EPA-600/E-96-019
F ebruary 1996
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Combustion of an Emulsified Heavy Fuel Oil in a
Firetube Boiler
Prepared by:
C. Andrew Miller
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions ort the reverse before compl || | ] || |] ||||| |] || ] 11| || || 11 |j|
I. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600 /R-96-019
: 111 Kill 11 lllll 11 llllliilllll 111
PB96-168281
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Combustion of an
Emulsified Heavy Fuel Oil in a Firetube Boiler
5. REPORT DATE
F ebruary 1996
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS!
C, Andrew Miller
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
See Block 12
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA (Inhouse)*
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 21711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 5-11/95
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. supplementary notes Author Miller's mail drop is 65; his phone number is 919/541-
2920. (*) Portions of this work conducted by A cur ex Environmental Corp. under
EPA contracts 68-DO0141 and 6fi-D4-0005.
i6. abstract report gives results of measuring emissions of hazardous air pollu-
tants (HAPs) from the combustion flue gases of a No, 6 fuel oil, both with and with-
out an emulsifying agent, in a 2. 5 million Btu/hr (732 kW) firetube boiler with the
purpose of determining the impacts of the emulsifier on HAP emissions. The boiler
flue gases were sampled and analyzed for both metal and organic HAPs, and the ef-
fects of the emulsification on criteria emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO), nitro-
gen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (FM) were also measured. Measured in
pounds per million British thermal units, the emulsified oil showed a decrease in the
CO emission factor of 24%, a decrease of 35% in the NOx emission factor, and a de-
crease of 37% in the PM emission factor compared to emission factors measured
from burning the base oil (i. e., the same oil without the emulsifying agent). Emis-
sions of sulfur dioxide (S02) and metals were essentially unchanged for the emulsi-
fied oil compared with the base oil. No polychlorinated dibenzodioxins or polychlor-
inated dibenzofurans were detected in the flue gases of either fuel. There was a not-
able shift in the particle size distribution toward smaller size ranges for the emul-
sified oil compared to the base oil, although it is currently unclear whether the re-
duction in total PM emissions also results in a reduction of smaller particles.
17, KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c, cos ATI Field/Group
Pollution
Fuel Oil
Combustion
Emulsions
Fire Tube Boilers
Toxicity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Hazardous Air Pollu-
tants (HAPs)
13 B
2 ID
2 IB
07D
13 A
06T
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
102
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220<1 (9-73)
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
ABSTRACT
Emissions of criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) were measured from the combustion flue
gases of a #6 fuel oil, both with and without an emulsifying agent, in a 2.5xl06 Btu/hr firetube boiler,
with the purpose of determining the impacts of the emulsifier on HAP emissions. The flue gases of the
boiler were sampled and analyzed for both metal and organic HAPs, and the effects of the cmulsiflcation
on criteria emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM)
were also measured. Measured in pounds per million British thermal units (Btu), the emulsified oil
showed a decrease in the CO emission factor of 24%, a decrease of 35% in the NOx emission factor, and a
decrease of 37% in the PM emission factor compared to emission factors measured from burning the base
oil (i.e. the same #6 oil without the emulsifying agent). Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and metals
were essentially unchanged for the emulsified oil compared to the base oil. Emissions of volatile organic
HAPs from the emulsified oil were 9% lower than for the base oil, and semivolatile emissions were 29%
lower for the emulsified oil compared to the base oil. For both volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds, the emission factors were on the order of 1 pound per trillion Btu. No polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins or polychlorinated dibenzofurans were detected in the flue gases of either oil. There was a
notable shift in the particle size distribution toward smaller size ranges for the emulsified oil compared to
the base oil, although it is currently unclear whether the reduction in total particulate emissions results in an
overall reduction in emissions of smaller (< 2.5 Jim) particles. Additional work is planned to provide
quantitative information on the differences in size distributions and the total mass emissions for the
different particle size ranges.
ii
-------
PREFACE
The Control Technology Center (CTC) was established by EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to state
and local air pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance can be accessed through the CTC.
First, a CTC HOTLINE has been established to provide telephone assistance on matters relating to air
pollution control technology. Second, more in-depth engineering assistance can be provided when
appropriate. Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of technical guidance
documents, development of personal computer software, and presentation of workshops on control
technology matters.
The technical guidance projects, such as this one, focus on topics of national or regional interest that
are identified through contact with state and local agencies. In this case, the CTC became interested in
examining the emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the comhustion of a heavy fuel oil, both
with and without an emulsifying agent, in a small industrial/commercial boiler, based on a request from a
state agency.
In late 1994, the CTC received a request from the producer of a heavy oil/water emulsion to provide
information regarding the potential for HAP emissions from the combustion of the emulsified oil. A state
agency had requested the producer to provide such information, and the producer approached EPA
regarding the possibility of testing the oil, both with and without the emulsifier, to provide the HAP
emissions data requested by the state agency.
Related work to characterize HAP emissions from the combustion of #2, #5, and #6 fuel oils had been
conducted earlier at EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Division (APPCD), formerly the Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory. With this
background, APPCD was asked by the CTC to conduct similar tests on the emulsified fuel oil and the base
oil without the emulsifying agent. These tests were conducted in early 1995, and the results are the subject
of this report.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Portions of this work were conducted under EPA Contract 68-D4-0005 with Acurex Environmental
Corporation, The author would like to acknowledge the following Acurex staff for their efforts: Jeff Ryan
(now with EPA's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division), responsible for the sampling and
analytical portion of the project; and Tony Lombardo, who led the operation and maintenance of the North
American boiler. The author also acknowledges the contributions of Charles Rogers of Industrial Fuel
Company who provided the fuels and analyses of the fuels for these tests.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Eage
ABSTRACT. ii
PREFACE " iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
1. INTRODUCTION I
1.1 Hazardous Air Pollutants , 1
1.2 HAPs from Combustion Sources. 2
1.3 Emulsified Fuel Oils. 3
1.4 Project Objective. 3
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 4
2.1 Equipment. 4
2.2 Test Matrix. . 5
2.3 Sampling and Analysis 7
2.4 Quality Assurance 8
3. RESULTS 9
3.1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions. 9
3.1.1 PM Size Distribution 16
3.2 Metal HAP Emissions. 18
3.2.1 Metal Size Distribution , 21
3.3 Organic HAP Emissions 21
3.3.1 Volatile Organic HAP Emissions 21
3.3.2 Semivolatile Organic HAP Emissions 24
3.3.3 Dioxin and Furan Emissions 27
4. DISCUSSION 27
4.1 Operational Factors. 27
4.2 Criteria Pollutant Emissions 27
4.3 Metal Emissions 28
4.4 Organic HAP Emissions 28
5. CONCLUSIONS 29
6. REFERENCES 29
APPENDIX A. ENGUSH ENGINEERING TO METRIC CONVERSIONS. 31
APPENDIX B. QUALITY EVALUATION REPORT 32
B.l CEM Data 32
B.2 Duplicate Samples. 33
B.3 Duplicate Tests. 33
B.3.1 Criteria Pollutants. 33
B.3.2 Metals. 33
B.3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds 34
B.3.4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 35
B.3.5 PCDDs/PCDFs, 35
B.4 Blanks. 35
B.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 35
B.4.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds , 36
B. 5 Matrix Spikes. 36
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Page
B.5.1 Scmivolatile Organic Compounds. 37
B.5.2 Metals Matrix Spikes 37
B.6 Completeness 38
APPENDIXC. DATASHEETS 39
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No, Page
2-1. Schematic of the North American package boiler ,4
2-2, Location of CEM, temperature, and sampling probes on the
North American package boiler 9
3-1. Average emissions of CO, NOx, and SO2 for the base
and emulsified fuel oils. ,11
3-2. Average concentrations of PM and average smoke numbers and
heat inputs for the base oil and the emulsified oil. 12
3-3. Average heat input rate for 12 of the 13 runs 13
3-4. Average CO emissions for 12 of the 13 runs 13
3-5. Average NOx emissions for 12 of the 13 runs 14
3-6. Average SO2 emissions for 12 of the 13 runs, 14
3-7. PM emissions for runs 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11 15
3-8. Smoke numbers for 12 of the 13 runs. 15
3-9. Average emission factors for CO, NOx, SO2, and PM for the base oil
and the emulsified oil. 17
3-10. Average measured emission factors for 10 metals sampled for the
base oil and the emulsified oil. 20
3-11. Average semivolatile emission factors for the base and
emulsified oils.... 26
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page
2-1, Ultimate analyses results of the base #6 fuel oil and the
emulsified oil used in the test program 5
2-2, Trace element content of the base #6 oil used in the test program, in ^.g/g. 6
2-3. Test matrix used for sampling HAPs 7
2-4, Sampling and analytical methods used in the test program. 8
3-1, Average emissions of criteria pollutants, and average smoke
number readings from the two oils tested 10
3-2. Average emission factors for criteria pollutants from the two
oils tested, in lb/106 Btu,„ 16
3-3. Relative percent differences for the duplicate Method 29
samples for each of the 10 metals. 18
3-4. Average measured emission factors for the 10 metals sampled, in lb/1012 Btu, 19
3-5, Volatile organic compounds detected for each oil during combustion testing. 22
3-6. Ratio of mass of volatile organic compound detected in the field
blanks to die average detected mass in the samples 23
3-7. Relative percent differences between VOST tube measurements
for three volatile organic compounds. 23
3-8. Emission factors of volatile organic compounds, in lb/1012 Btu. ....24
3-9. Semivolatile organic compounds detected for each
oil during combustion testing. 25
3-10. Average semivolatile organic emission factors. 26
B -1. Data quality indicator goals for the project. 32
B-2. Average metal emission factors for each run and the
standard deviation between the runs. 34
B-3. Average volatile organic compound emission factors and the
relative percent differences between the runs 34
B-4. Average emission factors for semivolatile compounds and the
standard deviations of the triplicate runs 35
B-5. Volatile organic compounds detected in the field blanks. 36
B-6. Semivolatile organic compounds detected in the field blanks. 36
B-7. Spike recoveries and relative percent differences for the matrix spites of PAHs...,,„„37
B-8. Percent recoveries of metal matrix spikes. 38
viii
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Hazardous Air Pollutants
The emissions of air toxics or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) have been an issue of increasing
concern over the last few years, particularly sirice the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAAs)1 which mandated regulation of HAPs under Title III from a wide range of sources. Title III of
the CAAAs lists 189 compounds and compound classes as HAPs, and requires application of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to a nonutility source that emits over 10 tons/year* of any one
HAP, or 25 tons/year of any combination of HAPs. In addition to the requirements of the CAAAs at the
Federal level, limits on emissions of HAPs have also been set by some states. States are also requesting
increasing amounts of information regarding the potential for HAP emissions prior to allowing an
operating permit for fuel combustion or other processes. Because the emissions of HAPs have become a
regulatory issue only recently, there is much less information available regarding the characterization of
HAP emissions from stationary sources than is the case for the criteria pollutants such as carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NO*), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM).
A further complication in characterization of HAPs is the large number and variety of compounds that
have been identified as HAPs under the CAAAs. Of the 189 compounds and compound classes listed as
hazardous under Title III of the CAAAs, 11 are metals. Also included are radionuclides (composed of
both gaseous and metal compounds; e.g., radon and uranium), asbestos, fine mineral fibers, and acids
such as hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrofluoric acid (HF), and hydrogen sulfide (HS). Most of the
remainder of the 189 HAPs are organic. Many of these organic compounds are nitrogenated or chlorinated
organics, and are often associated with the production of pesticides, herbicides, or chemical production
byproducts.
In the case of many sources such as chemical production facilities, the characterization is relatively
straightforward, since the emissions are primarily fugitive vapor emissions from the production of a
limited number of chemical compounds. In such cases, the types of chemicals being released are usually
known, and characterization is a matter of determining quantity and location of the emissions. In other
cases, characterization is more difficult. For instance, hydrocarbon combustion processes will as a matter
of course result in the emission of trace quantities of products of incomplete combustion (PICs) such as
benzene, toluene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), even during efficient combustion.
Because of the large volumes of flue gas produced during the combustion process, however, even HAP
* See Appendix A for conversion factors to metric units.
1
-------
concentrations in the parts per million (ppm) level can result in annual mass emissions that are greater than
the 10 or 25 ton/year limits specified under Title HI.
1.2 HAPs from Combustion Sources
Combustion sources can emit a wide range of HAPs during operation. The types and amounts of
HAP emissions can vary widely, depending on the type of fuel used and the conditions under which the
fuel is combusted. Many of the fuels in use in industry contain trace levels of metals, including metals that
are listed as HAPs under Title III of the CAAAs. For example, coal naturally contains most of the listed
metals in trace quantities less than 0.01% by weight. Fuel oils, and particularly heavy fuel oils such as #6
oil, also contain trace quantities of metals. During the combustion process, these metals are released from
the fuel into the gases produced during combustion and, without adequate controls, can be released to the
atmosphere from the combustor stack. Since the metal contents of the fuels are typically on the order of
parts per million, the resulting concentrations of metals in the flue gases are very low. However, because
of the large quantities of fuels combusted in many processes, the total mass of these metals can be on the
order of tons per year. For instance, a fuel that contains 100 ppm of a metal can result in 10 tons/year of
metal emissions into the atmosphere if the fuel were burned at an average rate of 22,830 lb/hr, and if 100%
of the metal in the fuel exited the combustor via the stack. Although this level of fuel usage may seem very
high, it is the required fuel flow for a typical steam power plant rated at 41.7 MWe running at full load
using a #6 fuel oil. Thus, the potential for combustion processes to exceed the regulatory level of HAP
emissions can be high for even relatively small industrial sources.
In addition to the emissions of toxic metals from the fuels, organic compounds can also be emitted
from fuel combustion processes. The high temperatures and high levels of chemical species found in a
combustion system provide an ideal environment for chemical reactions. While the vast majority of
reactions between oxygen (O2) and the hydrocarbon fuel result in the formation of carbon dioxide (CO2)
and water (H2O), some of the reactions that take place result in the formation of trace quantities of other
species such as benzene, toluene, or formaldehyde, all of which are listed as HAPs under Title III. While
the levels of these compounds that are produced during combustion are very low, the example given above
illustrates that low levels of compounds can result in a relatively high total mass of emissions. In addition,
the complex chemical and physical processes that occur in the combustion environment make it impossible
to determine a priori the amounts or the species that will be emitted from a combustion process.
2
-------
1.3 Emulsified Fuel Oils
Emulsions have been used for many years as a means of reducing the emissions of criteria pollutants
from the combustion of fuel oils. A number of studies have shown the ability of emulsions of water
suspended in oil to reduce the emissions from combustion sources2"4; however, the impacts of oil/water
emulsions on particular pollutants vary. For heavy fuel oils, oil/water emulsions tend to reduce
particulate, but in general have had a smaller effect on either CO or NOx when operating conditions are
kept constant.2 With distillate oils, particulates and NOx have been shown to be reduced when using an
oil/water emulsion compared to using the same oil without emulsification.3 However, the use of an
emulsifier results in improved secondary atomization of the fuels, often allowing operation at a reduced
stoichiometric ratio, and also tends to reduce the peak combustion temperature. Both of these effects result
in lower NOx emissions, and the improved atomization can also result in lower CO emissions.
The key disadvantage to the use of emulsions in the past has been the ability of the water to remain in
suspension during storage. One method of avoiding this problem has been to mix the oil and water
immediately prior to feeding the mixture into the boiler. However, this requires additional fuel and water
handling equipment, as well as a system to mix the two liquids. The additional expenses associated with
this equipment have not usually been considered worth the resulting reductions in NOx emissions. As an
alternative to separate storage of the oil and water, emulsifying agents that result in a reduced rate of
oil/water separation have been developed, allowing "premixcd" emulsified oils to maintain their properties
for extended periods of time when properly stored. This approach eliminates the need for additional
handling and mixing equipment, and utilizes existing fuel handling systems, thereby reducing the cost of
use. In the present tests, a "premixed" oil/water emulsion of a #6 fuel oil was used in comparison to the
base, nonemulsified oil.
1.4 Project Objective
The objective of this project is to evaluate the emissions of HAPs from the combustion of an
emulsified fuel oil and compare those emissions to the same oil without the emulsifying agent, both being
burned in the same unit under similar conditions.* This information will provide guidance regarding the
potential for increase in HAP emissions due to the use of water/residual oil emulsions for reducing criteria
pollutant emissions, and will also provide information in addition to previous tests of HAP emissions from
the combustion of fuel oils conducted in the same unit.5 This will allow both fuel users and pollution
control agency officials to make informed decisions regarding the impacts on air emissions from the
combustion of water/residual oil emulsions.
* The emulsified fuel was prepared and supplied by Industrial Fuel Company of Hickory, North Carolina.
3
-------
The work described in this report was conducted by the Air Pollution Technology Branch (formerly
the Combustion Research Branch) of EPA's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD) of
the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Research Triangle Park, NC, and
supported by EPA's Control Technology Center,
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
2.1 Equipment
The tests were performed on APPCD's North American package boiler (NAPB) which is capable of
firing natural gas or #2 through #6 fuel oils. The boiler is of a three-pass firetube "Scotch" marine-type
design built in 1967, model 5-360H-D, and shown schematically in Figure 2-1, The burner is a North
American model 6121-2.5H6-A65 rated at 2.5 x 106 Btu/hr, and has a ring-type natural gas burner and an
air-atomizing center nozzle oil burner capable of firing #2 through #6 oils. The boiler has 300 ft2 of
heating surface and generates up to 2400 lb/hr of saturated steam at pressures up to 15 psig. Heat is
extracted from the steam through a heat exchanger to an industrial cooling water system that simulates the
Steam Outlet Stack
Steam
** Hue Gas Row
Water i
Burner
Figure 2-1. Schematic of the North American package boiler. The boiler is a three-pass firetube
"Scotch" marine-type boiler capable of burning natural gas or fuel oils.
4
-------
boiler load. Oil temperature can be adjusted using an electric heater to maintain proper oil viscosity, and
both fuel and atomizing air pressures are variable to ensure adequate oil atomization. The NAPB is fully
instrumented with continuous emission monitors (CEMs) for NOx, CO, CO2, O2, and SO2. A
computerized data acquisition system was used to record CEM measurements as well as steam and flue gas
temperatures.
The flue gases from the unit pass through a manifold to an air pollution control system (APCS)
consisting of a natural-gas-fired secondary combustion chamber, an acid gas scrubber, and a fabric filter to
ensure proper removal of pollutants generated during tests designed to mimic poor combustion conditions.
During the tests reported here, the APCS was operated to provide a constant draft to the NAPB to
minimize changes in the induced draft. Although this type of boiler normally operates under forced draft
only, the imposition of an induced draft due to the APCS was not felt to introduce any significant effects
on boiler emissions.
2,2 Test Matrix
The test matrix was chosen to evaluate the effects of using an emulsified fuel on HAP emissions. The
same #6 fuel oil was used in both tests, one with the emulsifier and the other without. The ultimate
analyses of the fuels are given in Table 2-1, and Table 2-2 presents the trace element concentrations of the
Table 2-1. Ultimate analyses of the base #6 fuel oil and the emulsified oil used in the test
program. Elemental concentrations are given in dry percent by weight, and
viscosity values are in centistokes (cSt).
#6 Fuel Oil
(without emulsifier)
Emulsified #6
Fuel Oil
Water(i)
0.70
9.00
Carbon (2)
85.20
77.83
Hydrogen (2)
7.16
10.16
Nitrogen (2)
0.24
0.24
Sulfur (2)
2.13
1.70
Ash (2)
0.040
0.096
Oxygen (2,3)
5.23
10.07
Viscosity, cSt
@100°F
1964
2281
@210° F
47.24
63.38 (4)
Heat of Combustion,
Btu/Ib (ref. to 77° F)
18,243
16,604
(1) Karl Fischer water
(2) Values are on a dry basis. Water percentage is given for reference only.
