EPA/540/2-89/036
SUPERFUNDTREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
Shirco Infrared Systems Portable Test Unit "Final Report Demonstration Test On-Site
PCB Destruction, Shirco Infrared Portable Unit at Florida Steel Indiantown Mill Site,
Indiantown, Florida." Technical report of approximately 180 pp. prepared for internal
use by Shirco. September 1986.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse - EZZC
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITT CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process:
Media:
Document Reference:
Document Type:
Contact:
Thermal Treatment - Infrared
Sludge
Shirco Infrared Systems Portable Test Unit. "Final
Report - Demonstration Test On-Site PCB
Destruction, Shirco Infrared Portable Unit at
Florida Steel Indiantown Mill Site, Indiantown,
Florida." Technical report of approximately 180
pp. prepared for internal use by Shirco. September
1986.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
John Kroske
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street,
Atlanta, GA 30336
NE
Site Name:
Location of Test:
Florida Steel Indiantown Mill Site, FL (NPL)
Shirco, Joplin, MO
BACKGROUND: This document reports on the results of a Florida Steel
Corporation study to develop and evaluate cleanup alternatives for onsite
treatment of PCB contaminated soils. The results of this study aided in
the selection of an approach to remediate the site. Demonstration tests on
incinerating PCBs were conducted at the site May 13-15, 1986 by Shirco
Infrared Systems of Dallas, Texas. The purpose of the tests was to demon-
strate the capability of the Shirco System to meet the requirements of 40
CFR Part 761 while detoxifying the soil.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; Soils at the Florida Steel Corporation Site were
contaminated with PCBs in the concentration range of 76 to 2970 ppm. The
report does not provide any specific details on the amount of site soil
contaminated, or the types of soils undergoing treatment. The Shirco Port-
able Pilot Test Unit used in the tests is a three stage system; infrared
furnace, propane fired afterburner, and scrubber. The waste materials are
weighed in batches and placed on a conveyer belt which feeds the material
to the furnace. The soil is heated in the infrared furnace for a minimum
residence time of 15 to 25 minutes, soil/ash is discharged and the exhaust
gas passes into the propane-fired afterburner. The afterburner operates at
temperatures from 1900 to 2200°F. Minimum afterburner residence time is
two seconds. The afterburner exhaust gases are analyzed for various
contaminants associated with PCB degradation products, as required by 40
CFR 761. Additionally the afterburner exhaust is continuously monitored
for Ojt CQj, CO and NO levels. A QA/QC plan is contained in this report.
PERFORMANCE! Six tests were conducted to determine the Destruction Removal
Efficiencies (DRE) for PCBs. In four of six tests the DRE of 99.9999% was
achieved. The remaining two test achieved a slightly lower DRE than
required; 99.999 and 99.998. The author believes this was due in one
3/89-23 Document Number: EZZC
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
instance to low concentrations of PCB in the waste feed stream, and in the
second instance, to a low level of excess O™. This low excess 0« level
indicates that for the Shirco unit the minimum permissible CL level in the
afterburner exhaust should be increased from that level used in the pro-
gram. The tests that met the ORE had afterburner 02 from 9 to 13%. Test
five, the low PCB ORE test, had an 02 concentration of 6.9%. Concentra-
tions of particulates in the flue gas were well within the limit of 0.08
gr/scf. HCl emissions for each test were less than A Ibs/hr. Also,
scrubber effluent and flue gases were analyzed for dioxins and furon in one
test run. None were found within detection limits.
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 APCB Monochlorobiphenyl
BPCB Dichlorobiphenyl
CPCB Trichlorobiphenyl
DPCB Tetrachlorobiphenyl
EPCB Pentachlorobiphenyl
FPCB Hexachlorobiphenyl
3/89-23 Document Number: EZZC
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
j FINAL REPORT
i
DEMONSTRATION TEST
ON-SITE PCB DESTRUCTION
I
f
SHIRCO INFRARED PORTABLE UNIT
i
AT
j
» FLORIDA STEEL INDIANTOWN MILL SITE
!
I
INDIANTOWN, FLORIDA
REPORT NUMBER 821-86-1
SEPTEMBER 17, 1986
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Summary
i
j II. Process Operation
• A. General
B. Operation During the Test
J 1. Feed
2. Temperature
3. Residence Time
4. Pressure
5. Scrubber
6. Combustion Gas
7. Power Usage - Primary Chamber
8. Fuel Consumption - Secondary Chamber
, C. Deviation From Test Plan
• III. Sampling and Monitoring Procedures
A. Process Monitoring
B. Process Sampling
1. Waste Feed
2. Ash
3. Scrubber Effluent
4. Afterburner Exhaust and Exhaust Stack
a. Afterburner Exhaust - O,, CO, CO,, and NOX
b. Exhaust Stack - PCBs. PCDDs,and PCDFs
c. Exhaust Stack - Particulates and HC1
d. Exhaust Stack - Total Chlorinated Organics
IV. Analytical Procedures
A. Haste Feed and Ash Samples
B. Scrubber Effluent
C. Flue Gas Samples
1. Modified Method 5 Train
2. Method 5 Train
3. Total Chlorinated Organic
V. Test Results
A. Solid and Liquid Process Streams
1. Waste Feed
2. Ash
3. Scrubber Effluent
-------
B. Flue Gas
1. Particulates
2. Total Organic Halogens
3. Continuous Monitoring
4. PCB's
C. Performance Results
D. PCDD's and PCDF's
VI. Quality Assurance
A. Sampling Apparatus
B. Quality Control Samples
C. Chain of Custody
VII. Closure
Appendix A: Operating Log
Appendix B: Material Feed Log
Appendix C: Testing and Analysis Report
ii
-------
I. SUMMARY
J The Florida Steel Corporation is conducting a feasibility
study to develop and evaluate various alternatives for on-
I site treatment of PCB-contaminated soils discovered at their
I Indiantown, Florida mill site. The purpose of the study is
to aid in selection of a method to cleanup the site. As
, part of this study, a demonstration test was conducted at
j the site on May 13-15, 1986 by Shirco Infrared Systems of
J Dallas Texas. The purpose of the test was to demonstrate
the capability of the Shirco Infrared technology to detoxify
the soil and meet all the requirements of 40 CFR Part 761.
The project manager for the demonstration test was Mr.
George H. Hay of Shirco. Mr. Hay had ultimate
responsibility and authority for coordination and conduct of
the program. Site preparation was coordinated between and
conducted by Shirco and Florida Steel personnel. Shirco
provided the portable test unit and personnel for its
operation. Florida Steel provided support for site
preparation, site utilities and personnel to aid in waste
material mixing. Field sampling was directed by Mr. Mark
Mccabe of Remediation Technologies Inc. of Concord, MA
(RETEC). The sampling and process stream monitoring was
performed by TRC Corp. The ENSECO laboratory, located in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, was responsible for performing the
analytical analysis of the various incinerator stream
samples. The QA officer was Mr. Mark McCabe.
Representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV monitored the test.
The demonstration test consisted of six tests. Emissions
sampling was performing during five of those tests. The
test was performed in accordance with the Permit Application
and Demonstration Test Plan except for some very minor
deviations. Three soil mixes, with different levels of
contaminants representative of the material stored at the
site, were used. Incinerator operating parameters which
were varied included soil residence time and temperature of
the afterburner.
Table 1-1 is a summary of results for the demonstration
test. The test was performed in accordance with
requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act given in 40
CFR Part 761 and the Permit Application.
The contaminated material processed contained from 76 to
2970 parts per million PCBs. PCBs were not detected in the
processed soil at the analytical detection limit of 3-4
parts per billion. This shows that the portable unit, when
operated within the scope of the permit, can be used to
decontaminated this and similarly contaminated materials.
-------
Analysis of the scrubber effluent showed it contained no
PCBs at the detection limit of 0.34 parts per billion.
PCBs were not detected in the flue gas samples of four of
the five tests sampled. Due to time constraints, flue gas
measurements were not conducted during test 4. The process
condition associated with this test are not "worst case" and
should not result in air emissions in excess of the other
monitored tests. Analytical detection limits of 0.3-1.7
ug/or were adequate to demonstrate destruction and removal
efficiencies (DRE) of greater than 99.9999% in three of
these tests. In the case of test 1, due to the lack of
analytical sensitivity and the unexpectedly low
concentrations of PCBs in the waste, a DRE of only >99.999
can be shown.
PCBs were detected in the flue gas sample from test 5 at a
concentration of 2.4 ug/m. The presence of these species
in the flue gas stream is the result of a low secondary
combustion chamber oxygen level which is discussed in detail
in this report.
Fixed gases were monitored continuously during the tests.
The combustion efficiencies for all tests were greater than
99.9 percent as required by 40 CFR Part 761.70.
Particulate concentrations were measured and ranged from
0.015 to 0.055 gr/dscf. These values meet the requirement
of 0.08 gr/dscf maximum as specified in the regulations.
Hydrochloric Acid emissions for each test were less than 4
pounds/hour.
The ash, scrubber effluent, and flue gas samples from test 6
were analyzed for dioxins and furans. None were found
within detection limits.
-------
TABLE 1-1
DEMONSTRATION TEST SUMMARY
5-13-86
1400
1705
150336
15
1531
TEST
DATE
TIME TEST BEGUN
TIME TEST ENDED
OPERATING PARAMETERS:
Furnace:
Process Power Rate
(BTU/hr)
Average Residence
Time (min.)
Average Process
Temp. (°F)
Afterburner:
Propane Fuel Rate
(BTU/hr)
Avg.Process Temp.( F)
Avg.Comb.Air (ACFM)
Avg.Oxygen (%)
Avg.Carbon Dioxide(%)
Avg.Carbon Monoxide(PPM)12.50
Combustion Efficiency(%)99.99
Particulate/HCL Emissions:
Sample Time (min.)
Stack Flow Rate (DSCFM)
Particulate Conc.@7%09
(gr/dscf)
HCL (mg/hr)
PCB's
Haste Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
PCB Cone. (PPM)
PCB Feed Rate (g/h)
Incinerator Ash
PCB Cone, (ug/kg)
Scrubber Effluent
Composite - PCB
Cone, (ug/kg)
Flue Gas Flow Rate
92.75
O14.34
< 29.16
< 2.4
PCB Cone.(ng/mJ)
PCB Output (ug/hr)
Destruction and
Removal (%)
5-14-86
1010
1253
150363
25
1603
< 2.6
114.94
<709.73
< 81.60
5-14-86
1253
1650
152764
25
1573
183073
2015
117
8.96
8.65
[)12.50
)99.99
1*
•
129
55
0.015
< 181
115.4
76
3.98
215075
2177
135
12.90
8.67
26.60
99.97
60
68
0.055
< 136
61.5
2790
77.83
136326
1993
70
8.58
9.78
10.60
99.99
94
33
0.023
< 45.3
61.5
2560
71.41
< 3.4
< 0.34
55.93
<946.16
< 52.90
4
5-14-86
1650
1760
15
1523
>99.999* >99.9999 >99.99992
< 2.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
5-15-86
0930
1305
133107 141549
15
1610
123653
2007
—
9.63
9.13
7.47
99.97
_
NA
NA
NA
32.0
2970
43.11
202056
1980
115
6.90
10.30
3.35
99.99
130
53
0.037
< 408
106.4
400
19.30
< 2.6
88.22
2416.32
213.20
6
5-15-86
1318
1620
155965
15
1471
126253
1883
64
9.49
9.22
2.40
99.99
51
31
0.017
< 227
79.8
2840
102.80
< 2.6
51.36
<1719.47
< 88.31
* Required DRE Not Met Due to Limited Analytical Detection Limit
**Low DRE is due to periods of operation with secondary chamber oxygen levels
~.~«,«•<«-4 - - -
>99.9989 >99.99991
approaching the permit
-------
II. PROCESS OPERATION
A. General
I
The Shirco Portable Pilot Test Unit is a three stage
system - infrared furnace, propane fired afterburner,
and scrubber - enclosed in a 45 foot van trailer. A
flow diagram of the process is given as Figure II-l.
The operation of the infrared incineration system is
described in detail in the Permit Application and
i Demonstration Test Plan submitted to U.S. EPA on April
I 11, 1986.
i The waste material was weighed in batches in buckets and
} was manually placed on a metering belt conveyor which
fed the material to the furnace. The conveyor is
. equipped with an adjustable gate which can be used to
regulate and distribute the feed.
The speed of the conveyor in the furnace was set to
; provide the desired residence time. Power input to the
infrared heating elements was regulated to provide the
desired furnace temperature. The flow rate and
locations of introduction of combustion air were
adjusted to regulate the rate of combustion throughout
the length of the furnace. Soil/ash was discharged from
, the furnace by a sealed screw conveyor. The furnace
i exhaust gases (combustion products and any remaining
i combustible gases) were routed to the afterburner.
! The afterburner is equipped with a manually-controlled
I propane burner. The firing rate of this burner was
adjusted to maintain the desired chamber temperature.
Combustion air was added to the afterburner, as needed,
to oxidize combustibles in the furnace exhaust.
The afterburner exhaust gases were routed to the
scrubber. Those exhaust gases were continuously sampled
and analyzed for oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen concentrations.
The scrubber system consists of a venturi scrubber and
droplet separator tower. The purpose of this system was
to remove particulates from and to cool the gas stream.
Hater was manually added as needed to replace that
discharged out the exhaust stack.
An operating log of process parameters was maintained
during the operations. A copy of that log is given as
Appendix A.
-------
B. Operation During The Test
The test program was designed to evaluate the effects of
various operating conditions and waste feed
characteristics on overall system performance. The
primary factors which affect combustion efficiency and
waste destruction are temperature, residence time,
oxygen concentration and the rate and degree of air-
waste mixing achieved. Six tests were performed in this
program. A summary of the operating parameters is given
in Table II-l.
1. Feed
The waste at the Indiantown Mill site consists of
soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB). The source of the PCB contamination has been
attributed to the use of hydraulic fluid containing
PCBs in the billet shearing system. Leaks in this
system allowed the release of hydraulic fluid to the
surrounding soils.
The contaminated soils have been excavated and are
stored in a ground level vault. Representative
samples of the contaminated soils have been stored
in 55-gallon drums at the site. Material from three
(3) of those drums, designated mixes 1,2,and 3, were
selected for processing in this program.
All tests except numbers 1 and 5 were performed with
mix 1 which has the highest concentration of PCB.
Tests 1 and 5 were performed with mixes 2 and 3,
respectively, which contained different
concentrations of organic constituents.
Feed rate to the furnace is controlled by the
metering belt speed setting and the width of the
metering gate setting. For this program, the gate
setting remained constant to give a one inch (1")
bed depth; therefore, feed rate was dependent upon
the belt speed and other factors such as density of
the feed. A log of the feed is given as Appendix B.
2. Temperatures
In previous programs, detoxification of creosote and
pentachlorophenol- laden wastes was achieved using a
maximum furnace temperature of 1600°F. Destruction
and removal efficiencies (ORE) in compliance with
RCRA were obtained with afterburner temperatures of
1800 to 2200°F.
-------
For this program, the operating temperature of the
furnace was anticipated to be 1650°F. Actual
operating temperatures were below that level because
the auxiliary energy requirements exceeded the
capacity of the power supply to the electrical
heating elements. The temperature of the
afterburner was varied from 1900 to 2200°F to
determine the effect of different temperature levels
on destruction effectiveness for these specific
wastes.
3. Residence Time
Material residence time in both the furnace and
afterburner must be adequate to allow heat and mass
transfer and oxidation to occur. The results of
tests in previous programs were used as guidelines
to establish operating conditions for this program.
Residence time of the solid phase in the furnace was
established by adjustment of the belt speed. Two
residence times were used - fifteen and twenty-five
minutes.
Residence time in the afterburner could not be
independently adjusted but was a function of gas
flow from the furnace, the burner firing rate, the
excess air rate in the afterburner and the
afterburner temperature. The minimum afterburner
residence time planned for this program was 2.0
seconds.
4. Pressures
Both the furnace and afterburner were operated at
slightly negative pressures to prevent fugitive
emission of contaminants. The chamber pressures
were adjusted by manually-operated dampers.
5. Scrubber
Adequate scrubber water flow rates were maintained
to remove particulate matter from and reduce the
temperature of the gas stream. The flow rates were
not measured directly but were estimated from the
published spray nozzle capacities and measured
nozzle pressure drops. The stack temperature was
maintained at approximately 175°F. Make-up water
was added to the scrubber reservoir as needed on a
periodic basis.
-------
6. Combustion Air
i The most basic requirement of any combustion system
is a sufficient supply of air to completely oxidize
| the combustible portion of the feed. For this
{ system, combustion air was added to both the furnace
and afterburner. In general, the residual oxygen
, concentration in the exhaust gas should exceed two
! percent (2%) to insure adequate oxygen/combustible
1 material contact in the afterburner. For this
program, the excess oxygen level was maintained
above 3 percent, carbon monoxide level was
maintained at less than 50 ppm, and calculated
combustion efficiency was maintained greater than
! 99.9 percent.
7. Power Usage - Furnace
Input power to each of the temperature control zones
was measured by energy totalizers. The totalizers
were read and recorded in the operating log, which
is given as Appendix A, at nominal 30 minute
intervals. The readings are plotted as Figure II-2.
Those graphs permit determination of the readings at
the beginning and end of each run and, by
difference, the total energy consumption and average
power requirements. The average power requirements
are given in Table II-l.
It should be noted that power usage efficiency of
the portable unit is much smaller than that of
larger units because of the ratio of heat loss
, surface area to effective belt surface area.
Because of that the specific power consumption data
presented here should not be used to estimate power
required to decontaminate such soils in a full-scale
system. These data are given for information only.
8. Fuel Consumption - Afterburner
Propane fuel for the burner in the afterburner was
obtained from bottles. The bottles were weighed and
the weights recorded in the operating log, which is
given as Appendix A, at periodic intervals during
-,- each run. Those readings are plotted as Figure II-
3. The graphs permit determination of the bottle
' weights at the beginning and end of each run and, by
difference, the total energy consumption and average
" energy requirements. The average energy
requirements are given in Table II-l.
