EPA 600/R-16/225 | November 2016 | www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
SEPA
Micro Auto Gasification System:
Emission Characterization
Office of Research and Development
-------
*>EPA
Micro Auto Gasification System:
Emissions Characterization
Johanna Aurell, University of Dayton Research Institute
Amara Holder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
Brian Gullett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
Peter Kariher, ARCADIS U.S.
Dennis Tabor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
-------
Abstract
A compact, container express (CONEX)-housed waste to energy unit, Micro Auto Gasification
System (MAGS), was characterized for air emissions from burning of types of military waste as a
preliminary characterization of potential gasification emissions. The MAGS unit is a dual
chamber gasifier with a secondary diesel-fired combustor. Eight tests were conducted with
multiple types of waste in a seven-day period at the Kilauea Military Camp in Hawai'i in July of
2015. The emissions characterized were chosen based on regulatory emission limits as well as
their ability to cause adverse health effects in humans: particulate matter (PM), mercury, heavy
metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDFs). Three compositions of military waste feedstock reflecting the variety of wastes to be
encountered in the theatre were investigated: standard waste (SW), standard waste with
increased plastic content (HP), standard waste without SW food components but added first
strike ration (FSR) food and packaging material (termed FSR). A fourth waste was collected from
the Kilauea dumpster that served the dining facility and room lodging (KMC). Limited scrubber
water and solid ash residue samples were collected to obtain a preliminary characterization of
these effluents/residues.
Gasifying SW, HP, and KMC resulted in similar PCDD/PCDF stack concentrations, 0.26-0.27 ng
Toxicity Equivalence (TEQ)/m3 at 7% 02, while FSR waste generated a notably higher stack
concentration of 0.68 ng TEQ/m3 at 7% 02. The PM emissions, similarly, were higher from
gasification of the FSR waste composition, 60 mg/m3 at 7% 02, than the other waste
composition types, 18-41 mg/m3 at 7% 02. The mercury concentration was lower when gasifying
waste with the higher plastic content (HP), 0.31±0.037 ng/m3 at 7% 02, than the other waste
types, 0.53-0.73 ng/m3 at 7% 02. Benzene, toluene, and propene were the most abundant VOCs
in all waste types. Higher levels of vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate, and chloromethane from
gasification of FSR waste were found in the stack gas, which may be due to higher salt content in
the FSR food and/or the addition of FSR packaging material.
Five of the nine EPA-regulated elements/compounds (lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg),
sulfur dioxide (S02), and hydrogen chloride (HCI)) from the MAGS were under the set emission
limits for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units (OSWI,
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/129/oswi/frl6de05.pdf, accessed 8/12/2016). The PCDD/PCDF,
PM, NOx, and CO stack emissions from the MAGS were all above the current federal emissions
limits. The PM emissions factors, however, were 39 and 100 times lower from the MAGS unit
than from published data on burning simulated military waste in an air curtain incinerator and in
open burn piles, respectively, while the PCDD/PCDF emissions were 9 and 460 times lower.
ii
-------
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, Headquarters U.S.
Pacific Command, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and
Development. The authors appreciate the critical field assistance provided by Mr. Peter Kariher,
ARCADIS US, Inc. and Mr. Kawakahi Amina, Cubic Applications, Inc. Review expertise was
provided by Mr. Steffan Johnson, Ms. Gerri Garwood, and Ms. Charlene Spells of EPA's Office of
Air Quality and Standards.
iii
-------
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Project Description and Objective 1
1.2 Background 2
2 Test Objectives 3
2.1 Emissions 3
2.2 Ash and Scrubber Water 3
3 Experimental Approach 4
3.1 The MAGS technology 4
3.2 Waste Composition and Carbon Fraction in the Waste 5
3.2.1 Waste Composition 5
3.2.2 Carbon Fraction in the Waste 9
3.3 Sample Type Definition and Location 9
3.4 Test Matrix and Daily Testing Procedure 11
3.4.1 Test Matrix 11
3.4.2 Daily Testing Procedure 11
4 Sampling Procedures 12
4.1 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 12
4.2 PCDD/PCDF and PAH Sampling 12
4.2.1 Train 12
4.2.2 Recovery 13
4.2.3 Analyses 13
4.2.4 Toxicity equivalence value 14
4.3 Particulate Matter 15
4.3.1 Total PM 15
4.3.2 PM Mass and Size Distribution 15
4.4 Metals 16
4.4.1 Metals by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy and X-ray Fluorescence
Spectrometry 16
4.4.2 Mercury 16
4.5 Volatile Organic Compounds 17
4.5.1 Sampling Method 17
iv
-------
4.5.2 Analyses 18
4.6 Flue gas Volumetric Flow Rate and Temperature 18
4.7 Continuous Emissions Monitoring 19
4.7.1 Gasmet DX-4000 19
4.7.2 LI-COR 820 19
4.7.3 Calibration Procedure 20
4.8 Solids and Water Sampling 21
4.9 Moisture 21
4.10 Data Precision 21
5 Results 22
5.1 Waste Input/Load and Stack flow 22
5.2 Continuous Emissions Monitoring 23
5.3 Particulate Matter Emissions 25
5.3.1 Integrated Sampling 25
5.3.2 Real Time Sampling 27
5.4 Metals 28
5.4.1 Metals-XRF and ICP 28
5.4.2 Mercury 29
5.5 Volatile Organic Compounds 29
5.6 PCDD/PCDF/PAH 32
5.6.1 PCDD/PCDF 32
5.6.2 PAHs 33
5.7 Ash 36
5.8 Scrubber Water Analyses 36
5.9 Moisture 37
6 Discussion 37
7 Conclusions 39
Disclaimer 41
References 42
v
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Location of Kilauea Military Camp in Hawaii 1
Figure 1-2. Map of Kilauea Military Camp 1
Figure 1-3. Location of MAGS unit at Kilauea Military Camp 2
Figure 3-1. Schematic of MAGS technology 5
Figure 3-2. Standard waste bags being constructed 7
Figure 3-3. Deconstructing FSRs 8
Figure 3-4. Sampling ports and order for each pollutant sampled. Not to scale 10
Figure 3-5. The daily testing procedure 11
Figure 4-1. PCDD/PCDF, PAH and PM sampling train 12
Figure 4-2. VOC collection using SUMMA Canister 18
Figure 5-1. Real time C02 and CO concentration versus time as well as the timing of waste loads
and sample collection for VOCs, PM, mercury, and PCDD/PCDF/PAH during run number SW-2. 24
Figure 5-2. Real time C02 and CO concentration versus time as well as the timing of waste loads
and sampling collection for VOCs (one 2-h sample and four 12-min samples), PM, Metal/PM,
mercury, and PCDD/PCDF/PAH during run number SW-3 25
Figure 5-3. Stack concentrations and emissions factors (using the carbon mass balance) of Total
PM (U.S. EPA Method 5). Error bars denote 1 standard deviation if nothing else is stated 26
Figure 5-4. Real time C02, CO, PM2.5and BC concentration during run SW-3 27
Figure 5-5. Mercury stack concentrations and emissions factors for each waste type as well as a
total average of all waste types. Error bars denote 1 STDV if nothing else is stated 29
Figure 5-6. Selected VOCs from each of the waste types. Error bars denote relative difference if
nothing else is stated. * = VOCs on EPA's list of Hazardous Pollutants (HAP List) [1] 30
Figure 5-7. VOC concentration vs. time point in the run for three major VOCs. * = VOCs on EPA's
list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP List) [1], Run # SW-3 31
Figure 5-8. PCDD/PCDF concentrations and emissions factors from each waste type. Error bars
denoted relative difference if nothing else is stated 33
Figure 5-9. The five most abundant PAHs (except for naphthalene) from the four waste types.
Error bars denote relative difference if nothing else is stated 34
vi
-------
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Base camp sizes and population ranges [3] 6
Table 3-2. Standard and challenge recipes by weight percent. Standard and plastic recipe data
from Margolin et al. [4] 6
Table 3-3. Breakout of waste recipes by weight percent. Standard and plastic recipe data from
Margolin et al. [4] 7
Table 3-4. Carbon fraction of each waste recipe 9
Table 3-5. Target pollutants and sampling methods 10
Table 3-6. Test Matrix 11
Table 4-1. PCDD/PCDF Toxic Equivalent Factors for mammals [19] 14
Table 4-2. PAH Toxic Equivalent Factors for humans [20] 14
Table 4-3. Traverse points 19
Table 4-4. FTIR analyzer calibration error and drift data, as well as calibration curve fit 20
Table 5-1. Feed schedule for each waste type and run, time in hh:mm and mass in lb 22
Table 5-2. Average waste load and stack flow for each waste type as well as all-run average.3.. 22
Table 5-3. CEM average concentrations for ten gases. For comparison purposes the regulatory
limits according to EPA OSWI [2] for NOx, S02, HCI, and CO are 103, 3.1, 15, 40 ppm dry,
respectively 23
Table 5-4. CEM emissions factors for ten gases using the carbon mass balance approach 24
Table 5-5. PM stack concentrations and emissions factors from the M5-train and the Modified
M5 using 37-mm Teflon filters.3 For comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA
OSWI [2] for PM is 30 mg/m3 at 7% 02 26
Table 5-6. PM by size and black carbon concentrations and emissions factors collected in real
time.3 For comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA OSWI [2] for PM is 30
mg/m3 at 7% O2 27
Table 5-7. Metal stack concentrations.3 For comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according
to EPA OSWI [2] for cadmium and lead is 18 and 226 ng/m3 at 7% 02, respectively 28
Table 5-8. Metal emission factors using carbon mass balance method.3 28
Table 5-9. Metal emissions factors by waste input.3 28
Table 5-10. Mercury stack concentrations and emissions factors for each waste type.3 For
comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA OSWI [2] for mercury is 74 ng/m3 at
7% 02 29
Table 5-11. Selected VOC stack concentrations.3 30
Table 5-12. Selected VOC emissions factors derived from the carbon mass balance method (units
in mg/kg waste) 31
Table 5-13. VOC concentrations over run time 32
vii
-------
Table 5-14. PCDD/PCDF concentrations and emissions factors from each waste type.3 For
comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA OSWI [2] for £ PCDD/PCDF is 33
ng/m3 at 1% 02 32
Table 5-15. Sum of the 16 EPA PAH concentrations and emissions factors from each waste type.3
33
Table 5-16. PAH concentrations for each waste type in ng/m3 at 7% O2.3 34
Table 5-17. PAH emissions factors using the carbon mass balance method for each waste type in
mg/kg waste.3 35
Table 5-18. PAH emissions factors for each waste type in mg/kg waste input.3 35
Table 5-19. Ash percentage of total feed and metals concentration from each waste type.3 36
Table 5-20. Moisture content from each run as well as total of all runs 37
Table 6-1. MAGS stack emissions burning military waste compared to regulatory limits.3 37
Table 6-2. Comparison of MAGS Emissions Data 38
Table 6-3. MAGS emissions factors compared to emissions from open burning of simulated
waste from forward operating bases, derived using the carbon mass balance method.3 39
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A: CEM - Max, min, and average for each test
Appendix B: PM - Full data set
Appendix C: Metals - Full data set
Appendix D: VOCs - Full data set
Appendix E: PCDDs/PCDFs - Full data set
Appendix F: PAHs - Full data set
-------
List of Acronyms
ACC U.S. Air Force Combat Command
acfm Actual cubic feet per min
ARL U.S. Army Research Laboratory
BC Black carbon
Cd Cadmium
CEM Continuous emission monitor
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon monoxide
C02 Carbon dioxide
Cu Copper
CV Coefficient of variance
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
dscm Dry standard cubic meter
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
EXWC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command) Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center
Fe Iron
FMS Fluid Management Systems
FSR First strike ration
FTIR Fourier transform infrared
GC Gas chromatograph/y
H2 Hydrogen
HAP Hazardous air pollutant
HCI Hydrogen chloride
HDPE High density polyethylene
Hg Mercury
Hg° Elemental mercury
HP High plastic waste
HRGC High Resolution Gas Chromatography
HRMS High Resolution Mass Spectrometry
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICP Inductively coupled plasma (spectroscopy)
JDW2E Joint Deployable Waste to Energy
KMC Kilauea Military Camp
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LDPE Low density polyethylene
LRMS Low resolution mass spectrometer
MAGS Micro Auto Gasification System
MCE Modified combustion efficiency
MDL Method detection limit
MRL Method reporting limit
MS Mass spectrometry
NDIR Non-dispersive infrared
x
-------
NECC (U.S.) Navy Expeditionary Combat Command
NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology
NO Nitrogen oxide
N02 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NSRDEC Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center
02 Oxygen
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incinerator
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCF Photometric correction factor
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
Pb Lead
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
PM Particulate matter
PM FSS (U.S. Army) Product Manager Force Sustainment Systems
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PVC Polyvinylchloride
OA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RD&E Research, Development & Engineering
RH Relative humidity
RPD Relative percent difference
scfm standard cubic foot/feet per minute
S02 Sulfur dioxide
SSC PAC Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific
STDV Standard deviation
SW Standard waste
TEF Toxic Equivalence Factor
TEQ Toxicity equivalence
TROPEC Transformative Reductions in Operational Energy Consumption
USPACOM U.S. Pacific Command
VOC Volatile organic compound
WTE Waste to energy
XAD-2 Brand name of polymeric sorbent resin
XRF X-ray fluorescence (spectrometry)
xi
-------
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description and Objective
The purpose of this project was to provide preliminary characterization of the environmental
emissions (air, water, and ash) that result from processing military camp waste in a waste to
energy (WTE) gasification system. The intent was to provide environmental emissions
information that will facilitate future permitting and operation of deployable WTE systems
by joint U.S. forces. The gasification system was a previously utilized, pre-commercial model
(version 6) Micro Auto Gasification System (MAGS) made available for this scoping program
by the manufacturer, Terragon, Canada. The test was conducted at the Kilauea Military
Camp (KMC), Hawai'i on the National Park Service grounds of Volcano National Park (Figure
1-1 and Figure 1-2).
Wnpahu*
°"o
Honolulu
Kahului
HAWAII
(.
island ot W
Htmf> I Kilauea Military Camp
Figure 1-1. Location of Kilauea Military Camp in Hawaii.
Kilauea, M
heater
KILAUEA VOLCANO
"foaling lares & Snack Bar ^
BasebSI
Field
GUEST COTTAGES
1-12,123,14-24,27-29
JO-52,!5A-»
41-44,47,47A,47B.4«
62, W, 65-68
70-74,26, 774-770
85,94-100
AA-AH, AJ-AN, AP-AT
Q Parking Areas
Crater Him I),!..
JUlauea visitor Cenur
Figure 1-2. Map of Kilauea Military Camp.
1
-------
r* ^ *
Fire Station
.flpL /
jA
/
Propane tank x
11
Transportation
SV.3cV'
|l III!
/
Water grate
Figure 1-3. Location of MAGS unit at Kilauea Military Camp.
1.2 Background
The Department of Defense (DOD) has interest in solid waste management and disposal,
particularly as these activities relate to operations in theatres overseas. Burn pits in
expeditionary operations remain a significant waste disposal method due to their simplicity.
However, smoke exposure may create deleterious health outcomes for burn pit operators and
surrounding personnel. Likely due to these concerns, the National Defense Authorization Act of
2010, §317 (Public Law 111-84-Oct. 28, 2009) prohibited the use of open-air burn pits except
where no alternative disposal method is feasible. Alternatively, incinerators employing waste
combustion have been used to treat some of the overseas military waste. Gasification is an
alternative to incineration and works by heating waste at high temperatures in the absence of
primary combustion. Services within the DOD are assessing the feasibility of gasification to
identify and assess burn pit alternatives and provide information needed to make informed
decisions about waste management practices that efficiently and effectively improve force
protection while being protective of health and meeting zero-waste objectives.
The MAGS assessment in Hawaii was a collaboration of two programs: the Joint Deployable
Waste to Energy (JDW2E) and the Transformative Reductions in Operational Energy
Consumption (TROPEC) programs. The team consisted of: U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM)
as Operational Manager; U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development & Engineering Center
(NSRDEC) as Technical Manager; and U.S. Army Product Manager Force Sustainment Systems
(PM FSS), U.S. Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) and U.S. Air Force Combat
Command (ACC) as Transition Managers. The vision of the TROPEC program is to significantly
reduce energy consumption at expeditionary bases and sites. The reductions would be obtained
through the implementation of materiel and non-materiel energy solutions. TROPEC is a joint
2
-------
interagency effort led by U.S. PACOM and supported by a team of military and energy experts
from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL),
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SSC PAC) and the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (EXWC).
2 Test Objectives
2.1 Emissions
Emissions of concern from waste burning typically include particulate matter (PM), mercury,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). VOCs include a range of
compounds that can cause short or long term health effects. The majority of the compounds on
the U.S. EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are VOCs [1], PCDDs/PCDFs are of interest
due to their health effects at very low concentrations including immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity,
and teratogenicity. PM2.5 (PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 pim) is a
criteria pollutant regulated by the U.S. EPA due to its health effects. When inhaled, PM2.5 can
enter the lungs, potentially carrying metals and other toxic pollutants, which can cause adverse
health effects.
Current regulations for Other Solid Waste Incinerators (OSWIs) under 40 CFR part 60 call for
conducting emissions tests [2], The required sampling methods often require multi-hour
sampling under the assumption of steady state operating conditions resulting from continuous,
relatively high mass throughput feed rates, such as from a continuously operating large waste
processing facility. These methods may have limited utility in characterizing emissions from
units that operate in a cyclic, non-steady fashion with small fuel batches and subsequent time-
related emissions. This project attempted to characterize the emissions resulting from the batch
to batch operation of the MAGS unit. Where possible, emissions samples were taken on a
continuous basis to provide a time course of the emissions record throughout the MAGS' cycle
of charging, gasification, and post-combustion. In cases where the analyte concentration or
method was insufficient to allow for continuous measurement, batch samples ("integrated run")
were collected to characterize the system's performance. To allow comparison of emissions
between waste types, batch samples were taken in a consistent fashion by commencing and
terminating samples at the same period in the charging and operation cycle.
Four different waste mixtures were tested in the MAGS for their ability to be processed and
their resulting environmental emissions/residues. These mixtures were the responsibility of the
DOD co-participants.
2.2 Ash and Scrubber Water
Six scrubber water and solid ash residue samples were collected to obtain a preliminary
characterization of these effluents/residues. Ash and scrubber water samples were collected
by the EPA team under the guidance of the equipment operators.
3
-------
3 Experimental Approach
3.1 The MAGS technology
MAGS consists of two waste processing drums, or gasifiers, mounted inside a 20 foot (6.1 m)
CONEX container and operating from a side and rear opening (Figure 3-1). Each waste
processing drum is constructed with a thermally insulated heat exchange section that allows for
the indirect heating of the waste by the exhaust gases from the combustion chamber. Waste is
loaded into the primary reactor in batch mode and heated to approximately 1,400 °F. A
controlled amount of pre-heated air is fed into the drum and brought into contact with the
waste. The oxygen (02) in the air reacts with the waste to convert the organic molecules to a
synthesis gas, or syngas, composed primarily of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). The
syngas then passes into the combustion chamber where it is ignited to power downstream
processes.
The combustion chamber is a thermally insulated reactor, maintained at approximately 2,000 °F
(approximately 1,100 °C) through the combustion of diesel (during start up and stand by modes)
and/or syngas. The system allows for heating of the combustion chamber during startup, as well
as the ignition of the syngas. The hot exhaust gases from the combustion chamber serve as the
heat source for the primary reactor. Oxygen concentration is monitored at the stack output
and the air intake to the combustion chamber is regulated to maintain the desired oxygen (02)
concentration. The gas flowrate through the MAGS system varies as a function of the
production rate of combustible gas from the gasifier unit. The flow rate varies up to 250
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) (7 standard m3/min). Exhaust gases leaving the heat
exchange section are quenched with water to a temperature of approximately 180 °F and then
are cleaned in a caustic (NaOH) scrubber to remove, acid gases and moisture prior to discharge.
The process comes to completion when all of the organic waste is fully gasified and the
production of synthesis gas stops. The residue, which is believed to be mostly inorganic carbon
in the form of ash, may contain any incidental metal and glass found in the original waste. The
ash residue is recovered as a sterilized inert material that can be disposed.
A 6-inch (0.15 m) diameter flexible duct was attached to the stack to bring the exhaust gas down
to a 6-inch (0.15 m) diameter straight pipe exhaust manifold oriented parallel to the ground,
providing multiple port locations for probe access.
4
-------
Exhaust Flange
Coniiecitkxi
Diwlmgp
Water Filter
Scrubber
Tower
Compressed
Air Reservoir
Water Lino
from Ctiillff
Ring Pump
Priming pump
Oxygon
Senior
Water
Circulating
Pump
Ring Pump
Discharge
water
Connection
Water line to
Energy
Recovery Unit
Process Water
Pump
Energy
Loading
Drums
Recovery
Unit
Figure 3-1. Schematic of MAGS technology.
3.2 Waste Composition and Carbon Fraction in the Waste
3.2.1 Waste Composition
The waste compositions used for the MAGS emissions analysis testing were developed from
materials representative of waste stream compositions for deployed forces at small and extra
small base camps. Base camp sizes and corresponding populations are outlined in a DOD joint
force publication [3] (see Table 3-1). An additional waste source was a KMC waste dumpster.
The U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) conducted a historical review of DOD waste
characterizations to identify standard material composition and waste generation characteristics
representative of waste streams found at small and extra small base camps [4], A subsequent
study from ARL established a standardized waste recipe composition by waste category and
corresponding percentage of respective material (Table 3-2); the study also proposed four
5
-------
additional challenge recipes for cardboard/paper (not shown), food (not shown), plastic (Table
3-2), and wood (not shown) to further study the effect of waste source variation on system
performance. The waste category "Plastic" is further divided by plastic type, #1-7 (see Table
3-3). At the time of the MAGS test, the ARL standard waste recipe report was in "draft" form
and unpublished. The four recipes tested and their notation used here were a standard recipe
(standard waste, SW), a plastic challenge recipe (high plastic, HP), a waste recipe collected from
the KMC dumpster, and a First Strike Ration (FSR) recipe.
The Standard Waste and Plastic Challenge recipes were constructed as outlined in Table 3-2 and
Table 3-3. The FSR recipe was a variation of the SW recipe, including food materials individually
packaged for field use, rather than commercially available kibble dog food, used here as a food
surrogate. The KMC recipe was constructed in a manner different from the other three recipes.
The maintenance and cleaning staff at KMC filled a small dumpster with black trash bags from
various places such as, rooms, kitchen, and recreation areas. Twenty bags were randomly
selected from the dumpster and each bag was opened and characterized by waste categories
identical to those used for the other three waste recipes. The results are shown in Table 3-2 and
Table 3-3. The waste was re-bagged as found in the dumpster and staged for gasification.
Table 3-1. Base camp sizes and population ranges [3].
Base Camp Size
Population
Extra Small
50 - 299
Small
300 -1,999
Medium
2,000-5,999
Large
6,000 or greater
Table 3-2. Standard and challenge recipes by weight percent. Standard
and plastic recipe data from Margolin et al. [4].
Waste Category
Standard
Recipe (SW)
Challenge Recipe
Plastic (HP) FSR KMC
Cardboard
15%
10%
12%
16%
Mixed paper
10%
6%
7.7%
18%
Food waste
32%
21%
43%
44%
Plastic3
15%
44%
19%
12%
Wood
14%
9%
11%
0.09%
Metalsb
6%
4%
2.5%
2.9%
Glass
1%
1%
0.8%
3.7%
Rubber and neoprene
1%
1%
0.8%
1.2%
Textile
3%
2%
2.3%
0.25%
Miscellaneous Waste/Other
3%
2%
2.3%
1.8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
a Plastic breakdown in Table 3-3.b 60% iron, 36% aluminum, and 4% other metals.
6
-------
Table 3-3. Breakout of waste recipes by weight percent. Standard and plastic recipe
data from Margolin et al. [4],
Standard
Challenge Recipe
Plastic Category
Recipe
Plastic
FSR
KMC
(SW)
(HP)
Plastic (Total)
15%
44%
19%
12%
#1 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
6.0%
18%
4.6%
1.1%
#2 High density polyethylene (HOPE)
2.7%
7.8%
2.1%
2.5%
#3 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
0.9%
2.6%
0.7%
0.00%
#4 Low density polyethylene (LDPE)
2.7%
7.8%
2.1%
3.8%
#5 Polypropylene (PP)
0.3%
0.8%
0.2%
0.93%
#6 Polystyrene (PS)
1.8%
5.4%
1.4%
2.8%
#7 Other (e.g., polycarbonate, acrylic,
0.6%
1.6%
7.9%
0.68%
nylon, bioplastics, composites)
New materials were purchased by category type to build identical waste bags that were fed into
the MAGS. Glass bottles, rubber mulch, plastic bottles, and cardboard are a few examples of
purchased materials. Testing time for each recipe was determined to be at least four hours to
minimize the chance of analyte non-detects. A four hour run time was estimated to require 16
bags of waste per recipe. Therefore, 16 identical bags were created for each individual test (i.e.,
16 bags for triplicate testing on the standard waste required 48 bags total, see Figure 3-2).
