Emissions of Metals Chromium and Nickel Species and Organics from Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators. Volume V Site 7 Test Report CEMS Evaluation


EPA/600/R-92/003e
March 1992
EMISSIONS OF METALS, CHROMIUM AND NICKEL SPECIES, AND ORGANICS
FROM MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Volume V: Site 7 Test Report
CEMS Evaluation
by
A. Laurie Cone
Scott A. Shank!in
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-C0-0027
Work Assignment No. 0-5
Technical Managers
Harry E. Bostian, Ph.D.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Eugene P. Crumpler
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268

-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial
products and practices carry with them the increased generation of materials
that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten both public health and the
environment. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress
with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate
of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct the
EPA to perform research to define our environmental problems, measure the
impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning,
implementing, and managing research, development, and demonstration programs
to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering basis in support of the
policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water,
wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and
Superfund-related activities. This publication is one of the products of that
research and provides a vital communication link between the research and the
user community.
The problem of disposing of primary and secondary sludge generated at
municipal wastewater treatment facilities is one of growing concern. Sludge
of this type may contain toxics such as heavy metals and various organic
species. Viable sludge disposal options include methods of land disposal or
incineration. In determining the environmental hazards associated with
incineration, the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory and the Office of
Water Regulations and Standards has sponsored a program to monitor the
emissions of metals and organics from a series of four municipal wastewater
sludge incinerators. The following document presents the final results from
the Site 7 emissions test program.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
ii

-------
ABSTRACT
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards (OWRS) has recently revised the risk-based sludge
regulations under Section 405d of the Clean Water Act. The revised
regulations include a provision for monitoring total hydrocarbon (THC) and/or
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions as a surrogate for organic emissions
measurements.
With the assistance of EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL), OWRS has implemented a research program to investigate the
relationship of CO and hydrocarbon emissions and the viability of the
monitoring systems used to continuously measure these emissions. This test
report presents the results obtained at the Site 7 municipal wastewater
treatment facility.
The Site 7 plant treats 20-50 million gallons a day of municipal and
industrial wastewater. The blended primary/secondary sludge is dewatered to
approximately 21% solids on filter presses. The dried filter cakes are
incinerated in a seven-hearth unit and emissions are controlled with a cyclone
separator and-a Hydro-Sonic scrubber.
The CO and THC emission levels showed good agreement during the test
program, i.e., increases in CO are accompanied by increases in THC. The
actual correlation coefficients ranged from .73-.93 using one-minute averaged
data from six test runs. Comparisons of CO and THC values corrected to 7%
oxygen levels do not provide the same measure of correlation (r-values from
.11 to .83). Possible explanation of the apparent change in agreement is
being investigated further. This report presents uncorrected and corrected
emission data in both tabular and graphic formats.
This report was submitted 1n fulfillment of Contract No. 68-C0-0027, Work
Assignment No. 0-5 by Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from
October 28 to November 8, 1989, and work was completed as of August 26, 1991.
i i i

-------
DISCLAIMER
The research described in this report has been funded wholly by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory and Office of Water Regulations and Standards under Contract Nos.
68-02-4442, Work Assignment No. 81; 68-02-4462, Work Assignment No. 90-108;
and 68-CO-0027, Work Assignment No. 0-5. It has been subjected to the
Agency's required peer and administrative review and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute an endorsement of recommendation for use.
iv

-------
CONTENTS
Foreword		ii
Abstract		i i i
Disclaimer		iv
Figures		vi
Tables		vi
1.	Introduction		1
2.	Site 7 Test Summary and Conclusions		3
3.	Facility Description		4
4.	Test Results		7
Continuous Emission Monitoring Results		7
Particulate Matter and Metals Testing		15
5.	Sampling Location and Test Procedures		18
Sampl ing Location		18
CEMS Description		18
Sampling Procedures		23
6.	Quality Assurance and Quality Control		24
Appendices
A.	Linear Regression Analysis - Moisture Calculations
B.	CEM Data Summaries
v

-------
FIGURES
Number	Page
1	Site 7 plant schematic	 5
2	Extended periods of CO and THC CEM data	 8
3	CEM data during 10/31 particulate sampling	 10
4	CEM data during 11/2 particulate sampling	 11
5	CO/THC emissions comparison	 12
6	Hot/Cold THC emissions data	 14
7	CO/THC sampling system configuration	 19
8	Detail of CO/Cold THC sampling system	 21
TABLES
Number	Page
1	CEM data summaries		9
2	Linear regression summaries		9
3	CEM data summary		14
4	Summary of Particulate/Metals emission rates		16
5	Summary of Particulate/Metals concentrations		17
6	Summary of CEM drift checks		25
7	Linearity check results		26
vi
k

-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water
Regulations and Standards (OWRS) has been developing new regulations for
sewage sludge incinerators. EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory has
been assisting OWRS in the collection of supporting data. There has been
particular concern regarding the continuous demonstration of proper control of
organic emissions from the incineration of municipal wastewater sludge.
OWRS drafted risk-based sludge regulations under Section 405d of the
Clean Water Act which were published for comment in the Federal Register.
Volume 54, No. 23, February 6, 1989. The draft regulations were based on the
risk incurred by the "most exposed individual" (MEI). The MEI approach
involves calculating the risk associated with residing for 70 years at the
point of maximum ground level concentration of the emissions from an
individual incineration facility. This proposal for regulating sewage sludge
incinerators was based on ensuring that the increase in ambient air
concentrations of pollutants emitted from sludge incinerators is below ambient
air criteria established for the protection of human health.
Because of the large number of comments received on the risk-based
proposal, a revised approach for regulating organic emissions was developed
and published for comment on November 9, 1990 (54 FR 47242). The revised
approach suggests a technology-based total hydrocarbon (THC) standard and/or a
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions standard as a surrogate indicator of organic
emissions. This technology-based approach addresses the primary concerns of
commenters, namely the feasibility of THC monitoring and the risk assessment
methodology used in establishing emission limits.
The Site 7 test program was designed to provide: (1) CO and THC monitor
performance data during extended operating periods at a sewage sludge
incinerator, and (2) comparative emissions data from CO and hydrocarbon
monitoring systems. The data obtained during the test program are intended to
supplement the existing OWRS emissions data base and assist in preparation of

-------
the final regulation, now scheduled for publication in the Federal Register in
January 1992.
2

-------
SECTION 2
SITE 7 TEST SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Site 7 test program was conducted to characterize CO and hydrocarbon
emissions from a multiple hearth incinerator and to obtain performance data on
the instruments used to acquire the emissions data. The emission measurement
data collected during the test program supplement data collected at other
sewage sludge incinerators. The data support the development of appropriate
emission standards for these incinerators.
The incinerator emissions were tested under normal operating conditions.
Plant-sponsored testing for particulate matter and metals was performed during
the program. Concentrations and emission rates were provided for presentation
in this report. Only a limited amount of process data was made available to
the field test team during the test program. Testing was performed between
October 28 and November 8, 1989.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the Site 7 test.
•	Increases in CO emission levels are accompanied by increases in THC
levels and decreases in 02 levels.
•	Statistical correlation of the CO and THC data is stronger using
pollutant concentrations not corrected to 7% 02. A possible
explanation of this unexpected finding is presented in Section 4.1.
The linear regression analyses performed by Entropy have been
confirmed by an OWRS statistician. Additional statistical inquiries
are being pursued by OWRS.
•	All instruments operated during the test achieved expected performance
levels on calibration drift and linearity tests.

-------
SECTION 3
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Site 7 provides treatment for municipal and industrial wastewater. It
has the capacity to treat an average flow of 20 million gallons per day (MGD),
and peak rates of up to 50 MGD during wet weather. The plant operates
continuously 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
All wastewater entering the plant is screened to remove trash and pumped
to a series of treatment units. Figure 1 is a schematic flow diagram of the
treatment plant. The first stage of the treatment process includes aeration
tanks designed to remove odorous and corrosive gases from the wastewater, and
settling tanks which remove settleable solid materials from the flow stream.
Soluble material and solids which do not settle out require biological
conversion to a solid residue which is then removed. Biological conversion is
done in the second stage of the process using bacteria in aerated tanks.
Solid material resulting from the aerobic treatment is removed in settling
tanks. The wastewater is chlorinated and aerated before discharge.
The sludge removed from the various treatment units is pumped to
receiving and blending tanks. It is pumped from the blending tanks to a
thickening tank and then dewatered on filter presses. The dewatered sludge
mixture, or sludge cake, contains approximately 21 % dry solids and is
conveyed to an incinerator where it is burned at approximately 1400°F.
The incinerator consists of seven vertically stacked hearths. Dewatered
sludge cake is fed into the top (No. 1) hearth, and is moved through
successive hearths by a center shaft with arms on each hearth. The arms have
teeth which continue the flow of material across each hearth and then down
through the incinerator, hearth by hearth. The incinerator is equipped with
fuel oil-fired burners which ignite the volatile components of the sludge
feed. Combustion air is supplied through auxiliary air fans into hearth
Nos. 2 through 6. The upper hearths are used for final drying of the sludge,
intermediate hearths are used for combustion, and the bottom hearth 1s used

