PILOT-SCALE INCINERATION OF CONTAMINATED
SOIL FROM THE CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE
CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE
By
A. Siag, D. J. Fournier, Jr., and L. R. WaterTand
Acurex Environmental Corporation
Incineration Research Facility
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
EPA Contract No. 68-C9-0038
Work Assignment 2-1
EPA Project Officer: R. C. Thurnau
Technical Task Manager: H. 0. Wall
Waste Minimization, Destruction, and Disposal Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-C9-0038 to Acurex Environmental
Corporation. It has-been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has
been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trace names of commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
u
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices
frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with,
can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources.
Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define
our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and
managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible, engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA
with respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous
wastes, and Superfund-related activities. This publication is one of the products of that research
and provides a vital communications link between the researcher and the user community.
This report describes a series of tests conducted at the EPA's Incineration Research
Facility to evaluate the incinerability of pesticide- and toxic-trace-metals-contaminated soil from
the Chemical Insecticide Corporation Harbor Superfund site. The evaluation focused on the
ability of rotary kiln incineration to achieve effective destruction of the pesticide contaminants,
and on the fate of the contaminant trace rnetals. Specific attention was paid to evaluating
whether a conventional rotary kiln incinerator equipped with a state-of-the-art air pollution
control system could achieve 99.96 percent removal efficiency of the arsenic contaminant.
For further information, please contact the Waste Minimization, Destruction and Disposal
Research Division of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
A detailed test program was performed at the EPA's Incineration Research Facility
(IRF) to define the incineration characteristics of contaminated soil from the Chemical
Insecticide Corporation (CIC) Superfund site, in Edison Township, New Jersey. The soils at the
site are highly contaminated by organochlorine pesticides and trace metals. The major metal
contaminant is arsenic, present in site soils at levels up to 8,000 mg/kg. The purpose of these
tests was to evaluate the incinerability of these soils in terms of the destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) for organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and p,p'-DDT), the fate of arsenic in
terms of the system removal efficiency (RE), and the fate of other contaminant trace metals.
The test program consisted of a set of four incineration tests in the IRF rotary kiln incineration
system (RKS), equipped with a high-efficiency scrubber system consisting of a Calvert Flux
Force/Condensation scrubber. In three of the four tests, soil alone was fed to the kiln of the
RKS. In the fourth test, lime, in the ratio of 0.5 kg of lime to 10 kg of soil, was blended with
the soil to evaluate whether arsenic RE was affected. All tests were performed at a kiln exit gas
temperature of approximately 982°C (1,800°F) and an afterburner exit gas temperature of
1,204°C (2,200°F). The Calvert scrubber was operated at a pressure drop of approximately
12 kPa (50 in WC).
Test results show that incineration under the conditions tested resulted in the
elimination of the soil pesticide contaminants. No pesticide contaminants were present in the
scrubber exit flue gas, with corresponding DREs of at least 99.9916 percent for p,p'-DDT.
Arsenic REs of 99.99 percent can be achieved with the Calvert scrubber under the conditions
tested feeding soil alone. Adding lime to the soil did not measurably improve arsenic RE. Trace
metal concentrations in the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) leachates of both
untreated soil and kiln ash (treated soil) were significantly below corresponding TC regulatory
levels for all metals except arsenic. Soil leachate arsenic concentrations were 40 to 50 percent
of the regulatory level. Kiln ash leachate arsenic concentrations were near or above arsenic's
TC regulatory level. Adding lime to the soil significantly reduced both the soil and the resulting
kiln ash TCLP leachate arsenic concentrations. Nominally 70 percent of the arsenic measured
in the incinerator discharges was in the kiln ash in all of the tests in which soil alone was fed;
about 30 percent was accounted for in the scrubber liquor. The kiln ash arsenic fraction
increased to about 90 percent in the test in which lime was added to the soil; about 10 percent
of the arsenic measured was in the scrubber liquor in this test. Scrubber exit flue gas accounted
for a negligible fraction of the arsenic discharged in all tests. Particulate levels at the Calvert
scrubber exit were nominally 10 to 20 mg/dscm at 7 percent O2, well below the hazardous waste
incinerator performance standard of 180 mg/dscm at 7 percent O2. Calvert scrubber apparent
HC1 collection efficiencies were 99.95 percent or greater, above the hazardous waste incinerator
performance standard of 99.9 percent.
IV
-------
Test results suggest that conventional rotary kiln incineration in a unit equipped with
a high-efficiency scrubber system such as the Calvert system tested would be an appropriate
treatment technology for site soils, because elimination of the contaminant organochlorine
pesticides and greater than 99.99-percent organic contaminant DREs were achieved; arsenic REs
of greater than 99.96 percent were achieved; and the hazardous waste incinerator particulate and
HC1 performance standards were easily achieved. The treated soil may be a TC hazardous waste
for soils with arsenic concentrations in the range of those of the soil tested. However, adding
lime to the soil prior to incineration can significantly reduce the teachability of the kiln ash
arsenic in the TCLP test.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract 68-C9-0038 by Acurex
Environmental Corporation under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The report covers work conducted from July 1991 through April 1992.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page.
DISCLAIMER ... . ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES «.
