36
<0.07
>35
<0.72
0.29
M.OOO
—
— _
M,000
<0.10
__
130
29
1.0
M.OOO
35
0.90
190
, 38
3.0
45
3.0
0.60
0.80
100
4.0
11
0.80
0.70
2.0
3.0
M.OOO
35
61
2.0
__
M.OQO
M.OOO
<0.05
0.70
        aDashes  Indicate trace element concentration was below the detection
         limit or had concentration  in the blank greater than concentration
         In the  sample.  See Appendix B for detectabllity levels applicable
         to each stream.
                                   3-13

-------
                 TABLE  3-6.   (concluded)
  Element
                           Concentration in sample  (^g/g)
                                   Particulate
           	   Mechanical
                                           collector
Wood fuel    10 urn + 3 urn   1 wm + filter    hopper ash
Neodymium
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
0.02
0.30
0.10
>100
>92
0.04
3.0
~
0.01
<0.02
MOO
0.08
>19
12
>47
__
0.05
—
0.04
—
— —
0.03
9.0
—
—
0.60
__
0.06
22
0.50
4.0
6.0
6.0
M.OOO
M.OOO
8.0
300
3.0
0.90
2.0
>1,000
<1.0
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
•w
__
0.70
__
3.0
0.20
1.0
>1,000
—
2.0
29
2.0
13
460
22
0.29
2.5
._
>140
>39
0.07
22
0.29
—
0.72
__
1.4
—
56
>19
<0.07
._
<0.07
<0.07
0.14
<0.07
0.22
—
0.30
0.14
0.22
<0.07
0.07
430
0.72
4.0
14
7.0
>1,000
>1,000
6.0
290
3.0
0.80
4.0
' M.OOO
<0.2
M.OOO
860
280
«»
0.4
1.0
__
6.0
0.10
0.20
>1,000
0.70
1.0
25
0.8
20
390
39
aDashes Indicate trace elements concentration was  below the detection
 limit or had concentration in the blank greater than concentration
 in the sample.  See Appendix B for detectablllty  levels applicable
 to each stream.
                             3-14

-------
3.4  ORGANIC  SPECIES  EMISSIONS
     Organic  analyses were  performed  on  flue gas  samples  and  flyash  according
to the EPA Level  1  protocol  (Reference 3-4)  as  outlined in  Appendix  A.
Volatile gas  phase  organics having  boiling points in the  nominal  C^  to  Cg
range of -160*  to 100'C  (-260°  to 210°F)  were measured by multiple analyses
of flue gas samples using onsite gas  chromatography.  This  procedure gives
total volatile  organics  by  boiling  point range  only.  SASS  and mechanical
collector ash samples were  extracted  with methylene chloride  in a Soxhlet
apparatus.  Volatile  organic matter with boiling  points in  the nominal  Cy to
Cie range of  100° to  300°C  (210° to 570eF) were determined  in the laboratory
by total chromatographable  organic  (TCO)  analysis of the  organic module
sorbent (XAD-2) and condensate  sample extracts.  Nonvolatile  organic species
having boiling  points in the nominal  >Ci6 range of >300°C (570*F) were
measured by gravimetric  (GRAV)  analysis  of SASS sample extracts including
filter and cyclone  catches.
     Infrared spectrometry  (IR) was also performed on GRAV  residues  to
identify organic  functional  groups.  If  total organic content in the sample
exceeded 15 mg, as  determined by TCO  and GRAV procedures, further analyses by
liquid chromatography (LC), with TCO, GRAV,  and IR analyses of the fractions
eluted from the column,  were performed.   Analyses of whole  extract samples or
LC fractions by low resolution mass spectrometry  (LRMS) were  performed  if TCO
and GRAV results  Indicated  a stream organic  emission concentration of greater
than 0.5 mg/dscm  for  the flue gas.  In addition,  gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry  (GC/MS)  analysis of total sample extracts was  performed to
identify specific polynuclear aromatic and other  organic  compounds (the
                                    3-15

-------
    TABLE 3-7.   TRACE ELEMENT AND LEACHABLE ANION CONCENTRATIONS IN
                AQUEOUS LEACHATE OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR HOPPER ASH
                — TEST 1 (DRY WOOD)
 Element
Concentration
   (pg/ml)
Element
Concentration
   (yg/ml)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Fluorine
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Hoi mi urn
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
0.10
__a
— -
>10
—
_.
0.01
0.40
0.002
.>10
0.002
—
>10
0.10
<0.002
0.03
—
0.06
—
4.0
_ —
0.003
<0.001
—
0.80
0.05
6.0
0.003
0.08
0.01
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Platinum
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten

0.05
0.005
—
0.003
__
0.02
—
0.20
<0.005
>10
~
>10
—
<0.001
__
>10
—
>10
>10
>10
0.09
<0.008
__
—
__
._
<0.009
2.0
0.090
aOashes indicate trace element concentration was below the detection
 limit or had concentration in the blank greater than concentration
 in the sample.  See Appendix B for detectability levels.
                                 3-16

-------
                         TABLE 3-7.   (concluded)
                  Concentration                            Concentration
 Element             (yg/ml)              Element              (yg/ml)
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc

Zirconium



__a
0.080
—
<0.001
0.02

0.002



Anlons

Fluoride
Chloride
Bromi de
nitrate
Nitrite
Sulfite
Sulfate
Phosphate as P
Ammonium as N


0.20
140
10
25
59
<2
200
0.040
1.2
aDashes Indicate trace element concentration was below the detection
 limit or had concentration In the blank greater than concentration
 1n the sample.  See Appendix B for detectablllty levels.
                                  3-17

-------
 semivolatile  organic  priority pollutants).   A discussion of the analytical
 results  follows.
 3.4.1  cl  to  C6 Hydrocarbon,  TCO,  and  6RAV  Analyses
     Table 3-8 summarizes  total  organic  emission results from the onsite GC,
 TCO, and GRAY analyses.  The  ranges  in the  emissions  for volatile
 hydrocarbons  shown reflect the multiple  onsite GC analyses  performed during
 each test.  The dry wood test had  total  Cj  to Cg hydrocarbon emissions
 significantly greater than those from  green wood test.   Table 3-8 also
 summarizes  organic emission results  from the TCO and  GRAV analyses.   These
 organic emissions results  have been  compromised  somewhat due to the  use, in
 these tests,  of XAD-2 resin which  had  been  inadvertently contaminated by
 acetone between resin preparation  and  eventual  use.   Thus,  several acetone
 solvent contaminants and acetone polymerization  products (chiefly an acetone
dimer), all of relatively  low molecular  weight and  in the TCO boiling point
range, were introduced Into the resin.   This resulted in a  high TCO  blank for
the XAD-2  resin for both tests.  Table 3-9  shows the  sample extract  and field
blank TCO values from both tests,  and  indicates  the high, contaminated
blank.
     In an  attempt to correct for  the  high  blank, GC/MS  analyses of  the
extracts were performed to Identify  and  quantitate  specific contaminant
species in  both the blank  and sample extracts.   Subtracting the amount of
these contaminant species  found In both  sample and  blank extracts from the
TCO levels  of each, allowed defining a corrected TCO  vaTue  for both  samples
and the blank.  These corrected levels are  also  shown in Table 3-9.   TCO
values listed in Table 3-8 reflect these corrected  values.   It should be
                                    3-18

-------
          TABLE 3-8.  SUMMARY OF TOTAL  ORGANIC  EMISSIONS IN THE GAS STREAM
Test 1
(dry wood)
Organic emissions
Volatile organics
analyzed in the field
by GC (nominal boiling
point range)
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Total GI to Cg
Semi volatile organic
material analyzed by
TCO procedure
XAD-2 cartridge
Organic module
condensate
Total Cy to Cig
Nonvolatile organic
material analyzed by
GRAV procedure
10 ym + 3 pm cyclones
Filter + 1 pm cyclone
XAD-2 cartridge
Organic module
condensate
Total >Ci6
mg/dscm

11 to 26
20 to 52
5.4
3.2 to 15
2.4 to 15
4.7 to 7.0
47 to 120

6.0
0.23
6.2

<0.2
<0.3
9.1
0.4
9.5
g/kg fuel
as fired

0.24 to 0.58
0.44 to 1.2
0.12
0.071 to 0.31
0.053 to 0.33
0.10 to 0.16
1.0 to 2.7

0.133
0.005
0.14

<0.004
<0.007
0.020
0.086
0.21
Test 2
(green wood)
mg/dscm

0.9 to 4.1
2.5 to 7.5
0 to 4.8
0 to 17
0 to <12
<5.5 to <31
3.4 to <76

0.72
0.007
0.73

<0.3
<0.3
1.4
1.4
g/kg fuel
as fired

0.010 to 0.045
0.027 to 0.082
0 to 0.053
0 to 0.190
0 to <0.13
<0.060 to <0.34
0.037 to 0.84

0.008
0.0001
0.008

<0.003
<0.003
0.015
<0.001
0.015
Total organics
63 to 140   1.4 to 3.0
5.5 to <78   0.060 to <0.86
                                     3-19

-------
             TABLE  3-9.   XAD-2  EXTRACT TCO RESULTS
                              Test  1  TCO     Test 2 TCO
                                  (mg)           (mg)
Uncorrected
Sample extract
Blank
Sample
Corrected
Sample extract
Blank
Sampl e

250
120
130

130
0.64
130

140
120
20

20
0.64
19
TABLE 3-10.  SUMMARY OF TOTAL ORGANIC CONTENT OF THE MECHANICAL
             COLLECTOR HOPPER ASH
Organ ics
TCO
GRAY
Total organics
Test 1
(dry wood)
mg/kg ash
20
700
720
Test 2
(green wood)
mg/kg ash
20
650
670
                             3-20

-------
noted  that  all  contamination consisted of TCO boiling range compounds so GRAY
results  should  be  unaffected.
     Based  on corrected  values,  emissions of TCO and GRAY compounds were also
higher for  the  dry wood  test. These results, combined with the Cj to Ce
results, confirm the  continuous  monitoring measurements which indicated much
higher combustible emissions for the dry wood test as evidenced by the higher
CO concentrations  in  the flue gas during Test 1.
     The combined  (corrected) TCO and GRAV content of the XAD-2 sorbent
extracts was 310 mg and  54 mg for Test 1 and Test 2, respectively.  These
total  organic levels  were sufficient to warrant further analysis by LC
fractlonatlon followed by TCO, GRAV, and IR analyses of the eluted fractions.
Results  of  these analyses are presented in Sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.5.
     Table  3-10 summarizes total organic content measured in the mechanical
collector hopper ash  samples collected during each test.  On a concentration
basis, mg/kg ash (ppm),  both TCO and GRAV results indicate similar organic
contents for the ash  samples from both tests.
3.4.2  Infrared Spectra  of Total Sample Extracts
     IR  spectrometry  was used to Identify organic functional groups present
in the SASS and flyash samples.   The results of the IR analysis of the total
extract  samples for both tests are summarized in Table 3-11.  The spectra
were weak for the  10  um  + 3 pm particulate extract for both tests, the filter
+ 1 pm particulate, and  the organic module condensate for the dry wood test.
Only the presence  of  aliphatic hydrocarbons was suggested in the spectra of
the filter  + 1  pm  particulate extract for the green wood test and the
mechanical  collector  hopper ash  extracts for both tests.  The spectrum for
                                    3-21

-------
                               TABLE  3-11.   SUMMARY OF  IR SPECTRA  OF TOTAL  SAMPLE EXTRACTS
ro
ro

Sample
Combined 10 Mm + 3 Mm
parti cul ate
Filter blank
Filter + 1 Mm
parti cul ate
XAD-2 blank
XAO-2 extract
Organic module
condensate
Mechanical collector
hopper ash

Frequency
(cm-1)
No peaks
No peaks
No peaks
Ho peaks
3,600 to 3,000
2,900
2,820
1.790
1,600
1,440
1,180
No peaks
2,900
2,820
Test 1
Intensity9
--
--
S
S
S
s
H
M
M
„_
S
S
(dry wood)
Possible
assignment
--
--
0-H stretch
C-H stretch
C-H stretch
C=0 stretch
C»C stretch
C-H bend
C-0 stretch
C-C stretch
—
C-H stretch
C-H stretch

Possible compound
categories present1*
—
—
Aliphatic
hydrocarbons.
carboxyllc acids,
esters, ketones,
aldehydes,
alcohols
—
Aliphatic
hydrocarbons
Test 2
Frequency
(cm'1) Intensity8
No peaks
No peaks
2,900 S
No peaks
2,900 S
2.820 S
1.710 M
3,680 to 3,200 S
3,100 to 2,200 W
2,900 S
2,820 S
(green wood)
Possible
assignment
~
C-H stretch
C-H stretch
C-H stretch
C=0 stretch
0-H stretch
C-H stretch
C-H stretch
C-H stretch

Possible compound
categories present13
—
Aliphatic
hydrocarbons
Aliphatic
hydrocarbons,
carboxyllc adds,
esters, ketones,
aldehydes,
Aliphatic
hydrocarbons,
alcohols
Aliphatic
hydrocarbons
   'S:  Strong, M:  Moderate. W:  Weak
   "Possible compound categories present consistent with spectrum

-------
the organic module  condensate  for  the green wood test suggested that alcohols
were possibly  present.
     The  spectra  for  the  XAD-2 extracts for both tests were the most complex.
These  suggested the possible  presence of aliphatic hydrocarbons, carboxylic
acids, and aldehydes  for  both  tests.   In addition, other oxygenates such as
esters, ketones,  or alcohols may have contributed to the IR spectrum of the
XAD-2  extract  for the dry wood test.   Since IR spectra were obtained on the
GRAV residues  of  the  XAD-2 extract,  the aforementioned resin contamination
(TCO range compounds)  would not have  been expected to contribute to the
spectra.  This is confirmed by the weak blank extract spectrum.
3.4.3  GC/MS Analysis of  Total  Sample Extracts
     Capillary column GC/MS analyses  of the extracts of the flue gas samples
collected by the  SASS and the  mechanical collector hopper ash were performed
to detect and  quantify specific POM  and other organic compounds (the
semivolatile organic  priority  pollutants).  The compounds sought in the
analyses and their  respective  detection limits are listed in Table 3-12.  The
results of the GC/MS  analyses  are  summarized in Table 3-13.  The POM and
other  compounds listed were detected  in measurable quantities essentially
only in the organic sorbent (XAD-2) extract (some phenol  was measured in the
organic module condensate (OMC)  for Test 2).  None of the compounds sought
were detected  in  the  mechanical  collector hopper ash samples from either
test.
     Results indicate  that naphthalene and phenanthrene were the major POM
compounds in the  flue  gas during the  dry wood test.   For the green wood test,
acenaphthylene and  phenanthrene  were  the major POM compounds.   Overall, total
POM emissions  were  higher for  Test 1  than for Test 2.   The validity of this