-------
8
The efficiency situation that exists for the furnace
isf also, applicable to the afterburner and this
data should not be used to estimate fuel
requirements for a full scale unit.
C. Deviation(s) From Test Plan
There were no upsets, shutdowns, or other deviations
from normal operations. The equipment performed well
and satisfactory process control was maintained
throughout the tests.
The order of processing the waste mixes was changed from
that noted in the permit application. The test matrix
in the application states that the first test would be
performed with feed mix 1 which contains 4889 ppm PCB.
At the beginning of the test program approval had been
received to process waste which contained no more than
2000 ppm PCB, so the test matrix was rearranged to delay
processing of mix 1 until proper approval was received.
This change had no effect on the operation or results of
the test program.
-------
TABLE II-l
OPERATING PARAMETERS
TEST
DATE
TIME TEST BEGUN
TIME TEST ENDED
WASTE FEED:
Mix Number
Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
Total Feed (Ib)
Furnace Belt Speed
(ft/hr)
Solid Phase Residence
Tine (nin)
PROCESS TEMPERATURES:
Feed Discharge (°F)
Furnace Zone A ( F)
Furnace Zone B ( F)
Furnace Exhaust (°F)
Afterburner (°F)
Stack (°F)
1
5-13-86
1400
1705
2
115.4
355.5
22.2
15
241
1539
1561
1337
2019
174
Furnace Draft (in H,O) -0.006
Afterburner Draft (In H2O)-0.150
SCRUBBER:
Venturi Pressure Drop
(in.H20) 7.8
Venturi Water Flow(gpn) 2.8
Tower Water Flow (gpn) 11.8
STACK EXHAUST:
Average Velocity (AFPM)
Flow Volume (DSCFM)
Avg.CO Concentration(ppn) 12.5
Avg.CO2 Concentration (%) 8.6
Avg.O2 Concentration (%)
2385
55
9.0
PROCESS ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:
Furnace (KW) 44.05
(BTU/lb feed) 1303
Afterburner (BTU/hr) 183073
(BTU/lb feed) 515
5-14-86
1010
1253
1
61.5
167.1
13.3
25
212
1625
1607
1442
2196
175
•0.019
•0.182
3.0
2.8
5.8
2761
68
26.6
8.7
12.2
44.06
2444
215075
1287
5-14-86
1253
1650
1
61.5
242.9
13.3
25
158
1582
1572
1444
2006
171
•0.005
•0.035
3.3
2.8
5.4
1424
33
10.6
9.8
8.6
44.76
2483
136326
561
5-14-86
1650
1750
1
32.0
32
22.2
15
3.0
3.0
5.4
5
5-15-86
0930
1305
3
106.4
381.3
22.2
15
173
1524
1503
1377
1990
174
0.007
0.050
244
1614
1598
1551
1989
177
-0.018
-0.175
39.00
4158
123653
3864
3.0
2.8
4.4
2339
53
3.4
10.3
6.9
41.56
1332
202056
530
6
5-15-86
1318
1620
1
79.8
241.3
22.2
15
157
1521
1498
1398
1900
176
•0.024
•0.128
3.4
2.9
4.4
1299
31
2.4
9.2
9.5
45.70
1960
126253
523
-------
Waste
Feed
Belt J
Feeder C
Combustion
Infrared /|ir Primarv Uni
Elejnents 1 Exhaust
''Intrr
Propa
Burne
1 ^Belt
Solid Prop
Product an
Combu
Ai
ne
r ~"%
' D
t
/""Generators
o'
°£
<
«
T
Combust ion
Air
ane
d
st ion
r
>ample
>tream
1
V
5
r
A
ZjA t:
Sample «_
Port
.Hr
Cool ina Water i
Make-up
Water
enturi Separator
>c rubber Tower
Stack
Primary Chamber
Secondary Chamber
Emission Control System Exhaust Fan
FIGURE M-l
Process Flow Diagram
-------
Atfd
00^91
00 = 01
i?
f.
a
u
ro
U)
-------
00 = 91
AVQ JO 3Wli
00:«7l
00:2l
00 = 01
3^
SSE
>rtr
10
3-
0)
-o
O
c
3
Q.
I/I
OJ
ro
w
-------
13
III. SAMPLING AND MONITORING PROCEDURES
A. Process Monitoring
The Shirco Portable Test Unit is instrumented to
continuously monitor and record (via strip chart
recorder) process temperatures at the following six (6)
locations:
Feed
Primary furnace mid zone A
Primary furnace mid zone B
Primary furnace exhaust gas
Afterburner
Stack
Copies of the recorder charts of the periods of
operation are given as Figures III-l, III-2, III-3.
In addition, the following process parameters were
monitored via gauges and recorded at nominal 30 minute
intervals throughout the test program:
Scrubber venturi differential pressure
Scrubber venturi water pressure
Separator - tower water pressure
Primary furnace draft
Afterburner draft
B. Process Sampling
Sampling of the process was performed at five locations
- waste feed hopper, ash hopper, scrubber effluent,
afterburner exhaust duct and exhaust stack. A complete
set of samples was obtained each test except exhaust
stack samples were not taken for test Number 4. A
summary of the number and types of samples collected is
given as Table III-l. Details of the procedures and
equipment used are given in the Appendix C Part 3.
1. Waste Feed
A grab sampling procedure was used to obtain a
representative, time-averaged sample of the waste
feed for each test. As described earlier, feed was
introduced via five gallon buckets. A 50-100 ml
sample was obtained from each bucket as use of it
was begun. These were composited in a one (1) liter
wide mouth amber glass jar with teflon lined cap.
-------
14
2. Ash
A grab sampling procedure was used to obtain a
representative, time-averaged sample of the ash.
The Portable Test Unit is equipped with an ash
sampling drawer located in the ash discharge chute.
A portion of the ash which drops off the furnace
belt into the ash discharge hopper is captured in
the sampling drawer. The sampling drawer has a
capacity of approximately 50 ml. This drawer was
emptied periodically during each test and composited
in a 500 ml wide mouth amber glass jar with a teflon
lined cap.
3. Scrubber Effluent
The scrubber was operated in a recirculation mode
and make-up water added throughout the day as
needed. At the end of each days operation, the
scrubber sump was drained and a sample was taken in
a one (1) liter glass jar with a teflon lined cap.
4. Afterburner Exhaust and Exhaust Stack
The rules which implement the TSCA and which are
contained in 40 CFR Part 761 specify that the
following parameters must be monitored during a PCS
trial burn:
Oxygen (O2)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Oxides of Nitrogen (MOX)
Hydrochloric Acid (HC1)
Total Chlorinated Organic Content (RCL)
PCBs
Total Particulate Matter
a. Afterburner Exhaust - O2/ CO, CO2 and MOX
A continuous system was used to monitor flue gas
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and
oxides of nitrogen levels. The continuous
monitoring system used consists of a sample gas
conditioning system, gas analyzers, and a data
acquisition/recording system.
-------
15
b. Exhaust Stack - PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs
A modified EPA Method 5 train was used to sample
for organics. A schematic of the train is given
| in Appendix C, Part 3.1.2. Sampling was
isokinetically from a single point in the stack.
Sampling times were such that any contaminants
, present would be collected in concentrations
that would permit analysis. Recovery resulted
in four samples from each run which were sealed
for transport to the laboratory. Those samples
1 were : (1) front half rinse, (2) the particulate
filter, (3) XAD-2 resin sorbent module, and (4)
condensate plus back half rinse.
i
c. Exhaust Stack - Particulates and HC1
A Method 5 train was used. Sampling was
' isokinetically from a single point in the stack.
Sampling times were approximately one hour.
Recovery resulted in four samples from each test
1 which were sealed for transport to the
laboratory. Those samples were :(1) front half
rinse, (2) particulate filter, (3) water from
impingers one and three, and (4) IN NaOH from
impinger two.
d. Exhaust Stack - Total Chlorinated Organics
A series of two sorbent tubes containing
activated carbon were used to trap sorbents for
later determination of total organic halide
(TOX) emissions by the use of EPA method 450.1.
Flue gas was pumped through the filters at a
calibrated rate for a set time. At the end of
the test, the sorbent tubes were capped for
transport to the laboratory.
i
-------
inf.
-p n U68Sir ir-M 1""O ^r "-7 7
i^' *
Figure I I 1-1
TEMPERATURE RECORDER CHART
May 13, 1986
-------
I/C9CI09 °N
/•>«
Figure I 11-2
TEMPERATURE RECORDER CHART
May 1*», 1986
-------
Or'0 n t ."
<>r j •" ID /'•
Figure I I 1-3
TEMPERATURE RECORDER CHART
May 15, 1986
co
-------
19
Waste Feed
Sampling Location:
Number of Samples
per test:
Incinerator Ash
Sampling Location:
Number of Samples
per test:
TABLE III-l
SAMPLING SUMMARY
Incinerator feed hopper.
Grab samples of approximately 50-100 ml
each, composited into a 1 liter amber glass
jar with Teflon lined cap, were collected
from each bucket of feed.
Ash sampling drawer located at entrance to
ash discharge chute.
Grab samples of approximately 50 ml each
were collected, periodically, during each
test and composited into a 500 ml amber
glass jar with a teflon lined cap.
Scrubber Effluent
Sampling Location:
Number of Samples
per Test:
Flue Gas
Sampling Location:
Number and types
of samples
Scrubber slurry recirculation tank drain.
A one liter sample was taken in an amber
glass jar at the end of each days operation.
(1) Sampling port on 4" diameter stack
(2) Sampling port on afterburner exhaust
duct
(1) A modified Method 5 train for collection
of PCBs each test.
(2) A Method 5 train for collection of
particulates and HC1 each test.
(3) Continuous monitoring for CO, 02, CO2,
and NOV
-------
20
IV. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
i The laboratory analysis was performed by ERCO/A Division of
ENSECO as directed by RETEC. The procedures used are given
in RETEC's report which is given at Appendix C, Part 3.
A. Waste Feed and Ash Samples
I The samples were prepared by solvent extraction and
1 concentration. PCB concentration was determined by
GC/MS (EPA method 680). The concentrations of PCDDs and
PCDFs in the ash were determined by GC/MS (EPA Method
• 613). In addition, total chloride was determined for
the waste feed sample by Ion Chromatography (EPA Method
300.0).
1
B. Scrubber Effluent
. The sample was prepared by solvent extraction and
concentration. PCB concentration was determined by
GC/MS (EPA Method 680).
! C. Flue Gas Samples
1. Modified Method 5 Train
' The various portions of the train were individually
prepared and then composited. The composite was
extracted and concentrated. PCBs were determined by
' GC/MS (EPA Method 680) and PCDDs and PCDFs by GC/MS
(EPA Method 613).
; 2. Method 5 Train
The particulates collected were determined
I gravimetrically. The total chlorides were
determined by Ion Chromatography (EPA Method 300.0).
3. Total Chlorinated Organic
Two methods were used dependent upon the halogen
concentration. One method involved reduction via
i pyrolysis to convert the absorbed organohalides to a
titratable species and analysis using a Dohrmann
Microcoulometric - titration system. Ion
I Chromatography was used in the second method.
-------
21
V. TEST RESULTS
The primary objective of this program is to confirm the
ability of the Shirco Infrared System process to
decontaminate polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) laden soils and
to incinerate the PCBs with a ORE of 99.9999 percent, a
combustion efficiency of 99.9 percent and maximum
particulate emissions of 0.08 gr/dscf. A more detailed
discussion of these results is given in Appendix C, Part 4.
A. Solids and Liquid Process Streams
1. Waste Feed
Prior to the demonstration test, samples taken from
two of the drums of contaminated soils stored at the
Indiantown Mill were tested for physical
characteristics. Results of the tests are given in
Table V-l. These data were used to determine
initial process operating conditions. Composite
samples taken during the tests were tested for PCBs.
Those test results are given in Table V-2.
Surrogate recoveries and the results of duplicate
analysis for test 1 demonstrate that the sample
preparation and analysis procedures were proper.
2. Ash
Table V-3 contains a summary of the analysis of the
ash samples for hazardous materials. None of the
materials were present at the detection limits which
range from 2.4-3.4 ppb. Surrogate recoveries and
the results of triplicate analysis for test 5
demonstrate that the sample preparation and analysis
procedures were proper.
3. Scrubber Effluent
The test results and detection limits for the single
composite sample of scrubber effluent are given in
Table V-4. No PCBs were found in the sample.
B. Flue Gas
1. Particulates and HC1
The concentrations of particulates in the flue gases
ranged from 0.015-0.055 gr/dscf when corrected for
stack oxygen concentration. The results, given in
Table V-5 are in compliance with the performance
standard of 0.08 gr/dscf.
-------
22
The concentration of hydrochloric acid (HC1) for
each of the tests is given in Table V-6.
2. Total Organic Halogens (TOX)
Table V-7 gives the results of the analysis for
total organic halogens. These results range from
351 to 1210 ug/liter.
3. Continuous Monitoring
The concentrations of fixed gases and nitrogen
oxides in the afterburner discharge steam were
continuously recorded. Values taken from those
charts at five minute increments were averaged. The
average values and ranges are given in Table V-B.
As stated in the Demonstration Test Plan, it was
expected that oxygen concentration in the exhaust
gas would be maintained at 3 percent to insure
adequate waste/air contact in the afterburner. It
was also expected the excess oxygen and the planned
operating temperature would assure that the carbon
monoxide concentration would be maintained at less
than 100 ppm.
These expected concentrations were, in fact,
maintained. The oxygen content was maintained at
greater than 6.5 percent except for two brief
periods in test 5 when the concentration dropped to
approximately 3.2 percent.
The combustion efficiencies for all runs exceeds the
99.9 percent value as required by 40 CFR Part
761.70.
4. PCBs
The results of the PCB analysis of the flue gas
samples are given in Table V-9, No detectable
amounts of any isomer group were detected except for
the test 5 samples. For the test 5 sample the
concentration of PCBs was 2.4 ug/m .
C. Performance Results
Table V-10 gives the destruction and removal
efficiencies (ORE) for the tests. The DREs were
calculated using the analytical detection limits for the
samples except for the test 5 samples. The detection
limits were sufficient to demonstrate DREs in excess of
99.9999% for tests 2,3,4 and 6. A review of all the
-------
23
data for test 1 indicates the required destruction
efficiency was achieved; however, that can not be
demonstrated because of the high detection limit and the
unexpectedly low concentration of PCBs in the waste feed
used in that test. The PCBs in the test 5 samples gave
a ORE of 99.9999%. The presence of the PCBs in this
sample was most likely a result of the two periods of
low excess oxygen. These result show that, for this
unit, minimum permissible oxygen level in the
afterburner exhaust must be increased from that used for
this program.
D. PCDD's and PCDF's
Composite samples of the ash and scrubber effluent and
the flue gas sample from test six were analyzed for PCDD
and PCDF tetra-octa isomers. The tests results and
detection limits are given in Table V-ll. None of those
materials were present at the detection limits.
-------
24
TABLE V-l
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
DRUMMED SOILS - INDIANTOWN MILL
Moisture (% wt) 13.64 13.59
Inerts (% wt) 84.52 82.77
Organics (% wt) 1.84 3.64
Heating Value jfBtu/lb) 220 430
Density (lb/ft3) 90 90
Form Soil Soil
Chlorine (% wt) Nil Nil
Sulfur (% wt) Nil Nil
PCB (ppn) 150 500
-------
25
ISOMER
Cl (l)-PCB
Cl (2)-PCB
Cl (3)-PCB
Cl (4)-PCB
Cl (5)-PCB
Cl (6)-PCB
Cl (7)-PCS
Cl (8)-PCB
Cl (9)-PCB
C1(10)-PCB
SUM PCB
* Duplicate Analysis
ND - Not Detected
TABLE V-2
CONCENTRATION OF PCB'S
IN WASTE FEED, PPM (mg/kg)
DETECTION
LIMIT
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
12.5
TEST 1*
MIX 2
ND/ND
7/11
28/35
18/30
0.6/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
TEST 2
MIX 1
48
740
1060
770
170
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEST 3
MIX 1
30
650
1000
710
160
5.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEST 4
MIX 1
50
770
1200
790
160
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEST 5
MIX 3
3.4
71
200
110
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TES1
MIX
21
74(
110<
81(
161
Nl
Nl
Nl
N:
N
53.6/76 2790
2560
2970
400
284
ISOMER
Cl (l)-PCB
Cl (2)-PCB
Cl (3)-PCB
Cl (4)-PCB
Cl (5)-PCB
Cl (6)-PCB
Cl (7)-PCB
Cl (8)-PCB
Cl (9)-PCB
C1(10)-PCB
SUM PCB
DETECTION
LIMIT
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.8
TABLE V-3
CONCENTRATION OF PCB'S
IN ASH, PPB (ug/kg)
TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 TEST 4 TEST 5 TES
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
ND/ND/ND
N
N
K
*
*
I
I
I
I
I
ND
ND/ND/ND
^Triplicate Analysis
ND - Not Detected
-------
TABLE V-4
CONCENTRATION OF PCB's
IN THE SCRUBBER EFFLUENT
PPB (ug/1)
26
ISOMER
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
(l)-PCB
(2) -PCB
(3) -PCB
(4) -PCB
(5) -PCB
(6) -PCB
(7) -PCB
(8) -PCB
(9) -PCB
10) -PCB
DETECTION
LIMIT
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.18
SUM PCB
ND - NOT DETECTED
COMPOSITE
ALL TESTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TABLE V-5
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 TEST 5
TES
Total Particulate (MG)
Sample Volume (DSCF)
Grain Loading (GR/DSCF)
Corrected Loading (GR/DSCF)*
30.200
45.796
0.010
0.015
115.700
48.916
0.036
0.055
44.700
36.116
0.019
0.023
77.500
39.107
0.031
0.037
14
IS
(
(
^Corrected for stack oxygen concentration
-------
27
TABLE V-6
HCL EMISSIONS
TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 TEST 5
Impinger Chloride Cone, (mg/1)
Impinger Volume (ml)
Sample Volume (DSCF)
Gas Chloride Cone, (mg/m3)
Stack Vol. Flowrate (m3/hr)
HCL Emissions (Ib/hr)
TES1
< 3
676
45.796
< 2
92
<0.0004
< 3
571
48.916
< 1
130
•C0.0003
< 3
400
36.116
< 1
69
<0.0001
9 <
493 3:
39.107 19.'