TABLES x
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 FACILITY DESCRIPTION, WASTE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, AND
TEST CONDITIONS 3
2.1 TEST EQUIPMENT .:...... 3
- 2.1.1 Incinerator Characteristics 3
2.1.2 Air Pollution Control System 3
2.2 TEST SOIL DESCRIPTION 6
2.3 TEST CONDITIONS : . 10
3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 17
3.1 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 17
3.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 21
4 TEST RESULTS 25
4.1 PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS RESULTS 25
4.2 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES ANALYSIS
RESULTS 25
4.3 ARSENIC AND OTHER TRACE METAL
DISTRIBUTIONS • • 30
4.3.1 Arsenic Removal Efficiency • 31
4.3.2 Test Sample Trace Metals Concentrations 31
4.3.3 Discharge Distributions 35
vu
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
4.4 PARTICULATE AND HC1 EMISSION DATA . 38
4.4.1 Particulate load 38
4.4.2 HC1 Emissions 39
5 CONCLUSIONS 41
6 QUALITY ASSURANCE 45
6.1 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE CONSTITUENT
ANALYSES 46
6.2 TRACE METAL ANALYSES (MERCURY EXCLUDED) 50
6.3 MERCURY ANALYSES 59
6.4 CHLORIDE ANALYSES 63
REFERENCES 67
APPENDIX A—INCINERATOR OPERATING DATA 68
APPENDIX A-1-CONTROL ROOM DATA ' 69
APPENDIX A-2-GAS TRAIN DATA 78
APPENDIX A-3-AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM DATA
INCLUDING CALVERT SYSTEM OPERATING
DATA 87
APPENDIX A-4-CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITOR DATA 92
APPENDIX B-OPERATING DATA PLOTS 97
APPENDIX B-l-KILN AND AFTERBURNER OPERATION . . 98
APPENDIX B-2-SCRUBBER EXIT AND STACK CONTINUOUS
EMISSION MONITORS 103
APPENDIX C-^LABORATORY ANALYSIS DATA 108
APPENDIX C-1-PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSES 113
APPENDIX C-2—TRACE METAL ANALYSES 117
APPENDIX C-3-ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
ANALYSES 143
APPENDIX C-4-CHLORIDE ANALYSES 154
APPENDIX D-SAMPLING TRAIN WORKSHEETS 156
APPENDIX D-1-METHOD 108 TRAIN WORKSHEETS 157
APPENDIX D-2-METHOD 0010 TRAIN WORKSHEETS 166
APPENDIX D-3-METHOD 5 TRAIN WORKSHEETS ... 171
vui
-------
FIGURES
Number , Page
<&._ •*#' . "M-. .fc
1 Schematic of the IRF rotary kiln incineration system 4
2 Schematic of the Calvert scrubber system 7
3 Sampling matrix 18
IX
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Design characteristics of the IRF rotary kiln incineration system 5
2 Soil characterization and TCLP leachate sample analysis results 9
3 Proximate analysis results 10
4 Target incinerator test and operating conditions 11
5 Actual versus target operating conditions 12
6 Kiln operating conditions 13
7 Afterburner operating conditions 14
8 APCS operating conditions 15
9 CEM data 16
10 Sampling and analysis matrix summary . 19
11 CEMs used in the tests 22
12 Summary of test samples 23
13 Proximate and ultimate analysis results for the composite soil feed
sample 26
14 Soil feed and ash collected 26
15 Organochlorine pesticide analysis results 27
16 Organochlorine pesticide decontamination effectiveness 29
17 , Organochlorine pesticide DREs 30
18 Arsenic removal efficiencies 32
19 Trace metals analysis results 33
20 TCLP leachable trace metal contents 34
21 Trace metal distributions 36
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number . ,. . Page
22 Arsenic distributions 36
23 Normalized arsenic distributions . 37
24 Flue gas particulate levels 39
25 Flue gas HC1 levels . . . 40
26 Organochlorine pesticide sample hold times 47
27 Organochlorine pesticide sample hold times for TCLP leachate samples 48
28 Organochlorine pesticide measurement DQLs 48
29 Organochlorine pesticide PQLs: objectives and achieved 49
30 Organochlorine pesticide recoveries from matrix spike samples 49
31 Trace metal sample hold times 51
32 Trace metal hold times for TCLP leachate samples 53
33 Trace metal analyses of blank samples 53
34 Trace metal measurement DQOs 54
35 Trace metal measurement PQLs: objectives and achieved 55
36 Metals analysis precision 56
37 Metals spike recoveries from matrix spike samples 60
38 Mercury sample hold times 61
39 Mercury measurement DQOs 62
40 Mercury measurement PQLs: objectives and ^achieved ............. 63
41 Mercury duplicate analysis and spike recovery results 64
42 HC1 measurement DQOs 66
XI
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
One of the primary missions of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Incineration Research Facility (IRF) is to support Regional Offices in evaluations of the
potential of incineration as a treatment option for contaminated soils at Superfund sites. One
priority site is the Chemical Insecticide Corporation (CIC) site, in Edison Township, New Jersey.
EPA Region 2 requested that test burns be conducted at the IRF to support an evaluation of
the suitability of incineration as a treatment technology for the contaminated soils at the CIC
site. Region 2 was specifically interested in whether flue gas emissions of arsenic could be
limited to less than 0.04 percent of the amount of arsenic in the highly arsenic-contaminated site
soil fed to the incinerator.
The CIC site was formerly used to manufacture pesticide products. The results of the
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) show that the soils at the site are highly
contaminated by organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin) has also been found at concentrations up to 1.8 jig/kg (ppb) in some soil samples
collected during the RI/FS. Thermal treatment has previously been demonstrated to be an
effective means of destroying pesticides, dioxin, and other organic compounds. The finding of
high concentrations of arsenic in the soils at the CIC site has raised the question of whether a
thermal treatment unit treating soil from the site, and operating under conditions capable of
attaining a 99.9999-percent destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for dioxin and a 99.99-
percent DRE for other organic contaminants, can also reduce arsenic concentrations to
acceptable levels in the stack emissions. Therefore, this incineration test program focused on
the ability of an incineration system to control the arsenic emissions to levels acceptable to the
EPA, while operating at incineration conditions sufficient to destroy dioxin and other organic
materials to the prescribed DRE.
The test program was designed to develop the data to support feasibility study (FS)
efforts in evaluating incineration as a possible remedial alternative. The specific objectives of
the test program were:
• To maintain critical operating parameters in the effective range associated with
a dioxin DRE of 99.9999 percent while minimizing arsenic air emissions
• To determine whether the incinerator can attain a 99.96-percent removal
efficiency (RE) for arsenic, where RE is defined as:
-------
RE = 100 fl - flue 80S emissi°n mte\
^ feedrate )
• To determine the characteristics and arsenic content (at a minimum) of all
effluent streams resulting from the thermal treatment process based on the test
equipment employed
• To serve as a model for determining important operating parameters to be used
for projecting comparable full-scale performance and operational costs
A series of four incineration tests was performed, using the IRF's rotary kiln
incineration system (RKS). Throughout the tests, the incinerator operating conditions were held
constant. The kiln exit gas temperature was held at an average of approximately 982°C
( 1,800 °F), while the afterburner exit gas temperature was held at an average of approximately
1,204°C (2,200°F). In three of the tests, raw soil alone was packaged into 1.5-gal fiberpacks and
fed to the RKS kiln via the system's ram feeder. In the fourth test, raw soil was mixed with lime,
at a blend ratio of 0.5 kg of lime per 10 kg of soil, before being packaged.
This report discusses the results of the test program. Section 2 describes the IRF's RKS,
equipped with the Calvert scrubber system, in which the tests were performed; the composition
of the soil incinerated in the tests; and the test incinerator operating conditions. Section 3
discusses the sampling and analysis procedures employed during the tests. Section 4 presents
the test results. Section 5 discusses test program conclusions. Finally, Section 6 discusses the
quality assurance (QA) aspects of the test program. The appendices provide the complete test
program backup data.