                                    3-23

-------
  TABLE 3-12.  COMPOUNDS SOUGHT IN THE GC/MS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS
               (ng/Ml INJECTED)
                             Acid Compounds
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-d1chlorophenol
2,4-dlmethyl phenol
5      2-nitrophenol
5      4-n1tropheno1
5      2,4-dinltrophenol
5      4,6-d1nitro-o-cresol
5      pentachlorophenol
       phenol
                         Base Neutral Compounds
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene             1
1,2-dichlorobenzene                1
1,2-dlphenylhydrazlne              1
  (as azobenzene)
1,3-dichlorobenzene                1
l,4-d1chlorobenzene                1
2,4-dinltrotoluene                 1
2,6-dim'trotoluene                 1
2-chloronaphthalene                1
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine             5
3-methyl cholanthrene              40
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether         1
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether        1
7,12-dfmethyl benz(a)anthracene    40
N-n1trosod1-n-propylam1ne          5
N~n1trosod1methylam1ne             NA
N-nitrosodiphenylamine             1
acenaphthene                       1
acenaphthylene                     1
anthracene                         1
benzo(gh1)pery1ene                 5
benzldlne                          20
benzo(b)fluoranthene               1
benzo(k)fluoranthene               1
benzo(a)anthracene                 1
benzo(a)pyrene                     1
       benzo(c)phenanthrene
       b1s(2-chloroethoxy)methane
       b1s(2-chloroethyl}ether
       b1s(2-chlorolsopropyl)ether
       b1s(2-ethylhexyl)phtha1ate
       butyl benzyl phthalate
       chrysene
       d1-n-butyl phthalate
       di-n-octyl phthalate
       dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
       dibenzo(c,g)carbazole
       d1ethyl phthalate
       dimethyl phthalate
       fluoranthene
       fluorene
       hexachlorobenzene
       hexachlorobutadi ene
       hexachlorocyclopentadiene
       hexachloroethane
       1ndeno(l,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
                                  3-24

-------
TABLE 3-13.  POM AND OTHER ORGANIC  SPECIES EMISSION SUMMARY — TOTAL FLUE GAS

Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo/j+k/fluoranthenes
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Other polynuclears
Test 1
yg/dscm
_b
0.5
—
0.10
—
—
0.65
4.5
7.0
4.7
0.30
<0.05
(dry wood)
yg/kg fuel a
—
11
—
2.2
—
,
14
100
160
100
6.7
<1.1
Test 2 (green wood)
yg/dscm
0.1
5.2
0.2
—
0.04
0.3
~
—
2.0
0.96
0.2
<0.04
yg/kg fuel3
1.1
57
2.2
—
0.4
3.3
—
—
22
11
2.2
<0.44
   akg  fuel  on  wet  basis
   ^Dashes  indicate compound was not found to have concentration above the
    detection  limits of 0.05 yg/dscm for Test 1 results and 0.04 yg/dscm
    for Test 2  results (more flue gas was sampled in the Test 2 SASS  run
    resulting  in a  lower detection limit)
                                     3-25

-------
 result  is  supported  by  the  generally  higher  total  organic  and  CO  emission
 levels  measured during  the  dry wood test.
     Simultaneous POM emission tests  performed  by  DNR  offered  an  opportunity
 to validate results  obtained in this  program.   Table 3-14  compares  organic
 species detected in  this test program to those  obtained by DNR.   The  sampling
equipment  employed by DNR was based on the modified EPA Method 5  technique
developed  by Battel1e-Columbus Laboratories  (Reference 3-5).  Collected
samples were analyzed by a capillary  column  GC/flame ionlzation detector
 (FID) technique.  As shown in Table 3-14, DNR recorded significantly  higher
naphthalene and pyrene emissions and  significantly lower phenanthrene
emissions  than those determined with  the SASS train.   In addition,  DNR
detected low levels of benzo(a)pyrene and benz(a)anthracene, while  SASS
results do not show these compounds in concentrations exceeding detectability
limits of  the analysis.  Emission levels for other species agree  reasonably
well; in most cases there was less than an order of magnitude difference
between this program's and the DNR results.
3.4.4  Column Chromatography
     The XAD-2 sample extracts for both tests were separated via  LC
fractionalon.  GRAY and TCO content were then  obtained for each  LC fraction.
Results of these analyses are given 1n Tables 3-15 and 3-16.  (TCO  results  in
these tables are corrected for blank contamination as discussed in
Section 3.4.1.)  For Test 1 (Table 3-15), the LC fractlonatlon indicates  a
relatively even distribution of organics In fractions 2 through 7.
     For the green wood test (Table 3-16), most of the organics eluted in
fractions  1, 6, and 7.  Fraction 1 generally contains aliphatic hydrocarbons
while fractions 6 and 7 generally contain polar oxygenates such as  carboxylicr
                                    3-26

-------
  TABLE 3-14.   COMPARISON OF POM EMISSION RESULTS FOR THE  WOOD-FIREO
               BOILER TESTS (yg/dscm)
Species
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo f 1 uoranthenes
Test 1 (dry wood)
DNR
This
Run 1 Run 2 study
51.7 63.9 4.5
—a __ o.65
7.0
—
—
0.30
0.15
—
0.29 -- 0.10
Test

Run 1
21.9
—
—
0.52
—
3.7
0.12
0.20
__
2 (green
DNR
Run 2
44.8
—
—
—
0.53
4.8
0.65
—
__
wood)
This
study
—
—
2.0
0.20
0.30
0.20
—
0.04
_—
7,l2-D1methyl            	       	
  benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene           <0.21   ~      --       0.10
Perylene
3-Methylcholanthrene     —      «      —       0.17
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene   ~ >     ~      —       0.51
D1benz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,1)perylene
Detection Limit          0.05    0.45    0.05     0.02    0.16    0.04

aDashes denote less than detection limit
                                 3-27

-------
TABLE 3-15.  GRAY AND TCO RESULTS OF COLUMN CHROMATOGRAPHY FOR TEST  1
             (DRY WOOD) XAD-2 EXTRACTS
Fraction
LCI
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
Total
TCO
mg/dscm
0.056
0.27
0.27
0.17
0.56
0.17
0.56
2.1
GRAY
mg/dscm
0.15
<0.093
0.23
0.23
0.51
0.18
5.2
6.5

mg/dscm
0.21
0.27
0.50
0.40
1.1
0.35
5.8
8.6
Total
mg/kg fuel
as fired
4.7
6.0
11
8.9
24
7.8
129
190

ng/J heat
Input
0.26
0.33
0.62
0.50
1.4
0.43
7.2
11
    aResults are based on the total organics recovered In each fraction
     corrected to total organics In the original sample
                                 3-28

-------
TABLE 3-16.  GRAY AND TCO RESULTS  OF COLUMN  CHROMATOGRAPHY  FOR TEST  2
             (GREEN WOOD) XAD-2  EXTRACT*
Fraction
LCI
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
Total
TCO
mg/dscm
0.020
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.063
<0.007
.0.083
GRAV
mg/dscm
0.18
0.067
<0.037
0.092
<0.037
0.16
0.26
0.76

Total
mg/kg fuel
mg/dscm as fired
0.20
0.07
<0.04
0.09
<0.04
0.22
0.26
0.84
2.2
0.8
<0.4
1.0
<0.4
2.4
2.8
9.2

ng/J heat
input
0.16
0.06
<0.03
0.07
<0.03
0.18
0.21
0.59
    aResults are based on the total organics recovered in each
     fraction corrected to total organics in the original sample
                                 3-29

-------
 acids,  alcohols,  esters,  ketones,  aldehydes, and phenols.  With the exception
 of  LCI  and  LC6  which  show approximately equal  concentrations of organics for
 both  tests,  organics  for  Test 1 exceeded those of Test 2 in all fractions.
 Total organics  were over  an  order  of magnitude higher for the dry wood test
 than  for the green wood test.
 3.4.5   IR Analyses of Fractions From Column  Chromatography
      IR spectra were  obtained  on the GRAV residue of all  sample fractions
 obtained from LC  fractionation  of  the XAD-2  extracts.   Table 3-17 summarizes
 these IR spectra  results.  Only the  spectra  for LC fraction 3 for both tests
 and LC fraction 7 for the  dry wood test were strong enough to be interpreted.
The presence  of alcohols  1s  suggested by the LC3 spectra  for both tests.   The
 spectrum for  LC7  of the dry  wood test extract  is consistent with the possible
presence of  carboxylic acids, esters, alcohols, aldehydes and/or ketones.
     The IR  spectra of the LC fractions are  consistent with those of the
total extracts  summarized  in Table 3-11.
3.4.6.  Low  Resolution Mass  Spectrometry Analysis of Total  Extracts and LC
        Fractions
     Tables  3-8 and 3-15 noted  that  several  XAD-2 extract LC fractions and
the OMC for  the dry wood test,  and the  total XAD-2 extract for the green  wood
test had total  organic content  (TCO  + GRAV)  corresponding to emissions
greater than  0.5 mg/dscm.  In addition,  Table  3-10 noted  that the mechanical
collector hopper  ash  extract for both tests  had total  organic content of
greater than  1 mg/kg.  Thus  the  green wood test total  XAD-2 extracts, several
combined XAD-2  extract LC  fractions  for the  dry wood test,  and the mechanical
hopper ash extracts for both tests were  subjected to low  resolution mass
spectrometry  (LRMS) analysis via direct insertion probe.   In addition,
                                    3-30

-------
                     TABLE  3-17.   SUMMARY  OF  IR SPECTRA  FOR LC FRACTIONS OF  XAD-2  EXTRACT
CO

CO

Fraction
LCI
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7


LC7
Blankc
Test 1
Frequency
(cm-1) intensity3
Ho peaks
No peaks
3,450 S
Ho peaks
No peaks
No peaks
3,230 M
2,880 M
2,810 M
1,650 S
1,190 S
3,600 to 3,300 S
(dry wood)
Possible Possible compound
assignment categories present1*
—
..
0-H stretch Alcohols,
carbo*y!1c acids
~
~
-.
0-H stretch Carboxyllc acids
C-H stretch esters, alcohols,
C-H stretch aldehydes,
C-H stretch ketones
C-0 stretch
C-0 stretch
C-0 stretch
0-H stretch

Frequency
(cm'1)
No peaks
No peaks
3,450
No peaks
No peaks
No peaks
No peaks



Test 2 (green wood)
Possible Possible compound
Intens.1tya assignment categories present"
~
„
S 0-H stretch Alcohols,
carboxyllc adds
~
~
„




        *S = strong, M « moderate
        "Possible compound categories present consistent with spectra and LC fraction
        cSpectra for all other fractions  for the blank XAD-2 extract had no peaks

-------
because  the TCO  contents  of  the  dry wood  test LC fractions and OMC were
signfleant, the  selected  combined  fractions  from this test were also
subjected  to  LRMS  analysis via batch inlet injection.
     Table 3-18  presents  the results of these analyses.   As shown in the
table, phenols,  aldehydes, and heterocylic oxygen compounds (furan and
benzofuran) were significant components of the organics  collected by the
XAD-2 sorbent and  in the  OMC for the dry  wood test.   Lower molecular weight
(<216) polycyclic  organic species were also  present  in the dry wood test
XAD-2 extract, as  well as the mechanical  collector hopper ash  extracts from
both tests.   Various oxygenated compound  categories  (ethers, carboxylic
acids, and ketones) along with nitrogen containing organics (nitriles,
amines, and heterocyclic  nitrogen compounds)  were identified in the OMC for
the dry wood  test.
     In many  cases, the direct insertion  probe LRMS  analyses Identified
different compound categories than  the batch  inlet analyses.   However, the
molecular weight of compounds identified  in  the batch inlet analyses was
generally  in  the range that  is poorly detected via direct insertion probe.
Analyzing a method standard  via direct insertion  showed  that compounds with
molecular weight less than about 130 to 140 were  lost (i.e., not recovered)
to varying degrees.  This is  just the range  identified by the  batch inlet
analyses.
     As noted above, results  for the XAD-2 extract and possibly for the OMC
are compromised  somewhat  by  the fact that the XAD-2  had  been contaminated
prior to use  in  the field.   However, 6C/MS analysis  of both sample and field
blank resin extracts showed  the contaminant  species  to be acetone and acetone
polymers (primarily the dimer) with  small  amounts of alkyl  and alkenyl

                                     3-32

-------
TABLE 3-18. SUMMARY OF LRMS ANALYSES
Direct Insertion
Test Sample Compound category
1 (dry wood) XAD-2, LC2 + 3 CarboxyUc acids
Polynuclear aromatics,
MWO <216
XAD-2, LC4 + 5 None found




XAD-2, LC6 + 7 None found




OMC Ethers
Nitriles
Amines
Heterocycllc sulfur
compounds
Carboxyllc acids
Halogenatic aliphatlcs
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Phenols
Ketones
Heterocyclic nitrogen
compounds
Polynuclear aromatics,
MW <216
LRMS
Intensity3
10
1










,
100
100
100
100

100
10
10
10
10
10

1

Batch inlet LRMS
Compound category
Polynuclear aromatics.
MW <216
(naphthalene)
Aldehydes, MW 106 to 120
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Phenols, MW 94 to 122
Heterocycllc oxygen
compounds, MW 118 to 146
Phenols. MW 94 to 122
Heterocyclic oxygen
compounds, MW 118 to 146
Aldehydes, MW 84 to 124
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Phenols, MW 94 to 136
Heterocycllc oxygen
compounds, MW 68 to 146
Aldehydes, MW 96 to 120











Intensity3
100


100
10
10
10

100
10

10
10
100

10
10










                Mechanical  collector  Polynuclear aromatlcs,
                hopper ash              MM  <216
2 (green wood)  XAD-2 total  extract   None  found

