United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
V600/R-08/127 I December 2008 I www.epa.eov/
Emissions Test Report:
Source Sampling for Transportable
Gasifier for Animal Carcasses and
Contaminated Plant Material
FINAL REPORT
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-08/127 I December 2008 I www.epa.gov/ord
Emissions Test Report:
Source Sampling for Transportable
Gasifier for Animal Carcasses and
Contaminated Plant Material
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
Paul Lemieux
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services
4700 River Road
Riverdale, MD 20737
U.S. Department of Defense
Technical Support Working Group
201 12th St. South, Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22202
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
-------
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) operates the
Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) under a
multi-agency program that provides information and
technology development to support the needs of various
U.S. government agencies to address counterterrorism
and emergency response issues. TSWG, in collaboration
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National
Homeland Security Research Center (EPA/NHSRC) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) has funded the
construction of a transportable gasifier with the goal of
processing large quantities of animal carcasses and plant
materials resulting from agricultural emergency events.
This unit may be useful for other homeland security-
related events as an on-site treatment/disposal process. This
gasifier converts the biomass material into an inert ash and
a combustible synthesis gas that is burned in a secondary
combustion chamber. Temperatures within the unit nominally
ranged from 1200 to 1800 °F (649 to 982 °C).
This report describes an emissions test to characterize gasifier
operation for the following reasons:
To provide a basis for comparison with other combustion
devices;
To address public concerns about environmental impacts
from carcass disposal operations;
To give state and local environmental agencies
information to support their responsibilities in siting and
operating combustion equipment; and
To allow the permanent siting of such devices at
industrial settings in the agricultural industry (e.g., at
rendering plants) for use with routine mortalities and for
energy production.
Testing occurred during the period from March 3 to 6, 2008,
at the Valley Protein rendering facility located in Rose Hill,
NC. During these tests, the gasifier was operated on two
different biomass feedstocks:
A mixture of poultry and swine; and
Bales of wheat straw.
Samples were taken and analyzed for several targets,
including:
Fixed combustion gases, including oxygen, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, sulfur
dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen;
Paniculate matter, including total filterable paniculate,
condensable particulates, PM10, and particle size
distributions;
Metals;
Acid gases;
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans;
Leachable metals in the ash residues; and
Amino acids in the ash residues.
The unit was successfully deployed in the field in a rapid
manner and was operational to perform the necessary
emissions testing described in the Quality Assurance Project
Plan in spite of having less than a week for initial startup and
shakedown. This truncated shakedown schedule resulted in
several operational issues that should be addressed through
minor design modifications. The operational issues of
concern that impacted the emissions testing included:
Failure of the ash removal auger contributed to a
limitation on feed rate;
Inefficient distribution of macerated animal matter on
the hearths in the primary chamber limited the unit's
maximum throughput to approximately 32% of the
design capacity; and
The plant material selected as a surrogate for
contaminated plant matter could not be fed through the
unit's macerator; operations involving plant matter were
therefore cut to only a few hours and extractive sampling
was not performed on the plant matter test emissions.
Air was infiltrating the primary chambers through some
unknown mechanism, and the synthesis gas as analyzed
did not bear a resemblance to synthesis gas from other
gasification processes - this difference could result from
air migrating from the secondary chambers through gaps
in the hearth to the primary chamber in the vicinity of the
sampling port, turbulent mixing from the burner zones, or an
overabundance of air pulled into the combustion unit through
the ports in the doors.
Emissions of the measured pollutants were at very low levels,
and the ash passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test. The particle size distribution
suggested that the vast majority of the emitted paniculate
matter was smaller than 0.5 microns.
A very important observation was that the emissions of
carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbons correlated very
well with the average temperatures of the two primary
chambers. This observation suggests that for emergency
response deployment, the primary chamber temperatures
could be used as a surrogate monitoring parameter to ensure
minimization of emissions.
Analysis of amino acid in the ash yielded non-detects
for all target analytes. This observation indicates that
the gasifier unit would be capable of destroying prions
that could potentially cause Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathy (TSE).
-------
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its to an administrative review but does not necessarily reflect
Office of Research and Development partially funded and the views of the Agency. No official endorsement should be
collaborated in the research described herein under EP-C- inferred. EPA does not endorse the purchase or sale of any
04-023 with ARCADIS G&M. This report has been subject commercial products or services.
-------
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations xi
Acknowledgments xiii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Experimental 3
2.1 Gasifier Description 3
2.1.1 Gasifier Construction Details 3
2.1.2 Refractory Materials and Trailer Mounting 3
2.1.3 Macerator 3
2.1.4 Feed System 4
2.1.5 Stack 4
2.1.6 Auxiliary Fuel System 5
2.1.7 Ash Removal System 5
2.2 Sampling and Analytical Methods 5
2.2.1 Measurement of Process Parameters 5
2.2.2 Sampling 8
3.0 Results 9
3.1 Process Parameter Measurements 9
3.2 Continuous Emissions Monitors 17
3.2.1 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 1 (March 3, 2008) 17
3.2.2 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 2 (March 4, 2008) 20
3.2.3 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 3 (March 5, 2008) 22
3.2.4 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 4 (March 6, 2008) 25
3.2.5 Correlation of Operating Parameters 28
3.3 Test Timeline and Average Concentrations 28
3.4 Paniculate Matter 31
3.4.1 Ambient Paniculate 31
3.4.2 Total Filterable Paniculate 31
3.4.3 Filterable Paniculate Matter and Condensable Paniculate Matter 31
3.4.4 Visible Emissions 32
3.4.5 Particle Size Distributions 33
3.5 Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine 33
3.6 Metals 34
3.7PCDDs/Fs 36
3.8 Synthesis Gas Composition 38
3.9 Ash Analysis 38
3.10 Estimated Emissions of Pollutants Per Mass of Carcass Fed 39
4.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Evaluation Report 41
4.1 CEMs (CO./O2, SO., NO , CO, THCs) 41
-------
Table of Contents
4.2 HCl, C12 (Method 26/26A) 41
4.3 Filterable Paniculate (Method 5) 41
4.4 PCDDs/PCDFs (EPA Method 23) 41
4.5 Metals (EPA Method 29) 41
4.6 PM10, Condensable Paniculate (EPA M201A/OTM-DIM) 42
4.7 CO2, CH4, N2, O2, NMOC, CH4 in Synthesis Gas 42
4.8 Total Suspended Particulate 42
4.9 Ash Composition (EPA Method 1311/TCLP) 42
4.10 Ash Amino Acids 42
4.11 Data Quality Assessment (DQA) 42
5.0 Conclusions 43
6.0 References 45
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Gasifier Concept Schematic (Courtesy BGP, Inc.) 3
Figure 2-2. Cross-sectional View of Gasifier from the Front 3
Figure 2-3. Trailer Mounted Transportable Gasifier Schematic (Courtesy BGP, Inc.) 3
Figure 2-4. Macerator 4
Figure 2-5. Feed Distribution System 4
Figure 2-6. Feeding Animal Carcasses into Macerator 4
Figure 2-7. Telescoping Stack 4
Figure 2-8. Stack Dilution Inlet 5
Figure 2-9. Cross-sectional View of Hearth and Ash Removal Auger 5
Figure 2-10. Temperature Readouts 7
Figure 2-11. Dimensions of Broom and 500-gallon Fuel Tank 7
Figure 2-12. Geometric Construction of 500-gallon. Fuel Tank 7
Figure 2-13. Stack Side View 8
Figure 3-1. Average Carcass Feed Rate 17
Figure 3-2. Stack O2 and CO2 from Test Day 1 18
Figure 3-3. SC O2 and CO2 from Test Day 1 18
Figure 3-4. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 1 18
Figure 3-5. Stack NOx and SO2 from Test Day 1 19
Figure 3-6. Temperatures from Test Day 1 19
Figure 3-7. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 1 (Average = 2.36) 19
Figure 3-7. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 1 (Average = 2.36) 20
Figure 3-8. Stack O2 and CO2 from Test Day 2 20
Figure 3-9. SC O2 and CO2 from Test Day 2 21
Figure 3-10. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 2 21
Figure 3-11. Stack NOx and SO2 from Test Day 2 21
Figure 3-12. Temperatures from Test Day 2 22
Figure 3-13. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 2 (Average = 2.34) 22
Figure 3-14. Stack O2 and CO2 from Test Day 3 23
Figure 3-15. SC O2 and CO2 from Test Day 3 23
Figure 3-16. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 3 23
Figure 3-17. SC CO from Test Day 3 24
Figure 3-18. Stack NOx and SO2 from Test Day 3 24
Figure 3-19. Temperatures from Test Day 3 25
Figure 3-20. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 3 (Average = 2.74) 25
Figure 3-21. Stack O2 and CO2 from Test Day 4 26
Figure 3-22. SC O2 and CO2 from Test Day 4 26
Figure 3-23. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 4 26
Figure 3-24. Stack NOx and SO2 from Test Day 4 27
-------
Figure 3-25. Temperatures from Test Day 4 27
Figure 3-26. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 4 (Average = 2.50) 27
Figure 3-27. PC Temperature vs. CO 28
Figure 3-28. PC Temperature vs. THC 28
Figure 3-29. Particle Size Distribution 33
-------
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Table of Sampling Activities 6
Table 3-1. Fuel Consumption Results 9
Table 3-2. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 1 10
Table 3-3. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 2 11
Table 3-4. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 3 12
Table 3-5. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 4 13
Table 3-5. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 4 (Continued) 14
Table 3-5. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 4 (Continued) 15
Table 3-6. Estimated Feed Quantities and Times 16
Table 3 -7. Sample Train Start/Stop Times and Average Stack Gas Concentrations, Dry Basis 29
Table 3-8. CEM Average Measurements, Dry Basis 30
Table 3-9. Stack Velocities and Flow Rates 30
Table 3-10. Ambient PM10 Results 31
Table 3-11. Total Filterable Particulate Results 31
Table 3-12. Paniculate Matter Emissions Measurements 32
Table 3-13. Visible Emissions During Vegetable Matter Tests (Day 4) 32
Table 3-14. Particle Size Distribution Data (Mass Basis) 33
Table 3-15. Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine 34
Table 3-16. Metals Results 35
Table 3-17. PCDD/F Concentrations (pg/Nm3) 36
Table 3-18. PCDD/F Mass Emission Rate (Ib/hr) 37
Table 3-19. Synthesis Gas Composition 38
Table 3-20. TCLP Results for Ash (mg/L) 38
Table 3-21. Amino Acid Analytical Results for Ash (mg/g) 39
Table 3-22. Estimated Emissions 40
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APHIS
CAA
CCB(s)
CCV(s)
CEM(s)
COTS
C
CVAA
DoD
DQA
DR
DSCF
DSCM
EMSL
EPA
g
gal
GFAA
ug
HPLC
hr
HpCDD
HpCDF
HxCDD
HxCDF
ICP
ICV(s)
Ib
LED
m
um
mg
M
min
MQO(s)
Nm3
NOx
NPT
NSPS
OCDD
OTM-DIM
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Clean Air Act
continuing calibration blank(s)
continuing calibration verification(s)
continuous emission monitor(s)
commercial off-the-shelf
ambient O2 concentration
concentration of pollutant i in ppm
secondary chamber concentration
stack concentration
cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry
U.S. Department of Defense
data quality assessment
dilution ratio
dry standard cubic foot (feet)
dry standard cubic meter(s)
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
gram(s)
gallon(s)
graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry
microgram(s)
high performance liquid chromatography
hour(s)
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
heptachlorodibenzofuran
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
hexachlorodibenzofuran
inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry
initial calibration verification(s)
pound(s)
light emitting diode
meter(s)
micrometer(s)
milligram(s)
molecular mass of pollutant i
minute(s)
Measurement Quality Objective(s)
normal cubic meter(s)
oxides of nitrogen
nominal pipe thread
New Source Performance Standard(s)
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Other Test Method - Dry Impinger Method
-------
PC
PCDD
PCDF
PeCDF
PS
ppm
QD.
