vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA/540/5-89/008
April 1989
Superfund
Technology Evaluation
Report:
SITE Program
Demonstration Test -
The American
Combustion Pyretron
Thermal Destruction
System at the U.S. EPA's
Combustion Research
Facility
VPERFUND INNOVATIVE
'ECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
-------
EPA/540/5-89/008
April 1989
Technology Evaluation Report:
SITE Program Demonstration Test
The American Combustion Pyretron Thermal
Destruction System at the
U.S. EPA's Combustion Research Facility
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-2167 as part
of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.. It
has been subjected to the Agency's peer review and administrative review,
and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
n
-------
FOREWORD
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program was
authorized in the 1986 Superfund amendments. The program is a joint effort
between EPA's Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. The purpose of the program is to assist the development
of hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary to implement new cleanup
standards which require greater reliance on permanent remedies. This is
accomplished through technology demonstrations which are designed to provide
engineering and cost data on selected technologies.
This project consists of an analysis of American Combustion's proprietary
air/oxygen/fuel burner and represents the third field demonstration in the
SITE program. The technology demonstration took place at the USEPA's
Combustion Research Facility in Jefferson, Arkansas. The demonstration effort
was directed at obtaining information on the performance and cost of the
process for use in assessments at other sites. Documentation will consist of
two reports. This Technology Evaluation Report describes the field activities
and laboratory results. An Applications Analysis will follow and provide an
interpretation of the data and conclusions on the results and potential
applicability of the technology.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained at no charge from EPA's
Center for Environmental Research Informations 26 West Martin"Huther King
Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, using the EPA document number found on the
report's front cover. Once this supply is exhausted, copies can be purchased
from the National Technical Information Service, Ravensworth Bldg.,
Springfield, VA, 22161, (702) 487-4600. Reference copies will be available at
EPA libraries in their Hazardous Waste Collection. You can also call the SITE
Clearinghouse hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or 382-3000 in Washington, DC, to
inquire about the availability of other reports.
Margaret M* Kelly, Acting
Director, Office of Program
Management and Technology
.Alfred W. Lindsey, Acting Director,
Office of Environmental Engineering
and Technology Demonstration
m
-------
ABSTRACT
A series of demonstration tests of the American Combustion, Inc., Thermal
Destruction System was performed under the SITE program. This oxygen-enhanced
combustion system was retrofit to the rotary kiln incinerator at EPA's
Combustion Research Facility. This system's performance was tested firing
contaminated soil from the Stringfellow Superfund Site, both alone and mixed
with a coal tar waste (K087). Comparative performance with conventional
incinerator operation was also tested.
Compliance with the incinerator performance standards of 99.99 percent
principal organic hazardous constituents (POHC) destruction and removal
efficiency and particulate emissions of less than 180 mg/dscm at 7 percent 02
was measured for all tests. The Pyretron system was capable of in-compliance
performance at double the mixed waste feedrate and at a 60-percent increase in
batch waste charge mass than was possible with conventional incineration.
Scrubber blowdown and kiln ash contained no detectable levels of any of the
POHCs chosen.
-------
CONTENTS'
Foreword i i i
Abstract i v
Figures vi i
Tables x
Acknowledgements xii
1 Introduction 1
2 Executive Summary 3
3 Process Description and Explanation of Developer's
Claim ; 6
4 Test Waste Description 11
5 Test Facility Description and Incineration System
Operation 17
5.1 Rotary Kiln Incinerator System Description 17
5.1.1 Incinerator Characteristics 17
5.1.2 Air Pollution Control Devices 20
5.2 Incinerator System Operating Conditions 21
5.2.1 Incinerator Operating Conditions 21
5.2.2 Air Pollution Control System Operation 23
6 Sampling and Analysis Matrix 63
7 Test Results 66
7.1 Continuous Emissions Monitor Data 66
7.2 Principal Organic Hazardous Constituent
Destruction and Removal Efficiencies 68
7.3 Particulate Emissions 102
7.4 Incineration Residuals 103
8 Conclusions 104
8.1 Demonstration Program Conclusions 104
8.2 Demonstration Program Costs 106
9 Quality Assurance 106
9.1 Sample Hold Times 108
9.2 Surrogate Recoveries 114
v
-------
CONTENTS (Concluded)
9.2.1 Surrogate Recovery Results 114
9.2.2 Corrections for Surrogate Recoveries 120
9.3 Matrix Spike Recoveries 123
9.4 Replicate Sampling And Analysis 126
9.5 Data Quality Summary 126
References 128
Appendix A — Incinerator Operating Conditions Log A-l
Appendix B — Sampling Train Performance Worksheets B-l
Appendix C -- Analytical Laboratory Data C-l
vi
-------
FIGURES
Figure
1
2
3
4a
4b
5
6
7a
7b
8
9
lOa
105
11
12
13a
13b
14
15
16a
16b
17
Pyretron Thermal Destruction System process diagram
CRF rotary kiln system
Waste feed schedule for the conventional incineration
optimization trial „ .
Kiln data for the conventional incineration optimization
tri al
Afterburner data for the conventional incineration
optimization trial
Stack emissions monitor data for the conventional
incineration optimization trial
Waste feed schedule for Test 1
Kiln data for Test 1
Afterburner data for Test 1
Stack emissions monitor data for Test 1
Waste feed schedule for Test 2 .-..
Kiln data for Test 2 .
Afterburner data for Test 2
Stack emissions monitor data for Test 2
Waste feed schedul e for Test 3
Kiln data for Test 3
Afterburner data for Test 3
Stack emissions monitor data for Test 3
Waste feed schedule for Test 4
Kiln data for Test 4 ,.
Afterburner data for Test 4
Waste feed schedule for Test 5
Page
7
18
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
50
vii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
18a
18b
19
20a
20b
21
22a
22b
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
25c
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
27c
28a
28b
28c
Page
Kiln data for Test 5 ... .... 51
Afterburner data for Test 5 52
Waste feed schedule for Test 6 53
Kiln data for Test 6 54
Afterburner data for Test 6 55
Waste feed schedule forlTest 7 ; 57
Kiln data for Test 7 58
Afterburner data for Test 7 ......*... 59
Waste feed schedule for Test 8 «. 60
Kiln data for Test 8 61
Afterburner data for Test 8 • • • • 6^
Kiln exit CEM data for Test 1 69
Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 1 70
Stack CEM data for Test 1 71
Kiln exit CEM data for Test 2 7
Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 2 73
Stack CEM data for Test 2 74
Kiln exit CEM data for Test 3 •• 75..
Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 3 76
Stack exit CEM data for Test 3 77
Kiln exit CEM data for Test 4 » 78
Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 4 79
Stack CEM data for Test 4 80
viii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
29a Kiln exit CEM data for Test 5 81
29b Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 5 82
29c Stack CEM data for Test 6 83
30a Kiln exit CEM data for Test 6 84
30b Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 6 85
30c Stack CEM data for Test 6 86
31a Kiln exit CEM data for Test 7 87
31b Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 7 88
31c Stack CEM data Test 7 .. 89
32a Kiln exit CEM data for Test 8 90
32b Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 8 ,. 91
32c Stack CEM data for Test 8 92
ix
-------
TABLES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Composition of the Stringfellow Site Contaminated Soil
From Location OA17
Characterization Analyses of the K087 Waste
Typical Composition of the K087 Waste
Fiberpack Drum Specifications
Design Characteristics of the CRF Rotary Kiln System
Target Test Program Summary
Average Incinerator Operating Conditions
Average Air Pollution Control System Operating Conditions ...
Sampling and Analysis Matrix Summary
CEMs in Operation for the Demonstration Tests
Ultimate Analysis of Composite Feed Samples
Waste Feed Composition
Semi volatile Organic Constituents in Scrubber
Discharge MM5 Train Samples
Semivolatile Organic Hazardous Constituents in Stack Gas
MM5 Train Samples
Bis (2-ethyl hexy 1) phthal ate Concentrations in Matrix
Spike and Method Blank Resin Samples
Scrubber Discharge Flue Gas POHC Emission Rates
Stack Gas POHC Emission Rates
Scrubber Discharge POHC DRE's
Stack Discharge POHC DRE's
Particulate Emission Summary
Sample Hold Times for Waste Feed Sample
Sample Hold Times for MM5 Train Samples
Pagj
12
14
15
16
16
21
57
58
60
67
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
110
111
-------
TABLES (Concluded)
Table Page
23 Sample Hold Times for Slowdown Liquor Samples 112
24 Sample Hold Times for Kiln Ash Samples 113
25 Surrogate Recoveries for Waste Feed Samples ». 115
26 Surrogate Recoveries for MM5 Train Samples 116
27 Surrogate Recoveries for Slowdown Liquor Samples 117
28 Surrogate Recoveries for Kiln Ash Samples 118
29 Scrubber Discharge POHC DREs When Corrected for MM5 Train
Surrogate Recovery • - 121
30 Stack Discharge POHC DREs When Corrected for MM5 Train
Surrogate Recovery , « 122
31 Matrix Spike Recoveries from Waste Feed Samples „ 124
32 Matrix Spike Recovery from MM5 Resin Samples 124
33 Matrix Spike Recoveries from Slowdown Liquor Samples 125
34 Matrix Spike Recoveries from Kiln A$h Samples 125
x1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared under the direction and coordination of Laurel J.
Staley, EPA SITE Program Manager in the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contributers and reviewers for this report were Steven James, Robert
Olexsey, Ronald Hill, Norma Lewis, Gregory Carroll, Robert Stenburg, Robert Thurnau,
Robert Mournighan, Lisa Moore, Gordon Evans, William Linak, John Kingscott, Jane
Powers, and Brian Ullensvang of the USEPA and Mark Zwecker, Thomas Weschler, and
Gregory Gitman of American Combustion, Inc.
This report was prepared for EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program by Larry Waterland and Johannes Lee of the Environmental Systems
Division of Acurex Corporation for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3267.
XII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), the Office or Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) have established a formal program to accelerate
the development, demonstration, and use of new or innovative technologies.
ORD has also established a program to demonstrate and evaluate new innovative
measurement and monitoring technologies. These two program areas are called
the Superfund innovative Technology Evaluation, or the SITE Program.
The primary purpose of SITE is to enhance the development and
demonstration, and thereby establish the commercial availability, of
innovative technologies applicable to Superfund sites.
There are four parts to the SITE Program:
1. To identify and, where possible, remove impediments to the
development and commerical use of alternative technologies.
2. To conduct a demonstration program of the more promising innovative
technologies to establish reliable performance and cost information
for site characterization and cleanup decisionmaking.
3. To develop procedures and policies that encourage selection of
available alternative treatment remedies at Superfund sites.
4. To structure a development program that nurtures emerging
technologies.
The EPA recognizes that a number of forces inhibit the expanded use of
alternative technologies at Superfund sites. The objective of the first part
of the program is to identify and evaluate these impediments and remove them
or design methods to promote expanded use of alternative technologies.
The second part of the SITE Program is the demonstration and evaluation
of selected technologies. This is a significant ongoing effort involving ORD,
OSWER, EPA Regions, and the private sector. The objective of the
demonstration program is to test and evaluate field-ready technologies. The
demonstration program will provide Superfund decisionmakers with the
information necessary to evaluate the use of these technologies in future
cleanup actions.
-------
A demonstration of the American Combustion, Inc., (ACI) Pyretron Thermal
Destruction System has been performed under the SITE program. This system is
an innovative combustion system for application to waste incinerators. The
system allows the use of oxygen enhancement of the incineration process. For
rotary kiln applications, the system consists of rotary kiln and afterburner
combustor burners capable of introducing both air and oxygen to the combustion
process, a gas (fuel, air, and oxygen) metering and control assembly, and a
computer-based control system with proprietary control logic. A prototype
Pyretron system was retrofit to the rotary kiln incinerator (RKS) at EPA's
Combustion Research Facility for the SITE demonstration. The demonstration
program was performed using contaminated soil from the Stringfellow Superfund
site. For most tests, the Stringfellow waste was combined with the listed
RCRA hazardous waste, K087, decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations.
This combined waste was chosen so that the test waste would have signifcant
heat and principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC) content and, thereby,
present a challenge to the incineration process. The mixed waste consisted of
60 percent (weight) K087 and 40 percent Stringfellow soil. In all tests, the
test waste was batch charged to the RKS using a ram feed system which fed
waste packed into fiber pack drums.
The demonstration program consisted of emissions testing of a condition
challenging the limit of capability of a conventional air-only incineration
process in terms of feed mass per charge and total waste feedrate. Results
were then compared to similar testing under three modes of Pyretron 02
enhanced operation:
• The same waste feed schedule and auxiliary fuel flow established in
the optimum conventional incineration test
• Increased charge mass at constant total feedrate
• Increased total waste feedrate at constant charge mass
The objective of the demonstration test program was to provide the data
to evaluate three ACI claims regarding the Pyretron system:
• The Pyretron system with oxygen enhancement reduces the magnitude of
the transient high levels of organic emissions, CO, and soot
("puffs") that occur with repeated batch charging of waste fed to a
rotary kiln
• The Pyretron system with oxygen enhancement is capable of achieving
the RCRA mandated 99.99 percent destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) of POHCs in wastes incinerated at a higher waste feedrate than
cbnventional, air-only, incineration
• The Pyretron system is more economical than conventional incineration
This report summarizes the results of the demonstration test program.
-------
SECTION 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The SITE demonstration of the American Combustion Inc. (ACI) Pyretron
oxygen-enhanced burner system was conducted during late 1987 through early
1988 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Combustion Research
Facility (CRF) in Jefferson, Arkansas. A prototype Pyretron system was
installed on the CRF's rotary kiln incinerator System (RKS). This
demonstration was conducted using a mixture of decanter tank tar sludge from
coking operations (RCRA listed waste K087) and waste soil excavated from the
Stringfellow Superfund site near Riverside, California. These two wastes were
mixed together to provide a feed stream that had high levels of organic
contamination and in a soil matrix. This was determined to be the best
material to use to evaluate the performance of the Pyretron system. The
purpose of the demonstration tests was to provide the data to evaluate three
ACI claims regarding the Pyretron system noted in Section 1.
Two Pyretron burners were installed on the RKS at the CRF: one in the
kiln and one in the afterburner. Valve trains for supplying these burners
with controllable flows of auxiliary fuel, oxygen, and air, and a computerized
process control system were also provided.
As noted above, waste incinerated during the demonstration was a mixture
of 60 percent decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations (RCRA listed
waste K087) and 40 percent contaminated soil from the' Stringfellow Superfund
site. The K087 waste was included in the test mixture to provide high levels
of several polynuclear automatic hydrocarbon compounds. Six of these,
naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, and
fluoranthene were selected as the POHCs for the test program. The
Stringfellow soil was included to make the resulting feedstream more closely
resemble the type of waste that might be incinerated using this technology at
a Superfund site. Eight tests were performed. These tests were designed to
compare oxygen enhanced incineration to air-only incineration using the
Pyretron. For all tests the test waste packed into 5.7 L (1.5 gal) fiber pack
drums. Drums contained between 4.1 and 7.9 kg (9 and 17 Ib) of waste. During
each test the feed and effluent streams were sampled and analyzed tp determine
their levels of POHC and other organic compounds. In addition levels of
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and total unburned hydrocarbons in
the exhaust gas were continuously measured and recorded. Comparison of the
stripchart recordings obtained from oxygen enhanced and air only operation
would allow for a determination of whether or not the controlled introduction
of oxygen reduced transient emissions.
-------
Section 3 of the report provides a description of the Pyretron system and
a discussion of ACI's claims for the process. Section 4 describes the
characteristics of the test waste materials. Section 5 provides a description
of the RKS at the CRF and discusses the incinerator operating conditions for
each of the eight tests performed. The effluent stream sampling and analysis
procedures employed are described in Section 6. Test results are discussed in
Section 7 with emphasis on POHC destruction and removal efficiencies (ORE)
achieved, incinerator particulate emissions, and residual discharge stream
contamination levels. Test program conclusions are summarized in Section 8.
Section 9 discusses test program quality assurance (QA) matters and presents
the result of the QA checks performed.
SUMMARY RESULTS
Transient Emissions
Comparison of the CO levels in the kiln exit flue gas indicates that no
significant differences in transient emissions between air-only incineration
and Pyretron 02 enhanced operation could'be readily observed. Statistical
analysis of CO peak height and peak area indicated that test to test variation
was greater than the variation observed between air-only and Op enhanced
operation. As a consequence it was not possible to conclusively determine
whether the Pyretron system with 02 enhancement was able to reduce the
magnitude of transient emissions produced when high heating value waste is
batch changed to a rotary kiln.
POHC DREs
Incinerator flue gas at the scrubber system exit contained nondetectable
levels of all of the test POHCs for all tests performed. Consequently POHC
DREs were greater than 99.99 percent for all POHCs for all tests. Pyretron 02
enhanced operation performance was no different than conventional air-only
incinerator performance with respect to POHC ORE.
Particulate Emissions
Particulate levels in the scrubber system discharge flue gas were in the
20 to 40 mg/dscm at 7 percent 02 range for the three Pyretron 02 enhanced
tests and one conventional air-only test for which they were measured at this
location. All levels were significantly below the hazardous waste incinerator
performance* standard of 180 mg/dscm at 7 percent 02.
Haste Throughput Increases
The tests showed that the Pyretron system with 02 enhancement was capable
of achieving a 60 percent increase in batch waste charge mass over that
possible with conventional air-only incineration at constant total mass
feedrate. In addition, the Pyretrdn system with 02 enhancement was capable of
achieving double the waste throughput possible with conventional
incineration. However, this throughput increase necessitated the addition of
water to the kiln to control kiln temperature. This water was a required heat
sink to compensate for the removed heat sink represented by the nitrogen in
-------
the air that the oxygen stream replaced. Transient emissions, POHC ORE
performance, participate emissions., and incineration residuals (kiln ash and
scrubber blowdown) quality were comparable under all operating conditions.
Costs
Since the Pyretron sytems is a burner system and, therefore, only one of
many components of an incineration system, the use of the Pyretron can be
expected to affect waste treatment costs only incrementally. Further, since
the capital cost for any burner system is only a fraction of the capital cost
for the entire incinerator, the majority of the costs associated with the use
of the Pyretron system will be associated with the costs of auxiliary fuel and
oxygen.
This demonstration was done at a pilot-scale research facility and not
under actual field conditions. Thus, the incremental effect of using the
Pyretron system on the cost of incinerating a ton of waste cannot be directly
determined. It is likely that the major factor in determining the cost
effectiveness of the Pyretron will remain the cost of the oxygen and fuel.
These costs vary widely depending upon location and scale of operation.
ACI estimates that it incurred $50,000 in prototype system design and
process control algorithm development efforts for the demonstration program.
ACI further estimates that the prototype system installed at the CRF cost
$150,000. A total of 36,800 snr (1,300 MSCF) of oxygen was consumed during
the demonstration test program. Although this oxygen was supplied at no cost,
at tpyical oxygen costs of between $0.088 and $0.194/snr ($2,50 to
$5.50/MSCF), between $3,250 and $4,870 worth of oxygen was consumed. A total
of 1,750 GJ (1,670 million Btu) of propane was consumed over the demonstrative
test program. At typical propane costs of between $2.84 and $5.70/60 ($3.00
to $6.00/million Btu), between $5,000 and $10,000 worth of propane was
consumed over the test program. About 40 percent of the propane was fired
during the Pyretron 02 enhanced system tests. The remaining 60 percent was
fired during conventional air-only testing.
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION OF DEVELOPER'S CLAIMS
The Pyretron Thermal Destruction System designed for application to a
rotary kiln incinerator consists of two burners, one installed in the primary
combustion chamber (kiln) and one installed in the afterburner; valve trains
for supplying these burners with controllable flows of auxiliary fuel, oxygen,
and air; a computerized process control system; an oxygen supply system; and
a kiln v/ater injection system. A schematic of the system is shown in
Figure 1. The Pyretron burners use a parallel combustion approach based upon
the independent introduction of two distinct oxidizers to each burner, each of
which has significant differences in oxygen content. In most situations, as
demonstrated in this test program, one of the two oxidizers will be pure
oxygen while the second oxidizer will be air and/or oxygen-enriched air.
The burner is designed to proyide a pyrolytic combustion zone where fuel
is mixed with pure oxygen under substoichiometric conditions. This pyrolytic
zone, which is located inside the flame envelope, is used to provide high
flame luminosity and stability. A second combustion stage is established by
mixing the hot combustion products of the pyrolytic flame core with the
secondary oxidizing gas, typically air or oxygen-enriched air. The secondary
oxidizing gas is directed toward the pyrolytic flame core from the area
surrounding the core inside a water-cooled burner chamber. The resulting
oxidation of the fuel stream from both inside and outside directions results
in rapid oxidation and expansion of the combustion products before they leave
the burner tunnel, thus providing a high velocity, highly turbulent flame
which serves to enhance oxygen mass transfer inside the incineration chambers.
The system uses a programmable logic controller to effect process
control. The control system is based upon a process control algorithm that is
designed to maintain both process temperature and excess oxygen levels. This
control algorithm allows preset responses to process deviations (discussed
below) by changing the amount of nitrogen-containing combustion air introduced
into the incineration process. Nitrogen occupies a major fraction of a
conventional combustion chamber volume and likewise represents a sink for a
major fraction of the burner heat input. In the Pyretron system, the amount
of nitrogen can be controlled by varying the ratio of the two oxygen sources
(air and oxygen), delivered to the burners.
When the combustion system of a conventional kiln and afterburner uses
only air to supply combustion oxygen, the only process parameter that can be
controlled to maintain the desired operating temperatures is the auxiliary
fuel heat input introduced by the burners. When the Pyretron system is
utilized, an additional process control parameter exists, namely the percent
-------
r
rf
Afterburner Pyretron burner
Transfer
duct
Afterburner
Rotary
kiln
r
Ash
pit
Kiln Pyretron I
burner |
Ram
feeder
Measured
process
parameters
n
CM
Programmable
logic
controller
Valve train
(gas, oxygen, air)
Gas, air, and
oxygen flows to
the burners
Figure 1. Pyretron thermal destruction system process diagram.
-------
of oxygen in the combustion air supplied to the burners. With the Pyretron
system it is possible to replace 50 percent of the amount of combustion oxygen
available for organic contaminant destruction without adding additional
diluent nitrogen. Combustion gas temperatures can be maintained with a lower
auxiliary fuel heat input because the combustion gas heat sink represented by
the additional nitrogen is removed. In addition, combustion gas residence
time is increased because the diluent nitrogen is removed from the combustion
gas volume.
Dedicated CO and 02 analyzers are used in addition to stack gas analyzers
to supply the computerized control system information on the measured levels
of CO and excess oxygen in the exhaust gases from the primary combustion
chamber. When the level of CO and/or excess oxygen deviates from a level
deemed appropriate for the given composition and feed volume of the waste, the
system can initiate a preprogrammed firing schedule in the primary and
afterburner chambers to bring the process back to the desired operating
conditions through an automatic increase in the oxygen feedrates, with or
without a simultaneous reduction in combustion air supply.
In a typical application, the control algorithm increases the flowrate of
oxygen to both the kiln and afterburner burners when one of three events
occur:
• A batch waste change event with a predetermined and preset (in the
algorithm) subsequent time lapse
• Kiln exit CO levels exceed a predetermined and preset level
• Kiln exit 02 levels decrease below a predetermined and preset level
A baseline oxygen flowrate to each burner is also preset, as in the increased
level to which oxygen flow is increased following one of other above events.
When one of the above three events occurs, oxygen flowrates are increased from
the baseline levels to the preset higher levels and held at these levels for
preset period of time. After this time period, oxygen flowrates are returned
to baseline levels provided no triggering condition still exists (e.g.,
sustained high CO or low 02).
Burner air flowrates are typically controlled to maintain a preset air to
auxiliary fuel ratio. Thus, air flowrates increase and decrease with
corresponding changes in auxiliary fuel feedrates. Fuel feedrates,, in turn,
are varied in response to combustor (kiln, afterburner) temperature
variations. The control system varies fuel flowrates to maintain combustor
temperatures at their setpoints. Preset changes in air flowrates accompanying
the oxygen flowrate changes can be incorporated over and above the preset
air/fuel ratio if desired. This additional air flowrate control is optional.
ACI proposes that three major advantages will result from application of
the system to a rotary kiln incinerator:
• The Pyretron system will be capable of reducing the magnitude of
transient high levels of CO, unburned hydrocarbon, and soot ("puffs")
that can occur with repeated batch charging of a high heat content
waste to a rotary kiln.
8
-------
• The Pyretron system will allow increased waste feedrate to the kiln
while still achieving the hazardous waste incinerator performance
standards for POHC destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) and
particulate emissions.
• The Pyretron system is more economical than conventional
incineration.
The basis for the first claim is as follows. Rotary kiln incinerators
are unique in that they are designed to allow at least a portion of the waste
load to be introduced or charged to the system in a batch rather than
continuous mode. For organic, heating value-containing wastes, a portion of
the heat input to the system is correspondingly introduced in a batch mode.
Typically, waste containerized in cardboard, plastic, or punctured steel drums
is charged to the kiln at established intervals. Upon entry to the kiln, the
waste containers are heated until they rupture or burn. This then exposes the
waste contents to the hot kiln environment. Volatile organic material then
rapidly vaporizes and reacts with available oxygen in the combustion gas.
However, if the devolatilization of organic material is more rapid than the
rate at which combustion oxygen can be supplied to the kiln, incomplete
combustion can result. This can lead to a "puff" of incompletely destroyed
organic material exiting the kiln. In most instances, this puff will be
destroyed in the system's afterburner. In fact, afterburners are included in
rotary kiln incinerator systems for this very reason. However, if the puff is
of sufficient magnitude, insufficient excess oxygen and/or residence time may
exist in the afterburner to allow its complete destruction.
In conventional incineration systems, the only way to ensure that
sufficient oxygen exists in the kiln to allow complete waste oxidation is to
increase the air flowrate to the kiln. This can be accomplished either by
steadily firing the kiln burner at higher excess air than needed to burn the
burner fuel or by increasing the air flowrate in anticipation of or response
to a puff. In either instance, an increased air flowrate adds both increased
oxygen for waste combustion and increased nitrogen. The increased diluent
nitrogen flow is detrimental to complete waste destruction for two reasons.
Its presence in the combustion gas volume decreases kiln combustion gas
residence time, and, since the nitrogen must be heated, it decreases
combustion gas temperature.
In contrast, the Pyretron system offers the capability to increase the
amount of oxygen in the combustion process in anticipation of or response to a
puff while not adding diluent nitrogen. Thus, kiln temperature can more
easily be maintained and additional oxygen needed for waste puff destruction
can be introduced with far less an effect on combustion gas volume, hence
combustion gas residence time, ttian possible with air alone. This extra
oxygen, without diluent nitrogen, is available for waste puff oxidation. With
this additional kiln condition control flexibility, the magnitude of transient
puffs should be reduced as compared to similar operating conditions with
conventional incineration.
The basis for the second claim, that the Pyretron system will allow
increased waste feedrate in a given kiln system, follows from the basis of the
first claim. The maximum feedrate of a high organic content waste in a
-------
conventional incinerator is determined by the onset of transient puffs which
survive the afterburner. When this occurs, waste constituent destruction is
less than complete and eventually falls below the regulation mandated
99.99 percent hazardous constituent destruction and removal efficiency.
The discussion supporting the first claim noted that since, the
additional oxygen to support waste combustion would be supplied without
diluent nitrogen in the Pyretron system, incineration residence times would be
greater for a given waste and auxiliary fuel feedrate; therefore, incineration
destruction efficiency would be greater. Thus, a feedrate that produced
unacceptable transient puffs under conventional incineration would not do so
with the Pyretron system. Correspondingly, the onset of unacceptable
transient puffs under Pyretron operation would occur at a higher waste
feedrate. Thus, acceptable operation at higher waste feedrates (or
throughputs) should be possible with the Pyretron system.
The basis for the third claim again follows from the bases for the first
two claims. Since the Pyretron system uses oxygen for a portion of the waste
oxidant (instead of air), a given set of incineration temperatures can be
maintained with less auxiliary fuel feed than is possible with conventional
incineration. Less diluent nitrogen is fed, thereby obviating the need to
heat this diluent nitrogen to combustion temperature. Thus, auxiliary fuel
use per unit of waste treated is less for'the Pyretron system than for
conventional incineration.
In addition, if higher waste feedrates can be employed in a given
combustor with the Pyretron system, then the treatment time required per unit
of waste is decreased. This affords further operating cost savings as well as
capital recovery cost savings per unit of waste treated.
The test program discussed in this report was specifically designed to
evaluate the first two of the above claims and to establish needed data to
evaluate the third. The scope of the test program is discussed in Section 5.
10
-------
SECTION 4
TEST WASTE DESCRIPTION
As noted in Section 1, the demonstration tests were performed using waste
material from the Stringfellow Superfund site. For most of the tests
performed, the Stringfellow waste was mixed with the listed RCRA hazardous
waste K087, decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations. The Stringfellow
waste, a contaminated soil containing several hazardous constituent trace
metals and few organic constituents at low levels, was chosen for the
demonstration because it is the test waste used in past and planned thermal
destruction technology evaluations. Specifically, the Stringfellow soil had
been tested with the Shirco thermal destruction technology and had been tested
in a conventional incineration system. It was decided to use the Stringfellow
soil in the Pyretron system demonstration so that data from the Pyretron
system demonstration could be compared to those from other test programs.
However, the Stringfellow soil contains very low levels of organic
constituents and has negligible heat content. As such, incineration alone
would not have permitted an evaluation of the ACI claims discussed in
Section 3. Specifically, ACI claims that the Pyretron sytem can reduce the
magnitude of "puffs" that can occur with repeated batch charging of a high
heat content waste to a rotary kiln and that the Pyretron achieves the
hazardous waste incinerator performance standards with increased waste
throughput. These claims need to be evaluated with a high-heat-content waste
material that has significant concentrations of one or more POHCs.
Since the Stringfellow site waste material has very low organic content
and negligible heating value and since a waste material with high heat content
and significant POHC concentrations was required to evaluate the Pyretron
vendor's claims for the Pyretron process, it was decided to mix the
Stringfellow soil with the K087 waste. The resulting mixture used (40 percent
Stringfellow soil, 60 percent K087) contained sufficient heating value and
percent levels of several POHCs (supplied by the K087).
Characterises of the Stringfellow soil are summarized in Table 1. These
data are from previous characterization analyses of soil excavated from the
11
-------
TABLE 1. COMPOSITION OF THE STRINGFELLOW SITE CONTAMINATED SOIL
FROM LOCATION OA17
Component
Concentration mean (range)
(pg/g)
Water, percent
Total organic carbon
Sulfate
Chloride
Hazardous organic constituents
(Appendix VIII of CFR"26lT
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Chiorobenzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
DDE
DDT
PCB-1260
Other organic constituents
1,4-Chlorobenzene sulfonic acid
Ethylbenzene
Benzoic acid
3-Chlorobenzoic acid
4-Chlorobenzoic acid
4-Chlorobenzoyl chloride
15.8 (9.2 to 28.8)
2,150 (1,350 to 2,870)
7,580 (ND to 19,300)
103 (9 to 178)
0.18 (ND to 0.85)
0.28 (ND to 1.22)
0.11 (ND to 0.55)
0.74 (ND to 2.71)
1.45 (0.65 to 2.08)
2.94 (0.31 to 8.53)
15.80 (0.52 to 55.7)
5.80 (ND to 13.0)
1,620 (ND to 4,100)
0.18 (ND to 1.08)
0.29 (0.01 to 0.56)
12
09
0.59
ND to 4.47)
ND to 11.0)
ND to 2.36)
ND - Not detected.
12
-------
TABLE 1. COMPOSITION OF THE STRINGFELLOW SITE CONTAMINATED SOIL
FROM LOCATION OA17 (CONCLUDED)
Component
Concentration
(pg/g)
Deionized
water leach
Strong
acid leach
Equivalent
EP toxicity
limita
Hazardous trace
element constituents
Arsenic 0.89
Barium 0.05
Cadmium 3.03
Chromium 98
Copper 26.2
Lead 0.046
Mercury O.001
Nickel 7.04
Zinc 24.7
Other trace elements
7.34
131
3.18
912
135
97.1
0.044
21
75.1
100
20,000
20
100
100
4
Aluminum
Calcium
Cesium
Fluorine
Iron
Potassium
Lanthanum
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Nitrate
Titanium
Uranium
2,470
607
3.98
127
244
300
1.35
306
72.1
523
37.7
0.24
1.25
14,000
11,200
46.2
__
21,600
• — —
42.6
5,630
267
—
__
1,670
33.8
--
—
—
-_
— — '
—
—
—
—
__
__
— —
aSince in the E^ ttoxicity procedure, 1 g of material is leached
into 20 g of llachate, the value in this column represents 20
times the EP toxicity criterion.
13
-------
area planned for the tests (1). As noted in Table 1, the contaminated
material contains no hazardous organic constituents at levels greater than
100 ppm. In fact, only DDT is present at levels greater than 10 ppm. Low
levels of several other organic constituents are noted in Table 1; only
1,4-chlorobenzene sulfonic acid is present at levels above about 1 ppm. This
compound is not considered a hazardous organic constituent, however.
Table 1 also notes Teachable levels of several hazardous constituents and
other trace elements in the Stringfellow material. For the elements with
Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity limits, an equivalent limit corresponding
to a solid concentration is also noted. Since the EP toxicity protocol
involves leaching of 1 g solid intb 20 g of leachate, the equivalent EP limit
noted in Table 1 for comparison to the solid concentration noted is 20 times
the EP leachate threshold. Based on the data in Table 1, this material would
likely be considered EP toxic but only for its chromium content (D007).
As noted above, since the Stringfellow material has very low potential
POHC concentrations and since it has very low total organic concentrations or
heating value, most of the demonstration tests were performed with a mixture
of a high-heating-value waste containing percent quantities of several POHCs,
the listed waste K087. Waste characterization data, from a sample analyzed at
the CRF in April 1987 are summarized in Table 2. Potential POHC
concentrations in this waste as analyzed in the same sample are summarized in
Table 3. As indicated, it contains several hazardous polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) components in percent quantities.
The data in Table 3 show that K087 waste concentrations of six PAH
constituents are present in the waste at levels above 1.0 percent., These six
compounds, naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene and
fluoranthene, were designated to be the POHCs in this material.
TABLE 2. CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSES OF
THE K087 WASTE
Parameter
Valuea
Moisture content, %
Ash, %
Specific gravity
3.9
5.4
1.17
Heating value, MJ/kg 33.4
(Btu/lb) (14,380)
14
-------
TABLE 3. TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF THE K087 WASTE
Component
Concentration
(percent by weight
as received)
Semi volatile organic hazardous constituents
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluor-anthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)pery1ene
Other semivolatile organic constituents
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzofuran
4H-cyclopenta[d,e,f]
phenanthrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Matter insoluble in
methylene chloride
8.3
2.1
1.5
3.6
1.4
2.3
0.98
0.96
0.64
0.38
0.70
0.45
0.45
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
28.6
15
-------
In the test program performed, the Stringfellow material was test burned
alone (K087 not added) for one test using each of the air-only burner
operation and the Pyretron system. For these two Stringfellow waste-only
tests, the Stringfellow soil waste was spiked with 4,500 ppm each of
hexachloroethane and 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene, the POHCs for these tests. In
all other tests, the Stringfellow waste was mixed with the K087 material in
the ratio of 60 percent (weight) K087 to 40 percent Stringfellow waste. The
K087 POHCs noted above were the designated POHCs for these tests.