                Mechanical  collector Carboxyllc acids
                hopper ash            Polynuclear aromatics,
                                       MW  <216
                                    100
                                     10
                                                                                  __ c
a!00 • Major component,  10 »
tftW = Molecular weight
c— * Analysis not performed
minor component, 1 = trace component
                                                    3-33

-------
benzenes  (ostensibly  XAD-2  degradation products).  Thus,  the compound
categories  Identified In  the  samples  and noted 1n Table 3-18 should reflect
species actually  1n the flue  gas  of the boiler sample (with the possible
exception of  the  ketones  and  aromatic hydrocarbons 1n the OMC)  and not caused
by resin contamination.
3.4.7  Organic Emissions  Summary
     Tables 3-19  and  3-20 summarize organic  emissions In  the flue gas for
Test 1 and 2, respectively.   Inferences 1n Table  3-19 for Test  1 are based
primarily on LRMS results as  confirmed by IR spectra.  Inferences 1n
Table 3-20 for Test 2 are based entirely on  IR spectra Interpretations and
must, therefore, be viewed with strict caution.   Overall, organic flue gas
emissions for Test 1  (dry wood) were  about an  order of magnitude greater than
those for Test 2  (green wood).  The organic  content of the flue gas
particulate corresponded to less  than  0.3 mg/dscm for both tests.  The
organic content of the mechanical collector  hopper ash was about 700 mg/kg
ash for both tests.
3.5  RADIONUCLIDE EMISSIONS
     Radiometrlc activities of the  particulate catch from the SASS train and
the flyash from the mechanical collector are presented In Table 3-21.  The
sun of alpha plus beta activities for  the flue gas partlculate, when
converted to emission  rates,  corresponds to  770 pC-f/kg fuel  for Test 1 and
760 pCj/kg for Test 2.  By comparison,  the radlonucllde emissions (excluding
radon) calculated for  a coal-fired  powerplant  range from  170 to 800 pC^/kg of
coal (Reference 3-6).  Thus,  emissions from  the wood-fired unit are 1n the
range of those from coal-fired powerplants.
                                    3-34

-------
TABLE 3-19.  ORGANIC EXTRACT SUMMARY  — TEST  1  (DRY WOOD) XAD-2  AND OMC
             EXTRACTS

Total organlcs, mg
TCO, mg
GRAY, mg



Category
Aliphatic
hydrocarbons
Carboxyllc
acids
Polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons,
MW >216
A1 dehydes

Ethers

N1tr1les

Amines

Heterocycllc
sul fur
compounds
Halogenated
allphatlcs

Aromatic
hydrocarbons
LCI LC2 +3 LC4 + 5 LC6 + 7 OMC
4.5 17 32 132 13
1.2 12 16 16 4.9
3.3 5 16 116 8.0
Assigned Intensity — mg/dscm


LCI LC2 +3 LC4 + 5 LC6 + 7 OMC
100—0.21

10—0.70 100-0.091

1—0.07 1—0.001



100—1.2 10—0.5 10—0.009

100—0.091

100—0.091

100—0.091

100—0.091


10—0.009

10—0.1 10—0.5 10—0.009

Total
200
50
150
Total
mg/dscm
(rag/kg
fuel)
0.21
(4.6)
0.79
(17)
0.0071
(0.16)


1.8
(40)
0.091
(2.0)
0.091
(2.0)
0.091
(2.0)
0.091
(2.0)

0.009
i f\ A \
(0.2)
0.61
(13)
                                 3-35

-------
                             TABLE 3-19.  (concluded)
                       LCI
LC2 +3  LC4 + 5  LC6 + 7
OMC
Total
mg/dscm
(ng/kg
fuel)
Phenols

Heterocyclic
oxygen
compounds
Phenol

Acenaphthalene

Benzo/j+k/
fl uoranthenes

Fluorene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene
         10—0.1  100—4.7   100—0.091  4.8
                                       (110)
         10—0.1  10—0.5    100-^0.009  0.61
                                       (13)
Ketones

Heterocyclic
nitrogen
compounds
10—0.009

10—0.009


0.009
(0.2)
0.009
(0.2)

                          Specific  compounds  — mg/dscm
                                       0.0047
                                       (0.10)
                                       0.0005
                                       (0.011)
                                       0.0001
                                       (0.002)

                                       0.00065
                                       (0.014)
                                       0.0045
                                       (0.10)
                                       0.0070
                                       (0.16)
                                       0.0003
                                       (0.007)
                                    3-36

-------
    TABLE  3-20.   ORGANIC EXTRACT SUMMARY — TEST 2 (GREEN WOOD) XAD-2 AND CMC
                 EXTRACTS
LCI LC2 + 3 LC4 + 5 LC6 + 7
Total organics, mg 5.4 1.8 2.5 13
TCO, mg 0.53 <0.04 <0.04 1.7
GRAY, mg 4.9 1.8 2.5 11.2
Assigned intensity — mg/dscm


Category* LCI LC2 + 3 + 4 + 5/ + 6 + 7
Aliphatic 100—0.20
hydrocarbons
Aldehydes 100-0.32

Carboxylic 100—0.32
acids
OMC Total
0.2 23
0.2 2.3
<3.0 20.4
Total ,
mg/dscm
(mg/kg
OMC fuel )
0.20
(2.2)
100—0.003 0.32
(3.5)
100—0.003 0.32
(3.5)
Specific compounds — mg/dscm
Phenol

Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene

Chrysene
Fluoranthene
.
Pherianthrene

Pyrene
0.00096
(0.011)
0.0001
(0.001)
0.0052
(0.057)
0.0002
(0.002)
0.00004
(0.0004)
0.0003
(0.003)
0.0020
(0.022)
0.0002
(0.002)
aSummary of organic emissions are based on  IR  results primarily  since LRMS
 did not show any organic groups
                                    3-37

-------
TABLE 3-21.  RADIOMETRIC ACTIVITY OF SASS PARTICIPATE AND COLLECTOR
             ASH SAMPLES
                                            Activity, pCj/g Ash*
     Test                Sample          Gross alpha   Gross beta
1 (dry wood)     Composite particulate   16.8 ± 12.1   200.0 +_ 18.5
                 from cyclones and
                 filter catches^
                 Mechanical collector    17.6 _+ 4.2    119.0 _+ 38.0
                 hopper ash
2 (green wood)   Composite particulate   21.7 _+ 9.6    161.8 _+ 30.5
                 from cyclones and
                 filter catches'5
                 Mechanical collector    15.6 _+ 3.9    93.3 + 35.0
                 hopper ash
aThe ± values are the two sigma Poisson standard deviations of the
 counting error
Corrected for filter blank
                               3-38

-------
                          REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3


3-1.  (Deleted.)
3-2.  Walnwright, P.B., et al.,  "A POM  Emissions Study  for  Industrial
      Wood-Fired Boilers," North Carolina Department  of Natural  Resources and
      Community Development, Raleigh, North Carolina, April  1982.

3-3.  "Supplement No.  13 for Compilation of Air  Pollutant Emission  Factors,
      Third Edition,"  AP-42, NTIS PB83-126557, August 1982.

3-4.  Lentzen, D. E.,  et al.,  "IERL-RTP Procedures  Manual:   Level  1
      Environmental Assessment  (Second  Edition),"1 EPA-600/7-78-201, NTIS
      PB293795, October 1978.

3-5.  Jones, P. W., et al., "Measurement of Polycyclic  Organic  Materials  and
      Other Hazardous  Compounds  in Stack Gases — State of  the  Art,"
      EPA-600/2-77-202, NTIS PB274013,  October 1977.

3-6.  "Radiological Impact Caused by  Emissions of Radionuclides Into Air  in
      the United States — Preliminary  Report,"  EPA-520/7-79-006,  NTIS
      PB80-122336, August  1979.
                                     3-39

-------
                                   SECTION 4
                            ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

     This  section discusses the potential environmental Impact of the
wood-fired Industrial  boiler tested and discusses the results of the bloassay
testing  of flue gas and solid waste stream samples collected from the boiler
burning  both  dry and green wood.  The potential environmental impact is
evaluated  by  comparing discharge stream species concentrations to
occupational  exposure  guidelines or water quality criteria.  These
comparisons are done to rank species discharges for possible further
consideration.   Bloassay analyses were conducted as a more direct measure of
the potential health and ecological effects of waste streams.  Both these
analyses are  aimed at  identifying problem areas and providing the basis for
ranking of pollutant species and discharge streams for further
consideration.
4.1  EMISSIONS  ASSESSMENT
     To obtain  a measure of the potential significance of the discharge
streams analyzed in this test' program, discharge stream concentrations  were
compared to indices which reflect potential  for adverse health effects.  For
the flue gas discharge,  the indices used for comparison were occupational
exposure guidelines.  Two sources of such guidelines were used:
time-weighted-average Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) defined by  the American
Conference of Governmental  Industrial  Hygenists (ACGIH)  (Reference  4-1) and

                                     4-1

-------
8-hr time-weight-average  exposure  limits  established  by  the Occupational
Safety  and  Health  Administration  (OSHA)  (Reference  4-2).   For the mechanical
collector hopper ash,  the  indices  used were  the  health-based water quality
criteria promulgated by EPA  (Reference 4-3),  compared to  ash leachate
concentrations.  For recognized carcinogens,  water  quality criteria are
defined corresponding  to different levels of  cancer risk  in individuals
consuming contaminated drinking water over a  lifetime.  The values associated
with  the lO-5 Hsk level (an increased lifetime  cancer risk of 1  in 100,000)
were  used here.
       The comparisons of discharge stream species  concentrations to these
potential adverse health indices were only performed  to rank species
discharge levels with respect to potential for adverse effects.   Conclusions
concerning absolute risk associated with the  discharges evaluated were not,
and should not be drawn.  These evaluations are  only  presented to place
different species dischages into perspective  and to rank  them  for further
consideration.
       Table 4-1 lists those pollutant species emitted in  the  flue gas
discharge stream at levels greater than 10 percent of their occupational
exposure guideline for either test performed.  Emissions  of carbon monoxide
and NOX were over an order of magnitude higher than their  respective
occupational exposure guidelines, up to over  two orders of magnitude for CO
1n Test 1.  Silver, nickel, and phosphorus were  emitted at levels  exceeding
their respective occupational exposure guidelines for both tests.
       Table 4-2 lists the concentrations of  those  species in  the mechanical
hopper ash leachate from the dry wood test which exceeded  their respective
health-based water quality criteria.  Only barium had a leachate

                                    4-2

-------
TABLE 4-1.  FLUE GAS SPECIES EMITTED AT LEVELS EXCEEDING 10 PERCENT OF
            THEIR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE GUIDELINES
                            Emitted concentrations
                                  (yg/dscm)



Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Silver, Ag
NOX
Nickel, Ni
Phosphorus, P
Barium, Ba
Potassium, K
Iron, Fe
Sodium, Na
Chromium, Cr
Copper, Cu
Lead, Pb
Cobalt, Co


Test 1
(dry wood)
2.8 x 106
790
8.7 x 104
120
>160
>160
>300
>190
>720
8.2
11
5.2
5.6


Test 2
(green wood)
1.3 x 106
14
1.5 x 105
290
>280
>330
>1,300
>470
>370
17
59
18
0.79
Occupational
exposure
guideline
(yg/m3)a
5.5 x 104
10
6,000
100
100
500
2,000
1,000
2,000
50
200
150
50
     threshold Limit Value  (Reference 4-1)
  TABLE 4-2.  MECHANICAL COLLECTOR HOPPER ASH SPECIES WITH LEACHATE
              CONCENTRATIONS  EXCEEDING A MATER QUALITY CRITERION
             Species
 Test 1 (dry wood)
hopper ash leachate
  concentrations
      (yg/ml)
Water quality
  criterion
   fug/ml)
Barium, Ba
Chromium, Cr
Lead, Pb
Nickel, Ni
>10
0.10
0.080
0.020
1.0
0.050
0.050
0.0134
                                4-3

-------
concentration significantly greater than  its water  quality  criterion.   As
noted in Section 3, leachate composition  data were  developed  only  for  the
mechanical collector hopper ash from the  dry wood test  (Test  1).   However,
Section 3 also noted that the trace element composition of  the  solid
mechanical collector hopper ash for the green wood  test (Test 2) was very
similar.  Thus, similar conclusions concerning  its  leachate composition would
be expected.
4.2  BIOASSAY RESULTS
     Bioassay tests were performed on the organic sorbent (XAD-2)  extracts,
particulate flyash collected by the SASS  train, and the mechanical collector
hopper ash.  Bioassay results reported here are for both health and
ecological effects test (Reference 4-4).  A detailed description of the
biological analyses performed Is presented in Volume II (Data Supplement) of
this report.  The bioassay tests performed on the XAD-2 extracts were  health
effects tests only.  These were:
     •   Ames assay, based on the property of Salmonella typhimurium mutants
         to revert due to exposure to various classes of mutagens
     •   Cytotoxiclty assay (CHO) with mammalian cells  in culture  to measure
         cellular metabolic impairment and death resulting  from exposure to
         soluble toxicants
In addition to the Ames test, health effects bioassay tests performed  on the
mechanical collector hopper ash and the particulate collected by the SASS
Included:
     •   The rabbit alveolar macrophage (RAM) cytotoxiclty  assay which gives
         a toxicity evaluation measured by the  reduction in cell viability
                                    4-4

-------
         and adenoslne triphosphate  content of the cultures  after  several
         hours exposure  to  the  test  material
     •   The whole  amnlal acute toxiclty  test 1n live rodents  (WAT)  to
         Identify ^ vivo toxicity of  samples
     Table 4-3 summarizes the results  from the Ames,  CHO,  RAM,  and WAT
assays.  Overall, the results suggest  that all samples,  except  the XAD-2
extracts, were of nondetectable to low toxicity and mutagenicity.  The  XAD-2
extracts for both tests  showed  high  toxicity and mutagenicity.   The  XAD-2
extract for the  dry wood test contained about an order of  magnitude  higher
total organic content than  the  XAD-2 extract for the  green wood test (mg/dscm
basis).  However, the relative  contents of semivolatile organic priority
pollutants, including POM species, were more comparable.  If these latter  are
the components resulting in toxic and  mutagenic responses, the  fact  that
there were no differences in response  between the tests is understandable.
     Flyash samples from the mechanical collector hopper were  also tested  for
acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates (Daphnia magna),  freshwater  fish
(fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas)  and freshwater  algae (Selenastrum
capricornutum).  Table 4-4  summarizes  the results of  these tests.  Results of
these assays suggest that the samples  were of nondetectable  to  low toxicity.
4.3  SUMMARY
     Comprehensive  emissions characterization tests were performed on a
watertube Industrial boiler converted  to  burn wood waste.  Two  series of
tests were performed:  one  with the  boiler firing dry wood waste
(11.02 percent moisture), and one with the boiler firing green  wood  waste
(33.85 percent moisture).   Flue gas  NOX,  CO,  and particulate emissions  were
measured (S02 and $03 were..sampled for, but not detected).  In  addition, flue