QS
Qsc
QST
NA
ND
NHSRC
OCDF
PM10
PeCDD
QAPP
R
R
RCRA
SC
SETA
t
T
TCDD
TCDF
TCLP
TEF
TEQ
THC
TSE
TSWG
USDA
WHO
primary chamber
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
polychlorinated dibenzofuran
pentachlorodibenzofuran
picogram(s)
parts per million
dilution flow
stack flow rate
secondary chamber flow
stack flow
not available
not detected
National Homeland Security Research Center
octachlorodibenzofuran
Particle(s) with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less
pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Quality Assurance Project Plan
correlation coefficient
ideal gas constant
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
secondary chamber
Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance
time
temperature
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Toxicity Equivalency Factor
Toxic Equivalency
total hydrocarbon(s)
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
Technical Support Working Group
U.S. Department of Agriculture
World Health Organization
-------
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge John McKinney of
TSWG SETA Support for his efforts on this project. Jim
Howard of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture
deserves special recognition for his efforts at making these
tests happen. The author would also like to thank Yuanji
Dong, Gene Stephenson, Michal Derlicki, Richard Snow,
and John Nash of ARCADIS for their work on the sampling
and analysis portion of this report. Special thanks to
C.W. Lee of EPA's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, and Shannon Serre and Joe Wood of EPA's
National Homeland Security Research Center for their
invaluable help and advice on this project.
-------
-------
1.0
Introduction
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) operates the
Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) under a multi-
agency program that provides information and technology
development to support the needs of various U.S. government
agencies to address counterterrorism and emergency response
issues. TSWG, in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Homeland Security
Research Center (EPA/NHSRC) and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (USD A/APHIS) has funded the construction of
a transportable gasifier with the goal of processing large
quantities of animal carcasses and plant materials resulting
from agricultural emergency events. This unit may be useful
for other homeland security-related events as an on-site
treatment/disposal process. This gasifier converts the biomass
material into an inert ash and a combustible synthesis gas that
is burned in a secondary combustion chamber. Temperatures
within the unit nominally ranged from 1200 to 1800 °F (649
to 982 °C).
This report describes an emissions test to characterize gasifier
operation for the following reasons:
To provide a basis for comparison with other combustion
devices;
To address public concerns about environmental impacts
from carcass disposal operations;
To give state and local environmental agencies
information to support their responsibilities in siting and
operating combustion equipment; and
To allow the permanent siting of such devices at
industrial settings in the agricultural industry (e.g., at
rendering plants) for use with routine mortalities and for
energy production.
Testing occurred during the period from March 3 to 6,
2008, at the Valley Protein rendering facility located in
Rose Hill, NC. During these tests, the gasifier was operated
by the manufacturer (BGP, Inc.) on two different biomass
feedstocks:
A mixture of poultry and swine; and
Bales of wheat straw.
The initial plan was for poultry and swine to be tested
separately. However, feed for the gasifier was acquired by
diverting some of the trucks delivering dead stock to the test
site to supply material for the gasifier, and the feed stock
material dropped onto the concrete receiving pad could
remain there no longer than 24 hours. It was therefore not
feasible to have a single species of animal for the feed. In
addition, due to the highly compressed shakedown schedule,
the unit was not operating at full design capacity throughout
the tests.
The complete effort involved:
(1) delivery and setup of the prototype gasifier at the test
site for evaluation;
(2) delivery and installation of advanced shredding/
grinding equipment (macerator) at the site;
(3) acquisition of feed materials for performance testing;
(4) startup and shakedown of the system, using a variety
of feeds and operating conditions;
(5) establishment of operating parameters required for
near-steady-state operation; and
(6) source sampling during gasifier operation according
to an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) (ARCADIS, 2007). This emissions test report
addresses the testing covered by the QAPP.
Samples were taken and analyzed for several
targets including:
Fixed combustion gases, including oxygen, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, sulfur
dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen;
Paniculate matter, including total filterable paniculate,
condensable particulates, PM10, and particle size
distributions;
Metals;
Acid gases;
Fob/chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/Fs);
Leachable metals in the ash residues; and
Amino acids in the ash residues.
The overall program objective was to deliver a prototype
gasifier capable of being transported over all primary and
secondary roads, for this prototype gasifier to be capable
of being operational in less than 24 hours after arrival at
the site, and for this prototype gasifier to have the capability
to process 25 tons per day of contaminated animal carcasses
or plants.
The objective of these tests was to determine the
emission rates and concentrations of the target constituents
by sampling the exhaust from the combustion of the
synthesis gas produced in the primary chambers of the
prototype gasifier.
The resulting data will be utilized by the collaborating
entities to determine the operational and environmental
impacts of utilizing this gasifier to process different types
of agricultural residues. Although there were additional
variables of interest (e.g., impact of weather conditions,
other feeds), available time and resources precluded
including these additional variables as test parameters.
-------
-------
2.0
Experimental
2.1 Gasifier Description
The BGP-D1000 gasifier is designed to process 25 tons per
day of feed material, using a series of chambers, each with
different fuel/air stoichiometry. Two independent primary
chambers (PCs) operating sub-stoichiometrically feed into
two independent secondary chambers (SCs), thus achieving
a quasi-steady-state operating mode. Heat from the SCs
provides the hearth with heat. The thermal inertia of the
hearth prevents significant PC temperature loss when high
water content materials are charged onto the hearth. The unit
operates on natural draft without requiring an induced draft
fan. Up to eight units can be manifolded together to achieve
larger capacities, up to approximately 200 tons per day,
comparable to other large capacity fixed-site technologies.
Figure 2-1 shows a concept schematic diagram of the gasifier.
Additional information can be found elsewhere (BGP, 2008).
Feed
Figure 2-1. Gasifier Concept Schematic
(Courtesy BGP, Inc.)
2.1.1 Gasifier Construction Details
The BGP-D1000 is prototyped to be compatible with a
production model Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
trailer. The prototype length is 27 feet, and the prototype
height is 11 feet 5 inches, designed to create a total vehicle
height of less than the 162-inch legal limit so that the unit
can be transported on all primary and secondary roads in the
United States. The width of the prototype is approximately
11 feet 2 inches. The materials selected for the prototype
unit shell have been selected to accommodate a standard
3 5-ton capacity low-boy trailer, capable of transporting
a total payload weight of approximately 60,000 pounds.
Additionally, the two-chamber design allows for increased
flexibility: the gasifier can also handle smaller loads; one PC/
SC combination can be left dormant without significantly
affecting the operating conditions in the other chambers
or one chamber can dispose of one type of waste while the
other chamber handles another type. Reducing or partially
eliminating any cool-down of the gasifier will increase
throughput. Alternate loading of the chambers can be utilized
to minimize cool-down.
Telescoping Stack -
Oil Burners (2)
Stack Gas
r1
Transition Duct
Refractory
Lining
Oil Burners (2)
Transition Duct
Hearth
Figure 2-2. Cross-sectional View of Gasifier
from the Front
2.1.2 Refractory Materials and Trailer Mounting
The refractory materials have been selected based on an
assessment of the required transporting and operating
conditions of the transportable unit. Ceramic fiber has been
incorporated into this highly specialized refractory design,
while maintaining refractory strength where required.
Figure 2-3 shows a schematic of the gasifier as mounted on
a trailer. The burners fire into each SC and the exhaust from
the SCs enters the stack from a common breeching. Air is
introduced into the PCs through small ports in the doors. No
burners fire into the PCs, and all fumes from the PCs must
pass through their respective SCs en route to the stack.
EJL£V WTO
Figure 2-3. Trailer Mounted Transportable Gasifier
Schematic (Courtesy BGP, Inc.)
2.1.3 Macerator
The COTS macerator that was purchased has a throughput
ranging from 60,000 to 100,000 Ib/hr of the carcass of any
domestic animal species up to approximately the size of pigs.
Larger carcasses (e.g., cattle) require a pre-breaker prior
to the macerator. The pre-breaker was not included in the
purchase of the macerator for the prototype. Figure 2-4 shows
the macerator, which is mounted on a second COTS
-------
trailer. Material leaves the macerator as approximately 1-inch
chunks, in a slurry similar to that leaving a meat grinder.
The macerator is sized so that several gasifier units can be
manifolded into a single macerator, resulting in a technology
that is scaleable for different-sized events.
Figure 2-4. Macerator
2.1.4 Feed System
Ground material leaves the macerator and is pumped into
a feed distribution system that drops the material through
a straight pipe onto the hearth in the PCs through manually
actuated high temperature gate valves (see Figure 2-5). The
material drops onto the hearth via gravity and is intended to
spread out over the entire surface area of the hearth. During
the tests, the material did not spread very effectively. Instead,
macerated material tended to make piles underneath the feed
ports, and hearth coverage was estimated to be only on the
order of 40%. The only way to achieve effective distribution
of the material on the hearth was to open the front doors
of the PCs and manually spread the material using a metal
rake. This action disrupted the sub-stoichiometric operation
of the gasifier, resulting in the below-design-capacity feed
rates observed during the tests. The intermittent nature of
these disruptions apparently did not significantly alter the
overall stack gas flow rates and thus likely did not affect
sample quality.
The unit was fed using a "bobcat" type front end loader with
a nominal bucket capacity between 500 and 600 Ib (based on
operator experience). Materials were scooped off the ground
and loaded into the macerator as shown in Figure 2-6.
Figure 2-6. Feeding Animal Carcasses into Macerator
2.1.5 Stack
The gasifier unit is equipped with a 34-inch diameter and
approximately 12-foot high telescoping stack (Figure 2-7)
projecting above the gasifier, with a 34-inch diameter dilution
air inlet at the base of the stack (Figure 2-8), which allows
control of the natural draft that draws the air through the
primary chambers and draws the combustion gases through
the secondary combustion chambers. Sampling ports
Figure 2-5. Feed Distribution System
Figure 2-7. Telescoping Stack
(and consequently stack measurements) would normally
be located at least 8 stack diameters downstream of the
dilution air inlet. However, the stack's height is only 12 feet,
which will not allow such sampling port placement. In this
case, measurements were made at least 2 stack diameters
downstream of the damper (visible inside the dilution duct
on Figure 2-7). Since any paniculate matter measurements
at the stack must be corrected for background PM in the
dilution air, it was necessary to characterize the flow rate and
PM loading in the dilution air. A duct extension was therefore
mounted on the dilution air inlet so that the dilution air flow
rate could be measured at an appropriate distance from the air
-------
entrance of the duct extension without entrance disturbance.
