-------
E-DUCT 02 7-29-86
KILN O2 7-29-86
10SO
1130
1ISO
1990
1710 I«IO
14 JO
14M
T1UC J400 CIOCK-TIUC
o 02 CONC •
TlUf 14OO CLOCX-TIUC
O 02 COMC »
STACK O2 7-29-86
AFTERBURNER O2 7-29-86
It •
la •
17 •
i* •
it •
14 •
13 -
11 -
1 1
1410
I4SO
1S10
•so
toso
115O
issa
13M
TtMC 1400 ClOCK-TIMC
• OX COMC •
nut i4oo etocK-Tiuc
a oa CONC •
-------
E-DUCT C02 7-29-86
10 •
I -
7 -
4 •
3
2
1
1100
1200
1300
1400
1*00
1700
Tiyt 2*00 CLOCK-T1WC
O COX COMC B
• -1
KILN C02 7-29-S6
1500
?400 ClOCK-TlMt
CO2 COMC •
STACK C02 7-29-86
11
10 -
t •
1420
ISOO
I
1920
Tint 2400 CU5CK-TIUI
0 CO2 CONC B
AFTERBURNER C02 7-29-86
1000 1100 120O 1JOO
17ZO
TIUW 34OO CLOCK-Tlut
O CO2 CONC B
-------
E-DUCT 02 8-4-86
KILN O2 8-4-86
1700
1700
nuc 24oo CLOCK-
a 02 COMC m
TIUC 24OO CIOCK-TIWC
O O2 CONC •
STACK O2 8-4-86
AFTERBURNER 02 8-4-86
21
20
It
17
It
15
13
12
II
10
3 -
2 •
1400
1*10
1500
TIUC 2400 CIOCX-TIWC
e 02 CONC •
114O
•20
1020
1120
1220
TIUC 2400 CIOCK-TIUC
O O2 COMC •
-------
E-DUCT CO2 8-4-86
KILN CO2 8-4-86
II
10
t
u
8
u
* -
2 •
I -
1200
1100
It ZO
I JOS
1110
114O
1*20
1»40
I TOO
1720
TIUC J4OO ClOCK-TIUf
O CO2 COMC •
TlUt 24OO CLOCK-TIWC
O CO2 COMC •
STACK CO2 8-4-86
AFTERBURNER CO2 8-4-86
1.
2 •
1 -
w
••
8
114*
1*00
I42O I**O I»OO 1*20
TIMC 2«00 CLOCK-TIMt
O CO2 COMC E
»«0 IO4O tt«O 11*0 1*20
TlUt 1*00 CLOCK-T1UC
O CO2 CONC •
ISZO
-------
E-DUCT 02 8-5-86
KILN O2 8-5-86
1120
TIUC 3*OO CIOCK-TIUC
O O2 CONG B
TIUC 2400 ciocK-Tiuc
e 02 CONC m
STACK 02 8-5-86
AFTERBURNER 02 8-5-86
2t
20 -
I*
17 -
1* -
14 -
IJ •
t2 -
IO
t
7 •
9 -
4 -
J •
2 •
1120
120O
•nut 2400
O O2 CONC •
tuo
12*0
92O
1020
I20O
tJOO
•nut 2400 CLOCK--nut
o 02 CONC m
-------
E-DUCT C02 8-5-86
KILN CO2 8-5-86
11
to -
t -
• -
7 -
4 .
J
1
1 -
11X0
nut 2*00 CIOCK-TIUC
O CO2 CONC •
1125
1200
TIME 2400 CV.OCK-TIUC
O CO2 CONC •
1509
STACK CO2 8-5-86
AFTERBURNER CO2 8-5-86
11
10-
t •
3 -
* -
1 .
0-
1125
114O
120O
1220
124O
1300
T1WC 2«00 CLOCK-T1MC
O COJ CONC •
TlUt 1*00 CLOCK-TIWC
a coz COMC •
-------
E-DUCT 02 8-7-86
KILN O2 8-7-86
21
20
1*
II
17
1*
It
14
13
12
11
1O
1349
•nut 1*00 CLOCK-TIVC
o at COMC •
1*05
TIME 2400 CIOCK-T1UC
O 02 CONC m
STACK O2 8-7-86
AFTERBURNER O2 8-7-86
21
JO -
It
18
17 -
I* •
IB •
14 -
13
12 -
II -
IO -
SI
20
If
17
1*
It
14
5 "
8 "
0 11
g te
•4S
net
M*»
I22S
132S
TMt 24OO ClOCK-TMC
O 02 CONC •
134*
TIMC 24oo eiocK-nuc
O 02 COMC •
-------
11 •
10-
7 i ,
4 •
1 •
2 •
1 -
E-DUCT CO2 8-7-86
KILN CO2 8-7-86
11
10
*
k •
4
J
I •
0
13JS
• 23
1O20 1120
1220
T1UC 2«OO ClOCK-TIMC
O C02 COMC •
TIUC 24OO ClOCK-TIMC
O CO2 COMC •
STACK CO2 8-7-86
AFTERBURNER CO2 8-7-86
10 -
3 -
2 •
1 -
1OOO
I04O
112O
1200
1240
1320
TIMt 24OO CLOCie-T>Ul
O CO2 COMC •
134O
TIUC 2400 CLOCX-TIUC
O C02 COMC •
-------
E-DUCT O2 8-12-86
KILN 02 8-12-86
o
M
O
21 •
20 •
It •
1* •
17 •
1* •
I* •
14 •
13 •
12 •
11 •
IO •
U
8
•20
1220
1300
TlUC 2400 ClOCK-TIMC
O O2 CONC •
lltO
nut I tea
o 02 COHC m
STACK O2 8-12-86
AFTERBURNER O2 8-12-86
tt
20 •
I* •
1* •
17 •
1* •
Ik •
14 •
13 •
12 •
11 •
IO •
21
20
It
I*
17
!•
IS
14
13 •
IS •
11 •
10
1040
11*0
1400 CLOCK-TIUC
O2 CONC •
1140
•20
122O
13OO
T1MC 2400 ClOCK-TIMC
O 02 CONC M
-------
E-DUCT CO2 8-12-86
KILN C02 8-12-86
it
to
§-
4
2 •
1
102O
124O
2400 ClOCK-ltUC
C02 COMC •
1)40
o-
1C JO
1100 1120
I2OO
I22O
TlUt 2400 CIOCX-T1WC
o coi CONC H
STACK C02 8-12-86
AFTERBURNER CO2 8-12-86
11
10 -
t -
4 .
J •
2 •
1 -
11
IO
t •
t
7 •
1040
I12O
114O
1200
1220
120
TlUt 240O CLOCK-TIWC
O CO2 COMC •
1020 1140
TlUt >4OO (TLOCK-TlUt
a eat COMC •
1340
-------
E-DUCT 02 8-13-86
I22O
nut j«oo CLOCK-TIUC
e 02 CONC m
AFTERBURNER 02 8-13-86
1020
1120
1220
1320
nut 1*00 CIOCK-TIMC
O O2 CONC B
-------
E-DUCT C02 8-13-86
U
8
11 •
IO •
t •
7
4 •
4 -
J -
2 •
I -
t*o
1020
I HO
122O
I MO
1420
TIWC 2«OO CLOCK-HUC
O C01 COMC •
AFTERBURNER C02 8-13-86
10
t
§•
7 •
10ZO 11ZO 122O
TIMt 24OO CXOCK-TIUt
a CO2 COMC •
-------
E-DUCT O2 8-14-86
'KILN O2 8-14-86
2O
It
ia
17
i*
is
14
13
12
II
10
t
4 -
3 -
2 '
t40
1010
I MO
1300
11*0
It -
18
17 -
!• -
IS -
14 -
13 -
12 •
II -
ID
t -
S
7 -
S -
• -
4 -
3 -
2
14OO
TlUt 2400 CLOCK-TIMC
O 02 CONC •
1410
TlUt 24OO CLOCK-TlUt
O O2 CONC »
STACK O2 8-14-86
AFTERBURNER O2 8-14-86
21
2O
It
IS
14
13
12
It
1O
1400
21
20 •
It
It -
17 -
It -
IS -
14 -
13 •
11 •
II
10 -
I42O
I 2400 CLOCK-TIMt
t4O
• 020
110O
1I4O
1220
1300
1340
TIUC 2400 CLOOC-nwC
O O2 CONC •
-------
COJ COMC •
COt CONC •
fe I
•8
2
o
o
o
N>
O3
I
I
09
O)
8
n
I
o
c
o
H
O
O
M
00
I
I
09
O)
COt CONC •
COt CONC •
i
PI
CD
c
2
n
27
o
O
09
I
I
00
O>
— o -
I
°I
O
O
ro
09
I
I
09
O)
-------
E-DUCT O2 8-28-86
I* -
17 -
II -
15 -
14 -
12 -
11 -
10-1
I41Q
TIUC 2400 CtOCK-tluC
O O2 COMC •
STACK O2 8-28-86
AFTERBURNER 02 8-28-86
O
8
20 •
I* •
17 •
1* •
IS •
12
10
It
17
1*
1ft
12
11
10
MOO
TIUC J4OO CIOCK-TIUC
0 O2 " -
1400
•00
TIUC 2400 CIOCK-TIUC
O 02 CONC •
-------
11
E-DUCT C02 8-28-86
10 •
•
1440
TIUC 24OO CLOCK-TIME
o eoj CONC B
STACK CO2 8-28-86
AFTERBURNER CO2 8-28-86
7 -
i too
1*00
1100
1000
TIUC noo eiocK-Tiuc
O CO2 CONC •
TIUC I4OO ClOCK-TIMC
O CO 2 CONC *
-------
E-DUCT O2 9-03-86
10
It
I*
17
IS
14
13
12
11
IO
t
7
»
TMC X«OO ClOCK-tlUt
a 02 CONC •
STACK O2 9-03-86
AFTERBURNER O2 9-03-86
xo •
ta •
17 •
11 •
12
11
IO •
XO
It
It
17
II
U
12
II
IO
I2OO
MOO
ixoe
TIMt 2*00 ClOCK-TMC
• OS COMC •
TIUC X4OO CLOCK-TIUC
a ox CONC •
-------
E-DUCT CO2 9-03-86
10
I
,.
I ~
S
u
IMS
14*0
nut j«>o evoeK-nwc
o coi cox •
STACK CO2 9-03-86
AFTERBURNER C02 9-03-86
7 •
5 •
8
u
I JOG
Tint noo ciocK-nut
a coi COMC m
11OO I1OO liOO
TIUC J«OO CIOCK-TIUC
a coi COHC •
-------
E-DUCT 02 9-04-86
>o
I*
ia •
«? -
it •
19 -
l« -
13 -
ta -
11 -
10 -
•1
7 -
• -
040
1*00
nut 24oo CIOCK-TIUC
0 Ol COMC •
1420
STACK 02 9-04-86
AFTERBURNER O2 9-04-86
20 •
1* -
IS •
14 •
11 •
11 •
II •
10 •
• -t1
20
It
17
It
19
14
13
12
II
1O
t
*00
tooo
I2OO
•00
TlUt 2400 CIOCK-T1MC
o 02 CONC m
MOO I2OO
TIMC 240O ciocK-nyc
O 02 COMC «
-------
E-DUCT C02 9-04-86
X 7
ti •
Tlut 2*OO CLOCK-TtuC
O CO2 COMC •
STACK CO2 9-04-86
AFTERBURNER CO2 9-04-86
10 -
I -
1100
T1UC J4OO CLOCK-TlUt
O CO! COMC «
tOO 1000 1100 1200
Tint 2*00 CLOCK-TIUC
O CO2 CONC •
1300
-------
Bros Surface Oil
Schedule of Vost, Method 5, And Modified Method 5 Sampling
Combustion Research Facility Sampling Times
DATE
1986
7/21
7/28
7/29
STACK
MS
NO
NO
NO
E-OUCT
VOST
1203-1233
1410-1430
1610-1630
1111-1132
1330-1350
1530-1550
1407-1427
1610-1630
1805-1825
MM5
1203-1722
1114-1622
1405-1916
AFTERBURNER
MS
1157-1307
1119-1245
1415-1623
* - 2400 Clock Time
NO - No Data
-------
Bros Soil
* Schedule of Vost, Method 5, And Modified Method 5 Sampling
Combustion Research Facility Sampling Times
DATE
1986
8/04
8/05
8/07
STACK
MS
1324-1432
-
1105-1217
1000-1106
E-DUCT
____________ _
VOST
1328-1348
1500-1528
1630-1650
1111-1137
1318-1338
1410-1430
1000-1022
1135-1156
1330-1350
MM5
1324-1735
1100-1528
1000-1410
AFTERBURNER
MS
1320-1420
1105-1214
1000-1100
* - 2400 Clock Time
-------
Bros Soil And Sludge
* Schedule of Vost, Method 5, And Modified Method 5 Sampling
Combustion Research Facility Sampling Times
DATE
1986
8/12
8/13
8/14
STACK
MS
1002-1108
1000-1108
1015-1121
E-DUCT
VOST
1001-1027
1138-1158
1200-1320
1001-1021
1136-1201
1330-1350
1015-1040
1206-1237
1330-1356
MM5
1004-1441
1001-1439
1015-1453
AFTERBURNER
MS
1006-1135
1000-1116
1015-1126
* - 2400 Clock Time
-------
Bros Sludge
Schedule Of Vost, Method 5, And Modified Method 5 Sampling
Combustion Research Facility Sampling Times
DATE
1986
8/28
9/03
9/04
STACK
MS
945-1055
940-1042
930-1032
E-DUCT
VOST
NO
940-1000
1200-1220
1330-1449
930-950
1120-1140
1330-1350
MM5
951-1455
940-1446
930-1429
AFTERBURNER
MS
955-1120
951-1108
937-1044
* - 2400 Clock Time
ND - No Data
-------
Table
BROS SOIL
Stack Method 5 Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1966
8/04
8/05
8/07
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
16.3
(0.57)
13.6
(0.48)
16.7
(0.59)
OSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
15.1
(0.53)
12.5
(0.44)
14.5
(0.51)
DRY GAS METER
TEMPERATURE
INLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
45.6
31.1-50
(114.0)
(88-122)
44.9
32.8-48.9
(112.8)
(91-120)
49.1
31.7-55
(120.3)
(89-131)
OUTLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
35.2
29.4-39.4
(95.4)
(85-103)
35.4
30-38.9
(95.8)
(86-102)
37.2
30-42.2
(99.1)
(86-108)
FILTER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
_______________
131.9
130.6-133.3
(269.5)
(267-272)
120.2
95.6-131.7
(248.3)
(204-269)
119.4
105-134.5
(247.0)
(221-274)
DESSICANT
IMPINGER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
25.3
24.5-26.1
(77.5)
(76-79)
28.5
27.8-29.5
(83.3)
(82-85)
31.1
30.6-31.7
(88.0)
(87-89)
ISOKINECITY
PERCENT
108.4
108.0
99.7
-------
Table
BROS SOIL AND SLUDGE
Stack Method 5 Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
8/12
8/13
8/14
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
_ •» v _
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
16.4
(0.58)
17.7
(0.63)
15.9
(0.56)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
15.3
(0.54)
16.3
(0.50)
14.5
(0.51)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
—
40.5
30.6-47.2
(104.9)
(87-117)
40.6
29.5-47.2
(105.1)
(85-117)
43.5
32.2-48.9
(110.3)
(90-120)
OUTLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
33.8
28.9-37.2
(92.8)
(84-99)
33.9
26.7-39.5
(93)
(80-103)
36.5
30.6-41.7
(97.6)
(87-107)
FILTER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
____ _
121.8
113.3-127.2
(251.3)
(236-261)
125.6
123.9-127.2
(258.1)
(255-261)
121.2
118.9-122.8
(250.1)
(246-253)
DESSICANT
IMPINGER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
18.6
17.2-20
(65.4)
(63-68)
.
18.7
17.2-20
(65.6)
(63-68)
20.2
19.5-21.7
(68.3)
(67-71)
I SDK I NEC I TY
PERCENT
92.7
92.3
99.1
-------
Table
BROS SLUDGE
Stack Method 5 Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
8/28
9/03
9/04
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/HIN
(ASCFM)
16.7
(0.59)
19.0
(0.67)
21.6
(0.76)
DSL/MI N
(DSCFM)
15.8
(0.56)
17.6
(0.62)
20.0
(0.71)
DRY GAS METER
TEMPERATURE
INLET
*C (*F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
37.1
23.9-45.1
(98.8)
(75-106)
44.2
28.3-50
(111.6)
(83-122)
44.9
27.8-50
(112.8)
(82-122)
OUTLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
31.9
21.1-31.1
(89.5)
(70-88)
31.7
26.1-35.6
(89.0)
(79-96)
32.7
25.6-36.1
(90.8)
(78-97)
FILTER
TEMPERATURE
•c
(°F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
117.8
112.8-122.2
(244.0)
(235-252)
125.3
120.6-127.2
(257.5)
(249-261)
128.3
127.2-130
(263.0)
(261-266)
DESSICANT
IMPINGER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
18
16.1-20
(64.3)
(61-68)
18.3
17.8-18.9
(64.9)
(64-66)
18.7
17.8-20
(65.6)
(64-68)
ISOKINECITY
PERCENT
98.2
98.4
96.6
-------
Table
BROS SURFACE OIL
E-Ouct MM5 Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
7/21
7/28
7/29
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
22.9
(0.81)
20.6
(0.73)
11.8
(0.42)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
20.5
(0.72)
18.2
(0.64)
10.5
(0.37)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
•C (»F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
101.9
93.3-114.4
(215.5)
(200-238)
101.7
93.3-114.4
(215.1)
(200-238)
119.3
110.0-126.7
(247.6)
(230-260)
OUTLET
•C (*F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
119.7
98.9-127.8
(247.4)
(218-262)
103.1
90.0-132.2
(217.6)
(194-270)
126.2
98.9-128.9
(259.2)
(210-264)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
46.1
32.8-53.9
(115.0)
(91-129)
50.7
38.9-56.1
(123.3)
(102-133)
7.2
6.1-9.4
(45.0)
(43-49)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
Hn Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
401.3
381.0-431.8
(15.8)
(15-17)
243.9
203.2-330.2
(9.6)
(8-13)
396.3
254.0-431.8
(15.6)
(10-17)
-------
BROS SOIL
Table . E-Duct MM5 Sampler Operating Condition
OATF
1986
TIME
START
8/04
8/05
8/07
SAMPLE Fl
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
9.7
(0.34)
8.0
(0.28)
15.3
(0.54)
.OW RATE
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
9.0
(0.32)
7.4
(0.26)
13.4
(0.48)
PROBE
OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
106.9
88.9-118.9
(224.5)
(192-246)
106.7
87.8-121.1
(224.0)
(190-250)
107.0
93.3-132.2
(224.6)
(200-270)
FILTER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
125.2
107.8-133.3
(257.3)
(226-272)
108.7
76.7-126.7
(227.6)
(170-260)
119.5
112.2-126.7
(247.0)
(234-260)
RESIN
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
8.7
7.2-9.4
(47.6)
(45-49)
8.6
7.2-9.4
(47.5)
(45-49)
7.8
1.7-10.0
(46.0)
(35-50)
DRY GAS METER
OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
42.1
30.0-45.6
(107.8)
(86-114)
41.5
31.1-46.1
(106.7)
(88-115)
44.3
32.2-48.3
(111.7)
(90-119)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL AND SLUDGE
E-Duct MM5 Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
START
TINE
8/12
8/13
8/14
SAMPLE FL
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
15.3
(0.54
15/8
(0.56)
14.6
(0.52)
.OW RATE
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
13.8
(0.49)
14.2
(0.56)
13.0
(0.46)
PROBE |
OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
103.9
97.8-115.6
(219.1)
(208-240)
104.3
93.3-121.1
(219.7)
(200-250)
101.7
87.8-117.8
(215.1)
(190-244)
FILTER
TEMPERATURE
•c
(•F)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
119.1
95.6-136.7
(246.3)
(204-278)
123.6
98.9-134.4
(254.4)
(210-274)
123.6
110.0-132.2
(254.4)
(230-270)
RESIN |
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
8.9
6.7-10.0
(48.1)
(44-50)
8.5
5.0-9.5
(47.3)
(41-49)
8.5
3.3-9.4
(47.3)
(38-49)
DRY GAS METER
OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
39.4
28.9-58.3
(102.9)
(84.137)
41.5
27.2-47.2
(106.6)
(81-117)
46.1
33.3-51.1
(115.0)
(92-124)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL
E-Duct MM5 Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
START
TIME
8/28
9/03
9/04
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
17.2
(0.61)
17.3
(0.61)
17.8
(0.63)
DSL/MIN
(OSCFM)
16.0
(0.57)
15.7
(0.55)
16.1
(0.57)
PROBE
OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
103.3
91.1-121.1
(218.0)
(196-250)
125.9
121.1-137.8
(258.6)
(250-280)
115.6
87.8-143.3
(240.0)
(190-290)
FILTER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
100.8
78.9-101.1
(213.4)
(174-214)
131.7
76.7-137.8
(269.0)
(170-280)
134.9
115.6-137.8
(274.9)
(240-280)
RESIN |
TEMPERATURE
°C
CF)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
8.3
4.4-11.1
(47.0)
(40-52)
8.9
-1.7-12.1
(48.1)
(29-54)
8.2
3.3-10.0
(46.7)
(38-50)
DRY GAS METER
OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE.