                                     4-5

-------
              TABLE 4-3.  BIOASSAY RESULTS (HEALTH EFFECTS)
Test
1
(dry wood)
Bioassay
Sample Ames* CHOb RAMb
Combined part icul ate ND
(cyclones and
filter catches)

WATb
—
XAD-2 sorbent H/M H
extract

2
(green wood)
Flyash ND — L/ND
10 pm + 3 ym ND ~ L/ND
cyclone catches
ND

1 um cyclone and ND — M
filter catches
XAD-2 sorbent H H
extract

Flyash ND — ND
ND
aMutagen1city test
bToxicity test

ND — Nondetectable
L  — Low
M  — Moderate
H  -- High
   — Assay not performed
                                  4-6

-------
             TABLE  4-4.   BIOASSAY RESULTS (ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS)
                                        Aquatic organisms
    Test      Sample    Invertebrate3  Freshwater fishb  Freshwater algae0
1             Flyash
(dry wood)
ND/L
ND
(green wood)  Flyash
ND/L
aDaphnia magna
"Pimephales promelas
cSelenastrum capricornutum

ND — Nondetectable toxicity
L  ~ Low toxicity
   ~ Assay not performed
                                   4-7

-------
gas emissions  of  73  inorganic  trace  elements,  total  organics in three boiling
point  ranges,  and ROM's and  selected other  organic  species  were also
measured.  The mechanical collector  hopper  ash was  also analyzed for trace
element composition, total organic content,  and Teachable trace element and
anion  content.
     CO emissions from the boiler were  very  high, averaging almost 10,000 ppm
(dry at 3 percent Og) for the  dry wood  test  and 3,000  ppm for the green wood
test.  Per unit of fuel feed,  these  translate  to 66  and 14  g/kg fuel,
respectively.  The high CO emissions were the  direct consequence of the high
excess air levels at which the boiler was operated:  averaging almost
400 percent for the dry wood test and over 200 percent for  the green wood
test.  NOX emissions for both  tests  were below 200  ppm (dry,  at 3 percent
03), corresonding to between 1.5 and 2.0 g/kg  fuel.  These  levels are
somewhat higher than typical for wood-fired  Industrial  boilers.   Particulate
emissions were approximately 3.5 g/kg fuel for both  tests,  in the range
typical of wood-fired industrial boilers.
     Paralleling  the relative CO levels for  the two  tests,  flue gas total
organic emissions  for the dry wood test, at  between  1.4 and 3.0 g/kg fuel,
were significantly higher than those for the green wood test at between 0.06
and 0.86 g/kg fuel.  Emission  levels for all three boiling  point ranges of
organics analyzed (nominally Ci to Cg,  Cy to Ci6, and  Ci6+)  as well  as  the
POM species determined, were higher  in  the dry wood  (higher excess air)
test.
     For both tests the trace  element composition of the mechanical  collector
hopper ash was similar to that of the corresponding  coarse  fraction (>3 \m)
participate collected.  Further, the composition of  the mechanical  collector
                                     4-8

-------
hopper ash was similar for both tests,  paralleling  a  corresponding similarity
between fuel trace element composition.
     Compared to coal-fired Industrial  boilers  1n the same capacity range,
NOX emissions from the wood-fired  unit  tested were  lower.  Emissions  from the
wood-fired boiler tested were generally less than 200 ppm (dry  at 3 percent
02), corresponding to levels In the  100 ng/J heat Input  range.  Typical
coal-fired stoker NOX emissions are  1n  the  300  to 400 ppm (dry  at 3 percent
03) range, corresponding to about  200 ng/J  heat Input.   S02  emissions from
the wood-fired boiler were also lower than  for  a coal-fired  unit reflecting
the relative fuel sulfur contents.
     CO emissions from the wood-fired bo1ler: 1n several thousand ppm (at
3 percent 03) range, were significantly higher  than the  typical several
hundred ppm or less range from coal-fired units. However, the  wood-fired
unit was operated at very high excess air levels, several hundred percent
excess air.  Coal-fired stokers are  generally operated In the 30 percent
excess air range.  Total semivolatlle and nonvolatile (SASS  train) organic
emissions from the wood-fired unit In the green wood  test (during which the
boiler was fired at lower excess air) were  comparable to corresponding
emissions from a coal-fired boiler.  Total  organic  emissions for the  dry wood
test (with the boiler fired at higher excess air) were higher.
     Emissions of several POM species (acenaphthylene, acenaphthene,
anthracene, benzofluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene were measured  in the 0.1 to  7 yg/dscm  range  in one
or both of the tests of this wood-fired boiler. Emissions of the same
species from industrial coal-fired boilers  are  often  in  the  0.1 to 1  pg/dscm
range.  Thus, POM emissions from the wood-fired unit  appear  higher (up to an

                                    4-9

-------
order of magnitude higher for some species) than from corresponding

coal-fired sources.  Still, emission levels remain relatively low, and  only

of POM species not regarded as being among the most hazardous.
                           REFERENCES FOR SECTION  4
4-1.  "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances  and  Physical  Agents in
      the Work Environment with  Intended Changes  for  1982,"  American
      Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygenists,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,
      1982.

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

4-3.  "Water Quality Criteria Documents; Availability,"  Federal  Register,
      Vol. 45, No. 231, pp. 79318 to 79379, November  28, 1980.

4-4.  Bruslck, 0. J., and R. R.  Young, "IERL-RTP  Procedures  Manual:   Level  1
      Environmental Assessment,  Biological Tests,"  EPA-600/8-81-024,  NTIS PB
      82-228966, October 1981.
                                     4-10

-------
                                   APPENDIX A
                         SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS

     Emission  test equipment was provided by Acurex Corporation and the
Office of  Research and Development of EPA.  Continuous monitoring analyses
for 02, CO,  and  NOX emissions were provided by personnel  from the GCA
                                              t
Corporation  contracted by EPA to operate their mobile emission monitoring
laboratory.  Onslte equipment provided by Acurex Corporation Included a
sulfur oxides  analysis train (controlled condensation system equipment), the
SASS train for particulate sizing and trace element and organic species
collection,  EPA  Method 5 sampling train for total  participate emissions, and
gas chromatography with flame lonization detector (GC/FID)  for gaseous (Cj to
Cg) hydrocarbon  analyses.   Source testing by Acurex and GCA was performed
simultaneously with polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions testing by the
North Carolina Department of Natural  Resources and Community Development
(DNR).  The  equipment  used by the DNR consisted of an EPA Method 5 sampling
train modified for the collection of semivolatile organic species as
described  by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories (Reference A-l).  All  flue gas
emission sampling  was  performed at the stack.  Wood fuel  samples and flyash
waste streams  samples  were taken by Acurex.
                                    •
     The following sections  briefly describe the equipment  and sampling
procedures used  by Acurex  and GCA during the source evaluation of the
wood-fired industrial  boiler.
                                     A-l

-------
A.I  CONTINUOUS MONITORING  SYSTEM  FOR  GASEOUS  EMISSIONS
     The continuous monitors for flue  gas  analysis were furnished by EPA 1n
their mobile sampling van.  The gas  samples were  taken  from  the  stack
downstream of the Induced draft (ID) fan.  One sampling probe, located  at the
average centrold of the stack, was used  In sampling  the flue gas*  Flue gas
                                        X
02, CO, and NOX were measured using  the  instrumentation summarized in
Table A-l; calibration gases are listed  in Table  A-2.   Figure A-l illustrates
the flue gas sampling system.  The sampling probe is equipped with an
1n-stack filter for removal of partlculate matter.  The heated interface box,
containing pneumatically operated valves, permitted  the operator  to transport
calibration gas to the box and compressed air  for back-flushing of sampling
probe and filter.  The Interface box is  connected to the gas conditioning
system by self-regulated heat-traced teflon tubing.  A  two-stage  condensation
unit removes the water vapor from the  sample prior to delivery to the
distribution panel and analyses.
A.2  PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
     Particulate mass tests were conducted in  accordance with EPA Reference
Methods 1 through 5.  The Acurex High  Volume Stack Sampler (HVSS) Illustrated
schematically in Figure A-2 was used in  this program.   A 1.52-m  (5-ft)  heated
stainless-steel, glass-lined probe was used to  isokinetlcally extract samples
from the stack.  Probe temperature was maintained at 120°C (250°F)  as
required by EPA Method 5.  A glass fiber filter 142 m  (5.59 in.) in diameter
heated to 120eC (250°F) was used to capture the particulates.  The impinger
train consisted of foam glass impingers  equipped  with teflon caps and 316
stainless-steel stems, collector tubes,  and fittings.   The first  two
Impingers contained 100 ml of distilled  water,  the third was empty,  and the

                                    A-2

-------
TABLE A-l.  MOBILE LABORATORY INSTRUMENT COMPLIMENT  (REFERENCE A-2)
Analyzer
Oxygen (02)
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Manufacturer
MSA
TECO
Horiba
Model
number
802
10AR
PIR2000
           TABLE A-2.  CALIBRATION  GASES (REFERENCE  A-2)
Standard
NO
NO
CO
CO
02
02
Zero
Diluent
Gas
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Compressed air
Nitrogen
Standard
concentration
148 ppm
202 ppm
258 ppm
1,020 ppm
11.1 percent
20.9 percent
Zero gas
                               A-3

-------
FILTER
                              HEATED INTERFACE  BOX
                   HEATED
                   SAMPLE
                   LINE
                                           WATER-VAPOR
                                             REMOVAL v.
                TO  DISTRIBUTION
                     PANEL
                     AND
                   ANALYZERS
                                        DRAIN
DRAIN
   Figure A-l.   Flue gas  collection and conditioning  system (Reference A-2),
                                        A-4

-------
                                                                 •Sm1 th-Greenberg Impi nger
en
           Stack temperature T.C.
            ^	         «
  Probe temperature
 "S" type  J
 pitot tube

PI tot AP
magnehellc
pressure gages
                   AH orifice plate
                        7
              Orifice AH
              magnehellc gage
        Note:  T.C. = Thermocouple
                                                                          Modified Smith-Greenberg
                                                                          Implngers
                                                               non
                                          100ml (each)    Empty
                                                                        lce bath

                                                             Fine adjustment
                                                             by pass valve
                                                                                     Silica gel
                                                                                    •dessleant
                                                                      Vacuum
                                                                      Gauge
                                                                   Coarse
                                                                   adjustment
                                                                   valve
                                                                          K
                                                                          Vacuum
                                                                          line
                               Dry test meter
A1r tight
vacuum
pump
                                  Figure A-2.  Particulate sampling train.

-------
 fourth  contained  a known amount  of  silica  gel.  The  control module  is
 equipped with magnehelic 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 on the uninsulated stack above  the ID fan.
The particulate tests were performed at 48 sampling  points in  accordance with
EPA Method 1.  Each test point was sampled for 2.5 rain, hence  a 120-min total
 sample  time.
     Figure A-3 illustrates the Method 5 sample recovery  protocol utilized  to
measure total particulate mass collected with the HVSS train.  Solid
particulate matter is defined as all particulate mass collected In  the  front
half of the train; that is the filter, the probe, and the nozzle.
Condensible particulate matter Is obtained from gravimetric analyses of
                                                                  /
impinger liquids  and impinger rinses.
A.3  SULFUR EMISSIONS
     Sulfur emissions (S(>2 and $03} were measured using the controlled
condensation system illustrated in Figure A-4.  This sampling  system,
designed primarily to measure vapor phase concentration of SQ$ as 1^04,
consists of a heated quartz probe, a Goksoyr/Ross condenser (condensation
coil), impingers, a pump, and a dry gas test meter.  By using  the
Goksoyr/Ross condenser, the gas is cooled to the dew point where $03
condenses as HgSO^  SOg Interference is prevented by maintaining the
temperature of the gas above the water dew point.  Sulfur dioxide is
collected in a 3  percent hydrogen peroxide solution.  A more detailed
discussion of the controlled condensation sampling system is given  in
Reference A-3.
                                    A-6

-------
       FILTER
   DESICCATE AND
      WEIGH TO
  CONSTANT WEIGHT
  PROBE. NOZZLE
 AND FILTER WASH
IMPINGERS
 LIQUID
  EVAPORATE AT
ROOM TEMPERATURE
  AND PRESSURE
                                   EVAPORATE AT
                                 ROOM TEMPERATURE
                                   AND PRESSURE
MEASURE VOLUME
   TO »1 ml
                        DESICCATE AND
                          WEIGH TO
                       CONSTANT WEIGHT
                      EXTRACT WITH
                         3 x 25 ml
                       ETHYL ETHER
                                    EXTRACT WITH
                                      3x28 ml
                                    ETHYL ETHER
                                                                     EXTRACT WITH
                                                                        3 » 25 ml
                                                                     CHLOROFORM
                                                                                             FILTER THROUGH
                                                                                               47 mm TYPE A
                                                                                               GLASS FILTER
                                                                                              EVAPORATE AT
                                                                                            ROOM TEMPERATURE
                                                                                              AND PRESSURE
                                                                                             DESICCATE AND
                                                                                               WEIGH TO
                                                                                            CONSTANT WEIGHT
                                                      FILTER THROUGH
                                 CONSTANT WEIGHT
                                                    ROOM TEMPERATURE
                                                    CONSTANT WEIGHT
NOTES1
1) ALL WEIGHTS ARE TO NEAREST ttOlg
2) DESICCATE ALL SAMPLES FOR 24 HOURS PRIOR TO WEIGHING
       Figure  A-3.   Sample  analysis  scheme  for particulate sampling train.
                                                 A-7