NOTE: The flow rate through the dilution air inlet was too
low to be measured using any of the gas flow measurement
devices that were available to the sampling crew, so dilution
air was estimated using the dilution ratio based on the stack
and SC concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The
PM concentration in the dilution air was quantified by a
traditional ambient PM10 paniculate sampler positioned near
the dilution air duct inlet.
Figure 2-8. Stack Dilution Inlet
2.1.6 Auxiliary Fuel System
Four burners (two were redundant) capable of each firing
8 gal/hr of No. 2 fuel oil were mounted in the duct between
the primary and secondary chambers (i.e., two burners on
each side). These burners provided initial heat to make the
hearth hot enough to initiate gasification in the primary
chambers. The burners also provided process control to
maintain predetermined temperatures in the secondary
chambers. Each burner was fed from a fuel tank mounted on
the trailer. The burner fuel tanks were refilled from a
500-gallon fuel tank positioned at the rear end of the trailer. It
was advantageous that each burner had a redundant duplicate,
since two of the burners failed during shakedown due to
overheating after a generator failure. This failure led to an
important lesson about the need to be able to swap out and/
or repair the burners while the unit was operating. The fuel
in the tanks was analyzed by Standard Laboratories, Inc., and
was found to be low in sulfur (0.02%) and nitrogen (0.01%)
with < 0.001 % ash content.
Feed
Hearth
Ash Removal
Auger
Figure 2-9. Cross-sectional View of Hearth and Ash
Removal Auger
2.1.7 Ash Removal System
The gasifier unit was designed with a reservoir at the back
end of the primary chamber to collect ash from the hearths
(see Figure 2-9). An ash removal auger was supposed to
periodically remove the ash to be collected in metal bins
outside the gasifier. However, the ash removal auger was
damaged during startup and did not work throughout the
tests. There was no way to quantify the amount of ash
produced in the process.
2.2 Sampling and Analytical Methods
Sampling was performed over four test days during which
the gasifier was operating under representative conditions as
determined during a very brief period of shakedown testing.
Extractive samples were taken for periods as specified in
Table 2-1. Much of the monitoring instrumentation that was
supposed to be installed by BGP was not available in the
manner prescribed in the QAPP due to financial constraints
and the compressed schedule. In particular, the following
measurements that were specified in the QAPP were not
available on the prototype:
Feedstock feed rate and macerator pump indicator;
Fuel oil flow rate;
Burner and secondary air flow rate;
Air flow rate to primary chamber; and
Ash mass.
Wherever possible, alternate means for estimating these
parameters were used and the methods are documented in this
report. The most significant deficiency was the uncertainty
in the feed weights. This uncertainty is likely to affect the
overall estimated emissions calculations in Section 3.10.
However, given that most emission factors published in
the EPA's AP-42 emission factor database [EPA, 1995] are
typically order-of-magnitude estimates, these uncertainties
are not likely to significantly change the interpretation of the
test results.
2.2.1 Measurement of Process Parameters
The prototype unit was equipped with minimal process
measurement instrumentation. Only the temperatures in the
PCs and SCs were monitored, and the temperatures were only
available via an LED readout (shown in Figure 2-10) on the
control panel for each PC/SC combination. The temperatures
from these readouts were manually recorded onto data sheets
every 15 minutes, except when the vegetative matter was
being fed, in which case the temperatures were manually
recorded every 2 minutes.
-------
Table 2-1. Table of Sampling Activities
Feedstock feed rate
Fuel oil flow rate
Oil fuel elemental composition
(C, H, 0, N, and S) and heating value
Dilution air flow rate
and temperature
Stack flue gas flow rate
and temperature
Temperatures
Temperature
Ash composition
Diluted flue gas composition
(02, C02, CO, N0x-, S02, and THC)
Flue gas prior to dilution
(02 and C02)
PMIO and condensable particulate
Total PM, HCI, and CI2
Dioxins/furans in flue gas
Metals in flue gas
PMIO in dilution air
PC Syngas composition (CO, C02, H2,
02, H20, CH4, and non-methane HC)
Visible Emissions (Opacity)
Field
500-gal fuel tank
Fuel tank
Damper air duct
Stack
Primary chamber
Secondary chamber
Front door
Stack
Exit of SC
Stack
Stack
Stack
Stack
Ambient
Primary chamber
Stack
Visual estimation based
on 550 Ib/bucket on
bobcat and bobcat
operator experience
Dipstick
Supplied by vendor or
grab sampling
EPA Methods 1 & 2
EPA Methods 1 & 2
Single point in each PC
Single point in each SC
Periodic grab samples
GEM (EPA MSA,
10, 7E, 6C, 25A)
GEM (EPA MSA)
EPA Methods
201A&202
EPA Methods 5 & 26
EPA Method 23
EPA Method 29
EPA HiVol
EPAM3C, 25C
EPA Method 9
Each feed event
Each time fuel added
or taken from tank
One sample
NO DATA -FLOW TOO
LOW TO MEASURE
Traverse during all
extractive tests
15 min (2 during
vegetable matter)
15 min (2 during
vegetable matter)
One per day
from each PC
Continuous
Continuous
One sample per day
Two samples per day
Two samples per day
Two samples per day
One sample per day
At least one
sample per day
Intermittently during
carcass burns,
continuously during
vegetative burns
All
All
Grab
All
All
All
All
Grab
All
All
1, 2,3
1, 2, 3
1, 2,3
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
1, 2,3
1,2,3,4
-------
Figure 2-10. Temperature Readouts
Feed rates were measured by estimation of the degree of
fullness of the bucket in the front end loader shown in
Figure 2-6. Based on operator experience, a full bucket
contained between 500 and 600 Ib of material, while a half
bucket contained between 250 and 300 Ib of material. Neither
the large 500-gallon fuel tank that was used as a reservoir for
the burner fuel tanks nor the burner fuel tanks had any sort of
level indicator, sight glass, or flow measurement device. In
order to measure fuel consumption rates, a broomstick was
used as a dipstick in the large fuel tank. The measurements of
the tank are shown in Figure 2-11. A discussion of procedures
used to measure the fuel consumption rate follows.
Broom
Fill Cap Fitting
Fuel Tank Level
Fuel Tank
T = Tank Wall Thickness = .125 in.
L = Tank Length = 74.14 in.
Figure 2-11. Dimensions of Broom and
500-gallon Fuel Tank
A geometric construction of the tank was created. This
construction is shown in Figure 2-12.
Figure 2-12. Geometric Construction of
500-gallon Fuel Tank
Using this geometric construction,
(1) Cross-sectional area of tank = iw2
(2) Area of slice of tank cut by angle
'26'
(1)
(2)
The cross-sectional area of the equilateral triangle formed
by two radii and the line formed by the fuel in the tank is
defined as:
= 2 (rsin6)(rcos6) = r2sin6cos6 (3)
(4)
The cross-sectional area of the liquid in the tank is
calculated by subtracting Eq. (3) from Eq. (2):
Arealiquid = r26 - r2 sin6cos6
The known quantity is X, the distance from the top of the
tank to the liquid level in the tank. Thus:
(5)
Therefore:
X
6 = arccos 1
\r
(6)
A spreadsheet was used to calculate 6 as a function of X
using Eq. (6), and the values for 6 were used in Eq. (4) to
estimate the cross-sectional area. The volume of the liquid
was calculated by multiplying the cross-sectional area by
the length of the tank (allowing for the 1/8" wall thickness
of the tank).
-------
r J
2-inch Sample Port f*v
/£
5-inch NPT Sample Ports
@ 90 Degree Pitch ^
N
2-inch NPT Sample Ports
@ 90 Degree Pitch
V]
Dilution Air * P
\ Stack
. J Cross-Section
^ S
|Exhaust
1
\
Stack
Syngas from
PC
Gasifier
\
Dilution Air \ \j
Duct Extension f\\\f* r-ac fmm QP
Dilution Damper Flue Gas from bc
Figure 2-13. Stack Side View
2.2.2 Sampling
The primary sampling location was the stack of the gasifier.
The stack has a 34-inch inner diameter and an extended
height of 12 feet. Two 5-inch diameter sampling ports were
located at 90 degrees from each other and a third 2-inch
port was located between the two. The location of the two
5-inch ports was determined according to the requirements
described in the EPA sampling Methods 1 and 2 to increase
the accuracy of the flow measurement. The two-inch port
was installed to accommodate non-isokinetic sampling,
e.g., CEMs and particle sizing. Figure 2-13 shows the
configuration of these sampling ports. With the isokinetic
sampling trains utilizing the two 5-inch nominal pipe thread
(NPT) ports (e.g., metals, dioxin/furans), the stack was
traversed to measure the variation in gas velocity over its
cross-section by rotating the sampling trains between the
ports. With the height of the trailer included, gasifier samples
were taken at approximately 26-28 feet above the ground.
The secondary sampling location was the dilution air
duct extension (as provided by the manufacturer). The
extension had two 2-inch ports located 90 degrees apart
to accommodate non-isokinetic sampling, e.g., CEMs and
air flow rate determination. Unfortunately, the flow in this
duct was too low in velocity to measure with the available
equipment. An ambient total paniculate sampler located near
its inlet quantified the contribution of the dilution air to the
stack paniculate loading.
The target stack gas constituents and parameters
of interest in this program are:
PM10 paniculate matter;
Total paniculate matter;
Condensable paniculate matter;
RCRA/CAA metals (Sb, As, Ba, Be,
Cd, Cr, Co, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag);
HC1/C12;
Dioxins/furans;
C02;
02;
CO;
NOx;
SO2; and
Total Hydrocarbons (THC).
Since the gasifier utilizes a natural draft and dilution air inlet
(with potentially particle-laden ambient air) prior to the stack,
corrections may need to be made to allow characterization of
the emissions at the stack. Therefore, the original plan was
to take simultaneous samples for PM in the ambient air near
the dilution air inlet so that background PM present in the
dilution air could be subtracted from the PM measured at the
stack, resulting in the PM emissions due to the gasifier only.
However, due to the low gas velocities in the dilution duct,
the flow rates could not be quantified. Therefore, a traditional
PM10 paniculate sampler was positioned near the dilution air
duct inlet so that the ambient PM could be quantified.
In addition to the stack gas constituents, a number of
opportunistic samples were taken from various points within
the gasifier to aid in the further characterization of the system
and to help optimize the operation. These samples included:
Periodic grab samples of the gasification product gas in
the PCs (i.e., synthesis gas) through sampling ports near
the exit of primary chamber B;
CO prior to dilution air inlet monitored through the
sampling line, which connects the exit of the secondary
chamber to the CEM;
Temperatures and flow rates at all sampling locations and
within the system where practical; and
Ash after it was augered. However, the auger failed
during startup. Therefore, ash was pulled out the front
(through the open doors with a rake) when the manual
"push back" was occurring.
-------
3.0
Results
3.1 Process Parameter Measurements
For all the runs, Day 1 through Day 4 corresponds
to March 3 to 6, 2008, respectively. Table 3-1 lists the
fuel consumption results over the duration of the tests.