MIN-MAX
34.7
27.2-37.8
(94.4)
(81-100)
42.7
27.8-48.9
(108.9)
(82-120)
40.7
27.2-47.2
(105.3)
(81-117)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL AND SLUDGE
E-Duct Vest Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
8/12
(1000)
8/12
(1138)
8/12
(1300)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
___________________
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
1.05
(0.037)
1.35
(0.048)
1.05
(0.037)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
1.06
(0.038)
1.33
(0.047)
1.05
(0.037)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
—____—_-—____—_________
INLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
42.8
36.1-47.8
(109)
(97-118)
45.4
33.3-50.6
(113.8)
(92-123)
48.8
37.2-51.7
(119.8)
(99-125)
OUTLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
11.3
11.1-11.7
(52.4)
(52-53)
16.6
13.3-25.6
(61.8)
(56-78)
20.0
19.4-22.2
(68)
(67-72)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
29.3
29.9-30.0
(84.8)
(84-86)
33.3
33.3-33.3
(92)
(92-92)
33.9
33.9-33.9
(93)
(93-93)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(in Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
177.8
177.8-177.8
(7.0)
(7.0-7.0)
279.4
254.0-330.2
(11.0)
(10-13)
254
254-254
(10)
(10-10)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL AND SLUDGE
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
8/13
(1001)
8/13
(1136)
8/13
(1330)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
1.0
(0.035)
1.16
(0.041)
1.10
(0.039)
OSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
1.0
(0.035)
1.13
(0.04)
1.07
(0.038)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
•C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
52.8
32.2-61.7
(127)
(90-143)
33.9
33.9-33.9
i S3)
(93-93)
52.2
42.2-58.9
(126)
(108-138)
OUTLET
•C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
16.7
16.1-17.8
(62)
(61-64)
18.9
16.7-22.2
(66)
(62-72)
21.0
20.6-21.1
(69.8)
(69-70)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
27.9
27.2-28.9
(82.3)
(81-84)
33.9
33.9-33.9
(93)
(93-93)
37.0
36.7-37.2
(98.6)
(98-99)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(In Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
184.2
177.8-203.2
(7.25)
(7-8)
482.6
482.6-482.6
(19)
(19-19)
264.2
254-279.4
(10.4)
(10-11)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL AND SLUDGE
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
8/14
(1015)
8/14
(1206)
8/14
(1330)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
1.0
(0.035)
0.90
(0.032)
1.0
(0.035)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
0.98
(0.035)
0.87
(0.031)
0.96
(0.034)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
41.2
36.1-51.7
(106.2)
(97-125)
37.2
37.2-37.2
(99)
(99-99)
41.0
39.4-43.3
(105.8)
(103-110)
OUTLET
•C (*F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
20.0
18.3-23.3
(68)
(65-74)
19.8
15.6-26.1
(67.6)
(60-79)
21.1
20.0-22.8
(70.0)
(68-73)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
33.8
33.3-35.6
(92.8)
(92-96)
38.9
38.9-38.9
(102)
(102-102)
40.0
40.0-40.0
(104)
(104-104)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(In Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
477.5
457.2-482.6
(18.8)
(18-19)
502.9
482.6-508.0
(19.8)
(19-20)
508
508-508
(20)
(20-20)
-------
BROS SOIL
Table . E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
6/04
(1328)
8/04
(1500)
8/04
(1630)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
0.97
(0.034)
0.73
(0.026)
1.03
(0.036)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
0.97
(0.034)
0.72
(0.026)
1.03
(0.036)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
•C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
61.9
59.4-65.0
(143.5)
(139-149)
50.3
42.2-55.6
(122.6)
(108-132)
63.6
61.7-65.0
(146.5)
(143-149)
OUTLET
•C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
13.8
3.9-17.8
(56.8)
(39-64)
19.3
16.7-23.9
(66.8)
(62-75)
18.9
17.2-22.2
(66)
(63-72)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
35.0
35.0-35.0
(95)
(95-95)
35.1
33.9-35.6
(95.2)
(93-96)
33.3
32.8-35.0
(92.0)
(91-95)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(in Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
157.5
152.4-177.8
(6.2)
(6-7)
411.5
330.2-431.8
(16.2)
(13-17)
241.3
228.6-279.4
(9.5)
(9-11)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
8/05
(1111)
8/05
(1318)
8/05
(1410)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
0.98
(0.035)
1.01
(0.036)
1.03
(0.036)
DSL/MIM
(DSCFM)
0.97
(0.034)
0.99
(0.035)
1.0
(0.035)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
•C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
48.1
42.8-51.7
(118.6)
(109-125)
61.1
51.7-66.7
(142)
(125-152)
69.4
65.6-70.0
(156.4)
(150-158)
OUTLET
'C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
20.6
17.8-26.1
(69)
(64-79)
21.2
18.9-26.7
(70.2)
(66-80)
19.8
17.8-23.9
(67.6)
(64-75)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
34.6
33.9-35.6
(94.2)
(93-96)
37.9
33.9-38.9
(100.2)
(93-102)
39.4
39.4-39.4
(103)
(103-103)
PRESSURE
iron Hg
(*n Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
^
411.5
381.0-431.8
(16.2)
(15-17)
208.3
203.2-228.6
(8.2)
(8-9)
162.6
152.4-177.8
(6.4)
(6-7)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
8/07
(1000)
8/07
(1135)
8/07
(1330)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
0.87
(0.031)
1.03
(0.036)
0.87
(0.031)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
0.84
(0.030)
0.99
(0.035)
0.82
(0.029)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
•C (»F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
50.6
48.9-51.2
(122)
(120-125)
37.0
36.1-37.2
(98.6)
(97-99)
37.8
37.8-37.8
(100)
(100-100)
OUTLET
•C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
19.3
18.9-20.0
(66.8)
(66-68)
23.3
21.7-26.7
(74.0)
(71-80)
19.6
17.8-26.7
(67.2)
(64-80)
METER
TFMPFRATIIRF
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
31.7
31.7-31.7
(89)
(89-89)
37.2
37.2-37.2
(99)
(99-99)
38.9
38.9-38.9
(102)
(102-102)
PRESSURE
nwn HQ
(in Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
299.7
254.0-330.2
(11.8)
(10-13)
431.8
431.8-431.8
(17)
(17-17)
436.9
431.8-457.2
(17.2)
(17-18)
-------
Table
BROS SURFACE OIL
E-Ouct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
7/21
(1203)
7/21
(1410)
7/21
(1610)
-
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
___________________
_____ _ ___
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
0.76
(0.027)
1.01
(0.036)
0.85
(0.030)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
0.76
(0.027)
0.99
(0.035)
0.84
(0.030)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
•C (-F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
38.7
37.8-40
(101.6)
(100-104)
35.6
33.9-36.7
(96.0)
(93-96)
33.3
31.1-34.5
(92.0)
(88-94)
OUTLET
'C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
(72.4)
(68-76)
(68.4)
(67-73)
22.2
20-25.6
(72.0)
(68-78)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
35.9
35.6-36.1
(96.6)
(96-97)
38.9
38.3-40
(102)
(101-104)
36.1
36.1-36.1
(97.0)
(97-97)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(In Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
223.5
177.8-279.4
(8.8)
(7-11)
248.9
228.6-254
(9.8)
(9-10)
401.3
381-406.4
(15.8)
(15-16)
-------
Table
BROS SURFACE OIL
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
7/28
(1111)
7/28
(1330)
7/28
(1530)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/NIN
(ASCFM)
'
0.94
(0.033)
1.05
(0.037)
1.07
(0.038)
DSL/MI N
(DSCFM)
0.91
(0.032)
1.06
(0.036)
1.04
(0.037)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
•C fF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
61.1
47.8-64.5
(142.0)
(118-148)
62.6
45-67.8
(144.6)
(113-154)
(142.0)
(116-149)
OUTLET
•C («F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
(73)
(72-75)
22.7
21.7-25.6
(72.8)
(71-78)
20.8
20-22.2
(69.4)
(68-72)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
41.2
40.6-41.7
(106.2)
(105-107)
42.9
42.8-43.3
(109.2)
(109-110)
40.5
40-41.1
(104.8)
(104-106)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(1n Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
457.2
457.2-457.2
(18)
(18-18)
223.5
203.2-304.8
(8.8)
(8-12)
299.7
254-330.2
(11.8)
(10-13)
-------
Table
BROS SURFACE OIL
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
7/29
(1407)
7/29
(1610)
7/29
(1805)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
0.95
(0.034)
1.03
(0.036)
1.01
(0.036)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
0.92
(0.032)
1.0
(0.035)
0.99
(0.035)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
43.1
40-45.6
(109.6)
(104-114)
55.7
40.6-59.4
(132.2)
(105-139)
52.6
40-57.2
(126.6)
(104-135)
OUTLET
'C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
21.3
21.1-21.7
(70.4)
(70-71)
21.1
19.4-25.6
(70.0)
(67-78)
21.1
19.4-25.6
(70.0)
(67-78)
METER
TCftJDCD A Tl IDC
TEMPERATURE
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
45.6
44.5-50
(114)
(112-122)
41.1
41.1-41.1
(106)
(106-106)
40
40-40
(104)
(104-104)
PRESSURE
mm ng
Hn Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
401.3
381-431.8
(15.8)
(15-17)
243.9
203.2-330.2
(9.6)
(8-13)
396.3
254-431.8
(15.6)
(10-17)
-------
Table
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
9/03
(0940)
9/03
(1200)
9/03
(1330)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
1.05
(0.037)
1.04
(0.037)
0.53
(0.019)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
1.02
(0.036)
0.96
(0.035)
0.51
(0.018)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
—_..___ _ _ _
INLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
122.1
115.6-124.5
(251.8)
(240-256)
117.8
107.2-126.7
(244)
(225-260)
117.9
110-126.7
(244.3)
(230-260)
OUTLET
•C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
15.6
14.5-16.7
(60)
(58-62)
24.1
21.1-28.3
(76.4)
(70-83)
25.6
22.2-28.9
(78.0)
(72-84)
METER
TCUDCD ATI IDC
1 EMrtRATURc
•c
CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
27.3
25.6-28.9
(81.2)
(78-84)
36.6
35-38.3
(97.8)
(95-101)
30.1
28.3-39.4
(86.1)
(83-103)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(1n Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
—
165.1
165.1-165.1
(6.5)
(6.5-6.5)
332.8
292.1-381.0
(13.1)
(11.5-15.0)
152.4
127.0-355.6
(6.0)
(5-14)
-------
Table
BROS SOIL
E-Duct Vost Sampler Operating Conditions
DATE
1986
TIME
START
9/04
(0930)
9/04
(1120)
9/04
(1330)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
L/MIN
(ASCFM)
1.0
(0.035)
1.1
(0.039)
1.01
(0.036)
DSL/MIN
(DSCFM)
1.0
(0.035)
1.08
(0.038)
0.98
(0.035)
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
INLET
*C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
_
112.2
98.3-120.0
(234)
(209-248)
117.6
110-123.9
(243.6)
(230-255)
119.4
101.7-137.8
(247)
(215-280)
OUTLET
°C CF)
AVE
MIN-MAX
17.1
14.4-18.9
(62.8)
(58-66)
17.0
16.1-18.3
(62.6)
(61-65)
19.0
17.8-20.6
(66.2)
(64-69)
METER
TEMPERATURE
•c
(°F)
AVE
MIN-MAX
25.6
25.0-26.1
(78)
(77-79)
30.1
30.0-30.6
(86.2)
(86-87)
33.1
32.8-33.9
(91.6)
(91-93)
PRESSURE
mm Hg
(in Hg)
AVE
MIN-MAX
127
127-127
(5.0)
(5.0-5.0)
284.5
254-330.2
(11.2)
(10-13)
335.3
330.2-355.6
(13.2)
(13-14)
-------
Table - . Schedule of Vest, Method 5, And Modified Method 5 Sampling
Feed
Material
Surface
Oil
• Soil
Soil
And
Sludge
Mixture
Sludge
I
Date
7-21-86
7-28
7-29
8-04
8-05
8-07
8-12
8-13
8-14
8-28
9-03
9-04
Stack
M5
ND
NO
NO
1324-1432
1105-1217
1000-1106
1002-1108
1000-1108
1015-1121
945-1055
940-1042
930-1032
E-Duct
VOST MM5
1203-1233
1410-1430
1610-1630
1111-1132
1330-1350
1530-1550
1407-1427
1610-1630
1805-1825
1328-1348
1500-1528
1630-1650
1111-1137
1318-1338
1410-1430
1000-1022
1135-1156
1330-1350
1001-1027
1138-1158
1200-1320
1001-1021
1136-1201
1330-1350
1015-1040
1206-1237
1330-1356
NO
940-1000
1200-1220
1330-1449
930-950
1120-1140
1330-1350
1203-1722
1114-1622
1405-1916
1324-1735
1100-1528
1000-1410
1004-1441
1001-1439
1015-1453
951-1455
940-1446
930-1429
Afterburner
M5
1157-1307
1119-1245
1415-1623
1320-1420
1105-1214
1000-1100
1006-1135
1000-1116
1015-1126
955-1120
951-1108
937-1044
* - 2400 Clock Time
NO - No Data
-------
:lue Gas Flow Rates for Kiln PCB Trial Eurr a»d RDS Tests
Location
Surf act Oil 7-21
7-28
7-29
Soil 6-4
8-5
6-7
Soil + Siucce 6-12
6-13
6-14
Siucce 8-26
5-3
9-*
Flue Flow Rat
Scrubber
26.4
£.2
16.9
16.3
15.6
22.6
24.0
24.1
20.9
24.4
24.9
25.5
,e (dscfl/iin)
Stack
tt
H
«
IS. 4
l£.e
£0.6
22.9
24.6
20.4
22.5
25.0
26.6
Flue Flw Ra4
ScrubJer-
932
1137
6«
574
557
7Sc
847
650
737
660
681
899
e (5sc*s)
Stac*
M
H
*ff
66*
e-r«
c • «
725
610
670
7£1
7:2
6fi2
10:7
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYTICAL REPORTS
E-l
-------
/N ACUREX
r*^ Corporation
October 10, 1986
Dr. Larry H. Waterland
Program Manager
US EPA Combustion Research Facility
c/o NCTR, Building 45
Jefferson. Arkansas 72079
(CRF!
Energy & Environmental Division
page 1 of 15
Distribution:
Johannes Lee
Jerry Lewis
Ralph Vocque
Subject: VOST Analytical Results
Reference: EPA Contract 68-03-3267
Dear Dr. Waterland:
The tables which follow summarize the results of analyses performed on
Volatile Organic Sampling Trains (VOST) taken at the CRF between July 8, 1986
and September 4, 1986. These data are associated with the performance of the
rotary kiln system during incineration of the following: Askarel + Auto Dry;
BROS surface oil; BROS soil: BROS soil * sludge and BROS sludge.
Sampling and analysis were performed in general accordance with
"Protocol For The Collection And Analysis Of Volatile POHC'S Using VOST", EPA-
600/8-84-007. March 1984. Variations from this protocol are documented in
"Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Research Symposium: Incineration and
Treatment of Hazardous Waste". EPA/600/9-85/028. September 1985. pages 252-
260.
Sincerely;
Robert W. Ross,
Senior Chemist
II
NCTR. Building 45. Jefferson. AR 72079 (501) 5*1-0004 FAX. (501) 536-6446
555 Clyde Avenue. PO Box 7555, Mountain View, CA 94039 (415) 964-3200 Telex 34-6391 TWX. 910-7796593
-------
ABLE 8. COMPOUNDS ROUTINELY DETERMINED IN VOST SAMPLES
Compounds
Mtthyl tne Chloride
1,1-01 chloroethylene
1,1-01 ehl orethane
trans-1 ,2-01 ehl oroethylene
Chloroform
1 .2-01 ehl oroethane*
2-butanone
1 ,1 ,l-Tr1 ehl oroethane
Carbon TttrachloHde
Browdl chloromethane
1 ,2-DI ehl oropropane
trans-1 ,3-01 chloropropene
Trlchloroethylene
Benzene
1 ,1 ,2-Tr1 ehl oroethane*
Chi orodl broiaomethane
Hexane
Bronof orti •
Tetrachloroethylene*
1 .1 ,2 ,2-Tetracnl oroethane
1so-octane
Toluene*
Htpane
Chlorobenzene
Octane
1 ,3-01 ehl orobenzene
1 ,2-01 chl orobenzene
1 ,4-01 ehl orobenzene
Abbreviation
H/C
1.1-DCEENE
1.1-DCEANE
t-l,2-DCEENE
Chloroform
1.2-DCEAME
2B
1,1.1-TCEANE
ecu
BOCM
1,2-DCPRANE
t-l,3-OCPRENE
C13-EENE
BZ
1.1.2-TCEAME
CDBM
HEX
Bronofonn
CU-EENE/ANE
1so-octane
To!
Hep
C1-BZ
Octane
1,3-DCBZ
1.2-DCBZ
1.4-OCBZ
Total of 28 compounds
* Elute at sane retention t1i
41
-------
TABLE 3. VOST ANALYSIS (Total (jg/Train)
JULY 21, 1986 - BROS SURFACE OIL
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1 , 1 -OCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1 -TCEANE
ecu
BOCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1, 2 -TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
Cl-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E0721 1203V
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.102
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
*68.3
-B-
-B-
-B-
.048
1560%
-B-
-B-
19*
-B-
-B-
-B-
E07211410V
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.046
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
*1.96
-B-
-B-
-B-
.061
404*
-B-
-B-
5*
-B-
-B-
-B-
E07211610V
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.279
-B-
*.224
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
*40.9
-B-
-B-
-B-
.101
1215%
.100
-B-
38%
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- BeloM quantification 1i«it
** These compounds are internal standards.
The number reported is % Recovery.
-------
TABLE 4. VOST ANALYSIS (Total UQ/Train)
JULY 28, 1986 - BROS SURFACE OIL
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1.2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
CC14
BOCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE •*• ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
C1-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E07281111V
*2.29
-B-
-B-
-B-
.072
.104
-B-
*3.39
.096
-B-
-B-
-B-
.017
-B-
.111
.020
.069
134%
.110
-B-
104%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E07281330V
.634
-B-
-B-
-B-
.061
.216
-B-
*.726
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.020
-B-
.129
.017
.044
192%
.058
-B-
108%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E07281530V
*11.9
-B-
-B-
-B-
.060
.050
-B-
*.311
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.082
-B-
-B-
694%
-B-
-B-
72%
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification liait
** These compounds are internal standards.
The number reported is % Recovery.
-------
TABLE 5. VOST ANALYSIS (Total jig/Train)
JULY 29, 1986 - BROS SURFACE OIL
QUANTIFICATION
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-OCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
CC14
80CM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-OCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
Cl-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
LIMIT E07291407V
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
.561
-B-
-B-
-B-
.183
-B- '
-B-
*.642
.146
.067
-B-
.089
.061
-B-
.026
-B-
*.402
568%
*1.84
.115
508*
*1.60
*1.48
-B-
E07291610V
.291
-B-
-B-
-B-
.077
*.608
-B-
*.579
-B-
-B-
-8-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.011
-B-
.105
114»
.097
-B-
16U
-B-
-B-
-B-
E07291805V
*.739
-B-
-B-
-B-
.207
*1.211
-B-
*.823
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
*.243
-B-
.193
189*
*.296
-B-
185*
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification
** These compounds are
liait
internal standards
. The number
reported is
\ Recovery.