-------
00
                                       -1/h" 
-------
     Both S02 and $03  (as ^SO^ were measured  by titration with  a 0.02  N NaOH
using bromphenol blue  and barium thorin  as  the  indicators.  Results  of the
titration with  bromphenol blue  Indicator were considered questionable due to
pH Inbalances 1n the blanks  and samples.  Most  of the samples  analyzed
required the addition  of acid to swing the  Indicator color to  yellow for
titration to a  basic end point. Although S02 and $03 analyses using this
indicator showed concentrations in  the range of 3 to 8 ppm, respectively, the
results were considered questionable because of problems associated  with
plpetlng errors and varying  end-points.
     The results of the barium  thorin titration seemed to be much more
definitive.  For the most part  end-points were  easily determined  and the
results consistent.  Using this titration method, the analysis indicated that
there were no detectable oxidized sulfur species in  the sampled flue gas
stream for either the  dry or green  wood  tests.
A.4  TRACE ELEMENTS 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-4), 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-5, 1s 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-9

-------
                             Heated oven
                                             Filter
    Stainless
      steel
      sample
      nozzle
                 Stack T.C.
                                                                   1/2" Teflor)
                                                                     line
                                                                   Isolation
                                                                   ball valve
                                                                                   Organic module

                                                                                  Gas temperature T.C.
                                                                                    1/2" Teflon line

                                                                                 .aoaa/
  .'  Stack
  velocity
AP magnehellCj
   gauges
               Stainless steel
               probe assembly
                                                   Oven T.C
                                        Sorbent cartridge

                                     Heater controller
                                              W Teflon
                                             Condensate
                                          collector vessejl
                                        Imp/cooler trace
                                       element collector —
                                         Gas meter T.C.
                                                                   Coarse adjustment
                                                                     alve
                       AH orifice plate
                                                                                  Vacuum gauge
                                                                         Fine adjustment
                                                                           valve
                                                                                                    Implnger
                                                                                                      1 • t •
                                                                                                   Ice bath
                                                                                                   600 grams
                                                                                                         gel
                                                                                                    desleant
                                                                                                   500ml
                                                                                                    0.2 M AgWh
                                                                                                    0.2 H (NH4)2 S208
                                                                                                   500 ml
                                                                                                    30* H202
 Orifice AH
magnehelic
 gauge    f v\
                                                        I   acuum pumps
                                                        1(10 ft3/m1n each)
                                                                                         Heavy wal1
                                                                                        vacuum line
            |	Controljnodujlr-^l _OnrJ«t_K
Note:   T.C.  = Thermocouple
                    Figure  A-5.   Source  assessment sampling  train schematic.

-------
     •   Ttie 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-6 and A-7.  The following
paragraphs briefly describe analytical procedures used In measuring trace
elements and organic emissions.
     Inorganic analyses of solid and liquid samples from the SASS train were
performed by 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).
     Quantitative information on total organic emissions was obtained by gas
chromatography for total chromatographable organlcs (TCO) and by gravimetry
(GRAY) of participate, sorbent module (XAD-2), and condensate trap extracts.
Infrared spectroscopy (IR) and gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS)
were used for identification of organic functional groups and for determining
polycyclic organic matter (POM) and other organic species concentrations in
extract samples.  Liquid chromatography (LC) into seven polarity fractions,
followed by IR, and low resolution mass spectrometry  (LRMS) of fractions
containing >0.5 mg/dscm were performed to better quantify specific organic
species.  Figure A-8 illustrates the organic analysis methodology followed
during the current program.
A.5  Ci TO C6 HYDROCARBON SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
     Samples of flue gas for C| to €5 hydrocarbon analysis were collected
using a grab sampling procedure.  Flue gas was extracted from the stack at an
average velocity point similar to the average velocity point selected for the
SASS probe.
                                    A-ll

-------










SAMPLE















SOR8ENT CARTRIDGE —


AQUEOUS CONDENSATE
FIBST IMPINGFR
M
B z

So 2
J* afa 0
u tug <

1 5^ s x
* MU 2 ™
I §1 * i
H »»a > x
5 u c • a
u oo a •>




^v.__^X' *
BT~~^^

_ ^
*so___x^ *
_/^ ^v^




*
\
/
SPUIT >y
S GRAMS

,j AQUEOUS PORTION
\ ORGANIC EXTRACT




in
S
a
^ §
•J 5
•^ • 3
< O " K §
K O U < S
a P 3 £ 3








• •^





• •> »



COMBINE


*






J
<
a
s


















9
                                                                                                          OB
SECOND AND THIRD
IMPINGEHS COMBINED
     TOTALS
                                                                       S   2   5
6   1
    • If rtqoif«d. iimpl* ihould b« Mt aiid* for biolO9>c*l jiMlyin »t Ihb point.

    Thn itra n r«guir«d to d«fin« th« total mm of p»rtMutot* eateh. If tta »mpl« txcMdi 10X ol tha total cydona and
    filtar tamgl* wai^ht eroeaad to analym. If tha sarnola it Ian than 10% of tha eateh, hold in rajarva.
                Figure  A-6.   Flue  gas  analysis  protocol  for SASS  samples,
                                                   A-12

-------
          FLUE SOURCE
                               OPACITY
                                       GASES
1
,


I I
XAD2
MODULE


•it
IMPINGER


2nd AN
IMPINGE
Figure  A-7.  Flue  gas sample  analysis protocol

-------

Organic Extract
or
Neat Organic Liquid
•
1



Concentrate
Extract

* t
GC/MS Analysis,
POM, and other Infrared Analysis
organic species

i


t t
Repeat TCO
Gravimetric Analysis
if necessary

Aliquot containing
15-100 mg
i
•
Sol vent
Exchange
I
.
Liquid
Chroma tographic
Separation

t t * 1

r M »
Seven Fractions

t
Infrared Analysis


f t
Mass Spectra
Analysis
TCO
Gravimetric
Analysis
Figure A-8.  Organic analysis methodology.
                   A-14

-------
i
l-»
in
        Heated pyrex  _
        lined probe   A
       Glass wool
                  J
                                 AC line
     Proportional
     voltage
     controller
                                         T/C

                                         Teflon
                                         stopcocks
                                     Probe
                                     T/C
Bulb
T/C
                                       II       II
                                      Temperature
                                      indicator
                                                                       _ Heated  300 ml
                                                                     /  sample  bulb
             Gas
             tight
             spectrum
                                          Teflon
                                          stopcocks
Heavy wall
vacuum
line
                                      Teflon diaphrams
                                      vacuum pump
                        Figure A-9.  Diagram of Cj to Cg hydrocarbon sampling system

-------
      Samples  for  gaseous  hydrocarbon  analysts  were collected using the
apparatus  illustrated  in  Figure  A-9.   The  equipment consisted of a heated,
0.64-cm  (l/4-1n.) OD pyrex-llned,  stainless-steel  probe fitted with a glass
wool  filter at the probe  inlet.  The  outlet  of the probe was directly
attached to a 300-ml pyrex  sampling bulb.  The bulb was equipped with teflon
gas-tight  stopcocks at each end  and a septum port  for sample removal.  The
sampling bulb was insulated with heat tape powered by a varying voltage
controller.  The heating jacket  kept  the sample gas above the dew point to
minimize sample loss due to water  condensation.
     Prior to sampling, the gas  bulb  was purged with stack gas for 3-min and
then  sealed.  The trapped flue gas was then  analyzed onsite with a Carle 8500
gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with  flame ionization detector.  Table A-3
lists the design specifications of the Carle GC.   A 1.85-m (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
(Cj to Ce).  The GC was calibrated with repeated Injections of a standard gas
containing Cj to CQ hydrocarbons (each having  a concentration of 15 ppm).
The chromatographlc responses for  the standards and the samples were  recorded
on a Hewlett Packard Model 3390A reporting integrator.
A.6  FUEL AND FLYASH SAMPLING
     Wood fuel samples were collected at the outlet of the storage silos.
Multiple samples were  taken over the  duration  of each test.   The sample used
in proximate and ultimate analyses and Inorganic trace element analysis
represented a composite of all samples taken.   Flyash collected by the
mechanical collector was sampled as it entered the flyash bin.   As with fuel
sampling, a composite  sample of  the flyash was taken during each test.
                                    A-16

-------
             TABLE A-3.  GAS CHROMATOGRAPH SPECIFICATIONS
Carle Instruments, Inc., Model 8500 gas chromatograph:
     Sensitivity:
     Suppression range:
     Noise:
     Time constant:
     Gas required:
5 x 10-12 A for i mv output
10-9 A
0.5 percent peak to peak on most
sensitive range
100 ms on all ranges except
"1" range which is 200 ms
Carrier gas (helium)
Combustion air
Fuel^gas (hydrogen)
                                A-17

-------
                          REFERENCES  FOR APPENDIX  A
A-l.  Jones, P. W., et al.,  "Measurement of  Polycyclic  Organic  Material  and
      Other Hazardous Organic Compounds in Stack  Gases  —  State of the Art,"
      EPA-600/2-77-202, NTIS PB274013, October  1977.

A-2.  (Deleted.)
A-3.  Maddalone, R. and N. Gainer, "Process Measurement Procedures:
      Emissions," EPA-600/7-79-156, NTIS PB80-115959, July  1979.

A-4.  Lentzen, D. E., et al., '"IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:  Level  1
      Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201,
      NTIS PB293795, October 1978.
                                    A-18

-------
                                  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  (yg/g) for each sample analyzed.
Compositions for the wood fuel, mechanical collector hopper ash (flyash), its
aqueous leachate, and all SASS train samples (probe wash 10 + 3 urn
participate, filter + 1 ym participate, XAD-2 resin, 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, and the SASS train sum (labeled "stack exhaust").
     Symbols appearing in the tables are:
         DSCM    Dry standard cubic meter at 1 atm and 20°C
         MCG     Microgram
         PPM     Part per million by weight
         <       Less than
         >       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.
                                    B-l

-------
     Detectabtlity limits  for  the  various  SASS,  Ifqufd,  and solid  stream
samples were the following:
     •   10 + 3 ym cyclones         — <0.1 yg/g
     •   Filter                     — <0.1 yg/g
     •   XAD-2                      ~ <0.1 yg/g
     •   Impinger and organic
         module concentrate         ~ <0.1 pg/ml
     •   Wood sample                — <0.1 yg/g
     •   Mechanical hopper ash      — <01. yg/g
     The data inputs to the computer code  for calculation  of trace element
flowrates were the following:
     Test 1 (dry wood)
         •   Wood flowrate                   =0.29 kg/s
         •   Heating value of wood           = 17,915 KJ/kg
         •   Gas volume sampled by SASS      = 21.623 dscm
                             N
         •   Calculated flue*gas flowrate    = 6.36 dscm/s
         •   SASS 10 + 3 pm cyclone catch    = 1.8191g
         •   SASS 1 pm cyclone +             » 1.6036g
             filter catch
         •   XAD-2 weight                    = 130g
         •   SASS impinger 1 final           = 630 ml
             volume
         •   SASS impingers 2 + 3 final      = 1,390 ml
             volume
     Test 2 (green wood)
         •   Wood flowrate                   = 0.54 kg/s
         o   Heating value of wood           » 13,318 KJ/kg
         •   Gas volume sampled by SASS      = 27.065 dscm

                                    B-2

-------
Calculated flue gas flowrate     =5.97  dscm/s
SASS 10 + 3 IIRI cyclone catch     =  7.1458g
SASS 1 ym cyclone +              »  2.1976g
filter catch
XAD-2 weight                     =  130g
SASS implnger 1 final            =  1,325 ml
volume
SASS 1mp1ngers 2 + 3  final       =  1,340 ml
volume
                        B-3

-------
PPM
ELEMENT
URANIUM
THOR I UM
B ISMUTH
LEAD
THALLIUM
MERCURY
PLATINUM
TUNGSTEN
TANTALUM
HAFNIUM
LUTETIUM
YTTERBIUM
THULIUM
ERB IUM
HOLNIUN . . - .
DYSPROSIUM
TERBIUM 	 ...
GADOLINIUM
EUROPIUM
SAMARIUM
NEOOYMIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
CERIUM
LANTHANUM
BARIUM
CESIUM
IODINE
TELLURIUM
ANTIMONY
.„ TIN .. ._ .
CADMIUM
SILVER
MOLYBDENUM
NIOBIUM
.. ZIRCONIUM
YTTRIUM
	 STRONTIUM ... -
RUBIDIUM
BROMINE
— SELENIUM
ARSENIC V 	
GERMANIUM 	
GALLIUM — -
ZINC
. COPPER
TEST 1
PPM
10U + 3U CYCLONES
.lOOE+Ol
•400E+01
.0 E+00
.410E+02
.0 E+00
<.830E+00
.0 -E+00 .. - -
.500E+OI
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.lOOE+00
.900F+00
.100E+00
.400E+00
... .500 E+00 	
.200E+01
.100E+01
« 500 E+00
	 .500E+01 	
.400E+01
.I30E+02
.420E+02
>.IOOE+04 	
.600E+00
•300E+00
N.O E+00
_ .. .400E+00. 	
.700E+00
.100E+02
' .500E+01
... .600E+01
.700E+01
.790E+02
.BOOE+01
.SOOE+00 - ..
N.O E+00
	 	 ..500E+00 _ .
.700E+01
>.100E+0*
.980E+02
- DRY HOOD
IU + FILTER
<.985E-Ol
.197E+00
<.985E-Oi
.158E+02
	 .0 E+00 	 	 ...
<«985E+00
.0 E+00
•591E+00
.197E+00
.0 E+00 - .
<.985E-OI
<.989E-01
<.985E-Ol
	 .985E-01 	 .. ..
. 197E+00
.9B5E-01 m _
.296E+00
.985E-01
.. 	 ..88TE+00... _ 	
.887E+00
.BB7F+QO
.S22E+01
.906E+01
... — >.975E+03, .
.1.97E+00
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
	 .985E-01 	 	
.197E+00
.394E+01
.394E+00
.0 E+00
_. . . , .0 E+00
.266E+01
•590E+02
.0 E+00
	 .296E+01 _.
N.O E+00
	 .197E+00
.690E+00
.386E+03
.287E+02
XAO-2 . .
.0 E+00
...•0 E+00
.0 E+00
.tOOE+00
.0. E+00
. lOOE+00
. 0 .E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
...0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0. E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
...0 .6+00..
.0 E+00
j.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
...0 . E+00 .
.0 E+00
__*0 E+00
.0 E+00
<.200E+01
... 0 E+00
.200E+00
_.100E+00
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
. .0 ... E+00 .
.0 E+00
•JJOE+03
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.180E+01
.0 E+00
__»0 E+00
.0 E+00
.170E+01
. .0 E+00
N.O E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.200E+01
.0 E+00
_. FIRST IMPINGES 2ND
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.170E-01
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
_ 	 	 .O...E+00 	
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
	 	 	 . .0 . ..E+00 	
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•420E-OI
.0 E+00
-^™. -0 E+00
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
... ...... .O...E+00.. „ 	
.0 E+00
.200E+00
.192E+00
.500E-02
.290E-01
.0 E+00
.300E-02
.800E-01
.3006-01
_ 	 	 . .0 E+00 _ 	
N.O E+00
.0 E+00
<.IOOE-02
.980E+00
.500E-02
G 3RD.IMPINGFRS
N.O E+00
_,0 E+00
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
.0 E+00
<.930E-03
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
.0 E+00
.N.O_.E+00 	
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
<.930E-0?
,.N.O .E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
.N.O E+00 ..
<.930E-02
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00