The At values represent the time between measurement
events, which either corresponded to when the individual
burner fuel tanks were topped off (both tanks were always
topped off at the same time) or else times when the
500-gallon fuel tank was filled via the daily fuel delivery.
The burners were operating continuously 24 hours per day
throughout the entire test series.
Table 3-1. Fuel Consumption Results
Tables 3-2 through 3-5 list the manually recorded
temperatures and SC set points for Day 1 through Day 4,
respectively. Blank entries in the tables represent times
when no measurements were made.
The set points on the SCs were slightly varied at times in
order to provide additional heating to the PC hearths in an
attempt to increase material throughput. In general, this
procedure was not effective at increasing throughput, mainly
because the reduction in throughput resulted from poor
distribution of the macerated carcass material on the hearth
and not from inadequate hearth temperatures.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
15:00
20:30
8:11
13:45
5:00
11:37
7:00
13:45
30.4
12.5
22.0
27.5
20.5
25.5
24.5
11.9
176
429
298
218
320
247
261
437
7.0
5.0
11.7
5.6
15.3
6.6
19.4
1.7
103.4
80.9
131.1
80.4
198.7
73.0
253.9
16.5
K Usage Rate
gal/hr)
14.8
16.2
11.2
14.4
13.0
11.0
13.1
9.9
-------
Table 3-2. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 1
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:50
10:00
10:18
10:30
10:45
10:59
11:13
11:30
11:45
11:58
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:14
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
15:59
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:03
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
Right Side (B) Right Side (B) Right Side (B)
1540
1514
1497
1488
1467
1457
1450
1432
1426
1407
1445
1395
1236
1502
1592
1596
1568
1530
1485
1437
1428
1311
1429
1302
1321
1421
1262
1304
1011
1084
1221
912
798
804
897
1262
1286
1360
1601
1598
1591
1582
1593
1594
1596
1596
1588
1587
1585
1560
1597
1593
1596
1591
1692
1683
1661
1654
1644
1636
1490
1598
1557
1576
1564
1562
1600
1598
1589
1575
1590
1577
1576
1571
1571
1579
1500
1576
1550
^R*^39^MTi^ii^2H
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Left Side (A) Left Side (A)
1582
1578
1582
1579
1578
1578
1598
1574
1566
1560
1553
1548
1540
1535
1547
1542
1548
1543
1541
1535
1531
1526
1525
1530
1533
1544
1531
1541
1554
1552
1564
1550
1533
1528
1519
1512
1518
1518
1521
1523
1523
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
NA- Not available
-------
Table 3-3. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 2
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:34
12:47
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
1201
1083
1063
999
949
1311
1144
1299
1094
1146
1249
1222
1253
1308
1344
1450
1471
1494
1441
1428
1500
1380
1419
1494
1530
1518
1526
1544
1586
1591
1592
1619
1628
Right Side (B) Right Side (B)
1587
1569
1584
1553
1540
1628
1615
1632
1629
1629
1670
1689
1695
1692
1694
1696
1695
1691
1688
1680
1698
1681
1614
1647
1695
1654
1631
1611
1689
1641
1624
1638
1662
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
H79HaV
1519
1715
1666
1649
1604
1603
1594
1542
1518
1404
1359
1692
1522
1398
1330
1649
1438
1493
1547
1390
1480
1480
1416
1461
1503
1544
1587
1609
1628
1636
1646
1674
1666
1599
1462
1582
1596
1590
1585
1552
1548
1577
1593
1668
1697
1663
1644
1621
1681
1710
1727
1724
1710
1692
1700
1702
1703
1695
1687
1688
1696
1700
1699
1687
1692
1694
^^1
^^^^^M
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
-------
Table 3-4. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 3
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:17
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:47
10:00
10:15
10:32
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:47
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:31
15:45
16:00
16:15
Right Side (B) Right Side (B) Right Side (B)
1411
1360
1239
1322
1356
1388
1390
1487
1539
1189
1308
1544
1408
1452
1492
1525
1452
1507
1323
1377
1409
1446
1489
1512
1453
1488
1518
1523
1517
1297
1521
1473
1466
1490
1506
1483
1653
1649
1692
1660
1666
1653
1695
1664
1772
1783
1772
1749
1776
1794
1800
1757
1758
1787
1753
1792
1781
1790
1752
1787
1802
1787
1756
1742
1795
1805
1870
1896
1853
1762
1799
1800
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1473
1461
1217
1325
1401
1420
1427
1535
1154
1105
1193
1333
1439
1434
1512
1478
1520
1566
1637
1647
1773
1687
1425
1645
1520
1574
1620
1688
1722
1590
1566
1539
1604
1429
1505
1574
Left Side (A) Left Side (A)
1679
1595
1673
1660
1664
1673
1688
1680
1711
1750
1778
1779
1795
1796
1794
1785
1789
1800
1787
1762
1780
1753
1786
1833
1829
1792
1792
1770
1759
1759
1746
1772
1758
1732
1752
1740
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
-------
Table 3-5. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 4
10:40
11:00
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
12:00
884
870
745
755
757
760
960
837
808
811
810
811
808
800
796
788
745
1046
1023
1118
1147
1198
1245
1320
1335
1333
1326
1316
1311
1305
1310
1307
1306
1303
1298
1293
1261
Right Side (B) Right Side (B)
1588
1571
1578
1600
1569
1597
1542
1592
1561
1592
1543
1586
1558
1586
1598
1556
1590
1566
1560
1570
1589
1542
1598
1562
1598
1560
1594
1582
1576
1597
1535
1587
1599
1559
1596
1551
1584
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
79&9V
650
730
800
1223
1162
1143
1133
1018
1261
1291
1323
1348
1329
1319
1311
1309
1303
1295
1462
1575
1560
1573
1569
1571
1571
1551
1558
1565
1568
1567
1568
1568
1567
1566
1568
1564
Left Side (A)
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
-------
Table 3-5. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 4 (Continued)
12:02
12:04
12:06
12:15
12:21
12:23
12:25
12:27
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
13:00
13:02
13:04
13:06
13:08
13:10
13:12
Right Side (B) Right Side (B) Right Side (B)
DC t°C\ Cr t°C\ Cat Dnint l°C\
1270
1439
1440
1413
1390
1378
1363
1342
1329
1318
1308
1298
1293
1287
1281
1275
1269
1399
1464
1486
1494
1485
1466
1444
1428
1420
1406
1602
1570
1594
1590
1590
1545
1598
1594
1584
1578
1537
1537
1560
1578
1597
1599
1591
1579
1599
1600
1600
1597
1592
1594
1598
1598
1585
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1282
1272
1265
1224
1373
1375
1366
1365
1358
1353
1347
1346
1343
1350
1342
1474
1460
1426
1412
1402
1392
1383
1378
1373
1370
1662
1698
1725
1675
1629
1567
1568
1565
1567
1567
1564
1564
1569
1566
1565
1565
1568
1567
1568
1566
1571
1573
1574
1573
1576
1573
1573
1578
1576
1574
1549
1579
1584
1587
1587
1
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
-------
Table 3-5. Temperature and Set Point Data from Test Day 4 (Continued)
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:39
1687
1687
1691
1670
1623
1607
1582
1650
1599
1658
1682
1692
1687
1655
Right Side (B) Right Side (B)
1563
1569
1575
1592
1580
1600
1568
1563
1586
1586
1560
1562
1577
1541
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Left Side (A)
1599
1564
1547
1535
1527
1676
1709
1704
1689
1673
1654
1640
1622
Left Side (A)
1586
1588
1586
1527
1586
1574
1581
1592
1596
1594
1596
1597
1596
Left Side (A)
1600 |
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
-------
Table 3-6 lists the estimated feed quantities and feed
times. These feed quantities are based on 550 Ib per bucket
(approximately ± 50 Ib) load on the front end loader, and
35 tt^ale of wheat straw. Blank entries in the table represent
times when no measurements were made.
Table 3-6. Estimated Feed Quantities and Times
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
14:07
14:10
14:32
14:36
15:23
15:45
15:47
16:38
16:41
8:54
9:28
11:24
11:57
12:03
12:43
12:47
16:00
6:15
7:55
7:57
10:27
10:40
11:10
11:17
11:54
13:16
13:23
14:30
15:00
15:05
15:24
15:37
11:29
11:50
12:23
12:41
12:54
13:02
13:13
13:24
13:27
Loader Buckets into PC A
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
^^^^
1
1
1
1
Loader Buckets into PC B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
3
2
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
2
1
1
1
1
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Mostly Swine
Mostly Swine
Mostly Swine
Mostly Swine
Mostly Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Poultry and Swine
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
Wheat Straw
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
275
275
275
1650
275
2200
550
550
550
275
275
275
275
550
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
70
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
-------
By breaking the day up into 3-hour blocks and averaging
the carcass feed quantities over those periods, Figure 3-1
was developed. This figure shows the unit was operating at
approximately 30-40% of its design capacity during the tests.
The average carcass feed rate over all runs was 0.32 tons/hr,
which was about 1/3 of target.
3.2 Continuous Emissions Monitors
Plots of CEM data are based on a completed validation of the
CEM data (raw CEM data can be found in Volume 2 of this
report). Invalid data were removed from the data set. Invalid
data resulted during periods of zero/span checks, instrument
manipulation (swapping instruments and modifying sample
flows, checking probes, etc.).
The dilution ratio (DR) is defined as:
DR =
Qf
(7)
sc
where QST is stack flow and Qsc is the secondary chamber
flow. DR can be calculated using either CO2 measurements or
O2 measurements.
Calculation of DR using CO2 measurements is done with the
following equation:
QSTCST =
csc sc
(8)
which results in the following:
QST
Q,
sc
c
(9)
sc
where CST is the stack CO2 concentration and Csc is the
SC CO0 concentration.
Calculation of DR using O2 measurements is done
with the following equation:
Q C = Q C + Q C (10)
where QDI is dilution flow and CDI is the ambient O2
concentration (21%).
Therefore
(11)
There was an approximately 10% difference between
calculating the DR via the two different methods. Dilution
ratios plotted in the following sections represent an average
of the DR calculated via CO2 and O2.
In all of the Figures from 3-2 to 3-26, a "feed event" is
defined as a point in time when a load of material was
dumped into the macerator and pumped onto one of the
hearths; a "door event" is defined as a time when the front
doors of the gasifier were opened and either the burning
material on the hearth was spread out or ash was pushed to
the back of the PC.
3.2.1 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 1
(March 3, 2008)
The feed material for Test Day 1 was a mixture of swine
and poultry carcasses. The day started with unburned animal
carcass material remaining from the material that was fed
to the PCs the night before. On Test Day 1, carcass feeding
began around the same time as initiation of operation of the
second set of sampling trains. The PC thermocouple on Side
A did not operate correctly for the entire day. On this test day,
the CEM sampling out of the SC had not been set up yet.
Target Feed Rate = 1.04 ton/hr
12:00 18:00 0:00
12:00 18:00
12:00 18:00
Figure 3-1. Average Carcass Feed Rate
-------
15 ~
10 ~
5 ~
0 -H
09:00
I I
12:00 15:00
Time
Figure 3-2. Stack 0 and CO, from Test Day 1
15 ~
10 ~
5 ~
0 H
09:00
12:00 15:00
Time
Figure 3-3. SC 0 and CO from Test Day 1
35 -
30
25
£ 20 -
d_
Q.