4 <
100 (
<0.0009 <0.<
TABLE V-7
TOTAL ORGANIC HALOGENS (TOX)
TEST 1 TEST 2
UG/Sample
Sample Volume (Liters)
Concentration (UG/1)
16500
26.9
64.6
890
TEST 3
8600
20.8
414
TEST 5
7300
20.8
351
TES
105
8
12
-------
TABLE V-8
CONTINUOUS MONITORING EMISSION RESULTS
COMBUSTION
TEST EFFICIENCY,%
AVG
PARTS PER MILLION
NOy
RAPGE
AVG
CO
RANGE
AVG
PERCENT
02
RANGE
AVG
C02
.RANGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
99.986
99.969
99.989
99.992
99.997
99.997
92.2 (79.8-95) 12.5
114 (84.9-107) 26.6
79.9 (62.3-73.6) 10.6
80.7 (76.4-96.6) 7.47
81.8 (66.0-93.0) 3.35
64.5 (63.0-66.0) 2.40
(9.2-17.2) 8.96
(24.4-33.5) 12.2
(10.1-12.3) 8.58
(6.76-7.84) 9.63
(2.44-4.88) 6.92
(2.4-2.9) 9.49
(8.05-11.7) 8.65
(8.74-11.6) 8.67
(6.5-13.0) 9.78
(8.5-10.75) 9.13
(3.22-12.2) 10.3
(6.5-11.8) 9.22
(6.0-9.10)
(8.0-8.96)
(7.76-10.9)
(8.25-9.90)
(8.46-11.7)
(8.3-10.8)
00
-------
29
TABLE V-9
CONCENTRATION OF PCB's
TN FLUE GAS SAMPLES. NG/SAMPLE
,)
ISOMER
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
- PCB
DETECTION
LIMIT
190
290
370
75
75
75
110
110
110
180
TEST 1
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEST 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEST 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEST 5 TEST 6
ND/ND
1800/1900
3200/3300
500/800
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND/ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SUM PCB
ND
Not Detected
ND
ND
ND
5.5/6
ND
TABLE V-10
DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
TEST 1 TEST 2
Waste Feed
PCB Concentrations
(Ug/g)
Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
Flue Gas
PCB Concentration
(Ug/g)
76.0
115.4
2790.00
61.50
<314.40 <709.73
Destruction and
Removal (%)
TEST 3
2560.00
61.50
<946.16
55.93
Flow Rate (nr/nr) 92.75 114.94
>99.999 >99.99990 >99.99993
TEST 4 TEST 5 TEST 6
2970
61.5
NA
NA
NA
400.0
106.4
2416.32
88.22
2840.
79.
51.
99.998 >99.9<
-------
TABLE V-ll
PCDD AND PCDF CONGENER ANALYSIS
TEST NUMBER - 6
30
DIOXINS:
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
FURONS:
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
INCINERATION ASH
COMPOSITE
CONCEN-
TRATION DETECTION
fPPb) LIMITfPPb)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.10
1.10
0.66
0.99
4.30
0.082
1.200
0.270
0.760
2.200
SCRUBBER EFFLUENT
COMPOSITE
CONCEN-
TRATION DETECTION
fPPtl LIMITfPPtl
% Accuracy: CL-TCDD
122
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
119
0.46
2.00
1.20
2.20
8.60
0.58
1
1
1
20
00
20
2.80
FLUE GAS
CONCEN- DETECT]
TRATION LIM]
fPPbl fna/i
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
123
0.3!
1.8
2.0
6.1
34.0
1.5
1.9
3.6
27.0
-------
31
VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE
The program's QA/QC activities were directed by the QA
officer, Mr. Mark McCabe, and included the calibration of
all sampling and analytical apparatus where applicable and
the use of control samples and replicate analysis where
feasible. Details of the QA/QC procedure are given in
Appendix D, Parts 3.2 and 3.3.4.
A. Sampling Apparatus
The sampling equipment was calibrated according to EPA
procedures specified in APTD 0576 and 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A, and manufacturer's specifications.
B. Quality Control Samples
Blanks were collected for all samples in the field.
Blank, duplicate and spiked samples were prepared and
processed in accordance with the Permit Application,
Part 7.4.2.
C. Chain of Custody
Field and laboratory custody procedures as given in the
Permit Application, Part 7.4.4 were followed. There
were no known compromises from this plan.
-------
32
VII CLOSURE
i
i Three types of waste were generated during the demonstration
test: (1) solid product, i.e. decontaminated soil, (2)
1 scrubber and decontamination water, and (3) miscellaneous
solid materials.
« The solid product was placed in metal barrels and the
barrels were sealed, labeled, and placed in a designated
' storage place. When test results of these materials are
obtained, if they can be reclassified as non hazardous, they
will be abandoned. All water including that used for
washing and equipment decontamination was collected and
stored in tanks as hazardous material. Miscellaneous solid
material including protective clothing, paper, plastic and
containers were placed in metal barrels and the barrels were
sealed and placed in the impoundment area.
•
At the end of the last day of material processing, the test
unit was baked out to decontaminate internally. After the
unit was cooled, the feed conveyor was disassembled as
needed to permit thorough washing with soap and water. The
internal and external surfaces of the trailer, the external
surfaces of equipment in the trailer, and miscellaneous
items such as tools and stairs were washed with soap and
water.
-------
33
APPENDIX A
OPERATING LOG
-------
-------
-------
I _- NMU- .. 3T
OrOATlMC tOC
CUSTOMER:
tea ram_
MRS •
DATE:
OrUATORt
':•>
|'
jv;
. TDtt
i or
< MT
I in)
•ELI ma
tcrrac
BELT SrEO
(U/WK) .
1- Zone Al
3- Zoo* At
nmMmes Cr)
4-Hid- ZOM
\- ton* §1
*-*."»
«-scc
fSii.
10- SCC E»h
Il-Serub. E^
ITT
3^
ZcfkM I
nlm Voltm
• SSi
Toura
ZOIM A KETC
1
OTIpt
ton* • VtK
fRESSURE (IH.WC)
FUHM. PRATT
FURM. EMI.
AFTERSURMET
ATTSf-M. EXH
SCRUBBED A f
COMB. BLR OUT
runs. COMB AIR
AFTBRN. COMB. AIR
JET ST
Zonal
TIC
SC BURNCR
HAT. CAS
UBffU-
SCRUBin
VEHTURI
H20 (HI)
TWER
H20 (VSI)
r
s?
ftL
/W)
T?*' *.
05
5
ML
m
Ob
fit
L/.O
•/3S7
f
«/.*-•• //
Ml
JQ_
7
/A-5"
47
u,
L
I-
*^l"
f...
^
r-;
t
f-
t
-------
I . f
-------
V
S v I
'1.
8
s
31
=fl
«SI
I?
i
^
liJ.
i!
si
1
XA
1
l
M
(S
Wl
'•0
00
oo
ro
-3
N
fc
^
b-1
t1
•OD
<£•&=,
,£
V,
v.
^ n^
i
v-0
'
fcko--
N
N
tn
-------
, li
i
' F
1.
L
2fi~
ass
lul
e*
8 **
•
u *•*
H-E
AkJ
i
f*
VI
-------
-------
TIME
OF
DAT
(IMS)
SCIUBBCft
vtimmi
mo (cm)
I OWE
R20 (Cm)
MAT.
CAS
SCBUB EX
(tmc)
UlUt. EXH.
/» OJI.
INWC)
FURNACE
COMB. AIR
(1HUC.)
COMB A«
(IMC)
TOO
or
DAT
(BUS)
MATERIAL
FEED
(US)
TIME
or
DAT
(ItU)
MATERIAL
FEED
(LBS)
COMKENTS
[SOI
T
3X7^- H, 25
lici
D
n
-------
^
-^o
,Vn
«£
Ci
^A;
W
I5SI
ir
aS
g!
?s1
S
i
a
f
I'
*
S
i
kg
§1 • I
*i
r r f
i (
1°'
§.
§
.1
-------
M.
fll
V
43
«•*,
-------
^
-------
•«-:•..
,•>
'\
.••' 1-. '•.
f'V i.^;
I.
TI«
or
DAT
(«$)'
•noT
SCRUlftU
..VUTUII
»?o (cm)
Jno
(cm)'
X IUUIU
MAT.
CAS
IkL
FURK. EXM.
A/B EMI.
B EXH.
(nwc)
FURNACE
OMB. Alt
»-JI
AF
COHI AIR
-i»JHH_
11MB
or
DAT
(IBS)
MATERIAL
FEED
TIME
or
DAT
.(OS)
MATERIAL
FEED
(LBS)
comam
7T "* f
Jl.^ $•*( gA.
I\a6'
MS
^f7e>SjS
>9*s Wl. /3te
>1J<1lf ^?
o.
;r*3
2&i
<:?./JL?Tittt»A*/ $.io4Ae< k*l-/'*l>iMi*(\ 5,
/j>i/^ A»M>e. i/UA^-^/^ /^rU ^t$
• » ^
-------
—J '---J
MII.CO «-.«. ?nm
OrCRATUK UK
evsrmcBi
IUVMSC tD« METt»
-------
\ »•
- a
5*1
5J5
e|,
!1!
-••'
-------
48
APPENDIX B
MATERIAL FEED LOG
-------
WASTE FEED
49
May 13, 1986
f Time
1400
1405
1422
1440
1458
1518
1535
1555
1614
1627
1656
1010
1100
1152
1236
1315
1345
1420
1440
1530
1600
1635
Mix
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weights
(Pounds,)
16.5
27.8
37.8
33.3
32.2
39.0
34.4
34.4
36.8
38.7
24.7
May 14, 1986
38.6
45.3
35.3
35.3
35.0
39.7
34.4
43.6
44.8
35.1
52.9
Cumulative
Weight (Pounds)
16.5
44.3
82.0
115.3
147.5
186.5
220.9
255.3
292.1
330.8
355.5
38.6
83.9
119.2
154.5
189.5
229.2
263.6
307.2
352.0
387.1
440.0
-------
May 15, 1986 50
0920
0955
1023
1045
1100
1120
1131
1155
1220
1245
1305
1318
1348
1422
1522
1532
1553
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
33.5
46.7
25.6
37.8
26.0
37.7
40.8
43.5
47.6
41.6
0.3
38.6
40.4
43.1
40.5
42.0
36.2
33.5
80.2
105.8
143.6
169.6
207.3
248.1
291.6
339.2
380.8
381.1
38.6
79.0
122.1
162.6
204.6
240.8
* Times that the buckets of feed were started
-------
51
APPENDIX C
TESTING AND ANALYSIS REPORT
-------
52
FINAL REPORT
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
SHIRCO PORTABLE PILOT UNIT
FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION
INDIANTOWN MILL SITE
Prepared for:
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
Dallas, Texas
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES INC., CONCORD, MA
-------
53
Table Of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Summary of Results ..... 4
3. Sampling and Analytical Protocols . 9
3.1 Process Streams 9
3.1.1 Solid and Liquid Streams 9
3.1.2 Flue Gas 10
3.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures ... 19
3.2.1 Sampling Apparatus 19
3.2.2 Quality Control Samples 20
3.2.4 Sorbent Media Quality 20
3.2.4 Chain of Custody 21
3.3 Analytical Procedures 22
3.3.1 Presampling Activities 22
3.3.2 Sample Preparation 23
3.3.3 Analytical Procedures 29
3.3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 34
4. Presentation and Discussion of Results 36
-------
54
1. Introduction
Remediation Technologies, Inc., (ReTeC) was contracted by
Shirco Infrared Systems of Dallas, Texas to conduct a sampling
and analysis program to evaluate the thermal treatment of PCB
contaminated soils using their portable pilot unit. A field
sampling program was conducted during the period of May 13-May
15, 1986 at the Florida Steel Indiantown Mill Site, Indiantown,
Florida.
A total of six (6) sampling runs were conducted in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of the infrared technology under
varying process conditions including: solid phase residence time,
waste feed rate and process temperatures. During the course of
each of these test runs, representative samples were collected
from each of the four process streams: waste feed; incinerator
ash; scrubber effluent and flue gas.
This report documents the results of the field program and
presents the calculated efficiency of the pilot unit in treating
PCB contaminated soils at the site. The following sections of
this document present a summary of results, description of the
sampling and analytical protocols and a presentation and
discussion of results.
-------
55
2. Summary of Results
The field sampling program was designed to demonstrate the
technology's compliance with the standards for PCB incinerators
as set forth in 40 CFR 761.70 and the conditions for the research
and development permit issued by the U.S. EPA Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances on May 13, 1986. As a result, all
process streams, influent and effluent, were analyzed for PCB
content, and each of the three effluent streams was analyzed for
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans (PCDDs and PCDFs).
In addition, the flue gas stream was monitored for the following
compounds: fixed gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon
monoxide); total particulates; hydrochloric acid; oxides of
nitrogen and total chlorinated organics.
Results from the PCB analyses of the process streams are
summarized in Table 2-1. The PCB concentrations in the treated
soil samples from each run were not detected above an analytical
detection limit of 3.4 parts per billion (ppb). As indicated in
the Table, the contaminated material originally contained from 76
to 2,970 parts per million of total PCB. These results indicate
that the pilot unit operated within the permit requirements for
the disposal of the soil at the site and that the infrared
technology is appropriate for the decontamination of similarly
contaminated materials.
The results of analysis of a composite sample of the scrubber
effluent, or blowdown, indicated that no detectable levels of
PCBs were concentrated in this process stream throughout the
-------
56
sampling program. The analytical detection limit for this
analysis was 0.34 ppb and indicated that the product from this
stream could safely be disposed of within the conditions of the
permit.
No PCBs were detected in the flue gas samples of four of the
five runs sampled. Due to time constraints, flue gas measurements
were not conducted during test run 4. The process conditions
associated with this run are not "worst case" and should not
result in air emissions in excess of the other monitored tests.
Analytical detection limits of 0.3-1.7 ug/ m3 were appropriate to
demonstrate destruction and removal efficiencies (DRE) of greater
than 99.9999 X in three of these instances. In the case of test
run 1, however, a DRE of only > 99.999 could be validated due to
the lack of analytical sensitivity and the unexpectedly low
concentrations of PCBs in the waste.
PCBs were detected in the flue gas sample from test run 5 at
a concentration of 2.4 ug/m3. The presence of these species in
the flue gas stream is thought to be the result of a low oxygen
condition which is discussed in detail in Section 4 of this
report.
Additional analyses, including: fixed gases; total
particulate; hydrochloric acid; oxides of nitrogen and total
chlorinated organics, were also conducted on the flue gas stream.
The averaged results of these analyses are presented in Table 2-
2.
The calculated combustion efficiencies for all for the test
-------
57
runs were determined to be greater than 99.9 %. The associated
concentrations of carbon monoxide in the flue gas stream ranged
from 1.6 ppm to a high of 29.1 ppm.
The particulate concentration values reported in the Table
have been corrected to 7% Oj in order to facilitate comparison
with regulations for hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR 264).
The flue gas concentration of particulate matter ranged from
0.015 to 0.055 and is in compliance with the referenced
performance standard of 0.08 gr/dscf.
Hydrochloric acid (HCL) emissions from the system were
determined to be less than 4 Ib/hr, and in compliance with the
referenced performance standards for hazardous waste
incinerators.
The average flue gas concentrations of nitrogen oxides (N'Ox )
and total chlorinated organic (RCL) were determined to be 85.5
ppm and 209 mg/M3 respectively.
Dioxin and dibenzofuran analyses were conducted on samples
from the incinerator ash and flue gas streams. So chlorinated
dioxin or furan species were found in these samples. Analvtical
detection limits for TCDD in these samples were 0.10 ppb and 0.38
ng/n»3 respectively.
-------
Tibie 1-1
Sniarj of leiilti
PCI
TNT IUI
MSTI rni
PCI coiceitratioi|i|/|)
Petd ratt(li/hr|
IHClNltATOI ISI
PCI coiceitratioidf/il
SCIUIIII IFfUIMT COHPOSITI
PCI coiceitritloi(i|/|)
run Gil
PCI coiceitritioi(u/iJ|
No* nte(iJ/ir|
Ititnctioi aid leiofild!
TI.O
US. 4
( 2.4
114.14 (
H.T5
li.lli t ) j
2710
ll.S
< 2.f
fOl.Tl
114.14
ii.iim
2SCI
it.i
( 1.4
< S4C.IC
S5.ll
) si. mil
2S70
il.S
< 2.f
KC
1C
NC
400
IOf.4
< 2.1
24IC.12
11.22
If.Illi tt
2140.1
Tf.l
( 1TD.4T
SI. 1C
ff.fSffl
III iot let die to
uilftical detectioi liiit
tt Lou Oil if die to periodi of oper-
itioi Nitk lecoidarf ciuber oiriei
levelf approackiaf tke perlit coiditioa
of 31 eiceii
HC Flue (as teitf not conducted
Ln
CO
-------
59
; i
'
O. — w
-
i1
r— «^i *^
. «* •_ **-'-.•
UiJ t tCj C—
«.' '. O =*
tii ..O .O ,O
fc* k. »- K;
'j*xrli*±
-------
60
3. Sampling and Analytical Protocols
This section documents the sampling, analytical, data
reduction and quality assurance procedures used during the
demonstration test of the pilot incinerator.
As previously indicated, six (6) test runs were conducted,
under varied process conditions, to determine the effectiveness
of the Shirco technology in processing soils contaminated with
PCBs. During the course of the field program, samples were
collected from four process streams: waste feed; incinerator ash;
scrubber effluent and flue gas. The specific sampling approaches
and associated analytical procedures for each of these streams
are presented below.
3.1 Process Streams
3.1.1 Solid and Liquid Streams
Waste Feed
Samples of "as fired" waste feed (contaminated soil) were
collected from the incinerator feed hopper at 15 minute intervals
throughout each test run. These samples were composited into a
precleaned amber glass bottle to form a single, one liter sample
for organic and chloride analyses.