Figure 3-2. Standard waste bags being constructed.
Variation from the SW recipe included packaging waste from four FSRs per waste bag, 5.8 lb (2.6
kg) of FSR food per waste bag, and packaging cardboard from seven FSR cases (distributed
evenly across all bags). No plastics were removed to adjust for the additional material from the
FSR food packaging (the additional weight per FSR was 0.43 lb/0.20 kg). FSR food was used as
the food waste component instead of dog food, oil, and water (water required per the SW
recipe was included in addition to the FSR food). FSR packaging cardboard generated from
7
-------
unpacking the FSR food was included in the waste bags. Cardboard from the SW recipe was
adjusted to account for the additional cardboard from the FSR cases. The aluminum cans were
also removed from the FSR tests due to concerns that the previous tests with cans led to system
jams. All other waste categories for the FSR recipe were held constant to the standard recipe.
Historical DOD waste characterizations have revealed that small and extra small base camps
generate waste rates of approximately 4.5 lb per person per day (Ibs/person/day) (2.0 kg per
person per day). This weight was used to determine the number of FSRs to include in the FSR
waste recipe, based on 288 lb (131 kg) of waste. Each bag was constructed to weigh 18 lb (8.2
kg). Weight, as well as bag volume, was a factor in ensuring that the bags could be fed into each
of the MAGS chambers. Bags were filled with materials from each category as a corresponding
percentage of 18 lb (8.2 kg). For example, the standard recipe requires 14% wood, thus 2.52 lb
(1.1 kg) of wood were included in each bag of the standard recipe.
18 lb 16 bags
* — = 288 lb/recipe Equation 3-1
bag recipe
288 lb /recipe
——— —— = 64 people per recipe Equation 3-2
4.5 lb per person and day
Equation 3-1 and Equation 3-2 show how 288 lb (131 kg) represents waste generated by 64
service members. Each FSR case contains nine meals and one FSR is designed to support 1
person for 24 hours. Therefore, 64 FSRs were deconstructed per FSR test. The food was
removed from the packaging, see Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3. Deconstructing FSRs.
8
-------
3.2.2 Carbon Fraction in the Waste
The carbon mass balance approach was used to calculate emissions factors in unit pollutant per
unit waste (Equation 3-3). This approach assumes that all carbon in the waste is emitted as
carbondioxide (C02), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH4).
Pollutant (—-§¦)
Emission Factor (g Pollutant/g waste) = Fcx Equation 3-3
£ Carbon gf)
where Fc = carbon fraction in the waste, and Carbon = amount of carbon sampled derived from
C02, CO and CH4 concentration in the stack.
The total carbon fraction of each waste recipe was calculated using carbon fractions from Liu
and Liptak [5], Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Carbon fraction of each waste recipe.
Standard
Challenge Recipe
Waste Category
Carbon Fraction
in Material3
Recipe
(SW)
Plastic
(HP)
FSR
KMC
Carbon Fraction from each Waste Category15
Cardboard
0.44
0.066
0.044
0.050
0.069
Mixed paper
0.44
0.044
0.026
0.034
0.077
Food waste
0.49, 0.76c
0.048
0.031
0.21
0.21
Plastic
0.74
0.11
0.33
0.14
0.087
Wood
0.50
0.071
0.045
0.054
4.5E-04
Metals
0.0076
4.6E-04
3.0E-04
1.9E-04
2.2E-04
Glass
0.0056
5.6E-05
5.6E-05
4.5E-04
0
Rubber and neoprene
0.74
0.0074
0.0074
0.0059
0.0091
Textile
0.55
0.017
0.011
0.015
0.0014
Miscellaneous Waste/Other
0.0076-0.74
0.018
0.012
0.017
0.0089
Total
0.38
0.50
0.52
0.47
a Data from Liu and Liptak [5].b Carbon fraction in material x waste fraction in recipe c Carbon fraction for cooking oil.
3.3 Sample Type Definition and Location
The target pollutants and their sampling methods are described in Table 3-5. The target
emissions were collected from a fabricated exhaust pipe extension (see Figure 3-4), which was
connected to the Exhaust Flange Connection (see Figure 3-1). This fabricated section provided
sampling ports for the sampling probes, increased the duct cross section to minimize wall effects
on sampling, and created sufficient length from bends and sampling ports to flow disturbances
on subsequent ports.
9
-------
Table 3-5. Target pollutants and sampling methods.
Pollutant
lnstrument/Method(s)
Duration
Total PM
SW-846 Method 0010 [6]
Integrated run, 0-4h
PCDD/PCDF, PAH
SW-846 Method 0010 [6], U.S. EPA
Integrated run, 0-4h
Method 23[7]/HRGC/HRMSa, U.S. EPA
Method 8270D [8]/HRGC/LRMSb
VOCs, C02, CO, ch4
SUMMA Canister/U.S. EPA Method TO-
Integrated run, 12 min
15 [9]/U.S. EPA Method 25C [10]
and2h samples
NOx, 02,C0, CO 2 SO 2}
FTIRC - Gasmet DX-4000, U.S. EPA
Real time
ch4, hci
Method 320 [11], 321 [12]
C02
LI-COR 820, Method 3A calibration
Real time
Metal: Mercury
Sorbent trap/U.S. EPA Method 30B [13]
Integrated run, 0-4 h
PM mass and size
Dilution + Teflon filters/ Modified U.S.
Integrated run, 0-4 h
EPA Method 5[14]/gravimetric [15]
Metals: Cd, Pb,
Dilution + Teflon filters/gravimetric and
Integrated run, 0-4 h
others
ICPd [16] and XRFe [17]/Compendium
PM mass and size
Dilution + DustTrak DRX (PMi, PM2.5,
Real time
PM4, PMio and Total PM)
Black Carbon
Dilution + AE51/optical
Real time, 2 filter tickets
per 0-4 h
aHigh resolution mass spectrometry. bLow resolution mass spectrometry. cFourier transform infrared, inductively
coupled plasma. eX-ray fluorescence.
PM mass and
size distribution
Flange Coupling ^ |
Mercury
I
Flow
_L_
Gas Flow
ur
t
VOCs
t
CEM Gas
PCDDs/PCDFs/PAHs/Total PM
Figure 3-4. Sampling ports and order for each pollutant sampled. Not to scale.
10
-------
3.4 Test Matrix and Daily Testing Procedure
3.4.1 Test Matrix
Eight tests using four different waste type compositions were conducted in a seven-day period.
Triplicate runs were conducted for the standard waste (SW) composition, duplicate runs were
performed for high plastic (HP) and FSR waste compositions, and one run was performed for the
KMC waste (Table 3-6). While test randomization was preferred, delayed receipt of some
materials and the overall time/cost constraints of the project prevented true randomization.
Between each test (except 7/13/2015), the system was cooled down and the chamber cleaned
to minimize any potential test against test carryover effects.
Table 3-6. Test Matrix.
Date
Waste
PAHs
PCDDs/
PCDFs
PM
VOCs
Mercury
Metals
PM by
size
CEM
07/10/2015
Standard Waste (SW-1)
X
X
X
X
x (2)
W
W
o2
07/11/2015
Standard Waste (SW-2)
X
X
X
X
x (2)
X
X
X
07/12/2015
Standard Waste (SW-3)
X
X
X
x (5)
x (2)
X
X
X
07/13/2015
High Plastic (HP-1)
X
X
X
X
x (2)
X
X
X
07/13/2015
High Plastic (HP-2)
X
X
X
X
x (2)
X
X
X
07/14/2015
KMC Waste (KMC)
X
X
X
X
x (2)
X
X
X
07/15/2015
FSR Waste (FSR-1)
X
X
X
X
x (2)
X
W
X
07/16/2015
FSR Waste (FSR-2)
X
X
X
X
x (2)
X
W
X
x = one sample if nothing else mentioned. 02 = only oxygen measured. W = sampling terminated due to water
saturation in the sampler.
3.4.2 Daily Testing Procedure
The daily procedure for the MAGs unit started with a four hour pre-heat period burning diesel
fuel (Figure 3-5). Emissions sampling started when the first waste bag was loaded into the
MAGS. Gasification was accompanied by co-combustion with diesel fuel for the first few waste
loads as determined by the oxygen sensor. Scrubber water was collected for 6 of 7 days at the
end of the day's run. Ash was collected in the morning after the overnight cool down.
Clean out
Pre-heat
Gasify
Cool down
Morning 4 hours 4 hours Over night
Figure 3-5. The daily testing procedure.
11
-------
4 Sampling Procedures
The conventional extractive sampling techniques are based on established U.S. EPA Methods, or
their modified versions, adapted to this particular MAGS source, and for a cyclically operating
unit.
4.1 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance
Sampling system preventive maintenance was performed prior to the start of each daily test for
each waste source. Daily calibration of the continuous emission monitor (CEM) ensured
continued reliable operation. Prior to the start of the sampling program, the EPA Metrology
Laboratory calibrated field sampling equipment, such as the SW-846 Method 0010 meter boxes.
4.2 PCDD/PCDF and PAH Sampling
4.2.1 Train
PCDDs/PCDFs were sampled via Modified U.S. EPA Method 23 [7] using a SW-846 Method 0010
[6] sampling train (Figure 4-1). PAH compounds were taken from a portion of the extract from
the PCDD/PCDF train. The method modifications included pre-spiking of the XAD-2 (adsorbent
styrene divinylbenzene polymer) traps with carbon-13 labeled PCDDs/PCDFs and deuterated
PAHs, pre-sampling surrogates. The sampling trains consist mainly of a heated probe, heated
box containing a filter, water-cooled condenser, water-cooled XAD-2 cartridge, impinger train
for water determination, leak-free vacuum line, vacuum pump, and dry gas and orifice meters
with flow control valves and vacuum gauge. Temperatures were measured and recorded in the
hot filter box (set at 257 °F/125 °C), at the impinger train outlet, at the XAD-2 cartridge outlet
(maintained below ambient temperature) and at the inlet and outlet of the dry gas meter. Leak
checks were conducted at the beginning and end of each sample run. Prior to sampling, all
glassware, probe, glass wool and aluminum foil were cleaned following the U.S. EPA Method 23
[7] cleaning procedure.
Meter box
Heated
filter box
Impingers and
XAD trap
Figure 4-1. PCDD/PCDF, PAH arid PM sampling train.
12
-------
4.2.2 Recovery
Following completion of each test run, the sampling train was recovered as soon as the probe was
removed from the duct. During the transportation between the test facility and the designated
sample recovery area, openings of the impinger assembly were sealed with aluminum foil or
ground glass caps. The organic rinses of the train were performed as specified in U.S. EPA Method
23 [7] and U.S. EPA Method 0010 [6] but modified to eliminate inter-method solvent
contradictions.
4.2.3 Analyses
The target compounds was performed by the U.S. EPA (in-house, at the EPA Research Triangle
Park, NC, Campus). The extraction and cleanup procedures for the target PCDD/PCDF
compounds of interest followed U.S. EPA Method 23 [7] with some analytical modifications. A
group of carbon-labeled PCDDs/PCDFs was added to the XAD-2 trap before sample collection.
Another group of 14 carbon-labeled PCDD and PCDF internal standards, representing the tetra-
through octachlorinated homologs, was added to every sample prior to extraction. The role of
the internal standards is to allow quantification (via the internal standard methodology) of the
native PCDDs and PCDFs in the sample as well as to determine the overall method efficiency.
The surrogate recoveries were measured relative to the internal standards and are a measure of
the sampling train collection efficiency. The standards used for chlorinated dioxin/furan
identification and quantification were a mixture of standards containing tetra- to octa-
PCDD/PCDF native and 13C-labeled congeners designed for Modified U.S. EPA Method 23 (ED-
2521, EDF-4137A, EDF-4136A, EF-4134, ED-4135, CIL Cambridge Isotope Laboratories Inc.,
U.S.A.). The PCDD/PCDF calibration solutions were prepared in-house and contained native
PCDD/PCDF congeners at concentrations from 0.5 ng/mLto 20 ng/mL.
Initial concentration steps were performed using a three-ball Snyder column. The XAD-2 was
extracted first with dichloromethane, then with toluene, resulting in two solvent extracts. Each
of these extracts was divided in half and combined with the other extract-half to create two
extract mixtures. One of the extract mixtures was concentrated and solvent-exchanged into
hexane. The hexane extract was cleaned by a Fluid Management Systems (FMS) for PCDD/PCDF
analysis. A keeper solvent (decane) was used after extract cleanup by FMS. PCDD/PCDF analysis
was performed using a HRGC/HRMS. All of the PCDD/PCDF extraction surrogate standard
recoveries were 61-101%, within the acceptance criteria of the method (between 25 and 130%).
The PeCDF/HxCDF/HxCDD/HpCDF pre-sampling standard recoveries were 82-100%, within the
acceptance criteria. The TeCDD pre-sampling surrogate recovery standard was satisfied for all
samples except the trip blank which fell outside the acceptance criteria. This failure was found
to be due to co-elution of the standard with a planar PCB congener with the same ion and
retention time as the TeCDD surrogate congener. The pre-sampling spike is not used for
quantification but serves as a quality assurance check for the sampling stage.
PAH analysis was conducted from a portion of the remaining extract mixture in accordance with
SW-846 Method 8290A [18]. PAH analysis was performed using HRGC/LRMS. All but one of the
PAH surrogate standard recoveries, 66-128%, were within the acceptance criteria of the method
(between 25 and 130%). The SW-ltest had one of three PAH pre-sampling surrogate standards
13
-------
that was outside the acceptance criteria (at 266%) due to co-elution of an unknown compound
with the same retention time and ion. The pre-sampling spike was not used for quantification
but served as a quality assurance check for the sampling stage. The PCDD/PCDF/PAH trip blank
showed no detectable levels of any PCDDs/PCDFs/PAHs analyzed.
4.2.4 Toxicity equivalence value
PCDDs and PCDFs include 75 and 135 congeners, respectively. Of these 210 congeners, 17 are
toxic and have been assigned Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) values [19] (Table 4-1), with the
most toxic value being unity. The toxicity equivalence (TEQ) value is obtained by multiplying the
concentration of a PCDD/PCDF congener by its TEF-value and summing the result for all 17 toxic
congeners. The U.S. EPA has listed 16 priority PAHs. Some of these PAHs are probably
carcinogenic to humans according to U.S. EPA. Table 4-2 lists these 16 PAHs and their TEFs for
humans.
Table 4-1. PCDD/PCDF Toxic Equivalent Factors for mammals [19].
PCDDs
TEF
PCDFs
TEF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDF
0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDD
0.1
2,3,4,7,8 - PeCDF
0.3
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDD
0.1
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDF
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDD
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDF
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDD
0.01
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDF
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 -OCDD
0.0003
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDF
0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - HpCDF
0.01
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 -OCDF
0.0003
Table 4-2. PAH Toxic Equivalent Factors for humans [20].
Compound
TEF
Compound
TEF
Naphthalene
0
Benzo(a)anthracenea,b
0.005
Acenaphthylene
0
Chrysenead
0.03
Acenaphthene
0
Benzo(b)fluoranthenea
0.1
Fluorenecd
0
Benzo(k)fluorantheneab
0.05
Phenanthrenec,d
0.0005
Benzo(a)pyrenea,b
1.0
Anthracenecd
0.0005
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyreneab
0.1
Fluoranthenec,d
0.05
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenea
1.1
Pyrenecd
0.001
Benzo(ghi)perylenecd
0.02
a Probably carcinogenic to humans, according to U.S. EPA.b Probably and possibly carcinogenic to humans, according
to International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).c Not classifiable as carcinogenic to humans, according to U.S.
EPA.d Not classifiable as carcinogenic to humans, according to IARC.
14
-------
4.3 Particulate Matter
4.3.1 Total PM
4.3.1.1 Train
Total PM was sampled according to modified U.S. EPA Method 5 [14], using the same PM filter
as in the U.S. EPA Method 23 [7] train. Each of these filters was pre-weighed at U.S. EPA before
shipment and stored in tape-sealed glass Petri dishes.
4.3.1.2 Analyses
The filters underwent a 24-hour desiccation before the first tare and gross weighing (pre and
post-sampling). The filters were returned to the desiccator for an additional six hours before the
second weighing. If the 24-hour and six-hour weighings agree to within 0.5 mg, the filter weight
was accepted. The six-hour desiccation/weighing cycles were repeated until the two weights
agreed to within 0.5 mg. The balance is calibrated yearly by the EPA Meteorology Laboratory
with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified weights.
4.3.2 PM Mass and Size Distribution
4.3.2.1 Dilution system
Samples for PM emissions evaluation were extracted from the duct with an eductor supplied
with ultra-high purity air from a compressed gas cylinder (Airgas, Hilo, HI, USA). Isokinetic
conditions were not achieved continuously as the flow in the duct was variable. The eductor was
equipped with a stainless steel (SS) orifice to restrict the sample flow and ensure sufficient
dilution. Dilution was necessary to reduce the water vapor and sample temperature into a range
suitable for PM measurement (i.e. <95% Relative Humidity (RH) and Temperature < 95 °F/35°C).
The amount of dilution necessary was dependent upon the humidity in the exhaust. The diluted
sample was transported from the duct by stainless steel tubing and anti-static tubing to
minimize losses of particle to the walls, and divided among the PM measurements with an
aerosol flow splitter. Instruments extracted the PM sample under positive pressure from the
manifold to evaluate particulate emissions with a modified U.S. EPA Method 5 filter sample and
real time measures of PM mass with a DustTrak DRX Model 8533 (TSI Inc., MN, USA) and black
carbon (BC) with an AE-51 (Aethlabs, Berkeley, CA, USA). The dilution ratio for the PM
measurements was determined by measuring the amount of C02 (LI-COR 820, Biosciences, USA)
in the diluted stream and compared with the C02 (Gasmet DX-4000, Finland) measured in the
exhaust duct (see Chapter 4.7). Dilution was controlled primarily through selection of an
appropriate orifice, though some control was afforded through control of the supplied pressure
of the dilution air.
4.3.2.2 Filterable Particulate Matter Measurements
Filterable particulate matter sampling was performed according to a modified EPA Method 5 -
Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources, as described in 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A with respect to volume measurement for both PM determinations. A diluted
15
-------
sample was extracted from the PM manifold through a pre-weighed 47-mm, 2 micron pore size
Teflon filter held in a stainless steel sample holder. Dilution prevented condensation. The gas
volume was measured by a dry gas meter followed by an orifice used for flow control.
Gravimetric analysis of the filters pre- and post-sampling was performed by Chester Lab Net
following the procedures in 40 CFR Part 50 [15].
4.3.2.3 On-line PM Instrumentation
Black carbon and continuous PM mass were measured with on-line instrumentation (AE-51 and
DustTrak DRX) following the manufacturer's instructions. The AE-51 Aethalometer (Aethlabs,
Berkeley, CA, USA) is an instrument that provides real-time measurement of black carbon
concentration in the exhaust. Black carbon, or "soot", is generated during combustion and is
emitted from all types of combustion. The microaethalometer determines the amount of BC
through a calibrated measure of the amount of optical attenuation through a filter loaded with
particles.
Continuous PM -TSI DustTrak DRX Model 8533 (TSI Inc., MN, USA). This instrument measures
light scattering by aerosols as they intercept a laser diode and has the capability of simultaneous
real time measurement (every second) of PMi, PM2.5, Respirable (PM4), PM10 and Total PM (up
to 15 nm). The aerosol concentration range for the DustTrak DRX is 0.001-150 mg/m3 with a
resolution of ±0.1% of reading. Concurrently, an enclosed, 37-mm pre-weighed filter cassette
provides a simultaneous Total PM gravimetric sample. The enclosed gravimetric sample was
used to conduct a custom photometric calibration factor (PCF). The DustTrak DRX is factory
calibrated to the respirable fraction, with a PCF value of 1.00. A custom PCF is conducted as per
manufacturer's recommendations for PM using the simultaneously sampled PM by filter
concentration divided by PM by filter mass concentration. This factor was applied to scale the
real time data. A zero calibration was performed before each day using a zero filter, and a flow
calibration was performed before each day with a Gilibrator flowmeter, following procedures in
Operation and Service Manual Model 8533/8534 (P/N 6001898, Revision F, January 2011).
4.4 Metals
4.4.1 Metals by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy and X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
The 47-mm PM Teflon filters were analyzed for metals such as iron (Fe), copper (Cu), cadmium
(Cd) and Lead (Pb) by ICP and XRF by Chester Lab Net following the procedures described in U.S.
EPA Compendium Methods 10 3.4 [16] and 3.3 [17], respectively. The standard reference
materials used for the quality assurance (QA)/control (QC) had a recovery of 93.5-109.2%.
4.4.2 Mercury
4.4.2.1 Train
Sorbent tubes were used for sampling of mercury (Hg) emissions in accordance with U.S. EPA
Method 30B [13], allowing for a cumulative sample over the course of a multi-batch run. The
tubes were analyzed individually. The measured Hg mass was related to the respective gaseous
sample volume and the resulting Hg mass/volume (ng/m3) concentrations were compared, and
16
-------
the degree of agreement was used to validate the measurement. A field recovery test was
performed with each duplicate sample where an additional trap was statically spiked with a
known amount of elemental mercury (Hg°), sampled, and the recovered amount was used to
validate the quantitative accuracy of the measurement.
4.4.2.2 Analyses
Analysis of the sorbent tube samples were accomplished using an Ohio Lumex thermal
decomposition furnace (Model M-324) (Solon, Ohio) and a Zeeman-effect atomic absorption
spectrometer analyzer (Model RA-915+, Ohio Lumex). Calibrations were performed NIST
traceable Hg chloride standards. The instrument was calibrated daily using 5 to 100 ng of Hg and
the criteria listed in U.S. EPA Method 30B [13], Sorbent tubes were analyzed by transferring the
sorbent into quartz combustion boats for analysis. A thin layer of sodium carbon was used to
cover the activated carbon, the combustion boat was then inserted into the decomposition
furnace, operated at 775 °C, and the Hg was reduced to elemental Hg and detected by the
photospectrometer. Flow through the decomposition furnace was operated at 1 L/min and
controlled using a mass flow meter. This analysis technique has a derived method detection
limit (MDL) of 0.21 ng per tube section.
The majority of the data reduction procedures are detailed in U.S. EPA Method 30B [13] and
Method 5 [14]. The Lumex RA-915+ thermal decomposition Hg analyzer was used to analyze the
carbon tubes. The data analysis software package developed for the Lumex was used to
measure the peak area of the Hg signal as the Hg was reduced and detected by the analyzer.
These data were transferred to Excel to calculate a linear calibration curve of the form Y = mX +
b where Y is the mass Hg (in ng) and X is the area count from the software. A linear curve fit was
applied to the average instrument response for each standard.
Mercury concentrations as determined through U.S. EPA Method 30B [13] have units of ng/dry
standard cubic meter (dscm) corrected for gas dilutions. The recovery for the analytical bias test
was 102%, which is within the acceptance criteria of 90-110%. The recovery for the field
recovery test was 98%, which is within the acceptance criteria of 85-115%.
4.5 Volatile Organic Compounds
4.5.1 Sampling Method
VOCs were sampled via U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [9] using 6 L SUMMA canisters (Figure 4-2)
supplied by the analytical laboratory (ALS, Simi Valley, CA, USA). Sampling occurred for
approximately 120 min in duration for each test as well as four 10-20 min samples throughout
one standard waste test (Test SW-3, 7/12/2015). Sampling was initiated upon waste
introduction to the gasifier and terminated when the canister was 90% full, leaving enough
volume for addition of diluent gas to prevent condensation. The four sequential SUMMA
canisters were used to characterize the VOC emissions from the period following introduction of
a waste batch to characterize the temporal profile of emissions during waste
gasification/combustion. Following the end of each period of canister sampling, the manual
valve was closed, the metal filter and pressure gauge were removed, and the canister was
17
-------
returned to its shipping container. SUMMA canisters were shipped to and from the field in
boxes as per the ALS California laboratory instructions. The SUMMA canister samples were
analyzed for VOCs within 12-18 days of collection.
4.5.2 Analyses
The SUMMA canisters were analyzed by ALS California using U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [9] using a
gas chromatograph-low resolution mass spectrometer (GC/LRMS) in full scan mode. The VOC
surrogate recoveries for all but one of the collected samples were 99-108%, which is within the
acceptance criteria of the method (70-130%). The third 12 min sample had one of the three
surrogate recoveries at 139%, which is slightly above the acceptance criteria. The other two
surrogate recoveries (97 and 103%) for the same sample were within the acceptance criteria.