15 -
10 -
5 -
0
\
09:00
12:00
15:00
Time
Figure 3-4. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 1
-------
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 H
\
09:00
I I
12:00 15:00
Time
Figure 3-5. Stack NO and SO, from Test Day 1
09:00
\
12:00
\
15:00
Time
Figure 3-6. Temperatures from Test Day 1
3.0 -
2.0 -
1.5 -
i.o -
\
09:00
12:00 15:00
Time
1800 ~
1 goo
^ 1400 ~
LJ_
0
£ 1200 ~
£_ 1000 ~
E
800 ~
600 ~
400 ~
^c:
_r
1
1
~- 1 __
i
:PHt
I
L
i i
^ -\ _
I/
---i'
PC B
SCB
SC A
Feed Event
Door Event
u
Dilution Ratio
Figure 3-7. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 1 (Average = 2.36)
-------
5.2.2 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 2
(March 4, 2008)
On Test Day 2 the animal carcass feed was initiated early in
the day. Mostly poultry carcasses were fed this day. The feed
was full bobcat loads fed somewhat infrequently. The SC
CEMs were operating. Temperature data were recorded from
both sets of PCs and SCs.
3.0 ~
2.0 ~\
^.5 -
i.o -
09:00
12:00 15:00
Time
Dilution Ratio
Figure 3-7. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 1 (Average = 2.36)
15 -
10 -
5 -
I
09:00
12:00
Time
15:00
Figure 3-8. Stack 0 and CO from Test Day 2
-------
14 -
12 -
10 -
8-
6 -
t T IP f
09:00
12:00
Time
I
15:00
Figure 3-9. SC 0 and CO from Test Day 2
15 ~
10 -
5 ~
o H
09:00
12:00
Time
I
15:00
Figure 3-10. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 2
140 ~
120 ~
100 ~
^ 80 H
60
40 ~
20 ~
0 ~
09:00
12:00
Time
I
15:00
Figure 3-11. Stack NO and SO from Test Day 2
-------
1800 ~
1600 ~
1400 ~
1200 ~
1000 ~
800 ~
600 ~
400 ~
,1,
DJ
1
09:00
I
12:00
Time
15:00
Figure 3-12. Temperatures from Test Day 2
=:
iEi
3.5 -
3.0 -
2.5 -
2.0 -
1.5 -
I
10:00
I
12:00
Time
I
14:00
Dilution Ratio
Figure 3-13. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 2 (Average = 2.34)
3.2.3 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 3
(March 5, 2008)
On Test Day 3 animal carcasses were successfully fed all
day. The feed was a mix of swine and poultry carcasses, with
occasionally more swine than poultry. This day, the feeding
was half bobcat loads fed at shorter intervals. Part of the day
a CO sample was acquired from the SC.
-------
fefi
15 -
10 ~
5 ~
o H
I
09:00
12:00
Time
Figure 3-14. Stack 0 and CO, from Test Day 3
14 -
12 -
10 -
0 -H
09:00
I
12:00
Time
Figure 3-15. SC 0 and CO from Test Day 3
10 -i
4 -
2 -
09:00
I
12:00
Time
Figure 3-16. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 3
15:00
I
15:00
I
15:00
-------
(Note that Stack CO was not being measured during the time
when SC CO was being measured [see Figure 3-17].)
100 -i
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
I
09:00
I
12:00
Time
Figure 3-17. SC CO from Test Day 3
100 -
80 -
I 60 -
40 -
20 -
0 H
I
09:00
12:00
Time
Figure 3-18. Stack NO and SO, from Test Day 3
15:00
I
15:00
-------
1800 ~
1600 ~
1400 ~
1200 ~
1000 ~
800 ~
600 ~
400 ~
__/
j-*1
,J
f
~
P.
J
J
1 1
d
-
r
L
ii
£:
T
1
L
,
-L.
_
1='-
t
09:00
12:00
15:00
Time
Figure 3-19. Temperatures from Test Day 3
3.0
2.5
Dilution Ratio
2.0
1.5 ~
1.0 -
09:00
r
12:00
\
15:00
Time
Figure 3-20. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 3 (Average = 2.74)
3.2.4 Continuous Emissions Data from Test Day 4
(March 6, 2008)
On Test Day 4 wheat straw was burned as a surrogate for
contaminated plant material. This material was not acceptable
for long-term operation due to the very dry nature of the
wheat straw and the inability to feed the wheat straw through
the macerator (wetted wood chips were preferred). Several
feed methods were used, including hand charging dry
material, hand charging wet material, and conveyor
charging of wet material. Opening the doors to feed was
not safe or practical for this material, since the material burst
into flame nearly immediately, and gas flows through the
PC were higher than in gasification mode, making a visible
plume. PC chamber temperatures kept increasing over the
feeding period.
-------
15 ~
10 ~
5 ~
o -
Wfr
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30
Time
Figure 3-21. Stack 0 and CO from Test Day 4
15 -
10 -
5 -
o H
I I I I I I I
10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30
Time
Figure 3-22. SC 0 and CO from Test Day 4
10 -i
4 -
2 -
o H
11
I I I I I I
10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30
Time
Figure 3-23. Stack CO and THC from Test Day 4
-------
80 ~
60 -
40 ~
20 ~
0 H
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30
Time
Figure 3-24. Stack N0x and S0? from Test Day 4
1800 -
1600 ~
1400 ~
; 1200 -
I
I
!_ 1000 -
800 ~
600 ~
400 ~
\
11:00
12:00
Time
\
13:00
Figure 3-25. Temperatures from Test Day 4
3.0 -
2.0 -
1.5 -
i.o -
1
V-:
V ^
1 1
^'V*
fi
(^-J
1 1
X
^c
y +
(\
c
A
i
v,
k
"i
v/
"''-
- PCB
SC B
PC A
SC A
Feed Event
Door Event
Dilution Ratio
\ \ \ \ \ \
11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30
Time
Figure 3-26. Dilution Ratio from Test Day 4 (Average = 2.50)
-------
5.2.5 Correlation of Operating Parameters
For a unit primarily designed for operation in the field, with
minimal on-board diagnostics, easily measured parameters
should give an indication of operational effectiveness so
that emissions can be minimized in the field without the
need for sophisticated instrumentation, expensive gas
monitoring equipment, and additional operating technicians.
In order to assess the potential for indirect measurements of
emissions quality, the CO and THC readings (an indication
of combustion effectiveness and emissions of organic air
toxics) during the carcass tests were correlated with available
process measurements from the gasifier using a 2nd degree
polynomial. For this correlation, the CO and THC were
first corrected to 12% CO2 to account for potential dilution
effects. In the United States, emissions measurements are
normally correlated to 7% Or However, due to the high
O2 values in the stack, the correction factor based on an O2
concentration would have had a large amount of associated
error. For this reason, the emissions were corrected to 12%
CO2, the method used in Canada. Equation (12) was used
for correction:
C =C
corrected raw I s~is-\
12
zstack
(12)
where C t , is the corrected pollutant concentration,
corrected A '
C is the measured pollutant concentration, and CO0, t , is
raw r > 2'stack
the stack concentration, in volume percent, of CO2.
Both CO and THC correlate favorably (R2=0.638 for CO
and R2 = 0.741 for THC) with the average of the temperatures
of the two PCs. Figures 3-27 and 3-28 show the correlations
between PC temperature and the CO and THC stack
measurements. These correlations suggest that, at the
feed rates observed during these tests, as long as the PC
chamber temperatures are maintained above 900 °F (482 °C),
CO and THC will be maintained below 100 ppm corrected
to 12% CO2. Any additional testing should investigate this
possibility further.
3.3 Test Timeline and Average Concentrations
Table 3-7 lists the sample train start and stop times, as well
as the average temperatures and gas concentrations over
those periods. Note that no extractive sampling trains were
operated on Test Day 4 (March 6, 2008), while the wheat
straw was being burned. The original intention was to
perform the full suite of sampling/analysis activities for the
plant materials; however, once the material that was delivered
was examined, the extremely lightweight nature of the wheat
straw would obviously not be amenable to feeding through
the macerator. The need to manually charge through the front
doors would cause problems with the gasifier operation due
to rapid combustion and transient operation as well as safety
problems. The test team decided that more valuable data
would be gathered by attempting different feed procedures
while continuous gas sampling and opacity monitoring via
EPA Method 9 were used to diagnose the operation of the
gasifier, an additional side effect of having the shakedown
of the unit truncated due to schedule limitations. Table 3-8
lists the average values of the CEMs over the test days. Note:
unlike the analysis of PC temperature vs. CO and THC, all
concentrations in the following discussion are reported in
raw units on a dry basis (i.e., no correction for dilution was
made). Table 3-9 lists the stack velocities and flow rates as
well as the estimated dilution flow rates.