-------
TABLE 6. VOST ANALYSIS (Total ug/Train)
AUGUST 4, 1986 - BROS SOIL
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
CC14
BOCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
C1-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-OCBZ
1 , 2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E08041328V
*1.43
.018
-B-
-B-
.057
-B-
*.269
.189
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
*.138
-B-
.277
602%
*.278
-B-
81%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E0804 1500V
.380
-B-
-B-
-B-
.033
-B-
-B-
.110
.019
-B-
-B-
.009
.024
-B-
-B-
-B-
.213
66*
.124
-B-
106%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E0804 1630V
.458
-B-
-B-
-B-
.056
-•-
-§-
.171
-B-
-B-
-B-
.009
.026
-B-
.027
.116
.179
99%
.135
-B-
104%
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification limit
** These compounds are internal standards.
The number reported is * Recovery.
-------
TABLE 7. VOST ANALYSIS (Total ng/Train)
AUGUST 5, 1986 - BROS SOIL
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-OCEENE
1 , 1 -OCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
ecu
BOCM
1,2-OCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
C1-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3 -DCS 2
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E08051111V
.196
-B-
-B-
-B-
.055 -
-B-
.003
.064
-B-
.010
-B-
-B-
.020
.020
.029
.088
.068
64*
.096
-B-
114%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E08051318V
.403
-B-
-B-
-B-
.049
-B-
-fl-
.112
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.026
-B-
.059
.141
.175
138%
.124
-B-
106%
-B-
-8-
-B-
E08051410V
.260
-B-
-B-
-B-
.039
-B-
-B-
.084
.015
-B-
-B-
-B-
.038
-B-
.017
-B-
.197
72%
.194
-B-
110%
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification Halt
** These compounds are internal standards.
The number reported is % Recovery.
-------
TABLE 8. VOST ANALYSIS (Total jig/Train)
AUGUST 7. 1986 - BROS SOIL
COMPOUNDS
H/C
1,1-DCEENE
1 , 1 -DCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
CC14
BOCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
Cl-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E0807 1000V
*.859
.066
-B-
-B-
.094
-B-
.192
*.367
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.237
93*
.212
-B-
50%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E08071135V
.455
.042
-B-
-B-
.087
*.861
-8-
*.189
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.029
-B-
.015
.033
.250
172*
.179
-B-
114«
-B-
-B-
-B-
E0807 1330V
*.721
.021
-B-
-B-
.070
-B-
.048
*.307
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.018
-B-
*.412
69%
.245
-fi-
ll 6\
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification limit
** These compounds are internal standards. The number reported is ft Recovery.
-------
TABLE 9. VOST ANALYSIS (Total yg/Train)
AUGUST 12, 1986 - BROS SOIL PLUS SLUDGE
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-OCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
ecu
BDCM
1,2-OCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
Cl-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E08121007V
*1.19
-B-
-B-
-B-
.060 .
-B-
.023
*.521
-8-
-8-
-8-
"*O"*
.023
-8-
-8-
-8-
-B-
75%
.116
-B-
na
-B-
-8-
-8-
E08121138V
.586
-B-
-B-
-B-
.046
-8-
-B-
*.218
-B-
-B-
-8-
-8-
.008
-8-
.115
.055
.035
56*
.072
-B-
103*
-B-
-8-
-8-
£081 21 300V
*.860
-8-
-B-
-B-
.088
-8-
-B-
*.312
-B-
-B-
-8-
-B-
.050-
-B-
.214
.063
.095
52*
.086
-B-
54*
-8-
-8-
-8-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification liait
** These compounds are internal standards.
The number reported 1s * Recovery.
-------
TABLE 10. VOST ANALYSIS (Total
AUGUST 13, 1986 - BROS SOIL PLUS SLUDGE
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-OCEANE
T-1,2-OCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
ecu
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-OCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
Cl-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E08131001V
*3.53
-B-
-B-
-B-
.065
-B-
-B-
*.398
-8-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.020
-B-
*.230
.050
.050
62*
.045
-B-
90%
-8-
-B-
-B-
E08131136V
*9.04
-B-
-B-
-B-
.070
-B-
-B-
*.281
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.018
-B-
*.150
-B-
.053
48*
.040
-B-
90*
-B-
-B-
-B-
£081 3 1330V
*2.16
-B-
-B-
-B-
.204
-B-
-B-
*.449
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.038
-B-
*.230
.109
.101
50*
.134
-B-
76*
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification 1i*it
** These compounds are internal standards.
The number reported is \ Recovery.
-------
TABLE 11. VOST ANALYSIS (Total jig/Train)
AUGUST 14, 1986 - BROS SOIL PLUS SLUDGE
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1.2-OCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1.2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
ecu
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
C1-BZ
OCTANE**
1.3-DCBZ
1,2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E08141015V
.507
-B-
-B-
-B-
.070
-B-
-B-
*.255
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.024
-B-
.023
-B-
.110
62*
.116
-B-
112»
-B-
-B-
-B-
E08141206V
.332
-B-
-B-
-B-
.050
-B-
-B-
*.247
-8-
-B-
-8-
-B-
.026
-B-
.016
-B-
.132
62%
.082
-B-
99%
-B-
-8-
-8-
E08141330V
.317
-B-
-B-
-B-
.060
-B-
-B-
*.289
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.061
-B-
.017
.047
.130
67*
.094
-B-
ion
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification liait
** These compounds are internal standards.
The nuafaer reported is % Recovery.
-------
TABLE 12. VOST ANALYSIS (Total jig/Train)
AUGUST 28, 19B6 - BROS SLUDGE
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
CC14
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
Cl-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DC82
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E0828 1043V
*5.68
-B-
-B-
. -B-
*11.7
-B-
-B-
-B-
*52.3
-B-
-B-
*19.1
-B-
-B-
*3.92
-B-
-B-
5005*
-B-
-B-
7645*
-B-
-B-
-B-
E08281152V
.304
-B-
-B-
-B-
*.520
-B.
-B-
.120
*3.19
.129
-B-
*.377
*4.41
-B-
*.212
-B-
-B-
130*
*1.84
.044
136*
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification Halt
** These compounds are Internal standards.
The number reported Is % Recovery.
-------
TABLE 13. VOST ANALYSIS (Total pg/Train)
SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 - BROS SLUDGE
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1 -TCEANE
ecu
BOCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE «• ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
Cl-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E09030940V
.084
-B-
-B-
-8-
.081
-B-
-B-
.127
-B-
.025
-B-
.051
.113
-B-
.075
-B-
.150
64*
.074
-B-
106*
-fl-
-B-
-B-
E0903 1200V
.367
-B-
-B-
-B-
.086
-B-
-8-
.091
-B-
.042
-B-
.073
*.333
-B-
.092
-B-
.170
88%
.134
-B-
122t
-B-
-B-
-B-
E09031330V
.185
-B-
-B-
-B-
.175
-B-
-B-
.088
-8-
.018
-B-
.082
.053
-B-
*.383
-B-
.204
146*
.097
-B-
114*
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification limit
** These compounds are internal standards. The number reported is * Recovery.
-------
TABLE 14. VOST ANALYSIS (Total ug/Train)
SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 - BROS SLUDGE
COMPOUNDS
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-OCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE+2B
1,1,1-TCEANE
CC14
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPREN
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE + ANE
ISO-OCTANE**
TOLUENE
C1-BZ
OCTANE**
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E09040930V
.568
-B-
.140
-B-
*.258.
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.026
-8-
.068
.151
-B-
.066
-B-
-B-
16U
.078
-B-
102%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E09041120V
*1.16
-B-
.037
-B-
.156
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.041
.041
-B-
.045
-B-
-B-
102%
.038
-B-
100%
-B-
-B-
-B-
E0904 1330V
.059
-B-
.083
-B-
.146
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
.016
-B-
.039
.196
-B-
.025
-B-
-B-
134t
.062
-B-
100%
-B-
-B-
-B-
* Greater than calibration range
-B- Below quantification liait
** These compounds are internal standards.
The number reported is \ Recovery.
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON JULY 28, 198S
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1,1-OCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-OCEANE +
2-8UTANONE
1,1,1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE +
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL «• HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(MG/ TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.126
0.126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E07281111V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.174
DETECTED /
*2.298 (119.849)
-8-
-B-
0.072 (3.755)
0.104 (5.424)
-B-
*3.398 (177.219)
0.096 (5.007)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.017 (0.887)
0.111 (5.789)
0.020 (1.043)
0.069 (3.599
134 * **
0.110 (5.737)
104 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
E07281330V
E-OUCT
VOST
20.311
IMOUNT, JJG/TRAIN (CONC
0.634 (31.215)
-B-
-B-
0.061 (3.003)
0.216 (10.635)
-B-
*0.726 (35.744)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.020 (0.985)
0.129 (6.351)
0.017 (0.837)
0.044 (2.166)
192 % **
0.058 (2.856)
-B-
108 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
E07281530V
E-DUCT
VOST
20.889
:ENTRATION, PG/DSCM)
*11.99 (573.986)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.060 (2.875)
0.050 (2.394)
-B-
*0.311 (14.888)
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.082 (3.926)
-B-
694 % **
-B-
-B-
72 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST ON JULY 29, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1.1-DCEENE
1 , 1 -DCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1,1,1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1,3-DfcPHENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE *
CDOM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3»DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ -
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(MG/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.0063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E07291407V
E-DUCT
VOST
18.338
E07291610V
E-DUCT
VOST
20.099
f
E07291805V
E-DUCT
. VOST
i '
19.731
1
1
DETECTED AMOUNT, pG/TRAIN (CONCENTRATION, pG/DSCM)
' j i
0.561 (30.592) . 0.291 (14.478)
-8- ' -B-
-B- -B-
0.183 (9.979) ; 0.077 (3.831)
-B- *0.608 (30.250)
-B- -B-
*0.642 35.009) *0.579 (28.807)
0. 146 7.9r>2) -Q-
*0.739 (37.454) i
— R- '
-B-
-B-
0.207 (10.491)
*1.211 (61.376) .
-B- i
*0.823 (41.711) i
-n-
0.067 3.654) -B- -5-
-li- i -R-
0.089 4.853)
0.061 3.326)
-B-
0.026 (1.418)
*0.402 (21.922)
568 * **
*1.842 (100.447)
0.115 (6.271)
508 % **
*1.603 (87.414)
*1.481 (80.761)
-B-
-
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.011 (0.547)
0.105 (5.224)
114 % **
0.097 (4.826)
161 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B- '
-B-
-B-
-B-
*0.243 (12.316)
0.193 (9.782)
189 % **
*0.296 M5.002)
185 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 4.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON AUGUST A, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1 , 1 -OCEANE
t-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1,1,1-TCEANE
CCL4
BOCM
1,2-OCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE *
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
I SO -OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1.4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(pG/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
E0804 1328V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.404
DETECTEI
*1.433 (73.851)
0.018 JO. 0928)
-B-
0.057 (2.938)
-B-
*0.269 (13.863)
0.189 (9.740)
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
*0.138 (7.112)
-B-
0.277 (14.275)
602 % **
*0.278 (14.327)
-B-
81 % **
0.063 i -B-
0.063 j -B-
0.063 »1 -B-
l
E08041500V
E-DUCT
VOST
20.314
E08041630V
E-DUCt
VOST
20.530
3 AMOUNT, pg/TRAIN (CONCENTRATION, pg/DSCM)
0.380 (18.706)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.033 (1.625)
-B-
-B-
0.110 (5.415)
0.019 (0.935)
-B-
-B-
0.009 (0.443)
0.024 (1.182)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.213 (10.485)
66 % **
0.124 (6.104)
106 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.458 (22.309)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.056 (2.728)
-B-
0.171 (8.329)
-B-
-B-
0.009 (0.438)
0.026 (1.266)
-B-
0.027 1.315)
0.116 5.650)
0.179 8.719)
99 % **
0.135 (6.576)
-B-
104 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 5. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON AUGUST 5, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1.1-DCEENE
1.1-DCEANE
T-1,2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1.1,1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1.2-DCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPHENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1.1,2-TCEANE +
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/QNE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-OCBZ
- GREATER THAN CALldRAtl
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(M9/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
E08051111V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.446
E08051318V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.858
I
1
E08051410V
E-DUCT
VOST
20.073
DETECTED AMOUNT, MS/TRAIN (CONCENTRATION, ug/TRAIN)
0.196 (10.079)
-B-
-B-
0.055 (2.828)
0.003 0.154)
0.064 J3. 291)
— B—
0.010 (0.514)
-B-
0.0126 -B-
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.020 (1.028)
0.020 (1.028)
0.029 (1.491)
0.088 4.525)
0.068 (3.597)
64 \ **
0.096 (4.937)
114 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.403 (20.294)
-B-
-B-
0.049 (2.468)
-B-
0.112 (5.640)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.026 (1.309)
0.059 (2.971)
0.141 (7.100)
0.175 (8.813)
138 % **
0.124 (6.244)
106 * **
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.260 (12.953)
-B-
-B-
0.039 (1.943)
-B-
0.084 (4.185)
0.015 (0.747)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.038 (1.893)
0.017 (0.847)
0.197 J9.814)
72 i **
0.194 (9.665)
110 * **
-B-
-B-
-B-
JN RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS. THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
-------
TABLE 6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON AUGUST 7, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (OSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1.1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1,1,1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1.1,2-TCEANE +
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/QNE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-B2
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1.2-DCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(M9/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
- - - - -
E0807 1000V
E-DUCT
VOST
16.851
E08071135V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.735
E08071330V
E-DUCT
VOST
16.461
DETECTED AMOUNT, |4g/TRAIN (CONCENTRATION, pg/TRAIN)
*0.859 (50.976)
0.066 (3.917)
-B-
-B-
0.094 (5.578)
-8-
0.192 (11.394)
0.455 (23.055)
0.042 (2.128)
-B-
-B-
0.087 (4.408)
*0.861 (43.628)
-B-
*0.367 (21.779) " *0.189 (9.577)
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B- -B-
-8-
-B-
-B-
0.029 (1.469)
-B- : -B-
-B-
-B-
0.237 (14.064)
93 % **
0.212 (12.581)
50 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
_
0.015 (0.760)
0.033 (1.6721
0.250 (12.668)
172 % **
0.179 (9.070)
114 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
*0.721 (43.80)
0.21 (1.278)
-B-
-B-
0.070 (4.252)
-B-
0.048 (2.916)
*0.307 (18.650)
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.018 (1.093)
-B—
*0.412 (25.029)
69 % **
0.245 (14.884)
-fi-
ne % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 7. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON AUGUST 12, 1986
SAMPLE 10 NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1 , 1 -OCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1,1,1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1,2-OCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE *
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-OCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-OCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(M9/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
E08121007V
E-DUCT
VOST
21.274
DETECTED /
*1.193 (72.474)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.060 (3.645)
-B-
0.023 (1.397)
*0.521 (31.651)
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.023 (1.397)
-B-
-B-
-B-
75 % **
0.116 (7.047)
112 % **
-B-
-B-
0.063 | -B-
E08121138V
E-DUCT
VOST
26.659
iMOUNT, pg/TRAIN (CON(
0.586 (21.981)
-B-
-B-
0.046 (1.725)
-B-
-B-
*0.218 (8.117)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.008 TO. 300)
0.115 (4.314)
0.055 2.063
0.035 1.313)
56 % **
0.072 (2.701)
103 \ **
-B-
-B-
-B-
E08121300V
E-DUCT
VOST
20.909
IENTRATION, M9/TRAIN)
*0.860 (41.131)
-B-
-B-
0.088 (4.209(
-B-
-B-
*0.312 M4.922)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.050 72.391)
0.214 (10.235)
0.063 3.013)
0.095 4.543)
52 * **
0.086 (4.113)
-B-
54 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE * RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 8. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON AUGUST 13, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (OSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1 , 1 -DCEANE
T-Q.2-DCEENE
CHRLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1.1.1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1,2-OCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1.1,2-TCEANE +
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-OCBZ
QUANTIFICATIOI
LIMIT
(Mg/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E0813100W
E-DUCT
VOST
20.055
I
DETECTED
*176.116
-B-
-B-
-B-
3.241
-B-
-B-
*19.845
-B-
E08131136V
E-DUCT
VOST
22.598
AMOUNT. ng/TRAIN (COK
I
*9.042 (400.124)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.070 (3.098)
-B-
*0.281 (12.435)
-R-
-B- -B-
-B- -B-
-B-
0.997
-B-
*11.468
2.493
2.493
62 % **
2.244
-8-
90 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.018 (0.797)
*0.150 (6.638)
0.053 12.345)
48 % **
0.040 M.7700
90 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
i
E08131330V
E-DUCT
VOST
21.466
CENTRATION, pg/TRAIN)
*2.169 (101.044)
-B-
LJ
-B-
U
-B-
0.204 (9.503)
• D _
o
-B-
*0.449 (20.917)
-B-
U
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.038 (1.770)
*0.230 10.715)
0.109 5.078)
0.101 4.705)
50 % **
0.134 (6.242)
76 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % COVERED
-------
TABLE 9. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON AUGUST 14, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (OSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
t,1-DCEANE
T-1.2-DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-OCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1,1.1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1,2-OCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPHENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1.2-TCEANE +
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-OCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(Mg/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E08141015V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.636
E08141206V ! E08141330V
E-DUCT ! E-DUCT
VOST
17.427
I
VOST
19.208
DETECTED AMOUNT, M9/TRAIN (CONCENTRATION, pg/DSCM)
i L
0.332 (19.051)
-B-
-B-
0.070 73.565)
-B-
*0.255 (12.986)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.024 (1.222)
0.023 (1.171)
-8-
0.110 (5.602)
62 % **
0.116 (5.908)
-B-
112 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.332 (19.051)
-B-
-B-
0.050 (2.869)
-B-
-B-
*0.247 714.173)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.026 (1.492)
-B-
0.016 (0.918)
0.132 (7.574)
62 % **
0.082 (4.705)
99 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.317 (16.504)
-B-
-B-
0.060 73.124)
-B-
*0.289 (15.046)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.061 (3.176)
0.017 (0,885)
0.047 2.447)
0.130 6.768)
67 % **
0.094 (4.984)
101 % **
-8-
-B-
-B-
•! I
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 10. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON AUGUST 28, 1986
TEST VOID DUE TO LOOSE CONNECTION SUCKING IN SMOKE FUMES FROM PROBE PULLED
INTO ADSORBING TUBE. (JHL)
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1 , 1 -DCEANE
T-1.2.DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1.2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1,1,1 -TCEANE
C6L4
BDCM
1,2-DCPRANE
T-1.3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE +
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1.2-OCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(M9/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
VOST
VOST
1
DETECTED AMOUNT, M9/TRAIN (CC
_ . -J. J
\
i
]
I
VOST
)NCENTRATION, pg/TRAIN)
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE * RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 11. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1,1-DCEENE
1,1-DCEANE
T-1,2,DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DCEANE +
2-BUTANONE
1.1.1-TCEANE
CCL4
BDCM
1.2-OCPRANE
T-1,3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
1,1,2-TCEANE +
CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1,3-DCBZ
1,2-DCBZ
1,4-OCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
(M9/TRAIN)
0.063
0.0126
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0253
0.0126
0.0126
0.0211
0.0126
0.0252
0.0126
0.0127
0.0337
0.0127
0.0211
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
0.063
0.063
0.063
E09030940V
E-DUCT
VOST
20.486
E0903 1200V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.625
E09031330V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.457
DETECTED AMOUNT, pg/TRAIN (CONCENTRATION, pg/TRAIN)
0.084 (4.100)
-B-
-B-
0.081 (3.954)
-B-
0.127 (6.199)
0.025 (1.220)
0.051 (2.490)
0.113 (5.516
-B-
0.075 (3.661)
0.150 (7.322)
64 % **
0.074 f3. 612)
106 % **
— B —
-B-
-B-
0.367 (18.701)
-B-
-B-
0.086 (4.382)
-B-
0.091 (4.637)
0.042 (2.140)
0.073 (3.720)
*0.333 (16.968)
i -B-
0.092 (4.688)
0.170 (8.662)
88 % **
0.134 f6.828)
122 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.185 (9.508)
-B-
-B-
0.175 (8.994)
-B-
0.088 (4.523)
0.018 (0.925)
0.082 (4.214)
0.053 (2.724)
-B-
*0.383 (19.684)
0.204 (10.485)
146 % **
0.097 U.985)
114 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
-------
TABLE 12. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF VOST SAMPLES ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1986
SAMPLE ID NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE METHOD
GAS SAMPLE VOLUME (DSL)
VOST COMPOUNDS :
M/C
1 1-DCEENE
1.1-OCEANE
T-1.2.DCEENE
CHLOROFORM
11,2-DCEANE +
• 2-BUTANONE
.1.1 ,1-TCEANE
•CCL4
! nnrM
:1.2-OCPRANE
|T-1,3-DCPRENE
CL3-EENE
BENZENE
;1,1.2-TCEANE +
i CDBM
HEXANE
BROMOFORM
CL4-EENE/ANE
ISO-OCTANE
TOL + HEP
CL-BZ
OCTANE
1 ,3-DCBZ
1 2-DCBZ
1,4-DCBZ
QUANTIFICATION
LIMIT
E09040930V
E-DUCT
VOST
20.032
DETECTED /
(M9/TRAIN) i I
0.063 • 0.568 (28.355)
0.0126 ! -B-
0.0126 0.140 (6.989)
0.0126 -B-
0.0211 ' *0.258 (12.879)
0.0253 -B-
0.0126 . -B-
0.0126 -B-
0.0211 ' -B-
0.0126 i 0.026 (1.298)
0.0252 ; -B-
0.0126 . 0.068 (3.395)
0.0127 0.151 (7.538)
0.0337 -B-
0.0127 0.066 (3.295)
0.0211 -B-
0.0252
0.0127
0.0254
0.063
0.0127
-B-
161 % **
0.078 (3.894)
102 % **
0.063 -B-
0.063 -B-
0.063
-B-
E09041120V
E-DUCT
VOST
21.693
IMOUNT, Mg/TRAIN (CONC
*1.166 (53.750)
-B-
0.037 (1.706)
0.156 (7.191)
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.041 (1.890)
0.041 (1.890)
-B-
0.045 (2.074)
-B-
102 % **
0.038 M.752)
100 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
E09041330V
E-DUCT
VOST
19.650
ENTRATION. pg/TRAIN)
0.059 (3.003)
0.083 (4.224)
0.146 (7.430)
-B-
-B-
-B-
0.016 (0.814)
0.039 (1.985)
0.196 (9.975)
-B-
0.025 (1.272)
134 % **
0.062 T3.155)
100 % **
-B-
-B-
-B-
* - GREATER THAN CALIBRATION RANGE
** - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INTERNAL STANDARDS.
B - BELOW QUANTIFICATION LIMIT
THE NUMBERS REPORTED ARE % RECOVERED
-------
ACUREX
Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
October 3, 1986 page ] of 3
Dr. Larry R. Waterland
Program Manager
US EPA Combustion Research Facility (CRF)
c/o NCTR, Building 45
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
Subject: Chloride Analysis Results
Reference: EPA Contract 68-03-3267
Dear Dr. Waterland:
This communication summarizes the results of chloride analyses performed
on EPA Method 5 impinger catches taken at the CRF between July 8 and
September 4. 1986. These data are associated with the performance of the
rotary kiln system during incineration of the following: Askarel * Auto Dry;
BROS surface oil; BROS soil; BROS soil + sludge and BROS sludge.