-------
BAR SCRUMS
WASH WATER
WIT
WIU.
CHLMM
CONTACT TANKS
^—c?
¦ v PASS
IECOMOSTAGE
AERATION TANKS
(NITRIFICATION}
FIRST STAGE
AERATION TANKS
FMA4. SETTLING
EFFLUENT
CASCAOE
AERATOR
METER
SOUTH tUFrALO
CREEK
SCCONO STAOt
RETURN SLUDGE
PUMPS
FIRST STAGE
RETURN SUJDOE
PUMPS
WAS WILL
FIRST STAGE
waste sludge pumps
NORTH BUFFALO
9LUOGE
SLUDGE RECf WN«
IMG TAM(S
SECONO STAGE
WASTE SLUOGI PUMPS
THICKENER SLUOGE
INFLUENT PUMPS
THICKENER DILUTION WATER
THICKENER OILUTION
WATER PUMPS
HEAT RECOVERY
SLUOGE CONVEYORS
SLUDGC CAKE
STORAGE HOPPER
•ELT FILTER PRESS
sluogi rcroPUM#*
OOOR WET
HOPPER SCRUGtER
TMCKENEO SLUOGE
PUMPS
ASh TOIAMO'IU
Figure 1. Site 7 plant schematic

-------
for ash cooling. Ash is discharged to the ash handling system. The combustion
gases leave the hearths and enter a quench chamber for cooling. The gases
then pass through a two-stage Hydro-Sonic scrubber and cyclone separator for
emissions control before being exhausted to the atmosphere via the stack.
6

-------
SECTION 4
TEST RESULTS
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING RESULTS
Continuous emission monitoring (CEM) was performed at the stack location
of Site 7. The monitoring system included CO, THC, and 02 monitors.
Emissions were measured on a dry basis. On November 8, 1989, a heated
hydrocarbon sampling system was included to provide comparative THC data using
heated and unheated systems. The hot THC data were corrected to dry-basis
using moisture values determined during the particulate matter and metals
testing on October 31 and November 2, 1989. The consistent relationship
between moisture and 02 values on these two days is used in selecting the
proper moisture corrections for different periods on November 8. Calculations
for moisture correction are shown in Appendix A.
The CEM data are presented in several formats:
•	Extended emissions characterization periods depicting continuous CO
and hydrocarbon measurements are illustrated in Figure 2.
•	CO and THC measurement data obtained during the particulate matter
and metals testing are presented as measured and corrected to 7% 02,
in Table 1 and Figures 3 and 4.
•	A 3-hour period of concurrent hot and cold hydrocarbon measurements
are presented in Figure 5. Emissions data from all monitoring
systems are separated into three shorter periods and summarized in
Table 2.
The extended measurement periods, portions of which are shown in Figure
2, provide an indication of the wide range of emissions possible from this
facility. Typical 02 levels accompanying the CO and THC data shown are 5 to
9%, with extremes ranging from 0.3 to 14% 02.
Continuous emissions data obtained during the particulate matter and
metals testing provide a more in-depth examination of CO, hydrocarbon, and 02
relationships. The graphs and run summaries using uncorrected data indicate
7

-------
*o
E
Q.
a
O
O
CO/THC Emissions Data
Site 7 10/28-29/89 Corrected to 7% 02
10000
9000J
8000-
7000
6000
5000^
4000-
3000-
2000-I

1100
1000 _
0)
c
05
Q.
O
CD
CO
"O
E
Q.
Q_
u
X
15:18
17:18
19:18
21:18
23:18
CO
THC (cold)
TJ
E
Q.
a.
O
O
6000
2500H
2000
CO/THC Emissions Data
Site 7 10/30/89 Corrected to 7% 02
300
5500-
250 eg
5000-
200 a
<0
4000-
3500-
3000-
100 o
	mum		 umiiiiiiii iiiinin im iiiiiinini m mi riii ii miiiiiiiiii iiiiiniuii iiiiiiniiii iiiiii iiiih iiiiimiiiii iniiiminimiimiii
12:56
13:56
16:53
CO
THC (cold)
Figure 2. Extended periods of CO and THC CEM data.
8

-------
TABLE 1. CEM DATA SUMMARIES
October 31 and November 2, 1989






TECO 48
Beckman

Run
Thermox
TECO 48
Beckman
Ratfisch
ppm CO
ppm THC
Date
No.
% 02
ppm CO
ppm C3
ppm C3
07% 02
@7% 02
10/31
1
8.4
3846.8
113.6
118.8
4291.5
123.1

2
8.1
4833.7
126.8
127.4
5253.3
137.7

3
8.1
4122.1
133.0
120.7
4467.0
144.0
11/2
1
5.6
4191.3
241.3
259.0
3837.9
218.1
2
7.5
2854.3
87.8
93.3
2973.0
91.0

3
5.8
4678.0
182.4
193.7
4320.5
168.2
TABLE 2. LINEAR REGRESSION SUMMARIES
Date
Run
No.
Uncorrected
Data
Data
7% 02

R-Values Using 1-Minute Averages

10/31
1
.927
.413

2
.799
.567

3
.877
.294
11/2
1
.890
.825

2
.737
.110

3
.778
.605
R-Values Using Run Averages
10/31	.491	.201
11/2	.461	.387
ALL SIX RUNS COMBINED	.796	.724

-------
CO/THC Emissions Data
10/31/89 (1-minute averages, 3 runs)
"O
E
Q.
Q.
C
O
5
c
0
o
c
o
o
O
O
6500
6000i
450
5500-:
5000 J
4500i
3500-
2500-
2000-
08:51	09:51	11:37	13:26	14:
CO
THC (cold)
CO/THC Emissions Data
10/31/89 (At 7% 02, 1-min.avgs, 3 runs)

6500-

6000*
CM
O
5500-


0s
5000-



4500-
cT

"O
4000-
E

o.
a
3500-
O
3000-
O


2500-

2000-
/w\a

iii'iiiiiiiiiiiiwiiniwiiiniiNiniiiBiiiwiiiiuiiwNiyiiiiiiiniinniiiiwiiminiiniiiiniiiiimiiuiiiiiiiiiiiininiiiiinmrmmiiwiwiiwiwuwu
09:51
11:37
13:26
CM
O
#
Q>
Q)
C
CO
Q.
O
W
CD
2*
TJ
E
Q.
3?
O
X
	CO			- THC (cold)
Figure 3. CEM data during 10/31/89 particulate sampling
10

-------
CO/THC Emissions Data
11/2/89 (1-minute averages, 3 runs)
6500
^ 6000
-o
E
Q.
Q.
5500-
5000
Q	4500
fo
~	4000H
Q)
g	3500H
o	3000-
o
o	2500


400 -5
300 m
\ tj t\. ¦ i V\ if
- f *¦. ftU: '/*"*
•m
r
I* IV
450
250 ^
-200
-150
2000 MH'iiii'iu-T'icnimMTiirKnBii.j'gij'Bi.i,Lyi!—iJiiiiiEiiawii»j»«imHEitinniiiiuciiiiBm.iii.nmjji.njwju.ul,jmmijm
08:32	09:42	11:02	13:12	14:12
100
50
0
1
CO
THC
CO/THC Emissions Data
11/2/89 (At 7% 02, 1-min.avgs, 3 runs)
6500
5500-
4500-
§¦ 3500-I
2500-
2000-
08

a
i A
• ? i. .
h
i 1A
450
-400
-350
-300
250
-200
h 150
-100
iiiMiiimuiumnm.imiHuiBiiuw—iiimniuwumjiimniuiuii—iiuHumuwiiwHiuuiuiawutw—iiiiiuw—iiiuu—Bjuuwwiwi—ubjjuiiii^ 50
32	10:21	11:23	13:44
CVJ
O
*
<§>
0)
c
cc
Q_
2
Q.
(A
CC
&
*o
E
Q.
Q.
o
X
CO
THC (cold)
Figure 4. CEM data during 11/2/89 particulate sampling
11

-------
400
350
300H
X 2504
I-
Q- 200-
Q.
150-
1004
50-
400
350H
300
x 250H
a 200i
!
150-j
100-
50
CO/THC Emissions Data
10/31/89 Run 1 Uncorrected Data
2000	4000	6000
ppm CO
10/31 /89 Run 1 Corrected Data

