1 15 1 https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/00a05b74cf6b72dc5346713df5cbf713.pdf 4797df5425895601c7d659e869604c78 PDF Text Text lt.mlM.tor 0542, Author Haile ' Clarence L Corporate Author Report/Article Tltlfl Comprehensive Assessment of the Specific Compounds Present in Combustion Processes, Volume I: Pilot Study of Combustion Emissions Variability Journal/Book Title Year Month/Day Color Number of Images ° DBSCriptOn Notes Task 3 Final Re ' P°rt, EPA Contract No. 68-01-5915, MRI Project No. 4901-A(3) Friday, March 08, 2002 Page 5421 of 5427 �United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances Washington DC 20460 EPA-560/5-83-004 June, 1983 Toxic Substances xvEPA Comprehensive Assessment of the Specific Compounds Present in Combustion Processes Volume I Pilot Study of Combustion Emissions Variability ^^^^TIv~^rr'r- i 4 fr^ \\ ^ 1 L \ i t ' �PILOT STUDY OF INFORMATION OF SPECIFIC COMPOUNDS FROM COMBUSTION SOURCES by Clarence L. Haile and John S. Stanley Midwest Research Institute Robert M. Lucas and Denise K. Melroy Research Triangle Institute Carter P. Nulton Southwest Research Institute and William L. Yauger, Jr. Gulf South Research Institute TASK 3 FINAL REPORT EPA Contract No. 68-01-5915 MRI Project No. 4901-A(3) Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Field Studies Branch 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Attn: Dr. Frederick Kutz, Project Officer Mr. David Redford, Task Manager �DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. �PREFACE This final report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-01-5915, Task 3. The task was directed by Dr. Clarence L. Haile. Substantial portions of the effort were subcontracted to Southwest Research Institute under Dr. Carter P. Nulton and to Gulf South Research Institute under Mr. William L. Yauger, Jr. This work was completed in coordination with statistical design studies conducted by Research Triangle Institute under Dr. Robert M. Lucas. This report was prepared by Dr. Clarence L. Haile and Dr. John S. Stanley with substantial contributions from Dr. Robert M. Lucas, Ms. Denise K. Melroy, Dr. Carter P. Nulton, and Mr. William L. Yauger, Jr. MIDW5ST)RESEARCH,INSTITUTE r E. Going Program Manager Approved: James L. Spigarelli, Director Analytical Chemistry Department June 1983 111 �CONTENTS Preface Figures Tables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. iii v vi Introduction Summary Recommendations Plant Descriptions Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 Sampling Methods Flue Gas Plant Background Air Solid and Aqueous Media Continuous Monitoring Process Data Collection Analysis Methods Organics Cadmium Field Test Data Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 Analytical Results Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 Chicago Northwest Incinerator Analytical Quality Assurance Results Surrogate Compound Recoveries Interlaboratory Comparison Studies Emissions Results Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 Statistical Summary of Pilot Study Data Overview First Tier Summary Second Tier Summary References 1 3 5 6 6 1 9 9 12 12 1? 15 16 16 31 34 34 42 52 52 83 107 107 107 112 112 112 129 129 129 137 147 Appendix A - TRW Field Test Report for the Ames Municipal Electric System, Unit No. 7 148 Appendix B - TRW Field Test Report for the Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 242 �FIGURES Number Page 1 Modified Method 5 train for organics sampling 10 2 Locations of flue gas sampling ports on a typical combustion unit 11 3 Sector schemes for sampling bottom ash 14 4 General analytical scheme 18 5 TOC1 chromatogram for Aroclor 1254 23 �TABLES Number 1 PAH Compounds Selected 16 2 Recovery of Selected PAHs and 1,2,3,4-TCDD From Ames Fly Ash. 20 3 TOC1 Analysis Parameters 22 4 HRGC Screening Parameters 24 5 Extract Compositing Scheme for Tier 2 Analyses 25 6 HRGC/MS Parameters Used for Analyses of PCDDs and PCDFs in Composite Chicago NW Flue Gas Outlet Extracts 26 HRGC/MS-SIM Parameters Used for Analysis of PCBs in Composite Flue Gas Outlet Extracts 27 PCB Compounds Used for Determinations in Composite Flue Gas Outlet Extracts 27 Ions Monitored During HRGC/HRMS Confirmatory Analysis of PCDDs and PCDFs in Composite Chicago NW Flue Gas Outlet Extracts 29 PCDD and PCDF Compounds Used for Determinations in Composite Chicago NW Flue Gas Outlet Extracts 29 HRGC/HRMS Parameters Used for Analysis of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin in Composite Chicago NW Flue Gas Outlet Extracts 30 Recovery of Cadmium From Fortified Samples of Fly Ash From the Chicago NW Incinerator 33 Recovery of Cadmium From Fortified Samples From the Ames Municipal Power Plant 33 Daily Data Summaries for Flue Gas Sampling, Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 35 Average Process Data for the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 38 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 VI �TABLES (continued) Number Page 16 Fuel Combustion During Flue Gas Sampling 40 17 Daily Production and Consumption at Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 41 Heat Content of Fuels Used at the Ames Municipal Power Plant During Sampling Period 43 Daily Data Summaries for Flue Gas Measurements, Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Boiler No. 2 44 Means of the Means for Process Data, All Test Days, Chicago NW Incinerator, Boiler No. 2 46 Weekly Inventories of Refuse and Residue at the Chicago NW Incinerator (All Boilers) 48 Charges Fed to Boiler No. 2 on a Shift Basis Chicago Northwest Incineration Facility 49 TOC1 and Surrogate Recovery Results for the Ames Flue Gas Inlet Samples 53 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for the Ames Flue Gas Outlet Samples. 55 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames Plant Background Air Particulate Samples 56 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames ESP Ash Samples 57 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames Bottom Ash Samples 60 28 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames Coal Samples . 63 29 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames Refuse Derived Fuel Samples 64 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames Bottom Ash Hopper Quench Water Influent Samples 67 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames Bottom Ash Hopper Quench Overflow Water Samples 68 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Ames Untreated Well Water 71 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 31 32 vii �TABLES (continued) Number 33 Page Compounds Quantitated in Samples From the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 72 Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Isomers in Flue Gas Outlet Samples From the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 77 35 Cadmium Results for Ames - ESP Ash Samples 78 36 Cadmium Results for Ames - Bottom Ash Samples 79 37 Cadmium Results for Ames - Coal Samples 80 38 Cadmium Results for Ames - Refuse-Derived Fuel Samples. . . . 81 39 Cadmium Results for Ames - Flue Gas Outlet Particulates . . . 82 40 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Chicago NW Flue Gas Samples ..... 84 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Chicago NW Plant Background Air Samples 85 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Chicago NW ESP Ash Samples • 86 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Chicago NW Combined Bottom Ash Samples 89 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Chicago NW Refuse Samples 92 TOC1 Results and Surrogate Recoveries for Chicago NW Tap Water Samples 95 Compounds Quantitated in Samples From the Chicago NW Incinerator, Unit No. 2 96 34 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Comparison of TOC1 Results From Direct TOC1 Assays Versus Calculated TOC1 From Specific Compounds Identified in Composite Chicago NW Extracts . 98 Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Isomers in Flue Gas Outlet Samples From the Chicago Northwest Incinerator Unit No. 1 99 Concentrations of Polychlorodibenzo-o,-dioxins and Furans in Flue Gas From the Chicago Northwest Incinerator and Corresponding Emission Rates 100 viii �TABLES (continued) Number 50 Page Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pj-dioxin in flue Gas From the Chicago NW Incinerator 102 Cadmium Concentrations in Fly Ash From Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 103 Cadmium Concentrations in Combined Bottom Ash From Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 104 Cadmium Concentrations in Refuse From Chicago Northwest Incinerator 105 Cadmium Concentrations in the Flue Gas Outlet Particulates From Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 106 55 Summary of Surrogate Recovery Data. . 108 56 Results of Interlaboratory TOC1 Analyses 109 57 Interlaboratory Comparison of Analytical Results for the Extraction and Analysis of Specific Compounds in Four Sets of Quality Assurance Samples 110 Interlaboratory Comparison of the Levels of PCDDs and PCDFs in Composite extracts From the Chicago NW Incinerator . . . Ill Total Organic Chlorine Inputs and Emissions - Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 113 Compounds Quantitated in the Primary Input and Emission Media for the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 114 Flue Gas Concentrations for PCBs and Emission Rates for the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7. 118 Cadmium Inputs and Emissions - Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 119 Total Organic Chlorine Inputs and Emissions - Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 120 Compounds Quantitated in Input and Emission Media Chicago NW Incinerator, Unit No. 2 122 Flue Gas Concentrations of PCBs and Emission Rates for the Chicago Northwest Incinerator Unit No. 1 124 51 52 53 54 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 IX �TABLES (continued) Number 66 Page Concentrations of Polychlorodibenzo-£-dioxins and Furans in Flue Gas From the Chicago Northwest Incinerator and Corresponding Emission Rates 125 67 Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin in Flue Gas From the Chicago NW Incinerator and Corresponding Emission Rates 127 68 Cadmium Input and Emissions From Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 128 Summary Statistics for Total Organic Chlorine Concentration Data From Ames, Iowa 132 Summary Statistics for Total Organic Chlorine Concentration Data From Chicago NW 133 Summary of Surrogate Compounds Percent Recovery for Specimens From Ames, Iowa 134 69 70 71 72 Summary of Surrogate Compound Percent Recovery for Specimens From Chicago, NW 135 73 Validity of Confidence Statements for Selected Levels of Bias 136 74 Summary of Coefficient of Variation for the Pilot Study. . . 138 75 Summary of Statistics for Compounds Quantitated in Primary Input Media at Ames, Iowa . 140 76 Summary Statistics for Compounds Quantitated in Gaseous Emissions at Ames, Iowa 141 Summary Statistics for Compounds Quantitated in Solid Emissions at Ames, Iowa 142 77 78 Summary of Total Input and Emissions From Ames, Iowa . . . . 143 79 Summary of Statistics for Compounds Quantitated in Gaseous Emissions From Chicago 144 Summary of Flue Gas Emissions of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Isomers from Ames, Iowa 145 80 81 Summary of Flue Gas Emissions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dibenzo-£-dioxins, and dibenzofurans from Chicago NW . . . 146 �SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This pilot study was conducted as a prelude to a nationwide survey of organic emissions from major stationary combustion sources. The primary objectives of the pilot study were to obtain data on the variability of organic emissions from two such sources and to evaluate the sampling and analysis methods. These data are used to construct the survey design for the nationwide survey. The compounds of interest are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and chlorinated aromatic compounds, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p_-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). Of particular interest is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop_-dioxin (TCDD). In addition, total cadmium was also determined in special samples from both plants to meet special Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs. Midwest Research Institute (MRI) was responsible for overall task management, specifying the sampling and analysis methods, assisting in the collection of samples, receiving samples at the plant sites, shipping the samples to the analysis laboratories, and conducting all sample analyses. MRI was assisted in this effort by two subcontractors. Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) assisted in sampling, exercised sample control, and conducted most of the analyses for samples from the first plant. Gas chromatographic/ mass spectrometric confirmation of PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs was conducted by MRI. Gulf South Research Institute (GSRI) provided similar assistance for the second plant. The statistical design of the pilot study was constructed by Research Triangle Institute (RTI). RTI also conducted statistical analysis of the resulting emissions data and constructed the design for the nationwide survey. The results of the statistical analysis are summarized in Section 9 of this report. The survey design is summarized in a report to the EPA Office of Toxic Substances.*• TRW, Inc. was responsible for conducting the field sampling and data collection. The results of TRW's efforts are described in two reports to EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park.2'3 The body of these reports are contained in Appendices A and B. A summary of the results of this study is contained in Section 2 of this report. Section 3 presents recommendations for future work. Brief descriptions of the two combustion sources are contained in Section 4. The sampling and analysis methods are described in Sections 5 and 6. Sections 7 and 8 present the field test data and analytical results. The analytical quality �assurance results are summarized in Section 9. Section 10 presents the emissions results and Section 11 is a statistical summary of the emissions results. �SECTION 2 SUMMARY Two major stationary combustion sources, a municipal incinerator and a co-fired (refuse-derived fuel plus coal) power plant, were studied to determine the variability of organic emissions between sources and over a designated time period for each plant. The pilot study results served as a basis for structuring the survey design for a nationwide survey1 for organic emissions from stationary combustion sources. All inputs and outputs (including fuel, air, water, ash, and flue gas) that were influenced by the combustion process at each facility were sampled for a minimum of 11 days. Daily flue gas samples (20 m3) were collected concurrently at the inlet and outlet of the control devices using a modified Method 5 sampling train. The solid and aqueous inputs and outputs from each plant were collected six times per day (at roughly 4-hr intervals). The samples were extracted and analyzed for total organic chlorine (TOC1), PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs. A limited number of samples were analyzed for cadmium. The TOC1 procedure (more correctly, total extractable organic halide) was developed for this study to provide a sensitive measure of the variability of chlorinated organic emissions. The TOC1 emissions from the municipal incinerator and the co-fired power plant differed and were variable within the test duration for each plant. The flue gas accounted for more than 80% of each plant's TOC1 emissions. The TOC1 emissions averaged 322 mg/hr from the municipal incinerator and 246 mg/hr from the co-fired power plant. The variability of the TOC1 results was the key element in the construction of the nationwide survey design.1 A number of specific compounds including chlorinated benzenes and chlorinated phenols were detected in the flue gas from the municipal incinerator. The sum of the organic chlorine concentrations attributable to these specific compounds is comparable to the TOC1 results. Fewer chlorinated compounds were identified in the flue gas extracts of the co-fired plant and were generally present at lower concentrations than in extracts from the municipal incinerator. Polycyclic organic compounds including PAHs, PCDDs and PCDFs were identified in the flue gas extracts from the municipal incinerator. Some PAHs and PCBs were also identified and quantitated in the flue gas from the cofired power plant, but PCDDs and PCDFs were not detected. �The mean concentration observed for total PCBs from the municipal incinerator was 42 ng/dscm (dscm = dry standard cubic meter), compared to an average of 19 ng/dscm from the co-fired power plant. However, the order of the average emission rate is reversed because of the lower flue gas flow rate of the refuse incinerator. The average PCB emission rates for the RDF/coal-fired power plant and the refuse incinerator were 6 mg/hr and 3.6 mg/hr, respectively. Because of the variability observed in the data, no significant differences between concentrations or emission rates between the two plants can be determined. The PCB isomer distribution ranged from dichlorinated to pentachlorinated compounds for the municipal incinerator and trichlorinated to decachlorinated compounds for the co-fired power plant. PCDDs and PCDFs were not identified in sample extracts from the co-fired power plant. However, several PCDDs and PCDFs were identified in composited sample extracts from the municipal incinerator. Trichloro- and tetrachlorodibenzofurans were the most abundant of the PCDDs and PCDFs in these extracts, averaging 300 ng/dscm and 90 ng/dscm, respectively. The specific PCDD isomer 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) was also identified in these extracts from the municipal incinerator and averaged 0.4 ng/dscm (average mass emission 34 (jg/hr). This isomer was identified in these extracts using high resolution gas chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry. This identification was confirmed by an independent laboratory using similar instrumentation. The level of cadmium was also measured in the inputs and outputs for a limited number of sample days for each plant. The mass balance observed for the inputs and emissions of the co-fired power plant was fairly good. However, the agreement for cadmium inputs and emissions for the municipal incinerator was poor. This was likely due to the difficulties encountered in obtaining representative samples of the refuse burned at this facility. �SECTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS The nationwide this report provide analysis procedures fired power plants, combustion study should be conducted. The results in the basis for a sound statistical design for sampling and in future programs (i.e., municipal incinerators, coaletc.). Extraction studies should be undertaken with fly ash samples that have been shown to contain PCDDs and PCDFs. Analysis of such a material could provide a better measure of recovery efficiency of these compounds than from other similar solid materials. The modified Method 5 sampling procedure used in this study is based on sound developments for particulate sampling coupled with adsorption of organic vapors on a resin of known properties. However, this sampling procedure should be rigorously evaluated for the collection efficiencies of PCDDs and PCDFs as an additional quality assurance measure. The preliminary data presented in this report surement should be further evaluated for use as an organic emissions. The development of a good TOC1 cantly reduce the costs of obtaining large amounts suggest that the TOC1 meaindicator of chlorinated measurement could signifiof combustion source data. Additional work should be conducted to improve the selective separation and detection of PCDDs and PCDFs. Current methods require labor-intensive extractions and cleanup procedures. �SECTION 4 PLANT DESCRIPTIONS AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 The Ames Municipal Power Plant is owned and operated by the city of Ames, Iowa, and is located within the city limits. The coal-fired utility boiler tested at this plant was Unit No. 7, one of three units that have been modified to burn processed refuse as a supplemental fuel with coal. Unit No. 7, a pulverized coal suspension fired boiler, is used under normal operating condition. The other two units are operated under peak demand or when Unit No. 7 is down. This unit was originally designed to burn either coal or natural gas as the primary fuel. It was first brought into operation in 1968 and was modified to burn refuse-derived fuel (RDF) in 1975. Unit No. 7 generally burns a mixture of Colorado coal, Iowa coal, and RDF. Generally, the ratio of the two types of coal varies, although during this particular testing period a 45 to 55% ratio of Colorado to Iowa coal was maintained in the pulverized coal mixture. Approximately 20% (by weight) of the total fuel prepared and fired at this facility was RDF and 80% was pulverized coal. The RDF is produced at a separate Ames city facility located near the power plant. Raw refuse is sorted to remove glass and metals for recycling. The remaining material (largely papers and plastics) are milled and pneumatically conveyed to a storage bin. The RDF is fed from this bin to the boiler at the required rate. The maximum RDF feed rate is 8.5 tons/hr (7.7 metric tons/hr). Pulverized coal is supplied to the furnace by tangentially orientated nozzles so that combustion is accomplished in a suspension. Approximately 20% of the total ash produced during coal-only firing is bottom ash. RDF is supplied to the furnace at a point just above the primary coal combustion zone. Moveable grates hold the residual RDF at the bottom of the coal combustion zone to enhance RDF combustion. The grates are lowered during bottom ash wasting and when RDF is not being fired. The ash and slag deposited in the hopper are removed at least three times per day. An average of 758,000 liters/day (200,000 gal./day) of well water (sluice water) is used to remove the solid waste from the furnace bottom. This waste is drained to a holding pond where the ash is dredged out and stock piled. The water from the holding pond is allowed to percolate through the soil and eventually into a nearby river. �Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used to remove particulates from the stack gases. The ESPs require at least 61 kw of the maximum 35,000 kw gross output of Unit No. 7. Fly ash collected in the ESP hoppers is pneumatically conveyed (3 times/day) to the bottom ash hopper drain system. Additional information including schematics of the plant site, the flow system, Unit No. 7 design, and the solid waste recovery system is presented in the pilot test program engineering report provided by TRW (see Appendix A). Other tables in the TRW report list the boiler design data, the pulverizer specifications, the fan design performance parameters, performance characteristics of the ESP, and the predicted performance characteristics of Unit No. 7. CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 The Chicago Northwest Incinerator is one of four municipal incinerators owned and operated by the city of Chicago (Illinois) and located within the city limits. This plant has four incinerators, each having a nominal burning capacity of 400 ton/24 hr day (363 metric tons/24 hr day). Each incinerator has a charging hopper, feed chute, hydraulic powered feeders and stoker, boiler, economizer and fly ash hoppers. Draft through the furnace is provided by forced draft fans, overfire air fans, and induced draft fans. Mixed refuse from domestic sources is brought to the incinerator in trucks having a capacity of 5 tons (4,500 kg) or 25 cubic yards (19 m3). The refuse varies considerably in consistency and moisture content seasonally and from load to load. All refuse is collected in a storage pit of 9,700 cubic yard (7,400 cubic yard) capacity. The refuse is not sorted prior to storage in the pit except for large items (e.g., furniture and large appliances) which are milled prior to storage in the pit. The refuse typically contains considerable quantities of automobile tires, small appliances, and similar discarded durable goods. The refuse is removed from the pit by one of three transfer cranes and is dumped directly into the four furnace feed hoppers. Refuse in the charging hopper of each incinerator flows by gravity from the hopper to three stoker feeders through a feed chute. The stoker feeders at the bottom of the feed chute push the refuse into the stoker by a reciprocating action. Alternate lateral rows of grate steps have controlled continuous reciprocating action with the moving grate steps pushing in reverse direction to the flow of refuse. This action moves a portion of the burning refuse under the unignited material and thereby effects an agitation and blending of the whole burning mass. Combustion air entering from below the grates cools the grates, helps to agitate the burning refuse and supplies the oxygen which produces a maximum burn-out in the shortest length of grate travel. The combustion air combines with the burning refuse to generate heat and raise the temperature of the flue gas to as high as 2000°F (1100°C). At rated burning capacity and based on 50% excess air (dry) the flue gas flow rate at 550°F (290°C) is estimated to be 142,300 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) or 4,030 m3/min. The flue gas passes upward through the'furnace, through the boiler passes and finally through the economizer to the electrostatic precipitator. As it passes through the boiler it transfers heat to the water. �At the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator the temperature is reduced to approximately 500°F (260°C) because of the above heat exchange. During the passage of the flue gas through the boiler passes and economizer the heavier fly ash particles drop out. Hoppers are provided below the boiler and economizer for the collection of the particulates. In order to obtain maximum combustion efficiency, the depth of the refuse bed is controlled by automatic discharge or clinker rollers located at the end of the grate. As the residue reaches this point it is dumped into an ash discharger and is quenched in water. The residue is pushed up an inclined slope that permits draining and produces a residue of less than 15% moisture. In addition to quenching, the ash discharger also serves as a water seal for the furnace and prevents infiltration of air into the furnace. The furnace operates under slight negative pressure. The residue leaving each incinerator ash discharger passes through a hydraulically operated chute to one of two residue conveyors. The residue is screened to separate material larger than 2 in. (5 cm) in diameter. Hydraulic powered chutes are used to direct the flow of the residue away from the rotary screens and into a by-pass hopper. The residue conveyors also receive and transport stoker grate sittings and fly ash accumulations from the boiler hoppers, economizer hoppers, and the electrostatic precipitators. Stoker grate siftings collect in six hoppers under each of the three stoker grate sections. Residue from the hoppers is removed from the plant by trucks. The weight of the residue leaving the plant is measured and recorded at the weighing station. The boiler fly ash is collected in four hoppers, two of which discharge to the stoker grates. The other two hoppers are discharged directly through a common pipe to the residue conveyor. The fly ash from the economizer hoppers passes through a common pipe connected to the-discharge end of a conveyor handling fly ash from the two electrostatic precipitator hoppers. The fly ash is deposited directly into the residue discharge chute. The flue gas exiting the ESPs is vented to a 250-ft (76 m) high stack via an induced draft fan. Flue gases from two identical units are discharged from a single stack via a breaching. A more detailed description of the plant operation and schematics of the plant site, the flow system, and the flue gas and grab sampling locations is presented in the TRW pilot test program engineering report (see Appendix B). �SECTION 5 SAMPLING METHODS FLUE GAS Flue gas sampling for organic compounds was accomplished concurrently at points both inlet and outlet to the electrostatic precipitators using two modified Method 5 sampling trains (shown in Figure 1) at each location. Figure 2 shows the locations of sampling ports on a typical unit. The sampling crew collected 10 m3 (10 ± 1 m3) samples with each sampling train by extracting the flue gas at rates approximating the flue gas velocity for each plant. Cadmium was sampled at the ESP outlet using a single Method 5 sampling train. The standard train was operated the same as depicted in Figure 1, but without condenser and the XAD-2 sorbent trap. EPA Method 5 Procedures4 for particulate sampling were followed for both organic and inorganic sampling procedures, except that 10 m3 was sampled with each organic train. Detailed descriptions of the Method 5 calibration and actual sampling procedures for specific ducts and stacks at the Ames Municipal Power Plant and Chicago Northwest Incinerator have been presented in the respective field data reports (Appendices A and B). Additional details on the pretest preparation and sample recovery procedures are described in a methods manual for the nationwide combustion source survey.5 The flue gas sampling at the Ames facility was conducted both on the duct just before the electrostatic precipitator and on the stack. Sampling for organics was to be performed for 14 consecutive days with an additional 3 days sampling for particulate cadmium. However, due to extreme weather conditions only 11 days of concurrent inlet and outlet samples were collected. Eight additional inlet samples were also collected. The flue gas sampling at the Chicago plant was conducted at the duct inlet to the electrostatic precipitator and at the duct leading from the precipitator to the stack. Despite boiler down time and equipment malfunction, 11 days of organic samples (including concurrent inlet and outlet flue gas) were taken. A complete sampling train, including resin trap filter and impinger solutions was set up as a train background (blank) at each plant. The train was taken to normal operating temperature and allowed to remain at this temperature for 1 hr. Upon completion of testing, the sampling equipment was brought to a clean laboratory area for recovery. Each sampling train was kept in a separate area to prevent sample mixup and cross contamination. The individual sample train components were recovered as follows: �Cyclone (optional) Condenser & Resin Cartridge Thermocouple Reverie-Type Pitot Tube Console Impingers 1,3 and 4 are of (he Modified Greenburg-Smllh Type Impinger 2 is of I lie Greenburg-Smith Design Impinger I and 2 Contain 100 ml Water Impinger 3 Empty Impinger 4 Contains 200-300 Grams Silica Gel Figure 1. Modified Method 5 train for organics sampling. 10 �ESP Inlet Ports Stack Platform and Ports Figure 2. Locations of flue gas sampling ports on a typical combustion unit. 11 �Dry particulate in cyclone - cyclone flasks were transferred to cyclone catch bottle. • Probe was wiped to remove all external particulate matter near probe ends. Filters were removed from their housings and placed in proper containers. • After recovering dry particulate from the nozzle, probe, cyclone, and flask, these parts were rinsed with distilled water to remove remaining particulate. They were subsequently rinsed with glass distilled acetone and cyclohexane and put into a separate container. All rinses were retained in an amber glass container. Sorbent traps were removed from the train, capped with glass plugs, and given to an on-site MRI representative. Condenser coil, if separate from the sorbent trap, and the connecting glassware to the first impinger was rinsed into the condensate catch (first impinger). • First and second impingers were measured, volume recorded and retained in an amber glass storage bottle. The impingers were then rinsed with small amounts of distilled water, acetone and cyclohexane. These rinsings were combined with the condensate catch. Rinse volumes were also recorded. • The volumes of the third and fourth impingers were measured and recorded. Solutions were discarded. Silica gel was weighed, weight gain recorded and regenerated for further use. To maintain sample integrity, all containers were amber glass, with TFElined lids. PLANT BACKGROUND AIR A high volume air sampler was used to collect organic compounds and cadmium associated with particulates in the air used for combustion. The samples were collected on 8 in. x 10 in. (20 cm x 25 cm) glass fiber filters. A high volume sampler was placed on the roof of each facility to obtain a representative background of outside ambient air, rather than sampling air inside the building that could have been contaminated or influenced by the combustion process. SOLID AND AQUEOUS MEDIA Solid and aqueous samples that directly contact the combustion process were collected several times during each 24-hr period according to schedules 12 �provided by RTI. Four solid sample types were collected from the Ames plant, coal, ESP hopper ash, bottom ash, and RDF. ESP ash, refuse, and combined ash were sampled at the Chicago plant. Combined ash includes mixed ESP ash and bottom ash since the design of the Chicago ash handling system did not allow separate access to bottom ash. All solid samples were collected six times per day at roughly 4-hr intervals. Some solid samples were accessible from more than one nominally equivalent point in the plant. In these cases, samples were taken from specific points according to a randomized scheme provided by RTI. Hence, coal was sampled from two feed streams, RDF was sampled from four feed streams, and ESP ash was sampled from two collection hoppers at the Ames plant based on this scheme. Similarly, bottom ash from the Ames plant and bottom ash and refuse from the Chicago plant were sampled from specific sectors of the exposed material according to the randomized scheme. Figure 3 shows the sector systems used in sampling bottom ash from the Ames and Chicago plants. Raw refuse was sampled at the Chicago incinerator from the two sides of the feed hopper. The aqueous streams sampled at Ames included cooling tower blowdown water, well water, and bottom ash quench overflow. Only city tap water (plant intake water) was sampled at the Chicago facility. Liquid streams that did not flow continuously were allowed to purge for 3 min prior to obtaining samples. Sample containers were rinsed three times with sample liquid prior to being filled with that liquid. The streams sampled and frequency of sampling were as follows : • Bottom ash quench overflow water was sampled twice per shift, for a total of six samples per 24-hr period. Cooling tower blowdown feed for the bottom ash quench system was sampled once per day. Three well water samples were collected over the testing period. City tap water was sampled once per day. CONTINUOUS MONITORING The continuous monitoring data collected for the two different plants included: (1) oxygen [03] concentrations, (2) carbon dioxide [C02] concentrations, (3) carbon monoxide [CO] concentrations, (4) hydrocarbon concentrations [THC] [GI through C6] and (5) ambient temperatures. On-line monitoring was performed at the inlet of the electrostatic precipitators (ESP) at both plants and in the duct leading from the exit side of the ESP to the induced draft fan at the Chicago Northwest Incinerator and at the 100 ft (30 m) level on the stack at the Ames Municipal Power Plant. A stainless steel filter connected to a 3-ft (91-cm) probe was inserted into the sample port for each sample location. Heat traced line was run from the sample port to a gas conditioner. Vacuum pumps were used to draw the inlet and outlet sample gas from the sample ports through the gas conditioner 13 �' / E F C D A B North Hopper Door Ames Municipal Electric System, Unit No. 7 Bottom Ash Hopper A B C D F Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Unit No. 2 Residue Discharge Chute Figure 3. Sector schemes for sampling bottom ash. 14 �and to the analytical instruments. An automatic timer switched the continuous monitoring equipment from inlet to outlet every 15 rain. The average values for 02, C02) CO and THC recorded during each test period are presented in Section 8 of this report with a summary of the flue gas testing parameters. A more detailed description of the continuous monitoring data is presented in Appendices A and B. PROCESS DATA COLLECTION In order to fully characterize the operation of the two different combustion facilities and to designate periods of dramatic changes in the performance of a particular unit, numerous operating parameters were recorded throughout the flue gas sampling periods, as well as on a 24-hr basis. This information included mass flow data for fuels (coal, fuel oil, and RDF), periods of soot blowing, unit downtime, steam flow rate, steam pressure, steam temperature, feedwater flow rate, feedwater temperature, combustion air flow rate, combustion air temperature, percent excess oxygen, induced and forced fan pressures, furnace draft, furnace temperature, flue gas temperature, and ambient temperature and ambient pressure. The process data averages based on 24-hr periods and the flue gas test durations are presented in Section 7 of this report. Data for these parameters taken on an hourly basis are presented in detail in the Appendices. 15 �SECTION 6 ANALYSIS METHODS ORGANICS The analysis methods for organics were designed to provide qualitative and quantitative determinations of several specific analytes and to provide semiquantitative information on any additional polychlorinated aromatic compounds identified. The specific analytes included eight PAH compounds (listed in Table 1), PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs. Special emphasis was placed on highly selective and sensitive procedures for determining 2,3,7,8-TCDD. TABLE 1. PAH COMPOUNDS SELECTED Benzo[a]pyrene Pyrene Fluoranthene Phenanthrene Chrysene Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene Benzo[£,h,ijperylene Anthracene Samples were also assayed for total organic chlorine (TOC1) to provide a general measure of the variability of chlorinated emissions. Since it was anticipated that concentrations for many specific compounds would be near minimum detectable levels, the variabilities observed for specific compounds may be more representative of measurement error than emission variabilities. The sensitivity of the TOC1 procedure should allow more reliable detection of the variability of emissions for chlorinated organics. 16 �A tiered scheme was used to economize on the total number of analyses required. The tier 1 operations, schematically shown in Figure 4, included sample extraction, TOC1 assays, capillary gas chromatographic (HRGC) screening for halogenated compounds and hydrocarbons, and PAH analysis by capillary gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (HRGC/MS). Extract analysis by capillary gas chromatography with Hall electrolytic conductivity and flame ionization detectors (HRGC/Hall-FID) provided a sensitive screen for halogenated compounds that was used to aid the identification of specific halogenated compounds in the HRGC/MS data. Some of the individual grab samples were composited to form daily and shift composite samples prior to extraction for tier 1 analysis. The sample compositing scheme was provided by RTI. The tier 2 analyses, also shown in Figure 4, focused on very sensitive and selective determinations of PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs. Extracts were analyzed by HRGC/MS operated in selected ion monitoring mode (HRGC/MS-SIM). Suspected responses for PCDDs and PCDFs were confirmed by using high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS-SIM). In addition, three extracts were submitted to the EPA laboratory at Research Triangle Park for collaborative confirmation of PCDDs and PCDFs. The analytical quality assurance program included analyses of method spikes, method blanks, and field blanks in addition to the use of stable isotope-labelled surrogate compounds spiked into all samples to provide some analytical recovery data for all samples. Scanning HRGC/MS analyses were conducted using a stable isotope-labelled internal standard, dio~anthracene. HRGC/HRMS-SIM analyses for TCDD employed 37Cl4-2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-£dioxin. In addition, two sets of check samples, one set for TOC1 and one set for specific chlorinated aromatic compounds, were sent to the two laboratories conducting the tier 1 analyses. The analytical methods used are described in detail in the subsections that follow. Additional details of the analytical procedures are described in methods manual for the nationwide combustion source survey.5 Tier 1 Methods Sample Preparation and Compositing-Flue gas samples—The contents of the two modified Method 5 sampling trains used at each sampling point on each day were analyzed as a single sample. That is, the four trains used each sampling day (except for several days at the Ames site on which outlet flue gas was not sampled) comprised daily samples for outlet and inlet flue gas. Hence, the corresponding sample components from both trains were extracted together, i.e., filters, cyclone catch, train rinsings, and resin cartridges. All extracts resulting from the two trains were then combined. All filters and cyclone catches were weighed prior to extraction to allow estimation of particulate emissions. However, the filters were not desiccated to constant weight according to the Method 5 procedures in order to maintain sample integrity for subsequent organic analyses. Hence, the particulate emissions estimates may not be valid. 17 �Sample Extract Short Packed Column GC/Hall (TOCI) TIER 1 HRGC/Hall-FIDor HRGC/FID Screen Add Internal Standard Anthracene - d]g HRGC/MS (Scanning) Surrogates + Pol/cyclic Organic Compounds Add Internal Standard 37, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinHRGC/MS-SIM Chlorinated Polycyclic Organic Compounds (Biphenyls, Dioxins, Furans) ••Hold TIER 2 HRGC/HRMS-SIM Confirmation ••Hold Interlaboratory Verification HRGC/HRMS-SIM Figure 4. General analytical scheme. 18 �Grab samples--Portions of the ash, fuel, and aqueous samples were composited according to a schedule provided by RTI to form daily and shift composites for each sample type for selected sampling days. Fly ash, bottom ash, and coal from the Ames site were prepared prior to compositing by pulverizing in a ceramic ball mill with stainless steel balls. Plant background air samples—The single combustion air sample collected each day was extracted and analyzed individually. Prior to extraction, the filters were weighed to allow estimation of the total particulate catch. Sample Extraction— Solid samples—In order to determine the most appropriate extraction procedure, a number of solvent and extraction systems were evaluated using samples of Ames fly ash spiked with selected PAH's and 1,2,3,4-TCDD. Chlorinated solvents were avoided in order to minimize the possibility of producing chlorinated species during the extraction. Preliminary evaluations of simple sample-solvent contact techniques added by mechanical or ultrasonic agitation produced low recoveries. Subsequent evaluations were focused on Soxhlet and reflux procedures. Table 2 summarizes the results of evaluations of seven sample pretreatment and solvent system combinations using Ames fly ash spiked with selected PAHs and 1,2,3,4-TCDD. Pretreatment with water and Soxhlet extraction with benzene provided the highest recovery for all spiked compounds. The average recovery for the nine compounds was 81%. The range of recoveries obtained with this procedure was 56 to 107%. The influence of pretreatment with water on the extractability of the target compounds is not clear. However, a general improvement in recoveries was observed for extractions with acetone/cyclohexane azeotrope when water was added to the ash prior to extraction. Similar effects have been reported for soil and sediment extraction by many researchers. Possibly, the water hydrates cations in the ash that tend to associate with the mobile n-cloud of polynuclear species so that they are more easily extractable. Some researchers have reported good recoveries with procedures involving pretreatment with aqueous acid and extraction with aromatic solvents, e.g., pretreatment with 1 N HC1 and extraction with toluene.6 However, this procedure was determined to be unsatisfactory for several reasons. Acid pretreatment may encourage degradation of some compounds. Reflux or Soxhlet extraction with toluene must be conducted at a higher temperature than for benzene (the boiling points of toluene and benzene are 111 and 80°C, respectively) so that thermally unstable and relatively volatile compounds may be lost. In addition, toluene extracts cannot be conveniently concentrated using Kuderna-Danish evaporation over a steam or hot water bath. All solid samples were Soxhlet extracted with benzene for 8 to 16 hr. The entire sample was extracted for the flue gas train components. Twentygram aliquots of coal, refuse, refuse-derived fuel (RDF), bottom ash, and fly ash were extracted. The fly ash was mixed with 10 ml of prepurified water just prior to analysis. All samples were spiked with the two surrogate spiking compounds, dg-naphthalene and d12-chrysene, just prior to extraction. However, since the extracts for various flue gas components were later combined, only one component for each flue gas sample was selected for surrogate 19 �TABLE 2. RECOVERY OF SELECTED PAHs AND 1,2,3,4-TCDD FROM AMES FLY ASH % Recovery D E F G 62 46 102 63 49 42 107 65 68 60 25 94 60 65 68 64 24 86 72 54 74 75 72 67 81 Chrysene 38 40 NSa NS 38 15 73 Benzo [ a ] py rene 26 28 35 52 26 8 69 Indeno[l,2,3-c,d]pyrene 15 20 27 40 15 0 58 Benzo [ g , h , i ] pery lene 17 24 25 41 17 0 56 Average 45 48 50 59 44 25 81 Compound A B C Phenanthrene 62 76 60 63 Anthracene 49 67 48 Fluoranthene 60 61 Pyrene 64 1,2,3,4-TCDD Note: A. B. C. D. E. Soxhlet 16 hr, cyclohexane, dry fly ash (20 g). Same as A except 5 ml H20 + 5 ml acetone added to fly ash. Soxhlet 16 hr, acetone/cyclohexane azeotrope (67% acetone). Same as C except 5 ml H20 added to fly ash (80% cyclohexane). Soxhlet 16 hr, cyclohexane/ethanol azeotrope + 10 ml water on fly ash (20 g). F. Reflux 4 hr with 250 ml H20 + 50 ml toluene. G. Soxhlet 16 hr with benzene + 10 ml H20 added to 20 g fly ash. a NS = No chrysene in spike. 20 �spiking. The component selected was varied so as to provide some recovery data for all components. The extracts from coal, refuse, and RDF were washed with three 100-ml portions of prepurified water to remove polar interferences. The extracts from all solid samples were dried by passage through short columns of preextracted anhydrous sodium sulfate before concentration to 2 to 10 ml in Kuderna-Danish evaporators. The extracts were further concentrated under a gentle stream of dry nitrogen. The final extract volume was typically 1.0 ml. However, some extracts were analyzed at volumes ranging from 0.20 to 10.0 ml. All extracts were spiked with the internal standard for scanning HRGC/MS, djo-anthracene, prior to analysis. Aqueous samples—All aqueous samples, i.e., flue gas rinses, first impinger waters, overflow waters, raw waters, etc., were batch extracted in separatory funnels with three 60-ml portions of cyclohexane. As in the case of the solid samples, the aqueous samples were spiked with the surrogate spiking compounds just prior to analysis. The resulting extracts were dried and concentrated to 0.20 to 1.0 ml according to the procedures described for solid samples. TOC1 Assay-The TOC1 contents of all extracts were determined using a simplified GC/ Hall procedure. A short packed column and a rapid temperature program were used to elute all chromatographable compounds with volatilities equal to or greater than dichlorobenzene as a single peak. The TOC1 contents of sample extracts were determined by comparing the area response of the peak with that obtained for chlorinated standards. TOC1 results were expressed as chloride. The specific parameters used by SwRI and GSRI for TOC1 assays of the Ames and Chicago samples, respectively, are shown in Table 3. A sample TOC1 chroraatogram for an Aroclor 1254 PCB standard (GSRI procedure) is shown in Figure 5. HRGC/Hall-FID Screening-Sample extracts were screened by HRGC/Hall-FID prior to HRGC/MS analysis to provide a preliminary indication of their halogenated and hydrocarbon contents. In addition, the Hall responses were used to help identify elution times on which to focus examination of the subsequent mass spectral data for halogenated compounds. The specific parameters used by SwRI and GSRI are shown in Table 4. Fused silica capillary columns were used with Grob-type capillary injection systems operated in the splitless mode. GSRI did not have a fused silica column effluent splitter available; hence, extracts from the Chicago plant were screened using FID detection only. Scanning HRGC/MS-Sample extracts were analyzed by HRGC/MS to determine the target PAH compounds and to allow identification and quantitation of specific chlorinated compounds. The primary determinations of surrogate spiking compound recoveries were made from the HRGC/MS data. The chromatographic parameters utilized were essentially identical to those used for the HRGC/Hall-FID screening. 21 �TABLE 3. TOC1 ANALYSIS PARAMETERS Parameter SwRI (Ames samples) GSRI (Chicago NW samples) Column 0.9 m x 4 nun ID, glass 1.0 m x 2 mm ID, glass Packing 2.5 cm of 10% SP-2100 UltraBond 3.8 cm of 2.5% SE-30 on 80/100 mesh Chromosorb G, rest of column filled with 80/100 mesh glass beads Carrier gas He at 60 ml/min He at 30 ml/min Column temperature 60°C for 3 min, then to 230°C at 40°C/min 60°C for 3 min, then to 250°C at 40°C/min External standard compound chlorobiphenyl Aroclor 1254 22 �25 ng Aroclor 1254 Attenuation - 500 V) a> ID V ex. Vent Valve Closed 4 8 12 Time (Minutes) Figure 5. TOC1 chromatogram for Aroclor 1254. 23 16 �TABLE 4. HRGC SCREENING PARAMETERS Parameter GSRI (Chicago NW samples) SwRI (Ames samples) Column 30 m fused silica, wall coated with SE-30 30 m fused silica, wall coated with SE-30 Column temperature 100°C for 5 min, then to 300°C at 10°C/min 60°C for 2 min, then to 300°C at 10°C/min Detectors Hall-FID, 1:1 split FID During the runs, the spectrometer was repetitively scanned over the range m/e 35 to 550 at 1.0 sec/scan. The PAH compounds, including the surrogates, were identified using three extracted ion current plots (EICPs). The criteria for compound identification are coincident peaks in all EICPs at the appropriate retention time with the characteristic response ratios. Compounds identified were quantitated by comparing the EICP response for the most abundant ion with that for the same compound in a mixed standard solution. Tier 2 Methods Following completion of the tier 1 chemical analyses, RTI conducted a statistical analysis of the TOC1 results and constructed a preliminary design for the nationwide survey based on the observed TOC1 variabilities. The preliminary survey design specified sampling programs of 5 and 3 days duration for coal-fired and refuse-fired plants, respectively. Hence, in order to allow inclusion of the pilot study data in the survey data set, the extracts were composited prior to further analysis to simulate a 5-day test at the Ames plant and a 3-day test at the Chicago plant. The compositing scheme, provided by RTI, is shown in Table 5. The composite extracts for each composite day were prepared by combining equal volumes of daily composites from the designated sample days. This necessitated the preparation of daily composites from shift composite extracts or individual sample extracts for many samples and sample days. 24 �TABLE 5. EXTRACT COMPOSITING SCHEME FOR TIER 2 ANALYSES Composite day I II III IV V Sample days combined Ames samples Chicago samples 3/2, 3/15 3/13, 3/22 3/14, 3/19 3/17, 3/20 3/3, 3/23 5/6, 5/9, 5/16 5/7, 5/10, 5/12 5/11, 5/13, 5/15 The composite extracts were screened by HRGC/Hall-FID or HRGC/FID prior to analysis for PAH compounds by scanning HRGC/MS, and for PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs by HRGC/MS-SIM. Only extracts for which positive responses were obtained for PCDDs and PCDFs were analyzed by HRGC/HRMS-SIM. HRGC/Hall-FID and HRGC/FID Screening— The composited extracts were screened by HRGC/Hall-FID (Ames samples) or HRGC/FID (Chicago samples) by the procedures described for Tier 1 screening except that fused silica capillary columns wall-coated with SE-54 were used. Scanning HRGC/MS Analysis— The HRGC/MS procedures employed for the composite extracts were essentially the same as was used for tier 1 analyses. The target PAH compounds were determined and any other compounds observed were identified by manual and computer-assisted spectral interpretation. Quantitative estimates for all compounds identified were based on responses versus responses for the same or similar compounds in standard solutions. HRGC/MS-SIM AnalysisAll composite extracts were screened for the presence of PCDDs and PCDFs by HRGC/MS-SIM. The chromatographic parameters used by SwRI and GSRI for the Ames and Chicago extracts, respectively, were the same as were used for scanning HRGC/MS analyses. The ions selected for detection were the two most abundant ions in the molecular cluster for each compound. No positive responses were detected in any of the Ames extracts. Positive responses were detected in composite flue gas extracts from the Chicago plants. However, interfering materials in the extracts hindered reliable identifications. Three composite flue gas extracts from the Chicago plant were cleaned by a vigorous base treatment, an acid treatment, and an alumina chromatographic procedure specifically developed for PCDD and PCDF assays. The composited extracts were split into two fractions each. One fraction was spiked with l,2,3,4-tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin and octachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin, and the other fraction was not spiked. The extracts were stirred with 45% aqueous KOH solution at ambient temperature for 3 hr. The mixture was extracted with hexane and the extract was washed with concentrated sulfuric acid until the washes remained colorless. The extract was concentrated and chromatographed on an alumina column using dichloromethane as the eluting solvent. 