Incinerator Ash
Samples of the treated soil were collected from the ash
hopper at fifteen minute intervals throughout the test run and
extending to one additional interval equal to the primary chamber
-------
61
residence time past the completion of the run. As in the case of
the waste feed, these samples were composited into a single one
liter sample for organic and EP toxicity analyses.
Scrubber Effluent
Samples of the scrubber effluent were collected at the
I conclusion of each day of sampling subsequent to the termination
of waste feed and cool down of the unit. A one liter sample of
j the daily scrubber blowdown was collected in a precleaned amber
j glass container for organic analysis.
| 3.1.2 Flue Gas
The characterization of the flue gas stream required the
r
, most comprehensive .sampling program entailing organic sampling as
i well as specific sampling procedures for particulate matter, HCL,
RCL and continuous measurements for fixed gases and KOx. A
I discussion of the specific procedures and instrumentation used
for the accurate characterization of this stream is provided
{ below.
Particulate Matter and HCL
i Particulate and inorganic acid species were simultaneously
sampled using a Method 5 sampling train. The impinger solutions
I of the standard reference method system were modified to include
* IN NaOH (second impinger) to ensure the efficient collection of
HCL.
10
-------
62
Samples were collected from a single traverse point in the 3
] in. diameter stack. Nominal sampling times were one hour in
duration providing for a collected sample volume of greater than
' 30 dry standard cubic feet (dscf). All sampling and leak check
| procedures were conducted in accordance with the requirements of
the Reference Method.
I Particulate matter was recovered from the front half of the
sampling train (nozzle, probe and filter housing), using
I distilled in glass (DIG) acetone, into precleaned linear
f polyethylene (LPE) sampling container. The associated particulate
filter (Reeve Angel 934 AH) was recovered into its original petri
I dish for transport and subsequent analysis.
The impinger solutions, Dl water and NaOH , were measured
volumetrically and recovered into precleaned LPE containers for
', transport to the laboratory.
Calibration and field data sheets for the particulate
' sampling train are included in Appendix A.
Organic Sampling - PCBs. PCDDs and PCDFs
The concentration and mass flow rate of the organic species
of interest for the program were quantified using the Modified
Method 5 train illustrated in Figure 3-1.
The sampling train consisted of a glass-lined ,heat traced
probe with a stainless steel buttonhook nozzle and attached
thermocouple and pitot tube assembly. A heated (248 »/- 25°F)
glass fiber filter (Reeve Angel 934 AH), water cooled condenser
11
-------
63
Tf MM * A Tun I
VACUUM
* First impinger which serves as condesate trap has a very short
stem that does not extend into the condesate.
Modified Method 5 SanplinR Train
FIGURE
3-1
-------
64
and sorbent module, containing precleaned XAD-2 resin and
i
maintained at <68°F, are located downstream of the probe
i
assembly. The sorbent module is followed by a series of four
i impingers for the collection of organic condensate and removal of
( entrained moisture from the gas stream. The first impinger acts
*
*
as a condensate reservoir and is modified to prevent organic
; material from being purged from the collected liquid. The second,
third and fourth impingers contain .water and desiccant for
t
1 determination of the moisture content of the flue gas. The
I impinger system is followed by a pump, dry gas meter and
calibrated orifice.
j All components of the sampling train that had the potential
i
to come in contact with samples for organic analysis were
i
i subjected to a rigorous cleaning procedure prior to their use in
j the field. The pre-sampling activities included: a soap and water
wash; 15% nitric acid rinse; DDI water rinse and an organic rinse
»
f with acetone and methylene chloride. All glassware was capped
i
with solvent rinsed aluminum foil for transport.
The organic sorbent and field solvents were subjected to
t QA/QC evaluations in accordance with EPA Level I procedures prior
to their use in the field.
i A field biased blank train was assembled and recovered in
the field in conjunction with each day of sampling in order to
I quantify any biases introduced through the handling and transport
of the samples.
Samples of flue gas were collected from a single traverse
' 13
-------
65
point in the exhaust stack. All sampling and leak check
procedures were conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Reference Method 5. Sampling times ranged from one to two hours
in duration depending upon the concentration of PCBs in the feed
material and incinerator operating conditions.
Upon completion of the sampling run the train was sealed and
removed to a designated, clean area for recovery. The front half
of the train was brushed and rinsed with 1:1 methylene chloride
and acetone (V:V). The front half rinse was recovered into a pre-
cleaned amber glass bottle with Teflon cap liner. The container
was then sealed with Teflon tape.
The particulate filter was recovered into its original glass
petri dish which was then sealed with Teflon tape for transport.
The sorbent module was sealed with its original ground glass
joints.
The volume of the condensate was measured in a precleaned
graduated cylinder and transferred to an amber glass container.
The back half of the train (back half of the filter housing,
Teflon connector, condenser and first impinger) were rinsed with
DIG methylene chloride into the recovered condensate sample. The
container was then vented and sealed.
The net water gain of the remaining impingers was determined
and recorded for calculation of moisture content.
Continuous Monitoring - Oa. COat CO and NQx
Monitoring for fixed gases (O», COa and CO) and NOx was
14
-------
66
conducted on a continuous basis throughout each of the six (6)
test runs performed during the field program. Samples were
extracted from an existing, threaded fitting located between the
exit of the afterburner and entrance to the venturi scrubber. The
sample was delivered to the monitors by a sampling system that
included: a stainless steel probe equipped with calibration
fitting; a conditioning system consisting of a in-line filter and
moisture condenser: and, leak free sampling pump.
Calibrations of the monitors were conducted on a daily
basis, prior to the start of and at the completion of sampling,
using certified Protocol I gases obtained from Scott Specialty
Gases. Three point calibration curves were developed for each
monitor using a gas dilution system. The accuracy of the dilution
system and gas concentrations were verified in the field using
the results of replicate Orsat analyses. In all cases, the
results of these analyses, as presented in Appendix B
demonstrated acceptable agreement with the predicted results.
The specifications for each of the gas analyzers is provided
in Table 3-1. Data from the monitors was collected at 10 minute
intervals and continuously recorded using strip chart recorders.
The strip chart data was then reduced to provide 30 minute
averages for each test run.
15
-------
67
TABLE 3-1
SPECIFICATIONS OF CONTINUOUS MONITORING
EQUIPMENT
PARAMETER
NOi Thenoelectric IDA 0-10,000 ppi
Cheiiluiinescence
CARBON DIOXIDE IR Industries Model 720 0-20 X
(NDIR)
CARBON MONOXIDE Bendix Model 8501-5 CA 0-50 ppi
(HDIB) 0-250
0-500
0-1000
OXYGEN DelU F Analyzer 0-5 X
Coloriietrie 0-10
0-25
-------
63
Total Organic Chloride
A modified version of EPA Method 450.1 was used to determine
the total organic halide (TOX) emissions.
Flue gas samples were drawn from the exhaust stack through a
series of two sorbent tubes each containing 40 mg of activated
carbon. The constant flow air sampling pumps were calibrated
against a 500 ml bubble tube flow meter. Initial calibrations
were performed prior to the start of each sampling run.
At the end of each sample run, the pump was recalibrated to
assure there has been no deviation from the pre-set flow rate.
Upon completion of each run, the sorbent tubes were capped
and labeled for transport to the laboratory.
A complete list of samples collected from each sampling run
is presented in Table 3-2.
17
-------
TABLE 3-2
FIELD SAMPLING — NUMBER AND TYPE OF SAMPLES PER TEST RUN
Sample Sample Number Container
Description Code Analysis Collected Type Comments
Modified Method 5
Particulate filter
Front half
Condensate
XAD-2 resin and
-MM5/PF
-MM5/FH
-MM5/CD
-MM5/XR
organic
organic
organic
organic
1
1
1
1
rinse
Impinger catch -MM5/IMP
Method 5
Particulate filter -M5/PF
Front half -M5/FH
RCL
Charcoal tubes -RCL-A.B
Stolid/Liquid Samples
HC1
gravimetric
gravimetric
TOX
a — extract with methylene chloride
b -- store at 4° C
1
1
Waste feed
Incinerator ash
Scrubber effluent
-WF
-IA
-SE
organic
organic
organic
1
1
1
Glass petri b
500 ml amber b
500 ml amber a,b
Glass trap b
500 ml LPE b
Petri
500 ml LPE
glass tube b
1,000 ml amber
1,000 ml amber
1,000 ml amber
18
-------
70
, 3.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
The quality assurance program entails the calibration of all samplin
and analytical apparatus where applicable and the use of control sample
i
and replicate analyses where feasible. Copies of field calibration sheet
are provided in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Sampling Apparatus
•
The sampling equipment will be calibrated according to EFA procudurt
specified in APTD 0576 and 40 CFR 60, Appendix A and manufacturei
specifications.
' Dry Gas Meter and Orifice Meter
1
The dry gas meters for all sampling trains were calibrated against
standard wet test which has been calibrated against a spirometer. T
meters are adjusted so that the measured gas volumes were within 1 perce
| of proof; i.e., Y factors are between 0.99 and 1.01.
Thermocouples
The type K thermocouples in the meter control box, heated sample be
19
-------
71
impinger umbilical connector, and attached to the probe were calibrate
against ASTM mercury-in-glass thermometers at two points. The first poin
is in an ice bath and the second at the boiling point of water.
• Pitot Tube
i
The "S" type Pitot tubes were designed to meet geometri
configurations as defined in EPA Method 2. Additionally, the pitot tut
4
coefficients were verified in a wind tunnel.
3.2.2 Quality Control Samples
Blank Samples
i
» Blanks were collected for all samples in the field, i.e., solvei
rinses, sorbent traps, and a glass fiber filter. Each blank was subjectc
\
to the exact same treatment and analysis as the corresponding sample.
i
Field-Biased Blanks
Field-biased blanks, blank samples which have ben exposed to field a
sampling conditions to assess possible contamination from the field, we
collected daily for each of the sampling methods.
i
i 3.2.4 Sorbent Media Quality
The XAD-2 sorbents used in the flue gas sample collection system we
1 20
-------
72
subjected to rigorous pretreatment in the laboratory prior to release foi
field sampling purposes. The recommended pretreatment procedures includec
sequential extraction with a series of organic solvents so native organi<
contamination will be reduced to acceptable levels. The requisite resii
pretreatment procedures and guidelines for evaluating resin'qualitv ar
contained in EPA IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level I Environmenta
Assessment (second Edition) EPA-600/7-78-201.
3.2.4 Chain of Custody
All samples were placed in a central repository as soon as possibl
after recovery. The sample repository was the charge of a single perso
throughout the sampling trip.
Samples were transferred to the analytical laboratory by the perse
responsible for sample security. Upon receipt at the laboratory, they wer
lugged into the laboratory logbook, given an identification number and pt
in to the custody of a single person responsible for their analysis. A]
samples were inspected for damage and leakage from liquid sample bottles
Laboratory receipt forms for the collected samples are provided in Append:
B.
21
-------
73
3.3 Analytical Procedures
3.3.1 Presampling Activities
The first phase of the program was initiated in April, 1986,
and involved ERCO providing cleaned XAD-2 sorbents and glass wool
to prepare the sampling traps. High purity reagents were also
provided for use as sampling train rinses and impinger solutions.
Procedures used to obtain and/or prepare these materials are as
follows:
o Organ-Free Water -- Three gal of high-purity
water were prepared by distilling Cambridge,
Massachusetts tap water and passing the
distillate through an activated charcoal
column.
o Acetone -- "Resi-analyzed"-grade acetone was
obtained from J. T. Baker Chemicals and used
without further purification.
o Methylene Chloride -- "Resi-analyzed"-grade
methylene chloride was obtained from J. T.
Baker Chemicals and used without further
purification.
22
-------
74
o XaOH — IN NaOH was prepared by dissolving
40 g of the NaOH into 1 liter of distilled
deionized water.
o Glass Wool -- Glass wool was cleaned by
heating it in a furnace overnight at 400 ° C.
o XAD-2 — Precleaned XAD-2 was obtained from
Supelco (Supelpak-2, EPA Level 1
Contamination-free). It was further purified
by soxhlet extraction in methylene chloride.
At the end of 16hr of extraction, the solvent
was discarded and fresh aliquots of methylene
chloride extract exhibited no extraneous
peaks in the gas chromatography screen, the
XAD-2 was then air-dried and immediately
packed into precleaned sampling traps.
3.3.2 Sample Preparation
On May 30, 1986, ERCO received the waste feed materials and
their combustion products for characterization. While the
analyses for TOX, particulate matter, total chloride, and PCB in
incinerator ash and waste feed materials were initiated on the
samples submitted, the flue gas and scrubber effluent samples
required special handling prior to the final analysis.
23
-------
75
Sample preparation procedures and the methods used for the
resulting analyses are as follow:
o Waste Feed Samples -- A 10-g aliquot of the
waste feed sample was taken for extraction.
It was spiked with terphenyl-dM and
extracted for 16 hr in a soxhlet extractor
using a hexane/acetone (1:1 v/v) solvent
system. The resulting extract was dried over
anhydrous sodium sulfate and reduced to 5 ml
using a Kuderna-Danish evaporator.
PCB analysis, as positional isomer, was
performed according to EPA Method 680. In
this case, a 1 ml aliquot of the sample
extract was fortified with internal standards
containing chrysene-d!2 before GC/MS
analysis. The waste-feed samples were also
analyzed for total chloride content by ion
chromatography.
Incinerator Ash
o PCB Analysis: A 100-g aliquot of each ash
sample was spiked with the same surrogate
used for the waste feed samples. The sample
24
-------
76
was extracted for 16 hr with methylene
chloride. The resulting extract was dried
over anhydrous sodium sulfate and
concentrated to approximately 2 ml using
Kuderna Danish evaporators to facilitate
lower sample detection limits, the extract
was further reduced to 0.3 ml by purging it
under a fine stream of purified nitrogen at
room temperature. Internal standards were
then added prior to GC/MS analysis.
PCDD/PCDF Analysis: Incinerator ash from the six
runs (IA-1 through 6) was composited and aliquots
were taken for PCDD/PCDF analyses. The relative
amount of ash being composited is as follows:
Run 1A 24% (by weight)
Run 2A 13% (by weight)
Run 3A 13% (by weight)
Run 4A 13% (by weight)
Run 5A 22% (by weight)
Run 6A 16% (by weight)
The samples were prepared according to EPA
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Procedures.
This involved overnight soxhlet extraction
and column chromatographic clean up of the
resulting extract.
25
-------
77
Scrubber Effluent
Scrubber Effluent Samples -- A 333-ral aliquot of
each of SE-2, SE-4, and SE-6 was composited into a
1-liter sample. It was then spiked with
terphenyl-di4 and extracted with methylene
chloride in a separator funnel. The resulting
extract was dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate
and concentrated to about 2 ml using Kuderna
Danish evaporators. To facilitate lower detection
limits, the extract was further reduced to 0.3 ml
by purging it under a fine stream of purified
nitrogen at room temperature. Internal standards
were then added prior to GC/MS analyses.
Flue Gas Samples
Flue Gas Samples -- The flue gas sampling train
contained various components that had to be
individually prepared and composited into one
integrated sample. The components included the
XAD-2 sorbent trap (XR- ), probe rinses (FH- ),
condensate water (CD- ), and particulate filter
26
-------
73
trap (PF- ). The sample preparation procedures
are delineated in Figure 3-2, with the following
exceptions: FBB-2 (ERCO ID 32490) and the Method
Blank (ERCO ID 32492). In FBB-2, organ-free water
was used as a substitute for the condensate water.
In the Method Blank, organic-free water was again
used as a substitute for the condensate water. In
addition, Blank XAD-2 was used as a sorbent trap
and no particulate filter was used.
o Impinger Solution -- The impinger solutions
were analyzed for total chloride by ion
chromatography (EPA Method 300.0).
o Probe Rinses -- The particle concentration
(total suspended solid) of the probe rinses
was determined according to Federal Register
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 5.
o Charcoal Tubes — The charcoal tubes were
analyzed for total organic halogen.
27
-------
79
Condensate
(CD- )
Extracted
3 x 60ml
with
nethylene
chloride
Probe rinse
(FH- )
Particulate
filter
(PF- )
Weighed
XAD-2
Sorbent trap
(XR- )
Addition of
surrogate
Soxhlet
16-hr extraction
in methylene chloride
Extracts combined and dried
over anhydrous sodium sulfate
Concentrated to about 2 ml
using Kuderna Danish evaporators
Further concentrated to about 0.3 ml
by purging under a fine stream of nitrogen
Add internal standards
GO/MS
Sample Preparation Procedures
FIGURE
3-2
-------
so
3.3.3 Analytical Procedures
PCB by GC/MS (Method 680)
Method 680 was used for the GC/MS characterization of PCB in
the waste feed material, incinerator ash, scrubber effluent, and
flue gas samples. The method was slightly modified by
substituting terphenyl-di4 instead of l3C\j-4,4'-DDT and »3Cs-
gamma-BHC, as the surrogate standard. PCBs were identified and
measured as isomer groups (i.e., by level of chlorination). A
concentration was measured for each PCB isomer group and the
total PCB concentration in each sample extract was obtained by
summing isomer-group concentrations.
Before sample analyses, the response factors of PCB at each
level of chlorination were determined from a five-point
calibration. Since it was not feasible to calibrate all of the
209 possible PCB congeners, a representative congener at each
degree of chlorination was chosen. These concentration standards
are listed in Table 3-3. GC/MS conditions used for the analyses
are listed in Table 3-4.
29
-------
31
Table 3-3. PCB congeners used as concentration calibration
standards.