Measurements of chloride ion concentration were made with a specific ion
electrode, calibrated on each analytical day at three levels which encompassed
those found in the samples. Samples are identified as specified in the CRF
Quality Assurance Project Plan, August 35, 1986. All values are reported as
total mg HC1.
Sample
Identifier •£ HCL
S07081606I1 <3.7
S07081606I2 <2.2
S07081606I3 <2.1
S0709160311 <3.4
S07091603I2 <3.7
S07091603I3 <3.4
S07101325I1 <4.0
S07103325I2 <3.7
S07101325I3 <3.5
NCTR. Building 45. Jefferson. AR 72079 (501)541-0004 FAX (501) 536-6446
555 Clyde Avenue. PO Box 7555. Mountain View. CA 94039 (415) 964-3200 Telex 34-6391 TWX 910-7796593
-------
page 2 o
Sample
Identifier
A07211207I1
A07211207I2
A07281116I1
A0728116I2
A07291404I1
A07291404I2
J22 HCI
9.7
<2.2
14.2
<2.2
24.9
<1.9
A08041319I1 26.3
A08041319I2 <1.8
A08051100I12 10.8
A08071001I12 12.6
S08041324I1 <4.2
S08041324I2 <5.1
S08051105I12 <6.5
S08071008I12 <7.6
A08121004I12 15.8
A08131001I12 21.8
A08141020I12 17.4
S08121002I123 <9.1
S08131000I123 <9.9
S08141015I123 <9.4
S08191150I <8.8
A08280955I12 <4.8
A09030951I123 7.6
A09040937I123 5.2
S08280945I123 <9.3
S09030950I123 <10.3
S09040930I123 <9.9
-------
page 3 of 3
Each batch of impinger collection meduim (0.1N sodium acetate) used was
analyzed and found to contain <10 mg/L chloride, the detection limit of the
analytical method.
Sincerely,
R.W. Ross, II
Senior Chemist
RWR:Sf 048L
CC: Johannes Lee
Jerry Lewis
Sharon King
-------
kftflV W SAU««AITH •- 3
CM*IHM«M or TMI «o*«o
KENNETH S WOODS
MICtlOCMT
SAIL » MUTCHCNS
KICUTIVC VICt- r
VCLMA w «ussei.;_
1ICK
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B07211315
Our #, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6926 mg/liter Arsenic < 0.2
mg/liter Barium 0.58
mg/liter Cadmium < o.l
mg/liter Chromium 0.17
mg/liter Lead o.28
mg/liter Mercury < o.2
mg/liter Selenium < 0.2
mg/liter Silver < o.l
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B07281335 *
Our#,
Q-6927
Your*,
USEPA-CRF
B07291645 «
Our #,
Q-6928
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B08041407 *
Our #,
Q-6929
Total Metals in Filtrates,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Filtrates,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Filtrates,
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
< 0.2
0.43
< 0.1
0.20
0.73
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.61
< 0.1
< 0.1
1.10
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.30
< 0.1
0.18
2.58
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
There were no Solids remaining from filtering the blowdown water.
GALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B08051325
Our #, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6930 mg/liter Arsenic < 0.2
mg/liter Barium o.39
mg/liter Cadmium < o.l
mg/liter Chromium Q.39
mg/liter Lead 1.15
mg/liter Mercury < 0.2
mg/liter Selenium < o.2
mg/liter Silver < o.l
Total Metals in Solids,
ppm Arsenic < 26
ppm Barium 87?
ppm Cadmium < 26
ppm Chromium 89
ppm Lead 1008
ppm Mercury < 26
ppm Selenium < 26
ppm Silver < 26
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B08071100
Our f, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6931 mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Solids,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
< 0.2
0.29
< 0.1
0.29
0.14
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 60
1085
< 60
119
3787
< 60
<60
< 60
GALBMAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B08121030
Our #, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6932 mg/liter Arsenic < 0.2
ing/liter Barium o.35
mg/liter Cadmium < o.l
mg/liter Chromium Q.26
mg/liter Lead o.l4
mg/liter Mercury < o.2
mg/liter Selenium < 0.2
mg/liter Silver < o.l
Total Metals in Solids,
ppm Arsenic < 23
ppm Barium 737
ppm Cadmium < 23
ppm Chromium 75
ppm Lead 2723
ppm Mercury < 23
ppm Selenium < 23
ppm Silver < 23
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B08131030
Our #, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6933 mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium
mgAiter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Solids,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
< 0.2
0.39
< 0.1
0.31
0.11
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
< 35
1206
< 35
66
4065
< 35
< 35
< 35
< 35
GALBMAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,"
USEPA-CRF
B08281005 *
Our #, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6935 mg/liter Arsenic < 0.2
mg/liter Barium 0.29
mg/liter Cadmium < 0.1
mg/liter Chromium 0.13
mg/liter Lead < 0.1
mg/liter Mercury < 0.2
mg/liter Selenium < 0.2
mg/liter Silver < 0.1
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B09031010 *
Our #,
Q-6936
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B09041050 *
Our #,
Q-6937
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B09241100BK *
Our#,
Q-6938
Total Metals in Filtrates,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Filtrates,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Filtrates,
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
< 0.2
0.65
< 0.1
0.18
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.30
< 0.1
0.20
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
* There were no Solids remaining from filtering the blowdown water.
OALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your f,
USEPA-CRF
B07281335SK
Our #, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6939 mg/liter Arsenic < 0.2
mg/liter Barium 1.64
mg/liter Cadmium < 0.1
mg/liter Chromium 4.73
mg/liter Lead 11.39
mg/liter Mercury 12.49
mg/liter Selenium < 0.2
mg/liter Silver < 0.1
Total Metals in Solids,
ppm Arsenic < 26
ppm Barium 4771
ppm Cadmium < 26
ppm Chromium 9733
ppm Lead 46.41
ppm Mercury 3,58
ppm Selenium < 26
ppm Silver 656
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
B08131030SK
Our #, Total Metals in Filtrates,
Q-6940 mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Solids,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
% Chromium
% . Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
< 0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
32
3.69
< 0.2
< 0.1
131
108
< 11
3.83
38.67
571
< 11
145
GALBNAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
Our #,
USEPA-CRF Q-6941
70828(09(3,4) 1200
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310.
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium, Total
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.12
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 2
632
< 2
113
796
< 2
< 2
< 2
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
T08141200
Our#,
Q-6942
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium, Total
mg/liter-Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
< 0.1
0.43
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
< 2
504
< 2
66
228
< 2
< 2
< 2
GALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
T08131200
Our #,
Q-6943
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310.
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium, Total
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
< 0.1
0.43
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 2
983
< 2
97
382
< 2
< 2
< 2
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
T08071200
Our#,
Q-6944
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium, Total
mg/liter-Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
0.1
,99
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
< 2
844
< 2
95
489
< 2
< 2
<2
GALBKAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #, -
USEPA-CRF
T08051200
Our #,
Q-6U45
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310.
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium, Total
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
< 0.1
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
< 2
296
< 2
192
1825
< 2
< 2
< 2
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
T08041200
Our ff,
Q-6946
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic < o.l
mg/liter Barium o.26
mg/liter Cadmium < o.l
mg/liter Chromium, Total < o.l
mg/liter-Lead < o.l
mg/liter Mercury < o.l
mg/liter Selenium < o.l
mg/liter Silver < o.l
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic < 2
ppm Barium 498
ppm Cadmium < 2
ppm Chromium 94
ppm Lead 408
ppm Mercury < 2
ppm Selenium < 2
ppm Silver < 2
GALBHAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
Our #,
USEPA-CRF Q-6947
707(21,28,29) 1200
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic < 0.1
mg/liter Barium 0.33
mg/liter Cadmium < 0.1
mg/liter Chromium, Total < 0.1
mg/liter Lead 0.23
mg/liter Mercury < 0.1
mg/liter Selenium < 0.1
mg/liter Silver < 0.1
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic < 2
ppm Barium 121
ppm Cadmium < 2
ppm Chromium 1088
ppm Lead 2161
ppm Mercury < 2
ppm Selenium < 2
ppm Silver < 2
GALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
F0828(09)(3,4) 1200
Our #, Total Metals in Feed,
Q-6949 ppm Arsenic < 1
ppm Barium 23
ppm Cadmium < 5
ppm Chromium 12
ppm Lead 46
ppm Mercury < 1
ppm Selenium < 1
ppm Silver < 5
Ultimate Analysis,
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Nitrogen
% Sulfur
% Chlorine
% Oxygen
0.96
11.12
0.038
0.99
0.0094
81.78
Based on Leachate of Feed by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure » 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium, Total
mg/liter Lead
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
0.19
< 0.1
0.
0.
0.
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
GALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
F08(4,5,7) 1200
Our #, Total Metals in Feed,
Q-6950 ppm Arsenic < i
ppm Barium 744
ppm Cadmium < i
ppm Chromium 55
ppm Lead 756
ppm Mercury < i
ppm Selenium < i
ppm Silver < 5
Ultimate Analysis,
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Nitrogen
% Sulfur
% Chlorine
% Oxygen
11.35
4.60
0.099
0.38
0.037
25.03
Based on Leachate of Feed by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic < 0.1
mg/liter Barium 0.12
mg/liter Cadmium < 0.1
mg/liter Chromium, Total < 0.1
mg/liter Lead 0.46
mg/liter Mercury < 0.1
mg/liter Selenium < 0.1
mg/liter Silver < 0.1
GALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your f,
USEPA-CRF
T08121200
Our #,
Q-8049
Based on Leachate of Kiln Ash by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic
mg/liter Barium
mg/liter Cadmium
mg/liter Chromium, Total
mg/liter-Lead '
mg/liter Mercury
mg/liter Selenium
mg/liter Silver
Total Metals in Kiln Ash,
ppm Arsenic
ppm Barium
ppm Cadmium
ppm Chromium
ppm Lead
ppm Mercury
ppm Selenium
ppm Silver
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
< 2
738
< 2
99
767
< 2
< 2
< 2
GALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November. 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
F08U2,13,14) 1200
Our #, Total Metals in Feed,
ppm Arsenic n
ppm Barium 823
ppm Cadmium 4
ppm Chromium 65
ppm Lead 1034
ppm Mercury < 1
ppm Selenium < i
ppm Silver < 5
Ultimate Analysis,
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Nitrogen
% Sulfur
% Chlorine
% Oxygen
13.13
4.67
0.11
0.43
0.058
32.29
Based on Leachate of Feed by HP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mg/liter Arsenic < 0.1
mg/liter Barium 0.30
mg/liter Cadmium < 0.1
mg/liter Chromium, Total < 0.1
mg/liter Lead 0.12
mg/liter Mercury < 0.1
mg/liter Selenium < 0.1
mg/liter Silver < 0.1
GALIRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
Mr. Ralph Vocque
November 14, 1986
Your #,
USEPA-CRF
F07(21,28,29) 1200
Our #,
Q-8050
Total Metals in Feed,
ppm Arsenic 2
ppm Barium 1035
ppm Cadmium < 10
ppm Chromium 45
ppm Lead 2888
ppm Mercury < i
ppm Selenium < i
ppm Silver < 10
Ultimate Analysis,
% Carbon 54.53
% Hydrogen 10.85
% Nitrogen 0.085
% Sulfur o.69
% Chlorine o.lO
% Oxygen 29.87
Based on Leachate of Feed by EP Toxicity
Test Procedure # 1310,
mgAiter Arsenic < o.l
mg/liter Barium < o.l
mg/liter Cadmium < o.l
mg/liter Chromium, Total< o.l
mg/liter Lead < o.l
mg/liter Mercury < 0.1
mg/liter Selenium < o.l
mg/liter Silver < 0.1
Sincerely yours,
GALBRATTH LABORATORIES, INC.
'Gail R. Hutchenk
Exec. Vice-President
GRH:sc
GALBRAITH LABORATORIES. INC.
-------
EPA/540/2-89/026
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc. "Abstract On-site Incineration Testing of Shirco Infrared
Systems Portable Demonstration Unit-Contaminated Soils Treatability Study."
Prepared for Dakonta Gmbh Hamburg and Ingelheim, West Germany, 3 pp.
June 1987.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse -EWQD
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process:
Media:
Document Reference:
Document Type:
Contact:
Site Name:
Location of Test:
Thermal Treatment - Infrared
Soil/Generic
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc. "Abstract On-site
Incineration Testing of Shirco Infrared Systems
Portable Demonstration Unit-Contaminated Soils
Treatability Study." Prepared for Dakonta Gmbh
Hamburg and Ingelheim, West Germany, 3 pp. June
1987.
Abstract
Scott P. Berdine
Ecova Corporation (formerly Shirco)
1415 Whitlock Lane
Suite 100
Carrollton, TX 7506
214-404-7540
Boehringer's Lindane Facility (Non-NPL)
West Germany
BACKGROUND; In August of 1986, Shirco was contracted by Dekonta GmbH, a
West German hazardous waste treatment company, to perform treatability
studies at one of the largest dioxin-contaminated sites in the world. The
Shirco Infrared process was selected by Dekonta after a two year study and
evaluation of existing and emerging technologies for soils decontamination.
The West German hazardous waste management regulations, which are
established and enforced on a state by state basis, differ somewhat from
those in the US. Transportation of dioxin-bearing wastes, for instance, is
strictly prohibited. Hence, mobile technologies offer distinct advantages
for multiple site remediation.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; Tests were conducted using the Shirco Portable
Demonstration Unit during the months of November 1986 and February 1987.
Over 3000 kg of contaminated soil were processed in 100 hours of testing.
Various operating condition's including soil contaminant level, feed rate,
primary chamber temperature and residence time, co-flow and counterflow
operation, and gas atmosphere (air vs. nitrogen) were tested to determine
the effect on soils decontamination levels and exhaust gas emissions. The
organic contaminants in the soils included dioxins, furans, chlorobenzenes,
chlorophenols, 2,4,5-T, and hexachlorocyclohexanes. Contaminant concen-
trations on soils ranged from 4 to 7500 ppb for dioxins, 3 to 5700 for
furans and from 33 to 16,600 ppm for chlorobenzenes. No QA/QC data was
presented.
PERFORMANCE; Results of approximately 20 tests indicate exhaust gas con-
centrations of 2,3,7,8 TCDD from less than 20 pg/m to 88-pg/m , whereas
field "blanks" showed concentrations ranging from 33 pg/m to 73 pg/m .
3/89-47 Document Number: EWQD
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
The source of the high blank concentrations is currently under investi-
gation, therefore, the validity of the reported values cannot be estab-
lished at present. A brief summary of the data is on the attached table.
CONTAMINANTS;
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report,
breakdown of contaminants by treatability group is:
The
Treatability Group
WOl-Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
CAS Number Contaminants
108-90-7 Total Chlorobenzenes
HEPCDD Total Heptachlorodibenzo-
dioxin
OCDF Octachlorodibenzofurans
OCDD Octachlorodibenzodioxin
PCDD Total Pentachlorodibenzo-
dioxin
HEXCDD Total Hexachlorodibenzo-
dioxin
TCDF Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-
furan
1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
TCDD Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-
dioxins
HEPCDD Total Heptachlorodibenzo-
dioxin
PCDF Total Pentachlorodibenzo-
furans
HEXCDF Total Hexachlorodibenzo-
furans
HEPCDF Total Heptachlorodibenzo-
furans
NOTE: This is a partial listing of data.
information.
Refer to the document for more
3/89-47 Document Number: EWQD
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
TABLE 1
VEST GERMANY DIOXIN TEST SUMMARY
SOIL FEED AND ASH QUALITY DATA
DIOXINS
SOIL
IDENTIFICATION
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash (ppt)
1 Feed (ppb)
1 Ash (ppt)
4 Feed (ppb)
4 Ash (ppt)
6 Feed (ppb)
6 Ash (ppt)
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash (ppt)
1 Feed (ppb)
1 Ash (ppt)
2,3,7,8
TCDD
6.7
ND
4.4
ND
24
ND
38
ND
34
ND
NOT
NOT
TCDD PCDD
6.7
ND
6.0
ND
33
ND
42
ND
38
ND
YET
YET
4.0
ND
18
ND
36
ND
41
ND
27
ND
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
HXCDD
17
ND
121
5.1
115
ND
109
17
90
15
HPCDD
50
ND
340
18
292
15
280
6.8
238
9.2
OCDD
202
ND
2301
60
7458
50
5940
15
5160
20
TCDF
ND
12
15
33
52
67
125
49
70
PCDF
3.1
ND
53
27
41
45
44
111
34
54
FURANS
HXCDF
9.4
ND
58
20
54
26
129
58
80
24
HPCDF
14.6
ND
98
24
174
23
128
34
106
13
OCDF
35.3
ND
358
12
3151
12
5660
12
4700
6.2
CHLOROBENZENES
58,000
1,200
169,000
9,600
242,000
4,700
33,000
16,000
40,000
4,600
16,612,000
11,000
16,526,000
7,400
NOTE: ND = Not Detectable
Primary Chamber Temperature:
Solid Phase Residence Time:
1550-1650UF
15 minutes
Detection Limits: a. 2,3,7,8 TCDD = 1-2 ppt
b. All others = 5 ppt
3/89-47
Document Number:
fnr all
EWQD
-------
7-7
U- Systems
Incorporated
ABSTRACT
ON-SITE INCINERATION TESTING
OF
SHIRCO INFRARED SYSTEMS PORTABLE DEMONSTRATION UNIT
CONTAMINATED SOILS TREATABILITY STUDY
HAMBURG, WEST GERMANY
INGELHEIM, WEST GERMANY
1195 Empire Central
Dallas, Texas 75247-4301
'214] 630-7511
-------
In August of 1986, Shirco was contracted by Dekonta GmbH, a West
German hazardous waste treatment company, to perform treatability
studies at one of the largest dioxin-contaminated sites in the
world. The Shirco Infrared process was selected by Dekonta after
a two year study and evaluation of existing and emerging
technologies for soils decontamination.