25 �The cleaned extracts were analyzed at MRI by HRGC/MS-SIM. The instrumental parameters are listed in Table 6. These analyses were conducted using a high resolution mass spectrometer operated at 1,000 resolution (10% valley). Positive PCDD and PCDF responses were detected in all extracts. Since low resolution mass spectrometric analysis of PCDDs and PCDFs in environmental extracts may be obscured by the presence of similar chlorinated aromatic compounds (e.g., PCB's), these extracts were held for analysis by capillary gas chromatograpy/high resolution mass spectrometry using selected ion monitoring (HRGC/HRMS-SIM). TABLE 6. HRGC/MS PARAMETERS USED FOR ANALYSES OF PCDDs AND PCDFs IN COMPOSITE CHICAGO NW FLUE GAS OUTLET EXTRACTS Column 18 m fused silica wall-coated with SE-54 Column temperature 110°C for 2 min, then to 325°C at 10°C/ min Injector J&W on-column Spectrometer resolution 1,000 (10% valley) Scan rate 1-2 sec/scan (3-5 ions/scan) Ions selected (m/e) Trichlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Pentachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Hexachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Heptachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Octachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 285.9, 319.9, 353.9, 389.8, 423.8, 457.7, 287.9 321.9 355.9 391.8 425.8 459.7 Trichlorodibenzofuran Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Pentachlorodibenzofuran Hexachlorodibenzofuran Heptachlorodibenzofuran Octachlorodibenzofuran 269.9, 303.9, 337.9, 373.8, 407.8, 441.7, 271.9 305.9 339.9 375.8 409.8 443.7 The Ames and Chicago composite flue gas outlet extracts were also analyzed at MRI for PCBs by HRGC/MS-SIM. The instrumental parameters and ions selected are shown in Table 7. The focused ions were switched several times during a single HRGC/MS run so that all PCB compounds could be analyzed in two runs, one for odd chlorine substitutions and a second for even chlorine substitutions. PCBs were quantitated by comparing the total area response for all 26 �TABLE 7. HRGC/MS-SIM PARAMETERS USED FOR ANALYSIS OF PCBs IN COMPOSITE FLUE GAS OUTLET EXTRACTS Column 15 m fused silica, wall-coated with DB-5 (a specially bonded SE-54 coating) Column temperature 60°C for 2 min, then to 265°C at 8°C/min Injector Grob-type, splitless Spectrometer resolution 1,000 (10% valley) Scan rate 1-2 sec/scan (2-4 ions/scan) Ions selected (m/e) Dichlorobiphenyl Trichlorobiphenyl Tetrachlorobiphenyl Pentachlorobiphenyl Hexachlorobiphenyl Heptachlorobiphenyl Octachlorobiphenyl Nonochlorobiphenyl 221.9, 255.9, 291.9, 323.9, 357.8, 393.8, 427.7, 461.7, 223.9 257.9 293.9 325.9 359.8 395.8 429.7 463.7 compounds identified for a specific chlorine substitution with the area response for a specific isomer of the same chlorine substitution number. For example, total trichlorobiphenyls were quantitated against 2,5,2'-trichlorobiphenyl. The PCB isomers used for quantitation are listed in Table 8. TABLE 8. PCB COMPOUNDS USED FOR DETERMINATIONS IN COMPOSITE FLUE GAS OUTLET EXTRACTS 2,2'-Dichlorobiphenyl 4,4'-Dichlorobiphenyl 2,5,2'-Trichlorobiphenyl 2,4,2',4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl 2,4,2',5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl 2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorobiphenyl 2,4,6,2',4',6'-Hexachlorobiphenyl 2,3,4,2',3',4'-Hexachlorobiphenyl 2,3,4,5,6,2',5'-Heptachlorobiphenyl 2,3,4,5,2',3',4',5'-Octachlorobiphenyl Decachlorobiphenyl 27 �HRGC/HRMS-SIM Confirmatory Analysis of PCDDs and PCDFs-PCDDs and PCDFs were identified and quantitated in the composite Chicago flue gas outlet extracts by HRGC/HRMS-SIM. The instrumental parameters employed were the same as for low resolution screening at MRI except that the spectrometer was operated at 10,000 resolution (10% valley). The selected ions monitored are listed in Table 9. In order to achieve maximum sensitivity while minimizing the number of HRGC/HRMS-SIM runs, ions for a specific chlorine substitution for both dioxins and furans were monitored in a single run. For example, trichlorodibenzo-p_dioxins and trichlorodibenzofurans were analyzed in the same run. However, the tetra-substituted compounds were analyzed in separate runs to provide even better sensitivity for the most toxic PCDDs and PCDFs. The PCDD and PCDF compounds identified were quantitated by comparing the total area response for all compounds of a specific chlorine substitution with the area response for a specific isomer of the same chlorine substitution number. The specific PCDD and PCDF isomers used for quantitation are listed in Table 10. Compounds for which no corresponding authentic compound was available were quantitated against the most similar compound. Hence, hexachlorodibenzofurans were quantitated against hexachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin. The response factor used for pentachlorodibenzodioxins was the average of responses for tetra- and hexa-isomers. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p_-dioxins were quantitated using 37Cl4-2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin as an internal standard. Since discrete isomers were not identified, only totals were determined for each chlorine substitution. A separate HRGC/HRMS-SIM analysis with a 60-m Carbowax column was used to determine 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-g-dioxin. The instrumental parameters are shown in Table 11. The Carbowax column, although providing good separation of specific tetra-isomers, required longer analysis times and caused signficant peak broadening. Hence, it was not used for general PCDD and PCDF analyses. The internal standard method employing 37Cl-labeled compound was used for quantitation. Quality Assurance Procedures The analytical quality assurance program consisted of the use of surrogate spiking compounds in all samples; the use of internal standards for most GC/MS analyses; analyses of field blanks and method blanks; and interlaboratory comparison studies for selected determinations. Surrogate spiking compounds were used as the primary analytical quality indicators. The two stable isotope labeled surrogates, dg-naphthalene and dj2~chrysene, were spiked immediately prior to extraction into all samples at 5 to 10 times the limits of detection. The surrogate concentrations were determined using scanning HRGC/MS data. The surrogate compound recoveries provide indications of overall quality of the extraction and extract concentration procedures. All scanning HRGC/MS analyses were conducted using dio~anthracene as the internal standard. Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin analyses by HRGC/HRMS-SIM were conducted using 37Cl4-2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-D-dioxin. 28 �TABLE 9. IONS MONITORED DURING HRGC/HRMS CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS OF PCDDs AND PCDFs IN COMPOSITE CHICAGO NW FLUE GAS OUTLET EXTRACTS Compound m/e Trichlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 37 Cl4-2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin (internal standard) enacorenzo-£-oxn Pentachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Hexachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin -Heptachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Octachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 285.9355, 287.9325 319.8965, 321.936 327.8847 joj.ooo/, 353.8887, 389.8157, 423.7688, 457.7377, 333.0020 355.8858 391.8127 425.7659 459.7347 Trichlorodibenzofuran Tetrachloridibenzofuran Pentachlorodibenzofuran Hexachlorodibenzofuran Heptachlorodibenzofuran Octachlorodibenzofuran 269.9406, 303.9017, 337.8938, 373.8208, 407.7739, 441.7428, 271.9376 305.8987 339,8909 375.8178 409.7710 443.7398 TABLE 10. PCDD AND PCDF COMPOUNDS USED FOR DETERMINATIONS IN COMPOSITE CHICAGO NW FLUE GAS OUTLET EXTRACTS 1,2,4-Trichlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin Hexachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin (isomer unknown) Octachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Octachlorodibenzofuran 29 �TABLE 11. HRGC/HRMS PARAMETERS USED FOR ANALYSIS OF 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-R-DIOXIN IN COMPOSITE CHICAGO NW FLUE GAS OUTLET EXTRACTS Column 60 m fused silica, wall-coated with Carbowax 20M Column temperature 110°C for 2 min, then to 220°C at 10°C/min Injector J&W on-column (1 pi injection) Spectrometer resolution 10,000 (10% valley) Scan rate 1 sec/scan (3 ions) Ions selected 319.8965, 321.8936 Tetrachlorodibenzo-g-dioxin 37 C142,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-£dioxin (internal standard) 327.8847 Analyses of field blanks and method blanks (i.e., laboratory blanks) provided indications of possible sample contamination due to contact with the sampling and analysis equipment as well as general sample and extract handling. Field blanks comprised 10 to 15% of the total samples and included unused components of the flue gas sampling train, a complete sampling train for each plant (as described in Section 5), unused sample containers, and aliquots of solvents used for sample recovery at the plant. Method blanks were extracts prepared in the same manner as sample extracts although no samples were extracted. Since the tier 1 analyses were conducted by two laboratories (SwRI and GSRI), interlaboratory comparison studies were conducted to check the comparability of the resulting data. Three such studies were conducted. Comparability of TOC1 results was investigated by a set of TOC1 check extracts prepared by MRI and by an exchange of selected sample extracts between SwRI and GSRI. Check samples of fly ash spiked with selected chlorinated compounds were also prepared by MRI and analyzed by SwRI and GSRI using HRGC/Hall and scanning HRGC/MS. In addition, extracts in which positive responses were observed for PCDDs and PCDFs by HRGC/HRMS-SIM were submitted to Robert Harless at EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory in Research Triangle Park for collaborative analysis. The results of these analyses are described in Section 9. 30 �CADMIUM Samples of fly ash weighing 0.1 g or samples of bottom ash weighing 0.1 to 1 g were placed in 150-ml beakers that had been precleaned with nitric acid. Ten milliliters of aqua regia were initially added to each ash sample. The samples were gently heated and allowed to reflux until the evolution of yellow fumes subsided. An additional 5 ml of aqua regia was then added, and the ash was allowed to continue digesting. Another 5 ml of aqua regia was added to all samples, and the samples were allowed to digest for at least 20 more min. The samples were permitted to cool, and all of the material was transferred to 50-ml plastic centrifuge tubes. Centrifugation was accomplished at 2,500 rpm for approximately 5 min. The supernatant liquid was transferred by Pasteur pipets to the original beakers. Deionized water was added to the residue in the centrifuge tubes, the mixtures were agitated, the tubes were once again centrifuged, and the supernatant was added to that in the original beakers. This washing procedure was repeated again. The residue remaining in the centrifuge tube was then washed three times with a 5% (v/v) nitric acid solution. For each washing, 5 ml of the acid solution was added to each sample, and the samples were centrifuged and processed as described above. The final solutions in the beakers (approximately 85 ml) were returned to the hot plate and heated gently until the volume of the solution was reduced to 20 ml. The solutions were allowed to cool, filtered through Whatman No. 4 filter paper, and diluted to 50 ml with deionized water. A modification of this procedure was used for the digestion of refuse and filter samples. Fifteen milliliters of aqua regia and 10 ml of deionized water were added to 1-g portions of refuse or to the entire air filter. Tap water and probe-rinse water were digested by adding 3 ml of concentrated nitric acid and 1 ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid to 200 ml of sample and heating gently until the volume was reduced to less than 50 ml. The digested sample was diluted to 50 ml with deionized water. Solutions prepared by digestion of solid samples were analyzed by flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) using an air-acetylene flame. Water samples were analyzed by heatedgraphite atomization AAS. A comprehensive QA/QC control program was conducted for cadmium analyses. The program included analysis of the National Bureau of Standards coal fly ash standard reference material, aqueous solutions of cadmium prepared in-house, fortified and duplicate samples, and reagent blanks. Samples were usually digested and analyzed in groups of eight: four distinct samples, a duplicate of one of the original four which had been fortified with 10 pg of cadmium, a duplicate of another of the original four which was unaltered, a quality-control sample, and a reagent blank. The fresh dilutions of a standard solution of cadmium were prepared on each day of analysis and were used to calibrate the AAS. The precision and accuracy of the analytical method used by GSRI were determined by analysis of a coal fly ash standard reference material from the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and fortified fly ash from the Chicago 31 �Northwest Incinerator. The average and standard deviation of the percentage of cadmium recovered by analysis of four replicate samples of the NBS coal fly ash was 98 ± 11. Analysis of seven replicate samples of incinerator fly ash showed the cadmium concentration to be 260 M8/8- The recovery of cadmium from the incinerator fly ash was determined by analysis of samples fortified with cadmium. The results of the recovery study are presented in Table 12. An average of 95 ± 15% of the cadmium was recovered from the fortified samples. SwRI provided QA measures in terms of analysis of all sample types spiked at the levels shown in Table 13. 32 �TABLE 12. RECOVERY OF CADMIUM FROM FORTIFIED SAMPLES OF FLY ASH FROM THE CHICAGO NW INCINERATOR Cadmium determined in fortified sample (|Jg/g) Cadmium added to sample (Mg/g) Percent cadmium recovered Sample Cadmium in original sample (Hg/g)3 1 260 100 330 70 2 260 99 370 111 3 260 100 360 100 4 260 97 350 93 5 260 100 360 100 6 260 100 370 110 7 260 100 340 80 Mean recovery 95 Standard deviation 15 a Average of seven replicate analyses. TABLE 13. RECOVERY OF CADMIUM FROM FORTIFIED SAMPLES FROM THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT Sample type Spike level Fly ash 0.5 Mg/g 97 Bottom ash 0.5 Mg/g 93 Refuse 0.1 Mg/g 98 Coal 0.5 Mg/g 94 Aqueous 4 (Jg/100 ml 33 Recovery 110 �SECTION 7 FIELD TEST DATA AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 The field test activity at the Ames Municipal Power Plant took place from February 25, 1980 to March 28, 1980. All required tests were completed and all recovered samples were sent to SwRI for analysis. A summary of the reduced data for flue gas sampling on a daily basis as calculated from the field data sheets is presented in Table 14. The following abbreviations are used throughout this report: DSCF = dry standard cubic feet, DSCM = dry standard cubic meters, ACFM = actual cubic feet per minute, DSCFM = dry standard cubic feet per minute, and DSCMM = dry standard cubic meters per minute. The data listed are corrected to standard conditions, i.e., 20°C (68°F) and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in. of mercury (1.0 atm). Percent isokinetic is the sampling velocity expressed as percent of the gas velocity in the stack or duct at the sampling points. Events that may have created uncertainties as to the quality of the flue gas sampling procedures are noted. Due to severe weather conditions, flue gas outlet samples were not collected on test days 3 to 11. Process data was monitored on an hourly basis during the entire testing period. Table 15 presents a summary of the pertinent process data as averages for daily 24-hr plant operation and operation during the flue gas sampling durations. The process data gathered indicated that the operating conditions fluctuated in patterns related to the amount of electricity generation demand placed on the boiler, and on the type of fuel being burned to meet that demand. Overall fluctuation consisted of two components. The first component was the daily variation. The load peaked in the afternoon and fell to a minimum before dawn. The second type of variation was caused by sudden operational changes, which was due to reduced power generation for various reasons such as the buying of cheaper power from a private utility, or the reduction in flow of RDF to the boiler. Unit No. 7 was generally operated between a range of 16 to 35 MW. Production over 35 MW placed considerable wear on the unit, and was avoided whenever possible. Production under 16 MW introduced instability and the possibility of large transient swings in operating conditions. Usually the boiler was operating close to one of these limits. It operated at 35 MW during peakloads because the load of the serviced community was over 35 MW. Production was reduced to 16 MW when off-peak power could be bought more cheaply from neighboring utilities. 34 �TABLE 14. DAILY DATA SUMMARIES FOR FLUE GAS SAMPLING, AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT HO. 7 Date Test (1980) no. Sampling location Inlet 3-2 3-3 1 2 North0 Soutjh Outlet 263d 4 3-6 5 3-7 6 3-8 7 3-9 8 3-10 9 3-11 10 3-12 11 Stack THC temperature pp. °F Molecular weight Moisture Velocity ft/sec 4.48 4.48 6.34 6.34 12.79 12.79 11.31 11.31 18.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 < < < < 2 2 2 2 334.31 311.78 320.93 309.92 29.01 29.35 29.30 29.31 9.95 7.15 6.32 6.24 33.55 29.09 22.69 24.79 Northe 173.54 North* 126.93 South* 212.05 South 101.52 ISA 324.36 2&3 307.31 4.92 3.60 6.01 2.88 9.19 8.70 4.38 4.33 4.33 4.33 5.87 5.87 13.80 13.80 13.80 13.80 12.44 12.44 . 12.00 12.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 < < < < < < 2 2 2 2 2 2 351.55 373.36 234.83 369.90 342.38 336.94 29.34 29.32 29.41 29.39 29.31 29.31 8.39 8.59 7.81 7.97 7.45 7.48 37.78 42.94 46.61 37.15 26.00 26.10 North South 14 &8 2&3* 184.21 252.78 5.22 4.43 7.16 4.43 14.41 14.41 17.00 < 2 17.00 < 2 370.46 352.55 29.56 29.30 7.43 9.48 North South 1&4I* 2S3h 256.88 246.73 7.28 6.99 4.41 4.41 14.56 14.56 18.00 < 2 18.00 < 2 361.09 349.23 29.49 29.38 Inlet North South 367.65 323.17 10.41 9.15 4.35 4.35 13.79 13.79 18.00 18.00 < 2 < 2 363.83 347.46 Inlet North South 368.68 365.42 10.44 4.59 10.35 4.59 13.92 13.92 16.00 < 2 16.00 < 2 Inlet North South 351.42 333.61 9.95 9.45 4.79 4.79 13.60 13.60 28.00 28.00 Inlet North1 North1 South3. Souttr" 74.03 294.81 121.92 140.22 2.10 8.35 3.45 3.97 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Inlet North!* South 130.81 193.61 3.70 5.48 3.7 3.7 Inlet North South 394.09 383.01 11.16 10.85 4.7 4.7 Inlet , Gas flow ACFM DSCFM DSCMM North" South Inlet Outlet Inlet 3-5 Gas composition C02 CO ppm 5.80 7.43 6.06 6.88 Inlet 3 °2 204.62 262.52 214.10 243.02 Outlet 3-4 Sanple volume DSCM DSCF Outlet Isokinetic rate % 247,700 147,000 4,162 gg'oj 296,000 182,000 5,153 ™m*° _ 650,300 376,000 10,650 gjj'^g 107.14 324,600 190,600 5,397 gg'^ 45.10 43.72 346,200 193,100 5,467 *'^ || 8.14 9.03 43.20 41.09 333,300 189,800 5,375 ,gj'jo 29.28 29.18 8.93 9.72 42.92 43.48 341,600 200,300 5,671 ''4 ^5 351.00 335.86 28.14 29.27 18.32 9.18 43.61 44.01 346,400 187,400 5,307 'gjj'gj < 2 < 2 377.55 359.83 29.19 29.16 9.56 9.75 39.62 39.28 312,000 171,460 4,855 JQJ'J* 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 < < < < 316.83 364.73 344.38 315.88 29.19 29.16 29.20 29.17 7.79 8.05 7.78 8.02 30.27 30.38 36.43 27.38 492,300 286,000 8,098 ,gj ''j 13.9 13.9 25.00 25.00 < 2 < 2 352.09 330 . 65 29.31 28.25 8.59 17.13 45.23 43.77 351,900 196,200 5,555 gg'^g 13.5 13.5 22.0 22.00 < 2 < 2 374.75 356.59 29.49 29.30 6.98 8.48 45.68 44.20 355,400 201,000 5,692 jpj'jg 2 2 2 2 95.60 50.55 (continued) �TABLE 14 (continued) Date Test (1980) no. Sampling location Inlet 3-13 12 Outlet Inlet 3-14 13 Outlet Inlet 3-15 14 Outlet Inlet 3-17 15 Outlet Inlet 3-18 16 Outlet Inlet 3-19 17 Outlet Inlet 3-20 18 Outlet Inlet 3-22 19 Outlet Inlet 3-23 20 Outlet Sample volume DSCM DSCF Gas composition C02 CO ppm X % 02 Stack THC temperature ppi. °F Molecular weigl.t Moisture X Velocity ft/sec North South 1&4" 2&3 350.46 369.82 158.98 305 . 29 9.92 3.34 10.47 3.34 4.50 5.17 10.35 5.17 15.56 15.56 13.97 13.97 21.00 21.00 18.00 18.00 < < < < 2 2 2 2 361.78 340.61 339.44 315.08 29.53 29.54 29.56 29.28 8.63 8.54 7.10 9.37 42.45 41.41 25.85 26.58 North South 1&4 2&3 374.34 352.11 367.77 351.36 10.60 3.70 14.81 9.97 3.70 14.81 10.42 5.31 13.18 9.95 5.31 13.18 28.00 28.00 30.00 30.00 < < < < 2 2 2 2 384.68 375.70 365.94 358.75 29.31 29.30 29.14 29.15 9.67 9.70 9.60 9.50 43.48 41.49 24.34 24.84 North South 1&4 2&3 276.77 268.37 319.13 307 . 00 6.31 12.59 22.00 6.31 12.59 22.00 8.37 10.67 19.00 8.37 10.67 19.00 < < < < 2 2 2 2 368.23 357.65 319.42 356.65 29.27 28.32 29.09 29.10 8.14 7.68 7.88 7.83 North South 1&4 2&3 359.80 390.47 406.86 391.84 10.19 11.06 11.52 11.10 3.73 3.73 5.43 5.43 14.40 14.40 12.90 12.90 < < < < 2 2 2 2 371.23 348.41 354.56 345.31 29.35 29.44 29.21 29.25 North South 1&4 2&3 369.16 371.50 392.69 353.25 10.45 10.52 11.12 10.00 3.82 14.39 3.82 14.39 5.42 13.00 5.42 13.00 23.00 < 2 23.00 < 2 24.00 < 2 24.00 < 2 381.96 354.96 360.06 357.50 North South 1&4 2S3 349 . 7 1 9.90 3.60 14.40 368 . 75 10.44 3.60 14.40 374.30 10.60 5.30 13.00 360.58 10.21 5.30 13.00 2 2 2 2 North South0 ISA 2&3 347.89 368 . 08 356.20 388.52 9.85 3.80 13.80 22.00 < 2 10.42 3.80 13.80 22.00 < 2 10.09 6.00 12.50 17.00 < 2 11.00 6.00 12.50 17.00 < 2 North South 1&4 2&3 363.46 348.60 402.14 401.16 10.29 3.60 14.20 9.87 3.00 14.20 11.39 5.30 12.70 11.36 5.30 12.70 North South 1&4 2&3 336.53 330.73 301.61 358.98 9.53 9.37 8.54 10.17 7.83 7.60 9.04 8.69 6.00 12.60 6.00 12.60 9.70 10.00 9.70 10.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 24.00 24.00 26.00 26.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 < < < < Gas flowb ACFM DSCFH Isokinetic rate Dscrm 332,100 187,100 5,298 326,700 193,600 5,481 336,000 185,400 5,250 306,506 170,300 4,822 30.85 29.96 20.00 21.31 240,400 135,400 3,834 257,500 152,100 4,307 8.83 8.17 8.71 8.43 41.89 42.84 26.01 27.27 335,000 189,000 5,351 332,100 191,500 5,423 29.29 29.37 29.24 29.18 9.36 8.73 8.62 9.09 43.06 41.89 27.12 25.60 335,900 186,300 - 5,274 328,600 187,800 5,319 380.28 361.59 373.12 365.94 29.29 29.37 29.03 29.24 9.68 8.68 10.28 8.59 41.87 43.42 26.75 26.92 337,300 184,300 5,218 334,500 185,300 5,246 350.96 342.65 338.12 342.81 29.33 29.39 29.29 29.21 8.31 7.86 7.79 8.44 42.13 42.11 24.63 26.91 333,100 191,000 5,408 321,200 188,400 5,334 < < < < 2 2 2 2 348.64 342.09 340.00 330.60 29.36 29.41 29.19 29.24 8.54 8.07 8.61 8.23 41.65 39.63 26.26 26.81 321,400 185,000 5,239 330.700 195,500 5,537 < < < < 2 2 2 2 364.41 355.41 354.13 338.13 29.26 28.69 28.82 29.28 8.16 12.74 9.73 5.87 28.65 27.26 16.63 19.70 221,100 121,500 3,440 226,400 132,800 3,761 X 102.35 102.23 77 .72 91.73 101.27 107.20 99.80 96.74 102.11 108.67 104.05 96.83 1 06 . 85 99.99 107.18 95.48 100.17 108.07 99.82 93.81 107.21 97.16 101.03 92.62 92.21 104.31 95.09 97.71 105.17 96.42 104.10 99.03 103.54 115.99 110.45 102.66 (continued) �TABLE 14 (concluded) Test Date (1980) no. 3-24 21 3-25 22 3-26 23 Sampling location Outlet 1,2, 3S4 North1" Southp Outlet 1,2, 3&4 Sample volume DSCF DSCM 02 % Gas composition C02 CO THC % ppm ppm 130.42 3 6 . 9 5.4 13.2 122.79 3.48 5.4 Stack Isokinetic temperature < 2 Molecular °F Moisture Velocity % ft/sec weight 365.47 29.15 9.53 25.76 Gas flow ACFM 160.500 DSCFM rate DSCMM 90,170 2,553 % 103.72 T , Inlet North South Outlet 1,2 3S4 Inlet 326.82 344.98 138.67 13.2 9.26 6 0 12.60 . 0 9.77 6 0 12.60 . 0 3.93 4 8 13.70 . 0 < 2 356.40 29.10 9.92 24.58 < 2 <2 < 2 380.80 382.45 364.38 29.13 29.14 29.24 9.17 9 0 . 9 9.26 37.23 37.40 26.42 153,200 87,030 2,464 101.06 , fi 106.24 1 2 5 0 6 4 6 2 ' '0 ' 0 118.43 164,700 93,240 2,640 106.64 2 5 1 0 9 0 a Average values for duration of test. b Sun of flow through total inlet and total outlet. c Low volume collected due to high leak rate at end. Volume was corrected for leak rate. Test quality fair. d Low volume collected due to freezing of impingers. e At 250 rain, noted nozzle pointed in wrong direction. Switched nozzle from 0.312 to 0.250 in. diameter tip to maintain isokinetic flow. Test quality was good for gas and fair for particulate. f Switched nozzle from 0.312 to 0.237 in. diameter tip to maintain isokinetic flow. g Due to snow and icy conditions, no sample was obtained. h Cancelled per instructions of EPA until 3/13/80. i Switched nozzle from 0.250 to 0.310 in. diameter tip to maintain isokinetic flow. j Switched nozzle from 0.310 k Probe found broken at 140 min, no samples retained. conditions. Test quality was fair. 1 No solutions retained due to backup of H202 into all impingers. • QA test cancelled after 240 min due to leak at one of the probe tips. n Test stopped at 296 min due to continual freezing of the train components. o Problems with the Batelle trap freezing and leaks in the Teflon line were encountered. Test quality was fair to good. p QA test only. Test quality was good. to 0.240 with diameter tip to maintain isokinetic flow. Test restarted with a new probe but only one half the duct was traversed due to freezing The resin, cyclone and filters were retained. Test quality was fair. Test quality was fair to poor. The filter and traps were replaced to solve leak problems. No samples were saved because nozzle was in the wrong direction nnd the test would not be duplicate. �TABLE 15. AVERAGE PROCESS DATA FOR THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 24-hr Process data Standard deviation Mean Flue gas test duration process data Standard deviation Mean Steam flow rate (1,000 Ib/hr) 255 35 289 50 Steam pressure (psig) 852 3 853 3 Steam temperature 892 3 896 5 Feedwater flow rate (1,000 Ib/hr) 263 37 298 51 Feedwater temperature 366 16 377 19 (°F) Fuel feed rate 1 (1,000's Ibs/hr) 2 30.4 30.6 3.2 3.4 33.1 Fuel oil (gal./hr) 10.7 11.2 - - I.D. fans amps 45 1 46 2 I.D. fans pressure (psig) F.D. fans amps 5.5 0.7 1 29 5.9 30 4.2 1.0 1.1 F.D. fans pressure (psig) 4.0 0.6 4.5 0.9 Furnace draft (psig) 0.6 - 0.6 0.1 Flue gas temperature Boiler exit3 ESP inlet3 Ambient temperature (°F) 667 323 (°F) Ambient pressure in. Hg 24 15 31 13 29.01 a Not total time means. 38 0.13 674 326 39a 29.01 31 18 20 0.13 �The daily mean of gross electrical output (24-hr basis) was typically between 29 and 32 MW due to boiler operation at full output for a large portion of the day. In fact, the hourly readings indicated that output was rarely below 35 MW between the hours of 8 AM and 10 PM or longer. During non-peak hours the boiler operated between 16 and 25 MW, depending on load and the amount of power being purchased from neighboring utilities. Fuel consumption varied directly with the amount of electricity produced. Of the three types of fuels used in Unit No. 7 (coal, RDF, and fuel oil), coal was used in the largest quantity. The amount of RDF burned was limited to approximately 17% in terms of the total heat produced. This was because RDF, due to its lower heating value, cannot sustain sufficient temperatures to maintain required boiler efficiency and steam quality. Also, RDF requires a longer residence time in the boiler for complete combustion, and this places another physical restriction on the amount of RDF in the fuel mixture. Fuel oil is used sparingly, and only as an igniter to insure flame continuity during soot blowing. The large variations in fuel oil consumption noted in Table 15 were more related to operating practices than to the boiler requirements. The means and standard deviations for coal consumption follow those of the gross electrical output. This indicates that coal consumption is closely related to electrical output, as expected. However, these daily averages mask out one important effect. The amount of coal burned depends on whether there is RDF in the mixture or not. All other things being equal, the flow of coal will always go up or down, depending on whether RDF is being removed or introduced into the mixture, respectively. Data for the steam cycle in the boiler are also listed in Table 15 on an average basis. Examination of the data on a daily basis indicated that the steam and feedwater flow rates fluctuate in a daily cycle, with means and standard deviations following the gross electrical output. However, the values for steam temperature and pressure remain fairly constant. The feedwater temperature also varied. It was higher on days of high electricity production, and lower on days of low production. The induced and forced draft fan measurements listed in Table 15 are of limited significance, since they did not respond to increases in production with greater airflows and correspondingly greater current consumption. The furnace draft data indicated little or no correspondence to any of the other measured data. Most of the flue gas and ESP inlet temperature readings were incomplete as they did not cover the entire 24-hr day. Most of this information was recorded during peak operation, and may therefore be considered representative for peak operation conditions. Both the flue gas and ESP inlet temperatures decreased during off-peak periods. The continuous supply of RDF to the boiler during the test was found to be unreliable. The RDF conveyors which feed Unit No. 7 were prone to jamming and required frequent maintenance. Often the RDF supply ran out because the solid waste recovery plant was experiencing mechanical problems, or had run out of refuse to process. The durations of RDF-firing during the flue gas sampling periods are shown in Table 16 along with the mean coal feed rates. 39 �TABLE 16. FUEL COMBUSTION DURING FLUE GAS SAMPLING Date Test period Mean coal feed rate (1,000 Ib/hr) 3/2/80 3/3/80 3/4/80 3/5/80 3/6/80 3/7/80 3/8/80 3/9/80 3/10/80 3/11/80 3/12/80 3/13/80 3/14/80 3/15/80 3/17/80 1120-2000 0920-1855 0900-1800 0900-1820 0840-2140 0850-2220 0840-2215 0830-2211 0810-1733 0825-2235 0910-1315 0835-2147 0840-2255 0905-2206 0849-2225 0900-2325 0843-2407 33.5 32.6 3/20/80 3/22/80 3/23/80 3/24/80 3/25/80 3/26/80 0905-1625 0947-1412 0927-1410 1110-1547 1120-1546 0922-1406 None 1100-1530 Entire run 1020-finish 0900-finish 1230-finish 0900-finish None 1512-finish Entire run Entire run 1608-finish Entire None 1010-1105 1340-finish Entire run Start-1310 1610-finish 1100-1135 Start-1212 None Entire run Entire run Start-1330 34.9 36.2 34.3 35.5 35.4 35.7 32.1 25.2 36.3 33.8 35.1 38.6 34.4 23.0 35.1 3/18/80 3/19/80 RDF feed period 33.3 33.2 21.4 33.1 33.8 35.1 Mean RDF density (lb/ftS) . 5 4.7 5 4.3 4 3.7 4 4 4.3 4.3 4.5 NAa 3.7 4 3.5 4 3.8 3.3 a NA = not available. Out of 23 days of sampling, RDF was burned during the entire test run for only 7 days. On 12 days RDF was burned part of the time, and on 4 days it was not burned during the flue gas sampling. Routine activities such as ash removal and soot blowing were performed at times designated in the test plan. RDF was observed to have a substantially higher ash content than coal, and this characteristic was reflected by longer ash removal periods, and more periodic soot blowing. Both activities decreased substantially when RDF was not being burned. Table 17 contains information on daily production and consumption at the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 recorded by the power plant operators 40 �TABLE 17. DAILY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION AT AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Date 3/2/80 3/3/80 3/4/80 3/5/80 3/6/80 3/7/80 3/8/80 3/9/80 3/10/80 3/11/80 3/12/80 3/13/80 3/14/80 3/15/80 3/17/80 3/18/80 3/19/80 3/20/80 3/22/80 3/23/80 3/24/80 3/25/80 3/26/80 a Power production (kwh) gross net Thermal energy (Btu/kwh) net gross 681,000 709,000 761,000 759,000 7000 4,0 735,000 648,000 494,000 693,000 739,000 7000 5,0 742,000 729,000 5800 0,0 699,000 759,000 748,000 753,500 7600 0,0 426,000 710,000 700,000 726,000 11,186 11,296 11,396 11,697 11,693 11,652 11,602 11,524 10,955 11,440 11,348 11,544 11,537 11,434 11,170 10,855 10,794 11,368 11,077 11,311 10,841 11,080 10,949 623,902 648,682 700,072 698,461 679,858 674,470 590,057 443,496 635,037 678,629 6846 8,5 681,889 668,119 457,939 639,942 696,494 682,596 689,205 647,644 382,263 650,039 642,011 664,973 12,210 12,346 12,388 12,711 12,728 12,697 12,742 12,836 11,985 12,458 12,362 12,562 12,588 12,684 12,201 11,829 11,829 12,388 12,075 12,605 11,841 12,081 11,954 Steam production (Ib/kwh) 9.57 9.59 9.53 9.73 9.50 9.64 9.54 9.47 9.54 9.57 9.62 9.68 9.51 9.50 9.59 9.52 9.51 9.56 9-55 9.49 9.61 9.52 9.60 Iowa coal (Ibs) 339,988 418,330 412,290 434.538 432,096 427,127 358,286 301,888 486,980 334,328 408,980 432,270 412,440 322,448 412,335 417,010 414,315 445.392 410,520 269,610 629,920 610,880 612,960 This value is derived from the average Btu content of each fuel, b This is only a rough measure of RDF weight. Fuel consumption L RDF" Colorado coal (Ibs) (Ibs) 432,712 342,270 351,210 370.162 339,504 378,773 317,720 267,712 262,220 392,472 334,620 368,230 324,060 253,352 337,365 341,190 338,985 379,408 335,880 220,590 157,480 152,720 153,240 0 113,000 226,800 192,375 213,200 130,800 168,460 26,000 81,200 229,600 229,075 144,075 230,400 22,050 97,650 154,874 134,816 63,700 92,000 0 51,600 93,000 134,970 Oil (gal.) 60 160 70 60 90 100 130 150 100 270 290 50 90 910 70 60 100 490 640 800 490 680 40 Sluice water for bottom and fly ash Removal (gal.) 250,000 340,000 320,000 380,000 450,000 320,000 360,000 314,908 386,716 403,172 413,644 422,620 418,132 335,104 396,000 473,000 477,000 320,000 250,000 180,000 300,000 430,000 540,000 Water input to evaporator (gal.) 8,300 9,000 2,200 6,800 9,200 2,500 1,120 8,500 6,300 5,800 3,500 9,100 0 5,700 11,100 15,200 6,000 7,300 5,400 16,600 4,500 4,000 18,500 �on a daily basis. The total gross and net power production was recorded directly from meters inside the plant. The total steam produced divided by the gross power production gave a good indication of boiler efficiency. Separate meters were used for measuring the water used for ash removal and the total input to the evaporators. The days of highest sluice water use corresponded with days of prolonged use of RDF in the fuel mixture. The evaporators eventually feed into the working fluid cycle of the boiler, and gave a fair indication of make-up water required, except that there was a water reclamation system attached to the boiler. Hence, these values indicated new input to the system, but did not account for total make-up water requirements. Most of the fuel types were very accurately measured. Coal was measured through a weight integrating system, and fuel oil was similarly measured through a volume integrating system. However, no accurate measurement of the RDF was possible. The values listed were derived from volumetric readings and a very rough measurement of the RDF density, taken once every shift. Although rough estimates of the RDF content were made, there was no effective means for obtaining a representative sample of the refuse mixture. The variability of the RDF in the total pulverized mixture is reflected in the results for TOC1 and inputs and emissions of cadmium from this plant. The BTU contribution of each fuel was then calculated by doing calorimetric analyses. This was done periodically, and the values used for the duration of this test program are given in Table 18. By summing the Btu contribution of each fuel, a value for total heat production was found. This value was then divided by either the gross or net electricity production to express thermal energy as it related to the power production of the day. CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 The field test activity took place from April 30, 1980 to May 23, 1980. All required tests were completed and all recovered samples were sent to GSRI for analysis. A summary of the reduced flue gas data (inlet and outlet) on a daily basis as calculated from the field data sheets is presented in Table 19. Events that may influence the quality of the tests are also noted on this table. The process parameters considered to be important to the operation of Boiler No. 2 included the steam flow rate, steam pressure, feedwater flow rate, feedwater temperature, combustion air flow rate, combustion air temperature, % oxygen, I.D. fan pressure, F.D. fan pressure, furnace draft and furnace temperature. Most of this data was available from instrumentation in the control room. Table 20 summarizes this plant process data in terms of the average values of the typical sampling date operations. This data is presented in terras of 24-hr plant operation and the flue gas test period durations. Although there are some slight variations, the values are readily comparable for the two time intervals. A comparison of the daily process data with the average of the data collected indicates that the Chicago Northwest Incineration facility operated in essentially the same mode 24 hr a day, 7 days a week. Although major changes in steam production were noted to occur over short time intervals (less than 1 hr) no significant variation in steam production occurred day to day indicating a rather consistent fuel feed rates during the duration of the tests. 42 �TABLE 18. HEAT CONTENT OF FUELS USED AT THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT DURING SAMPLING PERIOD Duration of test Heat content for each fuel type Colorado Fuel oil coal RDF Iowa coal (Btu/gal.) (Btu/lb) (Btu/lb) (Btu/lb) 3/2/80 thru 3/16/80 8,946 10,556 5,587 138,603 3/17/80 thru 3/26/80 9,035 10,298 6,128 138,603 �TABLE 19. DAILY DATA SUMMARIES FOR FLUE GAS MEASUREMENTS, CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, BOILER NO. 2 Date Test (1980) No. Sampling location Sample volume DSCM DSCF North0 256.84 South6 135.20 Outlet North 317.86 South 324.14 Inlet 5-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 2 2 2 459.47 444.88 432.76 451.27 28.26 28.52 28.33 28.41 11.56 9.57 11.56 10.87 20.17 21.27 36.40 39.33 111,400 56,500 102,200 51,830 Isokinetic rate % 1,600 1,468 459.04 445.78 442.00 451.04 28.53 28.56 28.45 29.58 12.24 12.03 12.47 2.95 20.62 18.42 38.21 40.60 104,300 51,300 1,453 106,400 55,310 1,566 North South Outlet North South 324.36 400.66 403.32 407.07 9.19 11.34 11.42 11.53 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7 185 185 189 189 < < < < 2 2 2 2 445.55 431.46 459.04 457.78 28.34 28.36 28.39 28.41 13.43 13.26 12.86 12.75 19.90 21.23 36.70 38.87 110,900 54,930 1,555 102,000 49,780 1,410 North South, Outlet North South 331.52 370.83 427.50 457.50 9.39 10.50 12.11 12.96 9.9 9.9 10.4 10.4 9.5 9.5 8.9 8.9 142 < 142 < 169 < 169 < 2 2 2 2 445.36 460 . 60 454.20 464.32 28.57 28.50 28.82 28.47 11.27 11.85 8.60 11.60 19.34 19.96 38.39 41.69 105,600 52,770 1,494 108,100 54,430 1,541 North* SouthJ North Outlet South 342.70 367.81 371.55 383.75 9.77 10.42 10.52 10.87 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.1 10.5 10.5 10.7 10.7 61 61 59 59 < < < < 2 2 2 2 423.77 460.80 449.64 437.76 28.30 28.20 28.17 28.24 14.14 14.94 15.46 14.89 17.71 17.31 32.99 32.48 93,900 45,870 1,299 88,400 42,770 1,211 North South. K Outlet North South 320.56 347.61 367.97 412.06 9.08 9.84 10.42 11.67 8.8 10.3 8.8 10.3 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.7 1 1 1 1 < < < < 2 2 2 2 452.59 457.63 448.92 452.28 28.37 28.34 28.50 28.33 13.62 13.83 11.94 13.40 18.12 17.86 35.43 39.50 96,530 46,250 1,310 101,200 49,320 1,397 North South 1 Outlet North " South™ 344.80 378.50 299.62 459.63 9.76 10.72 8.49 13.02 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.5 1 1 1 1 < < < < 2 2 2 2 463.29 462.48 462.53 447.47 28.19 28.15 28.37 28.30 13.86 14.24 12.91 13.52 19.12 18.51 38.99 38.13 101.000 48,280 1,367 103,900 50,470 1,429 North South Outlet North South 316.55 373.03 376.48 391.17 8.96 10.56 10.66 11.08 8.7 8.7 10.4 10.4 9.7 9.7 9.0 9.0 1 1 1 1 < < < < 2 2 2 2 456.24 468.33 442.84 452.88 28.40 28.38 28.41 28.42 12.57 12.79 12.21 12.08 17.58 19.11 36.73 39.17 98,830 47,970 1,358 102,500 50,800 1,438 North South Outlet North South 308.73 364.16 366.28 388.73 8.74 10.31 10.37 11.01 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.1 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.8 1 1 1 1 < < < < 2 2 2 2 465.61 468.65 457.16 453.52 28.19 28.19 28.25 28.20 14.57 14.52 14.10 14.54 16.42 17.82 36.85 39.39 92,240 43,330 1,227 102,900 49,060 1,389 North 338.45 South 376.86 Outlet North" 377.44 South 396.28 9.59 10.67 10.69 11.22 10.2 10.2 9.6 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.7 111° 111 98 98 < < < < 2 2 2 2 465.43 458.88 459.56 463.68 28.29 28.27 28.88 28.24 13.60 13.75 8.89 14.22 18.05 17.67 35.47 38.49 95,870 46,760 1,324 99,850 49,810 1,410 Inlet 5-15 < < < < 2 2 2 2 Inlet 5-13 172d 172 156 156 < < < < Inlet 5-12 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.7 159 159 171 171 Inlet 5-11 11.2 11.2 11.3 11.3 10.1 10.1 9.5 9.5 Inlet 5-10 7.27 3.83 9.00 9.20 9.6 9.6 10.4 10.4 Inlet 5-9 DSCMM 11.57 10.74 11.85 12.97 Inlet 5-8 ACFM Gas flowb DSCFM 408.46 379.18 418.43 457.89 Inlet 5-7 Stack temperature Molecular Moisture Velocity weight »F ft/sec % North South Outlet North 8 South Inlet 5-6 Gas composition 02 C02 CO THC % % PP» ppm (continued) 90.82 79.24 94.61 97.96 96.25 98.32 98.85 93.23 98.17 97.71 100.75 96.29 100.22 97.28 96.59 100.04 99.85 101.90 105.57 107.99 108.82 105.61 98.61 96.51 100.85 100.82 99.20 102.22 98.95 94.93 102.67 100.42 105.23 102.11 104.01 102.82 102.87 102.67 102.40 106.30 �TABLE 19 (continued) Date Test (1980) No. Sampling location North South Outlet North South 353.83 357.30 404.61 416.58 Inletp North South Outletp 324.92 331.75 218.81 Inlet 5-16 11 5-17 12 5-18 13 Inlet North South Outlet 5-19 -PLn ,4 Sample volume DSCF DSCM I-l=t Outlet ACFM Gas flow DSCFM DSCMM Isokinetic rate % 465.32 467.67 455.72 460.24 28.49 28.42 28.35 28.38 11.15 11.69 11.79 11.59 18.79 18.22 99,300 49,200 1,395 '93 'ol 40^83 117,500 58,310 1,651 {oi'<;2 80 < 2 80 < 2 84 < 2 474.80 475.00 451.00 28.27 28.37 28.16 13.47 13.70 14.38 17.25 16.85 39.27 91,430 106,000 43,540 51,350 1,233 1,454 *£•*£ 103.01 r 463.00 28.25 13.91 44.37 119,800 57,360 1,624 92.45 r 465.60 28.36 11.65 44.53 120,200 59,140 1,675 98.36 8.5 8.5 7.9 7.9 9.20 10.3 9.40 10.3 6.20 10.7 10.0 10.0 9.0 6.20 10.7 9.2 102 6.81 12.7 7.2 304 88° 88 98 98 < < < < Velocity ft/sec 2 2 2 2 11.1 11.1 11.8 11.8 10.02 10.12 11.46 11.80 , Moisture q 219.36 North South Gas composition3 Stack 02 C02 CO THC temperature Molecular ppm ppoi °F weight q 240.61 a b c d e f g h i j k 1 m n Average during test period. Sum of the North and South train measurements. Test was run for 350 nin. Test was discontinued because of unsuccessful leak checks after filter replacement. High due to excessive instrument drift. Test ran for only 193 nin due to plant shut down because of a boiler leak. Only 21 of the required 24 points were traversed. Test quality was poor due to crack in the probe. Low moisture obtained because of cracked probe. Sampling time increased from 20 to 25 min per point after 180 min. Test quality was good. Sampling time increased from 20 to 25 min per point after 267 min. Test quality was good. Test was halted one point from completion due to stormy water. Test quality was good. Analyzer taken off line (see d). Due to excessive leak rate in the north tracer, 60% of the sample was collected with the south tracer, 40% with the north. Probe was found with a cracked tip. Based on 8.9% moisture versus 12% moisture for the other tests, it was determined that only the last 10 points were traversed with the broken probe. Test quality was fair. o Results ± 10% due to drift, p Inlet QA test, outlet 1st day cadmium test, q Inlet sample not required for cadmium test, r THC data not required for cadmium test. �TABLE 20. MEANS OF THE MEANS FOR PROCESS DATA, ALL TEST DAYS, CHICAGO NW INCINERATOR, BOILER NO. 2* Parameter Steam flow rate (Ibs/hr) Disc recorder Chart recorder Digital integrator Steam pressure (psig) Feedwater flow rate (Ibs/hr) Chart recorder Digital integrator Feedwater temperature (°F) Combustion air flow rate (ft3/hr) Chart recorder Digital integrator Combustion air temperature (°F) 24-hr process data Standard Mean deviation Flue gas test duration process data Standard deviation Mean 99,000 103,000 99,000 4,500 4,500 3,600 100,000 104,000 100,000 8,100 8,300 10,300 282 4 287 2 99,000 97,000 4,800 5,400 101,000 100,000 8,400 11,000 221 1 221 1 79,000 72,000 2,000 2,600 78,000 70,000 2,700 2,200 663 21 673 23 I.D. fans pressure (inches HgO) 2 .6 0.2 2.5 0.3 F.D. fans pressure (inches HgO) 14 .1 0.4 14.1 0.6 Furnace draft (inches ^ ) 0 Furnace temperature (°F) a 0.23 1,160 From Appendix B. 46 0.06 42 0.22 1,198 0.8 67 �Additional information collected for daily process tables included the times of soot blowing, fuel input to Boiler No. 2, down time on Boiler No. 2, daily barometric pressure and miscellaneous comments concerning the boiler operation. Soot blowing was to follow a set schedule of three times per day, although deviations from this schedule were observed. Barometric pressure was obtained once per day from nearby Midway airport and deviations from typical plant operation were noted from the operator's log book. The measurement of fuel input posed a somewhat more difficult problem. All refuse and residue hauling trucks entering and leaving the incinerator plant were carefully weighed. This facilitated the accurate characterization of overall inputs and outputs. However, there was no accurate way of proportioning these materials between specific boilers for a given period of time. Attempts to determine the fuel burned or ash discharged from Boiler No. 2 were approximations. Chicago Northwest Incinerator maintains inventory sheets listing inputs and outputs from the facility on a weekly basis. Relevant data from these sheets are reproduced in Table 21. The weight of refuse received was measured on scales before and after the refuse trucks released their loads. The volume of refuse received was determined by multiplying the number of truck loads by the volume of each truck (19.5 cubic yards). Density of the refuse was estimated using these two measurements, and is therefore the density of refuse inside the trucks. In order to quantify the amount of refuse burned, the number of loads, or charges, handled by the grab bucket cranes were noted for each boiler. The total number of charges to Boiler No. 2 for daily operations are given in Table 22. To approximate the amount of refuse burned in Boiler No. 2, it was necessary to determine an average weight per charge. When refuse trucks enter the plant, they discharge their contents into a large storage pit. Although the weight of refuse added to the pit is well characterized for each weekly period, the carry-over of material from week to week cannot be accurately measured. Furthermore, this carry-over is quite variable over the length of time being considered. It is necessary to quantify the carry-over in terms of weight, so that the total weight of refuse burned, and hence, the average weight per charge, can be approximated. The calculation of the average weight per charge involves using visual measurements of the pit volume taken at the end of each week. This "pit estimate" can then be used in association with the density of the incoming garbage to approximate the weight of refuse in the pit. The average weight per charge can be determined by the following equation: Average wt per charge _ (pit estimate for previous week - pit estimate + refuse delivered) total number of charges All terms in parenthesis must be expressed as weights. This method, however, has a drawback in that the density in the pit is probably not the same as the density inside the refuse trucks, since the refuse inside the trucks is compacted and is liable to expand somewhat as the trucks are unloaded. 47 �TABLE 21. WEEKLY INVENTORIES OF REFUSE AND RESIDUE AT THE CHICAGO NW INCINERATOR (ALL BOILERS) 4/28/80 to 5/4/80 Refuse received By weight (tons) By volume (cu yd) Density (lbs/yd3) Storage pit condition At beginning of week (% full) At end of week ( full) % Refuse consumed No. charges burned Average weight per charge (Ibs) Total weight (tons) Total volume (cu yd) Residue Fine ash fraction (tons) Fine ash fraction (cu yd) Metal fraction (tons) Metal fraction (cu yd) Total ash (tons) Total ash (cu yd) 5/5/80 to 5/11/80 5/12/80 to 5/18/80 5/19/80 to 5/25/80 6,747 24,490 551 9,152 29,618 618 7,902 26,561 595 8,720 28,778 606 84 65 61 42 65 61 42 42 5,205 2,771 5,710 3,240 5,952 2,812 4,714 3,700 7,212 28,562 9,250 36,634 8,367 33,138 8,720 34,535 2,511 3,100 949 5,423 3,460 8,523 2,500 3,086 750 4,286 3,250 7,372 1,815 2,240 1,514 18,651 3,329 10,891 2,904 3,585 629 3,594 3,533 7,179 Volume reduction thru incineration 70% 80% 67% 79% Weight reduction thru incineration 52% 65% 60% 60% 48 �TABLE 22. CHARGES FED TO BOILER NO. 2 ON A SHIFT BASIS CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATION FACILITY No. of Date, shift charges No. of Date, shift charges No. of Date, shift charges No. of Date, shift charges 4-28, 5-12, 2nd 3rd 99 99 5-19, 2nd 3rd 110 105 2nd 3rd 98 99 5-5, 4-29, 1st 2nd 3rd 100 94 101 5-6, 1st 2nd 3rd 68 112 5-13, 1st 2nd 3rd 100 100 60 5-20, 1st 2nd 3rd 104 118 110 4-30, 1st 2nd 3rd 90 94 101 5-7, 1st 2nd 3rd 99 84 100 5-14, 1st 2nd 3rd 96 5-21, 1st 2nd 3rd 100 106 90 5-1, 1st 2nd 3rd 94 49 98 5-8, 1st 2nd 3rd 81 101 100 5-15, 1st 2nd 3rd 104 106 108 5-22, 1st 2nd 3rd 80 105 100 5-2, 1st 2nd 3rd 100 98 101 5-9, 1st 2nd 3rd 100 98 100 5-16, 1st 2nd 3rd 106 97 110 5-23, 1st 2nd 3rd 107 107 102 5-3, 1st 2nd 3rd 100 102 99 5-10, 1st 2nd 3rd 99 101 100 5-17, 1st 2nd 3rd 112 97 114 5-24, 1st 2nd 3rd 98 105 94 5-4, 1st 2nd 3rd 97 96 12 5-11, 1st 2nd 3rd 102 101 105 5-18, 1st 2nd 3rd 108 104 118 5-25, 1st 2nd 3rd 101 105 107 5-5, 1st 5-12, 1st 103 5-19, 1st 105 5-26, 1st 105 Total for week 1,823 2nd 3rd - 1,754 1,943 49 2,159 �It seems likely that the level of compression would have a more pronounced effect upon the refuse density than the actual characteristics of the refuse. Since the compaction inside the pit is always similar, one would also expect the density in the pit to be reasonably constant. The plant personnel indicated that the typical refuse density was 505 Ib/cu yd. Therefore, this value can be used as an assumed density, and the pit estimates used in the equation: Volume of refuse in pit = P*t estimate ( of tota^volume) x total pit volume % total pit volume = 9,700 cu yd Weight of refuse in pit = volume of refuse in pit x refuse density in pit assumed refuse density = 505 Ib/cu yd Weight of refuse incinerated per week = (weight of refuse in pit at beginning of week - weight of refuse in pit at end of week + weight of refuse delivered) . ,. , total weight of refuse incinerated A Average weight per charge = total number of charges Volume of refuse incinerated = weight of refuse incinerated assumed refuse density The amounts of fine ash and metal fractions produced by the incinerator during the test period are listed in Table 21. It should be noted that these are the amounts leaving the plant during this time period, and are not necessarily the same as the ash being produced during this period. Since no account has been taken of any carry-over from week to week, it can only be assumed the carry-over is similar each week. In order to obtain total ash, the metal and fine ash fractions were summed together. The ash volumes were calculated using the following densities: Density of fine ash fraction = 1,620 Ib/cu yd (960 kg/m3) Density of metal fraction = 350 Ib/cu yd (210 kg/m3) These values were based on previous analyses done by the plant, and have been assumed to be typical. Since all of the combined ash was subjected to a water quench, these weights incorporate a rather large moisture content. However, no better characterization was available. The volume and weight reductions achieved through incineration have been calculated as an indication of how efficiently the boilers were operating. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the refuse used to fuel this plant, it was very difficult to obtain representative samples for laboratory analyses for organic compounds and cadmium. The previous discussion of the approximation of refuse burned in Unit No. 2 reflects an additional problem in previding accurate information for the levels of the analytes introduced as inputs to this combustion source. Both the variabilities of TOC1 and cadmium 50 �and the agreement of cadmium between the inputs and emissions from the plant were highly affected by the difficulty of obtaining representative refuse samples. 51 �SECTION 8 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Organics The results of TOC1 determinations in flue gas inlet and outlet samples from the Ames plant are shown in Tables 23 and 24, respectively, along with the recoveries observed for the surrogate spiking compounds. The results for plant background air particulates, ESP ash, bottom ash, coal, RDF, bottom ash quench influent water (cooling tower blowdown), bottom ash quench overflow water, and untreated well water (plant intake water) are shown in Tables 25 to 32. These results, as well as all other results in this report, are shown uncorrected for surrogate recoveries. The coal extracts apparently contained very high levels of hydrocarbons. Hence, the Hall detector used for TOC1 assays required cleaning after only one to two analyses. Hence, TOC1 assays were completed on only six coal extracts. Organic chlorine was not detected by the TOC1 procedure in any of the field blanks, method blanks, or flue gas first impinger extracts. In general, the surrogate recoveries were good in all samples. The recoveries for dg-naphthalene (typically 50-80%) were generally lower than for djg-chrysene (typically 70-100%). This is likely due to the much higher volatility of naphthalene compared to chrysene. Hence, naphthalene losses may be partially attributed to volatility losses during extract concentration. The results of determinations of PAH compounds and additional compounds identified in the composite extracts are shown in Table 33. In addition to PAH compounds, chlorinated benzenes and phenols were identified in some samples. Notably, phenol was detected at parts-per-million concentrations in the coal extracts. Phthalate esters were also identified in RDF and ash samples. As anticipated, phthalate levels were high in the RDF extracts. Low levels of phthalate esters were also identified in the composite flue gas extracts, although the levels were similar to those observed in the flue gas train blanks. The levels of phthalate esters in the train blank ranged from 0.3 to 4 pg/dscm. The results of HRGC/MS-SIM analysis of the composite Ames flue gas outlet extracts for PCBs are shown in Table 34. These results are similar to those obtained by Richard and Junk7 for the Ames Unit No. 7. The primary chlorobiphenyl compounds identified were tetra- through hexachloro-substituted. 52 �TABLE 23. TOC1 AND SURROGATE RECOVERY RESULTS FOR THE AMES FLUE GAS INLET SAMPLES TOC1 Sample volume (dscm) Mass (ng) Cone, (ng/dscm) Surrogate recovery dl2~Chrysene dg-Naphthalene () % () % Test day Date 1 3-2 13.23 3,210 243 2 3-3 17.41 20,000 1,150 63, 85 100, 100 3 3-4 12.38 9,480 766 61, 82 98, 79 4 3-5 14.27 6,480 454 31 33 5 3-6 19.56 18,600 951 57 58 6 3-7 20.79 8,560 412 51 82 7 3-8 19.40 7,110 367 43 60 8 3-9 17.87 7,350 411 44, 48 76, 74 9 3-10 9.18 7,650 833 55 81 10 3-11 22.01 12,400 562 42 63 11 3-12 12 3-13 20.39 11,600 568 59 76 13 3-14 20.57 11,500 559 54 81 14 3-15 15.43 6,320 410 49 87 u> 0 85 Test scrubbed (continued) �TABLE 23 (concluded) TOC1 Test day Date Sample volume (dscm) Mass (n«) Cone, (ng/dscm) Surrogate recovery di2-Chrysene dg -Naphthalene ( W () % 15 8,170 394 120 86 3-18 20.97 22,600 1,080 45 39 17 3-19 20.34 6,390 314 63 60 18 3-20 20.27 13,100 647 54 52 19 3-22 20.16 6,330 314 103 87 20 .p- 21.25 16 Ul 3-17 3-23 18.90 4,780 253 50 55 �TABLE 24. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR THE AMES FLUE GAS OUTLET SAMPLES TOC1 Sample volume (dscm) Mass (ng) Cone, (ng/dscm) Surrogate recovery dg-Naphthalene d^-Chrysene () % () % Test day Date 1 3-2 12.94 2,020 156 53 92 2 3-3 17.89 21,600 1,210 60 78 12 3-13 14.85 4,920 332 59 98 13 3-14 20.37 34,200 1,680 64 76 14 3-15 17.73 4,230 238 24 64 15 3-17 22.62 21,500 948 43 85 16 3-18 21.12 18,100 855 43 84 17 3-19 20.81 21,800 1,050 49 105 18 3-20 21.09 4,330 205 46 89 19 3-22 22.75 2,830 124 35 77 20 3-23 18.71 2,930 157 41 98 3-lla U1 Ul a No flue gas outlet samples collected due to severe weather. �TABLE 25. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES PLANT BACKGROUND AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES Test Day Date Volume On3) TOC1 (ng) TOC1 (ng/m3) Surrogate Recovery d8 -Naphthalene d^-Chrysene () % () % 1 2 3 4 5 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 500 540 510 550 800 2,930 3,920 3,150 3,190 4,940 5.9 7.3 6.2 5.8 6.2 23 3 24 26 41 85 110 100 96 100 6 7 8 9 10 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 700 600 870 750 830 3,240 3,160 3,460 3,750 5,110 4.6 5.3 4.0 5.0 6.2 56 24 45 39 36 110 73 88 93 93 11 12 13 14 15 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-17 600 960 930 910 910 4,180 3,260 2,980 4,530 3,820 7.0 3.4 3.2 5.0 4.2 48 59 59 32 80 140 130 140 92 79 16 17 18 19 20 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-22 3-23 950 960 1,110 840 1,040 5,090 6,580 4,620 2,690 1,880 5.4 6.9 4.2 3.2 1.8 68 65 73 51 73 110 77 89 120 83 Filter Blank Filter Blank 4,260 2,110 95 45 120 57 Calculated from the sampling time and the flowmeter reading on the Hi-Vol sampler. 