To calculate emissions factors, CO, C02, and CH,j in the SUMMA canisters were analyzed by gas
chromatography using flame ionization detection/total combustion analysis according to
Modified U.S. EPA Method 25C [10]. The C02 recovery was 93% and CO and CH4 recoveries were
99% and 100%, which are within the acceptance criteria of 72-128% and 86-124%, respectively.
The canisters were cleaned by ALS prior to sampling to the method reporting limit (MRL) such
that any values below MRL may be biased high due to residual carryover.
4.6 Flue gas Volumetric Flow Rate and Temperature
A flexible duct conveyed the combustion gases from the exhaust flange connection (see Figure
3-1). The 20 ft (6.1 m) long, 6 in. (15 cm) diameter, stainless steel sampling duct allowed
multiple sampling ports to be accessed. U.S. EPA Method la [21] was used to determine the
duct traverse points and to determine if turbulent flow was present in the sampling system. To
allow for sampling beyond eight diameters downstream of a bend or flow disturbance, the first
sampling point was 5 feet (60 inches, 1.5 rn) from the flex duct connection to the straight
sampling duct. The cross-sectional area of the duct was divided into a number of equal areas.
Traverse points were then located within each of these equal areas. Due to the small duct
diameter, 12 points (six in the vertical and six in the horizontal plane) were sampled using the
criteria listed in U.S. EPA Method 1 (Table 4-3).
Figure 4-2. VOC collection using SUMMA Canister.
18
-------
Table 4-3. Traverse points.
Traverse Point
% of Duct Diameter
1 and 7
4.4
2 and 8
14.7
3 and 9
29.5
4 and 10
70.5
5 and 11
85.3
6 and 12
95.6
U.S. EPA Method 2 [22] was used to measure the stack velocity using a pitot head differential
device. A Shortridge Instruments (Scottsdale, AZ, USA) Airdata Multimeter was used to measure
the differential pressure of the Airfoil pitot device. The Airdata Multimeter has a built in
thermocouple and barometer for making measurements in actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM).
A velocity head and temperature measurement (±1.5% of the minimum stack temperature)
were taken at each traverse point as determined in U.S. EPA Method 1 [21]. A static stack
pressure measurement was taken and the barometric pressure was taken to within 2.54 mm
mercury. The Airdata Multimeter was connected to a computer and logging software was used
to continuously record the stack velocities at a single center point to monitor flows during
sampling.
4.7 Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Several primary gaseous flue-gas constituents were analyzed continuously from port number 5
in the sampling manifold (Figure 3-4) using an FTIR Gas Analyzer (Gasmet DX-4000, Finland) that
includes monitors for CO, C02, 02, THC, S02, HCI and (nitric oxide - nitrous oxide) N0-N02-N0x.
C02 was also continuously measured using a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) LI-COR 820
instrument (LI-COR Biosciences, USA) in the diluted stream. The dilution ratio was determined
by comparing the C02 concentration from the FTIR (in the stack) with the C02 concentration in
the dilution system.
4.7.1 Gasmet DX-4000
An FTIR gas analyzer has the capability of measuring both inorganic and organic species in
complex matrices due to the specificity of the wavelength for the corresponding analyte. FTIR
relies on the specific vibrational energy (wavelength) transitions of IR light being absorbed by
the molecule. Molecules sensitive in the IR region generate a specific spectral plot with sharp
peaks in various regions of the plot dependent on the molecule or the class of molecule. This
molecular dependence allows the FTIR to measure multiple species of both organic and
inorganic compounds simultaneously.
4.7.2 LI-COR 820
The LI-COR 820 (LI-COR, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA), was configured with a 5.5 inch (0.14 m) optical
bench, giving it an analytical range of 0-20,000 ppm with an accuracy specification of less than
19
-------
3% of reading. A particulate filter precedes the optical lens. The LI-COR 820 C02 concentration
was recorded every second using the LI-COR 820 software (version 2.1) on a portable computer.
4.7.3 Calibration Procedure
The FTIR underwent daily multi-point calibration for C02, CO, 02, NOx, and S02 using modified
U.S. EPA Methods 3A [23], 6C [24], and 7E [25] at the beginning of the test as well as a drift
check at the end of each day (Table 4-4). Similarly, the LI-820 underwent multi-point calibration
for C02 according to U.S. EPA Method 3A [23], as well as a check for drift at the end of the test
day.
All gas cylinders used for calibration were certified by the suppliers that they are traceable to
NIST standards. A precision gas divider Model 821S (Signal Instrument Co. Ltd., Surrey, England)
was used to dilute the high-level span gases for acquiring the mid-point concentrations for the
calibration curves. The precision gas divider was evaluated in the field as specified in U.S. EPA
Method 205 [26],
Table 4-4. FTIR analyzer calibration error and drift data, as well as calibration curve fit.
Compound
Cylinder Value
ACEa (%)
Drift1 {¦>;¦)
r2
Calibration Curve
C02 (%)
14.92
2.3
1.6
0.9967
CO2 (%)
8.95
6.3
CO2 (%)
2.98
0.18
CO2 (%)
0
0
CO (ppm)
150
11
-0.4
0.9996
CO (ppm)
90
-1.2
CO (ppm)
30
-7.4
CO (ppm)
0
-0.35
S02
-------
4.8 Solids and Water Sampling
Ash samples were conducted to gain a preliminary characterization of the metal composition.
The gasifier ash was cleaned out on a daily basis by PACOM personnel after system cool down.
The ash was divided up into coarse and fine fractions for weight determination. The daily ash
fractions were combined, mixed, and coned and quartered as per instruction in AP-42, Appendix
C.2 [27] for collection of samples for metal analyses. The ash was analyzed for metals by XRF
(PANalytical PW2404, Westborough, MA) conducted at the U.S. EPA (in-house, at the EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC Campus) following the procedures described in EPA/NRMRL SOP
5304.2. XRF results were corrected for the filter blank results and then recalculated to sum to a
total of 100% of the collected PM mass. This normalization to 100% was done by assuming the
elements were present as their oxides and that the balance of unmeasured mass was carbon.
Scrubber water was collected after each test day. The samples were each spiked with known
quantities of three semi-volatile organic tracer compounds (nitrobenzene-d5, 2-fluorobiphenyl
and terphenyl-dl4) at 5 ng each and then extracted three times with methylene chloride. Each
sample's extract was concentrated to 1 mL, and then 1 piL was injected into a gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) for a 70 min run. The analysis was similar to a U.S.
EPA SW-846 Method 8270 Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) screen. The TIC screen uses a
spiked compound (usually the internal standards from the targeted compound analysis) to allow
a rough quantitation.
4.9 Moisture
Moisture content in the stack was sampled according to modified U.S. EPA Method 4 [28], using
the U.S. EPA Method 23 [7] train (see Chapter 4.2.1). The moisture in the collected gas was
condensed in pre-weighed impingers and quantified by post-sampling weights. The sampling
volume was obtained from the meter box.
4.10 Data Precision
The data precision was checked by calculating:
• Relative percent difference (RPD) for any pair of duplicates
RPD = 100x^—
Equation 4-1
where:
Q = results from one sample, B = results from replicate samples
• Standard deviation (STDV) if more than duplicate measurements were conducted
STDV
Equation 4-2
where: n = average results from all samples, x, = results from one
sample, N = number of samples
Or expressed as coefficient of variation (CV) = 100 x STDV/Average
21
-------
5 Results
Seven test days encompassed gasification of four waste types during eight tests. Data are
presented by individual run results, like-run averages, and "Total" defined as the average of all
samples together. Emissions are expressed as volumetric concentrations and emissions factors,
the latter based both on the waste input schedule and the carbon mass balance.
5.1 Waste Input/Load and Stack flow
Nominally ten waste charges of 26 lb (12 kg) each were fed each day into alternating gasification
chambers of the MAGS unit. The waste type and feed schedule are shown in Table 5-1. The
average waste load and stack flow for all runs were 55 ± 14 Ib/h (22 ±6.3 kg/h) and 148 ± 11
ft3/min (4.6 ±0.30 m3/min), respectively (Table 5-2). Automatic MAGS system shut-downs were
common and were due to a variety of reasons, the foremost being a faulty water pump.
Table 5-1. Feed schedule for each waste type and run, time in hh:mm and mass in lb.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
07/10/2015
07/11/2015
07/12/2015
07/13/2015
07/13/2015
07/14/2015
07/15/2015
07/16/2015
Time
Mass
Time
Mass
Time
Mass
Time
Mass
Time Mass
Time
Mass
Time
Mass
Time
Mass
10:41
19.3
14:53
19.6
11:05
18.5
11:12
17.9
15:42 17.5
13:46
9.0
13:28
23.7
13:02
24.1
10:52
15:31
11:16
11:21
15:51 18.3
13:54
13:48
13:11
11:03
17.9
15:40
18.9
11:26
18.6
11:37
18.5
16:44 18.4
14:10
27.7
14:00
22.8
13:20
22.9
11:23
17.8
15:57
17.9
11:46
17.5
12:08
18.1
16:54 17.9
14:32
9.1
14:21
22.7
13:29
22.8
11:43
19.8
16:23
18.1
11:54
19.7
12:34
17.9
17:45 18.0
14:47
10.6
14:30
24.5
14:27
25.2
11:55
17.8
16:31
17.8
12:04
17.6
12:43
18.0
14:56
23.6
15:20
22.6
14:35
23.1
12:19
17.7
16:41
17.7
12:26
17.6
13:19
18.2
15:06
12.9
15:28
22.6
15:44
23.0
12:32
18.9
17:20
19.1
13:15
18.6
13:29
19.4
15:14
13.7
16:43
23.4
15:55
23.7
12:54
18.8
17:29
18.7
13:24
18.8
13:55
17.8
15:24
5.6
16:56
24.0
16:28
24.1
13:03
17.5
17:59
17.5
13:33
17.8
14:04
18.5
15:33
6.4
17:23
22.9
16:41
22.7
13:37
18.5
18:08
18.4
14:05
17.3
14:46
18.0
15:42
8.5
17:32
23.6
17:15
23.7
13:54
17.8
18:40
17.4
14:13
17.4
14:55
18.0
15:52
24.1
18:06
22.8
14:22
17.8
18:49
17.3
14:23
19.1
16:01
22.2
14:32
19.3
19:14
19.9
14:31
18.3
16:17
12.1
14:58
17.1
19:23
19.6
14:41
17.6
16:28
7.1
15:10
18.9
19:32
21.4
14:50
18.9
16:43
7.8
15:41
6.4
11:05
18.5
16:57
10.7
11:16
18.3
17:11
3.0
17:25
14.2
17:34
12.3
Table 5-2. Average waste load and stack flow for each waste type as well as all-run average.0
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all
Waste Types
Waste load (Ib/h)
62±10
39 (25%)
65
57 (0.65%)
55±14
Waste load (kg/h)
28±4.7
18 (25%)
30
26 (0.65%)
25±6.3
Stack flow (ft3/min)
147±6.4
158 (0.66%)
150
137 (8.8%)
148±11
Stack flow (m3/min)
4.2±4.4
4.5 (0.66%)
4.2
3.9 (8.8%)
4.2±0.30
a Range denoted 1 STDV. Relative percent difference within parentheses.
22
-------
5.2 Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Average FTIR concentrations and emissions factors for ten gases of interest are shown in Table
5-3 and Table 5-4, the latter calculated using the carbon mass balance approach. Values
presented are the same-waste averages of the whole-run mean concentrations. High variability
is noted particularly for CO, CH4, and S02, likely a result of the cyclic, batch process. Appendix A
shows the maximum, minimum, and average for each run. No substantial difference in the
average CEM stack gas concentrations emerged between the different waste types. MAGS unit
shutdowns were observed, beginning with run SW-3, which resulted in two very large CO peaks
(Figure 5-2), significantly above the CEM factory span range of 1,000 ppm. Similar increases
were observed for CH4 (not shown) while C02 concentrations dropped. All CEM data during
shutdowns were excluded from the CEM averages and subsequent emissions factor calculations
due to the significant uncertainty of their values. Subsequently, shutdowns of the MAGS system
occurred for runs HP-1, HP-2, and FSR-1. To avoid clogging sampling lines with excessive PM,
emissions sampling was promptly ceased during shutdowns after SW-3 and resumed upon
normal operation.
Table 5-3. CEM average concentrations for ten gases. For comparison purposes the regulatory
limits according to EPA OSWI [2] for NOx, S02, HCI, and CO are 103, 3.1, 15, 40 ppm dry,
respectively.
Pollutant
Units
SW
CV/RPD
Average (%)
HP
Average
RPD
(%)
KMC
FSR
RPD
Average (%)
Avg. of all
Waste Types
CV
Average (%)
NOx as (N02)
dry PPM
196
5.1
143
2.4
254
257
1.4
207
25
NO
dry PPM
187
16
143
1.7
249
273
0.53
188
41
no2
dry PPM
6.4
5.8
4.4
21
14
13
24
00
00
54
S02
dry PPM
0.05
100
0.011
27
0.16
0.44
30
0.16
137
HCI
dry PPM
0.46
12
0.57
21
0.66
1.4
28
0.79
62
CO
dry PPM
68
80
101
43
190
39
46
86
70
C02
dry Vol-%
9.9
0.08
9.4
2.1
8.3
9.8
0.60
9.5
6.0
ch4
dry PPM
0.57
80
0.75
74
1.0
0.42
95
0.65
83
o2
dry Vol-%
9.0
10b
9.0
0.50
9.33
8.7
0.42
9.0
6.0
H20
Vol-%
9.5
5.3
9.4
5.1
9.62
11
2.6
10
10
a RPD = relative percent difference, CV = coefficient of variance.b Coefficient of variance.
23
-------
Table 5-4. CEM emissions factors for ten gases using the carbon mass balance approach.
Pollutant
Units
SW
Average
RPD
(%)
HP
Average
RPD
(%)
KMC
Average
FSR
Average
RPD
(%)
Avg. of all
Waste Types
CV
Average (%)
N0X (as N02)
g/kg waste
2.9
5.0
3.0
4.6
5.5
5.3
1.9
4.0
33
NO
g/kg waste
2.0
5.3
1.9
3.9
3.9
3.6
1.1
2.7
35
N02
g/kg waste
0.095
5.7
0.10
23
0.30
0.27
25
0.17
63
S02
g/kg waste
0.0003
N/A
0.0002
29
0.0025
0.0062
30
0.0026
122
HCI
g/kg waste
0.0054
12
0.0093
19
0.011
0.023
28
0.012
69
CO
g/kg waste
0.61
34
1.3
41
2.5
0.48
46
1.0
79
C02
g/kg waste
1,396
0.024
1,842
0.04
1,714
1,912
0.019
1,716
13
ch4
g/kg waste
0.0029
89
0.0053
73
0.0078
0.0030
95
0.0037
85
RPD = Relative percent difference, CV = Coefficient of variance. N/A = Not applicable = only detected in one sample.
Typical real time FTIR results for CO2 and CO are shown in Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 with the
waste load times and emissions sampling times noted.
NO
I
~o
>
O
u
PCDD/PCDF/PM sampling
C02 conc.
Mercury sampling
X Waste load - Right
CO conc.
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
E
CL
CL
2000
O
u
1500
1000
500
0
Time (hh:mm)
Figure 5-1. Real time CO2 and CO concentration versus time as well as the timing of waste loads
and sample collection for VOCs, PM, mercury, and PCDD/PCDF/PAH during run number SW-2.
24
-------
System Shut down
r 7000
- 6000
- 5000
X
XXX
/V - V
VW vj 'V
- 4000 o
- 3000
- 2000
- 1000
10:50
11:52
12:23 12:54 13:24
Time (hh:mm)
13:55
14:55
C02 conc.
PCDD/PCDF/PM sampling
Mercury sampling
Metal sampling
2h VOC sampling
^—12 min VOC sampling
X Waste load - Right
X Waste load - Left
CO conc.
Figure 5-2. Real time C02 and CO concentration versus time as well as the timing of waste loads
and sampling collection for VOCs (one 2-h sample and four 12-min samples), PM, Metal/PM,
mercury, and PCDD/PCDF/PAH during run number SW-3.
During the course of the testing, seven unexpected shutdowns (some test runs had multiple
shutdowns) occurred with the MAGS unit. The first automatic MAGS shutdown (SW-3) resulted
in high spikes in the CEM readings (e.g., CO) that were beyond the factory calibration range of
our CEMs. Sampling during subsequent shutdowns was suspended during the outage to prevent
filter clogging from truncating the sampling effort. A 2-h SUMMA canister sample spanned this
SW-3 shutdown and showed significantly higher concentrations of benzene and naphthalene
compared to canisters from SW-1 and SW-2, both of which sampled without shutdowns. Batch
samples such as PM, mercury, and PCDD/PCDF showed no, or minimal, apparent increase from
SW-3 to SW-1 and SW-2, likely because the shutdown period was very short compared to the
length of the sampling. The PAH SW-3 sample showed higher concentrations compared to
samples from SW-1 and SW-2. PAHs, benzene, and naphthalene are common products of
incomplete combustion, indicative of suboptimal conditions during the unexpected shutdown.
5.3 Particulate Matter Emissions
5.3.1 Integrated Sampling
PM concentrations in the stack and emissions factors from the U.S. EPA Method 5 filter and
Modified Method 5 using a 37-mm Teflon filter are shown in Table 5-5. Results are presented as
volumetric concentrations and in a ratio with waste mass fed, calculated from Table 5-1 and the
carbon balance method (Equation 3-3). The full PM data set is shown in Appendix B. The PM
concentrations were notably higher from gasification of the FSR waste type, 60 ± 9.3 mg/m3 at
7% 02, than the other waste composition types, 36 ± 10 mg/m3 at 7% 02 (Figure 5-3). The two
methods of PM concentration determination, "M5-PM" and "Teflon PM", agree within an 18%
difference of their respective averages, exclusive of FSR (see below). The low coefficient of
variation (15%) and standard deviations for the three SW replicate tests (M5-PM) showed good
reproducibility between the test runs.
25
-------
A five-fold difference between the M5-PM and the Teflon PM for the FSR waste type was
observed. The reason for this difference is not clear. The FSR Teflon PM values stand out as
being significantly lower than their parallel M5-PM and in contrast with the agreement noted
between the two methods for the other three waste types. There are differences in the
methods; the most obvious is that the Teflon PM filter was heated to approximately 300 °F (149
°C) and the glass M5-PM filter was heated, according to Method 5, to 257 °F (125 °C), potentially
leading to higher organics capture on the M5-PM filter. However, this doesn't explain the
congruence with the other three waste types. Another distinction in the methods offering a
potential explanation includes the difference in sampling time as the M5 sample was collected
for 1 hour longer than the Teflon PM sample for each of the FSR tests. However, none of these
explanations are definitive. In the absence of a clearer understanding of these different values,
the standard EPA Method 5 results, M5-PM, should be considered the actual emissions values.
Table 5-5. PM stack concentrations and emissions factors from the M5-train and the Modified
M5 using 37-mm Teflon filters.0 For comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA
OSWI [2] for PM is 30 mg/m3 at 7% 02.
Waste Type
Concentration
(mg/m3 at 7% 02)
M5 - PM Teflon PM
Emissions Factor
(g/kg waste)b
M5 - PM Teflon PM
Emissions Factor
(g/kg waste input)0
M5 - PM Teflon PM
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all
waste types
39±5.8d 38 (7.7%)
41 (9.5%) 34 (19%)
18 16
60 (16%) 13 (15%)
42±15d 27±13d
0.23 (15%) 0.30 (20%)
0.39 (10%) 0.24 (6.1%)
0.17 0.15
0.62 (4.7%) 0.12 (11%)
0.39±0.22d 0.21±0.089d
0.27±0.030d 0.23 (7.5%)
0.49 (25%) 0.41 (37%)
0.13 0.12
0.53 (29%) 0.087 (3.7%)
0.37±0.19d 0.20±0.16d
a Relative percent difference within parentheses.b Carbon mass balance method.c Waste load. d 1 Standard
deviation.
80 -i
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PM concentration
^—Regulatory limit
nh
sw
HP KMC FSR Total
* Error bars = Relative difference
0.70
0.60 -
0.50 -
i?0.40 H
'0.30 -|
0.20
0.10 H
0.00
PM Emission Factors
*
¦
~ *
.
¦
T 1 1 1
SW HP KMC FSR Total
*Error bars = Relative difference
Figure 5-3. Stack concentrations and emissions factors (using the carbon mass balance) of Total
PM (U.S. EPA Method 5). Error bars denote 1 standard deviation if nothing else is stated.
26
-------
5.3.2 Real Time Sampling
The batch measurements of PM reported above were complemented by time-resolved analyses
of PM2.5 and black carbon. Typical real time PM2.5 and BC traces as well as FTIR results for C02
and CO are shown in Figure 5-4. All runs were not analyzed for PM and BC due to high water
content in the flue gas, leaving water spots on the optics, which interfere with the
measurements. The real time data in Figure 5-4 revealed PM2.5 and BC peaks occurring during
the shutdown of the MAGS unit during test SW-3. Data collection during subsequent shutdowns
was stopped and so is not included in emissions factors. Other noticeable peaks are observed
but do not correspond to the single shutdown encountered during the SW-3 sampling. As shown
in Table 5-6, the PM size consisted mostly of PMi and less (PM with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to 1.0 pim).
C02 conc.
X Waste load - Right
X Waste load - Left
PM2.5
BC
CO conc.
0
11:28 11:59 12:30 13:01 13:31 14:02 14:32 15:03
Time (hh:mm)
Figure 5-4. Real time C02, CO, PM2.sand BC concentration during run SW-3.
System Shut down
7000
bo
5?
"o
>
CO
u
o"
d
ra
u
5
Q_
6000
5000 -
£
4000 J
O
3000
2000
1000
Table 5-6. PM by size and black carbon concentrations and emissions factors collected in real
time.a For comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA OSWI [2] for PM is 30
mg/m3 at 7% 02.
Waste
Unit
BC
PMi
PM2.5
pm4
PMio
Total PM
SW
mg/m3 at 7% 02
0.053
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
SW
mg/kg waste
0.00035
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
HP
mg/m3 at 7% 02
0.47 (73%)
34 (44%)
34 (44%)
34 (44%)
34 (44%)
34 (44%)
HP
mg/kg waste
0.0043 (72%)
0.31 (42%)
0.31 (42%)
0.31 (42%)
0.31 (42%)
0.31 (42%)
KMC
mg/m3 at 7% 02
0.25
11
11
11
11
11
KMC
mg/kg waste
0.0024
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
FSR
mg/m3 at 7% 02
0.038
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
FSR
mg/kg waste
0.00036
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
a Relative percent difference within parentheses. N/A = sample not valid.
27
-------
5.4 Metals
5.4.1 Metals - XRF and ICP
Particle-bound metals on the 37-mm Teflon filter and gas phase mercury are reported in Table
5-7, Table 5-8, and Table 5-9 by volumetric concentrations, by the use of carbon mass balance
(gasified/combusted) and by mass of waste input, respectively. The full XRF data set is reported
in Appendix C.
Table 5-7. Metal stack concentrationsFor comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according
to EPA OSWI [2] for cadmium and lead is 18 and 226 jjg/m3 at 7% 02, respectively.
Metal
SW
HP
KMC FSR
Hg/m3 at 7% 02
Avg. of all Waste Types
Aluminum (Al)b
8.6
ND
2.9
ND
5.8 (49%)
Chloride (Cl)b
3,620
5,701
4,005
988
3,578±1,949
Iron (Fe)c
45 ±3 7
61 (41%)
4.7b
40 (53%)
43±32
Copper (Cu)c
150±60
169 (29%)
66b
174 (26%)
151±59
Cadmium (Cd)c
1.0±0.54
0.49 (16%)
0.26b
ND
0.75±0.48
Lead (Pb)c
122±80
83 (13%)
31b
61 (20%)
86±56
a Relative percent difference (%) or standard deviation (±), ND = not detected,b XRF single sample.c ICP.
Table 5-8. Metal emission factors using carbon mass balance method °
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all Waste
Metal
mg/kg waste
Types
Aluminum (Al)b
0.090
ND
0.028
ND
0.059 (53%)
Chloride (Cl)b
38
32
38
12
30±12
Iron (Fe)c
0.31 (61%)
0.41 (18%)
0.045b
0.34 (32%)
0.31±0.18
Copper (Cu)c
1.0 (15%)
1.2 (4.7%)
0.63b
1.6 (0.50%)
1.2±0.33
Cadmium (Cd)c
0.0089 (10%)
0.0038 (39%)
0.0024b
ND
0.0058±0.0031
Lead (Pb)c
0.92 (36%)
0.64 (37%)
0.29b
0.62 (43%)
0.66±0.35
a Relative percent difference within parentheses, ND = not detected,b XRF single sample.c ICP.