Isomer group Cogener no. Chlorine substitution
Monochlorobiphenyl 1 2
Dichlorobiphenyl 5 2,3
Trichlorobiphenyl 29 2, 4, 5
Tetrachlorobiphenyl 50 2, 2', 4, 6
Pentachlorobiphenyl 87 2, 2', 3, 4, 5
Hexachlorobiphenyl 154 2, 2', 4, 4', 5, 6
Heptachlorobiphenyl 188 2, 2', 3, 4', 5, 6,6
Octachlorobiphenyl 200 2, 2', 3, 3', 4, 5',6, 6
Nonachlorobiphenyl
Decachlorobiphenyl 209 2, 2', 3, 3', 4, 4',
5, 5' , 6, 6'
Internal standard: Chrysene -diz
30
-------
82
Table 3-4. CC/MS conditions for PCB analysis
Instrument: Finnigan 4530 CC/MS
GC Conditions
Column: 30 m x 0.32 mm i.d. SE-54 fused
silica capillary column
Temperature programming: Inject at 80°C and hold 1 min;
increase at 30°C/min to 160°C, and
then at 3°C/min to 290«C
Injector temperature: 235°C
Carrier gas: UHP Helium
MS Conditions (70eV electron impact)
Mass range: m/z 35 to 510 scanned every second
Resolution: Unit
Source temperature: 120°C
Emission current: 0.25 mA
31
-------
33
Total Chloride by Ion Chromatography (Method 300.0)
Method 300 is an ion chromatographic method applicable to
the determination of chloride anion in drinking water, surface
water, and mixed domestic and industrial wastewater. Typically,
a small volume of sample (2 to 3 ml) is introduced into an ion
chromatograph. The anions of interest are separated and
measured, using a system compromised of a guard column, separator
column, suppressory column, and conductivity detector. Total
chloride is determined by retention-time matching and quantified
using a response factor established by standards of known
concentration.
Total Organic Halogen (TOX)
TOX samples were determined by two methods, depending on the
halogen contents. While Sample RCL-la (ERCO ID 32448) was
analyzed directly on the Dohrman TOX analyzer due to the
relatively low concentration of total organic halogen present,
the remaining charcoal tube samples were analyzed by ion
chromatography.
Method A: Dohrman TOX Analyzer
The charcoal tubes were pyrolyzed in the Dohrman and the
32
-------
34
resulting pyrosates were detected by micro-coulometry.
Method B: Ion Chromatography
Representative aliquots of the charcoal-tube samples were
extracted with hexane to separate the organic halogen compounds
from the inorganic halogens. The hexane fraction containing the
organic halogen compounds was then placed into a Parr Bomb.
Under high pressure oxidative conditions, the organic halogens
were converted into their corresponding inorganic salts. The
halogens were then determined by ion chromatography, and the
results calculated back to ug chloride per sample.
PCDD/PCDF by GC/MS (Method 613)
Method 613 was used for the GC/MS characterization of the
PCDD/PCDF in the incinerator ash and flue gas samples. The
method was slightly modified such that it was amenable to the
analysis of PCDF and also PCDD at various levels of chlorination.
If the analysis indicate the potential presence of the
tetrachloroisomers, the method requires that the samples.then
have to be reanalyzed using different GC/MS conditions to
determine the presence of the 2,3,7,8 - TCDD and 2,3,7,8 - TCDF
isomers. Because of the extreme toxicity of these compounds,
they are of environmental concern even at very low levels.
Therefore, analytical methods must not only be extremely
33
-------
85
sensitive but also generate highly reliable results. For these
reasons, high resolution gas chromatography/electron impact mass
i
spectrometer operated in the selected ion mode was employed. In
i order to monitor the efficiency of the sample extraction and
i recovery procedures, surrogates containing 37C1-TCDD were added.
For these analyses, l3C-TCDD and 1'C-TCDF were used as internal
I standards.
t
, Gravimetric Determinations - Particulate Matter
i
Particulate matter in the probe-rinse and filter samples were
I determined according to the method discussed in the Federal
Registrar 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Reference Method 5.
t
i
j 3.3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
I QA/QC specified in the U. S. EPA methods were used as
guidelines for the analyses of the samples. For the sample
| preparation steps, this included the addition of method blanks
I and duplicates where applicable (e. g., adequate sample size).
Surrogate compounds were also added to monitor the efficiency of
I sample extraction and recovery in the GC/MS analyses.
Method Blanks
I
Blanks are processed through the sample preparation
procedures to account for any sample contamination which might be
! ' 3,
-------
36
introduced in the laboratory. At least one method blank will
accompany each set of actual samples through the entire
analytical scheme.
Duplicate Samples
A duplicate sample is a second aliquot of a sample carried
through all sample preparation and analysis procedures to verify
the precision of the analytical method. At least one sample in
each analysis batch has been analyzed in duplicate.
All of the analytical instruments were calibrated prior to
sample analyses. This included performing multi-level
calibration and evaluating the response factors on a daily basis.
For the GC/MS analyses, the instruments were also tuned to
decaflurotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP) at the beginning of every
shift.
35
-------
87
4. Presentation and Discussion of Results
A total of six test runs were conducted during the three day
sampling program. Air sampling for particulate matter and organic
species was conducted in conjunction with five of these tests.
Monitoring for these species was not conducted during Run # 4 due
to scheduling constraints. Solid sampling, as well as continuous
monitoring to demonstrate combustion efficiency, howe\er, were
conducted during all of the tests. The results of the sampling
and analytical program are provided below.
SOLID AKD LIQUID SAMPLES
Waste feed materials for the test program were provided in
three sealed 55 gal. drums, each containing soils with distinct
levels of PCB contamination. The following Table provides the
results of analyses, conducted prior to the start of the sampling
program and indicates the appropriate test run for each feed
mixture.
Feed Mixture PCB-Concentration (ppm) Test Run
1 4889 2,3,4,6
2 321 1
3 502 5
The results of analysis for the composite samples of waste feed
collected during the course of each of the test runs are
presented in Table 4-1. The results from these analyses ranged
from 54-2,970 ppm of total PCB. These values provide comparative,
averaged concentrations of 2,790, 65, and 400 ppm for feed
mixtures 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
36
-------
88
TABU 4-1
PCB DITBBHINATION II VASTI FIID HATIBIALS
GC/NS HBTBOD (80; CONCBNTBATION IN PPH, OET VT. (if/k()
1
1
! SAMPLE ID:
! SAHPLB 10:
i
[
i
;ci(i)-pcB
!C1(2)-PCB
!C1(3)-PCB
!C1(4)-PCB
!C1(5|-PCB
!C1(()-PCB
!C1(7)-PCB
!C1(I)-PCB
;C1(9)-PCB
!C1(10)-PCB
i
JTOTAl PCB
l
!! BBCOVBBT SUBBOGATB
|TBBPBBNTL-D(14)
IF-1
32430
ID
7
21
IB
0.(
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
53. (
49
IF-2
32431
4B
740
10(0
770
170
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
2790
110
ir-3
32432
30
(SO
1000
710
1(0
5.4
ID
ID
ID
ID
25(0
B(
IF-4
32433
50
770
1200
790
1(0
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
2970
130
IF-5
32434
3.4
71
200
110
15
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
400
130
VM
32435
27
740
1100
BIO
1(0
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
2B40
1(0
IBCO
BLANI
3243(
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
91
IF-1
BBBUI
B32430
ID
11
35
30
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
7(
43
i
DBTBCTION
LIHIT
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
12.5
ID: IOT DBTBCTID.
-------
89
The waste feed sample from Run 1 was re-analyzed due to the
unexpectedly low concentrations of PCBs encountered. The re-
analysis provided a result of 76 ppm, validating the initial
value. The surrogate recovery for these samples ( 43 and 49% )
are appropriate to demonstrate that the sample extraction and
analysis procedures were proper.
Surrogate recoveries for the remaining waste feed samples
ranged from 86 - 190 \, with the higher values likely reflecting
the coelution of interfering materials due to the complex nature
of the sample matrix.
Table 4-2 presents the results of analysis for the treated
soil samples. No detectable levels of any PCB isomer group were
found in the samples. The detection limit varied for each test
run depending upon the composition of the associated waste feed.
The analytical detection limits for test runs 2, 4, and 5 were
determined to be 2.4 ppb as a result of the presence of Cli -Cls
in the waste feed for that run. Detection limits for test runs 1
(C12 - C15) and 3 (Cli - Cl«) are 2.4 and 3.4 ppb respectively.
Surrogate recoveries for these samples ranged from 46 - 87%.
Triplicate analyses of samples from test run 5 provided recovery
data of 46,7 54 and 61X.
As discussed previously, a single composite sample of
scrubber effluent was submitted for analysis for PCBs. As
indicated in Table 4-3, No detectable concentrations of PCBs were
found in the sample. A worst case detection limit , assuming the
38
-------
90
presence of Cli - Cl«, was calculated to be 0.34 ppb. Surrogate
recoveries for this sample were 110%.
Flue Gas
The results of the gravimetric analysis of the particulate
samples collected using the EPA Method 5 train are presented in
Table 4-4. The particulate emissions ranged from 0.015 to 0.055
gr/dscf when corrected to 7% 0* with an average value of 0.029
gr/dscf.
The impinger catches from this sampling were subjected to
total chloride analysis in order to quantify the HCL emissions
from the incinerator. Table 4-5 indicates that the HCL emissions
from the system were less than 408 mg/hr in all cases.
The results of the continuous emissions sampling are
summarized in Table 4-6. The calculated combustion efficiency was
> 99.9% in each of the test runs. The fixed gas concentrations,
Oi and CO were reasonably consistent throughout each test run
with the exception of Run 5. In this instance, the oxvgen
concentration was highly variable, ranging from 3.2 to 12.2%,
with two significant declines, approaching but never exceeding
the permit action level. Figure 4-1 presents the strip chart
tracings of oxygen concentrations for run 1 compared to a more
typical pattern as evidenced in the other test runs.
39
-------
•OU3I1SQ 101 :
HI1
DliSQ
IS
ON
QR
OR
OR
QR
QH
QR
OH
OR
OR
OR
91/6/1
9HZt
UT3IUIU
S-TI
19
OH
OR
OR
OR
OH
OR
OH
QR
OH
QR
QH
91/6/1
smt
BlT3Hd(
J-TI
IB
OH
OH
OR
OR
OR
OR
OH
OR
OR
OR
OH
91/6/1
mzt
1Q 1RT1B
0311
IB
QH
OH
QH
QR
OH
OR
OH
OH
OR
OR
QR
9B/6/1
mzt
9-TI
9»
OR
QR
OR
Qfl
QH
QR
QR
QR
QR
QR
QH
9I/B/1
twt
S-TI
ts
QH
QR
QH
QR
QR
OH
QR
OR
OR
OR
OR
98/1/1
zwt
»-TI
69
QH
OH
QH
QH
QH
OR
QR
OR
QH
OR
OH
9B/6/1
mzt
t-TI
01
OR
QH
QR
OH
QR
QR
QR
OH
QH
QR
OR
9B/6/1
owt
Z-TI
Bl
OH
QH
QH
QH
QR
OH
OH
Qfl
QH
QR
QH
9B/6/1
6t)Zt
I-TI
(HlO-llHIBdlll!
UTOOTinS 11SAOOI! S!
B3d ITlOi:
i
I3d-
-------
92
TABLE 4-3
PCB DETERMINATION IN THE SCRUBBER EFFLUENT -
GC/KS KETHOD 680; CONCENTRATION IN PPB (ul/ll
1
; SAMPLE ID:
! SAMPLE NO:
;
t
*
IC1W-PCB
!C1(2)-PCB
!C1(3|-PCB
!C1(4)-PCB
:C1|5)-PCB
ICK6I-PCB
!C1(T)-PCB
!C1(8}-PCB
;C1(9}-PCB
!C1(10)-PCB
! TOTAL PCB
!5 RECOVERY SURROGATE
!TERPHBNYL-D(14)
vunruoiiA wr
SB-2,4,6
32461
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MD
ND
ND
no
DETECTION
LIMIT
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.18
ND: NOT DETECTED.
-------
TABLE 4-4
RESULTS OF GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSES
93
RUN 1235
TOTAL PASTICULATE (KG) 30,2 115, T 44,7 77.5
SAMPLE VOLUME (DSCP) 45.796 48.916 36,116 39.107
GRAIN LOADING (GR/DSCF) 0.01 0,036 0.019 0,031
GRAIN LOADING (GR/DSCF) 0.015 0.055 0,023 0.037
X OIYGEN
6
14.1
19.72
0.011
0.017
TABLE 4-5
RESULTS OF BCL ANALYSES
i •
! BUN
! CHLORIDE CONC.IMP.dl/1)
ilMPIHGBB VOL, (•!)
! SAMPLE VOL. (dicf)
ICHLOEIDB CONC.GAS
! (il/iS)
!VOL. FLOVRATE (i3/kr)
!ECL EMISSIONS (Ib/kr)
1
(3
676
45,796
(2
92
(0.0004
2
(3
571
48.916
(1
130
(0.0003
3
(3
400
36.116
(1
69
(0.0001
5
9
493
39.107
4
100
0.0009
6 !
(6
322
19.72
(4
67
(0.0005
-------
TABLE 4-6
SUNNART OP CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING RESULTS
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
C
PABTS PEB MILLION
TIME
1455-lflO
1153-1253
1515-1645
1T15-1T45
1050-1300
1530-1625
AVG
92.2
114
79.9
SO. T
81.1
(4.5
NOi
(19.
(14.
(62.
111.
(66.
(S3.
RANGE
8-95)
9-10?)
3-73.6}
4-96.6)
0-93,0)
0-66.0)
CO
AVG
12.5 (9.
26.6 (24
10.6 (10
7.47 (6.
3.35 (2.
2.4 (2.
RANGE
2-17.2)
.4-33.5)
.1-12.3)
76-T.84)
44-4.88)
4-2.9)
8
02
AVG
.96 (8
12.2 (8
8
9
6
9
.58 (6
.63 (8
.92 (3
.49 (6
----------- ,
C02
RANGE
.05-11.7)
.74-11.61
.5-13.0)
.5-10.75)
.22-12.2)
.5-11.8)
AVG
8.65 (6
8.6? (8
9.78 (7
9.13 (8
10.3 (8
9.22 (8
RANGE
.0-9.10)
.0-8.96)
.76-10.9)
.25-9.90)
.46-11.7)
.3-10.8)
VO
-------
95
i Nox concentrations for the individual test runs ranged from
62.35 - 107.5 ppm with an average value of 86.5 ppm.
I Table 4-7 presents the results of the RCL analyses f~r the
I flue gas samples. Results for the collected samples ranged from-
*
121.7 to 289.8 ug/m3. Separate analyses of the primary and
j secondary sorbent tubes from test run 1 indicate efficient
collection of the chlorinated organic species, 94.9% of the total
!
i mass was collected on the primary tube.
i The results of PCB analysis of the collected flue gas
samples are presented in Table 4-8. With the exception of teat
i run 5, no detectable amounts of any isomer group were detected in
the samples. A total of 5.5 ug of PCB was detected in the extract
i
from test run 5. The flue gas concentration of PCBs in this
i instance is 2.4 ug/m3 and is most likely associated with the
documented periods of low excess oxygen encountered during this
test. These results demonstrate that an action limit above the
specified level for these tests should be initiated for future
! tests. Indications from these tests are that excess oxygen values
( in excess, of 5.0 % should be adequate to ensure the requisite
i
levels of destruction.
The calculated destruction .and removal efficiencies for the
test runs are presented in Table 4-9. With the exception of test
| run 5, as discussed above, The DREs were calculated using the
analytical detection limits for the samples. The sensitivity of
these limits was inhibited by the presence of a matrix
45
-------
96
TABLE 4-7
TOTAL CHLORINATED ORGANIC CONCENTRATION IN THE FLUE GAS
SAHPLE NO
32448
32449
32450
32451
32452
CLIENT ID
RCL-la
ECL-lb
RCL-3
ECL-5
BCL-6
UG/SAHPLE
16500
890
8600
7300
10500
SANPLE
VOLUME
(LITERS)
26,9
...
20.8
20,8
8,7
CONCENTRATION
(UG/1)
646
...
414
351
1210
-------
97
TAIL! 4-1
PCB DITmiXATION IN FUJI CAS SANPLIS
CC/HS RgTBOD (10; CONCMTBATION IN NC/SAHPLI
1
1
! SAHPLI ID:
! SARPLI 10:
|
:
:ci(i}-pci
!C1(2)-PC1
JC1I3I-PCB
ICK4I-PCB
:C1(5)-PCB
!Cl(f)-PCB
!C1(7)-PCB
;C1(I)-PCB
!C1(!)-PCB
!C1(10)-PCI
; TOTAL PCI
1
< * ***** *" "«»••«•••"*""»"«
!I HCOTIiT SVUOCATI
!TIIPHNTL-D(14)
IUI-1
32413
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
S3
IUI-2
32414
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
19
IUI-3
32415
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
66
BOI-5
32416
ID
1100
3200
SOO
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
S.5
12
EMM
32417
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
4
PBB 2
324!0
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
71
nco
BLAH
324S2
ID
ID
' ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
J7
mm
BUN s
K324K
ID
1100
3300
100
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
********
70
DITKCTION
LIMIT
190
2)0
370
75
75
75
110
110
110
110
ID: 107 DITICTID.
-------
TABLE 4-9
DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
TEST RUN
VASTE PEED
PCI concentration(uf/f)
Feed rate(lb/kr|
FLUE GAS
PCI conceBtration(n|/i3)
Flov rate(i3/kr)
Deitrietioi tod leioval(l)
1
76.0
115.4
< 314.34
92.75
> 99.999 t
2
2790
61.5
< 709.73
11.4.94
> 99.9|9990
3
2560
61.5
< 946.16
55.93
> 99.99993
4
2970
61.5
NA
NA
NA
5
400
106.4
2416.32
81.22
99.9989 tt
6
2840.0
79.8
< 1719.47
51.36
) 99.99991
t Required DRE lot iet due to liiited
analytical detection liiit
It LON DRR it doe to periodi of oper-
ation Nitk secondary ckaiber oiyjen
lereli approackinf tke pernit condition
of 31 eicen
00
-------
•frer Ar.iiys s
A-i S-rutr-T rtfii?nT Flu" Ga:
Tlri' i •. 'i"\' ''jn.-T'.nti'n Liait Concentntirn
• rtbi rrh :rr' ' Irpt.i ipph
innr
Tf ••> I • . •. 'i. I.i" Jil'
:,.r--i '.'• .- ';' !.i 1t»
. ./ • '-. I If-
—.-, • .?•, !.. I.* I.!'