Test material was packed into 5.7-L (1.5-gal) fiber pack drums for
feeding to the rotary kiln via the ram feed system in place. Drums were
packed with between 4.1 and 7.7 kg (9 and 17 Ib) of the test mixture. Drum
weights were recorded on each drum. The fiberpack drums, which are standard
containers widely used in the food and pharmaceutical industries, represent
pilot-scale versions of fiberpack drums commonly used for feeding waste into
industrial rotary kiln incinerators. The specifications and characteristics
of these drums are presented in Table 4. The predominant ash residue, sodium
silicate, comes from the glue used in the drums.
TABLE 4. FIBERPACK DRUM SPECIFICATIONS
Manufacture:
Model number:
Physical dimensions:
Maximum capacity:
Tare weight:
Construction material:
Estimated ash content:
Certification:
Continental Fiber Drum, Inc.
A0158-2X
20 cm diameter, 16.5 cm tall
(8 in diameter, 6.5 in tall)
Volume: 5.7 L (1.5 gal)
Weight: 27 kg (60 Ib)
0.45 kg (1 Ib) ±5 percent
Base — Virgin Fourdenier Southern Pine
Kraft Paper
13 percent
Meets applicable USDA and FDA requirements for
containers that come into contact with food and
pharmaceutical products.
Meets applicable DOT requirements for UFC
(rail) and NMFC (truck) packaging.
16
-------
SECTION 5
TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND INCINERATOR SYSTEM OPERATION
The rotary kiln incinerator system (RKS) at the Combustion Research
Facility (CRF) in Jefferson, Arkansas, was used in this test program. A
description of the system is presented in Section 5.1 along with discussion of
the installed Pyretron system; the test matrix and incinerator operating
conditions are described in Section 5.2.
5.1 ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A simplified schematic of the RKS is given in Figure 2. The system
consists of a primary combustion chamber, a transition section, and a fired
afterburner chamber. The primary air pollution control system (APCS) consists
of a venturi scrubber and a packed-column scrubber. In addition, a backup air
pollution control system consisting of a carbon-bed adsorber and a HEPA filter
is in place. The primary APCS is typical of those used on actual commercial
or industrial incinerators. The backup system is designed to ensure that
organic compound and particulate emissions to the atmosphere are negligible.
Table 5 summarizes the design characteristics of the main system elements.
These are discussed in more detail in the following subsections.
5.1.1 Incinerator Characteristics
The rotary kiln combustion chamber has an inside diameter of 0.95 m
(37.5 in.) diameter and is 2.1 m (84 in.) long. The chamber is lined with
13 cm (5 in.) of refractory encased in a 6.3-mm (0.25-in.) thick steel
shell. The chamber volume is 1.74 nr (61.4 ft ). Four steel rollers support
the kiln barrel. A variable-speed DC motor coupled with a reducing gear
transmission tumbles the rotary kiln. Typical rotation speeds range from 0.2
to 1.5 rpm.
The afterburner chamber has a 0.91-m (36-in.) inside diameter and is
2.74 m (9 ft) long. The afterburner chamber wall is constructed of a 15-cm
(6-in.) layer of refractory encased in a 6.3-mm (0.25-ig.) thick carbon steel
shell. The volume of the afterburner chamber is 1.80 nr (63.6 ft3).
As noted in Section 1, a prototype of the ACI Pyretron Thermal
Destruction burner system was retrofitted to the RKS for these tests. The
system retrofitted consisted of the following: a propane-fired burner
installed at the waste feed end of the RKS kiln; a similar burner in the RKS
afterburner; gas metering and control assembly (valve trains) for controlling
propane, air, and oxygen flows to both burners; an oxygen supply consisting of
17
-------
Venturi
inlet duct
Burner
No. 2
oo
Venturi
scrubber
50Z caustic
Solids
feeder
Main
burner
Cyclone Packed
separator tower
scrubber
Fresh
"process
water
HEPA
filter
Recirculation
pump
Recirculation
tank
To blowdown
collection
or disposal
Figure 2. CRF rotary kiln system.
-------
TABLE 5. DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRF ROTARY KILN SYSTEM
Characteristics of the Kiln Main Chamber
Length, outside
Diameter, outside
Length, inside
Diameter, inside
Chamber volumn
Construction
Refractory
Rotation
Solids retention
time
Burner
Primary fuel
Feed system
Liquids
Sludges
Solids
Temperature (max)
2.61 m (8 ft 7 in.)
1.22 m (4 ft)
2.13 m (7 ft)
0.95 m (3 ft 1.5 in.)
1.74 m3 (61.36 ft3)
0.63-cm (0.25 in.) thick cold rolled steel
12.7-cm (5-in.) thick high alumina castable
refractory, variable depth to produce a
frustroconical effect for moving solids
Clockwise or counterclockwise 0.2 to 1.5 rpm
1 hr (at 0.2 rpm)
American Combustion Burner rated at 880 kW
(3.0 MMBtu/hr) with dynamic 02 enchancement capability
Propane
Positive displacement pump via water cooled lance
Moyno pump via front face, water-cooled lance
Metered twin-auger screw feeder or fiberpack ram feeder
900°C (1,650°F)
Characteristics of the Afterburner Chamber
Length, outside
Diameter, outside
Length, inside
Diameter, inside
Chamber volume
Construction
Refractory
Gas residence time
Burner
Primary fuel
Temperature (max)
05 m
22 m
74 m
91 m.
80 m
10 ft)
(9 ft
(3 ft)
(63.6 ft
0.63-cm (0.25-in.) thick cold rolled steel
15.24-cm (6-in.) thick high alumina castable refractory
1.2 to 2.5 sec depending on temperature and excess air
American Combustion Burner rated at 440 kW
(1.5 MMBtu/hr) with dynamic 02 enhancement capability
Propane
1,200°C (2,200°F)
Characteristics of the Air Pollution Control System
System capacity
Inlet gas flow
Pressure drop
Venturi scrubber
Packed column
Liquid flow
Venturi scrubber
Packed column
pH control
1.7 m3/min (3,773 acfm) at 1,200°C (2,200°F) and 101 kPa
(14.7 psia)
7.5 kPa (30 in. WC)
1.0 kPa (4 in. WC)
77.2 L/min (20.4 gpm) at 69 kPa (10 psig)
116 L/min (30.6 gpm) at 69 kPa (10 psig)
Feed back control by NaOH .solution addition
1-9
-------
a trailer-mounted liquid oxygen tank with evaporator; and a system for
injecting water into the kiln to afford additional kiln temperature control.
The replacement burners were installed on the RKS in the locations noted
in Figure 2. These burners were designed to fit directly into the existing
refractory penetrations for the existing RKS burners. The gas (propane, air,
and Oo) metering and control assembly was fabricated by ACI, shipped to the
CRF, and installed just outside the building housing the incinerator. A kiln
water injection nozzle was installed in the kiln feed face adjacent to the
auxiliary fuel burner. A trailer-mounted 02 tank with evaporator was supplied
by Big Three Industries. The ACI-supplied process control computer system was
installed in the CRF control room in parallel with the in place RKS control
system. The ACI system controlled the burner flows (propane, air and 02).
The existing RKS control system controlled waste feed and scrubber system
operation.
5.1.2 Air Pollution Control Devices
After exiting the afterburner chamber, the combustion gas enters a
venturi scrubber which has an automatically adjustable throat. The scrubber
is designed to process hot gases at 1,200°C (2,200°F) and operate at 7.5 kPa
(30 in. WC) differential pressure. A maximum flow of 77 L/min (20.4 gpm) of
dilute NaOH solution enters via the top of the scrubber and contacts the gas
to remove acid gases and entrained particulate.
Downstream of the venturi scrubber, the combustion products enter the
packed-column scrubber where additional scrubbing occurs. The scrubber column
is packed with 5.1-cm (2-in.) diameter polypropylene ballast saddles at a
depth of 2.1 m (82 in.). The circulating quench and scrubber liquor is also a
dilute aqueous NaOH solution. A pH sensor monitors the scrubber liquor pH,
and an integral pH controller that automatically meters the amount of NaOH
added to maintain the "pH at set point ensures proper HC1 removal. For these
tests, the scrubber blowdown liquor from the primary ARCS flowed directly to a
6,000-gal tanker trailer. At the conclusion of the test program, the
collected blowdown water was hauled to an offsite treatment, storage, and
disposal facility (TSDF).
At the exit of the packed-column scrubber, a demister removes most of the
suspended liquid droplets. In a typical commercial incinerator system, the
combustion gases would be vented to the atmosphere at this point. However, a
backup ARCS is in place at the CRF. The combustion gas passes through a bed
of activated carbon designed to adsorb the remaining vapor phase organic
compounds. Typically, the carbon bed operates at 77°C (170°F). Because the
combustion gas is saturated with moisture and is cooled as it flows through
the flue ducts, condensate is continuously formed. The condensate accumulates
in the carbon bed and drains via a bottom tap into the blowdown storage tanks.
It is then pumped to the tanker truck.
A set of high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters designed to remove
remaining suspended particulate from the flue gas is located downstream of the
carbon adsorption bed. An induced draft fan draws and vents the effluent gas
to the atmosphere.
20
-------
5.2 INCINERATOR SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
5.2.1 Test Program Overview
The general objective of this test program was to evaluate the Pyretron
burner system as an innovative treatment technique for application to various
Superfund site wastes. Specific objectives were noted in Section 1. The test
program was formulated specifically to address those objectives. The general
scope of the test series was as follows:
• Incinerator optimization trials using air-only burner operation with
mixed waste (Stringfellow soil with K087) to determine the maximum
feed charge mass and total mass feedrate attainable in this mode
• One test at "optimum" operation for mixed waste using air-only burner
operation with emissions and residuals sampling
« One test under the "optimum" air-only burner operating conditions of
waste feedrate, drum feed frequency, incinerator temperatures, excess
air levels, and kiln rotation speed using the Pyretron system with
emissions and residuals sampling
• Incinerator optimization trials using the Pyretron system with mixed
waste to determine the maximum feed charge mass and total mass
feedrate attainable in this mode
• One test under "optimum" air-only burner operating conditions of
waste feedrate, incinerator temperatures, excess air levels, and kiln
rotation speed using the Pyretron system with emissiohs and residuals
sampling but with drum feed frequency decreased and waste feed mass
per charge increased to the maximum attainable in this operating mode
« One test at "optimum" Pyretron system operation for mixed waste
(maximum total mass flowrate) with emissions and residuals sampling
In addition, two tests, one using conventional incineration and one using the
Pyretron system, feeding Stringfellow soil alone (no K087 added) were
performed after completing the demonstration program to supply waste
treatability data requested by EPA Region IX.
Emissions sampling during the optimization trials noted above was limited
to operation of the flue gas continuous emission monitor (CEM) system
described in Section 6. Once a desired test evaluation condition was defined,
an emissions and incinerator residuals (kiln ash and scrubber blowdown)
sampling and analysis test was performed to evaluate whether the operating
condition was in compliance with the hazardous waste incinerator performance
standards (POHC DRE and particulate emissions) and to define incineration
residuals composition characteristics.
This test series was specifically designed to evaluate two of the three
ACI claims put forth regarding the Pyretron system and to develop data to
allow evaluation of the third claim. The two claims specifically evaluated
were as follows:
• The Pyretron system reduces the magnitude of the transient high
levels of organic emissions, CO, and soot ("puffs") that occur with
repeated batch charging of waste fed to a rotary kiln
21
-------
• The Pyretron system is capable of achieving the RCRA-mandated 99.99
percent POHC ORE in wastes incinerated at a higher waste feedrate
than that of conventional incineration.
The third ACI claim involving an economic comparison between the Pyretron
system and conventional incineration was not specifically evaluated. However,
during the test program, air, 0£, auxiliary fuel (propane), and kiln water
injection flows were measured. These data will be required in waste treatment
cost calculations for both conventional and Pyretron incineration. An
evaluation of treatment process economics is presented in the companion
Applications Analysis report (2).
To evaluate the two claims specifically addressed required that the
capabilities of conventional incineration in incinerating the mixed test waste
be established and then show that these capabilities could be surpassed using
the Pyretron 0? enhanced system. Accordingly, the optimization trials under
air-only operation focused on establishing the capabilties of conventional
incineration. These trials sought to define the conditions of "optimum"
conventional incinerator operation. Optimum operation was defined to be the
condition that allows the maximum feed charge mass and the maximum total waste
mass feedrate achievable under conventional operation with acceptable
transients in incinerator flue gas CO and unburned hydrocarbons (puffs). An
emissions and incineration residuals (kiln ash and scrubber blowdown) sampling
test was performed at this optimum conventional operation condition.
The same incineration conditions of waste feedrate and charge frequency
and of incinerator temperatures and excess air levels were next established
but with oxygen enhancement via Pyretron operation. An emissions and
Incineration residuals sampling test was performed for this condition. This
effort was not specifically focused on evaluating on ACI claim. Still, it was
felt that it may be possible to establish whether or not the Pyretron system
gave better performance in terms of POHC ORE and residuals composition than
conventional incineration. When compared to the optimum conventional
incineration test, the results from this test might support such statements.
Next, optimization trials were performed to define the maximum charge
mass possible with the Pyretron Op enhanced system but with total waste feed
mass feedrate held at the conventional incineration optimum test value. An
emissions and residuals sampling test was performed at this increased charge
mass condition to evaluate whether compliance with the incinerator performance
standards was maintained.
Finally, to establish that the Pyretron system was capable of
in-compliance operation at higher waste feedrate than possible under
conventional operation required that the maximum waste feedrate possible under
acceptable Pyretron 0? enhanced operation be defined. Optimization trials
were performed to define this increased feedrate level. An emissions and
residuals sampling test was performed at this "optimum" Pyretron 02 enhanced
operating condition, again to establish that this condition complied with the
incinerator performance standards.
22
-------
In addition to the test program outlined above, tests were also performed
with Strlngfellow soil alone fed to the kiln. One test was performed under
conventional operation, and one test was performed under Pyretron 0? enhanced
operation. These tests were not meant to aid in the evaluation of ACI
claims. However, baseline treatability data with Stringfellow waste alone for
both operating modes were requested by EPA Region IX for comparison with
performance data for other thermal devices mentioned earlier.
The specific tests for which emissions and residuals sampling were
performed are listed in Table 6 along with the target test operating
conditions specified in the test plan. As noted, the base condition target
kiln temperature was 980°C (1,800°F), and target afterburner temperature was
1»120°C (2,050°F). Duplicate emissions testing at two operating conditions
was performed during the test program in an attempt to establish the degree of
data variability for tests at comparable operating conditions. The replicate
tests were performed for optimum air-only and the optimum (^-enhanced tests.
Jests 1 and 2, and 5 and 6 represent these respective replicate tests in
Table 6.
Table 7 summarizes the actual average test operating conditions achieved
for each of the tests performed. Specific discussion of the incinerator
system operation for each test is given in Section 5.2.2 below. Appendix A
contains tabulations of incinerator process operating data recorded at 15 min
Intervals over each test.
Table 8 summarizes the operating conditions for the venturi scrubber/
packed-tower scrubber air pollution obntrol system on the RKS. As shown, all
tests were performed under roughly comparable APCS operation. Average venturi
scrubber liquor flow was 60 to 64 L/min (16 to 17 gpm) with pressure drop of
5.0 to 7.5 kPa (20 to 30 in. WC). Average packed column scrubber liquor flow
was 98 to 114 L/min (26 to 30 gpm) with pressure drop of 1.0 to 3.7 kPa (4 to
15 in. WC). Scrubber liquor temperature was generally about 70°C (160°F) with
pH between 7.1 and 7.5. Scrubber blowdown rate was 1.9 to 3.8 L/min (0.5 to
1.0 gpm).
5.2.2 Individual Test Incinerator Operating Conditions
The chronological progression of the test program was as follows.
Shakedown and optimization tests under conventional (air-only) operation
proceeded during late November and early December 1987. As a result of these
tests, it was felt that the waste feed schedule which represented the maximum
that could be handled with the K087/Str1ngfellow waste mixture under
conventional operation was a feed of 10.9 kg (24 Ib) every 10 min or
65.6 kg/hr (144 Ib/hr). It was decided to attempt test point 1 (optimum
conventional incineration) at this feedrate on December 8, 1987. Figure 3
shows the waste feed schedule for this attempted test. Figure 4 shows traces
of propane and air input flowrates, exit temperatures, and exit flue gas 02
and CO levels for the kiln and the afterburner for this attempted test.
Figure 4 shows that early in the test period, kiln exit temperature
varied from about 870° to 980°C (1,600° to 1,800°F) over a charge cycle. Kiln
exit Q£ ranged from about 7 to 16 percent 02 over a cycle, and kiln exit CO
23
-------
1,200
oo
10
Test
start
T?m« of Day (nr)
Figure 4a. Kiln data for the conventional incineration
optimization trial.
-------
62
Propane Air Oxygen Exit
Flow Flow Flow 02
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%)
Exit Exit
CO Temperature
(ppm) (°C)
I— PO
»— o o
en a a
o
o
pi- m .
Oi c/i -
S.3-
N C
cu
rt
O
CD
O
O
fD
O
Pi
o
a>
a
t-h (B _
f~t I A ^
1
o
-t)
?
8
-------
levels were generally low. However, intermittent CO spikes up to 2,200 ppm
occurred. As the attempted test proceeded, kiln temperature increased such
that after about 3 hrs of operation, kiln exit temperature was ranging from
980° to 1,150°C (1,800° to over 2,100°F) over a charge cycle. Kiln exit flue
gas 02 peaked at about 15 percent just prior to the start of a batch charge
but decreased to 0 as the puff of volatilized waste from a charge filled the
kiln. This occurred with each charge late in the attempted test. Kiln exit
CO levels peaked at about 3,000 ppm under these depleted Q£ conditions.
Figure 5 shows that the CO puffs survived through the afterburner and resulted
in CO peaks of above 100 ppm at the stack.
It was decided that this attemped test was indeed beyond the limits of
acceptable conventional incinerator operation, and sampling was aborted.
The next attempt to achieve desired condition 1 (optimum conventional
Incineration) was performed with both charge mass and frequency reduced. This
test, which was performed on December 9, 1987, had a feed schedule of 9.5 kg
(21 Ib) charges every 12 min, or 47.7 kg/hr (105 Ib/hr). The waste feed
schedule for this test is shown in Figure 6. Corresponding kiln and
afterburner data (propane and air flows, exit temperature, and exit flue gas
02 and CO) are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 shows that kiln operating conditions were much more controlled
for this test. At stabilized operation, kiln exit temperature ranged from
about 900° to 1,080°C (1,650° to 1,970°F) over a charge cycle. Kiln exit CO
peaks were less than about 50 ppm, with the exception of one spike early in
the test. These were reduced to less than 10 ppm at the stack after passage
through the afterburner (see Figure 8).
Unacceptable incinerator operation was experienced on December 8 when
10.9-kg (24-lb) charges were fed every 10 min. in contrast, acceptable
operation was achieved when 9.5-kg (21-lb) charges were fed every
12 minutes. Given these results, it was decided to define the 9.5-kg/12-min
charge schedule to be at (or at least very near) the limit of capability of
conventional incineration with the test waste. This, then, would be the
"optimal" conventional incineration operating condition against which the ACI
claims would be evaluated.
An abbreviated sampling effort consistent with the planned replicate
testing of the optimum conventional incineration operating condition (see
Section 6) was completed. This test (Test 1) was designated the replicate
optimum conventional incineration test.
This test condition was repeated on December 11, and was designated the
optimum conventional incineration test. For this test the feed, incineration
residuals, and the flue gas at two locations were sampled and extensively
analyzed (see Section 6). Figure 9 shows the waste feed schedule for this
test (Test 2). Figure 10 shows corresponding kiln and afterburner operating
data.
Figure 10 shows that Test 3 was completed at slightly lower kiln
temperature, which ranged from about 870° to 1,040°C (1.600° to 1,900°F) over
30
-------
Q
500
350 -
200 -
a >~+
CO »«
tt 10 -
CM
c S
0
22,5 -
-s 15 -
°~ 7.5 -
Vv/
! I ... . I . ,11 Ulim
A^A/VWWWV^M/s/Vv^^Vv^^
II
(W\
10
Test
start
12
14
Time of Day (hr)
16
IB
Test
stop
Figure 5. Stack emission monitor data for the conventional Incineration
optimization trial.
-------
CO
rss
£
•o
£
240 -
220 -
200 -
180 -
160 -
140 -
120-
100-
80 -
60-
40-
20 -
-e-
12
D D D D
D Weight Scale
1 1 1 I—
14 16
Time of Day (hr)
•f Charge Record
T~
18
Figure 6. Waste feed schedule for Test 1.
-------
Propane Air Oxygen Exit Exit
Flow Flow Flow 02 Exit CO Temperature
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%) (ppm) (°C)
-n
(O
c
-$
S»
Q.
B)
rl-
B)
-h
O
ft)
-------
a; 1,300 -
•i- J-O
isas- i.oeo
S
12 900
400
•r- O Q.
XO CL
111 «^_~.
-------
GO
O1
50-
Q.
a.
I 30-J
ioH
o
400-
200-
0-
12-
4-
0
20-
evi
o
12
I
Out of service
Test
start
14
i
16
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 8. Stack emissions monitor data for Test 1
Test
stop
18
-------
u>
o>
•o
&
3
o
240 -T
220-
200 -
180 -
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
80-
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 H
-fi-
D
O Weight Scale
-I 1 1
13 is
Time of Day (hr)
•*• Charge Record
D D D O
17
Figure 9. Waste feed schedule for Test 2.
-------
Propane
Flow
(scm/hr)
Air
Flow
(scm/hr)
Oxygen
Flow
(scm/hr)
Exit
02
Exit CO
(p'pm)
Exit
Temperature
o>
-5
rt-
n>
-5
n>
CL
P>
O
ro
to
INS
i " ~*
2.
o
•v
00 —)
rt- fD
O oo
co to
O O
o o
co
To oo
o o
o-o
to
Ol
o
ro
o
o
r
i
-------
Propane Air Oxygen Exit Exit Exit
Flow Flow Flow 02 CO Temperature
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%) (ppm) (°C)
•-• (\S
f-> O O
en oo
CD
O
O O
in
O
O O
,fc» vo O
oo en
o o o
r*
&>
-n
(a
-»
O
CT
cr
o>
Q.
PI
rf-
0)
O
o>
^ - J
***
a
o
O (/>
•O r*-
CD
<-*•
GO
-i
n
ro
-------
a charge cycle. Kiln exit flue gas 02 was comparable, nominally ranging from
about 6 to 15 percent over a charge cycle. On a few occasions when a
particularly high-heat-content charge was fed, kiln exit 02 dropped to below
1 percent; CO peaks up to 2,400 ppm at the kiln exit accompanied these low 02
occurrences. However, these peaks were easily handled in the afterburner such
that 50 ppm or lower stack CO peaks resulted as shown in Figure 11,
Test condition 3 was completed on December 17, 1987. In this test, the
operating conditions (waste charge mass and charge frequency and incineration
temperatures) of Tests 1 and 2 were replicated using the Pyretron system with
oxygen enhancement. The Pyretron 02 enhanced'operating mode was as follows.
Experience gained during shakedown testing showed that about 30 seconds after
a batch charge to the kiln, the fiberpack drums ignited and discharged their
waste contents. Rapid devolatilization and combustion of the more volatile
constituents of the'waste then occurred, filling the kiln with the waste
combustion flame. Burnout of the remaining waste continued over about a
subsequent 5-min period. Thus, the period of peak oxygen demand for waste
combustion was this 5-min period that started about 30 seconds after the batch
charge event.
As noted in Section 3, the Pyretron process control algorithm for 02
enhanced operation boosts the oxygen flows to the kiln and afterburner burners
from a preset baseline level to a preset increased level when one of three
triggering events occurs:
• A batch waste charge event followed by a predetermined time lapse
• Excessive CO in the kiln exit flue gas
• Insufficient 02 in the kiln exit flue gas
The baseline oxygen flowrates were set so that both kiln exit and
afterburner exit flue gas 02 levels were about 15 percent with auxiliary fuel
combustion alone. Triggering kiln exit CO and 02 set points were defined by
ACI and entered Into the process controller. For the waste charge event
trigger, a lag time (after charge) of about 30 seconds was defined. Thus,
about 30 seconds after each charge event the oxygen flowrates to the burners
were ramped up to an increased level. This increased level was set at that
required to prevent flue gas 02 level from falling significantly below about
15 percent in either the kiln exit or the afterburner exit. Oxygen flowrates
were maintained at the preset increased level for about 5 m1n, then ramped
down to the baseline level, provided the kiln exit CO was below and 02 was
above respective trigger levels. Auxiliary fuel flowrates were controlled to
maintain respective combustion chamber temperatures.
Burner air flowrates varied directly with fuel flowrate according to the
set air/fuel ratio. No decrease In burner air flowrates were set to accompany
Increased oxygen flowrate. This Increase in the oxygen available for
combustion in anticipation of peak waste Oo demand (30 seconds after each
batch charge) was the basis for reducing the magnitude, or preventing the
occurrence, of transient "puffs.™
Figure 12 shows the waste feed schedule for Test 3. Figure 13 shows
corresponding kiln and afterburner data for this test. Oxygen feed flows to
39
-------
E
o.
a.
o
CJ
500-
350-
200-
50.
0
en csi
G) o
0
22.5'
Out of service
11
Test
start
i
13
i
15
Test
stop
Figure 11. Stack emissions monitor data for Test 2
-------
260
I
I
o
10
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 12. Waste feed schedule for Test 3.
-------
Propane
Flow
(scm/hr)
Air
Flow
(scm/hr)
Oxygen
Flow
(scm/hr)
Exit
02
(%)
Exit CO
(p'pm)
Exit
Temperature
PC)
CO «O
o o
U1
o
o o
CO CO
O O
CD O
10
ro
O
O
c+ ID
to in
-S rt-
rt-
(O
n>
CO
PI
OL
01
P>
O
m
a,
O (/>
X> rl-
OJ
t/J
ro
=3
. in
ro
_.^__
-------
U)
(U
•P
•»J fU^—
•r- J- O
X 0)0
UJ O.'—
>-— E
XU. O
O
s- 3
•r- O
U. O
CO
0>
c
IQ
a. o
1,300
1,060 -
10
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 13b. Afterburner data for Test 3.
-------
the kiln and afterburner are noted for this test in Figure 13. The
Incinerator process data acquisition system was not functioning for about the
first 1.5 hrs of emission sampling. This event is reflected in the gap seen
1n Figure 13. This initial 1.5-hr period was one of acceptable operation,
however. Control room data recorded at 15-min intervals (see Appendix A)
confirm that operation during this period was comparable to that during the
recorded period shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13 shows that at the same waste feed schedule and kiln propane
flow, kiln temperatures were higher for Jest 3 than for Tests 1 and 2. This
1s as expected as diluent N2 is removed from the oxidant feed. Test 3 kiln
exit temperature varied from about 980° to 1,090°C (1,800° to 2,000°F) over a
charge cycle. Kiln exit flue gas 02 was also higher, ranging from about 15 to
21 percent. Kiln exit flue gas CO was steady at about 50 ppm. The stack CO
monitor zero drifted during the test as shown in Figure 14. Correcting for
this drift, stack CO levels were quite low, no more than a few ppm, throughout
the test. The oxygen flowrate traces in Figure 13 show that the only trigger
event which caused oxygen flowrates to ramp up for this test was,the batch
charge event.
Optimization testing for further Pyretron 02 enhanced operation proceeded
1n early January 1988. From these tests, 1t was decided to designate test
condition 4 at an increased waste charge mass of 15.5 kg (34 Ib) but with
decreased charge frequency of every 19.5 min so that total feedrate of
47.7 kg/hr (105 Ib/hr) was the same as for Tests 1, 2, and 3. The purpose of
this test was to supply data to evaluate the ACI claim that the Pyretron
system would be able to reduce the magnitude of transient puffs of CO and
unburned hydrocarbon accompanying a batch waste charge. Test 4 was performed
at approximately a 60-percent increase in charge mass compared to the maximum
achievable with conventional incineration (Tests 1 and 2). The Pyretron
system operating control logic was similar to that used in Test 3, discussed
previously, with timing.adjustments to the batch change event trigger to
account for the altered waste charge cycle. Test 4 was completed on
January 14, 1988.
Figure 15 shows the waste feed schedule for the test, and Figure 16 shows
corresponding kiln and afterburner data. Figure 16 shows that kiln exit
temperature was more variable for the high charge mass test (Test 4). Average
kiln exit temperature was about 960°C (1,765°F), although temperatures as low
as 870°C (1,600°F) and as high as 1,065°C (1,950°F) were routinely
experienced. Kiln exit flue gas Og generally ranged from about 13 to about 19
percent over a charge cycle. Kiln exit flue gas CO was generally below
10 ppm.
With respect to evaluating the ACI claim that the Pyretron system would
be able to reduce the magnitude of transient puffs of CO and unburned
hydrocarbon accompanying a batch waste charge, it is interesting to compare
the kiln exit CO emissions traces shown 1n Figures 4a, 7a, lOa, and 16a. As
noted above, the attempt to feed 65.6 kg/hr (144 Ib/hr) to the kiln with
10.9 kg (24 Ib) charges every 10 min under conventional incinerator operation
gave rise to unacceptably high transient puffs. Reducing the waste feedrate
to 47.7 kg/hr (105 Ib/hr) with 9.5 kg (21 Ib) charges every 12 min gave much
44
-------
o.
Q.
O
CJ
500-
350-
200-
5C.
0
16J
O> CM
O
01 O
en
4-J
0
22.5-
7.5-
10
Out of service
i
12
14
16
Test
start
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 14. Stack emissions monitor data for Test 3.
Test
stop
-------
•n
&
3
u
280"
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
D D
D
D D D D
I
IS
I
17
D Weight Scale
Time of Doy (hr)
•f Charge Record
19
Figure 15. Waste feed schedule for Test 4.
-------
Propane Air Oxygen Exit
Flow Flow " Flow 02
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%)
Exit CO
Exit
Temperature
CO
fD
CX
P>
O
n>
10
-------
Propane Air Oxygen Exit Exit
Flow Flow Flow : " 02 CO
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) («) (ppm)
Exit
Temperature
n>
o>
cr
a.
o
ID
to
-------
more acceptable conventional incinerator operation. The first conventional
incineration test at this feed schedule (Test 1) resulted in relatively low
and steady kiln exit CO levels (see Figure 7a). The second test at this feed
schedule (Test 2) resulted in generally steady kiln exit CO levels, although
several CO spikes occurred (see Figure lOa).
The test under Pyretron Op enhanced operation at increased charge mass
(15.5 kg (34 Ib) every 19.5 min) but constant feedrate (47.7 kg/hr
(105 lb/hr)) (Test 4) resulted in low and steady kiln exit CO levels (see
Figure 16a) comparable to the emissions trace for Test 1. However, a clear
conclusion regarding the capability of the Pyretron sytem to reduce the
magnitude of transient puffs is not possible based on the kiln exit CO level
data. Test-to-test variations in the CO monitor readings were such that no
clear differences between conventional incineration and Pyretron performance
were apparent.
Test 5 was performed at the same charge mass as for Tests 1, 2, and 3 but
with charge frequency doubled. The feed schedule for this test, thus, was
9.5 kg (21 Ib) every 6 min, or 95.5 kg/hr (210 lb/hr). This rate represents
double the waste feedrate achievable under conventional operation. The
purpose of this test was to evaluate the ACI claim that the Pyretron system
was capable of incinerating waste in compliance with incinerator performance
standards but at higher waste feedrates than are possible with conventional
incineration. Test 5 was completed on January 20, 1988.
/•'
/
Although it was possible to double the waste feedrate for this test over
that achievable under conventional operation, the increased heat input to the
kiln at this increased feedrate necessitated the use of kiln water injection
to afford additional kiln temperature control. Previous Pyretron 02 enhanced
tests were performed without the need for kiln water injection. However, for
Test 5 water was atomized into the kiln at a location near the kiln auxiliary
fuel burner at a constant rate of 2.3 L/min (0.6 gpm). This rate of water
injection was required to keep kiln temperatures near the target value.
Figure 17 shows the waste feed schedule for Test 5. Figure 18 shows
corresponding kiln and afterburner data for Test 5. As for Test 4, kiln exit
temperature exhibited greater variation over a charge cycle than experienced
under conventional operation or for Test 3. Average kiln temperature was
about 980°C (1,795°F), although temperatures as low as 900°C (1,650°F) and as
high as 1,065°C (1,950°F) were routinely experienced. Kiln exit flue gas Oo
varied from about 11 percent to 16 percent over most of the test. Kiln exit
flue gas CO was generally about 100 ppm, although occasional 600-ppm peaks
were experienced. Upon passage through the afterburner, these peaks were
reduced to 30 ppm or below.
The replicate test of test condition 5, designated Test 6, was completed
on January 21, 1988. Kiln water injection at 2.3 L/min (0.6 gpm) was used for
this test as well. Figure 19 shows the waste feed schedule for this test, and
Figure 20 shows corresponding kiln and afterburner data. The kiln exit
temperature variation for this test was less than that experienced for
Test 5. Average kiln exit temperature was about 980°C (1,795°F) with routine
variations from about 925°C (l,70p°F) to about 1,035°C (1,900°F). Kiln exit
49
-------
Ol
o
•o
£
i
I
3.
O
600
500-
400-
300-
200-1
100-
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 17. Waste feed schedule for Test 5.
-------
19
Propane Air Oxygen Exit
Flow Flow Flow 02 Exit CO
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%) (p'pm)
Exit
Temperature
O>
00
P>
3
O.
r*
P>
O
(D
V)
O
-*•
O
-------
frS
Propane Air Oxygen Exit
Flow Flow Flow 02 Exit CO
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%) (ppm)
Exit
Temperature
co —|
rt- fl>
0) in
CD
ro
O
3
CL
rf
PI
O
n>
I
O
Q
00
O
T3
CD
en
ro
o
o o
CO 00
o o
o o
10
cr>
o
ro
o
•?
r
-------
1,300
xoJo' 1,060
UJ Q.—•
•r- O Q.
XO Q.
(U S -C
D> O -^
>>r- e
X U- O
O i/>
0
-------
flue gas 02 variations were comparable to those experienced in Test"5,
generally ranging from 11 to 17 percent. Kiln exit flue gas CO peaks of about
100 to 300 ppm occurred when kiln exit 0? fell below about 10 percent.
However, for other than these periods, CO levels in the kiln exit flue gas
were usually about 30 ppm. Afterburner flue gas CO was steady at less than
10 ppm.
The two planned tests with Stringfellow waste alone (no K087, although
spiked with 4,500 ppm each of hexachloroethane and 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene)
were completed on January 27 and 29, 1988. Test 7 under Pyretron 02 enhanced
operation was completed on January 27; Test condition 8 under conventional
operation was completed on January 29. The waste feed schedule for both tests
was a charge of 3.6 kg (8 Ib) every 4 min, or 54.5 kg/hr (120 Ib/hr). The
waste feed schedule and the kiln and afterburner data plots for Test 7 are
given in Figures 21 and 22, respectively. Corresponding plots for Test 8 are
given in Figures 23 and 24. Since the Stringfellow soil contained negligible
heat content and, thereby, offered no challenge to the kiln, Figures 22 and 24
show that both kiln and afterburner operation was quite steady, with generally
no significant operating transients over a waste charge cycle.
56
-------
210
51
Vj»
•o
o
11
12
O Weight Scale
Time of Day (hr)
4- Charge Record
Figure 21. Waste feed schedule for Test 7.
-------
89
Propane Air Oxygen Exit Exit Exit
Flow Flow Flow 02 CO Temperature
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%) (ppm) (°C)
CO l£>
O O
CO
C
n>
rss
ro
fa
o.
P)
rl-
0>
O
-$
fD
=i
2.
o
<-*• to —•
O iOti
PO
o o
r
o
f
en
r
PO
o
o o
CO CO iO
§0 en
o o
-------
0)
3
•r- i. O
X 0>o
UJ Q-- —
1
•M "E"
•i- O Q.