Figure 3-27. PC Temperature vs. CO
Figure 3-28. PC Temperature vs. THC
-------
Table 3-7. Sample Train Start/Stop Times and Average Stack Gas Concentrations, Dry Basis
1
2
3
Dioxins/Furans
Filterable PM/Acid
Gases
Metals
PMIO, Condensable PM
Ambient PMIO
Syngas Composition
Dioxins/Furans
Filterable PM/Acid
Gases
Metals
PMIO, Condensable PM
Ambient PMIO
Syngas Composition
Dioxins/Furans
Filterable PM/Acid
Gases
Metals
PMIO, Condensable PM
Ambient PMIO
Syngas Composition
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
10:21
14:52
12:24
16:43
10:21
14:51
10:21
7:56
13:10
15:07
8:12
12:09
10:02
14:05
8:11
12:08
8:21
7:06
9:05
8:59
12:57
10:48
14:36
8:58
12:56
8:54
6:59
9:55
13:55
17:52
13:54
18:13
11:52
16:21
17:21
18:51
14:01
18:47
11:12
15:09
11:32
15:35
9:41
13:38
15:06
18:15
10:19
11:59
15:57
12:18
16:08
10:28
14:26
15:45
16:54
11:05
17.4
17.1
17.4
17.3
17.6
16.9
17.3
NA
NA
NA
16.3
15.9
15.8
16.0
16.7
15.9
16.1
NA
NA
15.8
16.0
15.8
16.0
16.0
15.9
15.9
NA
NA
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.8
NA
NA
NA
3.5
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.1
3.9
3.6
NA
NA
3.8
3.8
4.1
3.7
3.4
3.9
3.8
NA
NA
Rpi
5
22
7
25
4
19
11
NA
NA
NA
0
2
0
1
0
2
1
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
5
(ppm)
18
32
18
28
15
34
23
NA
NA
NA
44
59
62
47
30
67
52
NA
NA
71
57
69
61
68
55
63
NA
NA
N0x
(ppm)
33
59
28
66
34
51
43
NA
NA
NA
39
35
44
29
33
41
37
NA
NA
36
31
37
29
34
34
34
NA
NA
THC
(ppm)
0
15
0
24
0
7
4
NA
NA
NA
1
4
1
7
0
5
2
NA
NA
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
NA
NA
zliiflzfl
1463
1079
1539
906
1431
1230
1333
NA
1438
1139
1211
1516
1309
1583
1167
1458
1364
NA
1192
1446
1478
1473
1460
1414
1494
1457
NA
1417
Kfiiflzfl
1613
1579
1641
1568
1586
1590
1601
NA
1585
1572
1647
1653
1690
1641
1610
1661
1653
NA
1644
1758
1801
1776
1831
1737
1773
1778
NA
1776
PCT A
(°F)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1031
604
1508
1544
1493
1635
1574
1463
1527
NA
1518
1390
1579
1515
1555
1294
1579
1498
NA
1356
Avg
SCT A
(°F)
1542
1534
1535
1518
1549
1553
1540
NA
1529
1533
1613
1696
1663
1694
1570
1699
1655
NA
1606
1761
1778
1792
1754
1728
1800
1769
NA
1782
NA- Not available
-------
Table 3-8. CEM Average Measurements, Dry Basis
T ._. T- Stack 0, Stack CO,
Test Day Time ... . 2 ... . 2
1
1
2
2
3
3
10:21-13:55
14:52-17:52
8:12-11:12
12:09-15:09
8:59-11:59
12:57-15:57
17.4
16.7
17.0
16.2
16.4
16.5
2.6
3.1
3.0
3.7
4.0
3.9
Stack CO Stack N0x Stack S02
0
19
0
0
0
NA*
34
39
34
41
41
42
12
42
30
70
75
62
Stack THC
0
6
0
4
0
0
RH
13.2
11.9
10.8
9.8
6.5
7.3
6.4
7.3
7.9
8.6
10.8
10.6
NA - Not Available - CO monitor operating at secondary combustion zone
Table 3-9. Stack Velocities and Flow Rates
I-M5/26A-1
I-M5/26A-2
II-M5/26A-1
II-M5/26A-2
III-M5/26A-1
III-M5/26A-2
I-M29-1
I-M29-2
II-M29-1
II-M29-2
III-M29-1
III-M29-2
I-M23-1
I-M23-2
II-M23-1
II-M23-2
III-M23-1
III-M23-2
Average
13.6
14 .9
14.5
14.8
13.9
14.4
13.4
14.2
14.7
16.1
14.3
14.4
14.6
14.9
15.0
13.9
14.3
14.6
14.5
^^^^^^^^^^u
IMJIlH
5141
5636
5501
5583
5277
5439
5067
5380
5561
6082
5396
5459
5540
5628
5684
5252
5410
5535
5476
Volumetric Flowrate
2280
2516
2279
2338
2334
2330
2233
2311
2323
2598
2551
2433
2379
2446
2504
2264
2410
2338
2382
-------
The pollutant concentrations were converted into mass
emission rates using the following equation:
Mass Emissions =
W6RT
(13)
where C is the concentration of pollutant i in ppm, M. is the
molecular mass of pollutant i, Qs is the stack flow rate in
standard cubic feet per hour, R is the ideal gas constant, and
T is the temperature (for standard conditions, 68 °F [20 °C]).
3.4 Particulate Matter
5.4.1 Ambient Particulate
Table 3-10 lists the results from the ambient sampler. These
data reflect the amount of PM10 that was being pulled into the
dilution air of the stack. The results from March 3 and March
4 are similar, with the Test Day 3 (March 5, 2008) results
significantly lower, possibly due to a heavy rain the night
before. Overall, the ambient paniculate loading represented
no more than 1 mg/m3 on any given day.
5.4.2 Total Filterable Particulate
Table 3-11 lists the results for the total filterable paniculate
for Test Day 1 through Test Day 3. Based on the ambient
PM10 measurements, approximately 5% of this paniculate
resulted from material being pulled into the dilution air from
Table 3-10. Ambient PM^ Results
the ambient surroundings. These results show an average
of 26 mg/Nm3 with a standard deviation of 9 mg/Nm3. The
average emission rate was 0.224 Ib/hr over the three test days
of burning animal carcasses, with a standard deviation of
0.077 Ib/hr.
5.4.5 Filterable Particulate Matter and Condensable
Particulate Matter
Table 3-12 shows the results from the filterable paniculate
(EPA Method 5) and condensable paniculate (EPA Method
202). Total paniculate averaged 21.9 mg/Nm3 (not corrected
for dilution). No paniculate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter greater than 10 um was observed. Note that the
total filterable paniculate results are slightly different in
Table 3-12 than in Table 3-11, because the sample train in
Table 3-12 was run for 420 minutes as opposed to 90 minutes
for the results shown in Table 3-11. Approximately 1/3 of
the total paniculate was condensable, and of that fraction,
approximately 15% was organic, so approximately 30% of
the paniculate was composed of condensable sulfates and
nitrates. Note that the contribution of ambient paniculate
(approximately 1 mg/Nm3) was not subtracted from the
total filterable paniculate, although based on the dilution
ratios (which averaged 2.34 over Test Days 1 through 3)
and results from the ambient sampling, ambient paniculate
would be expected to contribute roughly 1.34 mg/Nm3 or
approximately 5% of the total filterable paniculate.
^^B
1
2
3
Run Duration (min) Sample Volume (m3)
674.4
564.6
590.4
864.94
725.34
761.32
Filter Catch (ug) PM 10 (Mg/m3)
849,900
710,600
38,290
982.6
979.7
50.3
Table 3-11. Total Filterable Particulate Results
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
Concentration (mg/Nm3)
15.1
13.7
34.6
33.5
27.5
29.3
Emission Rate (Ib/hr)
0.129
0.129
0.295
0.294
0.240
0.256
-------
5.4.4 Visible Emissions
Opacity measurements were taken with EPA Method 9
on Day 4, and on Days 1 through 3, intermittent opacity
measurements were taken (approximately 15 minutes per
hour of sampling), although the sample frequency and
duration criteria for EPA Method 9 were not satisfied on
those days due to personnel limitations. On Days 1 through 3,
Table 3-12. Particulate Matter Emissions Measurements
no measurable opacity was observed during any of the time
periods where visible emissions observations were taken.
On Day 4, during the vegetable matter burns, EPA Method
9 measurements were taken according to the method. These
measurements are listed in Table 3-13. The peak smoke
number observed during the vegetative matter burns was
15%, with the peak opacity over the test day at 9.4%.
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE < 10um
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
ORGANIC CONDENSABLE PARTICULATE
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
INORGANIC CONDENSABLE PARTICULATE
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
TOTAL PARTICULATE < 10um
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
TOTAL FILTERABLE PARTICULATE
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
TOTAL PARTICULATE
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
2.04E-03
4.68
0.1045
4.69E-04
1.07
0.0240
2.94E-03
6.7
0.2
5.45E-03
12.5
0.3
2.04E-03
4.68
0.104
5.45E-03
12.5
0.3
^^^E
7.29E-03
16.69
0.3645
7.58E-04
1.74
0.0379
3.42E-03
7.8
0.2
1.15E-02
26.2
0.6
7.29E-03
16.69
0.364
1.15E-02
26.2
0.6
^^^K
8.27E-03
18.92
0.4226
7.03E-05
0.16
0.0036
7.35E-04
1.7
0.0
9.07E-03
20.8
0.5
8.27E-03
18.92
0.423
9.07E-03
20.8
0.5
^K^^^^^9
5.87E-03
13.43
0.2972
4.33E-04
0.99
0.0218
2.36E-03
5.4
0.1
8.66E-03
19.8
0.4
5.87E-03
13.43
0.297
8.66E-03
19.8
0.4
Table 3-13. Visible Emissions During Vegetable Matter Tests (Day 4)
Start Time
11:14
13:33
End Time
12:14
14:42
Opacity (%)
0
9.4
-------
5.4.5 Particle Size Distributions
Table 3-14 shows the particle size distributions for Test Days
1 through 3. The paniculate matter was very fine, with an
average of 58.1% by mass ending up on the backup filter.
Virtually all the paniculate had an aerodynamic diameter less
than 0.5 um. Figure 3-29 shows the cumulative mass percent
versus particle size for the average of the three runs.
3.5 Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine
Table 3-15 lists the hydrogen chloride (HC1) and chlorine
(C12) emissions. HC1 averaged 30.8 mg/Nm3 with a standard
deviation of 19.2 mg/Nm3, and Cl averaged 0.173 mg/
Nm3 with a standard deviation of 0.486 mg/Nm3. The
average emission rate of HC1 was 0.27 Ib/hr with a standard
deviation of 0.17 Ib/hr and the average emission rate of C12
was 0.0015 Ib/hr with a standard deviation of 0.0014 Ib/hr.
These particular pollutants showed a relatively high degree of
variability, with the higher emissions occurring at the higher
animal carcass feed rates. This variability may result from
differences in the feed that the gasified animals were fed.
Table 3-14. Particle Size Distribution Data (Mass Basis)
Stage
Aerodynamic
Particle Size
(Mm)
Mass % of
Total
Cum. Mass
% Less Than
Mass % of
Total
Cum. Mass
% Less Than
Mass % of
Total
Cum. Mass
% Less Than
Mass % of
Total
Cum. Mass
% Less Than
0.4
99.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.1
5.47
0.0
99.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
3.71
99.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
99.9
2.54
99.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
99.9
1.62
0.0
99.6
0.8
3.2
0.7
99.3
0.5
99.4
0.77
0.7
98.9
94.5
0.8
98.6
2.1
97.3
0.49
11.9
87.0
ll.E
82.6
94.7
3.1
8
0.33
32.2
38.7
19.2
75.5
30.1
58.1
Backup
<0.33
0.0
43.9
0.0
75.5
0.0
58.1
0.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
120 -
8 Rfl -
*
% fin -
1
" 20 -
r
0 2 4 6 8 10
Dp - Aerodynamic Particle Diamter (Mm)
Figure 3-29. Particle Size Distribution
-------
Table 3-15. Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
13.8
4.1
32.0
57.8
37.1
39.8
0.118
0.039
0.273
0.507
0.324
0.348
0.066
0.092
0.469
0.127
0.112
ND
0.00056
0.00086
0.00400
0.00112
0.00098
ND
ND - Not Detected
3.6 Metals
Metals concentrations were low, being comparable to or
lower than the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for metals for small municipal waste combustors [Federal
Register, 2000]. Table 3-16 lists the concentrations and
emission rates of metals at the stack. Antimony, beryllium,
cobalt, and mercury were not detected. The source of
cadmium is not known - animal carcasses are not expected
to have much Cd, and the fuel oil had none. Cd may be a
component in the materials of construction of the gasifier or
the macerator.