».• ...L ':• -.a T
.^* Ki1 '-••'« i
i ND l.J
I.i Jil1 2.' ;
MI
VO
-------
12
0
x
y
g
e
n
C
o
n
c.
End
60 min.
Run Time
Start
— — - Test Run 3
- Test Run 5
Comparison of Oxygen Concentrations in the Flue Gas
FIGURE
4-1
o
o
-------
101
interference in the samples. The interfering compounds have been
, tentatively identified as tri-methyl silicon polymers.
Investigations are currently under way to determine if the
'- interference is the result of sampling train contamination or an
! artifact of the process.
i
The detection limits were sufficient to demonstrate DREs in
I
'• excess of 99.9999% for all runs with the exception of Run 1. The
high detection limit and unexpectedly low concentration of PCBs
• in the waste feed for this test were only appropriate to
demonstrate a DRE of >99.999%. Reviews of the operational data,
i
I
temperature profiles and excess air rates, for this test indicate
I that there is no reason not to expect that the required degree of
destruction was not achieved.
I DRE calculations performed for the individual isomer groups
indicate that efficiencies in excess of 99.9999 were achieved for
the primary constituent groups (C12-C14) for test runs 2, 3 and
i
The concentrations of PCBs detected in the flue gas samples
1 from Run 5 provide for a calculated DRE of 99.9989%. As discussed
previously, this value is most likely related to upset conditions
in the secondary combustion chamber and does not provide an
, accurate evaluation of the systems capabilities.
The results of the dioxin screens of the effluent process
I streams from the incinerator are presented in Table 4-10. A
i weighted composite sample of incinerator ash and flue gas sample
from a single test run (*6) were submitted for PCDD and PCDF
50
-------
102
analyses (tetra-octa isomers). As indicated in the Table, none of
these constituents were detected at levels above 4.3 ng/g and 34
ug/m3 for the ash and flue gas samples respectively. The results
from similar analyses conducted on the composite sample from the
scrubber effluent stream have not been completed at this time and
will be forwarded within the next two weeks. It is anticipated
that the levels of these constituents will be ND given their low
solubilities in water and the fact that they were not present in
any of the other process streams.
51
-------
103
fable 4-10
Sumrj of PCDO and PCDF Confener analysis
Diozins
Tetra
Penta
leza
Hepta
Octa
Puraai
Tetra
Peata
leza
lepta
Octa
3T
S accuracy: Cl-TCDD
Incinerator
Coiposite
Concentration
(ppb)
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
122
1th
Detection
Liiit
(ppb)
0.1
1.1
O.iS
0.99
4.3
0.012
1.2
0.2T
O.Tt
2.2
Flue Gas
Concentration
Uf/i3)
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
123
Detection
Liiit
(•f/i3)
0.38
1.1
2.0
(.1
34
1.5
1.9
3.6
2T
-------
104
APPENDIX A
-------
105
•SUITS OF Flown in ISOIIIITIC CALCUUTIOI
EDI ionn
DATE OF EDI
CLOCI TIO: IlITIiL
CL0CE TIB: FI1AL
A?G. STiCl TIIPIEiTDEI
A»G. SQUAEI DELTA t
IOZZLE DIABTBB
BAEOMETBIC PBB3SUBB
SAKPLIIG Tin
SAMPLE VOUfflK
4IG. IETEB TBHP,
A?G. DELTA I
DGI CALIB. FACTOB (T]
VATH COLLECTED
COZ
01
CO
12
STiCl ABEA
STATIC PEESSDBI
PITOT COEFFICIEIT
SAMPLE fOLDIE DBT
•'TEE AT STD.
,STU!I
IDLE FBACTIOI DET GAS
IOLICULA1 IT.DET
HCBSS AIB
WLBCULAB Tt. 1ST
STACI GAS PEESSUEE
STACI rELOCITT
VOLUIETEIC PLOKATS, DET STD.
VOLUMETRIC FLOW ATI, ACTUAL
ISOIIKKTIC EATIO
PAETICULATE TESTS
mm
mm
mm
mm
DECEEES F
IICBES 120
IICIES
II. 1C.
HI.
CUBIC F1ET
DEGEEES F
II. 120
mm
IILLITEES
PEECEIT
PEECIIT
PEECEIT
PEECIIT
SQUAEE IICIES
IICBES 120.
turn
DSCF
SCF
PEECEIT
mm
LB/LB BOL1
PIBCEIT
LB/LB IDLE
IICBES 1C.
AFPI
DSCFI
ACFI
PEECEIT
11
5-11-St
1457
HOT
ITS
o.si
1.11
2J.J5
TO. 00
48. ZS
78
l.TO
1.00
TS1.S
S.IO
11.10
0.00
12.4
11.04
0.00
0.14
45.7)8
37.32
44.)
o.ss
29.40
11S.8
24.21
Z).)5
2455
K
IBB
101.0
ZB
5-14-88
11S1
1252
173
0.7(
0.31
30.00
10
4S.4SO
7!
Z.S7
1.00
SS4.
s.
11.
0.
IZ.
11.04
0.00
O.B4
48.S1C
27.54
38.0
0.84
21.40
111.8
2S.2)
30.00
2SS1
123
22!
!4.7
31
S-14-S8
1513
1653
174
0.3S
0.31
30.00
100
38.SZO
IZ
0.80
1.00
405.8
1.0
J.5
0.0
IZ.5
11.04
0.00
0.14
38.118
1S.1Z
34.8
0.85
2S.88
77.4
25. J 2
30.00
15Z8
84
117
10.8
SI
5-15-18
1051
11S1
171
0.80
0.31
30.0)
80
3).Z70
74
0.80
1.00
500.8
t.O
J.5
0.0
12.5
11.04
0.00
1.14
3).107
23.10
37.8
0.8Z
2).88
77.4
Z5.Z7
30.Q)
Z38I
)4
112
)l.8
8B
5-15-88
153Z
16Z3
178
0.33
0.31
30.0)
51
Z0.030
10
0.50
1.00
1Z4.I
8.)
11.7
0.0
11.4
11.04
0.00
0.84
D.7ZO
5. II
Z3.0
0.77
Z).57
11). 5
21. Jl
30.0)
1Z60
8Z
)7
11.7
PAETICULATE LOADI1C
PAETICDLATI BASS
PAETICDLATI LOADIIC
PAETICULATI LOAD 11C
Corrected To 7 I Oiyje»
•I
ir/dicf
fr/dicf
30. ZO
0.010
0.015
115.70
0.038
0.055
44.70
0.01)
O.OZ3
77.50
0.031
0.037
14.10
0.011
0.017
-------
106
"'SDLT3 OP PLOIBATI AID ISOIIIITIC CALCULATIOI PCB TtSTS
in
DAT! OF BUI
CLOU TIM: IIITIAL '
CLOCI TID: PIIAL
AYC. STACI TIIPIBATUU
AVC. SQDAU DILTA P
IOZZLI DIAHTEE
BABOUTKIC PUSSUU
SANPLIIG Till
SAMPLI round
AVG. nm TUP.
AVG. DILTA I
DCI CALII. PACTOB |T]
HATH COLLICT1D
CO 2
0 2
CO
I 2
STACI ABIA
STATIC PBISSUU
PITOT COIPFICIBIT
SAMPLE fOLURI DBT
*ATIB AT STD.
ISTDU
BOLE PBACTIOI DBT GAS
IOLICULAB W.DBT
EICKS3 ill
NOLICULAB IT. «IT
STACI GAS PBISSDU
STACI TBLOCITT
VOLUN8TBIC FLOVBATK, DBT STD.
VOLUMETRIC FLOVBATI, ACTDAL
ISOIIIBTIC BATIO
COMBUSTION IPPICIIICT
mm
ttttu
ttttlt
tsstst
DEGBBES F
IICUS 120
[ICIIS
II. 1C.
HI.
CUBIC PUT
DECRIES F
II. 120
tutst
IILLITIU
PIBCIIT
PIBCIIT
PPI
PIBCIIT
SQUAB! IICIIS
IICBIS 120.
tttttt
DSCF
SCF
PIBCIIT
tttttt
LB/LB IOLI
PIBCIIT
LB/LB IOL!
IICIIS IG.
AFPI
DSCFI
ACFI
PIBCIIT
PIBCIIT
1A
5-13-IS
1456
1T05
IT!
0.12
fl.Jl!
13.35
120
11.271
11
l.TS
1.01
134S.S
l.i
9.0
12. 5
12.4
7.0S
0.00
0.14
13.503
(3.44
43.2
0.5T
33.24
TO.I
26.66
23.35
23SS
SS
11T
111.3
33.33
2A
5-14-16
1153
12S3
1T3
O.Ti
0.313
30.00
(0
50.360
IS
2.C4
1.01
{99.
1.
12.
26.
T9.
7.06
0.00
0.14
50.321
32.36
39.1
0.60
3T.33
140. 5
23 68
30.00
2T61
ii
13S
101.3
99. 9T
3A
5-H-I6
1513
164T
1T4
I.3T
0.319
30.00
94
41.29S
IS
0.60
1.01
646.
9.
1.
10.
11.
T.OI
0.00
0.14
40.STS
30.41
42.9
O.ST
32.18
iS. 4
26.50
30.00
1424
33
TO
114. S
99.99
SA
5-15-16
10S1
1301
1T9
O.S9
0.319
30.09
120
11.314
T9
1.S9
1.01
1404.
10.
(.
3.
12.
T.Oi
0.00
0.14
11.292
66.24
44.9
o.ss
30. IS
46.1
2S.09
30.09
2339
S3
us
114.0
99.99T
(A
5-15-86
1S32
1(23
1T2
0.33
0.319
30.09
SO
21.004
13
o.so
1.01
330.8
9.2
3.5
2.40
11.3
T.0(
0.00
0.84
20.771
15.60
42.9
O.ST
30.52
T9.4
25. IS
30.09
1299
31
(4
120.0
99.99T
DISTBUCTIOI AID UIOfAL IFFICIIICT (DU)
IASTI PUD BAT! Ib/kr US.4 (l.S (l.S 106.4 79.8
VAST! RED COICIHTBATIOI -PCB ppi 7(.0 2790.0 2560.0 400.0 2140.0
'UH GAS AIALTSIS -PCB •( < 73S.O < 1000.0 ( 107S.O SSOO.O ( 1000.0
iS BATI - II tl/kr 3.98I*0( 7.781407 7.141*07 1.931*07 1.031*08
•ASSBATI-ODT U/kr < 23.16 < 81.57 < S2.92 213.17 < 88.31
DBI perceit > 99.99927 ) 99.99990 ) 99.99993 99.99890 >"99.99991
-------
107
••t
h
i
\
I-
ji-B
* -
I'!
5? S
^t*«
il i
8
•S «o
VTi x»
i- C
Q\ O
QQ
«Ti
C)
8
8
•v
O
ex
SiqjoUi «
v»jvo|^'|
2
i
s
e n
• *
III
I
ill-
8
**
1 1
0 0
8
'i'
* s
si
J
It
S?
!
&
>ii
• w •
« 9 * "5
eliii
I
5t
u
i!
..
< n
i
i
-------
METHOD 5 MODULI CALIBRATION
0»«
NO
. P-8
«*>« Erik
ClIRCKi
BAROMETRIC 1
e,
MODULE
OKI rice
SCTTIMQ
Alt
Un.itjO)
. *
/.O
A 5
30
PRESSURE 1
J «
VolUM
V,
utj)
£
$
/o
/O
/O
*
r.ll
ST
Fa
/.<
v.
*a?
O
AHOARC
etor
to/
/
'. *V in Ha
^_" *"V<
> METER
Temperature
te
7?
77
^•^
7^.5
7^.5
STANDARD »
Tv.\^
(in. HjOl
"•L
-Ao
-/•A
-A 6
~_?.J
1
tCTER .
VoluM
(rtji
V- K
±L*J5
1'fS
?•?•)"
9.f{
f
MODULE
Te«pei
t»l
7?
K
7*
*?£
7. 6?,
METER
raturaa
7f>
7$
77
77
•76
>
•Tine
(•In)
/S._k>
9.5"5
jZ-df
tJ.Lt
f/./f
AVERAGE:
T
/.oo
/.Of
I-&I
/.•f
/.OO
/,«/
AHa
(In. H_OI
A/?
fl.OJT
*-<>£
$. of
t'°*
3..OS
•
Module.
riowrate
a
(scral
•
.
•
or
•
CHECK. USC TMC AVEKACX Alia FOR AH
' • v
* >*
* 460' r*
All > (t » «60»
" MO-P>»> *" I ljt» * <60) • 1
' Irb (t* * 460)1 I V. »» I
» # AH I
U.t I
tM * 4601 9 I
AN*
0 • f U7.«4» Vto
or • orifice rector -l(t»
11
* «60) All I
rt J
Correlation Line Equation
Q • • (Or) «• b
Q - or *
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA f
Bach T mamt b> l.OO ^ O.01
Avaraqa AHa miat b« T.V4 » O.J5
Each AHa «u«t b« wlthLa o7lS
of th« av«ra-]« Alia
TC Readout Calibrated with Constant Voltage Source
tail ___2____°r tiao _23L__°P Reference Therva
Module Leak Check t^
ter
Probe Heater Low Control
Heater to* Love Control OK _
Nodule Cleaned j^ Pitot tube manometer leak check
Calibrated and Checked by
Reviewed by __________
Date
Date
O
oo
-------
TRC
NOZZLE CALIBRATION DATA SHEET
109
NOZZLE SET NO
PATF
TECHNICTAM
NOZZLE NO. DIAMETER'
AVERAGE**
0,117
O.2OO
3-2
O.Z57
0,-74-H-
•5-7
* Measure to nearest .001"
• Three measurements must be within .004" of each other
-------
DATE
110
INSPECTION REPORT
ELFRED MACHINE COMPANY
CUSTOMER P.O. NO.
PURCHASED FROM
S.O. NUMBER
PART NO.
TOOL NO.
NO. PIECES ORDERED
PART NAME
TOOL NAME
NO. PIECES RECEIVED
/(/rt
lit PIECE INSPECTION
PARTIAL INSPECTION
COMPLETE INSPECTION
-------
i i www«u< ^ !>« , | / J-Q i X
Revision No. T
Date December 9. 1980
Page of
S-TYPE PITOT GEOMETRIC CALIBRATION
PART 2 - PITOT ALIGNMENT
TRC Probe Identification
Technical Specialist £
Date 2^
P1tot Identification
m
A.
\
.J
Transverse
Tube Axis
B.
Longitudinal
Tube
Axis
M
&
c i.m
8 STfeH
i1 £035
b
c
e1 Qt.54
f V.
o.
a* +_b* -
Zab
2ad
(80° < 8 < 100°;
(80° < 8' < 100°)
a* + b2 • e2 .
Zao~
2ao
(85° < 8 < 95°)
(85° < 8' < 95°)
NOTE: values in parentheses are EPA Method 2 specifications.
PROBE THERMOCOUPLE CALIBRATION
o-,
Tolerances
Expected Stack Temperature (Ts)
Mercury Thermometer (Tr
Thermocouple Readout
Probe Identification
Technician
5R (T$ i 105)
'R (
Date
811-2
-------
S-TYPE PITOT GEOMETRIC CALIBRATION
PART 1 - PROBE CONFIGURATION
TRC Probe Identification 3Q(
Technical Specialist
Date
B.
C.(2)
Prob« •
OR
Probe
Revision No. ;
Date December 9,
Page of
P1tot Identification
Center
•
Probe
• •
L
P1tot
Nozzle C
.
t
t a <
") to
4
\
)
/"
'
Probe
Pi tot
X / ^S^
— - — — - / >
Ai
112
n
c
f
Specifications (EPA Method 2)
Ot » 3/16" to 3/8'
Oj • 1/2"
a i 3/4"
Ci3"
4 >r
Pa " Pb
1.05 0 < Pil.50 Dt
L
If these specifications are met, proceed with Part 2 P1tot alignment.
FORM 811-1
-------
u
r
.J51 H M
*:lf£
!Sf *f
S s
U
»>
8
J
If
D"
rl
n
"If
AA
DL
V
*•
V
IN
ff?
N
6d o) ^^
' • * *«
0 "
SL>
J.
CO
TT
-A -O
-C
Ji_
a/
Jb
C?
00
J
r-K
S
00
*•»
5
0
r*
^L
N
y
•^^•_
Ju
V
OB
0
CT
o
*
Jb
!
&
FI
n
•Sir-
PS
met O 9 -a
-I?
K
f
SH
^ifr?
irf ;s i
a -a
X1 * »
If
o*
F.
n'lhM*-
!fr-|
,|.
s
hK
!
-------
nm
Plane
Tear Humor
Orifice No. *DH
Altaic
Location
TO Pro
O"""-.
Tester
Ear. Fnen. 3O.eO
Proo* [dene. Mo-
Fllter [dene.
Mozzlatfa. CObu
AsauMd Moisture _
Tesc Duration
In-
Cftcair
Pitnc ft«-*«^
(00
•in.
.Trawrse- Paine Intern!
rrabe- Heater SectJiar-
Filter Too.
Mater
•in.
i .
Tear Stare Tlae
Tese Final Tla»
Leak Tcsc Stare
teak Teac Final
Af \-
Port
Mln.
vctocicr
IH
cue °?
stack
InlUJ
oe
Ca Saml*
Voluae
01. ft.
Cyc.
An^le
Heater
Box
Teap.
Of Gas
' Leznaf
Conoeruer
'.V
InH,
0),
Id IWH I
•: ISW"
O
U
Will
lUt! I
114.1 I!
I L|o|
Wol I I I I I II I I I
H I I I I 11 III 1 I I
I I 11 111 III i I I
I 111 i II UN I I
I 1111111II ! I I
Hi 111111H 1 I I
MINIMI
Illl HI6111
Illl
I I
1 1
lebl
I I MM
M M II
I Mill
MM
(Mill
I M I M
I I I I I I
M jST M
M M II
hhM-ui&UN-i-
i\hN
-I-
a«
-------
i ::••'
OP
V3
Si
Jfjji]
v
!!