-------
SECTION 2
FACILITY DESCRIPTION, WASTE SOIL
CHARACTERISTICS, AND TEST CONDITIONS
The IRF's RKS, equipped with a high-efficiency paniculate wet scrubber system, was
used in this test program. A description of the system is presented in Section 2.1. Section 2.2
describes characteristics of the tested soil. The test matrix and incinerator operating conditions
are discussed in Section 2.3.
2.1 TEST EQUIPMENT
All tests in this test program were performed in the IRF RKS. A schematic of the RKS
is provided in Figure 1; the design characteristics of the system are summarized in Table 1. As
shown, the RKS consists of a rotary kiln primary combustor followed by an afterburner chamber.
Downstream of the afterburner, the combustion gas is quenched, then the gas flows through a
primary air pollution control system (APCS). For this test program, a high-efficiency particulate
wet scrubber system, consisting of the Calvert Flux Force/Condensation scrubber pilot plant, was
used. The flue gas then passes through a secondary APCS consisting of a carbon bed absorber
and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. The treated flue gas is then discharged to
the atmosphere via an induced-draft (ID) fan and the stack.
2.1.1 Incinerator Characteristics
The rotary kiln combustion chamber has an inside diameter of 1.04 m (40.75 in) and is
2.26 m (7 ft 5 in) long. The chamber is lined with refractory formed into a frustroconical shape
to an average thickness of 18.7 cm (7.375 in). The refractory is encased in a 0.95-cm (0.375-in)
thick steel shell. Total volume of the kiln chamber, including the transition section, is 1.90 m
(67.2 ft3). Four steel rollers support the kiln barrel. A variable-speed DC motor, coupled to a
reducing gear transmission, turns the kiln. Rotation speed can be varied from 0.2 to 1.5 rpm.
The afterburner chamber has a 0.91-m (3-ft) inside diameter, and is 3.05 m (10 ft) long.
The afterburner chamber wall is constructed of a 15.2-cm (6-in) thick layer of refractory encased
in a 0.63-cm (0.25-in) thick steel shell. The volume of the afterburner chamber is 1.8 m3
(63.6ft3).
2.1.2 Air Pollution Control System
For this test program, the APCS was a high-efficiency scrubber system consisting of a
condenser/absorber section, a Calvert Collision scrubber and entrainment separator, a wet
electrostatic precipitator (designed to provide the final stage of particulate removal), a caustic
-------
16-631 QS3
tn
>>
t/5
I
*J
2
41
2
o
^w
*•«
a
|
u
2J
ZO-JUL
-------
TABLE 1. DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IRF ROTARY KILN INCINERATION
SYSTEM • ' .
Characteristics of the Kiln Main Chamber
Length 2.26 m (7 ft-5 inj' ^ '"' '
Diameter, outside 1.37 m (4 ft-6 in)
Diameter, inside Nominal 1.04 m (3 ft-4.75 in)
Chamber volume 1.90 m3 (67.2 ft3)
Construction 0.95 cm (0.375 in) thick cold-rolled steel
Refractory 18.7 cm (7.375 in) thick high alumina castable refractory, variable depth to produce
a frustroconical effect for moving solids
Rotation Clockwise or counterclockwise, 0.2 to 1.5 rpm
Solids retention time 1 hr (at 0.2 rpm)
Burner North American burner rated at 800 kW (2.7 MMBtu/hr) with liquid feed
capability
Primary fuel Natural gas
Feed system:
Liquids Positive displacement pump via water-cooled lance
Sludges Moyno pump via front face, water-cooled lance
Solids Metered twin-auger screw feeder or fiberpack ram feeder
Temperature (max) 1,010°C (1,850°F)
Characteristics of the Afterburner Chamber
Length 3.05 m (10 ft)
Diameter, outside 1.22 m (4 ft)
Diameter, inside 0.91 m (3 ft)
Chamber volume 1.80 m3 (63.6 ft3)
Construction ' 0.63 cm (0.25 in) thick cold-rolled steel
Refractory 15.2 cm (6 in) thick high alumina castable refractory
Gas residence time 0.8 to 2.5 s depending on temperature and excess air
Burner North American Burner rated at 800 kW (2.7 MMBtu/hr) with liquid feed
capability
Primary fuel Natural gas
Temperature (max) 1,204°C (2,200°F>
Characteristics of the Ionizing Wet Scrubber APCS
System capacity, 85 m3/min (3,000 acfm) at 78°C (172°F) and 101 kPa (14.7 psia)
inlet gas flow
Pressure drop 1.5 kPa (6 in WC)
Liquid flow 230 L/min (60 gpm) at 345 kPa (50 psig)
pH control Feedback control by NaOH solution addition
Characteristics of the Venturi/Packed-Column Scrubber APCS
System capacity, . 107 m^/min (3,773 acfm) at 1,204°C (2,200°F) and 101 kPa (14.7 psia)
inlet gas flow
Pressure Drop
Venturi scrubber 7.5 kPa (30 in WC)
Packed column 1.0 kPa (4 in WC)
Liquid flow
Venturi scrubber 77.2 L/min (20.4 gpm) at 60 kPa (10 psig)
Packed column 116 L/min (30.6 gpm) at 69 kPa (10 psig)
pH control Feedback control by NaOH solution addition
-------
injection system, and an ID fan. Figure 2 is diagram of the scrubber system. The quench
chamber and cooling tower usually installed with the Calvert pilot unit were not used in these
tests; the IRF RKS quench chamber and heat exchanger systems were used instead. The Calvert
scrubber liquor was recirculated through the facility heat exchanger for scrubber liquor cooling.
The key operating parameter of the scrubber system, pressure drop, was maintained at 12 kPa
(50 in of water column [in WC]). This was the operating pressure drop recommended by Calvert
Environmental, the scrubber's vendor. Pressure drop was controlled by a variable-speed drive
on the ID fan.
At the exit of the Calvert scrubber, a demister removes the bulk of the suspended liquid
droplets. In a typical commercial incinerator system, the flue gas would be vented to the
atmosphere, downstream of this unit. However, at the IRF, a backup APCS is in place to further
clean up the flue gas. The flue gas exiting the demister is passed through a bed of activated
carbon, to allow the vapor-phase organic compounds to be adsorbed. A set of HEPA filters
designed to remove suspended particulate from the flue gas is located downstream of the carbon
bed.