X C_> Q
Itl •*£*
•r- CMS*
LU
c IT
d> 3 -c
0.0^.
>>»— E
XLL- U
O v>
t-
f- 3JZ
•r- O-^.
IZ U
I/I
<0 3-C
f^ O **v*
S-ll. IJ
CX. (/I
1,300
1,060
900
400
100
0
15
40
.0
500
200
100
15
0
"
-
to-
-
."
•-
n
. .
•
.-.
-
•
"1 I I 1 I I 1
10 lesi 12 14 16
start Test
Time of Day (hr) stop
Figure 22b. Afterburner data for Test 7.
-------
2BO
o>
o
1
i
3
E
o
10
D Weight Scale
Time of Day (hr)
Charge Record
Figure 23. Waste feed schedule for Test 8.
-------
Propane Air
Flow Flow
(scm/hr) (scm/hr)
19
Oxygen
Flow
(scm/hr)
Exit
02
Exit GO
(p'pm)
Exit
Temperature
o
to
a
(u
co ?<:
(a a.
-f, (3,
rt> r-l-
— I Qj
« o
-s
v>
O i-c
— ST
— • ro
OJ O
— • o
O 3
3 <
fD fD
O
3
3
O
Pu
rf
O
3
cf
fD
rr
S
-------
ro
n
cr
-j
n>
Q.
-b
O
c/i
<•+•
00
Propane Air Oxygen Exit Exit Exit
Flow Flow Flow 02 CO Temperature
(scm/hr) (scm/hr) (scm/hr) (%) (ppm) (°C)
c
— 1
Cu (/>
-I rh
.-f
! ""
2.
<
«~ •»
..
O! "
(/) — |
O (/>
«-• o c
=> cn o c
,
;
i
i
i
|
1
i
,
o tn
3 O
3 O
[-r- L.
i
'') *» .'•
o o o
f r
r~ - -J
1
1
1
1
«
4
i
i
f -
I
i • 1
(
l
i
1
en
f.
,
I
,
!-• -«^
O O
00 0
...(-.. L
H^
*•
\o c
o 01
o a
L
*
I
i
I
i
i
i
1
•
r
i
•
• •• realt.ri
1
i
i
I
t—>
w
to
0
C3
4
I
i
i
1
!
-------
SECTION 6
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MATRIX
An extensive sampling and analysis effort was performed to support the
demonstration test program. This effort is summarized in Table 9. As noted
in Table 9, the sampling matrix included:
• Obtaining composite samples of the waste feed, kiln ash, and scrubber
blowdown over each test period
• Sampling the flue gas downstream of the scrubber system and in the
stack for semivolatile organics using Modified Method 5
(Method 0010, (4))
• Sampling the flue gas downstream of the scrubber system and in the
stack for particulate using Method 5 (5)
• Measuring flue gas 02, C02, CO, and total unburned hydrocarbon (TUHC)
at the kiln and afterburner exits using continuous emission monitors
(CEMs)
Composite samples of the waste feed were prepared by opening about every
tenth fiberpack drum and removing approximately 100 mL of feed. These grab
samples were combined to give one composite sample for each test.
Composite samples of scrubber blowdown were collected by taking tap
samples every 1.5 hrs over the test duration beginning 1 hr after test
initiation. Composite samples of kiln ash were taken from the ash bin which
collected ash for a given test (a clean ash bin was inserted before each
test).
In addition to flue gas Op, C02, CO, and TUHC monitoring at various
locations as noted above, the flue gas was sampled for particulate and
semivolatile organic hazardous constituents. Method 5 and Modified Method 5
(MM5, Method 0010) sampling was performed in the scrubber discharge flue gas
and in the stack. MM5 sampling in the scrubber discharge flue gas was
performed for all tests. Simultaneous MM5 sampling at this location was
performed for Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6. Method 5 sampling was performed in the
scrubber discharge flue gas for all tests except Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6.
Method 5 and MM5 sampling of the stack gas was performed for all tests except
MM5 sampling for Tests 1 and 6.
63
-------
TABLE 9. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MATRIX SUMMARY
Streas
Location
Sampling
procedure
Parameter
Method
Frequency
Waste feed Rotary kiln Inlet Grab/composite
K1ln ash K1ln ash discharge Grab/composite
Composite tap
Extractive
Scrubber Slowdown discharge
blowdown
Flue gas Kiln exit
Proximate analysis
(ash, moisture,
volatile, matter,
heating value)
Ultimate analysis
(C, H, 0, N, S, Cl)
Semivolatile organic
hazardous constituents
Sem1vo1at11e organic
hazardous constituents
Semlvolatile organic
hazardous constituents
Oo, C02, CO, TUHC
Afterburner exit Extractive 02, C02, CO, TUHC
Packed tower
scrubber exit
Stack, downstream
of carbon bed/HEPA
filter
Method 5C
Method 0010b
Method 5C
Method GGiOb
Partial late
Semlvolatlle organic
hazardous constituents
Partlculate
Semivolatile organic
hazardous constituents
A100a
A003a
8270b
8720b
8720b
Continuous
emission
monitor
Continuous
emission
monitor
Method 5C
8270°
Tests 1 through 6 combined composite,
Tests 7 and 8 combined composite
Tests 1 through 6 combined composite,
Tests 7 and 8 combined composite
1 composite/test, all tests
1 composite/test, except Tests 1
and 6
1 composite/test, except Tests 1
and 6
All tests
All tests
1 per test for all tests, except
Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6
1 per test for all tests; simultaneous
2 per test for Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6
Method 5C 1 per test for all tests
Extractive 02, C02, CO
8270s
Continuous
emission
monitor
1 per test for ali tests except
Tests 1 and 6
Continuous, all tests
-------
The laboratory analysis procedures used to characterize the samples
collected via the test matrix included:
• Subjecting combined composite feed samples from Tests 1 through '6 and
from Tests 7 and 8 to proximate (moisture, ash, volatile matter,
heating value) and ultimate (C, H, 0, N, S, Cl) analysis
• Analyzing the composite feed, the composite kiln ash, the composite
blowdown water, and all MM5 train samples for each test for
semivolatile organic hazardous constituents
Waste proximate/ultimate analyses were performed in accordance with
approved ASTM methods as documented in (3). Semivolatile organic compound
analyses were performed by Method 8270. Appropriate extraction procedures as
recommended in Method 8270 for different sample types were employed. For feed
samples, 1 to 5 g was extracted for analysis; 1 L of scrubber blowdown and
50 g of kiln ash were extracted for analysis.
65
-------
SECTION 7
TEST RESULTS
Test results are presented and discussed in this section. Continuous
emission monitor (CEM) data are presented Section 7.1. Section 7.2 discusses
the POHC ORE results obtained. Particulate emissions are summarized in
Section 7.3, and residuals analysis results presented in Section 7.4.
7.1 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITOR DATA
In accordance with the test plan, Op, C02$ CO, and TUHC were monitored at
the kiln and afterburner exits; and 02, C02, and CO were monitored at the
stack. The full complement of monitors was in operation for Tests 5, 6, 7,
and 8. Some monitors were out of service during Tests 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Table 10 itemizes the monitors that were in operation for each test.
(Monitors noted as out of service for a given test had failed prior to or
during preparations for a test and were being repaired or replaced.) As shown
in Table 10, only 02, CO, and TUHC at the kiln exit; 02 and TUHC at the
afterburner exit; and 02 at the stack were continuously monitored during all
tests. The afterburner exit CO monitor was out of service for Tests 1, 2, 3,
and 4. The stack C02 monitor was out of service for Tests 1, 2, and 3. The
kiln and afterburner exit C02 and the stack CO monitors were out of service
for Test 4. Some tests were initiated without a full complement of monitors
in operation, and some tests were continued when specific monitors failed
because the specific inoperative monitors were not critical to satisfying test
objectives as explained in the following discussion.
With respect to the evaluation of ACI claims regarding the Pyretron
system, the most important measurements are the kiln exit 02, CO, and TUHC
levels. These were indeed monitored in all tests. Afterburner exit 02 and
either afterburner exit or stack CO are useful though not critical for the
evaluation of the ACI claims. These were continuously monitored for all tests
except Test 4 (CO missing). For this test, the TUHC measurement was available
at the afterburner exit. Because of this availability and the behavior of
kiln exit CO as discussed in Section 5, lack of an afterburner exit or stack
CO measurement for this one test would not detract from the evaluation of the
ACI claims (see Section 1) in these tests.
Therefore, the lack of the full test plan complement of monitors, as
documented in Table 10, did not detract from the ability to evaluate the
Pyretron process. For all tests, a sufficient complement of monitors was in
operation to establish that transient emissions following a batch waste charge
were acceptable.
66
-------
TABLE 10. CEMs IN OPERATION FOR THE DEMONSTRATION TESTS
Monitor
Kiln exit:
Oo
COo
CO2
TUHC
Afterburner exit:
Oo
CO?
CO2
TUHC
Stack:
Oo
COo
CO2
Test 3a
(12-9-87)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Test 3
(12-11-87)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Test 4
(12-18-87)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Test 5
(1-14-88)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Test 6
(1-20-88)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Test 6a
(1-21-88)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Test 2
(1-27-88)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Test 1
(1-29-88)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Figures 25 through 32 show plots of measured flue gas 02, C02, CO, and
TUHC at kiln exit, afterburner exit, and stack locations for Tests 1
through 8, respectively. The 02 and CO data and their variations with batch
waste charging for each test condition were discussed in Section 5,,2.2. The
addition of the C02 traces in Figure 25 through 32 shows that, as expected,
flue gas C02 levels also vary with waste charge cycle but inversely with flue
gas 02.
Flue gas TUHC levels were always less than 10 ppm. The apparent
afterburner exit flue gas TUHC spikes of up to 50 ppm for Test 4 sliown in
Figure 28b are instrument noise.
7.2 PRINCIPAL ORGANIC HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
Table 11 presents the ultimate analysis results for the two composite
feed samples analyzed (the composite Stingfellow soil feed used in Tests 7
and 8 and the composite mixed K087/Stingfellow waste fed for Tests 1
through 6). As shown, the soil alone had negligible heating value; the mixed
waste heating value was 24.16 MJ/kg (10,410 Btu/lb).
Results of the composite waste feed analyses for POHCs and other
semivolatile organic hazardous constituents are summarized in Table 12 for all
the tests performed. The table also notes the total amount of waste fed over
appropriate sampling periods (scrubber discharge flue gas and stack gas) for
each test. The information shown in Table 12 suffices to calculate individual
POHC feedrates for each test.
Results of the Method 8270 analyses of all MM5 train samples taken are
summarized in Tables 13 (scrubber discharge flue gas trains) and 14 (stack gas
trains). Stack gas train data are missing for Test 4. The vial containing
the base/neutral extract for this train broke during shipment to the
analytical laboratory. The data in Tables 13 and 14 show that none of the PAH
compounds designated as POHCs for the mixed K087/Stringfellow waste tests
(Tests 1 through 6) were measured in any flue gas MM5 train above the method
detection limit (20 to 40 yg/train for all except one sampling train).
Hexachloroethane was measured in both the scrubber discharge flue gas and the
stack gas for Tests 5 and 7. Hexachloroethane was a POHC for Test 7, in which
only Stringfellow waste spiked with hexachloroethane and 1,3,5-trichloro-
benzene was tested, but not for Test 5 in which the K087/Stringfellow waste
mixture was tested. The compound 2,4-dichlorophenol was found at low levels
1n one scrubber discharge flue gas train for Test 6.
One or more phthalate compounds were analyzed in virtually all MM5 train
samples. The most common phthalate found was bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
which was measured in all but three of the 18 MM5 train samples at levels up
to 2,600 yg/train. Butylbenzylphthalate was found in two train samples;
Di-n-octyl phthalate was found in eight train samples.
Phthalates are common contaminants often found in routine Method 8270
analyses of environmental sample extracts. Evidence of this is given in
68
-------
50-
I 30.
10-
0
Q.
O.
o 800-
o
VO
CM
O
12-
4-
0
20-
10-
0-
12
•^ -*
« L
UNAAy^VAAAAAAAA/VA/liVAA/VV^
14
T"
16
18
Test
Start
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 25a. Kiln exit CEM data for Test 1.
Test:
Stop
-------
11
Test
start
13
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 26a. Kiln exit CEM data for Test 2.
Test
stop
-------
CL
CL
o
Q.
CL
m
OJ
(M
O
O
CM
O
50-
30
10-
0
400*
200-
4H
0
20-
10-
0
11
Out of service
Test
start
1
13
15
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 26b. Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 2.
Test
stop
-------
a.
Q.
O
O
500-
350-
200-
50.
0
as
en CM
3
10-
4j
0
22. 5>
7.5-
!_,,
Out of service
11 Test
start
1 1
13
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 26c. Stack CEM data for the Test 2.
15
Test stop
-------
in
50-
1 30-
o
rD
0
^ 400H
Q.
Q.
o 200H
o
0-
12-
CM
8 4J
0
20-
0CM 10^
10
^
Test
start
12
14
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 27&. Kiln exit CEM data for the Test 3.
Test
stop
16
-------
I
ex
o
Q.
CL
O
O
as
D>
0)
O>
Cvl
O
CM
O
10
Test
12
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 27b. Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 3.
-------
o.
Q.
O
CJ
500-
350-
200-
50.
0
16J
53 ~
O> CO
o
o o
u.
0
22.5-
7.5-
0-
TO
Out of service
Test
start
1 1
12
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 27c. Stack CEM data for Test 3.
T-
14
16
Test
stop
-------
50-
I 30-
10-
0
400-
o.
0.
o 200-
o
00
CM
12-
4-
0
2(H
T^^
Monitor noise
Out of service
^fHJlJ1^
13
Test
start
15
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 28a. Kiln exit CEM data for Test 4.
i
17
Test
stop
-------
OL
O.
D.
O.
O
O
I/)
(O
en
-------
V)
0)
Test
start
15
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 28c.. Stack CEM data for Test 4.
17
Test
stop
-------
00
Test
start
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 29a. Kiln exit CEM data for Test 5.
Test
stop
-------
i.
OL
E
Q.
Q.
50.
30-
10.
0
400-
200-1
(fi
(O
O)
0)
00
rss
12H
CM
8
0
20.
10-
JL_
JJV^W^^
-J^|^^
15
i
17
i
19
Test
start
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 29b. Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 5.
21
Test
stop
-------
E
CL
Q.
o
O
500-
350_
200-
50-
0
16~
T 10—
to -L*
en
CM
J- 4.
0
22.5.
15-
CM
0 7.5.
Instrument drift
^f^^
-j/^^^
15
i
17
i
19
Test
start
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 29c. Stack CEM data for Test 5.
21
Test
stop
-------
50-
0.
Q.
10-
0
400.
Q.
Q.
oo-
o
o
01
0)
00 u-
CM
o
o
20-
A
«*~A
Us,
^v^Nw^
11
13
i
15
17
Test
start
Tfme of Day (hr)
Test
stop
Figure 30a. Kiln exit CEMsdata for Test 6.
-------
o
o
(71
00
01
5O-
3Q_
10-
0
40GL
200-
12.
4-
0
20L
10-
(L
V
lu
VlA/^\AV^^^
K-
11
13
15
17
Test
start
Time of Day (hr)
Test
stop
Figure 30b. Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 6.
-------
500-
~ 200_
S
10-
fO
en CM .
co o 4-
01
-------
50.
Q.
CL
Q.
Q.
8
0
400-
*
:200_
cn
00
T 12~
3* 4-
0
20-
^10-
o
-------
50.
e
Q.
CL
o
nr
E
Q.
Q.
.. 8
(0
en
J(Ji^^
n^\M*t'W
.
11
Test
start
13 15
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 31b. Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 7.
Test
stop
17
-------
Q.
Q.
O
O
cr, s-S
••
I I I I ll
11 13 15 1
Test Tl™ of DaV (hr) Test
start stop
Figure 31c. Stack CEM data for Test 7.
-------
50
o
£
.S 30-
o
DC
10
0
400
Q.
Q.
o 200
to
a)
01
CO
CM
O
12-^
4
0
20
10-
^I^J^|fM^
-^pv^ V(V/VvVv^ifV%^
11
Test
start
13
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 32a. Kiln exit CEM data for Test 8.
15
Test
stop
-------
ex
a.
D.
D.
50-
30-1
10.
0
400-
^v^^WVlNw/VI^^
to
(O
cr.
ea
8 200-
CM
O
CJ
12H
4-
0
20-
CM 1(M
O
11
Test.
start
13
Time of Day (hr)
Figure 32b. Afterburner exit CEM data for Test 8.
15
Test
stop
-------
Q.
Q.
O
O
i—
ro u_
500-
350-
200-
50-
0
16-
10-
4
0
22.5 -
15
C\J
0
7.5 „
11
Test
start
I
13
I
15
Tfme of Day (hr)
Figure 32c. Stack CEM data Test 8.
Test
stop
-------
TABLE 11. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE FEED SAMPLES
Ultimate composition
(wt percent as received)
Parameter
Tests 7 and 8
compositea
Tests 1 through 6
composite0
c
H
0
N
S
Cl
Heating value
MJ/kg (Btu/lb)
0.5
1.2
2.9
0.01
0.1
0.2
—
69.3
4.0
2.9
0.8
0.5
0.03
24.16
(10,410)
^Stringfellow soil.
°Stringfellow soil mixed with K087 waste.
93
-------
TABLE 12. WASTE FEED COMPOSITION
Feed concentration (ing/g)
Compound
Test 1
(12-9-87)
Test 2
(12-11-87)
Test 3
(12-17-87)
Test 4
(1-14-88)
Test 5
(1-20-88)
Test 6
(1-21-88)
Test 7
(1-27-88)
Test 8
(1-29-88)
POHCs
Naphthalene 60 48 34 68 63
Acenaphthylene 16 11 7.8 16 • 16
Fluorene 7.2 5.4 5.6 7.9 7.7
Phenanthrene 27 22 17 28 28
Anthracene 8.1 6.6 5.3 8.5 8.5
Fluoranthene * 19 14 8.9 13 13
Hexachloroethane <6.6 <5.0 <2.9 <5.0 <5.0
1,3,5-THchlorobenzene <6.6 <5.0 <2.9 <5.0 <5.0
Other semlvolatHe . . _
organic hazardous
constituents
Pyrene 15 11 9.8 12 12
Benzo(a)anthracene <6.6 <5.0 3.8 5.8 5.8
Chrysene <6.6 <5.0 3.9 6.1 5.7
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene <6.6 <5.0 3.7 6.6 <5.0
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene <6.6 <5.0 <2.9 22 <5.0
NHrophenols and <32 <25 <14 <25 <25
• pentachlorophenol
All others <6.6 , <5.0 <2.9 <5.0 <5.0
Other semlvolatHe
100
24
12
43
13
18
23
11
29
<50
Total waste feed, kg(lb)
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
3.5
2.2
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
4.0
2.2
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
organic compounds
2-Hethy 1 napthal ene
Dlbenzofuran
4.8
5.8
4.0
4.7
4.3
4.4
5.2
5.8
5.0
5.8
7.9
8.9
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
Scrubber discharge
sampling period
Stack discharge
sampling period
185
(407)
— —
160
(353)
179
(395)
181
(398)
181
(398)
188
(414)
188
(414)
516
dil35)
433
(952)
359
(751)
~
209
(459)
223
(490)
130
(287)
138
(305)
-------
TABLE 13. SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN SCRUBBER
DISCHARGE MM5 TRAIN SAMPLES
10
01
Concentration ()ig/tra1n)
Constituent
POHCs
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
• Hexachloroethane
1,3,5-Trlchlorobenzene
Other seslvolatlle
hazardous constituents
Butyl benzyl phthal ate
B1 s(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
NUrophenols and
pentachlorophenol
All others
Test 1
(12-9-87)
Train 1 Train 2
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
120
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
680
54
<40
<200
<40
Test 2
(12-11-87)
Train 1 Train 2
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
,<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
2.600
<200
<200
<1.000
<200
Test 3
(12-17-87)
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
120
88
<40
<200
<40
Test 4
(1-14-88)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
37
910
30
<20
<100
<20
Test 5
(1-20-88)
Train 1 Train 2
<20
<20
<20
-------
TABLE 14. SEHIVOLATILE ORGANIC HAZARDOUS CONSITITUENTS IN STACK
GAS HM5 TRAIN SAMPLES
to
Concentration (yg/train)
Constituent
POHCs
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Hexachloroethane
1,3, 5-Tr i ch 1 orobenzene
Other semi volatile
hazardous constituents
Butyl benzyl phthal ate
Bi s (2-ethy 1 hexy 1 ) phthal ate
Di-n-octyl phthal ate
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Nitrophenols and
pentachlorophenol
All others
Test 2
(12-11-87)
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
80
<40
<40
<200
<40
Test 3 Test 4
(12-17-87) (1-14-88)
<40 — a
<40
<40
<40 —
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
120
<40
<40
<200
<40
Test 5
(1-20-88)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20.
220b
<20
<27
290
36
<20
<100
<20
Test 6
(1-27-88)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
77
<20
<20
<20
28
<20
<100
<20
Test 8
(1-29-88)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
2,000
20
<20
<100
<20
*— = Sample lost; sample container broken during shipment.
DNot a POHC for this test.
-------
Table 15 which shows that bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was also measured in
three matrix spike resin samples and two method blank samples.
However, elevated phthalate levels and particularly
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate have been measured in flue gas MM5 samples at the
CRF since the packed-tower scrubber and much of the downstream ductwork were
replaced subsequent to a scrubber fire in April 1987. It is suspected that
the binder in the fiber-reinforced plastic material comprising the new
scrubber and downstream ductwork or the replacement scrubber packing material
contains phthalates and that these are slowly eluting into the flue gas.
i
Phthlates aside, the data in Tables 13 and 14 show that, except for
hexachloroethane in Test 7, POHC levels in flue gas samples for all tests were
nondetectable. Table 16 gives sample volumes, POHC concentrations, and POHC
emission rates corresponding to respective detection limits for scrubber
discharge samples. Table 17 is the corresponding summary for stack gas
samples.
Table 18 combines the information from Table 12 with that from Table 16
to give POHC DREs at the scrubber discharge for each test. Table 19 is the
corresponding POHC ORE summary for the stack discharge from the information in
Tables 12 and 17.
Table 18 shows that method detection limits resulted in calculated DREs
in the scrubber discharge of greater than 99.99 percent for all POHCs except
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene for Test 8 (conventional incineration Stringfellow soil
alone). Method detection limits combined with low measured feed
concentrations (0.22 percent) for this POHC in this test allowed only that ORE
was greater than 99.9898 percent to be established. In many instances,
TABLE 15. BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE CONCENTRATIONS IN
MATRIX SPIKE AND METHOD BLANK RESIN SAMPLES
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
concentration (pg/extract)
Test
Matrix spike
resin samples
Method blank
resin samples
Test 1
Test 2
Test 4
Test 5
Test 6
Test 7
Test 8
(12-9-87)
(12-11-87)
(1-14-88)
(1-20-88)
(1-21-88
(1-27-88
(1-29-88
. <40
<40
140
59
<20
<20
120
<40
<40
140
27
<20
<20
<20
97
-------
TABLE 16. SCRUBBER DISCHARGE FLUE GAS POHC EMISSION RATES
CO
Test 1
(12-9-87)
Par&aeter Train 1 Train 2
Flue gas voluae
sampled (dso) 4.56 4.74
POHC concentration
Hexachloroethane
(ug/tra1n)
(ug/dsca)
All others
(tig/train) <40 <40
(ug/dsoB) <8.8 <8.4
Flue gas f lowrate
(dsra/Mln) 33.4
POHC emission rate
(•g/hr)
Hexachloroethane
All others <18 <17
Stapling period (hr) 4.15
Stapling period
emissions (mg)
Hexachloroethane
All others <73 <70
Test 2
(12-11-87)
Train 1 Train 2
4.28 4.16
—
„
<40 <200-
<9.4 <48
28.7
—
<16 <76
3.63
—
<58 <280
Test 3
(12-17-87)
4.01
—
—
<40
<10
26.4
—
<16
4.08
__
<64
Test 4
(1-14-88)
4.67
__
<20
<4.3
26.1
—
<6.7
4.07
._
<27
Test 5
(1-20-88)
Train 1 Train 2
4.69
31
6.6
<20
<4.3
9.8
<6.3
53
<34
5.07
110
22
<20
<3.9
24.6
32
<5.8
5.45
170
<32
Test 6
(1-21-88)
Train 1 Train 2
4.64
__
__
<20
<4.3
—
<7.8
._
<30
4.17
_..
_.
<20
<4.8
31.0
••
<8.7
3.83
__
<33
Test 7
(1-27-88)
5.02
25
5.0
<20
<4.0
29.9
8.9
4.28
38
Test 8
(1-29-88)
4.55
<20
<4.4
<20
<4.4
37.6
<9.9
<9.9
2.90
<29
<29
-------
TABLE 17. STACK GAS POHC EMISSION RATES
VD
Flue gas volume
sampled (dscm)
POHC concentration
Hexachloroethane
(yg/train)
(yg/dscm)
All others
(yg/train)
(yg/dscm)
Flue gas flowrate
(dscm/min)
POHC emission rate
(mg/hr)
Hexachloroethane
All others
Sampling period (hr)
Sampling period
emission (mg)
Hexachloroethane
All others
Test 2
(12-11-87)
5.25
—
<40
<7.6
31.1
v --
<14
4.07
__
<58
Test 3
(12-17-87)
4.57
—
<40
<8.8
25.3
—
<13
4.08
— .
<54
Test 4 Test 5
(1-14-88) (1-20-88)
5.35 5.30
220
42
a <20
a <3.8
31.5 29.1
72
a <6.6
4.08 .. 4.57
'• 330
a <30
Test 7
(1-27-88)
4.70
,-.
77
16
<20
<4.3
24.4
24
<6.2
4.55
110
<28
Test 8
(1-29-88)
4.63
<20
<4.3
<20
<4.3
38.5
<10.0
<10.0
3.08
<31
<31
aExtract sample lost; sample container broken during shipment.
-------
TABLE 18. SCRUBBER DISCHARGE POHC DREs
o
o
Test 1 (12-9-87)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 2 (12-11-87)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 3 (12-17-87)
Test 4 (1-14-88)
Test 5 (1-20-88)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 6 (1-21-88)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 7 (1-27-88)
Test 8 (1-29-88)
Naphthalene
>99.99934
>99. 99936
>99.99924
>99.9964
>99.99896
>99.99978
>99.99989
>99.99990
>99.99991
>99.99990
—
—
Acenaphthylene
>99.9975
>99.9976
>99.9967
>99.9841
>99.9955
>99. 99910
>99 .99958
>99.99961
>99.99965
>99.99961
—
—
Fluorene
>99.9945
>99.9947
>99.9933
>99.9676
>99.9937
>99.9982
>99. 99914
>99.99919
>99. 99930
>99.99923
—
—
Phenanthrene
>99.9985
>99.9986
>99.9984
>99.9920
>99.9979
>99.99948
>99.99976
>99.99977
>99.99980
>99.99978
—
~
POHC ORE (X)
Anthracene
>99.9951
>99.9953
>99.9945
>99.9735
>99.9933
>99.9983
>99.99922
>99. 99927
>99.99935
>99.99929
—
—
Fluoranthene Hexachloroethane
>99.9979
>99.9980
>99.9974 —
>99.9875
>99.9960
>99.9989
>99.99949
>99.99952
>99.99953
>99.99948
99.9958
>99,9944
1,3,5-Trlchlorobenzene
~
—
..
„
—
—
>99.9933
>99.9898
-------
TABLE 19. STACK DISCHARGE POHC DREs
POHC ORE (X)
Naphthalene Acenaphthylene Fluorene Phertanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Kexachloroethane
Test 2 (12-11-87) >99.99924 >99.9967 >99.9933 >99.9984 >99.9945 >99.9974
Test 3 (12-17-87) >99.99912 >99.9962 >99.9947 >99.9982 >99.9944 >99.9966
Test 4 (1-14-88) >99.99977 >99.99903 >99.9980 >99.99944 >99.9982 >99.9988
Test 5 (1-20-88) >99.99990 >99.99963 >99.99924 >99.99979 >99.99931 >99.99955
Test 7 (1-27-88) — -- — - - ~ 99.9962
Test 8 (1-29-88) — - ~ ~ - - >99.9940
1,3, 5-Trl chl orobenzene
—
~
~
—
>99.9939
>99.9898
-------
detection limits allowed DREs greater than 99.9999 percent for POHCs at higher
waste feed concentrations to be established. Since all POHC DREs for all
tests were >99.99 percent (with one exception), no statement concerning the
relationship between conventional incineration performance and Pyretron system
performance is possible. The good ORE performance in all tests is
understandable given that all tests were performed at relatively high kiln and
afterburner temperatures. As discussed in Section 5.2, average kiln
temperature was 921°C (1,690°F) or greater and average afterburner temperature
was 1,121°C (2,050°F) for all tests.
Table 19 indicates similar conclusions for the stack discharge after flue
gas passage through the CRF carbon bed absorber and HEPA filter. "Measured
DREs at this location were greater than 99.993 percent, up to greater than
99.9999 percent for all P.OHCs in all tests except Test 4 (no data) and for
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene for Test 8. A ORE of greater than 99.9898 percent for
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene in Test 8 could not be established because of method
detection limits coupled with low feed concentration.
7.3 PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Particulate concentrations in the flue gas at the two locations sampled
are summarized in Table 20. Particulate levels were measured in the stack for
all tests. Limitations in sampling port availability precluded the
TABLE 20. PARTICULATE EMISSION SUMMARY
Particulate concentration
(mg/dscm at 7 percent
Scrubber discharge
flue gas
Stack gas
Test 1 (12-9-87)
Test 2 (12-11-87)
Test 3 (12-17-87)
Test 4 (1-14-88)
Test 5 (1-20-88)
Test 6 (1-21-88)
Test 7 (1-27-88)
Test 8 (1-29-88)
— b
—
21
26
—
—
27
38
8
9
99
59
63
21
37
38
"Measured particulate concentration directly
corrected to 7 percent 0? using flue gas Oo level.
This does not provide a direct comparison for tests
.with 02 enhancement (Tests 3 through 7).
D ~ denotes measurements not performed.
102
-------
measurement of scrubber discharge flue gas particulate levels for the tests
during which simultaneous MM5 sampling was performed (Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6).
The data in Table 20 show that particulate levels in the scrubber
discharge flue gas for three Pyretron tests and one conventional incineration
test were in the 20 to 40 mg/dscm at 7 percent 02 range. Levels comparable to
these or increased were measured in the stack gas. All levels measured were
below the incinerator performance standard of 180 mg/dscm at 7 percent 02.
The footnote to Table 20 notes that corrections to 7 percent 02 were
performed using the measured flue gas 02. The effect of such a correction is
to correct for dilution air so that emissions under different flue gas 02
levels can be compared on a common basis. This simple correction approach
does not yield a true basis for comparison when oxygen enrichment of the
combustion process is used. When oxygen enrichment is used, the 02/N2 ratio
of the oxidant (air + 02) is increased. When subsequent correction to 7
percent 02 is done, proportionally more diluent gas is "removed" in an 02
enrichment case than in an air-only combustion case with the same amount of 02
introduced to the combustor. Thus, corrected emissions are higher in the 02
enrichment case than in the air-only case.
"penalized.1
The Oo enrichment case is thereby
No further correction to account for this "02 penalty" was performed
here. Nevertheless, all emission levels reported are less than the
incinerator performance standard without further correction.
7.4 INCINERATION RESIDUALS
The composite scrubber blowdown liquor samples and composite kiln ash
samples from each test were extracted and analyzed for the test POHCs and
other Method 8270 semivolatile organic hazardous constituents. No POHC was
detected in any blowdown sample at a detection limit of 20 yg/L, and no other
semivolatile organic hazardous constituent was detected at detection limits
ranging from 100 yg/L (nitrophenols and pentachlorophenol) to 20 yg/L (all
other Method 8270 constituents). No POHC analyte was detected in any kiln ash
sample at a detection limit of 0.4 mg/kg ash. No other semivolatile organic
hazardous constituent was detected at detection limits ranging from 2.0 mg/kg
(nitrophenols and pentachlorophenol) to 0.4 mg/kg (all other Method 8270
constituents) with the exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. This compound
was measured in the kiln ash sample from Tests 5 and 6 at 0.86 and 0.40 mg/kg,
respectively. These levels are likely due to contamination for these samples.
Since semivolatile organics were not detected in any residual sample, it
is clear that firing mode (air-only or 02 enhanced) had no measurable effect
on residue composition.
103
-------
SECTION 8
CONCLUSIONS
A series of demonstration tests of the American Combustion, Inc.,
Pyretron Thermal Destruction System was performed under the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. The system, which comprises
an oxygen-enhanced burner system consisting of rotary kiln and afterburner
combustor burners capable of introducing both air and oxygen to the combustion
process, a gas (fuel, air, and oxygen) metering and control assembly, a
computer-based control system with proprietary control logic, an oxygen supply
system, and a kiln water injection system for augmented temperature control,
was retrofit to the rotary kiln incineration system (RKS) at EPA's Combustion
Research Facility. The demonstration program was performed using contaminated
soil from the Stringfellow Superfund site. For most tests, the Stringfellow
waste was combined with a listed hazardous waste, K087, which is decanter tank
tar sludge from coking operations. This combined waste was chosen so that the
test waste could have significant heat and POHC content and, thereby, present
a challenge to the incineration process. The mixed waste consisted of
60 percent (weight) K087 and 40 percent Stringfellow soil. In all tests, the
test waste was batch charged to the RKS using a ram feed system which fed
waste packed into fiberpack drums.
The demonstration program consisted of emissions testing of a condition
challenging the limit of capability of a conventional air-only incineration
process in terms of feed mass per charge and total waste feedrate. Results
were then compared to similar testing under the following three modes of
Pyretron 02 enhanced operation:
• The same waste feed schedule and auxiliary fuel flow as established
in the optimum conventional incineration test
• Increased charge mass at constant total feedrate
• Increased (doubled) total waste feedrate at constant charge mass
8.1 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS
The objective of the demonstration tests was to provide the data to
evaluate three ACI claims regarding the Pyretron system as follows:
• The Pyretron system with dynamic oxygen enhancement reduces the
magnitude of the transient high levels of organic emissions, CO, and
soot ("puffs") that occur with repeated batch charging of waste fed
to a rotary kiln
104
-------
• The Pyretron system with oxygen enhancement is capable of achieving
the RCRA-mandated 99.99 percent destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) of principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) in wastes
incinerated at a higher waste feedrate than conventional air-only
incineration
• The Pyretron system is more economical than conventional incineration
With respect to the first ACI claim, test results are inconclusive.
Initial scoping tests confirmed that a waste feed schedule of 10.9 kg (24 Ib)
every 10 min (65.5 kg/hr (140 Ib/hr) total feedrate) gave unacceptable
operation under conventional incinerator operation. The Pyretron system was
capable of acceptable operation at increased charge mass of 15.5 kg (34 Ib),
but charge frequency was decreased to every 19.5 min. Thus, total feedrate
was decreased to 47.7 kg/hr (105 Ib/hr). Both conventional and Pyretron 02
enhanced incineration resulted in acceptable operation at a feed schedule of
9.6 kg (21 Ib) every 12 min, or 47.7 kg/hr (105 Ib/hr).