0	2000	4000	6000
ppm CO
Figure 5. CO/THC emissions comparison
12
k

-------
that increases in CO are accompanied by increases in THC levels and decreases
in 02 levels. Following correction to 7 % 02, the relationship between CO and
THC trends becomes less pronounced. (See Figures 3 and 4, and Table 1.)
Further investigation using linear regression analysis verified the decreased
correlation but did not validate the consistent relationship suggested in the
graphs between uncorrected CO and THC values. Regression analysis was
performed both on 1-minute averages obtained during the runs and on each run
average. Table 2 provides the r-values obtained and Appendix A contains the
regression output for each comparison. One-minute averages of all monitoring
data obtained during the six particulate test runs are in Appendix B.
The most likely explanation involves the effect of the correction to 7%
02 on individual data points. Under normal operation, emission levels of CO
and THC vary inversely with 02 levels. In other words, high levels of CO and
THC occur during periods of low 02 and low levels of CO and THC occur under
high excess 02 conditions. As shown in Table 2, the wide range of uncorrected
CO and THC emission measurements demonstrate good correlation and low
variability. The correction to 7% 02 essentially lowers the high CO and THC
values and raises the low CO and THC values, removing the extremes which
define the linear regression line (see Figure 5).
Measurements of hot and cold hydrocarbons were fairly close, as shown in
Figure 6. The relatively low stack gas temperature of 160-170°F and the wet
scrubber design possibly contributed to the similarity in measured emissions.
Using the relative accuracy criterion of agreement within 20% from Performance
Specification 2 (40 CFR 60, Appendix B) the data acquired with the two
separate sampling systems can be considered the same. No reference organic
measurement method nor performance criterion is available against which these
instrument can be evaluated as correct or incorrect. Averages for 02, CO, and
cold and hot THC values are shown in Table 3.
The original intent of the testing on this day was to raise the top
hearth temperature to 1100°F (measured during previous multiple hearth
testing). However, as the furnace was being brought up to that temperature
over the morning, it became apparent that keeping the temperature and 02
elevated required too great a decrease in the sludge feed rate. With 25% less
sludge being fired, conclusions could not be drawn as to the cause of the
lower emissions. In spite of the difficulties, the experiment still produced

-------
HOT/COLD THC Emissions Data
11/8/89 (1-minute averages)
a)
c
CO
CL
O
CL
CD
05
"O
O
X
h-
E
CL
CL
252 ppm cal gas npcoo
zero ar injection
• 10 iiMmiiiiiinmmninmiiiikiiMuuiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiitHiiuiiMiiiiiui¦¦¦ ¦ ¦ n¦¦ mihnnnminnnninmiimiiifimiiii'iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiimciiijiiiiini
12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00
Beckman (cold) 	Ratfisch 55 (hot)
Figure 6. Hot/cold THC emissions data.
TABLE 3. CEM DATA SUMMARY
(Removing Calibration Gas Responses)
_	¦¦¦¦	if	¦— ¦	1	¦ ¦
TECO 48 Beckman Ratfisch
Time
Period
Thermox
% 02
TECO 48
ppm CO
Beckman
ppm C3
Ratfisch
ppm C3
ppm CO
@7% 02
ppm THC
@7% 02
ppm THC
0 1% 02
12:30-13:30
9.7
1198.0
33.1
27.3
1486.8
41.1
33.9
14:00-14:38
5.8
2224.7
87.0
74.8
2047.9
80.1
68.9
14:47-15:07
4.5
2504.5
103.4
95.4
2122.7
87.6
80.9
14

-------
the lowest emission levels observed during the Site 7 test program. At 13:00
hrs, the plant operator began bringing the sludge feed rate back to normal
levels. Unexpectedly, emissions remained low compared to previous
observations, even after the feed rate and temperature had returned to normal
levels.
PARTICULATE MATTER AND METALS TESTING
Plant personnel conducted particulate matter and metals testing during
the CO and THC monitoring to provide concurrent data under normal operating
conditions. The results of this testing are presented in terms of emission
rates in Table 4 and in concentration units in Table 5. Plant personnel
experimented with hearth temperatures, nozzle pressures, and scrubber pressure
drop to determine whether the same or lower emissions could be obtained in a
more economical operating mode. The CO and THC emissions data do not suggest
conclusive results.
15

-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND METALS MASS EMISSION RATES
————— •*——^_ 		„		—¦—
10/31/1989	11/2/1989
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Particulate Mass Rate (kg/hr) 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.57 0.56 0.39
Flue Gas Metal Mass
Emission Rate (mg/hr)
Arsenic
30
64
140
185
141
128
Beryl 1ium
<100
<111
<105
< 96
<660
< 97
Cadmium
2670
2452
2942
9171
6401
4631
Chromium
<205
<223
<210
<192
<200
<193
Copper
247
279
315
577
522
328
Lead
205
223
210
2311
1598
386
Mercury
1317
1657
1448
2320
1653
1439
Molybdenum
<205
<223
<210
<192
<200
<193
Nickel
<205
<223
<210
<192
<200
<193
Selenium
14
20
16
36
29
21
Zinc
1090
1026
1575
11168
5720
1930
16

-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND METALS CONCENTRATIONS
10/31/1989	11/2/1989
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Particulate Mass
(mg/dscm)
Rate 17.7
13.1
21.8
53.5
52.9
38.7
Flue Gas Metals
(ug/dscm)
Concentration





Arsenic
2.7
5.6
12.0
17.3
13.4
12.6
Beryllium
<9.2
<9.8
<9.3
<9.0
<9.5
<9.5
Cadmium
238
214
258
858
606
458
Chromium
<18.3
<19.5
<18.6
<18.1
<19.0
<19.1
Copper
21.9
24.5
27.9
54.2
49.4
32.5
Lead
18.3
19.5
18.6
217
152
38.2
Mercury
117
145
127
217
156
143
Molybdenum
<18.3
<19.5
<18.6
<18.1
<19.0
<19.1
Nickel
<18.3
<19.5
<18.6
<18.1
<19.0
<19.1
Selenium
1.2
1.7
1.4
3.4
2.7
2.1
Zinc
97.0
89.9
139
1048
540
191
17

-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING LOCATION AND TEST PROCEDURES
SAMPLING LOCATION
Continuous monitoring was performed at the incinerator exhaust stack
using various instruments to measure THC, CO, and 02. The sampling location
was at the roof-level of the incinerator stack downstream of the emissions
control equipment. The inside diameter of the stack is 32 inches. The
distance from the sample port to the nearest upstream flow disturbance is nine
feet; the top of the stack is 15 feet above the sample port.
CEMS DESCRIPTION
The measurement system consisted of a sampling system and analyzers for
the measurement of THC, CO, and 02. The analyzers used in this test program
had various gas sample conditioning requirements. Two of the THC analyzers
were heated internally so that the only sample gas conditioning necessary was
filtration of particulate. These hot THC measurement systems must maintain
the temperature of all components of the sampling system at a minimum of
150°C. Particulate and water vapor were removed from the gas sample prior to
injection into the unheated analyzers. The condensers used in the system to
remove the water vapor lowered the sample gas temperature to approximately
5°C; this system is operated as a cold measurement system.
A simplified schematic of the extractive measurement system is depicted
in Figure 7. (The ACS CO instruments illustrated were not used because the
measurement ranges were too low. The JUM THC instrument had been returned to
Entropy without the requested service and therefore was not included in the
test.) Effluent gas sample was drawn from the stack via a heated sampling
system and delivered to the gas analyzers located in a shelter on the ground.
All components of the sampling system were made of Type 316 stainless steel,
Teflon, and glass. A heated sample probe was installed on the stack. The gas
18

-------
Ratfisch
55THC
Thermox Op
heated line
unheated line
heated
filter
JUM
VE-77HC
stack
48 CO
heated
probe
ACS
3300 CO
heated
filter
heated
pump
ACS
8000 CO
condenser
condenser
Beckman
400 A7HC
Note: Support gases for FID's not shown.
Ratfisch
102 THC
calibration gases
Figure 7. CO/THC sampling system configuration.

-------
was filtered and transported through 100 feet of heated Teflon tubing via a
heated sample pump. The gas sample was split into two streams at the exit of
the pump. One stream was passed through a chilled condenser to remove
moisture and was then delivered to Beckman Model 400A THC, Ratfisch Model 102
THC, TECO Model 48 CO, and Thermox 02 analyzers. The temperature of the
second sample stream was maintained at 150°C and passed through a secondary
particulate filter and then delivered to JUM VE-7 and Ratfisch Model 55 THC
analyzers.
The collected condensate was removed continuously from the condenser in
the cold measurement system to minimize condensate contact with the sample
gas. (See Figure 8.) A 2-micron glass fiber filter was placed downstream of
the condenser. The manifold used in the cold system allowed sample pressures
and flowrates to be controlled individually for each analyzer. A zero air
generator was used to provide zero-level calibration gas and combustion air
for the THC analyzers. Ultra-pure carrier grade air was used to verify the
quality of the generated zero air.
Calibration gas injection points were located both at the probe and at
the inlet to each analyzer. A calibration gas manifold was used to distribute
the various gases to the proper locations.
A portable Compaq computer and an Entropy-designed data acquisition
system was used to record emissions and calibration data from the analyzers.
Strip chart recorders were also used to display the trends of the emissions
during the testing.
Total Hydrocarbon Analyzers
The hydrocarbon instruments used in this study continuously measure the
concentration of total organic hydrocarbons in a gaseous sample. This
measurement is obtained by using a flame ionization detector (FID). Operation
of the FID is based on a burner in which a small flame is sustained by
carefully regulated flows of air and fuel gas (40% hydrogen (H2) and 60%
helium (He) or pure H2). The burner jet is used as an electrode and is
connected to the negative side of a power supply. Also in the burner is a
"collector" electrode which is connected to an electrical amplifier. These
polarized electrodes establish an electrostatic field in the vicinity of the
burner flame. When a sample of gas is passed into the burner, it is ionized
20

-------
To hot conditioning system
chiller
(circulates
antifreeze)
sample
pump
2H
coalescing
filter
compressed
air
eductor
peristaltic
pump / \
drain / exhaust
drain / exhaust
CO,
• Cold THC,
O2 Analyzers
drain / exhaust
Figure 8. Detail of CO/cold THC sampling system.