Table 5-9. Metal emissions factors by waste input °
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all
Metal
mg/kg waste input
waste types
Aluminum (Al)b
0.060
ND
0.021
ND
0.040 (48%)
Chloride (Cl)b
25
78
29
7.5
35±87
Iron (Fe)c
0.26 (68%)
0.76 (55%)
0.034b
0.26 (45%)
0.37±0.39
Copper (Cu)c
0.80 (27%)
2.1 (46%)
0.48b
1.2 (15%)
1.2±0.83
Cadmium (Cd)c
0.0069 (23%)
0.0055 (2.7%)
0.0019b
ND
0.0055±0.0021
Lead (Pb)c
0.73 (47%)
0.93 (5.9%)
0.22b
0.43 (30%)
0.63±0.35
a Relative percent difference within parentheses, ND = not detected,b XRF single sample.c ICP.
28
-------
5.4.2 Mercury
Mercury concentrations and emissions factors are shown in Table 5-10 and Figure 5-5. Results
for each collected sample are reported in Appendix C. The mercury emissions concentration was
lower for the waste with higher plastic content (HP), 0.31±0.037 ng/m3 at 7% 02, than the other
waste types, 0.53-0.73 ng/m3 at 7% 02. However, little difference between the waste types was
noticeable when dividing the cumulative mercury amount in the stack with the total amount of
waste gasified (i.e., the emission factor) during the same time period.
Table 5-10. Mercury stack concentrations and emissions factors for each waste type° For
comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA OSWI [2] for mercury is 74 /ug/m3 at
7% 02.
Compound
Unit
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all
Waste
Types
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Hg/m3 at 7% O2
|jg/kg wasteb
Hg/kg waste input
0.73±0.18
6.5±3.3
4.1±0.81
0.31±0.037
2.9±0.50
3.4±0.77
0.53 (14%)
4.9 (17%)
4.0 (19%)
0.65±0.10
6.3±1.8
3.8±0.55
0.60±0.21
5.2±2.4
3.9±0.77
a Relative per cent difference within parentheses. Range of date denoted 1 standard deviation.b Carbon mass balance
method.
74 -
0s-.
4—1
03
1e i.oo
OD
0.50
0.00
¦Regulatory limit
Mercury
nh
*
10.0
8.0 -I
TO
5 6.0
OD
"ig 4.0 -I
2.0
0.0
Mercury
¦ Carbon mass balance
~ Waste input
ft
SW
* = relative difference
SW
HP
KMC FSR Total
HP KMC FSR Total
* = relative difference
Figure 5-5. Mercury stack concentrations and emissions factors for each waste type as well as a
total average of all waste types. Error bars denote 1 STDV if nothing else is stated.
5.5 Volatile Organic Compounds
Select VOC stack concentrations and emissions factors by SUMMA canister collection/analysis
are reported in Figure 5-6, Table 5-11, and Table 5-12 (the full data set is reported in Appendix
D). Benzene, toluene, and propene were the most abundant VOCs for all waste types. The
higher benzene concentration for the SW tests is most probably due to the rapid system shut-
down/start-up on SW (only) since benzene is a byproduct of incomplete combustion. A higher
benzene concentration was also found at the very start of each waste load and decreased with
run time, shown in Figure 5-7. The higher levels of vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate, and
29
-------
chloromethane from gasification of FSR waste may be due to the higher salt and compositional
content in the FSR food and/or the addition of FSR packaging material.
VP
0s-
250
200
m 150
c
o
c
QJ
U
c
o
u
100
50
~ Acrolein*
¦ Vinyl Chloride*
~ Vinyl Acetate*
~ Chloromethane*
# ¦
0
1STDV
[Imflm [Dl
JH Hi—I
sw
HP
KMC
FSR
Total
Figure 5-6. Selected VOCsfrom each of the waste types. Error bars denote relative difference if
nothing else is stated. * = VOCs on EPA's list of Hazardous Pollutants (HAP List) [1].
Table 5-11. Selected VOC stack concentrations °
Compound
SW
Ug/m3
at 7% 02
CV/RPD
%
HP
Ug/m3
at 7% 02
RPD
%
KMC
Ug/m3
at 7% 02
FSR
Ug/m3
at 7% 02
RPD
%
Avg. of all
Waste Types
Ug/m3 CV
at 7% 02 %
Propene
73
22
73
96
18
243
82
109
131
Chloromethane15
12
79
10
32
6.8
51
88
21
150
Vinyl Chlorideb
14
57c
28
92
8.1
38
79
24
108
Acrolein15
26
14
25
94
13
129
80
50
151
Acrylonitrileb
7.1
47c
8.9
87
7.2
36
84
16
143
Methylene Chloride15
4.1
59c
2.2d
5.3
5.6
5.7
21
4.2
53
Vinyl Acetate15
26
9.0C
2.6d
N/A
ND
116
27
57
103
2-Butanone (MEK)
15
3.9C
7.3
47
13
195
7.9
64
141
Benzene15
4,377e
170
666
42
1,458
1,119
88
2,270
193
Toluene15
84
156
16
46
644
137
62
150
147
Chlorobenzeneb
6.6
76
10
87
6.0
16
55
10
85
Ethylbenzene
l.ld
20
7.3
N/A
219
45
60
53
161
/r^p-Xylenes15
1.4d
62
3.9d
N/A
52
13
34
14
140
o-Xyleneb
0.63d
25c
ND
N/A
29
6.4
27
8.6
138
Benzyl Chloride15
4.2
00
0.58d
42
7.4
14
57
6.4
118
Naphthalene
165
160
43
90
304
244
77
172
115
a ND = not detected, N/A = not applicable (only one sample detected or all samples non detect). RPD = relative
percent difference, CV = coefficient of variance.b On EPA's list of Hazardous air pollutants (HAP List) [1].c RPD.d Less
than three times the detection limit.e Sampled during the system shut-down during test SW #3 (12,951 ug/m3), the
average for test SW #1 and SW #2 was 90 ug/m3 with a RPD of 5.1%.
30
-------
Table 5-12. Selected VOC emissions factors derived from the carbon mass balance method (units
in mg/kg waste).
Compound
SW
mg/kg
CV/RPD
%
HP
mg/kg
RPD
%
KMC
mg/kg
FSR
mg/kg
RPD
%
Avg. of all
Waste Types
mg/kg CV %
Propene
9.5E-01
95
7.8E-01
96
2.0E-01
2.9E+00
89
1.3E+00
140
Chloromethaneb
2.0E-01
132
1.1E-01
32
7.5E-02
6.2E-01
93
2.6E-01
153
Vinyl Chlorideb
9.5E-02
54c
3.0E-01
91
9.0E-02
4.5E-01
87
2.5E-01
126
Acrolein15
2.9E-01
62
2.6E-01
94
1.5E-01
1.5E+00
87
5.8E-01
164
Acrylonitrileb
4.7E-02
44c
9.5E-02
87
7.9E-02
4.3E-01
90
1.8E-01
165
Methylene Chlorideb
2.7E-02
57c
2.3E-02d
5.1
6.2E-02
6.1E-02
43
4.1E-02
64
Vinyl Acetateb
1.8E-01
4.9C
2.8E-02d
N/A
ND
1.2E+00
48
5.7E-01
130
2-Butanone (MEK)
1.0E-01
7.9C
7.7E-02
47
1.5E-01
2.0E+00
31
6.4E-01
154
Benzeneb
9.5E+01
172
7.1E+00
42
1.6E+01
1.4E+01
92
4.3E+01
228
Tolueneb
1.8E+00
168
1.7E-01
46
7.1E+00
1.6E+00
74
2.0E+00
139
Chlorobenzeneb
4.4E-02
51c
1.0E-01
87
6.6E-02
1.9E-01
69
1.0E-01
105
Ethylbenzene
7.1E-03d
10c
7.7E-02
N/A
2.4E+00
5.2E-01
73
5.9E-01
162
/r^p-Xylenes15
9.0E-03d
41c
4.2E-02d
N/A
5.8E-01
1.4E-01
53
1.5E-01
146
o-Xyleneb
4.3E-03d
21c
ND
N/A
3.2E-01
6.8E-02
48
9.4E-02
143
Benzyl Chlorideb
2.8E-02
80c
6.2E-03d
41
8.2E-02
1.6E-01
71
6.7E-02
143
Naphthalene
3.5E+00
169
4.6E-01
90
3.4E+00
2.9E+00
85
2.6E+00
143
a ND = not detected, N/A = not applicable (only one sample detected or all samples non detect). RPD = relative
percent difference, CV = coefficient of variance.b On EPA's list of Hazardous air pollutants (HAP List) [1].c RPD.d Less
than three times the detection limit.
One run of the standard waste (SW-3), selected at random, was sampled for VOCs over a 3.5-
hour period with four SUMMA canister samples (Table 5-13). The SUMMA canisters sampled for
periods ranging from 10 to 30 min. The resulting concentrations of the three major species are
plotted in Figure 5-7 against the waste charge timing of the MAGS unit.
r-~
4-"
TO
m
JE
OD
3.
500
400
300 -
200 -
100
0
~ Benzene*
~ Propene
¦ Acrolein*
n
00:00-00:10 00:11-00:30 02:10-02:32 03:09-03:39
Time point in the run (hh:mm)
Figure 5-7. VOC concentration vs. time point in the run for three major VOCs. * ¦
list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP List) [1]. Run # SW-3.
VOCs on EPA's
31
-------
Table 5-13. VOC concentrations over run time.
Collection Time
Compound
00:00-00:10
SW-3
00:11-00:30 02:10-02:32
Hg/m '¦ at 7% O ¦
03:09-03:39
Propene
416
17
11
3.5
Chloromethaneb
33
7.1
5.2
0.64c
Vinyl Chlorideb
34
48
12
0.79c
Acrolein15
315
22
6.6
2.4
Acrylonitrileb
llc
13
18
0.65c
Methylene Chlorideb
ND
5.9
2.8
0.73c
Vinyl Acetateb
37c
4.6
ND
2.9C
2-Butanone (MEK)
23
7.9
29
5.3
Benzeneb
2,867
245
277
71
Tolueneb
87
2.6
8.6
2.3
Chlorobenzeneb
17
8.9
2.8
0.82
Ethylbenzene
20c
0.70c
0.63c
0.31c
/77,p-Xylenesb
ND
1.3
ND
ND
o-Xyleneb
ND
0.76c
0.48c
0.32c
Benzyl Chlorideb
ND
2.3
0.89c
0.58c
Naphthalene
96
36
491
107
a ND = not detected.b On EPA's list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP List) [l].c Less than three times the detection limit.
5.6 PCDD/PCDF/PAH
5.6.1 PCDD/PCDF
Data for PCDD/PCDF emissions are shown in Table 5-14 and Figure 5-8. Results of each sample
collected are shown in Appendix E. The PCDD/PCDF stack concentration when gasifying SW, HP,
and KMC waste were all similar, 0.26-0.27 ng TEQ/m3 at 7% 02, while gasifying FSR waste
generated a notably higher stack concentration of 0.68 ng TEQ/m3 at 7% 02. The rapid system
shut-down during test SW-3 (the only sample for which sampling was not suspended during
shutdowns) did not have a large effect on the PCDD/PCDF results as the stack concentration for
the three SW runs had a relative standard deviation of less than 18% (9.3/53).
Table 5-14. PCDD/PCDF concentrations and emissions factors from each waste type" For
comparison purposes, the regulatory limit according to EPA OSWI [2] for EPCDD/PCDF is 33
ng/m3 at 7% 02.
Unit
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all
Waste
Types
1 PCDD/PCDF TEQ
ng TEQ/m3 at 7% 02
0.27±0.059b
0.27 (6.8%)
0.26
0.68 (3.4%)
0.37±0.19b
ZPCDD/PCDF
ng/m3 at 7% 02
53±9.3b
54 (12%)
61
108 (9.0%)
68±26b
£ PCDD/PCDF TEQ
ng TEQ/kg wastec
1.7 (20%)
2.5 (6.1%)
2.5
7.1 (7.5%)
3.6±2.4b
EPCDD/PCDF
ng/kg wastec
300 (13%)
507(11%)
573
1,112 (2.0%)
635±343b
£ PCDD/PCDF TEQ
ng TEQ/kg waste input
1.9±0.40
3.1 (9.6%)
1.9
5.9 (18%)
3.4±1.9b
EPCDD/PCDF
ng/kg waste input
365±53b
613 (4.6%)
443
944 (23%)
613±280b
a relative per cent difference within parentheses.b 1 standard deviation.c Carbon mass balance method.
32
-------
PCDD/PCDF concentration
-Regulatory limit
rii
nh
sw
HP
KMC
FSR
Total
1,400 -|
1,200 -
p 1,000 -
? 800 -
600 -
¦ 400 -
200 -
0 -
=1STDV
PCDD/PCDF emission factors
~ Carbon Mass balance
~ Waste input
rii
pEn
SW HP KMC FSR
Total
Figure 5-8. PCDD/PCDF concentrations and emissions factors from each waste type. Error bars
denoted relative difference if nothing else is stated.
5.6.2 PAHs
The concentration and emissions factor of the sum of the 16 EPA PAHs are shown in Tables 5-15
to Table 5-18 . Figure 5-9 shows the next most abundant PAHs after naphthalene. Results of
each sample collected are shown in Appendix E. The high PAH levels (2,389 ±2,383 ng/m3 at 7%
02) for gasification of SW were most probably due to the system shut-down/start-up during run
SW-3. The average PAH concentration for run SW-1 and SW-2 was 1,053 ng/m3 at 7% 02 with an
RPD of 54%, which is five times lower than from SW-3 (5,061 ng/m3 at 7% 02) and similar to the
emissions levels of the three other waste types.
Table 5-15. Sum of the 16 EPA PAH concentrations and emissions factors from each waste type.a
Unit
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all
Waste
Types
ZPAH
pg/m3 at 7% 02
2,389±2,383
685 (1.3%)
994
1,101 (58%)
1,467±1,533
EPAH TEQ
Mg B[a]P TEQ/m3 at 7% 02
33±42
6.8 (3.4%)
6.1
6.9 (26%)
17±27
EPAH
mg/kg wastec
18 (83%)
6.5 (0.68%)
9.3
13 (65%)
11±9.8
EPAH TEQ
Mg B[a]P TEQ/kg wastec
250 (84%)
69 (4.6%)
57
92 (36%)
126±150
EPAH
mg/kg waste input
16±17
7.9 (15%)
7.2
8.7 (48%)
11±11
EPAH TEQ
Mg B[a]P TEQ/kg waste input
231±293
86 (20%)
44
65 (12%)
137±191
a Range denoted is 1 STDV. Relative per cent difference (RPD) within parentheses. If no range or RPD is stated, only
one sample with detectable levels.cCarbon mass balance method.
33
-------
\0
0s-
rv
¦M
TO
m
.E
CUD
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
4
fl
a
c? r?'
<2> ^ sjfr
&
~ sw
¦ HP
~ KMC
~ FSR
rEir-.i-ifIi
sVJ
<>*>
: 1 STDV
Figure 5-9. The five most abundant PAHs (except for naphthalene) from the four waste types.
Error bars denote relative difference if nothing else is stated.
Table 5-16. PAH concentrations for each waste type in /ug/m3 at 7% 02
Compound
SW
HP
KMC FSR
Hg/m3 at 7% 02
Avg. of all
Waste types
Naphthalene
1,310±1,586
117(12%)
332
213 (84%)
615±1,031
Acenaphthylene
155±136
60 (6.8%)
25
99 (86%)
101±99
Acenaphthene
3.Oil.3
1.2 (23%)
4.8
4.3 (45%)
3.1±1.8
Fluorene
40±29
19 (10%)
32
41 (73%)
34±24
Phenanthrene
3471266
188 (22%)
332
399 (65%)
319±217
Anthracene
20±14
10(1.1%)
20
33 (67%)
21±16
Fluoranthene
185±93
138 (4.4%)
113
144 (25%)
154±60
Pyrene
212±91
144 (4.2%)
128
157 (17%)
171±62
Benzo(a)anthracene
8.6±11
2.9 (32%)
2.5
4.0(19%)
5.2±6.6
Chrysene
14±20
4.4 (11%)
4.3
6.7(19%)
8.6±12
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
24 (88%)
ND
ND
ND
24 (88%)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
19 (85%)
ND
ND
ND
19 (85%)
Benzo(a)pyrene
25 (86%)
ND
ND
ND
25 (86%)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
29 (96%)
0.31
ND
0.22
15±28
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
2.3 (93%)
ND
ND
ND
2.3 (93%)
Benzo(ghi)perylene
41 (96%)
0.46
0.30
0.35
17±36
SUM 16-EPA PAHs
2,389±2,383
685 (1.3%)
994
1,101 (58%)
1,467±1,533
a ND = not detected. Range denotes 1 STDV. Relative per cent difference (RPD) within
parentheses. If no range or RPD is stated, only one sample showed detectable levels.
34
-------
Table 5-17. PAH emissions factors using the carbon mass balance method for each waste type in
mg/kg waste."
Compound
SW
HP
KMC
mg/kg waste
FSR
Avg. of all
Waste Types
Naphthalene
9.9 (99%)
1.1 (12%)
3.1
2.4 (87%)
4.2±6.7
Acenaphthylene
0.95 (88%)
0.56 (7.4%)
0.23
1.1 (88%)
0.79±0.83
Acenaphthene
0.017 (45%)
0.011 (23%)
0.045
0.047 (53%)
0.028±0.023
Fluorene
0.23 (76%)
0.18(10%)
0.30
0.46 (78%)
0.29±0.26
Phenanthrene
2.4 (66%)
1.8 (22%)
3.1
4.5 (71%)
2.9±2.4
Anthracene
0.13 (62%)
0.10(0.45%)
0.19
0.37 (72%)
0.20±0.20
Fluoranthene
1.3 (41%)
1.3 (5.1%)
1.1
1.5 (35%)
1.3±0.47
Pyrene
1.5 (34%)
1.4 (4.9%)
1.2
1.7 (27%)
1.5±0.43
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.072 (83%)
0.027 (32%)
0.024
0.042 (29%)
0.044±0.041
Chrysene
0.12 (87%)
0.042 (12%)
0.040
0.071 (29%)
0.073±0.073
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.28
ND
ND
ND
0.28
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.22
ND
ND
ND
0.22
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.29
ND
ND
ND
0.29
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0.35
0.0029
ND
0.0025
0.12±0.20
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.027
ND
ND
ND
0.027
Benzo(ghi)perylene
0.50
0.0043
0.0028
0.0041
0.13±0.25
SUM 16-EPA PAHs
16 (81%)
6.5 (0.68%)
9.3
12 (65%)
12±10
a ND = not detected. Range denoted is 1 STDV. Relative per cent difference (RPD) within parentheses. If no
range or RPD is stated, only one sample showed detectable levels.
Table 5-18. PAH emissions factors for each waste type in mg/kg waste input."
Compound
SW
HP
mg/kg waste
KMC
input
FSR
Avg. of all
Waste types
Naphthalene
9.0±11
1.4 (28%)
2.4
1.6 (79%)
4.3±7.6
Acenaphthylene
1.1±0.94
0.70 (23%)
0.18
0.75 (82%)
0.75±0.72
Acenaphthene
0.021±0.0085
0.014 (38%)
0.035
0.035 (32%)
0.024±0.013
Fluorene
0.27±0.20
0.22 (26%)
0.23
0.31 (66%)
0.26±0.17
Phenanthrene
2.4±1.8
2.1 (6.3%)
2.4
3.1 (56%)
2.6±1.5
Anthracene
0.14±0.093
0.12 (15%)
0.15
0.26 (58%)
0.17±0.12
Fluoranthene
1.3±0.64
1.6 (21%)
0.82
1.2 (11%)
1.3±0.48
Pyrene
1.5±0.63
1.7 (20%)
0.93
1.3 (2.5%)
1.5±0.46
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.060±0.076
0.035 (46%)
0.018
0.033 (4.6%)
0.045±0.047
Chrysene
0.10±0.14
0.052 (27%)
0.031
0.056 (4.8%)
0.075±0.082
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.16(89%)
ND
ND
ND
0.31 (89%)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.13 (86%)
ND
ND
ND
0.25 (86%)
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.17(87%)
ND
ND
ND
0.33 (87%)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0.20 (96%)
0.0030
ND
0.0016
0.13±0.23
35
-------
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.016 (94%)
ND
ND
ND
0.030 (94%)
Benzo(ghi)perylene
0.29 (96%)
0.0045
0.0022
0.0026
0.14±0.28
SUM 16-EPA PAH
16±17
7.9 (15%)
7.2
8.7 (48%)
11±11
a ND = not detected. Range denoted is 1 STDV. Relative per cent difference (RPD) within parentheses. If no
range or RPD is stated, only one sample showed detectable levels.
5.7 Ash
Ash samples from each test were analyzed for mass percentage yield and metals concentration
byXRF (Table 5-19).
Table 5-19. Ash percentage of total feed and metals concentration from each waste type.a
Unit
SW
HP
KMC
FSR
Avg. of all
Waste
Types
Ash: Total
%
12±4.0
15
11
9.0
12±3.3
Fine fraction
%
3.8±1.1
4.9
3.1
N/A
4.Oil.2
Coarse fraction
%
8.0±3.6
9.9
7.9
N/A
8.4±2.7
Chloride
g/kg ash
73±23
75
72
96
77±17
Aluminum
g/kg ash
36±5.2
33
38
64
41±12
Iron
g/kg ash
18±5.3
16
6.0
24
17±6.8
Magnesium
g/kg ash
8.9±1.9
11
8.1
7.0
8.9±1.9
Zinc
g/kg ash
11±1.2
10
5.2
17
11±3.7
Chromium
g/kg ash
1.7±0.91
2.4
0.63
0.45
1.4±0.93
Copper
g/kg ash
0.87±0.35
1.8
0.88
0.99
1.0±0.44
Lead
g/kg ash
0.20±0.068
0.23
0.11
0.18
0.19±0.061
a Ash percentage = 100 x ash weight/total waste input weight. Range denoted: 1 STDV.
5.8 Scrubber Water Analyses
Six 1 L scrubber water samples, one after each day of operation (except FSR-1, 7/15/2015), were
measured for pH and, as expected from a scrubber that is pH-controlled, the pH for all six
samples was between 6 and 8. Overall, the chromatograms yielded hundreds of peaks, so dense
that they overlapped into an indiscernible hump. The hump was much larger in the SW #2 and
FSR #2 samples and minimal in the SW #3 and HP samples. When the total response in the
chromatogram was compared to the area of the 5 ng spiked compounds, the results indicated a
concentration between 0.8 and 16 mg/L of scrubber water (deionized water blanks were 0.2 and
0.6 mg/L). The largest peaks individually were in the 10 to 1000 ng/L range. This type of
quantitation is very approximate because the mass response per compound on the GC/MS can
vary by orders of magnitude.
The thirty largest peaks were tentatively identified as oxygenated hydrocarbons by an automatic
library comparison of the spectra at the peak apex, using the NIST 2008 mass spectral library
(200,000 compounds). The sample from KMC waste had many phenols in the thirty largest
36
-------
peaks. In several samples, there were peaks that were identified as PAHs as well. All of the
samples may have had these compounds but the level of other compounds may have pushed
them out of the top thirty. Peaks tentatively identified as naphthalene or phenol were the
largest individual peaks in four of the six samples.
5.9 Moisture
The stack moisture content measured using U.S. EPA Method 4 and the CEM H20 concentration
is shown in Table 5-20. Gasification of the FSR waste had a higher moisture level, 12.7 %,
compared to the other waste types, 10.6%, which can be due to the difference in food type.
Table 5-20. Moisture content from each run as well as total of all runs.
SW #1
SW #2
SW #3
HP #1
HP #2
KMC
FSR #1
FSR #2
Avg. of all
Waste
Types
Moisture3 (Vol-%)
10.1
10.4
11.4
11.6
9.5
10.7
12.4
12.9
11.1±1.2
H2Ob(%)
N/A
9.8±1.8
9.9±1.5
8.9±1.5
9.9±1.1
9.6±0.70
ll.lil.4
11.7±1.3
10.0±1.1
a Moisture from Method 5 train.b Water content analyzed by the FUR CEM.
6 Discussion
The cyclical nature of this batch fed unit leads to considerable variation in emissions
concentrations during normal operation, although multiple large swings in gas concentrations
are observed even when no new waste is being introduced (see for example Figure 5-2, 12:30-
13:00) due, at least in part, to the heterogeneous nature of the waste mixture. As calculated
here, determination of average emissions factors includes the full scenario of the waste charging
cycle to properly characterize the operation of the unit and its resultant emissions. Five (Pb, Cd,
Hg, S02, and HCI) of the nine EPA-regulated compounds [2] were under their respective
regulatory emissions limits (Table 6-1), while PCDD/PCDF, PM, NOx, and CO emissions were all
above the set emissions limits.