The West German hazardous waste management regulations, which are
established and enforced on a state by state basis, differ
somewhat from those in the US. Transportation of dioxin-bearing
wastes, for instance, is strictly prohibited. Hence, mobile
technologies offer distinct advantages for multiple site
remediation. Notable regulations for hazardous waste
incineration in the State of Hamburg include the following stack
gas limitations:
Particulate Matter: 30 mg/dscm
CO: 100 mg/dscm
SO : 100 mg/dscm
HC1: 50 mg/dscm
TOC: 20 mg/dscm
2,3,7,8 TCDD: 100 pg/dscm
Required soils treatment levels include a 1 ppb 2,3,7,8 TCDD
standard; other organic compounds must be reduced to levels
compatible with US EPA "listing" guidelines.
Note that the stack gas standards do not include a destruction
and removal efficiency (ORE) requirement. Rather, the standard
stipulates a single maximum exhaust gas concentration which must
be satisfied regardless of feedstock concentration or feed rate.
This "zero" emission standard (which also affects byproduct
emissions from chemical manufacturing facilities) along with the
transportation prohibition for dioxin-bearing wastes and public
and political pressure, resulted in the closure of Boehringer's
lindane production facility in Hamburg. This site, with an
estimated 80,000 cubic meters of dioxin-contaminated soil, was
the focal point of this treatability study.
Tests were conducted using the Shirco Portable Demonstration Unit
during the months of November, 1986 and February, 1987. Over
3000 kg of contaminated soil was processed in 100 hours of
testing. Various operating conditions including soils
contaminated level, feed'rate, primary chamber temperature and
residence time, co-flow and counterflo**--operation, and gas
atmosphere (air vs. nitrogen) were tested-tajdetermine the effect
on soils decontamination levels and exhaust gas emissions. The
organic contaminants in the soils included dioxins, furans,
chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, 2,4,5-T, and
hexachlorocyclohexanes. A brief summary of the soils
decontamination data is presented in the attached table.
-------
Results of approximately 20 tests indicate exhaust gas
concentrations of 2,3,7,8 TCDD from less than 20 pg/m3 to 88
pg/m3 / whereas field "blanks" showed concentrations ranging from
33 pg/m3 to 73 pg/m3. The source of the high blank
concentrations is currently under investigation, therefore, the
validity of the reported values cannot be established at present.
Upon completion of the Hamburg test program, the unit was moved
to Ingelheim, West Germany to continue soils treatability tests
at Boehringer's active facility. Three test series were
conducted during the months of March, May and June, 1987. A
final report for both the Hamburg and Ingelheim test programs
will be issued upon completion of all analytical work.
-------
WEST GElttlANY DIOXIN TEST SUWtARY
SOIL FEED AiND ASH QUALITY DATA
pioxiti;
"Ill IDENTIFICATION
b-2 Feed (ppb)
R-2 Ash (ppt)
..-2 Feed (ppb)
A-2 Ash (ppt)
•1 Feed (ppb)
F-i Ash (ppt)
4 Feed (ppb)
n-4 Ash (ppt)
6 Feed (ppb)
6 Ash (ppt)
n reed (ppb)
5h (ppt)
D-l Feed (ppb)
I Ash (ppt)
1 n -7
i,o,/.
Trpp
6.7
ND
4.4
ND
24
ND
38
ND
34
ND
NOT YET
NOT YET
a
TCPD FCPP HOP !!PCPP OCPD TCDF FCPF IIKCDF HPCPF OCDF
6.7 4.0 17 50 202 -- 3.1 3.4 14.6 35.3 5B,OOn
ND ND ND ND 73 ND ND ND (ID ND 1,100
6.0 18 121 340 2301 12 53 58 38 353 163, M
ND ND 5.1 10 60 15 27 20 24 12 'j.GOu
33 36 115 2)2 7458 33 41 54 174 3151 242,000
NO ND ND 15 50 52 45 26 23 12 4,70'.i
42 41 109 260 5940 67 44 129 128 5660 33,000
ND ND 17 6.8 15 125 111 58 34 12 16,00u
38 27 30 233 5160 43 34 80 106 4700 40,000
ND ND 15 3.2 20 70 54 24 13 6.2 4,600
AVAILABLE 16,G12,»uO
11,000
AVAILABLE lE.SL&.i'iiQ
7,40tj
NOTE;
ND = Not Detectable
Detection Limits:
i. 2,3,7,8 TCD3 = 1-2 ppt
h. All others = 5 ppt
Primary Chdfflber Teaperature: 1550-1G50 F
Solid Phase Residence Ti»e: 15 Minutes
-------
EPA/540/2-89/025
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. "BOAT Treatabiiity Data for Soils, Sludges and
Debris From the Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC) Process." Technical report
prepared for U.S. EPA. 31 pp. June 1987.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Super-fund Treatabiiity Clearinghouse - EWHC
-------
SUPERFUND TRKATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process:
Media:
Document Reference:
Document Type:
Contact:
Site Name:
Location of Test:
Thermal Treatment - Circulating Bed Combustion
(CBC)
Soil/Clayey
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. "BOAT Treat-
ability Data for Soils, Sludges and Debris From the
Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC) Process."
Technical report prepared for U.S. EPA. 31 pp.
June 1987.
Memo and Conference Paper
Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
Bldg 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Circulating Bed Combustion Demonstration Facility
(Non-NPL)
California
BACKGROUND: The two papers provide a general overview of the Ogden
circulating bed combustion and summary data or both PCB laden soils for
EPA-TSCA and a test on RCRA liquid organic wastes for the California Air
Resources Board (GARB). This abstract will discuss the results of the PCB
test, which was planned, monitored and approved by the EPA.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; The primary CBC components are the combustion
chamber, hot cyclone collector, flue gas cooler, baghouse, and stack.
Auxiliary systems include feeders (solids, liquids, sludges), forced-draft
and induced-draft fans, ash conveyer, compressed air, cooling tower, and
building ventilation. Operating parameters, schematic diagram and cost
estimates are provided.
Atmospheric primary air is pumped into the lower portion of the
combustion chamber where the bed material is fluidized by turbulent mixing
of the air and solids. Larger solids gravitate downward to form a more
dense fluidized bed in the lowest combustor zone. The forced-draft primary
air carries smaller solids up to the top of the combustor. Secondary air
is supplied to various locations in the combustion chamber to ensure
complete combustion and minimize formation of nitrogen oxides (NO ).
Auxiliary fuel and pressurized contaminated soil feed are individually
introduced into the lower combustion chamber. Capability also exists to
feed liquid wastes. Dry limestone sorbent is added to control gaseous
emissions of sulfur, phosphates, chlorines, or other halogens.
Elutriated solids are separated from the flue gas by a hot cyclone and
reinjected into the lower combustor using a proprietary non mechanical
seal. Injection, burning and reaction of fuel, contaminated soil feed,
3/89-46 Document Number: EWHC
NOTE: Quality assurance of data nay not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
sorbent, and ash components are the inputs and outputs of a continuing
chemical process which destroys the hazardous wastes.
A trial burn of PCB-contaminated soils was completed in GA Technologies
transportable Circulating Bed Combustor (CBC). Over 4000 pounds of soil
containing IK PCB were treated in three identical 4-hour runs at 1800° F.
The sampling and analysis and the resulting data were obtained in
accordance with the QA/QC protocol of EPA. Third party sampling and
analysis contractors were used (along) with on-site and in-lab observation
by EPA.
PERFORMANCE: Destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) were greater than
99.9999% and PCB levels in combustor ash were less than 200ppb (see
Table 1). No chlorinated dioxins or furans were detected in the stack gas,
bed ash, or fly ash. In addition, no significant concentrations of the
Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) were detected. Combustion
efficiencies were greater than 99.9%, with CO concentrations less than 50
ppm and NO concentrations less than 75 ppm. Particulate emissions were
generally below 0.08 grain/dscf and HCL emissions were maintained below 4.0
Ib/hr by introducing limestone directly into the combustor. It is noted
that PCB test data led to the first TSCA permit for transportable PCB
incinerator operation in all 10 EPA regions.
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1336-36-3 Total PCBs
3/89-46 Document Number: EWHC
NOTE: Quality assurance of data Bay not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
TABLE 1
PCB TRIAL
Parameter
Test Duration, hr
Operating Temperature, F
Soil Feed Rate, Ib/hr
Total Soil Feed, Ib
PCB Concentration in Feed.
ORE Z
PCB Concentration
- Bed Ash, ppm
- Fly Ash, ppm
Dioxin/Furan Concentration
- Stack Gas, ppm
- Bed Ash, ppm
- Fly Ash, ppm
Combustion Efficiency, %
Acid Gas Release, Ib/hr
Particulate Emissions,
grain/set (dry)
Excess Oxygen, %
CO , ppm
co2, %
N0x, ppm
BURN OPERATIONAL
TSCA
Requirement
4
-
-
-
ppm
>99.9999
<2
<2
-
-
-
>99.9
<4.0
<0.08
>3.0
-
-
—
DATA AND TEST RESULTS
1
4
1800
328
1592
11,000
99.999995
0.0035
0.066
i
ND
ND
ND
99.94
0.16
o
0.095^
7.9
35
6.2
26
Test Number
2
4
1800
412
1321
12,000
99.999981 99.
0.033
0.0099
ND
ND
ND
99.95
0.58
0.043
6.8
28
6.0
25
3
4
1800
324
1711
9,800
999977
0.186
0.0032
ND
ND
ND
99.97
0.70
0.0024
6.8
22
7.5
76
2 ND » Not Detected
Note: This is a partial listing of data.
information.
Refer to the document for more
3/89-46 Document Number: EWHC
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
<^9S^^
POST OFFICE BOX 85178 10955 JOHN JAY HOPKINS DRIVE -"• -
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92138-5178 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
HAROLD R DIOT
DIRECTOR SALES AND MARKETING
(6'9) 455-2383
June 3, 1987
Mr. James Antizzo
U.S. EPA ( Mail Code WH-548E)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. Antizzo:
The enclosed abstract and package of information is sent to you in response
to the Agency's need for treatability data for soils and debris to use in
establishing BOAT standards under the land disposal restrictions program.
We are pleased to respond to this need as stated in a May 18, 1987 letter
to Mr. Richard Fortuna of the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council from
Mr. Bill Hanson, Acting Chief, Site Policy and Guidance Branch.
We think that the attached Abstract and brief answers to the "TREATABILITY
STUDY ATTACHMENT" reflect the excellent performance of our Circulating Bed
Combustion technology and the responsible and precise controls and
standards of the Agencies involved in our test work.
We look forward to supplying any additional information. Please call me at
(619) 455-2383 or Derrell Young at (619) 455-3045 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Harold R. Diot
HRDrmat
Enclosure
cc: Richard Fortuna, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
-------
ABSTRACT
BOAT TREATABTITY DATA FOR SOILS, SLUDGES AND DEBRIS
FROM THE
CIRCULATING BED COMBUSTION (CBC) PROCESS
June 3, 1987
The CBC has demonstrated its effective destruction of hazardous and
toxic compounds in soils, sludges and liquids. These demonstrations have
been done in tests in commercial size equipment in a facility recognized as
one of the leading fluid bed research centers in the world. There have
been over 5000 hours of testing logged in this facility. The key tests
discussed below represent only a small sample of the data available.
The two key tests discussed here and in the attached brief answers to
the "TREATABILITY STUDY ATTACHMENT" include a test on PCS for EPA-TSCA and
a test on RCRA compounds for the California Air Resources Board (CAR.B).
Both of these tests were planned, monitored and approved by the respective
agencies. The sampling and analysis and the resulting data obtained was
gained under the QA/QC protocols of these agencies. Third party sampling
and analysis contractors were used under with on-site and in-lab
observation by these agencies. The PCB test data led to the first TSCA
permit for transportable PCB incinerator operation in all 10 EPA regions.
The CARB data (along with the PCB and other test data) have formed the
basis of the "operating boundary" permit conditions for the RCRA RD&D
permit given by EPA Region IX for the facility.
Some major points regarding the data:
o The PCB tests were done on actual site soils (clay-like, rocky
material).
o Greater than 99.9999Z DRE was obtained on PCB and no dioxin or
furan was detected and ash was well below TSCA requirements.
o FICs were studied to the extent that all peaks in the National
Bureau of Standards Mass Spectral library were quantitated.
1
-------
o PICs have been related to continuously monitored CO and HC
emissions.
-------
TREATABILITY STUDY
ATTACHMENT
1. Facility identification, description, and waste characteristics.
1.1. Identification
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. (OES)
Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC) Demonstration Facility
10955 John J. Hopkins Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
EPA Permit Number: CAD 981613789
1.2. Description
A CBC thermal destruction facility including all auxiliary hardware
for solids, liquids or sludge waste treatment are instrumented specifically
for rigorous data collection. A schematic and photographs of the facility
are shown in Figures 1.2-1, 1.2-2, and 1.2-3.
This CBC is a transportable treatment unit with a 2 million Btu/hour
thermal rating*. The transportable CBC has a TSCA permit for PCS soils
treatment in all 10 EPA regions. This CBC facility also has an EPA-RCRA
Research, Development and Demonstration (RDD) permit for test work on RCRA
waste. The waste characteristics tested already and allowed to be tested
by the EPA RDD permit are described in Section 1.3 below.
OES provides full waste thermal destruction services with
transportable CBCs up to 10 million Btu/hour and with fixed CBCs up
to over 50 million Btu/hour.
-------
toni me
•til* out ii'fMi
mviion
KIMII
HIM
Fig. 1.2-1. Schematic of OES 16-in. pilot-scale CBC
-------
840311-3C
Fig. 1.2-2. OES 16-in. pilot-scale circulating bed combustor
•S0238-19C
Fig. 1.2-3. Pilot-scale CBC control console and data acquisition
-------
1.3. Waste Characteristics
1.3.1. Hazardous Wastes Already Tested* in CBC
o Soil containing up to:
- 12,000 ppm PCB (arochlor 1260)
2,100 ppm 1,2,A trichlorobenzene
- 350 ppb total furans (estimated)
7 ppb total dioxins (estimated)
o Liquids containing:
- Freon 113
Carbon tetrachloride
- Hexachlorobenzene
- Ethylbenzene
Xylene ~~
- Trichlorobenzene
- Toluene
Sulfur hexafluoride
1.3.2. Hazardous Wastes Allowed for CBC Tests by EPA ROD Permit
All RCRA wastes listed in 40 CFR, number 261, except:
1) F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027, F028 wastes (specific dioxin
and furan compounds) with a concentration of 1 ppm or higher.
2) Wastes with a concentration of greater than 1000 ppm mercury (Hg,
lead (Pb), arsenic (AS), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), chromium
(Cr), selenium (Se), or silver (Ag).
Successful test demonstration work on many other materials not listed
as hazardous has been done including: aluminum smelter potliners,
refuse derived fuels, high sulfur coals, etc.
-------
3) Wastes with a PCB content of 50 ppm or greater, (only if the
Permittee's TCCA permit to burn PCB's is no longer valid . . .
note this permit allows up to 9,800 ppm PCB soils).
4) Chemical warfare agents.
5) Radioactive materials.
6) Forbidden and Class A explosives as defined in 40 CFR 173.51 and
173.53.
7) Waste with a total organic sulfur content greater than 5 wt.Z.
2. Treatment Technology Selected for Treatability Testing
2.1. Treatment Category (i.e., Thermal Destruction. Physical Chemicalr
Biological. Solidification/Stabilization)
Thermal destruction
2.2. Criteria for Technology Selection
In-house technology or technology provided by a vendor. Vendor name.
Reason for selection.
The CBC is in-house technology. The CBC technology for hazardous
waste wa* developed by GA Technologies, Inc. (GA). GA and Ahlstrom of
Finland formed Pyropower Corporation in 1980 to supply CBCs for the U.S.
boiler market. Pyropower and Ahlstrom have many CBC units installed and
operating worldwide burning a variety of fossil fuels, biomass and wastes.
OES has a licensing agreement to us* the same CBC technology to develop and
build hazardous waste incinerators. Also, the 2 million Btu per hour CBC
facility and the key CBC program personnel were transferred to Ogden
Corporation as OES in December 1986, and OES continues to develop the CBC
technology for hazardous waste destruction.
-------
2.3. Process Description, Requirements and Limitations
The process description is given below.
Requirements
Requirements for operations vary depending upon the CBC size and feed
type. An example is given below for the 36-inch diameter CBC, the largest
transportable version. Note: ~10 MM Btu/hr . . . hazardous waste
treatment CBCs are available in sizes from ~16-inch diameter (2 MM Btu/hr)
to ~120-inch diameter (50 MM Btu/hr).
36-inch CBC Operating Requirements
o Temperatures
o Thermal Rating
o Auxiliary Fuel Required (if no
heat value of feed)
o Electricity (connected)
o Water
o CBC Area
UOO°F to 1800°F (normal
range)*
10 MM Btu/hr
10 therms/hr
250 kva
None (closed loop cooling
system)
50 x 50 feet
Limitations
Feed limits for solids are ~l-inch ring size on the largest feed
input. Liquids/sludges must be pumpable. Ash melting limits
(glass-formers) in feed materials vary depending upon application.
Higher than 1800 F temperatures can be accommodated in the CBC but
have not been necessary to achieve the desired waste destruction.
-------
Typically, several wtZ of low-temperature «1600 F) melting material can be
handled without special procedures. We have developed procedures to handle
>30 wtS glass-formers.
Process Description
The CBC is a complete, self-contained thermal process plant capable of
destroying, through combustion, hazardous components of various contami-
nated solid feedstocks. It will produce inert by-products that satisfy
federal, state, and local regulatory requirements.
Commercial units in Europe and the U.S. are designed to burn a wide
variety of fuels such as coal, peat, wood wastes, municipal wastes, and
oil, primarily for the purpose of raising steam or generated electricity.
Application of this process to the treatment of hazardous wastes was
developed in the US since 1980 (Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. acquired
this technology in December 1987 from GA Technologies, Inc.).
The CBCs process advantages are derived principally from (1) the
extremely high fluidizing velocities and the resulting intrinsic turbulence
and (2) the recirculation of solids to the combustion chamber.
The ability of the CBC to efficiently destroy organic waste at low
combustion temperatures and low excess air levels without an afterburner
results in very high waste processing rates for given-sized hardware. With
typical operating conditions, the CBC system can handle a maximum soil
2
waste throughput of 1100 Ib/ft of combustor cross section and requires
2
only 850 Ib/h/ft of combustion air. This specific throughput is
significantly higher than can be obtained using other incineration
technologies. Thus, CBC units do more work than other equivalently sized
incinerator types.
-------
Ma-jor Equipment Components and Function
The primary CBC components are the combustion chamber, hot cyclone
collector, flue gas cooler, baghouse, and stack. Auxiliary systems include
feeders (solids, liquids, sludges), forced-draft and induced-draft fans,
ash conveyor, compressed air, cooling tower, and building ventilation.
Figure 2-1.1 is a schematic representation of the process.
Atmospheric primary air is pumped into the lower portion of the
combustion chamber where the bed material is fluidized by turbulent mixing
of the air and solids. Larger solids gravitate downward to form a more
dense fluidized bed in the lowest combustor zone. The forced-draft primary
air carries smaller solids up to the top of the combustor.
Secondary air is supplied to various locations in the combustion
chamber to ensure complete combustion and minimize formation of nitrogen-
oxides (NO ).
Auxiliary fuel and pressurized contaminated soil feed are individually
introduced into the lower combustion chamber. Capability also exists to
feed liquid wastes. Dry limestone sorbent is added to control gaseous
emissions of sulfur, phosphates, chlorines, or other halogens.
Elutriated solids are separated from the flue gas by a hot cyclone and
reinjected into the lower combustor using a proprietary nonmechanical seal.
Ignition, burning, and reaction of the fuel, contaminated soil feed,
sorbent, and ash components are a continuing chemical process which
destroys the hazardous wastes.
The loop design is such that essentially all of the pollution control
occurs in the combustion loop itself. Efficient mixing of the fuel, soil
feed, and combustion air assures that all hazardous organic constituents
are oxidized with minimum emissions of both CO and NO . Flue gas wet
scrubbers are not required.