56 �TABLE 26. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES ESP ASH SAMPLES Surrogate recovery Test day 0 Date 3-1 Time Hopper code 0300 0430 0830 1230 1630 B A B A A B 2030 1 2 3-2 3-3 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 TOC1 (ng/g) dg-Naphthalene () % d12-Chrysene () % 1.8 36 100 5.9 6.3 5.8 0.3 4.5 5.3 78 38 60 91 61 73 140 140 87 69 73 95 x ' B B A B B B 0030 0430 A B \ f 4.1 57 84 0830 1230 A A \ ] 2.2 59 58 1630 2030 B \ f 1.1 46 88 5.1 8.7 1.1 10.6 5.4 8.0 40 46 71 61 70 71 110 65 110 78 69 90 B 3 3-4 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 B B A B B B 4 3-5 0030 0430 A B J j 2.7 52 98 0830 1230 B B \ ] 8.5 54 90 \ f 4.4 54 71 \ f 3.4 1 100 \ f 2.5 5 83 1630 2030 5 3-6 B 0030 0430 A 0830 1230 B B B B (continued) 57 �TABLE 26 (continued) Test day Date Time Hopper code 5 3-6 1630 2030 B A 6 3-7 0030 0430 A A 0830 1230 A A 1630 2030 TOC1 (ng/g) Surrogate recovery da-Naphthalene di2~Chrysene () % () % 9 3-10 10 3-11 2.4 0 90 3.0 60 98 B B I } 4.0 65 89 2330 0330 B B I 210 9 90 A A 3.7 41 100 A I } 5.2 59 99 2330 0330 0730 1130 1530 1930 A A B B A B 8.1 2.5 1.9 3.2 3.6 6.4 47 53 33 20 34 56 53 83 69 69 66 90 2330 0330 B B } 9.8 52 110 A B } 5.7 57 110 1530 1930 3-9 100 0730 1130 8 28 1530 1930 3-8 2.2 0730 1130 7 I } A A I 2.1 35 110 2330 0330 0730 1130 1530 1930 A A B A A B 3.0 3.8 1.9 0.9 2.9 3.7 54 1 45 1 59 8 120 140 110 110 110 73 B (continued) 58 �TABLE 26 (concluded) Surrogate recovery dg-Naphthalene 12 3-13 13 3-14 22 3-25 A B A B B B 3.2 2330 0330 B B 2.6 60 A A 2.1 103 B B 2.1 100 2330 0330 A A 2.1 130 B B 4.4 38 120 1530 1930 3-12 2330 0330 0730 1130 1530 1915 0730 1130 11 Time 1530 1930 Date TOC1 (ng/g) 0730 1130 Test day Hopper code B A 2.6 69 120 0001 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 A B A A B A 1.7 71 130 59 90 130 �TABLE 27. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES BOTTOM ASH SAMPLES Test day 0 Date 3-1 TOC1 (ng/g) Time Sector code 0105 0530 0930 1330 D B D D D v B J 1730 2130 30.3 31 77 67 85 52 110 0.2 75 68 362 92 110 11.1 30 130 79.0 114 26.3 60.0 52.5 81 52 53 41 57 47 69 21 79 47 84 95 72.0 67 50 22.7 72 92 \ " 13.8 50 96 E A \ 1 66.5 58 89 C B } > 55.0 68 110 0130 0530 0930 1300 1730 2130 D E C C D C 2 3-3 0130 0530 C j A F !• j 1730 2130 D B \ • 1 0130 0535 0930 1300 1730 2130 D E F E A E 0130 0530 C I 0930 1330 B | 1730 2130 F 0130 0530 0930 1330 4 5 3-4 3-5 3-6 130 31 42 57 85 39 43 3-2 0930 1330 65 9.0 13.0 0.6 3.3 1.6 99.5 1 3 Surrogate recovery d8-Naphthalene d12-Chrysene () % () % F 251 J (continued) 60 �TABLE 27 (continued) Date Time 5 3-6 1730 2130 C E 6 3-7 0130 0530 C A 0930 1300 TOC1 (ng/g) Sector code Test day Surrogate recovery dg-Naphthalene di2~Chrysene () % () % 10 3-11 39 81 34.0 19 83 C F I 81.0 38 103 0030 0430 E C I 35.9 65 79 B C I 4.9 63 20 A A I 57.5 54 46 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 B B D D F A 1.3 8.0 0.8 6.2 77 56 12 29 51 6 70 76 46 48 31 49 0030 0430 E E } 3.6 77 63 C F } 92.5 87 120 2030 3-10 51.0 E F I } 1445 1630 9 3-9 90 1630 2030 8 55 0830 1230 3-8 11.6 1730 2130 7 I B 16.4 11 120 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 D A A D D A 5.7 86 53 77 44 79 66 97 87 160 130 130 120 127 5.8 38.6 136 85.5 97.0 316 (continued) 61 �TABLE 27 (concluded) Surrogate recovery d8-Naphlhalene d12-Chrysenc () % () % Test day Date Time Sector code8 11 3-12 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 C D A E E A 57.0 61 120 0030 0430 A A 43.3 62 100 0830 D 76.0 54 110 1630 2030 A F 59 100 0030 0430 F C 32.3 59 80 0830 1230 B B 15.8 51 96 1630 2030 A B 64.5 62 110 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 A D B F B E 14.8 68 70 12 13 22 3-13 3-14 3-25 TOC1 (ng/g) 349 a The accessible portion of the hopper was divided into six sectors which were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. 62 �TABLE 28. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES COAL SAMPLES Date Time 3-1 Test day Feed stream code 0300 0700 1100 1500 1900 2300 A A A B B B 0300 0700 1100 1500 2300 B B A B A 3-2 TOC1 (ng/g) Surrogate recovery d g-Naphthalene 92 4 7 4 5 4 97 97 110 87 92 61 110 96 83 97 59 a Two coal feed lines were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. �TABLE 29. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES REFUSE - DERIVED FUEL SAMPLES Test day 0 Date Time Food stream code8 3-1 0225 0630 1030 1430 B D D A 1430 TOC1 (ng/g) ) ( ( > Surrogate recovery d8-Naphthalene dxa'Chrysene () % () % 3-3 42 61 C 10,800 58 80 1830 2230 2 5,550 B ) B / 29,500 54 160 3 3-4 0230 0630 1030 1430 1830 2230 A A C C A C 5,500 370 19,000 23,600 4,400 2,800 45 75 50 41 66 64 82 120 98 56 120 110 4 3-5 0230 B 480 61 140 1030 1440 D ) D f 5,100 76 150 1830 2250 D \ C J 5,000 71 120 0230 0630 B \ B f 9,500 80 140 1030 1430 A \ c f 13,300 62 110 1830 2230 C \ B f 1,900 55 110 0230 1430 A B 4,250 18,500 77 50 100 110 1830 2230 B t A J 7,050 63 5 6 3-6 3-7 64 170 (continued) �TABLE 29 (continued) Test day Date Time Food stream code8 7 3-8 0130 B 0930 1330 TOC1 (ng/g) Surrogate recovery dg -Naphthalene di2~Chrysene «) «) 22,000 88 98 D\ D j 4,300 68 110 1730 2130 D ] C J 9,900 55 120 8 3-9 0130 B 5,000 71 110 9 3-10 1730 2130 C A 7,350 3,150 64 42 120 68 10 3-11 0130 0530 0930 1330 1730 2130 A C A A D A 4,950 21,100 23,200 8,600 9,550 10,300 73 86 68 35 64 55 150 130 93 120 130 69 11 3-12 0130 0530 0900 1330 1730 2130 D , B D D C C * 19,900 88 130 0130 0530 D) D ] 10,900 66 84 1730 2130 D) C J 8,200 91 98 0130 0530 B\ C J 16,500 77 150 0930 1330 B) C J 4,300 57 84 1730 2130 A) C} 46,300 84 98 (continued) 12 13 3-13 3-14 65 �TABLE 29 (concluded) Test day Date Time Food stream code* 22 3-25 1000 1400 1800 2200 A B C D TOC1 (ng/g) 13,100 Surrogate recovery dg -Naphthalene d12-Chrysene () % () % 83 130 a Four RDF feed lines were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. 66 �TABLE 30. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES BOTTOM ASH HOPPER QUENCH WATER INFLUENT SAMPLES Surrogate recovery dg-Naphthalene d12-Chrysene Date Time TOC1 (ng/A) 1 3-2 2400 239 47 87 3 3-4 0400 271 51 120 5 3-6 1400 441 80 100 8 3-9 2100 339 82 100 10 3-11 0800 369 89 130 13 3-14 0300 576 64 130 Test day 67 �TABLE 31. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES BOTTOM ASH HOPPER QUENCH OVERFLOW WATER SAMPLES Surrogate recovery dg-Naphthalene d^-Chrysene () % () % TOC1 (ng/1) Test day Date Time 0 3-1 0100 > 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 ' NDa'b 90 698 656 680 494 626 528 47 25 44 b NDD 35 28 80 82 120 56 97 92 518 19b 79 50 524 89 1 3-2 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 2 3-3 0100 0500 \ 0900 1300 | 1700 2100 } 706 3 4 3-4 72 76 488 558 274 294 678 0100 0500 0900 1255 1700 2100 64 30 57 51 37. K NDb 28 54 66 50 22 78 96 825 37 98 49 110 1,180 3-6 I | 1700 2100 5 0100 0500 0900 1300 3-5 } 691 38 94 0100 0500 i 301 ND 24 0900 1300 1 427 ND 889 68 55 (continued) �TABLE 31 (continued) TOC1 (ng/1) Surrogate recovery dg -Naphtha lene ffU \ Test day Date Time 5 3-6 1700 2100 I 947 87 100 6 3-7 0100 0500 J 819 2 80 0900 1300 } 866 80 55 1700 2100 | 81 852 98 2400 0400 | 94 863 120 0800 1200 | 74 94 1600 2000 2400 | ? 1,040 ' 71 94 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 2400 776 1,050 984 516 496 376 42 63 53 24, D NDb 120 110 87 140 130 120 0 85 80 605 120 7 8 3-8 3-9 3-10 0400 776C \ fa/ 1,100 Mil Ni/i_ 0800 1200 1600 2000 \ 795 46 100 2400 3-11 | 776C 0 85 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 2400 870 806 778 864 880 728 c 130 110 90 17 57 120 120 86 88 83 (continued) �TABLE 31 (concluded) Surrogate recovery dg-Naphthalene d^-Chrysene Date Time 3-12 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 2400 603 0400 0800 892 1200 1600 916 44 84 2000 2400 613 ND 57 0400 0800 458 34 78 1200 1600 770 42 97 2000 Test day TOC1 (ng/1) 1,060 42 80 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 638 36 110 3-13 3-14 3-25 81 a ND = not detected. b Extract was inadvertently evaporated to dryness. c Samples collected at 0400 and 2400 on 3-10 were inadvertently composited. d This sample was not spiked with the surrogate compounds. e This extract was lost prior to analysis for surrogate recoveries. 70 �TABLE 32. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR AMES UNTREATED WELL WATER TOC1 (ng/JK) Surrogate recovery di2~Chrysene d8 -Naphthalene () % () % Test day Date Time 0 3-1 0200 33 NDa 68 5 3-6 2200 65 65 99 23 3-26 1615 62 66 97 a Extract was inadvertently evaporated to dryness. 71 �TABLE 33. COMPOUNDS QUANTITATED IN SAMPLES FROM THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Concentration Compound Composite day Coal (ng/g) Refuse-derived fuel (ng/g) Plant background air (ng/dscn) Flue gas inlet (ng/dsen) Flue gas outlet (ng/dscn) ESP ash (ng/g) Botton ash (ng/g) Botton ash hopper quench water overflow (|Jg/«) Bottoa ash hopper quench water overflow (Kg/*) Well a water (Mg/» Target PAH compounds Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene 1 2 3 4 5 7,550 900 ,9 15,400 8,500 18,600 1 2 3 4 5 1,570 1,840 1,260 2,120 4,110 1 1,190 1,640 3,320 2 0.29 1,400 940 948 828 296 5 3,210 Pyrene 1 2 3 4 5 1,340 1,960 3,810 1,070 400 ,4 552 436 282 372 Chrysene 1 2 370 425 434 3 4 5 Benzofalpyrene 1 2 3 4 5 Indeno) 1 ,2,3-c,dJpyrene J 2 3 4 5 90 0 1,060 238 1,300 0.32 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.36 984 271 306 198 3 4 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.36 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.29 04 .0 0.37 0.60 03 .8 0.07 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.07 270 420 660 640 200 390 59 57 77 89 100 49 77 78 46 77 70 240 140 87 94 40 97 28 130 220 8SO 480 230 330 320 37 480 21 64 120 19 63 0.2 0.2 0.2 32 250 140 43 500 24 130 10 52 30 46 450 110 96 9.0 64 29 6.0 420 250 66 330 0.3 3.5 28 9.6 2.8 0.3 320 2.7 170 13 28 0.02 (continued) �TABLE 33 (continued) Concentration Compound Composite day Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Coal (ng/g) Refuse-derived fuel (ng/g) 1 2 3 4 5 Plant background air (ng/dscn) Flue gas inlet (ng/dscm) Flue gas outlet (ng/dscm) ESP ash (ng/g) Bottom ash (ng/g) Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow ((Jg/«) Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow (Ug/«) Well water (Mg/*) 3.3 22 4.6 0.09 Additional compounds identified Dichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1 2 3 4 5 0.07 3.3 1,300 1,200 520 430 1 2 3 4 5 25 79 24 0.07 5 25 0.02 0.01 99 180 110 69 85 OJ Hexachlorobutadiene 1 2 3 4 5 Tetrachlorobenzene 1 2 3 4 5 103 1 2 3 4 5 Pentachlorophenol 0.02 0.07 1,300 24 690 (continued) �TABLE 33 (continued) Concentration Compound Phenol 2,4-DiMthylphenol Composite day 1 2 3 4 5 Coal (ng/g) Fluorene Benz I a ) anthracene Benzofluoranthrene Benzol ejpyrene 3.3 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.8 1,0 000 12,000 280 ,0 23,000 2,0 900 Flue gas inlet (ng/dsn) 4,700 400 ,0 1,0 300 5,100 9,500 1 2 3 4 5 6,400 7,700 300 ,0 6,000 6,200 ESP ash (ng/g) 220 190 380 Botton ash (ng/g) 980 1,600 1,800 360 730 Botton ash hopper quench water overflow (ug/t) Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow (pg/4) Well water (ug/£) 00 .6 0.06 27 8 2,100 1 2 3 4 5 1,400 1,100 1,800 1,800 2,700 1 2 3 3,500 3,100 560 ,0 3,300 7,000 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Flue gas outlet (ng/dsca) 1,000 1,200 1,300 4 5 Naphthalene Refuse -de rived fuel (ng/g) Plant background air (ng/dso) 2,200 1,500 1,500 0.28 0.22 0.32 0.28 0.13 60 0 450 380 320 02 .2 0.32 02 .8 0.13 36,000 470 960 260 1,200 620 1,800 740 650 550 81 300 850 0.17 15 0.02 360 110 29 0.18 0.5 0.14 0.44 0.53 0.55 0.38 261 710 1,000 0.42 0.67 0.63 0.65 0.51 14 120 7.2 9.9 6.5 2.7 12 6.9 0.03 17 1 2 3 4 5 29 (continued) 0.02 �TABLE 33 (continued) Concentration Compound Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Composite day Coal (ng/g) 1 2 3 A 5 650 970 1,600 1,400 1,500 1 2 3 4 5 220 240 560 400 450 Trichlorobenzene Bottom ash (ng/g) Well water9 (fig/*) 0.7 1.0 120 75 10 100 130 20 26 1 2 3 4 5 Dimethylphthalate ESP ash (ng/g) 1 2 3 4 5 j>-Chloro-n~cresol Flue gas outlet (ng/dscm) 1,200 1 2 3 4 5 2 , 4-Dichlorophenol Flue gas inlet (ng/dscn) Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow (fig/I) Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow (pg/Jt) 0.07 Refuse-derived fuel (ng/g) Plant background air (ng/dso.) 1 2 3 Ui 36 77 24 0.04 0.30 3.0 A 5 Diet hylphtha late 730 1 2 3 4 5 9,100 250 1,400 11,000 0.20 11 0.5 2.0 37 16 (continued) �TABLE 33 (concluded) Concentration Composite Compound Di-n-butylphthalate day 4 S Flue gas inlet (ng/dscm) 18,000 14,000 640 ,0 14,000 4 S ESP ash (ng/g) 15 3.0 40 . Bottom ash (ng/g) 4.0 42 12 35 170 32 51 49,000 22,000 1 2 3 Flue gas outlet (ng/dscm) 6.0 1 2 3 4 5 Bii(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Refuse-derived fuel (ng/g) 1 2 3 Butylbenzylphtbalate Coal (ng/g) Plant background air (ng/dscm) 3000 5,0 4,0 400 35,000 22,000 » All extracts fro* these samples were combined for a single composite extract, b Specific isomer not determined. 6.0 3.0 2.0 8.0 90 8 1,200 480 810 Bottom asb hopper quench water overflow (pg/t) Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow (Mg/«) Well water9 (Mg/«) �TABLE 34. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL ISOMERS IN FLUE GAS OUTLET SAMPLES FROM THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Compound identified 1 Composite day (Concentration, ng/dscm) 2 3 4 6.4 Trichlorobiphenyl Tetrachlorobiphenyl 2.2 3.0 6.4 1.1 4.1 Hexachlorobiphenyl 4.3 Heptachlorobiphenyl 9.8 3.6 10.1 25.0 17.0 2.9 Decachlorobiphenyl 22.0 3.8 11.0 4.5 Pentachlorobiphenyl 5 2.9 Total chlorobiphenyl 5.2 27.0 23.0 PCDDs and PCDFs were not detected in the Ames samples. The detection limit for PCDD and PCDF compounds in the composite flue gas extracts was 0.1 to 0.25 ng/dscm. Cadmium The results for cadmium analysis of samples of fly ash, bottom ash, coal and refuse-derived fuel for test days 11 to 14 and 21 to 23 are presented in Tables 35 to 39. The fly ash samples contained the highest concentrations of cadmium ranging from approximately 1.5 to 11 pg/g, while the cadmium concentration in bottom ash samples varied from approximately 0.5 to 4 |Jg/g. The concentration of cadmium in the coal samples was generally less than 1 pg/g while values of 1 to 5 pg/g were recorded for refuse-derived fuel. In general, the cadmium concentration for all water samples was below the detection limit (0.6 pg/liter) of the analysis method. Table 35 presents the cadmium concentrations for the flue gas outlet particulate samples for test days 21 to 23. The concentrations of cadmium in flue gas particulates for the three test days did not vary markedly. The mean concentration was 25.3 pg/dscm with a standard deviation of 2.7 pg/dscm. 77 �TABLE 35. CADMIUM RESULTS FOR AMES - ESP ASH SAMPLES Test day Date Time Hopper code3 11 12 3/12 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 2330 0330 0730 1130 1530 1930 2330 0330 0730 1130 1530 1930 2330 0330 0730 1130 1530 1930 2330 0330 0730 1130 1530 1930 0001 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 0001 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 0001 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 B B A A B A A A B B B A B A B B A B A B A B B B B A A B B A A B A A B A A A B A A B 13 14 21 22 23 Cadmium (M8/g) 9.01 10.3 10.8 8.14 9.89 3.67 7.36 8.42 8.16 9.11 9.96 6.78 6.84 8.47 4.39 3.43 8.00 2.88 5.55 2.35 1.94 1.65 2.97 2.93 3.29 2.16 2.16 3.53 7.89 5.69 4.53 5.11 3.36 8.93 9.70 6.41 5.76 5.73 6.86 8.03 9.19 9.70 a Two hoppers were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. �TABLE 36. CADMIUM RESULTS FOR AMES BOTTOM ASH SAMPLES Test day Date Time Sector o code Cadmium (M8/g) 12 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 0030 0430 0830 1630 2030 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 0130 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 1200 A A D A F F C B B A B D A A D D A C D A G E A E C C C A A D D B F B E B A C C B C 3.92 1.86 2.24 0.25 1.28 1.66 3.28 2.96 1.90 1.90 1.46 4.36 7.15 0.74 0.78 0.96 0.46 0.62 0.78 0.48 1.08 0.90 1.00 1.02 2.82 0.60 1.64 0.76 1.34 0.78 3.68 3.24 3.76 1.94 2.78 2.00 2.20 2.28 2.84 2.02 2.48 13 14 21 22 23 a The accessible portion of the hopper was divided into six sectors which were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. �TABLE 37. CADMIUM RESULTS FOR AMES - COAL SAMPLES Feed stream code Test day Date Time 12 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/15 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/16 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 0600 1000 1400 1800 1800 0200 00 60 1000 1400 1800 2200 0200 0600 1000 1400 1800 2200 0200 0600 1000 1400 1800 2200 0230 0630 1030 1430 1830 2230 0230 0630 1030 1430 1830 2230 0230 0630 1030 1430 1830 2230 13 14 21 22 23 A 8 A B B B B B B A B A A A A A B B B A B A B A B A B B B B A B A A A B A B B A B Cadmium (M8/g) 0.124 0.024 0.068 0.116 4.04 0.043 007 .8 0.219 0.159 0.128 0.176 0.210 0.293 000 .4 0.153 0.055 0.075 0.138 0.027 0.094 0.099 0.367 0.141 0.157 0.104 0.129 0.241 0.090 0.173 0.122 0.045 0.079 0.055 0.084 0.286 0.193 0.109 0.055 0.222 0.166 0.641 a Two coal feed lines were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. 80 �TABLE 38. CADMIUM RESULTS FOR AMES - REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL SAMPLES Test day Date Time 12 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/14 3/15 3/24 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/25 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 0130 0530 1730 2130 0130 0530 0930 1330 1730 2130 0130 1400 1000 1400 1800 2200 0200 0600 1000 1800 2200 13 14 21 22 a Feed stream code D D D C B C B C A C A C A B C D B B B A A Cadmium (Mg/g) 2.84 1.99 2.41 1.14 2.31 2.96 4.85 2.79 2.37 3.68 5.30 2.63 3.71 3.72 2.37 1.73 1.59 1.69 6.26 3.60 0.94 Four RDF feed lines sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. 81 �TABLE 39. CADMIUM RESULTS FOR AMES - FLUE GAS OUTLET PARTICULARS Mass (MS) Cadmium Concentration (Mg/dscra) Test day Date Volume (dscm) 21 3/24 3.69 83.2 22.6 22 3/25 3.48 97.3 28.0 23 3/26 3.93 100.0 25.5 �CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR Organics The results of TOC1 analyses of flue gas inlet and outlet samples from the Chicago incinerator are shown in Table 40 along with the corresponding surrogate recovery data. TOC1 and surrogate results for plant background, air particulates, ESP ash, combined bottom ash (i.e., bottom ash plus ESP ash), refuse, and tap water (plant intake water) are shown in Tables 41 to 45. Organic chlorine was not detected by the TOC1 procedure in any of the field blanks, method blanks, or flue gas first impinger extracts. These results, as well as all other results in this report, are shown uncorrected for surrogate recoveries. In general, the surrogate recoveries were poor. As with the Ames results, dg-naphthalene recoveries (typically 10-50%) were lower than di2~chrysene recoveries (typically 30-60%). Although a portion of the apparent losses may be attributed to difficult sample matrices, the cause of consistently lower recoveries is not known. The results of determinations of PAH compounds and additional compounds identified in the composite Chicago extracts are shown in Table 46. Composite refuse extracts were not analyzed due to extremely high levels of interfering materials and the likely nonrepresentatative nature of the refuse sample collection. A large number of chlorinated benzene and phenolic compounds were identified. Dibenzofuran was identified in the flue extracts. As noted for the Ames samples, only very low levels of phthalate esters were identified in the flue gas blank extracts. Interestingly, the compound specific determinations compare very favorably with the TOC1 results for the same extracts. Table 47 shows a comparison of the TOC1 results for selected composite extracts (i.e., those in which significant levels of chlorinated compounds were identified) calculated from the TOC1 concentrations in the component extracts with those calculated from the sums of chlorinted compounds identified. The percent deviation from the mean for these pairs is 14%. The results of analysis of the composite Chicago flue gas outlet extracts for PCBs are shown in Table 48. In contrast to the results from the Ames extracts, the PCS contents of the Chicago flue gases were largely di- through pentachloro-substituted. The results of HRGC/HRMS analyses of the composite Chicago incinerator extracts for PCDDs and PCDFs are shown in Table 49. The mean recoveries for 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorodibenzo-j>-dioxin and octachlorodibenzo-|>-dioxin through the extract cleanup were 60 and 25%, respectively. Although a number of PCDD and PCDF compounds were identified, trichlorodibenzofurans were found at the highest concentrations. Table 50 shows the results of specific analyses for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin. This compound was detected in all three extracts, although the concentrations measured were substantially less than 1 ng/dscm. No PCDD or PCDF isomers were detected in any blank extracts. 83 �TABLE 40. TOC1 RESULTS AMD SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR CHICAGO NW FLUE GAS SAHPLES TOC1 Test day Date Volume (s. dc) Resin Mass (ng) Particulates Total cone, (ng/dscn) Surrogate recovery diz-Chrysene dg-Naphthalene () I Particulates Resin Particulates Resin (W Flue Gas Inlet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5-4 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-15 5-16 11.10 22.31 20.53 19.89 20.19 18.92 2.8 04 19.52 19.05 20.26 20.22 17,500 33,900 12,300 13,900 22,600 10,700 11,900 11,700 11,000 12,100 33,200 14,400 5,0 220 26,700 21,330 19,700 23,900 1,0 090 36,300 3,0 040 17,400 22,500 Flue Gas 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5-4 18.20 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 24.82 22.95 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-15 5-16 25.07 21.39 2.9 20 21.51 21.74 21.38 21.91 23.26 1,0 680 69,100 32,700 3900 0,0 3,0 220 6,0 320 4,0 790 3,0 940 19,100 4,0 450 3,0 060 37 80 49 54 38 9 17 30 22 25 92 280 ,0 3,860 1,900 1,770 2,090 1,830 1,110 2,470 2,170 1,460 2,753 38 20 41 62 54 27 16 13 46 27 13 40 19 52 16 48 27 17 36 24 28 13 340 ,6 1,100 7 3,140 1,760 13,500 19 7.720 2,0 400 7,070 590 ,4 400 ,6 200 ,7 3,310 2,540 2,920 1.230 230 ,0 1,490 62 58 45 100 47 56 68 25 41 77 29 Outlet 8,780 28,600 12,000 9,940 6,750 67 140 90 110 100 96 58 89 70 67 140 0 16 5 38 44 6 64 64 18 58 58 0 4 35 77 99 54 120 80 82 44 40 130 23 120 50 40 70 68 66 36 �TABLE 41. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR CHICAGO NW PLANT BACKGROUND AIR SAMPLES TOC1 (ng) TOC1 (ng/m3) Surrogate recovery d8-Naphthalene djg-Chrysene () % () % Test day Date Volume (m3) 2 5-6 660 1,510 2.3 58 45 3 5-7 490 1,400 2.9 67 74 4 5-8 570 1,840 3.2 46 71 5 5-9 590 1,730 3.0 23 55 6 5-10 510 < 30 < 0.1 7 1 7 5-11 590 430 0.7 55 170 8 5-12 390 < 30 < 0.1 0 0 9 5-13 580 540 0.9 34 33 10 5-15 490 890 1.8 26 28 11 5-16 710 1,240 1.7 37 44 5-17 520 760 1.5 11 24 5-19 320 590 1.8 2 66 a Calculated from the sampling time and the flowmeter reading on the HiVol sampler. 85 �TABLE 42. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR CHICAGO NW ESP ASH SAMPLES Test Day TOCI (ng/g) Date Time 0 5-3 0200 0600 1000 1400 1800 2200 1 5-4 0200 0600 1 Surrogate Recovery d8-Naphthalene di2-Chrysene fty \ V fb/ 5-6 41 36 0 44 45 18 68 63 46 80 72 35 59 8 35 1000 1400 2 226 203 68 89 143 54 I « 28 52 1400 62 8 24 ?6 7 39 1800 2200 } 192 58 97 } 49 20 15 1800 2200 5-7 0200 0600 1000 1400 3 } / 95 0 0 4 5-8 0200 0600 1000 1400 1800 2200 370 150 15 14 23 49 60 28 0 18 5 44 83 24 12 7 18 31 5 5-9 0200 0600 1000 1400 1800 2200 130 340 41 210 160 38 40 56 44 37 28 26 28 14 32 21 20 30 6 5-10 0400 0800 1200 111 84 57 37 19 9 32 35 32 (continued) 86 �TABLE 42 (continued) Surrogate Recovery dj2~Chrysene dg-Naphthalene Time TOC1 (ag/g) 5-10 1600 2000 59 65 39 8 40 76 0000 76 23 57 66 21 54 30 38 2000 0000 31 13 0 0400 0800 | 40 36 1200 1600 I « 36 21 2000 0000 | 30 32 0400 0800 \ 65 40 35 1200 1600 6 Date 5-11 Test Day \ 150 30 30 76 26 26 20 12 16 220 203 70 159 < 1 0 52 28 23 0 48 49 25 0 (continued) 7 0400 0800 1200 1600 5-12 8 5-13 9 5-14 \ 108 } 1600 2000 0000 10 5-15 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 I 132 38 37 �TABLE 42 (concluded) Test Day TOC1 (ng/g) Date Time 5-16 0000 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 137 211 78 173 15 154 5-17 0100 0900 1300 1700 2100 12 11 12 88 Surrogate Recovery rig-Naphthalene 22 24 39 50 9 0 14 49 59 57 17 39 26 �TABLE 43. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR CHICAGO NW COMBINED BOTTOM ASH SAMPLES TOC1 Surrogate Recovery d12~Chrysene d8-Naphthalene < 1 18 23 5-3 0300 0700 1100 1500 1900 2300 E E E A < < < < < < 1 1 1 1 1 1 39 33 18 31 56 52 35 26 23 20 21 25 0300 0700 A A \ J < 1 12 0 D 1 < 1 34 7 1500 A < 1 29 52 C A \ / 6 34 32 0300 0700 A E » / < 1 0 26 B E ) J 6 38 58 1900 2300 3 A 1100 1500 2 2300 1900 2300 1 Time 1100 1500 0 Date 5-2 Test day Sector code D B ) f 3 46 52 5-4 5-6 5-7 (ng/g) B 4 5-8 0700 1100 1500 1900 1900 2300 B B D E C B < 1 < 1 < 1 124 < 1 < 1 8 22 19 37 13 0 24 26 20 64 8 0 5 5-9 0300 0700 1100 1500 1900 2300 B C D C B A 7 76 5 3 < 1 38 11 75 48 72 47 85 5 9 11 78 13 10 (continued) 89 �TABLE 43 (continued) Sector code8 TOC1 (ng/g) 7 16 Test day Date Time 6 5-10 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 A 0100 0500 E E I 0900 1300 E D } 1700 2100 B C 0100 0500 E B 0900 1300 A B 1700 2100 B E 0100 0500 D D 0900 1300 C A 1700 E 5-14 1700 2100 A A 5-15 0100 0500 0900 1300 7 8 9 10 5-11 5-12 5-13 Surrogate Recovery dg-Naphthalene d12~Chrysene () % 13 42 34 41 34 33 11 43 34 <l 31 25 } < l 36 36 } <> 8 13 1 28 17 25 I » 37 26 I 57 100 I » 60 12 < 1 28 7 > 2 19 0 A E } 18 34 8 C C \ 2 35 7 E B C E E < 1 < 1 < 1 49 • 3.8 7 8 8 11 12 (continued) 90 �TABLE 43 (concluded) Test day Sector j codea TOC1 (ng/g) Surrogate Recovery dg-Naphthalene d12-Chrysene () % () % Time 5-15 11 Dae 1700 2100 E c\ I < 1 21 5 5-16 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 E C C E B D < 1 26 26 50 44 6 24 6 8 7 6 6 6 7 < < < < 1 1 1 1 The accessible portion of the bottom ash discharge hopper was divided into five sectors which were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. 91 �TABLE 44. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR CHICAGO NW REFUSE SAMPLES 3 0100 0515 0900 1300 1700 2100 A B B B A B 1,780 9,940 0100 0500 A B A 0900 1300 A B A B 2110 1 5-3 1700 2100 0 Time Sector code TOC1 Date 0900 Test day 5-4 5-7 Surrogate recovery d -Naphthalene d12~Chrysene 8 12,300 15 12 12 5 28 15 15 12 0 5 18 15 221 0 0 < 1 0 0 \ f 14 0 0 \ f 1,350 0 0 A < 1 25 0 961 62 778 \ > 4 5-8 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 A B A B A B 84 165 38 583 27 567 8 12 19 9 0 9 4 15 32 26 0 9 5 5-9 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 B A A B B A 1,550 36 5 0 14 2 0 120 5 0 10 0 0 246 41 607 1,670 273 (continued) �TABLE 44 (continued) Test day 6 Sector code Date Time 5-10 0300 0700 1100 1500 1900 2300 B A B A B A 0300 0700 TOC1 (ng/g) Surrogate recovery d8-Naphthalene d12-Chrysene 9 5-13 0 0 B \ A| 599 2 0 B \ B J 95 0 0 0300 0700 B A \ I < 1 0 0 A } 1 389 8 3 1900 2300 5-12 < 1 1100 1500 8 B \ A ( 1900 2300 5-11 0 1 0 6 38 0 1100 1500 7 167 11 54 0 9 0 6 46 0 B B \ f < 1 0 0 0300 0700 A } J < 1 0 0 1100 1500 B \ A I < i o o B A 108 467 < 1 (continued) �TABLE 44 (concluded) TOC1 (ng/g) Surrogate recovery d12-Chrysene d g -Naphtha lene () % () % Test day Date Time Sector code 10 5-14 1500 1900 B A < 1 2,700 0 5 50 10 5-15 0300 0700 1100 1500 1900 2300 A A B B A B 22 8,070 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 68 30 0 0 0 4 68 32 0 0 0 5 5-16 0300 0700 1100 1500 1900 A B A A B 26 < 1 45 < 1 < 1 16 0 0 17 6 15 0 0 1 6 5-17 0000 B < 1 6 0 11 The accessible portion of refuse was divided into two sectors which were sampled according to a randomized selection scheme. �TABLE 45. TOC1 RESULTS AND SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR CHICAGO NW TAP WATER SAMPLES Surrogate recovery di2~Chrysene dg-Naphthalene /O> \ \ A>/ () % Test day Date TOC1 (ng/£) 5 5-9 < 30 14 16 6 5-10 < 30 0 0 7 5-11 5-14 < 30 < 30 68 12 24 10 95 �TABLE 46. Compound COMPOUNDS QUANTITATED IN SAMPLES FROH THE CHICAGO NV INCINERATOR, UNIT HO. 2 Composite day Plant backbround air particulates concentration (ng/dsca) Flue gas inlet concentration (ng/dscn) Flue gas outlet concentration (ng/dsoi) Combined ash concentration (ng/g) 120 32 28 200 110 340 110 27 18 39 27 51 17 300 140 57 92 91 77 12 Target PAH Compounds Phenanthrene 1 2 3 Fluoranthene 1 2 3 Pyrene 1 2 3 1.0 0.28 0.82 0.18 9.4 7.8 Additional Compound* Idendified 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 2 3 130 130 18 1 ,4-Dicblorobenzene 1 2 3 96 98 14 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 2 3 140 120 20 1,2, 3-Trichlorobenzene 1 2 3 140 81 27 48 57 150 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1 2 3 550 380 160 200 220 560 1 ,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 1 2 3 490 280 120 190 180 460 Tetrachlorobenzene* 1 2 3 1,400 1,000 1,400 790 630 (continued) ESP Ash concentration (ng/g) �TABLE 46 (concluded) Plant backbround air particulates concentration (ng/dscm) Flue gas inlet concentration (ng/dsm) Flue gas outlet concentration (ng/dscn) 1 2 3 too 39 12 Dichlorophenol' 1 2 3 560 240 190 1 2 3 2,100 140 ,0 1,200 1,900 1 2 3 2,200 1,100 1 2 3 130 64 190 160 430 Dibenzofuran 1 2 3 86 28 23 100 67 140 Dine thy Iphthalate 1 2 3 Hexachlorobenzene Tetrachlorophenol" Pentachlorophenol Diethylphthalate 1 2 3 Butylbenzylphthalate 1 2 3 60 0 1,500 1,100 1,700 83 4.8 50 1 2 3 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 970 600 1 2 3 Di-n-butylphthalate a ESP Ash concentration (ng/g) 240 280 630 Tri chloropheno 1a Combined ash concentration (ng/g) 110 48 260 Compound Composite day Specific isoner not determined. 15 6.1 32 130 47 370 170 230 89 �TABLE 47. COMPARISON OF TOC1 RESULTS FROM DIRECT TOC1 ASSAYS VERSUS CALCULATED TOC1 FROM SPECIFIC COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN COMPOSITE CHICAGO NW EXTRACTS Composite day TOCI assay Sum of compounds identified Flue gas inlet 1 2 3 130 mg/hr 88 mg/hr 67 mg/hr 200 mg/hr 110 mg/hr 56 mg/hr Flue gas outlet 1 2 3 97 mg/hr 110 mg/hr 86 mg/hr 120 mg/hr 96 mg/hr 190 mg/hr 98 ng/g 93 ng/g Sample type ESP Ash 98 �TABLE 48. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL ISOMERS IN FLUE GAS OUTLET SAMPLES FROM THE CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR UNIT NO. 2 Compound identified Composite day (Concentration, ng/dscm) 1 3 2 Dichlorobiphenyl 5.8 6.0 40 Trichlorobiphenyl 7.6 4.3 36 Tetrachlorobiphenyl 4.2 1.5 13 Pentachlorobiphenyl 2.3 1.0 4.5 Total chlorobiphenyl 19.9 12.8 93.5 99 �TABLE 49. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS AND FURANS IN FLUE GAS FROM THE CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR Concentrations (ng/dscm) Total trichlorodibenzo-p-dioxins Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 15 12 11 13 2.1 Total trichlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 350 280 270 300 44 Total tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 7.2 5.4 6.2 6.3 0.90 Total tetrachlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 89 84 96 90 6.0 Total hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 14 21 14 16 4.0 (continued) 100 �TABLE 49 (concluded) Concentrations (ng/dscm) Total hexachlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 43 84 59 62 21 Total heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.6 0.32 Total heptachlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 7.2 7.2 8.0 7.5 0.46 Octachlorodibeuzo-p-dioxin Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.5 0.39 Octachlorodibenzofuran Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 0.72 0.63 0.46 0.60 0.13 101 �TABLE 50. CONCENTRATIONS OF 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN IN FLUE GAS FROM THE CHICAGO NW INCINERATOR Concentration (ng/dscm) Day 1 0.35 2 0.36 3 0.52 Mean 0.41 S.D. 0.10 Cadmium The results for cadmium analysis of samples of fly ash, bottom ash, and refuse for test days 8 to 14 are presented in Tables 51 to 53. The fly ash samples contained the highest concentrations of cadmium, ranging from 86 to 560 (Jg/8- The concentration of cadmium in bottom ash was approximately one order of magnitude lower than that of the fly ash samples. The cadmium content of refuse samples ranged from less than 0.12 to 1.4 (Jg/8- Cadmium was not detected in the tap water from this plant. The concentrations of cadmium in the flue gas outlet samples are listed in Table 54. Also included in these tables are results for the recoveries of spiked samples, which was part of the QA program discussed in the analysis methods. The recovery of cadmium averaged 91% from both the combined ash and the refuse and 114% from the fly ash. 102 �TABLE 51. CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN FLY ASH FROM CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 Test day Date Time 9 5/13 0000 0400 5/14 10 5/15 0800 1200 1600 1700 2000 0400 0800 1200 Cadmium (Mg/g) 283 201, 212 209, 217, 222 376 458 391 86.1, 82.3 250 1600 200 225 209, 218 380, 392 419, 425, 440 361 560 Spike recovery () %a 139 109 124, 118, 114 11 5/16 0000 0400 0800 1200 1600 306 325, 325 237 250 216 135 12 5/17 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 230 279, 348 289 290 313 328, 323 94 0100 0500 309 326 13 5/18 97 ± 9° Spiked distilled water a 100 Spiked with 10 (Jg total cadmium. b Spiked with 10 pg total cadmium and analyzed with the sample digests. c Mean and standard deviation for eight determinations. 103 �TABLE 52. CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN COMBINED BOTTOM ASH FROM CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 Test day Cadmium (Mg/g) Spike recovery () %3 11 5/13 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 8.20 23.4 8.30, 7.34 36.1, 31.2 15.1 95 61 1700 2100 5.40 30.8, 27.8 88 5/15 0100 0500 0900 1300 1700 2100 15.9, 9.20 31.7 48.8 7.3 17.1 18.5, 49.4 31.7, 60.5 81, 106 0100 0500 0900 1300 2000 2100 10 Time 5/14 9 Date 7.88, 28.7, 6.80 27.8 13.3 10.7, 8.64 12.1 7.5 5/16 12 5/17 0200 0600 1000 1400 1800 2200 5/18 0200 0600 1000 1400 1800 2200 5/19 0200 0600 1000 1400 120 105 6.35 8.00 21.7 4.60 71 3.60 14 67 14.5 10.4 6.00 14.3 13.1, 14.8 17.6 13 98 13.1 46.9 7.85 14.3 93 ± 6C Spiked distilled water a Spiked with 10 pg total cadmium. b Spiked with 10 )Jg total cadmium and analyzed with the sample digests. c Mean and standard deviation for six determinations. 104 �TABLE 53. CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN REFUSE FROM CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR Test day 8 10 11 12 13 14 Date Time 5/12 5/13 5/13 5/13 5/13 5/14 5/14 5/14 5/15 5/15 5/15 5/15 5/15 5/15 5/16 5/16 5/16 5/16 5/16 5/17 5/17 5/17 5/17 5/17 5/17 5/18 5/18 5/18 5/18 5/19 5/19 5/19 5/19 2300 0300 0700 1100 1500 1500 1900 2300 0300 0700 1100 1500 1700 2300 0300 0700 1100 1500 1900 0000 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 0000 1200 1600 2000 0000 0400 0800 1200 Cadmium (Mg/K) 1.45 0.50, 1.25 0.85 0.28 0.45 0.63 1.07 0.95, 1.02 0.67 0.14 0.85 < 0.12 0.20 1.10, 1.04 1.07 0.83, 0.80 < 0.12 < 0.12, < 0.12 0.63 1.10 0.68 < 0.12 0.18 0.16 0.60 0.57 0.25 1.04, 0.94 0.55 1.25 9.85, 8.44 0.79 8.13 Spike recovery () %3 91 72 95 106 105 94 78 ± 22C Spiked distilled water a Spiked with 10 (Jg total cadmium. b Spiked with 10 (Jg total cadmium and analyzed with the sample digests. c Mean and standard deviation for seven determinations. 105 �TABLE 54. CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FLUE GAS OUTLET PARTICULARS FROM CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 Cadmium Concentration (ng/dscm) Date Volume (dscm) Mass (pg) 12 5/17 6.20 520 84 13 5/18 6.20 1,490 240 14 5/19 6.81 1,850 272 Test day 106 �SECTION 9 ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS The principal quality assurance indicators used for this study were the recoveries for surrogate compounds spiked into all samples prior to extraction and the results of three interlaboratory comparison studies. SURROGATE COMPOUND RECOVERIES The surrogate recoveries determined for all samples from both plants are summarized in Table 55. As indicated in the previous section, the recoveries observed for naphthalene are generally lower than those for chrysene. Since the compounds of primary interest in this study are less volatile than naphthalene, the naphthalene recoveries likely indicate the maximum losses attributable to volatilization. The chrysene recoveries likely provide a more accurate indication of the recoveries of the principal analytes related to extraction efficiency and general extraction handling. The apparent analytical accuracy and precision as indicated by the recoveries and standard deviations of surrogates observed for each media was likely influenced by the dilution of extracts prior to analysis. Many of the more complex extracts required dilution such that the concentrations of the surrogate compounds in the diluted extracts were near the analytical detection limits. In general, the surrogate recoveries observed for the Ames samples were higher than those observed for the Chicago samples. This is likely attributable, at least in part, to the complexity of the Chicago samples. INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON STUDIES TOC1 Two interlaboratory comparison studies were conducted to check the comparability of TOC1 assay as conducted by SwRI and GSRI. In the first study, selected extracts from the two plants were submitted for TOC1 assay by the other laboratory. A second set of TOC1 extracts was prepared at MRI by mixing several extracts of organic chemicals manufacturing wastewaters. The results of these two studies are shown in Table 56. Although some significant discrepancies are apparent, the data from the two laboratories are generally comparable. 107 �TABLE 55. SUMMARY OF SURROGATE RECOVERY DATA Plant Sample type Determinations Surrogate recovery dg Naphthalene d12-Chrysene () % () % Flue gas outlet 11 47 ± 12 86 ± 12 Flue gas inlet 22 57 ± 24 73 ± 19 Plant background air particulates 21 48 ± 23 98 ± 22 ESP ash 51 44 ± 25 96 ± 22 Bottom ash 51 55 ± 20 85 ± 31 6 90 ± 16 90 ± 18 36 65 ± 15 110 ± 28 Bottom ash hopper quench water influent 6 69 ± 17 110 ± 18 Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow Ames 50 42 ± 32 88 ± 25 44 ± 38 88 ± 17 Coal RDF Well water Chicago Flue gas outlet 11 (resin) 11 (filter) 26 ± 23 29 ± 13 61 ± 37 62 ± 34 Flue gas inlet 11 (resin) 11 (filter) 41 ± 26 32 ± 17 93 ± 28 55 ± 22 Plant background air particulates 12 31 ± 23 51 ± 45 ESP ash 53 26 ± 18 35 ± 22 Bottom ash 51 33 ± 18 21 ± 20 Refuse 51 9 ± 13 10 ± 21 4 24 ± 30 13 ± 10 Tap water a The resin and filter catch portions of the Chicago flue gas samples were spiked, extracted, and analyzed separately for the surrogate compounds, 108 �TABLE 56. RESULTS OF INTERLABORATORY TOC1 ANALYSES TOC1 (ng/extract) SwRI results GSRI results Sample Chicago flue gas outlet (5/15) resin3 Chicago flue gas inlet (5/7) particulate Ames Ames Ames Ames Ames Ames bottom ash (3/7, bottom ash (3/9, flue gas outlet flue gas outlet RDF (3/4, 0230) RDF (3/3, 1430) Synthetic Extract I II III IV a Prepared by SwRI. c Resin and particulate combined. d 11,300 10,900 13,800 12,400, 16,200 Prepared by GSRI. b 1,020 124 4,230 18,100 109,000 215,000 7,300 10,700 7,600 10,400 0130 + 0530)b 2030) (3/15)C (3/18)° 23,000 19,200 39,300 42,800 10,020 31,400 227 91.8 702 443 78,800 181,000 Chicago flue gas outlet (5/12) resin Chicago flue gas outlet (5/9) particulate Chicago flue gas outlet (5/6) particulate Chicago flue gas outlet (5/11) resin 44,500 26,700 39,400 12,000 8,780 47,900 Prepared by MRI. Specific Compound Analysis An interlaboratory study was also conducted using spiked fly ash aliquots spiked with specific compounds. Mixed fly ash from the Ames and Chicago plants was divided into 20-g aliquots. The aliquots were spiked by MRI with six chlorinated compounds and submitted to GSRI and SwRI for analysis by the same extraction, HRGC and scanning HRGC/MS procedures used for the plant samples. Four pairs of duplicate fly ash aliquots were submitted to each laboratory. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 57 along with the surrogate recoveries. Most compounds were identified in the spiked samples by both laboratories. Exceptions were pentachlorophenol in most samples and decachlorobiphenyl in one sample by SwRI. 109 �TABLE 57. INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC COMPOUNDS IN FOUR SETS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES I Compound Spike level (ng/g) II Concentration9 (ng/g) GSRI SwRI Spike level (ng/g) IV III a Concentration (ng/g) SwRI GSRI Concentration (ng/g) GSRI SwRI Spike level (ng/g) 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzeoe 0 NDb ND 585 90, 125 952 , 1,130 2,930 940 , 430 1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0 ND ND 560 100, 170 1,170 , 1,220 4,200 1,660 , 865 Hexaehlorobenzene 0 ND ND 550 45, 65 295 , 150 2,750 790 , 365 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0 ND ND 2,850 ND, 45 1,040 , 748 570 75 , ND " 112 , ND, ND C tr, tr 535 ND , ND tr , tr 1,230 6,050 , 2,890 Spike level (ng/g) Concentration (ng/g) SwRI GSRI 20,200, 4,410 7,420, 6,300 4,390 700, 1,010 11,700, 10,200 2,800 720, 855 7,660, 8,420 85, 75 170, 103 4,280 355, 840 3,690, 2,040 tr, tr 4,020 ND, ND tr, tr 403, 566 2,450 8,650, 6,800 2,460, 1,280 1,630, 1,680 275 Pentarhlorophenol 0 ND ND 2,680 Decachlorobiphenyl 0 ND ND 490 Naphthalene-da 38, 2 88, 88 25, 40 89 , 88 59 ,30 98, 84 34, 42 101, 89 Chrysene-d,2 49, 23 73, 84 41, 40 88 , 76 50 , 38 75, 71 45, 45 111, 103 425, 970 Surrogate Compound Recovery ( ) * a Concentration values reported for two identical samples prepared by MRI. b ND = not detected. c tr = trace. �PCDD and PCDF Analysis The results of the interlaboratory comparison of PCDD and PCDF analyses conducted on Chicago flue gas outlet extracts by MRI and R. Harless at EPA's Research Triangle Park laboratory are shown in Table 58. Both the qualitative and quantitative results from the two laboratories were quite comparable. There were no qualitative discrepancies. The agreement in quantitation is reasonable, particularly in view of the facts that: (1) the two laboratories utilized different gas chromatographic systems and different selected ion monitoring procedures (computer controlled ion selection by MRI and hardware controlled ion selection by EPA) and (2) that the levels were near the limits of detection. TABLE 58. INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON OF THE LEVELS OF PCDDs AND PCDFs IN COMPOSITE EXTRACTS FROM THE CHICAGO NW INCINERATOR Composite Total mass in sample (ng) EPA3 results MRI results Parameter 14 1 24 2 2,3,7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 24 7.0 3 2,3,7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 34 9.4 4 Total tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 500 1,200 5 Total tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 360 740 6 Total tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 400 660 7 Total tetrachlorodibenzofuran 5,600 1,640 8 a 2,3,7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Total hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,400 280 Calculated from data in Reference 8. 111 �SECTION 10 EMISSIONS RESULTS AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 The TOC1 input and emission rates determined for the Ames plant during the test period are shown in Table 59. These results were calculated from the daily mean levels of TOC1 in coal, RDF, and ash from Section 8 and the mass and volume flow rates from the engineering and process data in Section 7. Since TOC1 is not a conservative parameter, it the mean TOC1 destruction rate is greater than 99%. data indicate that flue gas was responsible for the emissions, 83%. Bottom ash and fly ash contributed tively, of the total emissions. is not surprising that Interestingly, these largest fraction of TOC1 only 11 and 5%, respec- Table 60 shows the input and emission rates for the target PAHs and other compounds identified in the composited Ames extracts. The mass and volume flow data used for the input and emission calculations are averages for the sampling days comprising the composite days. The emission rates for PCBs in Table 61. Only the composited flue PCBs by HRGC/MS-SIM. PCBs may have sions media at concentrations below the Ames flue gas samples are shown in gas outlet extracts were analyzed for been present in other inputs and emisthe limit of detection of scanning HRGC/MS. A summary of the cadmium inputs and emissions for the test days investigated at the Ames Municipal Power Plant is presented in Table 62. The total inputs and emissions represent a good mass balance. CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 The calculated TOC1 inputs and emissions are shown in Table 63. The apparent mean TOC1 destruction rate (97%) is slightly lower than was observed for the Ames plant. However, the difficulty experienced in taking representative samples of raw refuse hinders accurate destruction efficiency determinations. The contribution of flue gases to total TOC1 emissions is remarkably similar, 87% for the Chicago incinerator relative to 83% for Ames power plant. 112 �TABLE 59. TOTAL ORGANIC CHLORINE INPUTS AND EMISSIONS - AHES MUNICIPAL POWER PLAHT, UKIT Nn Inputs Coal TOC1 RDF Date Load feed Feed () 1 ( ) (kg/hr) I 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 36 / 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/17 3/18 3/19 3/20 3/22 3/23 86 86 90 91 8 9 87 80 60 83 8* 89 89 87 62 84 91 89 87 84 52 0 13 23 19 2 2 14 20 4 10 24 21 16 24 4 12 17 15 7 11 0 14,600 14,400 1,0 440 15,200 1,0 460 15,200 12,800 1,0 080 14,200 13,700 1,0 600 14,100 13,900 1,0 090 1,0 420 1,0 430 1,0 420 1,0 560 14,100 9,250 Decemin•tions 20 20 20 Mean 83 14 13,800 Standard 11 deviation 7.7 1,700 (gg n/) TOC1 (t/r ».h) Emissions Refuse-derived fuel tOCl TOC1 (kg/hr) (ng/g) (gh) ./r Total TOC1 ( / r « h ) Botto* ash TOC1 (gh) k/r' 5 73 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 72 72 76 73 76 64 54 71 6. 85 8. 00 7. 05 6. 95 2.130 4,290 3,640 400 ,3 2,470 3,180 491 1,530 430 ,4 430 ,2 2,720 4,350 5 5 5. 45 71 417 1,850 5 5 71.5 71 2,930 2,550 78 70.5 4. 63 1,200 1,740 0 (gh) ./r 500 400 5 5 5 (ng/g) tOCl 200 350 250 350 100 20 5 HI) 20 6» 8.4 0 toil 20 100 20,100 9,300 350 ,0 820 ,0 9,900 12,100 500 ,0 530 ,0 1,0 300 1,0 990 960 ,0 2,0 200 42,900 39,900 12,700 3,5 300 2,0 450 38,500 2,500 8,100 5,0 640 8,0 600 26,100 95,700 12 12 4,0 300 4,0 000 12,800 3,0 310 2,0 460 3,0 860 260 ,0 820 ,0 5,0 650 8,0 610 2,0 620 9,0 580 12 5.5 0.55 350 550 450 550 400 500 200 300 550 500 400 550 124 97 36 44 55 33 4.4 38 113 57 156 38 43 53 16 24 22 17 0.88 11.4 67 29 62 21 20 13 13 2,312 11,500 3,0 890 3,0 900 380 62 28 1,570 620 ,0 2,0 880 28,800 150 47 21 Mass (kg/hr) ESP ash TOC1 (dscn/hr) Flue ga«" TOC1 TOC1 Total 1UC1 Percent of ttx.1 e«is»io»» (ng/d.«)_ («s/hr) (a.g/hr) 4 7 2.5 6.5 5.2 2.7 3.1 56 3.5 5.2 2.6 5.6 3.0 7.8 6.2 3.2 3.7 67 4.2 6.2 3.1 3920 0,0 323,800 3800 2,0° 322,500C 3030 4.0° 318,400C 29I.300C 2290; 4,0) 3330 3,0° 341,500C 156 1,210 766 454 951 412 367 411 833 562 48.2 392 251 146 324 131 107 100 278 192 54.4 438 312 168 351 156 191 105 296 257 1 10 17 10 7 14 9 1 4 24 10 1 3 3 1 2 35 4 2 1 89 89 80 87 92 84 56 95 94 75 '20 ,0 ,0 20 ,0 20 ,0 20 ,0 20 200 20 0 ,0 20 200 2^3 3.0 3.8 3.6 3890 2,0 289,300 2840 5,0 3540 2,0 319,100 314,800 3000 2,0 332,200 225.700 332 1,680 238 90 5 855 1,050 25 0 124 157 109 486 61.5 39 0 273 331 6. 56 41.2 35.4 174 511 36 4 2 1 62 95 20 13 ND («/hr) Mass ,0 20 ,200 ,0 20 ,200 ,0 20 ,200 ,0 20 ,0 20 ,0 20 ,0 20 1,200 («/«> TOC1 13 19 19 19 M_rA g>s_ _ 12 12 _ 12 12 7.7 9.2 308,700 616 194 246 11 5 83 14.6 17.4 32,900 425 134 138 10 10 13 a Estimated from Mass Missions data collected during 1978. Douglas Fiscus, Midwest Research Institute, personal conminication. b Flue gas sampled at the outlet of the ESP except where indicated. c Flue gas outlet samples were not collected on this day. The mass emission* and TOCl concentration data are for flue gas inlet samples collected on this day. Flue gas TOCl emissions are corrected for the TOCl to the ESP ash. �TABLE 60. COMPOUNDS QUANTITATED IN THE PRIMARY INPUT AND EMISSION MEDIA FOR THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Inputs Compound Composite day Refuse-derived Coal fuel Input Input Cone, rate Cone. rate ( g h ) (ng/g) («ft/hr) •/r (ng/g) Plant background air Input rate Cone, (ng/dscn) (•R/hr) Flue gas inlet Emission Cone. rate (ng/dse.) («g/hr) Emissions Flue gas outlet ESP ash Emission Emission Cone. rate Cone. rate (ng/dscn) (»g/hr) (ng/g) («g/hr) Botton ash Enission Cone. rate (ng/g) («g/hr) Target PAH compounds Pyrene 110,000 1000 3,0 210,000 110,000 2000 7,0 1 2 3 4 5 1,570 1,840 1,260 2,120 4,110 2,0 300 2,0 600 1,0 800 2,0 800 59,000 1 2 3 1,190 1,640 3,320 900 3,210 17,000 2,0 300 4,0 600 1,0 200 4,0 600 984 271 306 198 1,300 1,200 580 420 1 2 1,340 1,960 3 Fluoranthene 7,550 900 ,9 15,400 8,500 18,600 3,810 4 Anthracene 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 Phenantbreoe 1,070 400 ,4 2,0 000 2,0 800 5,0 300 1,0 400 5,0 800 552 436 282 372 1,500 1,900 530 790 434 1,200 Chrysene Benzo[a]pyrene 1 2 3 4 5 370 425 1,060 238 1,300 1 2 3 4 5 5,400 600 ,0 15,000 3,200 19,000 76 140 200 200 54 390 320 320 37 480 0.17 0.16 0.19 008 .2 004 .2 0.030 59 57 77 89 100 16 18 22 28 28 49 77 78 3,100 4,100 1, 0 80 1,800 296 810 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.07 70 240 140 87 94 20 78 42 28 26 46 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.05 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.07 220 850 480 230 330 64 280 140 74 90 0.29 0.40 0.37 0.60 0.38 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.28 0.016 0.015 008 .0 0.02 0.4 14 26 24 14 22 0.07 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.07 5 270 420 660 640 200 110 0.32 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.044 0.003 0.29 140 ,0 940 948 828 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.36 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.36 3.5 28 0.76 77 40 97 28 130 110 96 250 66 330 96 12 13 21 64 120 19 63 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1 2 3 4 5 46 10 52 30 1.0 21 17 36 450 160 32 32 74 22 90 9.0 64 29 6.0 420 26 16 1.9 150 0.3 0.90 0.4 3.2 6.0 22 38 6.2 17 2.7 170 0.76 13 3.8 28 6.0 3.3 0.015 13 130 ' 0.09 140 43 500 3.2 99 78 14 180 24 Indeno [ 1 , 2 , 3-c , d Jpy rene 1 2 3 4 5 32 250 13 13 30 8.8 1.0 8.0 9.6 2.8 46 0.3 100 0.96 22 4.6 6.6 1.5 (continued) 58 �TABLE 60 (Continued) Compound Composite day Inputs Refuse-derived Plant Coal fuel background air Input Input Input Cone. rate Cone. rate Cone. rate (ng/g) (mg/hr) (ng/g) (mg/hr) (ng/dscm) (mg/hr) Flue gas inlet Emission rate Cone, (ng/dscm] (mg/hr) 1 Emissions Flue gas ESP ash Bottom ash outlet Emission Emission Emission Cone. rate Cone. rate rate Cone, (ng/dscm) (mg/hr) (ng/R) (mg/hr) (ng/g) (mg/hr) Additional compounds identified Dichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 3.3 1 2 3 4 5 1,300 1,200 520 430 25 79 1 2 3 4 5 1.0 24 8.2 24 25 3,500 5,200 980 920 5 1 2 3 002 .08 0.0016 0.02 002 .04 0.07 0.08 1.5 99 180 32 52 110 34 69 0.02 0.01 9.6 6.8 0.07 19 85 24 103 30 6,400 7,700 3,000 6,000 6,200 1,800 2,600 1,000 1,200 1,300 300 400 400 2,100 580 0.010 4 5 Tetrachlorobenzene 1 2 3 5 Pentachlorophenol Phenol 2 , 4-Dinethylphenol 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1,300 3,500 24 690 10,000 12,000 2,800 23,000 29,000 150,000 170,000 39,000 310,000 420,000 7.2 1,500 3.3 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.8 0.46 0.21 0.11 0.23 0.25 4,700 4,000 13,000 5,100 9,500 1,300 1,300 4,000 1,600 2,600 220 260 190 380 230 460 98 640 990 110 260 27 920 1,900 1,700 980 1,600 1,800 360 730 11 8 (continued) 2.5 �TABLE 60 (Continued) Inputs Compound Naphthalene Fluorene Benz [a ] anthracene Benzofluoranthrene Benzo[e Jpyrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Trichlorobenzene Composite day Plant Refuse-derived background air Coal fuel Input Input Input Cone, rite Cone. rate Cone, rate (og/g) (•g/hr) (ng/g) («g/hr) (ng/dsca) (•g/hr) 1 2 3 4 5 1,400 1,100 1,800 1,800 2,700 1 2 3 4 5 3,500 50,000 43,000 3,100 5,600 78,000 3,300 45,000 7,000 100,000 710 1,000 620 1,800 740 200 340 190 560 200 0.22 0.32 0.28 0.13 0.037 0.048 0.045 0.017 120 34 0.020 0.073 0.079 0.089 0.052 0.42 0.67 0.63 0.65 0.51 1,600 1,900 712 677 0.040 0.037 0.048 0.045 0.017 0.53 0.55 0.38 600 450 380 320 0.28 0.22 0.32 0.28 0.13 0.14 0.44 20,000 16,000 3 , 0 9 , 0 600 800 25,000 2,200 9,600 24,000 1,500 2,800 39,000 1,500 3,200 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 Emissions Flue gas Flue gas Bottoa ash inlet outlet ESP ash Emission Emission Emission Emission rate Cone. rate Cone. rate Cone. rate Cone, (ng/dsn) («g/hr) (ng/dscn) (•g/hr) (ng/g) (iig/hr) (ng/g) («g/hr) 000 .6 0.11 0.095 0.1 0.070 7.2 3.2 960 260 1,200 3,800 6,600 13,000 3,400 18,000 1 2 3 4 5 650 970 1,600 1,400 1,500 9,500 14,000 22,000 18,000 22,000 1 2 3 4 5 220 240 560 400 450 3,200 3,400 7,700 5,300 6,500 0.17 0.2 0.18 0.22 15 360 110 29 1.5 140 61 9.2 14 17 6.5 2.7 12 6.9 7.7 1.9 0.88 3.6 2.2 29 261 470 8.8 2.3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 190 180 24 98 240 2.2 9.9 650 550 81 300 850 1,200 3,200 1.0 20 24 120 75 10 100 130 6.6 7.2 36 77 24 10.2 26 7.2 (continued) 0.55 12 30 5.5 32 47 �TABLE 60 (concluded) Compound Dime thy Ipht ha late Diethylphthalate Di-n-butylphthalate Butylbenzylphthaalte Composite day 1 2 3 4 5 a Specific isomer not Emissions Flue gas Flue gas Bottom ash inlet outlet ESP ash Emission Emission Emission Emission Cone. rate Cone. rate Cone. rate Cone. rate (ng/dscm) (mg/hr) (ng/dscm) (ng/hr) (ng/g) (mg/hr) (ng/g) (mg/hr) 3.0 0.20 730 1 2 3 4 5 11 0.5 9,100 25 ,000 290 1 ,300 1 ,400 2,700 11 , 0 23 , 0 00 00 18 ,000 49 ,000 14 ,000 61 ,000 6,400 12 ,000 14 ,000 28 ,000 1 2 3 4 determined. 2.0 0.48 26 1.20 37 48 16 5 .1 4.0 42 12 35 170 0.40 16 .8 6.6 11 58 32 3 .2 15 3.0 36 7.2 4.0 9.6 6.0 14 51 59 ,000 110 ,000 22 ,000 46 ,000 1 2 3 4 5 350 ,000 44 ,000 35 ,000 22 ,000 0.30 1 ,600 1 2 3 4 5 5 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Inputs Refuse-derived Plant Coal fuel background air Input Input Input rate Cone. rate Cone. rate Cone, (ng/g) (mg/hr) (ng/g) (nig/hr) (ng/dscm) (mg/hr) 970 ,000 190 ,000 66 ,000 46 ,000 6.0 Ib 28 14 3.0 2.0 8.0 980 7.2 4.8 1,200 480 810 19 9.8 470 260 260 �TABLE 61. FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Total PCBs Concentrations Emission rate (ng/dscm) (mg/hr) Ames composite day 1 5.2 1.4 2 27 9.0 3 23 6.8 4 25 8.2 5 17 4.8 Mean 19 6.0 S.D. 8.8 118 3.0 �TABU 62. CADMIUM INPUTS AKD EMISSIONS - AHES MUNICIPAL POVtR PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Input Test day Date Load () I RDF (I) Mass flow (kt/hr) RDF Coal Cd cone. (MK/I) Cd input (mg/hr) Mass flow (kg/hr) Cd cone. (M8/8) Cd input (mg/hr) Total Cd input (mg/hr) Bottom ash (BA) Mass Cd Cd floo cone. emissions (kg/hr) (mg/hr) (MB/I) Emissions ESP ash (FA) Voluse Cd Mass Cd flow flow cone. emissions (dscm/hr) <m*/hr) (kg/hr) (Ug/g) Flue gas Cd Cd cone. emissions (Uf/dscm) (mg/hr) Total emissions (mg/hr) Percent of total emissions Flue BA FA gas 11 3/12 89 23.5 1.0 390 1,200 9.01 10,800 12 3/13 89 15.3 15.010 0.736 11,050 2,700 2.10 5,670 16,700 400 1.91 760 1,200 8.36 10,030 164,000 13 3/14 87 23.8 13,800 0.135 1,860 4,300 3.16 13,600 15.500 550 2.19 1,200 1,200 8.21 9.850 145,000 14 3/15 3/16 62 3.69 10,800 0.138 0.144 1,490 410 5.30 2,170 360 .6 150 2.41 0.876 360 1,200 1,200 5.43 2.90 6,520 3,480 129,000 21 3/24 85 6.15 14,800 0.149 2,200 970 2.63 2,550 4,750 200 1.36 270 1,200 4.12 4,940 153.000 22.55 3,450 8,660 3 57 22 3/25 84 10.9 14,300 0.112 1,600 1.740 2.88 5,010 6,610 300 2.70 810 1,200 6.34 7,600 148.000 27.95 4,140 12.600 6.5 60 . 