A Jl
o
«i»
iflM
0 B * ^ *•
c-
0
•
I
•A
8 1 D I§ H'S
e c ii 4J P A
IF
&H
Itf
a. ef o •>
1*
i
So
I
Oi
GO
I,
Hi
I
••^^
I
H
r-
JD
••^
fO
00
a
VI
O
4
V
IVJ
rt
£
00
r
SB
00
^^B
m
E
T
"3
TI
OD
0?
S5
TT'
2
ro
v>
co
"0
S
CO
SIS
OO
mm^
>
••^
r*
o
•3
"0
u.-
L^ -
iS
B
8~
H 1-
Iff fj
o o ^ 22
S-H H ^«3
-------
• •. *t v- •. .-
—**9 •: • i • .-«.-• .
FIELD DATA SHEEI
Plant Location
'Tent Nu*ber
Location
TRC Project No
Date £)to'
Tester
VCl_
Probe Ident. No.
Filter Ident.
Duct ATM
ft«
Nozzle No. I Dia.
Assuaed Ibisnire m
Test Duration
\J
Traverse Point Interval,
Probe Heater Setting .
Filter Te»p. Setting
Dry Gas Meter T ^_^^
/ 0
in.
in.
C Factor ^^^^
Pilot Coefficient
Orifice AHt
Test Start Tl»e JQ^l^
Test Final Tim i«.g»l
Leak Test Start O QMt
Leak Test Final O CBM
If "Hi
Port
taint
3MI5I6I7UI9IR
TUe
Min.
Veiocitr
AP
lnH,0
I
tit 131 MUSIlil 19120H25I2IUSI2612712II29I30H32I3313413SMOI«U4?iOUJHSt50IS2l S3
AH
1*11,0
out °F
in 8,0
Stack
°F
Gts Samole
Voline
cu. ft. '
Cyc.
Angle
Heater
. tax
Teap.
Tesip.
of Gas
Leavinf
Condenser
•F
Plop
Vac.
in Hf
Probe
°F
CO,
nnTTn
11
1 hlil I I
I Uek
lill
46
iiMJ
UN hhl I
) I.IBM lJN-Ljarl-1
I ai.o|
|Jto|
•I I hbl I
»HI I I I HI niTl
I hhl. I
' '
v°ll
11
•I hi? I I
I HhUl
J»l I
I J3-»l J"<^
11 I*N I
I I I hq| hhl I |
I I'hls-l
I I
I =>^i\
i lavol
M I M
LLh
I hlil I I
rloli N I
I -w\
I I
\-c.
'I I KM I
+-I I I I-H I -hi I I
I t-M Ul^
I
I - I -
«>
11
I
tUI I I hhl hhl I I
n
ihlsl
i i
M
liLL
Mil I I
I&lukl3l7l
I istl
1 |Z««I
?M I Ink
d-nTT
I I
I I ok I
I
I I hlel
Till
Hnm
Ml
lo I 21| I
I
Ilk
111
lilshl
i i
10
i
LL
I I I I
II
Averafe
$-4SF
^M
LU
H,0 Collected.
SC Condition .
• Orsat Bag Sample o\. 3
Triolicate Analysis.!
| CD, | O, | CO | H, |
-------
FIELD DATA g*=E
Orifice Ha. _
Mbleni Tea?..
Ear. Press. _
'lit
Nozzle No. I Dla.
Assimed Moisture m
Test Duration
in.
LfO
•Location
TTC Project No.
Probe Jdent. No..
Filter Ident. No.
Duct ATM . ol*?
ft*
Tenter.
Traverse Point Interval,
Probe Heater Setting _
Filter Teap.-'Setting m__
Dry Cas Hst'er Y
/ O
•in.
Nomograph
C Factor
Pilot Coefficient _^
Orifice «Hk T
Test Start Ti« \
Test Final Ti»
Leak Test Start Q OM|
Leak Test Final Q OMI
Port
Point
3I4ISI6I7IHI9IK
Tiatt
Mkn.
1
I
Is
It
i|
o|
H
0
o
Sflrf Ifclol
Average
H,0 Collected
SC Condition
SC Meifht
Velocity
•P
in H,0
»N
t
L
]i|i|
jild
>H
ION
$-4Sf
lilil
X2k
^.
out °F
181?,
rSuck
In H]0 •
t| lehl
lt?|t-
I&M
IsM I&KI
IRIJ bM
JsJAI 1 \e\t\ fek
K13I
TStack
°F
•feb
lih
U
ihh
Cas Saeple
Voline
cu. ft.
mi
I3h
No
li?!^
7|o|o
i\L
\hlM I^W^-
ihli
i£>
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
i i
1 IP i
0
P
R
O
B
E
O
zlzL
l^lolSl'Zj "zl
Cyc.
Angle
1
Heater
tSi
"L£f
Tenp.
of Cas
Leaving
Condenser
°F
&r
^7
Vac.
in H|
Y
Y
root
ojp*
'%*>
4*
o,
t
CD,
1
c?H8 ^J 'f U3S"!
a^7> ^*7 f Izs^l
Z.1Z
^-«,
V-
!^?l
Kl i Iz-lYbr'V-fl "*^b •&> 3i IO^B!
1
\9\\
0
1
"HI
*l * Triplicate Analysis. \
va
„
CD,
0, 1 CO H,
1 1 - 1
Cy^«cocA ^*W« • Sr^wtc
^-•^
m.t.i=»fr«:.
v?
i^
-------
V
fa.
W fUGSttf
esc Duration
•in.
.Traven* foiac Interval,
Prooo- Heater SBCTJM-
Filter Too
r
win.
Orige»«H
Tcsc Stare Tla«
L«k.Tcxc Stare
UacTcsc Final
om O '^t.
CZM nit
Fort
Point
3I4ISI6I
TlM
Mln.
Volociqr
tf
laHjO
«H
ijbiiuiiabi
to9?
V
oue °?
lnH.0
oe
11 ithiffi
Voiuxr
cu. £e.
JL*JL*
He*t*r
Box
3tq|3lfll/bH
Is
Te
or Cas
' Leavuf
Conoeuc
Vmc.
InHj
Tem
CO,
v-
3
2JU
1 I It hkl
Id I
II
II if hi/I
I
-Vbral
4?
NU
1 I
17151
i I
I?b1 frtfi
I I
ilk I I
JJULU
Mill
I7KM7IVI
I I I I I I
LU
l i
1 1 i
I I I
to
! 111II I
I I II I!
11
1 1 i
I I I
I I
[III
HIM!
1 1 i
I I
Illlll I
I I I I I I
1 1 i
I I I
I I
I We
11111
1 II
U7l 11
I
I I I I II
1 1 i
I I I
I I
MINI!
11
1 1 i
flTioi
I 171^1 I I I
I I
ao(- .1
Omc
Tricllate Analysis.)
.92
SC
Total
Coilccsca
CD, | Oi
•1
1.-
I CD
1
1
i ^^K
I
1
-------
J35*L9f v £L
Hm
Plant Ueation
SeMllitf,
location
TKC Prvjcc: Mo.
Oatr
Filter Too. Sactint. _
Orr Cas Mtoer r
to
••in.
Utoe CbafEicicBC _
Orifice 4M^ j J
Tctc Stare Tl»a /
Tesc Final Hm /
Leak Teac Stare «Q OH»
Leak Teac Flirt \.Oftf£> GM
tart
3l4ISIftl7IHI9ll(1ll2ll2;i4itSllllt9IZOIIZjl24lz:iZ6l27l28IZSI3aiini23U4l2Sa40tAl|42l43|3l7lolaJ
*
JfeWL
17 h
-7
Hyi^lisld iNtj
lyioi
7
I
1 teftl
irtoi 171^1
,r
i
17101 171*71
i
U77l-
171*71
JL
to 11 n ill i i
i I I
I I
I I I
I I
11 u i 111 • i i
Ml
1 II 1
i M i M
i i
11-11111 III [ I
I I I
I I
I I I I
MINI
I I
"I I! I! 111 iflT
I I 1
I I
I I I I
I II II I
I I
11111111II I I
i I I
I I
MM
N 1111111II I I
II I t » »
I I
I I I
I I
MM
II II I I
I I
IIIH5BJI
1 1
I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I III
I I
JJ_L
I I
MM
I
I I
*»•««•
I I
117191
I I
I/I7I3I
IWM
Total Volxj
Calleetia
Great Bag Saaal«*
Triollaie Analysis.)
-------
REUD Of
7s-
Plane Laotian .J>^Lft«:
Tescftamr
SaMittiif..
Location
TIC
0>»_
Tatar
«*>..
tor. Press. ^
Proo* Uanc. Mo..
Filter tdenc. No.
Mit
..x
Morels Ha. CQU.
Assu*ea Moisture
TescDurxeifln
fcu
C Factor
to
•in.
ft* -~
.Traven* Poiac Interrml,
Probq-Heater SectJar ,
u 5«cdLnc
Mai
10
•in.
Orifice «U.
Tesc Stare Tla«
•i Leak Tesc Stare
teak Tesc Final
am
Pert
rainc
3i4ISI6l7ll>l»H»llZli3;i«U5ilSll9IZOIIZ5IZ4»Z«IZ6IZ7tZ»IZSt20H3ZI23i34IIsa40l4lUZU3|tai4S>SOI5;tS3l
TlM
Mln.
IH
one *F
stack
InlUO
OB
•Cu
. Voli
oi_ ft.
i*
TC
of (Us
' Lemnf
Gonoeuer
'.Vac.
ID H|
PTCO«I
CD,
V
itEjj
Ulhljlll.l^ra
I/id i( id i il JTki
hhl I I I I
hKl hhl Mil
Mlfefr
•Stf
i HhMhbll
'Mill
I
JLML
inoi MM
in? in
r .1 w^iiM i n nisi
1.1 i r
ii
-3
J l€hb[/ld I H
JSJML
Mil
MUZt
I Id.cbiiEn ||
t>K\
Irbl fe-131 MM
r^.
n
i
MM
-3
I I*W I/WI
iM^rii 11
ii
1 1
• mvi
i
ill
W\M3 I H HI
1 1
Mill
i I I
I I
I I
I! M 11!
1 1
Mill
ill
M I I I I I II
I I
I I
111 111II
1 1
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I
111 111II I I I
MM!
Avcng*
i imi i
ill
MM Kl
l
I I
I I I
iw
Collected.
9C Conaltion
SC
Total
3(0
Orsac Bag Samle-
Trioiicate Aralrsis.1
CD* | O, | CD |
-------
j
5
J
u s!
U
til si
; • t
-------
5
. r
N
.9
a
i .
J1?
I • • a •* i! 11
! - r
1*
H.9
!t
H
4
i?
.I1'
B p
ff"
IF
B. H •
«*
9g.
is ? I*
-
J!
H
.M.
.7
^
J)2J^E
)
"U
0s vr
T^T
V> _
rH"^
•
"So
-3
U
to
*s
£s
r^
6
"0
CO
i-
y
as
8
S
I* J
If II
o s •*•
£J* 2
t> 13 U O
aT W W H
-------
rxM
TOWER
I /
.JtfLXNO TZNK |34-fcr CLOCK)
IAMFLIHO LOCATION
tFA MCTIIOO J
OR5AT EQUIPMENT CHECK. MOLECULAR WtJCIIT
DETERMINATION. ANO ANALYSIS VALIDATION
ft-
UHTLZ TTPS IBAC, IKTBCRATIO. COHTIHUOUf)
123
An ORSAT analytic of boiler e*hau*t aaeet It
eon*id«(td valid If the ro calculated fro*
the ORSAT analyelt It vlthln iSt of the Pe
caleglated (tea) (vial analyelt. If fuel analytic
data It net available, the PO ealealated fto»
the ORSAT enalyela mat be vlthln *St of the
average publlahed Pa for a «l»en fuel ae
AVE.
tj» ACCEPTANCE LIMIT!
UMPU MOtSTVU CONTENT
Anthfaelt*
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
•ESTEVMTC
•••ac /
Llfnlt*
Oil
Natural 6aa
Outan*
•ark
1.070
1.140
1.07C
1.344
1.74f
1.510
1.471
1.030
1.05<
.OK •
.003
.011
.171
.434
.401
.Ǥ )j.
1.003 •
•>
•
B>
.134
.117
.130
.413
.Sl<
.313
.103
.10*
•*.'.-'... •". ' /; PRE-TEST ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK
• -•'••' / . '.-' ORSAT cneCKi PRE-TEST LEAK CHECK i
INITIAL
•" * "••' . ACCEPTANCE LIMITi LEAK < 0.1
•*.'•.. * PRE-TEST AMBIENT Oj •
\l
ml 0 »ln.
•1/S «ln. PINAL ' •! 5 "In.
ACCEPTANCE LIMITS OF Oj • 30. C - 11. »
1 . NOLBCULAR HEIGHT DETERMINATION
ICA/X^
1
«3 ' ' •
'co
!•>
1 ' ' "d
i
ACTUAL
READING t
(•1)
*-.8
n'4
r.1
//.J
3
ACTUAL
READING
(•It
•<••>
,7;?
t
t.*
>/,<*l
-------
CFA MCTIIOO J
ORSAT COUirntNT CI1CCX. MOLECULAR WEIGHT
DCTEMHIMATIOM. AIIO ANALYSIS VALIDATION
124
vv,
fcUHBU
TIME (24-hr CUJCX)
AMftlHO tOCATtON .
An ORSAT analyela of boiler eiheuat e,aae* !•
considered valid If the fo calculated fro* • : ;\ :.•!'.;•
the ORSAT analyela 1* within iS» of the fa .-';';.
calculated froa fuel analyela. If fuel analyeis '•'.'.'•
data la not available, the re calculated froei •;-'l^'
the ORSAT analyala miet be within t)« of the '.'iQ
publlahed PO (or a flven fuel a* follow*i r:-.",-.,
SAMPLE Tt« (BA6, IKTtCRATEO, COHTIHUOUSJ
ANTLZ MOISTURE CONTENT
' •• _
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE B °
errex/DATE _
rucL
Anthrtelt*
SSI ACCEPTANCE LIMITS
I
Oil
Natural Caa
Proean*
•ut»n«
•ack
1.070
1.140
1.07<
1.344
1.74*
1.510
1.47t
l.OSO
1.0§4
l.OK - 1.124
1.00) - 1.1*7
1.022 - 1.130
1.27* - 1.41)
1.4)4 • !.$!«
1.40) • 1.551
0.1*75- 1.102
1.00) - 1.10*
.•I -"I.
'.'V •
•;.'. ..'• • . . rU-TCST OKSAT tQOIPHTMT OtCCX
• • ' • . *• *
OMAT CHtCKl me-TSST WAK CMKKi INITIAL •! __0__ •»«.
" ACCtrTAHCt tlMITl UAK < O.J»l/S«l». flMAt •! » •>»».
'. VU-TCST AHSIBNT 0] • %t ACCtrTANCK LIMITS Of Oj - 20.« - 21.2»
•
.,,-,
«,
CO
"2
ACTUAL
MA01NO
Md (100 - %
. •'•••
' HOUCDIAR MEICHT DCTERMINATIOM U
1
,
ACTUAL
HEADING t
•
3
ACTUAL
UAouie %
N,0) » 11 (« IjOl
AVERAGE
0 « *"
/9.?
.•
•
100
rox r-PACTOR CALCULATIONS ALL ORSAT ANALYSES MUST te
AND MUST AGREE HITH EACn OTHER TO WITHIN 0.1«
MULTIPLIER
44/100
12/100
20/100
21/100
MOLECULAR MEICIT OP
STACT GAS . .
"dl
Ib/lb-eole
;
•
E- -
RUN IN TRIPLICATE . ..'
•T VOLUME
POST-TEST ORSAT EOUIPHEKT CHECK
ORSAT CHECK I POST-TEST LtAK CTBCUl INITIAL.^ •* _£_ •'"•
ACCtfTAHCZ LIMIT I l*AK < 0.2 «1/S «ln. riHAL •! > *>in.
POST-TtST AMBICNT Oj - »l ACCEPTAMC8 LIMITS Of Oj • 20. « - 21. 2»
ORSAT AHALTStS VALIDATION
Fuel Analyeta P
1 OMAT Analf«l« f
• •. . • *Ae*«ialne CO eon
20. • (1.91 tC • 1.14 til
• 0.57 \t • 0.14 »N - 0.44 101
0.121 tC 1100)
. **•' * °j • , Acceptane«
.CO,
•enttatlon 1* nefllble (< 1000 pp*t
%
Llalt* are ehown above.
-------
FISW
NsT NUMBER jffi^
4-,
T»C
EFA METHOD I
ORSAT EQUXFHCNT CHECK. MOLECULAR WtlCMT
DETERMINATION. AND ANALYSIS VALIDATION
125
TINE (24-feC
^S ~" '»S
An ORSAT analyala ef boiler eihauat «•••• !•
considered valid if tit* Fe calculated free)
the ORSAT analyala U within iSt of the Fo
calculated fre« fuel analyala. If fuel analyela
th« F0 etleulaod from
the ORSAT analytic >uat be within SSt ef the
p«ibllah*d FA tec a f Ivan fuel aa follow* i
SAMPLE TYPE (BAG, INTEGRATED. CONTINUOUS)
SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
AMBIENT TEMPERATURT £t^
f.
FUEL
Anthracite
Bituainoua
Lignite
Oil
Natural Caa
1
Mck
AXE. F
1.070
.140
.07(
.*749
.110
.479
.050
.054
1S% ACCEPTANCE WHITS
1.01* -
1.011 -
1.022 -
1.279 -
1.442 •
1.414 • 1.514
1.405 - 1.551
0.9975- 1.102
1.001 - 1.109
1.124
1.197
1.110
1.411
1.134
FRE-TEST ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK
ORSAT CHECK i • FRE-TEST LEAK CHECK i .INITIAL _ •! 0 «ll».
" ACCEPTANCE LXMITi LEA* < 0.2 *1/S ailn. FINAL ___ •! 9 «in.
FRE-TEST AMBIENT 0] • ' * \\ ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Of Oj - 20.4 - 21.21
MOLECULAR WEIGHT DETERMINATION
>v mm
GAJ N^
COj
«2
CO
*2
\
ACTUAL
READING
(•1)
f
/7.6
%
1? f
?•&
2
ACTUAL
READING t
(•11
c> u
US'
^J jf
0 * i0
1.*
3
ACTUAL
READING
(•1)
•?