-------
I
01
  PPM

 -B.EMENT

  NICKEL
- COBALT
  IRON
  MANGANESE
  CHROMIUM

  VANADIUM
  TITANIUM -
  SCANDIUM
  CALCIUN
  POTASSIUM

  CHLORINE
  SULFUR
  PHOSPHORUS
  SILICON
 - ALUMINUM

  MAGNESIUM
 - SODIUM
  FLUORINE
  BORON
 - BERYLLIUM

  LITHIUM
 --FLUORIDE —
  CHLORIDE
  BROMIDE
  NITRATE

  NITRITE
 - SULFITE
  SULFATE
  PHOSPHATE
  AMMONIA  •
                       	       ETHAN ALLEN
                                 TEST  1 - DRV MOOD
                                 PPM
                    10U + 3U CYCLONES       1U » FILTER
                         .170E+02
                         .200E+01
                        >.IOOE+0«
                        >.IOOE+0+
                         .260E+02

                         .1TOE+02
                       ->.IOOE+0*
                         .500E+00
                        >.IOOE+04
                        >.100E+04

                         .680E+03
                        >«IOOE+0*
                        >*100E+04
                        >.IOOE+04
->.100E+04
 >.IOOE+04
  .190E+03
 <. 100 E+00

  .300E+01
-N.O -E+00-
 N.O  E+00
 N .0  E+00
 N.O- E+00

 N.O  E+00
-N.O  E+00
 N.O  E+00
 N.O  E+00
-N.O - E+00
  .345E+01
  .9B5E-01
>.9S6E+03
>.985E+03
  .404E+01

  .197E+00
  .0  E+00
  .0  E+00
U.O  E+00
>.979E+03

  .916E+02
->.982E+03
>.97SE+03
U.O  E+00
U.O  E+00

U.O  E+00
U.O - E+00-
  .0  E+00
  .0  E+00
<.965E-01

  .0  E+00
N.O- E+00
N.O  E+00
N.O  E+00
N.O  E+00
                                            N.O
                                            N.O
                                            N.O
                                            N.O
                                            N.O
     E+00
     E+00
     E+00
     E+00
     E+00
XAO-2
.190E+02
~ .900E+00
.6006*01
.0 E+00
.0 6*00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
<.100E+00
.0 E+00
.220E+02
.270E+02
-,15*E+03
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•IOOE+01
.600E+01
- -.600E+02
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
- ,0 E+00
.0 E+00
N*0 -E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O - E+00
N.O E+00
-N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
-N.O E+00
- FIRST IMPINGER -
.300E-01
	 _0 E+00 — —
.900E-01
.400E-02
.196E+00 - —
.400E-02
	 .600E-01 	
<.100E-02
.0 E+00
	 .SOOE+00
.360E+00
	 >.990E+01 	
.0 E+00
>.9*OE+01
	 	 .400E-01 -
.6 70E+00
, >.94QE*OI
•230E+01
.900E-02
	 . . ,0 E+00 ... . 	
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
_ . _. 	 N.O. . E+00
N.O E+00
	 N.O E+00 	
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
	 -N.O E+00 ---.
2ND t 3RD IMPINGERS
N.O E+00
	 JY.O-E+00 	
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
	 N.O E+00 	
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
... _N.O .E+00 	
N.O E+00
	 N.O...E+00 	 _
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
	 N.O- E+00 	
N.O E+00
NTO F+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
	 N.O . E+00 	
N.O E+00
N.n F+nn
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
	 N.O E+00 	
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00

-------
                                                       ETHAN ALLEN
CD
PPM
ELEMENT
URANIUM
- THORIUM 	
BISMUTH
LEAD
THALLIUM
MERCURY
PLATINUM
TUNGSTEN
TANTALUM*
HAFNIUM
LUTETIUN. '
YTTERBIUM'
THULIUM
ERBIUM
HOLMIUH
DYSPROSIUM
TERBIUM
GADOLINIUM
EUROPIUM
. SAMARIUM 	
NEODVMIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
CER IUM
LANTHANUM
BARIUM
CESIUM
- IODINE 	 -
TELLURIUM
ANTIMONY
TIN
'CADMIUM -
SILVER _
MOLYBDENUM
NIOBIUM
-ZIRCONIUM -
YTTRIUM
-STRONTIUM
RUBIDIUM
BROMINE
SELENIUM
ARSENIC
GERMANIUM
GALLIUM •
ZINC
COPPER
TEST 1 -
PPM
FUEL I DRY MOOD
<.300E-01
. . <.400E-01
.0 E+00
.400E+00
.300E-01
<.500E-Ol
- .0 -E+00 	
.0 E+00
.0 6*00
. . .0 E+00 ... — 	
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 F+AQ
.0 E+00
,0 F+OO
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.. .-.<.200E-01 	 	
<.100E-01
•200E-01 ....
. LOOE+00
.200E+00
. ...210E+02 . ..
.600E-01
.900E-01
.300E-01
N.O E+00
_- <.100E-01 	
«300E-Ol
•2QOE+QO
<.100E-Ol
<.100E-01
•700E-01 . .
.400E-01
.TdQFt-oi
.400E+00
•400E+00
.IOOE-01 .
N.O E+00
	 .0 E+00 - .
•100E-01
.290E+02
•600E+01
DRY MOOD
FLYASH
.100E+01
	 .700E+OL
.0 E+00
.2BOE+02
.0 E+00
<.500E-Ol
_ .0 E+00
.900E+00
.0 E+00
.900E+00
.0 E+00
•0 F.*00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
.. ...900E+00
.200E+01
•400E+00
	 .300E+01
.400E+01
•400E+01
.200E+02
.160E+02
>.100E+0%
.600E+00
.^700E+00
.500E+00
N.O E+00
... .500E+00
. IOOE+01
~ «0 E+00
.200E+01
.400E+01
.100E+02
.110E+02
. 620E+03
.130E+03
.600E+01
.500E+01
N.O E+00
•300E+00
.500E+01
.410E+03
.S20E+02
FLYASH LEACHATE
.0 E+00
. . 	 .0 E+00 	
.0 E+00
.aooE-oi
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.... ---<.500E-02 	
.900E-01
.900E-02
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
.600E+00
. 800E+00
.0 E+00
. . .0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 __,0 . E+00 	
.0 E+00
,o E+OQ
•200E-02
.300E-02
>«100E+02
.0 E+00
T£nnF-nt
<.800E-02
N.O E+00
.. . 	 <.900E-02 . .
.200E-02
.0 E+00
.300E-02
.0 E+00
	 4200E-02
<.IOOE-02
>. 100E+02
>.100E+02
.400E+00
.0 E+00 ...
N.O E+00
<.IOOE-02
.3006-02
.200E-01
.300E-01

-------
PPN
	 CLEMENT -
NICKEL
IRON
MANGANESE
CHROMIUM
VANADIUM
TITAMIIIU '
SCANDIUM
CALC IUN
POTASSIUM
CHLORINE
SULFUR
PHOSPHORUS
SILICON
- Al IIMIMIM
MAGNESIUM
SODIUM * —
FLUORINE
BORON
— BERYLLIUM
LITHIUM
	 FLUORIDE
CHLORIDE
BROMIDE
— NITRATE 	
NITRITE
SULF 1 TE
SULFATE
PHOSPHATE
AMMONIA -
•-- 	 - 	 — - einnw-
TEST 1
FUEL! DRV NOOfT
.800E-01
•- . . >i f\nf+nti
. llOE+02
>.450E+02
.1006*00 -
.800E-01
CAAC_A| , ,
.0 E+00
>.100E*03
>.S40E+02 -
.1006*02
i.?7np*n?
.190E*02
>.100E+03
>.4nnp*ni
>.IOOE+03
\ 1 lOF-t-n?
.600E*00
.400E-01
, . ,, , , to E+00
.300E-01
N.n F+nn
N.O E+00
N.O E»00
-_ 	 N.o- E+00 	
N.O E+00
N*0 E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
- 	 N«fl E+00 	
ALIEN 	 — 	
- DRV MOOD
FLYASH 	 - - -
.600E+01
. ^nnF*nt
>.100E+04
>.IOOE+0*
.400E+01
.290E+02
v I nne ^.nx.
.900E+00
>.IOOE+04
>. IOOE+0*
.870E+03
>_ i nnC*nA.
>.IOOE+04
>.IOOE+04
>.tOAP»n4
>.100E+0«
v. innCAnA
.240E+02
.140E+03
	 	 	 300E+00 •-
.SOOE+Ot
•BOOE+flO
•560E+03
•400E+02
	 .100E+03 	
•240E+03
<.800F*01
.800E+03
.200E+00
- - - .500E+01 	
FLVASH LEACH ATE
.200E-01
+ 9naF— o?
.600E+01
.500E-02
. tOOE+00
.800E-01
t> nncA.ni
<. 100E-02
>.100E+02
>.100E+02
>.100E+02
>. i OOF*O?
.200E+00
>. 100E+02
. i nnp«-nn
.500E-01
>. 100E+02
.400E+01
.lOOE-01
•0 E+00
. 100E-01
N. 0 F+OO
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
- N.O,. E+00 	
" N.O E+00
N.O F*00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O ..E+00 	

-------
00
00

CONCENTRATION
ELEMENT
URANIUM
THORIUM —- -. -
BISMUTH
LEAD
THALLIUM
MERCURY
_ PLATINUM ._ 	
TUNGSTEN
TANTALUM
HAFNIUM
LUTET1UM
YTTERBIUM-- .
THULIUM
ERBIUM
- HOLMIUM ...
DYSPROSIUM
TERBIUM .....
GADOLINIUM
EUROPIUM
. SAMARIUM
NEOOYMIUM
PRASCOOYHIUN
CERIUM
LANTHANUM
BARIUM
CESIUM
. IODINE
TELLURIUM
ANTIMONY
- TIN
CADMIUM
. SILVER 	
MOLYBDENUM
NIOBIUM
. . ZIRCONIUM
YTTRIUM
-STRONTIUM
RUBIDIUM
BROMINE
... SELENIUM
ARSENIC
	 GERMANIUM -^ —
GALLIUM
ZINC 	
. COPPER
	 - ETHAN ALL
TEST 1 -
HCG/DSCM
IOU * 3U CYCLONES
.B41E-01
- - «337E+00-
.0 E+00
.345E+01
	 .0 E+00
< .6986-01
.0 E+OQ
.421E+00
.0 E+00
.0 £+00 .
• 84U-02
-_*757E-Ol. 	 -
•841E-02
.337E-OI
.._ 	 - .421E-01 	
.168E+00
TB4|p-Ot
.841E-01
.421E-01
	 	 .421E+00 	
.337E+00
. l&HF+ni}
.109E+01
•353E+01
	 _ >..64LE+02 	
.505E-01
	 _ 	 .B41E-01 	 	 	
.252E-01
N .0 E+00
	 .337E-01
. 589E-01
.337F+00
.8*1 E+00
.42 1 E+00
.- 	 .5 05 E+00 . . .
.589E+00
> .a41F+n?
.665E+01
.673E+00
... .421E-01 . 	
N .0 E+00
- 	 _. .421E-01 ....
.589E+00
> .841E+02
» . , .824E+01
EN 	
DRY WOOD
1U + FILTER
< .731E-02
,|&*F-Q1
< .731E-02
. 1L7E+01
• 0 E+00 .
< .731E-01
.n F+oo
.438E-01
•146E-01
.0 E+00 . ..
< .731E-02
	 .731E-02 	
< .731E-02
< .731E-02
	 	 .731E-02 .
.146E-01
-751 P-O?
.219E-01
.731E-02
. . .65BE-01 _.
.658E-01
.A6RF-01
.387E+00
.672E+00
	 > .723E+02 .
.I46E-01
* 731*- 02
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
• 731E-02...
.146E-01
•292E+00
.292E-01
.0 E+00
. .0 E+00 .
.197E+00
.14SE+02
.438E+01
.0 E+00
•219E+00
N .0 E+00
.146E-01
.512E-01
.2B6E+02
•213E+01

XAD-2
.0 E+00
rtf p+00
.0 E+00
.601 E+00
	 .0 E+00
.601 E+00
-o F,+on
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 .0 E+00
.0 E+00
... .0 ,E+OQ
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 ..0. .E+00 -
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 	 . .0. E+00 .
.0 E+00
.O E+00
.0 E+00
< .120E+02
.. .0 E+00 .
.120E+01
.601E+00
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
	 	 .0 E+00 ..
.0 E+00
.7Bt£+Q*
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 .106E+02
. 0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.102E+02
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
	 	 ...0 _ E+00 	
.0 E+00
. 120E+02
.0 E+00

FIRST IMPINGER... .2ND C
.0 E+00
.0 F+OO
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.49 5 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 .0 . E+00
.0 E+00
.0 F+OO
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 ..0 .E+00 	
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
. . . . .0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 .122E+01 	
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
	 .0 .E+00 	 	
.0 E+00
.S83E+01
.SS9E+01
.146E+00
. . . .B4SE+00
.0 E+00
.B74E-01
.233E+01
.874E+00
. .0.. E+00 	
N .0 E+00
	 	 _.0_.E+00_ . 	
< .291E-01
•286E+02
.146E+00