5 33 23 3/26 87 15.0 14,400 920 1,200 7.54 9.050 1800 4.0 25.46 3,770 13,700 7 66 27 8 8 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 1,200 6.48 7,780 148,000 61 33 2.2 2,630 11,400 Determinations Mean Standard deviation 550 4,300 0.231 3.320 2.530 2.82 7.130 1.0 050 40 0 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 6 7 83 14 13,900 0.235 3,590 2,420 3.15 6,020 9,620 360 1.96 720 1,420 0.224 3.720 1,510 1.11 4,160 5,540 160 0.64 350 9.5 7.8 7 6 8 25.3 2.70 3,790 11,600 S.5 350 2,650 2.2 4.5 40 6.5 �TABLE 63. Date 5/3 5/4 5/6 5/7 5/8 5/9 5/10 5/11 5/12 5/13 5/15 5/16 5/17 Refuse input Feed TOC1 TOC1 rate cone, input (kg/hr) (ng/g) (8h) •/r 15,800 15,200 20,300 17,300 17,300 18,200 18,400 18,900 16,000 15,800 16,900 16,600 17,200 Mass emissions (dsc»/hr) < 1 < 1 3 2.9 21 21 12 2.2 15 10 6.6 < 1 < 5.5 < 5.3 16 14 87 103 60 11 53 34 24 < 3.6 12 12 . 88,080 93,960 84,600 92,460 72,600 83,820 85,740 86,280 83,340 84,600 99,060 - 1,100 3,140 1,760 13,500 2,070 3,310 2,540 2,920 1,230 2,300 1,490 - 11 11 11 11 Total TOC1 emissions (•g/hr) Percent of TOC1enissions Cooibined ash Flue gas (X) U) . 5 5 9 6 41 18 5 17 25 1.1 3 - . 95 95 91 94 59 82 95 83 75 89 97 - 5,500 5,290 5,490 4,680 4,680 4,920 4,970 5,110 3,470 3,430 3,670 3,600 3,730 13 12 13 17,200 590 9,800 4,500 8.1 35 86,780 3,200 285 327 13 87 Standard 1,440 deviation 1,180 18,700 800 7.6 34 6,830 3,500 327 345 12 12 Mean o Emissions Flue gasa TOC1 TOC1 cone. emissions (ng/dsc«) ("g/hr) Combined ash TOC1 Mass TOC1 emissions flow cone, (8h) ./r (kg/hr) (ng/g) 67,900 1,670 0 8,100 4,500 13,300 2,390 4,350 2,100 < 16 22,800 200 < 17 Deterain- 13 ations ro 4,300 110 0 470 260 730 130 230 130 < 1 1,350 12 < 1 TOTAL ORGANIC CHLORINE INPUTS AND EMISSIONS - CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 a Flue gas collected at the outlet of the ESP. 97 295 149 1,250 150 277 218 252 103 195 148 - 102 311 163 1,337 253 337 229 305 137 219 152 11 11 �The input and emission rates for target PAHs and other compounds identified in the composited Chicago extracts are shown in Table 64. Since the refuse extracts contained very high levels of extracted organics and were very difficult to analyze, composite refuse extracts were not prepared. Hence, the data were not available for the target PAHs and other compounds in the primary input medium for these composite days. The emission rates for PCBs in the Chicago flue gas samples are shown in Table 65. As in the case of the Ames data, only flue gas data was available although PCBs may have been present in other media at low concentrations. The emission rates for PCDDs and PCDFs in the Chicago flue gas samples are shown in Table 66. The mean emission rates for total PCDDs and PCDFs are 3,900 and 38,600 |Jg/hr, respectively. Table 67 shows the flue gas emission rates for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p_-dioxin. The mean emission rate is 34 pg/hr. A summary of the cadmium inputs and emissions for the test days investigated is presented in Table 68. The agreement between the total cadmium inputs and emissions is poor and reflects the problems encountered in obtaining representative samples of the refuse materials and resulting ashes. 121 �TABLE 64. Compound Composite day COMPOUNDS QUANTITATED IN INPUT AND EMISSION MEDIA CHICAGO NV INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 Plant background air Conr. Input rate (ng/dscn) (ng/hr) Flue gas inlet Cone, Emission rate (ng/dscn) (•g/hr) Flue gas outlet Cone. Emission rate (ng/dsc«) (ing/hr) Combined ash Cone. Emission rate (ng/g) (mg/hr) Target PAH compounds Phenanthrene Fluoranthene 1 2 3 1 120 32 28 1.0 11 2.8 2.4 200 110 340 17 9.2 28 004 .4 no 9.8 2.4 1.6 39 27 51 2.2 0.012 27 18 2 3 Pyrene 1 0.28 0.82 0.035 2 3 0.18 008 .0 300 140 57 26 12 4.8 3.4 4.4 8.0 92 91 77 6.6 17 9.4 12 1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene 1 2 3 130 130 18 7.8 12 11 1.6 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 2 3 96 98 14 8.2 8.2 1.2 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 2 3 140 120 20 12 10 17 1,2, 3-Trichlorobenzene 1 2 3 140 81 27 12 7.0 2.2 48 57 150 4.0 4.8 12 1,2,4-Trichlo robenzene 1 2 3 550 380 160 46 32 13 200 220 560 17 19 48 1 ,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 1 2 3 490 280 120 44 24 10 190 180 460 16 15 40 Tetrachlorobenzene* 1 2 3 1,400 1,000 120 86 40 790 630 68 54 120 1 2 3 100 39 12 1 0 S3 Hexach lo robenzene 470 9.0 3.4 1.0 1,400 110 48 260 38 56 7.8 Additional compounds identified ,_. 78 9.0 4.0 22 (continued) 32 �TABLE 64 (Concluded) Compound Dichlorophenol Trichlorophenol Conposite day 1 2 3 1 2 3 Plant background air Cone. Input rate (ng/dscn) (ng/hr) Flue gas inlet Cone, Emission rate (ng/dscm) (mg/hr) 560 240 190 2,100 970 600 Flue gas outlet Cone, Emission rate (mg/hr) (ng/dscni) 40 20 16 180 82 52 240 280 630 22 24 1,400 1,200 1,900 120 98 160 1,500 1,100 1,700 130 96 140 16 36 8.8 5.8 11 1 2 3 2,200 1,100 600 190 90 52 1 2 3 130 11 64 5.4 190 160 430 Dibenzofuran 1 2 3 86 28 23 7.4 2.4 2.0 100 67 140 DiMthylphthalate 1 2 3 Tetrachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol 1*0 Diethylphthalate 1 2 3 Buty Ibenzy Iphtha late 1 2 3 14 4.8 50 42 400 15 6.1 32 144 54 260 1 2 3 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- 54 1 2 3 Di-n-butylphthalate a Specific isomer not determined. Combined ash Cone. Emission rate (ng/g) (ng/hr) 130 47 370 1,200 420 3,000 86 83 �TABLE 65. FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs AND EMISSION RATES FOR THE CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR UNIT NO. 1 Concentrations (ng/dscm) Emission rate (mg/hr) Composite day 1 20 1.7 2 13 1.1 3 93 7.8 Mean 42 3.5 S.D. 45 3.7 124 �TABLE 66. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS AND FURANS IN FLUE GAS FROM THE CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION RATES Concentrations (ng/dscm) Emission rate 15 12 11 13 2.1 1,300 Total trichlorodibenzo-p-dioxins Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 920 1,100 200 Total trichlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 350 280 270 300 44 30,000 24,000 22,000 25,000 4,000 Total tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 7.2 5.4 6.2 6.3 0.90 620 460 520 530 81 89 84 96 90 6.0 7,600 7,200 8,000 7,600 400 14 21 14 16 4.0 1,200 1,800 1,200 1,400 350 Total tetrachlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. Total hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. (continued) 125 �TABLE 66 (concluded) Concentrations (ng/dscm) Emission rate (M8/hr) Total hexachlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 43 84 59 62 21 3,800 7,200 5,000 5,300 1,700 Total heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.6 0.32 Total 620 660 660 650 23 7.2 7.2 8.0 7.5 0.46 620 620 680 640 34 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.5 0.39 220 190 240 220 25 0.72 0.63 0.46 0.60 0.13 Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 62 54 40 52 11 heptachlorodibenzofurans Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. Octachlorodibenzofuran Day 1 2 3 Mean S.D. 126 �TABLE 67. CONCENTRATIONS OF 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN IN FLUE GAS FROM THE CHICAGO NW INCINERATOR AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION RATES Concentration (ng/dscm) Day 1 0.35 Emission rate (pg/hr) 3.0 . *"~" i» 2 0^36 30 3 0.52 44 Mean 0.41 34 S.D. 0.10 127 8.0 ^ �TABLE 68. CADMIUM INPUT AND EMISSIONS FROM CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR, UNIT NO. 2 Emissions Date Refuse input Mass Cd feed cone, (kg/hr) (pg/g) 8 5/12 16,000 1.45b 9 5/13 17,500 10 5/15 11 Test day Cd input (gh) •/r Combined ash Mass Cd emissions cone. (kg/hr) (Mg/g) Cd emissions (8h) •/r Volume emissions (dscm/hr) Flue gasa Cd cone. (pg/dscm) Cd emissions (mg/hr) Total Cd emissions (mg/hr) Percent of total emissions •Flue Combined gas ash () X 23,200b 3,470 0.54 9,450 3,800 17.6 66,900 16,900 0.47 7,940 3,670 26.6 97,600 5/16 16,600 0.52 8,630 3,600 14.5 52,200 12 5/17 17,200 0.48 8,260 3,730 12.8 47,700 87,200 285 24,900 72,600 66 34 13 5/18 17,500 0.59 10,300 380 ,0 32,500 97,500 240 23,400 55,900 58 42 14 5/19 2,0 240 60b .2 1500 3,0b 740 ,6 1300 5,0 1050 0,0 273 2,0 740 1040 8,0 85 15 5 7 6 3 3 3 Determinations Hean I™4 ro co Standard deviLation 7 5 8.55 2. 05 6 3 3 3 17,700 0.52 8,920 4,220 16.8 75,000 95,100 266 25,200 103,000 70 30 2,100 0.05 960 1,430 6.3 44,100 7,000 23 2,020 67,600 14 14 a Flue gas collected at the outlet of the ESP. b Not included in determinations of mean and standard deviation. �SECTION 11 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF PILOT STUDY DATA OVERVIEW This section summarizes the data obtained from the chemical analysis of specimens collected in the pilot study. The chemical analysis was performed in two phases or tiers. In the first tier, the total organic chlorine (TOC1) concentration was measured in nearly all of the specimens collected. Some compositing of specimens was performed before chemical analysis to reduce cost. In the second tier, many more specimens were composited because of the greater expense at this level of analysis. Also, only specimens from selected media were analyzed. For the first tier chemical analysis data, the mean, coefficient of variation (CV) and nominal 95% confidence intervals for the TOC1 concentration are calculated for each sampling location at both combustion sites. The mean and CV are calculated for the concentrations of compounds quantified in the second tier analysis. In addition, the total mass flow rate and its CV are calculated. The mass flow rate is calculated by weighting the measured concentration of the compounds by the total mass flow rate associated with each measurement. The summary statistics are presented below with brief descriptions of the calculation methods. FIRST TIER SUMMARY Total Organic Chlorine For the sampling locations where each specimen was chemically analyzed independently (no compositing) the arithmetic mean (X) was calculated using the equation n X = Z X./n where X. is the TOC1 concentration of the i specimen and n is the number of specimens. The CV is calculated by first calculating the sample variance (S2) 129 �S2 = I (X. - X)2/(n - 1) The CV = S/X. The nominal 95% confidence intervals are calculated by (X - t Q5(df) S/S/n" , X + t Q5(df) where t 05(df) is obtained from tables of Student's t distribution9 and df denotes 'tne appropriate number of degrees of freedom, which is equal to the number of independent chemical analyses minus one. For several media many specimens were collected. To minimize the cost of chemical analysis for these media while retaining sufficient statistical information, a complex compositing protocol was developed for the sample locations where more than one specimen per day was collected. The compositing varied for the samples collected each day. On some days all were composited, on others the two within a shift were composited, and on others none were composited. These locations were fly ash, bottom ash, coal, RDF and OW at Ames and fly ash, combined ash and refuse at Chicago, NW. No compositing was done for the specimens collected at the other sample locations. To modify the calculations for X and S2 to compensate for the compositing, each chemical determination was assigned a weight equal to the number of specimens composited. Then the weighted mean Y was calculated by m m Y = 1 W. Y. / I W. , W i=l x x 1=1 x where Y. is the i chemical determination, W. is the number of specimens composited for the i chemical determination^nd m is the number of chem m determinations. Because I W. = n and, on average, m n I W. Y. = I X., then Y equals X, on average. I w i=l * 130 �To estimate S2 from the composited data, calculate m m 2 Sw = ._- W1 (Y. - Yw )2 /I W. I 2 1 ._- i m where W., Y., Yw, and m are the same as above. Because I W? (Y. - Y )2 i i i i w i=1 n approximately equals £ (X. - X)2 on average, S2 approximately equals S2 on average. Hence the CV (S/X) is estimated by S /Y . The technique above gives a method to estimate X and S2 as if no compositing were done. A theoretical justification of these techniques is given in Appendix C of Lucas et al.1 Tables 69 and 70 display the statistical summary of the TOC1 concentrations measured in the pilot study. Chemical Analysis Measurement Errors To assess the measurement errors in the chemical analysis, a method of standard additions was employed. Known amounts of two surrogate compounds, dg-naphthalene and di2~cnrysene, were added to the composited specimens before the chemical analysis. The mean percent recoveries of the surrogate compounds and their CVs are given in Tables 71 and 72. If the percent recoveries in these tables are indicative of the recovery rate for TOC1, then the concentrations of TOC1 are underestimated. This underestimation would be greater for the specimens from Chicago than those from Ames. However, the summary statistics reported in Table 66 and 67 above are not adjusted for the percent recovery. Biases of this type can affect the true confidence of a nominal 95% confidence interval. For example, in Table 68 the mean percent recovery of the surrogate compounds of the flue gas inlet is 59%. If this indicates a negative bias in estimating the true mean concentration of TOC1 of 41%, the true confidence of the nominal 95% confidence interval can be estimated using Table 73. To calculate the ratio of the bias (BIAS) and standard error (SE), use BIAS/SE = 4l/(49/Vl9) = 3.7 , where 41 is the absolute percent bias, 49 is the CV in Table 69, and 19 is the number of specimens analyzed. Table 73 indicates the true confidence of the nominal 95% confidence interval in Table 66 is less than 6%. Table 73 also includes the impact of other levels of bias (relative to the SE) on the true confidence of a nominal 95% confidence interval. 131 �TABLE 69. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC CHLORINE CONCENTRATION DATA FROM AMES, IOWA a Media (units) Number of specimens Mean Degrees Coefficient of of variation ( ) freedom % Nominal 95%b confidence interval Gaseous (ng/dscm) Flue gas inlet Flue gas outlet Ambient air 19 11 20 562 632 * 49 85 18 10 (426, 698) (254, 1,010) 90 (89) 88 11 62 8.3 3.6 58.6 4.4 11,900 536 81 183 23 116 50 (49) 50 5 36 (-1.0, 17.6) (2.9, 4.2) (35.1, 82.1) (3.5, 5.3) (8,342, 15,470) 91 6 664 373 70 33 51 5 (570, 760) (231, 514) 54 32 2 (1.4, 107) Solid (ng/g) Fly ash (c) Bottom ash Coal Refuse-derived fuel Liquid (ng/liter) OWd Quench water influent Well water a Number of independent chemical analyses minus one. b Nominal value based on normal probability distribution theory. c Numbers in ( ) are estimates excluding the maximum value of 210 ng/g. This value is 21 times larger than the next largest value. Both sets of summary statistics are included to illustrate the impact of the one extreme value on the estimates. d Bottom ash hopper quench water overflow. * Measured values in field specimens not significantly different from blanks. 132 �Table 70. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC CHLORINE CONCENTRATION DATA FROM CHICAGO NW Q Media (units) Number of specimens Mean 11 11 (10) 12 2,200 3,220 (2,190) 1.67 72 67 61 93.6 9.9 902 4 30 Nominal 95%b confidence interval Coefficient Degrees of of variation ( ) freedom % Gaseous (ng/dscm) Flue gas inlet Flue gas outlet (c) Ambient air 34 109 ( 36) 64 10 (1,698, 2,702) 10 (862, 5,578) ( 9) (1,330, 3,040) 11 (-.68, 4.02) Solid (ng/g) Fly ash Combined ash Refuse 85 162 251 52 50 50 (71.7, 115.6) (5.8, 13.9) (283.8, 1,520) Liquids (ng/liter) City tap water * 0 Not calculated because there was no variability in the data. a Number of independent chemical analyses minus one. b Nominal value based on normal probability distribution theory. c Numbers in ( ) are estimates excluding the maximum value of 13,500 ng/dscm. This value is 4 times larger than the next largest value. Both sets of summary statistics are included to illustrate the impact of the one extreme value on the summary statistics. 133 �TABLE 71. SUMMARY OF SURROGATE COMPOUNDS PERCENT RECOVERY FOR SPECIMENS FROM AMES, IOWA di2~Chrysene dft-Naphthalene Media No. of analyses Mean % recovery Coefficient of variation ( ) % No. of analyses Mean % recovery Coefficient of variation ( ) % 18 11 56 47 45 25 19 11 71 86 26 14 51 42 6 37 44 55 90 65 56 36 18 22 51 49 6 37 96 85 90 111 24 37 19 25 40 6 2 51 69 66 54 25 1 48 6 3 88 111 88 29 16 20 Gaseous Flue gas inlet Flue gas outlet Solid u> •P- Fly ash Bottom ash Coal Refuse-derived fuel Liquid ow* Quench water influent Well water a Bottom ash quench water overflow. b Specimens that were inadvertently evaporated to dryness were excluded. �TABLE 72. SUMMARY OF SURROGATE COMPOUND PERCENT RECOVERY FOR SPECIMENS FROM CHICAGO, NW Media dg-Naphthalene di2~Chrysene Number Mean Coefficient Number Mean Coefficient of percent of of percent of analyses recovery variation ( ) analyses recovery variation ( ) % % Gaseous Flue Gas Inlet Flue Gas Outlet Ambient Air 11 11 12 37 27 31 84 98 75 11 11 12 74 62 51 48 82 88 53 33 44 26 35 9 68 57 51 52 33 44 36 22 12 61 105 193 3 27 131 3 13 92 Solid Fly Ash Combined Ash Refuse Liquid City Tap Water 135 �TABLE 73. VALIDITY OF CONFIDENCE STATEMENTS FOR SELECTED LEVELS OF BIAS True confidence level* for the x ± 1.96 SE interval a BIAS/SE 0 0.5 0.92 1.0 0.83 1.5 0.68 2.0 0.48 2.5 0.29 3.0 0.15 3.5 0.06 4.0 * 0.95 0.02 Calculated according to the integral of the 1.96 + BIAS/SE ;V e"^ dx -1.96 + BIAS/SE a BIAS/SE is used because the true confidence depends on the relative magnitude of the bias with respect to the SE, not the absolute magnitude. Here, BIAS denotes the absolute average deviation of the estimate from the true value and SE denotes the standard error of the estimate and is equal to the standard deviation (s) divided by the square root of the sample size 136 �Table 74 summarizes the estimates of the CVs (S/X) for both the sampling and measurement (as indicated by the surrogate recovery data) component. One should note that the measurement CVs for Ames are uniformly less than those for Chicago. In fact, for some sampling locations at Chicago NW, the measurement component dominates the total variability giving negative estimates of the sampling component. This is not unexpected for the ambient air and city tap water because at these two locations one would expect the media to be rather homogeneous. However, this is unexpected at the flue gas inlet. SECOND TIER SUMMARY In the second tier of chemical analysis the concentrations of many compounds were measured. Because of the expense at this level of chemical analysis, much compositing of specimens was done before the analyses were performed. At Ames, five pairs of days were randomly selected. For each sampling location, all specimens collected during the pair of days were composited for one chemical determination. This gave a total of five independent chemical determinations in this tier for each sample location from Ames except RDF, where only four chemical determinations were performed. At Chicago, three sets of three days were randomly selected. For the selected sampling locations, all specimens collected during the three days were composited for one chemical determination. This gave a total of three independent chemical determinations in this tier for the selected sample locations at Chicago. To statistically summarize the second tier data, the arithmetic mean (X) and CV (S/X) were calculated for the concentration measurements. Also, to estimate the mass flow rates, the variable Y. was defined as Y. = r. X. ' i i i, where X. is the concentration for the i .chemical determination and r. is the mass flow rate associated with the i chemical determination. The arithmetic mean Y and CV (S/Y) were calculated to summarize the flow rates. In calculating the mean concentrations and flow rates, all trace values were assumed to be zero. This will result in an underestimate of the true values. The number of quantifiable values are also included in the summaries. The magnitude of underestimation resulting from substituting zero for trace values depends upon the number of traces and the levels of quantifiable values compared to the minimum quantifiable level. Because of the relatively few composites measured for each compound, the presence of trace values, and the relative large variability in the data (large CVs), no confidence intervals are included in the data summaries. 137 �Table 74. SUMMARY OF COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION FOR THE PILOT STUDY Media Sampling Ames Measurement Sampling Chicago, NV Measurement Gaseous Flue gas inlet Flue gas outlet Ambient air 25 13 a c 85 c 68 68 87 535 (78) 179 24 38 56 64 143 76 12 114 19 18 194 159 42 84 a Solid Fly ash Bottom ash Combined ash Coal Refuse-derived fuel Refuse Liquid OW Quench water influent City tap water 58 17 38 28 132 a Not calculated because specimen amounts were not significantly different from blanks. b Number in ( ) are estimates excluding the maximum value of 210 ng/g. This value is 21 times larger than the next largest value. Both summary statistics are included to illustrate the impact of the one extreme value on the estimate. c The estimates of these values were negative and were excluded because the CV must be non-negative. * The measurement CVs presented above are a weighted average of the CVs in Tables 68 and 69. They were calculated by CV = (S| + Sf2)^/(X8 + X12), where the subscripts 8 and 12 denote dg-naphthalene and d12-chrysene, respectively. 138 �The second tier chemical analysis data is summarized in Tables 75 through 81. These tables include summaries of the primary input and emissions media at Ames. These are coal, refuse-derived fuel, combustion air, flue gas inlet, flue gas outlet, fly ash and bottom ash. The secondary input and emission media, bottom ash hopper quench water influent, well water, and bottom ash water quench water overflow, were excluded because of the sparsity of the data. These tables also include the summaries for the flue gas inlet and outlet from Chicago. The combustion air, combined ash, and fly ash are excluded because of the sparsity of the data. No second tier chemical analysis was done on the refuse from Chicago. 139 �TABLE 75. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS QUAUTITATED IN PRIMARY INPUT MEDIA AT AMES, IOWA Compound Coal Concentration Number olf (ng/g) detectioiis Mean CV (X) Input rate (•g/hr) Mean CV (X) Refuse-derived fuel Input rate Concentration Number of (ng/g) (•g/hr) detections Mean Mean cv (X) CV (X) Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Chrysene 5 5 5 5 Benzo[a]pyrene 0 0 4 1 4 4 1 0 0 0 Dichlorobenzene 0 1,2,4-Trichloro- 0 4 0 2b 41 52 56 57 69 1600 6,0 30,800 28,800 34,600 9,720 43 53 56 57 71 1,030 74 440 411 109 25 200 83 28 200 2,700 202 875 1,180 300 41 200 50 53 200 0.56 0.10 0.65 0.67 0.41 0.10 0.004 44 92 37 42 28 41 224 0.083 0.016 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.066 0.001 48 95 42 45 31 182 224 4C 0 IndenoT.1,2,3c.dj-pyrene BenzoTg.h,!]- 5 11,830 2,180 2,050 2,440 679 Combustion air Input rate Concentration (•g/hr) Nunber of (ng/g) Mean detections Mean CV (X) CV (X) 0.02 224 0.003 224 0. 3d 5 3 5 5 5 5. perylene 863 52 2,650 79 0.006 149 0.0009 145 b 0.004 224 0.0005 224 b 0.01 224 0.002 224 5 1.7 0.25 0.19 0.41 54 30 67 40 0.25 0.037 0.029 0.063 51 33 69 44 5 0.58 19 0.087 24 benzene Hexachlorobutadiene 0 0 2 Pentachlorophenol 0 2 498 Pentachlorobi- 0 2 a 0 4 4 0 10,300 438 126 1,250 133 2 0 phenyl Phenol Naphthalene Flourene Benzo(a] anthracene Benzofluoranthrene 5 5 5 0 15,360 1,760 4,500 5 630 68 8,960 71 0 Acenaphthene 5 5 1,220 374 33 38 17,100 5,220 32 37 4 0 Acenaphthylene 68 34 38 217,800 24,800 63,200 68 35 39 300 166 28 200 28,400 1,220 80 0 164 51 200 5 5 4 0 0 * CV denotes the coefficient of variation and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. a Only trace values were detected, hence no quantification was attempted. b One specimen contained a quantifiable level and one a trace. The trace is always asstned to be zero to calculate the wan c One specimen contained a quantifiable level and three were traces. d Two specimens contained a quantifiable level and one a trace. and CV. �TABLE 76. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS QUANTITATED IN GASEOUS EMISSIONS AT AMES, IOWA Compound Flue gas inlet Concentration Number of (ng/g) detections Mean CV ( ) % Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Chrysene Benzolajpyrene Benzojg.h.i]perylene Dichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Tetrachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenol 2,4-Dinethyphenol Naphthalene Fluorene Benzf a] anthracene Benzofluoranthrene Benzo[e]pyrene Acenaphthylene Trichlorobenzene Emission rate (mg/hr) CV ( ) % Mean Number of detections Flue gas outlet Concentration Emission rate (mg/hr) (ng/g) CV ( ) % Mean CV ( ) % Mean 5 5 5 5 5a 5 0 438 76.4 126 422 8.8 57.4 48 24 55 62 129 72 134 22 39 130 2.6 18 51 25 60 68 125 74 5 5 5 5 5^ 3d 3 309 65.4 68.2 170 0.54 8.2 6.0 54 25 64 67 224 151 154 66 20 20 50 0.15 2.0 1.8 74 28 60 60 224 143 153 3 3 25.8 69.6 125 108 7.8 20 126 108 2 3 1.7 39 142 139 0.50 12 141 140 1 20.6 224 6.0 224 0 ' | - lb 0 1 4.8 224 5 0 7,260 53 5 1 1 974 24 1.4 50 224 224 2 5.4 0 2 0 8.8 224 0 54 5 4 5,860 1,120 30 67 1,780 336 33 63 298 6.8 0.44 53 224 224 5 0 0 486 62 146 58 145 1.1 140 5a 5.6 81 1.7 80 224 1.8 224 2.8 135 1 0 3 5.8 138 27 116 8.7 123 1.4 2,160 * CV denotes the coefficient of variation and calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. a Four specimens contained quantifiable levels and one a trace. All trace values are assumed to be zero when calculating the mean and CV. b One specimen contained a trace. c One specimen contained a quantifiable level and four contained traces. d Two specimens contained quantifiable levels and one a trace. �TABLE 77. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS QUANTITATED IN SOLID EMISSIONS AT AMES, IOWA Compound Fly ash Concentration Number of (ng/g) detections Mean CV ( ) % Phenanthrene 5a 0 Anthracene 0 Fluoranthrene Pyrene 0 '1 Chrysene Dichloro1 benzene Phenol 3 0 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2 Naphthalene Fluorene 0 0 Acenaphthene 0 Acenaphthylene 0.2 Emission rate (mg/hr) Mean CV ( ) % Bottom ash Concentration Number of (ng/g) CV ( ) % detections Mean 5 2 4 5 lb 3b 193 31 108 106 34 4.8 102 5 4C 1,094 7.0 137 5a 1 1 5 103 3 0.2 87 61 0.2 71 0.1 0.01 224 224 0.1 0.02 224 224 158 102 190 0.07 137 0.08 Emission rate (mg/hr) Mean CV ( ) % 75 12 40 39 12 1.9 96 169 170 162 224 224 55 167 420 2.7 92 176 146 224 224 55 42 1.5 0.11 25 142 224 224 66 100 183 177 168 224 224 * -Pro CV denotes the coefficient of variation and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. a Four specimens contained quantifiable levels and one a trace. calculating the mean and CV. b One specimen contained a quantifiable level and two a trace, c Two specimens contained quantifiable levels and two a trace. Trace values are always assumed to be zero when �TABLE 78. SUMMARY OF TOTAL INPUT AND EMISSIONS FROM AMES, IOWA Compound Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Chrysene Benzo[a]pyrene IndenoTl,2,3-c,d]pyrene Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Dichlorobenzene 1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Tetrachlorobenzene Penta chl o ropheno 1 Pentachlorobiphenyl Phenol 2 , 4-Dimethylphenol Naphthalene Fluorene Benz [ a ] anthracene Benzofluoranthrene Benzo[ejpyrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Trichlorobenzene Total input rate (mg/hr) CV ( ) % Mean 169,000 31,000 29,700 35,800 10,020 0.066 0.001 0.003 2,650 0.0009 0.0005 nd 1,250 tr 217,800 nd 53,200 64,400 .063 8,960 nd 17,900 5,220 nd 42 53 54 55 69 182 224 224 79 145 224 133 68 89 38 44 71 32 37 Total emission rate (mg/hr) cv (%) Mean 141 32 60 89 12.2 2.0 nd 1.8 2.4 12 nd nd nd nd 2,390 339 188 1.5 nd 1.7 1.8 0.11 25 8.7 nd denotes not detected, tr denotes trace. * CV denotes coefficient of variation and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. 143 62 66 115 79 219 143 153 178 140 31 63 55 224 80 224 224 66 123 �TABLE 79. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS QUANTITATED IN GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM CHICAGO Compound Number of detections Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene Tetrachlorobenzene Hexachlorobenzene Dichlorophenol Trichlorophenol Tetrachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol Dibenzofuran * Flue gas inlet Emission rate Concentration (mg/hr) (ng/g) Mean CV ( ) % CV ( ) % Mean Number of detections 3 3 3 3 60 52 166 93 87 98 75 70 5.4 4.6 14 8.4 90 98 76 71 3 3 3 0 3 69 69 5.9 69 Flue gas outlet Emission rate Concentration (»g/hr) (ng/g) Mean CV ( ) % Mean CV ( ) % 217 39 87 53 31 10 18 3.3 7.5 52 33 10 0 3 93 69 8.0 69 0 3 83 68 7.1 69 3 85 66 6.9 64 3 363 54 30 55 3 327 62 28 62 3 297 63 26 66 3 277 57 24 60 3 957 49 82 49 3 940 43 81 43 3 50 90 4.5 92 3 139 78 12 80 3 3 330 1,220 61 64 25 105 51 64 3 3 383 1,500 56 24 33 126 54 25 3 1,300 63 111 64 3 1,430 21 122 19 2 65 101 5.5 101 3 260 57 22 55 3 46 77 3.9 76 3 102 36 8.5 31 CV denotes the coefficient of variation and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. �TABLE 80. SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS EMISSIONS OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL ISOMERS FROM AMES, IOWA Emission rate (mg/hr) CV ( ) % Mean Compound Concentration (ng/dscm) cv (%) Mean Dichlorobiphenyl nd Trichlorobiphenyl 1.5 185 0.48 189 Tetrachlorobiphenyl 2.9 63 0.94 64 Penta chlo rob ipheny 1 9.0 87 2.8 80 Hexachlorobiphenyl 5.1 104 1.7 104 Heptachlorobiphenyl 0.6 224 0.2 224 Decachlorobiphenyl 0.6 224 0.2 224 19.4 46 6.1 47 Total Chlorobiphenyl CV denotes the coefficient of variation and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. 145 �TABLE 81. SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS EMISSIONS OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS, DIBENZO-£-DIOXINS, AND DIBENZOFURANS FROM CHICAGO NW Concentration (ng/dscm) cv (%) Mean Compound Emission rate (mg/hr) cv (%) Mean Dichlorobiphenyl 17.3 114 4.4 113 Trichlorobiphenyl 16.0 109 4.1 108 Tetrachlorobiphenyl 6.2 96 1.6 95 Pentachlorobiphenyl 2.6 68 1.6 67 Total chlorobiphenyl 42.1 105 10.7 104 Total trichlorodibenzo-j>-dioxins 13 16 1.1 19 300 15 Total trichlorodibenzofurans Total tetrachlorodibenzo-p_-dioxins 6.3 27 11 14 0.53 15 Total tetrachlorodibenzofurans 90 7 7.6 5 Total hexachlorodibenzo-£-dioxins 16 25 1.4 25 Total hexachlorodibenzofurans 62 33 5.3 32 Total heptachlorodibenzo-£-dioxins 7.6 4 0.65 4 Total heptachlorodibenzofurans 7.5 6 0.64 5 Octachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 2.5 12 0.22 12 Octachlorodibenzofuran 0.60 22 0.05 21 * CV denotes the coefficient of variation and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. 146 �REFERENCES 1. Lucas, R. M., D. K. Melroy, "A Survey Design for Refuse and Coal Combustion Process," from Research Triangle Park to EPA/EED/OTS/Washington, DC, EPA Contract No. 68-01-5848, June 1981. 2. TRW Environmental Engineering Division, RTW, Inc., "Pilot Test Program, Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7," from TRW, Inc., to EPA/IERL/ ORD, Research Triangle Park, NC, under EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, April 1980. 3. Bakshi, P. S., T. L. Sarro, D. R. Moore, W. F. Wright, W. P. Kendrick, and B. L. Riley, "Pilot Test Program, Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Boiler No. 2," from TRW Environmental Engineering Division to EPA/ IERL/ORD, Research Triangle Park, NC, under EPA Contract No. 68-022197, June 1980. 4. Federal Register. 41(111), 23060-23090, 1976. 5. Stanley, J. S., C. L. Haile, A. M. Small, and E. P. Olson, "Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Assessing Organic Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources in Exposure Evaluation Division Studies," from Midwest Research Institute to EPA/OPTS/Washington, DC, under Contract No. 68-01-5915, Report No. EAP-560/5-82-014, August 1981. 6. Lustenhouwer, J. W. A., K. Olie, and 0. Hutzinger, "Chlorinated Dibenzo£-dioxins and Related Compounds in Incinerator Effluents: A Review of Measurements and Mechanisms of Formation," Chemosphere, 9, 501, 1980. 7. Richard, J. J., and G. A. Junk, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Effluents from Combustion of Coal/Refuse," Environmental Science and Technology, 15, 1095, 1981. 8. Memorandum from R. Harless, Analytical Chemistry Branch, ETD, IERL/RTP to Dr. A. Dupuy, EPA/Toxicant Analysis Center, "Collaborative Analysis for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p_-dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Combustion Source Extracts," August 10, 1981. 9. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran, Statistical Methods, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1980, 507 pp. 147 �APPENDIX A TRW FIELD TEST REPORT FOR THE AMES MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC SYSTEM. UNIT NO. 7 148 �PILOT TEST PROGRAM AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 7 TRW ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION TRW, INC. 28 April 1980 EPA Contract .68-02-2197 EPA Project Officer: Michael C. Osborne Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 149 �CONTENTS Figures Tables iv 1. Introduction 2. Summary 2.1 Sampling and Analysis 2.2 Process Data 2.3 Continuous Monitoring Data 1-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-23 3. System Description 3.1 Boiler Description ..... 3.2 Electrostatic Precipitator 3-1 3-1 3-12 i 4. Sampling Locations. . 4-1 5. Sampling 5.1 Gas Sampling . 5.2 Solid Sampling 5.3 Liquid Sampling -. . 5.4 Hi Volume Sampler 5.5 Quality Assurance 5.6 Sampling Train Background 5.7 Sample Recovery 5.8 Problems Encountered During Recovery 5-1 5-1 5-5 5-5 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-8 5-8 6. Calibration 6.1 Method Five Calibration Data 6.2 Instrument Calibration 6-1 6-1 6-3 7. Technical Problems and Recommendations 7.1 Problems 7.2 Recommendations 7-1 7-1 7-1 Appendices A. B. C. D. Continuous Monitoring Data Field Data Sheets Solid and Liquid Sampling Schedule. Process Data Sheets It 150 , •. A-l B-l C-l D-l �FIGURES Number 2-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 6-1 Page Oxygen in the gas before and after the air preheater. . . . 2-31 Layout of plant site 3-2 Flow diagram for unit #7 at Ames Municipal power(piant. . . 3-4 Schematic of Ames Municipal power plant boiler 17 3-7 Solid waste recovery system 3-11 Unit #7 flow diagram and measurement locations 4-2 Cross section of stack showing traverse point locations . . 4-3 Inlet duct - showing port locations 4-4 Inlet traverse point locations 4-5 ESP inlet sampling train 5-2 Stack sampling train 5-3 EPA Method 5 particulate sampling train 5-4 Ambient air sampler , 5-7 Calibration equipment set-up procedures 6-4 iii 151 �TABLES Number 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-7 2-8 2-9 3-1 Daily Organic Sampling Summary Daily Data Summaries 24 Hour Process Data for the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 Test Duration Process Data for the Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 Daily Production and Consumption at Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 Heat Content of Fuels Used at the Ames Municipal Power Plant During Sampling Period Continuous Monitoring Data Excess Air Readings Air Preheater Continuous Monitoring Data Boiler Design Data 3-2 Design Specification for Raymond Bowl Pulverizers 3-3 3-4 Fan Design Performance 3-8 Predicted Performance Characteristics of Unit #7 at Ames Municipal Power Plant 3-9 Performance Characteristics of the American Standard ESP. . 3-13 Sampling Locations 4-1 2-4 2-5 2-6 3-5 4-1 1v 152 2-2 2-12 2-14 2-17 2-24 2-25 2-27 2-29 2-30 3-3 3-5 �1. INTRODUCTION This document describes the sampling and monitoring activities at the Ames Municipal Power Plant, boiler unit No. 7. The sampling and field measurement work performed was part of an overall pilot scale test program sponsored by the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances in cooperation with the Office of Research and Development, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The ultimate objective of the pilot scale test program is to develop an optimum sampling and analysis protocol to characterize polychlorinated organic compounds which may be emitted in trace quantities through conventional combustion of fossil fuels and refuse. The genesis of the program is an industrial study by Dow Chemical Company and two groups of European investigators reporting emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), dibenzofurans (PCDF) and biphenyls (PCB) from stationary conventional combustion sources. The immediate objective of the sampling and field measurements program (for a fossil-fuel 17% RDF-fired utility boiler) is the specification of procedures and equipment to obtain sufficient multimedia samples for the subsequent analytical protocol, and to satisfy the program statistical design requirements. In this respect, the TRW Environmental Engineering Division of TRW, Inc., was one of three contractors participating in the overall EPA program. These contractors, their key individuals and respective roles are: 1. Research Triangle Institute Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Statistical design of the overall test program Mr. R. M. Lucas, Task Manager 2. TRW Environmental Engineering Division, TRW, Inc. Redondo Beach, California Acquisition of samples and field measurements Mr. B. J. Matthews, Project Manager 3. Midwest Research Institute Kansas City, Missouri Laboratory analysis of all field samples Dr. C. L. Haile, Task Manager 1-1 153 �The sampling was oriented toward acquiring multimedia samples for organic compound analysis by Midwest Research Institute (MRI). Compounds of particular interest included: i Benzo [a] pyrene Chrysene Pyrene Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene Fluoranthene Benzo [g_5h.»l] perylene Phenanthene Anthracene In addition, MRI is to make a determination of total organic chlorine emissions from the acquired samples. Potentially, selected samples are to be analyzed for dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and biphenyls. Instrumentation for on-line combustion gas stream monitoring was part of the test program. In addition, utility boiler process information (including RDF data) was also gathered. This information together with the monitoring data were acquired to assist in evaluating and interpreting chemical analysis results. This report contains all the field data for the Ames Municipal Power Plant pilot test program conducted in March 1980. Data provided include the following: • Chlorinated hydrocarbon collection using a modified EPA Method 5 train and Method 5 sampling methodology, • Gas velocities using EPA Method 2, • Continuous monitoring for CO^, CL, and CO and THC, • Particulate collection for inorganic analysis utilizing EPA Method 5. • Process data. The test program followed was described in the Pilot Test Program, Ames Municipal Power Plant, Unit No. 7 site test plan. Deviations from this program are documented and explained in their respective sections of this report. 1-2 154 �2. SUMMARY 2.1 Sampling and Analysis The field test activity took place from February 25, 1980 to March 28, 1980. All required tests were completed and all recovered samples were sent to Southwest Research Institute (SRI)'for analysis. MRI had subcontracted this part of their assignment to SRI. A summary of tests conducted including any significant commentary is presented in Table 2-1. A summary of the reduced data on a daily basis as calculated from the field data sheets is presented in Table 2-2. Data listed are corrected to standard conditions, i.e., 20°C and a barometric pressure of 29.92 inches mercury. Sampling and calibration procedures are described in Sections 4, 5 and 6. Hourly data is provided in the appendices. Appendix A contains continuous monitoring data; Appendix B contains field data; and Appendix C contains the solid and liquid sampling schedule. 2.2 Process Data Process data was monitored on an hourly basis. A summary of the averaged daily process data is provided in Table 2-3. The process data was also averaged for the time duration of actual testing performed. This data is presented in Table 2-4. The process data gathered indicated that the operating conditions fluctuated in patterns related to the amount of electricity generation demand placed on the boiler, and on the type of fuel being burned to meet that demandT~ Overall fluctuation consisted of two components. The first component was the Daily variation - the load peaked in the afternoon and fell a minimum before dawn. The second type of variation was caused by sudden operational changes, which was due to reduced power generation for various reasons such as the buying of cheaper power from a private utility, or the reduction in flow of RDF to the boiler. 2-1 155 �TABLE 2-1. DAILY ORGANIC SAMPLING SUMMARY Date Test 1980 No. Sampling locations 3/2 Inlet North Test started at 1120 and ran for 520 minutes. Low volume collected due to high leak rate at end. Volumes corrected for leak rate. If leak occurred over the entire test period then, at worst case, the results are 50% low. Test quality fair. (Port 13 to be dropped due to absence of flow). Inlet South Test started at 1125 and ran for 520 minutes. Low volume collected trying to stay within 12 hour time limit. Test quality good. (Port 1 to be dropped due to absence of flow.) Outlet Ports 2 and 3 Loss of 3 hours start due to freezing of pumps. Stopped test 360 minutes into test due to freezing of impingers. All of Port 3 traversed and only 1/2 of Port 2 - low volume collected but test quality is good due tp the evenness of flow in stack. Outlet - Ports 1 and 4 Started at 1200, ran for 390 minutes - stopped due to freezing of impingers and equipment - low volume due to stoppage - impingers backed up due to freezing of impinging solutions. Resin in Impingers 1 and 2 also due to freezing. Test quality fair. Hi Volume Sampler Test started at 1115 and off 1939. Continuous monitors Started at 1300 hrs and off at 1930 - lost start time due to gas conditioner being frozen. Unable to maintain heat line temperature due to cold weather and moisture condensing in heat line possibly scrubbing hydrocarbons, hydrocarbon results low. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon fair. Inlet North Dropped port 13 from test. Test started at 0925 and ran for 550 minutes. At 250 minutes nozzle was found to be facing in the wrong direction, reversed nozzle direction continued test. Particulate catch and size distribution will be approximately 25% low. No effect on Battelle trap. Switched to smaller diameter nozzle to maintain vsokinetic flow rate. Test quality for participate fair, for gas good. Inlet SOIR.. Test started at 0945 and ran for 550 minutes. Switched to smaller diameter nozzle to maintain isokinetic flow rate. Test quality good. Dropped port 1 from test. 1 Ul I\J 3/3 Test comments Test quality good. �TABLE 2^1. (Continued) Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/3 Outlet Ports 2 and 3 Test started at 0945 and ran for 480 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1 and 4 Test started at 0945 and ran for 480 minutes. Test quality good. Hi Volume Sampler Started at 1032 ended at 1915. Test quality good. Test comnents Continuous Monitors Started at 0930 ended at 1900. Test quality good except hydroCarbon values being low and hydrocarbon quality fair. Test started at 0905 and ran 417 minutes. At 75 minutes Battelle trap plugged and replaced with new one. At 250 minutes Battelle trap replaced due to leak and points (total of 2) retested. Switched to 10 minutes a point traverse rather than 25 minutes to complete test. All 3 Battelle traps should be composited due to lower volume sampled during 10 minute/ point traverse. Test quality fair - total volume 50% of required. Test started 0900 ran for 550 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 2 and 3 Ports 1 and 4 Test started 0938 ran for 15 minutes. Cancelled due to snow and icy conditions. No samples retained. Hi Volume Sampler ro i co Inlet North Inlet South 3/4 Started at 0930 ended at 1800. Filter covered with snow. Test quality fair due to snow blanket. \ Continuous Monitors Gas conditioner frozen until 1230. Started at 1230 ended at 1800. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon results fair. 3/5 Inlet North Test started 0900 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0900 and ran for 550 minutes. Test quality good. �TABLE 2-1. (Continued) Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/5 Outlet - All Points Cancelled per instructions of EPA until 3/13/80. Hi Volume Sampler Test Comments Started at 1025 ended at 1940. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Started at 0945 ended at 1150 am. Stopped due to freeze up of lines:Test quality good for data collected. Inlet North Test started at 0850 and ran for 770 minutes. At 11 minutes Into test Battelle trap plugged and was replaced. Test restarted from beginning. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0840 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Hi Volume Sampler 3/6 Test started at 0852 and ended at 2220 Hrs, Test quality good,. Continuous Monitors Only inlet tested due to outlet freeze up. Test started at 1230 and ended 2045. Two hours late start and shut down 2 hours early to overlap sampling time. Test quality good. Hydrocarbons still fair. V3 3/7 Inlet North Test started at 0930 and ran for 770 minutes. Due to increased amount of water collected, impingers needed changing and during changeout resin flowed into first impinger. Trap replaced and test resumed. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0850 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Hi Volume Sampler Test started at 1038 and ended at 2225. Construction welding going on nearby. Test quality expected to be good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 1315 hrs and shut down at 2100 hours. Overlap of Inlet test. Test quality good. Hydrocarbons fair. �TABLE 2-1. (Continued) Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/8 Inlet North Test started at 0855 and ran for 770 minutes. 10 minute power failure no problems caused by this. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started 0840 and ran for 770 minutes. 30 minute power failure on this side - no problems. Probe broken at end of test during removal from port. Approximately 2% of probe catch lost. Test quality good. HI Volume Sampler Test started at 1335 and ended at 2330. Test quality good. Test Comments Continuous Monitors Test started at 1215 and ended 2030 hrs. Data not taken at inlet during 1300 hrs. to 1400 hours due to change out of probe filters. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. Test started at 0900 and ran for 770 minutes. Point 8D was run for 70 minutes to correct sampling time lost on point 11A not being sampled after nozzle change. Test quality good. Test started at 0830 and ran for 770 minutes. Changed to larger nozzle to maintain 1sok1net1c flow rate. Due to severe leak, that occurred during last portion of test, this test 1s questionable. HI Volume Sampler 8 Inlet North Inlet South 3/9 Test started at 0908 and ended at 2320 hrs. Test quality good. IM cn Test started at 1245 and ended at 2320 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. 3/10 Inlet North Test started at 0825 and ran for 140 minutes. Probe found to be broken and test restarted, no samples retained. Restarted at 1155 ran until 1745. Test stopped, with only 1/2 the duct traversed, due to cold, freeze ups and power failures. Resin, cyclone, filter, 1st impinger saved. Test quality fair. Inlet South Test started at 0810 ran for 515 minutes. Power failures and freeze ups happening cancelled test with the North side. No solutions retained from South due to H20z backup Into all impingers - resin, cyclone and filters retained. Test quality fair. �TABLE 2^1, (Continued) Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/10 Hi Volume Sampler Test Comments Test started at 1050 and ended at 2235 hrs. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 1130 am and ended at 1730 hours. Stopped with inlet. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon fair. Test started at 0825 and ran 770 minutes. Battelle trap replaced at 220 minutes. 2nd Battelle trap resin broke through and was replaced. 3 Battelle traps used. Test quality good. Test started at 0830 and ran for 770 minutes. Filter clogged and replaced. Test quality good. Hi Volume Sampler 10 Inlet North Inlet South 3/11 Test started at 0920 and ended at 2375 hrs. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 1200 and ended at 2030 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon fair. o\ ro o i o> 11 QA Test Test cancelled after 240 minutes - a leak was found at one of the probe tips-unable to repair and no sample had been drawn through the train. Hi Volume Sampler 3/12 Test started at 0955 stopped at 1955. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 0830 stopped at 1430 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon fair. 3/13 12 Inlet North Test started at 0915 and ran for 770 minutes. Power failures occurredno effect on test. Filter changed due to clogging. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0835 and ran for 770 minutes. Power failure occurred no effect on test. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 1210 and ran for 560 minutes. Lost startup due to freezing of equipment and traps - thawing took 1-2 hours. Test quality good. �TABLE 2-1. (Continued) Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/13 Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 1125 and ran for 296 minutes. Stopped due to continual freezing of train components. One port completely traversed. Only 16 minutes of the second. Test quality - fair to poor. H1 Volume Sampler Test started at 0950 and ended 0130. Test quality good. 12 Test Comments Continuous Monitors Test started at 1145 and ended at 1845 hours. Test quality good. Hydrocarbons fair. 3/14 13 Inlet North Test started 0845 and ran for 770 minutes. Filter clogged and was replaced. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0840 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 0945 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 1010 and ran for 560 minutes. Probe broken during port change - replaced and test continued. Test quality good. Hi Volume Sampler Test started at 0905 and ended at 2355 hrs. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 0900 and ended at 2045 hrs. No data from 1330 to 1515 hrs due to feeeze up. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon fair. 3/15 14 Inlet-North Test started at 0909 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0905 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 0958 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 1025 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. HI Volume Sampler Test started at 0850 and ended at 2341 hrs. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 0845 and ended at 2000 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. �TABLE 2-1. (Continued) Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/17 Inlet North Test started at 0849 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0900 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 1000 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 1010 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. HI Volume Sampler Test started at 0926 and ended at 0020 hrs. Test quality good. 15 Test Comments Continuous Monitors Test started at 1030 and ended 2015 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. Test started at 0900 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Test started at 0930 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 0940 and ran for 560 minutes. Probe broke during port change - switched to 5 ft glass probe to traverse first 6 points of second part. After 10 ft probe of ports 2 and 3 had been recovered and cleaned, it was sent to the stack to finish remaining 2 points of ports 1 and 4. Test quality good. HI Volume Sampler ro oo Test started at 0939 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 16 Inlet North Inlet South 3/18 Test started at 1033 and ended 0200 hours. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 0845 and ended at 1945 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. 3/19 17 Inlet North Test started at 0859 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Inlet South Test started at 0843 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 0945 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. �TABLE 2-1. Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/19 Outlet Ports 1 & 4 17 H1 Volume Sampler (Continued) Test Conments Test started at 0940 and ran for 560 minutes. Test started with 5 foot probe until new 10 ft arrived. Finished Test with 10 ft probe. Test quality good. Test started at 1006 and ended at 0120 hrs. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 0845 and ended at 1915. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. Test started at 0905 and ran for 770 minutes. Filter clogged and was replaced. Test quality good. Test started at 0914 and ran for 770 minutes. At 1850 hrs. Battelle trap froze and was thawed with warm water. Leak developed in Teflon heat line • retarded leak rate with Teflon tape but leak was still 0.11 cfm. At 2250 Battelle trap froze up and was replaced. It was later found that the filter had separated from the housing and participate had gotten down to the Battelle first. Both filter and trap were replaced and points were retraversed. Test quality good.to fair. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 1000 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 0930 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality good. HI Volume Sampler 18 Inlet-North Inlet South 3/20 Test started at 1117 and ended at 0540 hrs. Test quality good. ro i <o Continuous Monitors Test started at 1130 and ended at 2030 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. 3/22 19 Inlet North Test started at 0947 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality is good. Inlet South Test started at 1001 and ran for 770 minutes. replaced. Test quality is good. Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 1000 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality is good. Filter clogged and was �TABLE 2-1. Date Test 1980 No. (Continued) Test Comments Sampling Locations 19 Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 1030 and ran for 560 minutes. Test quality is good. Hi Volume Sampler 3/22 Test started at 1422 and ended at 0415 hrs. Test quality is good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 1145 and ended 2115 hrs. CO drift problems. CO taken off line until 1445 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. Test started at 0927 and ran for 990 minutes, lower plant out put. Increased time due to Test started at 0935 and ran for 990 minutes lower plant output. Test quality good. Increased time due to Outlet Ports 2 & 3 Test started at 1005 and ran for 640 minutes, Increased time due to lower plant output. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1 & 4 Test started at 1027 and ran for 640 minutes. Increased time due to lower plant output. Impinger 3 backed up into impinger 2 - not saved. Test quality good. Hi Volume Sampler Test started at 1034 and ended at 0350. Test quality good. Continuous Monitor 20 Inlet North Inlet South 3/23 Test started at 1100 and ended at 0800 hrs. Electronic source balancing problem on CO analyzer. Analyzer (CO) taken off line. No outlet data gas conditioner not in cycle mode. Test quality good for inlet, hydrocarbon data fair. . _. Blank Blank test started at 1200 and ran for 60 minutes at temperature. quality good. Outlet Test started at 1110 and ran for 192 minutes. Test quality good. Hi Volume Sampler Off line Continuous Monitors Test started at 1030 and ended at 1530 hrs. Outlet only for inorganic sampling. No CO on line. Test quality good hydrocarbon data fair. ro 3/24 21 - QA Test to outlet stream. Test quality good. Test �TABLE 2-1. (Continued) Date Test 1980 No. Sampling Locations 3/25 Inlet North and South - QA Test Test started. No solids or liquids taken for QA. QA test only. Test scrubbed, no samples saved because nozzle was in wrong direction and test would not be duplicate. Outlet Ports 1,2, 3 and 4 Test started at 1120 and ran for 192 minutes. Test quality good. 22 Test Comments Continuous Monitors Test started at 1115 and ended at 2106 hrs. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. Hi Volume Sampler 3/26 23 Test started at 1030 and ended at 2320 hrs. Filter covered with coal dust. Test quality fair. Inlet North QA test started at 1510 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Inlet South QA test started at 1515 and ran for 770 minutes. Test quality good. Outlet Ports 1,2, 3 and 4 Test started at 0922 and ran for 192 minutes. Test quality good. Continuous Monitors Test started at 1100 and ended at 0830 hrs. No outlet data due to failure of gas conditioner to switch to outlet stream. Test quality good. Hydrocarbon data fair. �TABLE 2-2. DAILY DATA SUMMARIES Gas Composition Sample Volume Data (1930) 3-2 Test No. 1 Sampling Location ""« ES ouu. £ 3-3 2 North* ""«' Out,e, 3-4 3 £$ SouthD «g '- ££ Ou,.e, 3-6 4 5 Inlet North South 0,,,,e, CT> ro i ro 3-7 6 Ou,,e, 3-8 7 s^ln Oullet 3-9 ">"« South' £$ feu.. 3-10 9 10 11 9.95 7.15 6.32 624 29.01 2935 29.30 29.31 33.55 28.09 2? 59 2479 132673.22 116016.35 141428.G2 154523.14 7654988 70423.17 86285.62 95704.38 334.31 311.78 320.93 30992 4.4S 4.48 6.34 6.34 12.79 12.79 11.31 11.31 1800 13.00 1500 1500 -^2 <2 <2 <2 6383 8901 8620 9399 173.544 126.934 212.049 101.519 324.358 307.313 4.92 3.60 6.01 288 9.19 870 839 8.59 781 7.97 7.45 7.48 29.34 29.32 2941 29.39 2931 29.31 37.78 4?.94 46.61 37.16 26.00 26.10 149381.62 169792.93 184280.23 146887.30 162012.17 162637.08 85761.77 95782.34 108410.17 86004.68 94569.98 90037.93 351.55 37336 234.83 369.90 3-12.38 33694 4.38 4.33 4.33 433 5.87 5.87 13.80 13.80 1380 13.80 12.44 12.44 12.00 12.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 9573 6098 107 14 9633 9033 184.208 252.780 5.22 7.16 7.43 9.48 2956 29.30 4S.10 43.72 173312.05 9C6B4.71 172866.82 96380.09 Test Scru 3bod Test Scrut>bed 370.46 352.55 4.43 4.43 14.41 14.41 17.00 17.00 <2 <2 95.59 92.25 256.375 246.727 7.28 6.99 8.14 9.03 29.49 29.38 43.20 41.09 97049.64 17080285 162455.25 92751.96 Test Scrul )bed Test Scrutibed 361.09 349.23 4.41 441 14.56 14.5G 18.00 18.00 <2 <? 9143 104.10 367.648 323.174 10.41 9.15 893 9.72 29.28 29.18 42.92 43.48 169692 43 102970.06 9729597 171937.31 Mot Test cd Not Test ed 363.83 347.46 4.35 4.35 13.79 13.79 1800 1800 <2 <2 9728 90.54 363.684 365.424 1044 10.35 18.32 9.18 28.14 29.27 43.61 44.01 17242559 8743205 173994.36 99965.91 Not Tesi ed Not lest >xl 351.00 335.86 4.59 4.59 13.92 13.92 16.00 16.00 <2 <2 10593 99.65 351.419 333.613 995 9.45 956 9.75 29.19 29.16 3962 3928 85266.27 156073.06 155327.60 86179.64 Not Tested Not Test cd 377.55 359.83 4.79 4.79 1360 1360 2800 28.00 <2 <2 1C3M 105.53 74.033 234.807 121.924 140223 2.10 8.35 3.45 397 7.79 8.05 778 8.02 29.19 29.16 29.20 2917 3027 30.38 36.43 27.38 119C9800 7132576 120108.29 67223.13 144173.75 82977.48 108274.04 64436.72 Not Tcsi od Not Tested 31683 364.73 344.23 315.88 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 2500 25.00 25.00 25.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 95.60 9851 106.23 B0.56J 130811 193613 3.70 548 859 17.13 2931 28.25 45.23 43.77 17885320 103205.95 17304512 92980.29 Not Tcsi ed Not Test ed 352.C9 33065 3.7 3.7 139 13.9 25.00 2500 <2 <2 8884 £958 39-5091 3fa300C 11.16 1085 6.98 8.40 29.49 29.iO 45.63 44.20 18061964 01867.66 174783.47 99143.40 No! Tesi i:d Not Test ed 37475 356.59 4.7 47 13.5 13.5 22.00 22.00 <2 <2 97 17 10529 •*• 361.78 340.61 339.44 315.08 3.34 3.34 5.17 5.17 1556 15.56 13.97 13.&7 21 00 21.00 1800 1800 <2 <2 <2 <2 102 3S 10?.23 7? 72 91.73 «J N s :;f Out* 3-13 5.80 7.43 606 688 £« '-• ££ Out,e, 3 12 204.617 262.517 214098 243024 «*« """ ££ Ou,,et 3-11 Velocity «ps 2l3 NorthF 8 """ Ouu, S i £«" Gas Flow dscfm Isokinelics X Test Scrubbed Test Scrubbed Not Tested Not 1 esled JM 12 THC ppm Molecular Weight £\ """ CO ppm Moisture % £« ""« s^ii; CO? X M3 >2< ""*< £S $ SCF »3! Outlet 35 Stack Temp °F Ga« Flow acfm 350.455 369 B24 158.9M 3.~,5 290 9.92 10.47 4.50 10.35 8.63 8.54 7.10 937 2953 2954 29.56 29.28 42.45 41.41 2585 2658 163079.96 164036 17 161102.3'J 165622.22 93473.48 93628.05 9514681 98426.04 �TABLE 2-2. (Continued) Gat Composition Sample Volume Dale (19801 Tetl No. 3-14 Sampling Location 13 SCF M3 374.335 352.110 367.772 351.364 10.60 ""« i% ou,,., ST.!: 276.767 268.37 31913 307.00 — 555 ou,,., s^ """ £2 <*«•• 2*3 3-15 3-17 3-18 14 15 16 — ££ o- ffi 3-19 17 Inlet nlet Outlet 3 20 18 3-22 19 to North Eoulh «»» — ££ *- % «- £* OutM 3-23 20 JM ,„, , '"'" North Scum out* £« 3-24 21 Outlal 3-25 22 Intel ""* South 1.2.38.4 — ££i Outlet 3-26 23 ">"• ££ Oiillrl A 8 C 0 E F G H 1 J K L 1.2.3&4 1.2.3&4 Moisture % Molecular Weight Gn Velocity Ipt Gai Flow acini Flow dscfm " 43.48 41.49 24.34 24.84 171904.76 164048.73 151720.16 154819.20 94404.58 91011.47 83869.92 86429.91 Stack Temp 02 « CO? % CO ppm THC ppm Isokineties \ 38468 375.70 365.94 358.75 3.70 14.81 14.81 13.18 13.18 2800 28.00 30.00 30.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 101.27 10720 9980 96.74 68088.12 67307.85 75394.82 76705.48 368.23 357.65 319.42 356.65 6.31 6.31 12.59 12.59 10.G7 10.67 2200 22.00 19.00 19.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 102.11 10867 10405 9683 14.40 14.40 2200 2200 22.00 2200 <2 <2 <2 <2 10685 9909 107.18 95.48 23.00 2300 2400 24.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 10017 10807 9982 93.81 <2 <2 <2 <2 10721 97.16 10103 9262 OF 9.67 9.70 9.60 9.50 2931 7.83 7.60 9.04 8.69 814 7.68 7.88 7.83 29.27 2832 2909 29.10 30.85 2996 20.00 2131 121975.44 118444.95 12466269 132801.77 359800 390.474 406855 391.B36 10.19 11.06 11.52 11.10 8.83 8.17 8.71 8.43 29.35 2944 29.21 29.25 41.89 42.84 26.01 2727 1G'j622.66 169381.86 162117.20 169966.05 91774.43 9721069 93334.49 98183.52 371.23 348.41 354.56 34531 3.73 373 543 543 1200 309.159 3/1 .197 392.686 353.252 10.45 9.36 8.73 8.62 9.09 29.29 29.37 29.24 29.18 ! 43.06 41.89 27.12 2560 170259.70 165639.94 169022.81 159531.72 92573.11 93691.77 96719.62 91103.75 381.96 35496 360.06 357.50 3.82 14.39 382 1439 5.42 5.42 1300 41.87 4342 26.75 26.92 165560.57 171695.37 166699.92 167752.85 88914.41 95341.29 9108057 94194.67 36028 361.53 373.12 365.94 9.97 10.42 9.95 1052 11.12 1000 29.30 29.14 29. IS 12.90 13.00 14.40 1440 530 5.30 13.00 13.00 24.00 7400 26.00 2600 350.96 342.65 338.12 312.81 3.80 3.80 6.00 6.00 13.80 13.80 12.50 12.50 22.00 22.00 17.00 17.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 92.21 10431 9509 97.71 94207.94 90821.39 95997 17 9954908 348.64 34209 340.00 33060 360 300 14.70 14.20 12.70 12.70 38.00 38.00 3800 38.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 105.17 85.42 104 10 9903 C3470.17 58005.38 58763 10 74046.56 364.41 355.41 354.13 338.13 6.00 6.00 9.70 9.70 1260 L 12.60 10.00 10.00 <2 <2 <2 <2 10354 11599 11045 10266 365.47 5.4 132 <2 10372 13.2 <2 101.06 <2 <2 <2 10524 11843 106.64 968 10.60 10.21 10.28 8.59 29.29 29.37 29.03 29.24 347.892 368079 356.204 388.522 985 10.42 10.09 11.00 8.31 7.86 7.79 8.44 29.33 2939 29.29 29.21 42.13 42.11 74.63 2G.91 1665/0.31 166487.56 153481.74 18772585 94786.10 96189.05 90622.79 97760.61 363.462 348597 402.144 401.160 10.29 29.36 4165 2941 11.39 11.36 B.54 8.07 8.61 8.23 29.19 29.24 33.63 26.26 26.81 164688.40 156677.09 163656.04 167077.26 33G.525 330.733 301.612 368.976 9.53 9.37 8.54 12.74 973 10.17 5.87 2926 28.69 28.82 2928 28.65 27.28 16.63 19.70 113282.76 107773.49 103679 07 122765.69 8.16 837 837 360 9.90 1044 9.B7 5.31 5.31 3.60 349.709 368.751 374.299 360578 8.68 370 5.30 5.30 130.420 3.69 9.53 29.15 25.76 Blank H un Blank R llll 160547.70 90172.96 122.788 3.48 9.92 2910 24.58 153166.31 8/02b.45 356.40 5.4 326 820 344.976 138673 926 977 9.17 9.09 37.23 37.40 ?6.42 1472C0.78 147872.05 16467985 81800.81 8073346 93244.39 380.80 382.45 364.38 6.00 1260 926 29.13 29.14 20,24 600 3.03 12.60 13.70 Test Scru •bed With.312no»le With .250 nozzle changed to maintain flow With.312nozzle With .237 nozzle changed In maintain (low No sampl3 ietaim.il XViih .no nozzle Wuh .310 nozzle changed 10 maintain How With .240 nozzle With .309 nozzle changed to maintain flow Hesulls questionable dlM> lo l"dteak'ate Teu. .miti'ied due to cold weather. Sample laved Monitor not woiking 4.80 �TABLE 2-3. 24 HOUR PROCESS DATA FOR THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 3-2-80 Date Mean 3-3-80 Mean a Mean a Mean o Mean o Mean 5.19 4.93 31.9 29.72 4.76 4.44 31.7 28.88 5.55 5.30 30.5 28.24 7.51 7.21 27.85 25.66 6.01 5.79 252.2 36.49 268.8 284.87 56.59 289.58 48.47 279.79 56.73 274.8 74.9 Steam pressure (psig) 857.7 4.16 852.71 4.66 850.63 5.95 848.54 5.61 847.33 7.22 Steam temperature (°F) 899.63 8.53 890.1 891.46 14.63 895.6 10.97 895.33 9.89 Feedwater flow rate (1000's Ibs/hr) 261.17 37.94 278.38 71.65 290.79 52.98 300.42 46.6 291.7 54.23 Feedwater temperature (OF) 366* 7.38* 380.81 2.14 389.7 7.63 382.8 17.36 377.5 Fuel feed rate 1 (1000's Ibs/hr) 2 31.7 32.2 7.07 31.93 31.69 31.03 31.81 5.37 32.45 33.53 6.09 35.38 32.15 Fuel oil (gallons/hr) 4.6 OO Excess air X 22 3-9-80 o 31.58 29.25 Steam flow rate (1000's Ibs/hr) ro a 3-8-80 30.1 7.31 32.04* 0.98* Gross Met Mean 3-7-80 3-6-60 30.19* 2.8* 26.25* 1.51* MU o 3-5-80 3-4-80 71.48 24.01 7.32 2.1 22.08 8.28 20.33 2.35 20.17 3.92 22.21 o5.31 5.12 239.33 61.67 178 46.7 850.21 5.21 851.04 6.08 854 12.3 891.8 893 12.93 888 15.5 286.33 76.82 251.4 62.96 181 59.3 21.03 378.75 26.6 360.2 25.81 338 24.0 1.53 31.65 33.6 32.03* 28.17 1.17* 24.8 23.7 5.75 3.75 2.5 2.9 4.6 Mean 20.9 18.9 15.19 8.23 6.3 25.25 6.25 5.4 4.2 11.2 25.48 10.9 34 12.6 44 1.6 ID fans amps 46.42 1.1 45.75 2.15 46.04 1.76 46.75 1.11 46.2 1.6 46.46 2.41 45 1.72 ID fans pressure (psig) 5.15 O.B9 5.67 1.40 6.17 1.14 6.09 1.04 6.08 0.89 6.06 1.4 5.21 1.07 4.2 0.76 FD fans amps 30.29 1.12 29.91 1.79 29.54 1.41 30.46 1.35 30.3 1.5 30.67 1.79 29.44 0.97 28 1.5 FO fans pressure (psig) 4.26 0.77 3.94 1.13 4.32 0.78 4.32 1.06 4.5 1.3 4.54 1.41 3.54 1.03 3.1 1.05 Furnace draft (psig) 0.60 0.20 0.59 0.18 0.59 0.15 0.62 0.15 0.6 0.13 0.63 0.12 0.53 0.10 0.59 0.092 Flue gas temp (°F) Boiler exit ESP inlet 9.78* 647* 318.5* 6.69* 688* 17.51* 687* 341* 9.19* 3.16* 695* 6.67* 345.5* 1.58* 688* 340* 6.3* 0* 699* 342* 3.94* 4.22* 662* 327* 10.33* 8.23* 629* 305* 20.2* 21.2* Ambient temperature (OF) 16.06 7.58 27.39* 10.39* 24.08 6.81 7.63 5.22 19.79 9.19 24.58 4.29 28.17 4.99 37 7.5 Ambient pressure Inches Hg 29.34 0.18 28.89* 0.11* 28.88* 0.06* Z9.17 0.08 29.04 0.1 28.97 0.048 29.01 0.06 * Hot basted on 24 hour readings 1 2 Based on tachometer type gauge Based on weight type gauge 28.89 0.097 (Continued) �TABLE 2-3. 3-10-80 Date Mean o 3-11-80 Hean . o (Continued) 3-13-BO 3-12-80 Hean o Hean o 3-14-60 Mean a 3-15-80 Mean o 3-18-80 3-17-80 Mean o Mean o 29.1 26.7 8.77 S.43 30.8 28.0 6.10 6.20 31.2 27.1 6.26 7.99 31.2 28.3 6.11 6.16 30.5 28.0 6.25 6.01 21.7 19.6 5.95 5.68 29.5 27.2 7.74 7.58 31.8 29.3 3.84 3. 65 Steaa flow rate (1000's Ibs/hr) 254 80.2 277 62.8 255 94.0 268 82.2 270 62.8 186 55.06 259 76.1 283 40.0 Stead pressure (pslg) 853 9.1 ass 6.24 855 5.8 853 8.6 852 7.0 850 8.6 850 5.3 850 6.3 . Stea« temperature (°f ) 892 11.5 894 11.2 893 11.0 893 12.2 894 12.5 888 11.1 892 9.4 890 16.2 Feedwater flow rate (1000's Ibs/hr) 266 83.1 277 78.5 279 80.2 286 71.0 281 61.3 194 54.0 268 74.5 295 38.1 Feedwater temperature (OF) 362 34.9 372 23.6 370 25.2 371 23.4 371 21.8 330 69.4 367 26.3 375 11.7 Fuel feed rate 1 (1000's Ibs/hr) 2 28.8 31.2 9.03 29.1 30.3 7.08 30.5 31.0 7.13 31.9 33.4 9.81 30.4 30.7 6.64 24.2 24.0 6.6 30.9 31.2 7.23 32.0 31.6 3.84 Fuel oil (gallons/hr) 4.17 Excess air I 24 12.9 20 5.1 20 5.9 23 9.8 24 11.3 39 12.5 26 13.3 21 3.6 ID fans i«ps 45 2.5 46 3.1 46 1.8 46 1.5 45 1.5 42 4.0 46 1.6 46 0.98 5.8 0.77 MU Gross Net 11.25 2.08 12.08 37.9 3.75 2.92 2.50 ID fans pressure (pslg) 5.4 1.32 6.0 1.18 6.2 1.20 6.0 0.91 5.9 1.01 4.3 0.81 5.0 1.00 FD fans amps 30 1.3 30 1.1 28 6.2 30 1.5 29 1.5 28 1.4 30 1.6 30 1.0 FD fans pressure 4.0 1.18 4.6 1.12 4.4 1.46 4.2 1.20 3.7 1.12 3.0 1.00 4.1 1.09 4.1 0.97 Furnace drift (pslg) 0.60 0.036 0.58 0.024 0.61 0.042 0.63 0.024 0?62 0.044 0.74 0.092 0.59 0.074 0.59 0.1 Flue gas te»p (°F) Boiler exit ESP Inlet 685* 340* 5.3* 0* 664* 323* 37.3* 27.1* 675* 327* 31.1* 14.6* 686* 324* 37.5* 20.1* 669* 326* 30.2* 16.0* 625* 295* 27.3* 20.2* 669* 319* 48.9* 21.3* 676* 326* 24.0* 9.5* Ambient temperature 27 7.5 25 7.9 30 1.6 28 2.6 37 12.6 51 11.2 34 4.9 49 12.8 Ambient pressure inches Hg 28.91 0.195 29.14 0.061 28.88 0.08 28.89 0.13 29.11 0.02 28.98 0.10 29.09 0.04 29.06 (Continued) (psig) 0.07 �TABLE 2-3. Date 3-19-80 Mean a 3-20-80 Mean o (Continued) 3-22-80 Mean a 3-23-80 Mean o 3-25-BO 3-24.80 Mean o Mean o 3-26-80 Mean a 31.0 27.2 5.01 6.96 30.6 26.8 5.88 7.68 29.4 27.1 5.16 4.95 18.1 16.2 1.98 1.80 29.7 27.4 7.77 7.55 29.5 27.2 7.54 7.21 30.5* 27.7* 6.17* 6.29* Steam flow rate (1000's Ibs/hr) 277 52.1 273 59.8 260 51.3 153 16.2 264 73.5 262 71.9 258 79.1 Steam pressure (psig) 853 7.0 851 5.0 853 7.4 852 5.7 858 4.9 852 4.8 854 4.4 Steam temperature (°F) 888 12.1 891 12.3 891 11.8 884 10.0 891 11.2 892 10.7 890 16.6 Feed water flow rate (1000's Ibs/hr) 287 50.6 222 US. 4 270 50.5 162 17.8 273 72.5 272 71.4 283 61.6 Feedwater temperature 375 16.5 372 16.8 365 18.9 325 7.1 367 25.4 364 27.6 369 20.9 Fuel feed rate 1 (1000's Ibs/hr) 2 31.1 31.4 5.74 33.6 34.4 7.06 31.3 31.1 8.32 20.8 20.4 1.71 32.3 32.8 8.26 31.8 31.8 7.66 29.6 31.9 7.16 Fuel oil (gallons/hr) 4.17 Excess air t 20 5.9 27 7.7 22 3.8 42 11.0 25 10.8 27 14.3 22 4.8 10 fans amps 45 1.3 46 1.8 45 1.7 42 0.7 46 2.2 46 1.6 45 1.3 ID fans pressure (psig) 5.7 0.85 5.9 0.9 5.3 0.9 3.8 0.22 6.1* 0.27* 5.7 1.14 5.6 1.24 FO fans amps 29 1.5 29 6.4 29 1.5 27 0.6 29 1.7 30 1.3 29 1.5 3.9 1.37 HU Gross Net 33.33 26.67 20.4 1.67 28.33 20.4 FD fans pressure (psig) 3.9 1.18 4.8 1.32 4.1 0.99 2.3 0.3 4.1 0.92 4.2 0.84 Furnace draft (psig) 0.6 0.10 0.6 0.09 0.59 0.1 0.59 0.057 0.53 0.07 0.57* 0.11* 0.53 0.09 Flue gas tenp (°F) Boiler exit ESP inlet 666* 328* 30.2* 15.9* 681* 324* 32.8* 12.7* 659* 320* 30.4* 12.2* 599* 280* 3.9* 0* 660* 322* 36.1* 23.1* 670* 323* 31.6* 2.03* 664 315 37.1 16.6 Anblent temperature (OF) 56 9.3 44 9.2 04 5.9 37 1.6 36 1.0 38 6.3 40 4.1 Ambient pressure inches Hg 28.81 0.09 28.92 0.085 29.04 0.134 28.97 0.04 29.04 0.08 29.17 0.024 29.17 0.05 �TABLE 2-4. TEST DURATION PROCESS DATA FOR THE AMES MUNICPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Date 3-2-60 Hean 3-3-80 a Hean 3-4-80 a 3-5-80 a Mean 3-6-80 o 3-8-80 3-7-80 o 0800 to 2300 Hean o 0800 to 2300 Hean o 0800 to 2300 1100 MM 31 NS 2.31 34.8 32.3 0.3 0.3 35.2 32.7 0.3 0.2 35.0 32.6 0.2 0.2 34.6 32.2 0.8 0.8 35.3 32.8 1.0 1.0 31.3 NS 29 2.2 2.1 Steam flow rate 1000' s Ibs/hr 278.2 21.5 315.9 5.2 324 3.0 319.1 3.8 315.4 10.3 322.8 11.9 275.6 23.7 Steam pressure psig 859.5 3.5 852.1 4.0 850.5 3.5 850.5 3.5 848.8 6.2 852.2 4.5 851.9 7.3 Steam temperature F 903.6 6.4 902.5 6.2 900.5 3.5 902.3 6.8 897.8 10.2 895.1 12.1 895.3 12.2 288.5 24.1 Gross Net 0900 to 1900 0900 to 1900 Hean Duration of Test to 2100 0900 to 2000 Hean Feedwater flow rate 1000's Ibs/hr 24.6 321.8 5.8 325.5 9.1 328.1 6.0 325.4 11.7 336.5 Feeduater temperature °F j__ 287.5 13.6 NS NS 381.3 2.3 390.5 6.1 394.1 3.0 388.8 3.4 390.1 6.9 375 7.3 Fuel feed rate (coal) 34.9 2.6 36.2 2.1 34.3 0.8 35.5 3.0 35.4 1.5 35.7 5.5 32.1 1.1 Excess air X 22.1 1.6 18.3 4.7 20.1 1.8 18.7 1.3 18.9 1.4 19.3 1.1 19.5 1.0 ID fans amps 47.3 0.5 46.9 0.8 47.2 0.4 47.2 0.4 47.1 0.6 47.9 0.9 46 0.8 ID fans pressure psig 5.6 0.8 6.6 0.4 7.0 0.2 6.7 0.2 6.5 0.6 6.9 0.3 5.84 0.5 0.6 30.0 0.3 Fuel oil gallons/hr FD fans »nps 30.8 1.2 30.8 0.8 30.4 0.5 30.9 0.7 31.2 0.8 31.8 FD fans pressure psig 4.6 0.8 4.5 0.7 4.7 0.3 4.4 0.6 5.2 0.8 5.3 0.7 4.1 0.7 Furnace draft psig 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.07 0.62 0.11 0.57 0.1 0.65 0.07 0.5 0.07 Flue gas temp (°F) Boiler exit ESP inlet NS NS HS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Ambient temperature °F 23 3.1 NS NS 24.2 3.6 10.9 4.1 25.3 5.4 26.9 3.2 30.1 4.9 0.04 29.05 0.02 Ambient pressure Inches Hg NS - Not Sufficient Data 29.22 0.09 NS NS 28.85 0.03 29.23 0.01 28.98 0.05 28.94 (Continued) �TABLE 2-4. (Continued) Sampling Day 3-10-80 3.9.80 Hean o Hean a 3-11-80 Hean o 3.12-80 Hean o 3.13.80 Hean a 3.14.80 Hean a 3.15.80 Hean o 3-17-80 Hean o 21.0 19.1 5.14 4.94 35.0 32.3 0 0.04 35.0 32.4 0 0.09 35.5 32.8 0.58 0.61 35.0 32.4 0 0.10 34.4 31.8 1.12 1.11 19.6 18.2 6.59 6.56 34.8 32.4 0.24 0.62 Steam flow rate 177 46.6 310 5.0 320 5.5 325 0 320 0 309 14.5 182 66.8 312 3.8 Steam pressure 849 2.3 858 5.6 857 4.7 855 0 855 3.2 855 5.7 851 3.7 853 3.8 Steam temperature 892 12.2 896 11.9 898 8.6 905 5.8 899 5.1 896 12.3 889 12.5 895 8.4 13.8 184 64.2 321 4.8 HH Gross Net Feedwater flow 47.8 323 3.5 330 3.2 332 5.0 330 0 Feedwater temperature 340 21.9 390 0 388 2.6 390 0 385 1.4 384 3.1 336 24.9 383 2.5 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000' s Ibs/hr 25.2 6.04 36.3 2.27 33.8 1.18 35.1 0.25 38.6 2.82 34.4 2.03 23.0 7.34 35.1 1.71 Fuel oil gallons/hr CD 188 319 6.25f NA 4.17f NA 11.25t NA 12.08t NA 2.08t NA 3.75t NA 37.92f HA 2.92f HA Excess air 34 12.1 16 0.8 18 18 18 1.1 17 1.5 41 14.1 18 1.6 41 4.8 46 0.6 ID fans amps 44 1.9 47 0.9 47 1.0 0.7 48 2.9 0.6 47 0.5 46 0.8 0.30 6.4 0.50 4.0 0.80 S.S 0.82 ID fans pressure 4.2 O.B1 6.2 0.25 6.8 0.29 7.4 0.48 6.4 FD fan amps 28 1.8 30 0 30 0.5 30 0 31 0.51 30 0.7 28 1.5 30 0.51 FD fan pressure 2.9 1.01 4.8 0.36 5.3 0.45 6.0 0.71 4.9 0.71 4.2 0.86 2.7 1.00 4.7 0.60 Furnace draft 0.59 0.078 0.61 0.033 0.58 0.024 0.60 0.071 0.63 0.015 0.62 0.047 0.70 0.035 0.58 0.071 Boiler flue gas temp 632* 18.6* 686 5.3 688* 13.7* 690 11.6 709 11.1 685 15.0 618 30.4 695* 35.6* ESP Inlet temperature 309* 16.9* 340 0 340* 0* 335 0 335 1.4 334 1.8 289 21.3 331* 2.2* 4.2 37 4.7 0.048 29.12 0.030 Ambient temperature 42 4.4 22 1.6 31 4.0 30 0.5 30 1.5 46 5.8 10 •Ambient pressure 28.82 0.023 28.96 0.091 29.11 0.053 28.85 0.022 28.92 0.123 29.11 0.018 28.92 Sampling duration 8:30A-10:11P 8:10A-5 :33P 8:25A-10:35P 9:10A-1 :15P 8:35A-9 :47P 8:40A-10:55P B:49A- 10:25P 9:05A- 10:06P (rontlnued) . �TABLE 2-4. Sampling Day 3-18-80 Mean HU Gross Net Steam flow rate a 3-19-80 Mean 0 (Continued) 3-20-flO Mean 3-22-80 a Hean 0 3-23-80 Hean 34.0 31.4 1.90 1.91 33.0 30.4 4.30 4.15 31.8 28.8 5.45 5.42 29.4 26.9 6.93 6.66 18.5 16.6 307 19.5 297 44.1 281 57.6 260 66.3 155 o 1.51 1.36 3-24-80 Hean 3-26-80 3-25-80 0 o Hean 34.6 32.2 0.48 0.57 2.5 311 5.8 851 34.8 32.7 0.29 0.76 11.9 311 855 Hean o 35.0 32.5 0.6 0.6 3.0 310 0.9 4.8 852 2.7 Steam pressure 6.8 853 3.8 851 7.5 856 894 11.1 888 13.9 892 12.5 889 13.6 886 7.7 899 11.8 892 9.6 902 14. B 318 20.5 307 44.1 292 55.8 270 66.2 156 38.2 321 4.8 324 2.4 327 3.9 Feedwater temperature 383 4.2 382 12.7 372 19.8 365 25.7 328 7.9 384 2.5 384 2.5 380 0 Fuel feed rate Coal (1000's Ibs/hr) 113 852 Feeduater flow W 6.0 Steam temperature to 851 4.8 33.3 33.2 7.92 21.4 1.28 33.1 1.03 33.8 0.50 35.1 2.84 2.26 32.6 6.16 8.20 33.5 Excess air 20 1.8 19 6.0 24 3.4 26 13.0 38 10.6 16 1.7 18 1.0 18 0.6 ID fans amps 46 0.5 45 0.9 46 2.4 45 1.3 42 0.6 48 1.0 48 0 46 0 ID fans pressure 6.2 0.46 4.5 0.99 5.8 1.09 5.4 1.02 3.8* 0.24* 6.2 0.17 4.8 1.82 6.6 0.34 FD fan amps 30 0.4 30 1.5 30 1.9 30 1.6 27 0.4 30 0 30 0 30 0 FD fan pressure 4.4 0.61 4.4 1.01 6.5 6.60 4.1 1.14 2.3 0.36 4.5 0.10 4.8 0.51 4.7 0.80 Furnace draft 0.60 0.107 0.60 0.109 0.81 1.019 0.61 0.056 0.58 0.057 0.52 0.093 0.59 0.075 0.53 0.065 Boiler flue gas temp 687* 7.8* 686* 8.6* 695* 15.9* 679* 9.8* 598* 4.6* 674 U.I 676 U.I 689 16.0 0 325 3.5 Fuel oil gallons/hr ESP inlet temperature 330* 3.6* 338* 2.5* 330* 4.8* 328* 2.6* 280* 0* 335 0 335 4.2 37 1.5 37 1.5 44 0.8 43 2.6 0.078 28,98 0.024 29.05 0.012 29.16 0.018 29.17 0.041 Ambient temperature 58 6.8 62 6.3 42 6.2 42 Ambient pressure 29.02 0.056 28.75 0.042 29.03 0.106 28.95 Sampling duration 9:OOA-U:25P * Hot a total time man. 8:43A-12:07A 9:05A-4 :25A 9:47A-2 :12A 9:27A-2 :10A 11:10A-3:47P 11:20A-3:46P 9:22A-2 :06P �Unit No. 7 generally operated between a range of 16 to 35 MW gross, (refer to daily process data tables provided in Appendix D). Production over 35 MW placed considerable wear on the unit, and was avoided whenever possible. Production under 16 MW introduced instability and the possibility of large transient swings in operating conditions. Usually the boiler was operating close to one of these limits. It operated at 35 MW during peakloads because the load of the serviced community was over 35 MW. Production was reduced to 16 MW when off-peak power could be bought more cheaply from neighboring utilities. Examination of Table 2-3 indicates that the daily mean of gross electrical output (24 hour basis) is typically between 29 and 32 MW due to boiler operation at full output for a large portion of the day. In fact, the hourly readings provided in Appendix D indicate that output is rarely below 35 MW between the hours of 8 AM and 10 PM or longer. During non-peak hours, the boiler operated between 16 and 25 MW, depending on load and the amount of power being purchased from neighboring utilities. Comparison of the daily cycles of power production with the standard deviations (24 hour basis) given in Table 2-3, indicates that the standard deviations range between 5 and 7 for days representative of typical operation. Values not lying in this range are indicative of abnormalities such as the buying of cheaper power through the peak hours, or unusually high off-peak loads. The standard deviations in Table 2-3 show that these abnormalities happen most often on weekends, especially Sundays. Weekday operation is fairly consistent, due to uniformly high loads and the resultant high cost of power. Net power output follows identical trends, since the pov/er demand of the auxiliary equipment associated with Unit No. 7 is fairly constant. Fuel consumption varied directly with the amount of electricity produced. Of the three types of fuels used in Unit No. 7 (coal, RDF, and fuel oil), coal was used in the largest quantities. The amount of RDF burned was limited to approximately 17% in terms of the total heat produced. This was because RDF, due to its lower heating value, cannot sustain sufficient temperatures to maintain required boiler efficiency and steam quality. Also, RDF requires a longer residence time in the boiler for complete combustion, and this places another physical restriction on the amount of RDF in the fuel mixture. Fuel oil is used sparingly, and only as an igniter to insure flame continuity dur2-20 174 �ing soot blowing. Different firemen have different procedures for its use, and the large variations in fuel oil consumption shown in Table 2-3 are more related to operating practices than to what was happening in the boiler. The continuous supply of RDF to the boiler during the test was found to be unreliable. Practical experience during the test indicated that RDF supply was very unreliable. The RDF conveyors which feed Unit No. 7 were prone to jamming and required frequent maintenance. Often the RDF supply ran out because the solid waste recovery plant was experiencing mechanical problems, or had run out of refuse to process. Out of 23 days of sampling, only on 6 was RDF burned continuously. On 15 days RDF was burned part of the time, and on 2 days it was not burned at all (refer to Appendix D). The means and standard deviations for coal consumption given in Table 2-3 follow those of the gross electrical output. This indicates that coal consumption is closely related to electrical output, as expected. However, these daily averages mask out one important effect. Referring to the tables in Appendix D, one can see that the amount of coal burned depends on whether there is RDF in the mixture or not. All other things being equal, the flow of coal will always go up or down, depending on whether RDF is being removed or introduced into the mixture, respectively. 2.2.1 Operating Parameters Data for the steam cycle in the boiler are also listed in Table 2-3. Examination of the data indicates that the steam and feedwater flow rates fluctuate in a daily cycle, with means and standard deviations following the gross electrical output. However, the values for steam temperature and pressure remain fairly constant. The feedwater temperature also varied. It was higher on days of high electricity production, and lower on days of low production. Excess air is one of the most important parameters for describing conditions inside the combustion chamber. Unit No. 7 is designed to operate at about 20% excess air. Data in Table 2-3 indicates that on the average this is true. However, the hourly data (refer to Appendix D) indicates wide fluctuations. Excess air tended to increase as the boiler load decreased. 2-21 175 �This was possibly due to the operater not decreasing the intake air with the reduction in fuel supply. On nearly each night the excess air reading was greater than 50% (the maximum readable value on the meter). The standard deviations of the mean excess air values indicate no direct relationshop to the deviations of gross power output. Consequently, excess air is not a function of power output alone. Unlike most other parameters, the excess air setting was subject to the whim of the operator, and changes from work shift to work shift could have introduced important variations. The induced and forced draft fan measurements listed in Table 2-3 are of limited significance , since they did not respond to increases in production with greater airflows and correspondingly greater current consumption. The furnace draft data indicated little or no correspondence to any of the other measured data. Most of the flue gas and ESP inlet temperature readings were incomplete as they did not cover the entire 24 hour day. Most of this information was recorded during peak operation, and may therefore be considered representative for peak operation conditions. Both the flue gas and ESP inlet temperatures decreased during off-peak periods. Routine activities such as ash removal and soot blowing was performed at times designated in the test plan. RDF was observed to have a substantially higher ash content than coal, and this characteristic was reflected by longer ash removal periods, and more periodic soot blowing. Both activities decreased substantially when RDF was not being burned. 2.2.2 Test Duration Data Table 2-4 contains means and standard deviations for all of the parameters given in Table 2-3 on a test duration basis. They are derived from the same hourly data given in Appendix D, but the averages are taken over shorter periods of time than the 24 hour means discussed previously. These values are included only to indicate what operating conditions existed during the hours of each test. They are not, however, indicative of overall boiler performance. For instance, some tests were performed only over peak hours. These means would be indicative only of peak conditions, and the corresponding standard deviations would be very small, since the parameters remained fairly constant during this period. 2-22 176 �2.2.3 Daily Production and Consumption Data Table 2-5 contains information recorded by the power plant on a daily basis. The total gross and net power production was recorded directly from meters inside the plant. The total steam produced divided by the gross power production gave a good indication of boiler efficiency. Separate meters are used for measuring the water used for ash removal and the total input to the evaporators. The days of highest sluice water use corresponded with days of prolonged use of RDF in the fuel mixture. The evaporators eventually feed into the working fluid cycle of the boiler, and gave a fair indication of make-up water required, except that there was a water reclamation system attached to the boiler. Hence, these values indicated new input to the system, but did not account for total make-up water requirements. Most of the fuel types were very accurately measured. Coal was measured through a weight integrating system, and fuel oil was similarly measured through a volume integrating system. However, no accurate measurement of the RDF was -possible. The values listed were derived from volumetric readings and a very rough measurement of the RDF density, taken once every shift. The Btu contribution of each fuel was then calculated by doing calorimetric analyses. This was done periodically, and the values used for the duration this test program are given in Table 2-6. By summing the Btu contribution of each fuel, a value for total heat production can be found. This value was then divided by either the gross or net electricity production to express thermal energy as it related to the power production of the day. 2.3 Continuous Monitoring Data Table 2-7 presents the daily averages of 02, C02, CO, and total hydrocarbon monitoring on approximate test duration basis. Occasionally the continuous monitors were allowed to run longer than the actual test, but the data can still be considered to be representative of the test duration. Hydrocarbon values were always found to be lower than 2 ppm, the sensitivity limit of the instrumentation used. 2-23 177 �TABLE 2-5. DAILY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION AT AMES MUNCIPAL POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 7 Power Production (kwh) Thermal Energy* (Btu/kwh) Oil (gallons) Sluice Uater for Bottoa and Fly Ash Removal (gallons) Uater Input to Evaporator (gallons) Fuel Consunptlon Steam Production (Ib/kwh) Iowa Coal (Ibs) Colorado Coal (Ibs) RDF* (Ibs) Date 681 000 623 902 11 186 12 210 9.57 339 9 8 8 432 712 0 60 250 000 8 300 ' 3-3-80 709 000 648 682 11 296 12 346 9.59 418 330 342 270 113 000 160 340 000 9 000 3-4-80 761 000 700 072 11 396 12 388 9.53 412 290 351 210 226 800 70 320 000 2 200 3-5-80 759 000 698 461 11 697 \2 711 9.73 434 538 370 162 192 375 60 380 000 6 800 3-6-80 740 000 679 858 11 693 12 728 9.50 432 0% 339 504 213 200 90 450 000 9 200 3-7-80 735 000 674 470 11 652 12 697 9.64 427 127 378 773 130 BOO 100 320 000 2 500 3-8-80 648 000 590 057 11 602 12 742 9.54 358 286 317 720 168 460 130 360 000 1 120 3-9-80 494 000 443 496 11 524 12 836 9.47 301 888 267 712 26 000 150 314 908 8 500 3-10-80 00 Net 3-2-80 ro I £ Gross 693 000 635 037 10 955 11 985 9.54 486 980 262 220 81 200 100 386 716 6 300 3-11-BO 739 000 678 629 11 440 12 458 9.57 334 328 392 472 229 600 270 403 172 5 800 3-12-80 750 000 688 456 11 348 12 362 9.62 408 980 334 620 229 075 290 413 644 3 500 3-13-80 742 000 681 889 11 S44 12 562 9.68 432 270 368 230 144 075 50 422 620 9 100 3-14-80 729 000 668 119 11 537 12 588 9.51 412 440 324 060 230 400 90 . 41B 132 0 3-15-80 508 000 457 939 11 434 12 684 9.50 322 448 253 352 22 050 910 335 104 5 700 3-17-80 699 000 639 942 11 170 12 201 9.59 412 335 337 365 97 650 70 396 000 11 100 3-18-80 759 000 696 494 10 855 11 829 9.52 417 010 341 190 154 874 60 473 000 15 200 3-19-80 748 000 682 596 10 794 11 829 9.51 414 315 338 985 134 816 100 477 000 6 000 3-20-80 753 500 689 205 11 368 12 388 9.56 445 392 379 408 63 700 490 320 000 7 300 3-22-80 706 000 647 644 11 077 12 075 9.55 410 520 335 880 92 000 640 250 000 5 400 3-23-80 426 000 382 263 11 311 12 605 9.49 269 610 220 590 0 800 180 000 16 600 490 300 000 4 500 Gross Net 3-24-80 710 000 650 039 10 841 11 841 9.61 629 920 157 480 51 600 3-25-80 700 000 642 Oil 11 080 12 081 9.52 610 880 152 720 93 000 680 430 000 4 000 3-26-80 726 000 664 973 10 949 11 954 9.60 612 960 153 240 134 970 40 540 000 18 500 •This Is only a rough Measure of RDF weight. This value is derived from the average Btu content of each fuel. �TABLE 2.6, HEAT CONTENT OF FUELS USED AT THE AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT DURING SAMPLING PERIOD Heat Content for each Fuel Type niiM-nnn Dur 1on ^ Test Iowa Coal (Btu/lb) Colorado Coal (Btu/lb) RDF (Btu/lb) Fuel Oil (Btu/gallon) 3-2-80 thru 3-16-80 8946 10,556 5587 138,603 3-17-80 thru 3-26-80 9035 10,298 6128 138,603 2-25 179 �Fluctuations in the 02, C02, and CO levels are usually indicative of process conditions in the boiler. The means for these components at Ames were fairly uniform, as can be seen from Table 2-7. The only unusual days were March 9, 15, and 23, as evidenced by high 02 levels and low levels of C02 and CO. From Table 2-4, it can be seen that these were days of low electrical output and correspondingly high levels of excess air. Furthermore, these were the only days that were typical in this regard. Although excess air was monitored in the plant's control room, it has also Been calculated on a theoretical basis for comparison using the following expression 02 - CO/2 % excess air = 1QO x 1 4 N'2 - (02 - CO/2)] ^6 where the. gaseous components are expressed as percentages. The results of these calculations are given in Table 2-8, along with the values of excess air measured in the control room. The calculated values are consistently smaller, and the same anomalies appear (i.e., large values on the 9.th, 15th, and 23rd). In this case, the measured values are larger because these were taken after the air preheater to the boiler. Evidently, there is some air leakage in the preheater. 2.3.1 Air Preheater Leakage Oxygen in the flue gas at the inlet and outlet to the preheater was monitored on March 8, 1980 to determine air preheater leakage. Continuous monitoring results are presented in Table 2-9. The oxygen readings were also plotted and are shown in Figure 2-1. Examination of the plots in Figure 2-1 indicates that the increases and decreases in oxygen at the boiler exit are closely followed by similar increases and decreases in oxygen at the ESP inlet which is located downstream of the boiler. Since the variable oxygen readings at the inlet and outlet were taken on an intermittent basis, at 15 minute intervals, it was difficult to relate the data points at the boiler exit and the ESP inlet on a same time basis. However, from the graph the similar trends of the two curves can be easily observed. 2-26 180 �TABLE 2-7. CONTINUOUS MONITORING DATA Sampling Location Date (1980) °2 (*) Mean o Mean 2 (t) o CO (ppm) Mean o THC (PP«) a Mean ESP Inlet ESP Outlet 4.6 6.3 0.34 0.53 12.7 11.4 0.44 0.53 17.9 16.5 1.61 1.57 <2 <2 . Inlet Cutlet 3-3 4.4 5.8 0.55 0.65 13.7 12.5 0.63 0.67 12.4 10.7 1.54 1.16 <2 <2 - Inlet Outlet 3-4 4.4 6.1 0.35 0.17 14.4 13.0 0.36 .19 16.7 14.7 0.75 .89 <2 <2 - Inlet 3-5 4.4 5.6 0.66 0.83 14.6 13.4 0.58 .36 18.3 27.8 1.22 10.14 <2 <2 . Inlet Outlet ro 3-2 3-6 4.3 0.29 13.9 DATA TAttN FOR INLET ONLY 0.37 16.7 2.30 <2 - Inlet Outlet 3-7 4.6 5.9 0.32 0.27 13.9 12.8 0.35 0.28 16.4 14.7 1.50 1.63 <2 <2 - Inlet Outlet 3-8 4.3 4.8 0.30 0.40 14.0 13.6 0.30 0.39 27.6 28.4 0.85 2.29 <2 <2 _ Inlet Outlet 3-9 7.1 8.8 1.23 1.38 11.6 11.0 1.22 1.24 24.7 22.6 1.82 2.31 <2 <2 _ Inlet Outlet 3-10 4.0 5.6 0.30 0.19 13.9 12.4 0.30 0.14 24.5 24.9 1.51 1.04 <2 <2 Inlet Outlet 3-11 4.7 5.8 0.28 0.23 13.6 13.2 0.48 0.51 22.4 21.2 1.88 1.29 <2 <2 _ Inlet Outlet 3-12 4.4 5.6 0.29 0.33 14.0 13.8 0.43 0.56 22.1 22.3 1.75 3.77 <2 <2 _ Inlet Outlet 3-13 3.3 5.2 0.30 0.57 15.6 14.0 0.33 0.96 20.7 18.4 0.90 1.03 <2 <2 _ Inlet Outlet 3-14 3.7 5.3 0.40 1.03 14.8 13.1 0.47 0.74 27.7 29.9 4.21 16.56 <2 <2 - (Continued) �TABLE 2-7. (Continued) Sanpl 1 ng Location Date (1980) o2 (%) Mean o co2 Mean THC (ppm) CO (ppm) (X) a Mean a Mean a Inlet Outlet 1.56 1.87 12.6 10.7 1.45 1.67 22.0 18.7 2.03 2.01 <2 <2 - 3-17 3.7 5.4 0.47 0.32 14.4 12.9 0.62 0.33 21.5 20.0 1.73 1.41 <2 <2 - Inlet Outlet 00 6.3 8.4 Inlet Outlet i-- ro 3-15 3-18 3.8 5.4 0.33 0.30 14.4 13.0 0.46 0.40 23.3 23.7 1.18 9.62 <2 <2 Inlet Outlet 3-19 3.8 5.3 0.58 0.47 14.7 13.2 0.72 0.47 23.6 26.2 1.84 17.55 <2 <2 - Inlet Outlet 3-20 4.1 5.9 0.29 0.25 14.3 12.8 0.41 1.11 20.1 17.4 2.21 1.70 <2 <2 - Inlet Outlet 3-22 3.6 5.4 .34 .29 14.2 12.6 .35 .46 38.3 37.7 25.81 22.61 <2 <2 - Inlet Outlet 3-23 5.9 8.8 1.09 .75 12.7 10.1 1.08 .74 NOT OPERATING <2 <2 _ Inlet 3-24 _ I Inlet Outlet 3-25 Inlet Outlet 3-26 H • .24 H H <2 _ 13.8 13.1 .71 .26 H H M <2 <2 - M .87 4.9 13.7 DATA TAKEN FOR INLET ONLY .73 M N <2 - DATA TAKEN FOR OUTLET ONLY 5.4 .24 13.2 4.4 5.4 .83 .23 �TABLE 2-8. EXCESS AIR READINGS Excess A1r %] Excess Air %2 3-2-80 3-3-80 26.7 22.1 25.5 18.3 3-4-80 25.8 20.1 3-5-80 25.9 18.7 3-6-80 3-7-80 3-8-80 3-9-80 3-10-80 24.9 27.2 24.9 49.4 22.6 18.9 19.3 19.5 34 16 3-11-80 3-12-80 3-13-80 3-14-80 3-15-80 3-17-80 3-18-80 3-19-80 3-20-80 3-22-80 3-23-80 3-24-80 3-25-80 3-26-80 27.9 25.7 18 18 18 17 41 18 20 19 24 26 38 16 18 18 Date o 18.2 20.8 41.7 20.6 21.4 21.4 23.5 19.9 37.8 NA 25.6 29.5 Based on continuous monitoring data from the ESP inlet Control room readings 2-29 183 �TABLE 2-9. AIR PREHEATER CONTINUOUS MONITORING DATA Boiler Ex1t/Preheater Inlet Time %o2 % co2 CO ppm THC ppm 1430 4.237 13.926 28 ESP Inlet/Preheater Outlet 0.42 % rn % LU2 CO ppm THC ppm 4.593 13.784 29 0.1 4.975 13.542 28 0.22 4.544 13.668 29 0.20 4.901 13.520 27 0.19 5.207 12.43 26 0.21 4.879 13,538 26 0.15 4.153 14.246 28 0.18 5.141 13.574 26 0.18 4.359 13.902 28 0.04 4.959 13.564 27 0.25 4.397 13.946 28 0.11 4.401 13.558 36 0.18 27.58 0.304 4.71 13.61 28. 1 0.168 0.114 0.34 0.43 2. 7 0.059 1445 4.094 1500 14.222 27 0.49 1515 3.741 1530 14.414 28 0.45 1545 4.637 1600 13.678 28 0.37 1615 4.083 1630 14.304 28 0.41 1645 4.089 1700 13.972 26 0.22 1715 1730 v 4.198 14.154 27 0.18 1745 1800 4.192 13.740 26 0.23 1815 1830 4.295 13.976 28 0.19 1845 1900 3.937 14.154 29 0.22 1915 1930 4.742 13.492 28 0.26 1945 2000 4.632 13.566 28 0.21 2015 Mean 4.24 13.97 0.30 0.30 0.9 %o2 2-30 184 �Figure 2-1. Oxygen 1n the gas before and after the air preheater 2-31 185 �Air preheater leakage is defined as the ratio of the difference between the amount of flue gas out of the preheater and the amount of flue gas into the preheater to the amount of flue gas into the preheater. In order to estimate this leakage average values for oxygen for the inlet and outlet from the monitored data were used. Based on an average oxygen reading of 4.24 percent at the preheater inlet and 4.71 percent at the outlet an air preheater leakage of 2.9 percent was calculated. It must however be noted that during this period the boiler load averaged approximately 88% and the RDF heat input to the boiler was approximately 20 percent. Air preheater leakage will vary with the steam load and type of fuel fired. 2-32 186 �3.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The coal-fired utility boiler tested was the No. 7 unit at the Ames Municipal power plant. The power plant is owned and operated by the city of Ames. Three boiler units, 5, 6, and 7, at the power plant have been modified to burn solid waste as a supplemental fuel with coal. Boilers 5 and 6 are Stoker-fired boilers and boiler No. 7 is a pulverized coal suspension fired boiler. Under normal operating conditions only unit No. 7 is used. Units Nos. 5 and 6 are operated only under peak demand conditions or when unit No. 7 is down. The power plant is located within the city limits of Ames, Iowa. Ames is approximately 54 Km (34 miles) north of Des Moines. The Ames Municipal power plant layout is shown in Figure 3-1. 3.1 Boiler Description Boiler No. 7 was designed to burn coal or natural gas as the primary fuel. It is a tangentially fired, pulverized coval, balanced draft, Combustion Engineering unit, rated at 175000 kg/hr (385,000 Ib/hr) of steam. The generator is rated at 35,000 KW, gross. Unit No. 7 has been operating since June 1968. However, modification to burn refuse derived fuel (RDF) was made in 1975. Boiler No. 7 specification data is provided in Table 3-1 and a flow diagram of unit No. 7 is given in Figure 3-2. As shown in Figure 3-2, coal from the plant stockpile is fed to two Raymond Bowl Mill pulverizers. Air preheated to about 340°C (650°F) by the combustion gases is supplied to the pulverizers to dry the coal, and to convey the pulverized coal to the burners. Pulverizer air preheat is necessary to prevent pulverizer to burner blockage which can be caused by wet fuel. Design specifications of the Raymond Bowl Mill pulverizer are provided in Table 3-2. Pulverized coal entrained in 15 to 20 percent of the total combustion air is conveyed to the individual burner nozzles which direct the coal and primary air into the combustion chamber. Combustion air is supplied to the boiler unit by a Westinghouse forced draft fan. The combustion air drawn 3-1 187 �1 BAND 5i!FT 1. CUD 1 HOUSE I STREET IS METERING STATION Q COOLING CZ3 FUEL Oil STOXACE POWER PLANT NO. 2 TOWER CLEAR WELL ASH COOLING 'SILO O I TOWER r ELECTROSTATIC 1'RKCIPITATOR UNIT NO. 7 ADDITION jn] n LJ; -I ID co co cEj UATF.R PLANT I nro COVERED ENTRY I TRANSFORMER STACK DWELL NO. 3 CO C O A L S T 0 R A C I Figure 3-1. Layout of plant site A R E A �TABLE 3-1. BOILER DESIGN DATA Description Slzt Dtslgn pressure, psl 108S Total effective heating surface sq ft Boiler 16550 Furnace EPRs 6200 Superheater - Convection zone 5200 Radiant zont 1800 Economizer None Regenerative A1r Heater 67200 A1r Preheating Coll 5070 Furnace Volume, cubic feet 27300 Furnace width and depth by 19'-ir C to C of tubes, ft Furnace design pressure, in H^o positive 8" KG Total weight complete. Ib 2,340,000 Water required to fill boiler and water walls to operating level, gal Appro*, 17,900 U.S Gallons Inside diameter and thickness of steel drum 66" DIA - 4 | " x 2 | • | | Overall length of steam drum Appro*. 27' - 0* Drum head thickness, In lifting weight of drum safety valves 2 1/4" 66" 0 Drum • 85000 LBS Manufacturers, type, number and sizeof drum safety valves Consolidated Two (2) 3" I1757A Manufacturer, type, number and stze of blowdown valves Two C21 sets 2- Yarwey 6968-81 Tubes 1n furnace Size and thickness Water well tube spring, In C to C Furnace exit first row tube spring. In C to C 2 1/2" 0,D, x .180 3" all wells 9* (finishing superheater} NO SA 26 9" Are tubes staggered? Material Number Tube spring In C to C Tubes 1n Boiler Size and thickness Material Tube spring C to C (1n) Number - IN LINE - 192 Assemblies (Finishing superheater) 2 1/2- O.D. x ,12 SA -192 3 3/4" Transverse 1472 Water walls - 10 to 1 Circulation ratio, minimum 3-3 189 �BOILER FEED PUMP SPRAY WATER DESUPERHEATER FEEDWATER FIRST STAGE PRESSURE INTEGRATOR STEAM JET AIR EJECTOR COAL TEMPERATURE FEED WATER IN BLEED STEAM' <A> I | FEED WATER HEATER FEED WATER HEATER UNTREATED -WELL WATER a COMBUSTION ENGINEERING PULVERIZER STEAM GENERATOR REFUSE DERIVED FUEL AIR HEATER 'LEAKAGE ATI.AS BIN T TEMPERATURE FLUE GAS IN NDUC-D RAFT AN VOLUMETRIC FLOW DENSITY COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN AMBIENT AIR OVERGRATE (RDF ONLY) UNIT NO 7 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR TEMPERATURE AIR IN FORCED DRAFT FAM UNDERCRATE AIR (RDF ONLY) SEAL _ WATER TEMPERATURE AIR OUT FLY ASH PRIMARY AIR TO PULVERIZER BOTTOM ASH COMBUSTION AIR Figure 3-2. Flow diagram for unit #7 at Ames Municipal power plant �TABLE 3-2. DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR RAYMOND BOWL PULVERIZERS DESCRIPTION SIZE Pulverizers Manufacturer's Model No. C. E. Raymond No. 613 No. of pulverizers Two (2) Type and size Bowl Mill Weight including driver Approx. 98500 LBS each journal assembly Weight and dimensions of largest piece requiring removal for maintenance 3 x 4 x 4 ft 3900 LBS. Minimum stable firing rate, Ib per hr each of specified coal 8000 LBS/HR Maximum firing rate, Ib per hr of specified coal each 32000 LBS/HR @ 60 GR 17.1235 M Maximum turndown ratio Pul. - Burner Combination 4 to 1 Maximum horsepower input required 265 each Shaft Incl. Exhauster Primary air temperature, F. For the specified coal 651 Max. allowable 750 Maximum boiler load with one pulverizer in operation with specified coal, no gas firing, Ib per hr 250,000 3-5 191 �by the forced draft fan is obtained from the 9th floor of the power plant building (refer to Figure 3-3). Design specifications for the forced draft fan are provided in Table 3-3. The burners are designed to admit controlled quantities of additional air through separate air ports surrounding or built into the fuel nozzle. In the combustion chamber, the combustible matter reacts with oxygen of the air to release thermal energy at temperatures exceeding 1100°C (2000°F). The walls of the combustion chamber are lined with water-filled tubes which absorb thermal energy and generate steam. The water tubes are filled with liquid or vapor, depending on pressure and temperature conditions. Heat transfer in the combustion chamber cools the combustion gases. The cooler combustion gases flow from the combustion chamber to the superheater where further heat transfer and gas cooling occurs. The superheater is a combination Radiant-Convection type with 13 tube rows and 26 steam passes on the primary side and 26 tube rows and 52 steam passes on the secondary side. The maximum design temperatures in the superheater are: steam side - 350°C (primary), 485°C (secondary); gas side - 1150°C (primary), 1050°C (secondary); and outside metal surface - 470°C (primary), 545°C (secondary). Steam superheat is necessary for thermodynamic efficiency and also to prevent steam condensation which would damage the blades of the steam turbine. Combustion gases from the superheater normally flow to the economizer section where heat is transferred to the boiler feed water. However, the No. 7 unit has no economizer and flue gases from the superheater flow to the air preheater,, then to a cold-side electrostatic precipitator via an induced draft fan (refer to Table 3-3) out through the stack. The regenerative air heater has an effective heat exchange surface area of 67200 sq ft. Combustion gases enter the air heater at texperatures of 370° to 400°C (700 to 750°F) and exit at temperatures of 135° to 150°C (280 to 300°F). Air temperature entering the air heater ranges from 35° to 50°C (100 to 120°F) and exit temperatures range from 315° to 335aC (600 to 640°F). Performance characteristics for unit No. 7 provided by the manufacturer are given in Table 3-4. 3-6 192 �GAS OUTLET OJ ^ Figure 3-3. Schematic of Ames Municipal power plant boiler No. 7. �TABLE 3-3. FAN DESIGN PERFORMANCE Forced Draft Fan Manufacturers name Model No. Westinghouse #4054 Blade type Air foil Operating speed, rpm Air inlet temperature, °F Air flow (100% load), Ib/hr Air flow (100% load), ft3/min Fan static pressure, psi Static efficiency (100% load), % 1180 80° 422,696 99,934 0.28 54.6 167.1 Power required, Kw Induced Draft Fan Manufacturers name Model No. Blade type Operating speed, rpm Air inlet temperature, °F Westinghouse #4073 Air fovil 885 279 482,653 153,900 0.26 52.3 249.9 Air flow (100% load), Ib/hr 3 Air flow (100% load), ft /min Fan static pressure, psi Static efficiency (100% load), % Power to fan shaft, Kw 3-8 194 �TABLE 3-4. PREDICTED PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF UNIT #7 AT AMES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT. FUEL COAL Evaporation Feedwater Temperature Superheater Outlet Temperature Superheater Outlet Pressure Superheater Pressure Drop Gas Drop, Furnace to Econ. Outlet Ib/hr F Gas Drop, Econ. Outlet to A.H. Outlet "wg F F F F F "wg F % Gas Temp. Entering Air Heater Gas Temp. Leaving Air Heater, Uncorr. Gas Temp, Leaving Air Heater, Corr. I-1 t»> 10 I Ul to Air Temp. Entering Air Heater Air Temp. Leaving Air Heater Air Press, at F.D. Fan Ambient Air Temperature Excess Air Leaving Economizer F psig psi "wg Ib/hr % Fuel Fired - Coal 0 9506 BTU/J Efficiency 216,000 375 905 900 30 0:85 2.00 705 281 265 119 598 5.10 80 22 28,600 87.99 COAL 360,000 428 905 900 75 1.85 4.35 732 296 279 101 633 7.75 80 22 45,600 87.28 COAL 385,000 433 905 900 85 2.15 4.90 743 297 280 99 635 8.70 80 22 48,500 87.21 Superheat steam temperature control range is from 216,000 to 385,000 Ib/hr. The fuel specifications on which the above are based are as follows: F.C. V.M. Ash Moist. 37.10 32.27 13.51 17.12 100.00% HHV (as fired) 9506 BTU/# �Unit No. 7 generally burns a mixture of Iowa coal, Colorado coal, and refuse derived fuel (RDF). The ratio of the two types of coal in the mixture varies. However, during the test program a 55 to 45 percent ratio of Iowa and Colorado coal was maintained in the pulverized coal mixture. Approximately 20 percent of the total fuel fired is RDF and 80 percent pulverized coal. Coal is stored in the coal yard in two separate piles. Front-end loaders are used to move the coal to the transport conveyor feeding the storage bunker. Coal is alternately moved to the conveyor and is overlayed in the bunker prior to the coal dropping into the pulverizer. This mixing of coal is done on a weight basis and has proven satisfactory to the plant in maintaining the proper blend. RDF is produced at a separate Ames city facility located approximately two blocks away. All of the RDF produced is pneumatically conveyed to a storage bin (Atlas bin) 25 m (85 ft) in diameter with a holding capacity of 454 Mg (500 tons). The RDF is fed from the Atlas bin at the required rate (8.5 tons/hr maximum) and pneumatically conveyed to the RDF burners. There are two RDF burners located approximately 61 cm (24 inches) below the coal burners at opposite corners of the firebox. The location of the RDF burners is shown in Figure 3-4. The by-products of combustion are stack gases and ash. With pulverizedcoal firing, all of the burning is accomplished in suspension with the result that about 80 percent of the ash remains in the flue gases. Due to the utilization of REF to supplement coal as fuel, modifications were made to the boiler. Grates were installed in April 1978 to assist in the combustion of RDF. Prior to the installation of the grates, RDF burning in suspension was not very effective, and substantial portions of the RDF dropped unburnt into the bottom ash hopper. Deposited ash and slag in the boiler furnace bottom are removed at least 3 times per day. An average of 758,000 liters/day (200,000 gallons/day) of sluice water (raw well water) is used to remove the solid waste from the furnace bottom. This waste is then drained to a holding pond where the ash is dredged out. The water from the holding pond percolates through the soil eventually into the nearby Skunk river. Any overflow from the holding pond 3-10 196 �BOILER NO. 5 BOILER NO. 6 VO CO . Section CC From Atlas Bin South Figure 3-4. Solid waste recovery system �is also absorbed by the river. Also deposited in the holding pond is the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) fly ash. The fly ash from the ESP hoppers is pneumatically conveyed (3 times per day) to the bottom ash hopper drain system which transports it to the holding pond. The dredged ash is stored on site in piles. Make up water for the boiler is obtained from the city water supply. Boiler feedwater is processed by water softeners and deaerators and treated with caustic soda, phosphates and hydrazlne to prevent scaling and corrosion. Tannin is also added to maintain particles in suspension. Normal operation of the boiler is 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The boiler is scheduled to be offline once per year for 10 to 14 days for various types of maintenance. 3.2 Electrostatic Precipitator Flue gases from the air heater are treated in an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for the removal of particulate matter. The ESP in unit No. 7 is an American Standard Model 371. It is a wire/plate type with rappers and is designed to handle 4900 m /min (175000 cfm) of gas at an average inlet dust loading of approximately 9.27 gm/m (4 gr/scf). The ESP has 4 cell units with 2 fields and 8 insulator compartments. Performance characteristics for the ESP are given in Table 3-5, The collection system of the ESP has an effective surface area of 2030 m (21840 sq ft) with 28 gas passages having a space of 23 cm (9 inches) each. The collecting surface area rappers are of the electric vibrator type 2 and the maximum collecting surface area rapped at one instant is 113 m (1215 sq ft). Total hopper capacity is 48 m (1700 cubic feet) with overall dimensions of 5.2 m x 6.8 m x 18.1 m (17' x 22.5' x 59.5'). 2 The electrical system of the ESP requires a maximum operating voltage of 45 KV. Power requirement at maximum demand is 83 KVA and the total connected load is 61 KW. There are 8 electric vibrator type high voltage rappers and two rectifiers. The two rectifiers are rated at 45 KV each. The primary voltage is approximately 260 volts at the inlet field and 200 at the outlet field. The primary current is approximately 52.0 amps at the inlet field and 34 amps at the outlet field. The secondary voltage and 3-12 198 �currents average 34.0 KV, 35 ma and 29.0 KV, 80 ma at the Inlet and outlet fields respectively. The spark rate averages around 120 per minute at the inlet field and 145 per minute at the outlet field. TABLE 3-5. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD ESP Performance at 385,000 Ib/hr load, coal fuel Gas to ESP cfm Gas to ESP, Ib/hr Gas Temp °F 167,000 510,000 300 Inlet dust loading, gr/cf Outlet dust loading, gr/cf Efficiency, % Gas velocity, fpm Pressure drop, in, H20 Time of gas contact, sec. 3-13 199 3.7 0.074 98 266 0.5 2.94 �4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS All sampling locations are identified in Table 4-1 Figure 4-2 is a cross sectional schematic depicting the tions at the stack. Figure 4-3 is a horizontal view of ing port locations, and Figure 4-4 is a cross sectional let depicting the traverse point locations. and Figure 4-1. traverse point locathe ESP inlet showview of the ESP in- The continuous monitoring probe was located on the North side of the ESP inlet duct prior to the gas sampling ports and at a depth of approximately 4 feet. At the stack,the monitoring probe was alternated between ports 2 and 3 and at a depth of 4 feet. These two ports were also used for the gas sampling trains. TABLE 4-1. SAMPLING LOCATIONS Solid Sample Locations 1 - Blended Coal 2 - Refuse Derived Fuel 3 - Bottom Ash 4 - Fly Ash Gaseous Sampling Locations 5 - ESP Inlet 6 - Stack 10 - Hi Volume Ambient Air Sampler Liquid Sample Locations 7 - Untreated Well Water 8 - Seal Uater 9 - Cooling Tower Water 4-1 200 �BOILER FEED PUMP SPRAY WATER DESUPERHEATER FBIiUWATKK FIRST STAGE PRESSURE 1LNTEGRATOR STEAM JET AIR EJECTOR COAL TEMPERATURE [FEED WATER IN GRAVIMETRIC SCALE BLEED STEAM- FEED WATER HEATER FEED WATER HEATER O COMBUSTION ENGINEERING STEAM GENERATOR .£> I i- ro TEMPERATURE FLUE GAS IN INDUCED DRAFT FAN AIR HEATER LEAKAGE AT1JVS BIN REFUSE DERIVED FUEL STACK (6 SAMPLI > UNTREATED -WELL WATER PULVERIZER N> O1 __J VOLUMETRIC FLOW DENSITY COOLING TOWER BIX)WDO«JN AMBIENT AIR OVERGRATE (RDF ONLY) Unit NO. 7 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR TEMPERATURE AIR IN FLY ASH FORCED DRAFT FAM UNDERGRATE AIR ( (RDF ONLY) SEAL WATER TEMPERATURE AIR OUT PRIMARY AIR TO PULVERIZER BOTTOM ASH COMBUSTION AIR HI VOLUME SAMPLER Source: Compliance test report data prepared by Iowa State University Engineering Research Institute personnel under the direction of Dr. J. L. Hall, et al. from tests conducted during Sept. 1978. Figure 4-1. Unit 7 flow diagran and measurement locations. �SAMPLING PLATFORM T * 't' • 4.0 ft 1 i f i t ' " I ,, A in. PORT •CAPPED WHEN NOT SAMPLING '',<,>!,>' ,'>; r ' , >, "> |66 —.0 CONCRETE WALL NOT TO SCALE SAMPLING POINTS TRAVERSE DISTANCE FROM POINT OUTSIDE EDGE OF STACK NUMBER CM IN POINT DISTANCE FROM OUTSIDE EDGE OF STACK CM IN 1 38.2 97.03 5 59.4 150.88 2 42.8 108.71 6 66.4 168.66 3 47.8 121.41 7 75. 190.75 4 53.2 135.13 8 87.8 223.01 Figure 4-2. Cross Section of stack showing traverse point locations, 202 4-3 �Figure 4-3. Inl«t Duct - Showing Port Locations 4-4 203 �CONTINUOUS MONITORING PROBES Traverse Point Number Traverse Point Location From Outside of Nipple Centimeters Inches 1 22 53.9 2 34 83.3 46 112.7 58 142.1 Figure 4-4. Inlet Traverse Point Locations 4-5 204 �5,0 SAMPLING This section includes information on the sampling program conducted at the Ames facility. Any changes or pertinent comments are included in this section. 