22 TEST SOIL DESCRIPTION
The CIC site was formerly used to manufacture a variety of pesticides for commercial
and military applications. The CIC product list included a wide range of insecticides, fungicides,
rodenticides, and herbicides. One specific product was 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4,5-T), which might have contained dioxin as a byproduct.
Pesticide manufacturing activities, with associated process-water storage lagoons, and
poor housekeeping, led to the widespread chemical contamination of this site. Samples from the
site were collected for analysis as part of the RI/FS. Analytical results for these samples indicate
that the major site contaminants are pesticides and trace metals.
For pesticide constituents, the analytical results indicate that the following contaminants
were detected at elevated levels in soil samples:
• p,p'-DDT, at up to 6,900 mg/kg
• p,p'-DDD, at up to 2,200 mg/kg
• p,p'-DDE, at up to 122 mg/kg
• a-BHC, at up to 45,000 mg/kg
• y-BHC (Lindane), at up to 23,000 mg/kg
• Chlordane, at up to 61 mg/kg
For herbicide and dioxin/furan constituents, the analytical results indicate that the
following contaminants were detected at elevated levels in soil samples:
• 2,4-D, at up to 2.5 mg/kg
-------
L6-LSLQS3
O)
•c
>
"a
U
O
u
cn
o
i
££
£"
cc
XCHANGE
LU
.1
TO
QUENCH
CO
•^
TO
.OWDO\M
m
1
STORAGE
VJ
^
1
-------
• 2,4,5-T, at up to 3.3 mg/kg
• Silvex, at up to 3.1 mg/kg
Dioxin data indicate maximum concentrations of 7.3 /xg/kg for total tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) and 1.8 jig/kg for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD isomer.
For inorganic constituents, the analytical results indicate that the following contaminants
were detected at elevated levels in soil samples:
• Arsenic, at up to 8,010 mg/kg
• Cadmium, at up to 177 mg/kg
• Chromium, at up to 196 mg/kg
• Lead, at up to 1,980 mg/kg
• Mercury, at up to 72 mg/kg
• Zinc, at up to 1,040 mg/kg
Four drums of soil were excavated from the CIC site in February 1991 for use in this
test program. Composite characterization samples were taken for pretest analysis. Each sample
was analyzed for eight toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) trace metals; for
antimony, beryllium, and thallium; and for the organochlorine pesticides and chlorinated
herbicides noted above as being site contaminants. In addition, TCLP leachates of each sample
were prepared and analyzed for trace metals and organochlorine pesticides. The results of these
analyses are tabulated in Table 2. The table also shows that soil with an arsenic content of about
900 mg/kg was available for testing. This same soil was also contaminated with an average of
2 mg/kg of p,p'-DDD; 3 mg/kg of p,p'-DDE; 26 mg/kg of p,p'-DDT; and 9 mg/kg of chlordane.
Despite having arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead contamination levels of several tens
to over 1,000 mg/kg, the soils were not toxicity characteristic (TC) hazardous wastes based on
the TCLP leachate analysis results, which are also summarized in Table 2. In addition, there was
no indication that the site soils were contaminated with listed hazardous wastes. Therefore, the
test soils were considered solid, not hazardous, wastes, and therefore not subject to regulation
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Toxic Substances Control
Act(TSCA).
A composite of the four characterization samples received was also subjected to
proximate (ash, moisture, and heating value) analysis, the results of which are given in Table 3.
Prior to testing, the test soil was packaged into 1.5-gal plastic-bag-lined fiberpack
containers for feeding to the RKS via the ram feeder in place on the system. Each fiberpack. was
-------
H
5
p
cc
Cfi
55
?^*
k4
SS
a
cu
s§
IS
1
a
u
H
a
z
"^
2
0
S
N
S
1
CM
•^
fcW
U
O
Cfl
ci
Cd
i-J
CQ
S
Is
E
e1
_o
1
1
S
B
•S
a
o
(J
ep
~SZ
a
1
1
c
v
"5.
S
"o
2 "*^
"3 -r
JJ _g
„
E
Q
«
E
Q
ts
E
u
Q
-i
E
Q
1
•<
E
a
<^
E
Li
a
N
E
9
Q
*•*
g
Q
s
5
IS
B
a
Vl- :i'"' '*'•' -'.':•
"i - 1 i - - - 2 - - i i 5 i i i 1
1-H OO ^D TH 1—1 IO t£ OO T™( ^p <^t (***3 <^1 f~> v~(
o'l-ioo'o'o'ooo'o'o' o'o'o'o'oo
V VV ^ VVVVVV
10
oioSSSoSSoo ssssis
oi- . o o o" o o o
VVV< VVVVVV
R * 3 2 2
C-lONlOO co52 ooco
rt^-rSoci^ior^VvJS VVmTfSr^
2
i i
g • . -3
B* ^Q
e 1
- £ 1 ^ o ^
*o.i>sJl|-frf liuuQoSj S
a> **s 2o *c £r* *oSrt *"? ^>'c3 S S S •*' *'1 **' ™ • *^ >
SQ^JS W ^ COJ2 U>S'W^3*^ Mil ^T^R?-^ •£ ^ "^ H3
S CQ03 J coon o8<-a.o-o. g ^ «M co
•8
.•§
J5
2
«
T3
_§
|
1-g
H^
*3 e
P S
H o
ii
<£
J^
-------
TABLE 3. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Ash content 87%
Moisture content 13%
Heating value Will not burn
pH 6/1
filled with 4.5 kg (10 Ib) of soil, its plastic bag was secured with a wire tie, then the fiberpack's
lid was secured.
23 TEST CONDITIONS
The test series was designed specifically to determine whether incineration can attain
a 99.96-percent RE for arsenic, under operating parameters associated with a 99.9999-percent
dioxin DRE. The kiln chamber, afterburner chamber, and APCS operating parameters were
held nominally constant throughout the test program. The target incinerator test and operating
conditions for each test are given in Table 4.
Three tests were planned for the test program, with a possible fourth in the event that
the arsenic RE was measured to be less than 99.96 percent. The arsenic RE, based on rapid-
turnaround analysis data from the first test, was calculated to be 99.89 percent. It was therefore
decided to conduct the fourth test, in which 0.5 kg of lime was mixed with every 10 kg of test
soil. The lime used was chemical grade hydrated lime obtained from the Arkansas Lime
Company in Batesville, Arkansas. It contained 73 percent available CaO, 24 percent chemically
combined moisture, and 0.7 percent MgO.