3RD IMPINCFPS
N .0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
.0 F+OO
< .598F-OI
N 	 ,0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N . ,0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N 	 . 0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N__,0 E+00 	
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N_.0. E+00 	
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
< .598E+00
N_»0 .E+00 	
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 F+OO
JJ 	 ,0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N, .0 .E+00
< .598E+00
N_.0 . E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 F+OO

-------
CONCENTRATION
ELEMENT
NICKEL
COBALT 	
IRON
MANGANESE
CHROMIUM
VANADIUM
-TITANIUM 	
SCANDIUM
CALCIUM
POTASSIUM
CHLORINE
-SULFUR
PHOSPHORUS
SILICON
ALUMINUM
MAGNESIUM
— 5001 UM .... -
FLUORINE
BORON
— BERYLLIUM
' LITHIUM
-—FLUORIDE -- — -
CHLORIDE
BROMIDE
NITRATE
NITRITE
SULFITE - •
SULFATE
PHOSPHATE
AMMONIA
	 cinniimi.cn
TEST 1 - DRY V
MCG/OSCM
iOU + 3U CYCLONES IU *
•143E+01
. l&BE+QO - --- --
> .8416+02
> .8416+02
.219E+01
.143E+01
	 >->B41E+02 	
.4216-01
> .841E+02
> .8416+02
.5726+02
- > .841E+02 	
> .841E+02
> .841E+02
-- . . v _ft£ic*f)9
> .84U+02
> .841E+02
. 160E+02
	 < .841E-02 	
.2526+00
N-mO ~ E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N -.0 -E+00 	
N .0 E+00
	 .n • E+00 ~
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
	 N .0 E+00
)
5
U
J
3
U
-U
u
II

N
N
N
N
N
N
- N
mno
i- FILTER
.2566+00
.7316-02
' .7096+02
> .7306*02
.3006+00
.1466-01
- .0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
> .7266*02
.6806+01
>- .7296+02
• .7236+02
.0 E+00
- .0 E+00
.0 E+00
_n F«nn
•0 E+00
•0 E+00
! .731E-02
.0 E+00
_n E+OQ
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.n F+OO
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
-.0 E+00
XAO-2 	
.1146+03
.3616+02
.0 E+00
	 .0 E+00
.0 E+00
< .6016+00
.0 E+00
.1326+03
.1626+03
	 .9266+03 —
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.---- .6016*01
.3616+02
. 	 . i«.icxna
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 .._ ..o- E+00 —
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
	 	 N .0 E+00 -
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
	 N- .0 - E+00 .
FIRST IMPINGER
.8746+00
•0 E+00
.2626+01
.1176+00
-.571E+01
.1176+00
• 175E+01
< .2916-01
.0 E+00
	 .L46E+02
.1056+02
	 >-«288E+03
.0 E+00
> .2746+03
— .1176+01
.1956+02
> .274E+03
.6706+02
.2626+00
	 ^0 E+00
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
. . ... N .0-6+00
N .0 E+00
N . 0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
. 	 N .0 . E+00
2ND C 3RD IMPINGERS..
N .0 E+00
N .0 p*nn
N
N
N
N
N
N
	 	 N .
N
N"
N
	 N-
N
N
N
	 N--
N
N
N
N
	 N
N
N
N
... . . N
.0
.0
.0 -
.0
-.0
.0
.0
.0-
.0
..0_
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0-
.0
to
.0
.0 .
.0
.0
.0
.0
E+00
E+00
.E+00 . ...
E+00
E+00
6+00
E+00
E+00
E+00
.E+00 	
E+00
E+00
E+00 	 .
E+00
E+00
E+00
E+00
E+00 	
E+00
F+nO
E+00
E+00
E+00 _ - ..
E+00
F+00
E+00
E+00
E+00 ...

-------
                                                                ETHAN ALLEN
                                   CONCENTRATION                TEST 1 - DRV MOOD
                                                                MCG/OSCM
                                   ELEMENT           STACK EXHAUST

                                   URANIUM        . 841E-OKX<.914E-01
                                   THORIUM               .351E+00      	
                                   BISMUTH.            < .731E-02
                                   LEAD                  «522E*Ol
                                   THALLIUM              .0  E*00

                                   MERCURY- ,      .110E+OKXX.130E+01
                                   PLATINUM  	  .0  E»00	 .._..
                                   TUNGSTEN              .+65E+00
                                   TANTALUM              .146E-01
                                   HAFNIUM               .0  E+00

                                   LUTETIUN       .841E-02 .158E4-03 .

                                   CESIUM  '              ,127E*Ol
                                   .IODINE   -   	 	.693E*00	
                                   TELLURIUM             .252E-01
                                   ANTIMONY'           < .598E+00
                                   TIN
                                   CADMIUM               .735E-01
                                  -SILVER  ..- 	.T87E*03	
                                   MOLYBDENUM            .646E+01
                                   NIOBIUM          '     .566E+00
                                  .ZIRCONIUM   -     -    .122E4-02

                                   YTTRIUM    '           .786E*00
                                   STRONTIUM-	   __> .987E+02	
                                   RUBIDIUM              .134E«-02
                                   BROMINE               .118E+02
                                  -SELENIUM   . .  ..       ,261E»00.

                                   ARSENIC             < .598E*00
                                  -GERMANIUM        .     .567E-01  . _
                                   GALLIUM        .640E*00 .I53E*03
                                  -COPPEK-               .105E+02

-------
                                  CONCENTRATION

                                  ELEMENT

                                  NICKEL
                                  -COBALT  	
                                  IRON
                                  MANGANESE
                                  CHROMIUM

                                  VANADIUM
                                  TITANIUM  	
                                  SCANDIUM
                                  CALCIUM
                                  POTASSIUM'

                                  CHLORINF
                                  - SULFUR     	
                                  PHOSPHORUS
                                  SILICON •
                                  -ALUMINUM
                                  MAGNESIUM
                                  -SODIUM
                                  FLUORINE
                                  BORON
                                  BERYLLIUM
  ....... ......... ETHAN ALLEN -
             TEST 1 - DRY HOOD
             MCG/DSCM
  STACK EXHAUST

       .1176+03
     > .194E+03
     > .1576+03
       .8206+01

       .1566+01
     X-.B59E+02'
,421E-OKX<.672E+00
     > .8*16+02
     > .3046+03
       .237E+03
     > .137E+OV-
     > .1.566+03
     > .3586+03
     > .9136+02
     > .1*06+03
     > .1516*03
       .1626+02
CO
LITHIUM
FLUDRIOE
CHLORIDE
BROMIDE
MITQATC 	 	
.252E+00
tO... c*ni»
.0
.0
	 _n..
6+00
6+00
p*.nn .„ 	 . . . . _.
                                  NITRITE
                                  SULFITE  —
                                  SULFATE
                                  PHOSPHATE
                                  AMMONIA
       .0  E+00
       .0  E+00
       .0  E+00
       .0  E+00

-------
09

I-1
ro

•PPN
	 ELENENT
URANIUM
	 THORIUH
BISMUTH
LEAD
THALLIUM
MERCURY
PLATINUM
TUNGSTEN
TANTALUM
.. HAFNIUM
LUTETIUN
-YTTERBIUM ....
THULIUM
ERBIUM
- HOLM 1 UN - .. _.
DYSPROSIUM
TERBIUM 	
GADOLINIUM
EUROPIUM
	 SAMARIUM 	
NEODYMIUM
PRASEODYMIUM.-.
CERIUM
LANTHANUM
— BARIUM - .
CESIUM
IODINE - .. —
TELLURIUM
ANTIMONY
...TIN 	
CADMIUM
- SILVER
MOLYBDENUM
NIOBIUM
- ZIRCONIUM
YTTRIUM
..STRONTIUM
RUBIDIUM
BROMINE
— SELENIUM
ARSENIC -,
GERMANIUM . -
GALLIUM
ZINC
- COPPER
	 ETHAN /
TEST 2
PPM
10U «• 3U CYCLONES
.200E+01
	 .3006*01 	
.3006+00
.630E»02
•0 6*00. -
<.ii4E+oi
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
... .200E+01 	
.2006+00
,?QQF*QI
.2006+00
.6006+00
.8006+00
.3006+01
.7nnF»nn
.200E+01
.7006+00
.XQOF+OI
.4006*01
„..„ , .SOTF+Q1
.4106+02
.7206*02
	 >. 1006+04 	
.100E*OI
T|QOF*01
.0 6*00
N.O E+00
	 .100E*01 	
.300E*Ol
<.l<»i+Qt, 	
.4006+01
' .6006*01
	 .2206*02 	
.1306*02
>+iaai:+a4
.3006*03
.1406*02
	 .2006*01 . . .
N.O 6*00
..4006*00 .
.5006*01
.4606*03
.8406*02
tLLEN
-MET MOOD
1U + FILTER.
.1446+00
	 .144E+00— 	
.2886*00
.1156*02
	 _ <. 7196-01 .
<. 7 196*00
.0 E+QO
.3596*00
<. 7196-01
.. <.719E-01 	
<. 7196-01
<+7l«E-01
<. 7 19 6-01
<. 7196-01
<. 7196-01
<.719E-01
<.7I.71?F*04
<.Tl9E-Oi
.719E-01
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
	 .2166+00
. 1446+00
.144E+01 _
.2886+00
.0 E+00
	 . .7196+00 	
.T19E-01
.?MF*02
.215E+02
.0 E+00
	 .7196+00 	
N.O E+00
.719E-01
.5036+00
.4266+03
. . 137E+02 . -

	 	 XAD-Z_...
.0 E+00
	 	 _.0_.E+00.
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
<. 4206-01
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 ..0... E+00 ._
.0 E+00
+0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.„ _...0. E+00 -
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
fa F*flO
.0 E+00
.0 E+ao
. 0 E+00
.0 E+00
.. ....300 E+00.
.0 E+00
.0 E+aa
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
	 .0 E+00
.0 E+00
, 190E+01
.6006+00
.0 E+00
	 .3006+00 .
•0 E+00
.100E+00
.0 E+00
.1706+01
	 .0 E+00
N.O E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.2206+02
. .7006+01

	 1ST IMPINGER __
.0 E+00
	 .0... E+00 	
.0 E+00
.7006-02
mO E+00
<. 1406-02
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
_ 	 .0 E+00 .
.0 E+00
.O F+OO
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
.0 E+OQ 	
.0 E+00
.0 F*nn
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
»0 E+00
.9006-02
.200E-02
.5006-02
.6006-02
	 . .1926+00
<. I 006-02
.0 F.+00
.0 E+00
N.O E+00
.5OOF-OI
.1006-02
.100E+00
.1006-02
.9006-02
_ 	 __.900E-02 	
.1006-02
•2906-01
.2006-01
.0 E+00
.1006-01
N.O E+00
.0 E+00
.6006-02
.1806+00
.450E-01 ... „

2ND fi 3RD IHPINCERS
N.O E+00
	 N.O._E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
<.100E-02
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
.0 E+00
.N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+OO
N. 0 E+00
N.O E+00
N. 0 F*0n
N.O E+00
N.O E+OO
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
tifO E+OO
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
<. 1006-01
N.O E+00
N.O 6+00
N.O 6+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
	 N.O. E+00 	
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O 6+00
<.100F-Ol
N. 0 E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
... N.O 6*00

-------
PPM
- ELEMENT
NICKEL
IRON
MANGANESE
CHROMIUM
VANADIUM
TIT AM 1 1 III - 	
SCANDIUM
CALC IUM
POTASSIUM
CHLORINE
• SULFUR - •---
PHOSPHORUS
SILICON
- ALUMINUM
MAGNESIUM
-SODIUM- 	 	
FLUORINE
BORON
- AERVLL f IIM - - ~
C3
,L LITHIUM
to . — ..
	 	 ^ | F1MIV
TEST 2
PPM
10U * 311 CYCLONES
.600E+01
>.100E»04
>.100E*04
	 .800E+OI
.290E*02
^ 1 AAC*rt& „,..-,„» ,„
.9006+00
>.100E*04
>.IOOE+04 -
.880E*03
>.100E+04
>.100E*04
>.100E+04
y 100E+04
IisoEtoa
- - - .3 DOE +00— - -
.220E+02
- MET HOOD
IU + FILTER
.252E+01
>.697E+03
.791E*00
.216E*00
A F+ftfl
.0 E*00
U.O E*00
. 165E+02
>.137E*03
U.O E*00
U.O E+00
U.O E*00
U.O E*00
.0 E*00
.0 E*00
<. 719E-O1
.359E*00
. _ XAO-2 	
.590E*02
.110E*02
	 I300E*01 	
.0 E*00
.0 E*00
. 143E*03
- .106E*03 -...
.0 E*00
•100E*01
. 0 E*00
.0 E*00
.1106*02
.2006*01
.260E*01
.0 E*00
.0 E*00
.0 E*00
-1ST IMPINGER -
.500E-01
.0 E*00
.I99E*01
.290E-01
	 .160E-01 	
.300E-02
.360E+00
.0 e*oo
.350E+01
. -_>. 9906*01 	
.0 E*00
.0 E*00
>.940E*01
>.760E*00
.870E*00
.230E*Ol
.1 ODE- 02
-.0 E*00
.0 E*00
-2ND t 3RD IMPINGERS.
N.O E*00
N.O F.*00
N.O €+00
N.O E+00
	 --N.O E+00 	 -
N.O E+00
.. N.O E+00
N. 0 E+00
N.O E+00
_ N.O.. E+00-
N.O E+00
w.o P+OO
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O F+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00
N.O E+00