The only available measures of the magnitude of transient puffs in the
test program were those recorded by the CO and unburned hydrocarbon emission
monitors. Flue gas unburned hydrocarbon levels were uniformly low for all
tests. Kiln exit CO peaks were quite frequent for conventional incineration
at high waste feedrate (65.5 kg/hr (140 Ib/hr)). Kiln exit CO levels were
more steady for the lower waste feedrate tests (47 ,,7 kg/hr (105 Ib/hr))
regardless of firing mode (conventional air-only versus Pyretron Op enhanced)
or batch waste charge mass. However, test-to-test variability in the kiln
exit CO data was such that no clear differences between conventional
incineration and Pyretron 02 enhanced performance were apparent. Thus, it was
not possible to clearly measure decreases in transient puff magnitudes. This
limitation notwithstanding, test results do clearly establish that a
60-percent increase in charge mass over the capability limit of conventional
incineration is possible with the Pyretron 02 enhanced system.
With respect to the second vendor claim, test results clearly indicate
that 99.99 percent POHC ORE was achieved with the Pyretron 02 enhanced system
with waste feedrate doubled (to 95.5 kg/hr (210 Ib/hr) versus 47.7 kg/hr
(105 Ib/hr) for conventional incineration) over the limit established under
conventional operation. Acceptable operation with the Pyretron 02 enhanced
system was achieved at a feed schedule of 9.6 kg (21 Ib) every 6 min, or
95.5 kg/hr (210 Ib/hr). Greater than 99.99 percent ORE for all POHCs and
particulate emissions of significantly less than 180 mg/dscm at 7 percent 02
were measured.
Operating at this increased waste feedrate with the Pyretron Op enhanced
system necessitated the addition of water to the kiln to control kiln
temperature. This water was a required heat sink to compensate for the
removed heat sink represented by the nitrogen in the air that the oxygen
stream replaced.
Evaluation of the vendor's third claim is discussed in the companion
Applications Analysis report (2).
105
-------
Other test conclusions are as follows:
• Flue gas POHC levels were nondetectable for all tests (air-only and
C>2 enhanced) in which the mixed K087/Stringfellow waste was
incinerated. Corresponding POHC DREs were greater than 99.99 percent
to greater than 99.9999 percent.
• Two tests (air-only and Q£ enhanced) were performed firing
Stringfellow soil alone. For these tests, the soil was spiked with
hexachloroethane and 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene. Hexachloroethane ORE in
the scrubber discharge flue gas was 99.9944 or greater for both
tests. 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene was not detected in any flue gas
sample. However, method detection limits combined with low feed
concentration (0.22 percent measured) only allowed it to be
established that greater than 99.9898 percent ORE was achieved for
conventional incineration.
• Flue gas particulate levels were significantly less than 180 mg/dscm
at 7 percent Q£ in all test measurements.
• Scrubber blowdown and kiln ash contained no detectable levels of test
POHCs.
Deviations from the test program quality assurances project plan (QAPP)
and analysis method protocols occurred on some occasions during the test
program. In addition, a few QAPP-specified data quality objectives (DQOs)
were not achieved. These issues are discussed in Section 9. This discussion
confirms that the conclusions from this test program are not affected by
discrepancies in adherance to the O.APP or by occasional failure to achieve
DQOs. The conclusions stated above are clearly supported by the test program
data.
8.2 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM COSTS
The major portion of the costs of the Pyretron system SITE demonstration
program was associated with preparing the demonstration plan, performing the
demonstration, including operating the incinerator with the Pyretron system
installed, and performing the test program sampling and analysis efforts;
evaluating the demonstration test data; and preparing the demonstration test
report. However, many of the costs incurred would apply to some degree to an
actual field application of this technology. These costs bear noting here
since they give some insight into the magnitude of possible field application
costs. These application-specific costs include the prototype Pyretron system
hardware costs and the utility costs expended during the demonstration
program.
ACI estimates that it incurred $50,000 in prototype system design and
process control algorithm development efforts. ACI further estimates that the
prototype system installed at the CRF cost $150,000.
The two major utility costs for the demonstration were for auxiliary fuel
(propane) and for oxygen. Oxygen was supplied to the program by Big Three
Industries at no cost. The demonstration tests consumed about 36,800 sirr
(1,300 MSCF) of oxygen. At typical oxygen costs of between $0.088 and
106
-------
$0.194/sm3 ($2.50 to $5.50/MSCF), between $3,250 and $4,875 worth of oxygen
was consumed over the test program.
A total of 1,760 GJ (1,670 million Btu) of propane was consumed over the
demonstration test program. At a typical propane cost of between $2.84 to
$5.70/GJ ($3.00 to $6.00/million Btu), between $5,000 and $10,000 worth of
propane was consumed over the test Q£ enhanced program. About 40 percent of
the propane was fired during the Pyretron system tests. The remaining 60
percent was consumed during the conventional incineration tests.
107
-------
SECTION 9
QUALITY ASSURANCE
As noted in Section 1, the objective of the demonstation test program was
to supply the data needed to evaluate the three claims made by the developer
of the Pyretron Thermal Destruction System. The critical data needed to
support the test objective were measurements of incinerator destruction and
removal efficiency (ORE), specifically waste feed and flue gas concentrations
of the designated POHCs for these tests; incinerator particulate emissions;
and incinerator flue gas 02, C02, CO, and TUHC levels at various locations as
measured by continuous emissions monitors (CEMs). Of secondary importance are
data on POHC concentrations in the residual discharge streams, namely the
scrubber blowdown and kiln ash.
A quality assurance project plan (QAPP) was prepared for these tests and
approved in November 1987. In accordance with this plan, QA efforts performed
to ensure that data quality is known for the particulate and CEM measurements
involved adherence to Reference Method procedures and CEM manufacturers'
specifications. No deviations from the QAPP occurred for these measurements
with the exception that not all monitors were in operation for all tests as
noted in Section 6.
The QAPP specified that assurance that data of known quality would result
from measurements of POHC concentrations in waste feed, flue gas, scrubber
blowdown, and kiln ash would rely on adherence to sampling and analysis method
procedures. These method-specified procedures call for spiking all samples to
be extracted and analyzed for POHCs with method surrogate compounds and for
analyzing matrix spike samples. The methods also place limits on sample hold
times before extraction and between extraction and analysis.
Several deviations from the QAPP and method protocol occurred during the
course of the test program. The deviations involved excessive sample hold
times and inadvertent failure to initially spike surrogates into a few
samples. These are discussed in the following subseclions. Section 9.5
summarizes test QA findings and concludes that the deviations which occurred
have no impact on test conclusions reached and that data reported are of known
quality.
9.1 SAMPLE HOLD TIMES
Several sample hold time exceedences arose from a change in test plans
over the course of the tests. The original test plan called for performing
all Method 8270 analyses at the CRF onsite laboratory. However, as a result
108
-------
of a QA technical systems review (TSR) of the CRF laboratory performed on
January 19 and 20, 1988, it became clear that the analytical instrumentation
and analytical systems in place were not at the time sufficient to ensure that
data of known quality would result. As a consequence, it was decided to
perform all Method 8270 analyses at an offsite laboratory. The timing of this
decision, however, was such that extract hold times for Tests 1 and 2
performed in early December 1987 could not be met.
A subsequent QA TSR of the analyses of the Tests 1, 2, and 3 samples ,
performed on February 5 raised further issues which required resolution. As a
consequence, the analyses of Tests 4 through 8 samples were placed on hold by
the EPA Project Officer until all issues were resolved. Project Officer
approval to proceed with Tests 4 through 8 analyses was not received until
February 25. The timing of this decision was such that Test 4 samples could
not be analyzed within hold times.
In both instances, sample scheduling was such that samples which could be
analyzed within hold time limits were analyzed ahead of samples which could
not be analyzed within hold time limits.
Tables 21 through 24 list extraction and analysis hold times for waste
feed, flue gas MM5 train, scrubber blowdown, and kiln ash samples,
respectively. Table 22 shows that extraction hold times for MM5 train samples
were met for all tests. All MM5 train samples are routinely extracted at the
CRF the day after a given test.
Table 21 shows that initial extraction hold times were met for all feed
samples except matrix spike samples. However, the initial feed samples for
Tests 1, 2, and 3 were not spiked with surrogates. When this oversight was
discovered, archive samples were retrieved, spiked, extracted, and analyzed.
However, extraction hold times were exceeded for those second extractions.
Special mention of the matrix spike feed samples is warranted. Feed
samples corresponding to the test dates noted in Table 21 were taken and
spiked with matrix spike compounds. Spiked samples were then immediately
extracted. Thus, although the spiked samples were extracted within extraction
hold time limits of their preparation, the native waste samples were 16 to
29 days old.
Tables 23 and 24 show that initial extraction hold times were met for all
blowdown and kiln ash samples except those associated with Tests 5 and 6. As
for feed samples, initial blowdown and kiln ash samples were not surrogate
spiked. Again, archive samples were retrieved, spiked, extracted, and
analyzed. Again, extraction hold times were exceeded for the second
extraction.
Tables 21 through 24 show that no samples for Tests 1, 2, and 4 were
analyzed within analysis hold time limits. Reasons for this failure were
discussed above. The blowdown method blank sample was also analyzed after
hold time had passed. All samples for Tests 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were analyzed
within hold time limits with the exception of all initial waste feed samples
(second extractions were analyzed within hold time limits) and the MM5 matrix
109
-------
TABLE 21. SAMPLE HOLD TIMES FOR WASTE FEED SAMPLES
Sample
Collection
date
Extraction
date
Extraction
hold time
(days)
Analysis
date
Analysis
hold time
(days)
Method requirement 7 40
Test samples
Test 1 12-9-87 12-15-87 6 2-3-88 50
Test 1, second 12-9-87 2-17-88 70 3-21-88 33
extractiona
Test 2 12-11-87 12-15-87 4 2-3-88 50
Test 2, second 12-11-87 2-17-88 68 3-21-88 33
extractiona
Test 3 12-17-87 12-22-87 5 2-3-88 43
Test 3, second 12-17-87 2-17-88 62 3-21-88 33
extractiona
Test 4 1-14-88 1-18-88 4 3-20-88 62
Test 5 1-20-88 1-26-88 6 3-20-88 54
Test 6 1-21-88 1-26-88 5 3-20-88 54
Test 7 1-27-88 2-5-88 8 3-21-88 45
Test 8 1-29-88 2-5-88 7 3-21-88 45
Matrix spike samples
Test 4 1-14-88 2-12-88 29^ 3-20-88 37
Test 7 1-27-88 2-12-88 16D 3-20-88 37
Surrogates inadvertently omitted from initial extraction; sample
.subsequently spiked with surrogates and reextracted.
Feed samples from test dates noted were spiked with matrix spike compounds
and extracted on extraction date shown.
110
-------
TABLE 22. SAMPLE HOLD TIMES FOR MM5 TRAIN SAMPLES
Sample
Collection
date
Extraction
date
Extraction
hold time
(days)
Analysis
date
Analysis
hold time
(days)
Method requirement
Scrubber discharge
MH5 trains
40
Test 1, Train 1
Test 1, Train 2
Test 2, Train 1
Test 2, Train 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5, Train 1
Test 5, Train 2
Test 6a, Train 1
Test 6a, Train 2
Test 7
Test 8
Stack MM5 trains
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5
Test 7
Test 8
Matrix spike resin
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5
Test 7
Test 8
Method blank resin
Test 1
Test 2
Test 4
Test 5
Test 6
Test 7
Test 8
12-9-87
12-9-87
12-11-87
12-11-87
12-17-87
1-14-88
1-20-88
1-20-88
1-21-88
1-21-88
1-27-88
1-29-88
12-11-87
12-17-87
1-14-88
1-20-88
1-27-88
1-29-88
12-9-87
12-11-87
12-17-87
1-14-88
1-20-88
1-27-88
1-29-88
12-9-87
12-11-87
1-14-88
1-20-88
1-21-88
1-27-88
1-29-88
12-10-87
12-10-87
12-12-87
12-12-87
12-18-87
1-15-88
1-21-88
1-21-88
1-22-88
1-22-88
1-28-88
1-30-88
12-12-87
12-18-87
1-15-88
1-21-88
1-28-88
1-30-88
12-10-87
12-12-87
12-18-87
1-15-88
1-21-88
1-28-88
1-30-88
12-10-87
12-12-87
1-15-88
1-21-88
1-22-88
1-28-88
1-30-88
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-28-88
1-28-88
1-28-88
1-28-88
1-27-88
3-16-88
2-28=88
2-28-88
2-28-88
2-28-88
2-29-88
3-1-88
1-28-88
1-27-88
a
2-28-88
2-29-88
3-1-88
2-3-88
2-3-88
2-3-88
3-16-88
2-28-88
2-29-88
3-1-88
2-3-88
2-3-88
3-16-88
2-29-88
2-29-88
3-1-88
3-1-88
49
49
47
47
40
61
38
37
37
37
32
31
47
4°a
a
38
32
31
55
53
47
61
38
32
31
55
53
61
39
38
33
31
aSamp1e lost; container broken during shipment.
Ill
-------
TABLE 23. SAMPLE HOLD TIMES FOR SLOWDOWN LIQUOR SAMPLES
Sample
Collection
date
Extraction
: date
Extraction
hold time
(days)
Analysis
date
Analysis
hold time
(days)
Method requirement 7
Test samples
Test 1 12-9-87 12-14-87 6
Test 1, second 12-9-87 1-30-88 50
extractiona
Test 2 12-11-87 12-14-87 5
Test 2, second 12-11-87 1-30-88 50
extractiona
Test 3 12-17-87 12-22-87 5
Test 3, second 12-17-87 1-30-88 50
extraction3
Test 4 1-14-88 1-15-88 1
Test 5 1-20-88 1-30-88 10
Test 6 1-21-88 1-30-88 9
Test 7 1-27-88 1-30-88 3
Test 8 1-29-88 2-1-88 3
Matrix spike samples
Test 5 1-20-88 1-30-88 10
Test 7 1-27-88 1-30-88 3
40
Not analyzed
3-17-88 47
Method blank sample NA
1-30-88
1-28-88
3-17-88
1-27-87
3-17-88
3-16-88
2-28-88
2-28-88
2-29-88
3-1-88
2-29-88
3-1-88
3-15-88
45
47
36
47
61
29
29
30
29
30
32
45
Surrogates inadvertently omitted from initial extraction; sample
subsequently spiked with surrogates and reextracted.
112
-------
TABLE 24. SAMPLE HOLD TIMES FOR KILN ASH SAMPLES
Extraction Analysis
Collection Extraction hold time Analysis hold time
Sample date date (days) date (days)
Method requirement 7
Test samples
Test 1 12-9-87 12-14-87 5
Test 1, second 12-9-87 2-16-88 69
extraction3
Test 2 12-11-87 12-14-87 3
Test 2, second 12-11-87 2-16-88 67
extractiona
Test 3 12-17-87 12-22-87 5
Test 3, second 12-17-87 2-16-88 61
extractiona
Test 4 1-14-88 1-16-88 2
Test 5 1-20-88 1-29-88 9
Test 6 1-21-88 1-30-88 9
Test 7 1-27-88 1-30-88 3
Test 8 1-29-88 1-30-88 1
Matrix spike samples
Test 5 1-20-88 1-29-88 9
Test 7 1-27-88 1-30-88 3
40
Not analyzed
3-17-88 30
Method blank sample NA
2-23-88
2-3-88
3-17-88
1-27-87
3-17-88
3-16-88
2-28-88
2-28-88
2-29-88
3-1-88
2-29-88
2-29-88
3-15-88
51
30
36
30
60
2?
29
30
31
31
30
21
Surrogates inadvertently omitted from initial extraction; sample
subsequently spiked with surrogates and reextracted.
113
-------
spike sample for Test 3. Feed samples were purposely analyzed last. These
high-level organic samples can be troublesome and cause delays.
The possible effects of hold time exceedences on data quality are
discussed in the following subsection.
9.2 SURROGATE RECOVERIES
9.2.1 Surrogate Recovery Results
As specified in the QAPP for these tests, all samples for Method 8270
analysis were to have been spiked with octafluorbiphenyl and
9-phenylanthracene surrogate compounds. Feed, blowdown, and kiln ash samples
for Tests 1, 2, and 3 were not initially spiked. Subsequent spiked samples
were not extracted within method hold requirements.
Tables 25 through 28 list surrogate recoveries measured for waste feed,
MM5 train samples, scrubber blowdown, and kiln ash samples, respectively. The
data in Table 25 show that surrogate recovery from waste feed and feed matrix
spike samples ranged from 53 to 123 percent. The data quality objective (DQO)
for surrogate recovery was 50 to 150 percent. All measured recoveries were
within the DQO range. The DQO for this measurement was achieved.
All test waste feed samples from Tests 4, 5, and 6 were analyzed after
hold time had expired. Waste feed samples for Tests 1, 2, and 3 and matrix
spike feed samples were analyzed within hold time limits, although they were
extracted after extraction hold time had expired. However, surrogate
recoveries for all samples were acceptable. Clearly, the hold time
exceedences experienced had no affect on data quality as measured by surrogate
recovery.
Table 26 shows that surrogate recoveries from MM5 train test samples
ranged from 14 to 157 percent and averaged 75 percent for octafluorobiphenyl
and 72 percent for 9-phenylanthracene. Overall, of 62 individual
measurements, 54, or 87 percent were within the DQO range of 50 to
150 percent. The completeness DQO for this measurement was 70 percent; this
DQO was achieved. :
Interestingly, surrogate recoveries for MM5 train samples which were
analyzed after hold time had expired are not visibly different from those
analyzed within hold time limits. In fact, the mean octafluorobiphenyl
recovery for the 13 samples analyzed after hold time had expired was
78 percent with a standard deviation of 27 percent. The mean
octafluorobiphenyl recovery for the 18 samples analyzed within hold time
limits was 72 percent with a standard deviation of 17 percent. Corresponding
values for 9-phenylanthracene recovery was a mean of 72 percent with standard
deviation of 33 percent for samples analyzed after hold time had expired and a
mean of 72 percent with standard deviation of 22 percent for samples analyzed
within hold time limits. Clearly9 surrogate recoveries for samples analyzed
after analysis hold time had expired are no different from those for samples
114
-------
TABLE 25. SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR WASTE FEED SAMPLES
Surrogate recovery (%)
Test samples
Matrix spike samples
Test
1 (12-9-87)
2 (12-11-87)
3 (12-17-87)
4 (1-14-88)
5 (1-20-88)
6 (1-21-88)
7 (1-27-88)
8 (1-29-88)
Mean
Median
Octafluoro-
biphenyl
105
79
100
103
91
96
99
103
97
99, 100
9-Phenyl- Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl-
anthracene biphenyl anthracene
111
75
123
91 83 78
89
96
117 102 90
53
94 93 84
91, 96 83, 102 78, 90
All Samples
Mean
Median
96
99, 100
92
90, 91
115
-------
TABLE 26. SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR MM5 TRAIN SAMPLES
Surrogate
Scrubber discharge
flue gas samples Stack gas samples
Test
1 {12-9-87)
Train 1
Train 2
2 (12-11-87)
Train 1
Train 2
3 (12-17-87)
4 (1-14*88)
5 (1-20-88)
Train 1
Train 2
6 (1-21-88)
Train 1
Train 2
7 (1-27-88)
8 (1-29-88)
Mean
Median
AVI samples
Mean
Median
Octafluoro-
blphenyl
55
62
71
61
77
71
72
82
80
71
86
75
72
71,72
75
72
9-Phenyl- Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl-
anthracene blphenyl anthracene
37
46
57 67 70
18
54 71 24
66 -« -a
75 106 101
81
83
72
81 81 69
77 81 77
62 81 68
66,72 81 70
72
75
recovery (%)
Matrix spike Method blank
resin samples resin samples
Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl- Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl-
biphenyl anthracene blphenyl anthracene
83 78 97 90
86 94 76 80
157 154
63 69 60 78
63 90 72 75
68 96
69 75 67 86
72 68 14 17
85 90 65 75
72 78 68 80
aSample lost; container broken during shipment.
116
-------
TABLE 27. SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR SLOWDOWN LIQUOR SAMPLES
Surrogate recovery (%)
Test samples
Matrix spike samples
Blank samples
Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl-
Test
1 (12-9-87)
2 (12-11-87)
3 (12-17-87)
4 (1-14-88)
5 (1-20-88)
6 1-21-88)
7 1-27-88)
8 1-29-88)
Mean
Median
biphenyl
14
12
18
15
13
14
17
1
13
14
anthracene
85
78
74
60
57
76
73
15
65
73, 74
Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl- Octafluoro-
biphenyl anthracene biphenyl
12 55
14 47
12
13 51 12
12, 14 47, 55 12
9-Phenyl-
anthracene
17
17
17
All samples
Mean
Median
13
1.4
58
60
117
-------
TABLE 28. SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR KILN ASH SAMPLES
Surrogate recovery (%)
Test samples
Matrix spike samples
Blank samples
Test
1 (12-9-87)
2 (12-11-87)
3 (12-17-87)
4 (1-44-88)
5 (1-20-88)
6 (1-21-88)
7 (1-27-88)
8 (1-29-88)
Mean
Median
All samples
Mean
Median
Octafluoro-
biphenyl
35
39
47
44
50
54
66
64
50
47, 50
54
54
9-Phenyl-
anthracene
94
75
62
70
6
15
92
97
64
70, 75
58
70
Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl- Octafluoro- 9-Phenyl-
biphenyl anthracene biphenyl anthracene
56 3
70 78
72 41
63 41 72 41
56, 70 3, 78 72 41
118
-------
analyzed within hold time limits. These surrogate recovery data confirm that
the analysis hold time exceedences had no effect on data quality.
Table 27 shows that surrogate recoveries from blowdown liquor test
samples ranged from 1 to 85 percent, averaging 13 percent for
octafluorobiphenyl and 58 percent for 9-phenylanthracene. 9-phenylanthracene
recoveries were uniformly better than octafluorobiphenyl recoveries. No
octafluorobiphenyl recovery met the DQO of 50 to 150 percent. Eight of
11 9-phenylanthracene recoveries, or 73 percent of the measurements, met the
DQO. The completeness DQO for the measurement was 70 percent. This DQO was
met for 9-phenylanthracene recovery but not for octafluorobiphenyl recovery.
Interestingly, surrogate recoveries were generally better for samples
analyzed after hold time had elapsed (Tests 1 through 4, and the method blank)
than for samples analyzed within the hold time limit (Tests 5 through 8 and
the matrix spike samples). The mean octafluorobiphenyl recovery from the
5 samples analyzed after hold time had expired was 14 percent with a standard
deviation of 2 percent. Corresponding octafluorobiphenyl mean recovery from
the 6 samples analyzed within hold time limits was a comparable 12 percent
with a standard deviation of 6 percent. The mean 9-phenylanthrancene recovery
from samples analyzed after hold time had expired was 63 percent with a
standard deviation of 27 percent. Corresponding 9-phenylanthracene mean
recovery from samples analyzed within hold time limits was a slightly poorer
54 percent with standard deviation of 22 percent. Clearly, the analytical
hold time exceedences did not affect data quality as measured by surrogate
recovery. Exceeding extraction hold time would not be expected to affect
surrogate recovery since surrogates were spiked just before extraction, not
when the samples were collected.
9-phenylanthracene recovery from kiln ash samples was comparable to that
from the blowdown samples. Octafluorobiphenyl recovery was generally
better. Recovery from test samples ranged from 3 to 97 percent and averaged
54 percent for octafluorobiphenyl and 58 percent for 9-phenylanthracene. Of
22 measurements performed, 14, or 64 percent', had surrogate recovery in the
DQO range of 50 to 150 percent. Only the kiln ash sample from Test 4 was
analyzed after analytical hold time had elapsed. Surrogate recovery from this
sample was comparable to that from samples analyzed within hold time limits.
Again, this confirms that the hold time exceedences experienced had little
effect on data quality.
As mentioned in several instances in the preceeding discussion, initial
test blowdown and kiln ash samples for Tests 1, 2, and 3 were not surrogate
spiked. Archive samples were subsequently retrieved, spiked, extracted, and
analyzed, but by the time this was done, extraction hold time had elapsed. It
may be concluded from these occurrences that the data from the blowdown and
kiln ash analyses for Tests 1, 2, and 3 are of unknown quality. However, all
available test data confirm just the contrary. Target analytes were not
detected in any blowdown or kiln ash sample. Initial blowdown and kiln ash
samples from Tests 2 and 3 (extracted within hold time limits); surrogate
spiked blowdown and ash samples from Tests 1, 2, and 3; and blowdown and ash
samples from Tests 4 through 8 were all analyzed to contain nondetectable
119
-------
amounts of the test POHCs. A test program conclusion that all samples were
free of residual POHC is warranted.
Surrogate recovery from blowdown (one surrogate) and ash (both
surrogates) samples were lower than DQO levels. Detection limits can be
adjusted for surrogate recovery if desired. The conclusion that no detectable
POHC was found in any blowdown or kiln ash sample remains unchanged.
9.2.2 Corrections For Surrogate Recoveries
As noted in the introduction to Section 9, the critical data, needed to
support the test program objectives were measurements of incinerator ORE,
specifically waste feed and flue gas POHC concentrations. Surrogate
recoveries for the waste feeds analyzed were acceptable as noted above in
Section 9.2.1. Surrogate recoveries for flue gas MM5 train analysis were also
generally acceptable in that 87 percent of the measured recoveries were within
acceptable (DQO-specified) limits. However, several measured recoveries were
somewhat low. A low-surrogate recovery analyte measured may have been present
in the sample analyzed at a concentration higher than reported. For example,
if a surrogate were spiked at 50 yg but recovered at 20 yg (40 percent
recovery), the implication is that an analyte reported as present at 20 yg may
actually have been present at 50 yg.
For analytes reported as not detected, as was the case for virtually all
POHCs in MM5 train samples for these tests, low surrogate recovery implies
that the actual detection limit is higher than reported. For the 40 percent
surrogate recovery example, an analyte reported as not detected at 20 yg may
have been present at a 50-yg level and still not detected.
Of course, correction for surrogate recovery can be made. The correction
Involves simply dividing a reported concentration by the appropriate surrogate
recovery. Since in these tests, several surrogate recoveries were low,
conclusions based on reported MM5 train concentration data may be
optimistic. For this reason, it is of interest to evaluate whether test
conclusions regarding POHC ORE are still defensible in light of occasionally
poor MM5 train surrogate recoveries.
Tables 29 and 30 provide the data for this evaluation. Table 29 lists
POHC DREs corresponding to scrubber discharge flue gas concentrations using
MM5 train data corrected for surrogate recovery. Thus, Table 29 represents
Table 18 corrected for the MM5 train surrogate recoveries listed in
Table 26. No correction for waste feed, surrogate recovery has been made.
Table 30 presents corresponding stack gas DREs, again corrected for surrogate
recovery. Thus, Table 30 represents Table 19 corrected with the Table 26
recoveries. Surrogate recovery corrections were made using octafluorobiphenyl
recovery for naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, hexachloroethane, and
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene correction; and 9-phenylanthracene recovery was used
for anthracene, phenanthrene and fluoranthene correction.
The data in Table 29 show that test conclusions regarding scrubber
discharge flue gas POHC DREs would be no different if calculated DREs are
corrected for MM5 train surrogate recovery. Surrogate recovery corrected
120
-------
TABLE 29. SCRUBBER DISCHARGE POHC DREs WHEN CORRECTED FOR MM5 TRAIN SURROGATE
RECOVERY
POHC ORE fl£)
Test 1 (12-9-87)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 2 (12-11-87)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 3 (12-17-87)
Test 4 (1-14-88)
Test 5 (1-20-88)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 6 (1-21-88)
Train 1
Train 2
Test 7 (1-27-88)
Test 8 (1-29-88)
Naphthalene
>99.9988
>99.9989
>99.9989
>99.9940
>99.9986
>99.99970
>99. 99985
>99.99987
>99.99989
>99. 99987
~
—
Acenaphthylene
>99.9955
>99.9962
>99.9954
>99.9739
>99.9941
>99.9987
>99.99942
>99. 99952
>99. 99956
>99.99946
—
—
Fluorene
>99.9900
>99.9915
>99.9905
>99.947
>99.9918
>99.9974 .•
>99.99881
>99.99901
>99.99912
>99. 99892
-
~
Phenanthrene
>99.9961
>99.9970
>99.9971
>99.956
>99.9961
>99.99922
>99. 99968
>99.99972
>99.99976
>99.99970
—
~
Anthracene
>99.9868
>99.9898
>99.9904
>99.85
>99.987
>99.9974
>99. 99896
>99.99909
>99.99922
>99.99901
—
—
Fluoranthene Hexachloroethane
>99.9944
>99.9957
>99.9955
>99.931
>99.9926
>99.9983
>99.99932
>99. 99941
>99. 99944
>99.99929
99.9951
>99.9926
1,3,5-Trlchlorobenzene
-
__
—
~
„
—
>99.9922
>99.9865
-------
TABLE 30. STACK DISCHARGE POHC DREs WHEN CORRECTED FOR MM5 TRAIN SURROGATE
RECOVERY
1— '
PO
ro
POHC DRE (X)
Naphthalene Acenaphthylene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Hexachloroethane
Test 2 (12-11-87) >99.99989 >99.9951 >99.9900 >99.9976 >99.9922 >99.9963
Test 3 (12-17-87) >99.9988 >99.9946 >99.9925 >99.9927 >99.9765 >99.9860
Test 4 (1-14-88) >99.99977 >99.99903 >99.9980 >99.99944 >99.9982 >99.9988
Test 5 (1-20-88) >99.99991 >99.99965 >99.99928 >99.99979 >99.99932 >99.99955
Test 7 (1-27-88) — — — — — — 99.9953
Test 8 (1-29-88) — — — — -- ~ >99.9926
1,3,5-Trlchlorobenzene
_.
—
—
—
>99.9925
>99.987
-------
scrubber discharge flue gas POHC DREs remain greater than 99.99 percent for
all POHCs except anthracene in Tests 1 and ,3. Anthracene was the POHC present
at lowest concentration in the mixed waste feed. Correcting for less than 100
percent MM5 train surrogate recovery lowers the ORE associated with the MM5
train detection limit to just below 99.99 percent for Tests 1 and 3.
The method detection limit maximum ORE for 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene in
Test 8 remains below 99.99 percent, as it was when uncorrected.
The data in Table 30 show similar conclusions for surrogate recovery
corrected stack gas calculated DREs. These are still greater than
99.99 percent for all POHCs except, anthracene and fluoranthene for Test 3 and
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene for Test 8.
In summary, although MM5 train surrogate recoveries were generally less
than 100 percent, and in some cases less than 50 percent, test program
conclusions are not affected. Test program conclusions were that POHC ORE was
greater than 99.99 percent for all tests performed. Correcting for occasional
poor surrogate recovery does not alter this conclusion.
9.3 MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES
Seven MM5 resin samples and two each of waste feed, blowdown, and kiln
ash samples coresponding to various tests were spiked with the designated
POHCs for the test program, extracted, and analyzed. Tables 31 through 34
summarize the matrix spike analysis results for waste feed, MM5 resin,
blowdown, and kiln ash samples, respectively.
The data in Table 31 show that matrix spike compound recovery from waste
feed samples ranged from 75 to 119 percent. All recoveries measured met the
DQO for this measurement of 50 to 150 percent. The completeness for this
measurement was, therefore, 100 percent.
The data in Table 32 show that matrix spike compound recoveries from
spiked MM5 train resin samples ranged from 62 to 115 percent. All recoveries
met the DQO of 50 to 150 percent. The completeness for this measurement was,
therefore, 100 percent. In addition, matrix spike compound recoveries from
the four samples analyzed after hold time had expired (Tests 1 through 4) are
no different, compound by compound, than recoveries from the three samples
analyzed within hold time limits (Tests 5, 7, and 8). Again, the hold time
exceedences experienced did not affect data quality as measured by matrix
spike sample analyses.
Table 33 shows that matrix spike compound recovery from blowdown samples
ranged from <40 to 70 percent. Naphthalene was not detected in either
sample. Of 12 measurements, 6, or 50 percent, met the DQO of 50 to
150 percent.
Table 34 shows that matrix spike compound recoveries from kiln ash
samples ranged from 55 to 82 percent for one sample, all within the DQO of
50 to 150 percent." Less than detectable recovery was experienced for all
123
-------
TABLE 31. MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FROM WASTE FEED SAMPLES
Test 4 (1-14-88)
Test 7 (1-27-88)
Spike
compound
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Spiked
amount
(ma)
33.4
30.0
34.4
30.9
30,3
34.4
•' -»*„
Native
amount3
(nig)
68.0
16.0
7.9
28.0
8.5
13.0
Total
(®g)
101.4
46.0
42.3
58.9
38.8
47.4
Analyzed
amount
(rag)
110
51
42
55
41
36
Recovery
(*)
108
111
99
93
106
76
Spiked
amount
(nig)
33.9
28.5
28.5
34.3
34.4
31.2
Native
amount"
("9)
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
Total
(•9)
33.9
28.5
28.5
34.3
34.4
31.2
Analyzed
iiunount
-------
TABLE 33. MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FROM
SLOWDOWN LIQUOR SAMPLED
Spike compound
recovery (%)
Spike
compound
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluor ant hene
Test 5
(1-20-88)
<40
64
48
52
70
48
Test 7
(1-27-88)
<40
66
44
50
68
42
TABLE 34. MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FROM
KILN ASH SAMPLES
Spike compound
recovery (%)
Spike Test 5 Test 7
compound (1-20-88) (1-27-88)
Naphthalene <40
Acenaphthylene <40
Fluorene <40
Phenanthrene <40
Anthracene <40
Fluoranthene <40
72
55
76
82
72
82
125
-------
spike compounds in the other sample. Interestingly, surrogate recovery from
both kiln ash matrix spike samples was comparable.
9.4 REPLICATE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The test plan or QAPP specified that replicate MM5 train sampling of
scrubber discharge flue gas be performed for four tests and that the two test
conditions be replicated with simultaneous scrubber discharge flue gas and
waste feed sampling. This replicate sampling was performed in an attempt to
evaluate precision of the flue gas sampling/analysis method.
Results of this exercise are inconclusive. No POHC.or other semivolatile
organic hazardous constituent of interest was detected in any MM5 sample.
Thus, the results of all replicate testing and sampling pairs were the same:
no detectable POHC.
9.5 DATA QUALITY SUMMARY
During the course of this demonstration test program, several deviations
from the test QAPP and test method-specified procedures occurred. These
Included:
• Failure to initially spike method surrogates into Tests 1, 2, and 3
waste feed, scrubber blowdown, and kiln ash samples, then
subsequently spiking too low a level of surrogates into repeat waste
feed samples
• Exceeding sampling extraction hold time limits for about 15 percent
of the samples extracted and exceeding analysis hold time limits for
roughly 40 percent of the samples analyzed including virtually all
Test 1, 2, and 3 samples. The longest analysis hold time was 62 days
versus a method requirement of 40 days.
The DQO's for surrogate recovery and matrix spike compound recovery were
accomplished for waste feed and MM5 train sample analyses. However, these
DQO's were not fully met for blowdown and kiln ash sample matrices.
Despite the above, the composition of all samples of a given matrix were
comparable for all tests. Specifically, analysis results for all waste feed
samples for the six tests in which the feed contained K087 waste were quite
comparable; analysis results from waste feed samples which were not surrogate
spiked were very similar to results from uncompromised samples. The
composition of all MM5 train, blowdown, and kiln ash samples were comparable
for all tests as well; no sample contained detectable levels of POHCs or any
other Method 8270 constituent except bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, which is a
common laboratory contaminant.
The most important test measurements were those required to calculate
POHC DRE. These required measurements of waste feed composition and MM5 train
analysis results. As noted above, waste feed surrogate recovery met the DQO
for those samples which were spiked. Matrix spike recovery from waste feed
samples met the DQO. Waste feed analysis results for samples which were not
surrogate spiked were very similar to those which were surrogate spiked.