10
-------
COMOUSTOR
LIMESTONE AM)
SOLID WASTE
LIOUIO WASTE
AUXILIARY FUEL
CONTHOLflOOM
. AND
MOTOR CONTnOL
CENTEII
CinCUlATlNG
CUULINU
WATER
7 n
UAGIUlUSt
iyijj
ASIICONVEYOH
II) FAN
ASH
SIOflAGL
-305
Fig. 2-1.1. CBC schematic
-------
The high velocity of combustion-air and circulating solids creates a
uniform temperature (+50 F) around the combustion loop which is controlled
at a value between 1400 F and 1800 F. Residence times in the combustor
range from about 2 seconds for gases to about 30 minutes for solid feed
material (less than 1.0-inch ring size).
During operation, ash is periodically removed from the CBC by means of
a water-cooled ash removal system. The hot gas leaving the cyclone is
cooled in a flue gas cooler; the fly ash escaping the cyclone is
continuously collected by baghouse filters. These filters reduce the
particulate loading in the flue gas from as high as 130 to 0.01 grains/scf
(the EPA RCRA particulate emission limit is 0.08 grains/scf). The fabric
filters are acid-resistant and normally operate at temperatures up to
350 F. No post-treatment of the dry, inert ash is necessary.
CBC Advantage
The extreme turbulence and high recirculation rates of the solids
within the combustor make the CBC combustion process relatively insensitive
to feed properties. The 100-to-l ratio of hot-inert-solids-to-feed and the
high internal combustor heat transfer ensures that moisture in the waste
feed rapidly evaporates with little (if any) depression in local combustor
temperature. The only significant effect of feed moisture on the
incineration process is on the combustor energy overall heat balance.
Energy that would otherwise go to processing contaminated soil must be used
to evaporate water (as with any thermal system).
The CBC is insensitive to large amounts of fines in the feed stream.
Feed fines benefit the solid circulation that produces the isothermal
combustor conditions.
The turbulence in the CBC atomizes liquid waste feeds, thereby
eliminating the need for troublesome spray nozzles which could clog. The
bed effectively disperses viscous sludges.
12
-------
The acid gases formed by chemical reactions are rapidly absorbed by
the large surface area of fine circulating sorbent (such as limestone or
other inexpensive local sorbent). The intermediate reactions form the
final ash products of benign salts such as CaCl. and CaSO,. The rapid
& *t
combustion of the flue gas and quick neutralization of the acid gases
within the combustion chamber are in contrast to other incinerator types
that rely on afterburners to complete combustion and add-on scrubbers to
complete acid gas capture.
Avoiding the requirement for a wet scrubber not only simplifies
operation of the incinerator and avoids acid gas attack of internals
between the combustor and the scrubber, but also completely eliminates
aqueous waste streams.
Two features of the CBC make it much more energy-conserving in soil
decontamination applications. The first derives from the CBCs ability tcr
destroy contaminants in a temperature range of 1400 to 1800 F - several
hundred degrees lower than required in other types of incinerators. This
ability to clean up soil without heating it to highly elevated temperatures
greatly reduces the amount of auxiliary fuel required in the CBC versus
other types of incinerators.
The second feature of the CBC that conserves energy is the very low
excess air required in the destruction of contaminants. Because of the
highly turbulent bed and intimate contact between the contaminated solids
and air, the CBC operates in the range of 20Z to 401 excess air. This
compares to several hundred percent excess air in a rotary kiln, for
example, where most of the air bypasses the soil without reacting with it.
Although much of the air bypasses the soil, it still picks up heat from the
rotary kiln and makes necessary additional auxiliary fuel to replace this
lost heat and additional water flow to cool the bypass air.
When an upset occurs in a CBC (e.g., fan failure, power outage, etc.)
the bed material slumps into the lower combustion chamber, thus retaining
pollutants in the limestone and ash. In contrast, the conventional
13
-------
bubbling bed is not easily slumped because lower velocities invite bed
agglomeration. When a scrubber is involved, as for kilns and grate
incinerators, scrubber bypass is required in an upset. Scrubber bypass can
release large amounts of untreated pollutants.
The key CBC components, the combustor, provides these benefits
inherently and automatically, without complicated controls. Other
components (pumps, fans, etc.) are standard hardware. Scrubbers or other
chemical treatment equipment are unnecessary. The innovation represented
by the CBC is in the total system, i.e., in the arrangement and particular
function that has been designed into the incinerator using this standard
hardware.
2.4. Rate of Process and Length of Treatment Time.
The largest transportable 36-inch CBC will process soils at up to _
12,000 Ib/hr on a 24-hour per day, 7-day per week basis. The system will
also process contaminated sludges and liquids concurrent with soils or
separately.
Length of treatment time is interpreted as residence time of materials
at temperature in the CBC combustion loop. There is a minimum "gas"
residence time and longer residence for solids as described below:
Gas Residence Time
The gas residence time is controlled by the superficial velocity in
the combustion chamber, and is approximately 2.5 to 3 seconds at 1600°F.
Exact operating conditions are selected based on test and trial burn
results to meet or exceed all requirements. Upon leaving the combustor
loop, the gas flows through the flue gas cooler where it is cooled to
Q
350 F, over a 6 second time interval. The gas temperature remains
essentially constant throughout the rest of the system, with about
3 seconds passing before discharge to the atmosphere.
14
-------
The gas residence time (at 1600 F) calculation is summarized as
follows:
Component
Combustion chamber
Chamber to cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone to FGC
Length
(ft.)
35
12
20
24
Velocity
(ft./s)
20
50
50
50
Time at
1600°F
(seconds)
1.75
0.24
0.40
0.48
2.87
Solids Residence Time
Due to extensive backmixing and solids recirculation in the CBC, the
solids residence time at operating temperature is much greater than for the
gas. While this residence time is dependent on particle size and attrition
rates, on average the bed is replaced about twice per hour. Thus, a
typical solid residence time is about 30 minutes. Solids leave the
combustor through either the bed ash discharge or the gas exit in the
cyclone. Solids in the gas stream are cooled along with the gas, and are
separated in the baghouse. Bed ash is transferred by a water-cooled screw
conveyor, taking about 30 minutes to cool from operating temperature to the
cool ash temperature.
Not* that even very finely divided solids have a reasonably long
system residence time due to the solids recirculation.
2.5. Material Handling Equipment Requirements (i.e., Material Transport
and Excavation)
Solids material transport to the 36-inch diameter CBC on a
remediation site typically involves loading a solids feed hopper once per
15
-------
day from a large storage pile or excavation area using a front-end loader.
From the solids feed hopper, the solids are activated and fed automatically
by mechanical feeders.
Sludge/liquid material transport involves pumping out of a surge tank
and feeding directly into the CBC. The surge tank may be sized to receive
daily, weekly or other periodic loads from the site.
Excavation equipment requirements vary depending upon the site.
Standard loader/excavators may be used on soils sites with digs up to 40'
deep. Special equipment (and/or shoring, etc.) may be required for deeper
excavations.
2.6. Pretreatment Requirements (i.e.. Oversize Material. Removal.
Disaggregation. Sorting. Dewatering. Chemical/Physical Treatment. Control
of Volatile Release. Control of Particulate Release) Description Criteri-a
for Application
A solids size maximum of 1-inch ring size. Pumpable liquids/sludges
need no pretreatment (filtering, etc.) because there are no atomizers
required on the CBC. Dewatering of liquids stream is not necessary for the
process (dewatering may be an economic benefit). Some oversized impervious
materials such as metal parts may be washed and the surfaces certified
clean of contamination. The contaminated wash material would then be
incinerated in the CBC.
Volatile and particulate release in pretreatment is minimized due to
the minimal pretreatment required for CBC feeds. Fugitive dust/vapor
control for screening/shredding/crushing and solids handling typically
requires simple dust enclosures. Negative pressure systems or spray
wetting systems may be added in some cases as necessary. Volatile vapor
control is required usually only if thermal pretreatment (dewatering) is
used. This volatile vapor control would involve drawing hazardous vapors
through the inlet fans of the combustor or alternatively absorbing vapors
16
-------
on activated carbon or condensing the vapors and then burning the
contaminated residues.
Criteria for application of these pretreatment requirements may be
summarized as:
o Oversize Solids >1" - Screen, Crush - Dirt, rock, etc., 1" to 4"
Screen, Shred - Metal, wood, paper, fibre,
etc., 1" to 4"+
Screen, Wash - Metal, rock, selected others
A"
o Dewater - If economics show favorable
o Volatile and To meet local, state and Federal standards
Particle Control -(may include insitu monitoring)
2.7. Post-Treatment Requirements. Description. Criteria for Application
Residuals from the CBC include dry cementitious (pozzulanic) ash.
This ash in site soils cleanups would include inert soils and limestone and
lime salts of chlorine, sulfur and other solid lime-absorbed materials.
Tests on RCRA and TSCA materials indicate such low organics levels in the
ash residue that the ash residue may be either delisted (RCRA) or
non-regulated (TSCA).
2.8. Byproducts and Other Process Effluent. Type. Quantities, and
Concentrations. Environmental Controls
are
x
Th« off-ga* is primarily CO., 0_, N. and H-0 vapor. CO and NO
typically <150 ppm and HC1 and unburned HC (total) are typically <100 ppm.
Offgas particulate is «0.08 grains per acf as controlled by a baghouse.
The baghouse flyash and bedash are dry solids. These solids are
primarily silica sand and lime and lime salts (CaCl. or CaSO^) since dry
limestone is injected into the combustor to capture acid gas formers before
they leave the combustor. The resultant ash is a very low leachable
cementitious (pozzularius) dry powder. No wet scrubber sludge is produced.
17
-------
2.9. Monitoring and Data Collection Requirements (i.e., QA/QC Protocols)
Modified Method 5, VOST, (SW8A6 methods) solids sampling and analysis
procedures (methods, chain-of-custody) as approved by EPA have been used to
obtain the data supporting the CBC TSCA permit for PCB and the CBC RDD
permit for RCRA compounds.
3.0. Treatability Test
3.1. Scale Used for Testing (i.e., Bench. Pilot, Full) and Scale-up
Limitations
A 16-inch diameter commercial-scale unit was used for test work.
There are no scale-up limitations as already demonstrated by demonstrations
in this commercial-size test rig as applied to other larger commercial
units burning varied solids/liquids whose bed cross-sections are many feet.
The data from the 16-inch rig has been basically the same as in the larger
rigs with no scale-up surprises.
3.2. Number of Tests Conducted Under Variable Conditions. Test Results in
a. Summary Table Showing Both Operating Conditions and Performance Results
There have been over 5,000 test hours logged in the pilot plant on
various non-hazardous and hazardous feeds.
Two key examples of test data on hazardous feeds are given in
Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 for the TSCA PCB test and the RCRA liquids test
(California Air Resources Board), respectively.
See also Appendix A for more details on the PCB test for TSCA.
18
-------
TABLE 3.2-1
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
TRIAL BURN OF PCB-CONTAMINATED SOIL
PROCESS CONDITIONS
T«st number
Average combustion
temperature, F
Gas residence tiro*,
seconds
PCB in feed, ppm
PCB in •»h, ppm
1
1,806
1.16
2
1,806
1.16
3 A
1,796 1,600
1.19
1.32
B
1,800
1.18
11,000 12,000 9,800 12,000 47
DESTRUCTION REMOVAL EFFICIENCY. X**J
PCB >99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999
Regulatory requirement is 99.9999.
Not*: Test planned/monitored by EPA-TSCA.
-------
TABLE 3.2-2
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS EVALUATION OF THE CBC PROCESS
FOR DESTRUCTION OF LIQUID ORGANIC WASTES*"'
PROCESS CONDITIONS
K>
O
Test number
Average combustion
temperature, F
Gas residence time,
seconds
la
1480
2.69
Ib
1416
2.08
Ic
1630
2.03
le
1680
1.97
DESTRUCTION REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES. X(b)
Freon 113
Carbon tetrach 1 or i de
Hexachlorobenzene
Ethy 1 benzene
Xy lene
99.9999
99.9998
99.9999
99.9971
99.9930
99.9724(C)
99.9996
99.9995
99.9989
99.9991
99.9997
99.9996
99.9999
99.9991
99.9978
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9991
99.9978
Fuel analysis included Freon 113, Carbon TetrachI oride,
Hexachlorobenzene, EthyI benzene, Xylene, TrichIorobenzen, plus other compounds,
(b)
RCRA r«quir«m«nt is 99.99X.
(c) o
B*d t«mp«ratur« momentarily dropped to 1300 F during th* sampling
per i od.
NOTE: Test planned/monitored by the California Air Resources Board.
-------
3.3. Performance Evaluation (i.e.. Removal Efficiency). Could Performance
be Improved? How? (Operating Conditions Change, Additional Pretreatment.
etc. )
Performance improvements are centered only in maintaining consistent,
reliable and optimum feed rates of sorbent (limestone) solids and the
contaminated solids and liquids feeds. The CBC turbulence and residence
time have demonstrated well above the required DREs at temperatures which
are much lower than other incinerators.
4.0. Processed Residual
4-1. Physical Chemical Characteristics and Analysis, Volume Increase or
Decrease
The dry ash produced has been well below TSCA standards for PCB (s«
Appendix A) and has been at delistable levels, if such delisting were
appropriate, for RCRA materials.
Volume decreases of over 20 to 1 have been noted for some low-ash
liquids/sludges. Volume stays essentially constant for contaminated soils.
4.2. Regulatory Test Protocol Results (i.e.. EP Toxicity, TCLP, etc.).
Specify Test Performed
Organics have b«en quantified for PCB as given in Appendix A. Metals
leachability tests have not been performed, though there have been perti-
nent studies on fluoride leachability.
4.3. Residual Disposal Method Used. Reasons for Selection
Pilot plant ash is either returned to the test customer or sent to a
Class I facility under contract to the test customer. Though the ash could
be delisted, the volume (a few drums) are too small.
21
-------
4.4. Cost Requirements (Per Unit of Time and Unit of Mass of Waste
Treated)
Costs depend upon the size of combustor and the type of feed.
Examples of CBC treatment costs on varied moisture content soil for 36-inch
and 104-inch diameter CBCs are given below:
Soil
Moisture
TL
10
16
30
Total
36-inch CBC
117
131
166
S/t
104-inch CBC
78
84
98
4.5. Permit Requirements (Type of Permit Required, Used)
The following 5 permits have been obtained for the pilot plant CBC:
(1) EPA-TSCA transportable PCB incineration permit - the first for all
10 EPA regions; (2) EPA-RCM RD&D permit, the first in California;
(3) California Department of Health Services RD&D Permit (Draft) . . .
(also, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of no significance environmental
impact under the California Environmental Quality Act); (4) San Diego Air
Pollution Control District Permit including a hazardous emissions impact
assessment, and; (5) San Diego Industrial User Discharge Permit.
The commercial CBCs (nonhazardous fuels) have obtained air permits in
"nonattaliment)M areas such as Bakersfield and Colton, California.
22
-------
APPENDIX A
PCB-CONTAI-IINATED SOIL TREATMENT IN A
TRANSPORTABLE CIRCULATING BED COMBUSTOR
(Paper present to the Hazardous Materials Management Conference
and Exposition at Anaheim, California, April 29 - May I, 1986.)
-------
OGDEN
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC,
PCB-CONTAMINATED SOIL
TREATMENT IN A TRANSPORTABLE
CIRCULATING BED COMBUSTOR
by
D. D. JENSEN
Staff Scientist
D. T. YOUNG
Manager, Combustion Projects
Presented at
Hazardous Materials Management
Conference and Exposition
Anaheim, California
April 29 - May 1, 1986
OES was formerly the Hazardous Waste Management Division
of GA Technologies Inc.
-------
PCB-CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT IN A
TRANSPORTABLE CIRCULATING BED COMBUSTOR
by
D. D. Jensen, Ph. D. and D. T. Young
GA Technologies Inc.
San Diego, California
ABSTRACT
A trial burn of PCB-contaminated soils was
completed in GA Technologies' transportable
Circulating Bed Combustor (CBC). Over 4000
pounds of soil containing 1% PCB were treated
in three identical 4-hr runs at 1800° F. The re-
sults showed excellent compliance with U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) requirements.
Destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs)
were greater than 99.9999% and PCB in com-
bustor ash was less than 200 ppb. No chlorinated
dioxins or furans were detected in the stack gas,
bed ash, or fly ash. In addition, no significant
concentrations of other Products of Incomplete
Combustion (PICs) were detected. Combustion
efficiencies were greater than 99.9%, with CO
concentrations less than 50 ppm and NOX con-
centrations less than 75 ppm. Particulate emis-
sions were generally below 0.08 grain/dscf and
HC1 emissions were maintained below 4.0 Ib/hr
by introducing limestone directly into the com-
bustor. These results led to the first TSCA per-
mit for a transportable incinerator which can
be used in all ten EPA regions. This demon-
strates that the CBC is an environmentally ac-
ceptable means of treating contaminated soil
containing PCB and other organic wastes. In
addition, the high thermal efficiency, the ab-
sence of afterburners or scrubbers, and the use
of simple feed systems make CBC treatment
competitive with soil removal and transport to
landfills and other potential treatment/disposal
options.
INTRODUCTION
Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, have
perhaps received more scrutiny than any other
hazardous chemicals found in waste sites around
the country. This group of 209 synthetic chlor-
inated organic compounds found wide use~as a
dielectric fluid in utility transformers and ca-
pacitors, and as a high-temperature heat trans-
fer medium (1). However, because of their ex-
ceptional resistance to degradation in the
biosphere and apparent toxicity, the manufac-
ture and sale of PCBs were banned in 1976 for
virtually all purposes. The control, treatment,
and disposal of PCBs was mandated by TSCA
and is currently handled through EPA's Office
of Toxic Substances.
Until recently, it has been common practice
to remove contaminated soils for burial in a se-
cured landfill. However, this option is becoming
less desirable as landfill costs escalate, the num-
ber of available landfill sites drop, and gener-
ators or potential responsible parties (PRPs)
become increasingly aware of retained liability
associated with the contaminated soils, even in
a secured landfill. Treatment of PCB-contami-
nated soil by incineration in the CBC can elim-
inate or significantly reduce the potential lia-
bility of generators or PRPs at a cost competitive
with landfill prices.
The use of CBC technology for hazardous
waste treatment builds on over 15 years expe-
rience at GA in the design, development, and
-------
operation of fluidized bed combustors. In 1980
GA and Ahlstrom of Finland formed Pyropower
Corporation to supply CBCs for the U.S. boiler
market. These units are designed to burn a wide
variety of fuels such as coal, peat, wood, munic-
ipal wastes, and oil. Over 2o units are operating
or under construction worldwide. Three units
are currently in operation in the U.S. In ]9S3,
GA began concentrating its efforts on the ap-
plication of CBC technology to incineration of
hazardous wastes. Table 1 presents examples of
wastes that have been burned in the CBC during
this time. Successful treatment of this diversity
of wastes provided assurar.ee that PCBs could
be destroyed in a CBC at a lower temperature
than used in conventional incinerators.
CBC DESCRIPTION
The CBC is a new generation of incinerator
that uses high velocity air to entrain circulating
solids in a highly turbulent combustion loop.
This design allows combustion along the entire
length of the reaction zone. Because of its high
thermal efficiency, the CBC is ideally suited to
treat feed with low heat content, including con-
taminated soil. Figure 1 shows the major com-
ponents of a CBC for soil treatment. Soil is in-
troduced into the combustor loop at the loop seal
where it immediately contacts hot recirculating
soil from the hot cyclone. Hazardous materials
adhering to soil are rapidly heated when intro-
duced into the loop and continue to be exposed
to high temperatures throughout their residence
time in the CBC. Upon entering the combustor,
high velocity air (14 to 20 ft/s) entrains the cir-
culating soil which travels upward through the
combustor into the hot cyclone. Retention times
in the combustor range from 2 seconds for gases
to -30 minutes for larger feed materials (<1.0
in.). The cyclone separates the combustion gases
from the hot solids, which are returned to the
combustion chamber via a proprietary non-
mechanical seal. Hot flue gases and fly ash pass
through a convective gas cooler and on to a bag-
house filter where fly ash is removed. Filtered
flue gas then exhausts to the atmosphere. Heav-
ier particles of purified soil remaining in the
combustor lower bed are slowly removed by a
water cooled ash conveyor system. As a conse-
quence of the highly turbulent combustion zone,
temperatures around the entire loop (combus-
tion chamber, hot cyclone, return leg) are uni-
form to within zr50°F. The uniform low tem-
perature and high solids turbulence also help
avoid ash slagging encountered in other types
of incinerators.