Table 6-1. MAGS stack emissions burning military waste compared to regulatory limits.a
Compound
Unit
MAGS
Regulatory Limits
EPA OSWI [2]
£ PCDD/PCDF
ng/m3 at 7% 02
68±26
33
PM
mg/m3 at 7% 02
42±15
30
Mercury
Hg/m3 at 7% 02
0.60±0.21
74
Cadmium
Hg/m3 at 7% 02
0.75±0.48
18
Lead
Hg/m3 at 7% 02
86±56
226
NOx
ppm dry
207±51
103
S02
ppm dry
0.17±0.21
3.1
HCI
ppm dry
0.79±0.49
15
CO
ppm dry
86±66
40
a Range denoted is 1STDV. OSWI = Other Solid Waste Incinerators.b CO average includes
test SW# 3 with large CO peak due to system shut-down.c CO average excluding test SW #3.
37
-------
Comparison of our emissions data with those provided by Terragon Environmental Technologies
Inc., the maker of the MAGS unit, is done in Table 6-2. Terragon sampled a high plastic
municipal waste stream ("Terragon HP") comprised of 62% plastic, 37% celluloid material, and
1% water (metals and glass excluded). These data can perhaps be best compared against the HP
waste tested here ("PACOM HP"). With the exception of Hg, every pollutant compound had
higher emissions with the PACOM HP than with the Terragon HP test as well as the four-waste
PACOM Total. This may be attributable in part to differences in waste composition and
moisture content. Another likely explanation may be due to differences in sampling methods.
The PACOM emissions sampling included all startups and partial shutdowns thereby capturing
nearly the full range of realistic-operation emissions, while it is not clear this was done for the
Terragon data.
Table 6-2. Comparison of MAGS Emissions Data.
Compound
Unit
Terragon HPa
This Study HP
This Study
Avg. of all Waste
Types
o
u
%
7.82
9.4
9.5
CO
ppm
30
101
86
PM
mg/m3
0.80
41
42
NOx
ppm
60
143
207
S02
ppm
<1
0.011
0.17
HCI
ppm
0.56
0.57
0.79
PCDD/PCDF
ng/m3
1.0
54
68
PCDD/PCDF
ng TEQ/m3
0.001
0.27
0.37
PAHs
Hg/m3
<264
685
1,467
Hg
Hg/m3
0.814
0.31
0.6
Cd
Hg/m3
0.16
0.49
0.75
Pb
Hg/m3
3.7
83
86
a Emissions Summary Report, Micro Auto Gasification System (MAGS™) V7, Terragon Environmental
Technologies, Inc., Montreal, Canada, March 2015.
While regulatory limits are based on stack gas concentrations, more useful units for
extrapolating to other waste technology systems and to evaluating overall burden to the
environment are expressed through emissions factors. In this work, emissions factors have
been calculated based on waste input amounts as well as on mass of carbon emissions. The
waste feed rates were carefully determined for this work, allowing emissions factors to be
calculated on a full day's worth of waste inputs. To corroborate these emissions factor
determinations, the carbon balance method was employed. The pollutant was co-measured
with the major carbon species in the form of CO, C02, and CH4. This carbon was then attributed
to the carbon fraction in the waste, a value determined by an exhaustive waste composition
38
-------
analysis linked with published carbon concentrations of materials. In comparing these two
methods of analysis (for example, Table 5-15), the emissions factors based on waste input and
the carbon balance were very similar. These emissions factors, pollutant mass per waste input
amount, allow for extrapolation to other waste scenarios and comparisons with the
performance of other waste technologies. Table 6-3 presents the MAGS emissions factors in
comparison with other methods of waste disposal in the theatre, including an air curtain
incinerator and a burn pile. The organic emissions and PM are higher from the incinerator and
burn pile for a mass of waste burned basis but the metals, except for iron, are comparable. Of
course, the waste compositions are very different between MAGS and the referenced study and
there is a significant difference in the waste processing rate.
Table 6-3. MAGS emissions factors compared to emissions from open burning of simulated waste
from forward operating bases, derived using the carbon mass balance method °
Compound
Unit
This Study
MAGS
Burn box [29]
Burn pile [29]
£ PCDD/PCDFTEQ
ng TEQ/kg waste
3.6±2.4
35±24
1,765±1,474
£ PAHb
mg/kg waste
12±10
43±50
129±50
PM
g/kg waste
0.39±0.22
12±12c
39±24c
Iron
mg/kg waste
0.31±0.18
0.50±0.24
11±23
Copper
mg/kg waste
1.2±0.33
0.18±0.11
0.89±0.92
Cadmium
mg/kg waste
0.0058±0.0031
0.063±0.082
0.073±0.033
Lead
mg/kg waste
0.66±0.35
0.55±0.42
0.37±0.22
Benzene
mg/kg waste
43±98d
243±299d/l,371±185e
260±288d/2,421±l,265e
Toluene
mg/kg waste
2.0±2.8d
88±130d/652±llle
109±170d/l,202±727e
Acrolein
mg/kg waste
0.58±0.95d
133±139d/463±33e
98±108d/757±62e
Vinyl chloride
mg/kg waste
0.25±0.32d
3.7±2.5d/13e
6.0±5.5d/26±3.3e
Vinyl acetate
mg/kg waste
0.57±0.74d
79±97d/324±46e
43±53d/688±195e
a Range of data denoted 1STDV. Relative percent difference within parentheses.b 16 EPA PAHs (see Table
5-16).c PM2.5.d Modified combustion efficiency (MCE) > 0.95, MCE = C02/(C02+C0+CH4).e MCE < 0.90.
7 Conclusions
The MAGS gasifier/combustor unit was emissions tested using four waste compositions
simulating in-theatre standard waste as well as three challenge recipes evaluating compositional
variations. Seven days of testing (~ 10 h/day) processed a daily average of 25 kg/h (55 Ib/h) of
waste during which emissions were sampled. The four-waste average emissions concentrations
for metals (Cd, Pb, Hg), S02, and HCI were below OSWI regulatory limits while CO, NOx, PM, and
PCDD/PCDF were above limits. Some distinctions were noted in the emissions from the waste
types. For example, the FSR waste appeared to have higher PCDD/PCDF emissions than the
other three types, although waste-specific conclusions have to be tempered by the limited
number of samples. Except for metals, MAGS emissions factors were significantly lower than
other published data for an air curtain incinerator and a burn pile. Comparison of MAGS data
39
-------
with previous data taken by the manufacturer shows higher emissions in the former, likely
because the emissions sampling period included startups and partial shutdowns as well as
steady state operation.
40
-------
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent
the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names,
products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the US Government or the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA does not endorse any commercial products,
services, or enterprises.
41
-------
References
1 U.S. EPA Hazardous Air Pollution List. Clean Air Act: Title 42 - The public health and
welfare. U.S. Government Printing Office. 2008.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/pdf/USCQDE-2008-title42-
chap85.pdf Accessed May 5 2014
2 U.S. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste
Incineration Units (OSWI). Federal Register Rules and Regulations Vol. 70, No. 241. Title
40, Part 60. December 16 2005. http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/129/oswi/frl6de05.pdf
Accessed December 22, 2015
3 Marine Corps Combat Development Command and Combat Development and
Integration. Base Camps. MCRP 3-17.7N. 2013.
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/MCRP%203-17.7N%20z.pdf Accessed August 19,
2016
4 Margolin, J.A.; Marrone, P.A.; Randel, M.A.; Allmon, W.R.; Mclean, R.B.; Bozoian, P.M.
Waste characterization analysis and standard test recipe development for contingency
bases. US Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC)
and US Army Research Laboratory (ARL). Unpublished. Revision 1, January 26 2015.
5 Liu, D.H.F.; Liptak, B.G. Hazardous waste and solid waste. CRC Press: Lewis Pub; 1999.
ISBN 9781566705127
6 U.S. EPA SW-846 Test Method 0010. Modified method 5 sampling train. 1986.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/0010.pdf Accessed
June 3, 2016
7 U.S. EPA Method 23. Determination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans from stationary sources. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
1991. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-23.pdf Accessed November 10, 2015
8 U.S. EPA Method 8270D. Semivolatile organic compounds by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS). 2007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
07/documents/epa-8270d.pdf Accessed August 17, 2016
9 U.S. EPA Compendium Method TO-15. Determination of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in air collected in specially-prepared canisters and analyzed by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/files/ambient/airtox/to-15r.pdf Accessed November 10,
2015
10 U.S. EPA Method 25C. Determination of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) in
landfill gases, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-25c.pdf Accessed May 11,
2016
42
-------
11 U.S. EPA Method 320. Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive FTIR.
2014. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/method320.html Accessed June 3, 2016
12 U.S. EPA Method 321. Gaseous HCI Emissions at Portland Cement Kilns by FTIR.
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/method321.html Accessed June 3, 2016
13 U.S. EPA Method 30B. Determination of Mercury from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources
Using Carbon Sorbent Traps. Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 60, Appendix A-8 to
Part 60 - Test Methods 26 through 30B.
http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/Meth30B.pdf Accessed November 10, 2015
14 U.S. EPA Method 5. Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary
Sources. Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 60, Appendix A-3 to Part 60 - Test
Methods 4 through 51. http://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/m-05.pdf Accessed
November 10, 2015
15 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L. Reference method for the determination of particulate
matter as PM2.5 in the Atmosphere, App. L. 1987.
16 U.S. EPA Compendium Method 10-3.4. Determination of metals in ambient particulate
matter using inductively coupled plasma (ICP) spectroscopy. 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/inorganic/mthd-3-4.pdf Accessed May 5,
2014
17 U.S. EPA Compendium Method 10-3.3. Determination of metals in ambient particulate
matter using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Spectroscopy. 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/files/ambient/inorganic/mthd-3-3.pdf Accessed May 5,
2014
18 U.S. EPA Method 8290A. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS). 2007.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/8290a.pdf Accessed
November 21, 2012
19 Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.S.; Denison, M.; De Vito, M.; Farland, W.; Feeley, M.;
Fiedler, H.; Hakansson, H.; Hanberg, A.; Haws, L.; Rose, M.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.;
Tohyama, C.; Tritscher, A.; Tuomisto, J.; Tysklind, M.; Walker, N.; Peterson, R.E. The
2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic
equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol Sci. 93:223-241; 2006
20 Larsen, J.C.; Larsen, P.B. Chemical carcinogens, in: Hester R.E., Harrison, R.M., ed. Air
Pollution and Health. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK; 1998
21 U.S. EPA Method 1. Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources. Title 40,
Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 60, Appendix A-l to Part 60 - Test Methods 1 through 2F.
http://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/m-01.pdf Accessed November 10, 2015
43
-------
22 U.S. EPA Method 2. Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type
S Pitot Tube). Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 60, Appendix A-l to Part 60 Test
Methods 1 through 2F. http://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/m-02.pdf Accessed
November 10, 2015
23 U.S. EPA Method 3A. Determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in
emissions from stationary sources (instrumental analyzer procedure). 1989.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-03a.pdf Accessed May 5, 2014
24 U.S. EPA Method 6C. Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources
(Instrumental Analyzer procedure). 2014.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/method6C.pdf Accessed June 17, 2015
25 U.S. EPA Method 7E. Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary
Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure). 2014.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/method7E.pdf Accessed June 17, 2015
26 U.S. EPA Method 205. Verification of Gas Dilution Systems for Field Instrument
Calibrations. 2014. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-205.pdf Accessed June
17, 2015
27 AP-42. Procedures for laboratory analysis of surface/bulk dust loading samples.
Appendix C.2. 1995. http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchiel/ap42/appendix/app-c2.pdf
Accessed December 17, 2015
28 U.S. EPA Method 4. Determination of moisture content in stack gases. Title 40, Chapter
1, Subchapter C, Part 60, Appendix A-3 to Part 60 - Test Methods 4 through 51.
http://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/m-04.pdf Accessed December 17, 2015
29 Aurell, J.; Gullett, B.K.; Yamamoto, D. Emissions from Open Burning of Simulated
Military Waste from Forward Operating Bases. Environmental Science & Technology.
46:11004-11012; 2012
44
-------
Appendix A: CEM - Max, min, and average for each test
Table Al. CEM concentrations (Max, Min, Average, Standard deviation) for each waste run.
Waste
O,
o
o
CO
CH,
H,0
HCI
CM
o
CO
NO
NO,
NO, as
NO,
Type
Vol-%
Vol-%
PPm
PPm
Vol-%
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
SW-1
Max
17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min
4.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
8.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
STDV
2.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-2
Max
20
17
1,778
10
12
0.90
0.00
464
35
387
Min
2.3
1.0
0.00
0.00
5.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.6
Average
10.0
9.9
45
0.07
9.0
0.40
0.00
157
6.0
186
STDV
2.7
2.7
151
0.69
1.8
0.19
0.00
117
6.4
70
SW-3
Max
17
17
6,612
1,526
13
1.3
15
527
29
430
Min
0.14
1.2
0.00
0.00
2.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
7
Average
8.9
9.9
91
9.0
9.9
0.51
0.09
189
6.7
206
STDV
2.3
2.2
518
102
1.5
0.21
1.1
123
5.1
75
HP-1
Max
18
15
4,406
22
12
3.2
1.8
238
26
224
Min
3.4
0.30
0.06
0.00
5.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.2
Average
9.0
9.2
57
0.19
8.9
0.45
0.01
96
5.3
147
STDV
2.0
2.1
314
1.7
1.5
0.50
0.14
83
3.3
38
HP-2
Max
14
16
19,181
138
12
1.2
1.3
220
21
207
Min
3.0
5.4
0.00
0.00
7.6
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.19
83
Average
8.9
9.6
144
1.3
9.9
0.70
0.01
78.6
3.4
140
STDV
1.7
1.7
1535
11.9
1.1
0.21
0.10
73.8
2.6
25
KMC
Max
16
14
26,235
133
11
1.4
7.4
825
45
637
Min
2.5
2.0
0.00
0.00
7.5
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.8
28
Average
9.3
8.3
190
1.0
9.6
0.66
0.16
249
14
254
STDV
2.8
2.1
1,733
11
0.70
0.28
0.70
194
9.5
132
FSR-1
Max
18
17
2,370
38
14
2.7
3.9
524
45
443
Min
2.2
1.5
2.4
0.00
7.7
0.64
0.00
0.00
7.1
30
Average
8.8
9.7
56
0.82
11.1
1.81
0.57
261
16
260
STDV
2.3
2.3
174
3.0
1.4
0.31
0.94
113
5.7
69
FSR-2
Max
14
17
564
2.9
13
2.1
3.4
522
31
441
Min
2.1
4.1
0.00
0.00
6.8
0.21
0.00
0.00
3.2
40
Average
8.7
9.8
21
0.02
11.7
1.0
0.31
259
10
253
STDV
1.9
2.0
58
0.23
1.3
0.3
0.72
110
4.3
68
NA - not analyzec.
1
-------
Table A2. CEM emissions factors (carbon mass balance) for each waste run.
Waste
Type
CO,
CO
CH,
HCI SO,
g/kg waste
NO
NO,
NO. as NO/
SW-2
1.4E+03
4.1E-01
3.4E-04
4.7E-03
ND
1.9E+00
9.0E-02
2.8E+00
SW-3
1.4E+03
8.2E-01
5.6E-03
6.0E-03
3.4E-04
2.1E+00
1.0E-01
3.0E+00
HP-1
1.8E+03
7.3E-01
1.4E-03
7.5E-03
2.1E-04
2.0E+00
1.1E-01
3.1E+00
HP-2
1.8E+03
1.8E+00
9.2E-03
1.1E-02
1.2E-04
1.9E+00
6.9E-02
2.8E+00
KMC
1.7E+03
2.5E+00
7.8E-03
1.1E-02
2.5E-03
3.9E+00
3.0E-01
5.5E+00
FSR-1
1.9E+03
7.1E-01
5.8E-03
2.9E-02
8.1E-03
3.7E+00
3.4E-01
5.3E+00
FSR-2
1.9E+03
2.6E-01
1.6E-04
1.6E-02
4.4E-03
3.6E+00
2.0E-01
5.1E+00
ND - not detected.
-------
Appendix B: PM - Full data set
Table Bl. PM concentrations and EF for each of the test runs, Method 5
(glass fiber filter).
Waste
Concentration
EFa
EF
Type
mg PM/m3 at 7% O2
g/kg waste
g/kg waste input
SW-1
42
NA
0.28
SW-2
32
0.19
0.23
SW-3
42
0.26
0.29
HP-1
38
0.35
0.37
HP-2
45
0.43
0.61
KMC
18
0.17
0.13
FSR-1
51
0.59
0.38
FSR-2
69
0.65
0.69
NA - not applicable.a Carbon mass balance method.
Table B2. PM concentrations and EF for each of the test runs, Modified
Method 5 (Tefl
on filter).
Waste
Concentration
EFa
EF
Type
mg PM/m3 at 7% O2
g/kg waste
g/kg waste input
SW-2
41
0.24
0.21
SW-3
35
0.36
0.24
HP-1
28
0.26
0.26
HP-2
41
0.23
0.56
KMC
16
0.15
0.12
FSR-1
11
0.13
0.084
FSR-2
15
0.11
0.090
1
-------
Appendix C: Metals - Full data set
Table CI. Metal concentrations in each of the runs, ICP analyzes.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Element
|jg/m' at 7% O,
Sodium (Na)
2.1E+03
4.7E+03
2.2E+03
4.4E+03
7.3E+03
2.9E+03
1.9E+03
3.0E+03
Iron (Fe)
3.8E+01
8.5E+01
1.2E+01
3.6E+01
8.6E+01
5.4E+00
1.9E+01
6.2E+01
Copper (Cu)
1.7E+02
2.0E+02
8.4E+01
1.2E+02
2.2E+02
7.0E+01
1.3E+02
2.2E+02
Cadmium (Cd)
6.9E-01
1.7E+00
7.7E-01
5.7E-01
4.2E-01
3.7E-01
-------
Strontium (Sr)
1.8E-01
2.5E+00
1.5E-01*
1.3E-01
Yttrium (Y)
2.2E-01
5.6E-01
5.7E-02*
1.1E-01
Zirconium (Zr)
1.4E-01*
ND
9.1E-02*
ND
Molybdenum (Mo)
1.9E+01
4.1E+01
8.7E+01
1.9E+01
Palladium (Pd)
1.0E-01*
1.0E-01*
ND
5.7E-02*
Silver (Ag)
4.2E+00
7.9E+01
5.0E+00*
7.6E-01
Cadmium (Cd)
7.1E-01
8.6E-01*
2.6E-01*
2.7E-01*
Indium (In)
1.9E-01*
ND
4.2E-02*
ND
Tin (Sn)
1.9E+02
1.9E+02
1.4E+01
2.1E+01
Antimony (Sb)
5.1E+01
7.0E+01
8.5E+00
3.4E+01
Barium (Ba)
1.1E+00*
1.2E+00*
3.1E+00
ND
Lanthanum (La)
2.7E-01*
1.5E+00*
2.4E+00
1.8E-01*
Mercury (Hg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Lead (Pb)
5.2E+01
1.2E+02
3.1E+01
3.7E+01
ND - not detected. # Less than three times the uncertainty.
XRF - X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
Table C3. Metal emissions factors (carbon mass balance method) in each of the runs, ICP
analyzes.
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Element
mg/kg waste
Sodium (Na)
2.8E+01
2.3E+01
4.1E+01
4.0E+01
2.7E+01
2.3E+01
2.1E+01
Iron (Fe)
5.0E-01
1.2E-01
3.4E-01
4.8E-01
5.1E-02
2.3E-01
4.4E-01
Copper (Cu)
1.2E+00
8.7E-01
1.1E+00
1.2E+00
6.6E-01
1.6E+00
1.6E+00
Cadmium (Cd)
9.8E-03
8.0E-03
5.3E-03
2.3E-03
3.5E-03
-------
Titanium (Ti)
5.9E-03*
9.3E-03
1.4E-02
1.5E-03*
Vanadium (V)
8.4E-03
4.2E-03*
1.5E-02
1.1 E-03*
Chromium (Cr)
6.9E-02
1.0E-01
6.6E-02
2.2E-01
Manganese (Mn)
2.3E-02
6.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.1E-02
Iron (Fe)
1.4E-01
4.7E-01
4.5E-02
1.8E-01
Cobalt (Co)
2.0E-02
3.3E-02
3.3E-03
4.9E-03
Nickel (Ni)
2.3E-02
8.5E-02
6.6E-03
5.3E-03
Copper (Cu)
8.0E-01
1.3E+00
6.3E-01
1.2E+00
Zink (Zn)
9.5E+00
1.2E+01
2.4E+00
2.4E+00
Gallium (GaJ
1.4E-03*
ND
2.4E-03
1.8E-03*
Germanium (Ge)
ND
ND
6.3E-04*
ND
Arsenic (As)
ND
ND
5.1E-03*
4.8E-03*
Selenium (Se)
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
9.4E-03
5.4E-03
Bromine (Br)
3.6E-02
1.8E-02
6.7E-02
2.5E-02
Rubidium (Rb)
3.3E-02
4.5E-02
4.4E-02
1.1E-02
Strontium (Sr)
1.8E-03
1.4E-02
1.4E-03
1.5E-03
Yttrium (Y)
2.3E-03
3.1E-03
5.3E-04*
1.3E-03
Zirconium (Zr)
1.5E-03*
ND
8.6E-04*
ND
Molybdenum (Mo)
2.0E-01
2.3E-01
8.2E-01
2.3E-01
Palladium (Pd)
1.1E-03*
5.8E-04*
ND
7.0E-04*
Silver (Ag)
4.4E-02
4.4E-01
4.7E-02
9.2E-03
Cadmium (Cd)
7.4E-03
4.8E-03*
2.4E-03*
3.3E-03*
Indium (In)
1.9E-03*
ND
4.0E-04*
ND
Tin (Sn)
1.9E+00
1.0E+00
1.3E-01
2.6E-01
Antimony (Sb)
5.3E-01
3.9E-01
8.0E-02
4.1E-01
Barium (Ba)
1.1E-02*
6.8E-03*
2.9E-02
ND
Lanthanum (La)
2.8E-03*
8.5E-03*
2.3E-02
2.2E-03*
Mercury (Hg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Lead (Pb)
5.4E-01
6.9E-01
2.9E-01
4.4E-01
ND - not detected. # Less than three times the uncertainty.
XRF - X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
Table C5. Metal emissions factors (waste input) in each of the runs, ICP analyzes.
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Element
mg/kg waste input
Sodium (Na)
2.4E+01
1.5E+01
4.1E+01
1.0E+02
2.1E+01
1.4E+01
1.8E+01
Iron (Fe)
4.3E-01
8.2E-02
3.4E-01
1.2E+00
3.9E-02
1.4E-01
3.7E-01
Copper (Cu)
1.0E+00
5.8E-01
1.1E+00
3.0E+00
5.0E-01
9.8E-01
1.3E+00
Cadmium (Cd)
8.5E-03
5.3E-03
5.4E-03
5.7E-03
2.6E-03
-------
Table C6. Metal emissions factors (waste input) in each of the runs, XRF analyzes.
SW-3
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
Element
mg/kg waste
Sodium (Na)
1.0E+01*
ND
1.7E+01
2.6E+00*
Magnesium (Mg)
7.6E-01*
2.1E+00*
8.0E-01
2.3E-01
Aluminum (Al)
6.0E-02*
ND
2.1E-02*
ND
Silica (Si)
2.0E-01
1.2E+00
1.9E+00
2.9E-01
Phosphourous (P)
1.2E-02*
2.2E-01
3.5E-02
2.5E-01
Sulfur (S)
1.1E+00
4.1E+00
2.1E+00
3.2E-01
Chloride (CI)
2.5E+01
7.8E+01
2.9E+01
7.5E+00
Potassium (K)
8.0E+00
2.5E+01
1.1E+01
2.7E+00
Calcium (Ca)
ND
4.6E+00
ND
ND
Titanium (Ti)
3.9E-03*
2.3E-02
1.0E-02
9.4E-04*
Vanadium (V)
5.6E-03
1.0E-02*
1.1E-02
7.1E-04*
Chromium (Cr)
4.6E-02
2.6E-01
5.1E-02
1.4E-01
Manganese (Mn)
1.5E-02
1.6E-01
1.3E-02
6.8E-03
Iron (Fe)
9.3E-02
1.2E+00
3.4E-02
1.1E-01
Cobalt (Co)
1.4E-02
8.1E-02
2.5E-03
3.1E-03
Nickel (Ni)
1.5E-02
2.1E-01
5.0E-03
3.3E-03
Copper (Cu)
5.3E-01
3.1E+00
4.8E-01
7.5E-01
Zink (Zn)
6.3E+00
3.0E+01
1.8E+00
1.5E+00
Gallium (GaJ
9.1E-04*
ND
1.8E-03
1.1E-03*
Germanium (Ge)
ND
ND
4.8E-04*
ND
Arsenic (As)
ND
ND
3.9E-03*
3.0E-03*
Selenium (Se)
1.1E-02
3.9E-02
7.1E-03
3.4E-03
Bromine (Br)
2.4E-02
4.5E-02
5.1E-02
1.5E-02
Rubidium (Rb)
2.2E-02
1.1E-01
3.3E-02
6.7E-03
Strontium (Sr)
1.2E-03
3.5E-02
1.1E-03
9.7E-04
Yttrium (Y)
1.5E-03
7.7E-03
4.1E-04*
8.3E-04
Zirconium (Zr)
9.9E-04*
ND
6.5E-04*
ND
Molybdenum (Mo)
1.3E-01
5.6E-01
6.2E-01
1.5E-01
Palladium (Pd)
7.0E-04*
1.4E-03*
ND
4.4E-04*
Silver (Ag)
2.9E-02
1.1E+00
3.6E-02
5.8E-03
Cadmium (Cd)
4.9E-03
1.2E-02*
1.9E-03*
2.0E-03*
Indium (In)
1.3E-03*
ND
3.0E-04*
ND
Tin (Sn)
1.3E+00
2.5E+00
1.0E-01
1.6E-01
Antimony (Sb)
3.5E-01
9.6E-01
6.1E-02
2.6E-01
Barium (Ba)
7.5E-03*
1.7E-02*
2.2E-02
ND
Lanthanum (La)
1.9E-03*
2.1E-02*
1.7E-02
1.4E-03*
Mercury (Hg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Lead (Pb)
3.6E-01
1.7E+00
2.2E-01
2.8E-01
ND - not detected. # Less than three times the uncertainty.