Table 5 summarizes the actual incinerator exit gas temperatures and flue gas O2 levels,
including their ranges and averages, for each test over the period of flue gas sampling, compared
with the respective target conditions. For all tests, the average kiln exit gas temperature was
within 7°C (12°F) of the target temperature, while the average afterburner exit gas temperature
was within 5°C (8°F) of the target.
The actual O2 levels in the kiln were generally higher than the target concentration. The
higher O2 levels resulted from higher than expected air inleakage into the kiln chamber. This
inleakage was due to the inability to tightly secure the kiln rotating seal, and to the higher kiln
draft induced by the Calvert fan to maintain a scrubber pressure drop of 12 kPa (50 in WC).
The average kiln exit O2 level achieved for all tests was 12 percent. The average afterburner O2
level was within 0.7 percent of the targeted level for all tests.
The actual kiln and afterburner operating conditions achieved for each test are
summarized in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Table 8 provides a similar summary of the APCS
operating conditions for each test. Continuous emission monitor (CEM) data are summarized
in Table 9. The ranges and averages of the temperature, CEM, and scrubber pH data presented
10
-------
TABLE 4. TARGET INCINERATOR TEST AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Kiln exit gas temperature 982°C (1,800°F)
Afterburner exit gas temperature -v 1,204 °C (2,200 °F)
^ - "r- " • .f 4s '; **
Kiln exit O2 level 10%
Afterburner exit O2 level 7.9%
Kiln solids residence time 0.5 hr
Total waste soil feedrate 55 kg (120 Ib)
• Calvert scrubber pressure drop 12.4 kPa (50 in WC)
Scrubber liquor temperature 66°C (150°F)
Scrubber liquor blowdown rate 0 to 2 L/min (0 to 0.5 gpm)
in Tables 5 through 9 were developed for the periods of the flue gas sampling, using the data
automatically recorded by a personal computer (PC) based data acquisition system The values
given for the remaining parameters were derived from the control room logbook data. During
the second day of testing, the NOX instrument electronic output failed, forcing the operator to
manually record the data, from the instrument meter, in the control room logbook, for this and
subsequent tests.
Transcribed data from the control room logs of the operating parameters, recorded at
15-min intervals, are given in Appendix A. Appendix B contains graphic presentations of the flue
gas temperature and gas emission monitor readings for the kiln and afterburner. Appendix B
also contains graphical presentations of the scrubber and stack exit flue gas emission monitor
readings. These data plots were based on incinerator system conditions recorded at 35-s
intervals on the data acquisition system. In addition, durations of flue gas sampling periods,
major events, cumulative amounts of waste fed into the incinerator, and cumulative amounts of
ash removed from the incinerator are included on some of the plots. These data provide the
basis for assembling a complete picture of the actual incinerator operating conditions.
11
-------
5)
§
I
o
21
a" *
<*^
2
4)
^l s
S s
i
na
«
a>
I
i
tf
JS
&JQ
S
i
"5
i
'i
o
in o\
o
04
o\ cs
od o\
oo ol
OO O
r- oo
en
O
0
oo
oo
oo oo
ON O\
t^l O
° o
VO
w-i
ON
OO
o
o
IT)
-------
TABLE 6. KILN .OPERATING CONDITIONS
Parameter
Average natural gas feedrate scm/hr
(scfh)
kW
(kBtu/hr)
Average combustion air
flowrate through burner
scm/hr
(scfh)
Average combustion air flowrate
calculated by O2 scm/hr
(scfh)
Average draft
Exit gas temperature
Exit gas O2
Average waste feedrate
Average kiln ash discharge
Calculated residence time
Pa
(inWC)
Range, °C
(°F)
Average, °C
(°F)
Range, %
Average, %
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
rate kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
s
*«?
*" Test 1
(8/6/91)
35.4
(1,250)
366
(1,250)
204
(7,210)
804
(28,380)
10.0
(0.04)
896-1,031
(1,644-1,888)
976
(1,788)
10.8-16.5
12.3
55.7
(123)
37.3
(82)
2.1
* Test 2
(8/8/91)
38.5
(1,360)
399
(1,360)
198
(7,010)
912
(32,200)
7.5
(0.03)
901-1,023
(1,653-1,874)
983
(1,802)
10.5-14.9
12.7
55.5
(122)
38.7
(85)
1.8
Test 3
(8/13/91)
39.4
(1,390)
408
(1,390)
210
(7,410)
771
(27,230)
7.5
•(0.03)
947-1,060
(1,736-1,940)
984
(1,803)
8.9-19.0
10.9
54.2
(119)
34.3
(75)
2.2
Test 4
(8/15/91)
40.8
(1,440)
423
(1,440)
205
(7,240)
900
(31,770)
7.5
(0.03)
920-1,024
(1,688-1,876)
979
(1,794)
9.2-14.5
12.1
57.0
(125)
38.1
(84)
1.9
13
-------
TABLE 7. AFTERBURNER OPERATING CONDITIONS
Average
Average
Parameter
natural gas feedrate
scm/hr
(scfh)
kW
(kBtu/hr)
combustion air flowrate
scm/hr
(scfh)
Test 1
(8/6/91)
65.4
(2,310)
677
(2,310)
218
(7,710)
Test 2
(8/8/91)
71.1
(2,510)
737
(2,510)
215
(7,580)
Tests
(8/13/91)
74.4
(2,630)
770
(2,630)
218
(7,700)
Test 4
(8/15/91)
66.8
(2,360)
691
(2,360)
221
(7,810)
Exit gas temperature Range, °C
(°F)
Average, °C
Exit gas O2
Calculated residence time
Range, %
Average, %
1,201-1,219 1,196-1,227
(2,193-2,226) (2,185-2,241)
1,208
(2,207)