Acid gases formed during destruction re-
actions are rapidly captured in situ by limestone
added directly into the combustor. The reaction
of limestone and HC1, released during PCB in-
cineration, forms dry calcium chloride, a benign
salt. The rapid combustion and quick neutrali-
zation of the acid gases within the combustion
chamber eliminates the need for afterburners
and add-on scrubbers to complete destruction
and acid gas capture, respectively. Emissions of
CO and NOX are controlled to low levels by ex-
cellent mixing, relatively low temperatures (1450
to 1800°F), and staged combustion, achieved by
injecting secondary air at higher locations in the
combustor. Because of its efficient combustion
and highly turbulent mixing, the CBC is capable
of attaining required DREs for both hazardous
wastes (99.99 7c) and toxic wastes (99.9999 9c) at
temperatures below those used in conventional
incinerators (typically >2000°F).
TABLE 1
CIRCULATING BED TEST RESULTS
Waste
Form
Destruction
Efficiency, %
HC1
Capture, %
Ca/Cl2
Ratio
Carbon Tetrachloride
Freon
Malathion
Dichlorobenzene
Aromatic Xitrile
Trichloroethane
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Sludge
Tacky solid
Liquid
99.9992
99.9995
> 99.9999
99.999
> 99.9999
99.9999
99.3
99.7
99
99
2.2
2.4
1.7
1.7
-------
COMBUSTOR
LIMESTONE
FEED
, FLUE GAS
—•» I Xr.nfUER
SOIL
FEED
FLUE GAS
(DUST)
FILTER
STACK
FD
COOLING
WATER
ASH
CONVEYOR
SYSTEM
Fig. 1. Schematic flow diagram of circulating bed combustor for soil treatment
TEST DESCRIPTION
A variety of requirements are imposed
prior to and during a PCB trial burn (2). The
key target of a trial burn is to ensure that PCB
DREs are > 99.9999% at the operating condi-
tions chosen for the incinerator. In addition, the
concentration of PCB in ash from the unit must
not exceed 2 ppm. The potential formation of
PICs is also carefully evaluated, with particular
attention given to polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
furans (PCDFs). The combustion efficiency of
the unit must be >99.9% and particulate emis-
sion must not exceed 0.08 grain/dscf.
The CBC trial burn was carried out in GA's
transportable unit, shown in Figure 2. Soil
treated in the test was obtained from a former
chemical processing site known to contain pock-
ets of PCB up to 6000 ppm, as well as other
organic and inorganic wastes. In order to ensure
that the CBC would be permitted to treat all
likely site concentrations of PCB, uncontami-
nated soil from the site was "spiked" with liquid
PCB to 10,000 ppm. Spiking was carried out by
blending a 50:50 commercial mixture of PCB
"1248" and trichlorobenzene with a ribbon
blender in 1000 Ib lots. Approximately 4000 Ib
of soil was spiked for the three burns required
by the TSCA trial burn permit.
While the CBC was maintained at 1800°F
using natural gas as the auxiliary fuel, several
barrels of clean site soil were introduced into
the CBC prior to the addition of spiked soil.
During this time all operating parameters and
system components were confirmed to be in the
required operating ranges. Process parameters
monitored included:
Temperature around the loop
Pressure drop across the loop
Soil feed rate
Primary air flow
Secondary air flow
Loop seal air flow
Total air flow
Methane flow
CO concentration
COo concentration
Excess oxygen level
NON concentration.
-------
Fig. 2. Transportable 16-inch circulating bed combu?tor
-------
Spiked soil was pneumatically transported
to a bunker and screw feeder. Soil feeding, lime-
stone addition, and stack gas monitoring were
started simultaneously. An EPA Modified
Method 5 sample train (3) was used to sample
stack gas emissions. In addition, a separate Vol-
atile Orpanic Sampling Train (VOSi) (4) was
used to sample for volatile organic PICs. Feed,
bed ash, and fly ash samples were also gathered
throughout the test (see Figure 1 for sample port
locations). Three identical tests of spiked soil
(4 hours each) were carried out over two days
in late May 1985. Each test was observed and/
or audited by EPA personnel or representatives.
All feed, ash, and stack gas samples were sub-
sequently analyzed for PCBs, PCDDs, and
PCDFs. Fly ash, bed ash, and stack gas samples
were also analyzed for other PIC? (both volatile
and semivolatile). Stack gases were analyzed for
fly ash -and chloride release as well.
RESULTS
Table 2 presents a summary of the trial
burn operational data and test results gathered
during the tests. Near-identical conditions were
maintained for each of the tests. In each case
PCB DREs were well in excess of the EPA-re-
quired 99.9999 * . PCB concentration in the bed
ash and the fly ash did not exceed 200 ppb. No
PCDDs or PCDFs were detected in the stack gas.
bed ash, or fly ash. Combustion efficiencies were
TABLE 2
PCB TRIAL BURN OPERATIONAL DATA AND TEST RESULTS
Parameter
Test Duration, hr
Operating Temperature, °F
Soil Feed Rate, Ib/hr
Total Soil Feed, Ib
PCB Concentration in Feed,
ppm
DRE, %
PCB Concentration
— Bed Ash, ppm
— Fly Ash, ppm
Dioxin/Furan Concentration
— Stack Gas, pp
— Bed Ash, ppm
— Fly Ash, ppm
Combustion Efficiency, %
Acid Gas Release, Ib/hr
Particulate Emissions,
grain/scf (dry)
Excess Oxygen, %
CO, ppm
COo, %
NOX, ppm
TSCA
Requirement
-4
—
—
—
> 99.9999
<2
<2
—
—
—
>99.9
<4.0
<0.08
>3.0
—
—
—
1
4
1800
328
1592
11,000
99.999995
0.0035
0.066
ND(a)
ND
ND
99.94
0.16
0.095(b)
7.9
35
6.2
26
Test Number
2
4
1800
412
1321
12,000
99.999981
0.033
0.0099
ND
ND
ND
99.95
0.58
0.043
6.8
28
6.0
25
3
4
1800
324
1711
9,800
99.999977
0.186
0.0032
ND
ND
ND
99.97
0.70
0.0024
6.8
22
7.5
76
(a'ND - Not detected.
(b)Derived from 2-hr makeup test.
-------
greater than 99.9f/~< and acid gas release was well
below the required 4 Ib/hr. Particulate emis-
sion? were generally less than the required 0.08
grain/di-cf. Only the grain loading from the first
lest, obtained from a 2-hr makeup test after the
completion of Tests 1 through ?,, showed a value
slightly higher than the limit. This is attributed
to off-normal process conditions for the bag-
house, i.e.. excessive blowback air pressure along
with a higher-than-normal number of blowback
cycles. Nitrogen oxides and CO levels remained
low as a result of the staged combustion utilized
in the CBC and the relatively low combustion
temperature (1SOO°F). These results demon-
strate that the CBC is an effective mean? to
destroy PCBs contained in a soil matrix, without
the need for high temperatures, afterburners,
or wet scrubbers. In particular, the absence of
undesirable combustion byproducts helps en-
sure that effective treatment of soil can be ob-
tained in an environmentally acceptable manner.
These results confirm the design of GA's
transportable CBC shown in Figure 3. The com-
bustor and all other plant components are de-
signed as modular units which can be trans-
ported by truck or rail. These units are assembled
at the site into an operating unit in four to six
weeks. The major components of this CBC plant
include the combustor loop, feed system, and
pollution control and air induction equipment.
GA's 30-inch transportable CBC is capable of
processing up to 4 t/hr of dry soil on a 24-hour
basis, requiring an operating crew of only two
persons per shift. Soil treatment costs may W
as low as $100/ton for a large site. For smaller
sites or sites having unique treatment require-
ments, costs may approach ^$400/ton.
STACK
FLUE GAS
COOLER
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
CYCLONE
INDUCED
DRAFT FAN
SOLIDS
FEED
BAGHOUSE
FLY ASH
CONVEYOR
COMBUSTOR
ASH REMOVAL
FORCED
DRAFT
FAN
Fig. 3. Isometric of site-assemblied circulating bed combustor
-------
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
The results of the PCE soil trial burn in
GA's CBC demonstrated compliance with EPA
TSCA requirements. The CBC is now one of only
seven incinerators nationwide permitted to burn
PCB. and one of only t\vo permitted transport-
able incinerator?, the other being the EPA ro-
tar\ kiln. It i? the first transportable incinerator
to be permitted in all ten EPA regions. Stack
emissions from the CBC are well within regu-
latory requirement? and residual PCB in bed ash
and fly ash is well below regulatory require-
ments. The superior thermal efficiency, high
throughput, and small staffing requirements of
the CBC provide a soil treatment option that is
cost competitive with landfill disposal while at
the same time reducing overall liability of the
generator or PRP.
SCS Engineers, Inc.. "PCB Disposal Man-
ual." Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research
Institute, Report No. CS-409S, June 19S~>.
"Polychlorinated Riphenyls d'CBsi Manu-
facture. Processing. Distribution in Com-
merce and Use Prohibition," 40 CFR TCl.Tc.
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste."
U.S. EPA Report SW-84G, 2nd Edition. 19S4.
"Proposed Sampling and Analytical Meth-
odologies for Addition to Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical
Methods (SW-S4G. 2nd Edition)," U.S. EPA
Report PB55-103026, 1984.
-------
EPA/540/2-89/024
SUPERFUNDTREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
International Technology Corp., AFESC, EG&G Idaho, Inc. 'Technology Demonstration
of a Thermal Desorption/UV Photolysis Process for Decontaminating Soils Containing
Herbicide Orange." Prepared for EG&G Idaho. 14pp. Technical report.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse -EWGE
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process: Physical/Chemical - UV Photolysis
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: International Technology Corp., AFESC, EG&G Idaho,
Inc. "Technology Demonstration of a Thermal
Desorption/UV Photolysis Process for Decontamin-
ating Soils Containing Herbicide Orange."
Prepared for EG&G Idaho. 14 pp. Technical report.
Document Type: Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Contact: Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
BLDG 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Site Name: NCBC Gulfport, MS; Johnston Island; and Guam
(Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Gulfport, MS and Guam
BACKGROUND; This treatability study report presents the results of
laboratory and field tests on the effectiveness of a new decontamination
process for soils containing 2,4-D/2,4,5-T and traces of dioxin. The
process employs three operations, thermal desorption, condensation and
absorption of contaminants into a solvent and photo decomposition.
Bench-scale tests were conducted to establish the relationships between
time and temperature and treatment efficiency. A pilot-scale (100 Ibs/hr)
system evaluation was conducted at two sites to evaluate system performance
and develop scale-up information.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; The intent of the laboratory and pilot-scale
tests was to reduce the combined dibenzo dioxin and furan constituents,
which originate from Herbicide Orange (HO), to less than 1 ng/g. This
level represents the anticipated soil cleanup criteria. The soils used had
similar concentrations of HO contaminants, but were different types of
soil. In the laboratory the contaminated soil is passed through thermal
desorber and the off gases from the soils, including the contaminants, are
passed through a scrubber that uses a hydrocarbon solvent. Contaminants
dissolve in the solvent and the solvents are passed through a flow reactor
which subjects the contaminant to UV radiation to decompose the contaminant
molecules. Testing was conducted on soil samples from three HO contami-
nated sites; Johnson Island, Eglin AFB and NCBC in Biloxi, MS. The soils
tested had 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations greater than 100 ng/g of soil and
2,4,-D/2,4,5-T levels greater than 1000 ng/g soil. Tests were run at three
different temperatures and two different power levels using high intensity
UV quartz mercury vapor lamps.
Pilot tests were conducted at the NCBC site using a rotary indirect
calciner as the desorber, an off gas transfer and scrubber system and a
3/89-43 Document Number: EWGE
NOTE; Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
photo chemical reactor to irradiate the contaminants contained in the
scrubber solution. A 1200-watt high intensity mercury vapor lamp was used
to irradiate the contaminated scrubber solution. No QA/QC plan was con-
tained in the document. No discussion of analytical techniques utilized to
detect HO and associated compounds is contained in the paper. A detailed
list of soil properties (particle size distribution, surface area, organic
matter, etc.) from the three different sites is contained in the document.
PERFORMANCE; Laboratory studies revealed that thermal desorption/UV
photolysis destroyed all compounds to below their analytical detection
limit (which was generally less than 0.1 ng/g). The concentration of
2,3,7,8-TCDD was reduced from 200 ng/g to less than 1 ng/g. Insoluble
brown tars (presumably phenolic tars) were deposited on the surfaces of the
reactor vessel and lamp well. Reaction kinetics quantum yields' and rate
constants were determined. Pilot tests also produced soil containing less
than 1 ng/g of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Table 1 shows the results of the tests.
CONTAMINANTS!
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group CAS Number Contaminants
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
TABLE 1
EFFECT OF TREATMENT CONDITIONS ON RESIDUAL 2,3,7,8-TCDD
DURING NCBC PILOT THERMAL DESORPTION TESTS
Soil Feed Residence Soil 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Rate Time3 Temperature (ng/g)
Test No. (kg/hr) (min) (°C) Initial Residual
1 13.6 40 560 260 ND
2 13.6 40 560 272 ND
3 25 19 560 236 ND
4 44 10.5 560 266 ND
5 20 24 460 233 0.5
Notes: a) Soil residence time in heated zone.
b) Detection level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was generally less than 0.1
ng/g with a range of 0.018 to 0.51 ng/g.
c) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
more information.
3/89-43 Document Number: EWGE
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
Technology Demonstration of a Thermal Desorption/UV Photolysis
Process for Decontaminating Soils Containing Herbicide Orange
R. Helsel, E. Alperin, T. Geisler, A. Groen, R. Fox
International Technology Corporation, 312 Directors Drive,
Knoxville, Tennessee 37923
Major T. Stoddart
U.S. Air Force, Engineering and Services Center,
Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32U03
H. Williams
EG4G Idaho, Inc., Waste Technology Programs,
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415
Laboratory and field testing determined the effec-
tiveness of a new decontamination process for soils
containing 2,*I-D/2,M,5-T and traces of dioxin. The
process employs three primary operations - thermal
desorption to volatilize the contaminants, conden-
sation and absorption of the contaminants in a
solvent, and photochemical decomposition of the
contaminants. Bench-scale experiments established
the relationship between desorption conditions (time
and temperature) and treatment efficiency. Labora-
tory tests using a batch photochemical reactor
defined the kinetics of 2,3,7,8-TCDD disappear-
ance. A pilot-scale system was assembled to process
up to 100 pounds per hour of soil. Tests were
conducted at two sites to evaluate treatment per-
formance and develop scale-up information. Soil was
successfully decontaminated to less than 1 ng/g
2,3,7,8-TCDD at temperatures above 460°C.
As part of a major program being conducted by the U.S. Air Force to
restore to normal use several Department of Defense sites where
soils have been contaminated with low levels of Herbicide Orange
(HO), International Technology Corporation (IT), .under subcontract
to EG&G Idaho, has been conducting a project involving laboratory
bench-scale and field pilot-scale tests to demonstrate a new soil
treatment process - thermal desorption/UV photolysis (TD/UV). The
intent of the demonstration was to reduce the combined tetra-,
penta-, and hexa-chlorinated dibenzodioxin (CDD) and furan (CDF)
congeners, which originated from the HO, to less than 1 ng/g, which
represented the anticipated soil clean-up criteria. Treatment
should also effectively remove the primary HO constituents, 2,U-D
-------
and 2,4,5-T. Two sites were included in the field demonstration
project for the TD/UV process, each having substantially different
types of soil but reasonably similar concentrations of the HO
constituents. Testing at the Naval Construction Battallion Center
(NCBC) at Gulfport, Mississiopi was conducted by IT during May
1985; testing at Johnston Island (JI) in'the Pacific Ocean occurred
in July 1986. Based on the results of these field pilot demonstra-
tions, an engineering and cost evaluation is being performed for
applying TD/UV technology using large, mobile systems for these two
sites or other sites having similar contaminated soil problems.
This paper describes the technology, highlights the results of the
initial laboratory test phase, and summarizes the field demonstra-
tion results.
Process Description
The thermal desorption/UV photolysis process developed by IT
accomplishes substantial volume reduction and toxicity reduction by
concentrating the hazardous constituents contained in the soil into
a small volume which is easier to treat than large quantities of
soil. The process incorporates three steps:
Desorption - heating the soil to volatilize the organic
contaminants
Scrubbing - collecting the volatilized organics in a
suitable solvent
Photolysis - converting the contaminants to relatively
non-hazardous residues through photochemical
reactions.
A schematic block-flow diagram is presented as Figure 1.
Contaminated soil is passed continuously through an indirectly
heated desorber which can be one of many types of conventional
equipment applicable for thermal processing of solids. The treat-
ment performance of the desorber is controlled by the residence
time and temperature of the soil. Treatment requirements (i.e.,
operating conditions) are determined by the volatility of the soil
contaminants and the required contaminant removal efficiency (final
versus initial concentration).
The off-gas leaving the desorber contains organic vapors,
water vapor originating as initial soil moisture, and small
quantities of air which enter with the soil. Scrubbing using a
high boiling hydrocarbon solvent is used to treat the off-gas to
remove the organic contaminants and water vapor by cooling, conden-
sation, and absorption. Particulates (e.g., fine soil) which may
be entrained by the off-gas are also collected by the scrubbing
solvent. Scrubbed off-gas is passed through a conventional emis-
sion control system, such as carbon adsorption, to ensure that no
organic contaminants or solvent vapors are released. Scrubber
solvent is recirculated to the scrubber after being processed
through a system of phase separation, filtration, and cooling.
Condensed water, which is immiscible with the solvent, is separated
and either directly treated using conventional tecnniques, such as
filtration and carbon adsorption, or discharged to an existing
-------
wastewater treatment facility. Filtered solids are recycled to the
desorber or packaged as process waste' for off-site disposal,
depending on the relative quantity and composition.
A small portion of the recirculated solvent stream is
diverted to a UV photolysis system to treat (detoxify) and remove
the organic contaminants, with the treated solvent purge recycled
to the scrubbing system. The equilibrium concentration of the
contaminants in the scrubber solvent is maintained as high as
practical to minimize the purge stream and afford higher photolysis
reaction rates, thereby decreasing the size of the photolysis
treatment system. The concentration limitation is dependent on the
solubility properties and partial pressure of the contaminants in
the solvent, and the resultant effect on scrubber efficiency and
emission potential. The photolysis system contains a specially
designed flow reactor which subjects the contaminant-laden solvent
to UV radiation to induce molecular decomposition. High intensity
mercury vapor lamps produce' a band of wavelengths, some of which
match the absorption energy of the specific organic molecules being
treated. Cooling is provided to the reactor to remove the thermal
output of the lamp. The photolyzed solvent is treated by using
selected conventional physical or thermal, separation processes,
such as distillation, to remove the reaction product residue.
Alternatively, a purge of the photolyzed solvent can be discarded
as waste to control the levels of reaction products in the
recirculated solvent system.
Other configurations of treatment processes using thermal
desorption as the primary separation technique can be applied to
organically contaminated soils. Alternative physical/chemical
processes can be used to treat the desorber off-gas and the
contaminants. To achieve complete contaminant destruction, the
off-gas can be treated by using conventional fume incineration or
other thermal treatment technology. The choice of the type of
desorber and off-gas treatment system depends on the concentration
and properties of the chemical contaminants, soil characteristics,
quantity of contaminated material, site characteristics, availabil-
ity of off-site disposal, and regulatory and related requirements.
Laboratory Testing and Results - Thermal Desorption
Thermal desorption is a physical separation process, although
chemical transformation of the organic contaminants may occur
depending on the thermal stability and the operating temperatures
required to achieve adequate decontamination efficiency. Thermal
desorption has been used only in a limited number of cases (1-M)
for treating contaminated soil, and these applications have
involved relatively volatile organic compounds, such as solvents.
Because of the extremely low volatility of CCD and CDFs, the
development' of basic treatability data was essential to confirm
that 1 ng/g levels in soil could be achieved and that the required
desorption conditions were practical, considering the design
features and operating rates of equipment available for performing
such treatment.
Desorption treatability testing- was conducted on samples of
contaminated soil from three HO contaminated sites - NCBC, JI, and
-------
Eglin Air Force Base. The goals of the test effort were to
evaluate the effect of time and temperature on 2.3,7,8-TCDD removal
efficiency and to establish the importance of soil type. The
samples were selected by the Air Force based on results of site
surveys to yield high contamination levels in order to investigate
a broad range of treatability. This testing was an extension of
earlier testing performed for the EPA on two dioxin-contaminated
soil samples from Missouri to support EPA's mobile incinerator
trial burn in 1985 (5).