5.1 Gas Sampling The flue gas sampling at the Ames facility was performed at the electrostatic precipitator inlet and at the stack. Sampling for organics was to be performed for fourteen consecutive days with an additional three days sampling for particulate cadmium. However, due to extreme weather conditions the program was modified to collect nine inlet and outlet gas samples. Sampling for organics was accomplished concurrently at the inlet and outlet utilizing two modified method 5 trains (Figures 5-1 and 5-2) at both sampling locations. Inorganic cadmium was only sampled at the stack and utilized one standard Method 5 train, Figure 5-3. The sampling crew collected a ten m (10 + 1 m ) sample by extracting the flue gas at a rate approximating the flue gas velocity. The particulate matter was collected in a cyclone and on the filter media. The gas stream was passed through an XAD-2 resin trap to absorb the organic constituents, and through an impinger system to condense any moisture present in the gas. Parameters such as temperatures, pressures, and gas volumes were monitored throughout the sampling period. The sample fractions were recovered from the sampling trains and turned over to an MRI representative. The outlet (stack) sampling position was sampled with no change to the sampling plan while the ESP inlet sampling was modified. • ESP Inlet During the initial tests, it was found that the outermost ports exhibited little or no flow. At one point of the traverse, the velocity head (AP) was negative while the next point indicated positive AP, thereby cancelling each other. It was therefore recommended that these two outer ports be dropped from the test. The recommendation was accepted and implemented as part of the test program. 5-1 205 �FILTER HOUSING HEATED LINE THERMDncTER CYCLONE FLASK t-o O o> cn i ro OVEN BOX STAND BY-PASS VAL\€ ORIFICE THERMOMETERS VACULM GAUGE R9 NAIN VALVE D.RY TtST Figure 5-1. \. AIR TIGHT PU1P ESP inlet sampling train VACUUM LINE �xX"'FILTER HOUSING THERH3T€TER CYCLONE FLASK OVEN BOX STAND BY-PASS VALVE ORIFICE THERMDMETERS VACUUM GAUGE \ DRY TEST • fHTER AIR TIGHT PIMP Figure 5-2. Stack sampling train 5-3 207 VACULM LINE �12 Figure 5-3. EPA Method 5 particulate sampling train 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Calibrated nozzle Glass lined probe Flexible teflon sample line Cyclone Filter holder " Heated box Ice bath Impinger (water) Impinger (water) Impinger (empty) Impinger (silica gel) Thermometer 5-4 208 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) Check value Vacuum line Vacuum gauge Main value Air tight pump Bypass value . Dry test meter Orifice Pitot manometer Potentiometer Orifice manometer S type pi tot tube �5.2 Solid Sampling During each test day, four solid streams: coal, precipitator ash, bottom ash, and refuse derived fuel (RDF) were sampled six times per day following a schedule set up by Research Triangle Institute (RTI). The sampling was coordinated between RTI, the sampling crew and power plant personnel. The schedule provided the basis for collection of unbiased samples by obtaining a random selection from the multiple sources available for sampling. This approach was taken to avoid any cyclic biases which might have been present in the daily operation of the power plant. The samples and their sampling frequencies were: • The coal samples were taken from the feed line leading from the storage bunkers into the gravimetric feeders supplying the coal pulverizers. A metal scoop was used to remove the sample from the feed line and transfer it to the sample containers. • The precipitator ash was removed and collected from the bottom of the precipitator hoppers. A metal scoop was used to remove the sample from the access pipe and transfer it to the sample container. The hoppers were pneumatically evacuated after each sample was taken. A visual inspection was made to insure complete evacuation of ash from the hoppers. • The bottom ash samples were collected from the base of the furnace. These samples were collected wet with a high solids content from the furnace floor prior to sluicing out the ash by plant personnel. The ash doors were open during the washing procedure and the ash sample was scooped up in a teflon line pan and transferred to the sample container with teflon lined forceps before the furnace floor was washed with water to remove the ash. To provide representative samples of ash, as distributed over the entire rectangular base of the furnace, the area of the furnace floor was divided into an equal-area grid system. The samples were scooped from a specific grid area as provided by Research Triangle Institute each time a sample was taken. • The RDF samples were taken from the feeders in the Atlas bin prior to being pneumatically conveyed to the boiler furnace for firing. The material was placed into sample containers from a specific feeder and returned to the recovery area for labeling. Protective clothing was worn within the feeder area and plant personnel were notified when entering and leaving the area. 5.3 Liquid Sampling Three liquid streams were sampled during the course of the test program: cooling tower blowdown, well water, and bottom ash seal water (overflow water). Liquid streams which did not have continuous flows, were 5-5 209 �allowed to purge for three minutes prior to obtaining samples. Sample containers were rinsed three times with sample liquid prior to being filled with that liquid. The streams sampled and frequency of sampling were as follows: • Seal water was sampled twice per shift, for a total of six samples per 24 hour period. • Cooling tower blowdown was sampled once per day. • Three well water samples were collected over the testing period. Appendix C contains the time frequency schedule utilized by members of the solid and liquid sampling team. 5.4 Hi Volume Sampler To monitor the ambient air background, a high volume ambient air sampler (Figure 5-4) was used. It was placed on the roof of the Ames facility to obtain a representative background utilizing outside ambient air rather than sampling air inside the building that could have been contaminated or influenced by the combustion process. 5.5 Quality Assurance A quality assurance sample was also taken of the final test day. To collect the quality assurance sample, two sampling trains were placed at the same point in the same port at the inlet of the ESP. No traversing was performed. Both trains were run at the same isokinetic rate for the same duration as a normal test day. Also during the Q/A day, solids and liquids were collected as in a normal test day. 5.6 Sampling Train Background To obtain the train background (blank) an entire sampling train, including resin trap filter and impinger solutions was set up at the ESP inlet. The train was taken to normal operating temperatures and allowed to remain at these temperatures for one (1) hour. All train components were recovered as a normal run and all sample blanks were given to an MRI representative. 5-6 210 �HIGH VOLUME AIR SAMPLER FLOW PROBE \MODEL 230 HIGH VOLUME CASCADE IMPACTOR - OPTIONAL MANOMETER OR ROTAMETE: MODEL 310/310A/310B CONSTANT FLOW CONTROLLEF \ FLOW [ADJUSTMENT LINE CORD Figure 5-4. Ambient air sampler 5-7 211 �5.7 Sample Recovery Upon completion of the ESP and stack sampling, the sampling equipment was brought to the laboratory area for recovery. Each sample train was kept in a separate area to prevent sample mixup and cross contamination. The dry powder in the cyclone, probe, and heated flexline was collected in the cyclone catch bottle. After this collection procedure, the individual sample train components were recovered per the following: • Probe was wiped to remove all external particulate matter near probe ends. • Filters were removed from their housings and placed in proper container. • After recovering dry particulate from the nozzle, probe, heated teflon line, cyclone, and flask, these parts were rinsed with distilled water to remove remaining particulate. They were subsequently rinsed with B & J acetone and cyclohexane and put into a separate container. All rinses were retained in an amber glass container. • Sorbent traps were removed from the train, capped with glass plugs, and given to an on-site Midwest Research Institute (MRI) representative. • Condensing coil, if separate from the sorbent trap, and the connecting glassware to the first impinger was rinsed into the condensate catch (first impinger). t First and second impingers were measured, volume recorded and retained in an amber glass storage bottle. The impingers were then rinsed with small amounts of distilled water, acetone and cyclohexane. These rinsings were combined with the condensate catch. Rinse volumes were also recorded . • Third and fourth impingers were measured, volume recorded and solutions discarded. • Silica gel was weighed, weight gain recorded and regenerated for further use. To preserve sample integrity, all glass containers were amber glass, with Teflon-lined lids. 5.8 Problems Encountered During Recovery t If the temperature of the probe, flexline, or oven box was not sufficient (4 250°F) to prevent moisture from condensing, the particulate would cake on the inner walls and become very difficult to remove. 5-8 212 �• Due to the cyclohexane not readily evaporating and adhering to the inner walls, the flex lines and probe liners gave the appearance of being clean when in reality they were still wet and masked any particulate that remained on the walls. Therefore, all components must be thoroughly dry before a visual inspection can be made. If the initial rinses do not remove all the particulate, then brushing with additional water rinses is required to clean the walls. This is then followed with acetone and cyclohexane rinses. 5-9 213 �6,0 CALIBRATION This section describes the calibration procedures used prior to conducting the field test at Ames Municipal Power. tion equipment and how it was set up. 6.1 Figure 6-1 shows the calibra- Method Five Calibration Data 6.1.1 Orifice meter calibration. The orifice meter calibration is performed using a pump and metering system as illustrated in Figure 6-1(a). The dry gas meter with attached critical orifice is run at various orifice flows for a known time. After each run the volume of the dry gas meter, meter inlet/outlet temperatures, time, and orifice setting is recorded. The orifice meter calibration factor is derived by solving the equation. Aura Am? " 0.317 A H Pb (T d + 460) r (Tw L + 460) 6n2 V w ~ ^ J where AH = Average pressure drop across the orifice meter, inches Pb = Barometric pressure, inches Mercury Tj = Temperature of the dry gas meter, °F Tw - Temperature of the wet test meter, °F 0 = Times, minutes Vw s Volume of wet test meter, cubic feet The AH@ yielded is utilized to adjust the sampling train flow rate by regulating the orifice flow. 6.1.2 Dry gas meter calibration. Meter box calibration consists of checking the dry gas meter for accuracy. The dry gas meter with attached critical orifice is connected to a wet test meter (see Figure 6-1 (b) below) and run at various orifice flows for a known time. After each run wet and dry gas meter volumes, temperatures, time, and orifice readings are recorded. Utilizing the equation v _ Vw Pb (Td+460) " Vd (Pb+AH) (TW + 460) 6-1 214 �where V = Volume correction factor Vw a Volume of wet test meter, cubic feet Pb * Barometric pressure, inches Mercury Td s Temperature dry gas meter, °F Vd = Volume of dry gas meter, cubic feet AH a Average pressure drop across the orifice meter, inches H20 T. = Temperature of wet test meter, °F w a volume factor which compares the dry gas meter with the wet test meter is obtained. * 6.1.3 P1tot tube calibration. Pi tot tubes are calibrated on a routine basis utilizing two methods. The type S pi tot tube specifications are illustrated and outlined in the Federal Register, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, [40 CFR Part 60], Reference Method 2 (refer to Figure 6-1(c)). When measurment of pitot openings and alignment verify proper configuration, a coefficient value of 0.84 is assigned to the pitot tube. If the measurements do not meet the requirements as outlined in the Federal Register, a calibration is then performed by comparing the S type pitot tube with a standard pitot tube (known coefficient of 1.0). Under identical conditions, values of AP, for both S type and standard pitot tube are recorded using various velocity flows (14 fps to 60 fps). The pitot tube calibration coefficient is determined utilizing the following equation, Pitot Tube Calibration = (Standard Pitot Tube XrAP reading of std. pitot j 1/2 -, L Factor (CP) Coefficient) AP reading of S type pitot The coefficient assigned to the pitot tube is the average of calculated values over the various velocity ranges. 6-2 215 �6.1.4 Nozzle diameters. The nozzle diameters were calibrated with the use of a vernier caliper if the nozzle showed excessive wear or was considered not fit for use, it was discarded. 6.2 Instrument Calibration Manufacturers recommended calibration procedures were used with the following gases which had an analytical accuracy of +_ 1%: SCOTT CO 812 ppm C02 11.94% 02 4.98% Propane 34.4 ppm in Nitrogen Balance Zero and Calibration adjustment were made prior to the start of the test day. Zero drift checks were made at the end of each test period. Data was recorded every fifteen minutes thus providing two data points per hour for each sampling position. 6-3 216 �r,r* Central Vi*t» \remeftiurt 7. flnf Control Vat** Come Coni'fi Vj vi\ lunptnlun T, I Tt.Tpcniv't T. OfUe* in '•?• '.H WMTtalMdff Figure 6-1(a) Orifice meter calibration XiV-r;.;-!f Pump CXi C* Uc«r Uignchstie Gtuft Figure 6-1(b) Dry gas meter calibration. X* TopYtiw Figure 6-1(c) Equipment used to calibrate pi tot tubes Figure 6-1. Calibration equipment set-up procedures 6-4 217 �7,0 TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section describes some of the problems encountered during the Ames test program and recommends a solution to these problems, 7.1 Problems • Construction of weather shelters was not completed on schedule causing a one day delay, • Because of extreme cold weather additional heaters had to be supplied to both the stack and monitoring truck. This resulted rn additional power requirements and caused approximately a half day down time for installation of power switches. • Cpld weather also effected the following: 11 heat lines did not maintain temperature causing moisture to condense and possibly act as a scrubber for hydrocarbons. Therefore, hydrocarbon data are considered only fair. 21 The gas conditioner would freeze restricting sample gas flow to the monitoring equipment. This created data gaps during the test period, 31 Solutions in the sampling trains would freeze causing the test to be shortened or scrubbed. 4). Cyclohexane would freeze at the temperatures encountered at the sampling locations because it has a freezing point higher than water, • Three instruments malfunctioned due to electronics failure or change. These instruments were: 11. Infrared Industries C0/C02 analyzer. The CO section would not maintain calibration and was removed from the system. It was replaced with the Beckman CO analyzer. 2} Beckman 0« analyzer. Detector malfunctioned and was replaced with backup Og analyzer. 3). Beckman CO.Analyzer. Energy source went out of adjustment and could not maintain calibration. No other replacement was_available, as a result, 2 days of CO data were not recorded. 7.2 Recommendations The only significant problems that occurred at the Ames facility were caused by severe weather conditions. In the future, the testing should preferably take place in a warmer environment, during the warmer time of the year or heated constant temperature shelters should be provided. 7-1 218 �MUCCSS OATA «JKS MUIIICIPAI pout* PLAIIT uUlT mfl. 7 •Not based on 24 hr daU Oat* 3-2-80 Tin* W IA I2N 2* 3A 4A SA 6A 7A 25 Srois Net 9A IOA 2t 24 28 23.1 11A 12N IP 29 30 30 4P 2P 3P SP 29.S 27.2 29 ' 29 26. » 26.6 6P 7P 8P 23S 21S 210 208 Siena pressure pslg 8SS •SO 858 Steam temperature F 900 B9S 895 FeedMter flM rate 1000 's Ibs/hr 250 232 lOf IIP 34 33 30 38.19* 2.«* 26.25* 310 310 312 270 2S2.2 36.49 860 4.16 26.1 26.6 27.6 27.6 220 240 2SO 260 26S 270 27S 260 260 260 280 310 ISS 860 8SS 860 860 860 860 860 860 850 860 860 860 860 860 890 89S 89S 910 910 900 890 910 90S 910 910 910 90S 900 900 -900 22S 220 220 205 230 240 250 270 27S 280 270 26S 26S 275 290 320 322 360 360 370 370 370 37S 36S 370 370 28 27. S 27. S 26 27 29 33. S 33 34 34 32 33 33 33. S 36 38. S 38.6 8SS 850 900 860 220 20S 28. S 27. S 9 34 I9S 208 Mean 35 201 222 Feedwater temp F 19.6 Fuel feed rate (coal) 32 1000's Ibs/hr 37831.4 76454.1 Fuel gauge readings 5788.7 gals/hr Fuel oil •Of 9P 32 29.5 27.1 350 Steam (loo rate 1000' s Ibs/hr VO 8A •60 860 •57.7 900 882 899 899.63 8. S3 330 320 289 261.17 37.94 366* 86S 7.38* 37. S 33.6 38.8 Coal Oil 7.07 4 '6 bcess air 1 18 20 22 22 25 21 21 28 22. S 20 21 22 22 24 24 22. S 22 21 23 20 19 24 23 '21 22 2.1 I.D. Fans amps 45 45 45 46 46 45 45 46 45 4S 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 47 46.42 1.1 29 30 30 29 30 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 32 32 33 32 31 30.29 psig FO Fans amps 1.12 0.77 Furnace draft pslg 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.15 0.8 0.65 O.M Ambient temp °F 8 8 Ambient pressure inches Hg 29.54 29.52 29.SI Comments 8 1 7 29.87 29.47 7 7 29.46 29.44 S 0.7 0.7 O.S 0.8 O.S 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 63S 300 0.3 Flue MS boiler e»lt Temp *F ESP Inlet 640 320 640 320 640 320 645 320 660 320 660 320 660 320 640 32S 12 18 19 22 23. S 26 29.36 29.31 29 25 9 29.41 29.4 29.39 29.38 29.38 Soot Blog •attorn Ash Removal and FU Ash Removal Start Finish - 2.30A, 6.00A. 9.48*. 2.12P. 6.0SP. 10. ISP 0.7 0.6 O.S 0.7 650 320 .ISP 26 27 26 23 22 19 29.24 29.2 29.19 29.1S 29.14 29. IS 29.13 RDF Density Mo «OF Fired 19 O.SS 0.60 8.20 647* 318. S* 0.98 9.78* 6.69* 1 1 18 It .06 7.S8 29.12 29.11 29.34 0.18 �PROCESS DATA AMES MUNICIPAL POhO P1ANT Mill NO. 7 •Not based M 24 kr data Oate 3-3-80 Tlae MM Gross Met 12N 1A 2A 3A 4A SA 6A 7A IA M IDA ' 14.75 12.15 IS 12.5 15 12.4 34.25 31.65 11A IP 2P 3P 4P 5P 34.5 12.0 IS 12.5 35 12.4 35 12.6 34.5 12.0 34.5 32.0 12N 7P BP » 10P UP Mean 35 32.5 15 12.6 15 32 .« 15 12.6 M 11.5 31 28.6 30.1 12.04* o.«* 100 271 268.8 71.48 6P a 7.11 29 12 1 1 18 18.5 18.5 27 29 Steaa flew rate 1000* s Ibs/hr 240 95 ISO 155 155 155 240 265 120 10 1 315 315 116 10 1 11 1 120 118 310 15 1 115 US 115 Steaa pressure pslg 860 850 ISO ISO 850 ISO 860 850 850 855 855 860 855 850 850 ISO 145 ISO BSD 855 850 855 865 850 852.71 4.66 Steaa teaperaUre °f 195 820 820 900 89S 890 885 900 900 910 900 910 900 900 900 910 910 900 900 900 890 882 880 865 890.1 24.01 FeedMter MOD rate 1000' s Ibs/hr 255 160 240 270 335 130 330 325 320 320 310 320 315 120 320 325 126 325 328 114 278.18 71.65 180 380 180 310 180 380 IBS US 185 380 380 180 180 HO 180 378 180.81 2.14 21. S 32.7 33.0 39 39 38.5 40 36 16.5 34.0 13.0 3S.O 35.0 16.1 36.9 1 34.7 34.5 11.6 12.0 Coal Oil 31.93 31.69 4.6 7.32 14 16 20 16 22.08 1.21 45 45.75 2.15 1.40 108 16S 160 160 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000' s Ibs/kr Fuel gauge reading RDF 10.5 10.5 18215.9 76M2.1 5716.1 21.6 21.1 21.5 Excess air t 21 33 Feedxater teap °F 39 36 36 1 1 18 SysUa 1 dm 3. 24P m Systea 1 on 1.,47P Systea A started 10.S1A System 1 started11.10P No RDF IB 19 24 22 18 17.5 20 17.5 20 27 15 IS 10 I.D. fans aaps 46 39 43 41 43 43 46 47 48 48 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 46 46 46 46 46 46 1.0. fans pressure pslg 5.5 2.5 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.0 6.7 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.9 5.67 27 30 30 32 32 31 32 30 10 10 31 32 30 31 30 31 11 10 30 29.91 F.O. fans aaps 31 26 27 27 27 F.O, fans pressure 4 II . 2.1 2.2 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.61 0.55 0.6 Furnace draft psl9 0.6 0.9 0.51 O.S 0.55 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.65 0.3 O.S 0.65 0.6 700 0.59 0.11 700 688* 17. SI* 0.5 0.65 0.7 0.55 0.5 0.7 700 Flue gas teaperature OF 700 710 660 660 680 680 690 24 31 36 37 31 39 41 42 42 27.19* 10.39* 28.85 28.81 28.8 28.8 21.76 28.75 28.75 28.76 28.8** 0.11* Aablent teaperature 17 17 17 1 1 18 1 1 19 19 20 Aabtent pressure inckes Hg 29.09 29.05 29.01 29.00 28.98 28.95 28.91 28.91 28.91 28.86 Coaaents 1.79 1.13 nt? wWP- tatl Start - 1 WYlOP Flnlsk - 2.2SA. 6.0SA, 10.0OA. 2.4SP. 6.05P. 10.40P * Start - 12.5M. 10*05A. 9.SSP RDF Density - 5 Ibs/cu ft �PMCESS MTA AMES MMICIPAl POMM HJUH UN IT «0. 7_ •tot ktsed ea f 4 kr dlti Oete 3-4-M 12H TbM 1A 2A M 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 15.5 1S.S 35.5 27 25 21 23 23 23 23 26 21.2 21.1 21.1 21.2 21.2 24.1 26.7 31 31 Steia flow rite 1000' s Iks/kr 235 190 190 190 190 190 235 ZIZ 125 Steui pressure psij 850 840 •40 •SO •45 855 MS 845 Steia t overture °f MO MS •80 IBS 865 880 MS 900 feedwtter flow rite 1000'i los/kr 250 202 201 201 205 205 238 280 26.6 22.6 23.0 22.0 21.0 20.2 27.5 33.5 M 10 FeedMter Uap °F NJ 11A 12» IP 2P IP Fuel feed rite (coil) 1000 's Iks/kr Fuel gtuge readings fillons/kr fuel all RBF 35.5 11.0 35.0 12.5 35.5 32.9 IS 1 1 35.0 12.5 320 125 120 125 120 860 850 855 845 •55 910 900 90S 900 900 130 305 325 380 Gross Net o 10A 380 34.5 36.0 4P SP . 6P 7P •P 9P 35.0 35.0 12.6 1S.O 12.6 15.0 12.6 35.0 32.5 12 10P IIP Hem 29.7 5.19 4.93 320 280 2M.U S6.S9 •SS ISS 865 150.63 5.95 •90 900 MS 191.46 14.63 340 332 330 285 290.79 52.98 400 400 400 390 380 389.7 7.63 35. 2 34.6 34.3 35.3 35. 1 30.5 Coil 31.03 31. H 2.9 5.37 15.0 12.5 325 325 330 125 325 325 130 125 850 850 845 •SS •SO 850 ISO •55 900 90S 900 90S 900' 895 895 945 140 32S 325 330 330 325 115 330 330 385 390 390 380 390 385 390 395 400 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.5 34.5 33.0 14.0 32. SS 12. S 11590.7 77221.1 $7(7.9 on On Excess llr S 19 25 22 20 26 22 20 IS 20 18 23 22 19 20 10 18 20 23 19 1.0. fin taps 45 43 43 41 43 43 45 46 47 47 48 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 1.0. fins pressure a 4 .9 . 29 28 FO fins pressure psfo, « • 1C Furnice drift pslg 0.5 0.4 27 27 27 31 4* 31 19 20 19 20 20.11 2.35 48 47 46 46.04 1.76 t.•« ij 1 28 28 temper Jture 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.6 O.S 30 30 10 30 30 30 31 31 31 30 30 30 29 28 28 lotto• Ask ind Fly Ask »anvil i Stirt - 1.30A. 5.30A. 9.30A. 1.30P. 5.30P. 9.30P Flnisk - 2.0SA. 6.10A. 10.00*. 2.10P. 6.OOP. 10.2SP 0.6 0.7 0.65 O.S 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 680 340 700 340 670 340 680 340 680 340 690 140 690 340 695 340 31 30 29.54 11 1 . 11 * 1.41 28 27 27 26 26 26 26 26 25 22 28.84 28.85 28.86 28.86 28.83 28.83 28.11 28.82 28.83 0.6 Soot «««• 18 17 0.72 IS 28.89 21.91 28.94 0.60 12 0.67 0.7 10 9 0.515 0.15 617* 341* 0.7 695 340 28.84 32 O.S 690 350 Aaklent pressure tnckes Hj Coanents 30 31 .3 0 .7ft /• Flue gis teap „ taller °F ESP Inlet °F feblent 30 31 C 3 .£ •> f| 28 19 47 « FO fins laps Of . 31.51 21.25 3S.S 33.0 9.19* 1.16* 24.08 6.81 21.96 ». 91 28.99 28.88- 1 0.06* �PROCESS MTA AJCS MUNICIPAL mat PUNT UNIT NO. 7 . Dite 3-5-80 •Not Used an 24 kr d>u Tl«e 12H M 2A 29 26.8 26.5 24.6 26 23.9 22 20 21. S 22 19.S 22.1 Stean fl<M r«te 1000' t Ibs/hr 260 245 225 185 186 Steui pressure pstg 85S 840 850 840 850 MM Gross Net 3A 4A SA 6A 11* 12N IP 2P 3P 4P SP <P 7P 8P 9P Keen a 35 32.7 35 32.5 36 32. < 35 32.7 36 32.7 34.6 32.0 35 . 32. T 35 32.7 36 32.7 35 32.6 36 32.7 36 32.5 35 32.6 36 32.7 32 29.7 31.9 29.72 4.76 4.44 320 315 320 315 315 320 315 325 325 320 320 320 322 325 320 300 289.58 48.47 850 850 850 850 845 850 845 855 855 850 850 855 850 850 850 830 848.54 6.61 ' 885 885 900 880 895.6 10.97 340 336 330 307 300.42 46.6 8A 30 28 32 29.7 35 32.6 188 280 29S 850 850 845 9A 5teu tenpertture °F ' 890 890 885 870 900 895 900 910 910 905 900 890 900 906 910 905 • 910 895 265 245 250 200 205 200 290 298 330 330 330 340 330 315 325 330 330 325 330 330 Feedwter to* °F ISJ 880 895 FeedMter flan rite 1000' s Ibs/hr O 10P IOA 7A 390 36S UP 3*0 348 345 345 380 380 400 400 395 395 390 395 395 395 395 395 390 390 390 385 390 375 382.8 17.36 Fuel feed rite (ciul) 29. S 28.9 HMO's Ibs/br 38982.6 Fuel 9tuge readings 775*9.7 (9>no«s/kr) fuel oil 5788.6 RDF 22.5 19.1 23.4 19.5 36.1 37.4 41 40. S 40.5 37 37.8 34 35 33 32 33 33.6 33.9 32.6 33.2 33.2 32.0 Coil 6.09 on 32.46 33.53 2.5 Eicess ilr S 20 20 20 30 28 31 20 16 17 It 18 19 19 21 19 18 18 20 19 19 18 18 19 21 20.17 3.92 10 f«*s ops 46 46 45 45 45 44 48 48 48 48 47 48 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 47 47 46 46.75 1.11 10 fans press pslg S.S 7 6.7 fO f«HS MpS 29 FD fins press pslg 4.0 Furuce draft pslg 0.5 S.20A •10.20A RDF Destined 28 28 28 28 32 31 32 32 31 32 31 31 31 30 30 30 31 31 32 31 31 31 30.46 1.36 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.45 0.6 0.6 0.65 0.65 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.45 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.45 0.6 0.62 0.164 695 345 700 345 700 345 680 345 690 346 690 345 695 350 700 345 700 345 700 345 695* 345.5* 6.67* 1.58* 1 4 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 15 7.63 5.22 1.06 Flue *»» teaperiture toiler exit ESP Inlet tabieat ta*p DF Acbtent press Inches Hg Coflttnts 1.04 30 2 4 4 2 29.00 29.03 29.04 29.07 29.08 29.10 29.11 29.13 2 2 1 lotto. Ash fnd Fl» As h RoM»il Surt - rioA. 5.30*. 9 30*. 1 JOP. S 30P. 9.30P ' Finis* - 2. ISA. 6.10A. 10.00A. 2. OOP. 6. OOP . 9.S6P 1 15 14 13 12 10 9 29.13 29.22 29.24 29.24 29.24 29.24 29.24 29.22 29.23 29.22 29.22 29.22 29.23 29.23 29.23 29.23 29.17 Soot tlo.il SUrt - , 10A, 7P RDF density - 5 Ibs/cu ft. 5 Ibs/cu ft, 5 Ibs/cu ft 0.08 �PHC£SS MIA AMES nmncipAi POME* PUWT mi IT to. 7 on •lot tased 24 kr diti tote 1-6-80 Ttw NU trass Net 1A 12N 2A 1A 4A SA 6A 24.5 28 22 22 21. S 21. S 7A 8A 1 1 9A 1 .S 1 10A 11A 35 35 1 . 1 1 12.6 32. S 12K IP 35 35 Hal* • 11.5 12.6 12.5 21.6 120 120 120 110 282 279.71 S6.73 850 MS 845 850 850 850 650 855 850 810 836 847.13 7.22 900 890 910 905 • 90S 890 895 •85 BBS wo 880 895.33 11 . 1 130 130 330 130 130 325 130 330 140 10 1 312 290 211.7 54.23 390 395 390 390 310 185 385 190 190 390 180 377.46 21.03 1 1 36.5 38 36 16 16.4 35.6 36.5 15.1 34.0 1. 18 15.18* 12.15 1.53* 305 325 320 120 120 840 •SO 840 840 BIO 848 850 858 855 840 855 855 855 aao aao 890 900 •90 891 890 900 920 900 900 900 900 FeedMtw f lew rite 1000's Ibs/hr 271 200 196 198 204 15 1 230 292 120 315 330 335 Feeduiter tea? °F ' UP 32 12.6 310 SteM t taper* ture °F LO cn 35 120 285 Steu pressure psil rO IS 12.5 12.6 215 171 338 18 1 338 16 1 340 390 380 185 15.5 35 10P 320 12.6 182 390 15 If 32.6 22. S 30.6 180 16 35 M> 120 11.6 181 390 7P 12.5 11.7 IBS 35 6P 12.6 20.1 185 390 SP 115 20.2 255 36.5 4P 120 25.7 14.5 12.1 Fuel feed rite (out) 28.8 19406.3 1000's Ibs/hr 77980.7 Fuel iiy|t re*dl*fi tillMS/hr fuel oil Srti.2 MF 3P 11.17 28.88 21.5 11.7 SUU flou r«te 1000's Ibs/hr NJ o 2r 35 12.5 390 34 14 IS IS Ul i Oil S.5S $.30 1.75 S.40A System 8 off 8 .00AM only 1 conveyor 6.00A SysUB 1 on 9 .flOAN both conveyors on Excess itr X 21 36 30 34 34 12 28 15 17 20 21 18 20 16 19 21 18 20 18 11 20 18 19 19 22.21 10 fins ops 45 44 44 43 44 44 44 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 47 48 47 48 48 46 46 46.17 1.55 * IM A •• U.ta>9 10 fins press psl9 S C .B I .V FurMce drift psil 29 28 28 28 29 28 28 30 30 30 32 30 31 31 31 32 31 •J C 0.5 32 32 32 31 11 10.29 1.41 ta I.K 0.4S 0.8 0.9 0.65 0.8 0.8 0.7 tafcieot tMp "f 9 7 6 Aabtent press Inchts Hg 29.22 21.21 29.17 6 a 10 12 29.14 29.14 29.12 29.11 29.09 | 8otUB Ash iM1 FIvAsI• «e*»v<, t Mf Stirt I.Jo*. ! Finish - 2. ISA. 6.30A. I0.12A. 2.05P. 6. ISP . I1.21P 12 0.6 0.6 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.6 0.4 0.7 690 340 700 340 680 340 680 340 690 340 690 340 690 140 690 340 690 140 13 0.5 0.7 680 140 0.7 Flue 9is tecnp °F toiler eiit ESP inlet CoBiMts 32 31 C FO fins mfi 6.30 16 20 22 25 26 26 29 32 12 30 30 28 27 25 24 11.79 1.19 28.18 28.95 28.94 28.93 28.95 28.95 28.97 28.97 28.97 28.97 21.04 0.015 29.08 29.06 29.06 29.03 At 10.10* ESP hoppers duxn for repilrs 28.91 28.93 Soot 810M Stirt - LISA. 10 O?». 7. IIP 0.51 0.61 0.60 0.62 0.60 5.0 Ibs/cu ft . 4.0 Ibs/cu ft. 4 Ibs/cu ft 0.13 688* 340 •OF density - 0.61 6.32* 0 �PROCESS DATA AMES MUNICIPAL POUEt PLANT UNIT NO. 7 •Not Used on 24 hr diu Dite 3-7-80 I2H Tine Sross 20 Net HU 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 20. S IS 15 13.2 13.3 6A 9A 7A 8A 26 24 30 27.7 36 33.5 36 10A 36 11A UP X 32.6 3$ 32.5 32 29.6 30.5 7.51 28.24 7.21 IP 2P 3P 4P 5P 6P 7P 8P 9P 3S.S 33.6 33.0 36 31.6 36 33.4 36 33.4 35 32.6 35.5 33.1 35 32.$ 35 32. S 35 32.5 36 Hun a IOP 12N 18.2 20 11.2 18.6 21 19.2 Ste> flow rite 1000's Ibs/hr 170 169 170 177 128 128 210 280 325 330 330 326 330 326 325 325 328 325 325 327 325 320 318 280 274.8 74.1 Steu pressure psls 945 845 850 840 840 850 850 855 855 8S5 860 855 BS5 855 855 850 850 850 840 850 850 850 855 850 850.21 5.21 Stein tanperiture "f 878 890 896 900 910 912 905 885 890 875 880 895 900 891.8 15.19 Feedwater flow rite 1000' s Ibs/hr 178 175 175 336 322 288 286.33 76.82 Feeduiter leap °f MO 340 Fuel feed rate (out) 1000' s Ibs/hr Fuel gauge readings 91! Ions/tor fuel oil 19.0 20 3 9801. S 78357.1 5790.1 Excess lir 1 40 ID fins Mps 43 90S 843 885 885 900 33.5 33.5 340 340 390 395 870 895 900 185 145 135 225 280 335 340 340 340 320 315 355 378 400 400 20 25.5 17. 6 18.8 32.5 35.0 42 42.5 17 47 37 50 50 21 16 20 21 19 18 20 20 20 42 43 44 42 42 46 47 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 7 7 7 42.5 41.5 RDF 905 900 900 340 345 340 340 350 338 340 335 345 395 395 395 390 390 395 385 385 382 385 385 375 373.75 26.6 41.5 37 36 35.5 35.5 35 25.3 25.7 31. 6 34.9 33.6 31.2 Coil Oil 31.65 8.23 33.6 4.2 20 16 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 25.25 11.2 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 45 46.46 2.41 7.5 7 7 7.2 7.0 7.2 7.1 6.6 6.0 6.06 32 32 32 31 32 32 32 32 31 30 30.67 1.79 0.71 0.64 0.51 0.70 0.53 0.66 0.63 -12. SOP RDF Restirted ID fins press pstg FD fins mips 28 FD fins press pslg 2.0 Furnlce drift pslg 0.55 1.4 28 28 28 27 28 30 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 5 5 5 5 5 0.6 0.8 0.85 0.6 0.6 0.25 0.55 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.65 700 350 705 350 700 340 705 340 69S 340 695 340 695 340 695 340 700 340 700 340 26 28 28 28 28 30 30 30 29 29 28 28 24.58 4.2* 28.97 28.95 28.91 28.92 28.92 28.92 28.92 28.92 28.91 28.88 28.92 28.97 Flue 915 two °F toiler Kit ESP Inlet Ambient te*f °F 21 21 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 22 26 Anbient press Inches Hg 29.02 29.02 29.02 2».02 29.03 29.02 29.01 29.00 29.00 28.99 28.99 29.00 28.99 COMMItS kottOB Ash ind Fly Ash tauvil Stirt - I.JOA, 5.30A. 9.30A. 1.16P. 5. SOP. 9. IOC Stirt - 3:20*. ll"2A. 7,.20P 699* 342« ROf density . 4 IbS/cu ft, 4 Ibs/cu ft 0.12 3.94* 4.22* 0.04* �PROCESS MU AMES MUNICIPAL fOHUL PLANT UNIT W. 1 •Nut based « 24 kr dtu D»U 3-8-80 12* Tine 1A 2A 3A 4A $A 6A 20 18.2 23 21.2 1$ 13.1 1$ 13.1 2P 3P 4P $P 6P 7P 8f 9P IIP Mean 30.$ 28.0 29.$ 27.2 28 2S.7 31 26.7 32 29.5 32.$ 30.2 3$ 32.6 3$ 32.6 33 30.* 32 21.7 31 28.6 27.8$ 25.66 6.01 $.79 124 23$ 260 27$ 28$ 280 27$ 250 240 26$ 280 290 31$ 317 303 278 262 239.33 61.67 850 650 850 83$ 8$$ 8$$ 8$$ 850 850 84$ 850 850 850 8$0 860 8$$ •SO 870 851.05 6.08 8W 890 900 900 90$ 910 870 88$ 89$ 900 910 900 89$ 89$ 900 870 88$ 90$ 893 12.93 13$ 134 130 24$ 270 280 290 29$ 290 270 2$$ 280 29$ 300 328 33$ 318 28$ 280 251.4 62.96 310 30$ 30$ 18.2 2*5 170 16$ 16$ 19$ 12$ 12$ 860 850 84$ 850 850 850 89$ 900 882 900 »00 860 FeedHiter flew rate 1000' s Ibs/hr 2?$ ISO 17$ 17$ 203 Feedmter twp °F ro i IP 121 31.$ 29.2 Steia teMpenture F Ln -vl 11* 32.$ 30.1 Steia pressure pstg O 10A 29.$ 31.$ 27.1 29.2 20 18.2 Stem flOH rite 1000's Ibs/hr N> 9A 27 2$ 20 37$ 340 330 32$ 34$ Sross Net 8A 23.$ 21.7 30.$ 28.3 W 7A • 10P o • 1 17 3* 10 fins MPS 4$ 44 10 fins press pslg $.6 30 21 370 370 370 370 370 380 37$ 380 38$ 38$ 38$ 380 380 370 360.2 25.81 33.0 33.$ 31.0 31.$ 31.$ 30.$ 31.$ 31.0 31.6 33.4 33.2 33.$ 31.3 31.0 CM! 32.03* 1.17* 28.17 $.4 -No KOF 4 AM 01 -9 AM ROF an 3.$ FO fins net 370 34.0 on Excess llr 1 360 32.$ Fuel feed rite (coil) 30.5 40212.$ 1000's Ibs/kr 78752.0 Fuel gauge readings (Ullons/nr fuel all $7*1.1 Mtf 0.56 30 33 $0 $0 $0 21 20 20 19 19 20 21.$ 21 19 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 2$. 48 10.9 42 43 44 42 42 42 47 47 47 47 46 46 46 4$ 46 4$ 46 46 47 4$ 4$ 4$ 4$ 1.72 28 28 28 28 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 29.$ 30 30 30 30 31 30 30 30 29.44 0.97 $ FurMCe drift pslg 30 4 3 3 3 4.$ $ $.0 4.3 4.$ 4.2 3.7 3.0 3. $4 1.03 0.51 0.$ 0.$$ 0.$ 0.62 0.61 O.S3 0.10 662* 327« 10.33* 8.23* 1.07 0.$ 0.3$ 0.32 0.6 0.6$ 0.64 Flue «as imp °F laller exit ESP Ulet 0.6 0.$ 0.6 0.$ 0.3$ 0.6 O.t$ 0.$ 0.6 0.$ MO 320 0.3 660 330 660 330 670 330 670 340 660 320 660 320 660 320 660 320 680 340 JUbient ten* °F 27 26 26 26 24 24 21 21 20 21 24 26 28 29 31 34 34 3$ 3$ 34 33 33 32 32 28.17 4.99 tafcieat press Inches Hg 28.92 28.92 28.92 28.93 28.93 28.94 28.97 28.96 28.98 29.03 29.04 29.06 29.0$ 29.04 29. 06 29.05 29.07 29.0$ 29.07 29.07 29.0$ 29.0$ 29.07 29.0$ 29.01 0.06 fnnMfnlT Kft finlsk SUrt - Ash Md Fly Ask teaov.l 4.30*. B.JO*. 12.30P. 4.30P. 8.30P 12.$$*. S.IOA. 9.00A, LOOP. 5. OOP. 9. SOP SUrt - S.20*.°ll.30A. 8P RDF density per shift 4 Ibs/cu ft. 3 Ibs/cu ft. 4 Ibs/cu ft �PROCESS MTA /WSMMICIPALPMER PLANT UNIT NO. 7 DatE 3-9-80 •Not based on 24 hr data Tlae tU 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 28.0 25.4 26.5 24.2 26.0 24.0 25.0 23.1 25.0 23.1 15.0 13.1 15.0 13.2 15.0 13.3 15.0 13.2 25.0 23.0 25.0 23.1 26.0 24.6 247 225 220 215 212 170 122 121 130 212 210 225 12M Gross Net Steaa flan rate 1000's Ibs/hr 10A HA UP Mean a IP 2P 3P 4P 5P 6P 7P 8P 9r 26.5 24.3 27.0 24.7 26.5 24.3 25.5 23.4 16.5 14.5 16.0 IS.O 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.2 20.9 18.) 5.31 S.12 230 230 225 220 135 130 131 131 131 135 135 135 178 46.7 12.3 12N 10P Steaa pressure pslg 860 885 890 855 870 865 845 850 850 850 845 850 650 850 845 850 845 845 650 850 850 850 854 895 900 880 885 835 880 690 900 895 900 905 860 895 900 900 900. 900 885 890 895 675 885 885 888 15.5 260 240 235 228 22S 205 125 130 130 220 230 235 240 245 235 230 140 140 142 142 142 146 142 144 181 59.3 Feeduater teap °F O 1 OO 850 880 Feednater flow rate 1000's Ibs/hr rO to O* 840 Steaa teaperature °F 375 360 360 353 350 335 300 300 310 360 360 360 355 360 370 360 320 325 320 320 320 320 310 315 338 24.0 fuel feed rate (coal) 1000's Ibs/hr Fuel gauge readings Fuel oil 33. S 29.5 29.2 24.0 27.5 25. 0 19.1 18.3 17.5 31.0 31.5 31.0 30.7 32.0 30.5 30.5 19.5 19.0 19.3 19.3 19.0 19.8 20.0 19.3 24.8 23.7 6.25 NA NA Oil 405 590 S.75 790815 579 240 4.4SA- RDF -NO RDF Excess air S 20 17 20 25 27 40 >50 >50 >50 26 20 22 28 20 22 22 47 47 46 46 46 43 45 45 34 12.6 ID fans aaps 45 44 44 44 44 42 42 42 43 46 46 46 46 46 45 44 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 44 1.6 FD fan aaps 30 28 30 28 28 28 28 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 1.5 FD fan pressure 4.2 Furnace draft pslg 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.40 0.42 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.67 0.61 0.62 0.59 0.092 600 640 640 640 650 640 640 640 600 600 629* 20.2* 265 310 320 320 310 320 320 320 280 280 29 30 38 40 43 44 45 45 46 46 46 43 42 26.85 28.84 28.83 28.80 28.80 28.79 28.82 26.81 28.82 28.62 28.82 28.82 teller 1.05 flue gat ESP Inlet teap °F Aabtent teap °F 31 31 30 28 27 26 26 Aablent pressure Inches Kg 29.07 29.05 29.04 29.02 29.01 29.00 28.96 28.94 Comments lot tea and Fli> Ash Re•oval 27 28.69 28.88 SOOt BlOMI SUrt 4.30A. 11.SO*. 8.03P ROF density - 4.0 tbs/cu ft 305- 40 21.1* 3) 38 37 7.5 28.81 28.78 28.69 O.D97 �PROCESS MIA AMES MMICtMl POME* PLANT UNIT NO. 7 Date 3-10-4)0 •mil based M 24 ar data Tlae MM I2M Sross 1A lf.0 14.0 135 Net Steaa flow rate 1000- « Ibs/fcr U.O 2A ' 3A 14.0 li.O 14.1 U.O 135 137 4A 15.0 16.0 14.1 134 134 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 10A IP 2P 3> 4P 16.0 14.1 U.O 14.2 2».0 26.6 33.5 30.* 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.1 35.0 32.3 15.0 12.4 35.0 12.4 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.3 15.0 32.1 li.O 32.1 35.0 32.1 130 130 250 310 320 310 310 310 310 310 310 300 310 11A 12N 5P 6P 8I> 9P 35.0 12.1 35.0 32.4 15.0 32.2 35.0 12.1 35.0 12.4 29.1 a.; 8.77 8.43 305 305 311 11 1 307 270 254 80.2 9.1 7P 10P UP Mean • Steaa pressure psli 850 850 ISO 850 850 850 860 835 860 860 860 860 865 860 860 845 855 855 850 855 862 845 825 853 •93 880 891 888 IBS 880 882 900 898 902 90S 904 870 885 902 900 890 904 890 900 895 895 900 860 892 11.5 Feeduater flow rate 1000' i Ibs/kr 144 14S 14S 134 140 146 140 235 320 320 325 325 330 325 320 320 325 320 320 320 320 325 330 300 266 83.1 Feeduater teap °F rO N> •SO Steaa teaperatura °F 315 315 315 310 308 305 340 380 390 3*0 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 380 380 380 380 380 380 M2 34.9 Fuel feet rate (CM!) 1000' s Ibs/kr Fuel gauoe readings 19.5 20.0 20.0 17.1 14.5 25.7 37.0 38.0 38.0 38.5 36.5 37.0 37.0 36.5 32.0 33.0 33.6 34.1 34.0 33.0 35.8 31.9 9.03 Coal on 28.8 11.2 4.17 Fuel oil 310 19.6 17.0 40* 538 713 541 S7»l§0 ao RDF RDF- M M -Start ROF at 3.I2P Excess air I 44 4* 42 46 44 42 43 16 18 16 16 It 16 16 17 14 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 24 12.9 10 fans aaps 42 42 42 42 42 41 41 46 47 47 48 48 47 47 48 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 45 45 2.5 t.O 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.7 7.6 5.9 5.4 1.32 28 28 28 28 27 27 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 30 32 30 30 1.3 0.40 0.65 O.S7 0.60 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.61 0.55 0.55 0.65 680 690 690 690 680 680 680 680 690 690 10 fans pressure pslg 3.6 FO fins aaps 28 FO fan pressure psti 2.3 Furnace draft psig 0.60 1.18 0.43 0.58 •0.60 •oiler flue (as teap 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 36 36 36 38 38 38 38 33 26 23 22 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 Aabient pressure Inckes Hg 2S.74 28.72 28.70 28.6) 28.68 28.69 28.69 28.67 28.74 28.79 28.87 28.94 28.97 29.02 28.90 29.02 29.05 29.06 29.13 29.15 29.16 29.17 Cnaaentt aottoa an* Flf Ask Reao»al Start - 12. MA, 4.30A. I.30P. 4.27P. 8.10P FUtsk - 12.50A. 5.00A. 4.1W. 5.42P. lO.JOf Soat How* Surt • 4^6A. 11. lo»- i OOP ROF density • 4.0 Ibs/cu ft 21 20 5.3« 340* 340 35 0.036 685* Aafctent leap °F ESP Inlet taw *F 0.60 0.0* 27 20 19 29.18 29.19 28.91 7.5 0.195 �PROCESS DATA AMES NMICIPAL POME»PUU(T UNIT NO. 7 ant 3-ii-ao •Not based on 24 hr data lime 12H 1A 2A 3A 4A Gross Net 30.0 27.5 22.0 19.8 21.0 19.0 20.6 18.5 20.5 18.5 Stew flow rtte 1000' s Ibs/hr 260 200 170 171 Stet* pressure pslg 845 855 850 Stew temperature °F 900 870 880 Feedwtter flow rtte 1000' s Ibs/hr 276 230 Feeduater te»p "f 370 360 Fuel feed rtte (cotl) 1000' s Ibs/hr Fuel gauge retdlngs 29.1 21.5 HI o 1 «J 0 Fuel oil ROT 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 10A 20.5 18.4 20.5 18.5 30.0 27.5 34.0 31.4 35.0 32.2 35.0 32.4 171 170 170 260 305 310 315 320 850 860 840 855 865 850 850 855 885 893 aao aao 900 910 900 910 185 185 185 194 185 272 315 330 325 330 330 330 330 330 360 380 390 390 15.6 16.5 18.0 17.0 25.0 34.5 35.0 36.5 18.5 IP 2P 3P 4P 5P 6P 7P 8P 9P 10P UP 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.6 35.0 32.5 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.4 31.0 18.4 30.8 28.0 6.10 6.20 320 320 315 315 320 320 320 328 325 330 325 290 277 62.8 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 860 860 860 870 860 860 855 6.24 905 890 885 906 900 900 895 905 900 900 890 880 880 894 11.2 330 330 338 325 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 325 300 277 78.5 390 390 385 390 390 390 390 385 385 385 385 385 380 372 23.6 35.0 34.0 33.0 33.0 32.5 32.8 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 30.8 Coal 21.1 30.3 7.08 11A 12N 35.0 35.0 32.3 32.4 35.0 34.0 on 412 375 797 281 579 490 Net* o NA 11.25 NA Excess tlr t 20 26 30 22 25 35 30 20 19 19 17 16 17 18 20 17 18 • 17 17 17 18 17 17 17 20 5.1 ID hns wps 46 44 42 44 44 44 33 46 46 48 48 48 48 48 47 47 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 46 3.1 6.0 1.18 28 28 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 30 30 1.1 0.58 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.56 0.54 0.58 0.024 664* 37.3* 10 ftns pressure pslg 6*0 3.8 4.6 FO ftn taps 30 28 28 Furiuce drtft pslg 0.60 0.55 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.63 660 680 686 680 690 700 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 323* 27.1* 24 28 30 32 32 33 33 33 34 33 32 32 32 32 25 7.9 29.11 29.08 29.06 29.05 29.08 29.08 29.08 29.08 27.06 29.06 29.14 0.061 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.55 620 600 600 660 670 700 700 280 ESP Inlet tt»f "f 280 280 280 320 340 340 16 15 15 15 15 17 20 Aibient imp °F 17 17 Agilent pressure Inches Hg 29.19 29.19 29.19 29.20 29.21 29.21 29.20 29.20 29.17 Cownts 0.60 700 0.54 615 0.58 taller flue aas te-pOF 16 Button and Fly Ash Removal Start - 12.30*. 4.30*. 8.29A. 12.30P . 4.30P. 8.23P Finish - 1.10A. 5.30A. 9.15A. 1.39P. 5.15P. 9.5SP 0.60 0.55 29.21 29.18 29.15 29.14 29.19 Soot Blow Start - 4. 30A.~11.AOA. 8.10P. 11 .OOP ROF density - 4 ,0 Ibs/cu ft. 4.0 Ibs/cu ft. 4.0 Ibs/cu ft �PROCESS PATA AMES MUNICIPAL MUCH PLANT UNIT NO. 7 Date 3-12-80 •Not based «« 24 kr data 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A «A 7A 6A 9A 21.0 19.0 21.0 19.0 21.0 19.0 20.5 11.4 21.0 19.0 21.0 18. » 29.0 26.6 32.5 10.0 34.5 31.8 35.0 12.1 16.0 11.1 36.0 1 . 11 Steam flo« rate 1000'i Ibs/kr 165 180 180 170 175 175 250 291 310 325 325 Steam pressure psig 850 850 850 640 850 650 860 860 850 855 Steam temperature °F 880 890 880 880 690 880 900-890 885 910 Feeduater flan rate 1000' s Ibs/kr 190 190 190 190 190 195 270 290 320 FeedMiter temp °F 340 320 320 320 340 340 160 380 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000's Ibs/kr Fuel gauge readings 19.0 17.2 20.1 19.3 17.5 19.0 10.0 32.8 Tim* HU O ' 12N Cross Net Fuel oil IP 2P 3P 4P SP 6P 7P 8P 9P 15.0 12.1 35.0 32.2 35.5 12.9 35.5 32.9 15.5 32.9 36.0 31.5 16.0 11.4 3S.O 12.4 15.0 12.1 15.0 12.4 15.0 12.4 32.0 19.5 11.2 27.1 6.26 7.99 325 325 325 325 325 325 130 325 125 320 10 1 120 260 255 94.0 655 855 855 855 865 855 855 855 860 660 660 660 870 650 655 5.1 900 910 900 910 900 900 895 900 890 890 870 680 905 890 691 11.0 335 335 135 335 325 330 330 335 335 338 15 1 350 10 1 126 290 279 80.2 380 380 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 365 385 185 380 380 360 370 25.2 35.6 38.0 35.0 35.0 15.6 35.0 35.0 34.5 34.5 33.5 34.0 15.2 36.3 11.5 33.4 32.8 Coal Oil 30.5 7.11 31.0 NA 12.01 NA 10A 11* I2N 10P 416 106 (00 7SS 579 760 •OF UP Nean a 7.45A only 1 conveyor 9. 00* botn conveyors on Excess air S 30 30 30 30 29 27 20 19 19 16 19 15 18 22 15 14 16 14 15 15 16 20 14 24 20 10 fans amps 44 41 43 43 42 43 45 45 46 47 47 47 46 48 47 46 46 46 47 47 48 46 47 45 46 1.1 IP fans pressure 4.1 4.8 4.« 3.8 5.3 4.0 5.6 6.4 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.8 7.4 7.2 6.5 6.0 6.2 1.20 27 27 27 27 27 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 11 32 11 31 30 26 6.2 0.64 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.54 0.60 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.55 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.70 0.68 0.64 0.61 0.61 0.042 toller flue gas temp °F 620 605 640 675 680 700 700 700 680 680 680 690 700 700 675* H.I- ESP Inlet temp °F 295 300 320 320 324 325 335 335 335 335 340 140 340 340 127- 14.6* FD fan amps 27 FD fan pressure psig 1.6 Furnace draft psig 0.64 1.46 Ambient temp °F 31 30 Ambient pressure Inches Hg 29.03 29.00 28.48 Comments 5.9 30 30 30 30 26.96 28.94 28.94 31 31 26.97 28.96 lottom and Flv Ask « emoval Start - 12.30*. 4.20A. 8.30*. 12.3SP . 4. SOP. 7.0UP flnlsk - I2.55A. 5.03A. MSA. 1.4SP . S.20P. I.20P 31 31 31 30 30 30 1 0 12 31 29 29 26.92 28.89 28.88 28.85 28.84 28.83 28.60 28.79 28.78 26.76 28.62 Soot 8IOM Start - 4.20*. It. 00*. ,7.25P 29 28 27 26 26 1 0 1.6 28.82 28.82 26.82 28.62 28.82 28.66 0.079 RDF density - 4 .5 Ibs/cu ft. 4.0 Ibs/cu ft �PROCESS MIA AMES MUNICIPAL KMCR PLANT UNIT NO. 7 Date 3-13-80 •Not baud on 24 hr data 1A 2A 27.0 24.6 20.0 17.9 20.0 Stea* flax rate 1000' s Ibs/hr 240 165 12N Tine 1*1 Cross Net 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 20.0 18.0 21.0 18. 0 20.0 18.0 IB. 9 29.0 26.6 32.0 19.5 16.0 35.0 13.4 32.2 15.0 32.4 165 165 162 170 260 295 330 320 IP 2P IP 4P 5P 6P 7P 8P 9P 35.0 32.3 15.0 35.0 32.3 3 2 . 4 15.0 12.5 35.0 32.6 35.0 32.5 15.0 12.4 15.0 32.4 15.0 32.4 15.0 32.4 15.0 32.3 15.0 32.4 13.0 30.4 11.2 28.1 6.11 6.16 320 120 120 120 120 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 290 268 82.2 IDA 11A 12N 10P UP Mean o Steaai pressure pstg 850 830 850 850 835 835 865 850 860 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 850 860 860 860 850 860 660 851 8.6 Steu temperature °F 885 860 895 895 885 865 895 890 915 895 900 905 900 905 900 905 900 900 900 895 890 890 880 890 891 12.2 Feednater flon rate 1000' s Ibs/hr 250 120 125 180 182 190 263 300 110 330 10 1 330 110 310 330 310 130 310 310 10 1 330 10 1 10 1 100 286 71.0 Feeduater teap °F 180 330 325 325 325 330 365 370 380 380 385 385 IBS 385 385 385 385 385 185 185 185 185 385 180 171 23.4 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000' s Ibs/hr Fuel gauge readings 26.1 16.7 20.1 19.6 21.0 20.5 30.1 33.4 41.5 40.5 40.0 40.0 40. S 40.5 41.0 15.6 14.8 14.0 16.8 15.4 11.2 11.9 9.81 33.4 NA 2.08 NA Fuel oil 16.5 41.5 15.4 Coal Oil 419 922 804 395 580 050 7.15A only 1 conveyor 7.40A both conveyors 8.3SA- RDf 9.05P Syste* •A" off 9.25P System "A" on -Start RDF at4.0BP Excess air f 20 >50 18 39 18 38 18 17 14 16 17 18 18 18 18 18 16 17 19 18 18 20 17 23 23 9.8 ID fans amps 45 42 44 43 44 44 45 46 48 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 46 46 47 46 46 47 46 46 46 1.5 FD fan aups 29 27 28 27 28 28 29 30 31 10 11 JO 10 11 11 31 11 10 31 10 31 31 11 10 10 1.5 FO fan pressure psig 3.1 0.62 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.61 0.62 0.65 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.63 0.024 620 620 605 640 660 680 700 700 700 695 700 700 705 710 720 725 720 720 725 675 686* 37.5* 280 280 280 310 320 130 330 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 135 335 315 135 335 26 25 25 24 24 25 26 29 30 31 31 31 31 31 11 31 31 29 29 29 28.79 28.78 28.79 28.79 28.79 28.77 28.76 28.76 28.80 28.80 28.86 28.88 28.87 28.91 28.97 29.03 29.07 29.08 29.10 29.11 29.11 28.89 0.127 0.66 0.70 0.60 frailer flue gas teap °f ESP Inlet ump "f Anbient temf "t 26 26 Avbient pressure Inches Kg 28.82 28.81 28.80 Cowents 26 Bottoa and fly Ash Removal SUrt - 12.30A. 4.28A. B.10A , 3. OOP. 4.35P. 8.30P , 10.30P Finish - l.OSA. 5.12A. 9.26A. 3.50P. 5.20P. 9.35P. 10.44P Soot Blown Start - 4.07A RDf density - 4.5 Ibs/cu ft, 4 .0 Ibs/cu ft 0.66 324- 27 28 20.12.6 �PMCtSS DAI* MKS NMIC1ML NUEt PLANT UNIT NO. 7 Date 3-14-80 •Nat •tied on 24 hir dltl 12H Tie» 1A 2A 1A 6A 7A 8A 9A 35.0 12.7 US 165 165 177 300 315 320 840 850 MS MS 860 855 900 900 890 860 895 900 90S 180 180 180 176 185 180 300 370 315 335 335 335 330 335 380 30.7 20.8 18.8 18.2 19.3 19.9 20.3 31.3 35.0 35.0 35. 0 269 165 166 Steu pressure pslg MS MS MS Stem temperature °F 885 MS Feedmter flow rite 1000' s Ibs/hr 275 FeedMter teap °F Fuel feed rite (coil) 1000' t Ibs/hr Fuel 9«H9e railings Fuel ell «DF Excess ilr X 424 007 808 295 590 100 18 12N IP 2P 3P 4P 5* 6P 7P 8P »P 10P IIP Neu a 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.2 3S.O 32.3 35.0 12.4 35. 0 31.8 32\4 29.2 34.0 31.4 15.0 32.1 1S.O 32.4 14.0 11.2 32.0 29.4 10.0 27.4 10.5 28.0 6.25 6.01 310 315 115 315 315 115 310 283 300 305 317 305 280 260 270 62.8 860 850 860 ass ass 855 ass 850 850 850 ass 850 850 870 840 852 7.0 905 900 900 900 910 900 900 895 895 880 900 900 900 860 900 894 12.5 330 325 325 325 125 320 320 120 120 290 310 330 345 315 295 280 281 61.3 380 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 3M 380 380 380 390 385 180 180 171 21.8 34.0 36.5 36.0 36.5 34. S 33.0 32.0 31.0 38.0 32.6 35.0 30.S 32.4 Coil Oil 20.0 20.0 18.0 It.O Cross Net HA 10A 21.0 33.0 19.8 30.5 20.0 17.8 Ste*a f low r<te 1000' s Ibs/hr rO CO 5A 20.0 20.0 18.0 17.9 31.0 28.4 MM 4A 30.4 30.7 1.75 NA NA 15.0 35.0 12.1 32.4 6.64 7.35A only 1 conveyor 7.4SA both coiweyors on 43 >50 43 42 39 36 IB 13 15 15 18 16 16 18 18 17 19 18 17 20 16 IS 24 24 11.3 48 47 47 45 45 45 1.5 ID fens ups 45 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 45 45 FD f» ups 30 27 27 27 27 27 27 30 30 30 311 30 30 30 30 30 30 29 30 32 31 30 29 30 29 1.5 FO fin pressure pslg 4.0 2.9 2.0 1.8 FurMce drift pslj 0.59 0.61 0.7) 0.68 0.61 0.60 0.65 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.7S 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.70 0.60 0.62 0.044 615 620 600 630 660 680 685 685 690 665 680 680 685 690 680 690 715 700 690 650 660 669* 30.2* 290 290 290 315 330 335 335 335 335 335 135 15 1 335 335 130 335 335 335 315 130 320 326* 16.9* 21 21 21 21 21 26 34 40 42 49 48 50 52 54 53 51 49 46 42 41 40 37 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11 29.16 29.11 1.01 taller flue «is te-p<>F EiP Inlet leap 21 1.12 Aablent teap °F 23 27 Anblent pressure Incus Mi 29.11 29.11 29.11 29.12 29.12 Convents 29.13 29.13 29.13 29.12 Bottom end fit Ash Neaonil SUrt - I2.27A. 4.28*. I.82A. 12.30P, 4.30P . 8.30P FUlsh - l.OOA. 5.10A. 9.25A. I.52P. S.OOP . 9.5SP 0.60 0.58 29.11 29.10 29.10 29.10 0.«2 29.09 29.09 29.08 29.09 29.10 29.13 SOOt 8 0 I 1 M SUrt - 4.10A, 11.20*. 8.481' RDF density - 4 .5 Ibs/cu ft. 4 .5 Ibs/cu ft 12.6 0.019 �PROCESS DATA AXES MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT UNIT NO. ? Date 3-15-80 •Hot based aa 24 hr data 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 29.0 2C.6 19.0 17.0 24.5 22.4 24.0 22.0 24.0 21.9 24.0 22.0 24.0 22.0 24.0 21.6 28,0 25.8 30.0 27.2 31.5 28.9 31.0 28,4 Steaa flov rate 1000's Ibs/hr 245 159 212 201 201 205 205 207 240 260 280 Steaa pressure pslg 835 830 835 850 850 875 855 850 850 855 Steaa teaperature °F 890 880 890 880 905 885 885 885 905 900 Feedwter f low rate 1000's Ibs/hr 256 170 220 210 208 215 215 215 245 FeedMter teap °F 370 335 355 3SS 355 155 355 155 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000's Ibs/hr Fuel gauge readings 29.6 19.0 24.8 30.1 29.4 10.4 Tlae HU 12N Cross Net CO N3 Fuel on 27.3 19.5 IP 2P 3P 11.0 28,4 16.5 14.4 17.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 282 278 135 118 855 858 855 845 905 860 895 895 265 285 291 281 155 365 375 378 11.5 31.5 35.0 34.4 10A 5P 6P 7P 8P 9P 10P UP 16.0 14.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 14.3 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.3 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.2 16.0 14.2 21.7 19.6 135 135 135 135 135 135 U5 115 135 186 850 850 850 845 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 8.6, 900 895 895 885 880 890 890 870 880 880 888 11.1 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 140 145 145 194 54.0 375 330 325 325 315 315 120 320 320 320 320 120 330 69.4 11.5 19.5 19.0 19.0 17.0 18.0 18.2 18.1 18.5 19.0 18.8 18.1 24.2 24.0 6.60 UN 11A 4P Coal on 427 756 430 705 811 911 814 720 580 190 581 100 Mean o 5.95 5.68 55.06 37.92 HA HA Midnight readings, 3-15-80 No ROF RDF Encess air I 24 50 30 29 39 38 36 30 24 19 20 20 21 >50 >50 >50 >50 >SO >SO »50 >50 »50 >50 >50 39 12.5 10 fans aaps 45 41 44 43 44 45 44 45 45 46 46 46 46 42 42 41 31 31 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 4.0 10 fans pressure pstj 5.7 28 28 27 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 10 30 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 1.4 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.82 0.90 0.78 0.81 0.72 0.73 0.70 0.70 0.68 0.72 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.74 0.60 0.60 0.74 0.092 660 600 600 600 600 625* 27.3* FD fan aaps 30 FO fan pressure psl9 4.3 Furnace draft pslg 0.61 Holler flue gas teap OF 0.88 630 640 640 615 645 650 680 670 600 605 610 610 600 595 305 ESP Inlet teap °F Aablent teap °F 40 40 19 Aablent pressure Inches Hg 29.16 29. M 29.1229.11 38 305 305 110 310 120 325 325 325 290 285 285 275 270 275 275 275 275 275 38 38 35 14 40 48 55 60 62 64 64 65 65 64 61 59 56 54 54 51 51 29.08 29.05 29.07 29.44 29.04 29.03 29.00 29.02 28.96 28.92 28.88 28.87 28.89 27.89 28.90 28.90 28.90 28.90 28.87 28.87 28.48 8ottoa and Fly Ash Reao»al Start - l.OOA. 4.28A. 8.30A. 12.39P. 4.37P. 8.30P Finish • I.27A. 5.00*, 9.03*, 1.15P. 5.OOP. 9.0SP Soot BlQMi Start - 3.58*. 10.30*. 8.40P RDF density - 1.5 Ibs/cu ft 295* 20.211.2 0.098 �PROCESS MIA IS MUNICIPAL POME*. flMT UNIT JO.. 7 •Not based on 24 nr data Bate 3-17-80 12M Tie* 1A 2A 3A 4A SA 6A 7A 8A 9A 16.0 14.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 13.9 16.0 14.0 28.0 25. 9 32.5 29.8 34.8 32.3 35.0 32.3 3S.O 33.2 130 130 130 130 IX 265 270 310 310 315 10A 11A 4f SP 6P 7f 8P 9f 34.5 33.8 34.5 31.9 34.5 31.9 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.3 30.5 27.» ' 29.5 27.2 7.74 7.S8 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 320 320 260 259 76.1 IP 2P 35.0 33.2 34.5 31.7 34.5 31.6 315 310 12N 10P UP Mean a * NU Gross 28.0 Net Steam flan rate 1000' s Ibs/br 243 160 Steaa pressure pslg 845 840 850 850 •SO 850 •SO 850 835 855 855 855 855 850 850 850 •SO •SO 860 860 850 •SO 850 850 •50 5.3 Steam teeperature °F 890 •80 890 880 870 900 890 885 900 900 900 910 900 880 895 900 900 900 890 900 890 890 880 890 •92 9.4 FeeAuter flon rate 1000' s Ibs/kr 255 188 140 140 141 140 140 265 2S6 320 315 320 320 326 320 320 320 315 320 315 330 330 320 270 268 74.5 Feedueter teap °F N) 25. S 22.0 20.0 365 340 320 320 320 320 320 375 380 380 380 380 380 380 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 380 367 26.3 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000' s Ibs/kr Fuel gauge readings Fuel oil 32.4 22.0 18.6 19.4 17.6 18.9 18.9 34.5 39.6 36.5 36.6 37.5 38.0 35.0 34.5 33.5 34.0 33.0 33.4 36.8 35.2 33.5 29.6 on Coal 30.9 31.2 2.92 7.23 HA NA 434 476 818 349 581 370 tIO:10A7 No «OF- MFEicess air X 22 35 >50 1.0. fans aaps 46 1.0. fans pressure F.O. fan aaps 30 27 27 F.O. fan pressure pslg 3.8 3.1 0.42 0.64 0.59 >50 44 44 No Ulf 11:05A 19 >50 46 21 42 48 17 47 18 48 17 20 46 47 -Start WF at 1 :40P 21 17 47 46 18 46 16 46 16 18 16 46 46 20 18 16 24 26 13.3 47 47 46 45 46 1.6 2.1 Furnace draft pslg 43 >SO 4.8 44 43 >50 33.5 46 1.00 27 27 27 30 27 32 30 31 30 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 30 30 0.65 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.69 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.70 600 600 600 645 670 680 785 695 700 695 665 675 675 0.50 280 280 280 320 320 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 335 32 31 31 31 30 29 29 29 29 29 32 36 36 41 41 42 42 42 41 Aablent pressure Inches Ng 29.04 29.04 29.03 29.03 29.05 29.05 29.05 29.06 29.12 29.10 29.14 29.11 29.10 29.10 29.08 29.09 29.08 29.08 29.13 29.16 29.16 0.52 0.70 335 32 0.70 lotto* and Fly Ask la•oval 1:3SP. 10:OOP Soot llOMi 39 0.074 48.9* 319« 0.54 0.59 669* 0.44 685 Aabient teap °F ESP Inlet leap °F Finis* - 6:OOA, 1.6 1.09 toller flue gas teap Coaaents 30 21.3- 34 4.9 36 34 34 29.15 29.14 29.14 29.09 0.043 �PROCESS DATA AMES tUIICIPAl POHE* PIAIIT UH1T HO. 7 •Not b»ed on 24 kr diU Dite 3-18-80 1A 2A 3A 4A SA 6A JA BA 9A IDA I1A 12M IP 2P 3P 4P SP 6P 7P 8P 9P 10P HP 29.0 Z6.6 27.0 24.9 26.5 24.4 25.5 23.4 25.5 23.4 25.5 23.5 27.0 24.8 31.0 28.6 35.5 32.8 36.0 33.4 35.5 33.1 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.5 35.0 32.5 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.5 33.0 30.6 32.5 30.1 32.0 29.4 35.0 32.2 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.4 32.0 29.3 29.0 26.4 31. « 3.84 29.3 3.65 Stew flo« rate 1000* s Ibs/kr 240 230 230 222 220 220 240 275 31S 325 320 320 320 320 31S 315 300 295 295 319 315 310 285 251 283 40.0 Steal pressure pslg 845 835 850 855 840 850 850 850 855 860 855 855 855 850 850 850 850 845 B45 855 850 855 835 855 850 6.3 835 880 870 885 685 90S 910 900 875 900 900 910 900 900 880 BBS BBS 880 895 900 BBS 890 16.2 251 295 324 335 330 338 330 330 330 330 305 310 300 330 325 311 300 260 295 38.1 11.7 Tim Ml Gross Net 12M Nun o SteM teaperiture °F 895 90S 885 FeedMter flow rile 1000' s Ibs/kr 250 245 241 240 235 240 FeedMter teap °F 365 360 360 355 355 355 360 370 380 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 380 380 380 385 385 385 380 370 375 Fuel feed rite (coil) 1 0 ' s Ibs/kr 00 Fuel Muoe reidlngs Fuel olT «OF 30.1 31.1 438297 822 025 581 440 27.0 24. S 28.4 23.9 28.2 32.5 39.5 38.0 36.0 34.5 35.5 35.5 33.5 35.0 33.0 32.0 31.1 32.6 32.7 32.5 31.2 29.3 Coil on 32.0 3.84 31.6 HA 2.50 NA Excess ilr 25 33 23 18 26 25 20 19 18 20 20 17 22 19 23 20 20 19 20 IB 16 IB 20 21 21 3.6 1.0. fins ops 45 45 44 44 44 44 44 45 47 46 46 46 46 47 46 46 46 45 46 46 46 46 47 45 46 0.98 1.0. fins pressure pslg 5.3 F.O. IMS UPS 29 30 29 27 28 28 28 30 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 29 30 30 30 30 30 29 30 1.