XRF - X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
4
-------
Table C7. Metal concentration in each of the test runs in mg metal/g particles, ICP analyzes.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Element
mg metal/g particles
Sodium (Na)
1.5E+02
1.2E+02
6.3E+01
1.6E+02
1.8E+02
1.8E+02
1.7E+02
2.0E+02
Iron (Fe)
2.7E+00
2.1E+00
3.4E-01
1.3E+00
2.1E+00
3.4E-01
1.7E+00
4.2E+00
Copper (Cu)
1.2E+01
4.9E+00
2.4E+00
4.3E+00
5.4E+00
4.3E+00
1.2E+01
1.5E+01
Cadmium (Cd)
4.8E-02
4.1E-02
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
1.0E-02
2.3E-02
-------
Palladium (Pd)
2.9E-03*
2.6E-03*
ND
5.2E-03*
Silver (Ag)
1.2E-01
1.9E+00
3.1E-01
6.9E-02
Cadmium (Cd)
2.0E-02
2.1E-02*
1.6E-02*
2.4E-02*
Indium (In)
5.3E-03*
ND
2.6E-03*
ND
Tin (Sn)
5.3E+00
4.5E+00
8.7E-01
2.0E+00
Antimony (Sb)
1.5E+00
1.7E+00
5.3E-01
3.1E+00
Barium (Ba)
3.1E-02*
3.0E-02*
1.9E-01
ND
Lanthanum (La)
7.8E-03*
3.8E-02*
1.5E-01
1.6E-02*
Mercury (Hg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Lead (Pb)
1.5E+00
3.0E+00
1.9E+00
3.3E+00
ND - not detected. # Less than three times the uncertainty. XRF
- X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
Table C9. Metals in ash.
Metal
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP
KMC
FSR
g Metal/kg ash
Carbon (C)
420
362
450
270
331
331
Oxygen (0)
192
194
169
217
213
198
Calcium (Ca)
166
176
166
297
156
171
Chloride (CI)
49
95
75
75
72
96
Aluminum (Al)
42
33
33
33
38
64
Silica (Si)
37
40
32
27
43
30
Sodium (Na)
24
19
14
13
70
43
Iron (Fe)
16
24
14
16
6.0
24
Magnesium (Mg)
11
8.2
7.5
11
8.1
7.0
Zink (Zn)
10
13
11
10
5.2
17
Potassium (K)
9.7
11
9.2
5.2
25
17
Titanium (Ti)
5.3
5.0
4.9
6.9
13
16
Phosphourous (P)
4.9
7.5
3.5
3.2
9.7
8.0
Sulfur (S)
4.4
4.3
4.3
3.3
4.8
5.6
Chromium (Cr)
2.3
2.1
0.65
2.4
0.63
0.45
Copper (Cu)
1.2
0.85
0.52
1.8
0.88
1.0
Manganese (Mn)
1.3
1.4
0.85
1.0
0.31
0.53
Hydrogen (H)
1.2
1.2
1.1
2.8
1.1
1.0
Nickel (Ni)
1.0
1.0
0.33
1.0
0.34
0.21
Molybdenum (Mo)
0.33
0.32
0.14
0.42
0.15
ND
Barium (Ba)
0.42
0.49
0.58
0.55
0.79
ND
Tin (Sn)
0.35
0.48
0.58
0.36
0.14
ND
Zirconium (Zr)
0.21
0.20
0.14
0.13
0.18
0.12
Strontium (Sr)
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.19
0.49
Bromine (Br)
0.14
0.060
0.075
0.055
0.075
0.070
Lead (Pb)
0.15
0.28
0.18
0.23
0.11
0.18
-------
Cobalt (Co)
0.080
ND
ND
0.43
ND
ND
Niobium (Nb)
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - not detected.
-------
Appendix D: VOCs - Full data set
Table Dl. VOC concentrations in the three standard waste runs.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
Compound
Con.
Method
detection
limit
Con.
Method
detection
limit
Con.
Method
detection
limit
|jg/m'' at 7% O,
Propene
6.4E+01
3.7E-01
6.3E+01
3.4E-01
9.1E+01
1.8E+01
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
6.1E-01*
4.6E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
Chloromethane*
1.1E+01
4.0E-01
3.1E+00
3.6E-01
2.2E+01*
1.9E+01
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
ND
5.1E-01
ND
4.6E-01
ND
2.4E+01
Vinyl Chloride*
2.2E+01
4.6E-01
6.1E+00
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
1,3-Butadiene*
ND
6.0E-01
ND
5.3E-01
ND
2.7E+01
Bromomethane*
3.0E+00
5.1E-01
1.7E+00
4.6E-01
ND
2.4E+01
Chloroethane*
8.4E-01*
4.6E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
Ethanol
7.6E+00
2.1E+00
5.0E+00*
2.0E+00
ND
9.8E+01
Acetonitrile
ND
4.8E-01
ND
4.3E-01
ND
2.2E+01
Acrolein*
2.5E+01
4.6E-01
2.9E+01
4.2E-01
2.2E+01*
2.1E+01
Acetone
3.7E+02
2.1E+00
2.4E+02
1.8E+00
ND
9.4E+01
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
4.6E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
1.9E+01
1.1E+00
4.5E+01
1.0E+00
ND
5.2E+01
Acrylonitrile*
1.0E+01
4.6E-01
3.8E+00
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
4.6E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
Methylene Chloride*
6.6E+00
4.6E-01
1.7E+00
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl Chloride)*
3.0E+01
4.3E-01
2.5E+00
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
4.6E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
Carbon Disulfide*
2.5E+00
4.0E-01
1.7E+00
3.6E-01
5.2E+01*
1.9E+01
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
5.1E-01
ND
4.6E-01
ND
2.4E+01
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
4.6E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
Vinyl Acetate*
2.8E+01
1.8E+00
2.4E+01
1.5E+00
ND
8.0E+01
2-Butanone (MEK)
1.4E+01
5.7E-01
1.5E+01
5.2E-01
ND
2.6E+01
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Ethyl Acetate
ND
9.4E-01
ND
8.5E-01
ND
4.2E+01
n-Hexane
ND
4.0E-01
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
Chloroform*
2.4E+00
4.6E-01
6.8E-01*
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
9.7E-01*
5.4E-01
ND
4.9E-01
ND
2.5E+01
1,2-Dichloroethane*
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
4.6E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
Benzene*
9.4E+01
4.3E-01
8.5E+01
3.9E-01
1.3E+04
7.9E+01
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
4.0E-01
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
Cyclohexane
ND
7.8E-01
ND
7.0E-01
ND
3.5E+01
1
-------
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Bromodichloromethane
8.5E-01*
4.0E-01
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
Trichloroethene
ND
3.7E-01
ND
3.4E-01
ND
1.8E+01
1,4-Dioxane
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
8.4E-01
ND
7.5E-01
ND
3.8E+01
n-Heptane
8.8E-01*
4.6E-01
4.7E+00
4.2E-01
ND
2.1E+01
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
2.7E+00
3.7E-01
ND
3.4E-01
ND
1.8E+01
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1.4E+00
4.3E-01
5.4E-01*
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
3.1E+00
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Toluene*
1.0E+01
4.6E-01
6.8E+00
4.2E-01
2.4E+02
2.1E+01
2-Hexanone
ND
4.3E-01
1.8E+00
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Dibromochloromethane
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
n-Octane
2.1E+00
4.8E-01
2.1E+00
4.3E-01
ND
2.2E+01
Tetrachloroethene
ND
3.7E-01
ND
3.4E-01
ND
1.8E+01
Chlorobenzene*
1.0E+01
4.3E-01
3.1E+00
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Ethyl benzene
1.2E+00*
4.3E-01
9.1E-01*
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
m,p-Xylenes*
1.9E+00*
8.1E-01
7.5E-01*
7.3E-01
ND
3.6E+01
Bromoform
ND
4.0E-01
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
Styrene*
ND
4.0E-01
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
o-Xylene*
7.9E-01*
4.0E-01
4.7E-01*
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
n-Nonane
5.2E-01*
4.0E-01
7.0E-01*
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
4.0E-01
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
Cumene*
ND
4.0E-01
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
alpha-Pinene
ND
3.7E-01
ND
3.4E-01
ND
1.8E+01
n-Propylbenzene
4.5E-01*
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
5.2E-01*
4.3E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
7.3E-01*
4.0E-01
3.6E-01*
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
Benzyl Chloride*
7.6E+00
3.0E-01
7.8E-01*
2.7E-01
ND
1.3E+01
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1.9E+00
4.0E-01
7.0E-01*
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
8.2E-01*
3.7E-01
ND
3.4E-01
ND
1.8E+01
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2.7E+00
4.0E-01
1.2E+00
3.6E-01
ND
1.9E+01
d-Limonene
ND
3.7E-01
3.6E-01*
3.4E-01
ND
1.8E+01
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
2.7E-01
ND
2.4E-01
ND
1.2E+01
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.8E+00
4.3E-01
8.5E-01*
3.9E-01
ND
2.0E+01
Naphthalene
1.2E+01
4.8E-01
1.4E+01
4.3E-01
4.7E+02
2.2E+01
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
3.7E-01
ND
3.4E-01
ND
1.8E+01
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
2
-------
Table D2. VOC concentrations in each of the high plastic and KMC waste runs.
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
Compound
Con.
Method
detection
limit
Con.
Method
detection
limit
Con.
Method
detection
limit
|jg/m' at 7% O,
Propene
1.4E+02
8.7E-01
2.8E+00
2.7E-01
1.8E+01
1.1E+00
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
ND
1.1E+00
ND
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Chloromethane*
1.3E+01
9.3E-01
6.8E+00
3.0E-01
6.8E+00
1.1E+00
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
ND
1.2E+00
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.5E+00
Vinyl Chloride*
5.4E+01
1.1E+00
2.4E+00
3.3E-01
8.1E+00
1.3E+00
1,3-Butadiene*
ND
1.3E+00
ND
4.2E-01
ND
1.7E+00
Bromomethane*
ND
1.2E+00
4.9E-01*
3.6E-01
ND
1.5E+00
Chloroethane*
6.5E+00
1.1E+00
ND
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Ethanol
ND
5.0E+00
ND
1.6E+00
ND
6.1E+00
Acetonitrile
1.0E+01
1.1E+00
9.7E+00
3.5E-01
1.0E+01
1.3E+00
Acrolein*
4.8E+01
1.1E+00
1.4E+00
3.3E-01
1.3E+01
1.3E+00
Acetone
ND
4.8E+00
1.6E+01
1.5E+00
4.3E+01
5.8E+00
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
1.1E+00
ND
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
ND
2.6E+00
ND
8.1E-01
ND
3.2E+00
Acrylonitrile*
1.7E+01
1.1E+00
1.1E+00
3.3E-01
7.2E+00
1.3E+00
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
1.1E+00
ND
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Methylene Chloride*
2.3E+00*
1.1E+00
2.0E+00
3.3E-01
5.6E+00
1.3E+00
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl Chloride)*
1.9E+00*
9.9E-01
5.8E-01*
3.1E-01
1.5E+00*
1.2E+00
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
1.1E+00
ND
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Carbon Disulfide*
2.4E+00*
9.3E-01
1.3E+01
3.0E-01
2.1E+00*
1.1E+00
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
1.2E+00
ND
3.6E-01
ND
1.5E+00
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
1.1E+00
ND
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Vinyl Acetate*
ND
4.1E+00
2.6E+00*
1.3E+00
ND
5.0E+00
2-Butanone (MEK)
1.1E+01
1.3E+00
3.9E+00
4.1E-01
1.3E+01
1.6E+00
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
Ethyl Acetate
ND
2.2E+00
ND
6.8E-01
ND
2.7E+00
n-Hexane
ND
9.3E-01
4.9E-01*
3.0E-01
1.6E+00*
1.1E+00
Chloroform*
2.5E+00*
1.1E+00
2.4E+00
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
ND
1.2E+00
ND
3.9E-01
ND
1.5E+00
1,2-Dichloroethane*
2.9E+00*
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
1.1E+00
ND
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Benzene*
9.5E+02
6.0E+00
3.9E+02
3.1E+00
1.5E+03
1.2E+01
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
ND
1.1E+00
Cyclohexane
ND
1.8E+00
ND
5.6E-01
ND
2.2E+00
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
3
-------
Bromodichloromethane
ND
9.3E-01
1.1E+00
3.0E-01
ND
1.1E+00
Trichloroethene
ND
8.7E-01
ND
2.7E-01
ND
1.1E+00
1,4-Dioxane
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
1.9E+00
ND
6.0E-01
ND
2.3E+00
n-Heptane
ND
1.1E+00
4.9E-01*
3.3E-01
ND
1.3E+00
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
8.7E-01
ND
2.7E-01
ND
1.1E+00
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
ND
9.9E-01
3.3E-01*
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
Toluene*
2.3E+01
1.1E+00
8.4E+00
3.3E-01
6.4E+02
1.3E+01
2-Hexanone
1.1E+00*
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
3.9E+00
1.2E+00
Dibromochloromethane
ND
9.9E-01
2.2E+00
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
n-Octane
ND
1.1E+00
ND
3.5E-01
ND
1.3E+00
Tetrachloroethene
ND
8.7E-01
ND
2.7E-01
ND
1.1E+00
Chlorobenzene*
1.8E+01
9.9E-01
1.3E+00
3.1E-01
6.0E+00
1.2E+00
Ethyl benzene
7.3E+00
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
2.2E+02
1.2E+00
m,p-Xylenes*
3.9E+00*
1.9E+00
ND
5.8E-01
5.2E+01
2.3E+00
Bromoform
ND
9.3E-01
4.9E+00
3.0E-01
ND
1.1E+00
Styrene*
ND
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
1.7E+00*
1.1E+00
o-Xylene*
ND
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
2.9E+01
1.1E+00
n-Nonane
ND
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
ND
1.1E+00
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
ND
1.1E+00
Cumene*
ND
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
7.5E+00
1.1E+00
alpha-Pinene
ND
8.7E-01
ND
2.7E-01
ND
1.1E+00
n-Propylbenzene
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
5.8E+00
1.2E+00
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
ND
9.9E-01
ND
3.1E-01
2.9E+00*
1.2E+00
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
ND
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
5.2E+00
1.1E+00
Benzyl Chloride*
8.3E-01*
6.8E-01
3.4E-01*
2.2E-01
7.4E+00
8.4E-01
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1.0E+00*
9.3E-01
ND
3.0E-01
ND
1.1E+00
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND
8.7E-01
ND
2.7E-01
ND
1.1E+00
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2.5E+00*
9.3E-01
3.1E-01*
3.0E-01
2.2E+00*
1.1E+00
d-Limonene
ND
8.7E-01
ND
2.7E-01
ND
1.1E+00
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
6.1E-01
ND
1.9E-01
ND
7.5E-01
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ND
9.9E-01
4.1E-01*
3.1E-01
ND
1.2E+00
Naphthalene
4.2E+00
1.1E+00
8.2E+01
3.5E-01
3.0E+02
1.3E+00
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
8.7E-01
ND
2.7E-01
ND
1.1E+00
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
4
-------
Table D3. VOC concentrations in
each of the FSR waste
runs.
FSR-1
FSR-2
Compound
Con.
Method
detection
limit
Con.
Method
detection
limit
|jg/m! at 7% O,
Propene
4.4E+02
9.1E+00
4.3E+01
3.4E-01
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
ND
1.1E+00
ND
4.2E-01
Chloromethane*
9.6E+01
9.7E-01
6.0E+00
3.7E-01
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
ND
1.3E+00
ND
4.6E-01
Vinyl Chloride*
6.7E+01
1.1E+00
7.8E+00
4.2E-01
1,3-Butadiene*
ND
1.4E+00
ND
5.4E-01
Bromomethane*
3.2E+00*
1.3E+00
8.5E-01*
4.6E-01
Chloroethane*
3.9E+00
1.1E+00
5.7E-01*
4.2E-01
Ethanol
ND
5.2E+00
ND
1.9E+00
Acetonitrile
ND
1.2E+00
2.8E+01
4.5E-01
Acrolein*
2.3E+02
1.1E+00
2.5E+01
4.2E-01
Acetone
4.6E+02
4.9E+00
1.9E+02
1.9E+00
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
1.1E+00
ND
4.2E-01
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
ND
2.7E+00
ND
1.0E+00
Acrylonitrile*
6.6E+01
1.1E+00
5.7E+00
4.2E-01
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
1.1E+00
ND
4.2E-01
Methylene Chloride*
6.9E+00
1.1E+00
4.5E+00
4.2E-01
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl Chloride)*
2.7E+01
1.0E+00
1.8E+01
3.9E-01
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
1.1E+00
ND
4.2E-01
Carbon Disulfide*
2.3E+00*
9.7E-01
9.0E-01*
3.7E-01
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
1.3E+00
ND
4.6E-01
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
1.1E+00
ND
4.2E-01
Vinyl Acetate*
1.5E+02
4.2E+00
8.4E+01
1.6E+00
2-Butanone (MEK)
2.1E+02
1.4E+00
1.8E+02
5.1E+00
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
Ethyl Acetate
ND
2.2E+00
ND
8.5E-01
n-Hexane
8.2E+00
9.7E-01
1.1E+00*
3.7E-01
Chloroform*
2.0E+00*
1.1E+00
8.5E-01*
4.2E-01
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
5.8E+00
1.3E+00
ND
4.9E-01
1,2-Dichloroethane*
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
1.1E+00
ND
4.2E-01
Benzene*
2.1E+03
1.0E+01
1.3E+02
3.9E-01
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
9.7E-01
ND
3.7E-01
Cyclohexane
ND
1.9E+00
ND
7.2E-01
-------
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
Bromodichloromethane
ND
9.7E-01
ND
3.7E-01
Trichloroethene
ND
9.1E-01
ND
3.4E-01
1,4-Dioxane
2.7E+00*
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
2.0E+00
ND
7.6E-01
n-Heptane
8.1E+00
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
4.2E-01
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
2.6E+00*
9.1E-01
1.6E+00
3.4E-01
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
4.9E+00
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
2.5E+00*
1.0E+00
2.1E+00
3.9E-01
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
Toluene*
2.2E+02
1.1E+00
5.2E+01
4.2E-01
2-Hexanone
2.5E+01
1.0E+00
3.9E+01
3.9E-01
Dibromochloromethane
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
n-Octane
6.9E+00
1.2E+00
ND
4.5E-01
Tetrachloroethene
ND
9.1E-01
ND
3.4E-01
Chlorobenzene*
2.5E+01
1.0E+00
7.3E+00
3.9E-01
Ethyl benzene
7.2E+01
1.0E+00
1.8E+01
3.9E-01
m,p-Xylenes*
1.7E+01
1.9E+00
8.2E+00
7.3E-01
Bromoform
ND
9.7E-01
ND
3.7E-01
Styrene*
ND
9.7E-01
ND
3.7E-01
o-Xylene*
8.1E+00
9.7E-01
4.6E+00
3.7E-01
n-Nonane
3.2E+00
9.7E-01
ND
3.7E-01
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
9.7E-01
ND
3.7E-01
Cumene*
3.8E+00
9.7E-01
8.7E-01*
3.7E-01
alpha-Pinene
ND
9.1E-01
ND
3.4E-01
n-Propylbenzene
2.4E+00*
1.0E+00
1.5E+00
3.9E-01
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
1.0E+00
ND
3.9E-01
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
2.2E+00*
1.0E+00
1.2E+00
3.9E-01
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
ND
9.7E-01
4.9E+00
3.7E-01
Benzyl Chloride*
2.2E+01
7.1E-01
6.0E+00
2.7E-01
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
2.8E+00*
9.7E-01
2.1E+00
3.7E-01
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1.2E+00*
9.1E-01
7.2E-01*
3.4E-01
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
5.3E+00
9.7E-01
3.0E+00
3.7E-01
d-Limonene
ND
9.1E-01
ND
3.4E-01
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
6.4E-01
ND
2.4E-01
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2.6E+00*
1.0E+00
2.4E+00
3.9E-01
Naphthalene
4.3E+02
1.2E+01
5.7E+01
4.5E-01
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
9.1E-01
ND
3.4E-01
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
-------
Table D4. VOC concentrations in four 10 min samples from standard waste run 3.
SW-3
00:00 -00:10
SW-3
00:11 -00:30
SW-3
02:10 -02:32
SW-3
03:09 -03:39
Compound
Con.
MDL
Con.
MDL
Con.
MDL
Con.