-------
Table 3-16. Metals Results
Antimony
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Arsenic
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Barium
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Beryllium
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Cadmium
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Chromium
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Cobalt
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Lead
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Manganese
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Mercury
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Nickel
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Selenium
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Silver
Concentration, pg/Nm3
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
ND
ND
0.49
4.07E-06
5.02
4.20E-05
ND
ND
13.00
1.09E-04
6.40
5.35E-05
ND
ND
3.00
2.51E-05
2.84
2.37E-05
ND
ND
15.30
1.28E-04
2.11
1.76E-05
0.16
1.36E-06
ND
ND
0.84
7.28E-06
2.98
2.58E-05
ND
ND
23.40
2.02E-04
7.64
6.62E-05
ND
ND
2.52
2.18E-05
2.14
1.85E-05
ND
ND
6.80
5.89E-05
3.13
2.71E-05
0.69
5.95E-06
ND
ND
0.77
6.67E-06
5.14
4.47E-05
ND
ND
5.97
5.20E-05
4.83
4.20E-05
ND
ND
6.06
5.27E-05
6.06
5.27E-05
ND
ND
5.98
5.20E-05
4.75
4.14E-05
0.92
8.01E-06
ND
ND
1.41
1.38E-05
4.38
4.26E-05
ND
ND
1.95
1.89E-05
6.53
6.36E-05
ND
ND
8.35
8.13E-05
4.18
4.06E-05
ND
ND
8.56
8.33E-05
7.01
6.82E-05
0.74
7.21E-06
ND
ND
1.31
1.25E-05
10.80
1.03E-04
ND
ND
25.60
2.44E-04
5.97
5.70E-05
ND
ND
7.20
6.88E-05
14.10
1.35E-04
ND
ND
19.80
1.89E-04
4.22
4.03E-05
1.46
1.39E-05
ND
ND
1.99
1.81E-05
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.14
1.95E-05
9.25
8.43E-05
ND
ND
8.79
8.01E-05
1.22
1.11E-05
ND
ND
9.94
9.06E-05
5.73
5.22E-05
0.76
6.97E-06
HHHH
ND
ND
1.13
1.04E-05
5.66
5.16E-05
ND
ND
12.01
1.08E-04
6.77
6.11E-05
ND
ND
5.99
5.50E-05
5.09
4.69E-05
ND
ND
11.06
l.OOE-04
4.49
4.11E-05
0.79
7.23E-06
ND - Not Detected
-------
3.7 PCDDs/Fs
The measured dioxins and furans were very low, with
concentrations in the picogram per normal cubic meter range
(pg/Nm3). As a reference, the NSPS for dioxins from small
municipal waste combustors [Federal Register, 2000] is
13 ng/Nm3 total PCDD/F, which is approximately an order of
magnitude higher than the observed gasifier emissions, when
corrected to 12 % CO2. Table 3-17 lists the concentrations of
Table 3-17. PCDD/F Concentrations (pg/Nm3)
PCDDs/Fs as well as the concentration in Toxic Equivalency
(TEQ) units, which represent a weighted concentration
based on World Health Organization (WHO) 2005 toxicity
equivalency factor (TEF) weights (Van den Berg et al., 2006).
Table 3-18 lists the mass emission rates of PCDDs/Fs in lb/
hr, including TEQ units. Note that averaging is based on
setting non-detects to zero.
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1, 2,3,4,7 ,8-HxCDD
1, 2,3,6,7 ,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7 ,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7 ,8-HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7 ,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1, 2,3,4,6,7 ,8-HpCDF
1, 2,3,4,7 ,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
TEQ
Other TCDD
Other PeCDD
Other HxCDD
Other HpCDD
Total PCDD
Other TCDF
Other PeCDF
Other HxCDF
Other HpCDF
Total PCDF
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.6
6.2
5.7
3.7
7.8
3.6
2.4
3.5
ND
4.5
ND
5.8
4.1
16.5
ND
ND
2.2
27.5
125.0
46.2
14.9
9.4
232.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.0
5.7
4.2
15.4
7.7
3.7
6.1
ND
6.3
ND
ND
7.1
21.3
4.7
ND
5.1
38.1
44.4
65.0
27.2
6.3
192.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
59.5
11.4
ND
ND
70.9
62.4
15.8
4.0
1.4
84.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.0
1.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
104.0
10.2
ND
ND
122.2
79.6
15.1
7.3
1.4
104.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
4.5
0.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
ND
ND
0.1
89.0
10.8
4.1
3.4
114.2
70.6
13.2
6.6
2.5
96.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.3
ND
ND
0.0
79.8
13.3
5.0
ND
104.0
88.2
18.1
9.5
3.3
122.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.8
5.3
2.4
1.3
3.9
1.9
1.0
1.6
ND
2.8
ND
1.0
1.9
61.7
8.4
1.5
1.8
79.5
78.4
28.9
11.6
4.1
138.8
ND- Not Detected
-------
Table 3-18. PCDD/F Mass Emission Rate (Ib/hr)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1, 2,3,7 ,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7 ,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7 ,8-HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7 ,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1, 2,3,7 ,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
TEQ
Other TCDD
Other PeCDD
Other HxCDD
Other HpCDD
Total PCDD
Other TCDF
Other PeCDF
Other HxCDF
Other HpCDF
Total PCDF
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.26E-11
5.51E-11
5.09E-11
3.26E-11
6.96E-11
3.21E-11
2.16E-11
3.06E-11
ND
3.97E-11
ND
5.15E-11
3.60E-11
1.46E-10
ND
ND
1.94E-11
2.43E-10
1.11E-09
4.10E-10
1.33E-10
8.37E-11
2.07E-09
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.38E-11
5.18E-11
3.85E-11
1.40E-10
7.05E-11
3.37E-11
5.60E-11
ND
5.70E-11
ND
ND
6.49E-11
1.94E-10
4.24E-11
ND
4.66E-11
3.47E-10
4.05E-10
5.92E-10
2.48E-10
5.70E-11
1.75E-09
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.16E-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.16E-12
5.58E-10
1.07E-10
ND
ND
6.65E-10
5.85E-10
1.48E-10
3.72E-11
1.35E-11
7.95E-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.75E-11
1.07E-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.09E-12
8.80E-10
8.63E-11
ND
ND
1.03E-09
6.75E-10
1.28E-10
6.20E-11
1.21E-11
8.88E-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.22E-11
4.02E-11
7.08E-12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.28E-11
ND
ND
1.17E-12
8.04E-10
9.73E-11
3.72E-11
3.02E-11
1.03E-09
6.38E-10
1.19E-10
5.91E-11
2.28E-11
8.69E-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.19E-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.88E-11
ND
ND
3.04E-13
6.99E-10
1.17E-10
4.36E-11
ND
9.12E-10
7.72E-10
1.58E-10
8.29E-11
2.88E-11
1.07E-09
^HHUl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.47E-12
4.64E-11
2.20E-11
1.19E-11
3.49E-11
1.71E-11
9.22E-12
1.44E-11
ND
2.47E-11
ND
8.58E-12
1.75E-11
5.47E-10
7.50E-11
1.35E-11
1.60E-11
7.05E-10
6.98E-10
2.59E-10
1.04E-10
3.63E-11
1.24E-09
ND- Not Detected
-------
3.8 Synthesis Gas Composition
The analyses of the synthesis gas were inconclusive because
the analytical results did not indicate a gas that resembled
a typical gasifier synthesis gas. The composition of the gas
indicated that nearly complete combustion had occurred
by the time the gases were sampled. Nearly complete
combustion could have occurred due to infiltration of ambient
air into the PCs via leaks between the SC and PC, or perhaps
an overabundance of ambient air was allowed to enter
the primary chambers through the ports in the doors, or a
recirculation zone from the burner region could have resulted
in air being mixed into the back end of the PC through
turbulent mixing. At any rate, the high oxygen concentration
in some of the samples indicated that significant quantities of
ambient air were being pulled into the chambers. It was not
possible to determine which situation had occurred, although
it is possible that the truncated shakedown schedule resulted
in sub-optimal stoichiometric ratios in the primary chambers.
Table 3-19 lists the results from the analysis of the synthesis
gas samples.
3.9 Ash Analysis
The ash samples that were subjected to TCLP analysis
(Table 3-20) mostly showed non-detects for all target metals.
The amino acid analytical results for the ash (Table 3-21)
showed all amino acids below reportable detection limits.
Table 3-19. Synthesis Gas Composition
Day 1 Run 1
Day 1 Run 2
Day 2 Run 1
Day 3 Run 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.9
9.5
9.1
ND
14.7
7.9
12.7
23.2
84.8
76.6
86.2
83.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1923
1503
453
^K^^
436
2507
1063
1351
BI^U^^BI
221
334
11424
100
Table 3-20. TCLP Results for Ash (mg/L)
Day 2 Side A
Day 2 Side B
Day 3 Side A
Day 3 Side B
Day 4 Side A
Day 4 Side B
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
0.05
0.04
<0.03
0.05
<0.03
0.06
< 0.0006
< 0.0006
< 0.0006
< 0.0006
< 0.0006
< 0.0006
<0.05
<0.05
0.08
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
-------
Table 3-21. Amino Acid Analytical Results for Ash (mg/g)
Alanine
Arginine
Aspartic Acid
Glutamic Acid
Glycine
Histidine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine
Phenylalanine
Proline
Serine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Tyrosine
Valine
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
< 0.5
<0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
<0.5
< 0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1
K)ay4
ide B
< 0.5
< 0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
3.10 Estimated Emissions of Pollutants
Per Mass of Carcass Fed
Taking the average emissions of each pollutant in pounds
per hour and dividing by the average carcass feed rate (0.32
tons/hr) yields the estimated emissions in emission factor
units. These results are shown in Table 3-22. Note that these
results apply only to the animal carcass feed, since extractive
sampling was not performed during the plant matter tests for
reasons described earlier.
-------
Table 3-22. Estimated Emissions
Total Filterable Particulate
PM,0
Organic Condensable Particulate
Inorganic Condensable Particulate
Total Particulate
Hydrogen Chloride
Chlorine as CI2
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
PCDD/F Total
PCDD/F TEQ
Average Ib/hr
0.297
0.297
0.022
0.120
0.439
0.27
0.173
ND
1.04E-05
5.16E-05
ND
1.08E-04
6.11E-05
ND
5.50E-05
4.69E-05
ND
l.OOE-04
4.11E-05
7.23E-06
1.24E-09
1.75E-11
Average Ib/ton of carcass
0.93
0.93
0.07
0.37
1.37
0.84
0.54
ND
3.25E-05
1.61E-04
ND
3.38E-04
1.91E-04
ND
1.72E-04
1.47E-04
ND
3.13E-04
1.28E-04
2.26E-05
3.88E-09
5.47E-11
ND = Not detected.
-------
4.0
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Evaluation Report
This project was conducted under an approved Category
III QAPP titled Source Sampling for Transportable Gasifier
for Animal Carcasses and Contaminated Plant Material
(November 2007). Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs)
established in the QAPP in terms of accuracy, precision, and
completeness are shown in Table 4-1 of the QAPP.
Flow rates of stack gas and dilution air were determined
using EPA Methods 1 and 2. MQOs were evaluated by pre-
and post-test leak checks. All leak checks performed during
the course of sampling passed method criteria. Moisture
content of the stack gas was determined using EPA Method
4. MQOs were evaluated by pre- and post-test leak checks.
All leak checks that were performed passed method criteria.
These measurements were 100% complete.
4.1 CEMs (C02/02, S02, N0x, CO, THCs)
CEMs were calibrated prior to each test day at three points
and pre-test and post-test bias checks were performed.