-------
                                                           ETHAN ALLEN
oo
PPN
ELEMENT
URANIUM
.THORIUM 	
BISMUTH
LEAD
THALLIUM
MERCURY
.. PLATINUM
TUNGSTEN
TANTALUM
HAFNIUM .
LUTETIUM
YTTFBPIUM
THULIUM
ERBIUM
HOLMIUM . .
DYSPROSIUM
TERBIUM
GADOLINIUM
EUROPIUM
SAMARIUM - . -
NEODYMIUM
-PRASEODYMIUM
CERIUM
LANTHANUM
. BARIUM . ...
CESIUM
- IODINE- -
TELLURIUM
ANTIMONY
.TIN 	
CADMIUM
.SILVER _.
MOLYBDENUM
NIOBIUM
ZIRCONIUM
YTTRIUM
STRONTIUM _ ...
RUBIDIUM
BROMINE
SELENIUM
ARSENIC
GERMANIUM .... __
GALLIUM
ZINC
COPPER
TEST
PPM
FUEL * MET HOOD
•0 E+00
	 .0 E+00- 	
.0 E+00
.300E+00
; .400E-01
<.500E-01
.0 E+OQ
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.800E-01 	 .
.0 E+00
.0 F+nn
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 .0. E+00 	
.0 E+00
,0 E+OQ
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
. . . .0 E+00
.200E-01
•400E-01
•200E+00
.200E+00
•360E+02
.300E-01
T4nn£_n]
•500E-01
N.O E+00
	 .300E-01 :._
.lOOE+00
.ROQF-QI
.700E-01
* 100 E+00
•500E+00 	
.600E-01
.i?OF»n;>
.300E+01
.700E-01
<.200E-01 	
N.O E+00
	 	 <.100E-01 ... 	
.lOOE+00
.220E+02
.300E+01
2 - MET WOOD
.FLYASH
•100E+01
	 .600E+OL 	
.0 E+00
.6108+02
.0 E+00
<.500E-01
.0 E+00
.700E+00
N.O E+00
.700E+00 ._
.0 E+00
-BfifiF»nf)
.100E+00
.600E+00
	 .200E+01 ...
.300E+01
TlQO^*ot
.400E+01
.800E+00
. 600E+01
.400E+OI
.600^+01
.3506+02
.350E+02
>.100E+04
.900E+00
.100F+01
.400E+00
N.O E+00
	 .200E+00 . .
.100E+01
<.9OOF+QO
.TOOE+00
•TOOE+01
.._ - . .390E+02
.200E+02
TflMiF+n3
.290E+03
.290E+02
.400E+01
N.O E+00
•800E+00
.110E+02
.390E+03
.450E+02

-------
CO
 PPM

 ELEMENT

 NICKEL
 COBALT
 IRON
 MANGANESE
 CHROMIUM

 VANADIUM
 TITANIUM
 SCANDIUM
 CALCIUM
 POTASSIUM -

 CHLORINE
 SULFUR  -•-
 PHOSPHORUS
 SILICON
-ALUMINUM

 MAGNESIUM
 SODIUM
 FLUORINE
 BORON
 BERYLLIUM

 LITHIUM
                                                        ETHAN ALLEN
                                                        TEST 2 - MET MOOD
                                                        PPM
 FUEL 1 MET MOOD

       .300E*00
       .500E+00
      >.100£*03
      >.T60E+02
       .400E-01

       .600E»00
	 .9006*01
       .100E-01
      >.100E+03
      >.920E*02

       •400E+01
	>.470E+02—
      >.IOOE+03
      >.IOOE*03
      >.rooE»oi

      >.100E>03
	>,190E*02-
       .700E*01
       .300E-01
	X.100E-01

       .500E-01
                                                                    FLY ASH

                                                                    .l*OE«02
                                                                    .300E*01
                                                                   >.100E»(M
                                                                    .380E*02

                                                                    .250E*02
                                                                   >.100E*04
                                                                    .800E+00
                                                                   >.IOOE>04
                                                                   >.IOOE*0*

                                                                    .190E»03
                                                                    ,280E*03
                                                                   >.100E»04

                                                                   >.IOOE*04
                                                                    .IOOE*03
                                                                    .130E*02
                                                                    .200E+01
(71

-------
CONCENTRATION

ELEMENT
          ._.  ETHAN ALLEN	
             TEST 2 - MET HOOD
             MCG/DSCM
tOU * 3U CYCLONES    - III * FILTER.
XAD-2
	1ST IMPINGER	2ND.C  3PD  IMPINGEftS.
URANIUM
. THORIUM
BISMUTH
LEAD
-•THALLIUM
MERCURY
- PLATINUM
TUNGSTEN
TANTALUM
HAFNIUM
LUTETIUM
YTTERBIUM -
THULIUM
ERBIUM
- . HOLMIUM -
DYSPROSIUM
-TERBIUM 	
GADOLINIUM
EUROPIUM
SAMARIUM
NEODYMIUM
...PRASEODYMIUM 	
CERIUM
LANTHANUM
BARIUM
CESIUM
.... IODINE 	 -
TELLURIUM
ANTIMONY
. _TIN . ... 	
CADMIUM
SILVER
MOLYBDENUM
NIOBIUM
	 ZIRCONIUM ...
YTTRIUM
STRONTIUM
RUBIDIUM
BROMINE
— SELENIUM 	
ARSENIC v
CERMANlUM ._
GALLIUM -
ZINC
.... COPPER
.5286+00
_ . ... .7926+00 	 .--
.7926-01
. 166E+02
	 ... .0 E+00 - --
< .300E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
r, .S28E+00
.528E-01
.528E-01
.158E+00
	 	 ..211E+00 .„ 	
.792E+00
.528E+00
.185E+00
.106E+01
.1086+02
.190E+02
_ , > ,2*4P+fl3
.264E+00
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
. -.264E+00 , 	
.792E+00
< .264E>00
.1066+01
.1586+01
	 .5B1E+01 	
.343E+01
> .2646+0?
.7926+02
.370E+01
	 .528 E+00 	
N .0 E+00
.106E+00
.132E+01
.121E+03
. . .222E+02
.117E-01
- .117E-01 	 -
.234E-01
.9346+00
- < .5846-02 	
< .584E-01
.0 E+00 - .
.292E-01
< .5846-02
. < .5846-02
< .5846-02
< .584E-02
< .5846-02
..-.< .584E-02 	
< .584E-02
< .5846-02
< .5846-02
.234E-01
.234E-01
.5846-02
.1756-01
.7016-01
> .5786+02. ..
< .584E-02
.5&4E-02
.0 E+00
N .0 E+00
. . . .175E-01 ....
.117E-01
.234E-01
.0 E+00
	 .5846-01, 	
.584E-02
.455F+01
.1756+01
.0 E+00
. ... .584E-01 . . .
N .0 E+00
.584E-02
.4096-01
.346E+02
.111E+01 . .
.0 E+00
. .._ ..O-.E+OO.
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
... .0 E+00
< .2026+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
... . 0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 ,0.. E+00..
.0 E+00
.0 F*00
.0 E+00
>.0 E+00
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
_. _.144E+Ol
.0 E+00
.0. €+00
.0 E+00
N .0 :E+00
..... ..0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 .9136*01
.288E+01
.0 E+00
	 _.144E+01
.0 E+00
.480E+00
.0 E+00
.8176+01
	 .0 E+00.
N .0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.1066+03
	 .3366+02
. 0 E+00
.0 E+00
.3*3 E+00
	 .0 E+00 	
< .6856-01
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
	 •_ , 	 .0 	 E+00 	
• 1 .'
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•D E+00
.4416+00
.9796-01
.2456+00
.2946+00
•940E+01
< .4906-01
.0 E+00
; .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
.2456+01
.4906-01
.4906+01
.4906-01
.4416+00
... . 	 ..4416+00 	 ;
.4906-01
.1426+01
.9796+00
.0 E+00
	 .4906+00 '..._
N .0 E+00
.0 E+00
•294E+00
.8816+01
.2206+01
N .0 E+00
N 	 ,0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00 	
< .4956-01
N »0 E+00
N .0 E+00
.0 E+00
N.O E+OO
N .0 E+00
N 	 ,0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N 	 .O...E+00 	
N .0 E+00
N . 0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 6+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
< .4956+00
N *0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N. .0_E+00 .... .
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N. .0 .E+00
< .495E+00
N .0 6+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00
N .0 E+00

-------
CONCENTRATION TEST 2
HCG/DSC
ELEMENT 10U + 3U CYCLONES
NICKEL . 158E+01
COBALT • • »«»*e*.«A
IRON
MANGANESE
CHROMIUM
VANADIUM
T.1TAMIIIM .-_ - —
SCANDIUM
CALC IUM
POTASSIUM
CHLORINE
SULFUR
PHOSPHORUS
SILICON
Al IIMf MIM . 	 -... .
MAGNESIUM
—SODIUM —
FLUORINE
BORON
-BERYLLIUM- 	
f LITHIUM
!_, 	 	 	 .- 	 — 	 —
> .264E+03
. > .264E+03
.211E+01
.766E+01
•238E+00
> .264E+03
~ > .264E+03 -
.232E+03
> .264E+03
> .264E+03
> .264E+03
.145E+02
.396E+02
	 ,792E-Ol 	
.581E+01
Lien 	 	 	 -• - — - 	
- MET WOOD
M
111 + FILTER
«0 E+00
> .S66E+02
> .288E+01
.642E-01 - .
.175E-01
.n F+00
.0 E+00
U .0 E+00
- - - >--«3l5E+01 - - - . -
.134E+01
> * 15BE+01
> . IllE+02
U .0 E+00
	 0- .0 E+00
U .0 E+00
U *0 E+00 •
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
< .584E-02 	
.292E-01
XAD— 2
.283E+03
•0 E+00
.528E+02
.192E+01
.0 E+OO
•0 E+00
.0 E+00
.687E+03
•509E+03
.0 E+00
• 480E+01 - - 1-
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
•528E+02
.961E+01
.12SE+02
.0 E+00
	 ,0-E+OO _ - -
.0 E+00
1ST IMPINGER 	 2ND
.24SE+01
.974E+02
.142E+OI
.783E+00 ......
.147E+00
.0 E+00
.1TIE+03
> .485E+03 .- ,
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
> .460E+03
	 >...372E+02 . _. +-
.426E+02
.113E+03
.490E-01
.. .--..O-.E+OO : 	
.0 E+00
C 3RD. IMPINGER 5 _
N .0 E+00
N .O F«-OO
N
N
.. -N
N
N
N
N
. N
N
N
N
N
	 N
N
N
N
N
N
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
E+00
E+00
. E+00
E+00
E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
_.0 	 E+00 	
.0 E+00
.0 E+00
..0 E+00 _. .
.0 E+00
.0 F+QO
.0
.0
.0
E+00
E+00
E+00

-------
                                        CONCENTRATION

                                        ELEMENT

                                        URANIUM
                                        .THORIUM .	
                                        BISMUTH.
                                        LEAD
                                        THALLIUM
              ETHAN ALLEN  -
              TEST 2 - WET  HOOD
              MCG/DSCN
   STACK EXHAUST
        •540E+00
        .80+E*00.
        .103E+00
        .179E+02
        »S8*E-02
                                        MERCURY
                                        PLATINUM
                                        TUNGSTEN
                                        TANTALUM
                                        HAFNIUM
        .678E*00
        .0  E*00
        .292E-01
      < .S84E-02
 .528E»00  .333E4-03
                                                       .264E*00
-------
00
l-«
to
 CONCENTRATION

 B.ENENT- ~

 NICKEL
 COBALT  	
 IRON
 MANGANESE
 CHRONI UN-

 VAN ADI UN
 TITANIUM  -
 SCANDIUM
 CALCIUM
 POTASSIUM

 CHLORINE
-SULFUR
 PHOSPHORUS
 SILICON
 ALUMINUM

 MAGNESIUM
 SODIUM     	
 FLUORINE-
 BORON  '
 BERVLLIUM  -

 LITHIUM
                                                   -~	ETHAN ALLEN  -   -
                                                              TEST 2 - MET WOOD
                                                              MCG/OSCM
                                                   STACK EXHAUST

                                                        •288E+03
                                                    	 .792E+00	
                                                      > .471E+03
                                                      > .270E»03
                                                        .174E+02
                                                        .782E+OL
                                                      >-.282E*03
                                                        •238E+00
                                                      > .I12E+0*
                                                         .234E«-03
                                                      >  ,510E»OJ -----
                                                      >  .275E+03
                                                      >  .72*E+03
                                                    — >-.354E*03 ----

                                                      >  .316E+03
                                                      >-.37lE*03 ---- -
                                                        .397E*02
                                                  .792E-OKXC.850E-01

-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/7-87-Ol2a
                           2.
                                                      3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Environmental Assessment of a Wood-Waste-Fired
 Industrial Watertube Boiler, Volume I.  Technical
 Results                 	
                                   B. REPORT DATE
                                    March 1987
                                   B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)

 C. Castaldini and L>. R.  Waterland
                                                      8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                    TR-82-98/EE
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
A cur ex Corporation
P. O. Box 7555
Mountain View, California 94039
                                                      10. PROGRAM 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  277U
                                   13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                    Final:  3/81- 3/84	
                                   14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                    EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL project officer is Robert E.
2477.
                                   Hall, Mail Drop 65, 919/541-
i6. ABSTRACT The two-volume report gives results from rteldtests of a wood-waste-fired
industrial watertube boiler. Two series of tests were performed: one firing dry (11%
moisture) wood waste, and the other firing green (34% moisture) wood waste. Emis-
sion measurements included: continuous monitoring of flue gas emissions; source
assessment sampling system (SASS) sampling of the flue gas with subsequent labor-
atory analysis of samples to give total flue gas organics in two boiling point ranges,
compound category information within these ranges,  specific quantitation of the semi-
volatile organic priority pollutants, and flue gas concentrations of 73 trace elements;
Method 5 sampling for particulate; controlled condensation system sampling  for SO2
and SO3; and grab sampling of boiler mechanical collector hopper ash for inorganic
and organic composition determinations. Flue gas  CO emissions from the boiler
were quite high, attributed to the high excess air levels at which the unit operated.
NOx emissions were comparable with both fuels (175-200 ppm). SO2  and SOS levels
were less than 10 ppm, in  keeping with the low sulfur content of sboth fuels. Total
organic emissions decreased from 60-135 mg/dscm firing dry wood to 2-65 mg/
dscm firing green wood, in parallel with corresponding boiler CO emissions.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                       b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                        c.  COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Wood Wastes
Sulfur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
Water Tube Boilers
Flue Gases
Assessments
Particles
Trace Elements
Carbon Monoxide
Organic Compounds
Polvcvclic Conanounds
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Particulate
Environmental Asses-
  sment
07B
13B
11L
ISA
21B
14B
14G   07 C
06A
       aUTION STATEMENT
 Release to Public
                                          19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                          Unclassified
                                                21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                   110
                       20. SECURITY CLASS {Thispage)
                       Unclassified
                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                      B-20

-------