126
-------
Surrogate recovery from samples analyzed after hold time had expired was
better than from samples analyzed within hold time limits. These analyses
confirm that the QA descrepancies experienced did not detract from waste
analysis data quality.
MM5 train surrogate recovery and matrix spike recovery met respective
DQOs. Surrogate and matrix spike recoveries from samples analyzed after hold
time had expired were no different than corrsponding recoveries for samples
analyzed within hold time limits. Clearly, the hold time exceedences
experienced did not detract from the MM5 train analysis data quality.
MM5 train surrogate recoveries, despite meeting the test program DQO,
were low for some samples. However, test conclusions remain unchanged if
calculated DREs are corrected for surrogate recovery.
Surrogate and matrix spike recoveries for kiln ash and scrubber blowdown
samples did not meet respective DQO's as discussed in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.
However, analysis hold time exceedences had no bearing on this. Despite the
failure to meet DQOs, no POHC or other semivolatile organic priority pollutant
(with the exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in kiln ash) was detected
in any blowdown or kiln ash sample. Surrogate and matrix spike recoveries
achieved suggest this is a warranted conclusion.
Test conclusions stated in Section 8 were based on analytical results as
follows:
• No detectable POHC was measured in flue gas streams for any test with
the result that greater than 99.99 percent POHC ORE was achieved for
all tests
• No detectable POHC was measured in scrubber blowdown or kiln ash
samples for any test
The QAPP and method deviations which occurred during these tests and the
inability to achieve DQOs for blowdown and kiln ash analyses has no affect on
the above test program conclusions. Sample-specific detection limits can be
corrected for surrogate recovery with the effect of increasing them. POHCs
were still not detected.
127
-------
REFERENCES
1. Personal communication. J. Powers, EPA/OSWER, with L. Waterland,
Acurex. July 1987.
2. Waterland, L. R., C. I. Okoh, and A. S. McElligott, SITE Program
Applications Analysis Assessment of Superfund Applications for the
American Combustion Inc. Pyretron Oxygen Enhanced. EPA/ _/__/ . U.S.
EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.March 1989.
3. Harris, J. C., et al. Sampling and Analysis Methods for Hazardous Waste
Incineration. EPA-600/8-84-002. February 1984.
4. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste; Physical/Chemical Methods. EPA
SW-846, 3rd ed. November 1986.
5. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A.
128
-------
APPENDIX A
INCINERATOR OPERATING CONDITIONS LOG
Test : 24* Charge
Date : 12-06-87
Tiw Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln AB AB AS AB Bake-up Hake-up Slowdown Blowdom Slowdown Hater Venturi
Height Tesp 6as Air Oxygen Second TMR 6as Air Oxygen Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Evap. Scrubber
Flow Flow Flow Air DP Flow Flow Flow cut. rate cu*. rate rate rate Flow
(Ibs) (F) (scfli)(scfli)(sctti) Cw) (F) (scfhHscfli)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
2024
2032
2035
2030
2034
2008
2050
2009
2011
2059
2046
2022
2056
2003
2053
2031
2057
2043
2028
2037
2054
2017
2050
2053
2017
2065
2073
2062
2045
2019
2014
2022
380
500
520
570
490
570
440
470
380
550
490
530
380
530
360
570
380
540
30
320
310
530
390
410
210
360
370
380
290
610
470
500
10980
14790
15490
17030
14610
16800
13180
13940
11440
16180
14760
15810
11120
15760
10450
16790
11330
15960
9050
9650
9630
15660
11500
1248
6340
10720
11110
11270
8660
18270
13800
14770
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8951
9009
9073
9151
9209
9267
9322
9387
9457
9526
9583
9458
9719
9791
9852
9926
9993
10062
10116
10200
10236
10309
10375
10435
10488
10559
10610
10692
10738
10810
10928
11042
3.9
4.3
5.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
4.3
4.7
4.6
3.8
5.0
4.1
4.8
4.1
4.9
4.5
4.6
3.6
5.6
2.4
4.9
4.4
4.0
3.5
4.7
3.4
5.5
3.1
4.8
7i9
7.6
7696
7718
7739
7755
7762
7762
7762
7766
7771
7782
7792
7805
7815
7826
7836
7847
7857
7864
7873
7883
7887
7893
7898
7899
7905
7905
7912
7920
7925
7936
7987
8036
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.7
3.4
3.3
1.7
1.5
1.5
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.8
4.4
3.5
3.9
3.7
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.0
4.2
3.3
4.0
3.3
4.1
3.7
3.8
3.1
5.1
1.9
4.4
3.9
4.0
3.0
4.7
2.9
5.0
2.6
2.0
5.1
4.8
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
129
-------
Test : 241 Charge
Date : 12-08-87
Tiie Picked Venturi Packed Liquor ID Fan Kiln A3 flB AB AB AB Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
CQluin DP Colmn Inlet P Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit
Flow DP 02 C02 CO NOx THC 02 C02 CO THC • 02 C02 CO
(9P«! CMC) CMC) pH Cte) CMC) (Z) (X)
-------
Test
Date
21* Charge
12-09-87
Ti«e Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln AB A6 AS A6 Make-up Make-up Slowdown Slowdown Slowdown Water Venturi
Height Te§p Gas Air Oxygen Second Te«p Bas Air Oxygen Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Evap. Scrubber
Flow Flow Flow Air DP Flow Flow Flow cm. rate cut. rate rate rate Flow
(Ibs) (F)
-------
Test : 211 Charge
D»te ! 12-09-87
TiM Packed Venturi Packed Liquor ID Fan Kiln AB AB AS AS AB Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
Colian DP Coliun Inlet P Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit
Flow DP 02 C02 CO NOx THC 02 C02 CO THC 02 C02 CO
(gpi) CMC) CMC) pH CMC) CMC) «) (1) (ppi) (ppc) (ppa C (X) «) (ppi) (ppi C U) tt) (ppi)
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1730
1745
1800
1815
23
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
28
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
25
25
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.4
37
37
37
37
36
35
35
35
36
35
35
36
36
36
35
35
36
36
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
-0.05
-0.05
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.05
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.11
-0.08
-0.09
7.5
8.0
5.5
10.5
7.0
7:0
10.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
7.5
10.0
5.0
4:8
10.0
1010
215
5;2.
10,0
10,0
5.0
8.0
a.o
B.O
8:0
8.4 —
8.0 —
9.8 —
7.2 —
10.0 —
9.9 —
7.8 —
9.6 —
10.0 —
9.6 —
9.0 —
7.8 —
10.0 —
10.0 —
7.6 —
8.0 —
10.0 —
10.0 —
7.8 —
7.6 —
10.0 —
8.8 —
9.0 —
8.8 —
8.6 —
80
75
120
75
75
100
95
80
100
110
100
60
85
90
66
65
80
95
60
65
90
75
55
60
60
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
11.5
12.5
11.0
15.2
6.0
11.0
15.5
12.5
10.0
12.5
12.5
15.0
10.0
7.5
15.0
15.0
7.5
9.8
15.0
15.0
7.5
15.0
12.0
12.5
13.0
5.6
5.2
6.9
3.9
7.0
7.1
4.1
7.5
8.8
8.3
6.4
4.7
9.1
10.0
4.7
4.9
8.7
8.8
4.7
4.7
8.7
5.1
6.3
6.2
5.9
0
0
10
20
10
10
20
50
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.0 —
14.3 —
12.5 —
16.0 —
15.0 —
13.7 —
15.0 —
15.0 —
12.5 —
12. S --
13.0 —
15.5 —
13.0 —
13.5 —
16.0 —
13.0 --
11.5 —
12.0 —
15.15 —
15.0 —
12.5 —
14.0 —
14.0 —
14.0 —
14.0 —
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
-------
Test
Date
211 Charge
12-11-87
Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln AB AS AB AB Hake-up Hake-up BloHdown BlowJom BloHdom Hater Venturi
Weight T«p Gas Air Oxygen Second Tetp Gas Air Oxygen Water Nater Water Water Water Evap. Scrubber
Flow Flow Flo* Air DP Flow Flow Flow cue. rate cu». rate rate rate Plot*
(Us) (F) (scflil
-------
Ttst I 211 Charge
D*te : 1M1-B7
Tiie Packed Venturi Packed Liquor ID Fan Kiln AB AB AB AB AB Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
Coluin DP Colum Inlet P Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit
Flow DP 02C02CONOxTHC02C02COTHC02C02CO
-------
Test : 211 Charge
Date : 12-17-87
TiK Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln ftB AB AB AB Hike-up Hike-up BloNdom BlOMdcwn BloMdom Hater Venturi
Weight Te«f Bas Air Oxygen Second Tetp 6as Air Oxygen Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Evap. Scrubber
FloM Flow Flow Air DP Flow Flow Plot* cu«. rate cu*. rate rate rate Flow
(Us) (F) (scfli) (scfh) (scfh) CMC) (F) (scfliMscfh) (scfh) (gal) (gpe) (sal) (gp§) (gps) (gp«) (gpi)
1000
1015
1030
IMS
1100
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
697.5
697.5
697.5
698.0
650.0
601.5
601.5
554.0
554.0
506.5
458.5
411.0
411.0
363.5
316.0
314.0
268.0
268.0
220.0
220.0
172.5
124.5
100.5
100.5
100.5
100.5
100.5
1853
1854
1858
1878
1732
1683
1685
1824
1799
1786
1867
1977
188B
190B
1884
1941
1960
1849
1949
1988
1818
1862
1900
2042
1880
1840
1867
350
340
330
470
170
160
170
170
170
160
140
150
150
150
140
140
150
140
130
150
130
140
150
140
140
186
220
5080
8530
8550
8840
6150
5770
5920
6100
5980
6130
5800
5890
5820
57BO
5800
5760
5590
5520
5400
5590
5590
5640
5690
5730
5630
6360
6670
1900
1800
1820
3030
1260
1300
3220
2980
1310
1310
3180
1180
1180
2930
3100
1200
1210
1190
2930
1650
1210
1280
3130
1660
1230
1300
1440
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
2021
2027
2032
2033
2039
5025
2019
2015
2021
2023
2021
2036
2034
2022
2006
2039
2023
2018
2023
2023
2007
2008
2013
2018
2040
2024
2032
340
350
330
330
'160
420
400
390
390
390
370
360
440
450
350
300
360
360
380
340
300
290
460
330
380
370
370
8150
8510
8110
8130
10920
9930
9650
9470
9560
9450
9030
8600
10520
10780
8560
7520
8610
8680
8970
8370
7540
7320
10810
7960
9240
9060
8970
910
960
910
940
1240
1150
2510
2530
1250
1070
2500
960
1190
2510
2520
8300
970
980
2520
9500
8500
8000
2510
1360
1050
1020
1010
4005
4081
4140
4186
4220
4272
4320
4369
4403
4476
4521
4569
4613
4667
4728
4773
4825
4881
4929
4971
5052
5078
5135
5184
5243
5287
5324
5.1
3.9
3.1
2.3
3.5
3.2
3.3
2.3
4.9
3.0
3.2
2.9
4.9
2.7
3.0
3.5
3.7
3.2
2.8
5.4
1.7
3.8
3.3
3.9
2.9
2.5
3285
3312
3343
3367
3377
3388
3399
3409
3420
3432
3442
3454
3462
3480
3489
3500
3512
3525
3536
3545
3564
3570
3582
'3594
3605
3619
3630
1.8
2.1
1.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
O.B
0.8
O.B
O.E
O.B
0.8
0.8
0.8
O.B
0.8
O.B
2.7
1.7
1.1
1.5
2.7
2.4
2.5
1.5
4.1
2.2
2.4
2.1
4.1
1.9
2.2
2.7
2.9
2.4
2.0
4.6
0.9
3.0 .
2.5
3.1
2.1
1.7
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
16a
135
-------
Test : 21f Charge
Bate « 12-17-87
Ti*e Packed Venturi Packed Liquor 10 Fan Kiln AS AB AB AB AB Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
Colmn DP Colian Inlet P Eat Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit
FlOM DP 02C02CONOxTOC02C02COTHCO^C02CO
(9PB) C«c) Cwc) pH CHC) fte) «) (Z)
-------
Test :
Date :
TIM
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1730
1745
ieoo
1815
1B30
1845
34* Charge
1-14-88
Scale
Height
(Us)
780. 0
732.0
699.0
626.0
626.0
589.5
553.0
516.5
516.5
479.5
442.5
405.0
368.5
368.5
331.5
299.5
294.5
258.0
221.5
184.0
147,5
141.5
147.5
147.5
Kiln
Tap
(F)
1876
1754
1700
1763
1716
1681
1786
1681
1822
1758
1923
1872
1874
1750
1751
1787
1770
1775
1827
1726
1741
1820
1804
1805
Kiln
6as
Flat)
Kiln
Air
FlOM
Kiln
Oxygen
Flow
(scfli) (scfti) (scfli)
510
170
280
190
340
250
170
180
330
190
170
170
170
270
180
170
280
260
160
190
170
290
270
300
11910
6240
8110
6430
8790
7760
6270
6956
4020
6730
6240
6206
6330
8010
6160
6320
8020
7630
6120
6670
5820
8050
7820
8200
1080
4050
1700
3980
1870
1540
4050
3550
1860
1560
3550
3500
3470
1620
3550
3440
1660
1550
1290
3470
3600
1650
1610
1680
Kiln
Second
flir DP
(•we)
0
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
AB
Twp
(F)
2016
2025
2016
2008
2012
2013
2013
2003
2018
2013
2018
2008
2008
1998
2020
2015
2022
2011
2025
2004
2016
2017
2021
2013
A6
Gas
Flow
AB
ftir
Flow
(scfti) (scfli)
450
490
430
460
460
480
460
460
390
360
450
450
460
540
400
500
540
500
430
490
470
540
420
480
10620
11610
10300
10820
10880
11220
10770
10780
9410
8640
10600
10600
10920
12510
9690
11610
12600
11610
10290
11410
11230
12540
10120
11300
AB Make-up Make-up Slowdown Slowdown Slowdown
Oxygen
Flow
(scfti)
950
2510
1150
2490
1220
1250
2380
2520
1060
9500
2500
2520
2510
1420
2090
2460
1420
1320
1150
2030
2500
1420
1150
1270
Water
cu*.
(gal)
8080
8145
8212
8270
8314
8371
8438
8497
8555
8613
8669
8740
8821
8862
8910
8980
9038
9108
9169
9230
9291
9358
9417
9473
Muter
rate
(gp«)
4.3
4.5
3.9
2.9
3.8
4.5
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.7
4.7
5.4
2.7
3.2
4.7
3.9
4.7
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.5
3.9
3.7
Water
cue.
(gal)
5027
5036
5046
5057
5064
5072
5082
5091
5100
5109
5117
5129
5142
5148
5157
5168
5177
5189
5199
5209
5218
5229
5238
5248
Water
rate
(gpa)
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
Water
rate
(gp«)
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Water
Evap.
rate
(gp«)
3.6
3.8
3.3
2.3
3.2
3.9
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
4.1
4.8
2.1
2.6
4.1
3.3
4.1
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.2
3.0
Venturi
Scrubber
Flow
(gpe)
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
137
-------
Test :
Date :
TiK
341 Ctiarga
1-14-88
Packed Venturi
Coluin DP
FlOM
(gpi) CMC)
Packed Liquor
Coluin
DP
CMC) pH
ID Fan
Inlet
Che)
Kiln
P
CMC)
AB
Exit
02
AB
Exit
C02
(X)
AB AB
Exit Exit
CO NOx
(ppi) (ppi)
AB Kiln
Exit Exit
THC 02
(ppi C tt)
Kiln Kiln
Exit Exit
C02 CO
(X) (ppi)
Kiln Stack
Exit
THC 02
(ppi C (X)
Stack Stack
C02 CO
«) (ppi)
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
IMS
1700
1715
1730
1745
1600
1815
1830
1845
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
28
28
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.4
20 -0.13 16.0 — — 1450 0 14.5 —
6.9 36 -0.02 22.5 — — 700 0 18.5 —
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.4
6.8
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.8
7.0
7,0
7.4
7.1
36 -0.02 14.5 — — 1000 0 13.0 —
35 -0.03 15.5 — — 900 0 15.5 —
7.2 35 -0.05 15.0 — — 1300 0 14.0 —
34 -0.05 13.5 —
1050
7.8 34 -0.08 1LO — — 750
34 -0.04 14.5
33 -0.07 14.0
7.2 32 -0.0? 14.0 —
1150
1450
1000
31 -0.04 12.0
900
7.1 30 -0.04 15.0
1300
30 -0.08 14.5 — — 750
30 -0.06 15.0 — — 1300
30 -0.06 14.0
1400
30 -0.06 14.0 — — 800
7.0 30 -0.06 14.5
30 -0.06 17.5
7.9 30 -0.09 17.5 —
950
950
1200
30 -0.11 15.5 — — 1200
0 14.0
32 -0.05 15.0 — — 950 0 15.5
0 15.0 —
31 -0.04 13.0 — — 950 0 14.5 —
0 14.0 —
0 15.0 —
7.0 30 -0.04 12.0 — — 950 0 14.0 —
6 7.6 30 -0.11 15.5
1200
0 15.0 —
0 14.0 —
0 13.0 —
0 14.5 —
0 17.0 —
0 17.5 —
0 15.0 —
0 15.0 —
10
0 13.0 — 4
0 12.0 — 4
0 15.0 — 7
0 16.0 5.1 0
0 18.!i 6.6 10
0 15.13 6.4 10
0 17.0 8.7 10
6 15. :2 6.1 0
0 16.0 6.7 10
0 14.0 7.4 0
0 16.0 6.9 0
0 13.5 — 1 0 15.1) 6.3
0 0 IS.ii 5.8 0
1 0 17.15 3.8 0
0 0 20.0 0.1 0
0 0 18.0 0.1 0
18 0 15.0 6.4 20
17 0 M.S 6.7 180
16 0 16.0 9.5 0
28 0 16.15 6.4 0
0 15.0 9.9 0
4 0 15.0 5.7 0
0 0 1S.O 7.4 0
0 0 17.!5 7.6 0
0 0 15.0 6.3 0
0 0 16.15 6.2 0
0 0 Hi.il 6.0 0
138
-------
Test : 211 Charge
Date : 1-20-88
Ti«e Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln AB AB* AB AB Hake-up Hake-up Slowdown Blowdown Slowdown Water Venturi
Height Te*> 6as Air Oxygen Second leap 6as Air Oxygen Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Evap. Scrubber
Flow Flow Flow Air DP Flow Flow Flow cm. rate cue. rate rate rate Flow
Ubs) (scfh) (scfh) (scfh) ("we! (F) (sc-fh) (scfh) (scfh) (gal)
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1730
1745
1800
1815
1830
1845
1900
1915
1930
1945
2000
2015
2030
2045
2100
2115
2130
2145
1744.0
1696.5
1649.0
1625.0
1554.0
1483.0
1363.5
1363.5
1316.0
1269.0
1198.0
1126.0
1102.0
1030.5
983.5
911.5
886.5
814.0
766.5
719.0
623.5
527.5
527.5
456.0
394.5
431.5
431.5
431.5
1864
1796
1713
1757
1741
1792
1725
1823
1818
1912
1840
1926
1780
1733
1780
1842
1B4B
1727
1S37
1781
1732
1837
1755
1745
1861
1859
1863
1854
450 10490
200 6050
170 6300
420 10150
160 6000
160 6030
170 6080
170 6230
160 6060
170 6030
170 6240
170 6260
160 5890
250 7720
170 6160
160 6420
170 6250
170 6290
170 6060
160 6070
180 6680
170 6100
170 6100
170 6090
170 6240
220 7040
220 6850
210 6870
2180
2940
2930
2900
2950
3010
3090
2980
3070
3040
2890
3070
1160
3030
3110
2910
2900
3020
2970
2850
3120
3130
2860
2980
2910
1470
1440
1470
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
2005
2017
1991
2003
2011
2007
2003
2024
2005
2026
2013
2006
2015
2008
2016
2023
2013
2010
2002
1993
1997
2006
2006
2015
2030
2009
2020
2010
460
590
420
530
460
430
410
430
430
490
460
400
380
4BO
450
430
430
460
400
400
410
440
430
450
440
440
446
410
10800
13700
9900
12310
11010
10320
9740
10120
10310
11220
10920
9430
9250
11350
10670
10330
9560
10200
8930
8650
9010
9530
9510
9730
9620
9590
9730
8930
1210
2150
2490
2520
2520
2480
2510
1990
2520
1960
2520
2510
105
2510
2520
2510
2490
2510
2500
2510
2510
2500
2500
2500
2510
1320
1360
1250
7070
7158
7207
7279
7337
7395
7460
7525
7592
7656
7717
7782
7851
7910
7981
8082
8117
8185
8247
8311
8375
8454
8507
8581
8639
8727
8766
8818
5.9
3.3
4.8
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.6
3.9
4.7
6.7
2.3
4.5
4.1
4.3
4.3
5.3
3.5
4.9
3.9
5.9
2.6
3.5
542
564
570
578
585
591
598
604
610
615
624
635
647
657
669
686
691
702
713
725
735
747
755
766
774
784
791
800
1.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.1
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
2.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
5.4
2.8
4.3
3.4
3.4
3.8
3.8
4.3
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.9
3.2
4.0
6.0
1.6
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.6
4.6
2.8
4.2
3.2
5.2
1.9
2.8
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
' 16
16
16
16
16
16
- 16
16
16
- 16
16
16
16
. 16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
139
-------
Test : 211 Chjrge
Me i 1-20-83
Picked Venturi Packed Liquor ID Fan Kiln ftB KB AB AS AS Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
Coltun DP Colum Inlet P Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit
Flo* IP D2C02CONDxTHC02C02COTHC02C02CO
<9P«) CMC) CNC) pH CHC) CMC) C) (V (ppi) (ppi) (PPi C (X) (X) (ppi) (ppi C «> (Z> (ppi)
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1730
1745
1800
1815
1830
1845
1900
1915
1930
1945
2000
2015
2030
2045
2100
2115
2130
2145
24
26
2i
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
7.2
7.4
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.4
7.2
7.4
6.B
7.6
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.B
6.6
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.7
7,2
6.8
6.4
6.6
7.0
7.6
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
21
20
20
24
24
24
-0.05
-0.07
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.04
-0.10
-0.01
-0.04
-0.01
-0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.04
-0.04
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
-0.15
-0.12
-0.11
16.0
16.0
10.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
17.0
12.5
12.0
13.5
12.0
14.0
14.5
10.5
15.0
13.0
11.5
12.5
10.5
14.5
15.0
13.0
14.0
12.5
12.5
14.0
15.0
is.o
6.5
9.0
10.5
8.7
10.8
9.2
B.8
12.0
8.8
9.3
10.9
9.2
7.2
9.8
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.7
9.8
8.8
8,3
10.3
8.7
8.6
8.8
7.3
7.2
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
4.5
0.0
0.2
10.8
5.5
2.5
0.0
12.5
2.7
2.1
0.4
9.7
1.7
9.4
2.3
9.3
1.4
2.5
2.5
2.7
9.1
10.1
12.4
150 —
100 —
1200 —
1600 —
1250 —
1100 —
1350 —
1200 ~
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
0 —
A III- III -111
o —
400 —
750 —
560 —
450 —
400 —
400 -—
350 —
14.5
14.5
14.0
15.0
15.5
15.5
16.0
12.0
17.0
15.5
15.0
15.0
14.5
13.5
15.5
15.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
15.5
16.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
14.5
13.0
13.5
14.5
6.9
10.3
14.5
10.1
14.4
11.7
12.4
16.7
16.0
14.7
17.3
12.2
10.2
12.8
12.6
14.0
13.2
15.1
12.6
13.9
13.2
16.2
13.0
12.9
13.5
8.0
7.5
6.9
4
17
71
35
56
61
82
64
76
66
50
61
76
75
80
67
83
87
73
68
98
67
82
75
70
27
12
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.0
16.0
15.5
14.0
li.O
13.0
liS.5
lf>.0
16.0
1.6.5
15.5
».o
115.0
110
115.5
lfi.0
15.0
15.5
15.0
U>.5
16.5
>i!i. 5
lli.O
U.O
16.0
115.0
15.0
115.5
5.8
7.4
8.9
7.0
8.1
7.6
7.2
8.2
8.0
7.8
9.1
8.1
6.5
9.0
8.5
8.9
7.5
8.8
9.1
8.2
7.8
8.8
9.3
8.5
8.9
6.8
6.7
6.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
140
-------
Test
Date
211 Charge
1^21-88
Ti«e Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln AS AB AB AB Mate-up Make-up Slowdown Slowdown Slowdown Hater Venturi,
Height Te«p 6as Air Oxygen Second Tetp Gas Air Oxygen Hater Water Hater Hater Hater Evap. Scrubber
Flow Flow Flow Air DP Flow Flow Flow cu*. rate cm. rate rate rate Flow
(Ibs) (F) (scfh)(scfh)(scfh) Cue) (F) (scfh)(scfh) (scfh) (gal) (gp§) (gal) (gpi) (gpi) (gp»)
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1773.0
1708.0
1655.0
1585.0
1537.0
1513.5
1418.5
1395.0
1300.5
1229.0
1181.5
1174.5
1063.0
1015.5
967.5
823.5
823.5
776.0
728.5
681.0
680.5
680.5
680.5
1858
1788
1869
1811
1816
1795
1818
1720
1825
1811
1840
1815
1891
1819
1778
1780
1773
1845
1B36
1873
1750
1815
1821
520
170
170
170
220
200
170
180
170
170
170
160
170
160
160
160
160
170
160
170
390
260
290
11560
7300
6070
6140
7010
6430
6170
6120
6070
6320
6050
6100
6220
6070
6070
6040
6060
12300
6170
6040
9680
6030
6920
2460
1810
2870
2910
2960
3230
3090
3090
3020
3000
1166
3050
2900
3100
2880
3010
2900
3010
2920
1270
2010
580
620
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
2020
2001
2018
2017
2011
2016
2023
2017
2022
2018
2025
2012
2018
2018
2008
2019
2018
2011
2007
2024
2011
2010
2030
410
440
430
390
440
430
420
480
440
450
450
450
430
450
450
430
420
400
400
470
460
570
490
9030
10620
9530
8580
9530
10220
9330
10420
9530
9800
9750
9730
9370
9790
9730
9530
10320
8990
8730
10420
9970
13300
11320
1260
1340
2490
2510
2510
2030
2490
2510
2510
1400
2500
2500
2490
2490
2490
2500
2510
2370
2510
1440
1390
1220
1020
2851
2922
2963
3014
3062
3125
3189
3257
3318
3401
3478
3525
3584
3633
3711
3767
3835
3899
3966
4037
4098
4170
4234
4.7
2.7
3.4
3.2
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.1
5.5
5.1
3.1
3.9
3.3
5.2
3.7
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.1
4.8
4.3
. 2260
2279
2285
2292
2298
2304
2312
2320
2326
2336
2347
2354
2362
2369
2380
2387
2397
2406
2417
2427
2435
2444
2454
1.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0,4
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0*7
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.8
0.5
O.S
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
_
4.5 ,'
2,2
2,9
2,7
3.7
3,8
4.0
3.6 .
4.7
4.3
2.3
3.1
2.5
4.4
2,9
3.7
3.5
4.0
4.2
3.6
4.3
3.8
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
141
-------
Test : 211 Charge
Date : 1-21-88
Tiie Packed Venturi Packed Liquor ID Fan
Coluoi DP Coluw Inlet
Flew DP
(8pi) (
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
26
27
27
27
27
27
17
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
•MC) CMC)
30
30
30
24
24
24
24
25
25
23
23
22
25
25
25
25
25
25
21
20
20
20
20
6
6 J
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
PH I
,,.7.2
7.4
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.3
6.8
7.0
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
8.2
8.2
6.4
8.4
7.0
7.2
7.0
[•MC)
23
28
28
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
20
23
23
Kiln
P
CMC)
-0.05
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.05
-0.02
-0.04
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.05
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.15
-0.13
AB
Exit
02
AB AB
Exit Exit
C02 CO
B) B) (ppa)
15.5
15.5
15.5
16.5
15.5
i!5.5
16.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
15.0
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.0
14.8
16.0
14.5
14.5
14.0
14.0
5.7
8.5
9.2
6.9
8.2
8.4
7.6
8.7
6.6
8.4
8.6
7.5
7.7
8.2
8.0
7.5
8.3
8.2
7.7
6.1
6.3
5.7
5.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AB AB
Exit Exit
NOx THC
Kiln
Exit
02
(ppi) (ppi C (X)
1300
1150
950
850
850
900
800
600
750
500
650
600
600
600
650
658
700
600
600
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.5
14.5
15.5
17.5
16.5
16.0
15.5
14.0
15.4
16.0
17.0
13.5
14.5
15.5
16.0
15.0
15.0
15.2
15.0
14.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
Kiln
Exit
C02
(X)
4.9
7.3
8.6
8.2
10.2
10.9
9.9
10.4
10.2
10.3
10.6
10.0
8.5
10.0
11.6
10.1
12.2
10.7
10.2
7.3
6.7
4.9
5.1
Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
Exit Exit
CO THC D2 C02 CO
(ppi) (ppi C.ilX)
0.2
9.0
8.0
20.0
19.0
14.1
18.3
10.4
14.3
14.1
10.9
11.4
15.6
11.5
14.0
14.8
14.8
14.0
14.6
38.0
14.0
1.1
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
116.0
1.6.0
115.0
1,7.5
116.0
1.6.0
116.0
16.0
16.0
1,5.5
15.5
1,5.0
15.5
116.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
116.0
16.0
34.5
15.0
J4.0
1.4.0
(X) (ppti)
6.1
8.2
8.4
7.3
8.6
8.6
8.2
8.0
8.5
8.7
8.6
8.4
8.6
8.7
8.1
8.1
8.8
7.6
8.4
7.0
7.2
6.5
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
142
-------
Test
Date
8t Charge
1-27-88
Tiw Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln AB AS AB AS Nake-up Hike-up BloNdowi Blowdomi Blcmdowi Hater Venturi
Height Te*p 6as Air Oxygen Second Tenp gas Air Oxygen Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Evap. Scrubber
Flow. Flow Flow Air DP Flow Flow Flew cua. rate cue. rate rate rate Flow
Ubs) (F) (scfliKscfli) (scfh) CMC) IF) <$e (scfli) (scfh) (gal) (gpa) (gal) (gp«) (gpa) (gpa) (gpc)
1030
1045
1100
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
973.5
932.5
932.5
923.0
896.0
842.5
806.5
771.0
734.5
698.5
653.5
653.5
599.0
572.0
545.0
491.5
473.0
446.0
405.5
401.0
365.0
329.0
311.5
320.5
320.5
320.5
320.5
1890
1853
1867
1867
1872
1874
1864
1871
1857
1853
1869
1848
1865
1864
1881
1874
1866
1865
1857
1877
1862
1867
1872
1866
1859
1855
1853
390 10900
420 12720
380 11580
360 11740
350 10580
340 10290
340 10150
340 10140
330 9840
330 9890
380 9980
330 10010
330 10240
330 9890
250 7490
310 9480
280 8840
280 8680
320 9610
280 8530
280 8460
300 9020
300 8970
280 8500
290 8880
300 9010
290 8930
560
480
440
490
340
400
380
350
380
380
340
360
320
290
290
370
300
330
310
300
350
340
330
290
290
310
290
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2029
2011
2025
2016
2017
2019
2020
2017
2017
2016
2012
2017
2017
2018
2018
2015
2012
2018
2013
2019
2015
2016
2014
2013
2014
2013
2013
390
380
390
370
360
380
370
370
360
370
370
380
370
390
390
390
390
400
400
390
390
390
390
390
370
390
400
9330
9040
9530
8830
8670
9130
8960
9030
8820
8860
8940
9130
8950
9280
9450
9330
9430
9650
9420
9430
9310
9390
9240
9250
9030
9430
9430
1050
1030
1080
990
970
1050
1000
1020
980
980
980
1020
1020
1050
1080
1050
1060
1090
1060
1080
1040
1060
1040
1050
1020
1050
1080
1614
1632
1632
1654
1686
1730
1774
1823
1869
1911
1966
1996
2036
2081
2131
2167
2208
2250
2292
2329
2372
2401
2444
2482
2530
2561
2597
1.2
0.0
1.5
2.1
2.9
2.9
3.3
3.1
2.8
3.7
2.0
2.7
3.0
3.3
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.B
2.5
2.9
1.9
2.9
2.5
3.2
2.1
2.4
6377
6388
6395
6400
6406
6414
6419
6430
6440
6449
6461
6467
6476
6484
6493
6499
6506
6514
6522
6529
6537
6543
6551
6559
6568
6575
6582
0.7
0.5
0.3"
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
-0.5
1.0
1.6
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.1
3.2
1.5
2.2
2.5
2.8
1.9
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.4
1.4
2.4
2.0
2.7
1.6
1.9
23
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
143
-------
Test : El Charge
Date : 1-27-88
TiK Packed Venturi Packed Liquor ID Fan Kiln AB AB AB AS AB Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
Coluai IP Coluin Inlet P Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit
Flow DP 02 C02 CO NOx THC 02 C02 • CO THC 1)2 C02 CO
($>•) CMC) CMC) pH CMC) CNC) tZ) (Z> (ppi) (ppi) (ppi C (X) (pp«) .0
14.0
14.5
15.0
14.5
14.5
14.0
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.0
1'5.5
14.7
115.0
15.0
15.0
1S.O
115.0
15.0
115.0
13.0
115.0
13.5
115.5
15.5
5.6
5.7
6.4
6.5
6.1
6.6
6.2
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.4
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.7
5.7
5.4
5.4
5.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
144
-------
Test
Date
6t Charge
1-29-88
TiK Scale Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln Kiln AB AB AB AB Hake-up Hake-up Slowdown Blowdown Slowdown Hater Venturi
Height Tetp Gas Air Oxygen Second Teip lias Air Oxygen Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Evap. Scrubber
FloH Flow Flow Air DP Fit* Flow Flow cue. rate cm. rate rate rate Flow
(scfh! (soft) CMC) (F) (scfliHscfh) (scfli)
-------
Test t Bt Charge
Date : 1-29-88
Tiie Packed Venturi Packed Liquor ID Fan
Colum DP Colum Inlet
Flm DP
t9f«) CicJ Cic)
645
900
915
930
945
1000
1015
1030
1045
1100
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
27
26
2&
24
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
9
8
11
8
8
&
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
pH CMC)
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.6
7.1
7.3
8.0
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.6
8.4
6.0
7.4
6.4
7.8
7.9
6.8
6.2
8.0
6.8
6.8
7.2
26
26
26
26
24
27
28
27
27
27
26
25
25
25
25
25
24
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Kiln
P
CNC)
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.02
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-O.Q2
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
AB
Exit
02
(Z)
12.5
12.5
12.5
13.0
12.5
12.0
14.5
13.0
12.5
10.0
12.0
11.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
11.2
11.5
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.5
11.5
11.0
11.0
11.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
11.5
11.0
AB AB
Exit Exit
C02 CO
AB AB
Exit Exit
NOx THC
(Z) (pp§) (pp») (ppe C
4.5 1.6
4.4 3.3
4.2 34.5
4.0 6.0
4.5 B.3
4.4 0.8
3.1 0.8
4.0 0.8
4.7 1.1
6.3 1.3
5.1
5.3
5.0
5.2
5.6
5.3
5.2
5.9
5.1
6.0
5.6
5.6
5.3
5.2
5.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
.2
.2
.2
.3
.3
.2
.3
.6
.6
.8
.8
.6
.6
.5
.4
.6
.3
.2
5.2 2.8
5.5 6.2
0
200
550
150
50
50
50
25
25
25
50
50
100
50
30
25
37
40
30
40
22
22
15
22
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kiln
Exit
02
(Z)
15.5
15.5
15.5
16.5
16.5
15.5
16.5
15.5
9.5
8.0
11.0
9.5
11.0
9.5
8.0
8.5
9.2
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.0
9.5
8.0
8.0
10.0
7.0
7.0
7.5
9.5
9.0
Kiln
Exit
CD2
Kiln Kiln Stack Stack Stack
Exit Exit
CO THC 02 C02 CO
(Z) (pp«) (ppi C
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.7
2.5
6.9
7.3
5.4
6.2
5.4
6.6
7.3
6.7
5.8
7.7
6.0
9.3
7.3
7.2
6.1
7.0
6.0
9.5
9.8
8.6
6.1
6.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
o.e
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
19.1
16.9
3.0
1.4
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
14.0
14,0
l!i.O
15.0
l!i.O
15.0
16.0
15.0
1S.O
12.5
14,0
13.5
14.0
13.8
13.0
HI.O
14.0
14.0
lii.O
14.0
14.0
H.O
1:5.5
M.O
13.5
13.5
1X5
1:5.0
i;».o
13.5
(Z) (ppi)
.8
.4
.2
.0
.3
.3
3.1
3.7
4.2
5.5
4.5
4.9
4.4
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.3
5.0
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.8
5.1
5.3
5.1
4.6
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
146
-------
**««««»»***»«»****»»t»»t **»»»*»
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plant! CRF Performed byi C.KING
Datei 12-09-97 Test No. /Types E12091310HM5T1
Sample Location! E-DUCT Start/Stop Tine: 1310-1719
PARAMETER SYMBOL
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in) N(d)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor C(p)
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha)
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (i-f round) R
Length (i-f rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) M
Area of Stack
-------
00
IMKIIMIMIMIItlKllillfflll
ISOKIHET1C PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Perforaed byt C.KING
Ditei 12-9-B7 T«it Ho./Typei E12091310HH5 T2
Saipli Location! E-DUCT Start/Stop Ti.ei 1310-1719
PflRflHETER
Nozzle Diaietar, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) DUensions (in)t
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack
-------
VO
**«*****«*»«*****«»*«««**«*«*«*
ISOKINETIC PERFORHAKCE HORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plant! CRF Perfor«ed byi 6.HILL
D«t«i 12-09-87 Test No./Type« 812091310M5
Sanple Locationi STACK Start/Stop TUei 1310-1415
PARAHETER SYMBOL
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in) N(d)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor C(p)
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha)
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round) R
Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) H
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s)
* of Sample Points *
Total Sampling Time (min) (theta)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg) P(b)
Stack Pressure (in H20) P(atack)
Gas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Sas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Sas Saitple Volume (cu ft) Via)
Vol of Liquid Collected (nil VI(c)
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gm)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.357
0.8400
0.9700
7.00
( 1.07 1
12
60.00 )
29.92
-0.080
975.63
1026.91
51.28 )
463.1
Ut. of Probe Hash Particulate
H(d)
N(s)
P(s) «
V(s avgl *
XI
Q(s)
S(a)
C(s std) «
C(s std) =
r/dscf) *
0.226
1.900
170.0
102. S
0.474
144.9?