'l7.tr
•
Md (100 - « «jO) » IS (1 1.0)
"« x 100
FOR P-FACTOR CALCULATIONS ALL O
AND MUST AGREE WITH EACI
%
¥k
?.*
AVERAGE
t
tfA
• %£}
"d-
KSAT ANALYSES MUST BE
OTHER TO UITMIN O.lt
KULTIPLXEK
44/100
12/100
20/100
21/100
MOLECULAR HEIGHT OF
STACK GAS
"dl '
Ib/lb-wle
•UN IN TRIPLICATE
BY VOLUME
FOST-TEST
ORSAT CHECK i POST-TEST LEAR CHECK I
ACCEPTAHCZ LIMITt LEAK
POST-TEST AMBIEirr Oj •
ORSAT
INITIAL
< 0.2
_L_».
EQUIPMENT CHECK
•1 0 «llt. •
•1/5 «ln. FINAL •. ml
ACCEPTANCE LIMITS OF 0, .•
.
j. . Bin.
so.*~-^Ji.J» .
ORSAT ANALYSIS VALIDATION
Av«tM«
Fuel An«lTil* f
ORSAT
iMiln^ CO
F -
20.« 11.11 %C * 3.44 %H » 0.57 \t « 0.14
0.121 »C (1001
20.9 - » 0
.
- Q.«4 %0
2 -
% CO.
, Ace*pc*ne* Llaiti
iho»n above.
ft 1000
-------
rue
EPA METHOD J
ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK. MOLECULAR WtlCMT
DETERMINATION. AND ANALYSIS VALIDATION
126
.,«, \|/ptr*^U. / ^ircO
•AMPtlf? TT«« (*«-h* CLOCK! ^J,J_Qfr — /£°^
SAMPLE TYPE (BAG. INTEGRATED. CONTINUOUS) f^C
fiMPLt nei«™»« CONTENT _ ,
/ '
An ORSAT analysis
the ORSAT analysis
calculated I torn fu
1 data Is not avails
the ORSAT analysis
averaqe published
(£. PUEL AV
of boiler eihauat eaiee Is
f the TO calculated ttom
is within U% of the Po
el analysis. If fuel analysis
bis. the Pa calculated fro*
•ust be within *J» of the
Po tor a flven fuel as follows i
V. % S9% ACCEPTANCE LIMITS
% Anthracite 1.070
Bituminous ]
Llanlte
Oil
Natural Gas
Propone
Butane
Wood
•art
1.140
.07C
.)4<
.741
.310
.47*
.090
.09<
l.Olt - 1.124 *
1.01) • 1.197
1.022 - 1.1)0
1.279 - 1.41)
l.«2 - 1.IX
1.4)4 - 1.9K
1.409 - 1.99)
0.9979- 1.102
1.00) - 1.109
PRE-TEST ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK
ORSAT CHECK i PRE-TEST LEAK CHECK I INITIAL •! 0 "ill.
~ ACCEPTANCE LIMITi LEAK < 0.2 »l/9 »ln. FINAL _^__ •! 9 S)i«.
PRE-TEST AMBIENT 0] - %l ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Ot Oj - 20.« - 21.2%
HOLECBLAR WEICIT DETERMINATION
CO,
«2
CO
"2
i
ACTUAL
READING
(•1)
w
/7-Y
•
a»
?-<•
2
ACTUAL
READING
on
g.«
/7-Y
•
f-S
?*>
1
ACTUAL
READING
?••»
/?,<-
•
M. (100 - t K 0) * 11 (\ IjO)
\
9.0
fii* •>
AVERAGE
^7 *v
JI ^^r
V9 f
*
MULTIPLIES
44/100
)2/100
21/100
21/100
CONTRIBOT10N TO DRY
MOLECULAR -EIGHT OP
STACK GAS
"dl
lb/lb-«ole
rM.. •
H« 100 • -a*
POR P-PACTOR CALCULATIONS ALL ORSAT ANALYSES MUST BE RUM IN TRIPLICATE
AND MUST AGREE WITH EACH OTUER TO Mini IN O.)t BY VOLUME
POST-TEST ORSAT EQUI
ORSAT CHECK i POST-TEST LEAK CHECK I INITIAL
ACCEPTANCE LIMITi LEAK « 0.2 «T7l
POST-TEST AMBIENT Oj • , \, ACC
PHCNT CHECK
•1 0 s>ln.
•in. FINAL __^_ mi 9 stln.
EPTANCE LIMITS Of Oj • 20. » - 21.21
ORSAT ANALYSIS VALIDATION
Average Publlehed P •
Puel Analysis P
ORSAT Avtalyeli P «
20.9 C1.91 «C » !.«<
-------
TMC
EPA HCTliOO 1
ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK. MOLECULAR MCICHT
DETERMINATION, AND ANALYSIS VALIDATION
127
rfSM Sklrte, / fcf •»"* £oU.
An ORSAT 1
considered
the ORSAT
it »•*-* calculated
— / b 477 data is no
the ORSAT
avetaqe pu
SAMPLE TTPE {9*4, iirm»A«n. CONTINUOUSt ^ 3tr*/ . . fUtt
/
nalysis o( boiler eihauat fasee la
valid It the fo calculated treat
analysis Is >lthln S5% o( the Fo
(roa fuel analysis. If fuel analysis
t available, the Po calculated Croe>
analysis Bust be within t)t of the
bllahed P0 (or a fiven fuel aa follows i
AVE. F. SSt ACCEPTANCE LIMITS
y
\ Anthracite 1.070
Bltiwlnoua 1.140
Lltnlt* 1.07C
+* /-i OU l'34'
> /V " Natural Gaa 1.741
/ Propane
Butane
HOOd
•art
1.110
1.471
1.050
l.OSi
PRE-TEST ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK
OKSAT CHECK I PRE-TEST LEAK CHECK I INITIAL •! 0 Bin.
l.Olt - 1.124 "
1.013 • 1.1*7
1.022 - .130
1.27* - .413
l.(«3 - .11*
1.434 - .5I«
1.401 - .513
O.»71- .102
1.003 • .10*
I
" ACCEPTANCE LIMITl LEAK < 0.3»l/i»ln. FINAL ml I »ln.
PRE-TEST AMBIENT Oj - \i ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Of Oj • 20.* - 21.2*
N. RUM 1
S. ACTUAL ACTUAL
GAS N. READING % READING
\ (•!) (•!)
"' I..1 ^ 20
lib //.? u,if
CO
«2
M. (100 - \ «.0) » 10 (t • 0)
MOLECULAR WEIGHT DETERMINATION
2 )
ACTUAL AVERAGE
% READING % t
("11
7/° :>.<* 7,3 &,?
//'0» /p.u //.<* //. 7
:
MULTIPLIER
44/100
32/100
20/100
21/100
MOLECULAR WEIGHT Of
STACK CAS
"dl
lb/lb-«ole
M. .TM.. •
u. - 100 - " - "•
FOR P-PACTOR CALCULATIONS ALL ORSAT ANALYSES MUST BE RUN IN TRIPLICATE
AND MUST AGREE WITH EACH OTHER TO WITHIN 0.3t BY VOLUME
POST-TEST ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK
ORSAT_CnECKi POST-TEST LEAK CHECK t INITIAL •! 0 Sin.
ACCEPTANCE LIMITi LEAK « 0.2 s>l/S sin. FINAL ml 5_ s
POST-TEST AMBIEHT 0] • t \i ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Of 0] • 20. « -
iln.
21.21 .
" OKSAT ANALYSIS VALIOATIOM
Avecaee Published P - ^___^____^^_
Fuel Analyele F m 20.* (H3 1C » I.t4
-------
128
APPENDIX B
-------
EPA HCT1IOO )
OMSAT EOOIPWNT C1ICCK. MOUECUUAR WEIGHT
DETERMINATION. AIIO ANALYSIS VALIDATION
129 • v;
,«. Oh.'0-n / /<£*TC-
n*9 MMBEft JL/3— ' ' ^l ' ' '"-'C-:" <*
^^^^
WtllM TIME 114-hr CLOCK!
:AMPLIN6 LOCATION
IAMPLB TTPE (BAG, INTEGRATED, CONTINUOI
UM»LK MOISTUU CONTENT
" 4? A *" ^.
UtMIEMT TIMPERATUU O 0 /~
•ESTER/HATE 1T£ ^ . ^It^f^f.
• • - • ^ • \__
jQ^4\j/_.l '^*) OoOC'^vv'^"*"*
\ *.' ORSAT CHECK 1 PME-TE3T
An ORSAT analyeia of boiler eihauet faee* la ' , ..--
coneldered
V^ the ORSAT
calculated
data If no
the ORSAT
avecaqe pu
JS) f"^ fl FUEL
I
valid If the re calculated fro* ;•< :.iV
analyilt !• within tS» of the fo , '•'.'.
fto« fuel analyele. If fuel analyel* '• •'
t available, the Po calculated fro* ..'•'[.',
analyal* auet be vlthln *)« of the V^i
bllahed ro for * flven fuel ae follovai ;:•",.
AVt. P. tit ACCEPTANCE LIMITS '••
t Anthracite 1.070
LUMir"
.140
.074
Oil .)4«
Natural Ga« .74*
I f i -, V Butane
' Bart
f RE-TEST OMSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK
LEAK CHECK 1 INITIAL •! 0 -In
.510
.47*
.010
.os«
1.01C - 1.124 /(^
1.0*3 - 1.1*7 • V
1.012 - 1.110 • :.' ;
1.27* - 1.41) • ' '•'',.•''
1.441 - 1.134 . "
1.4)4 - 1.544
1.401 - 1.S13 .
O.M7S- 1.103 • '••
1.003 - 1.10) ':
i •
' ••:«. — • ACCEPTAllCE LIMITi UUUt < 0.]*l/}-ln. FINAL _____ •!_____ e>ln.
'.' PRE-TEST AMBIENT Oj • tt ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Of Oj • 10. « - 21. It
.
Xj
ACTUAL ACTUAL
READING t READING
-J,
°» ' 6,2. 6,7- C..S
CO
"2
H^ (100 - t HjOJ * 10 (t BjOl
MOLECULAR HEIGNT DETERMINATION
2 )
ACTUAL AVERAGE
t READING t t
(0.5 (,.2.
-------
TRC
EPA METHOD ]
ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK. MOLECULAR WEIGHT
DETERMINATION. AMD ANALYSIS VALIDATION
130
PX7JM
-.
SAMPLING TIME (24-hC CLOCK)
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLE TTPE (SAC, XNTCCRATEO. CONTINUOUS)
SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
TESTED/BATE
An ORSAT analyeia of beittr exhauat e.aeee la
conaldeted valid U the re calculated ftea
the ORSAT analyeia la within *S« oC the ro
calculated Icon fuel analyale. If fuel •nilyctt
data !• net available, the ro ealeulattd frea
tha ORSAT analyata mat ba within tjt e< th«
avaraqa publl«h«d TQ (or a flvan (ual aa (ellewai
rvcL
Anthtaetta
Bltuatnoua
Llqnlta
Oil
Natural Gaa
Propane
•utana
SSI ACCEPTAMCe LIMITS
••rk
1.070
1.140
l.OTC
l.)4(
1.70
1.S10
1.471
1.050
l.OJ*
.OK •
.013 •
.022
.27)
.434
.403
.))7S
.003
• 1.124
• 1.1)7
1.130
1.413
l.SM
1.3S3
1.103
1.10)
PU-TEST ORS
ORSAT CHECK I PRE-TEST LEAK CHECK* INIT
ACCEPTANCE LXMXTi LEAK <
PRE-TEST AMBIEMT 0] • ___
AT EQUIPMENT OIECX
[AL •! 0 *in
•
•
0.2 aU/S »ln. FINAL ____ •! 5 »ln.
tl ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Of 0] • 20. ( - 21. 2»
•
MLECT7LAR ME X CUT OETERM I NATION
\*0»
"' \
CO,
«2
CO
"2
",!
1
ACTUAL
READING «
//«?
"•?
7
ACTUAL
READING t
12.0
//•?
1
ACTUAL
READING
11,0,
(100 • t H,0) » 11 (t IjO)
100
POM r-rACTOR CALCULATIONS ALL 0
AND MUST AGREE WITH EACI
«
".-7
AVT RAGE
«
//.9
\-
RSAT ANALYSES MUST BE
OTMER TO WITHIN 0.3*
MULTIPLIER
44/100
12/100
21/100
21/100
MOLECULAR WEIGHT OP
STACK CAS
"dl
lb/lb-«>la
[!MJ1 *
RUN IN TRIPLICATE
BY VOLUME
POST-TEST ORSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK
•
ORSAT CHECK I POST-TEST LEAR CHECK i INITIAL •! 0 «ln.
ACCEPTANCE LIMIT 1 LEAK* 0.7-l/iBln. FINAL ml
POST-TEST AMSIEMT 02 • tl ACCEPTANCE LIMITS OP Oj •
5 min.
20. ( - 21.2*
ORSAT ANALYSIS VALIDATION
A»«c*a« Put>llah«4 P
Pual Analyala f
20.
%H
. 0.4t
0.321 «C (1001
• 70.) • » 0.
ORSAT Analyala P • 1 • ________
tco,
•Aaaualne CO cenc*
-------
km nfiiioo j
OftSAT EQUIPMENT CHECK. MOLtCULAR WEIGHT
OCTEMINATION. AMD ANALYSIS VALIDATION
131 • o
•«-> MIME- Gp«5k ' \Siu\rV if- vcx.nrici'vloi^
t-LTIM TIME 124-hr CLOCK 1
SAMPLING LOCATION
•.AMPLE TTPE (BAC. XKTECMATEO. CONTINUOUS) Ro«i
/
:AMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
I ..->__
UUIBIT TEMPERATUU OO >—
;ESTZJI/BATZ ** C- «£/lcM?><»
1 -.. ' ,
• Wl ^ •—
contldered valid If the r«
\ the ORSAT analyeli la with
calculated
data If IM
the ORSAT
a*eca«« pi
FUEL
% Anthraett
IBltualnou
Llenite
Oil
Natural &
--telZ"
B.rk
fro* fuel analy
it available, the
analytlt nuet b«
ibllahed ro tot 4
»vt. ra
l 1.070
i 1.140
1.07C
>* 1.749
1.510
1.479
l.OSO
l.Olf
."•'••.. . • PRE-TEST OKSAT EQUirMZNT CHECK
ORSAT CHECK) PRE-TEST LEAR CHECK 1 INITIAL •! 0 -In.
calculated froo ;-. '.j s 61
b» 6 L
*
"* 100
rOH f-fACTOR CAICULATIONS ALL ORSAT ANALYSES MUST BE
AMD MUST AGREE MITH EACH OTUEft TO NITHIN 0.)%
, POST-TEST ORSAT
ORSAT CHECK i POST-TEST LEAR CHECK i INITIAL
ACCEPTANCE LIMITl LEAR < 0.2
POST-TEST AMBIENT Oj - %l
MULTIPLIER
44/100
12/100
21/100
20/100
1- •
j
MOLECULAR NEICIT Or
ITACK CAS .
"dl
, *
RUN IN TRIPLICATE ,',,
BV VOLUME ...
EOUIPMENT CHECK
•1 0 «tn.
• 1/5 «ln. FIHAL ml __J__ I
ACCEPTAIICE LIMITS QT 0, - 20.4 -
• in.
21. 2t
- OMAT AMALTStS VALIDATION
• Average Pwbliehed T -
r««l An.lyete r 20.9 tl.i) *C * ).« \H » 0.
" ~ 0.)J1 »C
• 20.9 -«0.
• OUAT Analveia P . • 1 -
-
• •A*au«lnf CO concentration ie nee.ilble |< 1000 pt>
J7 tS « 0.14 »N -
11001
, Acceptance
-)
O.««__0_
Llatta ate *no«n above.
-------
-------
c CGI ' CHART NO. RM3-02-25-15M
-------
-------
CHART NO..RM3-O2-2S-15M
-------
-------
0
fl
I
1
t
001
08
0/L
0€
OZ
01
01
0
o.e
I
09
OL
06
V
-------
.V1
09
-o-r
138
t
w
E;?
i
k°
rCM
-fV-
3±
bsi
CO
S:
LO
K
*
±1
" e> I
±1
^-
T
-------
139
-------
•5.-.- OVI
I I I I I I I I I I I
-------
CHART NO. RM3-oj.2i.,5M
^-"-
-------
142
-------
-------
(66091
WSI-SZ-20-CWJJ 'ON
144
-------
-------
CHART NO. RM3-02-25-15M
I % % % t
-------
I I
-------
111111111 1111111111111111 I
WSI-S2-20-CW5J ON
148
-------
-------
CHART NO. RM3-02-25-15M
-------
151
-------
ZSI
CHART NO. RM3-02-25-15M
-------
CO
in
CO
o
•o
01
0
09
09
0
»
-------
x r
- r t
SOLTHC
-------
-------
-------
1
-------
-------
09T CHART NO Rf/,3-02-25-'5Vi
BOW
-------
<0
-------
I I I I I I I
-------
7ii• i • i
•.•7'-?:-::•:••-a CM
164
-------
If
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
I
0
-r!
100
40
50
60
70
80
90
Ui
-------
in
n
vO
SO
GUI
09
O/.
0(9
oe
01
0
OS
09
o/.
06
; i
I I
»
\
i , i i
-------
I 11 I I I I I I I I I
167
-------
168
-------
I 1111 111 I 11
169 -"'
-------
i I I I I I i I I I i I i
.3-20-CWJJ CN
OS-TICS
170
-------
-----'171-
Ifi
-------
01
s
i
t
-3--1
-»
S
V
*Jfy\>
-V
en
tn
in
_v^
«•
00
10
c:=Zaa:
i C3 ^_*H
SOUTEC
-o-i-o-
o
CHART
-------
-------
SOLTEC
-------
175
-O-i-O
-------
D3JT10S
176
-------
-------
SLl
50LTEC
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------
179 CD3J-
------- |