-------
in the flame. The electrostatic field causes the charged particles to migrate
toward the electrodes. The resultant current flow between the electrodes is
used as an input signal to an electrometer amplifier, and is displayed on the
instrument meter as a percentage concentration. If the sample gas does not
contain hydrocarbons, the ionization level is extremely small and produces a
very low background current. When the sample gas contains hydrocarbons,
ionization is increased and, with many compounds, is directly proportional to
the number of carbon atoms in the sample.
Sample gas enters the instrument at flows ranging from 1 to 4 L/min. In
the instrument, a small slipstream is pushed through capillary tubing to the
FID. The remaining sample is exhausted. Precise regulation of the sample
pressure is essential to obtain accurate FID measurements. The instrument
characteristics are summarized below.
Instrument	Heated	Measurement Range
Beckman 400A	No	1250 ppm
Ratfisch 102	No	1000 ppm
Ratfisch 55	Yes	1000 ppm
Thermo Environmental Instruments (TECO) 48 Carbon Monoxide Analyzer
The TEC0 Model 48 employs the gas filter correlation (GFC) technique to
measure CO by infrared (IR) absorption. GFC employs a correlation wheel
consisting of two hemispherical cells, one filled with CO and the other filled
with nitrogen (N2). Radiation from the IR source is chopped and passed
through the correlation wheel, alternating between the CO cell and the N2
cell. Passing an infrared beam through the CO gas cell in the correlation
filter provides a reference signal that cannot be attenuated further by the CO
in the gas sample. The N2 cell is transparent to the IR radiation and
therefore produces a measurement beam which can be absorbed by CO in the
sample cell. Radiation then passes through a narrow bandpass interference
filter and enters a multiple optical pass sample cell, where absorption by the
sample gas occurs. Other gases in the sample do not cause modulation of the
detector signal, since they absorb the reference and measurement beams
equally.
22

-------
Infrared absorption is a non-linear measurement technique. To correct
for this characteristic, instrument electronics convert the analyzer signal
into a linear output. The exact calibration curve is stored in the
instrument's microcomputer memory and is used to linearize the instrument
output over all ranges. The microcomputer is also used to process signals
from a pressure transducer and a temperature transducer to correct instrument
output for changes in the temperature or pressure of the sample gas. The
operating range of the instrument was 0-10,000 ppm CO.
Thermox 0^ Analyzer
The Thermox Model WDG III 02 analyzer employs an electrochemical
technique to measure the oxygen concentration in the effluent gas. The
detector element consists of a closed-end zirconium oxide cell. Half of the
cell is exposed to ambient air (reference) and the other half is exposed to
the effluent gas sample. When the cell is heated red hot, it conducts an
electrical current between porous platinum electrodes that consists of
migrating oxygen ions. The ion migration produces a voltage output that is
logarithmically proportional to the difference in oxygen concentration
(partial pressures) between the reference side of the cell (ambient air) and
the measurement side of the cell (sample gas). This voltage output is
linearized and converted to a signal representing the oxygen concentration in
the effluent gas. The measurement range was 0-25% 02.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
After the measurement system was assembled and satisfactorily completed a
brief conditioning period, a cylinder gas audit (CGA) was conducted on the THC
and CO analyzers to document the linearity and accuracy of each analyzers'
measurement- The CGA was performed according to the procedures outlined in
Appendix F, Procedure 1 of 40 CFR 60. Response time tests were also performed
in conjunction with the CGA's.
Following the initial CGA, the measurement system was operated continu-
ously for an approximate one-week operational test period. A calibration check
was performed daily during this test period to quantify calibration drift for
each analyzer. The drift assessment was conducted according to the test
procedures of Performance Specification 2, 40 CFR 60, Appendix B.
23

-------
SECTION 6
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
This section discusses the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
activities performed for the sewage sludge incineration test program at Site
7. The objective of these activities, i.e., instrument drift and linearity
checks, was to provide representative and comparable data of known quality.
Instrument drift checks, which compare pre- and post-test measurement of
zero and span gases to the actual value, were performed for each run. These
results are presented in Table 6. Zero and upscale drift were within 2 % for
every measurement without any operator adjustments.
Five gases were used to determine linearity of the cold hydrocarbon
system instruments and CO monitor during cylinder gas audits. Three- and two-
point checks were performed on the Ratfisch 55 and Thermox 02 analyzer,
respectively. Table 7 presents the linearity check results.
During each stage of the test program, every effort was made to guarantee
the integrity of the data collected. Additional quality control practices
followed were:
•	Conducted leak checks of all components, as well as the entire
sampling system;
•	Determined the calibration status of each analyzer both before and
after each test period;
•	Operational parameters of the analyzers were recorded throughout the
test program. Logbooks were maintained which documented analyzer
problems and corrective actions taken, as well as any other
operational difficulties or observations; and
•	All THC (propane) and CO calibration gases were prepared and
certified by the vendor according to EPA Protocol I specifications.
Additional hydrocarbon standard gases were ±2% N.B.S. traceable gas
blends.
24

-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF CEM DRIFT CHECKS
Instrument Zero and Span Drift* {% of span)
Date and
Run No.
CO

o2
Beckman 400A
Ratfisch 102
Zero
Span
Zero
Span
Zero
Span
Zero
Span
10/28
0.01
-0.02
0.04
-0.80
0.0
-0.72
0.06
-0.40
10/29
0.03
-5.5
0.04
-0.68
0.16
0.15
0.03
-0.17
10/30
0.01
0.33
0.04
-0.80
.69
1.71
0.72
0.90
10/31 pre
0.02
0.27
0.40
-0.80
0.54
0.00
0.40
-0.28
post
0.0
-0.27
0.04
-0.80
0.68
-0.40
0.45
0.08
11/02 pre
0.0
0.13
0.04
-1.20
0.43
0.70
0.41
0.64
post
0.0
0.33
0.04
-1.04
0.64
1.14
0.89
0.35
* resDonse - aas
value x
100





instrument span
25

-------
TABLE 7. LINEARITY CHECK RESULTS
HYDROCARBON INSTRUMENTS
OCTOBER 28, 1989
GAS
BECKMAN
RESPONSE
RATFISCH
102
RATFISCH
55*
VALUE






(ppm)
ppm
% gas
ppm
% gas
ppm %
gas
0
0
0
0.6

-0.7

11.8
11.8
0
12.2
3.4


24.8
25.6
3.2
24.5
-1.2


45.0
46.5
3.3
45.6
1.3


85.0
85.1
0.1
80.5
-5.3
84.8
.002
252
--



250.5
-.01
477
480
0.1
480.2
0.1


*3-point check conducted November 8, 1989.
CO
OCTOBER 28, 1989
Gas
TECO 48 RESPONSE
Value

(ppm)
ppm % gas
0
0.7
50.1
54.4 8.6
100
102.5 2.5
683
648 -5.1
1972
1984 0.8
5007
4875 2.6

OXYGEN
OCTOBER 28, 1989
Gas
THERMOX RESPONSE
Value

(ppm)
% % gas
0
0.1
10.0
9.8 -2.0
20.9
20.6 -1.4
26

-------
APPENDIX A.
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSES
MOISTURE CALCULATIONS

-------
SUMMARY OF 10/31/89 SAMPLING RUNS
Correlation using 1-minutc averages
Run 1 - Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	*151.569043
Std Err of Y Est	17.63483562
R Squared	0.860073231
No. of Observations	84
Degrees of Freedom	82
Run 1 - Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-19.6164564
Std Err of Y Est	27.59881244
R Squared	0.17037953
No. of Observations	84
Degrees of Freedom	82
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.069128225
0.003079152
0.927
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.032764911
0.007984231
0.413
Run 2 - Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-7.25097949
Std Err of Y Est	5.874637969
R Squared	0.637731195
No. of Observations	75
Degrees of Freedom	73
Run 2 - Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	27.86027225
Std Err of Y Est	6.320426695
R Squared	0.321181046
No. of Observations	75
Degrees of Freedom	73
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.027728114
0.002445995
0.799
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.020911434
0.003558151
0.567
Run 3 - Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-24.4170565
Std Err of Y Est	7.417970917
R Squared	0.769074156
No. of Observations	72
Degrees of Freedom	70
Run 3 - Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	60.6368783
Std Err of Y Est	8.175286767
R Squared	0.086250022
No. of Observations	72
Degrees of Freedom	70
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.03820589
0.002502266
0.877
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.018656895
0.007258125
0.294