After each soil sample was blended, air dried, and screened
(2 mm sieve opening) triplicate aliquots were taken and analyzed
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, CDD and CDF congeners, and 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.
The three prepared soils had 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels greater than
TOO ng/g and 2,4-0/2,4,5-T levels of about 1000 ug/g. The JI soil
had significant concentrations of hepta and octa CDD compared with
the other two samples. In addition, selected physical and chemical
properties presented in Table I, were measured (6). The EPA test
program (5) had indicated that soil properties had only a minor
influence on removal efficiencies for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Table I. Physical-Chemical Analysis of Prepared Soil Samples
Used for Laboratory Thermal Desorption Tests
Parameter
PH
Conductivity (millimhos/cm)
Organic matter (percent)
Cation exchange capacity
milliequivalents/100g)
Oil and grease content
( grams/ 100g)
Surface area (nr/g)
Particle size distribution
(percent)
Medium sand
Fine sand
Silt
Clay (<5 microns)
Moisture
JI
8.4
5.0
4.2
0.73
0.19
6.7
41
37
19
3
2.3
Eglin
3.8
0.15
1.2
0.77
0.41
2.5
41
52
5
2
0.79
NCBC
8.6
0.21
2.3
2.4
0.34
12.3
26
59
12
3
1.1
A series of 10 individual tests was performed using
temperatures between 430 and 560°C and treatment times of 8 to 30
minutes. Table II presents the test results, which are comparable
to the earlier results for Missouri soils. The objective of 1 ng/g
2,3,7,8-TCDD residual in soil was achieved for all three soils
subjected to the highest temperature. There was some difference in
treatability observed between the three soils at the lower tempera-
tures. Also, longer treatment times were required for the NCBC
soil because of the higher initial 2,3,7,3-TCDD level (500 ng•g vs.
100 ng.'g). One set of treated test samples which contained less
than 1 ng'g 2,3,7,8-TCDD was also analyzed for the other CDD and
CDF congeners and 2,4-0/2,4,5-T. These results, shown in Table
III, indicate greater than 99.999 percent removal of the initial
-------
2.4-D/2,4,5-T and the effective removal of higher chlorinated CDDs
and CDFs.
Table II. Effect of Treatment Conditions on Residual 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in Soil During Laboratory Thermal Desorption Tests
Nominal Test
Temperature
Soil
Time at Test
Temperature
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Concentration
(ng/g)
CO
430
481
558
Identification
JI
Eglin
NCBC
JI
JI
Eglin
Eglin
NCBC
NCBC
JI
Eglin
NCBC
(min)
20
20
30
15
30
15
30
15
30
8
8
15
Initial
106
101
494
106
106
101
101
494
494
106
101
494
Final
38.5
4.4
26. 6a
4.5
1.6
1.1a
0.45
10.1
4.6
0.56a
0.71
0.76a
'Average of duplicate tests or duplicate analyses.
Table III. Residual 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and CDD/CDF in Soil Samples
Treated at 558°C in Laboratory Thermal Desorption Tests
Concentration (ng/g)
Compound
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
TCDF
OCDFb
JI
ND*
16
0.6
0.3 .
Eglin
ND
0.8
0.4
ND
NCBC
ND
3
ND
ND
*ND = Not detected.
DNo other CDD and CDF congeners were detected.
Laboratory Testing and Results - Photolysis
Photolysis has had limited application for treatment of hazardous
waste or detoxification of chemically contaminated materials. The
susceptibility of chlorinated aromatics, including herbicides such
as 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, to UV-induced decomposition is well estab-
lished (7.8). Photodecomposition of such compounds leads to
successive dechlorination followed by condensation reactions to
form phenolic polymers (7,8). Other research-has demonstrated that
CDD and CDF decompose in the presence of UV light (8.9,10).
Development of a photochemical process for Destroying 2.3,7,8-TCDD
in a waste tar indicated similar dechlorination and condensation
reactions and products (8). The high-molecular weight end products.
which are similar in structure to humic acids, would be expected to
have low toxicity and mobility. Therefore, essentially complete
-------
conversion of toxic constituents could produce a potentially non-
hazardous (according to RCRA), easily disposable residue.
Laboratory photolysis experiments were designed to confirm
that 2,3,7,8-TCDD contained in the selected scrubber solvent could
be reduced to 1 ng/g and to determine the reaction rates of the
primary HO constituents and 2,3,7,8-TCDD in that solvent matrix. A
previous photolysis process for 2,3,7,8-TCDD used hexane as a
solvent (8). The solvent selected for use in the TD/UV process was
different - a high boiling (kerosene-like) mixture of isoparaf-
fins. This hydrocarbon solvent was selected because of its very
low vapor pressure and water solubility, nontoxic and nonflammable
characteristics, relatively low cost, chemical stability, and good
solvent properties for HO constituents. A second major difference
from earlier IT photolysis studies was the presence in the scrubber
solution of significant concentrations of other chlorinated organic
reactants (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) which were also subject to photoly-
sis. In fact, the typical concentration ratio between 2,4-D or
2,4,5-T and 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the soil samples used in the desorption
treatability testing was 2000:1.
The three steps of the laboratory program included generation
of scrubber solution, bench-scale batch photolysis reactions, and a
pilot system trial. In order to generate a representative sample
of scrubber solution for photolysis tests, a small desorption and
scrubbing system was assembled. . A portion of the prepared samples
of both NCBC and JI soil used for the thermal desorption tests was
used to generate scrubber solution. Contaminated soil (-100 g) was
placed in a standard tube furnace apparatus which was heated to
about 500°C for 15 to 30 minutes. A nitrogen purge swept the
vapors into the scrubbing system, which consisted of several
solvent-filled impingers. Analysis of the prepared scrubber
solutions indicated thermochemical conversion of the 2,4-D and
2,4,5-T in the contaminated soil to the corresponding chlorophenols
at molar equivalents. In addition to using prepared scrubber
solutions, solvent spiked with 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, the corresponding
chlorophenols, or 2,3,7,8-TCDD was used for baseline photolysis
tests.
Most photolysis experiments were conducted in a 0.5 liter
capacity standard quartz photochemical reactor using either
recirculation or bottom agitation for heat and mass transfer. Both
100- and 450-watt high pressure quartz mercury vapor lamps (Canrad-
Hanovia, Inc., Catalog Nos. 608A and 679A) were used, depending on
the initial reactant concentration in the particular solvent
solution being tested. The wavelengths of interest based on
spectrophotometric absorbance measurements of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,4-D
and 2,4,5-T were in the 280 to 320 nra region. Isopropyl alcohol
(-0.05 g/g solvent solution) was used as a proton donor to minimize
formation of polymeric reaction by-products which tend to foul the
light transmission surfaces (8). The bench-scale photolysis tests
gave the following results:
1. All compounds disappeared to below the analytical detection
limits.
2. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was reduced to less than
1 ng/g from initial concentrations as high as 200 ng/g.
-------
3. For a given reactor configuration and lamp wattage, the
reaction rates of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2.4,5-trichloropnenol were
proportional to the concentration, indicating pseudo-first
order kinetics in agreement with previous work (8).
4. Absorbence of UV energy by the solvent, which increased during
irradiation, resulted in low quantum yields and low rate
constants.
5. Insoluble brown reaction products (presumably phenolic tars)
were deposited on the surfaces of the reactor vessel and lamp
well. This expected phenomenon plus the high solvent absorb-
ence demanded a careful reactor selection and photolysis system
design.
Trials using a pilot reactor system described in the following
section were performed in the laboratory to establish reactor
efficiencies and operating characteristics prior to transport to
the field. A synthetic scrubber solution was prepared containing
2,4,5-trichlorophenol at a concentration (-2,000 ug/g) projected to
be representative of the planned field tests. Kinetics were
determined to be first-order with a rate constant of 0.07 sec~1.
On-site Pilot Testing and Results
Based on the information developed from the laboratory test
program, a pilot-scale TD/UV system was designed and assembled.
Three skids were used to mount the desorber, scrubber, and
photolysis systems; the largest skid was 1.5 meters by 4.3
meters. A conventional pilot-scale, rotary, indirect-fired
calciner was used as the desorber. The calciner consisted of a
3-3 meter long by 16 cm internal diameter rotating tube through
which the soil was transferred, and a gas-fired furnace which
surrounded the middle 2.0 meters of the tube length. The initial
and final tube sections were used for soil feeding and cooling.
The flow rate and residence time of soils traveling through the
desorber were controlled by varying the tube inclination and
rotational speed. Temperature of the soil was measured at
different locations by a thermowell probe extending inside the
tube. Soil was fed to the desorber from a small hopper using a
variable speed screw conveyor. Soil leaving the tube was collected
in a sealed metal can.
The off-gas transfer and scrubbing system was designed to
enable recirculation of scrubbed off-gas through the desorber. The
entire off-gas treatment and recirculation system, including the
desorber and scrubber, was operated at a slightly negative pressure
to prevent potential fugitive emissions. A small amount of air
entered the system with the soil feed or through seal leakage.
Nitrogen was added to the recirculated gas stream to maintain the
oxygen concentration below the level necessary to support combus-
tion. This was an extra safety feature since the vapor pressure of
the solvent at normal scrubber operating conditions is very low. A
portion of the scrubbed off-gas was vented from the recircuiation
system to maintain proper pressure in the system. This purge
stream was passed through a small HEPA filter and caroon adsoroer
before being discharged to the atmosphere. The soivent system
-------
consisted of a scrubber, receiving and separation tank, storage
tank, recirculation pump, filters for removing suspended solids,
and solvent cooler.
The photolysis system was independent of the desorber and
scrubber systems; its design capacity was lower than necessary to
match the desorber's soil-processing rate. A portion (about UO kg)
of contaminant-laden solvent was taken from the scrubber system
after completion of one or more desorption tests and transferred to
the photolysis system. This system consisted of an agitated
storage tank, solvent recirculation pump, and photochemical reactor
with associated cooling, DC power supply, and controls. The
selected type reactor was a standard quartz falling-film unit,
approximately 10 cm in diameter and 50 cm long (Ace Glass, Inc.,
Part No. 7898). A 1200 watt high intensity mercury vapor lamp was
inserted through a central quartz tube within the reactor to
irradiate the solvent as it flowed by gravity down the circum-
ference of the reactor body. The solvent was recirculated through
the reactor for many cycles to achieve sufficient irradiation
(e.g., reaction) time.
Five desorption tests were carried out at NCBC at various
treatment conditions. A total of 800 kg of soil was processed;
soil was prepared by drying and crushing to less than 1/2 inch to
allow proper flow in the desorber feed mechanism, and blending for
uniformity. Each test lasted 5 to 10 hours, including the heat-up
and cool-down cycle. Samples of feed soil and treated soil were
taken during steady-state operation, and samples of the scrubber
solvent and vent carbon were taken at the conclusion of each run.
Samples were analyzed for 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, other HO indigenous
compounds, priority pollutant organics and metals, and tetra-hexa
congeners of CDD and CDF. In addition, 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations
of treated soil and photolyzed solvent samples were determined on a
quick-response basis to enable adjustment of the operating condi-
tions in subsequent tests. Fresh solvent and carbon were used for
each test, and the entire desorber and scrubber network was cleaned
out between tests. This cleaning enabled thorough inspection of
the condition of the equipment and provided several different
compositions of contaminated solvent to use in the photolysis
tests.
Table IV shows the effect of different soil temperatures and
residence times on residual 2,3,7,8-TCDD for NCBC pilot tests.
Table V presents the analytical results for 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and
total CDD and CDF. Analytical detection levels for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
and the various congeners were generally less than 0.1 ng/g but
varied from sample to sample, ranging from 0.018 ng/g to 0.51 ng/g.
-------
Table IV. Effect of Treatment Conditions on Residual 2,3,7,8-TCDD
During NCBC Pilot Thermal Desorption Tests
Test No.
1
2
3
4
5
Soil Feed
Rate
(kg/hr)
13.6
13.6
25
44
20
Residence
Timea
(min)
40
40
19
10.5
24
Soil
Temperature
2,3
,7,8-TCDD
(ng/g)
(°C) Initial Residual
560
560
560
560
460
260
272
236
266
233
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
residence time in heated zone.
Table V. Residual 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and CDD/CDF in
NCBC Pilot Thermal Desorption Test
Concentration (ng/g)
Compound
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
TCDD
PCDD
HCDD
TCDF
PCDF
HCDF
CDD and
Test 1
180
500
NDa
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Test 2
150
270
0.23
ND
ND
ND
0.14
ND
0.37
Test 3
20
60
0.11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.11
Test 4
-
_
0.61
ND
ND
0.13
0.5^
ND
1.28
Test 5
170
1240
0.75
ND
ND
0.95
1.0
ND
2.70
CDFC
aND = not detected.
bTotal of quantified values for detected cogeners.
All test conditions produced soil containing less than 1 ng/g
2,3,7,8-TCDD. The total quantified tetra-hexa congeners were less
than the treatment goal of 1 ng/g for the first three tests, which
were performed at the lower feed rates. Test 4, made at the
highest feed rate, nearly met this value, whereas the much lower
soil temperature used for the final test resulted in almost 3 ng/g
combined residual CDD and CDF. A longer residence time could have
improved this performance. Residual 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T concentra-
tions were less than 1 ug/g for all but the final test. This
reduction represents greater than 99.97 percent removal efficiency
for these primary HO constituents.
Because of the very low moisture content of the prepared soil
feed, an insufficient volume of aqueous condensate was collected
from the tests to perform analysis or treatability tests. A venc
gas sample was taken, but no valid analytical results were gener-
ated because of delays in sample processing. However, analysis of
the carbon used in the emission control adsorbers enabled some
evaluation of scrubber performance and process emission poten-
tial. Or.ly tne front (upstream) portion of carbon from one of the
-------
tests showed detectable levels of any CDD or CDF. No HO consti-
tuents were detected in the downstream portion of carbon. Calcu-
lated scrubber removal efficiencies exceeded 99.9 percent for CDD,
CDF, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T. Vent gas volume was about 0.05 nP/minute
for all tests.
Results of the photolysis tests are presented in Table VI.
The total solvent volume (-10.5 1) was recirculated through the
reactor at 0.75 1/min for 6.5 hr, resulting in 28 cycles with an
irradiation time of about 1.5 sec/cycle. The photolysis system
operating time was selected based on the laboratory trials to
achieve less than 1 ng/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD; the actual residual level of
0.36 ng/g represented greater than 99 percent conversion. The
reaction conversion of the other CDD and CDF congeners varied from
85 to 99 percent. Photolysis reduced the concentrations of 2,4-
dichlorophenol (2,4-DP) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (2,4,5-DP),
(corresponding to the 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T present in the initial
soil) by 85 and 97 percent respectively. Figure 2 shows the rate
of disappearance of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,4-DP, and 2,4,5-TP. As
demonstrated during the laboratory tests, the reaction kinetics
were pseudo-first order over the given range of concentrations.
The reaction rate constants were similar for the three species
(0.11 sec"1, 0.04 sec"1, and 0.08 sec" , respectively); the rate
constant for 2,4,5-TP was comparable to that determined in the
laboratory trials of the pilot system.
Table VI. Initial vs Final Concentration of Selected Compounds
in Scrubber Solution from NCBC Pilot Photolysis Tests
Compound
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorolorophenol
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
Total PCDD
Total HCDD
Total TCDF
Total PCDF
Total HCDF
Concentration
Initial
490,000
977,000
43.3
46.3
15.7
0.84
31.0
3,7
1.7
(ng/g)
Final
82,000
31,000
0.36
0.92
2.3
0.037
3.8
1.1
0.0031
Three desorption tests and one photolysis test were conducted
at JI to compare the effects of different soil characteristics and
investigate higher processing rates. The coral-like soil used for
the tests contained lower levels of HO contamination than NCBC
(about 50 ng/g versus 250 ng/g). As much as 95 kg/hr of soil was
successfully decontaminated to less than 1 ng/g 2.3,7,8-TCDD using
desorption temperatures of 550°C. Treated soil from all three
desorption tests had nondetectable residual tetra-hexa CDD and CDF
cogeners, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, and corresponding chiorophenols.
Analysis of carbon removed from the desorber-scrubber system vent
showed no detectable concentration of CDD or CDF. Gas samples
taken downstream of the carbon adsorber showed nondetectable
concentratio-s of CDD and CDF, 2,4-D and 2,4.5-T, and chloro-
-------
phenols. Photolysis test results were comparable with NCBC
tests. Initial concentrations of HO contaminants were much higher
in the scrubber solvent due to processing of considerably more soil
and use of less solvent. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
reduced from 780 ng/g to less than 0.7 ng/g during 12 hours of
system operation (representing about 80 sec reaction or irradiation
time). Total chlorophenols were reduced from 130 ug/g to less than
6 ug/g, and tetra-hexa CDD and CDF cogeners were effectively
treated. Reaction rate constants for specific compounds were
essentially the same between the NCBC and JI photolysis tests. At
JI as at NCBC, brown residues were deposited on the reactor
surfaces, and solvent discoloration was obvious, but there was no
evidence of rate retardation.
Conclusions
The effectiveness of thermal desorption to decontaminate soil
containing HO and of UV photolysis to destroy HO toxic constituents
has been demonstrated in bench- and pilot-scale tests. Some
additional technical information is needed for a complete evalua-
tion of the process and to provide the basis for design of a full-
scale system for on-site remedial action. This project illustrates
the requirements for developing and implementing new process
technology for solving contaminated-soil environmental problems.
Only through such demonstration efforts can more cost-effective and
environmentally sound remedial action alternatives be made
available.
Literature Cited
1. Noland, J. W.; NcDevitt, N. P.; Koltuniak, D. L. Proc. of the
National Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous
Materials. Atlanta. GA. March 4-6. 1986. DP. 22Q-232.
2. Hazaga, D; Fields, S; Clemmons, G. P. The 5th National
Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites. Washington, DC, November 7-9, 1984, pp 404-406.
3. Webster, David M. J. Air Pollution Control Association.
1986, 36, pp 1156-1161"'
4. Hoogendoorn, D. Proc. of the 5th National Conference on
Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Washington.
DC, November 7-9, 1984, pp 569-575.
5. Helsel, R.; Alperin, £.; Groen, A.; and Catalario, D. "Laboratory
Investigation of Thermal Treatment of Soil Contaminated With
2,3,7,8-TCDD," draft report to U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH on
Work Order BAD001, D.U.D-109, IT Corporation, Knoxville, TN,
Dec. 1984.
6. ..Arthur, M. F.; Zwick, T. C. "Physical-Chemical Characteriza-
tion of Soils," Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH,
1984.
7. "Report on 2,4,5-T, A Report on the Panel on Herbicides of
the President's Science Advisory Committee," Executive Office
of the President, Office of Sciences and Technology, March
1971.
-------
8. Exner, J. H.; Johnson, J. D.; Ivins, 0. D. ; Wass, M.N.; and
Miller, R. A. "Detoxication of Hazardous Waste," Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, 1982, p 269.
9. Exner, J. H.; Alperin, E. S.; Groen, A.; Morren, C. E.;
Kalcevic, V.; Cudahy, J. J.; and Pitts, D. M. "Chlorinated
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in the Total Environment," Keith,
L. H.; Rappe, C.; Choudhary, G.; Eds., Butterworth
Publishers, Stoneham, MA, 1985, p 47.
10. Exner, J. H., Alperin, E. S.; Groen, A; Morren, C. E.
Hazardous Waste. J_, 1984, pp 217-223.
WPR:thermal
-------
Contaminated
Soil
Vent
r__L_
i
Organic and
Water Vapors
Thermal
Desorber
Heat
t
Source
Clear
\
i Soil
Emission
Controls
_j
1 •
Cooling
and
Scrubbing
Make-Up Solvent
i
•" ooivent
Treatment
Recycle (Photolysis)
Aqueous 1
Condensate *
Solvent Residues
I Water j
i Treatment \
\ i
T
Discharge
Thermal Desorption/UV Photolysis Process Concent
-------
1000
2,4.5-TP
r 100-
o
c
o
o
o
c.
a
o
*»
o
"s.
o
10-
1.0-
rlOOO
100
c
o
0.1
1200 Watt Lamp
5% IPA
0 10 20 30 40
Irradiation Time (Seconds)
Ho g
O
O
o
o
t-
•1.0 00
•0.1
-------