(3) Oxygen values are calculated by difference
(4) Due to the water content of the emulsified oil, the viscosity at 210" F is
approximate
5
-------
Table 2-2.
Trace element content of the base #6 fuel oil used in the test program, in ^ig/g.
The emulsified oil was not analyzed for metals since no metals were in the
emulsifying agent
#6 Fuel Oil
(without emulsifier)
Antimony
< 1.2
Arsenic
< 0.6
Beryllium
< 0.002
Cadmium
<0.03
Chromium
<0.06
Lead
< 0.6
Mercury
< 0.05
Manganese
<0.01
Nickel
65.0
Sodium (l)
51.6
Vanadium (1)
486
(1) Sodium and vanadium are not listed ax HAPs under Title III
oil without emulsifier (referred to as the base oil). No trace element concentration analyses were
conducted on the emulsified oil, since the producer of the emulsified oil verified that no metals were
included in the emulsifier.
Table 2-1 shows that the fuels have relatively high sulfur contents, and very low ash contents. The
addition of the water in the emulsified oil significantly impacts the heating value, reducing it by 9%, equal
to the increase in water content of the emulsified oil compared to the base oil. A greater flow of emulsified
oil is then required to maintain the same heating rate as for the base oil. In addition, the combustion air
flow also changes between the two fuels, due to the change in input rate of combustible content of the
emulsified oil and to changes in the level of excess air used with the emulsified oil (operating changes will
be discussed below).
The amounts of metals in the base oil indicate very low levels of all metals except nickel, sodium, and
vanadium. Of these three, only nickel is listed as a HAP under Title III. These results are not unexpected,
given the very low ash levels of the two oils. The trace element concentrations of the emulsified oil will be
even less, since the metals will be diluted by the presence of the water.
The tests were conducted following the instructions of the oil/water emulsion producer. The proper
procedure for setting the combustion conditions was to begin with the base oil, set conditions to obtain the
desired level of Cb in the stack, and measure the smoke number. The fuel was then switched to the
emulsified oil, and the excess air level was reduced until the same smoke number as was measured with
6
-------
the base fuel was obtained. This resulted in a lower stoichiometric ratio for the emulsified oil than for the
base oil. This condition represents the baseline condition for the emulsified oil. No other combustion
conditions were tested. For the base oil, the baseline condition was a firing rate of 2 x 106 Btu/hr, a
nominal excess air level of 20% (stoichiometric ratio of 1.2), 5 psig outlet steam pressure, 48 psig
atomizing air pressure, and 74 psig oil pressure. The same firing rate, steam pressure, and atomizing air
pressure were used for both oils. For the base oil, the oil feed temperature averaged 236 °F, and for the
emulsified oil, the feed temperature averaged 253 °F.
Because of constraints on sampling locations, different sampling procedures were conducted during
different test runs. Sampling was done for metals, organics, and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
(PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). Test runs were scheduled to minimize changes in
test conditions, and duplicate test runs were also conducted to provide a measure of the repeatability of the
test results. Table 2-3 shows the test matrix, including the sampling activities conducted during each test
run.
Table 2-3 Test matrix used for sampling HAPs. For each test run, the
number of samples taken for that test run is given.
Test Run
Date
Fuel
Metals
Volatile
Organics
Semivolatile
Organics
PCDDs/PCDFs
1
3/7/95
Base
2
2
3/8/95
Base
1
2
3
3/8/95
Base
2
4
3/9/95
Base
1
1
5
3/9/95
Base
1
1
6
3/10/95
Base
1
1
7
3/10/95
Base
1
1
8
3/14/95
Emulsified
2
9
3/14/95
Emulsified
2
10
3/15/95
Emulsified
1
2
11
3/15/95
Emulsified
2
1
12
3/16/95
Emulsified
1
1
13
3/16/95
Emulsified
1
1
2.3 Sampling and Analysis
The current program used different methods to sample and analyze for four major categories of HAPs:
volatile organics, semivolatile organics, PCDDs/PCDFs, and metals. Table 2-4 lists the sampling and
analytical procedures used in the test program. Duplicate samples were collected during selected test runs
to provide a measure of the sampling precision. Sample probes were collocated in the stack, using the
7
-------
Table 2-4. Sampling and analytical methods used in the test program.
Compound Class
Sampling Method^
Analytical Method
Volatile Organics
SW-846 Method 0030
(VOST)
SW-846 Methods 5040 and
8240
Semivolatile Organics
SW-846 Method 0010
(Modified Method 5)
SW-846 Method 8270
Polychlorinated Dioxins and
Furans
40 CFR Part 60 Method
23(2)
Modified SW-846 Method
8280
Metals and Particulate Matter
SW-846 Method 0060®
SW-846 Method 0060®
(1) SW-846 sampling and analytical methods for VOCs and semivolatile organics can be found in Reference
6.
(2) Method 23 is found in Reference 7.
(3) Method 0060 is an SW-846 method identical to the unpublished Method 29, Draft Multi-Metals Train,
40 CFR Part 60, and following conventional usage, is referred to as Method 29 in the text. Method 0060 is
found in Reference 8.
same axial location, and with the radial location being determined by the point of average duct velocity. In
addition, field blanks were collected for each type of emissions sample to permit evaluation of potential
sampling contamination,
Extractive sampling locations and locations of the CEM probes on the NAPB are shown in the
schematic in Figure 2-2. The CEM data collected were recorded using a computerized data acquisition
system for later retrieval and analysis of the data.
2.4 Quality Assurance
The project was conducted according to an APPCD Level III Quality Assurance (QA) Project Plan,
which was prepared to document the test objectives, procedures used, data quality objectives, and data
quality indicator goals for the test program. A QA Level III plan is used for technology development, and
is less rigorous than the QA procedures required for regulatory standard setting or enforcement.
However, the sampling and analysis procedures used in these tests were exactly the same as those required
under the more rigorous QA levels. In this series of tests, more samples were taken than Level III
requires, providing for an increased level of QA. A discussion of QA-related measurements and
calculations is given in Appendix B.
8
-------
Computerized Data
Acquisition System
Extractive
Sampling
CEMs
Steam Pressure
Fuel
Temperature &
Pressure
Flue Gas
Temperatures
Fuel Flow
Figure 2-2. Location of CEM, temperature, and sampling probes on the North American package
boiler. Flue gas temperatures and CEM measurements are automatically recorded on the
computerized data acquisition system.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions
As noted in the Introduction, one of the primary reasons emulsified oils are used is to reduce emissions
of criteria pollutants. Emissions of CO, NOx, and SO2 were measured during each of the test runs using
CEM equipment, and the data from the CEMs were collected using a computerized data acquisition
system. PM samples were collected during stack sampling for each of the test runs for which metals were
sampled. In addition, smoke number readings were taken during each test to determine whether the
recommendations of the emulsified oil supplier were being followed. The average smoke number reading
when using the base #6 oil was 6.13, and the average was 5.95 when using the emulsified oil. Because
the combustion air was reduced to bring the smoke numbers of the two fuels together, the average excess
air levels (and hence the O2 concentrations of the flue gases) for the emulsified oil were lower than for the
base oil. The base oil stack gases had an average O2 concentration of 4.5%, measured on a dry basis,
9
-------
while the emulsified oil stack gases had an average O2 concentration of 3.1%, again measured on a dry
basis. These values correspond to average excess air levels of 24% for the base oil and 15% for the
emulsified oil.
Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 show the average measurements of CO, NOx, and SO2 for the base oil and
for the emulsified oil for 12 of the 13 runs (CEM data for run 1 were lost due to damage to a data disk).
Table 3-1 also includes the average PM and smoke number readings. The CO, NOx, and SO2 values are
the averaged values of the individual run average CEM readings. NOx data for runs 9 and 12, and SO2
data for runs 12 and 13 were not included in the calculation of the averages due to CEM failures. Figure
3-2 presents the average PM and smoke number readings for the base and emulsified oils. As expected,
the emulsified oil showed significant reductions in CO, NOx, and PM, with SO2 values remaining
approximately the same. CO emissions from the emulsified oil were lower than the base oil by 22%, NOx
emissions were 35% lower for the emulsified fuel than for the base fuel, and PM emissions were 31%
lower for the emulsified fuel than for the base fuel. Because the emulsification does not impact the amount
of sulfur in the oil (except to add moisture and reduce O2 in the flue gas), little change was expected.
Although there was a slight decrease in the concentration of SO2 in the measured flue gas of the emulsified
oil, the amount of change was not considered to be significant, nor was it considered to be due to the use
of the emulsified oil. Also shown in Figure 3-1 are the standard deviations measured from the individual
runs.
Table 3-1. Average emissions of criteria pollutants, and average smoke number readings
from the two oils tested. CO, NOx, and SO2 values are in ppm corrected to 3%
O2, dry conditions. PM is in g/dry standard m3 (at 77° F, 1 atm).
Base #6 Fuel Oil
(without emulsifier)
Emulsified #6 Fuel
Oil
CO
23
18
NOx
320
220
S02
990
960
PM
0.23
0.16
Smoke No.
6.13
5.95
Figures 3-3 through 3-8 present the values of heat input, CO, NOx, SO2, PM, and smoke number
respectively, for 12 of the 13 runs. These plots indicate the variability in the data across the runs.
Included in Figure 3-5 are the average NOx CEM readings for runs 9 and 12, which were not included in
the overall averages due to CEM problems. The CEM NOx data showed an unacceptable drift in
measurements during runs 9 and 12, and post-test calibrations of the NOx analyzer failed. Figure 3-6
includes the average SO2 CEM readings for runs 12 and 13, which were also excluded from the overall
average due to CEM problems. In this case, no anomalies were noted in the CEM data, but post-test
10
-------
calibration checks failed for these runs. In Figures 3-4 through 3-6, the error bars denote the standard
deviations of the CEM measurements taken during the test runs. CEM data were logged every 30 seconds
during the tests during runs 2 through 13.
^lll
¦
CO
^ Base #6 Fuel Oil (without
emulsifier)
7^/ Emulsified Fuel Oil
1200
1000
O
Cl
e3
a.
cu
m
G
O
W
Figure 3-1. Average emissions of CO, NOx, and SO2 for the base and emulsified fuel oils. The
presented values are the overall averages of the average run concentrations for each oil, and
the error bars measure the standard deviations for each overall average.
11
-------
I 0.25
sd
i—4
&
o
t>
fs.
cn
0.15
Ml
<£
c
o
w
0.05
-------
2.50xl06-
2.00x106-
=5
| l.SOxlO6
3
Q,
e
ca
o
X
5.00x10
0.00x10
70.
60 •
50 ¦
40 ¦
30 ¦
20.
10-
0
-10.
-20.
l.OOxlO6-
o.
Base
iilsified
Oil
Ull ^
fare
Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9 Run 10 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13
Figure 3-3. Average heat input rate for 12 of the 13 runs. Runs 2-7 were conducted
using the base #6 oil, and runs 8-13 with the emulsified oil.
Em
ulsified
Oil
-f-
~~N
B
ise Oil'
-------
400-
~ Err
ulsified
N
Oil 4
Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9 Run 10 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13
Figure 3-5. Average NOx emissions for 12 of the 13 runs. Runs 2-7 were conducted using the base #6
oil, and runs 8-13 with the emulsified oil. The error bars show the standard deviation of the
CEM measurements for each run.
2500.
CM
O
CO
4-i
a
Cu
cu
so
c
o
ffl
CO
o
00
2000-
1500.
1000-
500-
0-
Base
Oil*
^ Em
llsified Dil
J
A.
Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9 Run 10 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13
Figure 3-6. Average SO2 emissions for 12 of the 13 runs. Runs 2-7 were conducted using the base #6
oil, and runs 8-13 with the emulsified oil. The error bars show the standard deviation of the
CEM measurements for each run.
14
-------
0.300 ¦
0,250 ¦
0.200 ¦
1 0.150 ¦
0.100.
0.050 ¦
0.000'
S
Err
ulsified
Oil
i
i
L
•
I
<
>
Base
Oil <#
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9 Run lORun 11 Run 12
Figure 3-7. PM emissions for runs 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. Runs 1, 3, and 5 were conducted using the base
#6 oil, and runs 8 and 11 with the emulsified oil. The error bars show the standard deviation
of the measurements for each run.
-------
Table 3-2 and Figure 3-9 present the emission factors for the same four criteria pollutants in
pounds per million British thermal units. The percent changes between the base and emulsified oil
emission factors are somewhat different than the percent changes comparing the emissions based
on concentrations. The differences are due to changes in the fuel and gas flow rates from the base
to the emulsified fuel tests, and because the emission factor averages are taken from a smaller data
set. As was the case for calculating the average concentration above, the average NOx emission
factor for the emulsified oil did not include runs 9 and 13, and the average SO2 emission factor
did not include runs 12 and 13 due to CEM problems. Emission factors for PM were calculated
using only data from runs 1, 2, and 3 for the base oil and runs 7,11, and 12 for the emulsified oil
due to lack of sample volume data for the remaining runs.
Table 3-2. Average emission factors for criteria pollutants from the two fuels tested, in
lb/106 Btu, at 3% O2, dry conditions.
Base #6 Fuel Oil
(without emulsifier)
Emulsified #6 Fuel
Oil
CO
0.019
0.014
NOx
0.28
0.18
S02
1.9
1.7
PM
0.18
0.11
When comparing emission factors for these pollutants, the emulsified oil showed slightly greater, but
consistent, reductions on a percentage basis than when comparing flue gas concentrations. The average
CO emission factor was 24% lower for the emulsified oil compared with the base oil, the average NOx
emission factor was 35% lower for the emulsified oil compared to the base oil, and the average PM
emission factor was 38% lower for the emulsified oil compared to the base oil. The average SO2 emission
factor was 9% lower for the emulsified oil compared to the base oil. As noted before, this difference is not
attributed to the emulsified oil, but rather is due to changes in the sulfur content of the as fired fuel. As
seen in Figure 3-6, there was relatively little variation in the average SO2 value for each of the runs, with
the exception of runs 11 and 12, indicating that the change in fuel did not have a significant impact on the
SO2 emissions.
3.1.1 PM Size Distribution
In addition to reducing the total mass of particulate, tests indicated that distribution of particle sizes also
changed when firing the emulsified oil. This is due to the secondary atomization of the fuel by the water.
The panicle size distribution data were taken from a differential mobility particle sizer (DMPS) and from a
cascade impactor that collects particulate in discrete size ranges. Total PM was also measured using the
Method 29 filter. The total mass of PM captured in the Method 29 train did not correlate with the total
16
-------
0.020
0.015
2 0.010
M
0.005
0.000
0.25 S3
0.05 U
Base #6 Fuel Oil
/y (without
s
emulsifier)
Emulsified #6
Fuel Oil
Figure 3-9. Average emission factors for CO, NOx, SO2, and PM for the base oil and the emulsified
oil.
mass of the PM captured in the cascade impactor. Review of the data and collection procedures indicated
that the total mass data from the Method 29 samples were good, while the mass values from the cascade
impactor measurements were questionable. However, the trends in particle size distributions as a
percentage of total mass measured by the cascade impactor were determined to be adequate, based on the
data from the DMPS. In both cases, a shift was seen in the particle size distributions toward smaller sizes
when using the emulsified oil as compared to the base oil. It is not clear, however, how the mass
emissions of these smaller particles differed between the two oils. Additional study is required to quantify
the actual mass emissions of the different particle size ranges for the two oils.
17
-------
3.2 Metal HAP Emissions
Concentrations of 10 metal compounds were also sampled during the test program, using an EPA
Method 29 sampling train. Concentrations of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese, nickel, selenium, and vanadium were measured for both the base oil and the emulsified oil.
Because the emulsifier did not contain any metals, the only source of metals in the stack gases was the oil
itself, neglecting any erosion or residues from earlier testing, However, the previous operations of the
NAPB were conducted using natural gas, which did not leave any metallic residues. Therefore, it is clear
that the only source of metals in the present tests is from the fuels or from erosion of metal surfaces.
However, there was no indication that such erosion was occurring during the testing. From Table 2-2, it
is seen that the only metals of measurable quantity in the oil were nickel, sodium, and vanadium. Of these
three, only nickel is listed as a HAP under Tide III of the CAAAs.
Duplicate samples were taken during runs 1 and 3 using the base oil, and during runs 8 and 11 using
the emulsified oil to allow an evaluation of the measurements' precision. A measure of the precision of the
data is the relative percent difference (RPD), given by:
RPD- }C' ~C'j x 100% (Eq. 3-1)
(C,+Q)/2
where Ci is the largest and C2 is the smallest of the two values being compared. The RPD allows the
precision of duplicate samples taken during a single test run to be quantified.Table 3-3 shows the RPDs
for the duplicate Method 29 samples for each of the 10 metals sampled. In general, runs 3 and 11 had the
best correlation between the duplicate samples, with RPD values below 10% for all metals except
antimony and cadmium in the case of run 11, and for all metals except for antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
and selenium in the case of run 3. All metals in run 1 had RPDs over 10%, except for chromium, and
only chromium and selenium had RPDs less than 10% in run 8.
Table 3-3 Relative percent differences for the duplicate Method 29 samples for each of the 10 metals.
The values are calculated from the measured concentrations in grams per cubic meter. Nickel
and vanadium concentrations from sample A of run 8 were not considered reliable, and were
not included in these or other calculations.
Run
Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Pb
Ni
Mn
Se
V
1
134
30.8
27.1
17.0
5.64
72.2
50.4
41.3
13.8
53.5
3
133
35.8
21.2
2.04
8.57
0.36
4.40
6.64
23,3
3.65
8
58.1
32.0
19.0
11.8
0.45
19.7
-
12.0
4.69
-
11
180
8.11
4.01
11.1
0.15
3.91
5.59
1.64
7.65
9.44
18
-------
Because the RPD values for runs 1 and 11 are higher than the data quality indicator (DQI) goals (see
Appendix B), it may be more reliable to compare the results from runs 3 and 11 only. Emission factors
measured from runs 3 and 11 are presented in Table 3-4. These values generally show a slight increase in
the metals emission factors for the emulsified oil compared to the base oil. However, except for antimony,
the differences in emission factors between the base and emulsified oils were within ±21%. This indicates
that there were no significant differences in emissions between the two oils, given the fluctuations in metal
content of the fuels and errors associated with measurement and analysis. Even when using data from all
runs, the metals emission factors were nearly identical for the two oils. Except for antimony, the metals
emission factors ranged from a 9.4% increase in selenium from the base oil emission factor to the
emulsified oil emission factor, to a 4.6% decrease in arsenic from the base oil emission factor to the
emulsified oil emission factor. Since the data from runs 3 and 11 are more reliable, these are presented in
Table 3-4 and Figure 3-10.
A further check on the data is to estimate the maximum emission factors using the as-received energy
contents and contents of trace metals in the oils. Estimates of the maximum emission factor for metals can
be calculated by assuming that the total mass of these metals entering the boiler in the fuel exits the boiler
in the stack flue gases. In this study, only nickel and vanadium were found to be at levels above the
detection limits in the as-fired base oil, so only for these metals can estimates be made of the maximum
emission factors. Some differences are expected between the calculated emission factor based on the trace
metal contents and the measured emission factor, due to the relatively low levels being measured,
analytical accuracy, and the variability in the samples. In some systems, there is also retention of the
metals in ash that is deposited within the boiler.
Table 3-4. Average measured emission factors for the 10 metals sampled, in lb/1012 Btu. Only data from
runs 3 and 11 for the base and emulsified oils, respectively, are presented. Note that lead and
vanadium are not listed as HAPs under Title III of the CAAAs.