5.8-9.4
7.2
1.0
1,208
(2,207)
6.4-8.8
7.6
1.0
1,204-1,214 1,204-1,214
(2,200-2,218) (2,199-2,218)
1,209
(2,208)
6.8-9.1
7.8
1.0
1,209
(2,208)
7.1-12.6
8.1
1.0
14
-------
TABLE 8. APCS OPERATING CONDITIONS
Parameter
Average quench chamber
liquor flowrate
Quench liquor pH
L/min
(gpm)
Range
Average
Test 1
(8/6/91)
-'
114
(30)
8.1-8.6,
8.5
Test 2
(8/8/91)
114
(30)
6.3-7.2
6.9
TestS
(8/13/91)
140
(37)
7.4-7.5
7.4
Test 4
(8/15/91)
114
(30)
7.7-7.9
7.7
Average quench exit gas temperature
Average blowdown flowrate
Average Calvert scrubber liquid
Condenser absorber
Scrubber liquor pH
Condenser adsorber
Collision scrubber
°c
(°F)
L/min
(iPm)
flowrate,
L/min
(gpm)
average
average
83
(182)
1.4
(0.38)
598
(158)
7.9
7.6
83
(182)
3.8
(0.75)
628
(166)
6.1
7.2
83
(182)
2.3
(0.62)
617
(163)
6.7
7.7
83
(182)
2.9
(0.77)
625
(165)
6.2
7.3
Calvert Collision scrubber pressure
drop
kPa
(in WC )
11.9
(48)
12.2
(49)
12.4
(50)
_ 12.4
(50)
Average scrubber liquor temperature
°C
(°F)
52
(126)
54
(129)
52 ,
(126)
52
(126)
Average scrubber flue gas temperature
Scrubber inlet
Scrubber exit
Average stack gas temperature
°C
(°F)
°C
(°F)
°C
(°F)
Average stack gas flowrate dscm/min
(dscfm)
84
(184)
63
(145)
59
(138)
67.4
(2,380)
84
(184)
68
(155)
61
(142)
65.2
(2,300)
84
(184)
69
(156)
58
(137)
63.6
(2,240)
85
(185)
67
(153)
59
(139)
63.2
(2,230)
15
-------
TABLE 9. CEMDATA
Parameter
Kiln exit
Afterburner exit
Scrubber exit
°2
CO
CO2
NOX
Stack
CO
CO2
Range, %
Average, %
Target, %
Range, %
Average, %
Target, %
Range, %
Average, %
Range, ppm
Average, ppm
Range, %
Average, %
Range, ppm
Average, ppm
Range, %
Average, %
Range, ppm
Average, ppm
Range, %
Average, %
Test 1
(8/6/91)
10.8-16.5
12.3
10.0
5.8-9.4
7.2
7.9
14.8-16.1
15.2
<1~3
0.1-3.7
3.3
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The sampling and analysis efforts were designed to meet the test objectives and to satisfy
the IRF permit compliance requirements. The scope of the sampling efforts undertaken during
this test program is illustrated in Figure 3, in which the sampling locations are identified.
Table 10 summarizes the sampling and analysis matrix. Specifically, the sampling effort
completed during each test consisted of:
• Obtaining a composite sample of the soil feed from each drum before the soil was
packaged into the fiberpack containers
• Collecting a composite sample of the kiln ash
« Collecting a composite sample of the scrubber liquor
« Continuously measuring O2 levels in the kiln exit and afterburner exit flue gases;
O2, CO, CO2, and NOX at the scrubber exit; and O2, CO, and CO2 levels at the
stack
• Sampling flue gas at the scrubber system exit for organochlorine pesticides,
arsenic, and particulate and HC1
• Sampling at the stack downstream of the secondary APCS for arsenic, and
particulate and HC1
3.1 SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The soil was received in four 55-gal drums. The composite soil sample for each test was
obtained by taking thief samples from each shipment drum at three locations in the drum cross
section just prior to packaging the soil into the fiberpack containers. These three samples were
combined to form one composite soil feed sample per test. Each composite soil sample was
preserved in an appropriate container, according to the specific analysis procedure requirements
noted in Table 10, and given to the onsite Sample Custodian.
On each test day, the incinerator was brought to nominally steady operation at test
conditions while firing auxiliary fuel (natural gas) alone. Soil feed was then initiated. Flue gas
sampling was started about 0.5 hour after waste feed was initiated.
17
-------
16-CSO QS3
^V
2$
UjHj
X U.
!
Ss
1"
1
DEMISTER
J L
VENTURI/PACKED
COLUMN
SCRUBBER
t
QUENCH
SECTION
f
1
AFTER-
BURNER
t
1
z
E
—
i
T
CO
CM
•9
OC
•§ S
I 2
-------
SUMMARY
X
1
£—i
T/F\
k2
00
<
5
^*
a
z
<
o
z
^^
J
D,
g
<:
05
•
— M
^
M
H
(A
1
"3
t
j
"i
i
V
u
c
S
er
2
Method
Parameter
y £
ll
: u
5 2
o n.
e
• .0
«5
I
9)
"5,
g
a
u u o
a o o 1s~ If lir Is*
o , o o o o o o
O- D. Cu Cu O- O. O.
E . E • S E -cS . E E
8 8 8 8 8 •' 8 8
. '"U «
I f ••
CO — *
g g
0 _
oo ^
O ^ «
OO O ,-<
_ ^o r-
1 •§ s .
tS jz *o
I '^ *
° § .22
'S -a 'P,
2 8 "«
S -2P c
QQQQ Q ^ .^ g^
*5 ^? 5* ^S ^? o o *-* o
C C £ £ ^ ***" J^ JS **™
CO C/5 OO W5 CO ^ ** -SP ^
<«< <22Q2
o> ^ •-* c/5" c
1 § 1 tz" f 1 "" 1
'ill! -^5 i Is- M a
£ D c/0 O <£ K f-"
u
1
o.
i
(U
H
00
•5 c
3 3
•o £
Iff
^3
2 5 2
<" S
•"§
co .y
£w
D.
u 1
•a" £
L) -C
^^ o
« §
CO c3
«" M v.
< SC O
"O
g S
JJo. «
— pJ O
O >«J Sj
to H _
to to V] « to
O 4> u
•S-o 22
•g U M 5
§ « « ^
ra 03 ^ S
£P un ° f)
O < ffi co" H
o
1
a.
1
U
1
.
.'ti
a.
•s
CO
1
p"
V3
CQ
jr
v3
*
•a
u
3
_e
J,
_; '
•a
g
a.
PI
^
»*
§
||
CO §
^J of
4i OJ
O U
C C
4> aj
^^
u a>
DN (X
« A
19
-------
,«,
CJ
•*•!
I
v>
•
T-4
Ed
*J
tt
is
tn
1
a
c
&>
e
3
O1
I
-a
o
.e
^U
S
*
•s
E
1
?|
"ca —
c e
i i =o
\O f-
0 "g ?
s 5 •§
2 u
•§ •£ 2
S *S ^v
o c- «
's .2 *«
I i !
S "5
o o g ^
IO O ^ O
•a -a .2 "o
o S £P S
2 2 D 2
o ^C
1 o
•« ^0
w ,p
C. Bu
ID -r
•S U
w
£ -a"
O "*
rt PQ
£P « oo jn
O < 5C a.
a.