0.424
29.91
24.83
29.94
31.4
105.9
968
2011
0.0000
0
0.0000
0.000
-------
CJ1
«f III tlllilllil Illill tilillllll
ISOKIHETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
PUntt CRF Parfor.id byi 8. HILL
Ditet 12-11-87 Teit Ho./Typti S1211I158HH5
Saiple Loc.tlont STACK Start/Stop TUn 1150-1602
PARAHETER
Nozzle Diaieter, Actual (in)
Pi tot Tube Correction Factor
6»a Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) DUemions (inli
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
S of Sanple Points
Total Sampling Tiie («in)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Saaple Voluae (cu ft) ,
SYMBOL
Htd)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
H
A(s)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.375
0.8400
1.0000
7.00
( 1.07
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
12
( 240.00 )
29.95
-O.OBO
487.93
685.41
( 197.49 )
Vol -of Liquid Collected (all VI (c) 2677.4
Vol of Liq « Std. Conds. (scf) V(H std) (126.025 )
Ht. of Filter Particulate (ga) 0.0000
Ht. of Probe Hash Particulate (gn> 0.0000
Ht of Co.bined Particulate (go) Hip) ,< 0.0000 )
02 Concentration (by CEH) X 02 13.78
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X C02 6.72
CO Concentration (by CEH) X CO 0.0
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 ( 79.50 )
Sanple
dclock IVelocitylOrifice ! Stack
Point ! TUe IHead, dP!Heter,dH! Teap
1 Kin H20)l(in H20) 1 (degF)
+ _+ + _ + 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
tr
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
20 ! 0.12
20 ! 0.28
20 ! 0.28
20 ! 0.26
20
20
20
20
: 20
20
20
20
0
0
0
'• o
Q
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 ! 0.00
:0 I 0.00
0.9600
2.2400
2.2400
2.0800
2.2400
2.4000
2.4000
2.4000
2.4000
2.24&0
2.2400
2.2400
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
ia-9.0'
169.0
169.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gas Heter ISQRT(dP) !
Tenp (degF)
in ! out
81.0
109.0
119.0
124.0
125.0
120.0
121.0
124.0
125.0
iZi.O
120.0
116.0
, 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
72.0
79.0
90.0
97.0
100.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
99.0
100. 0
99.0
97.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
" 0.0
0.0
0.0
:
0.3464
0.5292
0.5292
0.5099
0.5292
0.5477
0.5477
0.5477
0.5477
0.52=2
0.5292
0.5292
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.o : o.oooo
... -4 — --+-- — ---+ + + + 1
FIELD DATA AVERABES
Avg Velocity Held (in H20)
Avj Orifice Heter Reading (In H20J
Avg Stack Temperature (degF)
Avenge Heter Tenperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Voluae (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion
Hoi. Ht., Stack 6as Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack 6as Met
Abs Stack Pressure (in Kg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/secl
Isokineticity (X)
Stack 6as STD Vol Flow (dscfa)
Actual Stack Gas Vol F-lOH. (acfa)
dP(avg) «
dHtivg) •
7(s avg) «
T(« »vg) *
m
Via std) »
B(HO) =
H(d) »
H(s) »
Pis)
V(s avg) =
XI
Q(s)
Q(a)
Particulate Loading, dryfgr/dscf ) Cts std) «
Particulate Loading, 87X 02(ng/dsc«)C(s stdl =
Particulate Loading, dry 6 7 X 02 (gr/dscf) =
0.272
2.173
167.0
105.7
O.S19
185.43
0.405
29.63
24.92
29.94
34.2
98.3
1097
2193
0.0000
0
0.0000
IParticulate Eaission Rate(lb/hr)
E(p)
0.000
TOTALS ! 240 ! 3.26 126.0800 ! 2028.0 ! 1405.0 ! 1131.0 ! 6.2221 !
-------
tn
Co
**«»»*«**«*»*«*•«******«*****»*
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plant! CRF Perforned byi 6.HILL
Date: 12-11-87 Test No./Type! S12111158M5
Sanple Locationi STACK Start/Stop Tine: 1158-1303
PARAMETER SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in) N(d) 0.375
Pilot Tube Correction Factor C(p) 0.8400
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha) 0.9700
Stack (Duct) Dinensions (in):
Radius (if round) R 7.00
Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) W
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s) ( 1'.07 )
* of Sample Points » 12
Total Sampling Tiie din) (theta) ( 60.00 )
Baronetric Pressure (in Hg) P(b) 29.95
Stack Pressure (in H20) P(stack) -O.OBO
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft) 104.46
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft) , 152.99
Net Sas Saaple Voluee (cu ft) Via) ( 48.53 )
Vol of Liquid Collected (ml) VI(cl 431.9
Vol of Liq « Std. Conds. (scf) V(H std) ( 29.743 )
Ht. of Filter Particulate (g») 0.0053
Wt. of Probe Hash Particulate (ga> 0.0000
Ht of Conbined Particulate (go) M(p) ( 0.0053 )
02 Concentration (by CEH) X 02 14.24
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X C02 4.26
.CO Concentration (by GEM) X CO 0.0
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 ( 79.50 )
Saiple
Point
El
2
T
4
5
6
SI
2
3
4
5
6
0
0
0
0 :
0
0
0
dClock IVelocityldrifice 1 Stack
Tiie IHead, dPIHeter.dH! leap
Kin H20)l(in H20) ! (degF)
5
5
5
5
5
C
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.14
0.21
0,24
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.2000
1.8100
2.2400
2.2400
2.2400
2.4100
2.4100
2.4100
2.4100
2.4100
2.4100
2.4100
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.00 i 0.0000
149.0
169.0
169.0
149.0
149.0
149.0
169.0
169.0
149.0
149.0
169.0
169.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0"
0.0
Bas Meter ISBRT(dP)
Teip (degF)
in i out
85.0
98.0
104.0
106.0
109.0
115.0
98.0
120.0
123.0
125.0
126.0
127.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
73.0
75.0
79.0
84.0
86.0
90.0
88.0
92.0
93.0
94.0
95.0
95.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.3742
0.4583
0.5099
0.5099
0.5099
0.5292
0.5292
0.5099
0.5292
0.5292
0.5292
0.5292
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0 ! 0.0000
TOTALS 1 60 1 3.07 126.6000 ! 2028.0 1 1334.0 1 1044.0 1 4.0449
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20)
Avg Orifice Meter Reading (in H20) dH(avg) »
Avg Stack Temperature (degF)
Average Meter Temperature (degF)
Avg SQRTIdP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Meter Volume (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Gas Water Vapor Proportion
Mol. Wt., Stack GAS Dry
Mol. Ht., Stack Gas Wet
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol Flow (dscfn)
Actual Stack Gas Vol FloH (acfn)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) C(s std) =
Particulate Loading, 67X 02(»g/dsc«)C(s atd)
Particulate Loading, dry 8 7 X 02. (gr/dscf) =
IParticulate Enission Ratedb/hr) Elp)
dP(avg) '
dH(avg) «
T(s avg) »
T(o avg) «
a
V(« std) -
B(wol
M(d) =
M(s)
P(s)
V(s avg) =
X I
Q(s)
B(a) =
C(s std) =
C(s atd) =
r/dscf) =
0.254
2.217
169.0
99.2
0.504
44.71
0.399
29.57
24.95
29.94
33.2
96.7
1074
2130
0.0018
9
0.0038
0.017
-------
cn
1SOKIHETIC PERFORMANCE MORKSHEET AMD PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
PlantJ CRF Performed byt C.KINB
Datei 12-17-87 Teit Ho./Typei E12171145HH5
Saipli Locationi E-DUCT Start/Stop Tiiei 1145-1510
PARAMETER SYMBOL
Nozzle Dlaieter, Actual (in) H(d)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor C(p)
Gas Heter Correction Factor (alpha)
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (inli
Radius (if round) R
Length (it rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) H
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s)
I of Sanple Points *
Total Sampling Tiie din) (theta)
Baroaetric Pressure (in Hg) P(b)
Stack Pressure (in H20) Pdtack)
Bas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Sa»ple Voluae (cu ft) V(«)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.375
0.0400
0.9900
7.00
Vol of Liquid Collected III) Vile)
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf) V(H std)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (ga)
Ht. of Probe Hash Particulate (go)
Ht of Coabined Particulate (go) Hip)
( 1.07 )
8
( 200.00 )
29.95
-O.OBO
449.37
593.63
( 144.26 )
2152.2
(101.303 )
0.0000
0.0000
( 0.0000 )
02 Concentration (by CEH) X 02 17.00
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X CQ2 4.50
CO Concentration (by CEH) X CO 0.0
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 1 78.50 )
Sanple ! dClocii IVelocityTorif ice ! Stack ~\ Bas Heter TslfifldP) !
Point ! Tine (Head, dP!Heter,dH! Te«p ! Teup (degF)
! Kin H20)!(in H20I ! (degF) i in ! out
+ 4. + + + 4- 1
4.1 25
3 ! 25
2 ! 25
1 ! 25
1 1 25
2 ! 25
3 ! 25
4 ! 25
0 ! 0
0 ! . 0
0 ! 0
o : o
0 ! 0
0 i 0
0 ! 0
o : o
0 ! 0
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o : o ! o.oo
01 0 1 0.00
.7000
.7000
.7000
.7000
.7000
.7000
1.7000
1.7000
0.0000
0=0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
170.0 ! 73.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
89.0
89.0
89.0
88.0
95.0
95.0
96.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.0
56.0
56.0
57.0
56.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
!
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
TOTALS 1 200 ! 1.40 113.6000 1 1360.0 ! 714.0 1 4B7.0 1 3.5777
FIELD DATA AVERABES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20)
Avg Orifice Heter Reading (in H20)
Avg Stick Teapcriture (degF)
Average Hettr Teiperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Volute (std, cu. ft.)
Stack 6as Hater Vapor Proportion
Hoi. Ut., Stack Bas Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack Bis Net
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity Ift/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Bas STD Vol FloH ldscf«)
Actual Stack Bas Vol Flow latfe)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) CIs std) «
Particulate Loading, «7X 02<«g/dsci»)C
B
-------
cn
en
»**«******»»»«*«**»*«*******»*«
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Performed byi G.HILL
Date: 12-17-87 Teit No./Typei S12171145MH5
Sample Locationi STACK Start/Stop Times 1145-1550
PARAMETER SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in) Nld) 0.375
Pilot Tube Correction- Factor Clp) 0.8400
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha) 0.9900
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round) R 7.00
Length (if rectangular) L --------
Width (if rectangular) W 7. -------
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s) ( 1.07 )
' * of Sample Points * 12
Total Sampling Tiae (min) (theta) ( 240.00 )
Barometric Pressure (in Hg) Plb) 29.95
Stack Pressure (in. H20)' P(stack) -0.080
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft) 291.85
Bas Meter Final Reading (cu ft) 454.12
Net Sas Sample Volume (cu ft) V(«) ( 164.27 )
Vol of Liquid Collected (ml) VI (c) 2625.4
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gm)
Wt. of Probe Hash Particulate. (g»)
Ht of Combined Particulate (gm) M(p)
V(« std) (123,579 )
0.0000
0.0000
( 0.0000 )
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
Sample !
Point 1
1
1 !
2 !
3 i
4 !
5 !
6 !
1 !
2 !
3 !
4 !
5 I
6 i
0 !
0 !
0 !
0 !
0 !
0 I
0 !
dClock IVelocitylOrifice !
Time I Head, dP!Heter,dH!
Min H20)l(in H20) !
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.19 ! 1.5200 1
0.19 i 1.5200 !
0.18 ! 1.4400 !
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.4400 !
1.6000 !
1.6000 1
1.6000 i
1.6000 !
1.6000 1
1.5200 1
1.5200 I
1.6000 !
o.oooo :
0.0000 !
0.0000 !
o.oooo :
0.0000 1
0.00 ! 0.0000 !
0.00 1 0.0000 !
X 02 17.00
X C02 4.50
X CO 0.0
X N2 ( 78.50 )
Stack
Temp
(degF)
169.0
169.0
169.0
•169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-' --. A
Gas Meter
Temp (degF)
in ! out
54.0 42.0
83.0
91.0
94.0
92.0
93.0
81.0
94.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49,0
59.0
63.0
66.0
65.0
60.0
65.0
66.0
65.0
66.0
66.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ISQRT(dP) !
! !
! !
i 0.4359 !
! 0.4359 !
! 0.4243 !
i 0.4243 !
! 0.4472 !
! 0.4472 1.
! 0.4472 !
! 0.4472 !
1 0.4472 i
! 0.4359 !
i 0.4359 !
! 0.4472 !
! 0.0000 !
! '0.0000 !
i o.oooo :
i o.oooo :
1 0.0000 !
! 0.0000 !
1 0.0000 !
4. !
FIELD DATfl AVERAGES
Avg Velocity.Head (in H20)
Avg Orifice Meter Reading (in H20) dH(avg) <=
Avg Stack Temperature (degFl
Average Meter Temperature (degF)
Avg SQfiT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Meter Volume (std, cu. ft.-l-
Stack Gas Water Vapor Proportion
Mol. Ht., Stack Gas Dry
Mol. Ut., Stack Gas Net
Abs Stack Pressure (in Kg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/secl i
Isokineti-city (X)
Stack Gas STDVol 'Flow (dsc-fn)
Actual Stack Sas Vol Flow (acfm)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) CIs std) = 0.0000
Particulate Loading, 87X 02(mg/dscm)C(s std) = 0
Particulate Loading, dry « 7 X 02 (gr/dscfl = 0.0000
dP(avg) =
dH(avg) «
Tls avg) =
T(* avg) *
&
Vie std) = -
B(WO) -
Midi =
Mis) >=
RIs)
Vis avg) =
X -I .
Qls)
DCa)
0.193
1.547
169.0
74.7
0.440
161.28
0.434
29.40
24.45
29.94
29.3
105.0
893
1S77
IParticulate Emission Rate(lb/hr)
E(p)
0.000
TOTALS !
240 I 2.32 118.5600 ! 2028.0 I 1062.0 I 732.0 I 5.2754
-------
cn
«i>llittfllll*fl*ltlll»tltflM*
1SOKIHETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AMD PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plinti CRF Perforitd byi C. KINS
Datti 12-17-07 Tilt Ho./Typti E12171149H5
Saiplc Locatloni E-DUCT Start/Stop TUei 1149-1257
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diateter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Baa Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack i*<\ ft)
I of Sanple Points
Total Sampling Tiae din)
Baronetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20I
6as Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Sanple Voluie (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (all
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (go)
Ht. of Probe Hash Particulate (gn)
Ht of Contained Particulate (ga)
SYMBOL
IXdl
C(p)
(alpha)
R
u
A(s)
t
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
VU)
VI (c)
V(M std)
H(p)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.375
0.8400
0.9900
7.00
( 1.07 )
U
( 64.00 )
29.95
-O.OBO
47.36
95.46
( 48.10 )
608.5
( 28.642 )
0.0082
0.0000
( 0.0082 >
02 Concentration (by CEH) X 02 17.00
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X C02 4.50
CO Concentration (by CEH) X CO 0.0
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 ( 78.50 )
Sample
Point
El
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
1
- 2
3
4
5
6
•J
8
0
0
0
dClock IVelocityiOrifice I Stack
Tine iHead, dP!Heter,dH! Teap
Kin H20)l(in H20) I (degF)
4
4
4
'• 4
4
4
4
4
J
- 4
i
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0.20 ! 1.6800 ! 170.0
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
. 0,20'
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.00
0.00
o : o.oo
1.6800 ! 170.0
1.6800 ! 170.0
1.6800
1.6800
2. 1200
2.1200
1.6800
1.6800
I. 6800
1.6800
1.6800
1.6800
2.1200
1.6800
2.1200
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
!70,0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTALS 1 64 ! 3.40 128.6400 ! 2720.0
Bas Heter ISORT(dP) !
Teap (degF)
in I out
47.0
59.0
75.0
76.0
76.0
78.0
83.0
90.0
88.0
88,0
88.0
88.0
88.0
88.0
88.0
88.0
0.0
0.0
43.0
43.0
46.0
51.0
51.0
58.0
60.0
65.0
63.0
63.0
65.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 I 0.0
1
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.5000
0.5000
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.4472
0.5000
0.4*72
0.5000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1288.0 ! 930.0 ! 7.3666
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Vtlocity Hiad (in H20)
Avg Orifice Hittr Reading (in H20) dHUvg)
Avg Stack Tetperature (degF)
Average Heter Teiperature (degF) T<« avg)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Voluie (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Bas Hater Vapor Proportion B(HO)
Hoi. Ht., Stack 8as Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack 6as Met
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol Flow (dscfs)
Actual Stack Bas Vol Flow (acfa)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf)
Particulate Loading, S7X 02<«g/dsc«)C(s std)
Particulate Loading, dry 8 7 X
dP(avg) *
dH(avg) •
T(s avg) «
T(« avg) *
8
VU std) •
B(HO)
Hid) •=
H(S)
P(st
V(s avg) =
X I
Q(s)
Q(a) =
C(s std) -
)C(s std) =
gr/dscf) =
0.213
1.790
170.0
69.3
0.460
47.74
0.375
29.40
25.13
29.94
30.3
102.3
1017
1941
0.0027
21
0.0093
IParticulate Eoission RateUb/hr) Etp)
0.023
-------
Ol
***»**>***t*t»t*il*»«***t»*««*
ISOKINET1C PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plant! CRF Performed byi 6.HILL
Date: 12-17-87 Test No./Type: S12171145H5
Simple LocatJoni STACK Start/Stop Tint: 11145-1250
PARAMETER
Nozzle Dianeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Diienaioni (in):
Radius (if round).
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack («q ft)
i of-Simple Points
Total Sampling Tiae (nin)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Saople Voluae (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (nil
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gut)
Nt. of Probe Uash Particulate (gin)
Ht of Combined Particulate (gn)
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEH)
CO Concentration (fay CEH)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
SYMBOL
N(d)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
A(s)
«
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
V<»>
VI (cl
V(H std)
M(p)
X 02
•i C02
X CO
% N2
VALUE
(calc.)
0.375
0.8400
0.9700
7.00
( 1.07 )
12
( 40.00 )
29.95
-0.080
155.43
194.85
( 41.42 )
500.4
( 23.555 )
0.0025
0.0300
( 0.0325 )
17.00
4.50
0.0
( 76.50 )
Sample
Point
El
2
3
4
5
4
SI
2
3
4
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
TOTALS
dClock IVelocitylOrifice ! Stack
Tine iHead, dP!«eter,dH! Temp
Kin H20)!(in H20I! (degF)
5
c
.Kj
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.4300 1 149.0
1.4300 i 149.0
1.5500 ! 149.0
1.5500 ! 149.0
1.4300 i 149.0
1.4300 i 149.0
1.5500 ! 149.0
1.5500 i 149.0
1,5500 ! 149.0
1.4300 ! 149.0
1.4300 ! 149.0
1.4300 i 149.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
Gas Meter ISBRT(dP)
. Te«p (degF)
in : 1 out
45.0
57.0
47.0
79.0
84.0
90.0
70.0
92.0
99.0
92.0
93.0
94.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
49.0
54.0
48.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
47.0
48.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
• 0.0
!
0.4359
0,4359
0.4243
0.4243
0.4359
0.4359
0.4243
0.4243
0.4243
0.4359
0.4359
0.4359
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0 i 0.0000
0.0 ! 0.0000
40 ! 2.23 119.1400 1 2028.0 ! 942.0 I 449.0 1 5.1725
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H2Q) dP(avg) « 0.186
Avg OrHice Meter Reading (in H20J dH(avg) • 1.S97
ftvg Stack Tenperature (degF) T(s avg) « 149.0
Average Meter Temperature (degF) TU avg) = 47.1
Avg SQRT(dP) = 0.431
CALCULATED VALUES
Meter Voluae (std, cu. ft.) V(« std) * 40.43
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion B(HO) = 0.348
Mol. Wt., Stack Gas Dry M(d) = 29.40
Mol. Wt., Stack Gas Met Mtsl = 25.20
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg) P(s) = 29.94
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec) V(s avg) = 28.3
Isokineticity (X) X I 97.7
Stack Gas STD Vol Flow (dscfa) B(s) = 942
Actual Stack Gas Vol Flow (acfn) Q(a) = 1813
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0124
ParticuUte loading, 87X 02(ng/dscn)C(s std) = 99
Particulate Loading, dry g 7 X 02 (gr/dscf) = 0.0434
IParticulate Enission Rate(lb/hr) E(p) • = 0.102
-------
O1
00
illltlftlttltUtUHlttttfttttt
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE H0RKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Pcrfor.id byt C.KIN6
Datci 1-14-88 Teit Ho./Typii EOU413S8NHS
Sa»ple Location! E-DUCT Start/Stop TUei 1338-1802
PARAMETER SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
Nozzle Diaieter, Actual (in) ll(d) 0.375
Pltot Tube Correction Factor C(p) 0.8400
Sas Meter Correction Factor (alpha) 0.9900
Stack (Duct) DUensions (inlt
Radius lit round) R 7.00
Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) H
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s) ( 1.07 )
I of Sanple Paints I 10
Total Saapling Ti«e (nin) (theta) ( 230.00 I
Baroaetric Pressure (in Hg) (Mb) 30.05
Stack Pressure (in H2QI P(stack) -0.080
6as Meter Initial Reading (cu ft) 140.03
Sas Meter Final Reading (cu ft) 310.02
Het Sas Saiple Voluie (cu ft) Vd) ( 170.00 )
Vol of Liquid Collected (til) VI (c) 2420.7
Vol of Liq £ Std. Conds. (scf) V(H std) (113.942 )
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gn) 0.0000
Ht. of Probe Hash Particulate (gn) 0.0000
Ht of Combined Particulate (gn) M(p) ( 0.0000 )
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEH)
CO Concentration (by CEH)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
Saeple I HClock IVelocitylOrifice !
Point 1 Tise • IHead, dPIHeter.dH!
1 Kin H20)l(in H201!
+ + — + +
4 1 25
31 25
21 25
1 1 '25
1 ! 25
2 ! 25
3 i 25
.4 1 25
1 i 25
2 ! 5
0 i 0
' 0 i 0
0 i 0
0 ! 0
0 ! 0
0 1 0
0.20 1 1.6BOO I
0.20 ! 1.6800 1
0.20 1 1.6800 i
0.17 1 1.4300 !
0.17 I 1.4300 I
0.17 ! 1.4300 1
0.20 1 1.7000 !
0.20 I 1.7000 !
0.20 1 1.7000 I
0.20 ! 1.7000 !
0.00 i 0.0000 i
o.oo i o.oooo :
0.00 1 0.0000 !
o.oo : o.oooo i
0.00 1 0.0000 I
0.00 ', 0.0000 1
~0 ! 01 0.00 1 0.0000 I
0 ! 01 0.00 1 0.0000 !
0 1 01 0.00 1 0.0000 1
TOTALS 1 230 1,91 116.1300 1
X 02
X C02
X CO
X N2
Stack
Te«p
(degF)
168.0
168. 0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168. 0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1680.0
15.98
6.06
0.0
( 77.96
1 Bas
1 Tenp
i in
+-
1 80.0
! 90.0
1 89.0
1 95.0
1 95.0
! 93.0
1 93.0
1 93.0
1 88.0
1 88.0
i ^ 0.0-
! 0.0
: o.o
1 0.0
! 0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0
', 0.0
I 0.0
I 904.0
.
Meter ISQRT(dP) 1
(degF)
i out
+ — .j
1 71.0
! 73.0
! 74.0
! 78.0
! 78.0
! 78.0
i 78.0
1 78.0
! 75.0
1 75.0
i 0.0
: o.o
1 0.0
! 0.0
1 0.0
! 0.0
i 0.0
: o.o
1 0.0
!
1
1
0.4472 1
0.4472 !
0.4472 1
0.4123 !
0.4123 1
0.4123 !
0.4472 !
0.4472 !
0.4472 1
0.4472 1
0.0000 1
0.0000 1
0.0000 !
o.oooo :
0.0000 1
0.0000 !
0.0000 1
0.0000 1
0.0000 !
L t
! 758.0 1 4.3674 1
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Hud (in H20)
ftvg Orifici Htter Reading (in H20I
Avg Stick Temperature {degF)
Average Meter Teaperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
deter Voluie (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Sas Hater Vapor Proportion
Hal. Ht., Stack Sas Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack 6as Het
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Sas STD Vol Flow (dscfa)
Actual Stack Sas Vol Flax (acfn)
dP(tvg) • 0.191
dH(avg) * 1.613
T(s avg) • 16S.O
Tin avg) ' 83.1
* 0.437
VU std) • 164.91
B(HO) =• 0.409
H(d) • 29.61
H(s) • 24.87
P(s) • 30.04
V(s avg) = 28.B
X I = 108.6
Q(5) = .921
Q(a) .
1844
Participate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) C(s std) «= 0.0000
Particulate Loading, «7X Q2(ng/dsc«)C(s std) = 0
Particulate Loading, dry 8 7 X 02 (gr/dscf) = 0.0000
iParticulate Emission flatedb/hr)
E(p)
0.000
-------
Ol
»»»******«****»««*«*»*«»****»«*
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Performed byi G.HILL
Datei 1-14-88 Test No./Type: S01141400HM5
Sanple Location! STACK Start/Stop Tine: 1400-1805
PARAMETER . SYMBOL
Nozzle Dianeter, Actual (inl N(d)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor C(p)
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha)
Stack (Duct) Disensions (in):
Radius (if round) R
Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) W
Area of Stack 29.Al
M(s) = 24.85
P(s) = 30.04
V(s avg) = 34.9
I I = 103.3
Q(s) °= 1113
Particulate Loading, drytgr/dscf) C(s std)
ParticuUte Loading, 87X 02
-------
ISOKIHETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AXD PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Pirfarud byi C. KIHB
Ditti 1-14-88 Teit Ho./Typei E01141445M5
SupU Locitioni E-DUCT Start/Stop Tint 1443-1349
PARAMETER
HozzU Ola«Bter, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in)i
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
< of Sanple Points
Total Sanpling Tiie din)
Baroaetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20I
Gas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Saiple Volute (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (til)
Vol of Liq « Std. Cants, (stf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gn)
kit. of Probe Mash Particulate (gn)
Mt of. Contained Particulate (g«)
SYMBOL
H(d)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
A(s)
1
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
V(»)
VI (c)
VtH std)
Hip)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.37S
0.8400
0.9900
7.00
( 1.07 )
16
( 64.00 )
30.05
-0.080
503.70
550.70
( 47.00 )
567.3
( 26.703 )
0.0107
0.0000
( 0.0107 )
02 Concentration
C02 Concentration
CO Concentration
N2 Concentration
(by CEH) X 02
(by CEH) X C02
(by CEM) X CO
(by diff.) 1. N2 (
Sanple 1 dClock IVelocitylOrif ice ! Stack I
Point
Tine IHead, dP!Heter,dH! Teap !
! Kin H20)!
-------
t*«*****t******t«***«*«t«*»»«»*
ISDKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Performed byi 8.HILL
Datei 1-14-88 Test No./-Typ*i S01141435M5
Sanple Locationi STACK Start/Stop TUei 1435-1541
PARAMETER SYMBOL
Nozzle Dianeter, Actual (in) N(d)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor C(p)
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha)
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round) R
Length (if rectangular) L
Hidth (i^rectangular) ~ H
Area of Stack (sq'ft) A(s)
i of Sanple Points *
Total Saipling Tiie (*in) (theta)
Baronetric Pressure (in Hg) P(b)
Stack Pressure (in H20) P(stack)
6as Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Saaple Voluie (cu ft) V(n)
VALUE
(ca-lc.)
0.375
0.8400
0.9900
7.00
( 1.07 )
13
( 60.00 I
30.05
'-0.080
829.01
877.92
48.91 )
Vol of Liquid Collected (nl) Vl(c) 635.1
Vol of Liq a Std. Conds. (scf) V
D(a) =
C(s std) =
C(s std) «=
r/dscf) =
0.270
2.296
170.0
68.7
0.519
48.82
'. 0.380
29.41
25.07
30.04
34.1
99.4
1141
2187
0.0082
59
0.0260
0.080
-------
ro
Ittl lit illllltltlllllttf tlllt »
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AHD PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
PUnti CRF P«rfor««d byi C.KINB
Datll 01-20-88 Tl Tltt Ho./Typn E01201535MK5T1
S»«ple Location! E-DUCT Start/Stop TUei 1535-2102
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaatttr, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in)t
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Sanple Points
Total Sanpling TUe din)
Baronetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Sas Sa.ple.Volu.e (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (nil
Vol of Liq C Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gel
Ht. of Probe Nash Particulate (gn>
Ht of Coabined Particulate (go)
SYMBOL
Hid)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
Als)
1
(theta)
P(b)
P (stack)
Via)
VI (c)
V(M Std)
Hip)
VALUE
(ctlc.)
0.357
0.8400
0.9900
7.00
I 1.07 )
13
( 275.00 )
30.05
-0.080
486.36
856.52
I 170.17 )
2650.0
(124.736 )
0.0000
0.0000
I 0.0000 )
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Vtlocity Hitd (in H20) dP(avg) •
Avg Orifict Meter Ritding (in H20) dH(avg) *
ftvg Stack Ttiptrature (degF) T(i tvg) •
Average Heter Temperature (degF) Tt« avg) •
Avg SQRT(dP) *
CALCULATED VALUES
0.199
1,666
148.0
81.5
0.444
02 Concentration (by CEH) X 02
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X C02
CO Concentration (by CEH) X CO
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 (
Sanple ! dClock IVelocitylOrif ice i Stack i
Point ! TUe IHead, dP!Heter,dH! Teop !
1 - Kin H20)i(in H20) ! (degF) !
1 i 10 1 0.12
1 ! 15 1 0.18
2 i 25 1 0.18
3 ! 25 1 0.18
4 ! 25 i 0.18
4 ! 25 ! 0.20
3 1 10 i 0.20
3 ! 15 1 0.25
21 . 25 i 0.25
1 ! 25 ! 0.25
1 ! 25 ! 0.21
2 ! 25 i 0.20
3 ! 25 ! 0.18
01 0 I 0.00
01 01 0.00
01 0 ! 0.00
01 0 i 0.00
0 1 0 ! 0.00
o i o : o.oo
1.0000
1.5000
1.5000
1.5000
1.5000
1.6800
1.6800
2.1000
2.1000
2.1000
1.8000
1.7000
1.5000
0.0000
«.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
168.0 !
168.0 ;
166.0 !
168.0 i
168.0 !
168.0 !
168.0 !
168.0 !
168.0 i
168.0 !
168.0 !
168.0 !
168.0 i
o.o :
o.o :
0.0 1
0.0 !
0.0 !
o.o :
TOTALS ! 275 1 2.56 121.6600 ! 2184.0 i
15.57
8.15
0.0
76.28
Bas
Te«p
in
90.0
92.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.T>
0.0
0.0
1205.0
'
1
)
'
Heter ISQRT(dP) !
(degF)
! out
! 65.0
1 68.0
! 70.0
J 71.0
! 71.0
1 71.0
! 71.0
! 71.0
! 71.0
! 71.0
! 71.0
! 71.0
I 71.0
: o.o
i 0.0
: o.o
: o.o
o.o
I
!
0.3464 !
0.4243 !
0.^243 1
0.4243 !
0.4243 !
0.4472 i
0.4472 i
0.5000 !
0.5000 !
0.5000 i
0.4626 !
0.4472 !
0.4243 i
0.0000 !
0.0000 !
o.oooo :
0.0000 1
o.oooo :
: o.o o.oooo i
1 913.0 ! 5.7720 1
Heter Voluae (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Bas Hater Vapor Proportion
Hoi. Ht., Stack Bas Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack Bas Het
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Bas STD Vol Flow (dscfn)
Actual Stack Bas Vol FloH (acfitl
Vd std)
B(Ho)
H(d)
His)
Pis)
Vis avg)
X I
Bis)
Qla)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) CIs std)
Particulate Loading, «7X 02(«g/dsco)C(s std)
Particulate Loading, dry 8 7 X 02 (gr/dscf)
ISQRT(dP) !
iParticulate Emission Rate(lb/hr>
E(p)
*
3
B
K
m
'
f
c
s
c
c
165.60
0.430
29.93
24.80
30.04
29.3
102.5
904
1877
0.0000
0
0.0000
0.000
-------
CD
CO
»**««**««««**«*««»*«***«****«**
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Performed byi C.KING
Date: 01-20-88 T2 Test No./Type! E01201535HH5T2
Sample Locationi E-DUCT Start/Stop Timei 1335-2102
PARAMETER SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in) N(d) 0.375
Pitot Tube Correction Factor C(p) 0.8400
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha) 0.9900
Stack (Duct) Diaensions (in):
Radius (if round) R 7.00
Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) W
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s) ( 1.07 )
» of Sample Points * 13
Total Sampling Time (sin) (theta) ( 275.00 )
Barometric Pressure (in Hg) P(b) 30.05
Stack Pressure (In H20) P(stack) -0.080
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft) 381.43
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft) 5i5.89
Net Gas Sanple Volune (cu ft) V(m) ( 184.46 )
Vol of Liquid Collected (ml) VI (c) 2650.0
Vol of Liq £ Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gin)
Wt. of Probe Mash Particulate (gm)
Ht of Combined Particulate (gm) H(p)
V(M std) (124.736 )
0.0000
0.0000
( 0.0000 )
02
C02
CO
N2
Concentration (by
Concentration (by
Concentration (by
Concentration (by
Sample
CEM)
CEM)
CEN)
diff
dClock (Velocity!