MDL
|jg/m' at 7% O,
Propene
4.2E+02
4.0E+00
1.7E+01
2.6E-01
1.1E+01
3.9E-01
3.5E+00
2.4E-01
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
ND
4.9E+00
6.1E-01*
3.2E-01
1.0E+00*
4.7E-01
ND
3.0E-01
Chloromethane*
3.3E+01
4.3E+00
7.1E+00
2.8E-01
5.2E+00
4.2E-01
6.4E-01
2.7E-01
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
ND
5.4E+00
ND
3.6E-01
ND
5.3E-01
ND
3.4E-01
Vinyl Chloride*
3.4E+01
4.9E+00
4.8E+01
3.2E-01
1.2E+01
4.7E-01
7.9E-01*
3.0E-01
1,3-Butadiene*
2.1E+01
6.3E+00
ND
4.1E-01
ND
6.0E-01
ND
3.8E-01
Bromomethane*
ND
5.4E+00
9.5E-01*
3.6E-01
6.7E-01*
5.3E-01
4.8E-01*
3.4E-01
Chloroethane*
ND
4.9E+00
ND
3.2E-01
ND
4.7E-01
ND
3.0E-01
Ethanol
7.2E+01
2.3E+01
ND
1.5E+00
ND
2.3E+00
ND
1.4E+00
Acetonitrile
1.7E+01
5.2E+00
9.4E+00
3.4E-01
5.7E+01
4.9E-01
4.3E+00
3.1E-01
Acrolein*
3.2E+02
4.9E+00
2.2E+01
3.2E-01
6.6E+00
4.7E-01
2.4E+00
3.0E-01
Acetone
ND
2.1E+01
5.8E+01
1.4E+00
1.5E+02
2.1E+00
2.4E+01
1.4E+00
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
4.9E+00
ND
3.2E-01
ND
4.7E-01
ND
3.0E-01
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
2.1E+02
1.2E+01
2.4E+01
7.9E-01
9.8E+00
1.2E+00
3.5E+00
7.4E-01
Acrylonitrile*
1.1E+01*
4.9E+00
1.3E+01
3.2E-01
1.8E+01
4.7E-01
6.5E-01*
3.0E-01
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
4.9E+00
4.8E-01*
3.2E-01
ND
4.7E-01
ND
3.0E-01
Methylene Chloride*
ND
4.9E+00
5.9E+00
3.2E-01
2.8E+00
4.7E-01
7.3E-01*
3.0E-01
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl
Chloride)*
ND
4.6E+00
2.7E+00
3.0E-01
7.4E-01*
4.4E-01
4.4E-01*
2.8E-01
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
4.9E+00
ND
3.2E-01
ND
4.7E-01
ND
3.0E-01
Carbon Disulfide*
6.2E+00*
4.3E+00
1.3E+00
2.8E-01
7.2E+01
4.2E-01
2.3E+01
2.7E-01
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
5.4E+00
ND
3.6E-01
ND
5.3E-01
ND
3.4E-01
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
4.9E+00
ND
3.2E-01
ND
4.7E-01
ND
3.0E-01
Vinyl Acetate*
3.7E+01*
1.9E+01
4.6E+00
1.2E+00
ND
1.8E+00
2.9E+00*
1.1E+00
2-Butanone (MEK)
2.3E+01
6.0E+00
7.9E+00
4.0E-01
2.9E+01
5.8E-01
5.3E+00
3.7E-01
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
Ethyl Acetate
ND
1.0E+01
ND
6.6E-01
ND
9.7E-01
ND
6.1E-01
n-Hexane
ND
4.3E+00
6.8E-01*
2.8E-01
2.3E+00
4.2E-01
1.2E+00
2.7E-01
Chloroform*
1.3E+01*
4.9E+00
6.7E-01*
3.2E-01
2.0E+01
4.7E-01
3.0E+00
3.0E-01
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
ND
5.7E+00
4.0E-01*
3.7E-01
1.1E+00*
5.5E-01
ND
3.5E-01
1,2-Dichloroethane*
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
4.9E+00
ND
3.2E-01
ND
4.7E-01
ND
3.0E-01
Benzene*
2.9E+03
4.6E+00
2.4E+02
3.0E+00
2.8E+02
8.8E-01
7.1E+01
2.8E-01
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
4.3E+00
ND
2.8E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.7E-01
Cyclohexane
ND
8.3E+00
ND
5.4E-01
ND
8.1E-01
ND
5.1E-01
7
-------
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
Bromodichloromethane
ND
4.3E+00
ND
2.8E-01
3.7E+00
4.2E-01
7.9E-01*
2.7E-01
Trichloroethene
ND
4.0E+00
ND
2.6E-01
ND
3.9E-01
2.5E-01*
2.4E-01
1,4-Dioxane
ND
4.6E+00
4.3E+00
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
8.9E+00
ND
5.8E-01
ND
8.6E-01
ND
5.4E-01
n-Heptane
ND
4.9E+00
1.0E+00
3.2E-01
3.1E+00
4.7E-01
2.7E+00
3.0E-01
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
4.0E+00
5.2E-01*
2.6E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.4E-01
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
ND
4.6E+00
4.5E-01*
3.0E-01
2.5E+00
4.4E-01
4.9E-01*
2.8E-01
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
4.6E+00
4.9E-01*
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
Toluene*
8.7E+01
4.9E+00
2.6E+00
3.2E-01
8.6E+00
4.7E-01
2.3E+00
3.0E-01
2-Hexanone
ND
4.6E+00
1.5E+00
3.0E-01
2.8E+00
4.4E-01
1.3E+00
2.8E-01
Dibromochloromethane
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
8.1 E-01#
4.4E-01
4.5E-01*
2.8E-01
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
4.6E+00
1.8E+00
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
n-Octane
ND
5.2E+00
7.3E-01*
3.4E-01
1.3E+00*
4.9E-01
1.9E+00
3.1 E-01
Tetrachloroethene
1.2E+03
4.0E+00
ND
2.6E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.4E-01
Chlorobenzene*
1.7E+01
4.6E+00
8.9E+00
3.0E-01
2.8E+00
4.4E-01
8.2E-01*
2.8E-01
Ethyl benzene
2.0E+01
4.6E+00
7.0E-01*
3.0E-01
6.3E-01*
4.4E-01
3.1 E-01*
2.8E-01
m,p-Xylenes*
ND
8.6E+00
1.3E+00*
5.7E-01
ND
8.3E-01
ND
5.3E-01
Bromoform
ND
4.3E+00
ND
2.8E-01
ND
4.2E-01
1.1E+00
2.7E-01
Styrene*
3.6E+01
4.3E+00
ND
2.8E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.7E-01
o-Xylene*
ND
4.3E+00
7.6E-01*
2.8E-01
4.8E-01*
4.2E-01
3.2E-01*
2.7E-01
n-Nonane
ND
4.3E+00
2.8E-01*
2.8E-01
ND
4.2E-01
9.7E-01
2.7E-01
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
4.3E+00
ND
2.8E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.7E-01
Cumene*
ND
4.3E+00
ND
2.8E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.7E-01
alpha-Pinene
ND
4.0E+00
ND
2.6E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.4E-01
n-Propylbenzene
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
ND
4.6E+00
ND
3.0E-01
ND
4.4E-01
ND
2.8E-01
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
ND
4.3E+00
3.4E-01*
2.8E-01
ND
4.2E-01
ND
2.7E-01
Benzyl Chloride*
ND
3.2E+00
2.3E+00
2.1E-01
8.9E-01*
3.0E-01
5.8E-01*
2.0E-01
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
4.6E+00*
4.3E+00
8.6E-01
2.8E-01
9.6E-01*
4.2E-01
2.8E-01*
2.7E-01
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND
4.0E+00
5.4E-01*
2.6E-01
5.2E-01*
3.9E-01
ND
2.4E-01
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1.1E+01*
4.3E+00
3.4E+00
2.8E-01
1.5E+00
4.2E-01
4.3E-01*
2.7E-01
d-Limonene
ND
4.0E+00
3.6E-01*
2.6E-01
ND
3.9E-01
3.6E-01*
2.4E-01
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
2.9E+00
ND
1.8E-01
ND
2.8E-01
ND
1.7E-01
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
6.6E+00*
4.6E+00
8.6E-01*
3.0E-01
1.6E+00
4.4E-01
4.3E-01*
2.8E-01
Naphthalene
9.6E+01
5.2E+00
3.6E+01
3.4E-01
4.9E+02
1.0E+00
1.1E+02
3.1 E-01
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
4.0E+00
ND
2.6E-01
ND
3.9E-01
ND
2.4E-01
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
8
-------
Table D5. VOC emissions factors (carbon mass balance method) from the three standard waste
runs.
Compound
SW-1
EF
Method
detection
limit
SW-2
Method
EF detection
limit
mg/kg waste
SW-3
Method
EF detection
limit
Propene
4.2E-01
2.4E-03
4.4E-01
2.4E-03
2.0E+00
3.9E-01
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
4.0E-03*
3.0E-03
ND
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
Chloromethane*
7.4E-02
2.6E-03
2.2E-02
2.6E-03
4.9E-01*
4.1E-01
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
ND
3.3E-03
ND
3.2E-03
ND
5.2E-01
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
Vinyl Chloride*
1.5E-01
3.0E-03
4.3E-02
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
1,3-Butadiene*
ND
3.9E-03
ND
3.7E-03
ND
5.9E-01
Bromomethane*
1.9E-02
3.3E-03
1.2E-02
3.2E-03
ND
5.2E-01
Chloroethane*
5.4E-03*
3.0E-03
ND
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
Ethanol
5.0E-02
1.4E-02
3.5E-02*
1.4E-02
ND
2.1E+00
Acetonitrile
ND
3.1E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
4.9E-01
Acrolein*
1.7E-01
3.0E-03
2.1E-01
3.0E-03
4.9E-01*
4.6E-01
Acetone
2.4E+00
1.4E-02
1.7E+00
1.3E-02
ND
2.1E+00
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
3.0E-03
ND
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
1.3E-01
7.4E-03
3.2E-01
7.2E-03
ND
1.1E+00
Acrylonitrile*
6.8E-02
3.0E-03
2.7E-02
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
3.0E-03
ND
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
Methylene Chloride*
4.3E-02
3.0E-03
1.2E-02
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl Chloride)*
1.9E-01
2.8E-03
1.8E-02
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
3.0E-03
ND
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
Carbon Disulfide*
1.7E-02
2.6E-03
1.2E-02
2.6E-03
1.1E+00*
4.1E-01
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
3.3E-03
ND
3.2E-03
ND
5.2E-01
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
3.0E-03
ND
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
Vinyl Acetate*
1.8E-01
1.2E-02
1.7E-01
1.1E-02
ND
1.8E+00
2-Butanone (MEK)
9.2E-02
3.7E-03
1.1E-01
3.6E-03
ND
5.7E-01
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Ethyl Acetate
ND
6.1E-03
ND
6.0E-03
ND
9.3E-01
n-Hexane
ND
2.6E-03
ND
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
Chloroform*
1.6E-02
3.0E-03
4.8E-03*
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
6.3E-03*
3.5E-03
ND
3.4E-03
ND
5.4E-01
1,2-Dichloroethane*
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
3.0E-03
ND
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
Benzene*
6.1E-01
2.8E-03
6.0E-01
2.8E-03
2.8E+02
1.7E+00
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
2.6E-03
ND
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
9
-------
Cyclohexane
ND
5.1E-03
ND
4.9E-03
ND
7.7E-01
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Bromodichloromethane
5.5E-03*
2.6E-03
ND
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
Trichloroethene
ND
2.4E-03
ND
2.4E-03
ND
3.9E-01
1,4-Dioxane
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
5.4E-03
ND
5.3E-03
ND
8.3E-01
n-Heptane
5.7E-03*
3.0E-03
3.3E-02
3.0E-03
ND
4.6E-01
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
1.7E-02
2.4E-03
ND
2.4E-03
ND
3.9E-01
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
9.0E-03
2.8E-03
3.8E-03*
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
2.0E-02
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Toluene*
6.6E-02
3.0E-03
4.8E-02
3.0E-03
5.2E+00
4.6E-01
2-Hexanone
ND
2.8E-03
1.3E-02
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Dibromochloromethane
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
n-Octane
1.4E-02
3.1E-03
1.5E-02
3.1E-03
ND
4.9E-01
Tetrachloroethene
ND
2.4E-03
ND
2.4E-03
ND
3.9E-01
Chlorobenzene*
6.6E-02
2.8E-03
2.2E-02
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Ethyl benzene
7.9E-03*
2.8E-03
6.4E-03*
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
m,p-Xylenes*
1.3E-02*
5.2E-03
5.3E-03*
5.1E-03
ND
8.0E-01
Bromoform
ND
2.6E-03
ND
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
Styrene*
ND
2.6E-03
ND
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
o-Xylene*
5.2E-03*
2.6E-03
3.3E-03*
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
n-Nonane
3.4E-03*
2.6E-03
4.9E-03*
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
2.6E-03
ND
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
Cumene*
ND
2.6E-03
ND
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
alpha-Pinene
ND
2.4E-03
ND
2.4E-03
ND
3.9E-01
n-Propylbenzene
2.9E-03*
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
3.4E-03*
2.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
4.8E-03*
2.6E-03
2.6E-03*
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
Benzyl Chloride*
5.0E-02
1.9E-03
5.5E-03*
1.9E-03
ND
2.8E-01
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1.3E-02
2.6E-03
4.9E-03*
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
5.3E-03*
2.4E-03
ND
2.4E-03
ND
3.9E-01
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1.7E-02
2.6E-03
8.7E-03
2.6E-03
ND
4.1E-01
d-Limonene
ND
2.4E-03
2.6E-03*
2.4E-03
ND
3.9E-01
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
1.7E-03
ND
1.7E-03
ND
2.6E-01
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.2E-02
2.8E-03
6.0E-03*
2.8E-03
ND
4.4E-01
Naphthalene
7.5E-02
3.1E-03
9.6E-02
3.1E-03
1.0E+01
4.9E-01
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
2.4E-03
ND
2.4E-03
ND
3.9E-01
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
10
-------
Table D6. VOC emissions factors (carbon mass balance method) in each of the high plastic and
KMC waste runs.
Compound
HP-1
EF
Method
detection
limit
HP-2
Method
EF detection
limit
mg/kg waste
KMC
Method
EF detection
limit
Propene
1.5E+00
9.3E-03
3.0E-02
2.9E-03
2.0E-01
1.2E-02
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Chloromethane*
1.4E-01
9.9E-03
7.2E-02
3.1E-03
7.5E-02
1.3E-02
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.9E-03
ND
1.6E-02
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
Vinyl Chloride*
5.7E-01
1.1E-02
2.5E-02
3.5E-03
9.0E-02
1.5E-02
1,3-Butadiene*
ND
1.4E-02
ND
4.5E-03
ND
1.9E-02
Bromomethane*
ND
1.3E-02
5.2E-03*
3.9E-03
ND
1.6E-02
Chloroethane*
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Ethanol
ND
5.3E-02
ND
1.7E-02
ND
6.7E-02
Acetonitrile
1.1E-01
1.2E-02
1.0E-01
3.7E-03
1.1E-01
1.5E-02
Acrolein*
5.1E-01
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
3.5E-03
1.5E-01
1.5E-02
Acetone
ND
5.1E-02
1.7E-01
1.6E-02
4.7E-01
6.5E-02
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
ND
2.8E-02
ND
8.6E-03
ND
3.5E-02
Acrylonitrile*
1.8E-01
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
3.5E-03
7.9E-02
1.5E-02
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Methylene Chloride*
2.4E-02*
1.1E-02
2.2E-02
3.5E-03
6.2E-02
1.5E-02
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl Chloride)*
2.0E-02*
1.1E-02
6.2E-03*
3.3E-03
1.6E-02*
1.3E-02
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Carbon Disulfide*
2.5E-02*
9.9E-03
1.3E-01
3.1E-03
2.3E-02*
1.3E-02
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.9E-03
ND
1.6E-02
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Vinyl Acetate*
ND
4.3E-02
2.8E-02*
1.3E-02
ND
5.5E-02
2-Butanone (MEK)
1.1E-01
1.4E-02
4.1E-02
4.3E-03
1.5E-01
1.8E-02
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Ethyl Acetate
ND
2.3E-02
ND
7.2E-03
ND
3.0E-02
n-Hexane
ND
9.9E-03
5.2E-03*
3.1E-03
1.8E-02*
1.3E-02
Chloroform*
2.7E-02*
1.1E-02
2.5E-02
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
ND
1.3E-02
ND
4.1E-03
ND
1.6E-02
1,2-Dichloroethane*
3.0E-02*
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Benzene*
1.0E+01
6.3E-02
4.1E+00
3.3E-02
1.6E+01
1.3E-01
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.3E-02
11
-------
Cyclohexane
ND
1.9E-02
ND
5.9E-03
ND
2.4E-02
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Bromodichloromethane
ND
9.9E-03
1.2E-02
3.1E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Trichloroethene
ND
9.3E-03
ND
2.9E-03
ND
1.2E-02
1,4-Dioxane
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
2.0E-02
ND
6.4E-03
ND
2.6E-02
n-Heptane
ND
1.1E-02
5.2E-03*
3.5E-03
ND
1.5E-02
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
9.3E-03
ND
2.9E-03
ND
1.2E-02
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
ND
1.1E-02
3.5E-03*
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Toluene*
2.4E-01
1.1E-02
8.9E-02
3.5E-03
7.1E+00
1.5E-01
2-Hexanone
1.2E-02*
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
4.3E-02
1.3E-02
Dibromochloromethane
ND
1.1E-02
2.3E-02
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
n-Octane
ND
1.2E-02
ND
3.7E-03
ND
1.5E-02
Tetrachloroethene
ND
9.3E-03
ND
2.9E-03
ND
1.2E-02
Chlorobenzene*
1.9E-01
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
3.3E-03
6.6E-02
1.3E-02
Ethyl benzene
7.7E-02
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
2.4E+00
1.3E-02
m,p-Xylenes*
4.2E-02*
2.0E-02
ND
6.2E-03
5.8E-01
2.6E-02
Bromoform
ND
9.9E-03
5.2E-02
3.1E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Styrene*
ND
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
1.9E-02*
1.3E-02
o-Xylene*
ND
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
3.2E-01
1.3E-02
n-Nonane
ND
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.3E-02
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Cumene*
ND
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
8.4E-02
1.3E-02
alpha-Pinene
ND
9.3E-03
ND
2.9E-03
ND
1.2E-02
n-Propylbenzene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
6.5E-02
1.3E-02
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
3.3E-03
3.2E-02*
1.3E-02
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
ND
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
5.8E-02
1.3E-02
Benzyl Chloride*
8.7E-03*
7.2E-03
3.6E-03*
2.3E-03
8.2E-02
9.3E-03
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1.1E-02*
9.9E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.3E-02
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND
9.3E-03
ND
2.9E-03
ND
1.2E-02
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2.7E-02*
9.9E-03
3.3E-03*
3.1E-03
2.4E-02*
1.3E-02
d-Limonene
ND
9.3E-03
ND
2.9E-03
ND
1.2E-02
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
6.5E-03
ND
2.1E-03
ND
8.4E-03
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ND
1.1E-02
4.3E-03*
3.3E-03
ND
1.3E-02
Naphthalene
4.4E-02
1.2E-02
8.7E-01
3.7E-03
3.4E+00
1.5E-02
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
9.3E-03
ND
2.9E-03
ND
1.2E-02
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
12
-------
Table D7. VOC emissions factors
(carbon mass balance method) in each of the FSR waste runs.
FSR-1
FSR-2
Method
Method
Compound
EF
detection
EF
detection
limit
limit
mg/kg waste
Propene
5.5E+00
1.1E-01
3.4E-01
2.7E-03
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.2E-03
Chloromethane*
1.2E+00
1.2E-02
4.6E-02
2.9E-03
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
ND
1.6E-02
ND
3.6E-03
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
Vinyl Chloride*
8.4E-01
1.3E-02
6.0E-02
3.2E-03
1,3-Butadiene*
ND
1.7E-02
ND
4.2E-03
Bromomethane*
3.9E-02*
1.6E-02
6.6E-03*
3.6E-03
Chloroethane*
4.8E-02
1.3E-02
4.4E-03*
3.2E-03
Ethanol
ND
6.4E-02
ND
1.5E-02
Acetonitrile
ND
1.4E-02
2.2E-01
3.5E-03
Acrolein*
2.9E+00
1.3E-02
2.0E-01
3.2E-03
Acetone
5.8E+00
6.2E-02
1.5E+00
1.5E-02
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.2E-03
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
ND
3.4E-02
ND
8.0E-03
Acrylonitrile*
8.3E-01
1.3E-02
4.4E-02
3.2E-03
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.2E-03
Methylene Chloride*
8.6E-02
1.3E-02
3.5E-02
3.2E-03
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl Chloride)*
3.4E-01
1.3E-02
1.4E-01
3.0E-03
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.2E-03
Carbon Disulfide*
2.9E-02*
1.2E-02
6.9E-03*
2.9E-03
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
1.6E-02
ND
3.6E-03
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.2E-03
Vinyl Acetate*
1.8E+00
5.2E-02
6.5E-01
1.3E-02
2-Butanone (MEK)
2.6E+00
1.7E-02
1.4E+00
3.9E-02
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
Ethyl Acetate
ND
2.8E-02
ND
6.6E-03
n-Hexane
1.0E-01
1.2E-02
8.2E-03*
2.9E-03
Chloroform*
2.5E-02*
1.3E-02
6.6E-03*
3.2E-03
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
7.2E-02
1.6E-02
ND
3.8E-03
1,2-Dichloroethane*
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.2E-03
Benzene*
2.6E+01
1.3E-01
1.0E+00
3.0E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
1.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
Cyclohexane
ND
2.4E-02
ND
5.6E-03
-------
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
Bromodichloromethane
ND
1.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
Trichloroethene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
2.7E-03
1,4-Dioxane
3.4E-02*
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
2.5E-02
ND
5.9E-03
n-Heptane
1.0E-01
1.3E-02
1.0E-02
3.2E-03
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
3.3E-02*
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
2.7E-03
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
6.2E-02
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
3.1E-02*
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
3.0E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
Toluene*
2.8E+00
1.3E-02
4.1E-01
3.2E-03
2-Hexanone
3.1E-01
1.3E-02
3.0E-01
3.0E-03
Dibromochloromethane
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
n-Octane
8.6E-02
1.4E-02
ND
3.5E-03
Tetrachloroethene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
2.7E-03
Chlorobenzene*
3.1E-01
1.3E-02
5.7E-02
3.0E-03
Ethyl benzene
8.9E-01
1.3E-02
1.4E-01
3.0E-03
m,p-Xylenes*
2.1E-01
2.4E-02
6.4E-02
5.7E-03
Bromoform
ND
1.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
Styrene*
ND
1.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
o-Xylene*
1.0E-01
1.2E-02
3.6E-02
2.9E-03
n-Nonane
3.9E-02
1.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
1.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
Cumene*
4.7E-02
1.2E-02
6.7E-03*
2.9E-03
alpha-Pinene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
2.7E-03
n-Propylbenzene
3.0E-02*
1.3E-02
1.1E-02
3.0E-03
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
1.3E-02
ND
3.0E-03
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
2.8E-02*
1.3E-02
9.6E-03
3.0E-03
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
ND
1.2E-02
3.8E-02
2.9E-03
Benzyl Chloride*
2.8E-01
8.8E-03
4.6E-02
2.1E-03
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
3.5E-02*
1.2E-02
1.6E-02
2.9E-03
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1.4E-02*
1.1E-02
5.6E-03*
2.7E-03
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
6.6E-02
1.2E-02
2.3E-02
2.9E-03
d-Limonene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
2.7E-03
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
8.0E-03
ND
1.9E-03
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
3.3E-02*
1.3E-02
1.9E-02
3.0E-03
Naphthalene
5.4E+00
1.4E-01
4.4E-01
3.5E-03
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
1.1E-02
ND
2.7E-03
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
-------
Table D8. VOC emissions factors (carbon mass balance method) in four 10 min samples from
standard waste run 3.