£
i .
to
&*
1
•§ -S
« ra
1 s -g
3 ^-i O
1 11
u u u
2 22
B***
1
•§
*
u
11 1
c
(J
<•«
o
0
|
£>
s f
t*H *i-r
c g
.2 §
J5 «f
S 0
f £
c. f
•"•* oo
^ "® u °
•o .2 -a -a
o £° o
•s -3 « •§
2 <^ 2
a
"3
1 i <
lo
*iio ^-^
-o -o
"S o
2 2
,|1
& «— OH
•3 ° pa
^"15.
C/0 "55 £>
bO
1
CO
< CQ
£S ^
'«!
ai 4>
-5" ^"
. .
1. ^"^
3 £ E
io §'§
-H m •*"
000
c c c
III
£££
20
-------
The kiln ash was continuously removed from the catch bin by a steel auger and conveyed
into an initially clean 55-gallon steel drum. The entire ash transfer system was sealed to prevent
sample loss and contamination. A representative sample was collected from the ash collection
drum at the conclusion of each test.
Each test was run with the scrubber system operating at minimum blowdown. Any
blowdown discharged was directed to an initially clean collection tank. At the conclusion of each
test day, the incinerator was operated on natural gas for a minimum of 2 hours after waste feed
cessation. After the 2-hour cleanout time, the scrubber system contents were drained to the
blowdown collection tank. The contents of the tank were continuously recirculated and
mechanically stirred to ensure good mixing and homogeneity. The composite scrubber liquor
sample for each test was collected from this collection tank.
The flue gas, at four locations (kiln exit, afterburner exit, Calvert scrubber system exit,
and the stack), was continuously monitored for location-specific combinations of O2, CO, CO2,
and NOX. The CEMs available at the IRF, and the locations they monitored during these tests,
are summarized in Table 11.
The scrubber exit flue gas and the stack gas were sampled for particulate and HC1, using
an EPA Method 5 train. These gases were also sampled for arsenic, using EPA Method 108.
In addition, the scrubber exit flue gas was sampled for organochlorine pesticides, using an EPA
Method 0010 train. These sampling operations were conducted in strict adherence to the
respective method guidelines.
32 LABORATORY ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The numbers and types of samples collected for analysis during this test program are
summarized in Table 12. The sample collection procedures resulted in four individual soil feed
samples and one composite soil feed sample. One set of kiln ash samples was taken for each
test. One set of flue gas characterization samples was collected for each test. Scrubber liquor
samples were also collected for each test.
Soil feed samples, kiln ash samples, and scrubber liquor samples were analyzed
separately for:
• Trace metals, including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury
selenium, and silver
« Organochlorine pesticides
An aliquot of each soil feed and kiln ash sample was also subjected to the TCLP, and the
leachate analyzed for the above trace metals. Soil feed TCLP leachate samples were also
analyzed for organochlorine pesticides.
Organochloride pesticides were determined by Method 8080. Solid samples (i.e., soil
feed, kiln ash, and Method 0010 train samples) were Soxhlet-extracted (Method 3540) prior to
analysis; liquid samples (i.e., scrubber liquor and TCLP leachates) were liquid/liquid-extracted
(Method 3510). Solid samples were digested and analyzed for mercury by Method 7471; liquid
21
-------
TABLE 11. CEMs USED IN THE TESTS
Monitor
Location
Kiln exit
Afterburner
exit
Scrubber
exit
Stack
Constituent
02
02
02
CO
CO2
NOX
02
CO
C02
Manufacturer
Beckman
Beckman
Teledyne
Horiba
Horiba
Thermo
Electron
Teledyne
Horiba
Horiba
Model Principle
755 Paramagnetic
755 Paramagnetic
326 A Fuel cell
VIA 500 NDIR
PIR 2000 NDIR
10 AR Chemiluminescent
326 A Fuel cell
VIA 500 NDIR
PIR 2000 NDIR
Range
0-10 percent
0-25 percent
0-100 percent
0-10 percent
Q-25 percent
0-100 percent
0-5 percent
0-10 percent
0-25 percent
0-50 ppm
0-500 ppm
0-20 percent
0-80 percent
0-75 ppm to
0-10,000 ppm in
multiples of 2
0-5 percent
0-10 percent
0-25 percent
0-50 ppm
0-500 ppm
0-20 percent
0-80 percent
22
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF TEST SAMPLES
Number of
samples
Sample type
Soil feed
Soil feed TCLP leachate
Kiln ash
Kiln ash TCLP leachate
Composite scrubber liquor
Calvert scrubber exit flue gas
Method 108 train
Probe wash
Filter
Impingers (1, 2, 3, and 4 combined)
Method 0010 train .
Method 5 particula-te/HCl train
Probe wash/filter
Impingers (1, 2, 3, and 4 combined)
Stack gas
Method 5 particulate/HCl train
Probe wash/filter
Impingers (1, 2, 3, and 4 combined)
Method 108 train
Probe wash
Filter
Impingers (1, 2, 3, and 4 combined)
Analyte/procedure
Proximate, ultimate,
specific gravity
Organochlorine pesticides
Trace metals
TCLP extraction
Organochlorine pesticides
Trace metals
Organochlorine pesticides
Trace metals
TCLP extraction
Specific gravity
Trace metals
Organochlorine pesticides
Trace metals
PH
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Organochlorine pesticides
Particulate
Chloride
Particulate
Chloride
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Each test
1
' 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
1
4
4
4
4 •
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
23
-------
samples were digested and analyzed for mercury by Method 7470. The remaining trace metal
analyses were performed by inductively coupled argon plasma (ICAP) spectrometry
(Method 6010). Solid samples were digested by Method 3050 for analysis; liquid samples were
digested by Method 3010.
Flue gas particulate load was determined by desiccating the filter and probe wash of the
Calvert scrubber system exit and the stack Method 5/HC1 train. HC1 at the scrubber exit and
the stack was determined by analyzing the combined impinger solution from the respective
Method 5/HC1 trains for chloride, using a chloride specific ion electrode.
The scrubber exit and stack flue gases were sampled for arsenic by Method 108.
Sampling train samples were analyzed by the Method 108 procedure, using graphite furnace
atomic absorption (GFAA) spectroscopy. The scrubber exit flue gas was also sampled for
organochloride pesticides by Method 0010. Method 0010 train samples were extracted by
Method 3540, and analyzed by Method 8080 for organochlorine pesticides.