Base Oil (data from
run 3 only)
Emulsified Oil (data
from run 11 only)
Antimony
77.5
156
Arsenic
5.07
4.51
Beryllium
0.174
0.187
Cadmium
4.07
4.24
Chromium
19.7
20.9
Lead
161
135
Manganese
20.0
24.1
Nickel
5190
5620
Selenium
15.5
16.4
Vanadium
25,300
27,600
19
-------
For nickel, the maximum emission factor based on the nickel contents of the oils was found to be 3560
lb/1012 Btu for the base oil and 3910 lb/1012 Btu for the emulsified oil, and for vanadium the maximum
possible emission factor was calculated to be 26.600 lb/1012 Btu for the base oil and 29,300 lb/1012 Btu
for the emulsified oil. These values are quite close to the measured values given in Table 3-4, with the
measured emission factors for nickel being 146% of the calculated emission factors for the base oil and
144% for the emulsified oil. For vanadium, the measured emission factor for the base oil was 95% of the
calculated emission factor, and for the emulsified oil, the measured emission factor was 94% of the
calculated emission factor. The values of over 100% most likely indicate fluctuations in the nickel levels
between the fuel tested and the fuel actually burned in the boiler. However, the fact that both the base and
emulsified oils showed nearly identical percentages indicates that there are no significant differences in
how these two metals behaved in the combustion environment when comparing the base and emulsified
oils.
For the metal emission results in general, the results followed the expected pattern and showed no
significant differences between the base oil and the emulsified oil, as seen in Figure 3-10. Although there
was a relatively large difference in the antimony emission factors between the two fuels, the data for
antimony showed a much larger scatter than was present in the other metals. Because there was no metal
3
co
r—t
©
S2
o
u
Ph
c
O
S
w
1 x 105 "1
lxlO4 -s
1x10
lxl02"i
lxlO1-
1x10°1
1x10
Base Oil
Emulsified Oi
Figure 3-10. Average measured emission factors for 10 metals sampled for the base oil
and the emulsified oil. Data from runs 3 and 11 only are used to calculate the
averages.
20
-------
added in the emulsifying agent, it was expected that the two fuels would show essentially the same total
emissions of metals per unit of energy,
3.2.1 Metal Size Distribution
As was done for total PM emissions, some metal emissions were also sampled to determine the effects
of the oil/water emulsion on size distribution. Each sample of particulate collected by size fraction was
analyzed to determine the amount of chromium, nickel, and vanadium in the size fraction. As in the case
with the total PM size distributions, the mass values measured for the total nickel and vanadium samples
were not consistent with the total mass of nickel and vanadium measured in the size-segregated samples.
While the trends indicated a shift toward smaller particles for the emulsified oil compared to the base oil,
quantification of that shift remains to be determined.
3.3 Organic HAP Emissions
Emissions of organic compounds are usually less well defined as those of metal compounds. This is
because the total mass of metals remains constant in the combustion process, and any metal entering the
system via the fuel must exit either in the flue gas or in one of the ash streams such as bottom ash. While
many toxic organic compounds are present in hydrocarbon fuels, they are also created and/or destroyed in
the combustion process. The total emission of these compounds is often highly dependent on the
combustion conditions and the mixing processes within the combustor. This can result in measurements
of organic compounds that vary significantly between test runs.
3.3.1 Volatile Organic HAP Emissions
In the current set of tests, four sample tubes were collected for each oil type. Table 3-5 shows each
volatile organic compound (VOC) detected during the testing and the number of times it was detected in the
four sample tubes, as a function of the oil type. The samples were analyzed for a total of 45 VOCs, of
which 24 were listed as HAPs under Title III of the CAAAs. As can be seen in Table 3-5,17 compounds
were detected, with all compounds but one being detected multiple times.
Because several of these compounds are present in laboratory and field environments, the sampled
mass of each compound was compared to the amount of that compound measured in two field blanks.
These blanks were prepared in the same way as a regular sample, but without having an actual flue gas
sample drawn into them. For all but four compounds, the field blanks showed levels of volatile organic
HAPs of the same order of magnitude or greater than one or more of the sample tubes. The field blanks
showed no indication of 2-butanone, carbon disulfide, styrene, or 1,1,1 -trichlorocthane. However,
because 1,1,1 - trichloroethane was measured in only one sample tube and because of its highly chlorinated
21
-------
Table 3-5. Volatile organic compounds detected for each oil during
combustion testing, with the number of times the compound was
detected (out of four sample tubes for each oil).
Base
Emulsified
Oil
Oil
Acetone
1
4
Benzene
4
3
Bromodichloromethane
2
2
Bromomethane
2
2
2-Butanone
1
2
Carbon Disulfide
3
3
Chloroform
2
2
Chloromethane
2
1
Dichlorodifluoromethane
3
4
Ethylbenzene
2
2
Styrene
1
3
Toluene
4
4
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1
0
T richlorofluoromethane
3
2
Xylene (m,p)
2
2
o-xylene
2
2
nature, the measurement was not considered to be highly reliable. These results indicate that a number of
the VOCs measured in the sample tubes may have been the result of sample contamination and not due to
the presence of a particular compound. However, for benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and m,p xylenes,
one or more samples showed levels of volatile organic HAPs significantly higher (a factor of 3 or more)
than what was present in the field blanks. The detected levels of the remaining compounds were nearly all
less than 2 times higher than the field blanks, with most of the samples being either at or below the levels
seen in the field blanks. Table 3-6 presents the ratio of the field blanks to the average detected mass of
each compound in the base oil and emulsified oil samples.
Of the remaining three compounds, 2-butanone and styrene were detected in only one of four VOST
tubes for the base oil. 2-butanone was detected in two of four tubes for the emulsified oil, and carbon
disulfide was detected in three of four tubes for both fuels. Styrene was detected in three of four tubes in
the emulsified oil. Since each run produced a pair of tubes, RPD values can be calculated to evaluate the
precision of the duplicates. Table 3-7 presents the RPD for benzene, 2-butanone, carbon disulfide, ethyl
benzene, styrene, toluene, and m.p xylenes.
These results show that there is significant variability in the data, making the reliability of the
quantitative emissions data questionable. On a qualitative basis, the two oils were very similar in the
compounds detected and in the levels measured. Even given the variability in the data, if the assumption is
22
-------
Table 3-6. Ratio of mass of volatile organic compound detected in the field
blanks to the average detected mass in the samples, for the base
and emulsified oils.
Base
Oil
Emulsified
Oil
Acetone
18.4
8.40
Benzene
6.36
7.27
Bromodichloromethane
19.1
19.8
Bromomethane
7.53
3.79
2-Butanone
0.00
0.00
Carbon Disulfide
0.00
0.00
Chloroform
18.4
17.8
Chloromethane
66.5
1.08
Dichlorodifluoromethane
12.3
10.4
Ethylbenzene
6.23
3.11
Styrene
0.00
0.00
Toluene
19.4
8.50
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
0.00
0.00
Trichlorofluoromethane
14.1
21.2
Xylene (m,p)
1.93
3.10
o-xylene
6.42
5.92
Table 3-7. Relative percent differences between VOST tube
measurements for three volatile organic compounds.
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Benzene
5.23%
17.9%
3.76%
200.%
2-Butanone
NA
200.%
200.%
200.%
Carbon Disulfide
200.%
21.14%
30.2%
200.%
Ethyl Benzene
200.%
200.%
200.%
200.%
Styrene
200.%
NA
102.%
200.%
Toluene
141.%
24.8%
177.%
42.9%
Xylene (m,p)
200.%
200.%
200.%
200.%
*NA - Not applicable (all data for the run were below the detection limit)
made that all measurements were accurate, the total VOC emission factor was on the order of 5 lb/1012 Btu
for both oils, which is very small compared to the metals emission factors.
Table 3-8 presents the emission factors for the 7 VOCs listed above, both in terms of average detected
emissions and incorporating the measurements which were less than the method detection limit The
measurements which incorporate samples that measured below the detection limit are typically less than the
values reported for the average detected emissions, since the detected values are almost always higher than
23
-------
Table 3-8. Emission factors of volatile organic compounds, in lb/1012 Btu. The Average
Detected Value figures do not include measurements below the method detection
level. The Average (All Readings) figures include measurements below the
method detection level. Averages for compounds that had measurements below
the detection level are calculated using the method detection level, and are
indicated as being "less than" the given value.
Average Detected Value
Average (A
11 Readings)
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Benzene
0.971
0.684
0.958
< 0.582
2-Butanone
0.867
1.44
<0.518
< 0.857
Carbon Disulfide
1.71
0.880
< 1.36
< 0.729
Ethyl Benzene
0.177
0.278
< 0.294
< 0.278
Styrene
0.354
0.368
< 0.390
< 0.345
Toluene
1.56
2.81
1.54
2.81
Xylene (m,p)
0.475
0.230
< 0.443
< 0.254
the listed method detection limit (although some samples had measureable concentration levels slightly
below the listed method detection limit). The values calculated using measurements below the detection
limit are all given as being "less than" the listed value.
Although the compounds listed in Table 3-8 are reported with lower than desireable reliability
concerning the absolute quantities, it is likely that these volatile organic HAPs are present in the flue gases.
For instance, both benzene and toluene were measured in the flue gases repeatedly and at consistent levels
significantly greater than levels measured in the field blanks. Additionally, previous studies have indicated
their presence in the flue gas of oil combustion systems,9'10 and it is likely that they are present in the flue
gases of the two oils tested in this study. Even neglecting any contamination by the analysis procedures,
however, neither of these compounds was present in levels exceeding 3 lb/1012 Btu.
3.3.2 Semivolatile Organic HAP Emissions
Flue gas samples were also analyzed for semivolatile organic HAPs using a Modified Method 5
sampling train and standard EPA analysis methods. As was the case for the volatile organic HAPs, the
measurements in some cases varied significantly between samples. Three samples were taken of base oil
flue gases and four samples of emulsified oil flue gases, with two of those four being taken during a single
test ran. The flue gases were analyzed for 105 semivolatile compounds, of which 45 were listed as HAPs
under Title in of the CAAAs. Included in the 105 compounds were 17 PAHs, which arc listed as a single
HAP under Title III. Of the 105 compounds, only 15 were detected at least once in the 7 samples. The
semivolatile organic compounds detected and the number of times they were detected are presented in
Table 3-9. Dibenzofuran was the only compound detected solely in the flue gases of the emulsified oil,
24
-------
while 7 of the 15 compounds detected were found only in the flue gases of the base oil. Naphthalene and
dibutyl phthalate were the only two compounds detected in every sample.
The emissions of semivolatile organic compounds were dominated by phthalates. However, the
phthalates were also found in the field blanks in high concentrations, indicating that the majority of the
phthalates measured in the samples were from contamination during analytical procedures rather than
actual presence in the flue gases (phthalates are common laboratory contaminants). Of the remaining
compounds, benzyl alcohol was the major semivolatile organic emission from the base oil, and phenol
constituted almost the entire semivolatile emissions from the emulsified oil. Emission factors for the
semivolatile compounds for the two oils are presented in Table 3-9 and Figure 3-11. Table 3-9 and Figure
3-11 present two sets of emission factors, the first calculated by assuming that compounds with
concentrations below the detection limit are at zero concentration, and the second calculated by assuming
Table 3-9. Semivolatile organic compounds detected for each oil during
combustion testing, with the number of times the compound was
detected (out of three sample trains for the base oil and four sample
trains for the emulsified oil).
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Bcnzo(a)anthracenc
2
0
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
2
0
Benzyl alcohol
2
0
Benzyl butyl phthalate
1
1
B is(2ethylhexyl)phthalate
2
2
Chrysenc
2
0
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
2
0
Dibenzofuran
0
4
Dibutyl phthalate
3
4
Diethyl phthalate
1
4
Di-N-octyl phthalate
2
3
3-methylcholan throne
1
0
3&4-methyl phenol
1
0
Naphthalene
3
4
Phenol
1
2
25
-------
Table 3-10. Average semivolatile organic emission factors in lb/1012 Btu. In columns 2 and 3,
emission factors were calculated using the detection levels for samples in which the
concentration was below the detection value. In columns 4 and 5, emission factors were
assumed to be zero if the concentration was below detection value. Some compounds in
Table 3-8 are not shown here due to high field blank levels of those compounds.
Calculated usin
3 detection level
Calculated using zero
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.16
0.16
0.10
0
Benzyl alcohol
7.58
13.5
2.47
0
Chrysene
0.14
0.15
0.08
0
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.36
0.43
0.20
0
Dibenzofuran
0.66
0.10
0
0.06
3-methylcholanthrene
0.03
0
0.03
0
3&4-methyl phenol
5.50
7.14
0.08
0
Phenol
5.58
5.56
0.47
2.37
3
+-*
m
c*
o
£
tLi
a
o
ZA
V5
m
14-
12-
10-
0-
CI
C
d
y
O
«
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Minimum
Emission Factors
!~ ^
w /
/
s/
S/
S/
$!/
vv ,
%/
s/
Maximum
Emission Factors
EM
E,
o
J2.
O
o
73
o
c
a
&
¦& °
a
u
B
8
.£
S
a
s
e
M
5
o
Xi
o
¦S
o
E
en
0
S
•S
<0
g
1
cn
o
s
£
-------
that compounds with concentrations below the detection limit are at the detection limit. In this way, Table
3-10 and Figure 3-11 present the bounds on the emission factors for these compounds, with the minimum
being the zero concentration assumption and the maximum being the detection limit concentration
assumption.
3.3.3 Dioxin and Furan Emissions
The final organic compounds for which the flue gases were analyzed were PCDDs and PCDFs. In all
cases for both the base oil and emulsified oil, the levels of PCDDs and PCDFs were below the method
detection levels.
4. DISCUSSION
Based on the knowledge of the emulsified oil, there were only three areas that were considered to have
potential for significant changes when using the emulsified oil compared to the base oil. These areas were
operational factors (e.g., boiler efficiency), emissions of criteria pollutants, and emissions of organic
compounds. Because no metals were being introduced into the oil from the emulsifier, it was expected
that there would be no change in metal emissions. However, because the emulsification process results in
secondary atomization and the formation of finer fuel droplets, it was expected that particulate sizes could
shift toward smaller particle size ranges which are more difficult to collect.
4.1 Operational Factors
Relatively little difference was noted between the base and the emulsified oils during operation. The
major difference was the O2 level to which the unit was controlled. However, once this was set, little or
no further adjustment was necessary to operate the boiler. While the water content of the flue gases was
higher when using the emulsified oil compared to the base oil, no adverse effects were noted during the
operation of the unit. These comparisons were only made during short term operation of the boiler, and
no information was collected on any long term operational effects of using the emulsified oil.
4.2 Criteria Pollutant Emissions
The emulsified oil showed reductions in the CO emission factor of 24% compared with the base oil, in
the NOx emission factor of 36% compared with the base oil, and in the PM emission factor of 37% when
using the emulsified oil compared with the base oil. These reductions were consistent across the test runs,
and are the result of the finer fuel droplets and secondary atomization characteristic of the emulsified oil,
allowing improved vaporization and oxidation of the hydrocarbon fuels, and the lower excess air level
27
-------
used during operation with the emulsified oil. Some reduction of HOx may also be due to the presence of
higher amounts of water in the flame zone, thereby reducing the peak flame temperature and the associated
formation rate of NOx. However, the major factor influencing NOx levels was the lower amount of excess
air used during combustion.
No long term reduction of SO2 would be expected from using the emulsified oil, since the amount of
sulfur being input to the boiler via the fuel would be essentially the same for a given total heat load. If any
change is noticed in total SO2 emissions, it would be expected that there may be a slight increase due to
combustion efficiency losses caused by higher levels of water in the fuel. Such an increase is not expected
to be significant, however. The major factor influencing SO2 emissions will remain the fuel's as-fired
concentration of sulfur per unit energy.
The distribution of particle sizes showed a discernable shift toward smaller sizes in the emulsified oil
compared to the base oil. It is not known whether or not the total mass of the smaller particulate emissions
increased. This may be an area for concern, based on recent studies that have indicated a link between
adverse health effects and ambient levels of small (< 2.5 |im) particulate.11 Impacts of these studies and
their implications for emissions controls are currently being evaluated.
4.3 Metal Emissions
As with SO2, no significant change in total uncontrolled emissions of metals would be expected over
long term operation using the emulsified oil. For sources with particulate control, the impact of using
emulsified oil on metals emissions is not as clear. While the absolute mass of particulate emissions will be
significantly reduced by the control device, the shift in particle sizes noted for the emulsified oil compared
with the base oil may result in an increase in the fine particulate fraction, which is less efficiently controlled
by standard particulate control systems. In instances where the metals are concentrated in the fine
particulate fraction, the emissions of those metals may not significantly decrease when using the emulsified
oil for the same controlled source. Additional work is required to allow a quantification of this effect. In
addition, a slight increase in metal emissions may result due to a reduction in the thermal efficiency of the
boiler due to the increased water in the flue gas during operation with the emulsified oil. The major factor
influencing the total emissions of metals will be the oil's trace metal content per unit energy.
4.4 Organic HAP Emissions
Emissions of organic compounds were 9% higher when using the emulsified fuel oil compared with
the base oil. The VOC emission factors from both oils were the same order of magnitude as the emission
28
-------
factors for the sampled semivolatile organies, and one or more orders of magnitude lower than for the
metals. Emission factors for semivolatile compounds were 29% lower for the emulsified oil than for the
base oil. Emissions of chlorinated dioxins and furans did not change, with neither fuel having detectable
quantities of PCDDs or PCDFs in the flue gases. The lower levels of organic compound emissions are
likely due to the secondary atomization generated by the emulsification of the oil. For both oils, the level
of total organic emissions is very low and, although the percentage change values may seem significant,
the total mass of organic compounds emitted for both fuels remains very low. For both the base and
emulsified oils, the organic emissions were dominated by the semivolatile organies, and were
approximately four orders of magnitude less than the emissions of vanadium and three orders of
magnitude lower than the emission rate of nickel.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The emulsified oil showed lower emissions of CO, NOx, PM, and organic HAPs compared to the base
#6 oil. No significant change was noted in emissions of SO2 or total metals.
For the boiler tested, operating at its full load capacity of 2.5x1c6 Btu/hr for a full year, the total annual
emissions of organic compounds would be 0.035 lb/year for the base oil and 0.025 lb/year for the
emulsified oil. This compares with 308 lb/year of combined vanadium and nickel emissions for the base
oil and 335 lb/year of combined vanadium and nickel emissions for the emulsified oil. For both oils, the
emissions of HAPs are well below the 10 tons/year threshold defined by Title III of the CAAAs for a
major source.
A potential drawback to the use of the emulsified oil is the indicated shift of the distribution of
particulate sizes toward the smaller size ranges. Additional work remains to quantify this aspect of the
emissions.
6. REFERENCES
1. Public Law 101-549, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, November 15, 1990.
2. Hall, R.E., "The Effect of Water/Residual Oil Emulsions on Air Pollutant Emissions and Efficiency
of Commercial Boilers," Journal of Engineering for Power, pp. 425-434, October 1976.
3. Hall, R.E., "The Effect of Water/Distillate Oil Emulsions on Pollutants and Efficiency of Residential
and Commercial Heating Systems," presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Boston, MA, June 15-20, 1975, paper 75-09.4.
29
-------
4. Adiga, K.C., "On the Vaporization Behavior of Water-in-Oil Microemulsions," Comb, Flame, Vol,
80, p. 214, 1990.
5. Miller, C.A., J.V. Ryan, and T, Lombardo, "Characterization of Air Toxics from an Oil-Fired
Firetube Boiler," Journal of the Air <6 Waste Management Association, in press.
6. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Vol. II: Field Manual Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd
ed.; EPA-SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, September 1986.
7. "Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans," in Code
of Federal Regulations 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, July 1, 1994.
8. "Determination of Metals in Stack Emissions," in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Vol. II:
Field Manual Physical/Chemical Methods, 4th ed.; EPA-SW-846; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, January 1995.
9. Brooks, G., "Estimating Air Toxics Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion Sources," EPA-
450/2-89-001 (NTIS PB89-194229), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1989.
10. Hangebrauck, R.P, D.J. Von Lehmden, and J.E. Meeker, "Emissions of polynuclear hydrocarbons
and other pollutants from heat-generation and incineration processes," J. Air Pollut, Control
Assoc., Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 267-278, July 1964.