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.1 0.97 0.65 0.57 0.45 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.60 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.75 0.53 0.55 0.50 0.40 0.60 0.80 0.65 O.SI 0.59 0.098 625 625 635 650 695 695 695 68S 680 680 695 700 690 690 690 680 680 680 675 676* 24.0* 305 305 310 320 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 335 330 330 330 335 335 330 320 326" 9.5- 34 34 34 34 37 44 51 56 62 61 64 65 66 64 62 59 55 54 50 49 12.8 29.13 29.13 29.12 29.12 29.13 29.10 F.D. fin pressure pslg 3.6 4.4 2.6 Furnice drift pslg 0.6S 0.45 0.69 teller flue gis teap °F ESP Inlet teap °f Aablent teaperiture 33 33 33 Aabtent pressure Inckes Hg 29.14 29.14 29.14 29.14 fnearnts 1:50 P both connectors on 7:15 A only 1 connector 33 ppttoa tek Mid fly tefc jeaovil SUrt - 2:10A. 5:40A. 10:30A. 2:OOP. C:17P. 9:52P Finis. 6:OOA. 11:20*. 2:32P. 7:3SP. 10:1SP 0.60 49 29.09 29.09 29.09 29.08 29.02 29.02 28.99 28.98 29.00 2 . 0 28.96 28.96 28.96 28.95 2 . 6 0.071 90 90 Soot iloxn Stirt - 2:35A. 10:25A, 6:30A RDF density - 3.5 Ibs/cu ft. 4.0 Ibs/cu ft. 3.5 Ibs/ cu ft �PROCESS DATA MKS MMicirAi taut nun UNIT * 0. 7 •Not btud M 24 r deU 1 DtU 3-19-80 I2M Ttae Ml Cross U 2A 3* 4A SA M 2P 3* 4P 5P <P 7P 8P » 31.0 28.3 35.0 32.2 35.0 34.5 32.4 32.0 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.S 35.0 32.0 35.0 32.6 35.0 32.6 35.0 32.6 31.0 28.6 33.0 30.1 36.0 33.1 35.5 32.6 35.5 32.7 32.0 29.2 23.0 20.8 31.0 27.2 t.K 2O8 243 292 314 315 310 310 315 320 320 320 320 280 292 340 320 319 290 190 277 52.1 170 845 ISO 860 860 85S 850 845 855 855 855 855 855 845 845 845 865 860 860 850 853 7.0 8M 885 895 900 895 910 900 885 894 900 900 902 900 860 880 870 875 BBS 880 875 888 12.1 225 220 250 295 322 31S 325 325 325 326 325 328 325 295 305 349 345 325 295 200 287 50.6 355 350 360 395 380 385 385 38S 385 385 385 385 385 385 380 395 390 390 385 350 375 16.5 22.4 30.4 30.4 33.6 34.5 34.0 34.0 33.0 33. 5 39.5 39.0 39.0 31.0 33.5 35.0 33.3 33.9 31.6 19.5 31.1 31.4 4.17 5.74 M M 20 5.9 45 1.3 5.7 0.65 29 1.5 7* M 9A 1 M 11A 27.0 24.1 12N IP 10P UP 21. 0 U.O 2S.S 23.4 Stt» flo* r«U WOO1 s Ibs/br 175 220 215 212 Steal pressure pstg MS 855 850 845 Stetei temperature °F 875 885 8»5 885 Feeduiter flow r<U 1000' • Ibs/hr IBS 232 225 235 FeedMter leap °F 340 3M 360 355 Fuel feed rile (CM|) 1000's Ibs/kr fuel 9*uge reeding* Fuel oil 18.3 23.4 442 234 «2S i » S81 SOO Encess «lr I 40 24 1» 20 24 22 20 16 15 17 IS 18 16 18 19 17 17 22 18 18 12 15 18 32 I.D. fus «ps 43 43 43 44 43 43 44 45 46 46 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 45 46 46 45 46 45 43 I .0. fMis pressure pi 19 4 F.D. fUS UPS 27 Net hO O OJ I (Jl —• 25.0 2S.O 24.0 2S.O 22. « 22.f 21.8 22.8 205 29.S 30.2 24.2 Coal Oil 1-.10P'a 28 28 28 28 28 30 30 . 29 30 30 31 30 32 • 31 32 30 30 30 29 30 29 26 2 8 1. 18 psl« FUTMCC dreft pslg 0.70 O.tO 0.50 0.5* 0.52 ilS taller flue g*s teap 620 0.72 0.67 0.69 0.5S 0.54 0.70 0.80 0.62 0.61 0.64 0.63 0.50 0.68 t20 630 650 680 685 690 675 675 680 690 685 700 695 305 300 300 310 320 335 335 340 335 335 340 340 340 340 ' 48 45 45 45 43 43 43 44 SO 59 62 62 66 68 68 69 68 Aefclent pressure Inches Hg 28. »S 28.95 28.93 28.93 28.93 28.88 28.87 28.88 28.88 28.05 28.83 28.79 28.77 28.76 28.73 28.72 28.71 28.71 28.73 0.50 0.61 0.65 0.30 340 48 0.59 lotto Md Fly Asli «e«ovil SUrt - 1:SOA. S:0SA. l6:JOA. 1:10P. t:30P. 9:25P flalU - 3:2SA. 5:SM. 11:0&A. I-.3SP, 7:54P. 10:00f> SUrt - 3:iU. IDilSA . 6:45 P 0.60 0.101 66«* 0.61 tafclent te«p °F ESP Inlet °F Coaeents o S.Ol •'SUrt •Of .t 4:10P No WF e .• 28 Neui 30.2- 328* 68 15.9* 65 61 58 59 55 56 9.3 28.73 28.73 28.73 28.73 28.73 28.81 0.088 KDf dtensity - 4.0 Ibs/cu ft. 4.0 Ibs/cu ft �PROCESS MIA AMES MUNICIPAL MUt« PLANT UNIT NO. 7 •Not based M 24 hr data Oat* 3-20-80 Tlw NU Cross Nit Stea> HIM rat* 1000's Ibs/hr 12H 22.0 I9.a 190 1A 22.0 19. a 190 2A 22.0 19.6 190 3A 4A SA 6A 21. S 21. S 19.2 19.3 22.0 19.7 24.0 21.8 175 180 188 200 7A IP 2P V 4P Sf> V 7P 8f> 9P 10P UP 35.0 32.5 35.0 32.4 35.0 32. S 35.0 32.6 35.0 32.0 36.0 32.2 3S.O 32.3 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.2 33.5 31.1 29.$ 27.1 30.6 26.1 S.88 7.68 320 11A 320 320 120 315 315 319 319 319 319 300 260 273 59.8 12N M 9A 27.0 24.2 34.5 31.7 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.5 35.0 32.0 35.0 32.5 240 315 315 320 320 10A 0 MM* Staa> pressure psig O 1 —• 00 850 840 850 850 850 850 850 855 855 860 855 855 850 ass ass 850 855 8SO 855 850 850 860 851 6.0 880 900 880 860 880 890 890 895 90S 910 870 880 900 905 910 900 895 895 895 885 885 890 900 891 12.3 200 200 200 195 210 200 210 250 320 325 330 335 330 325 328 325 325 330 325 325 340 330 305 275 222 115.4 Feed»eter tup °F cr> 840 ago Feeduater flow r»te 1000's Ibs/hr (0 CO 840 Uu> teiperaturt °f 350 350 350 350 340 340 360 360 380 385 385 382 382 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 380 370 372 16.8 20.0 24. S 29.8 Fuel feed rite (coal) 16.9 24.0 24.6 32.4 26.0 1000-s Ibs/hr 444 122 450 244 I Futl eauoe readings 829 315 833 406 1 Mdnlgkt readings . 3-20-80 Fuel oil sai 600 582 090 | IDF 2:3M-No RDF 38.1 38. 0 39.0 37.2 37.0 37.0 36.6 37.0 37.0 39.6 39.6 40.1 41.6 39.0 36.5 Coal 33.6 34.4 NA Oil 20.42 HA Excess air I 35 40 42 40 40 36 25 24 22 22 20 19 23 21 22 21 23 21 21 21 20 26 24 32 27 7.7 1.0. fans anps 44 43 43 43 44 44 44 45 47 47 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 46 1.8 1 .0. fans pressure psll 5.0 F.D. fans aups 28 F.D. fans pressure psig 0.54 toller •F V) 0 .w 28 28 27 28 28 29 29 32 31 31 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 31 30 29 4.S 0.80 O.M 0.40 flue gas IMP 0.60 615 0.78 620 0.70 625 0.68 630 0.53 695 6.4 1 . 19 J* 0.55 0.60 0.70 0.62 0.68 0.62 0.60 0.55 0.65 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.093 705 710 670 680 690 700 700 705 710 715 720 680 685 680 680 681* 32.8- 295 ESP Inlet °F 295 300 320 325 325 330 330 330 330 335 335 335 330 330 330 330 330 330 315 324« 12.7« 46 47 44 43 43 42 42 42 44 46 51 52 51 50 45 44 44 42 42 39 44 9.2 28.95 28.93 28.92 28.93 28.97 28.92 0.086 M>«ent teap °F 50 50 46 taktent pressure Inches Hg 20.72 28.72 28.82 28.82 28.83 28.86 28.90 28.90 28.94 28.96 Counts 7.06 No ROF 3.5 Furnace draft psig 11:OOA 11:35* 34.0 46 !»"?• ft"* Ash «« ' « 5S>t HoMn 28.96 28.96 28.97 Start - 3:MA.'10:lSA, 7:10P KOF density - 3.5 Ibs/cu ft 28. 98 28.97 28.99 29.01 29.03 29.03 �MOCESS DATA AlCS HJHIClrAl fOMt» M.AOT UNIT • . 7 0 •hot kased M 24fcrdata Date 3-22-80 1A 2A 1A 4A SA 6A 7A •A 9A 10A 11* 12* If 2P » V SP 6P 7P sp gp 10P UP 22.0 19.9 22.0 19.1 22.0 19.S 22.5 20.4 21.0 20.9 21.0 21.0 21.0 20.8 23.0 20.8 29.0 26.1 32.0 29.7 34.0 31.6 34.0 31.4 34.5 12.0 34.0 11.4 32.5 30.1 12.0 29.6 12.0 29.6 11.0 10.6 13.0 10.1 15.0 12.1 14.5 11.1 14.5 11.7 32.0 29.3 30.0 27.4 29.4 27.1 5.16 4.9S Stew flan rate 1000's Ibt/hr 188 188 188 190 195 200 195 195 255 288 110 320 110 107 285 280 285 290 295 312 110 110 285 265 260 Sl.l Stew pressure pslg 850 850 860 860 850 850 860 850 868 850 850 880 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 050 850 850 850 850 851 7.4 12M Tin. m Gross Net MM* . Stew twperature °F 890 900 890 870 870 870 880 900 90S 900 900 910 890 890 900 905 900 900 890 890 900 880 880 880 891 11.8 FeedMter flOH rate lOOO's Us/nr 200 200 200 210 210 200 205 200 263 293 110 115 320 115 300 295 295 300 102 322 110 325 295 265 270 50.5 Feedwter twp °F 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 365 175 380 385 176 380 380 380 380 180 380 185 380 380 180 365 365 18.9 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1 0 ' s Iks/nr 00 Fuel gaimi readings Fuel ill •OF 19.3 453 901 •36 954 582 768 21.2 19.4 20.8 20.3 18.0 25.0 2B.O 32.0 35.5 36.1 16.0 38.5 35.5 37.0 38.0 19.0 18.5 40.2 4. 05 40.1 38.6 31.5 Coal 11.1 8.12 11.1 M 26.67 NA Excess air I 27 27 27 25 27 27 26 25 17 22 21 1.0. fws aaps 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 44 45 46 1.0. fans pressure pslg 4.6 F.O. fans aups 27 28 27 27 27 28 27 27 29 30 30 20.2 on 12: UP F.O. fans pressure pslg 3.0 06 .8 0.44 30 15 30 18 30 19 30 18 20 20 20 20 20 19 " 22 1.1 46 46 46 46 46 46 45 45 I.I 30 30 30 31 31 31 30 30 29 1.5 4.1 31 21 18 46 19 0.99 0.59 0.101 659* 30.4- 1.0 Furnace draft pslg • No ROF 0.40 ESr Inlet °F Ambient tenp °F 16 34 Ambient pressure Inches Hg 29.21 29.21 29.21 29.17 34 31 31 Finish 0.70 0.47 0.45 0.65 0.60 0.70 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.50 0.58 610 615 640 660 685 700 680 675 670 675 670 680 300 300 315 320 330 310 130 330 330 125 325 325 33 34 33 35 16 38 40 44 45 46 50 50 50 29.18 29.18 29.15 29.14 29.11 90 29.08 29.05 29.02 29.00 2 . 8 28.97 28.96 2 . 6 28.87 28.87 28.87 28.87 28.87 2 . 4 0.134 88 89 29.18 29.18 lotto* and Fly Ask Kenoval Comments 0.60 300 0.74 0.68 610 0.40 •oiler flue gas leap •F Soot lloun 0.55 0.56 0.65 0.58 0.62 0.65 120* 46 •OF density - 3.5 Iks/cu ft, 4.5 Iks/cu ft 41 41 41 39 19 12.2* 40 5.9 �PROCESS DATA AMES MUNICIPAl POWER PLANT uHIT NO. 7 •mot based on 24 kr data Date 3-23-80 12* 10P IIP a Men IP 2P 3P 4P 5P 6P 7P 17.0 15.4 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.3 17.0 15.4 17.0 15.4 17.0 15.4 20.0 18.3 20.0 1S.O 20.0 18.0 20.0 18.0 20.0 17.9 20.0 18.0 18.1 16.2 1.98 1.80 144 144 144 144 142 144 144 168 168 168 168 168 168 153 16.2 845 850 850 855 850 855 855 855 860 860 860 860 860 860 852 5.7 885 895 890 890 880 890 890 895 eao 890 870 880 880 880 884 10.0 150 150 165 150 151 150 150 150 180 180 180 180 180 180 162 17.8 320 325 320 320 320 320 320 320 325 330 340 330 330 330 340 325 7.1 19.8 19.6 21.0 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 20.5 19.5 22.0 22.6 22.9 23.0 22.6 22.2 Coal Oil 20.8 1.71 20.4 M 33.33 M >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 41 40 29 29 26 26 26 28 '42 11.0 43 43 43 42 42 42 43 42 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 0.7 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 25.0 22.4 17.0 15.0 17.0 15.0 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.1 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.2 17.0 15.4 SUM flax rate 1000' s Ib/kr 210 145 144 144 144 144 145 145 142 142 143 Steam pressure pslg 850 840 850 850 845 850 850 850 845 850 Steam temperature °F 880 880 890 850 880 890 880 880 890 900 Feeduatcr flow rate 1000 's Ibs/kr 220 162 155 155 152 150 150 150 150 150 FeediMter teap °F 340 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000' s Ibs/kr Fuel gauge readings Fuel oil RDF 26.2 19.5 457 717 840 602 583 406 19.6 19.5 19.5 19.6 19.0 20.2 19.4 Excess air X 19 >60 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >5fl 1.0. fans aaps 44 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 1.0. fans pressure pslg 4.0 4.0 4.0 F.O. fan aaps 29 28 28 27 27 F.O. fan pressure f>sl| 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.2 Furnace draft pslg 0.54 0.60 0.64 0.58 0.54 TIM NU w • oo g » ftp Gross Net IDA 11A 12N No RDF 0.22 27 28 27 27 27 27 27 28 27 27 27 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 0.6 0.67 0.60 0.64 0.58 0.51 0.56 0.60 0.40 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.65 0.57 0.60 0.55 0.56 0.59 0.057 600 600 600 600 605 590 600 600 600 595 595 599* 3.9« 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280* 0* 37 3) 40 38 37 1.6 Boiler flue gas teap ESP Inlet °F Ambient teap °F 40 39 41 Ambient pressure inches Mg 28.87 28.96 28.95 28.94 28.93 28.92 28.92 28.99 28.98 28.98 29.01 Comments _•<""• and Fly Ask Removal 39 37 36 36 36 $S't»!9-? 36 36 Start - 2:30A. 11:15*. 7:OOP 36 38 38 40 37 36 36 36 36 36 28.99 28.97 28.97 28.96 28.95 28.96 28.96 29.00 29.00 29.01 29.01 29.01 29.01 28.97 0.036 RDF density - No ROF �PMCESS DATA UK HJMIClfM KMtR PtANT UNIT NO. 7 Date 3-24-80 •Not based on 24 hr data Time 12M 1A 2A 3A 5A 4* 6A •7A 8A 9A 10A 11A 3S.O 32.4 35.0 32.6 35.0 32.4 310 310 305 4P SP if M.S 33.8 3S.O 32.S 3S.O 32.4 3S.O 32.5 3S.O 32.$ 35.0 32.S 15.0 32.S 310 310 310 US 320 320 IP 2P 3P M.5 32.0 35.0 32.6 310 315 12N 7P 10P UP 3S.O 32. S 15.0 32.4 32. S 30.0 29.7 27.4 7.77 7.55 318 318 318 290 264 73. S 4.9 8P 9P Moan a 20.0 18.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 17.0 1S.O 17.0 1S.2 17.8 IS. 2 17.0 15.2 30.0 27.3 3S.O 32.3 Steam flox rate 1000' s Ibs/hr 16S 165 ISO 148 148 148 148 260 3IS Steam pressure pslg 860 860 860 ato 860 860 860 860 860 855 855 840 850 860 850 860 860 ass 860 860 860 860 860 860 868 Steam temperature °F 880 900 880 880 900 890 880 890 890 9W 904 900 890 890 900 91S 880 890 890 900 860 890 890 aw 891 11.2 FeedtMter flon rat* 1000's Ibs/hr 180 180 160 160 164 15S 155 270 323 320 320 312 315 32S 320 325 320 320 328 328 332 330 328 290 273 72. S Feednater temp °F 340 340 330 330 330 320 320 3 0 3 0 380 380 380 380 385 385 385 385 385 38$ 390 390 385 390 380 367 25.4 Fuel feed rate (coal 1000's Ibs/hr Fuel gauge readings Fuel oil 22.8 22.8 20.2 19.4 20.3 19.0 20.1 33.7 37.5 37.0 37.0 M.5 32.0 33.0 33.0 M.5 33.4 39.5 41.1 42.8 42. S 41.7 40.6 37.0 Oil 32.3 8.26 32.8 NA 20.42 NA Ml Cross Net 460 266 842 955 S84 200 Coal to ROF at 10:27A NO ROF RDF- 4:10P- No ROF Encess air I 28 29 45 45 41 46 45 24 19 20 18 19 17 18 17 14 1 8 19 18 19 19 19 17 19 25 10.8 1.0. fans amps 42 43 43 43 42 42 43 46 47 47 47 46 48 48 48 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 43 46 2.2 1.0. fans pressure pstg 6.1 27 F.O. fans amps 27 27 F.O. fan pressure 2.3 3.0 O.SS 0.57 0.27* 27 27 27 27 29 31 30 30 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 29 1.7 0.92 ps1« Furnace draft psig 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.50 0.68 670 685 700 685 600 toiler fuel gas temp 59S 595 655 680 0.38 0.62 0.47 0.62 0.50 0.40 O.SS 0.5$ 660 670 680 680 685 0.55 0.50 0.50 O.SS 0.48 0.073 36.1* 322* 0.40 O.S3 660* O.S2 23.1* •f 280 280 280 335 330 330 33S 335 335 335 335 335 33$ 33S Ambient temp °F 36 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 36 38 38 38 38 37 37 37 36 36 35 36 1.0 Ambient pressure Inches Kg 28.96 28.96 28.96 28.96 28.96 28.96 28.96 28.96 28.99 26.98 29.01 29.02 29.04 29.01 29.06 29.06 29.06 29.08 29.13 29.13 29.13 29.18 29.18 29.18 29.04 0.079 ESP Inlet temp °F tottM andFly Ash Remove 1 Comments Start finis. - Soot 81lMl *OF density - 4.0 Ibs/cu ft >:3SA. 2:06P. �PROCESS DATA *KS HUHICIPM. POMER It All I UNIT NO. 7 Date 3-25-80 •Hot based on 24 hr data 1* 2A 3A 4* 5* 6* 7* 8* 9* 22.0 19. S 18.0 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.0 16.1 28.0 25.8 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.2 180 148 148 150 155 155 155 250 317 12H TIM Ml Gross Net Steaei flow rate 1000' s Ibs/hr 7P 8P 9P 10P IIP 35.0 36.0 32.3 32.5 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.5 35.0 32.S 35.0 32.5 25.5 23.7 312 312 312 311 312 312 313 252 12N IP 2P 3P 4P 35.0 32.5 35.0 35.0 32.5 32.6 35.0 32.6 34.0 31.4 34.5 32.1 35.0 32.3 315 318 315 315 310 308 312 10* 11* 5P 6P Mean 0 29.57.54 27.27.21 262 71.9 Stean pressure pslg 860 850 850 850 850 850 860 840 860 855 855 855 855 855 845 850 850 850 850 850 810 850 853 850 852 4.8 Steaei temperature °F 870 890 880 880 880 880 880 890 900 905 900 900 880 890 900 900 900 900 900 905 882 900 900 880 892 10.7 Feedwater flow rate 1000's Ibs/hr 210 158 160 160 160 325 324 320 280 272 71.4 Feeduater te«p °F 340 320 382 382 382 380 364 27.6 160 165 250 325 320 325 325 325 320 325 324 320 320 320 318 385 380 385 385 383 383 383 383 34.0 34.0 34.0 35.7 48.3 38.7 320 320 320 320 320 360 380 380 380 380 Fuel feed rate (coal) 21.9 21.0 1000's Ibs/hr 464 277 Fuel tauge readings 846 818 Fuel oil 584 690 RDF 21.0 21.4 21.5 21.5 21.5 33.9 34.7 35.3 33.0 33.0 33.0 Excess air S 38 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >SO 22 22 19 20 18 IB 19 19 17 16 17 15 IB 17 15 18 18 . 27 I.D. fans aups 43 45 43 44 45 45 45 46 48 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 45 46 1.0. fans pressure ps'9 3.8 5.0 F.O. fans taps 28 28 F.D. fan pressure PSl9 3.0 Furnace draft pslg 0.53 •Start RDF at 7:40* do RDF 37.5 39.0 30.0 31.8 7.66 Coal 31.8 Oil 28.33 N* M 10:OOP system ••" OFF 8:00* . 3-26-80 10:22P Systea T ON 4:OSP reduced RDF flow until 14.3 1.6 1.14 28 28 28 28 28 30 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 32 31 31 29 30 1.3 0.84 0.90 0.52 0.55 0.60 0.49 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.63 0.63 690 685 690 700 690 665 670 680 685 35 32 Aefclent pressure Inches Hg 29.18 29.18 29.18 29.18 31 31 280 310 330 330 330 330 335 335 335 335 335 29 33 34 36 42 44 43 44 45 46 46 29.18 29.18 29.18 29.22 29.21 29.18 29.19 29. IB 29.17 29.15 29.14 29.14 29.12 29.15 29.14 31 29.18 lotto* and Fir*sh Removal Start - 1:OUA . 5:00*. 9:00*. 1:01P, 5:OOP. Finish 9:45*. MSP. 5l43P. 0.50 O.SO 0.40 0.57* 0.108* 335 31 610 280 ESP Inlet teap °F Actlent te*p °F 0.57 695 605 31 0.60 0.57 640 0.43 toiler flue gas teem Co**ents 39.939.5 7:OOP. 9:05P 7:40P. 9: SOP Start - 275SA. "11:35*. 7:OOP RDF 670* 31.6* 323" 46 density - 3.5 Ibs/cu ft. 4.0 Ibs/cu ft 45 2.03' 38 6.3 45 43 41 40 29.15 29.15 29.15 29.15 29.17 0.024 �o PROCESS OATA AMES MUNICIPAL POHER P1ANT 1 1 NO. I *! •Hot based o» 24 br data Date 3-26-80 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 10A 11A 12N IP 2P 3f 4P 21.5 19.5 21.5 19.5 21.5 19.S 21.$ 19.5 21.5 19.5 21.5 19.5 30.0 17.5 34.5 31.8 34.5 31.S 36.0 33.4 34.5 32.0 35.0 32.5 34.5 32.0 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.5 35.0 32.5 -180 180 1M 180 180 180 178 270 317 316 310 310 310 310 312 310 310 Stew pressure pslg 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 860 860 855 850 850 855 850 855 855 Stew teaperatur* °F 880 860 890 880 890 890 890 900 900 900 910 900 900 880 920 902 Feedxater flox rate 1000- s Ibs/kr 190 190 190 195 190 190 190 270 327 323 328 328 320 330 328 324 322 FeedHiter teap °F 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 3BO 385 380 380 380 380 380 385 385 385 385 385 Fuel feed rate (coal) 1000* s Ibs/hr Coal gauge readings Fuel otl (gallons/hr) ROF 19.0 19.0 18.5 468 170 850561 585 370 Reduced ROF flau 21.0 18.7 19.4 19.4 25.2 34.4 35.1 35.0 33.5 33.0 34.0 40.0 34.0 34.5 33.6 33.5 34.2 Eicess air s 34 28 30 27 27 28 27 20 19 18 18 19 18 18 19 19 19 17 20 20 19 20 1.0. fans aaps 44 44 44 44 44 44 42 45 47 47 46 46 46 46 46 48 46 46 46 46 46 46 l.D. fans pressure pslg 3.8 F.D. fans aaps 27 27 27 27 28 27 27 30 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 30 F.D. fan pressure pslg 2.0 1.9 Furnace draft psig 0.34 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.72 0.60 0.49 0.43 0.60 0.45 04 .8 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.49 0.60 0.52 0.65 toller flue gas top 620 630 620 600 600 600 605 665 690 695 700 700 700 665 680 690 690 690 700 700 ESP Inlet teap °F 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 320 330 325 320 325 325 325 330 330 330 325 325 /tab t Mt teap °F 38 36 36 35 35 35 35 34 34 36 40 40 45 44 45 45 45 45 43 Aabient pressure inches Hg 29.21 29.21 29.21 29.20 29.20 29.20 29.23 29.23 29.23 29.23 29.23 29.19 29.17 23.15 29.12 29.11 29.12 29.11 29.12 29.10 12N Tlae M Gross Net Stew flau rat* 1000* s Ibs/kr ro U* 22.0 20.0 tottoaand Coaaents Start Finish - i Reaova1 .10P. 7P 8P 9P 10P IIP 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.4 35.0 32.2 35.0 32.3 35.0 32.3 32.0 29.3 30.$* 6.17* 27.7* ».»* 31t 312 312 315 312 312 290 258 79.1 855 860 860 860 860 860 850 850 864 4.4 - 910 880 890 890 840 880 890 880 890 16.6 327 325 325 330 322 322 305 283 61.6 385 385 385 385 369 20.9 33.5 34.0 34.9 33.4 Coal on 29.6 31.* 1.67 7.16 NA NA 20 20 22 4.8 46 45 45 1.3 30 30 30 29 1.5 0.60 0.44 0.50 0.55 0.53 0.092 665 675 680 670 664 37.1 325 325 325 325 320 315 16.6 43 42 40 39 38 40 4.1 29.14 29.14 29.14 29.14 29.17 006 .4 No ROF 1:30»——- Start RDF at 2:12P 8 0 * resuae noraal RDF fl ow :0 9:5SA. 2.48P. 6P SP Soot Rloun Start - 27fO». 11.-45A. 7:05P RDF density - 3.5 Iks/cu ft. 3.0 Ibs/cu ft Moan • �APPENDIX B TRW FIELD TEST REPORT FOR THE CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR. UNIT NO. 2 242 �PILOT TEST PROGRAM CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR BOILER NO. 2 P, S. Bakshi, T. L. Sarro, D, R. Moore, W. F. Wright, W. P. Kendrick, B. L. Riley TRW ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION TRW, INC. EPA Contract 68-02-2197 EPA Project Officer: Michael Osborne Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 243 �CONTENTS Figures iii Tables Acknowledgment iv v 1, Introduction 2, Summary . , , . , , 2.1 Sampling and Analysis. , , . , 2.2 Process Data , 2.3 Continuous Monitoring Data , , 3, Riant Description .,, 3.1 General Description. , . , , 3.2 Detailed Descriptions, . . , , , . . , , , , , 4, Sampling Locations. , , . , , , , , . , , , , , 5, Sampling, , , , „ , . , , . . , , , , , , , . , . , 5.1 Gas Sampling , . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , , . 5.2 Solid Sampling , , , . , , . , , , , , . , , , , . . . 5.3 Liquid Sampling. , . , , , , , . , , , . , , , , . . . 5.4 Hi Volume Sampler. . , . , . . , , . , , 5.5 Quality Assurance , 5.6 Sampling Train Background, . , , , , , ,.. 5.7 Sample Recovery , ,., 5.8 Observations During Recovery , , , , , . t , , , , . . 6, Calibration , , 6.1 Method Five Calibration Data ,.... 6.2 Instrument Calibration 7, Technical Problems and Recommendations, 7.1 Problems . . . , , , 7.2 Recommendations, , 1-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-25 3-1 3-1 3-3 4-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-4 5-4 5-4 5-4 5-6 5-7 6-1 6-1 6-4 7-1 7-1 7-1 Appendices A. B. C. D. Continuous Monitoring Data, . , . , , , . . . , , , , . . . Field Data Sheets , Sample Inventory Sheets ,,.,.,,.,,... Process Data ,,.,., n 244 A-l B-l Crl D-l �FIGURES Number Page 3-1 3-2 Layout of plant site Flow diagram of Chicago Northwest Incinerator 3-2 3-4 3-3 Combustion air and flue gas system 3-11 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 Flow diagram and measurement locations Outlet sampling position Top view of ESP inlet showing port locations Cross sectional of ESP inlet showing traverse point locations Sampling train EPA Method 5 particulate sampling train Ambient air sampler Calibration equipment set-up procedures 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-1 5-2 5-3 6-1 m 245 4-5 5-2 5-3 5-5 6-3 �TABLES Number 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 Daily Sampling Summary Daily Data Summary 24 Hour Process Data for the Chicago Northwest Municipal Incinerator, Unit No. 2 Means of the Means for 24-Hour Process Data, All Test Days, Chicago Northwest Municipal Incinerator 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 Test Duration Process Data for the Chicago Northwest Municipal Incinerator, Unit No. 2 Weekly Inventories of Refuse and Residue at the Chicago Northwest Municipal Incinerator (All Boilers) Charges Fed to Each Boiler on a Shift Basis Chicago Northwest Incineration Facility Down Time Expressed as Lost Furnace Hours for the Entire Chicago Northwest Incineration Facility 2-9 2-10 3-1 4-1 page 2-2 2-9 2-13 2-15 2-16 2-18 2-19 2-26 Continuous Monitoring Data Means of Percent Oxygen Taken by Control Room Gauge and 02 Analyzer for Test Duration 2-27 Characteristics of Chicago Northwest Incinerator Sampling Locations 3-3 4-1 iv 246 2-28 �ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This sampling and field measurement work was performed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-02-2197. The program was sponsored jointly by the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances in cooperation with the Office of Research and Development (ORD) of the EPA. The ORD-sponsored portion of the program was directed by Mr. Michael C. Osborne, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances sponsored portion of this study was directed by Mr. Martin Hal per, Washington, D.C. Three contractors participated in the overall test program, namely, TRW Inc., Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI). TRW Inc. was responsible for the field testing; MRI had responsibility for the sampling analysis;and RTI had overall responsibility for the statistical design of the test program. Many individuals contributed to the sampling, testing, data reduction and report preparation for this study. Mr. Birch Matthews had overall responsibility for this program at TRW Inc. He was assisted in his management activities by Dr. Chris Shin and Mr. Don Price. The Field Team Leader was Mr. Dave Moore and the field sampling team members were Mr. J. Berger, Mr. M. Drehsen , Mr. 0. Gordon, Mr. W. Kendrick, Mr. J. McReynolds, Ms B. Riley, Mr. T. Rooney, Mr. D. Savia, Mr. B. Wessel and Mr. W. Wright. The Process Engineers were Mr. P. Bakshi and Mr. T. Sarro. The Chicago Northwest Incinerator personnel who provided significant assistance in completing the study were: Mr. Emil Nigro, the Supervising Engineer of the city of Chicago, Bureau of Sanitation; Mr. Stanley Oenning, the Chief Operations Engineer at the plant; and Mr. Gerry Golubski, Plant Chemist. In addition, there were numerous other plant personnel who provided assistance during the field testing. Their efforts are greatly appreciated and their contribution is hereby acknowledged. v 247 �1.0 INTRODUCTION This document describes the sampling and monitoring activities performed at the Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Boiler No. 2. The sampling and field measurement work was part of an overall pilot scale test program sponsored by the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances in cooperation with the Office of Research and Development, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The ultimate objective of the pilot scale test program is to develop an optimum sampling and analysis protocol to characterize polychlorinated organic compounds which may be emitted in trace quantities through conventional combustion of fossil fuels and refuse. The genesis of the program is an industrial study by Dow Chemical Company and two groups of European investigators reporting emissions of polychlorincted dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), dibenzofurans (PCDF) and biphenyls (PCB) from stationary conventional combustion sources. The immediate objective of the sampling and field measurements program is the specification of procedures and equipment to obtain sufficient multimedia samples for the subsequent analytical protocol, and to satisfy the program statistical design requirements. In this respect, the TRW Environmental Engineering Division of TRW, Inc., was one of three contractors participating in the overall EPA program and was responsible for the acquisition of samples and measurements in the field. The sampling was oriented toward acquiring multimedia samples for organic compound analysis by Midwest Research Institute (MRI). Compounds of particular interest included: Benzo [a] pyrene Pyrene Fluoranthene Phenanthene Chrysene Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene Benzo [g,h,i] perylene Anthracene In addition, MRI is to make a determination of total organic chlorine emissions from the acquired samples. Potentially, selected samples are to be analyzed for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and biphenyls. 248 �Instrumentation for on-line combustion gas stream monitoring was part of the test program. In addition, Incinerator process Information was also gathered. This Information together with the monitoring data were acquired to assist In evaluating and Interpreting chemical analysis results. This report contains all the field data for the Chicago Northwest Incinerator pilot test program conducted in May 1980. Data provided Include the following: t Chlorinated hydrocarbon collection using a modified EPA Method 5 train and Method 5 sampling methodology. • Gas velocities using EPA Method 2, • Continuous monitoring for C02, 02, and CO and THC, • Part1culate collection for inorganic analysis utilizing EPA Method 5. • Process data. The test program followed was described in the Pilot Test Program, Chicago Northwest Incinerator, Boiler No. 2, site test plan. Deviations from this program are documented and explained in their respective sections of this report. 1-2 249 �2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS The field test activity took place from April 30, 1980 to May 23, 1980. All required tests were completed and all recovered samples were sent to Gulf South Research Institute (GSRI) for analysis,. MRI had subcontracted this part of their assignment to GSRI. A summary of tests conducted including any significant commentary is presented in Table 2-1. A summary of the reduced data on a daily basis as calculated from the field data sheets is presented in Table 2-2. Data listed are corrected to standard conditions, i.e., 20°C and a barometric pressure of 29.92 inches mercury. Sampling and calibration procedures are described in Sections 4, 5 and 6. Hourly data is provided in the appendices. Appendix A contains continuous monitoring data; Appendix B contains field data; and Appendix C contains sample inventory sheets supplied by GSRI. 2.2 PROCESS DATA For every day of inlet or outlet testing, a 24 hour record of process data was obtained. This information is provided in the daily process data sheets in Appendix D. Most of this data was obtained from instrumentation in the control room. The parameters considered important to the operation of Boiler No. 2, and for which instrumentation was available include steam flow rate, steam pressure, feedwater flow rate, feedwater temperature, combustion air flow rate, combustion air temperature, % oxygen, I.D. fan pressure, F.D. fan pressure, furnace draft, and furnace temperature. No data were available for steam temperature, excess air, or the power consumption of the fans. A chart recording instrument located in the control room provided continuous instantaneous readings for steam flow rate, feedwater flow rate, and combustion air flow rate. These were read directly from the instrument in 1000's of pounds per hour, 1000's of pounds per hour, and 1000's of cubic feet per hour, respectively. These are given in Appendix D under the heading "chart recorder" for each of the three parameters. 2-1 250 �TABLE 2-1. DAILY SAMPLING SUMMARY Date (1980) 1 Inlet-North Test started at 0835 hours and ran for 350 minutes. Low volume was obtained. Test was discontinued because of unsuccessful leak checks after filter replacement. Test started at 0835 hours and ran for 193 minutes. Low volume was obtained. Battelle trap also appeared to plug up and was therefore changed. However, this did not occur during remaining tests. Filter blockage also occurred probably due to filter oven temperature not being hot enough (250°F). At 1600 hours the plant had to shut down due to boiler leaks. Test quality was fair. Outlet-North i ro Sampling locations Inlet-South 5/4 Test No. Test started at 0825 hours and ran for 404 minutes. No significant problems occurred. Test quality was good. Test started at 0820 hours and ran for 375 minutes. No new leak rate was obtained at filter change. New filter housing was found to be warped which caused the leak problem. Test quality was good. Sample was lost due to the wind blowing the filter out of the filter holder. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Outlet-South to Hi Volume Sampler 5/6 Continuous monitors Inlet-North Inlet-South Outlet-North Test comments Test were Test were with both Test Test were started at 1230 hours and ran for 525 minutes. There no significant problems. Test quality was good. started at 1230 hours and ran for 525 minutes. There no significant problems. Test was inadvertently stopped only 21 of the required 24 points traversed. However, gas volume and particulate collections were sufficient. quality was good. started at 1235 hours and ran for 500 minutes. There no significant problems. Test quality was good. �TABLE 2-1. Date (1980) 5/6 Test No. Sampling locations Outlet-South Hi Volume Sampler 5/7 ro ro m i ro co Continuous monitors Inlet-North Inlet-South Outlet-North Outlet-South Hi Volume Sampler 5/8 Continuous monitors Inlet-North Inlet-South Outlet-North Outlet-South (Continued) Test comments Test started at 1230 hours and ran for 500 minutes. Probe was found to be cracked at the end of test. However, based on a moisture calculation of only Z% (vs. 12% in other test), it appears that the probe cracked during the first 280 minutes. The probe was switched and the test continued an additional 200 minutes. Test quality was poor as only air was sampled for 50% of the test. Test started at 1311 hours and was stopped at 2325 hours, Test quality was good. Test quality was good. Test started at 0835 hours and ran for 420 minutes, No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0837 hours and ran for 480 minutes, No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0930 hours and ran for 500 minutes, No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0955 hours and ran for 500 minutes, No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 1215 hours and was stopped at 2000 hours. Test quality was good. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0845 hours and ran for 420 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0832 hours and ran for 480 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0930 hours and ran for 500 minutes. Low moisture obtained because of cracked probe. Test started at 0925 hours and ran for 500 minutes, No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. �TABLE 2-1. Date (1980) 5/8 Test No. Sampling locations HI Volume Sampler Continuous monitors 5/9 Inlet-North Inlet-South ro ro Ul u> Outlet-North Outlet-South HI Volume Sampler Continuous monitors 5/10 (Continued) Inlet-North Inlet-South Test comments Test started at 1015 hours and was stopped at 1910. Test quality was good. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. CO readings were suspect, refer to 5/9/80 continuous monitoring data. Test started at 0820 hours and ran for 480 minutes. After 180 minutes the sampling time was increased from 20 to 25 minutes per point to collect sufficient sample volume. Boiler was operating at lower load conditions during this period. Test quality was good. Test started at 0805 hours and ran for 542 minutes. After 267 minutes the sampling time was increased from 20 to 25 minutes per point. (See Inlet-North above). Test quality was good. Test started at 0905 hours and ran for 500 minutes. Test quality was good. Test started at 0920 hours and ran for 500 minutes. Test quality was good. Test started at 0915 hours and was stopped at 1850 hours. Test quality was good. CO was exhibiting drift problems due to exhausted dessicant. Dessicant was therefore replaced. Previous days (5/8/80) data were suspect as CO dropped to lower level after dessicant changeout. Test quality was good. Test started at 0815 hours and ran for 420 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0810 hours and ran for 480 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. �TABLE 2-1. Date (1980) 5/10 Test No. Sampling location Outlet-North Outlet-South Hi Volume Sampler N> 5/11 Continuous monitors Inlet-North Inlet-South Outlet-North Outlet-South (Continued) Test comments Test started at 0915 hours and ran for 480 minutes. No problems were encountered. However, test was halted one point from completion due to stormy weather. There was little effect on test data. Test quality was good. Test started at 0840 hours and ran for 550 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 1100 hours and was stopped at 1900 hours. (Problems due to wind were encountered but the sample was not destroyed). Results were fair to good* CO was taken off line due to span and balance problems. Remaining data were good. Test started at 0828 hours and ran for 462 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good (changed sampling time to 22 minutes per point for inlet trains prior to starting test). Test started at 0934 hours and ran for 528 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Excessive number of filters were used during this test day for both inlet trains. Test started at 0900 hours and ran for 360 minutes. Due to excessive amount of time needed to correct malfunctioning equipment, the north train was utilized for only 20 points instead of the normal 25 points. Total volume sampled for north and south trains was 20 nr. Test quality was good. (Changed sampling time to 18 minutes per point prior to start of test). Test started at 0915 hours and ran for 540 minutes. South train traversed 30 points (see comments for Outlet-North train for 5/11/80). No problems were encountered and test quality was good. �TABLE 2-1. (Continued) Date (1980) 5/11 5/12 Test No. Sampling locations 7 Hi Volume Sampler 8 Continuous monitors Inlet-North Inlet-South Outlet-North Outlet-South ro i Hi Volume Sampler Ul t_n 5/13 9 Continuous monitors Inlet-North Inlet-South Outlet-North Outlet-South Hi Volume Sampler Test conments Test started at 1014 hours and was stopped at 1930 hours. Test quality was good. CO was still off line. Backup unit was ordered but had not arrived. Remaining data quality was good. Test started at 0840 hours and ran for 462 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0837 hours and ran for 528 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 1040 hours and ran for 450 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0854 hours and ran for 450 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 1243 hours and was stopped at 1840 hours. Test quality was good. No CO data was being monitored. Remaining data was good. Test started at 0833 hours and was down at conclusion of test quality was good. Test started at 0815 hours and quality was good. Test started at 0832 hours and quality was good. Test started at 0818 hours and quality was good. Test started at 0912 hours and Test quality was good. ran for 472 minutes. Boiler for grate cleaning. Test ran for 528 minutes. Test ran for 450 minutes. Test ran for 450 minutes. Test was stopped at 1820 hours. �TABLE 2-1. (Continued) Date (1980) Test No. Sampling locations 5/13 9 Continuous monitors CO was still off line, however remaining data was good. 5/15 10 Inlet-North Test started at 0805 hours and ran for 464 minutes. Test quality was good. Test started at 0803 hours and ran for 528 minutes. Test quality was good. Test started at 0840 hours and ran for 450 minutes. Probe was found with a cracked tip. Based on 8.9% moisture vs. 12% moisture for the other tests, it seems only the last 10 pts. were traversed with broken probe. Test quality was fair. Test started at 0820 hours and ran for 450 minutes. Test quality was good. Test started at 1110 hours and was stopped at 1840 hours. Test quality was good. New CO analyzer came on line. Test quality was good. Inlet-South Outlet-North Outlet-South ro i HI Volume Sampler 5/16 11 Continuous monitors Inlet-North Inlet-South Outlet-North Outlet-South Test comments Test started at 0830 hours and ran for 462 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0924 hours and ran for 528 minutes. Final leak rate was not obtained, however the data was corrected by subtracting out the last two unknown points (35 cu. ft.). This caused little effect on the final outcome of the test. Test quality was good. Test started at 0808 hours and ran for 450 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0828 hours and ran for 450 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. �TABLE 2-1. Date (1980) 5/16 5/17 Test No. Sampling locations 11 Hi Volume Sampler 12 Continuous monitors Inlet-North and South Outlet-North and South Blank Hi Volume Sampler ro i CO 1-0 Ul Continuous monitors -J 5/18 13 Outlet-North Hi Volume Sampler Continuous monitors 5/19 14 Outlet-North and South Hi Volume Sampler Continuous monitors (Continued) Test comments Test started at 0306 hours and was stopped at 1910 hours. Test quality was good. THC data reading was high (300 ppm) between 1000 hours and 1030 hours due to temporary shortage of garbage in chute. Test started at 0928 hours and ran for 500 minutes. QA test was performed simultaneously at Inlets on the north and the south. Test quality was good. Test started at 0815 hours and ran for 250 minutes. This was the first day for the cadmium test. Test quality was good. Test started at 0820 hours and ran for one hour at 250°F. Test quality was good. Test started at 1028 hours and was stopped at 1835 hours. Test quality was good. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0820 hours and ran for 250 minutes. For the cadmium test the outlet was only tested. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0800 hours and was stopped at 1305 hours. Test quality was good. The outlet was only tested and no THC data was recorded since it was not required for the cadmium test. Test quality was good. Test started at 0810 hours and ran for 250 minutes. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. Test started at 0800 hours and was stopped at 1300. Test quality was good. No problems were encountered. Test quality was good. �TABLE 2-2. DAILY DATA SUWWRY Gas Composition^' Samplt Volume Dm (1980) Tert No. Sampling Location 1 5-6 2 5-7 3 00 5-8 5-9 4 5 5-10 6 5-11 7 5-12 8 ""« o"'*' ""«< Ou "« ""« Ou <"< °«««< ""« £2 £2 22 22 S3 22 *2S 22 22 O""" 5-4 £2 '•"«< °— '"•« *""•< °"<"' £2 £2 2SL rf 22 £2 "? THC ppm Stock Temperature *F Molecular Weight Moisture 177® 172 156 156 <2 <2 <2 <2 459.47 444.88 432.76 451.27 28.26 26.52 28.33 28.41 11.66 9.S7 11.56 10.87 ACFM DSCFM IMMCH wtlc Raw • % 20.17 21.27 36.40-39.33 50332.218 61074.783 49138.650 53102.715 24952.931 31543.243 25074.591 26754.698 90.82 79.24 94.61 97.96 12.24 12.03 12.47 2.95 20.62 18.42 38.21 40.60 51452.853 52895.304 51588.415 54822.866 25077.734 26217.875 25528.869 29782.359 96.25 98.32 98.85 93.23 28.34 28.36 28.39 28.41 13.43 13.26 12.88 12.75 19.90 21.23 38.70 38.87 49665.946 24406.919 61306.230 '30511360 49556.634 24144.057 52477.069 25634.970 98.17 97.71 100.75 96.29 445.36 460.60 454.20 464.32 28.57 28.50 28.82 28.47 11.27 11.85 8.60 11.60 19.34 19.96 38.39 41.69 48268.522 57305.160 51835.952 56292.592 24418.162 28349.017 26693.503 2773X316 100.22 97.28 96.59 100.04 <2 <2 <2 <2 423.77 460.80 449.64 437.76 28.30 28.20 28.17 28.24 14.14 14.94 15.46 14.89 17.71 V 17.31 32.99 32.48 44193.534 49705.623 44544.600 43856.604 22187.466 23679.562 21337.899 21431.687 99.85 101.90 105.57 107.99 . <2 <2 <2 <2 452.59 457.63 448.92 452.28 28.37 28.34 28.50 28.33 13.62 13.83 11.94 13.40 18.12 17.86 35.43 39.50 45257.690 51267.447 47837.327 53339.650 21770.430 24476.323 2357X100 25751.431 108.82 105.61 98.61 96.51 . <2 <2 <2 <2 463.29 462.48 462.53 447.47 28.19 28.15 28.37 28.30 13.86 14.24 12.91 13.52 19.12 18.51 38.99 38.13 47760.487 53212.640 42103.978 61760.300 22877.439 25400.444 20345.095 30126.657 100.85 100.82 99.20 102.22 <2 <2 <2 <2 456.24 468.33 44X84 452.88 28.40 28.38 28.41 28.42 12.57 12.79 12.21 12.08 17.58 19.11 36.73 39.17 43898.069 54933.801 49586.850 52884.900 21492.745 26479.880 24703.730 26093.924 98.95 94.93 102.67 100.42 CO ppm GMFlow SDCF Nm? 256.837 135.203 317.860 324.144 7.27 3.83 9.00 9.20 11.2 11.2 11.3 11 J 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.7 408.462 379.181 418.430 457.890 11.57 10.74 11.85 12.97 9.6 9.6 10.4 10.4 10.1 10.1 9.5 9.5 159 159 171 171 <2 <2 <2 <2 459.04 445.78 442.00 451.04 28.53 28.56 28.45 29.58 324.361 400.656 403.319 407.071 9.19 11.34 11.42 11.53 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7 IBS 185 189 189 <2 <2 <2 <2 445.55 431.46 459.04 457.78 331.522 370.826 427.497 457.496 9.39 10.50 12.11 12.96 9.9 9.9 10.4 10.4 9.6 9.5 8.9 8.9 142 142 169 169 <2 <2 <2 <2 342.697 367.809 371.551 383.750 9.77 10.42 10.52 10.87 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.1 10.5 10.5 10.7 10.7 61 61 59 59 320.564 347.607 367.971 412.061 9.08 9.84 10.42 11.87 8.8 8.8 9.4 9.4 10.3 10.3 9.7 9.7 344.803 378.495 299.617 459.634 9.76 10.72 8.49 13.02 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.5 316.551 373.034 376.483 391.172 8.96 10.56 10.66 11.06 8.7 8.7 10.4 10.4 9.7. 9.7 9.0 9.0 * r % Velocity ft/sec �TABLE 2-2. (Continued) G n ixMnpoiilion^1 9 Outlet Inlet 5-15 10 Outlet Inlet 5-16 11 ro rwiti«t i i-jfi) Inler*' 5-17 12 5-18 13 5-19 14 Outlet . Moisture •F <2 <2 <2 <2 466.61 468.65 457.16 453.52 28.19 28.19 28.25 28.20 14.57 14.52 14.10 14.54 <2 <2 <2 <2 465.43 458.88 459.56 463.68 28.29 28.27 28.88 28.24 13.60 13.75 8.89 14.22 <2 466.32 467.67 466.72 28.49 28.42 North South North South 306.728 364.161 366.284 388.729 8.74 10.31 10.37 11.01 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.1 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.8 North South North South 338.450 376.856 377.441 396.275 9.59 10.67 10.69 11.22 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.7 Il l 98 98 North South North South 353.833 357.302 404.610 416.675 10.02 10.12 11.46 11.60 11.1 11.1 11.8 11 J 8.6 8.6 7.0 7.9 88 98 M <a North South 324.920 331.750 9.20 9.40 10.3 10.3 10.0 10.0 80 80 <2 <2 218.810 6.20 10.7 9.0 84 <2 . North South Velocity ft/sec Isokinetic Rale ACFM OSCFM 16.42 17.82 36.85 39.39 41015.923 51223.782 49744.800 19294.229 24032.783 23723.700 105.23 107.11 104.01 iaos 17.67 35.47 3&49 45076.682 50795.373 47889.900 51958.800 21919.803 24835.199 24697.316 25113.412 102.87 102.67 102.40 11.15 11.69 ia79 46930.228 -23389.304 2S8Z3.208 101.23 93.06 MM ii'-9 2*27 28.37 13.47 13.70 *7lf 17.25 16.85 n!ilJi?nfi nifwum 474.80 476.00 461.00 28.16 14.38 39.27 Iff8297 43045.650 48387.834 20524.938 23013.917 l?i"? 97.56 102.20 106035.080 51352.600 103.01 \ © 219.36 North South GaaFlow Molecular Weight Nm3 Outlet Inlet THC ppm SOCF Outlet® Inlet "P CO ppm OtOlNM Inlet Stack 02 I 5-13 Sampling Location "- Test No. wjopp Date (19801 Sample Volume 6.20 10.7 9.2 102 © 463,00 28.25 13.91 44.37 119798.300 57360.170 92.45 6.81 12.7 7.2 304 (!) 465.60 28.36 11.66 44.53 120233.700 69137.720 98.36 © 240.61 Test period average High due to excessive instrument drift Analyzer taken off line (see© ) Due to excessive leak rate in the north train. 60% of sample was collected with south train, 40% with the north Results t 10 ppm due to drift Inlet QA Test, Outlet 1st day Cadmium Test Inlet sample not required for Cadmium Test THC data not required for Cadmium Test �These three parameters were also monitored by means of integrating counters. Each numerical reading multipled by 150 yielded the amount of steam in pounds, the amount of feedwater in pounds, or the amount of combustion air in cubic feet. These numbers have been included in the tables in Appendix D in terms of 1000's of pounds or 1000's of cubic feet. The differences of these numbers were also calculated on an hourly basis to determine flow rates from these quantities and are listed under "digital integrator" in Appendix D. Each integrator reading is assumed to have been taken at the end of the hour in question. For instance, the 5 PM reading represents the hour ending at 5 PM, as opposed to the hour beginning at 5 PM. This was necessary in order to maintain consistency, especially in the case of the integrator differences. The difference between the 5 PM integrator reading and the 4 PM integrator reading represents the flow occuring between 4 PM and 5 PM, and therefore is a 5 PM flow measurement, according to this end-of-the-hour convention. Further, the digital counters recycle occasionally. Since the counters have six digits, the largest possible number is 999,999 x 150 * 1000 or 150,000. It must also be noted that even a 5 minute delay in taking a reading introduces a substantial error in the hourly value. Finally, these integrator values were the only readings not routinely taken by plant personnel on a 24 hour basis. As a result, large gaps exist in this data. Averages were taken over these periods whenever possible. The steam flow rate was also recorded on a continuous basis. This was done by an ink pen recorder located outside the control room. The recorder plotted instantaneous steam flow values on graph paper. Hourly values were recorded from these sheets, and are presented in Appendix D under the heading "disc recorder". Although this instrument may have been very accurate, the operators were not always careful at aligning the paper discs. The erratic nature of steam production at the plant was easily observable from these plots. Oscillations of an amplitude of 30,000 Ibs/hr and a frequency of 6-10 cycles per hour seemed typical. A sample plot is provided in Appendix D. 2-11 260 �Steam pressure, combustion air temperature, % oxygen, I.D. fan pressure, F.D. fan pressure, furnace draft, and furnace temperature were all noted from pointer gauges in the control room. The combustion air temperature was actually a measurement of the flue gas leaving the boiler and entering the economizer. The sensor for % oxygen was located on the ESP side of the economizer. It must also be noted that the furnace draft and I.D. fan meters were actually measuring a vacuum. Other information contained in the daily process data tables includes times of soot blowing, fuel input to Boiler No. 2, down time on Boiler No. 2, a daily barometric pressure and miscellaneous comments concerning the boiler operation. According to plant procedure, soot blowing should have always occurred at 3 AM, 11 AM, and 7 PM every day, but deviations from this schedule were often observed. Fuel input is usually expressed as crane loads, or charges of refuse. In only one instance was natural gas burned to start up the boiler. The amount of gas burned is reported in cubic feet, but the actual measurement involved reading a numeric counter and multiplying by 3.5. Down time is expressed as lost burning time, and was available by consulting plant records. The barometric pressure was obtained once a day from nearby Midway airport. Comments listed on the process sheets (refer to Appendix D) were derived from the operator's log book or by discussing plant conditions first-hand with the operators and firemen on duty. 2.2.1 24-Hour Data The means and standard deviations of the parameters included in the daily process sheets were calculated on a 24-hour basis for every day of testing. This information has been presented in Table 2-3. On some days Boiler No. 2 did not operate for the entire 24 hour period. For these days, data was not available on a 24 hour basis, consequently values have been calculated based on available information. Also, since the integrator differences were often averaged over long periods of time, it did not seem appropriate to provide standard deviations in these instances. A qualitative observation from Table 2-3 indicates that the plant operation is very uniform over a time average of one day. According to the daily process sheets, no strong diurnal variations occurred. This is not to say that large variations did not exist. Shorter averaging times (less 2-12 261 �i ;-3. a to* "Bctss »i« rw TH cmmo mimsi micim WI«««TI».I»IT •». z D»t« 5-4-80 5-6-8D 5-J-SU 5-8-80 5-9-80 5 M>-*0 5- 11-80 5-12-89 5-13-80 5-15-80 5-16-80 5-17-80 N«M " DUc Reorder (Ibt/hr) Chart Recorder (ll»/hr) Digital Integrator (tfas/hr) SteMrrttttire (pitg) KMOOO* 108000* 100000* 11389.3 9358.6 M 91000* 102000* 91000* 30891.2 11827.8 M FeedMter le^er*t«r« 1>F) Cn*«tfo« Mr Flo- 3 late Chart Recorder (ft /hr) Digital Integrator (ftVhr) Conbustlofi Atr Tei^erature (*F) Veneni 0>ygen 103000 »JOO» 99000 13078.3 11804.8 R» 102000 106000 103000 1T545.0 8801.8 M HMOOO 104000 WJOOO 10309.1 M9S7.8 M 100000 WOOD 102000 11262.9 14320.8 M 94000 104000 98000 10490.6 I42D5.S Rft 95000* tOtOBO* 100000* 14826.7 13869.7 RM 9COOQ 102000* 97000 97000 98000 47000 97N.9 1255.0 M M3000* 102000 100000 9330.3 94C5.0 M V2000* •HOW 99088 I395O.9 I3S76.9 m 92000 90000 93800 18800.6 19195.7 M t.O 270* 4.9 284 6.8 784 7.6 2H 6.' 7R5 «J8 783 4.4 282* 7.S 6.1 782 7.0 285* 4.9 284 4.7 277 5.3 9486.8 M 104080* 86000* 793S.6 M 103000 99000* 17740.4 Rft 96000 98000 16606.7 M M3000 102000 10908.6 M 101000 102000 12171.4 A* 102000 180000 13«68.4 Rft 102000 97000 13660.4 M 96000* 99000* K224.4 Nt 96000* IOODDD 9785.0 M 93000 95000 98)6.3 UK 99000 W2OOD* 17032.) » 103800 14676 .0 87000 13947 .9 277* 3.0 ?22* 3.2 220 1.0 720 0.6 220 0.8 271 1.4 270 f.l 221 2.1 270* 8.6 221 0.9 220 O.C 221 771 0.9 770 0.76 87000* 75000* 3010.4 M 79000* 74000* S369.7 M 77000 70000 4505.8 M 8 MHO 73000 S070.5 M 77008 70080 7494.8 M 79000 77000 7979.9 R* 17000 71000 4iB5.l « 77000 69000 46B5.C RA 78000* 70000* 4486.0 « 78000* 72000 5348.0 RH 87000 74000 S7S3.4 W 82000 73080 5«93.7 M 80000 72000 43K.9 m BIOOB 79000 9279.8 M 6S8* 126.3 681 642 26. t 662 27.3 67D 615 38.9 653 651* 71.5 660 66C 73.0 «51 25.8 67S 31.2 V*.I* 21.7 ln . tt.B* 5.0 10.5 306.0 1209 39.4 1.5C \ZA 1.6 U.I t.55 (t.O 20.1 \A\ U.I t.JB 11.1 77.4 1.M 66S* 49.7 M.7* 2.M 1168* 108.7 283 983'.B 9367.3 m 5-19-80 o 98000* 97000* m* 284 8868.5 99*9.8 M PteM 283* Fec«Wt«r F!M flat* Chart Recorder (Ita/hr) Digital Integrator (Ibi/hr) 59.4 »3000 W8000 107000 5-M-80 • 11.1 1.35 13.5 3S.4 2.13 MM 8.93 1. 12 •MOO M.I m 1.50 nooo 12.6 * 1.20 MjO »?0 Fwnace Te^wrater* (f) 1178* * Does not raprtimt fall 24-hB«r period NJ ON ro *1.2 1096* RK • Rot JlpproyrUtt 71.0 IH? 72.7 1189 107.8 1164 77.3 1203 186.4 1)60 «8.l 1170 65.S 1112 60.8 1204 78.« 1207 «.6 1081 99.0 2-13 �than an hour) would indicate large swings, and this is reflected in the large standard deviations for steam production in Table 2-3. This was due to the intermittent nature of fuel feed to the boiler. However, these production swings did not depend on time of day or day of week. Consequently, it was possible to calculate means and standard deviations over a large number of test days. This has been done for all of the test days (refer to Table 2-4). An examination of data in Table 2-4 indicates that the standard deviations are smaller than most of the standard deviations in Table 2-3. Although variations may be expected to decrease over longer averaging times, this would not be true if certain days had significantly different modes of operation. The aforementioned therefore indicates that the Chicago Northwest Incineration facility operates in essentially the same mode 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, although instantaneous swings in steam production do occur continuously over short time intervals (less than one hour). 2.2.2 Test Duration Data Means and standard deviations have been calculated on a test duration basis for all of the test days. This information has been provided in Table 2-5. The discussion on diurnal variations pertaining to the 24-hour data also pertains here, although the standard deviations should, in general, be smaller due to the shorter period of time being considered. An examination of the data in Table 2-5 bears this out. None of the data in Table 2-5 appears particularly anomalous. No significant variation in steam production occurred from day to day indicating a rather consistent fuel feed rate during the duration of the tests. Some days exhibited wider variations as reflected by higher standard deviations, particularly on the 19th of May, The variation of feed water flow does not corelate well with the variation in steam production. The operating parameters seemed to fluctuate rather independently, without any pronounced impact on other aspects of plant operation. 