-------
SUMMARY OF 11/2/89 SAMPLING RUNS
Correlation using 1-minute data averages
Run 1 - Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-343.007294
Std Err of Y Est	44.52362666
R Squared	0.792341024
No. of Observations	56
Degrees of Freedom	54
Run 1 - Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-466.80807
Std Err of Y Est	45.31121039
R Squared	0.681393254
No. of Observations	56
Degrees of Freedom	54
X Cocffieicnt(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.139419063
0.009712803
0.890
X Coefficicnt(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.178473535
0.016607548
0.825
Run 2 - Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-60.8055185
Std Err of Y Est	9.852468085
R Squared	0.542955115
No. of Observations	73
Degrees of Freedom	71
Run 2 - Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	69.6428649
Std Err of Y Est	10.49294926
R Squared	0.012164216
No. of Observations	73
Degrees of Freedom	71
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.052067574
0.005669381
0.737
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.007171676
0.007669937
0.110
Run 3 - Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-190.014311
Std Err of Y Est	16.20090568
R Squared	0.604525569
No. of Observations	85
Degrees of Freedom	83
Run 3 - Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-196.576597
Std Err of Y Est	16.27453726
R Squared	0.365890571
No. of Observations	85
Degrees of Freedom	83
X Cocfficicnt(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.079614062
0.007068099
0.778
X Coefficicnt(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R Value
0.0844304
0.012200182
0.605

-------
CO/THC Correlation Using Run Averages
Date
Run
CO

THC



Concentration
@ 1% 02
Concentration
@ 7% 02
10/31/89
1
3846.8
4291.8
113.6
123.1

2
4833.7
5253.3
126.8
137.7

3
4122.1
4467.0
133.0
144.0
11/02/89
1
4191.3
3837.9
241.3
218.1

2
2854.3
2973.0
87.8
91.0

3
4678.0
4320.0
182.4
168.2
SUMMARY OF ALL SIX RUNS
Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-10.0162
Std Err of Y Est	53.99703
R Squared	0.241128
No. of Observations	6
Degrees of Freedom	4
Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
98.73025
47.25016
0.04051
6
4
X Cocfficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R value
0.038530102206
0.03417673806
0.491
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R value
0.011523
0.028039
0.201
SUMMARY OF 10/31 RUNS
Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	86.19392
Std Err of Y Est	12.43487
R Squared	0.212485
No. of Observations	3
Degrees of Freedom	1
Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
97.09774
13.98106
0.149711
3
1
X Cocfficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R value
0.008968353453
0.01726545394
0.461
X Cocfficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R value
0.008101
0.019305
0.387
SUMMARY OF 11/2 RUNS
Uncorrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant	-84.4708
Std Err of Y Est	66.34354
R Squared	0.633014
No. of Observations	3
Degrees of Freedom	1
Corrected Data
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
-92.9461
62.46803
0.524198
3
1
X Coefficicnt(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R value
0.065245517173
0.049678569366
0.796
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
R value
0.067931
0.06472
0.724

-------
MOISTURE CALCULATIONS FOR HOT/COLD THC COMPARISONS
THC (dry) = THC (wet basis)
1 - %H20*
* Calculated below using measured 02 and the best-fit line of moisture vs. 02.
Date
Run
11/08/89
1230-1245
1245-1300
1300-1315
1315-1330
1330-1345
1345-1400
1400-1415
1415-1430
1430-1445
1445-1500
1500-1515
Measured
H20
Measured
02
10/31/89
1
27.5
8.3
Regression Output:


2
27.1
8.0
Constant
55.42948

3
28.7
8.0
Std Err of Y Est
1.637735
11/02/89
1
36.3
5.6
R Squared
0.879956

2
33.2
7.5
No. of Observations
6

3
36
5.8
Degrees of Freedom
4


Calc'd
Measured
X Coefficient(s) -3.32817

Date
Time
H20
02
Std Err of Cocf. 0.614631

26.8
24.3
20.3
20.3
26.0
33.9
37.3
34.3
37.6
40.4
39.6
8.61
9.34
10.57
10.56
8.83
6.48
5.44
6.36
5.37
4.51
4.76
Best-fit Line for Moisture vs. 02
40
35
r = -.938
30
25

-------
APPENDIX B.
MINUTE-BY-MINUTE
CEM DATA SUMMARIES

-------
10-31-1989




TEC0 48
Beckman

Thermox
TEC0 48
Bcckman
Ratfisch
ppm CO
ppmTHC
TIME
%02
ppm CO
ppm C3
ppm C3
@7% 02
@7% 02
12:10
7.8
4889.3
132.9
134.7
5195.8
141.2
12:11
7.8
4888.3
131.9
133.6
5198.7
140.3
12:12
8.0
4960.3
129.3
130.9
5328.3
138.9
12:13
7.8
4825.7
133.2
134.7
5136.1
141.8
12:14
7.9
4832
129.7
131
5182.5
139.1
12:15
8.0
4751.9
127.6
128.9
5132.2
137.8
12:16
8.0
4703.3
128.7
130.1
5071.8
138.8
12:17
8.0
4701.4
134.1
135.2
5054.1
144.2
Run 2






Average
8.1
4833.7
126.8
127.4
5253.3
137.7
13:11
10.0
3529.4
105.9
106
4496.7
134.9
13:12
9.4
3649
111.2
111.9
4395.2
133.9
13:13
8.5
3952.8
117.4
119.3
4427.4
131.5
13:14
8.3
4016
119
120.8
4437.4
131.5
13:15
8.2
4062.8
119.9
122.1
4432.7
130.8
13:16
8.0
3970.3
121.9
124.2
4274.8
131.2
13:17
8.0
4023.5
121.9
124.2
4332.0
131.2
13:18
8.1
4048.7
121.8
123.9
4407.0
132.6
13:19
8.1
3988.5
122.1
124.2
4341.4
132.9
13:20
8.4
3965.4
119.9
121.9
4420.1
133.6
13:21
8.8
3841.6
119.2
120.5
4405.8
136.7
13:22
9.1
3690.5
115.9
116.5
4336.3
136.2
13:23
9.4
3605.4
113.3
113.6
4369.2
137.3
13:24
9.6
3563
113.4
113.4
4367.3
139.0
13:25
9.3
3636.1
113.5
113.7
4349.6
135.8
13:26
9.1
3793
115
115.6
4460.5
135.2
13:27
9.0
3918.1
118.2
118.9
4580.5
138.2
13:28
8.9
3896
118.1
119
4509.1
136.7
13:29
8.7
4030.9
118.9
120.3
4592.6
135.5
13:30
8.5
4111.7
122.5
123.5
4590.6
136.8
13:31
8.0
4212.8
124.4
126
4553.5
134.5
13:32
8.2
4228.2
122.9
124.3
4627.7
134.5
13:33
8.2
4235.9
126.2
127.7
4632.5
138.0
13:34
8.1
4182.4
126
127.6
4531.2
136.5
13:35
8.2
4138.1
124.7
126.3
4539.8
136.8
13:36
8.7
4030.8
124
124.9
4585.0
141.0
13:37
8.7
3915.9
122.8
123.7
4447.0
139.5
13:38
8.8
3896
122.7
123.4
4471.9
140.8
13:39
8.8
3858.3
123.5
124.3
4428.6
141.8
13:40
8.9
3829.1
121.1
121.5
4450.2
140.7
13:41
9.1
3803.8
119.2
119.6
4484.5
140.5
13:42
9.0
3804.5
120.7
121.1
4443.9
141.0
13:43
8.7
3893.8
121.4
122.1
4421.9
137.9
13:44
8.8
3907.7
121.1
121.9
4503.9
139.6
13:45
8.5
3922
123.4
124.7
4407.1
138.7
13:46
7.8
4172.2
127.6
130.1
4437.2
135.7
13:47
7.7
4247.5