11. Dockery, D.W., et al„ "An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six Cities," N.E.J.
Med., Vol. 329, pp. 1753-1759, 1993.
30
-------
APPENDIX A, ENGLISH ENGINEERING TO METRIC CONVERSIONS
kW = Btu/hr x 3413
°C = (°F - 32) + 1.8
m2 - ft2 + 10.764
cm = in. x 2.54
kg = lb + 2.2046
kPa = psi x 6.893
tonne = ton x 0.9072
(lg/MJ = lb/1012 Btu x 0.430
31
-------
APPENDIX B. QUALITY EVALUATION REPORT
This project was conducted under an approved APPCD Level III Quality Assurance (QA) Project Plan.
The plan set forth the operating, sampling, and analysis procedures to be used during the testing, as well
as the data quality indicator (DQI) goals for the project. The DQI goals for the project are shown in Table
B-l.
Table B-l. Data quality indicator goals for the project.
Measurement
Bias
Precision
Accuracy
Completeness
VOCs
50-150%
<30%
NA
>70
Semivolatiles
18-120%
< 15%
NA
>70
Metals
75-125%
< 10%
NA
>70
PCDDs/PCDFs
25/40-130%
< 30%
NA
>70
O2
NA
<15% RSD*
< ±3%
>90
CO2
NA
<15% RSD
< ±3%
>90
CO
NA
<15% RSD
<±3%
>90
NOx
NA
<15% RSD
<±3%
>90
THC
NA
<15% RSD
< ±3%
>90
SO2
NA
<15% RSD
< ±3%
>90
Fuel Flow
NA
± 10% RSD
±10%
>90
Temperature
NA
± 10% RSD
±10%
>90
* Relative standard deviation
B.l CEM Data
The CEM data were for the most part of high quality and met the DQI goals. However, the SO2
analyzer did not meet the post-test calibration goals of ±3% deviation from full scale for runs 7 through
13. Noticeable differences were noted for runs 12 and 13, and these data were not used in the calculations
of the average SO2 emissions. For runs 7 through 11, the CEM data appeared to be good for the majority
of the test runs, but drifted lower toward the end of the runs. For these runs, only the data judged to be
measured prior to the onset of analyzer drift were used in the calculation of the averages. The NOx
analyzer also displayed periodic problems, resulting in post-test calibrations of the midspan point that
typically showed a drift toward lower values. However, the one post-test calibration of the high range
calibration point did not show this drift. On average, the difference between the pre-test check and the
post-test check of the midpoint calibration was 5,5% of full scale. During runs 8 and 11, the NOx
analyzer had periods of signal loss, resulting in negative concentration measurements. Data from these
runs were not used in calculating the average emission factors. The CO analyzer showed differences
within 3% of full scale for all tests.
32
-------
B.2 Duplicate Samples
Duplicate sampling trains were used during several runs to help evaluate the precision of the results.
One pair of duplicate samples were collected for the semivolatile organic compounds, two pairs for the
dioxin and furans, and four pairs for the metals.
For the semivolatile organic compounds the only compound detected at levels above the field blank
during the use of duplicate sampling trains was dibenzofuran. The measurements of dibenzofuran for the
duplicate trains resulted in a relative percent difference of 53.6%. All PCDD/PCDF samples collected
were below the method detection level. Therefore the RPD values were not calculated for these duplicates.
For the metals, two pairs of duplicate measurements were made for the base oil and two for the emulsified
oil. The calculated RPD values for each of these pairs of measurements are shown in Table 3-3, and a
short discussion of the metals data quality is given in Section 3.
B.3 Duplicate Tests
Duplicate tests were conducted for all measurements. The test matrix in Table 2-3 shows the duplicate
tests for metals, VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds, and PCDDs/PCDFs. Duplicate tests were
conducted for VOCs from the base oil and the emulsified oil, and triplicate tests were conducted for the
semivolatile organic compounds from the base oil and the emulsified oil. Four tests were conducted for
the PCDDs/PCDFs for the base oil, and three tests were conducted for PCDDs/PCDFs for the emulsified
oil.
B.3.1 Criteria Pollutants
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present the averages and standard deviations for the CEM, PM, smoke number,
and load measurements for the tests. Standard deviations for the individual runs for CO, NOx, SO2, and
PM are given in Figures 3-4 through 3-8, respectively.
B.3.2 Metals
For the metals tests, runs 1, 3, and 5 provided triplicate tests of the base oil, and runs 8 and 11 were
duplicates for the emulsified oil. Table B-2 present the averages and standard deviations for each metal
for the base oil and the emulsified oil. This table presents the fluctuation between the different test runs as
a measure of the test repeatability.
33
-------
B.3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds
Runs 2 and 5 were duplicate tests of the base oil volatile organic compounds and runs 10 and 11 were
duplicate tests of the emulsified oil volatile organic compounds emissions. Table B-3 shows the results
from these tests as a measure of the experimental repeatability of the VOC measurements.
Table B-2. Average metal emission factors for each ran and the standard deviation between the runs.
Base Oil
imulsified Oil
Run 1
Average
Run 3
Average
Run 5
Standard
Deviation
Run 8
Average
Run 11
Average
Standard
Deviation
Antimony
211
38.8
38.1
99.6
30.0
78.2
34.1
Arsenic
1.62
2.53
2.27
0.471
1.78
2.26
0.340
Beryllium
0.0741
0.0869
0.0884
0.00785
0.0790
0.0934
0.0102
Cadmium
1.96
2.04
2.19
0.117
1.79
2.12
0.235
Chromium
10.6
9.83
10.1
0.383
9.94
10.5
0.372
Lead
60.9
80.5
69.3
9.81
59.1
67.5
5.92
Nickel
2040
2590
2670
342
2200
2810
433
Manganese
8.14
10.0
10.6
1.28
10.7
12.1
0.986
Selenium
5.73
7.76
7.73
1.17
6.97
8.22
0.889
Vanadium
10,100
12,600
13,000
1560
10,600
13,800
2240
Table B-3. Average volatile organic compound emission factors in lb/1012 Btu and the relative percent
differences between the runs. Measurements below the detection limit were assumed to be
zero.
Averages
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Run 2
Run 5
RPD
Run 10
Run 11
RPD
Diehlordifluoromethane
0.0392
0.0437
10.9%
0.0224
0.0328
37.9%
Chioromethane
0.0095
0.0302
104%
ND*
0.0057
200%
Bromomethane
ND
0.0122
200%
0.0374
0.0185
67.7%
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.0203
0.0098
69.6%
0.0060
0.0051
16.0%
Carbon disulfide
0.0947
0.0813
15.3%
0.0306
0.0597
64.4%
Acetone
ND
0.131
200%
0.185
0.238
24.9%
Methylene chloride
6.78
4.05
5.04%
6.26
4.65
29.6%
Chloroform
0.0786
0.0335
80.6%
0.0359
0.0396
9.9%
2-Butanone
ND
0.0434
200%
0.0700
0.0661
5.8%
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
0.0073
ND
200%
ND
ND
NAt
Benzene
0.0522
0.0449
15.0%
0.0322
0.0304
5.6%
Bromodichloromethane
0.0137
0.0068
66.7%
0.0062
0.0068
10.2%
Toluene
0.0942
0.0621
41.0%
0.0692
0.181
89.5%
Ethylbenzene
0.0112
0.0066
51.9%
0.0211
0.0062
110%
Xylene (m,p)
0.0421
0.0053
155%
0.0176
0.0051
111%
o-xylene
0.0123
0.0022
139%
0.0062
0.0055
11.3%
Styrene
0.0176
ND
200%
0.0194
0.0110
55.1%
*ND - Compound below detection limit
+NA - Not applicable
34
-------
B.3.4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Runs 4, 6, and 7 were triplicate tests of the base oil semivolatile organic compounds and runs 10, 12,
and 13 were triplicate tests of the emulsified oil semivolatile organic compounds emissions. Table B-4
shows the results of these measurements and the standard deviation of each compound's emission factor
as a measure of the test repeatability.
Table B-4, Average emission factors for semivolatile organic compounds, in lb/1012 Btu, and the
standard deviations of the triplicate runs. Compounds that were measured below the detection
level are assumed to be zero in this case.
Compound
Base Oil
Emulsified Oil
Run 4
Run 6
Run 7
Standard
Deviation
Run 10
Run 12
Run 13
Standard
Deviation
Phenol
643
0
0
371
0
3410
1570
1700
Benzyl alcohol
3020
337
0
1660
0
0
0
0
3&4-methyl phenol
112
0
0
64.5
0
0
0
0
Naphthalene
194
170
798
356
184
473
248
152
Dibenzofuran
0
0
0
0
23.9
78.4
22.5
31.9
Chrysene
51
60.6
0
32.6
0
0
0
0
Benzo(a)anthracene
74.2
55.9
0
38.7
0
0
0
0
3-methylcholanthrene
43.8
0
0
25.3
0
0
0
0
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
212
58.3
0
110
0
0
0
0
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
197
59.4
0
101
0
0
0
0
B.3,5 PCDDs/PCDFs
Duplicate tests were conducted for PCDDs/PCDFs during runs 2, 4, 6, and 7 for the base oil and
during runs 9, 12, and 13 for the emulsified oil. All measurements were below the method detection limit.
B.4 Blanks
B.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
Of the 45 target VOCs, 13 were detected in the field blanks, and 9 on both field blanks. Table B-5
shows the detected amounts of the 13 compounds. As noted in Section 3, these high levels of blank
contamination resulted in a significant loss of data quality for the VOC measurements. However, the
levels of those compounds such as benzene and toluene that were detected in the samples were not high,
even when disregarding the possibility of any sample contamination. Nevertheless, the values reported in
Section 3 do not include any of the compounds listed in Table B-5.
35
-------
Table B-5. Volatile organic compounds detected in the field blanks,
in ng.
Compound
Detected Concentration, ng
Blank 1
Blank 2
Acetone
86.6
35.8
Benzene
15.7
ND*
Bromodichloromethane
5.11
4.08
Bromomethane
2.77
4.16
Chloroform
26.0
22.3
Chloromethane
"7.45
23.1
Dichlorodifluoromethane
15.5
4.24
Ethylbenzene
ND
2.74
Methylene chloride
3520
2700
Trichlorofluoromethane
4.26
3.94
Toluene
61.6
15.3
M,P-xylene
ND
2.26
o-xylene
ND
2.31
*ND - Not Detected
B.4.2 Scmivolatile Organic Compounds
The MM5 field blanks showed the presence of 7 of the 105 target compounds, indicating that at least
some of their presence was due to either previous contamination of the sampling train or contamination
during the extraction and analysis procedures. The eight compounds detected in the field blank are shown
in Table B-6. None of these compounds were reported as detected in Section 3.
Table B-6, Semi volatile organic compounds detected in the field
blanks.
Compound
Detected
Concentration,
|ig/ml
Acetophenone
8.73
Benzyl butyl phthalate
2.23
Bis(2-eihylhexyl)phthalate
170
Dibutyl phthalate
34.0
Diethyl phthalate
17.9
Di-N-octyl phthalate
810
Naphthalene
2.72
B.5 Matrix Spikes
Matrix spikes were used to evaluate the ability of the analytical procedures to accurately measure
known concentrations of materials. Matrix spikes were performed for the semivolatile compounds and for
36
-------
the metals. No matrix spikes were performed for the VOCs or PCDDs/PCDFs. The percent recovery is
calculated as:
Recovery = (Measured Concentration) x 1(X)% (Eq B ^
(Known Concentration)
B.5.1 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Two matrix spikes were done for PAHs, and the recoveries of these spikes are shown in Table B-7.
The recoveries ranged from 80% to 126%, and had relative percent differences (RPDs) from 0 to 14.9%.
The RPD is a measure of the recovery precision, and in each case was well below the DQI goal of < 30%.
Table B-7. Spike recoveries and relative percent differences for the matrix spikes of PAHs.
First
Second
Spike
Spike
RPD
Target Compound
Recovery, %
Recovery, %
Acenaphthene
104
101
2.12
Acenaphthylene
104
106
1.41
Anthracene
102
107
3.54
Benzo(a)anthracene
126
124
1.41
Benzo (b)fluoranthene
90
89
0.71
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
108
112
2.83
Benzo(ghi)peryiene
98
107
6.36
Benzo(a)pyrene
93
93
0.00
Chrysene
92
101
5.66
Debenz(a,j)acridine
114
116
0.71
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
80
91
7.78
Fluoranthene
122
124
1.41
Fluorene
115
109
4.24
Ideno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
83
80
2.12
Naphthalene
117
109
5.66
Phenanthrene
90
111
14.9
Pyrene
111
98
9.19
B.5.2 Metals Matrix Spikes
For the metals, a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard fly ash containing
known concentrations of metals was used as the matrix spike. The standard used was NIST SRM 1633b
fly ash. For the first spike, 1.05 g of the NIST sample was used, and 0.116 g of the NIST sample was
used for the second spike. Because the concentrations of each metal were the same for both spikes, the
total mass of each metal was approximately a factor of ten lower for the second spike than for the first.
This resulted in measurements of antimony and cadmium being below the method detection level for the
37
-------
second spike. In Table B-8, the percent recoveries of the spiked metals are presented as a percentage of
the spike input concentration.
Table B-8. Percent recoveries of metal matrix spikes. The first sample
was spiked with 1.05 g of NIST SRM 1633b sample, and
the second with 0.116 g of the same sample.
Metal
First
Spike Recovery,
%
Second
Spike
Recovery, %
Relative Percent
Difference
Antimony
80.2
NDt
NA*
Arsenic
84.3
91.5
8.19
Beryllium
NA
NA
NA
Cadmium
125
ND
NA
Chromium
79.5
97.5
20.3
Lead
85.1
89.8
5.37
Manganese
73.4
125
52.2
Nickel
98.3
120
19.6
Selenium
108
241
76.2
Vanadium
83.1
109
26.9
•NA - Not applicable
tND - Not detected
B.6 Completeness
Completeness goals were met for all measurements except for the CEM data for run 1. In this case,
the data were collected, but were lost when the disk containing the data was damaged prior to backup.
38
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA SHEETS
39
-------
Froro: Analysis No. CS 375756
Industrial Fuel Co. Date Sampled 11/ 4/93
Wilmington, NC Date Received 11/ 9/93
Date completed 11/15/93
Sample MarJcedi Date Printed 11/15/93
virgin No. 6 Oil
« FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated 0.02
Pour Point (Deg. F) 30
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F 261 SSF
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F) 10.4
Sediment {%) °-6
Water (%) Trace < 0.05%
Asphaltenes by Hexane Extraction (%) 13.
BTU's per Pound (as received) 18160
ICAP Analysis of oil
Sulfur (% S) 2.0
Vanadium (ppm V) 29 0
Nickel (ppm Ni) 70
Phosphorus (ppm P) 2 9
Calcium (ppm Ca) 29
Zinc (ppm Zn) 24
Sodium (ppm Na) 12
Iron (ppm Fe) 10
Aluminum (ppm Al) 7
The following were < 5 ppm or not detected:
Ag B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu K Li Mg Mn
Ho Pb Sb Si Sn Sr Ti
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY
~NE NALCO CENTER O NAf=>ERVIl_LE, ILLINOIS 60563-1 190
POST OFFICE 0OX B? ~ SUGAR LAND. TEXAS 77487-OO07 QUBljTfak71
Q
40
-------
N
NALCO
, __ „ if \r—'—sr "~n
CD) =| o(Q ]! dJH r
L—uL==!Li—A.'—Ji i—~ U
From:
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, NC
Sample Harked:
Virgin No. 6 Oil
Analysis No. CS 377800
Date Sampled 12/ 1/93
Date Received 12/ 6/93
Date Completed 12/29/93
Date Printed 12/29/93
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated
Pour Point (Deg. F)
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F)
Sediment (%)
Water (%)
Asphaltenes by Hexane Extraction
BTU's per Pound (as received)
(I)
0 . 02
3 0'
308 SSF
10.S
0.6
Trace < 0.05°
10 .
18160
ICAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur ;% S)
2 . 0
Vanadium (ppm V)
Nickel (ppm Ni)
Sodium (ppm Na)
Aluminum (ppm Al)
Calcium (ppm Ca)
Iron (ppm Fe)
250
59
26
9
8
7
The following were < S ppm or not detected:
Ag B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu K Li
Mo P Pb Sb Si Sn Sr Ti Zn
Kg
y.n
Form 738 iB-09!
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
NALCO CHEMICAL. COMPANY
ONE NALCO CENTER O NAPSBVIL.L5. ILLINOIS SOSS3-H98
POST OFFICE BOX 87 ~ SUGAS LAND, TEXAS 7 7^87-0087 QualiTrak"
oJ,
41
-------
From:
Indus trxsi Fuel Co •
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked:
Virgin #6 Oil Tank
Analysis No. CS 388036
Date Sampled 4/ 7/94
Date Received 4/11/94
Date Completed 4/26/94
Date Printed 4/26/94
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated
Pour Point (Deg. F)
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F
Specific Gravity {API at 60 F)
Sediment (%)
Water (%)
BTU's per Pound (as received)
ICAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S)
Vanadium (ppm V)
Nickel (ppm Ni)
Barium (ppm Ba)
Tin (ppm Sn)
Aluminum (ppm Al)
Sodium (ppm Na!
Calcium (ppm Ca)
Iron (ppm Fe)
0
30
268
10 . 0
10 .
1 .0
18120
2.0
02
SSF
390
69
46
17
8
7
The following were < 5
Ag B Cd Co
p Pb Sb Si
ppm or not detected:
Cr Cu K Li
Sr Ti Zn
Mg
Mn
Mo
Form 733(8491
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
NAi-CO CHEMICAL COMPANY
ONE NALCO CENTER a NAPgRVILiE ILLINOIS 50563-11BB
POST OFFICE BOX 07 O SUGAS LAND. TEXAS 77dB7-GOB7
CsJ,
fli iRl<-Trak"
42
-------
From;
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked:
Emulsified #6 Oil
Analysis No, CS 388037
Date Sampled 4/ 7/94
Date Received 4/11/94
Date Completed 4/26/94
Date Printed 4/26/94
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated
Pour Point (Deg. F)
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F
Specific Gravity {API at 60 F)
Sediment (%)
Water {%)
BTU's per Pound (as received)
0.02
30
334
10 ,
1.
0,
16630
SSF
ICAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S) 1.f
Vanadium (ppm V)
Nickel (ppm Ni)
Tin (ppm Sn)
Barium (ppm Ba}
Aluminum (ppm Al)
Calcium (ppm Ca)
The fallowing were < 5
Ag B Cd Co
MO Ma P Pb
ppm or not detected:
Cr Cu Fe K
Sb Si Sr Ti
320
66
45
8
6
5
Li
Zn
Mg
Hn
Fami 738(0-69!
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY
C3r«J6 NAL.CO CENTER O MAPEPViLLE ILLINOIS BOSB3-1190
POST OFRCS BOX 87 O SUGAR LANO, TEXAS 77<307-CGS7
uJt
OuatiTrak"
43
-------
NALCQ
HED/5^
Prom:
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, KC
Sample Marked;
Virain Mo. 6 Oil Tank
Analysis No. CS 390949
Date Sampled 5/ 6/94
Date Received 5/11/94
Date Completed 5/23/94
Date Printed 5/23/94
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS »
% Ash- Calculated
Pour Point (Deg. F)
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F)
Sediment {%)
Wat S-T (*5)
ETU's per Pound (as received)
ICAP Analysis o£ Oil
Sulfur (% S)
Vanadium (ppm V)
Nickel (ppm Ni)
Sodium (ppm Na)
Aluminum (ppm Al)
Iron (ppm Fe)
Calcium (ppm Ca)
Silica {ppm Si)
0 .02
30
318 S S F
10.2
0.4
Trace < 0.05°
18230
2 .5
350
77
20
8
6
6
5
The following were < 5 ppm or not detected:
Ag B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu K
Mo P Pb Sb Sn Sr Ti Zn
Mg
Mr.