2-14 263 �TABLE 2-4. MEANS OF THE MEANS FOR 24-HOUR PROCESS DATA, ALL TEST DAYS, CHICAGO NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR. Parameter Steam Flow Rate (Ibs/hr) Disc Recorder Chart Recorder Digital Integrator Steam Pressure (psig) Feedwater Flow Rate (Ibs/hr) Chart Recorder Digital Integrator Mean a 99,000 103,000 99,000 282 4,516.8 3,577.0 4.02 99,000 97,000 4,822.7 5,445.5 221 0.7 79,000 72,000 2,016.4 2,593.3 663 21.2 Feedwater Temperature (°F) Combustion Air Flow Rate (ft /hr) Chart Recorder Digital Integrator Combustion Air Temperature (°F) % Oxygen 11.8 1.23 I.D. Fans Pressure (inches H20) 2.6 0.22 F.D. Fans Pressure (inches H20) 14.1 0.38 Furnace Draft (inches H20) 0.23 Furnace Temperature (°F) 1,160 2-15 264 .061 41.5 �UBXE 2.-, . UST DUMIHBI mass D*U rot rat CHICAGO miMCSi mnicirni Date 5-4-80 5-6-80 S-7-M 5-8-80 5-9-80 5-10-80 "*an StewFlw **t* Disc R«cor4er (Ita/hr) Chart *«C«ntor (lb»/hr) Dljltal InteyHOr (Ibt/hr) StM«Pr«wrc (Bilg) F *ctjrt*»«iXV(IH/hO Bt.ltll iHtefritor (m/V) FertMtcr tv-twratw-c (T) CvtwsttM Air Flo. lite Chart Recorfer (rtVhr) Olfltal Integrator (ftVhr) Cnatasttwi Air Te-veratwe (T) Percent 0*rf*« FBTMCC TtJV«ratvrc (*F) • SOME data points tr* mi**l*i 96000 103000 91000 HH46.3 11319.2 W 98000 104000 104000 17676.4 7H6.1 M W7000 1IB8O 108006 286 7.4 286 7.0 288 95000 90000 7SS9.3 M 104000 100000 7146.1 M M8000 183000* 22J 3.6 221 2.1 87000 7MMO 3770.1 M 79000 74000 701 724 K -* 1M9 26.2 '-*' 45.8 »•' T20S Ne«n 17509.6 12878.7 * 110000 11)000 113000 8165.6 3500.0 IN 103000 112000 MKOBO 12202.5 16465.8 M 99000 109008 WWOO 11121.8 12)01.8 M 4.1 284 6.1 290 8.0 288 6.) 284 S.S 285 5.0 8738.6 M 9SOOO H2000 24494.9 M 114000 I MOOT 4I8S.6 M tMOOO WS008 18C09.6 M 107000 KKOOO 1)64 JJ M 103000 H3000 KH43.5 M 220 1.5 220 0 271 1.7 221 14 222 3.1 4743.4 M 77000 690OD 4101.0 M 80000 73000 3503.2 M 77000 67000 3492.1 Hft 79000 70008 8350.6 M 76000 69000 MM.* M 76000 7 1000 5186.5 M 31.4 6TB 33.2 646 29-* 676 28.5 611 27.1 G92 653 18.9 S9.9 »•* 1275 '•" 52.4 "•* 1189 '-u 71.8 220 *•' 1290 9 '•** 67.9 tt -° 12(75 2 n - 100.6 94 1264 21.6 1.64 M.S 97000* tOSOOO 105000 5- 1?-BO • 110000 111000 104000 '-14 63S6.1 9)42.8 « S- 1 1-80 • M.S I19S 11BB6.0 MH22.0 HA 1.83 121.2 ttun S- 11-80 « 96000 10 WOO KXDOO* 284 102000 WOOOO* 220 77000* 68000* 672 11.1 UN Ncln 1)785.7 N319.4 M 95000 94000* 100000 6.8 287 6687.5 IN 98000* 104000 0.* 220 5669.5 IN 77000* 70000 38.8 S- IS 80 • 657 1.42 48.1 11.2 1188 II2'6.) 3*11.1 M 3.5 8292.6 M 0 U74.7 M 23.1 1.32 73.8 HCM 5- 16-80 • 95000 99000 92000 287 93000 9)000 220 88000 72000 647 14.0 1129 10 MB. 8 7153.6 M 3.3 10972. > M 0 H43.4 M 28.7 1.01 64.7 5- 17-80 • NCM 10)000 106000 94000 289 104000 84000222 81000 67000 671 9.8 12)8 Plean 8533.4 879S.2 IW 5-18-80 a HTOOO 106000 104000 Mean 11604.6 33M.6 M 79000 82000 7 NOD 23741.7 3Q7H.J HI 2.9 288 2.4 281 2.5 8266.4 M 108000 117000 5000.0 M 80000 7 WOO 1789S.S M 0.9 221 1.2 222 1.0 SHOO 69000 2500.0 M 4313.S -ft 75.8 l.ZS 62.6 80000 73000 690 D.9 1269 0 M 8.2 37.5 68.1 645 1.64 13.1 T019 W • MH Appropriate hJ Ul 5- 19-80 • 2-16 1.11 134.1 �2.2,3 Meekly Refuse and Residue Inventory All refuse and residue hauling trucks entering and leaving the incinerator plant were carefully weighed. This facilitates the accurate characterization of overall inputs and outputs. However, there is no accurate way of proportioning these materials between specific boilers for a given period of time. Any attempt to determine the fuel burned or ash discharged from Boiler No. 2 can only be an approximation. Chicago Northwest Incinerator maintains inventory sheets listing inputs and outputs from the facility on a weekly basis. Relevant data from these sheets have been reproduced in Table 2-6. The weight of refuse received was measured on scales before and after the refuse trucks released their loads. The volume of refuse received was determined by multiplying the number of truck loads by the volume of each truck (19.5 cubic yards). Density of the refuse was estimated using these two measurements, and is therefore the density of refuse inside the trucks. In order to quantify the amount of refuse burned, the number of loads, or charges, handled by the grab bucket cranes were noted for each boiler. A total number of charges are listed in Table 2-7. The charges delivered to Boiler No. 2 are given in the daily process data sheets on a shift basis. These are provided in Appendix D, To approximate the amount of refuse burned in Boiler No. 2, it is necessary to determine an average weight per charge, since the number of charges fed into this boiler are known (Appendix D). The method for doing this, however, is not entirely obvious. When refuse trucks enter the plant, they discharge their contents into a large storage pit. Although the weight of refuse added to the pit is well characterized for each weekly period, the carry-over of material from week to week cannot be accurately measured. Furthermore, this carry-over is quite variable over the length of time being considered. It is also significant, as the pit is sometimes over half full, corresponding to roughly 5000 cubic yards of refuse. It is necessary to quantify the carry-over in terms of weight, so that the total weight of refuse burned, and hence, the average weight per charge, can be approximated. This can be done by 3 different methods. 2-17 266 �TABLE 2-6. WEEKLY INVENTORIES OF REFUSE AND RESIDUE AT THE CHICAGO NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR (ALL BOILERS). 4/28/80 to 5/4/80 5/5/80 to 5/11/80 5/12/80 to 5/18/80 5/19/80 to 5/25/80 6,746.65 24,490 551 9,152.34 29,618 618 7,902.34 26,561 595 8,720.21 28,778 606 84 65 61 42 65 61 42 42 5,205 5,710 5,952 4,714 2,771 7,212 28,562 3,240 9,250 36,634 2,812 8,367 33,138 3,700 8,720 34,535 2,511 3,100 2,500 3,086 1,815 2,240 2,904 3,585 Metal fraction (tons) Metal fraction (cubic yards) 949 5,423 750 4,286 1,514 18,651 629 3,594 Total ash (tons) Total ash (cubic yards) 3,460 8,523 3,250 7,372 3,329 10,891 3,533 7,179 70% 80% 67% 79% 52% 65% 60% 60% Refuse Received By weight (tons) By volume (cubic yards) Density (lbs/yd3) Storage Pit Condition At beginning of week (% full) At end of week (% full) Refuse Consumed # charges burned Average weight per charge (Ibs) Total weight (tons) Total volume (cubic yards) Residue Fine ash fraction (tons) Fine ash fraction (cubic yards) Volume Reduction thru incineration Weight Reduction thru incineration 2-18 267 �TABLE 2-7. CHARGES FED TO EACH BOILER ON A SHIFT BASIS CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATION FACILITY Unit No. 1 Unit No. 2 Unit No. 3 88 101 101 27 89 35 -78 75 38 94 101 101 97 33 27 62 20 94 36 101 98 99 100 94 101 90 94 101 94 49 98 100 98 101 100 102 99 97 96 12 -- 101 100 101 89 97 94 99 94 95 45 93 98 95 96 102 96 97 98 93 101 100 Total for week 1398 1823 1984 Date, Shift 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2-19 268 Unit No. 4 Total 287 300 302 210 287 219 193 273 264 132 285 299 294 294 235 225 258 215 283 149 201 0 5205 �TABLE 2-7. Date, Shift 5-5, 2nd 3rd 5-6, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-7, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-8, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-9, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-10, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-11, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-12, 1st Total for week Unit No. 1 Unit 106 83 102 104 70 37 14 . 101 (Continued) • • • No. 2 Unit No. 3 -._ 68 112 99 101 86 103 107 111 98 77 102 102 101 101 101 98 52 101 103 102 99 104 84 100 81 101 100 100 98 100 99 101 100 102 101 105 103 83 97 101 101 98 100 100 101 101 100 102 103 101 102 100 1860 1754 2096 Unit No. 4 2-20 269 Total 207 169 205 279 293 234 181 298 259 304 300 301 299 302 298 253 303 308 304 306 307 0 5710 �TABLE 2-7. (Continued) Date, Shift 5-12, 2nd 3rd 5-13, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-14, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-15, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-16, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-17, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-18, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-19, 1st Total for week Unit No. 1 Unit No. 2 Unit No. 3 39 97 102 104 98 100 98 94 99 99 100 100 60 --96 98 99 100 104 103 236 295 302 308 261 100 96 102 200 194 292 106 105 107 104 106 108 106 97 110 107 106 no 85 108 320 318 321 324 220 330 98 118 112 97 114 112 98 108 334 293 340 106 75 -- 108 104 118 109 105 124 -- 105 110 323 284 242 215 1943 2194 108 38 112 no 1815 Unit No. 4 no 2-21 270 0 Total 5952 �TABLE 2-7. (Continued Unit No. 1 Unit No. 2 Unit No. 3 5-19, 2nd 3rd 5-20, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-21, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-22, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-23, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-24, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-25, 1st 2nd 3rd 5-26, 1st „ 103 110 105 104 118 110 100 106 90 80 105 100 114 105 106 100 108 103 104 Total for week 416 Date, Shift 104 120 __ — -68 21 -__ — -__ — — __ — — -— 107 105 2139 107 107 102 98 105 94 101 105 2-22 271 Total 224 313 314 338 218 203 210 246 183 88 82 107 100 104 104 100 92 107 101 104 108 102 100 2159 Unit No. 4 212 200 211 211 202 190 212 195 205 213 209 205 0 4714 �The first method involves using visual measurements of the pit volume taken at the end of each week. This "pit estimate" can then be used in association with the density of the incoming garbage to approximate the weight of refuse in the pit. Then the average weight per charge can be determined by the following equation: Average wt per charge (pit estimate for previous week - pit estimate ~ + refuse delivered) * total number of charges All terms in parenthesis must be expressed as weights. This method however has a drawback in that the density in the pit is probably not the same as the density inside the refuse trucks, since the refuse inside the trucks is compacted and is liable to expand somewhat as the trucks are unloaded. The second method is essentially the same as the first, but a different assumption is made for pit density. It seems likely that the level of compression would have a more pronounced effect upon the refuse density than the actual characteristics of the refuse. Since the compaction inside the pit is always similar, one would also expect the density in the pit to be reasonably constant. In principle, this is the method applied by the plant personnel, but in practice it is not consistently used by them. It has been found from plant operational experience that a density of 505 Ibs/yd is typical of the pit contents. Therefore, this value can be used as an assumed density, and the pit estimates used in the equation as before. The third method circumvents the problem of pit estimation entirely. Assuming that every charge constitutes a full load of the crane grab bucket, the weight of the charge can then be estimated by multiplying the maximum volume of the bucket by an assumed density. The maximum volume of the bucket is five cubic yards. The primary disadvantage of this method is that any inaccuracy in the density is directly reflected in the average weight per charge. In this report the second method was chosen as the most appropriate, and the values for total refuse consumed and average weight per charge were tabulated (refer to Table 2-6 ). A constant, assumed pit density (assumed in method 2) was preferred to a variable "measured" density of method 1. 2-23 272 �Furthermore, a "bad" density assumption will cause smaller errors in the first and second cases than in the third case. The second method can be summarized as follows: Volume of refuse in pit = pit estimate (% of total volume) X total pit volume 100 total pit volume = 9700 yd3 Weight of refuse in pit = volume of refuse in pit X refuse density in pit assumed refuse density = 505 Ib/yd Weight of refuse incinerated per week = (weight of refuse in pit at beginning of week - weight of refuse in pit at end of week + weight of refuse delivered) Average weight per charge = total weight of refuse incinerated total number of charges Volume of refuse weight of refuse incinerated incinerated - assumed refuse density The amount of fine ash and metal fractions produced by the incinerator during the test period are listed in Table 2-6 . It should be noted that these are the amounts leaving the plant during this time period, and are not necessarily the same as the ash being produced during this period. Since no account has been taken of any carry-over from week to week, it can only be assumed the carry-over is similar each week. In order to obtain total ash, the metal and fine ash fractions were summed together. The ash volumes were calculated using the following densities: Density of fine ash fraction = 1620 Ibs/yd Density of metal fraction = 350 Ib/yd3 These values are based on previous analyses done by the plant, and have been assumed to be typical. Since all of the combined ash was subjected to a water quench, these weights incorporate a rather large moisture content. However, no better characterization was available. The volume and weight reductions achieved through incineration have been calculated as an indication of how efficiently the boilers were operating. 2-24 273 �The ash produced by each boiler can be estimated by either of two ways. First, by estimating the number of hours each boiler was down, the total number of operating hours can be found, and an approximate ash production rate per boiler operating hour can be calculated. All necessary information concerning boiler down hours is presented in Table 2-8. Alternatively, by knowing the number of charges fed to the boilers in a weeks time, an approximate ash production rate per charge of refuse can be calculated. A distribution of charges fed to each boiler on a shift basis is presented in Table 2-7. 2.3 CONTINUOUS MONITORING DATA Table 2-9 presents daily averages of 02, C02, CO, total hydrocarbons, and ambient temperature as monitored by continuous data logging instrumentation over test duration periods. Hydrocarbon values were consistently lower than the instrument sensitivity of 2 ppm. Most of the data indicates very little variation except for the CO values. The rapid change between May 8, 1980 and May 9, 1980 was due to instrument drift, which places doubt on the validity of the previous data also. The CO analyzer was taken off line, and a new one replaced on May 15, 1980. The high CO value on May 19, was due to unusally high moisture in the fuel on this day. Moreover, the operators did not compensate for the wet feed by changing boiler condition. They were reluctant to change conditions because a new supply of dry feed was anticir pated. The high moisture content in the fuel probably inhibited combustion and made burning less efficient. This is reflected in higher 02, lower C02, and higher CO concentration as compared to those on normal operating days. In Table 2-10, values of percent oxygen measured in the control room and by TRW continuous monitoring instrumentation are compared. The control room readings were observed to be higher than the 02 analyzer readings on all days except one. This is unusual since the readings should be identical. In any event, the 02 analyzer should either yield identical or higher readings, because the sample was obtained further downstream and any leakage in the duct would tend to increase the 02 level of the gas stream. This discrepancy could be due to offset instrument calibrations. It must be noted that the 02 analyzer indicating lower readings was calibrated (for zero and span) prior to the start of testing and also after the testing concluded for each test day. The control room oxygen analyzer was calibrated once a week. 2-25 274 �TABLE 2-8. DOWN TIME EXPRESSED AS LOST FURNACE HOURS FOR THE ENTIRE CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATION FACILITY Unit Unit No. 2 Unit No. 3 Unit No. 4 Total 16 0 0 1 8 0 15 9 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 32 41 43 24 39 40 ~57~ ^T3~ T- T5S~ 2~4T~ 0 5 13 2 0 5 0 24 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 48 41 37 28 0 0 24 24 24 24 29 24 25 38 0 168 231 5 0 0 0 6 0 11 0 5 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 40 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 ~22~ "22" ^r T58~ 2l3~ 10 0 8 18 23 24 24 24 0 0 0 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 0 0 0 1 0 24 24 24 34 32 42 47 48 49 48 Total for week 131 0 1 168 300 Total 235 73 8 672 988 Date 4-28-80 4-29-80 4-30-80 5-1-80 5-2-80 5-3-80 5-4-80 Total for week 5-5-80 5-6-80 5-7-80 5-8-80 5-9-80 5-10-80 5-11-80 Total for week 5-12-80 5-13-80 5-14-80 5-15-80 5-16-80 5-17-80 5-18-80 Total for week 5-19-80 5-20-80 5-21-80 5-22-80 5-23-80 5-24-80 5-25-80 No. 1 1 8 0 1 Total possible hours • 2688 Hours lost » 36.8% 2-26 275 24 32 24 35 �TABLE 2-9 . Sampling Location oz (») Date (1980) CONTINUOUS MONITORING DATA co2 Mean a Mean CO (pom) (*) a THC (ppm) Mean o Mean a *nb1ent Temperature (°C) Mean o ESP Inlet ESP Outlet 7.4 7.7 1.07 0.82 172 156 32.76 25.38 <2 <2 24.7 2.36 5-6 9.6 10.4 1.43 1.37 10.1 9.5 1.34 1.20 163 171 20.92 25.04 <2 <2 15.5 5.45 5-7 9.4 9.4 1.06 1.78 9.8 9.7 0.96 1.51 185 198 17.28 44.88 <2 <2 11.6 1.10 Inlet Outlet I 1.38 0.90 Inlet Outlet N> 11.2 11.3 Inlet Outlet ro 5-4 5-8 9.9 10.4 1.98 1.81 9.5 8.7 1.B1 1.43 142 169 51.32 90.54 <2 <2 10.0 1.21 Inlet Outlet 5-9 7.9 8.1 1.09 1.62 11.0 10.7 0.96 1.37 78 71 38.76 38.66 <2 <2 14.1 1.98 Inlet Outlet 5-10 8.8 1.36 <2 18.4 3.56 1.74 10.3 9.7 1.38 9.4 Inlet Outlet 5-11 9.8 9.8 1.18 1.58 9.5 9.5 1.06 1.05 <2 <2 16.7 1.77 Inlet Outlet 5-12 9.6 10.4 1.11 1.69 9.7 9.0 0.89 1.42 <2 <2 12.4 0.66 Inlet Outlet 5-13 9.7 9.6 1.67 1.42 9.6 9.8 Inlet Outlet 5-15 10.2 9.6 1.51 1.47 Inlet Outlet 5-16 11.1 11.8 Inlet Outlet 5-17 Inlet Outlet 5-18 Inlet Outlet 5-19 1.54 Instrument Malfunc. tion ., <2 H n N M .38 .14 " " <2 <2 11.6 5.60 9.4 9.7 .38 .18 112 98 36.01 25.70 <2 <2 15.6 2.71 1.39 1.32 8.5 7.9 .18 .16 88 98 61.92 75.58 <2 <2 16.3 1.19 10.3 10.7 0.90 1.36 10.0 9.0 0.75 1.17 80 84 29.61 27.26 <2 <2 12.8 1.23 Kl_«. 12.0 1.34 0.93 not Required 10.7 u_a. HOt Required 13.0 0.96 12.7 1.86 n^+ . n-.*- -. taken for outlet only 0.35 102 9.2 —• 18.71 taken for outlet on 1 y 304 1.69 7.2 184.86 �TABLE 2-10. Testing Date 5-4 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-18 5-19 MEANS OF PERCENT OXYGEN TAKEN BY CONTROL ROOM GAUGE AND 0« ANALYZER FOR TEST DURATION Control Room (%) 16.4 10.1 10.3 11.5 9.2 12.0 9.8 10.3 11.1 11.2 14.0 9.8 10.9 13.1 2 Analyzer Difference (ESP inlet) (%) (Control Room Analyzer) 11.2 9.6 9.4 9.9 7.9 8.8 9.8 9.6 9.7 10.2 11.1 10.3 10.7 12.7 2-28 277 5.2 0.5 0.9 1.6 1.3 3.2 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.0 2.9 -0.5 0.2 0.9 �3.0 PLANT DESCRIPTION Chicago Northwest Incinerator is located south of W. Chicago Avenue between the tracks of the Chicago and North-western Railway on the west and Kilbourn Avenue on the east. The principal building of the complex is the Incinerator, a multi-storied structure of reinforced concrete with dimensions of 330 feet by 180 feet and with a maximum height of 79 feet from grade to the main floor. The lowest part of the structure is the floor of the refuse storage pit, approximately 37 feet below grade. To the south of the Incinerator Building and connected to it by the residue conveyors enclosure is the Ash Discharge Building. To the north is the Incinerator Office Building which also houses the maintenance shops. Two stacks each 250 feet in height are located east of the Incinerator Building. The electrostatic precipitators and the induced draft fans are situated between the Incinerator Building and the stacks. The Chicago Northwest Incinerator layout is shown in Figure 3-1. The general characteristics of the Chicago Northwest Incinerator are listed in Table 3-1. 3.1 General Description Refuse is delivered to the dumping pit of the plant by trucks which back into position above the refuse pit. From the refuse storage pit, crane grapple buckets pick up the refuse and dump it directly into the four furnace feed hoppers. The furnace feed hoppers open into feed chutes which feed automatically onto the stoker grates of the four furnaces. The grates operate with a reverse-reciprocating action producing an initial downward movement of the refuse and then an upward movement. This combined movement results in a tumbling action. The motion of the grates, an underfire grate jet action, and overfire air jets above the grates all combine to promote highly effective burn-out and complete oxidation of the furnace gases. The hot furnace gases travel through five boiler passes enroute to the electrostatic precipitator (ESP). Approximately 110,000 pounds of steam is generated by each of the four boilers. In passing through the boiler, the 3-1 278 ' �WEIGF STATION ^STACKS CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR ASH REMOVAE EQUIPMENT INCINERATOR 286 REFUSE STORAGE PIT I IN) 330' TIPPING FLOOR AREA VO SERVICE STATION PARKING AREA Figure 3-1. Layout of plant site �TABLE 3-1. CHARACTERISTICS OF CHICAGO NORTHWEST INCINERATOR Number of incinerator units Number of refuse cranes Number of chimneys Refuse pit capacity Capacity of each crane bucket Average heating value range of refuse Capacity: Refuse Steam Generation Furnace temperature Stack gas temperature Gas cleaning equipment Precipitator efficiency Precipitator outlet grain loading 4 3 2, each 250 feet high 9,700 cubic yards 5 cubic yards 5,000 BTU/lb 1,600 tons/days 440,000 Ibs/hour 1,500° - 2,000°F 450°F 4 electrostatic precipitators 972 0.05 grains/std. cu. ft. gases are reduced in temperature to approximately 450°F. The residue from the grates and the fly ash collected by the ESPs are dumped into the ash discharger. The discharger which is partly filled with water quenches the ashes and via residue conveyors transferred to the ash building. The ashes are then screened. Salvageable metals are sold for reuse. The remaining ashes are taken from the ash building by trucks and used in construction projects or places as sanitary landfill. A line diagram of the Incinerator is presented in Figure 3-2. 3.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS 3.2.1 Refuse Handling Mixed refuse from domestic sources 1s brought to the incinerator plant in collection trucks, each truck has a capacity of 5 tons or 25 cubic yards. The refuse averages 400 pounds per cubic yard. The refuse varies considerably in consistency and moisture content over a period of time and 3-3 280 �r TRUCKED REFUSE FEED MATER AIR COOLED CONDENSERS UPSCALE REFUSE DELIVERY PIT EH i REFUSE FEED HOPPER I BOILER OVERFIRE •> COft€RCIAL STEAM STEAM DRUMS INTAKE FAN i. • BOILER HOPPER FLY ASH (ECONOMIZER] 1 HOPPER 1 AIR hO 00 S T A C K 1 HOPPER i f f ASH DISCHARGE HOPPER STOKER GRATES COMBINED ASH SIFTING GRATES I FORCED DRAFT FAN HEAVY METALS Figure 3-2. Flow diagram of Chicago Northwest Incinerator FINE ASH �this condition is reflected in the changeable calorific (heat) content of the refuse. Trucks are weighed over scale platforms. After weighing these trucks are directed to eleven stalls in front of the refuse storage pit. After depositing their load the trucks leave the building through doors in the south end. Refuse items that are too large to be handled through the charging hopper and feed chute (such as mattresses, upholstered furniture, etc.) are removed. Bulky metal objects from the storage area are removed by trucks. The refuse storage pit has a storage capacity of 9,700 cubic yards or 1,940 tons or sufficient "fuel" to last 29 hours when the four incinerators are operating normally. This necessitates refuse collection on six days of the week. However this is not always possible due to various reasons such as unfavorable weather etc. At such times auxiliary gas firing is utilized to meet steam demand and to keep the furnaces from cooling down. The refuse is removed from the pit by one of three transfer cranes. These cranes are overhead, high speed, two-girder, single trolley, travelling, grab bucket cranes each of 8.5 tons capacity handling mixed refuse from the storage pit to the furnace charging hoppers. An auxiliary hoist of 2.5 tons capacity is provided on each of the end cranes and mounted on crane trolleys. Each crane bucket has a 5 cubic yard capacity and is a fourline, line-type grapple. All crane components are electric motor driven under control of an operator in a cab suspended from the bridge and located so as to permit the operator to see the bottom of the refuse storage pit as well as the charging hoppers. The cranes are capable of performing a maximum of 29 cycles per hour per crane including an allowance of approximately 20 percent for rehandling refuse and other interruptions. The cranes span 44' - 8" center to center of rails and the crane runaway is 286' - 0" in length. Crane operations are manually controlled from within each respective crane cab. Each refuse transfer crane was initially equipped with solidstate computerized weighing systems to record the amount of material charged into the hoppers by each crane and also record into which hopper the material is charged. Due to various problems the use of the solid state systems was abandoned and now the number of times the refuse is charged into the hopper 3-5 282 �is monitored manually by the crane operator. of 5 cubic yards capacity. 3.2.2 Each charge is assumed to be Refuse Burning The plant has four incinerators each having a nominal burning capacity of 400 tons per 24 hour day. Each incinerator has a charging hopper, feed chute, hydraulic powered feeders and stoker (manufactured by Josef Martin, Germany), boiler, economizer and fly ash hoppers. Draft throught the furnace (boiler) is provided by forced draft fans, overfire air fans and induced draft fans. Refuse in the charging hopper of each incinerator flows by gravity from the hopper to three stoker feeders through a feed chute, the lower portion of which is water cooled. Near the bottom of each charging hopper is a hydraulic powered pivoted type gate normally open but closed when the feed chute is empty of refuse. The charging hopper gates are manually controlled through operation of a four-way valve on the charging floor. The stoker feeders at the bottom of the feed chute push the refuse into the stoker by the reciprocating action of their hydraulic powered rams. The stokers of each incinerator are assembled with three runs or sections and have a sloping activated surface consisting of 17 rows of grate steps. The grate sections incline from the hortizontal at an angle of 26°, the lower end being at the rear. The stoker is of the reverse acting, reciprocating grate type. Alternate lateral rows of grate steps have controlled continuous reciprocating action with the moving grate steps pushing in reverse direction to the flow of refuse. This action moves a portion of the burning refuse under the unignited material and thereby effects an agitation and blending of the whole burning mass. Combustion air entering from below the grates cools the grates, helps to agitate the burning refuse and supplies the oxygen which produces a maximum burn-out in the shortest length of grate travel. Although the spacing between the grate bars comprises less than two percent of the total grate area, it is still possible for small siftings or ashes to find their way through the grate. These ashes are handled by the automatic sifting discharge which extends underneath the air plenum chambers serving the stoker. At regular intervals high pressure air is 3-6 283 �directed through the siftings channel, driving the siftings into the ash discharges. In order to obtain maximum burn-out, the depth of the refuse bed is controlled by automatic discharge or clinker rollers located at the end of the grate. As the residue reaches this point it is dumped into the Martin ash discharger where it is immediately quenched in water. The residue, following quenching by means of a hydraulic powered ram is pushed up an inclined slope which permits draining. This produces a residue of less than 15 percent moisture, and permits dry type conveying. In addition to quenching, the ash discharger also serves as a water seal for the furnace. This seal prevents infiltration of air into the furnace which is under negative pressure. Each refuse burning boiler is provided with two gas burners suitable for use with natural gas. They are automatically controlled and have an electric ignition. 3.2.3 Residue Handling The residue leaving each incinerator ash discharger passes through a hydraulically operated bifurcated chute to one or the other of two residue conveyors. These apron type conveyors travel at a rate of 17 feet per minute and have a capacity of 35 tons per hour. Only one conveyor operates at a time and extends horizontally past the four incinerators. It discharges its load onto rotary screens and storage hoppers in the Ash Discharge building. The electric motor driven rotary screens separate material larger than 2 inches in diameter from smaller sized material. Hydraulic power operated diverting chutes are provided to direct the flow of residue away from the rotary screens and into a bypass hopper. Material from the hoppers is removed from the plant by motor trucks. The weight of the residue leaving the plant is measured and recorded at the weighing station. The residue conveyors also receive and transport stoker grate siftings and fly ash accumulations from the boiler hoppers, economizer hoppers, and the electrostatic precipitators. Stoker grate siftings collect in six hoppers under each of three stoker grate sections. The siftings are conveyed 3-7 284 �to the residue conveyors through automatically controlled, pneumatic cylinder actuated ash dampers to ducts connected to the residue discharge (drop) chute. Boiler fly ash is collected in four hoppers and the front two hoppers discharge to the stoker grates through ducts equipped with pneumatic cylinder actuated pendulum dampers. The rear two hoppers discharge to the residue discharge chute through a common connecting pipe equipped with slide gate and an electric motor driven rotary valve. Fly ash from the economizer hoppers passes through a common pipe connected to the discharge end of the conveyor handling fly ash from the electrostatic precipitator. The two fly ash hoppers located under each precipitator discharge ash onto a drag conveyor which transmits the fly ash into the incinerator building onto a conditioning conveyor. This conveyor discharges into the residue discharge chute. Water is mixed with the fly ash in the conditioning conveyor. The fly ash handling system is designed for continuous operation and the various devices are actuated from controls on the stoker panel. The control of residue handling equipment is manual. 3.2.4 Steam Supply Refuse with a calorific value of approximately 5,000 BTU per pound at the rate of 400 tons per day is used to generate 110,000 pounds per hour of steam at 250 psig. Each boiler has the capacity to produce up to 135,000 pounds/hour of steam. The stokers and boiler heating surfaces are designed to receive refuse of up to 6,500 BTU/lb. The allowable design of the stoker grate loading is 65 Ibs/sq.ft. per hour and thus the average stoker heat release is 325,000 BTU per hour/sq.ft. of projected grate area. The boilers are convection, water well, natural circulation types with economizers. Each boiler has 19,776 sq.ft. of heating surface and is designed for a 300 psig working pressure. Steam produced in the boiler accumulates above the water surface in the steam drum and leaves the drum through double row of tubes connected to the saturated steam header outside of and supported on the boiler steam drum. From the saturated steam header the steam flows to the main header and then through branch lines to turbines driving fans and pumps, export lines and 3-8 285 �high pressure condensers. Steam at reduced pressure is also used for heating various systems such as water chiller absorption units, office buildings, low pressure condensers, etc. When the steam produced in the plant is more than that required for operating the steam turbine equipment, heating purposes or export, the excess quantity "spills over" to the high pressure condensers located on the roof of the incinerator building. From the condensers the condensate flows to the deaerating feed water heater, the rate of flow being automatically controlled and modulated to equal the rate of condensation. The requirements for make-up to replace steam condensate lost or wasted are met by using softened water. The water softening unit includes duplex softening units containing synthetic type zeolite resin, a salt storage tank, a brine measuring tank, electric motor driven brine pumps and interconnecting piping. It has a nominal flow rate of 260 gpm and a maximum rate of 480 gpm. From the feedwater heater, water flows by gravity to the inlets of the boiler feed pumps. There are four pumps, each having a nominal capacity of 400 gpm. The pumps are multi-stage, horizontal, centrifugal type. These pumps transmit the water to the boilers. Each boiler has a continuous blowdown system with water drawn from the steam drums. The blowdown pipe lines from the four boilers extend to a single flash tank. Fla>sh steam is returned to the deaerating feedwater heater at 5 psig. From the heat exchanger the blowdown water flows to an underground concrete blowdown tank where the water cools before overflowing to a sewer. 3.2.5 Combustion Air and Flue Gas The incinerator stokers are designed to utilize 67,200 scfm of primary air (introduced under the stoker grates) at 18 inches w.c. and an overfire air (secondary) flow of 16,800 scfm at 15 inches w.c. Overfire air is introduced into the furnace to reduce stratification of gas and thus provide more complete combustion of the gases. The air enters through the front and rear water walls. The underfire air is discharged into several compartments under the stoker grate. The compartments are provided with dampers which are individually adjustable by manual operation of regulating stands 3-9 286 �located on the stoker operating floor. During the burning of refuse a constant air pressure is maintained under the stoker grates by means of automatic pneumatic controls. Combustion air combines with the burning refuse to generate heat and raise the temperature of the flue gas to as high as 2000°F. At rated burning capacity and based on 50 percent excess air (dry) the flue gas flow rate at 550°F is estimated to be 142,300 acfm. The flue gas passes upward through the furnace, through the boiler passes and finally through the economizer to the electrostatic precipitator. As it passes through the boiler it transfers heat to the water. At the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator the temperature is reduced to approximately 500°F because of the above heat exchange. During the passage of the flue gas through the boiler passes and economizer the heavier fly ash particles drop out. Hoppers are provided below the boiler and economizer for the collection of the drop out material. The plate type electrostatic precipitators (ESP) (one for each incinerator) have a series of vertical collector plates between which are suspended the charging electrodes. The ESP's are designed for an inlet grain loading of 1.6 gr/scf (70°F and 29.92 in Hg) and an outlet grain loading of 0.05 gr/scf with a collection efficiency of 97 percent. The gas velocity through the ESP is around 3 ft/sec. From the precipitator the flue gas passes through a breaching continuation to the inlets of the induced draft fans and then through the 250 ft. stacks to the atmosphere. A line diagram of the combustion air and flue gas system is provided in Figure 3-3. 3-10 287 �FRESH AIR BOILER INTAKE A I i FURNACE STORAGE ro go 00 to i —i FURNACE ROOM "pTf A I I FORCED DRAFT FANS OVERFIRE AIR FAN STOKER Figure 3*-3. Combustion air and flue gas system �4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS All sampling locations are identified in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2 is a schematic depicting the traverse point locations at the stack. Figure 4-3 is a top view of the ESP inlet showing port locations, and Figure 4-4 is a cross sectional view of the ESP inlet depicting the traverse point locations. The continuous monitoring probe was located on the South side of the ESP inlet duct utilizing one of the gas sampling ports and at a depth of approximately 4 feet. At the outlet, the monitoring probe was alternated between ports 2 and 3 and at a depth of 4 feet. These two ports were also used for the gas sampling trains. TABLE 4-1. SAMPLING LOCATIONS Solid Sample Locations 1 - Refuse derived fuel 2 - Fly ash 3 - Combined ash Gaseous Sampling Locations 4 - Hi volume ambient air sampler 5 - ESP inlet 6 - ESP outlet Liquid Sample Locations 7 - City tap water 4-1 289 �TRUCKED REFUSE BOILER FEED WATER AIR COOLED CONDENSERS REFUSE DELIVERY PIT LECTROSTATld PRECIPITATOR BOILER OVERFIRE AIR ASH STOKER GRATES DISCHARGE HOPPER COMBINED ASH SIFTING GRATES FORCED DRAFT FAN HEAVY METALS Figure 4-1. Flow diagram and measurement locations �OUTLET - FRONT V I E W (CONTINUOUS M O N I T O R I N G PORTS) • • • • • (PARTICULATE SAMPLING PORTS) OUTLET - TOP V I E W 60" u. 1 1=1 2 K- U 3 U 4 •H •108" SAMPLING POINTS - Traverse Point OUTLET Distance from Outside Edge of Nipple No. In. Cm. 1 11.5 29.21 2 17.5 44.45 3 23.5 59.69 4 29.5 74.93 5 35.5 90.17 6 41.5 105.41 7 47.5 120.65 7 53.5 135.89 9 59.5 151.13 10 65.5 166.37 Figure 4-2. Outlet sampling position 4-3 291 �Figure 4-3. Top view of ESP inlet showing port locations �71" 60" EL 60" DUSTCAKE SAMPLING POINTS - INLET Traverse Point No. Distance from Outside Edge Nipple No. In. Cm. 1 11.5 2 15.375 29.21 39.05 3 19.625 49.35 4 23.875 28.125 32.375 36.625 40.875 45.125 49.375 60.64 71.44 82.23 93.03 103.32 114.62 53.625 57.375 136,21 145.73 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Figure 4-4. 125.41 Cross sectional of ESP inlet showing traverse point locations. 293 4-5 �5.0 SAMPLING This section provides information on the sampling program conducted at the Chicago Northwest Incinerator (CNI). 5.1 GAS SAMPLING The original test plan called for sampling to be performed on Boiler No. 1. However, upon arriving at the test site, this unit had been taken off line for repairs. As all four (4) units at the Chicago Northwest facility are identical, the sampling effort was switched from unit 1 to unit 2. The flue gas sampling was performed at the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) inlet and at the duct leading from the precipitator to the stack. The stack was common to two boiler units and for this reason, no testing was performed at the stack level. Sampling for organics was to be performed for fourteen consecutive days with three additional days for sampling of inorganic cadmium. Due to boiler down time and equipment malfunction, only eleven organic samples were taken. Sampling for organics was accomplished concurrently at the inlet and outlet utilizing two modified Method 5 trains (refer to Figure 5-1) at both sampling locations. Inorganic cadmium was only sampled at the stack and utilized one standard Method 5 train, Figure 5-2. The sampling crew collected a ten m 3 (10 +_ 1 m 3) sample by extracting the flue gas at a rate approximating the flue gas velocity. The particulate matter was collected in a cyclone and on the filter media. The gas stream was passed through an XAD-2 resin trap to absorb the organic constituents and through an impinger system to condense any moisture present in the gas. Parameters such as temperatures, pressures, and gas volumes were monitored throughout the sampling period. The sample fractions were recovered from the sampling trains and turned over to an MRI representative. 5.2 SOLID SAMPLING During each test day, 3 solid streams: precipitator ash, combined ash, and refuse derived fuel (RDF) were sampled six times per day following a schedule set up by Research Triangle Institute (RTI). The sampling was coordinated between RTI, the sampling crew and plant personnel. The 5-1 294 �XX X FILTER HOUSING THERMOf-ETER DRY TEST • fKTER AIR TIGHT PUMP Figure 5-1. Sampling train 5-2 295 �figure 5-2. EPA Method 5 particulate sampling train 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Calibrated nozzle Glass lined probe Flexible teflon sample line Cyclone Filter holder Heated box Ice bath Impinger (water) Impinger (water) Impinger (empty) Impinger (silica gel) Thermometer 5-3 296 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) Check value Vacuum line Vacuum gauge Main value Air tight pump Bypass value . Dry test meter Orifice Pitot manometer Potentiometer Orifice manometer S type pi tot tube �schedule provided the basis for collection of unbiased samples by obtaining a random selection from the multiple sources available for sampling. This approach was taken to avoid any cyclic biases which might have been present in the daily operation of the power plant. The CNI sampling plan did not call out specific sampling protocol for the RDF. At a meeting prior to the start of testing, it was decided that the RDF would be sampled 6 times during the course of the day. The sample was taken directly from the charge hopper, utilizing a post-hole digger and alternating grab spots across the hopper. At the conclusion of RDF sampling, one days collection (6 samples) was shredded, mixed and stored in an amber glass jar. MRI had purchased a large leaf mulcher to do the shredding. TRW performed the shredding of the sample provided by GSRI 5.3 LIQUID SAMPLING Only one liquid stream (city water) was sampled at the incinerator facility. The sampling was performed by GSRI. The sampling protocol and frequency of sampling will be supplied by GSRI in their report. 5.4 HI VOLUME SAMPLER To monitor the ambient air background, a high volume ambient air sampler (Figure 5-3) was used. It was placed on the roof of the Chicago Northwest Incinerator facility to obtain a representative background utilizing outside ambient air rather than sampling air inside the building that could have been contaminated or influenced by the combustion process. 5.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE A quality assurance sample was also taken of the final test day. To collect the quality assurance sample, two sampling trains were placed at the same point in the same port at the inlet of the ESP. No traversing was performed. Both trains were run at the same isokinetic rate for the same duration as a normal test day. Also during the Q/A day, solids and liquids were collected as in a normal test day. 5.6 SAMPLING TRAIN BACKGROUND To obtain the train background (blank) an entire sampling train, including resin trap filter and impinger solutions was set up at the ESP inlet. The train was taken to normal operating temperatures and allowed to 5-4 297 �HIGH VOLUME AIR SAMPLER FLOW PROBE \MODEL 230 HIGH VOLUME CASCADE IMPACTOR - OPTIONAL MANOMETER OR ROTAMETE: MODEL 310/310A/310B CONSTANT FLOW CONTROLLEF FLOW iJUSTMENT LINE CORD Figure 5-3. Ambient air sampler. 5-5 298 �remain at these temperatures for one (1) hour. All train components were recovered as a normal run and all sample blanks were given to an MRI representative, 5J SAMPLE RECOVERY Upon completion of testing, the sampling equipment was brought to the cleaned laboratory area for recovery. Each sampling train was kept in a separate area to prevent sample mixup and cross contamination. The individual sample train components were recovered per the following: • Dry particulate in cyclone r cyclone flasks were transferred to cyclone catch bottle. t Probe was wiped to remove all external particulate matter near probe ends, • Filters were removed from their housings and placed in proper container, • After recovering dry particulate from the nozzle, probe, cyclone, and flask, these parts were rinsed with distilled water to remove remaining particulate, They were subsequently rinsed with B & 0 acetone and cyclohexane and put into a separate container. All rinses were retained in an amber glass container, t Sorbent traps were removed from the trainl capped with glass plugs, and given to an on-site Midwest Research Institute (MRI; representative, • Condensing coil \ if separate from the sorbent trap, and the connecting glassware to the first impinger was rinsed into the condensate catch (ftrst impinger). • First and second impingers were measured, volume recorded and retained in an amber glass storage bottle. The impingers were then rinsed with small amounts of distilled water, acetone and cyclohexane. These rinsings were combined with the condensate catch. Rinse volumes were also recorded. • Third and fourth impingers were measured, volume recorded and solutions discarded. • Silica gel was weighed, weight gain recorded and regenerated for further use. To maintain sample integrity, all glass containers were amber glass, with Teflon-lined lids. 5-6 299 �5.8 OBSERVATIONS DURING RECOVERY 0 The first day setup of impingers did not include ^Og, as the shipment had not been delivered from the manufacturer. • Many filters that were supplied for the particulate catch, had the identification number stamped in blue ink on the top; or, particle gathering side. • Some Battelle Traps were packed with too much glass wool. (As a result, flow rate was somewhat restricted.) The probe and oven box did not remain hot enough to keep the cyclone and flask dry. For the first few days of testing, the cyclone had moisture on the inside walls, so no dry particulate could be collected. • On 5/10/80, the wind blew the Hi Volume Air sampler cabinet over. The cabinet had to be moved to a less exposed area nearer the building. • On 5/5/80, 5/8/80, and 5/9/80 yellow residue was noted in the teflon line connecting the back of the filter housing to the front of the Battelle cooling coil. When the teflon line was rinsed with acetone, the rinse turned to reddish-brown. • When the filters were not kept completely dry throughout the particulate test period, the filter paper would stick to the rubber gasket and was very difficult to completely remove. t A reddish color remained on the inlet filter backing plates on 5/8/80 and 5/15/80. The color washed off with water, and the rinse was discarded. § The inlet glass transition tubes connecting the probe to the cyclone, had to be wrapped in an attempt to keep moisture and particulate from dropping out and depositing on the walls. • All parts were inspected for cleanliness after the water and acetone rinses, but before the cyclohexane rinse. Cyclohexane does not rapidly evaporate and gives any part rinsed with it the appearance of being clean. In reality the parts were still wet and masked any particulate that remained on the walls. 5-7 300 �6.0 CALIBRATION This section describes the calibration procedures used prior to conducting the field test at Chicago Northwest Incinerator facility. Figure 6-1 shows the calibration equipment and how it was set up. 6.1 METHOD FIVE CALIBRATION DATA 6.1.1 Orifice Meter Calibration The orifice meter calibration is performed using a pump and metering system as illustrated in Figure 6-1 (a). The dry gas meter with attached critical orifice is run at various orifice flows for a known time. After each run the volume of the dry gas meter, meter inlet/outlet temperatures, time, and orifice setting is recorded. The orifice meter calibration factor is derived by solving the equation. AHia - 0.317 A H - Pb (Td + 460) AH@ + 460) e n 2 —TO- ] r (Tw C where AH = Average pressure drop across the orifice meter, inches H20 Pb Td Tw e Vw = = = = = Barometric pressure, inches Mercury Temperature of the dry gas meter, °F Temperature of the wet -test meter, °F Times, minutes Volume of wet test meter, cubic feet The AH@ yielded is utilized to adjust the sampling train flow rate by regulating the orifice flow. 6.1.2 Dry Gas Meter Calibration Meter box calibration consists of checking the dry gas meter for accuracy. The dry gas meter with attached critical orifice is connected to a wet test meter (see Figure 6-1 (b) below) and run at various orifice flows for a known time. After each run wet and dry gas meter volumes, temperatures, time, and orifice readings are recorded. Utilizing the equation: 301 �v . Vw Pb (Td +460) Vd (Pb + AH)(t + 460) TT.6 w where V = Volume correction factor Vw = Volume of wet test meter, cubic feet Pb = Barometric pressure, inches mercury Td = Temperature dry gas meter, °F Vd = Volume of dry gas meter, cubic feet AH = Average pressure drop across the orifice meter, inches H20 TW = Temperature of wet test meter, °F a volume factor which compares the dry gas meter with the wet test meter is obtained. 6.1.3 Pi tot Tube Calibration Pitot tubes are calibrated on a routine basis utilizing two methods. The type S pitot tube specifications are illustrated and outlined in the Federal Register, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, [40 CFR Part 60], Reference Method 2 (refer to Figure 6-1(c)). When measurement of pitot openings and alignment verify proper configuration, a coefficient value of 0.84 is assigned to the pitot tube. If the measurements do not meet the requirements as outlined in the Federal Register, a calibration is then performed by comparing the S type pitot tube with a standard pitot tube (known coefficient of 1.0). Under identical conditions, values of AP, for both S type and standard pitot tube are recorded using various velocity flows (14 fps to 60 fps). The pitot tube calibration coefficient is determined utilizing the following equation, Pitot Tube Calibration = (Standard Pitot Tube X rAP reading of std. pitot J -il/2 L Factor (CP) Coefficient) AP reading of S type pi tot The coefficient assigned to the pitot tube is the average of calculated values over the various velocity ranges. 6-2 302 �tttgnchstic Gtupe Figure 6-1(a) Orifice meter calibration Figure 6-1(b) Dry gas meter calibratipn fcunf Wftcrc 7m or filer Ti/t* Wou/tf £f WAen Too View Figure 6-1(c) Equipment used to calibrate pi tot tubes Figure 6-1. Calibration equipment set-up procedures 6-3 303 �6.1.4 Nozzle Diameters The nozzle diameters were calibrated with the use of a vernier caliper. If the nozzle showed excessive wear or was considered not fit for use, it was discarded. 6.2 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION The manufacturer's recommended calibration procedures were used with the following gases: Zero gas: Nitrogen, high purity dry grade (99.997%) Union Carbide Co., Linde Division Calibration gas: Carbon monoxide 798.5 +_ 0.8 ppm Carbon dioxide 11.93 ±0.01% Propane 39.6 + 0.04 ppm Oxygen 5.03 ± 0.005% Nitrogen Balance (all gases contained in one cylinder) Scott Environmental Technology Inc. Specialty Gas Division Zero and Calibration adjustment were made prior to the start of the test day. Zero drift checks were made at the end of each test period. Data was recorded every fifteen minutes thus providing two data points per hour for each sampling position, or four data points per hour for a single sampling position 6.4 304 �7.0 TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section describes some of the problems encountered during the Chicago Northwest Incinerator test program and recommends a solution to these problems. 7.1 PROBLEMS • Electrical outlets were not installed on schedule (lost time 1 day). • One of the tubes in Boiler No. 2 developed a leak. The boiler had to be shutdown for repairs. This caused a delay of one day. • The boiler grates malfunctioned and required cleaning. This resulted in down time of one day. • Sampling equipment malfunctions caused further delays. This was due to: 1) Difficulty in containing leaks during equipment operation. 2) Failure of oven box heaters. 3) Drift problems of the Beckman 865 CO analyzer. The analyzer had to be taken off line and subsequent inspection by manufacturer indicated that the stationary shutters were knocked out of alignment. This resulted in the loss of 4 days of CO data before a replacement was obtained. 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Most of the above problems frequently occur in the field and should be considered normal during the course of a major field effort. The instrument problem may have been caused during shipment. Perhaps, stronger shipping containers should be used in the future. 7-1 305 �REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 4. T,tie and subntie . '•- Rtno-n NO. | 3. ''L-r.iptent's Arc;e*3'un No 2. i 560/5-83-004 i •' ' : Comprehensive Assessment of Specific Compounds Present in Combustion Processes. Vol. 1.-Pilot study of Combustion Emissions Variability. 7 Au-hcriM Clarence" Ha lie and JoTfn Stanley (MRI) Carter Nulton (SWRI) William Yauger, Jr. (GSRI) 0. Performing O-,;.iniz,ition Name and Acdress 5, Report Date June 19_83__ 6. ! a. Performing OrRanizanori Rept. No I I 10. Proiect/TaskAVork Unit No. ! - Midwest Research Institute 425 Volker Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64110 Task 3 ; 11. Conlract(C) or C r a r . t ( G ) No. i'c> - . 68-01-5915 ! (G) 1C*. Spon c ,orrii? Or^ani* .itii'n Namf and Address 13. Type of Report & Period C o w e r e d Field Studies Branch, EED.TS-798 US EPA 401 M St. SW Final _ . 1 i _ _ _ 14. Washington, DC 20460 IS. Supolcrrent.iry N c t e s F.W. Kutz, Project Officer D.P. Redford, Task Manager is. Abstract (urn,:-200 words) xhis pilot study was conducted as a prelude to a nation wide survey of organic emissions from major stationary combustion sources. The primary objectives of the pilot study were to obtain data on the variability of organic emissions from two such sources and to evaluate the sampling and analysis methods. These data are used to construct the survey design for the nationwide survey. The compounds of interest are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and chlorinated aromatic compounds, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated di-benzofurans (PCDFs). Of particular interest is 2,3,7,8tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). In addition total cadmium was also determined in special samples from both plants to meet special Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs. A summary of the results of this study is contained in Section 2 of this report. Section 3 presents recommendations for future work. Brief descriptions of the two combustion sources are contained in Section 4. The sampling and analysis methods are described in Sections 5 and 6. Sections 7 and 8 present the field test data and analytical results. The analytical quality assurance results are summarized in Section 9. Section 10 presents the emissions results and Section 11 is a statistical summary of the emissions results. 17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors Combustion, Emissions, Sampling and Analysis b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms PAH,PCDD,PCDF,POM c. C O S A T I f i e l d / G r o u p 18. A v a i l a b i l i t y Statement 19. Security Class (This Report) Unclassified Release to public (Sr-v A N S I - / 3 9 13) 20. Security Cln$,s(T,his, PaRe) Unc See Instructions on Reverse 1 21. No. of Pages i 305 22. Price OPTIONAL FORM 2 7 2 ( 4 - 7 7 r m m e r l y NTIS-3S) r>v-~^rlrnent of Commerce � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange Description An account of the resource <p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p> <p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p> Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Box The box containing the original item. 192 Folder The folder containing the original item. 5421 Series The series number of the original item. Series VIII Subseries I Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haile, Clarence L John S. Stanley Robert M. Lucas Denise K. Melroy Carter P. Nulton William L. Yauger, Jr. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1983-06-01 Title A name given to the resource Comprehensive Assessment of the Specific Compounds Present in Combustion Processes, Volume I: Pilot Study of Combustion Emissions Variability ao_seriesVIII