4482.9

13:48 Port Change (Particulate/Metals Train)
13:49

-------
10-31-1989
TIME
Thermox
% 02
TEC0 48
ppm CO
Beckman
ppm C3
Ratfisch
ppm C3
TEC0 48
ppm CO
@7% 02
Bcckman
ppm THC
@1% 02
08:51
10.2
2865.2
59.6
59.6
3718.6
77.4
08:52
10.4
2873.1
60.9
60.9
3796.2
80.5
08:53
10.5
2856.7
61
60.9
3825.4
81.7
08:54
10.9
2806.2
62.3
62.2
3912.4
86.9
08:55
11.0
2804.8
63.8
63.4
3938.1
89.6
08:56
11.2
2814.9
65.5
65
4033.7
93.9
08:57
11.5
2840.6
68.2
67.7
4204.9
101.0
08:58
11.3
2856.6
68.6
68
4123.2
99.0
08:59
11.6
2917
70.1
69.7
4336.5
104.2
09:00
11.8
2935.7
73
72.4
4504.0
112.0
09:01
12.3
3202.2
74.6
74.1
5175.6
120.6
09:02
12.4
3142.9
76.2
75.7
5157.8
125.1
09:03
12.2
3119.2
77
76.5
4977.8
122.9
09:04
12.0
3184.2
77.9
77.4
4973.1
121.7
09:05
11.9
3281.6
80.1
79.7
5073.9
123.8
09:06
11.8
3344.5
82.6
82.2
5091.8
125.8
09:07
11.5
3373.9
85
85
4989.1
125.7
09:08
10.4
3447.2
85
85.8
4554.8
112.3
09:09
9.3
3523.9
88.7
90.5
4233.6
106.6
09:10
9.0
3543.3
92.2
94.3
4152.8
108.1
09:11
8.7
3657.5
95.2
98.2
4150.1
108.0
09:12
8.6
3741.5
96.6
99.5
4235.1
109.3
09:13
9.0
3709.2
97.8
100.8
4343.5
114.5
09:14
8.2
3768.6
101.3
104.8
4108.5
110.4
09:15
8.0
3902.9
104.7
108.8
4205.5
112.8
09:16
7.6
3907.2
110.8
115.5
4095.8
116.1
09:17
7.3
3915.3
115.3
120.6
3995.8
117.7
09:18
7.7
3980.6
113.5
118.6
4175.9
119.1
09:19
8.1
3946.7
112
116.4
4289.2
121.7
09:20
7.7
4016.7
116.7
122.3
4229.7
122.9
09:21
7.3
4124.7
120
126.6
4212.6
122.6
09:22
6.9
4180.2
126.6
134.5
4141.5
125.4
09:23
6.4
4191.7
135.5
144.3
4023.8
130.1
09:24
6.0
4263.1
144
154.1
3985.0
134.6
09:25
5.4
4455.6
161
173.3
4006.0
144.8
09:26
4.3
4710.6
221.9
240.9
3937.3
185.5
09:27
3.5
5459.3
294.9
322.2
4361.2
235.6
09:28
3.1
6491.6
376.8
413.6
5057.9
293.6
09:29 Port Change (Particulate/Metals Train)



09:30






09:31
5.9
4893.2
163.7
176.2
4537.4
151.8
09:32
6.8
4459.7
144.8
154.5
4405.8
143.1
09:33
6.5
4435.7
138.7
148.7
4266.9
133.4
09:34
6.7
4253.8
136.9
146.2
4172.7
134.3
09:35
7.1
4120.2
128.8
137
4159.1
130.0
09:36
7.1
4101.9
128.3
136.1
4140.6
129.5
09:37
6.5
4122.5
137.9
147.3
3965.6
132.7
09:38
6.2
4178
142.9
153.4
3937.2
134.7
09:39
5.9
4233.3
143.1
153.9
3915.0
132.3
09:40
6.0
4249.8
147.7
158.5
3961.9
137.7
09:41
6.2
4389
144.2
154.6
4138.9
136.0

-------
10-31-1989
TIME
Thermox
%02
TEC0 48
ppm CO
Beckman
ppm C3 "
Ratfisch
ppm C3
TEC0 48
ppm CO
@7% 02
Beckman
ppm THC
@7% 02
11:19
8.7
4700.2
117.3
116.7
5368.3
134.0
11:20
8.7
4779.6
119.8
119.4
5436.7
136.3
11:21
8.8
4457.4
121.5
120.7
5107.8
139.2
11:22
8.7
4647.4
114.6
113.9
5308.0
130.9
11:23
8.6
4522.5
116.5
116.5
5119.1
131.9
11:24
8.3
4650.7
123.9
123.8
5126.5
136.6
11:25
8.5
4583.8
113.9
113.8
5117.7
127.2
11:26
8.3
4601.2
115 J
115.7
5075.9
127.4
11:27
8.2
4636.7
117.3
117.5
5066.8
128.2
11:28
8.4
4586.7
115.4
115.4
5096.3
128.2
11:29
8.4
4690.9
113.6
113.7
5220.5
126.4
11:30
8.4
4533.4
114.6
114.7
5045.2
127.5
11:31
8.6
4484.4
114.5
114.6
5051.3
129.0
11:32
8.6
4616.9
111.6
111.8
5204.8
125.8
11:33
8.4
4470.7
116.5
116.7
4959.5
129.2
11:34
8.4
4644.5
118.1
118.2
5160.6
131.2
11:35
8.4
4691.6
117.5
118.2
5196.3
130.1
11:36
8.4
4649.9
118.7
119.1
5154.2
131.6
11:37
8.5
4571.3
120.6
120.3
5107.8
134.8
11:38
8.1
4806.4
124.6
124.2
5223.5
135.4
11:39 Port Change (Particulate/Metals Train)



11:40






11:41
7.7
5275.2
135.4
136.4
5538.2
142.1
11:42
7.6
5383.1
139.4
140.9
5609.1
145.3
11:43
7.6
5333
140.9
1412
5582.0
147.5
11:44
7.6
5300.5
134.2
135.9
5552.1
140.6
11:45
7.4
5451.2
148.3
150.1
5625.2
153.0
11:46
7.4
5364.5
147.9
148.1
5507.1
151.8
11:47
7.6
5466.1
134.7
135.3
5699.8
140.5
11:48
7.7
5284.8
143.8
144.1
5556.6
151.2
11:49
7.8
5126.3
139.3
139.9
5422.8
147.4
11:50
7.8
5162
133.5
134.5
5477.2
141.7
11:51
7.8
5219.8
1319
134
5551.3
141.3
11:52
7.8
4943.3
131.9
133.1
5257.2
140.3
11:53
7.9
49419
126.4
127.4
5289.2
135.3
11:54
8.0
4834.6
126.5
127.7
5189.3
135.8
11:55
7.9
4800.1
133.6
135.1
51314
142.8
11:56
7.9
5022.3
131
132.7
5357.6
139.7
11:57
8.1
5025.1
126
127.3
5444.2
136.5
11:58
8.0
4715.3
128.8
130.1
5092.7
139.1
11:59
8.2
4659
1215
123.8
5095.2
134.0
12:00
8.2
4709.1
124.1
125.1
5137.9
135.4
12:01
7.8
4757.3
1319
134.3
5055.5
141.2
12:02
8.0
4823.3
126.2
127.4
5209.3
136.3
12:03
8.2
4779.3
124.8
125.6
5247.4
137.0
12:04
8.0
4603.4
129.3
130.6
4971.8
139.6
12:05
8.3
4661.8
124.5
125.6
5142.8
137.3
12:06
8.4
4622
124.3
125.3
5143.8
138.3
12:07
8.2
4671.2
127.7
128.8
5100.5
139.4
12:08
8.2
4632.5
126.1
127.4
5066.2
137.9
12:09
8.1
4799.8
129.9
131.5
5204.2
140.8

-------
11-02-1989



TEC0 48
Beckman

Thermox
TEC0 48
Beckman
Ratfisch
ppm CO
ppm THC
TIME
%02
ppm CO
ppm C3
ppm C3
@7% 02
@7% 02
08:32
8.0
3093.4
83.8
89.3
3325.5
90.1
08:33
7.7
3122.0
86.3
92.1
3297.6
91.2
08:34
7.4
3233.9
92.8
99.5
3322.3
953
08:35
7.1
3121.1
97.9
105.1
3136.9
98.4
08:36
7.0
3285.1
101.7
1093
3275.7
101.4
08:37
6.9
3546.1
107.7
116.1
3520.8
106.9
08:38
6.8
3539.9
125.5
134.5
3479.8
123.4
08:39
6.8
3514.6
123.4
131.7
3472.1
121.9
08:40
6.8
3612.8
113.7
123.2
3554.0
111.8
08:41
6.9
3656.0
128.4
138.0
3635.1
127.7
08:42
7.0
3424.0
133.9
143.4
3411.7
133.4
08:43
7.0
3595.6
121.8
130.3
3585.3
121.5
08:44
7.0
3805.8
133.1
143.0
3803.1
133.0
Invalid Data -- Sampling system problem



09:02
6.4
3691.9
160.8
172.4
3529.4
153.7
09:03
6.4
3479.6
149.0
162.3
3324.2
142.3
09:04
6.3
3462.1
142.8
154.4
3300.6
136.1
09:05
6.4
3836.7
136.3
149.6
3670.3
130.4
09:06
5.9
3777.3
207.2
224.5
3495.6
191.7
09:07
5.5
3981.3
219.1
237.5
3593.5
197.8
09:08
5.6
4268.3
174.4
190.9
3875.2
158.3
09:09
Invalid Data ~
Port Change particulate/mctals train