Form 73S i&-8S:
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
1M A i. C O CHEMICAL COMPANY
ONE NAI.CO CENTER 3 NJAREPViLLE- ILLINOIS G05S3-1 196
POST OFFICE BOX B7 Q SUGAfi LAINO. TEXAS 7"7 <307-0087 QlJSliTrdK™
Q
44
-------
LJ LC .. 1 'i.
NALCQ ^r.7" ^[C ii £¦
¦j" =r: ^-'(C
"Til cd r-.
u
From:
Analysis No.
CS 393403
Industrial Fuel Co.
Date Sampled
6/ 2/94
Wilmington, NC
Date Received
6/ 6/94
Date Completed 6/13/94
Sample Marked:
Date Printed
6/13/94
virgin #6 Oil Tank
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS
> >
% Ash- Calculated
0.03
Pour Point (Deg. F)
3D
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F
283 SSF
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F)
10.7
Sediment (%)
0 . 4
water (%) T
race < 0.05%
BTU's per Pound (as received)
18180
ICAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S)
1 . 7
Vanadium (ppm V)
340
Nickel (ppm Ni)
75
Calcium (ppm Ca)
31
Zinc (ppm Zn)
2 c
Phosphorus (ppm P}
2 5
Sodium (ppm Na)
2 D
Iron (ppm Fe)
11
Aluminum (ppm Al)
9
Magnesium (ppm Kg>
6
Silica (ppm Si)
7
The following were < 5 ppm or not detected:
Ag ' B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu K
Li Mn
Ho
Pb Sb Sn Sr Ti
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
NALCD CHEMICAL COMPANY
ONE NALCO CENTER O MAI=EHVILLE. ILLINOIS 6QSS3-113S
=OST OFFICE BOX 07 ~ SUGAB LAND. TEXAS 774B7-OOS7 PualiTraK"
Q
45
-------
nalco AJ=-(G^./lvfrifolf=?-v | FHi =i EL:( G ;0
Alld.ly ss 1'U .
Date Sampled 6/ 2/94
Date Received 6/ 6/54
Date Completed 6/13/94
Date Printed 6/13/94
rid!.;
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked:
Emulsified No. 6 Oil
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated 0.02
Pour Point (Deg. F) 30
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F 332 SSF
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F) 10. S
Sediment (%} 7,2
Water (%) 0,4
BTU's per Pound {as received) 16700
1CAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S) 1.6
Vanadium (ppm V) 320
Nickel (ppm Ni) 71
Phosphorus (ppm P} 24
Calcium (ppm Ca) 23
Zinc (ppm Zn) 20
Iron (ppm Fe) 8
Aluminum (ppm Al) 7
Sodium (ppm Na) 6
The following were < S ppm or not detected:
Ag B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu K Li Mg Mn
Mo Fb Sb Si Sn Sr Ti
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
N A I. C a C H E M I C A k. COMPANY
ONE NALCO CENTER P MaPEBVILlE ILLINOIS 6Q5S3-1139
POST CPPC5 SOX B7 3 SUGAfl UAN'O. TEXAS 77-607-000 7 Quall'lraK"
46
-------
*
NALCn
From:
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked;
Industrial Fuel Co.
# £> o
Analysis No. CS 390950
Date Sampled 5/ 6/94
Date Received 5/11/94
Date Completed 5/23/94
Date Printed 5/23/94
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated
Pour Point (Deg. F)
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F
Specific Gravity {API at 60 F)
Sediment (%)
Water (%)
BTU's per Pound (as received)
Vanadium Ippm V)
Nickel (ppm Nil
Sodium (ppm Na)
Aluminum (ppm. Al)
0 .02
25
321 SSF
10.2
1.1
0.4
16680
ICAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S) 1.9
330
72
9
7
The following were < 5 ppm or not detected:
Ag
Mg
B
Mn
Ba
Mo
Ca
P
Cd
Pb
Co
Sb
Cr
Si
cu
Sn
Fe
Sr
Li
Zn
Form 738 <8-191
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY
ONE NALCO CENTER P NAFERVILIE ILLINOIS BC5B5-1 19S
OOST OFRCE SOX 67 ~ SUGAR LANQ TEXAS 77aB7-OOB7
Q
DualiTraK11
47
-------
NALCO
s i—. II t—i
gayK ^
Analysis No. CS 383060
Date Sampled 2/ 9/94
Date Received 2/15/94
Dace Completed 3/ 9/94
Date Printed 3/ 9/94
From:
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked:
Emulsified No.6 Oil
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated
Pour Point (Deg. F}
Viscosity at 122 Deg, F
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F)
Sediment (%)
Water (%)
BTU' s per Pound (as received)
0 .02
30
339 SSF
10 .1
6 . 0
0 . 4
16540
ICAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S)
1.7
Vanadium (ppm V)
290
Nickel (ppm Ni)
74
Phosphorus (ppm P)
14
Zinc (ppm Zn)
10
Calcium (ppm Ca)
10
Iron (ppm Fe)
7
Aluminum (ppm Al)
6
Lead (ppm Pb)
3
Sodium (ppm Na)
3
Tin (ppm Sn]
2
Silica (ppm Si)
2
Magnesium (ppm Mg)
1
Potassium (ppm K)
1
Chromium (ppm Cr)
1
Copper (ppm Cu)
1
Boron (ppm B)
1
Molybdenum (ppm Mo)
Antimony (ppm Sb)
1
Cobalt (ppm Co)
0
Titanium (ppm Ti)
0
Silver (ppm Ag)
0
—Manganese . (ppm Din)
——e—
Form 733 [8-89)
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY
ONE NALCO CENTER Q NAPERVIL.LE, ILLINOIS SQ562-1 1SS
POST OFFICE BOX B7 ~ SUGAR LAND, TEXAS ?"7^©7-Oa07
Q
Quili-Trak"
48
-------
naTco n /5\[w,foirsi/®\cTrTai[^i:\^7 i=^®or^iT
li=3i/—MJ=UL~yLi—iiL—.au I—A—g u L—ul.E—iL—v—>1.—u U
~~ Pgyfa 2 Last.
Analysis No, CS 383060
Date Sampled 2/ 9/94
Date Received 2/15/94
Date Completed 3/ 9/94
Date Printed 3/ 9/94
From:
Industrial Fuel Co,
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked:
Emulsified No.6 Oil
Cadmium (ppm Cd)
Lithium (ppm Li)
Strontium (ppm Sir)
Barium (ppm Ba)
Form 73a 1S-8SI
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
N A l_ C O CHEMICAL COMPANY
ONE NALCO CENTER O NAPERVILLE. ILLINOIS 6CSS3-1 198
POST OFFICE BOX 0? O SUGAR LA MO. TEXAS 77i07^DB7 OualiTraK"
Q
49
-------
From:
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked:
Emulsified No. 6 Oil
Analysis No. CS 377801
Date Sampled 12/ 1/93
Data Received 12/ 6/93
Date Completed 12/29/93
Date Printed 12/29/93
SSF
7
2
4
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS »
% Ash- Calculated 0.02
Pour Point (Deg. F) 30
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F 349
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F) 10.
Sediment (t) 9.
water (%) 0,
Asphaltenes by Hexane Extraction (%} 12.
BTU's per Pound (as received) 16560
ICAF Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S) 1.6
Vanadium (ppm V) 240
Nickel (ppm Mi) 57
Sodium (ppm Na) 18
Aluminum (ppm Al) 8
Calcium (ppm Ca) 7
Phosphorus (ppm P) 6
Iron (ppm Fe) 6
The following were < 5 ppm or not detected:
Rq B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu K Li Mg
Mo Pb Sb Si ¦ Sn Sr Ti Zn
Mn
pQtfT! 733 iB-Sii
Analytical Laboratory Locations:
N A L C O CHI
ONE PJALCO CENTER
MICAL COMPANY
NJAPEHVILLE. ILLINOIS SOOB3-1 1 SB
SJQST OFFICE SOX 87 n SUGAR LAND. TEXAS ?7^S7-OOa7
Q
Ouali-Trah"
50
-------
nalco fL,y®\fS^I O^/S^lfaYs^
I ~71/..J—^ Ji j UiO—^U Njrz_ylJ u U J ULrzDU v*--vt i u U
Prom;
Industrial Fuel Co.
Wilmington, NC
Sample Marked:
Emulsified No.
Analysis No. CS 375757
Date Sampled 11/ 4/93
Date Received 11/ 9/93
Date Completed 11/15/93
Date Printed 11/15/93
6 Oil
<< FUEL OIL ANALYSIS >>
% Ash- Calculated 0-
Pour Point (Deg. F) 30
Viscosity at 122 Deg. F 341
Specific Gravity (API at 60 F) 20.
Sediment 5%) 0 ¦
Water (%) 8i
Asphaltenes by Hexane Extraction (%) 14.
BTU's per Pound {as received) 16510
ICAP Analysis of Oil
Sulfur (% S) 1.8
Vanadium (ppm V) 270
Nickel (ppm Ni) 65
Phosphorus (ppm P) 2 6
Calcium (ppm Ca) 25
Zinc (ppm zn) 20
Iron (ppm Fe) 9
Sodium (ppm Na) 7
Aluminum (ppm Al) 6
02
SSF
1
2
0
The following were < 5 ppm or not detected:
Ag B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu K
Mo Pb Sb Si Sn Sr Ti
Li
Mg
Hn
Form 738 (B-B9)
Analytical Laboratory Locations: \
NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY ! » I
ONE NALCC CENTER a NAPEP?VH_l.E. ILLffvJO»S 6Q5S3- 1 1 S0
POST OFFICE BOX B7 0 SUGAR LAfsiO TEXAS 77*07-0007 QUdl'lTdK™
51
-------
TEST CONDITION SUMMARY
TEST RUN >
M23-1
M29-1
M23-2
M29-2
MM5-1
M23-3
(VI29-3
M23-4
TEST DATE >
3-6-95
3-7-95
3-8-95
3-8-95
3-9-95
3-9-95
3-9-95
3-10-95
Target Test Conditions:
Fuel
High S m
#6
#3
#6
m
#6
#6
M
Target FR
MBtu/hr
2.0
2.0
2.0
20
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Target SR
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Actual Test Conditions:
Fuel Feed
GPH
13.92
12.08
11,77
13.37
13.45
13.47
13.47
13.85
Lb/hr
104.8
89.0
86.7
98.5
99.1
99,2
99.2
102.0
Firing Rate (FR)
MBtu/hr
1.982
1.635
1.593
1.810
1.820
1.822
1.822
1.874
Stoichiometric Ratio
(SR)
1.23
1.29
1.31
1.21
1.27
1.25
1.25
1,26
Exhaust Gas Compcsiton;
Oxygen
Dry %
4.06
4.80
5,06
3.78
4.50
4.32
4.32
4.35
Carbon Dioxide
Dry %
15.02
14.89
14.95
15.04
15.02
15.02
15.02
14.65
Moisture
%
10.21
9.93
10,40
11.30
10.37
8.78
9.02
9,02
Dry Mot. Wt.
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30,5
Exhaust Gas Flow:
SCFM
434.13
385.02
385.00
374,20
424.71
409.11
409.11
42467
DSCFM
418.76
369,61
346.50
336.78
382.24
368.20
368.20
382.20
52
-------
TEST CONDITION SUMMARY
TEST RUN >
TEST DATE >
MM5-2
3-10-95
M23-5
3-10-95
MM5-3
3-10-95
M29-4
3-14-95
M23-6
3-14-95
M29-5
3-15-95
MM5-4
3-15-95
MM5-5
3-16-95
Target Test Conditions:
Fuel
Target FR
Target SR
Actual Test Conditions;
Fuel Feed
Firing Rate (FR)
MBtu/hr
GPH
Lb/hr
MBtu/hr
Stoichiometric Ratio (SR)
Exhaust Gas Compositon:
Oxygen Dry %
Carbon Dioxide Dry %
Moisture %
Dry Mol. Wt.
m
2,0
1.2
13.85
102.0
1.874
1.26
4.35
14.65
9.15
30.5
#6
2.0
1.2
13.41
98.8
1.815
1.21
4.72
14.80
8,90
30.5
#6 Emulsified #6 Emulsified #8 Emulsified #6 Emulsified #6 Emulsified #6
2.0
1.2
13,41
98.8
1 815
1.21
4.72
14.80
8.56
30.5
2.0
1.2
14,05
103,5
1,902
1.21
3,76
14,96
10.73
30.5
2.0
1.2
13.96
102.8
1,889
1.23
4.04
15,04
10.34
30.6
2,0
1.2
14,21
104.7
1,923
1.20
3.54
15.10
11.64
30.6
2.0
1.2
14.63
107.8
1.980
1.14
2.60
15,16
12.06
30.5
2.0
1.2
14.62
107.7
1.978
1.24
4.18
14.64
10.88
30.5
Exhaust Gas Flow:
SCFM
DSCFM
424.67
382.20
410,84
369.75
410.84
369.75
382.36
344.12
387.96
349.17
365.68
329.12
361,97
325.77
398.83
358.94
53
-------
TEST CONDITION SUMMARY
TEST RUN -—>
M23-7
MM5-6
M23-8
M23-9
M23-1G
TEST DATE >
3-16-95
3-16-95
3-16-95
3-24-95
3-28-95
Target Test Conditions:
Fuel
Emulsified #6
Emulsified #8
Emulsified #6
Emulsified #6
Emulsified #6
Target FR
MBtu/hr
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Target SR
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1,2
Actual Test Conditions:
Fuel Feed
GPH
1462
14.76
14.76
NA
NA
Lb/hr
107.7
108.7
108.7
NA
NA
Firing Rate (FR)
MBtu/hr
1.978
1.997
1.997
NA
NA
Stoichiometric Ratio
(SR)
1.24
1.23
1 23
NA
NA
Exhaust Gas Compositon;
Oxygen
Dry %
4,18
4.06
4.06
NA
NA
Carbon Dioxide
Dry %
14.64
15.02
15.02
NA
NA
Moisture
%
11.53
11.42
10.61
NA
NA
Dry Mol. Wt.
30.5
30.6
30.6
NA
NA
Exhaust Gas Flow:
SCFM
398.83
410.72
410.72
NA
NA
DSCFM
358.94
369,64
369.64
NA
NA
54
-------
HAPTSHXLS
NORTH AMERICAN BOILER HAP OIL TEST DATA SHEET
MB 3'7/^S"
/ YJ/y
fJCL^fc " 5
fucl
DCLf/EftY
STACK
OftAFT
A1QML3M3
ajr
MANIFOLD
DRAFT
FUEL
DELIVERY
FUEL
RETURN
TEMPERATURES
HEAT
excnafi tN
MEAT
eXCHQR OUT
SMOKE
NO.
M'/-5
zr
m:
L_2_
2j?>0
/M
S£L
/?y
£l_
-2.0
SO
3 7
£9o
/v:¥6
7 r
y.-r
n. <-/
yY
m2-
22 S"
/if
rr
/7f
VS7
5""
:2j0
XL
*o
/££.
JfJ
/&&3
2£_
££
YY
jL2-
_?j S~
/AH
r/
/7y
YY?
/J
-2.C
3 (_¦
£22.
££3_
232
6/2
/•r.YL
? \
3# WVAfT£>&il>aJ
2
Mft
/f-r-/
2±
4X
£L£_
/ f
JlX.
l£t
£l_
l£3_
±Z£
-/, ?
SY
sr. Q- > **'
55
-------
HAPTSH.XLS
NORTH AW6RK5AN BOILER HAJ* Oli. TEST DATA SHEET
RUN NO
z. £z>
TIME
PRESSURE
TEMPERATURES
SMOKE
NO,
FUEL
OQJVERV
STEAM
STACK
DRAFT
ATOMlSNG
AiR
MANIFOLD
DRAFT
FUEL
DC.IVeXY
FUEL
RETURN
HEAT
eXCHOR IN
HEAT
EXCHCR OUT
STACK
CE*-»
Rmnarit*
OPACITY
CO
O!
cos
NO
soa
7fi
0-i
It,
/. 5"
2. ?S~
Zoo
8*/
/6fi
£
-?./
/fl
#,Z
/¦£¦./
m
9f&
7/"
At
0 3
/&&
IMPf
£
/f,
44?
/r.o
*?(*
f?S
9:rs
7?"
•yfs"
0. 3
VJ
/.(,
J 2(0
/i'O
r7
7
yr?
¦s-
/&
a" 6
/Y,f
29 y
f^r
/C.C3
vT
!?¦?
VI
/. 7
2/r
/f:/%
•?r
vr
I
•2>.f
/f
/5TO
V*
96 r
//'¦of
7r
^,S"
n,2
yj
/ 6
2/0
/fo
sfsr
/7<5
//r
7
/y/'
120
9/P
//¦2G
7/
¥.5"
0.2
¥3
/ 7
J3/S
/fj~
,A
/L
r.9
HJ
70S
i/f,
7/
¥S
0 i
¥J
/-?
22^
/fO
rr
77/
y¥2
/ &>
i.3
SV.7
2j5~
S-?£
/l:o t,
7^
(J-!
rifT~
/-?
Z.?3
/?^
' *?<"
/7/
&
—Z 2-
/7
/¥.?
3t$&
?7$
/2SH
7y
-------
HAFTSHX15
BATE.
RUN NO,
2^g£T
NORTH A*E*»CAH BOitEft HAP «t TEST DATA SHEET
/3-^8
TIME
PRESSURE I TEMPERATURES
SMO#£
HO.
FUEL
oeuveky
VE£A*
5TACK
DRAFT
ATCM12H0
a;*
MANIFOU3
oratt
puei
oa.rvERY
rua.
RETURN
H£AT
EXCHQXIN
H€AT
EXCKOR OUT
STACK
CEM-i
OPACITY
CO
02
cot
NO
iOI
1328
If
l.¥
a,¥
%&
/zs"
(3 7
/&?
-zz
3,1
¥¦¦1
#9
ZC¥
far
£%£'
rf-.TS"
7 V
/. r~
Yb
/yd
/5>o
YfD
b
Q?£?
$7
77/
tf%r
7
—Z'Z.
Z-f
^4. /
/s'-C
/O/O
yfJVf? a/t-
¥:&>
t-*
•H>
/,?/>
$7
/7
Y95"
£
-z-z.
Z-3
¥:f
AXO
3o¥-
fS3~
/Y:TO
vC >"
/.«/
o.L
3 2 S"
//¦»
ft.
/^70
Vf?
L
-73
21
f.O
/•f.o
3 or
/o as
/r-,2!
?y
y,s"
>/L
aM
33 c)
/fa
72
/*/
Yff
h
-?i
22
tf
/SZo
Jo/
97/
7V
9.7
YL
$* C-5
27 b
//r
fk
/*?/
a1
/flJf
<$S&
7f
4S~
ft. 7
?,?>€>
'fic
/?/
0
-7: /
z~c
Y.f,
?S-0
¦3&"9
?SZ
-------
NAPTSHXL5
NORTH AMERiCAK BOILER HAP OIL TEST DATA SHEET
HIT- zh/ts"
RUN HO,
?:*7
/?c)
7 /
TW!f
FU
Ti*e
EL
VOL
ffSAU
RIB.
C6L«RV
STEAM
PRESSl
STACK
OSAST
BE
ATOMIZING
AIR
MANIFOLD
08AFT
FUEL
DELIVERY
FUEL
RETUR*
TEMPER
MEAT
EXCMSBM
*TUBES
W€AT
EXCHGR OUT
STACK '••
SMOKE
CF«r«
R«rr»rt.*
two.
CPaCjtv
CO
m
CO!
NO
S^3
i'i/
¦f
7¥-
(7
a¦ ?
l/*/-
/s"
Z/A>
/{%>
¦5*7
//?
<&?
£
'&¥¦
/9
K0
ifo
l'®'"
7?
f£
i?-5>
/.?
Z?f
s$$-~
C,0
/S7
iO
V 9
/£~o
fiizo
fit,"
?¥¦
f-f?