Direct calibration MQOs were established at ±2% error. All
values measured for O2, CO, SO2 and NOx were within the
MQOs. For CO2, one measured value was slightly outside
the MQO at 2.3%. THC values were routinely outside the
±2% limit, ranging from 0 to 6.2%. The bias check MQO
was established at ±5% for all CEMs and was routinely met
for all instruments with the exception of the THC analyzer,
which ranged from 0 to 13.9% error. The MQO for zero/drift
checks was established at ±3% and measured on the CO2,
O2, SO2, and CO CEMs daily. The MQOs were met for all
measurements with the exception of one CO2 and one SO2
measurement, which were slightly above the MQO at ±4.2%.
In conclusion, CEM measurements met 90% completeness
with the exception of THC.
4.2 HCI, CI2 (Method 26/26A)
Samples were analyzed for HCI and C12 using EPA Method
26 A by Resolution Analytics. Results from QC samples
were included with the analytical report. Reagent blanks and
field blanks for HCI were all below method detection limits.
For C12, the reported catch on the field blank was 0.048 mg.
Because C12 sample results were low, this blank value is
significant. A matrix spike was performed by the addition
of a known amount of chloride standard. Recoveries ranged
from 90 to 103%, which met acceptance criteria for accuracy.
Precision was assessed by replicate injection of laboratory
control samples and the replicate injections resulted in a 1.5%
difference, which meets established MQOs. These analyses
were 100% complete.
4.3 Filterable Particulate (Method 5)
Tare weights for filters were obtained by ARCADIS on
02/29/08 and analyzed by Resolution Analytics. Final
weights were obtained on 04/30/08. For each weighing
session the balance was zeroed and a 5.0000 mg calibration
weight was weighed before and after the sample filters. One
sample filter (Filter No. 5830786) was also processed as a
blank. Accuracy was assessed by comparing the observed
weight of the 5.0000 mg calibration standard to the known
value. Precision was assessed using the values from replicate
weighings of the 5.0000 mg standard. MQOs were met and
these measurements were 100% complete.
4.4 PCDDs/PCDFs (EPA Method 23)
Six samples, a field blank and reagent blanks were submitted
to Analytical Perspectives for the determination of PCDD/
PCDF. The laboratory report included raw data for initial
calibration, calibration verifications, and daily laboratory
control samples. No analytes were detected in the field
blank, reagent blanks, or method blank. Internal standard
and surrogate recoveries were within the acceptable range
of 50-150% for all samples and met MQOs for accuracy/
bias. No criteria for precision were established but standard
deviations between replicate injections of laboratory control
samples passed method acceptance criteria. These analyses
were 100% complete.
4.5 Metals (EPA Method 29)
EPA Method 29 trains were sent to First Analytical
Laboratories for analysis of target metals antimony, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, and silver. Barium,
cobalt, and manganese were determined by Inductively
Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP).
Mercury was determined by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry (CVAA). All other compounds were
determined by Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry (GFAA).
Six sampled trains were submitted for analysis along with
a field blank and reagent blanks. Normal trace amounts of
barium, cadmium, chromium, and manganese were found in
the blank trains. Since sample values were so low for these
elements, blank concentrations are significant and samples
should be blank-corrected.
Laboratory control samples consisting of initial calibration
verifications (ICVs), continuing calibration verifications
(CCVs) and continuing calibration blanks (CCBs) were
-------
performed for each element. Triplicate values are obtained
for each sample on the instrument and the average of these
triplicate values is reported. In addition, the laboratory
performed duplicate analysis and matrix spike analysis for
selected samples. All laboratory control samples were within
the acceptance criteria for recovery and relative standard
deviation required by the method.
4.6 PM10, Condensable Particulate
(EPA M201A/OTM-DIM)
These samples were analyzed by Resolution Analytics. Leak
checks on the sampling trains were performed according to
the method for every test. Tests were not started until leak
checks passed.
4.7 C02, CH4, N2,
02, NMOC, CH4 in Synthesis Gas
Leak checks on the sampling trains were performed
according to the method for every test. Tests were not started
until leak checks passed.
4.8 Total Suspended Particulate
These samples were analyzed by Resolution Analytics. Leak
checks on the sampling trains were performed according to
the method for every test. Tests were not started until leak
checks passed.
4.9 Ash Composition (EPA Method 1311/TCLP)
Grab samples of the ash were taken from "A"-side and
"B"-side on days 2 through 4. Six samples were submitted
to First Analytical Laboratories for TCLP analysis for
target elements arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium, and silver. Arsenic, cadmium, lead,
mercury, selenium, and silver were not detectable in any of
the leachates. The arsenic spike recovery was slightly low
at 70%. This low recovery was not considered a problem
because there were not quantifiable levels of arsenic in the
samples. All of the other spike recoveries were within the
acceptable range of 75-125%. All leachates were analyzed
in duplicate. Results for laboratory control samples including
method blanks, initial calibration verifications, continuing
calibration verifications, and continuing calibration blanks
were also included in the analytical report. All data were
within method acceptance criteria. These analyses were
100% complete.
4.10 Ash Amino Acids
Grab samples of the ash were taken from "A"-side and
"B"-side on days 2 through 4. A total of six samples were
submitted to EMSL Analytical for a complete amino acid
profile, which included the following:
Acid stable amino acids;
Sulfur amino acids; and
Tryptophan.
For amino acids, a portion of sample was mixed with
hydrochloric acid solution in a modified Kjeldahl flask. To
prevent oxidation, as much oxygen as possible is removed
from the flask by repeated freezing and thawing under
vacuum. The neck of the flask was heat-sealed and the
flask was heated in a 110 °C oven for 20 hours. Proteins
in the sample were hydrolyzed to amino acids by the hot
hydrochloric acid solution. Amino acids (if present) were
separated on an ion exchange column and detected by
reaction with ninhydrin. The concentration of each amino
acid was quantitated against a standard known concentration.
The tryptophan samples were hydrolyzed with sodium
hydroxide in an evacuated sealed glass vessel. Hydrolysates
were analyzed on a high performance liquid chromatograph
(HPLC), using UV detection and quantitated from standards
of known concentration.
Results for all samples were below the laboratory reporting
limit of 0.5 mg/g.
4.11 Data Quality Assessment (DQA)
An internal DQA was performed to ensure data from raw
analytical reports were accurately transcribed and entered
into spreadsheets. Results of laboratory quality control
samples for all methods were also reviewed. An error in data
entry for organic and inorganic condensable paniculate was
found and corrected. All laboratory control samples for all
methods met method acceptance criteria.
-------
5.0
Conclusions
A prototype transportable gasifier, developed by BGP for
the Department of Defense TSWG, was tested in the field in
March 2008. The gasifier is intended to thermally process
contaminated animal carcasses and plant matter.
Samples were taken and analyzed for several targets,
including:
Fixed combustion gases, including oxygen, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, sulfur
dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen;
Paniculate matter, including total filterable paniculate,
condensable particulates, PM10, and particle size
distributions;
Metals;
Acid gases;
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans;
Leachable metals in the ash residues; and
Amino acids in the ash residues.
The unit was deployed in the field in a rapid manner, and
was operational to perform the necessary emissions testing
described in the QAPP in spite of having less than a week
for initial startup and shakedown. This truncated shakedown
schedule resulted in several operational issues that should be
addressed through minor design modifications, discussed in
the Engineer's Report [BGP, 2008]. The operational issues of
concern that impacted the emissions testing included:
Failure of the ash removal auger contributed to a
feed rate limitation.
Inefficient distribution of animal matter on the
hearths in the primary chamber limited the unit's
maximum throughput to approximately 32% of
the design capacity.
The plant material selected as a surrogate for
contaminated plant matter was not acceptable to feed
through the unit's macerator. Gasifier operation with
plant matter feed was therefore cut to only a few hours
and extractive sampling was not performed on the plant
matter tests.
Air infiltrated into the primary chambers through some
unknown mechanism, and the analyzed synthesis gas
did not bear a resemblance to synthesis gas from other
gasification processes, possibly due to air migrating
from the secondary chambers through gaps in the hearth
to the primary chamber in the vicinity of the sampling
port, turbulent mixing from the burner zones, or an
overabundance of air being pulled in through the
ports in the doors.
Emissions of the measured pollutants were at low levels,
and the ash passed TCLP There were slightly elevated
emissions of cadmium, the source of which is unknown.
There may be Cd present in the materials of construction
of the gasifier or macerator, since animal carcasses are
not known to contain large amounts of Cd and the fuel
oil did not contain any Cd.
There are no emissions standards with which to compare
this type of gasifier unit, although emissions of most
pollutants were well below the NSPS for small municipal
waste combustors. The particle size distribution suggested
that the vast majority of the emitted paniculate matter was
smaller than 0.5 microns.
A very important observation was that the emissions of
carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbons correlated very
well with the average of the temperatures of the two primary
chambers. This observation suggests that for emergency
response deployment, the primary chamber temperatures
could be used as a surrogate monitoring parameter to
ensure minimization of emissions. Additional testing should
investigate this potential advantage.
Amino acid analysis of the ash yielded non-detects for
all target analytes. This observation suggests that the
gasifier unit would be capable of destroying prions that
could potentially cause Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathy (TSE).
Because the unit is so simple and produces such low
emissions, it is important to gain a better understanding
of the reactions taking place in the primary chambers. It is
also unknown whether the low emissions will persist as the
unit is brought up to its full operating capacity, although by
normalizing the results versus the feed rate into emission
factor units, the estimated emissions should be conservative.
In addition, operation at full capacity may result in significant
reduction in auxiliary fuel usage. Further testing at full
capacity would be very desirable.
According to the introduction, the purposes of this emissions
test were:
To provide a basis for comparison with other combustion
devices;
To address public concerns about environmental impacts
from carcass disposal operations;
To give state and local environmental agencies
information to support their responsibilities in siting and
operating combustion equipment; and
To allow the permanent siting of such devices at
industrial settings in the agricultural industry (e.g., at
rendering plants) for use with routine mortalities and for
energy production.
-------
The data presented in this report are of sufficient quality to site, and for this prototype gasifier to have the capability to
allow these goals to be achieved. process 25 tons per day of contaminated animal carcasses
The overall program objective was to deliver a prototype or P an s'
gasifier capable of being transported over all primary and The first two program objectives were achieved; the third
secondary roads, for this prototype gasifier to be capable of objective has yet to be demonstrated.
being operational in less than 24 hours after arrival at the
-------
6.0
References
ARCADIS, 2007, Quality Assurance Project Plan, "Source Sampling for Transportable
Gasifier for Animal Carcasses and Contaminated Plant Material," December 12, 2007.
BGP, 2008, Engineering Report: Initial Shakedown and Testing of Mobile Gasifier
Prototype; DoD Contract Number: W91CRB-06-C-0007.
EPA, 1995, AP-42 Emission Factor Database, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html
Federal Register, 2000, 40 CFR Part 60. New Source Performance Standards for New Small
Municipal Waste Combustion Units; Final Rule Wednesday, December 6, 2000.
Van den Berg, M., et al., 2006. "The 2005 World Health Organization Reevaluation
of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like
Compounds," Toxicological Sciences 2006 93(2):223-241.
-------
$EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
------- |