09:10






09:11
5.3
4169.9
238.1
257.1
3713.1
212.0
09:12
5.2
4756.5
217.0
2383
4216.5
192.4
09:13
5.2
4409.1
261.0
285.5
3891.2
230.3
09:14
5.2
4143.8
267.2
290.0
3666.4
236.4
09:15
5.2
4406.7
207.3
2263
3904.0
183.7
09:16
5.1
4558.6
232.2
254.3
4020.6
204.8
09:17.
4.8
4179.1
262.0
285.2
3617.0
226.8
09:18
4.6
4275.7
274.6
297.2
3641.7
233.9
09:19
4.2
5071.3
291.7
3193
4226.1
243.1
09:20
4.4
4926.5
294.3
322.4
4142.7
247.5
09:21
4.3
4540.4
312.4
339.2
3792.8
261.0
09:22
4.1
4762.3
319.5
345.9
3930.9
263.7
09:23
4.2
5172.7
365.1
396.8
4308.0
304.1
09:24
4.5
5174.4
370.5
399.0
4380.3
313.6
09:25
4.3
5091.0
359.5
388.2
4255.3
300.5
09:26
4.3
5216.6
395.2
425.0
4368.1
330.9
09:27
4.7
5265.3
392.3
422.6
4503.9
335.6
09:28
4.9
4813.9
364.0
389.4
4169.0
315.2
09:29
4.6
5051.6
340.6
365.8
4313.1
290.8
09:30
4.7
5064.5
379.8
408.3
4342.8
325.7
09:31
5.4
4512.5
319.9
340.7
4036.3
286.1
09:32
5.6
4373.5
245.2
2613
3981.1
223.2
09:33
5.8
4113.9
226.4
242.5
3794.5
208.8
09:34
5.7
4009.5
284.8
302.0
3676.3
261.1
09:35
6.0
3986.5
261.5
276.7
3714.0
243.6
09:36
5.7
4285.5
266.0
281.0
3906.1
242.5
09:37
5.5
4484.4
302.9
323.1
4050.2
273.6
09:38
5.8
4244.6
370.3
388.2
3902.1
340.4
09:39
6.0
4562.7
339.4
357.1
4259.3
316.8

-------
11-02-1989




TEC0 48
Beckman

Thermox
TEC0 48
Bcckman
Ratfisch
ppm CO
ppm THC
TIME
%02
ppm CO
ppm C3
ppm C3
@7% 02
@7% 02
09:40
5.6
4921.0
360.0
381.1
4462.0
326.4
09:41
5.6
4626.5
398.0
420.7
4214.2
362.5
09:42
6.0
4347.8
340.1
357.9
4053.3
317.1
09:43
6.3
45553
314.9
330.3
4336.9
299.8
09:44
7.3
4312.7
226.7
240.5
4394.9
231.0
09:45
6.6
3529.0
240.1
251.0
3432.7
233.5
09:46
6.8
3750.5
235.0
246.1
3694.7
231.5
Run 1






Average
5.8
4191.3
241.3
259.0
3837.9
218.1
10:21
8.5
2426.7
73.1
76.1
2713.7
81.7
10:22
8.3
2362.8
71.5
74.8
2608.7
78.9
10:23
8.2
2423.0
71.7
75.4
2660.3
78.7
10:24
8.4
2416.5
71.9
75.1
2682.9
79.8
10:25
8.0
2406.8
74.4
77.3
2595.4
80.2
10:26
8.2
2547.8
74.1
77.1
2782.0
80.9
10:27
8.1
2597.7
77.8
81.5
2812.2
84.2
10:28
7.7
2590.2
79.0
83.4
2733.8
83.4
10:29
7.5
2535.7
79.6
84.7
2620.5
82.3
10:30
7.5
2689.3
78.4
83.8
2795.9
81.5
10:31
7.2
2715.1
90.0
95.5
2750.7
91.2
10:32
6.7
2795.4
96.4
102.5
2726.7
94.0
10:33
6.6
3000.4
98.3
104.8
2916.5
95.6
10:34
6.5
3273.1
116.6
124.8
3166.0
112.8
10:35
6.5
3023.9
116.1
123.9
2908.8
111.7
10:36
6.3
3106.9
112.0
120.0
2966.1
106.9
10:37
6.3
3385.1
124.1
133.2
3214.0
117.8
10:38
6.5
3196.1
112.2
120.7
3085.1
108.3
10:39
6.5
2948.8
108.8
116.8
2848.4
105.1
10:40
6.9
3092.3
97.7
105.2
3072.4
97.1
10:41
6.8
3004.5
101.5
109.1
2968.2
1003
10:42
6.7
2959.8
117.4
1243
2897.3
114.9
10:43
6.6
3115.3
106.6
113.6
3017.6
1033
10:44
6.6
3308.5
111.7
119.8
3213.7
108.5
10:45
6.7
3065.7
113.3
120.7
2994.6
110.7
10:46
6.6
2967.4
114.4
121.2
2882.4
111.1
10:47
6.9
3143.1
95.1
102.2
3122.9
94.5
10:48
7.2
2879.7
917
99.8
2911.1
93.7
10:49
7.1
2843.8
97.7
104.5
2864.4
98.4
10:50
7.4
2777.5
89.5
95.2
2857.7
911
10:51
7.5
2913.9
88.0
933
3029.4
91.5
10:52
7.4
2891.9
98.3
104.0
2982.0
101.4
10:53
7.2
2879.5
96.1
101.7
2917.3
97.4
10:54
7.4
3033.6
90.7
96.5
3114.3
93.1
10:55
7.0
3029.0
97.3
103.6
3033.4
97.4
10:56
7.1
2941.1
97.4
103.2
2953.9
97.8
10:57
6.8
2928.9
103.2
109.3
2883.3
101.6
10:58 Invalid Data -- Port Change particulate/metals train


10:59






11:00
7.1
2925.4
96.6
103.0
2940.2
97.1
nm
7.4
2975.4
88.3
94.1
3061.3
90.8

-------
11-02-1989




TEC0 48
Beckman

Thermox
TEC0 48
Beckman
Ratfisch
ppm CO
ppm THC
TIME
%02
ppm CO
ppm C3
ppm C3
@7% 02
@7% 02
11:02
1A
3061.8
96.2
1023
3159.5
993
11:03
7.6
2888.8
88.9
95.1
3025.9
93.1
11:04
7.5
2801.2
90.6
96.7
2914.4
943
11:05
7.6
3076.5
85.8
91.4
3215.3
89.7
11:06
7.7
2925.2
87.7
93.0
3071.0
92.1
11:07
7.8
2727.6
82.9
87.4
2900.8
88.2
11:08
7.9
2746.1
79.9
84.8
2934.0
85.4
11:09
7.8
2781.4
81.0
863
2940.0
85.6
11:10
7.6
2813.1
85.7
91.1
2948.9
89.8
11:11
7.5
2753.5
83.2
88.9
2858.4
86.4
11:12
7.6
2856.6
81.2
86.9
2992.2
85.1
11:13
7.5
2944.3
88.2
943
3056.4
91.6
11:14
7.3
2852.1
88.3
94.0
2908.6
90.0
11:15
7.6
2926.5
85.5
91.1
3047.1
89.0
11:16
7.6
2978.2
81.5
87.2
3121.9
85.4
11:17
7.6
2815.5
83.5
88.7
2949.2
87.5
11:18
7.7
2748.3
80.8
85.7
2894.0
85.1
11:19
7.9
2812.1
75.1
80.3
3004.5
80.2
11:20
8.0
2792.5
79.1
84.7
3011.3
853
11:21
8.0
2709.9
76.6
82.0
2924.5
82.7
11:22
8.3
2750.3
74.1
78.8
3022.1
81.4
11:23
8.3
2809.4
73.4
77.9
3094.3
80.8
11:24
8.3
2746.5
74.9
79.3
3029.9
82.6
11:25
8.4
2697.9
73.8
78.2
3002.5
82.1
11:26
8.6
2788.0
69.7
74.2
3137.9
78.4
11:27
8.5
2728.3
71.3
75.3
3051.0
79.7
11:28
8.4
2721.9
75.6
79.7
3031.6
84.2
11:29
8.2
2888.6
74.3
78.9
3169.0
81.5
11:30
8.3
2944.8
71.6
76.1
3259.0
79.2
11:31
8.3
2888.0
74.7
78.6
3175.9
82.1
11:32
8.5
2834.0
71.2
75.0
3171.7
79.7
11:33
8.7
2884.5
68.1
71.8
3286.4
77.6
11:34
8.8
2803.7
68.1
71.6
3218.1
78.2
11:35
8.9
2749.2
68.2
71.2
3195.1
79.3
Run 2