C'Z
IS"
zz£~
Sf
mi
-1.S'
i,/
¥-5
A27A
0.V6,
f/S'
.jr
7f
o-l
/.jr
i?o
6if>
170
f& tO
/U?
fe/
&
2/
*.?
K-o
<¥6
fff
l.3}
(/•>"
7f
f?
t.6~
Z&f
/90
a/
/%/
?
6
-2S~
2/
¥-?
/< o
?¥&
A32 7
f:s&>
c'/r
.S~
?¥
t-1
a?,
O
l
-------
HAPTSH.XLS
VOL
FUEi. 4 TEAM STACK ATOH1Z3NG MANIFOU)
rEUVERr C«AFT AIR DRAFT
AMERICAN ftOC-ER HAP O-:.. TEST &ATA SHEET
TEMPERATURES
FUEL [FUEL HEAT HEAT STACK
DCkfVERY RETURN EICMGR IN EXCHGR OUT
tz£
ISWCttE
!no.
iS:m
/VI
...r"
UL
M-
n.t.
W
LS1
Zg*
ijt
*^9 i^'-^
¥.¥
ts~,f
223.
55s~
/3' 2t0 ^ &
.
.2ZZ.
/V.c>3
M'3/
liis:
u£l
2^_
-£l
JZ$i
M.
ai
43
Ail
24*?
/W"
/-.r
Z(J>
loS'
AjL.
2S.
/ G
7 ¦>
AL.
<£dk.
>*¦J/s'
.5
7t-
4.<7
gg-7
Jf5_
2-^5
i2£l
-7/
/&£ ,§2o &
-Z. /
gz.
*¦/
/.-T, /
4?.-r
3E2_
ru'
df
±t-
ifc3_
£JL
¥•
5j
li>i>
Ml.
2J—
l(v0
M !g
-/.tf
M_Z_
~
7¥
/(, 7 S# 7
•zo
zl
¥¦7
ts.o
(k.
£Z£MZj?
»n: <7f7? ' * '
MCTTLR TiWE: ^ 03 //
OIL MET5R STAJfT-
OiL METER
f\10x u>ocH-^
Clcsg<2e) C^Wmj +o\)e..
59
-------
NORTH AMERICAN KM I. Eft HAPQJt TEST G*TA SWEP
SUN HQ, liimT liME- / ~ yC- END TIME. FUEL. >d- S By.
fwa
PS?sAJSte
TtWP-EIUTUa ?s
TIME
TIME
VDw
ICALI
FUEL
OfcwivE*f
STEAM
SlACK
OftAFT
ATOtttfmG
KANlPOUJ
DRAFT
PUEL.
oeurvER*
FUEi.
RETURN
MEAT
EXCHCR IN
MEAT
EXCHSfiOUT
S*ACK
SNOKS
NO.
CEM'.
Rtmrii
9PACITY
CO
03
cos
NO
sea
T-U
?'(f
•<
?¥•
0-1
yz
/.$>
US'
/7iT
4?¥S?
/f-y
£//
-Z-°!
l'/S'
,3
7*
f-1?
¦n
ns
Z.U
rfo
£9
/S7 .
?
_
2-S
5-4?
/*•?
ZfZ
6?^-
<&/&!(f
a:$ ?
i'n"
.<
-5,/
/-¦r
SZiT
/8£T
&Z
/SB
M8
zv?
?3.<
S
I'm"
¦ fC
7¥
ifZ.
T&O
&Z
s*7
-2-'
tz-
/.7
1¥C
7/E
fVS
7'rt.''
.r
"7
<27
C
-Z i
i 3
=?•?
/¥. 3
7.32
7r£
(i:ii
z'/a*
. r
7?
fr
0-Z-
^JT
y"
/-¦$
/yC"
m 1
/S7
?
2*2
as
sv-fl
ax^
£3aZ.
Dt'L METER. START; £87/6.
Oil METER 6M&: ?e,f'7.£0
CKt MgTSB TlMB ^ ^ "
60
-------
NORTH AMERICAN BOILER HAP OIL TEST DATA SHEET
bate: ^//fi/f3
rum no. ** 8-aat rme. ^• .- ekotime^ fuel. 8y_
Tswe
RJ
TIMS
HEL
VOL
{SAL}
FUEL
D5l?VffiY
STEAM
PfilSSl
1TACK
fXUTT^
RE
ATpfctaaNSj-
MANIFOLD
GfiAnr
FUEL
SiirVERy
ryEL
fiFTURN
TEMPER,
HEAT
fXCHtSfi 1M
MURES
MEAT
eXCMGROOT
STACK
SMOK£
MO.
OMCrrv
eo
C£
m
xt
C02
NO
Mtt
ft* mi-It*
ft'&O
/.V
, T
X
?.z2:
/•5"
<$?
72-
1L7L
aj
-*£ ?
esr
f?
$ss"
SUf
r,'»"
- 6~"
yif-
Lf.i"
¦XV '
V?
/..V
/75*~
6&
/S^7
c?/
<
-AiT
Z2
¥.V
>V.fl
¥-f
8S&
i'^o
i'n'
s*
¦ >
7f
Sit-
/'.i5
/£.*'
71
/£,?
r?z:
-/¦¦$"
zz
¥.S
/¥-0
Z^,
fi/O
Z'/f
i'¥
>iS
£>¦ Z
4%
/• 5"
10
/¦?/?
£>$"
/S"}
£
-! i-
Z-/
?¦(,
'V#
??¦?
¦i'ct
2<>$"
¦*5"
~W
0<7„
¥7
/.<
?A~b
/Gft
7*
/r?
,s- ' " '
' '
•sT
fy
V, '¦
y -.
*
QJ„ METER START: *T{?7S£?^
oil. wrre« ens: & 77Z <*f 0
«-MrTr" tim» /'i^'ur'
61
-------
HArfSH.KLS
KOafM AMERICA** SOlLES HAP Ott. TEST DATA SHEET
tib
ZL
RJ
MB.
VOL.
fUEL
STEAM
t-etssk
MACK
DRAFT
RE
ATOH&ZJNG
DRAFT
FUEL
DELFVERY
fuel
RETURN
TEMPER.
HEAT
EICHGR I*
A7URM
MEAT
ESwHGROUT
STACK
SMOKE
MO,
OPACITY
CO
CE
02
*-*
CQ2
NO
SOS
FUiniAt
T."H
lW
7
,01
VA
/,£
j?*r>
(SO
//O
V40
(f
JbO
/f,
/'V
ff£
23c
tT/9
lo:it
p'n''
<
7V
1
f
(¦(,
2U?
{iJ
f?
th
Y*
Pi
1/-0C
Vf
. S"
71/
t/.,i
VC
hr
3(f~
nr
ir
nx
V>1
i
•¦Itf
rr
l,7T
/ro
MC
ftz£''Z-
z's"
?f
w~
HC
/..f
?{X'
fl~r
ft#
/?/
o^y-
£
/
-------
HAPTSH iiS
NORTH «M£*UCAM BOILER HAP OtL TE2I ClATA SHEET
fllM UQ
£tajitnur J
EWDTtME.
niri £ email S'cJ
E>*£*4L*
fU€L
WtfiaoRC
re**p«fUTim€3
Swo*£
VOi.
*UEL
5 TEAM
1T*C«
atqwizw;
FUEL
K&AT
HSJkl
STACK
OPAcrr*
ce
Q2
S,
cat
mo
3. 'of'
,r
7^
4-2
/*tr
2,ft?
//
n:rf
r?"
r
->o
'V?
frr
ttz*
aV
¦ f
7v>
.*f
f-f
i-rr
7J
,3
¥f,
'*•/
J2/5"
173
VAT
6
-,t?r
a
2,'#
ys.io
ft!
frf
ftoo
* .
j r
13-
^r
Y6
)>Y
-**5"
l/J-5
%Y
i?r
#3
6
-,1*1
iyf
If.Xl.
7?
K<"
.1
VC,
f-f
-?r.r
/Tj"
KiJ
nr
ff5
i
-3>f
/
-------
HAPTSHXLS
NOfclX AMERICAN SOICER Oft. TEST CNMlTSMEET
¦pn iiur TiMt f''/0 CMSTIUE 1_- nm £ 0j_^L
T1MC
" w
€L
PSUVf**
ST GAM
P*£*SJU
sr*c*
CftAP?
*e
ATOMiUHG
~o
7f
172-
«r*
£
• tf-0
n
l.fl
»i" J1
Iff
/m~
i-3
v.r
v £
/1
Zof
!<{£>
rr
f/r
*
-,m
tl
3 '!?
{$>%
Z'f,"
r
??
?'">"
, •>"
?i
. I
¥&>
/.«,
ar#
a#
I7X~
flff
¥
iT,n
r
"5.W>
P~,i?
'fff
f/r
tr.x2-
?v
. i"''
if
.f
H
t,r
/4o
fi
17/
y/6
if
-/??
x\
3,11
!U
//**
yr
r
7i
f-r
. (
<&
Af
o.! r
af
f ^
173-
W
f,
-,I7»
P-l
«/
iSJi
!f1
ft*/
v
OH. MCTSH 3TAAt\.
us~73.in
OIL METES Eht>-.
OH. METES T1MF' X •
64
-------
MC«TWAME*iOm80ilL£ftkAP«t.?gaT0ATA »Mg£T V
OATI. 7)/0'/f > _ rf, ' f
RUM MQ »TMT tim. ¦ ^5 CN9 HM6. fXiQ- G £** By.
TIME
nj
TIME
£L
VOL
(GAL>
fua.
DCUVIK*
STEAM
PS6.KUJ
STACK
DRAFT
RE
atom yaws
AJ«
UANlfOLQ
&RAFT
pua,
BfUVEWT
fU£L
aeruRH
TEMPCJL
H£Ar
EXCHCJMN
kruses
HEAT
E*CHC*OUT
Mac*
SMOKE
MO.
CEVl
Riaifcrt*
OPACITY
CO
02
cot
NO
am
0:T>7
*i"
rr
7 y
f,r
, I
t.r
(?(¦
32-
H.VI
.'XI?
/r4
toar
tXVI
i'V
.r
'/.r
, I
H
t,r
.1X5"
jcr
?1
171
'/r
2lo
(7£>
fx
172—
m
7
-771
:Z2
a.?>
1 r,t(.
/O
••py/
/r.ii
a'r"
. r
?/
y.r
. I
a "J"
rr
171
f 7f
i
-.223
?•!
»-y-1
It 1
1 f.%1
2*5 '*
. s"
7'{
. /
¥£
/.>"
.:- 70
f 6 J-
rr
ns
Y**
I
J. 2.
2//^
;5"J3
1 y
to??
Oil METER 3TAAT;
Oil. METES ri.B ^ ^ ^-'f.
OIL MiTiR TIME:. 3 CO
65
-------
HAPTSH.IELS
WORTH AMZAKAX BOiLER HAP CHL TEST DATA SHEET
¦Uw WQ. »TA*T TIM. S' ^-7 EHPT1HE. H ¦ J-f FUEL. £¦*/ •'/ S / 0-,-t^f Bt
TIMS
n
TIME
r%a
OPACITY
ce
«
COl
NO
sm
af^>
(5 >
//f
w
*;
0-.-O
3,-J?
'f.CS
/73
16/tP
?.-Vr
2''/"
. 5'
v.o
„ 1
Yl
n
JfO
/,rr
j?r>
- "f>
/¦OK
/yf
ii'Si
1^' ^ '
7.7 S ft
/O-Vi
xi"
, if"
?r
f.o
,-x
/•3
J.% 1
(bo
j ~}&
?r
11!
-.2^
/f
3.yf
O" 'J
'W
to:ii
z'a"
s
7^
f,<5
¦ 1.
<
/.^
£iS
16 &
nt
*6
yf3
<$
-.217
/f
3,17
/y7;
tC'A\
z'n"
. r
?V
H.O
. ?-
Vfff
'.m
iu
3S?
//O
Oil. WET EH 3T4ftT: ^
GIL METER ENfr ££ W 4 * fJ
OH. MiliS TIME: -3 ¦ -
-------
NORTH AMERICA* SCHLOi HAP <*L TEST CAfA SHEET
DATE.
RUN WX,
..s/u/\
!\J0
J'V"
,r
?'/
'{,0
t7.
¥6
i ~S
37>
/'/£?
r/
t7t
SOZ
f>
12. ^
If
I,Si
«?//
SJ i t
iV5f
2 V
7 V
If 0
. %
t/(?
i.l
_2l£?
nr
YO-
112U
lU
(~,
1 T
h: ^2
¦?Oli
il', V
j'k"
, •>
7'/
i/, 0
¦ A
/ "s
£'i>0
fCC
KS'
r?.i.
ti
}f
"3 7^
air
OtHzl
? O-V/
<
'?
WL
•3-'? ¦'
r )
7i
%o
1
%
no
tfb
m
VI/
b
i L
y.fi
2?*7
19/f
' c
%
Oil METER START: ^ ^ ,^3
Oil. METER ENO:.
OIL METf-ft TIME-. y.oi :
-------
HAP-OIL METAL RESULTS
Date
Sample
Test
Time
Particulate
Vol. Sampled
Percent
Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Pb
Ni
Mn
Se
V
ID
Condi lion
Slart
Slop
wl («)
(dsct)
isokinetic
(Mg)
(M«)
(Hf5>
(PI)
w
(hi?)
(HP)
(MR)
3/07/95
M29-1A
£6 Oil
1415
1645
0.56768
105.93
87.9
252
6.80
0,270
7,73
37.5
302
9320
35,8
22.3
46800
J/07/95
M29-1B
U-< Oil
1415
1645
0.67114
103.06
95.5
1250
4,85
< ,200
6,34
38.6
138
5420
22.9
18 9
26300
3/08/95
M29-2A
MOil
1328
1558
0.75899
102,72
103.7
49.2
11.30
0.294
7,79
38.8
304
9600
39 1
32.8
47000
¥08/95
M29-2R
#6 Oil
1329
1559
0.66094
94,61
89.5
225
7.25
0.335
7.03
32.8
281
9240
33.7
23.9
44900
3/09/95
M29-3B
»6 Oil
1319
1549
0.70722
110.66
92.8
161
9.60
0,374
9.25
42.9
293
11300
44 8
32.7
54900
1/14/95
M29-4A
ti6 Oil Emulsified
940
1210
0.46402
101.04
too
84.2
8.15
0,342
7.49
39-4
285
11.2
44.7
28.2
5410
J/14/95
M29-4B
»6 Oil Emulsified
940
1210
0.34192
97.629
93.2
148
5.70
0.273
6.43
37.9
226
8400
38.3
26
40600
3/16/95
M29-5A
If6 Oil Emulsified
940
1211
0,48113
98.74
99 2
604
8.80
0.372
9.10
42.5
269
11100
49.4
34.7
53400
3/16/95
M29-5B
116 Oil Emulsified
940
1210
0.45262
90.01
90 6
29
8.70
0.353
7.42
38.8
255
10700
44.3
29.3
52500
3/17/95
M29-FB-1
Field Blank
NA
NA
0.00411
NA
NA
43.7
2.75
< .200
< 1.00
3.85
3.21
4.66
1.29
1.24
6,57
-------
VOST-RES.WK4-Page 1
VOLATILE ORGAN1CS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Dale;
3/8/95
Coodhioo
Local! on
No. 6 Oil
Exhaust Duct
Operator
Exhaust Duct Flow
DJ
346.5 DSCFM
Run Number
Volume Collected
Sample Tube IDs
VOST-la
20.030 liters
467/74
VOST-lb
18.330 liters
300 / 22
Analyte
«e
Hg/m5
(ig/MBtu
ng
ng/m"
|ig/MBtu
Diehlorodifluoromethane
<10
<0.50
<185
17.75
0.967
357.5
Chloromethane
4.65
0,232
85.8
<10
<0.54
<200
Vinyl Chloride
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Bromomelhaite
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Oiloraethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
TrieWorofluoromethane
<10
<0.50
<185
9.11
0.496
183.5
1,1 -DieWocoethene
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Iodomethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Carbon Disulfide
<10
<0.50
<185
42.73
2.329
860.5
Acetooe
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Methylene Chloride
<10
<0.50
<185
3062.95
166.918
61684.0
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
<10
<0,50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,1 -Diehloroethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Chloroform
<10
<0.50
<185
35.53
1.936
715.5
1,2-Dichloroethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,4-Dioxane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
2-Buianone
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,1,1 -Trichloroelhaiie
<10
<0.50
<185
3.24
0.177
65.2
Carbon Tetrachloride
<10
<0,50
<185
<10
<0.S4
<200
Benzene
25.05
1.251
462.2
24.18
1.318
487.0
Trichloroethene
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,2-Dichloropropane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Dibromomethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
BromoditHoromethaiie
<10
<0,50
<185
6. IS
0.335
123.9
cis-1,3-Dichioropropene
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
2-Hexanooe
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
tnms-l,3-Dkhloropropene
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,1,2-Tri.cWoroethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Dibromochloromethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,2-Dibromoethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Bromoform -
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0,54
<200
4-Methyl-2-Pentsnooe
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0,54
<200
Toluene
79.10
3.949
1459.4
12.50
0.681
251.7
TetraehJoroetiiene
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Chlorobenzeoe
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Ethylbenzeae
5.49
0.274
101.3
<10
<0.54
<200
1,1,1,2-TetrachloroeOiane
<10
<0:50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Xylene (M.P)
20.71
1.034
382.1
<10
<0.54
<200
O-Xylene
6.12
0.306
112.9
<10
<0.54
<200
Styrene
8.70
0.434
160.5
<10
<0.54
<200
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,2,3-Trichlocopropane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Trans-1,4-didiloro-2-butene
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
Penlachloroethane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
1,2-DibroctK>-3-chloropropane
<10
<0.50
<185
<10
<0.54
<200
69
-------
VOST-RES.WK4-Page 1
VOLATILE ORGAN ICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: North American Boiler Test Date: 3/9/95
Condition
#6 Oil
Operator
DJ
Location
Exhaust Duct
Exhaust Duct Flow
382.2
DSCFM
Run Number
VOST-2a
VOST-2b
Volume. Collected
19.950
titers
20.000
liters
Sample Tube IDs
337/198
301/136
Analyte
ng
pg/m*
jig/MBtu
"9
pg/m"
yg/MBtu
Dichlorodifluorornethane
14.41
0.722
257,7
30,09
1,505
536.8
Chloromethana
<10
0.50
<178
15.33
0.767
273.5
Vinyl Chloride
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Bromome thane
9.18
0.460
164.2
3.26
0,163
58.2
Chkxoe thane
<10
<0,50
<178
<10
0,50
<178
Trichtorofluoromethane
2.55
0.128
45.6
7.42
0.371
132.4
1,1-Dichloroethene
<10
o.so
<178
<10
0.50
<178
lodometharw
<10
<0.50
<176
<10
0.50
<178
Carbon Disulfide
36.84
1.S47
658.9
45.63
2.282
814.1
Acetone
66.51
3.334
1189.6
<10
0.50
<176
Methylene Chloride
2072.73
103.896
37072.1
2038.69
101.935
36372.2
1,2-Qichioroether» (total)
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
1,1-Dtehkxoe thane
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Chloroform
16,96
0.860
303.3
<10
0.50
<178
1,2-Dtehloroethane
<10
0,50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
1,4-Dioxane
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
2-8utanone
22.00
1.103
393.5
<10
0.50
<178
1,1,1-Trichkxoe thane
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Carbon Tetrachloride
<10
<0.50
<176
<10
0.50
<178
Benzene
24.79
1.243
443.4
20.76
1.038
370.4
Trichkroethene
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
1,2-Dictiloropropane
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Dibromome thane
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<176
Bromodichloromethane
3.41
0.171
61.0
<10
0.50
<178
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
<10
O 50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
2-Hexanone
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
trans-1,34)ichIoroproperie
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
1,1,2-T richloroelhane
<10
0.50
<176
<10
0.50
<178
Dibromochloromeihane
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
1,2-Dibromoe thane
<10
<0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Bromotorm
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
4-Methyt-2-Pentanone
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Toluene
27.55
1.381
492.8
35,43
1.772
632.1
Tetractiloroethene
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0,50
<178
Chlorobenzene
<10
0,50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Ettiylbenzene
3.30
0.165
59.0
<10
0.50
<178
1,1,1,2-Tetrachbroe thane
<10
<0,50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Xylene (M,P)
2,73
0.137
48.8
<10
0,50
<178
O-Xylene
1.06
0.053
19.0
<10
0.50
<178
Sty rene
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0,50
<176
1,2,3-Trichtofopropane
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Trans-1 <4-dlchloro-2-butene
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
Pen tachloroe thane
<10
0,50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
1,2-Dibromo-3-chkxopropane
<10
0.50
<178
<10
0.50
<178
70
-------
VOST-RES.WK 4-Page 1
VOLATILE ORGANICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date:
3/15/95
Condition
m Emulsified
Operator
DJ
Location
Exhaust Duct
Exhaust Duct Flow
329.1 DSCFM
Run Number
VOST-3*
VOST-3b
Volume Collected
19.640
liters
22.920
liters
Sample Tube IDs
496/10
359/348
Analyte
ng
Hg/irf
jig/MBtu
ng
Hg/m5
pg/MBtu
Dichlorodiiluoromcthane
22.03
1,122
326.2
6.71
0.293
85.1
Chloromdhiuie
553.24
28.169
8191.8
<10
<0.44
<128
Vinyl Chloride
<10
<0.51
<148
<10
<0.44
<128
Bromomethane
22.49
1.145
333.0
<10
<0.44
<128
Chlorocthane
<10
<0.51
<148
<10
<0.44
<128
Triehlorofluoromelhane
3.31
0,169
49.0
5.16
0.225
6S.5
1,1-Dtcfaloroethene
<10
<0,51
<148
<10
<0.44
<128
lodomdhaiK
<10
<0.51
<148
<10
<0.44
<128
CaAoo Disulfide
21.21
1.080
314.1
21.23
0.926
269.4
Actions
182.51
9.293
2702.4
55.35
2.415
702.3
Methylene Chloride
3438.65
276.917
S0529.8
2858.20
124.703
36264.8
1,2-Dictiloroethcxie (total)
<10
<0.51
<148
<10
<0.44
<128
l,l-Dichloro
-------
V0ST-RES.WK4-Page 1
VOLATILE ORGANICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: North American Boiler Test Date: 3/15/95
Condition
#6 Emulsified
Operator
DJ
Location
Exhaust Duct
Exhaust Duct Flow
325.8 DSCFM
Run Number
VOST-3C
VOST-3d
Volume Collected
22.660
liters
22.200
liters
Sample Tube IDs
341/180
383/4
Anatyts
»>§
pgfrn*
pg/MBtu
"9
pg/m"
pg/MBtu
DicWorodifluoronve thane
14.75
0.651
181.9
38.40
1.730
483.4
Chlorome thane
<10
<0 44
<123
4.62
0.208
58.2
Vinyl Chloride
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Bromomethane
15.40
0.680
189.9
<10
<0.45
<126
Chloroe thane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Trichlorofluorome thane
<10
<0.44
<123
4.00
0.180
50.4
1,1-Dichloroethene
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
lodome thane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Carton Disulfide
49.85
2.200
614.8
<10
<0.45
<126
Acetone
200.00
12.788
3576.8
102.86
4633
1294.9
Methylene Chloride
4221.81
186.311
52070.4
3387.16
152.575
42641.7
1,2-Dichlofoethene (total)
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
1,1-Dichloroethane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Chloroform
<10
<0.44
<123
31.71
1.428
399.2
1,2-Dichkwoethane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
1,4-Dioxane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
2-Butanone
55.03
2.429
678.7
<10
<3.45
<126
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Carbon Tetrachloride
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Benzene
25.43
1.122
313.6
<10
<0.45
<126
Trichloroethene
<10
0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
1,2-Dichloropropane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Oibromornethane
<10
<0-44
<123 •
<10
<0.45
<126
Brornod ich lorome thane
<10
<0.44
<123
5.38
0.242
67.7
c*s-1,3-Dichloroproperw
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
2-Hexanone
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0 45
<126
trans-1,3-Dichtoropropene
<10
0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Dibromochlofome thane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
1,2-DibrofTioethane
<10
<0 44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Bnomoforrn
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Toluene