Point ! Time 'Head,
•'
Orifice !
dP!Neter,dHi
! Kin H201!
4
4
3
2
1
H
2
2
3
4
M
3
2
0
0
0
0
10
15
25
25
25
25
10
15
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0 ! 0
o : o
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12 !
18 !
18 !
18 !
18 !
14 I
14 !
17 !
17 !
17 I
17 !
15 !
13 i
00 !
00 !
00 1
00 i
00 !
00 !
(in H20>:
1.0000 !
1.5000 !
1.5000 1
1.5000 !
.5000 !
.2000 !
.2000 !
.4000 i
.4000 I
1.4000 I
1.4000 i
1.3000 :
1.1000 !
0.0000 !
0.0000 !
0.0000 !
0.0000 i
0.0000 !
0.0000 !
X 02
X C02
X CO
X N2
Stack
Tenp
(degF)
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.57
B.15
0.0
( 76.28
! Gas
! Temp
! in
! 91.0
! 92.0
1 95.0
! 95.0
! 95.0
! 82.0
! 95.0
! 95.0
! 95.0
! 95.0
i 95.0
! ?5.0
! 95.0
! 0.0
! 0.0
! 0.0
1 0.0
! 0.0
I 0.0
1
Meter
(degF)
i out
! 65.
! 68.
! 70.
! 71.
! 71.
! 73.
! 73.
i 73.
! 73.
I 73.
! 73.
! 73.
! 73.
! 0.
! 0.
: o.
! 0.
! 0.
! =0.
!SQRT(dP)
j
j
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
3464
4243
4243
4243
4243
3742
3742
4087
4123 '
4123
4123
3873
3606
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
4 4 ' 4 4 .4 : 4 4 j
TOTALS ! 275 ! 2.
08 117. 4000 !
2184.0
! 1215.0
! 929.
0 ! 5.
1852 !
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20)
Avg Orifice Meter Reading (in H20)
Avg Stack Temperature (degF)
Average Meter Temperature (degF)
Avg SGRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Meter Volume (std, cu. -ft.)
Stack Gas Mater Vapor Proportion
Mol. Wt., Stack Gas Dry
Hoi. Wt., Stack Gas Net
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg_Stack Velocity (-ft/secl
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol FloN (dscfa)
Actual Stack Gas Vol Flow (acfm)
Particulate Loading, drytgr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0000
Participate Loading, 67X 02<»g/dscm)C(s std) - 0
Particulate Loading, dry 8 7 X 02 (gr/dscf) = 0.0000
dP(avg) •=
dH(avg) •=
Tls avg) «
T(« avg) »
B
V(c std) =
B(HO) =
M(d) =
H(s)
P(s)
V(s avg) =
X I
fl(s)
fi(a)
0.160
1.338
168.0
82.5
0.399
179.04
0.411
29.93
25.03
30.04
26.2
108.7
835
1679
IParticulate Enission RateUb/hr)
E(p)
0.000
-------
IIMtttltltltltMIIIIIMIIItOI
ISOKIHETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
PUntt CRF Pirfornd by« 6.HILL
Dittl 01-20-88 Ttit Ho./Typtl S01201535HH5
Saiplt Loc»tioni STACK Start/Stop TUei 1535-2009
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaietar, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Sample Points
Total Sa«pling Tiie loin)
Baronetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Bas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Sanple Voluoe (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (nil
Vol of Liq fi Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (ga)
Ht. of Probe Hash Particulate (gn)
Ht of Combined Particulate ! (degF)
+ + + 4
10 ! 0.27 ! 2.1400
10 ! 0.27 ! 2.1400
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0.27 ! 2.1400
0.27 ! 2.1400
0.25 1 2.0000
0.25 ! 2.0000
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.0000
2.1400
2.1400
2.1400
2.1400
2.1400
2.0000
2.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.00 ! 0.0000
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gas Heter ISBRT(dP) 1
Tenp (degF) ! If
in ! out ! i
44.0
49.0
85.0
105.0
110.0
111.0
111.0
74.0
94.0
104.0
107.0
108. 0
102.0
102.0
0.0
0.0
53.0 ! 0.5194 !
57.0 ! 0.5194 i
59.0 ! 0.5194 !
44.0 ! 0.5194 !
70.0 ! 0.5000 !
72.0 : o.sooo :
72.0 ! 0.5000 !
72.0 ! 0.5194 1
74.0 ! 0.5194 !
75.0 ! 0.5194 !
77.0 1 0.5194 !
77.0 ! 0.5194 !
74.0 i 0.5000 !
74.0 ! 0.5000 !
0.0 ! 0.0000 i
o.o : o.oooo :
o.o i o.o : o.oooo i
o.o i o.o i o.oooo :
0.0 1 0.0 ! 0.0000 !
TOTALS ! 240 I 3. 48 129.4400 ! 2380.0 ! 1352.0 ! 974.0 i 7.1745 !
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
ftvg Velocity Hud (in H201
Avg Orifice Kiter Reading (in H20)
flvg Stick Temperature (degF)
Average Heter Teiperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Voluie (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Bas Hater Vapor-Proportion
Hoi. Ht., Stack Bas Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack Bas Met
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Sas STD Vol Flow (dscfa)
Actual Stack Gas Vol FloH (acfa)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf)
Particulate Loading, 87X Q2
-------
CM
O1
**»*»***»««*•*«*«»***«**«>****
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICIPATE CALCULATIONS
Plant: CRF Performed by: B. HILL
Datei 01-20-88 Test No./Types S01201535HS
Sample Location) STACK Start/Stop Ti.ei 1535-1700
PARAMETER SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in) N(d) 0.3S7
Pitot Tube Correction Factor C(p) 0.8400
Bas Meter Correction Factor (alpha) 0.9900
Stack (Duct) Dinensions (in):
Radius (if round) R 7.00
Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) W
Area of Stack
-------
CTi
IMtf ttlltltlKtlttlllttltltlll
ISDKIHETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Performed byi C.KINB
Datei 01-21-88T1 Tilt Ho./Typei EOI211240MH3T1
Saaplt Locationi E-DUCT Start/Stop Tiaei 1240-1630
PARAMETER
Nozzle Dimeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in)i
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack
-------
*******.ff««ttf***f tiff *»!*«•*
I50KINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICIPATE CALCULATIONS
PUnti CRF Ptrforntd byi C.KIN6
Datd 01-21-B8T2 Tt«t No./Typei E01211240HMST2
ample Location! E-DUCT Start/Stop TiMi 1240-1630
PARAMETER SYMBOL
Nozzle Dimeter, Actual (in) N(dl
Pitot Tube Correction Factor C(p)
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha)
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round) R
. Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) H
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s)
* of Sample Points *
Total Sampling Time (tin) (theta)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg) P(b)
Stack Pressure (in H20) P(stack)
Sas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Sample Volume (cu ft) Via)
Vol of Liquid Collected (ml) Vl(c)
Vol of Liq e Std. Conds. (scf) V(H std)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gin)
Mt. of Probe Mash Particulate (go)
Ht of Combined Particulate (gn) M(p)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.357
0.8400
0.9900
7.00
( 1.07 )
( 201.00 )
30.05
-O.OBO
858.90
1008.92
( 150.02 )
2137.0
(100.587 )
0.0000
0.0000
( 0.0000 )
02 Concentration (by CEM) X 02 16.06
C02 Concentration (by CEM) X C02 8.31
CO Concentration (by CEH) X CO 0.0
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 ( 75.63 )
Sample ! dClock IVelocitylOrif ice 1 Stack
Point ! Time IHead, dP!Meter,dHI Temp
1 Kin H20)l(in H20II (degF)
4
3
2
1
1
<
2
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
25
11
15
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25 1 2.1000 1 168.0
0.25 1 2.1000 1 168.0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.1000 1 168.0
2.1000 I 168.0
2.1000 1 168.0
2.1000 i 168.0
2.1000 1 168.0
2.1000 ! 168.0
2.1000 ! 168.3
0,0000 1 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
0.0000 1 0.0
0.0000 1 0.0
-0.0000 1 0.0
0.0000 1 0.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
"0.0000 1 0.0
0.0000 1 0.0
0.00 1 0.0000 1 0.0
Gas Meter ISQRT(dP)
Tenp (degF)
in !• out
61.0
90.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.0
65.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
i
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000 i
0.0000 1
.__—_+ + t + + ; 1 + .
TOTALS I 201 1 2.25 US. 9000 i 1512.0 1 802.0 1 604.0 ! 4.5000 1
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20) dP(avg) • 0.250
Avg Orifict Meter Reading (in H20) dH(avg) • 2.100
Avg Stack Temperature (degF)
Average Meter Telperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Meter Volume (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Gas Water Vapor Proportion
Mol. Wt., Stack Gas Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack Gas Net
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol Flow (dscfit)
Actual Stack Gas Vol Flow (acfm)
Particulate Loading, drytgr/dscf) C(s std) « 0.0000
Particulate Loading, «7X 02(mg/d5c«)C(s std) = 0
Particulate Loading, dry 6 7 X 02 (gr/dscf) = 0.0000
iParticulate Emission Rate(lb/hr) E(p) = 0.000
T(s «vgl «
T(m avg) °
3
V(m std) =
B(NO)
H(d) •
M(s) «
P(s) •>
V(s avg) =
X I <=
Q(s) =
Q(a)
168. 0
78.1
0.500
147.06
0.406
29.97
25.11
30.04
32.8
106.9
1053
2101
-------
CT)
00
1*11111111 HllllltllilllllltIK
1SOKIKETIC PEnfO'RXSS'CE KOftKGHEET AMD PARTICULATE CM.CUUTIOH3
PUnti CRF PirfwMd by> 8.HILL
Ditei 01-21-88 Tut Mo./Typci S01211240HS
Saiple Lacationi STACK Start/Stop TUei 1240-1345
PARAMETER
Nozzle DIa««ter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tub* Correction Factor
Sas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) DUtniioni (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (it rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Gaople Paints
Total Saipling Tiie din)
Baroaetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Bas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Suple Volute (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected <«1)
Vol of Liq « Std. Conds. (scf)
.(ft. of Filter Particulate (gal
Ut. of Probe Hash Particulate (gin)
Ht of Conbioed-Participate (gn)
SYMBOL
Midi
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
y
A(s)
*
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
VU)
VI (c)
V(H std)
H(p)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.3S7
0.8400
0.9700
7.00
( 1.07 )
12
( 60.00 )
' 30.05
-0.080
985.89
1036.02
( 50.13 )
586.4
I 27.602 )
0.0100
0.0000
I 0.0100 )
02 .Concentration (by CEH) X 02 16.06
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X C02 8.31
CO Concentration (by CEH) X CO 0.0
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 ( 75.63 1
Saciple
Point
El
2
j
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
dClock IVelocitylOrifice 1 Stack
Tite I Head, dPIHeter.dH! Teip
Kin H2Q)!Un H20) 1 (degF)
1 + _+__-- +-»
5 ! 0.28
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.3800
2.3800
2.3800
2.1300
2.1300
2.1300
2.1300
2.2100
2.3000
2.2100
2.2100
2.3000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
J70.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gas Heter ISBRT(dP) !
Temp (degF)
in ! out
+ 1
56.0 ! 47.0
69.0 ! 49.0
80.0
86.0
90.0
92.0
86.0
90.0
95.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.0
55.0
59.0
61.0
55.0
60.0
66.0
69.0
70.0
7i.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 ! 0.0
0.0 ! 0.0
0.0 ! 0.0
!
0.5292
0.5292
0.5292
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.5099
0.5196
0.5099
0.5099
0.519i
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
TOTALS I 60 I 3.16 !26.8900 ! 2040.0 ! 1038.0 1 714.0 ! 6.1564
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Held (in H20)
AvgoOrHice Hiter Reading (in H20)
ftvg Stick'Teaperature (degF)
Average Heter Teaperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Volute (std, cu. ft.)
Stack 6ai Hater Vapor Proportion
Hoi. Ht., Stack Gas Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack Gas Met
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Sas STD Vol FlOH (dscfa)
Actual Stack Gas Vol Flow (acf»)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf)
Particulate Loading, «7X 02
V(s avg) =
X I
Qls)
B
Cls std) =
)C(s std) "
nr/dscf) =
0.263
2.241
170.0
73.0
0.513
48.63
0.362
29.97
25.64
30.04
33.3
108.7
1147
2137
0.0032
21
0.0090
0.031
-------
01
to
***»«**«»***«****««**•**««*****
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE HDRKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plant! CRF Perforned byi C.KIN8
Dat«i 1-27-88 Test No./Type! E01271133HH5
Sanple Location! E-DUCT Start/Stop Tinei 1133-1550
PARAHETER
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (inli
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area o-f Stack (sq ft)
I of Sample Points
Total Sampling Tine (Din)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Sasple Volume (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (ill)
Vol of Liq S Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate
C(p)
(alpha)
R
A(5)
«
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
V(f»)
VI (c)
V(H std)
H(p)
VALUE
(calc.I
0.375
0.8400
0.9900
7.00
( 1.07 >
13
( 233.00 )
30.00
-0.080
768.51
952.37
1 183.85 )
2103.3
( 99.004 )
0.0000
0.0000
< 0.0000 )
T(« avg) «
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20) dPUvg) >
Avg Orifice Heter Reading (in H20) dH(ivg) *
Avg Stack Te*perature (degF) T(s avg) °
Average Heter Temperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Volune (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Gas Water Vapor Proportion
Hoi. Wt., Stack Gas Dry
Hoi. Wt., Stack 8as Net
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity U)
Stack Gas STD Vol Flow (dscfin)
0.218
1.835
168.0
85.4
0.467
V(n std) =
B(HO)
H(d) =
His)
Pis)
V(s avg) =
X I »
Q(s)
177.39
0.358
29.55
25.41
29.99
30.4
100.4
1055
02 Concentration (by CEH)
C02 Concentration (by CEH)
CO Concentration (by CEH)
N2 Concentration (by diff.) -
Sample i dClock IVelocitylOrif ice
Point ! Tine IHead, dP!Meter,dH!
1 ! (in H20) Kin H20)
----___+- + _ — _+ — _____ — |
T4 1 25 1 0.20 ! 1.6800
3 ! 25 ! 0.25 ! 2.1000 1
2 ! 25
1 ! 8
1 ! 17
RS4! 12
4 ! 13
4 ! 12
3 ! 25
2 ! 25
1 1 5
1 ! 20
4 1 21
o : o
0 1 0
o : o
0 ! 0
0 ! 0
0 1 0
0.25 ! 2.1000 !
0.25 1 2.1000 I
0.25 ! 2.1000 !
0.25 ! 2.1000 !
0.19 ! 1.6000 !
0.20 : i.68oo :
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0..00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.6800 !
1.6800 !
1.680D !
1.6800 !
1.6800 1
o.oooo :
0.0000 1
0.0000 i
0.0000 !
0.0000 !
O.OOO'O 1
TOTALS ! : 2.33 !" 2.84 123.8600 !
X 02 14.70
X C02 6.03
X CO 0.0
% N2 ( 79.27 1
Stack
Tenp
(degF)
_
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gas Heter
Tenp (degF)
in I out
j — ______
63.0
103.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
,. 90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
0.0
0.0
57.0
68.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 i 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.0! 0.0
0.0 I 0.0
2184.0 ! 1216.0 1 1005.0
ISQRT(dP)
!
i
+_«__«____
1 0.4472
! 0.5000
! 0.5000
1 0.5000
! 0.5000
! 0.5000
! 0.4359
! 0.4472
! 0.4472
! 0.4472
! 0.4472
! 0.4472
! 0.4472
i 0.0000
t 0.0000
! 0.0000
1 0.0000
! 0.0000
I 0.0000
1 6.0664
Actual Stack Gas Vol FloH (acfm)
G(a)
1951
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0000
Particulate Loading, 87X 02dng/dscn)C(s std) = 0
Particulate Loading, dry 6 7 X 02 (gr/dscf) = 0.0000
IParticulat* Eaission RateUb/hr> E(p) = 0.000
-------
lllillliilllltlKIIIIMIIillllf
ISOKIHETIC PERFQRHAHCE HORKSHEET AHD PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plantt CRf Performed byt 6.HILL
Dttei 1-27-83 Tut Ho./Types SOI271135HK5
Sanple Location! STACK Start/Stop Tint 1135-1608
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaaeter, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Gai Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Diieniioni (in)t
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Hidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack
VI (c)
V(H std)
H(p)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.37S
0.8100
1.0000
7.00
( 1.07 )
13
( 261.00 )
30.00
-0.080
608.49
778.51
( 170.03 )
2428.4
(114.306 )
0.0000
0.0000
( 0.0000 )
02 Concentration (by CEH) X 02 14.70
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X C02 6.03
CO Concentration (by CEH) X CO 0.0
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X N2 < 79.27 )
Sample
Point
_„____.
SI
2
3
4
5
6
Nl
2
3
4
e
5
6
0
0
' 0
0
0
dClock IVelocitylOrifice 1 Stack
Tine [Head, dP!Heter,dHi Tecp
Kin H20)l(in H20) 1 (degF)
_-+________+--------+-------—-
20 ! 0.15
20 ! 0.15
20 I 0.17
20 ! 0.19
20 ! 0.19
20 1 0.17
20 ! 0.17
20 ! 0.17
20 ! 0.17
20 ! 0.17
3 ! 0.17
20 ! 0.15
38 i 0.15
0 ! 0.00
0 ! 0.00
01 0.00
0 i 0.00
0 1 0.00
o : o ! o.oo
1.2000
1.2000
1.3600
1.5200
1.5200
1.3600
1.3600
1.3600
1.3600
1.3600
1.3600
1.2000
1.2000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0
! 170.0
170.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sas Heter ISQRT(dP) !
Tenp (degF)
in ! out
+ H
53.0
80.0
93.0
97.0
82.0
98.0
89.0
98.0
99.0
101.0
99.0
99.0
98.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.0
60.0
72.0
76.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
82.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
!
0.3873
0.3873
0.4123
0.4359
0.4359
0.4123
0.4123
0.4123
0.4123
0.4123
0.4123
0.3873
0.3873
0.0 ! 0.0000
0.0 ! 0.0000
o.o : o.oooo
0.0 ! 0.0000
0.0 ! 0.0000
o.o : o.oooo
TOTALS ! 261 ! 2.17 U7.3600 ! 2210.0 ! 1186.0 ! 997.0 ! 5.3071
FIELD DATA AVERASES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20) dP(avg) * 0.167
Avg Orifice Meter Reading (in H20) dHUvgl * 1.335
Avg Stack Teiperature tdegF) T(s avg) « 170.0
Average Heter Teiperature (degF) T(« avg) * 84.0
Avg SORTtdP) « 0.408
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Voluae (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion B(HO)
Hoi. Ht., Stack Sas Dry
Hoi. Ht., Stack Gas Het
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol FlOH (dscfn)
Actual Stack Sas Vol Flow (acfn) Bta)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf)
Particulate Loading, fi7X 02(ng/dsc
Particulate Loading, dry 8 7 X 02
IParticulate Enission Rate(lb/hr) E(p) = 0.000
V(« std) >
B(MO) =
H(d)
H(s)
Pis)
V(s avg) =
XI • «
Q(s)
Q(a)
C(s std) =
IC(s std) =
ir/dscf) =
165.96
0.408
29.55
24.84
29.99
27.0
103.1
860
1729
0.0000
0
0.0000
-------
«»*«»**»***«**»«**««*«»««»***«*
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICIPATE CALCULATIONS
Plants CRF Performed byi C. KING
Dates 1-27-88 Test No,/Types E01271139M5
Sample Location: E-DUCT Start/Stop Tines 1139-1247
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dieensions (in)s
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular!
Area of Stack (sq ft)
* of Sample Points
Total Sa«pling Tise (mini
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H2D)
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft) .
Net Gas Sample Volume (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (ml)
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht, of Filter Particulate C(s std) =
Particulate Loading, S7X 02(«ig/dscm)C(s std)
Particulate Loading, dry e 7 X 02 (gr/dscf) •=
dP(avg) »
dH(avg) «
T(s avg) °
T(» avg) «
c
V(« std) =
B(HO) =
M(d) *
M(s)
P(s) =
V(s avg) =
X I
S(s) =
Q(a)
C(s std) =
C(s std) =
ir/dscf ) • =
0.200
1.680
168.0
80.7
0.447
43.46
0.36&
29.55
25.33
29.99
29.2
94.6
1002
1873
0.0053
27
0.0118
IParticulate Emission Rate(lb/hr)
E(p)
0.046
-------
•-J
ro
at iitiisi»itf«:ii»
0.0088
0.0100
( 0.0188 )
7. 02
•i C02
X CO
X N2
Sample T diEIock IVelocityiOrif ice ! Stack
Point ! Tiae iHead, dP!Meter,dH! Te«p
1 Kin H20)!(in H2Q1! (degF)
El
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
IT
4
£
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
5 i 0.15
5 i 0.15
5 ! 0.15
5 1 0.17
5 1 0.17
5 ! 0.17
5'! 0.17
5 ! 0.15
5 ! 0.15
5 ! 0.16
Si 0.17
5 ! 0.17
0 ! 0.00
0 ! 0.00
0 ! 0.00
1.3000 ! 170.0
1.3000 i 170.0
1.3000 ! 170.0
1.4500 ! 170.0
1.4500 ! 170.0
1.4500 ! 170.0
1.4500 ! 170.0
1.3000 ! 170.0
1.3000 ! 170.0
1.3600 ! 170.0
1.4500 ! 170.0
1.4500 ! 170.0
0.0000 ! 0.0
o.oooo : o.o
0.0000 ! 0.0
6as"Meter ISBRT(dP) 1
Te«p (degF) I !
in ! out ! <
55.0
73.0
82.0
88.0
97.0
100.0
88.0
106.0
105.0
106.0
109.0
109.0
0.0
0.0
54.0 ! 0.3873
54.0 ! 0.3873
56.0
59.0
63.0
69.0
63.0
81.0
83.0
85.0
3B.O
88.0
0.0
0.0
o.o : o.o
0 ! 0.00 ! 0.0000 ! 0.0 ! 0.0 ! 0.0
0.3873
0.4123
0.4123
0.4123
0.4123
0.3873
0.3873
0.4000
0=4123
0.4123
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 ! 0.00 ! 0.0000 ! 0.0 ! 0.0 ! 0.0 i 0.0000
0 ! 0.00 ! 0.0000 i 0.0 ! 0.0 ! 0.0 ! 0.0000
0 ! 0.00 1 0.0000 ! 0.0 ! 0.0 ! 0.0 ! 0.0000
TOTALS ! 60 ! 1.93 ! 16. 5600 ! 2040.0 ! 1118.0 1 843.0 ! 4.8104
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20)
Avg Orifice Htter Reading (in H20)
Avg Stick Te»periture (degF)
Avenge Meter Temperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Voluie (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion
Hoi. Mt., Stack Sas Dry
Hoi. Mt., Stack Sas Met
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol F!OH (dscfn)
14.70 Actual Stack Gas Vol FloH (acfffl)
O.o Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf) C(s std) •=
79 27 I Particulate Loading, «7X 02(«g/dsc«)C(s std)
Particulate Loading, dry 6 7 X 02 (gr/dscf)
-..------.(
IParticulate Eaission Rate(lb/hr) E(p)
dP(avg) «
dH(avg> *
Tli *vg) *
T(« avg) «
«
V(» ltd) »
B(HO) =
Hid)
H(s>
Pis)
V(s avg) =
X \
EHs)
QU)
C(s std) •=
,)C(s std) »
gr/dscf) =
0.161
1.380
170.0
81. 7
0.401
39.42
0.321
29.55
25.84
29.99
26.0
97.0
949
1665
0.0073
37
0.0163
0.060
-------
to
fti«****tt*ff*««t««t*««t««««***
rSOKINETIC PERFORHANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Perfumed byi C.KING
Datei 1-29-88 T««t No./Type: E01291153HH5
Sample Location! E-DUCT Start/Stop Ti«ei 1153-1447
PARAMETER SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in) N(d) 0.375
Pilot Tube Correction Factor dp) 0.8400
Gas Meter Correction Factor (alpha) 0.9900
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round) R 7.00
Length (if rectangular) L
Width (if rectangular) W
Area of Stack (sq ft) A(s) ( 1.07 )
* of Sample Points i 7
Total Sampling Time (mini (theta) ( 167.00.*K
Barometric Pressure (in Hg) P(b) 30.00 •
Stack Pressure (in H20) P(stack) -0.080
6as Meter Initial Reading (cu ft) 963.80
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft) 1133.96
Net Gas Sample Volume (cu ft) Via) ( 170.16 )
Vol of Liquid Collected (ml) VI(c) 1550.5
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds. (scf) V(« std) ( 72.983 )
Wt. of Filter Particulate (gm) 0.0000
Wt. of Probe Wash Particulate (gin) 0.0000
Wt of Combined Particulate (g«) H(p) ( 0.0000 )
02
C02
CO
N2
Concentration (by CEM) '/. 02
Concentration (by CEM) X C02
Concentration (by CEM) X CO
Concentration (by diff.) X N2
Sanple ! dClock IVelocitylOrifice 1 Stack
Point 1 Time (Head, dPIMeter.dH! Temp
I ! (in H20)!(in H2Q) ! (degF)
T4 1 25
3 ! 25
2 ! 25
1 ! 25
RS1I 25
2 ! 25
3 f 17
0 i 0
o i a
0 1 0
0 ! 0
0 i 0
0 1 0
0 f 0.
0 1 0
01 0
0 ! 0
0 1 0
0.35 ! 2.9000 1 169.0
0.31 I 2.6000 1 169.0
0.28
0.31
0.27
0.35
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OO.M
0.00
2.4000 i 169.0
2.6000 ! 169.0
2.3000
2.9000
2.3000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0,0000
0.0000
0.0000
169.0
169.0
169.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0000 { 0.0
o.oooa i o.o
0 1 0 0.00 0,0000 ! 0.0
13.91
4.79
0.0
( ' 81.30
! Bas
1 Temp
1 in
! 70.0
! 110.0
1 110.0
! 110.0
! 115.0
! 115.0
! 115.0
: o.o
f 0.0
! 0.0
! 0.0
: o.o
! 0.0
F 0.0
! 0.0
! 0.0
1 0.0
0.0
! 0,.0
I
Meter !SQRT(dP)
(degF) ! I
! out !
! 64.0 0.5916
! 90.0
1 90.0
i 90.0
I 98.0
i 98.0
! 98.0
i 0.0
i 0.0
! 0.0
t 0.0
I 0.0
: o.o
! 0.0
! 0.0
: o.o
1 0.0
1 0.0
: o.o
0.5568
0.5292
0.5568
0.5196
0.5916
0.5196
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0>0000
0.0000
o.oooo :
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H20)
Avg Orifice Heter Reading (in H20)
Avg Stack Temperature (degF)
Average Heter Temperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Meter Volume (std, eu. ft.)
Stack Gas Water Vapor Proportion
Mol. Wt., Stack Gas Dry
Hoi. Wt., Stack Gas Wet
Abs Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol Flon (dscfm)
Actual Stack Gas Vol Flow lacfuil
Particulate Loading, drylgr/dscf)
Particulate Loading, 87X 02
-------
llltltlttltlKiMKttitlliKttl
ISOKIHETIC PERFORHAHCE WORKSHEET AMD PARTICULftTE CALCULATION
Plant) CRF Performed byi 8.HILL
Datei 1-29-8B Test Ho./Typet S0129U55HH5
Sample Locationi STACK Start/Stop Timei 1155-1500
PARAHETER
Nozzle Dianeter, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
< of Sample Points
Total Sanpling Tine (mini
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Sauple Voluie (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (nil
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds. (scf)
HI. "of Filter Particulate (go)
Nt. of Probe Mash Particulate (go)
Wt of Combined Particulate (go)
SYHBOL
N(d)
CIp)
(alpha)
R
L
H
A(s)
*
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
V(n)
VI (c)
Vtw std)
H(p)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.357
0.8400
1.0000
7.00
( 1.07 )
9
( 180.00 )
30.00
-0.080
BOO. 88
970.90
( 170.02 1
1721.3
( 81.023 1
0.0000
0.0000
( 0.0000 )
02 Concentration (by CEH) X
C02 Concentration (by CEH) X
CO Concentration (by CEH) X
N2 Concentration (by diff.) X
Sample ! dClock IVelocityiOrif ice !
Point ! Tine IHead, dP!Heter,dH!
! I (in H201 Kin H201!
SI ! 20 i 0.33 ! 2.6400 !
2 ! 20 ! 0.35 ! 2.8000 !
3 ! 20 ! 0.35 ! 2.8000 !
4 ! 20 ! 0.34 ! 2.7200 1
Si 20 ! 0.35 ! 2.BOOO !
6 ! 20 i 0.35 ! 2.8000 !
Nl ! 20
2 ! 20
3 ! 20
0 ! 0
0 ! 0
0 i 0
0 ! 0
0 ! 0
0 ! 0
0 ! 0
o : o
o : o
0 ! 0
0.34 ! 2.7200 i
0.31 ! 2.4800 !
0.31 ! 2.4800 !
o.oo : o.oooo :
0.00 ! 0.0000 i
0.00 ! 0.0000 !
o.oo : o.oooo i
0.00 ! 0.0000 !
o.oo i o.oooo :
- o.oo i o.oooo :
o.oo : o.oooo i
0.00 ! 0.0000 i
0.00 ! 0.0000 !
TOTALS ! ISO ! 3.03 124.2400 !
02
C02
CO
N2 (
Stack !
Teap !
(degF) !
170.0 !
no.o :
170.0 !
170.0 !
no.o :
170.0 :
170.0 :
170.0 !
170.0 !
o.o :
o.o :
0.0 !
o.o :
0.0 i
0.0 !
o.o :
o.o i
0.0 i
0.0 !
1530.0 !
13.91
4.79
0.0
81.30
Gas
Te«p
in
81.0
105.0
110.0
111.0
116.0
116.0
85.0
113.0
112.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
949.0
1
Meter ISQRT(dP) !
(degF) i !
! out
! 67.0
! 75.0
! 81.0
! 85.0
! 89.0
! 90.0
! 80.0
! 91.0
! 91.0
! 0.0
: o.o
! 0.0
! 0.0
: o.o
! 0.0
! 0.0
: o.o
! 0.0
0.5745
0.5916
0.5916
0.5831
0.5916
0.5916
0.5831
0.556B
0.5568
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
: o.o i o.oooo
! 749.0 ! 5.2206
FIELD DATA AVERA6ES
Avg Velocity Held (in H20)
ftvg Orifice Heter Reading (in H20)
Avg Stack Temperature (degF)
Average Heter Temperature (degF)
Avg SQRT(dP)
CALCULATED VALUES
Heter Volute (std, cu. ft.)
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion
Hoi. Wt., Stack Gas Dry
Hoi. Wt., Stack Gas Met
Aba Stack Pressure (in Hg)
Avg Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
Isokineticity (X)
Stack Gas STD Vol Flow (dscfm)
Actual Stack Gas Vol Flow (acfn)
Particulate Loading, dry(gr/dscf)
Particulate Loading, 67X 02(«ig/dsc
Particulate Loading, dry 8 7 X 02
dP(avg) •
dH(avg) *
T(s »vg) «
T(« avg) *
E
V(« std) =
B(HO) =
H(d)
His)
Pis)
Vis avg) =
X I
Qls)
Q(a)
C(s std) =
)C(s std) =
gr/dscf) =
0.337
2.693
170.0
94.3
0.580
163.38
0.332
29.32
25.57
29.99
37. B
102.7
1360
2422
0.0000
0
0.0000
IParticulate Emission Rate
-------
»*»«***««»**•*«*****»**»*******
ISOKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Planti CRF Performed by: C. KING
Date: 1-29-88 Test No./Type: E01291305M5
Sanple Location: E-DUCT Start/Stop Tine: 1305-1409
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
i of Sanple Points
Total Sampling Tine (Din)
Barosetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Sanple Volune (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (tl)
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gn)
Wt. of Probe Wash Particulate (gin)
Ht of Combined Particulate (ga)
02 Concentration (by CEN)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration, (by diff.)
Sample 1 dClock 1 Velocity lOrif ice !
Point t Tine iHead, dPIMeter.dH!
I Kin H20)!(in H20I!
El ! 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 1
2 ! 4 0.31 1 2.6000 !
31 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 1
4 I 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 i
5 ! 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
6 1 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
7 1 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
8 1 4 0.31 i 2.6000 !
1 ! 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 I
2 ! 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
3 ! 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
4 ! 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
5 ! 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
6 ! 4 0.31 i 2.6000 !
7 1 4 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
8 ! 4 ! 0.31 ! 2.6000 !
o i o : o.oo i o.oooo i
0 i 0 ! 0.00 ! 0.0000 !
0 ! 0 i 0.00 ! 0.0000 !
TOTALS 1 64 I 4.96 141.6000 I
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
N(d) 0.357
dp) O.S400
(alpha) 0.9900
R 7.00
1
W
A(s) ( 1.07
« 16
(theta) ( 64.00
P(b) 30.00
P(stack) -0.080
159.01
214.22
V(«) ( 55.21
Vl(c) 585.4
V(H std) ( 27.556
0.0177
0.0100
M(p) ( 0.0277
X 02 13.91
X C02 4.79
X CO 0.0
X N2 ( 81.30
Stack
Teap
(degF)
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
169.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gas
Teup
in
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2704.0 1 1820.0
)
)
)
)
)
)
Heter
(degF)
! out
! 73.
! 80.
! 92.
! 94.
! 101.
! 101.
! 101.
t 101.
: 101.
! 101.
! 101.
! 101.
! 101.
! 101.
! 101.
1 101.
: o.
! 0.
! 0.
1 1551.
I
(
(
fl
Ui
t
'
t
t
(
<
1
£
(
F
F
F
ISQRT(dP) !
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 ! 0.
0 1 0.
o : 8.
IF
!
5568 !
5568 I
5568 !
5568 !
5568 !
5568 !
5568 1
5568 !
5568 !
5568 !
5568 !
5568 i
5568 !
5568 !
5568 i
5568 !
0000 !
0000 !
0000 I
_ _ _ t
9084 !
FIELD DATA AVERAGES
Avg Velocity Head (in H2Q) dP(avg) = 0.310
Avg Orifice Meter Reading (in H20) dH(avg) * 2.600
Avg Stack Tenperature (degF) TIs avg) = 169.0
Average Meter Tenperature (degF) T(n avg) •= 105.3
Avg SQRT(dP) = 0.557
CALCULATED VALUES
Meter Voluee (std, cu. ft.) V(« std) « 51.49
Stack Gas Water Vapor Proportion B
-------
CT)
tltltttlltlflttlllflllttlillltl
ISDKINETIC PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET AND PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
Plant! CRF Performed byt 6.HILL
Ditet 1-29-89 Test Ko./Typet S01291236M5
Supli locations STACK Start/Stop TUei 1236-1340
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaaeter, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in)i
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
t of Sanple Paints
Total Sanpling Tile din)
Baroaetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Bas Heter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Sas Sanple Volute (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (ml)
Vol of Liq £ Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate
-------
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA
177
-------
ACUREX
Corporation
Acurex
Attention: Larry Waterland
Environmental Systems Division
March 10, 1988
Acurex ID: 8801048
Client PO: 8281.14
Page 1 of 17
Rev. 8/10/88
Subject: Analysis of 21 Extracts, Received 1/22/88.