Average
7.6
2854.3
87.8
93.3
2973.0
91.0
13:01
5.6
5094.9
243.5
263.2
4622.7
220.9
13:02
6.2
4793.2
226.1
241.8
4532.3
213.8
13:03
6.1
4718.1
219.0
234.1
4425.2
205.4
13:04
6.4
4429.1
174.7
1873
4234.1
167.0
13:05
6.4
4401.4
188.6
201.3
4213.5
180.5
13:06
6.6
4195.3
165.9
177.1
4083.7
161.5
13:07
6.5
4352.9
167.3
177.9
4195.9
1613
13:08
6.6
4301.2
157.9
167.8
4192.6
153.9
13:09
6.9
4076.7
140.5
149.6
4038.9
139.2
13:10
6.6
4167.4
148.6
158.4
4056.5
144.6
13:11
6.8
4208.8
159.4
168.8
4155.0
157.4
13:12
6.6
4277.3
149.0
158.2
4146.1
144.4
13:13
6.2
4322.8
157.8
167.9
4084.8
149.1
13:14
6.3
4370.4
160.0
169.4
4146.7
151.8

-------
11-02-1989



TEC0 48
Beckman

Thcrmox
TEC0 48
Beckman
Ratfisch
ppm CO
ppm THC
TIME
%02
ppm CO
ppm C3
ppm C3
@7% 02
@7% 02
13:15
6.4
43%. 1
149.7
159.3
4214.2
143.5
13:16
6.2
4486.0
164.7
174.1
4244.8
155.8
13:17
6.0
4558.4
188.0
198.6
4246.8
175.1
13:18
6.1
4615.9
171.0
181.2
4320.6
160.1
13:19
6.0
4656.2
183.4
193.9
4335.0
170.7
13:20
5.6
4890.8
232.4
244.6
4431.7
210.6
13:21
5.4
5011.8
229.6
241.9
4497.4
206.0
13:22
5.5
4979.4
203.0
216.1
4503.2
183.6
13:23
5.3
5144.5
250.4
264.1
4592.7
223.5
13:24
5.3
5075.4
2233
237.2
4533.9
199.5
13:25
5.7
4891.9
178.8
190.1
4467.6
163.3
13:26
5.8
4801.5
187.1
197.7
4419.9
172.2
13:27
5.7
4788.6
200.9
212.0
4381.9
183.8
13:28
5.7
4714.6
184.3
194.9
4311.4
168.5
13:29
6.0
4760.8
167.8
178.2
4426.4
156.0
13:30
5.9
4748.5
177.2
187.1
4397.3
164.1
13:31
6.0
4455.9
165.5
175.2
4162.4
154.6
1332
63
4379.4
143.2
152.0
4160.9
136.1
13:33
63
4360.7
148.1
157.2
41403
140.6
13:34
6.2
4410.0
150.1
160.0
4164.3
141.7
13:35
6.0
4335.7
174.8
184.1
4036.6
162.7
13:36
6.0
4680.0
153.9
164.6
4374.7
143.9
13:37
5.9
4658.2
180.7
191.7
4322.4
167.7
13:38
6.0
4424.8
168.8
178.9
4133.4
157.7
13:39
6.1
4494.1
147.8
156.9
4232.2
139.2
13:40
6.0
4665.4
173.0
183.5
4358.1
161.6
13:41
6.0
4478.3
176.6
186.2
4163.8
164.2
13:42
6.1
4497.8
161.2
169.5
4230.0
151.6
13:43
6.2
4603.4
149.5
159.9
4361.8
141.7
13:44
5.9
4517.1
172.3
182.8
4191.4
159.9
13:45
6.1
4354.1
163.4
172.8
4092.1
153.6
13:46
6.3
4543.4
140.3
1493
4310.8
133.1
13:47
6.0
4619.3
173.1
183.5
4309.3
161.5
13:48
5.8
4554.1
177.2
188.1
4189.4
163.0
13:49
5.9
4720.5
174.1
183.7
4374.3
161.3
13:50
5.6
4841.8
170.6
182.4
4407.4
155.3
13:51
Invalid Data ~ ]
Port Change particulate/metals train


13:52






13:53
5.6
4727.7
174.0
185.3
4300.7
158.3
13:54
5.4
4846.7
217.2
230.0
4349.2
194.9
13:55
5.1
4982.9
225.4
239.7
4394.8
198.8
13:56
5.2
5005.9
236.7
251.2
4423.5
209.2
13:57
5.3
5164.8
214.4
229.2
4599.0
190.9
13:58
5.1
5124.5
235.0
249.5
4511.1
206.9
13:59
5.6
4804.6
202.7
215.0
4350.7
183.6
14:00
5.8
4950.7
178.3
189.9
4557.3
164.1
14:01
5.9
4882.9
182.5
195.1
4518.8
168.9
14:02
5.7
4524.3
184.8
196.5
4148.3
169.4
14:03
5.7
4714.3
189.1
200.6
4308.3
172.8
14:04
5.7
4844.0
189.8
202.4
4415.2
173.0
14:05
5.3
5062.4
219.3
232.8
4519.4
195.8
14:06
5.5
5015.7
209.2
223.1
4536.0
189.2

-------
11-02-1989
TIME
Thcrmox
%02
TEC0 48
ppm CO
Bcckman
ppm C3
Ratfisch
ppm C3
TEC0 48
ppm CO
@7% 02
Beckman
ppm THC
@7% 02
14:07
5.8
5058.6
183.9
196.0
4644.3
168.8
14.08
5.6
4961.6
193.1
205.7
4516.5
175.8
14:09
5.9
4743.4
176.5
188.1
4386.8
163.2
14:10
6.2
4664.4
157.3
167.4
4407.6
148.6
14:11
6.2
4518.4
160.6
170.9
4260.9
151.4
14:12
6.0
4686.8
169.4
179.2
4357.6
157.5
14:13
5.8
4734.3
174.8
185.6
4352.3
160.7
14:14
5.9
4697.5
172.4
182.5
4358.8
160.0
14:15
5.8
4673.8
169.1
179.2
4305.2
155.8
14:16
5.7
4678.1
166.5
177.3
4280.8
152.4
14:17
5.7
4717.4
186.3
196.8
4313.9
170.4
14:18
5.9
4787.8
169.0
179.2
4422.0
156.1
14:19
5.7
4775.2
170.9
180.8
4369.7
156.4
14:20
5.6
4690.2
188.6
199.8
4249.9
170.9
14:21
5.4
4842.9
196.4
207.6
4343.0
176.1
14:22
5.4
4865.3
197.4
209.2
4360.3
176.9
14:23
5.1
4844.5
190.5
202.6
4267.3
167.8
14:24
5.2
4835.7
208.8
220.3
4270.4
184.4
14:25
5.2
4806.4
205.7
218.2
4252.6
182.0
14:26
5.2
4899.2
192.3
204.6
4323.7
169.7
14:27
5.1
4670.4
203.5
217.4
4101.0
178.7
Run 3
Average
5.9
4678.0
182.4
193.7
4320.5
168.2

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA I
(Pteate nod instruction! on the rtfcru before compter
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/R-9?/00.3p
PB92-151596
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EMISSIONS OF METALS, CHROMIUM AND NICKEL SPECIES, AND
ORGANICS FROM MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SLUDGE INCINERATORS
VOLUME V: site 7 Teat Report - CEMS Evaluation
5. REPORT OATE
March 1992
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOt
7. authorisi
Cone, A. Laurie, and Scott A. Shanklin
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina.# 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. contracY/ghant NO.
Contract No. 68-CO-0027
Work Assignment No. 0-5
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45266
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PEftlOO COVEREO
Draft Report 1989 - 91
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. supplementary notes
EPA Technical Contact: Dr. Harry E. Bostian, (513) 569-7619, FTS: 684-7619
16. abstract
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards (OWRS) has recently revised the risk-based sludge
regulations under Section 405d of the Clean Water Act. The revised regulations
include a provision for monitoring total hydrocarbon (THC) and/or carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions as a surrogate for organic emissions measurements.
With the assistance of EPA*s Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
OWRS has implemented a research program to investigate the relationship of CO
and hydrocarbon emissions and the viability of the monitoring systems used to
continuously measure these emissions. This test report presents the results
obtained at the Site 7 municipal wastewater treatment facility.
The CO and THC emission levels showed good agreement during the test
program, i.e., increases in CO are accompanied by increases in THC. The actual
correlation -coefficients ranged from .73-.93 using one-minute averaged data
from six test runs. Comparisons of CO and THC values corrected to 7% oxygen
levels do not provide the same measure of correlation (r-values from .11 to
.83). Possible explanation of the apparent change in agreement is being
investigated further. This report presents uncorrected and corrected emission
data in both tabular and graphic formats.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-CO-0027, Work
Assignment No. 0-5 by Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from
October 28 to November 8, 1989, and work was completed as of August 26, 1991. >
1 7 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. descriptors
b.lOENTIFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS at i Field/Gioup
Water pollution, sludge disposal,
incinerator(s), organic compounds,
combustion products
Emissions,
multiple hearth,
total hydrocarbons,
continuous monitoring

18. distribution statement
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (TiliS Htport/
21. no. of pages
4Q
20-
22. PRICE
£ PA Form 2220-1 (R»». 4-77) phcviou* ipitioh u omolete

-------