117.26
5.175
1446.2
177.61
8.000
2236.0
Tetrachloroethene
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Chlorobenzene
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Ethylbenzene
5.10
0.225
62.9
<10
<0.45
<126
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
Xylene (M,P)
4.22
0.186
52.0
<10
<0.45
<126
O-Xylene
4.58
0.202
56.5
<10
<0.45
<126
Styrane
9.15
0.404
112.9
<10
<0.45
<126
1,1,2,2-Tetrachioroe thane
<10
0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
1,2,3-Trichkxopropane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0,45
<126
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
PentacNoroethane
<10
<0.44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
<10
<0 44
<123
<10
<0.45
<126
-------
VOLATILE ORGAN ICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
VOST-RES.WK4-Page 1
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Tast Date: None
Condition
Field Blanks
Operator
DJ
Run Number
Volume Collected
Sample Tube IDs
VOST-fb1
<1 liters
250/58
VOST-fb2
<1 liters
184/09
Analyte ng pg/m* pg/MBtu ng pg/m" pg/MBtu
Dichforodifluorometiane
15.51
4.24
CJilorome thane
7.45
23,14
Vinyt Chloride
ND
ND
Bromomethane
2.77
4.16
Qiloroe thane
ND
ND
Trichiorolluoromethane
4.26
3.94
1,1 -Dichloroethene
ND
ND
iodome thane
ND
ND
Carbon Disulfide
ND
ND
Acetone
86.60
35.76
Methylene Chloride
3524.98
2699.86
1,2-Dichtoroethene (total)
ND
ND
1, t -Dichtoroethane
ND
ND
Chloroform
25,96
22.32
1,2-Diehloroethane
ND
ND
1,4-Dioxane
ND
ND
2-Butanone
ND
ND
1,1,1-Trichbroe thane
ND
ND
Cartoon Tetrachloride
ND
ND
Benzene
15.70
ND
Trichloroettww
ND
ND
1,2-Dtehloropropane
ND
ND
Dibronxxnethane
ND
ND
Bromodichloromelhane
5.11
4.08
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
ND
2-Hexanone
ND
ND
trans-1,3-DichioropTOpene
ND
ND
1,1,2-Trtchtoroethana
ND
ND
Dibromoctitoromethane
ND
ND
1,2-Ditxomoe thane
ND
ND
Bromoform
ND
ND
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
ND
ND
Toluene
61,58
15,29
Tetrachkxoethene
ND
ND
Chkxobenzene
NO
ND
Ethylbenzene
ND
2.74 •
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroeiftane
ND
ND
Xylene (M,P)
ND
2.26
0-Xylene
ND
2.31
Styrene
ND
ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroe thane
ND
ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ND
ND
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
ND
ND
Pentachtoroettiane
ND
ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlofopropane
ND
ND
73
-------
RESULTS WK4-
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date:
mm
Condition
Location
Start Time
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
No. 6 Oil
Stack
930
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
381.0 QSCFM
1230
MM5-1A
140.397 DSCF
101.7 %
Analyte
pg
pg/m3
pg/Mitu
Chlorobenzene
<1.2
<0.31
<437
Styrene
<2.6
<0,65
<918
Cumene
<1.0
<0 26
<363
1,1-Biphenyi
<1.2
<0,30
<430
N - N itrosod irnethy lam ine
N -methyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
——
:
N -ethy l-N-nitroso- Ethanamine
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
Aniline
Phenol
7.19
1.809
643.2
2-Chlorophenol
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.24
<345
1,4-Oicblorobenzene
<1.0
<0.24
<345
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.24
<345
Benzyl Alcohol
33.79
8.499
3022.6
Bis(2-ch!oroisopropyl)ether
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
2-Methytphenol
<5.1
<1.29
<1828
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
Methyl-Benzenamine
3&4-methylphenol
1.25
0.314
111.8
N-nitrosodipropylamine
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
Nitrobenzene
<2.7
<0.68
<967
1 -Nitrosopiperidine
Isophorone
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
2,4-Dimethylphenol
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
<10,0
<2.52
<3556
2,4-Dichlorophenol
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
<1.2
<0.29
<409
Naphthalene
2,17
0.546
194.1
4-Methoxybenzenamine
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
2-Nitrophenol
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
2,6-Dichlorophenot
Hexachloropropene
4-Chloroaniline
<20,0
<5.03
<7113
Hexachlorobutadiene
, <10.0
<2.52
<3556
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-methyl-phenol
<20.0
<5.03
<7113
2-methylnaphthalene
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
4-chloro-2-methylbenzenamine
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-trichlorophenol
<4.7
<1.19
<1682
Hexach lorocyclopentad iene
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
¦ 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
<4.3
<1.09
<1536
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
<4.7
<1.19
<1682
74
-------
RESULTS.WK4-
2,3,4-trichlorophenol
<4.7
<1.19
<1682
2-chloronaphthalerie
<1.1
<0.28
<398
1 -chloronaphthatene
<0.7
<0.19
<263
4-chtoroquinoline
2-riitroaniline
<50.0
<12.58
<17781
3-nitroaniline
<50.0
<12.58
<17781
•# Acenaphthytene
<1,0
<0,25
<356
* Dimethylphathatate
<10,0
<2,52
<3556
2,6-dinitroto!uene
<2.4
<0.60
<846
Acenaphthene
<0.8
<0.20
<281
4-nitroaniline
<50.0
<12.58
<17781
» 2,4-dinitrophenol
<50.0
<12.58
<17781
• Dibenzofurart
<0.9
<0.22
<306
Pentachlorobenzene
* 2,4-dinitrotolucnc
<2.4
<0.60
<846
5-nitroquinoline
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,5-tetrachtorophenol
• 4-nitrophenol
<50.0
<12.58
<17781
—« Fluorene
<0.8
<0.21
<295
Diethyl phathalate
<10.0
<2,52
<3556
4-Chtorophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<2,52
<3556
2-methyl-5-nrtrobenzenam ine
N-nrtrosodiphenylamine
<10,0
<2.52
' <3556
2-methyl-4,6-din«trophend
<50.0
<12.58
<17781
Azobenzene
Oiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
Phenacetin
—„
___
* Hexachlorobenzene
<0.6
<0.16
<228
* Pentachlorophenol
<4.2
<1.05
<1490
• Pentachioronitrobenzer.e
- * Phenanthrene
<0.6
<0,14
<196
- »Anthracene
<0.6
<0.15
<210
Azoxyberizene
Peritachloroaniline
——
—„
Dibutyl phthalate
85.32
21.461
7632.0
2-nitro-N-phenylbenzenamine
4-nitro-1 -oxide-quinoline
Methapyrilene
_
— ¦ Fluorarrfhene
<0.3
<0.08
<114
- *Pyrene
<0.3
<0.08
<117
N-rnethyl-4-(phenylazo)-benzene
P-dimethy!aminoazobenzene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
<10.0
<2.52
<3556
N-2-fluorenylacetamide
— -Chrysene
0.57
0,143
51.0
» Berizo(a)anthracene
0.83
0.209
74.2
* Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
40.88
10.283
3656.8
Dt-N-ociyl phthalate
1072.00
269.643
95892.3
- »Benzo(b)fIuorarithene
<0.5
<0.13
<185
-« 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
,
- i Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0.7
<0.18
<249
- i Benzo(a)pyrene
<0.3
<0.07
<100
- , 3-methylcholanthrene
0.49
0,123
43.8
- * Dibenz(a,j)acridine
— ' lndeno(1,2,3-cd}pyrene
<0.6
<0.16
<220
- - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
2.37
0,596
212.0
- - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
2.20
0.553
196.8
Ofk
75
-------
RESULTS.WK4-
Test Date; 3/10®5
DJ, ES
382.8 DSCFM
1217
Run Number
MM5-2A
Volume Collected
105.168 DSCF
Isokinetic
92.4 %
Analyte
M3
yg/rcv1
pg/MBtu
CMorobenzene
<1.2
<0.41
<427
Slyrene
<2.6
<0.87
<895
Cumene
<1.0
<0.34
<354
1,1-Bipheny!
<1.2
<0.41
<420
N Nftrosodimethylamne
N-methyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
N-ethyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
Bis(2 chloroethyl)ether
<10,0
<3.36
<3470
Aniline
Phenol
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
2-Chlcrophencl
<10.0
<3,36
<3470
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0,33
<337
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.33
<337
1,2 Oichlcrobenzene
<1.0
<0.33
<337
Benzyl Alcohol
2.89
0.970
336.8
Bis(2-chtoroisopropyl)ether
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
2-Methylphenol
<5.1
<1.73
<1784
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
Methyi-Benzenamine
3&4-methylphenol
<10.6
<3.57
<3686
N-nitrosod (propylamine
<10.0
<3 36
<3470
Nitrobenzene
<2,7
<0,91
<944
1 -Nitrosopiperidine
Isophorone
<10.0
<3,36
<3470
2,4-Dimethylphsnol
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
2,4-Dich!orophenol
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
<1 2
<0.39
<399
Naphthalene
1.46
0.490
170,1
4-Methoxybenzenamine
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
2-Nitrophenol
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachloropropene
4-Chteroaniline
<20.0
<6.72
<6941
Hexachlorobutadiene
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-methyl-phenol
<20.0
<6.72
<6941
2-rnethylnaphthalene
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
4-chloro-2-rnethyIbenzenamine
—_
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
2.3,5-trichlorophenol
<4.7
<1.59
<1642
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
<10.0
<3.36
<3470
2.4.6-tnchlorcphenol
<4.3
<1 45
<1499
2,4,5-T richlorophenol
<4.7
<1.59
<1642
76
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: North American Boiler
Condition No. 6 Oil Operator
Location Stack Stack Flow
Start Time 947 Stop Time
-------
RESULTS.WK4-" vJlr
2,3,4-tiichlofopheriot
<4.7
<1.59
<1642
2-chloronaphthalerie
<1.1
<0.38
<389
1 "Chloronaphthalene
<0.7
<0.25
<257
4-ctiloroq
-------
RESULTS.WK4-.
SEMIVOLAT1LE ORGAN1CS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date; 3/10/95
Condition
Location
Start Time
No 6 Oil
Stack
1300
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ. ES
372.0 DSCFM
1410
Run Number
MM 5-3 A
Volume Collected
51.295 0SCF
Isokinetic
97.1 %
Analyte
P9
pg/m3
pg/MBtu
Chlorobenzene
<1.2
<0,85
<428
Styrene
<2.6
<1.78
<898
Cumene
<1.0
<0.70
<355
1,1-Biphenyl
<1.2
<0,83
<421
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
—
N-methyl-N-nftroso-Ethanamine
_—
N-ethyl-N -nitroso-Elhanamine
_—
Bis(2-chloroethyl)e!her
<10.0
<6,88
<3482
Aniline
Phenol
<10.0
<6,88
<3482
2-Chlorophenol
<10.0
<6,88
<3482
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0,67
<338
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.67
<338
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.67
<338
Benzyl Alcohol
<20.0
<13,77
<6965
Bis(2-chtoroisopropy!)etber
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2-Methylphenol
<5.1
<3.54
<1790
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
Methyl-Benzenamine
_—
_—
3&4-methylphenol
<10.6
<7.31
<3698
N-nrtrosodipropylamine
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
Nitrobenzene
<2.7
<1.87
<947
1 -Nitrosopiperidine
Isophorone
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2,4-Dtmethylphenol
<10.0
<6,88
<3482
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2,4-Dichlorophenol
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
1,2,4-Trichloroberizene
<1.2
<0.79
<400
Naphthalene
3.33
2.293
798.4
4- Methoxy bertzenami ne
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2-Nitrophenol
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachloropropene
—
4-Chloroanitine
<20.0
<13.77
<6965
Hexachlorobutadiene
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-rnethyl-phenol
<20.0
<13.77
<6965
2-methylnaphthalene
<10,0
<6.88
<3482
4-chloro-2-methylbenzenami ne
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-trichlorophenol
<4,7
<3.26
<1647
H exachlorocyclopentadiene
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
<4.3
<2.97
<1504
2,4,ST richlorophenol
<4.7
<3.26
<1647
78
-------
RESULTS.WK4
2,3,4-trichlorophenol
<4.7
<3.26
<1647
2-chteronaphthalene
<1.1
<0.77
<380
1 -chloronaphthalene
<0.7
<051
<258
4-chloroquinoline
2-rtitroanitine
<50.0
<34.42
<17412
3-nitroaniline
<50.0
<34.42
<17412
Acenaphthylene
<1.0
<0.69
<348
Dimethylphathalate
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2,6-dinitrotoluene
<2.4
<1.64
<829
Acenaphthene
<0.8
<0.54
<275
4-nrtroaniline
<50.0
<34 42
<17412
2,4-diriitrophenal
<50.0
<34.42
<17412
Diberxzofuran
<0.9
<0.59
<299
Pentachlorabenzene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
<2.4
<1.64
<829
5-nitroquinoline
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenoI
2,3,5,6-tetraehlorophenol
2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenot
—
4-nitraphenol
<50.0
<34.42
<17412
Fluorene
<0.8
<0.57
<289
Diethyl phathalate
371
2,554
889.5
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2-methyl-5-nttrobertzenamine
N-nitrosodiphenylami ne
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophcnol
<50.0
<34.42
<17412
Azobenzene
Diphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
Phenacetin
Hexachtorobenzene
<0.6
<0.44
<223
Pentachlorophenol
<4.2
<2.88
<1459
Pentschloronitroberizene
Phenarsthrer.e
<0.6
<0.38
<192
Anthracene
<0.6
<0.41
<205
Azoxybenzene
Pe ntachioroanili ne
Dibutyl phthalate
61.67
42.458
14785.3
2-nitro-N-phenylber!2enamir>e
4-nitro-1 -cxide-qumoline
Methapyrilene
Fluoranthene
<0.3
<0.22
<111
Pyrene
<0.3
<0.23
<115
N-methyl-4-(phenylazo)-benzene
P-dimethylarninoazobenzene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
2 55
1.756
611.4
N-2-fluorenylacetamide
Chrysene
<0.2
<0.16
<80
Benzo(a)a nthracene
<0.2
<0.17
<84
Bis(2-ethy'hexyl)phlha!a!e
<10.0
<6.88
<3482
Di-N-octyl phthalate
130.40
89.776
31263.3
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<0.5
<0.36
<181
7,12-Oimethylbenz(a)anthracene
——
Berizo(k)fluoranthene
<0.7
<0.48
<244
Benzo(a)pyrene
<0.3
<0.19
<98
3-methylcholanthrene
0:benz(aj)acndine
_—
!nceno(1,2 3-cd)py^ene
<0.6
<0,43
<216
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
<0.6
<0.44
<223
Benzo(g ,h,i)pery lene
<0.5
<0.36
<181
79
-------
RESULTS WK4-
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description;
North American Boiler
Test Date: 2/15/95
Condition
Location
Start Time
No 6 Oil
Stack
1235
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
326,5 DSCFM
1535
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
MM5-4A
117.560 DSCF
100.6 %
MM5-4B
101.901 DSCF
86.5 %
Analyte
M9
Mg/m3
^g/MBtu
M9
pg/MBtu
Chlorobenzene
<1.2
<0.37
<345
<1.2
<0.43
<345
Styrene
<2,6
<0.78
<723
<2.6
<0.89
<723
Cumene
<1.0
<0.31
<286
<1.0
<0,35
<286
1,1-Btphenyl
<1.2
<0.36
<339
<1 2
<0.42
<339
N-Nitrosodimethylamme
N-methyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
N-ethyl-N-nitroso-Elhanamine
Bis(2-chioroethyl)ether
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10 0
<3.47
<2801
Aniline
Phenol
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3 47
<2801
2-Chlorophenol
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.29
<272
<1.0
<0,34
<272
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.29
<272
<1.0
<0.34
<272
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.29
<272
<1,0
<0.34
<272
Benzy! Alcohol
<20.0
<6.01
<5603
<20.0
<6.93
<5603
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
2-MethyIphenol
<5.1
<1.54
<1440
<5.1
<1.78
<1440
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
<10.0
<3,00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
MethyS-Benzenamine
'
3&4-methylphenol
<10.6
<3.19
<2975
<10.6
<3.68
<2975
N-nitrasodipropylamine
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
Nitrobenzene
<2.7
<0.82
<762
<2.7
<0.94
<762
1-Nitrosopiperidine
Isophorone
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3,47
<2801
2,4-Dimethylpher.ol
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10,0
<3.47
<2801
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10,0
<3.47
<2801
2,4-Dichtorophenol
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
1,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
<1.2
<0.35
<322
<1.2
<0.40
<322
Naphthalene
2.40
0.721
202.0
1.70
0.589
165.0
4-Methoxybenzenamine
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
2-Nitrophenol
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
2,6-DichIorophenol
—_
Hexachloropropene
4-Chloroaniline
<20.0
<6.01
<5603
<20.0
<6.93
<5603
Hexachlorobutadiene
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4 chloro 3 methyl-phenol
<20.0
<6.01
<5603
<20.0
<6.93
<5603
2-methylnaphthalene
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
4-ch1oro-2-methylbenzeriamine
1,2,4,54etrachlorobenzene
2,3,54rich1orophenoS
<4.7
<1.42
<1325
<4.7
<1.64
<1325
Hexachbrocycloperrtadiene
<10.0
<3,00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
2,4,64richlorophenol
<4.3
<1,30
<1210
<4.3
<1.50
<1210
2,4,5-T richlorophenol
<4.7
<1.42
<1325
<4.7
<1.64
<1325
80
-------
RESULTS.WK4-
2,3,4-trichlorophenol
<4 7
<1.42
<1325
<4.7
<1.64
<1325
2-chloronaphthalene
<1.1
<0.34
<314
<1,1
<0.39
<314
1 -chloronaphthalene
<0.7
<0.22
<207
<0.7
<0.26
<207
4-chIoroquino'ine
——
2-nitroaniline
<50.0
<15.02
<14006
<50.0
<17.33
<14006
3-nrtroaniline
<50.0
<15.02
<14006
<50.0
<17.33
<14006
Acenaphthylene
<1.0
<0 30
<280
<1.0
<0.35
<280
Dimethylphathalate
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
2,6-dinitrololuene
<2.4
<0.71
<667
<2-4
<0.62
<667
Acenaphlhene
<0.8
<0.24
<221
<0.8
<0.27
<221
4-nitroaniiine
<50.0
<15.02
<14006
<50.0
<17.33
<14006
2,4-dinitropheno!