SW-3
SW-3
SW-3
SW-3
00:00
-00:10
00:11
00:30
02:10
-02:32
03:09
-03:39
Compound
EF
MDL
EF
MDL
EF
MDL
EF
MDL
mg/kg waste
Propene
4.7E+00
4.5E-02
1.6E-01
2.5E-03
8.8E-02
3.1E-03
2.5E-02
1.8E-03
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12)
ND
5.5E-02
5.9E-03*
3.1E-03
8.1E-03*
3.7E-03
ND
2.2E-03
Chloromethane*
3.7E-01
4.9E-02
6.9E-02
2.8E-03
4.1E-02
3.3E-03
4.6E-03*
1.9E-03
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-
ND
6.2E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
4.2E-03
ND
2.5E-03
tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114)
Vinyl Chloride*
3.9E-01
5.5E-02
4.6E-01
3.1E-03
9.3E-02
3.7E-03
5.7E-03*
2.2E-03
1,3-Butadiene*
2.4E-01
7.1E-02
ND
4.0E-03
ND
4.8E-03
ND
2.8E-03
Bromomethane*
ND
6.2E-02
9.3E-03*
3.5E-03
5.3E-03*
4.2E-03
3.5E-03*
2.5E-03
Chloroethane*
ND
5.5E-02
ND
3.1E-03
ND
3.7E-03
ND
2.2E-03
Ethanol
8.1E-01
2.6E-01
ND
1.5E-02
ND
1.8E-02
ND
1.0E-02
Acetonitrile
1.9E-01
5.8E-02
9.2E-02
3.3E-03
4.5E-01
3.9E-03
3.1E-02
2.3E-03
Acrolein*
3.6E+00
5.5E-02
2.1E-01
3.1E-03
5.2E-02
3.7E-03
1.8E-02
2.2E-03
Acetone
ND
2.4E-01
5.6E-01
1.4E-02
1.2E+00
1.7E-02
1.8E-01
1.0E-02
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
5.5E-02
ND
3.1E-03
ND
3.7E-03
ND
2.2E-03
2-Propanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
2.4E+00
1.4E-01
2.4E-01
7.7E-03
7.9E-02
9.3E-03
2.5E-02
5.4E-03
Acrylonitrile*
1.2E-01*
5.5E-02
1.3E-01
3.1E-03
1.4E-01
3.7E-03
4.7E-03*
2.2E-03
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
5.5E-02
4.6E-03*
3.1E-03
ND
3.7E-03
ND
2.2E-03
Methylene Chloride*
ND
5.5E-02
5.8E-02
3.1E-03
2.2E-02
3.7E-03
5.3E-03*
2.2E-03
3-Chloro-1 -propene (Allyl
Chloride)*
ND
5.2E-02
2.6E-02
2.9E-03
6.0E-03*
3.5E-03
3.2E-03*
2.0E-03
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ND
5.5E-02
ND
3.1E-03
ND
3.7E-03
ND
2.2E-03
Carbon Disulfide*
7.0E-02*
4.9E-02
1.2E-02
2.8E-03
5.8E-01
3.3E-03
1.7E-01
1.9E-03
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
6.2E-02
ND
3.5E-03
ND
4.2E-03
ND
2.5E-03
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ND
5.5E-02
ND
3.1E-03
ND
3.7E-03
ND
2.2E-03
Vinyl Acetate*
4.2E-01*
2.1E-01
4.5E-02
1.2E-02
ND
1.4E-02
2.1E-02*
8.4E-03
2-Butanone (MEK)
2.6E-01
6.8E-02
7.7E-02
3.9E-03
2.3E-01
4.6E-03
3.9E-02
2.7E-03
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
Ethyl Acetate
ND
1.1E-01
ND
6.4E-03
ND
7.8E-03
ND
4.5E-03
n-Hexane
ND
4.9E-02
6.7E-03*
2.8E-03
1.8E-02
3.3E-03
8.5E-03
1.9E-03
Chloroform*
1.5E-01*
5.5E-02
6.5E-03*
3.1E-03
1.6E-01
3.7E-03
2.2E-02
2.2E-03
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
ND
6.5E-02
3.9E-03*
3.6E-03
8.9E-03*
4.4E-03
ND
2.5E-03
1,2-Dichloroethane*
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
1,1,1 -T richloroethane*
ND
5.5E-02
ND
3.1E-03
ND
3.7E-03
ND
2.2E-03
Benzene*
3.2E+01
5.2E-02
2.4E+00
2.9E-02
2.2E+00
7.1E-03
5.2E-01
2.0E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride*
ND
4.9E-02
ND
2.8E-03
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.9E-03
Cyclohexane
ND
9.4E-02
ND
5.3E-03
ND
6.5E-03
ND
3.7E-03
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
15
-------
Bromodichloromethane
ND
4.9E-02
ND
2.8E-03
2.9E-02
3.3E-03
5.7E-03*
1.9E-03
Trichloroethene
ND
4.5E-02
ND
2.5E-03
ND
3.1E-03
1.9E-03*
1.8E-03
1,4-Dioxane
ND
5.2E-02
4.1E-02
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
Methyl Methacrylate*
ND
1.0E-01
ND
5.6E-03
ND
6.9E-03
ND
4.0E-03
n-Heptane
ND
5.5E-02
1.0E-02
3.1E-03
2.5E-02
3.7E-03
1.9E-02
2.2E-03
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
4.5E-02
5.0E-03*
2.5E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.8E-03
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
ND
5.2E-02
4.4E-03*
2.9E-03
2.0E-02
3.5E-03
3.5E-03*
2.0E-03
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
5.2E-02
4.8E-03*
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
Toluene*
9.9E-01
5.5E-02
2.5E-02
3.1E-03
6.9E-02
3.7E-03
1.7E-02
2.2E-03
2-Hexanone
ND
5.2E-02
1.5E-02
2.9E-03
2.2E-02
3.5E-03
9.3E-03
2.0E-03
Dibromochloromethane
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
6.5E-03*
3.5E-03
3.3E-03*
2.0E-03
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
n-Butyl Acetate
ND
5.2E-02
1.8E-02
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
n-Octane
ND
5.8E-02
7.2E-03*
3.3E-03
1.0E-02*
3.9E-03
1.4E-02
2.3E-03
Tetrachloroethene
1.3E+01
4.5E-02
ND
2.5E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.8E-03
Chlorobenzene*
1.9E-01
5.2E-02
8.7E-02
2.9E-03
2.2E-02
3.5E-03
6.0E-03*
2.0E-03
Ethyl benzene
2.3E-01
5.2E-02
6.8E-03*
2.9E-03
5.0E-03*
3.5E-03
2.3E-03*
2.0E-03
m,p-Xylenes*
ND
9.7E-02
1.2E-02*
5.5E-03
ND
6.7E-03
ND
3.9E-03
Bromoform
ND
4.9E-02
ND
2.8E-03
ND
3.3E-03
7.9E-03
1.9E-03
Styrene*
4.1E-01
4.9E-02
ND
2.8E-03
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.9E-03
o-Xylene*
ND
4.9E-02
7.4E-03*
2.8E-03
3.8E-03*
3.3E-03
2.4E-03*
1.9E-03
n-Nonane
ND
4.9E-02
2.8E-03*
2.8E-03
ND
3.3E-03
7.1E-03
1.9E-03
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
4.9E-02
ND
2.8E-03
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.9E-03
Cumene*
ND
4.9E-02
ND
2.8E-03
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.9E-03
alpha-Pinene
ND
4.5E-02
ND
2.5E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.8E-03
n-Propylbenzene
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
4-Ethyltoluene
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
ND
5.2E-02
ND
2.9E-03
ND
3.5E-03
ND
2.0E-03
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
ND
4.9E-02
3.3E-03*
2.8E-03
ND
3.3E-03
ND
1.9E-03
Benzyl Chloride*
ND
3.6E-02
2.3E-02
2.0E-03
7.2E-03*
2.4E-03
4.2E-03*
1.4E-03
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
5.2E-02*
4.9E-02
8.4E-03
2.8E-03
7.7E-03*
3.3E-03
2.0E-03*
1.9E-03
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND
4.5E-02
5.3E-03*
2.5E-03
4.1E-03*
3.1E-03
ND
1.8E-03
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1.3E-01*
4.9E-02
3.3E-02
2.8E-03
1.2E-02
3.3E-03
3.1E-03*
1.9E-03
d-Limonene
ND
4.5E-02
3.5E-03*
2.5E-03
ND
3.1E-03
2.6E-03*
1.8E-03
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND
3.2E-02
ND
1.8E-03
ND
2.2E-03
ND
1.3E-03
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
7.5E-02*
5.2E-02
8.4E-03*
2.9E-03
1.3E-02
3.5E-03
3.1E-03*
2.0E-03
Naphthalene
1.1E+00
5.8E-02
3.5E-01
3.3E-03
3.9E+00
8.0E-03
7.8E-01
2.3E-03
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
4.5E-02
ND
2.5E-03
ND
3.1E-03
ND
1.8E-03
* On EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants. ND - not detected. # Less than three times the detection limit.
16
-------
Appendix E: PCDDs/PCDFs - Full data set
Table El. PCDD/PCDF concentration for each homologue and test run.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Homologue
ng/m'! at 7% O,
TeCDD Total
1.3E+00
1.2E+00
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
1.5E+00
9.5E+00
6.8E+00
6.3E+00
PeCDD Total
2.6E-01
2.5E-01
4.6E-01
4.3E-01
3.3E-01
8.5E-01
1.2E+00
1.4E+00
HxCDD Total
5.7E-02
4.2E-02
1.1E-01
6.0E-02
5.0E-02
7.9E-02
2.4E-01
2.3E-01
HpCDD Total
1.7E-02
9.3E-03
3.4E-02
1.5E-02
2.0E-02
1.4E-02
5.7E-02
4.6E-02
OCDD
1.1E-02
4.4E-03
1.2E-02
8.1E-03
1.4E-02
5.5E-03
1.8E-02
1.3E-02
TeCDF Total
4.7E+01
3.4E+01
4.9E+01
4.8E+01
3.7E+01
4.4E+01
7.7E+01
9.1E+01
PeCDF Total
7.0E+00
6.1E+00
8.4E+00
8.6E+00
7.3E+00
6.7E+00
1.2E+01
1.7E+01
HxCDF Total
5.6E-01
5.3E-01
8.9E-01
7.8E-01
7.0E-01
4.8E-01
1.2E+00
1.5E+00
HpCDF Total
6.2E-02
5.2E-02
1.3E-01
1.1E-01
1.5E-01
5.3E-02
1.6E-01
1.5E-01
OCDF
7.9E-03
5.1E-03
1.2E-02
1.8E-02
3.0E-02
7.7E-03
0.0E+00
1.1E-02
Sum PCDD Total
1.6E+00
1.5E+00
2.6E+00
2.6E+00
2.0E+00
1.0E+01
8.4E+00
8.0E+00
Sum PCDF Total
5.4E+01
4.1E+01
5.8E+01
5.8E+01
4.6E+01
5.1E+01
9.0E+01
1.1E+02
Sum PCDD/PCDF Total
5.6E+01
4.3E+01
6.1E+01
6.0E+01
4.8E+01
6.1E+01
9.8E+01
1.2E+02
Table E2. PCDD/PCDF concentration for each Toxic Equivalent Factor (TEF) isomer and test run,
in ng TEQ/m3 at 7% 02.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Isomer
ng TEQ/m' at 7% O,
2,3,7,8 - TCDD
5.9E-02
6.0E-02
7.1E-02
5.9E-02
4.7E-02
6.1E-02
2.3E-01
1.6E-01
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDD
2.9E-02
2.8E-02
4.9E-02
3.9E-02
3.5E-02
4.5E-02
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDD
3.0E-04
1.7E-04
6.1E-04
3.1E-04
2.5E-04
3.0E-04
9.8E-04
1.1E-03
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDD
4.1E-04
3.0E-04
8.6E-04
4.1E-04
4.4E-04
4.9E-04
1.5E-03
1.6E-03
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDD
3.3E-04
2.5E-04
7.2E-04
3.3E-04
3.2E-04
3.5E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDD
8.4E-05
4.4E-05
1.6E-04
7.7E-05
1.0E-04
6.8E-05
2.7E-04
2.0E-04
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
3.2E-06
1.3E-06
3.7E-06
2.4E-06
4.2E-06
1.6E-06
5.5E-06
3.8E-06
2,3,7,8 - TCDF
8.6E-02
7.2E-02
9.8E-02
9.1E-02
8.0E-02
8.2E-02
1.6E-01
1.9E-01
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF
1.0E-02
8.5E-03
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.0E-02
8.6E-03
1.7E-02
2.2E-02
2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF
4.9E-02
4.5E-02
8.0E-02
6.4E-02
5.5E-02
5.1E-02
1.2E-01
1.5E-01
1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDF
5.7E-03
5.2E-03
8.7E-03
6.8E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF
6.4E-03
5.8E-03
9.8E-03
7.8E-03
7.4E-03
4.8E-03
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDF
1.0E-03
6.4E-04
1.8E-03
1.5E-03
1.6E-03
9.7E-04
2.2E-03
2.7E-03
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
3.0E-03
2.2E-03
6.2E-03
4.9E-03
5.1E-03
3.2E-03
8.3E-03
9.6E-03
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF
3.4E-04
2.9E-04
7.1E-04
5.9E-04
7.1E-04
2.6E-04
9.1E-04
8.8E-04
-------
1,2,3,4,7,8,9- HpCDF
5.8E-05
3.4E-05
8.6E-05
9.4E-05
1.3E-04
3.7E-05
1.0E-04
8.7E-05
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 - OCDF
2.4E-06
1.5E-06
3.6E-06
5.4E-06
9.1E-06
2.3E-06
5.9E-06
3.2E-06
Sum PCDD TEQ
8.9E-02
8.9E-02
1.2E-01
9.9E-02
8.4E-02
1.1E-01
3.4E-01
3.0E-01
Sum PCDF TEQ
1.6E-01
1.4E-01
2.2E-01
1.9E-01
1.7E-01
1.5E-01
3.2E-01
4.1E-01
Sum PCDD/PCDF TEQ
2.5E-01
2.3E-01
3.4E-01
2.9E-01
2.5E-01
2.6E-01
6.6E-01
7.1E-01
Table E3. PCDD/PCDF emissions factor for each homologue and test run in ng/kg waste (carbon
mass balance method).
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
Homologue
ng/kg waste
TeCDD Total
7.4E+00
1.2E+01
1.9E+01
1.5E+01
8.9E+01
7.9E+01
5.9E+01
PeCDD Total
1.5E+00
2.8E+00
4.0E+00
3.2E+00
8.0E+00
1.4E+01
1.3E+01
HxCDD Total
2.6E-01
6.8E-01
5.6E-01
4.8E-01
7.4E-01
2.8E+00
2.2E+00
HpCDD Total
5.7E-02
2.1E-01
1.4E-01
1.9E-01
1.4E-01
6.6E-01
4.2E-01
OCDD
2.7E-02
7.6E-02
7.5E-02
1.3E-01
5.1E-02
2.1E-01
1.2E-01
TeCDF Total
2.1E+02
3.0E+02
4.5E+02
3.5E+02
4.1E+02
8.9E+02
8.5E+02
PeCDF Total
3.7E+01
5.2E+01
8.0E+01
6.9E+01
6.3E+01
1.4E+02
1.5E+02
HxCDF Total
3.2E+00
5.5E+00
7.3E+00
6.6E+00
4.5E+00
1.4E+01
1.4E+01
HpCDF Total
3.2E-01
7.7E-01
1.1E+00
1.4E+00
4.9E-01
1.8E+00
1.4E+00
OCDF
3.1E-02
7.5E-02
1.7E-01
2.9E-01
7.2E-02
2.3E-01
1.0E-01
Sum PCDD Total
9.3E+00
1.6E+01
2.4E+01
1.9E+01
9.8E+01
9.7E+01
7.4E+01
Sum PCDF Total
2.5E+02
3.6E+02
5.4E+02
4.3E+02
4.7E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+03
Sum PCDD/PCDF Total
2.6E+02
3.7E+02
5.6E+02
4.5E+02
5.7E+02
1.1E+03
1.1E+03
Table E4. PCDD/PCDF emissions factor for each TEF isomer and test run in ng TEQ/kg waste
(carbon mass balance method).
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Isomer
ng TEQ/kg waste
2,3,7,8 - TCDD
3.7E-01
4.4E-01
5.5E-01
4.5E-01
5.7E-01
2.6E+00
1.5E+00
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDD
1.7E-01
3.0E-01
3.7E-01
3.4E-01
4.2E-01
1.2E+00
1.2E+00
1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDD
1.0E-03
3.7E-03
2.9E-03
2.3E-03
2.8E-03
1.1E-02
9.8E-03
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDD
1.8E-03
5.3E-03
3.9E-03
4.1E-03
4.5E-03
1.7E-02
1.5E-02
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDD
1.5E-03
4.5E-03
3.1E-03
3.0E-03
3.3E-03
1.2E-02
9.5E-03
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDD
2.7E-04
1.0E-03
7.2E-04
9.9E-04
6.3E-04
3.1E-03
1.8E-03
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
8.0E-06
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
4.0E-05
1.5E-05
6.4E-05
3.6E-05
2,3,7,8 - TCDF
4.4E-01
6.1E-01
8.5E-01
7.6E-01
7.6E-01
1.8E+00
1.8E+00
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF
5.2E-02
7.7E-02
1.0E-01
9.5E-02
8.0E-02
1.9E-01
2.1E-01
2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF
2.7E-01
5.0E-01
6.0E-01
5.2E-01
4.8E-01
1.3E+00
1.4E+00
2
-------
1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDF
3.2E-02
5.4E-02
6.4E-02
5.7E-02
3.7E-02
1.2E-01
1.3E-01
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF
3.5E-02
6.1E-02
7.3E-02
7.0E-02
4.5E-02
1.5E-01
1.4E-01
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDF
3.9E-03
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
9.1E-03
2.5E-02
2.5E-02
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
1.3E-02
3.9E-02
4.6E-02
4.8E-02
2.9E-02
9.6E-02
8.9E-02
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF
1.8E-03
4.4E-03
5.5E-03
6.8E-03
2.5E-03
1.1E-02
8.2E-03
1,2,3,4,7,8,9- HpCDF
2.0E-04
5.3E-04
8.8E-04
1.3E-03
3.5E-04
1.2E-03
8.1E-04
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
9.2E-06
2.2E-05
5.0E-05
8.6E-05
2.2E-05
6.9E-05
3.0E-05
Sum PCDD TEQ
5.4E-01
7.5E-01
9.3E-01
8.0E-01
1.0E+00
3.9E+00
2.8E+00
Sum PCDF TEQ
8.5E-01
1.4E+00
1.8E+00
1.6E+00
1.4E+00
3.7E+00
3.8E+00
Sum PCDD/PCDF TEQ
1.4E+00
2.1 E+00
2.7E+00
2.4E+00
2.4E+00
7.6E+00
6.6E+00
Table E5. PCDD/PCDF emissions factor for each homologue and test run in ng/kg waste input.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Homologue
ng/kg waste input
TeCDD Total
8.5E+00
9.0E+00
1.4E+01
2.0E+01
2.1E+01
6.9E+01
5.1E+01
6.2E+01
PeCDD Total
1.7E+00
1.8E+00
3.2E+00
4.2E+00
4.5E+00
6.2E+00
9.0E+00
1.4E+01
HxCDD Total
3.8E-01
3.1E-01
7.6E-01
5.8E-01
6.8E-01
5.7E-01
1.8E+00
2.3E+00
HpCDD Total
1.2E-01
6.9E-02
2.3E-01
1.5E-01
2.7E-01
1.0E-01
4.2E-01
4.5E-01
OCDD
7.0E-02
3.2E-02
8.5E-02
7.8E-02
1.9E-01
4.0E-02
1.4E-01
1.3E-01
TeCDF Total
3.1E+02
2.5E+02
3.4E+02
4.7E+02
5.0E+02
3.1E+02
5.7E+02
9.0E+02
PeCDF Total
4.6E+01
4.5E+01
5.8E+01
8.4E+01
9.8E+01
4.8E+01
8.7E+01
1.6E+02
HxCDF Total
3.7E+00
3.9E+00
6.2E+00
7.5E+00
9.4E+00
3.5E+00
8.8E+00
1.5E+01
HpCDF Total
4.1E-01
3.8E-01
8.7E-01
1.1 E+00
2.0E+00
3.8E-01
1.2E+00
1.5E+00
OCDF
5.2E-02
3.7E-02
8.4E-02
1.7E-01
4.1E-01
5.6E-02
1.5E-01
1.1E-01
Sum PCDD Total
1.1E+01
1.1E+01
1.8E+01
2.5E+01
2.6E+01
7.6E+01
6.2E+01
7.9E+01
Sum PCDF Total
3.6E+02
3.0E+02
4.0E+02
5.6E+02
6.2E+02
3.7E+02
6.6E+02
1.1E+03
Sum PCDD/PCDF Total
3.7E+02
3.1E+02
4.2E+02
5.9E+02
6.4E+02
4.4E+02
7.3E+02
1.2E+03
3
-------
Table E6. PCDD/PCDF emissions factor for each TEF isomer and test run in ng TEQ/kg waste
input.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Isomer
ng TEQ/kg waste input
2,3,7,8 - TCDD
3.9E-01
4.4E-01
4.9E-01
5.7E-01
6.4E-01
4.4E-01
1.7E+00
1.6E+00
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDD
1.9E-01
2.0E-01
3.4E-01
3.8E-01
4.8E-01
3.2E-01
7.8E-01
1.3E+00
1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDD
2.0E-03
1.2E-03
4.2E-03
3.0E-03
3.3E-03
2.2E-03
7.3E-03
1.0E-02
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDD
2.7E-03
2.2E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.9E-03
3.5E-03
1.1E-02
1.6E-02
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDD
2.2E-03
1.8E-03
5.0E-03
3.2E-03
4.3E-03
2.6E-03
7.5E-03
1.0E-02
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDD
5.6E-04
3.2E-04
1.1E-03
7.5E-04
1.4E-03
4.9E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 - OCDD
2.1E-05
9.7E-06
2.6E-05
2.4E-05
5.7E-05
1.2E-05
4.1E-05
3.8E-05
2,3,7,8 - TCDF
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
6.8E-01
8.8E-01
1.1E+00
5.9E-01
1.2E+00
1.9E+00
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF
6.9E-02
6.3E-02
8.6E-02
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
6.2E-02
1.2E-01
2.2E-01
2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF
3.2E-01
3.3E-01
5.6E-01
6.2E-01
7.4E-01
3.7E-01
8.6E-01
1.5E+00
1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDF
3.8E-02
3.8E-02
6.0E-02
6.6E-02
8.2E-02
2.9E-02
7.9E-02
1.4E-01
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF
4.2E-02
4.3E-02
6.8E-02
7.6E-02
1.0E-01
3.5E-02
9.6E-02
1.5E-01
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDF
6.6E-03
4.7E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
2.2E-02
7.0E-03
1.6E-02
2.7E-02
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
2.0E-02
1.6E-02
4.3E-02
4.8E-02
6.8E-02
2.3E-02
6.2E-02
9.5E-02
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF
2.2E-03
2.2E-03
4.9E-03
5.7E-03
9.6E-03
1.9E-03
6.8E-03
8.8E-03
1,2,3,4,7,8,9- HpCDF
3.9E-04
2.5E-04
6.0E-04
9.2E-04
1.8E-03
2.7E-04
7.8E-04
8.6E-04
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
2.5E-05
5.2E-05
1.2E-04
1.7E-05
4.4E-05
3.2E-05
Sum PCDD TEQ
5.9E-01
6.5E-01
8.4E-01
9.6E-01
1.1E+00
7.8E-01
2.5E+00
2.9E+00
Sum PCDF TEQ
1.1E+00
1.0E+00
1.5E+00
1.8E+00
2.2E+00
1.1E+00
2.4E+00
4.1 E+00
Sum PCDD/PCDF TEQ
1.7E+00
1.7E+00
2.4E+00
2.8E+00
3.4E+00
1.9E+00
4.9E+00
7.0E+00
4
-------
Appendix F: PAHs - Full data set
Table Fl. PAH i6 concentrations for each test run.
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1
HP-2
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
PAH
|jg/m' at 7% O,
Naphthalene
827
22
3081
103
131
332
392
35
Acenaphthylene
156
19
290
56
64
25
184
14
Acenaphthene
3.6
1.5
4.0
0.89
1.4
4.8
6.2
2.4
Fluorene
44
9.3
67
17
20
32
70
11
Phenanthrene
259
137
646
230
146
332
658
141
Anthracene
16
8.2
35
10
10
20
55
11
Fluoranthene
139
124
292
132
144
113
179
108
Pyrene
161
158
317
138
150
128
183
131
Benzo(a)anthracene
2.4
2.1
21
1.9
3.8
2.5
4.7
3.2
Chrysene
3.1
2.5
37
3.9
4.9
4.3
7.9
5.4
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
2.8
ND
45
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.9
ND
36
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(a)pyrene
3.5
ND
47
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1.2
ND
57
0.31
ND
ND
0.22
ND
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.15
ND
4.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1.8
ND
81
0.46
0.30
0.35
ND
SUM 16-EPA PAH
1624
482
5061
694
676
994
1741
461
ND - not detected
Table F2. PAHi6 emissions factors for each test run in mg/kg waste (carbon mass balance
method). No CEM during SW-1.
PAH
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1 HP-2
mg/kg waste
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Naphthalene
0.13
19
0.97
1.2
3.1
4.5
0.32
Acenaphthylene
0.11
1.8
0.52
0.61
0.23
2.1
0.13
Acenaphthene
0.0094
0.025
0.008
0.013
0.045
0.071
0.022
Fluorene
0.056
0.41
0.16
0.19
0.30
0.81
0.10
Phenanthrene
0.83
4.0
2.2
1.4
3.1
7.6
1.3
Anthracene
0.050
0.21
0.10
0.095
0.19
0.63
0.10
Fluoranthene
0.75
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.1
2.08
1.0
Pyrene
0.96
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.2
2.1
1.2
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.013
0.13
0.018
0.036
0.024
0.054
0.030
Chrysene
0.015
0.23
0.037
0.046
0.040
0.092
0.050
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
ND
0.28
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
ND
0.22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(a)pyrene
ND
0.29
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
ND
0.35
0.0029
ND
ND
0.0025
ND
1
-------
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
ND
0.027
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(ghi)perylene
ND
0.50
0.0043
ND
0.0028
0.0041
ND
SUM 16-EPA PAH
2.9
31
6.5
6.4
9.3
20
4.3
ND - not detected
Table F3. PAHi6 emissions factors for each test run in mg/kg waste input.
PAH
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
HP-1 HP-2
mg/kg Waste input
KMC
FSR-1
FSR-2
Naphthalene
5.5
0.16
21
1.0
1.8
2.4
2.9
0.34
Acenaphthylene
1.0
0.14
2.0
0.54
0.86
0.18
1.4
0.14
Acenaphthene
0.024
0.011
0.028
0.0087
0.019
0.035
0.046
0.023
Fluorene
0.29
0.068
0.46
0.16
0.28
0.23
0.52
0.11
Phenanthrene
1.7
1.0
4.5
2.2
2.0
2.4
4.9
1.4
Anthracene
0.11
0.060
0.24
0.099
0.14
0.15
0.41
0.11
Fluoranthene
0.92
0.91
2.0
1.3
2.0
0.82
1.3
1.1
Pyrene
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.3
2.0
0.93
1.4
1.3
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.016
0.015
0.15
0.019
0.051
0.018
0.035
0.032
Chrysene
0.020
0.019
0.26
0.038
0.066
0.031
0.059
0.053
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.018
ND
0.31
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.019
ND
0.25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.023
ND
0.33
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
0.0078
ND
0.39
0.0030
ND
ND
0.0016
ND
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.0010
ND
0.030
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(ghi)perylene
0.012
ND
0.56
0.0045
ND
0.0022
0.0026
ND
SUM 16-EPA PAH
11
3.5
35
6.7
9.1
7.2
13
4.6
ND - not detected
-------
Q
OH
Q
<
Q
2
LO
00
Z
V)
6
<
LU
1—
(/)
LU
LL
<
o"
Q
o6
Q_
2
LU
LU
LU
H
1—
Ct
O
O
£
(Y
111
tt>
CD
a.
LU
CC
CL
O
Q_
II ic
•A
V
c
o
"¦4—1
0
-t—'
o
1—
Q_
LU
cfc
CO
d)
+-•
CO
CD
+-»
c
CD
+-»
(/)
E
C
>
"O
o
O
CD
"c
C
03
3
LU
<
a:
o
&
c
(D
E
Q.
O
(D
>
(D
~
"D
c
(0
O §
O
0
CD
CO
ZD
O
CM
(/)
w
(D
B
O
~
"co
>
c
c
'(/)
a
o
O)
=3
CD
&
c
—
(J)
03
'o
"co
c
CD
Q_
f
O
------- |