Extracts were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds according to
U.S. EPA Method 8270 (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - SW846,
2nd Ed.,1982). Results are presented in Table 1. The method, can be
summarized as follows:
Prior to injection,into a Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometer (GC/MS), the extract is combined with internal
standards. The GC/MS is equipped with a fused silica
capillary column and is set up for the analysis of
semivolatile priority pollutants.
Identification and quantitation of other semivolatile compounds is
presented in Table 2.
Qualitative identification of the priority pollutants is performed
initially using the relative retention times and the relative
abundance of three unique ions. The entire mass spectrum is checked
before any final identifications are recorded. Quantitative analysis is
performed by the internal standard method using a single characteristic
ion and response factors obtained from a daily calibration stamdard. In
the tables, an entry such as "<5" meanstthat the compound was not found
at a level above the laboratory's reporting limit. The reporting limit,
which is based on EPA reporting levels, has been corrected for any
sample dilution.
Please note that the results for analysis of the extracts are presented
in micrograms per extract. The surrogate recoveries are given in
concentration rather than percent recoveries.
485 Clyde Avenue. P.O. Box 7044, Mountain View, CA 94039 (415) 961-5700 Telex: 325961 FAX: (4151 964-5145
178
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 2 of 17
If you should have any technical questions, please contact Robert DeRosier
at (415)961-5700.
Submitted by:_
Richard Scott
Acting GC Supervisor
Approved by:
Roberl: DeRosier
Client Services Manager
These results were obtained by following standard laboratory
procedures; the liability of Acurex Corporation shall not exceed the
amount paid for this report. In no event, shall Acurex be liable for
special or consequential damages.
179
-------
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results
ACUREX Sample ID
ACUREX
8801048
Page 3 of 17
Rev. 8/10/88
E1217
1145
SlSl?
1145
B1217
1545
T1217
1200
E1209
1310T1
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/^ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2-Chlorophenol <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Hexachloroethane <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Nitrobenzene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Isophorone <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2-Nitrophenol <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2,4-Dimethylphenol <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2,4-Dichlorophenol <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Naphthalene <40 <40 <40 <4C) <40
Hexachlorobutadiene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2-Chloronaphthalene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Dimethyl phthalate <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Acenaphthylene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Acenaphthene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2,4-Dinitrophenol <200 <200 <200 <200 <200
4-Nitrophenol <200 <200 <200 <200 <200
2,4-Dinitrotoluene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
2,6-Dinitrotoluene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Diethyl phthalate <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether <40 <40 <40 <4C) <40
Fluorene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol <200 <200 <200 <200 <200
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
4-Bromophenyl phenylether <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Hexachlorobenzene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Pentachlorophenol <200 <200 <200 <200 <200
Phenanthrene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Anthracene <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
Di-n-Butyl phthalate <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
180
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 4 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
E1217
1145
S1217
1145
B1217
1545
T1217
1200
E1209
1310T1L
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
ug/e^t
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha^BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BBC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
Surrogates
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
120
<40
88
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
120
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<4d
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
120
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
1/27/88 1/27/88 1/27/88 1/27/88 1/28/88
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9 -Pheny 1 anthracene
77
54
71
24
ND
ND
ND
ND
55
37
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
181
-------
ACUREX
6801048
Page 5 of 17
Rev. 8/10/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Phenol
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Bis ( 2-chloroethoxy } methane
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
4 -Chloro-3 -methy Ipheno 1
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
4 -Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether
Fluorene
4 , 6-Dinitro-2 -methy Iphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
E1209
1310T2
ug/ext
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<200
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
£1211
1159T1
ug/ext
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<200
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
E1211
1159T2
ug/ext
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<1000
<1000
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<1000
<200
<200
<200
<1000
<200
<200
<200
S1211
1158
ug/ext;
<40
<40
<40
<40
X40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
*40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
. <40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<200
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
B1211
1410
ug/ext
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<200
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
182
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 6 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
E1209
1310T2
E1211
1159T1
E1211
1159T2
S1211
1158
B1211
1410
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthal ate
3,3' -Dichlorobenz idine
Benzo(a) anthracene
Bis ( 2 -ethy Ihexy 1 ) phthal ate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b) f luoranthene
Benzo(k) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3 -cd ) pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g , h , i) perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aidirin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4, 4 '-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4, 4 '-DDT
PCBs
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
680
<40
54
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
76
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<200
<200
<400
<200
2600
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<200
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
Date Analyzed
1/28/88 1/28/88 1/28/88 1/28/88 1/28/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracene
62
46
71
57
61
18
67
70
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
183
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 7 of 17
Rev. 8/10/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Phenol
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 i 2-Dichlorobenzene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl ) ether
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2 , 4 -Dimethylphenol
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
4 -Chi oro-3 -methy Iphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Fluorene
4 , 6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylaminci
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Hexach 1 or oben z ene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
T1211
3.200
ug/ext
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<200
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
<200
<40
<40
<40
F1217
1128
ug/ext
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 8 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3 , 3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo (a) anthracene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo (b ) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Dibenzo ( a , h) anthracene
Benzo(g,h, ijperylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-^BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4, 4 '-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4' -DDT
PCBs
T1211
1200
ug/ext
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
F1217
1128
ug/ext
32000
23000
<10000
<20000
11000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
F1209
1725
ug/ext
8400
8400
<4000
<8000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<40QO
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
<4000
F1211
1610 (
ug/ext
27000
34000
<10000
<20000
13000
<10000
14000
<10000
10000
11000
12000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
Q1217
)900FSK
ug/ext
37
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
Date Analyzed
2/3/88 2/3/88 2/3/88 2/3/88 2/3/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracehe
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
157
154
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
185
-------
8270 Compounds
ACUREX
8801048
Page 9 of 17
Rev. 8/10/88
Table 1. Semi/volatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
Q1219 Q1209 Q1209 Q1209 Q1211
0850 0905BK 1330IBK 0909SK 0908SK
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2-Chlorophenol <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Hexachloroethane <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Nitrobenzene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Isophorone <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2-Nitrophenol <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2,4-Dimethylphenol <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2,4-Dichlorophenol <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Naphthalene <20 <40 £20 33 31
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2-Chloronaphthalene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <40 <20 <40 ; <40
Acenaphthylene <20 <40 <20 44 46
Acenaphthene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 <200 <100 <200 i, <200
4-Nitrophenol <100 <20Q <100 <200 <200
2,4-Dinitrotoluene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
2,6-Dinitrotoluene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Diethyl phthalate <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Fluorene <20 <40 <2Q 32 35
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol <100 <200 <100 <200 \ <200
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
4-Bromophenyl phenylether <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Hexachlorobenzene <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
Pentachlorophenol <100 <200 <100 <200 ! <200
Phenanthrene <20 <40 <20 37 40
Anthracene <20 <40 <20 42 46
Di-n-Butyl phthalate <20 <40 <20 <40 <40
186
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 10 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Q1219 Q1209 Q1209 Q1209 Q1211
0850 0905BK 1330IBK 0909SK 0908SK
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
36
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
38
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
2/3/88 2/3/88 2/3/88 2/3/88 2/3/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracene
ND
ND
97
90
ND
ND
83
78
86
94
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
187
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 11 of 17
Rev. 8/10/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Q1211
0854BK
ug/text
Phenol <40
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <40
2-Chlorophenol <40
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <40
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <40
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <40
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <4p
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <40
Hexachloroethane <40
Nitrobenzene <40
Isophorone <4 0
;2-Nitrophenol <40
2,4-Dimethylphenol <40
Bis(2-chlorbethoxy)methane <40
2,4-Dichlorophenol <40
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <40
Naphthalene <40
Hexachlorobutadiene <40
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <40
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <40
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <4o
2-Chloronaphthalene <40
Dimethyl phthalate <40
Acenaphthylene <40
Acenaphthene <4 0
2,4-Dinitrophenpl <200
4-Nitrophenol <200
2,4-Dinitrotoluene <40
2,6-Dinitrotoluene <40
Diethyl phthalate <40
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether <40
Fluorene <40
4,6-Dinitro-2-nethylphenol <200
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <40
Xi-Bromophenyl phenylether <40
Hexachlorobenzene <40
Pentachlorophenol <200
Phenanthrene . <40
Anthracene <40
Di-n-Butyl phthalate <40
188
-------
ACUREX
8801048
Page 12 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
ACUREX Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Q1211
0854BK
ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BBC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
Surrogates
<40
<40
<40
<80
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
2/3/88
Percent Recovery (%)
Octa fluorob ipheny1
9-Pheny1anthracene
76
80
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, dete
189
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
ACUREX Sample ID
ACUREX
8801048
Page 13 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
E1217
1145
S1217
1145
B1217
1545
T1217
1200
E1209
1310T1
Semivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzofuran
4-Methylphenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
190
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
ACUREX Sample ID
ACUREX
8801048
Page 1> of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
E1209
1310T2
E1211
1159T1
E1211
1159T2
S1211
1158
B1211
1410
Semivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzofuran
4-Methylphenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
191
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
ACUREX Sample ID
ACUREX
8801048
Page 15 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
Semivolatile Compounds
T1211 F1217 F1209 F1211 Q1217
1200 1128 1725 1610 0900 FSK
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzofuran
4-Methylphenol
ND
ND
ND
12
15
ND
6
10
ND
9
13
ND
ND-
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
192
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
ACUREX Sample ID
ACUREX
8801048
Page 16 of 17
Rev. 11/3/86
Semivolatile Compounds
Q1219 Q1209 Q1209 01209 Q12ll
0850 0905BK 13301BK 0909SK 0908SK
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
2-Methylnaphtha1ene
Dibenzofuran
4-MethyIphenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
193
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
ACUREX Sample ID
ACUREX
8801048
Page 17 of 17
Rev. 11/3/88
Semivolatile Compounds
Q1211
0854BK
ug/ext
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzofuran
4-MethyIphenol
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
194
-------
A ACUREX
^ Corporation
Acurex (CRF)
Environmental Systems Division
March 30, 1988
Acurex ID: 8802040
Client PO: 8281.14
Page 1 of 8
Attention: Larry Waterland
Subject: Analysis of 8 Extracts, Received 2/17 and 2/18/88.
Extracts were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds
according to U.S. EPA Method 8270 (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste - SW846, 2nd Ed.,1982). Results are presented in Table 1. The
method can be summarized as follows:
Prior to injection into a Gas Chrbmatograph/Mass
Spectrometer (GC/MS), the extract is combined with internal
standards. The GC/MS is equipped with a fused silica
capillary column and is set up for the analysis of
semivolatile priority pollutants.
Identification and quantitation of other semivolatile compounds is
presented in Table 2.
Qualitative identification of the priority pollutants is performed
initially using the relative retention times and the relative
abundance of three unique ions. The entire mass spectrum is checked
before any final identifications are recorded. Quantitative analysis is
performed by the internal standard method using a single characteristic
ion and response factors obtained from a daily calibration standard. In
the tables, an entry such as "<5" means that the compound was not found
at a level above the laboratory's reporting limit.
Please note that the results are reported as micrograms per extract,
and that the two surrogates, octafluorobiphenyl and 9-phenylanthracene,
are reported in concentration instead of percent recoveries.
485 Clyde Avenue, P.O. Box 7044, Mountain View, CA 94039 (415) 961-5700 Telex: 325961 FAX: (415) 964-5145
195
-------
Acurex
8802040
Page 2 of 8
If you should have any technical questions, please contact Susan M.
Schrader at (415)961-5700.
Submitted by:
Richard Scott
Supervisor, Organic Chemistry
Approved by:
?usan M. Schrader
Client Services Manager
These results were obtained by following standard laboratory
procedures; the liability of Acurex Corporation shall not exceed the
amount paid for this report. In ho event shall Acurex be liable for
special or consequential damages.
196
-------
Acurex
8802040
Page 3 of 8
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results
Acurex Sample ID
B1211
1410
B1217
1545
T1209
1700
T1211
1200
T1217
1200
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <2o <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachloroethane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Nitrobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Isophorone <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Nitrophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dimethylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Naphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chloronaphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
.Acenaphthylene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
4-Nitrophenol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
2,4-Dinitrotoluene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,6-Dinitrotoluene , <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Diethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Fluorene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Bromophenyl phenylether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Pentachlorophenol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
Phenanthrene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Anthracene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Di-n-Butyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
197
-------
Acurex
8802040
Page 4 of 8
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
• B1211
1410
B1217
1545
T1209
1700
T1211
1200
T1217
1200
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
3/17/88 3/17/88 3/17/88 3/17/88 3/17/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octa fluorob ipheny1
9-Pheny1anthracene
12
78
18
74
35
94
39
75
47
62
198
-------
Acurex
8802040
Page 5 of 8
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Phenol
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachl oroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Bis ( 2 -chloroe thoxy ) methane
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
4 -Chloro-3 -methylphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
2 -Ch 1 oronaphtha 1 ene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
4 -Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether
Fluorene
4 , 6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pent achl oropheno 1
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
F1209
1725
ug/ext
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
61000
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
16000
<6700
<33000
<33000
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
7300
<33000
<6700
<6700
<6700
<33000
28000
8300
<6700
F1211
1610
ug/ext
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
48000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
11000
<5000
<25000
<25000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
5400
<25000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<25000
22000
6600
<5000
F1217
1128
ug/ext
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
34000
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
7800
<2900
<14000
<14000
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
5600
<14000
<2900
<2900
<2900
<14000
17000
5300
<2900
199
-------
Acurex
8802040
Page 6 of 8
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo (a) anthracene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno ( 1 , 2 , 3 -cd ) pyrene
Dibenzo ( a , h ) anthracene
Benzo (g , h , i ) perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4' -ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
Surrogates
0 eta f luorobipheny 1
9-Phenylanthracene
F1209
1725
ug/ext
19000
15000
<6700
<13000
<6700
<670|0
<670p
<6700
<67o;o
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<6700
<670P
<6700
<670IO
<6700
<6700
<6700!
<6700
<6700
<670|0
<6700
<670P
<6700
<6700
<6700
3/21/88
105
111
F1211
1610
ug/ex
14000
11000
<5000
<10000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
3/21/88
Percent
79
75
F1217
1128
t ug/ext
8900
9800
<2900
<5700
3800
<2900
3900
<2900
3700
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
<2900
3/21/88
Recovery (%)
100
123
200
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
Acurex Sample ID
Acurex
8802040
Page 7 of 8
Rev. 11/3/88
B1211
1410
B1217
1545
T1209
1700
T1211
1200
T1217
1200
Semivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
2-Methylnapthalene
Dibenzofuran
Fatty acid esters
Unknown PNA's
Unknown hydrocarbons
Other unknowns
ND
ND
61
ND
10
61
ND
ND
260
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
160
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
201
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
Acurex Sample ID
Acurex
8802040
Page 8 of 8
Rev. 11/3/88
F1209
1725
F1211
1610
F1217
1128
Semivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
2-Methylnapthalene
Dibenzofuran
Fatty acid esters
Unknown PNA's
Unknown hydrocarbons
Other unknowns
4900
5900
ND
2000
ND
6000
3950
4350
ND
4500
ND
ND
4260
4400
ND
5900
ND
3400
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
202
-------
ACUREX
Corporation
Acurex
Environmental Systems Division
March 30, 1988
Acurex ID: 8802065
Client PO: 8281.14
Page 1 of 4
Attention: Larry Waterland
Subject: Analysis of 2 Extracts, Received 2/26/88.
Extracts were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds according to
U.S. EPA Method 8270 (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - SW846,
2nd Ed.,1982). Results are presented in Table 1. The method can be
summarized as follows:
Prior to injection into a Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometer (GC/MS), the extract is combined with internal
standards. The GC/MS is equipped with a fused silica
capillary column and is set up for the analysis of
semivolatile priority pollutants.
Identification and guantitation of other semivolatile compounds is
presented in Table 2.
Qualitative identification of the priority pollutants is performed
initially using the relative retention times and the relative
abundance of three unique ions. The entire mass spectrum is checked
before any final identifications are recorded. Quantitative analysis is
performed by the internal standard method using a single characteristic
ion and response factors obtained from a daily calibration standard. In
the tables, an entry such as "<5" means that the compound was not found
at a level above the laboratory's reporting limit.
If you should have any technical questions, please contact Susan M.
Schrader at (415)961-5700.
Submitted by:
Richard Scott
Supervisor, Organic Chemistry
Approved by:
isan M.Schrader
5lient Services Manager
These results were obtained by following standard laboratory
procedures; the liability of Acurex Corporation shall not exceed the
amount paid for this report. In no event shall Acurex be liable for
special or consequential damages.
485 Clyde Avenue. P.O. Box 7044. Mountain View. CA 94039 (415)961-5700 Telex: 325961 FAX: (415) 964-5145
203
-------
Acurex
8802065
Page 2 of 4
8270 Compounds
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results
Acurex Sample ID
Q0265 Q0129
0830BBK 1600TMBK
ug/ext. ug/ext.
Phenol <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol <:20 <20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <:20 <20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <:20 <20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether <:20 <20
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <20 <20
Hexachloroethane <20 <20
Nitrobenzene <20 <20
Isophorone <20 <20
2-Nitrophenol <20 <20
2,4-Dimethylphenol <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <20
2,4-Dichlorophenol <20 <20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <20 <20
Naphthalene <20 <20
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <20
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <20 <20
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <20 <20
2-Chloronaphthalene <20 <20
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <20
Acenaphthylene <20 <20
Acenaphthene <20 <20
2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 <100
4-Nitrophenol <100 <100
2,4-Dinitrotoluene <20 <20
2,6-Dinitrotoluene * <>20 <20
Diethyl phthalate <20 <20
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether <.2 0 <20
Fluorene <20 <20
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol <100 <100
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <20 <20
4-Bromophenyl phenylether <:20 <20
Hexachlorobenzene <:20 <20
Pentachlorophenol <100 <100
Phenanthrene <:20 <20
Anthracene <20 <20
Di-n-Butyl phthalate «:20 <20
204
-------
Acurex
8802065
Page 3 of 4
8270 Compounds
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Q0129 Q0129
0830BBK 1600TMBK
ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene <20 <20
Pyrene <20 <20
Butyl benzyl phthalate <20 <20
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine <40 <40
Benzo(a)anthracene <20 <20
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <20 <2Q
Chrysene <20 <20
Di-n-octyl phthalate <20 <20
Benzo(b)fluoranthene <20 <20
Benzo(k)fluoranthene <20 <20
Benzo(a)pyrene <20 <20
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene <20 <20
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <20 <20
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <20 <20
alpha-BHC <20 <20
beta-BHC <20 <20
gamma-BHC <20 <20
delta-BHC <20 <20
Heptachlor <20 <20
Aldrin <20 <20
Heptachlor epoxide <20 <20
Endosulfan I <20 <20
Dieldrin <20 <20
4,4'-DDE <20 <20
Endrin <20 <20
Endosulfan II <20 <20
4,4'-ODD <20 <20
Endrin aldehyde <20 <20
Endosulfan sulfate K <20 <20
4,4'-DDT <20 <20
PCBs <20 <20
Date Analyzed 3/15/88 3/15/88
Date Extracted Unknown Unknown
205
-------
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
Acurex Sample ID
JVcurex
8802065
Page 4 of 4
Rev. 11/3/88
Semivolatile Compounds
Q0129 Q0129
0830BBK 1600TMBK
% Recov % Recov
Octafluorobiphenyl*
9-Phenylanthracene*
No other compounds found
12
17
72
41
* - Extraction surrogates reported as percent recovery.
•I
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
206
-------
A ACUREX
^ Coiporation
Environmental Systems Division
Acurex
Attention: Larry Waterland
Subject: Analysis of 42 Extracts, Received 2/13/88.
April 7, 1988
Acurex ID: 8802032
Client PO: 8281.14
Page 1 of 28
Rev. 8/10/88
Samples were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds according to
U.S. EPA Method 8270 (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - SW846,
2nd Ed.,1982). Results are presented in Table 1.
Identification and quantitation of other semivolatile compounds is
presented in Table 2.
Qualitative identification of the priority pollutants is performed
initially using the relative retention times and the relative
abundance of three unique ions. The entire mass spectrum is checked
before any final identifications are recorded. Quantitative analysis is
performed by the internal standard method using a single characteristic
ion and response factors obtained from a daily calibration standard. In
the tables, an entry such as "<5" means that the compound was not found
at a level above the laboratory's reporting limit. The reporting limit,
which is based on EPA reporting levels, has been corrected for any
sample dilution.
Prior to analysis, every sample is spiked with surrogate compounds as
part of Acurex's Quality Control Program. These compounds simulate the
behavior of compounds of interest and confirm that acceptable
recoveries are being achieved on every sample. The results of surrogate
recoveries are reported with the sample results.
If you should have any technical questions, please contact Robert DeROsier
at (415)961-5700.
Submitted by:
Richard Scott
Acting GC Supervisor
Approved by:
Robert DeRosier
Client Services Manager
These results were obtained by following standard laboratory
procedures; the liability of Acurex Corporation shall not exceed the
amount paid for this report. In no event shall Acurex be liable for
special or consequential damages.
485 Clyde Avenue, P.O. Box 7044, Mountain View, CA 94039 (415)961-5700 Telex: 325961 FAX: (415) 964-5145
207
-------
Acurex
B802032
Page 2 of 28
Table 1. Seinivolatile Organic Results
Acurex Sample ID
S0114
1400
S0120
1535
S0127
1130
S0129
1155
E0114
1400
8270 Compounds
ug/eixt ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 3 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Seraivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
S0114
1400
S0120
1535
S0127
1130
S0129
1155
E0114
1400
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
96
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
27
<40
<20
290
<20
36
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
28
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
2000
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20,
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
37
<40
<20
910
<20
30
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
'<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
3/16/88 2/28/88 2/29/88 3/1/88 3/16/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracene
1.4
1.5
106
101
81
69
81
77
71
66
209
-------
Acurex
0802032
Page 4 of 28
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
E0120
1535T1
E0120
1535T2
E0121
1230T1
E0121
1230T2
E0127
1130
8270 Compounds
ug/ekt ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <2d
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachloroethane 31 110 <20 <20 1 25
Nitrobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Isophorone <:20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Nitrophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dimethylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dichlorophenol <20 <20 29 <20 <20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Kaphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 j <20
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chloronaphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthylene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dinitrophenol
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 5 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
E0120
1535T1
E0120
1535T2
E0121
1230T1
E0121
1230T2
E0127
li30
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenz idine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo* (k) fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BBC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
330
<20
22
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
39
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
120
<20
31
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
290
<20
39
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
780
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
2/28/88 2/28/88 2/28/88 2/28/88 2/29/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Pheny1anthracene
72
75
82
81
80
83
71
72
86
81
211
-------
Acurex
(3802032
Page 6 of 28
Table l. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
E0129
1155
B0114
1800
B0120
2100
B0121
1220
B0127
1600
8270 Compounds
ug/e'xt ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol <:20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,3-Dicnlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ,- <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)etiier <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachloroethane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Nitrobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Isophorone <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Nitrophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dimethylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <[20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Naphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <2p <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 ; <20
2-Chloronaphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 ' <20
Acenaphthylene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dini.trophenol <1|00 <100 <100 <100 <100
4-Nitrophenol
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 7 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Seroivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
£0129
1155
B0114
1800
B0120
2100
BO 121
1220
B0127
1600
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-pd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor eppxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'^DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
.<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
3/1/88 3/16/88 2/28/88 2/28/88 2/29/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracene
75
77
15
60
13
57
14
76
17
73
213
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 8 of 28
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
B0129
1430
T0114
1345
T0120
1535
T0121
1200
T0127
1130
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol *20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachloroethane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Nitrobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Isophorone <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Nitrophenol <:20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dimethylphenol <:20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dichlorophenol <:20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <2p
Naphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 , <20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chloronaphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthylene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 <10°
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 9 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
B0129
1430
T0114
1345
T0120
1535
T0121
1200
T0127
1130
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BBC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
43
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
3/1/88 3/16/88 2/28/88 2/28/88 2/29/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octa fluorob ipheny1
9-Phenylanthracene
1.4
15
44
70
50
5.7
54
15
66
92
215
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 10 of 28
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
T0129
liss
Q0114
1028FSK
Q0114
1020FBK
Q0120
0841FBK
Q0120
0848FSK
8270 Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol <20 <2° <20 <20 <20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 ' <20
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachloroethane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Nitrobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Isophorone <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Nitrophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dimethylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2,4-Tjrichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Naphthalene <20 32 <20 33 <20
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 , <20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol «s20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chloronaphthalene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthylene <20 53 <20 51 <20
Acenaphthene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
4-Nitrophenol <3jOO <100 <100 <100 <100
2,4-Dinitrotoluene <2Q <20 <20 <20 <20
2,6-Dinitrotoluene <20 <20 <20 <20.r <20
Diethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Fluorene <20 39 <20 35 <20
4,6-Dinitro-2-nethylphenol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Bromophenyl phenylether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Pentachlorophenol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
Phenanthrene <20 45 <20 34 <20
Anthracene <20 47 <20 40 <20
Di-n-Butyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
216
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 11 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
T0129
1155
Q0114
1028FSK
Q0114
1020FBK
Q0120
0841FBK
Q0120
0848FSK
8270 .Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dlchlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benz o(a)pyrene.
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
35
<20
<20
<40
<20
140
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
140
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
29
<20
<20
<40
<20
27
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<4Q
<20
59
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
,<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
3/1/88 3/16/88 3/16/88 2/29/88 2/28/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracene
64
97
63
69
60
78
72
75
63
90
217
-------
.Acurex
8802032
Page 12 of 28
8270 Compounds
Table l. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Q0121 Q0127 Q0127 Q0129 Q0129
0836FBK 0830FSK 0829FBK 0730FSK 0731FBK
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Phenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachloroethane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Nitrobenzene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Isophorone <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Nitrophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dimethylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dichlorophenol <:20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <20 <20 <20 <2d <20
Naphthalene <20 34 <20 39 <20
Hexachlorobutadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4,6-T3fichlorophenol <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-Chloronaphthalene <;20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Dimethyl phthalate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Acenaphthylene <20 57 <20 61 <20
Acenaphthene <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2,4-Dinitrophenol
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 13 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Q0121 Q0127 Q0127 Q0129 Q0129
0836FBK 0830FSK 0829FBK 0730FSK 0731FBK
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,ijperylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin -
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDT
PCBs
Date Analyzed
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
37
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
54
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
33
<20
<20
•$40
<20
120
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
2/29/88 2/29/88 3/1/88 3/1/88 3/1/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Pheny1anthracene
68
96
69
75
67
86
72
68
14
17
219
-------
Acurex
(3802032
Page 14 of 28
Table 1. Seroivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
: . - • - • 1
8270 Compounds
Phenol
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
2 -Chi oronaphthal ene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
4 -Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether
.Fluorene
4 , 6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
.Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
Q0127
L130TSK ]
ug/ext
<20
<20
<&0
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 15 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3 , 3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo (a) anthracene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Dibenzo (a , h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4, 4 '-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4, 4 '-DDT
PCBs
Q0127
1130TSK 3
ug/ext
41
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
Q0120
L535TSK :
ug/ext
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
Q0120
ilOOBSK ]
ug/ext
24
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
Q0127
L600BSK
ug/ext
21
<20
<20
<40
<20
26
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
F0114
1545
ug/ext
13000
12000
<5000
<10000
5800
<5000
6100
<5000
6600
<5000
<5000
22000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<500Q
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
Date Analyzed
2/29/88 2/29/88 2/29/88 3/1/88 3/20/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracene
70
78
56
2.6
12
55
14
47
103
91
221
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 16 of 28
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Phenol
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-Chlorophenol
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Diehlorobenzene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachl or oe thane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dirnethylphenol
Bis ( 2 -chloroethoxy ) methane
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexa ch 1 or obut adiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
4 -Ni tr ophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , €-Diriitrotoluene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether
Fluorene
4 , 6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
F0120
2110
ug/ext
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 17 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
8270 Compounds
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3 , 3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo (a) anthracene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Dibenz o ( a , h ) anthracene
Benzo (g, h, i)perylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4, 4 '-ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4, 4 '-DDT
PCBs
F0120
2110
ug/ext
13000
12000
<5000
<10000
5800
<5000
5700
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5QOO
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<§obo
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
X5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
F0121
1228
ug/ext
18000
123000
<10000
<20000
<10000
<10000
<10000
<10000
11000
<10000
<10000
29000
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 18 of 28
Table l. Semivoiatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
1
8270 Compounds
Phenol
Bis ( 2-chloroethyl ) ether
2-Chlorophenol
1, 3-Dichiorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Bi s ( 2 -chloroisopropyl ) ether
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro~3-methylphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
4 -Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether
Fluorene
4 , 6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4 -Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
Q0127
130FMSK
ug/ext
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
7400
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
38000
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
34000
<3300
<17000
<17000
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
30000
<17000
<3300
<3300
<3300
<17000
32000
36000
<3300
B1209
1700
ug/ext
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<100
<100
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<100
<20
<20
<20
<100
<20
<20
<20
224
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 19 of 28
Rev. 11/3/88
Table 1. Semivolatile Organic Results (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Q0127
1130FMSK
8270 Compounds
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo (a) anthracene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno ( 1 , 2 , 3 -cd ) pyrene
Dibenzo (a , h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h, ijperylene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4' -ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4' -DDT
PCBs
ug/ext
23000
<3300
<3300
<6700
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
<3300
B1209
1700
ug/ext
<20
<20
<20
<40
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
. <20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
Date Analyzed
3/20/88 3/17/88
Surrogates
Percent Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl
9-Phenylanthracene
102
90
14
85
225
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 20 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds
Acurex 'Sample ID
S0114
1400
S0120
1535
S0127
1130
S0129
1155
E0114
1400
Semivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Benzyl alcohol
2 -Me t hy naptha 1 ene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Methy Iphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
140
ND
230
110
240
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
ND
ND
ND
200
ND
1700
290
580
1100
120
48
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
320
ND
34
1700
500
1800
21
30
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
270
ND
190
2900
67
330
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
650
ND
1000
320
140
ND
ND
40
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request.
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
They
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
zi National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown ipeak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
226
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 21 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
E0120
1535T1
E0120
1535T2
E0121
1230T1
E0121
1230T2
E0127
1130
Semivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Benzyl alcohol
2-Methynapthalene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Methylphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3 , 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
970
ND
400
98
170
ND
ND
42
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
180
ND
170
56
130
1000
49
24
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
490
ND
590
89
110
95
63
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
500
ND
310
170
250
22
35
31
19
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1050
ND
430
36
120
ND
100
38
13
21
17
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
227
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 22 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
E0129
1155
B0114
1800
B0120
2100
B0121
1220
B0127
1600
Seroivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Benzyl alcohol
2-?Methynapthalene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Methy Iphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1 , 2 , 3 , 5-Tetraehlorobenzene
iND
IND
ND
ND
560
ND
430
2030
240
IND
;se
ND
'NO
ND
;ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
36
ND
31
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
24
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
280
ND
50
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
400
ND
53
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major; peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
f
After identification and guantitajtipn of the target compounds, the 20
most; intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selepted for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
228
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 23 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Semivolatile Compounds
Benzyl alcohol
2-Methynapthalene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Methy Iphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1., 3 , 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
B0129
1430
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
74
ND
52
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
T0114
1345
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
190
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
T0120
1535
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
T0121
1200
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
T0127
1130
ug/ext
ND
ND*
ND
ND
ND.;
ND
190 -
ND
ND-
ND
ND.
ND."
. ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatograra are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the.outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
229
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 24 of 28
Table 2. Other identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Semivolatile Compounds
T0129 Q0114 Q0114 Q0120 Q0120
1155 1028FSK 1020FBK 0841FBK 0848FSK
ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext ug/ext
Benzyl alcohol
2 -Methynapthalene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Methylphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3 , 5~Tetrachlorobenzene
ND
ND
[ND
1ND
'ND
ND
;ND
;ND
ND
ND
|ND
ND
,ND
iND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
220
ND
250
ND
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
170
ND
290
ND
180
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
120
ND
82
ND
44
ND
30
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
300
ND
200
ND
170
ND
60
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are [reported at the client's request. They
were identified and guantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol. ;
230
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 25 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Q0121 Q0127 Q0127 Q0129 Q0129
0836FBK 0830FSK 0829FBK 0730FSK 0731FBK
Semivolatile Compounds
Benzyl alcohol
2-Methynapthalene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Methylphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
74
ND
510
ND
25
ND
68
ND
ND
ND
ND
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
300
ND
60
ND
160
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
460
ND
60
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
280
ND
630
17
490
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ug/ext
ND >
ND
ND
ND
29
ND
80
ND,
50
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and guantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
231
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 26 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
I
Semiyolatile Compounds
Benzyl alcohol
2-Methynapthalene
Dibenzofuran
4-Methylphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Q0127
1130TSK j
ug/ext
ND
[ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'ND
;ND
ND
!ND
ND
:ND
^ND
!ND
Q0120
L535TSK 3
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Q0120
2100BSK I
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
380
ND
250
ND
23
ND
ND
ND
ND
Q0127
L600BSK
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
27 ,
ND
430
ND
270
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
F0114
1545
ug/ext
ND
5200
5800
650
ND
13000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by.the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, ,no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
232
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 27 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Semivolatile Compounds
Benzyl alcohol
2 -Methynapthalene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Me thy Iphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
F0120
2110
ug/ext
ND
5000
5800
ND
ND
15000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
F0121
1228
ug/ext
ND
7900
8900
ND
ND
4800
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
F0127
1130
ug/ext
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2200
ND
F0129
1430 IE
ug/ext
ND .;"
ND
ND;
ND '
ND
.ND
isb ,
ND ,
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2200
ND
Q0114
•45FMSK
ug/ext
,;,;, .. ND '"=
* 5500*.
• 64oo':; •.
.•'••* • *ND:,
•; ND':
-; ND
ND
ND1
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks"examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra, for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of Standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
233
-------
Acurex
8802032
Page 28 of 28
Table 2. Other Identified Compounds (Continued)
Acurex Sample ID
Q0127
1130FMSK
B1209
1700
Semivolatile Compounds
ug/ext ug/ext
Benzyl alcohol
2 -Methynapthal ene
Dibenzofuran
4 -Methy Iphenol
Unknown hydrocarbons
Unknown PNA's
Unknown fatty acid esters
Unknown phthalates
Other unknowns
Unknown siloxanes
Unknown alcohols
Benzaldehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
1,3, 5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
;ND
ND
ND
ND
;ND
ND
ND
ND
15000
IND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
100
ND
71
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected among the major peaks examined, detection limit unknown.
The above compounds (idents) are reported at the client's request. They
were identified and quantitated by the following procedure:
After identification and quantitation of the target compounds, the 20
most intense peaks remaining in the chromatogram are selected for
examination. The spectra for these peaks are compared by computer with
a National Bureau of standards library containing 42,000 entries. A
chemist trained in mass spectral interpretation then examines the
results. Since at the outset these peaks are unknown, no standards are
usually analyzed to obtain retention time or response factor data.
Quantitation is based on a comparison of the area of the reconstructed
ion chromatogram from the unknown peak and the nearest internal
standard. This follows the EPA CLP protocol.
234
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1989/648-163/87094
-------
-------
-------
-------
Agency
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Please make all necessary changes on the above label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE o;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
EPA/540/5-89/008
-------
|