<50.0
<15.02
<14006
<50.0
<17.33
<14006
Dibenzofuran
0.36
0.108
30.3
0.18
0.062
17.5
Pentachlorabenzene
2,4-dinitrotaluene
<2.4
<0.71
<667
<2.4
<0.82
<667
5-nitroquinoline
—
2,3,4,6-tetrachloraphena!
—_
2,3,5,6-tetrachloropheno!
——
2,3,4,5-letrachlorophenol
4-nrtrophenol
<50 0
<15.02
<14006
<50.0
<17.33
<14006
Fluorene
<0.8
<0.25
<233
<0,8
<0.29
<233
Diethyl phathalate
4.75
1.427
399,7
3.95
1.369
383.5
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<3,00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
2-methyl-5-nitrobenzensrr.ine
—__
.—-
N-nitrosodipheny!amine
<10.0
<3,00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenc!l
<50,0
<15.02
<14006
<50.0
<17.33
<14006
Azobenzene
Diphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
Phenacetin
:
——
H exachlorobenzene
<0.6
<0.19
<179
<0.6
<0 2.2
<179
Pentachtorophenol
<4.2
<1.26
<1174
<4.2
<1.45
<1174
Pentachloronitrabe nzene
Phenanthrene
<0.6
<0.17
<154
<0.6
<0,19
<154
Anthracene
<0.6
<0.18
<165
<0.6
<0,20
<165
Azoxybenzene
Pentachloroaniline
——
_—..
Dibutyl phthalate
93,61
28.120
7877,2
30.82
10.681
2992,0
2-nitro-N-phenyIbenzenamine
—-
4-nitro-1 -oxide-quinolins
Methapyrilene
Fluoranthene
<0.3
<0.10
<90
<0.3
<0.11
<90
Pyrene
<0.3
<0.10
<92
<0.3
<0.11
<92
N-methyI-4^phenylazo)-benzene
P-dimethylaminoazobenzeng
Benzyl butyl phthalate
2.36
0.709
198,6
<10.0
<3.47
<2801
N-2-fluorenylacetamide
Chrysene
<0.2
<0.07
<64
<0.2
<0.08
<64
Benzo{a)anthracene
<0.2
<0.07
<67
<0.2
<0,08
<67
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
<10.0
<3.00
<2801
41.45
14.365
4024,0
Di-N-octy! phthalate
2644,00
794.243
222489.2
457.10
158.412
44375,5
0enzo{b)fluoranthene
<0.5
<0.16
<146
<0.5
<0.18
.<146
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracer,e
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0.7
<0 21
<196
<0.7
<0.24
<196
Benzo(a)pyrene
<0.3
<0.08
<78
<0.3
<0.10
<78
3-raethylcholanthrene
—_
Dibenz(a,j)acridine
tnder»o(1,2,3-cd)pyrens
<0.6
<0.19
<174
<0.6
<0.21
<174
Dibenz(a ,h)anth racene
<0,6
<0.19
<179
<0.6
<0.22
<179
Benzo(g, h ,i)perylene
<0.5
<0.16
<146
<0.5
<0.18
<146
81
-------
RESULTS.WK4-
SEM1VOLATILE ORGANICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date: 3/16/95
Condition
No. 6 Emulsified
Location
Stack
Start Time
827
Run Number
MM5-5A
Volume Collected
114.504 DSCF
Isokinetic
89.6 %
Analyte
H9
pg/m3
pg/MBtu
Chlorobenzene
<1.2
<0.38
<377
Styrene
<2.6
<0.80
<790
Cumene
<1-0
<0.31
<312
1,1-Biphenyl
<1.2
<0.37
<370
N-Nitrosodi methylamine
_—
—_
N-methyl-N-fiitroso-Ethanamine
—,—
N-ethyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
—_
Bis(2-chloroethyS)ether
<100
<3.08
<3061
Aniline
-—-
Pheno!
36,08
11.128
3406.6
2-ChlQrophenol
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<1,0
<0.30
<297
"i ,4-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0-30
<297
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<1.0
<0.30
<297
Benzyl Alcohol
<20.0
<6.17
<6123
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
2-Methylphenol
<5.1
<1.59
<1574
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
Methyl-Benzenamine
3&4-cnethylphenol
<10.6
<3.28
<3251
N -nitrosodipropylamine
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
Nitrobenzene
<2.7
<0.84
<833
1-Nitrosopiperidme
Isophorone
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
2,4-Dimethylphenol
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
2,4-Dichtorophenol
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
<1.2
<0.35
<352
Naphthalene
5.01
1.545
473.0
4-Methoxybenzenamine
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
2-Nitrophenol
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachloropropene
4-Chloroaniline
<20.0
<6.17
<6123
Hexachlorobutadiene
<10.0
<3.08.
<3061
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-methyl-phenol
<20.0
<6.17
<6123
2-rriethylnaphtha!ene
<10.0
<308
<3061
4-chloro-2-methylbenzenamine
>
1,2,4,54etrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-trichlorophenol
<4.7
<1.46
<1448
Hexachlorocyctopentadiene
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
<4,3
<1.33
<1323
2,4,5-T richlorophenol
<4,7
<1.46
<1448
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
356,5 DSCFM
1127
82
-------
RESULTS.WK4-
2,3,4-trichlorophenol
<4.7
<1.46
<1448
2-chloronaphthalene
<1.1
<0.35
<343
1 -chloronaphthalene
<0.7
<0.23
<227
4-chk3roquinQlirte
2-nitroaniline
<50.0
<15.42
<15307
3-nitroaniline
<50.0
<15.42
<15307
Acenaphthylene
<1.0
<0.31
<306
Dimethylphathatate
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
2.6-dinilrotoluene
<2.4
<0.73'
<729
Acenaphthene
<0.8
<0.24
<242
4-nitroaniline
<50.0
<15.42
<15307
2,4-dinitrophenol
<50.0
<15.42
<15307
Dibenzofuran
0.83
0.256
78.4
Pentachtorobenzene
__—
_
2,4-dinitroto!uene
<2.4
<0.73
<729
5-nitroquinoline
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,5,6-tetrach'orcphenol
2,3,4,5-ietrachlorophenoI
4-nitrophenol
<50,0
<15.42
<15307
Fluorene
<0.8
<0.26
<254
Diethyl phathatate
2.71
0,836
255 9
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<3,08
<3061
2-methyl-5-ni!fobenzenamine
N-nftrosodiphenylamine
<10.0
<3,08
<3061
2-methy 1-4,6-dinitrophenoI
<50,0
<15.42
<15307
Azobenzene
Diphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
Phenacetin
—
Hexachiorobenzene
<0.6
<0.20
<196
Penlachlorophenol
<4.2
<1,29
<1283
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
<0,6
<0.17
<168
Anthracene
<0.6
<0.18
<181
Azoxybenzene
Pentachloroaniline
Dibutyl phthalate
9.28
2,862
876,2
2-nitro-N-phenyIbenzenamine
4-nitro-t -oxide-quinoline
Methapynlene
——
Fluoranthene
<0.3
<0.10
<98
Pyrene
<0.3
<0.10
<101
N-methyl-4-(pher>ylazo)-ben2ene
P-dimethylaminoazobenzene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
<10.0
<3.08
<3061
N -2-fluorenylacetamide
Chrysene
<0,2
<0,07
<70
Benzo(a)anthracene
<0,2
<0,07
<73
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
88,10
27.171
8318,3
Di-N-octyl phthalate
2599.00
801.565
245395.0
Benzo{b)nuoranthene
<0.5
<0.16
<159
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Benzo(k)f1uaranthene
<0 7
<0 22
<214
Berizo(a)pyrene
<0.3
<0.09
<86
3-methylcholanthrene
.......
Dibenz(a,j)acridine
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene
<0,6
<0.19
-------
SEMSVOLATILE ORGANICS SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description;
North American Boiler
Condition
Location
Start Time
No. 6 Emulsified
Stack
1158
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
Run Number
Volume Collected
isokinetic
MM5-6A
117.239 DSCF
88.3 %
AnaSyte
PS
(jg/m'
jjg/MBtu
Chlorobenzene
<1.2
<0.37
<382
Styrene
<2.6
<0.78
<801
Cumene
<1.0
<0.31
<317
1,1-Biphenyl
<1.2
<0.36
<376
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-methyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
N-ethyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
Bis{2-chtoroethyl)ether
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
Aniline
Phenol
16.81
5.063
1572.5
2-Chlorophenol
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
1,3-Oichiorobenzene
<1.0
<0.29
<301
1,4-Dichloroberizene
<1.0
<0.29
<301
1,2-Dichiorobenzene
<1.0
<0.29
<301
Benzyl Alcohol
<20.0
<6.02
<6211
Bis(2-ch!oroisopropyl)ether
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2-Methylphenol
<51
<1 55
<1596
Acetophenone
Hexachbroethane
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
Methyl-Benzenamine
3&4-methylphenol
<10.6
<3.20
<3298
N-nttrosodipropylamine
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
Nitrobenzene
<2.7
<0.82
<845
1 -Nitrosopipendine
Isophorone
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2,4-Dimethylphenol
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
Bis(2-chlofoethoxy)rnethane
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2,4-Dichlorophenol
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
<1.2
<0.35
<357
Naphthalene
2 65
0.798
247.9
4-Methoxybenzenamine
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2-Nitrophenol
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachloropropene
4-Chloroaniline
<20.0
<6.02
<6211
Hexachlorobutadiene
<100
<3 01
<3106
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-m ethyl-phenol
<20.0
<6.02
<6211
2-methyInaphthalene
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
4-chloro-2-methylbenzenamine
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-triehtarophenol
<4.7
<1.42
<1469
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2s4,6-tnchlcrophenol
<4.3
<1.30
<1342
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
<4.7
<1.42
<1469
84
-------
RESULTS WK4
2,3,4-trichlorophenot
<4.7
<1.42
<1469
2-chloronaphthalene
<1.1
<0.34
<348
1 -chloronaphthalene
<0-7
<0.22
<230
4-chloroquinoline
2-riitroaniline
<50.0
<15.06
<15528
3-nilroaniline
<50.0
<15.06
<15528
Acenaphthylene
<1.0
<0.30
<311
Dimethyl pbathalate
<10,0
<3.01
<3106
2,6-dinitroto!uene
<2.4
<0.72
<739
Acenaphthene
<0.8
<0.24
<245
4-nttroaniline
<50.0
<15.06
<15528
2,4-dinitropheriot
<50.0
<15.06
<15528
Dibenzofuran
0.24
0,072
22.5
Pentachtoroberizene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
<2.4
<0.72
<739
5-nstroquinoljne
—__
2,3,4,64etrachlorophenol
——
2,3,5,6-tetrachloro phenol
2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
<50.0
<15,06
<15528
Fluorene
<0.8
<0.25
<258
Diethyl phathalate
9.31
2.804
870.9
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2-methyl-5-nitrobenzenamine
—„
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
<50.0
<15.06
<15528
Azoberizene
Diphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
Phenacetin
—„
Hexachlorobenzene
<0.6
<0.19
<199
Pentachlorophenol
<4.2
<1.26
<1301
Pentachloronitrobenzerie
Phenanthrene
<0.6
<0,17
<171
Anthracene
<0.6
<0.18
<183
Azoxybenzene
Pentachloroaniline
Dibutyl phtha'aie
35.53
10.702
3323.7
2-n'rtro-N-phenylbenzenamine
4-nitrol -oxide-quinoline
Methapyrilene
—-
Fluoranthene
<0.3
<0,10
<99
Pyrene
<0.3
<0.10
<102
N-methyl-4-(phenyiazo)-benzene
--—-
P-dimeth ylaminoazobenzene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
N -2-fluorenylacetamide
Chrysene
<0,2
<0.07
<71
Benzo^ajanthracene
<0.2
<0.07
<75
Bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
Di-N-odyt phthalate
<10.0
<3.01
<3106
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<0.5
<0.16
<161
7,12-D!methylbenz(a)anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0-7
<0.21
' <217
Berizo(a)pyrene
<0.3
<0.08
<87
3-methy!cholanthrene
Dibenz(a ,j)acndi re
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
<0.6
<0,19
<193
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
<0.6
<0.19
<199
B enzo(g ,h .ijperylene
<0.5
<0.16
<161
85
-------
DIOXINS.WK4-1
DIOXIN SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description; North American Boiler Test Date: 3-6-95
Condition No, 6 Oil Operator DJ, ES
Location Stack Stack Flow 392.5 DSCFM
Start Time
1510
Stop Time
1810
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
M23-1A
146.191
102.4
DSCF
%
M23-1B
138.563 DSCF
90.7 %
Anaiyte
m
ng/m3
pg/MBtu
rig
ng/m3
pg/MBtu
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
2.) Dichlorodibsnzodloxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
5.) Pentachiorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2,549
<0.858
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.658
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
5.) Pentachiorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2,549
<0.858
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
8J Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.416
<0.813
ND
<2.549
<0.858
86
-------
DIOXINS-WK4-2
DtOXIN SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: North American Boiler Test Date: 3/8/95
Condition No. 6 Operator DJ, ES
Location Stack Stack Flow 343.0 DSCFM
Start Time
938
Stop Time
1238
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
M23-2A
125.695 DSCF
97.5 %
M23-2B
123.012 DSCF
96.2 %
Analyte
ng
ng/m3
(jg/MBtu
ng
ng/m3
(jg/MBtu
1.) Monochiorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0.966
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0.966
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0,945
ND
<2.871
<0,966
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2,810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0.966
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2,810
<0.945
ND
<2 871
<0.966
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2,871
<0.966
7 ) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2 871
<0.966
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871 ¦
<0.966
1.) Monochlorodibertzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0.966
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2,871
<0.966
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2,871
<0.966
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0.966
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0,966
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0,945
ND
<2.871
<0.966
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0.966
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.810
<0.945
ND
<2.871
<0,966
87
-------
DlOXlNS WK4-3
~ IOXIN SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date: 3/9/95
Condition
Location
No- 6 Oil
Stack
Start Time
1318
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
M23-2A
134,510 DSCF
90.2 %
Analyte
ng
ng/m3
(jg/MBtu
1.) "Monochlorodibenzodioxin
NO
<2.625
<0.883
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
4) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2 625
<0.883
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2,625
<0.883
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<0,883
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<2.625
<0.883
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
372.3 DSCFM
1618
88
-------
DiOXINS WK4-4
DIOXIN SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date: 3/10/9S
Condition
Location
No. 6 Oil
Stack
Start Time
945
Run Number
M23-4A
Volume Collected
116.317 DSCF
Isokinetic
88.6 %
Analyte
ng
ng/m3
pg/MBtu
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
4.) Teirachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
6) Hexachtorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
7.) Heptachtorodibenzoioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
8.) Octachtorodiberizodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
6.) Hexachtorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.036
<1.021
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
383 2 DSCFM
1215
89
-------
01OX1NS.WK4-5
OIOXIN SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date: 3/10/95
Condition
Location
Start Time
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
No. 6 Oil
Stack
1307
M23-5A
49.506 DSCF
78.6 %
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
370.9 DSCFM
1417
Analyte
ng
rtg/ms
Mg/MBtu
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzod iox; n
ND
<7.119
<2.395
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
6 ) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7 119
<2.395
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7 119
<2.395
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<7.119
<2.395
90
-------
DIOXINS WK4-6
DIOXIN SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date: 3/14/95
Condition
Location
Start Time
No. 6 Emulsified
Stack
1330
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
Dj, ES
345.7 DSCFM
1600
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
M23-5A
96.318 DSCF
91,0 %
M23-6B
95.245 DSCF
89.7 %
Analyte
n9
ng/m3
|jg/MBtu
n9
ng/m3 (jg/MBtu
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
4.) Tetrachiorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
6-) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
3_) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
4.) Tetrachiorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.666
<1.233
NA
NA
NA
91
-------
DIQXINS WK4-7
DIOXIfs! SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description:
North American Boiler
Test Date: 3/16/95
Condition
Location
Start Time
No. 6 Emulsified
Stack
828
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
354.4 DSCFM
1128
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
MM5-5A
113,820 OSCF
88.0 %
Analyte
ng
ng/m3
Mg/MBtu
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<3.103
<1,044
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
6.) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
ND
<3.103
<1.044
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND
<3,103
<1.044
92
-------
DIOXIN SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
DIOXINS.WK4-8
Source Description;
North American Boiler
Test Date: 3/16/95
Condition
Location
Start Time
Run Number
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
No. 6 Emulsified
Stack
1157
M23-8A
134.062 DSCF
100.0 %
Operator
Stack Flow
Stop Time
DJ, ES
367.8 DSCFM
1457
Analyte
1.) Monoch lorod i benzod ioxi n
2.) Dichlorodibenzod oxin
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
6.) Hexachtorodibenzodioxin
7.) Heptachlorod;benzoioxin
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
1.) Monochlorodibenzodioxin
2.) Dichlorodibenzodioxin
3.) Trichlorodibenzodioxin
4.) Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
5.) Pentachlorodibenzodioxin
6.) Hexachtorodibenzodioxin
7.) Heptachlorodibenzoioxin
8.) Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ng
ng/m3
jjg/MBtu
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0 886
ND
<2.634
<0,886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
ND
<2.634
<0.886
93
------- |