The composite soil feed sample was subjected to proximate (moisture, ash content, and
heat content) analysis, ultimate (C, H, O, N, S, Cl) analysis, and specific gravity using ASTM
methods.
Proximate, ultimate, and mercury analyses were performed by Galbraith Laboratories,
in Knoxville, Tennessee. Organochlorine pesticides, specific gravity, and HC1 analyses were
performed at the IRF onsite analytical laboratory. Arsenic and other trace metals analyses were
performed by the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL), in Cincinnati, Ohio,
operated by Technology Applications, Inc.
24
-------
SECTION 4
TEST RESULTS
Results from the test program performed are discussed in this section. Test results are
grouped by analyte class. Thus, Section 4.1 presents the contaminated soil proximate and
ultimate analysis results. Section 4.2 discusses the organochlorine pesticides measurements,
including the effectiveness of incineration in decontaminating the test soil. Section 4.3 discusses
the trace metal measurements, including arsenic removal efficiencies (REs), and the distribution
of contaminant metals among the incinerator discharge streams. Finally, Section 4.4 presents
the results of the flue gas particulate and HC1 measurements.
4.1 PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS RESULTS
The proximate and ultimate analysis results for the composite soil sample analyzed are
presented in Table 13. Comparing the data in Table 13 with those in Table 3 shows that the
composite soil prepared for testing had a slightly higher moisture content, and slightly lower ash
content, than the characterization samples taken for pretest analysis.
Table 14 summarizes the cumulative soil weight fed for each test and the total amount
of kiln ash collected. As indicated in the table, between 73 and 81 percent of the soil weight fed
for a given test was collected as kiln bottom ash. This fraction agrees quite well with the ash
content of the soil obtained by proximate analysis, as shown in Table 13.
42 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES ANALYSIS RESULTS
Table 15 summarizes the results of the organochlorine pesticide analyses of the soil feed,
soil feed TCLP leachate, kiln ash, scrubber liquor and flue gas samples analyzed. The data in
Table 15 indicate that the soil feed contained between < 10 and 17 mg/kg of chlordane; between
3.4 and 6.7 mg/kg of p,p'-DDE; between 4.3 and 7.3 mg/kg of p,p'-DDD; and between 41 and
92 mg/kg of p,p'-DDT. However, none of these soil contaminants was found in any of the feed
TCLP leachate, kiln ash, or scrubber liquor samples. Low levels of p,p'-DDT were found in the
scrubber exit flue gas in two of the four tests, although no other pesticide analyte was found.
Interestingly, a-BHC was found in three of the four soil feed TCLP leachate samples
at levels ranging from 3.5 to 8.3 /ig/L; and 7-BHC was found in one soil feed TCLP leachate
sample at 2.3 jig/L. Neither compound was detected in the corresponding soil feed sample.
However, this is most likely the result of the relatively high method PQL for these compounds
in the soil analyses. The high level soil purge and trap sample introduction method was required
for soil feed sample analyses so that the p,p'-DDT levels approaching 100 mg/kg could be
quantitated. Use of this introduction method resulted in a-BHC and 7-BHC PQLs of 2 mg/kg.
25
-------
TABLE 13. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE
ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE
COMPOSITE SOIL FEED SAMPLE
Proximate analysis (as received)
Moisture, %
Ash, %
Volatile matter, %
Higher heating value, kJ/kg
(Btu/lb)
Bulk density, g/mL
Ultimate analysis, %
C
H
N
S
Cl
16.3
78.7
5.0
903
(389)
. 1.47
2.2
<0.4
0.08
0.04
0.04
TABLE 14. SOIL FEED AND ASH COLLECTED
Ash collected
Total soil
feed
Drum
3
4
2
1
1
2
3
4
Test
(8/6/91)
(8/8/91)
(8/13/91)
(8/15/91)
kg
214
217
212
222
Ib
470
477
466
489
Weight
kg
165
175
155
172
Ib
362
385
342
378
Fraction
of Feed
%
77
81
73
77
26
-------
Q
Q
ails
"
s
ail
*
V
'
VVO
Q
O
i
CQ
CO
I—<
ce
e
h
15
Q
Cd
Q
a
&5
w
Bu
td
2
S
s
K
O
o
g
o
i/5
i-<
S
Gfl
^
a
l|
|
«
|
6
R
cn
27
-------
The TCLP test involves producing 20 g of leachate/g of solid leached. Thus, if a-BHC
or 7-BHC were present in the soil feed samples at just below the PQL of 2 mg/kg, and all this
quantity of each compound leached in the procedure, then resulting leachate concentrations
would be just below 100 /*g/L. Measuring TCLP leachate concentrations in the 2 to 8 /ng/L
range, therefore, is not inconsistent with having nondetectable levels in corresponding soil
samples at a PQL of 2 mg/kg.
Table 15 also notes the TCLP regulatory level that defines a TC hazardous waste for
the two pesticides having a regulatory level. The low level of y-BHC found in the one soil feed
TCLP leachate sample was far below the regulatory level.
As noted above, the data in Table 15 show that none of the four pesticides present in
the soil feed was detected in the corresponding incineration-treatment kiln ash residue. Table 16
summarizes the lower bound degree of pesticide decontamination achieved corresponding to the
kUn ash PQLs. Identified in Table 16 is the upper bound fraction of the amount of each
pesticide introduced in the incinerator feed that could have been present in the kiln ash
discharge in each test.
The data in Table 16 show that no more than 0.62 percent of the chlordane, 0.44 percent
of the p,p'-DDE, 0.34 percent of the p,p'-DDD, or 0.04 percent of the p,p'-DDT fed to the
incinerator could have been discharged in the kiln ash. The decontamination effectiveness of
incineration under the conditions tested was, thus, at least 99.38 percent for chlordane;
99.56 percent for p,p'-DDE; 99.66 percent for p,p'-DDD; and 99.96 percent for p,p'-DDT.
Comparing the data in Table 15 with the characterization sample analysis data, in
Table 2 shows that most samples taken from the drums delivered to the IRF contained generally
higher levels of all four pesticide contaminants listed found in test samples (chlordane;
p,p'-DDD; p,p'-DDE; and p,p'-DDT) than did the characterization samples analyzed prior to soil
shipment.
Table 17 combines the scrubber exit flue gas organochlorine pesticide compound
concentrations noted in Table 15 with soil feedrate and flue gas flowrate data to yield the
organochlorine pesticide DREs achieved for the tests. DRE is defined as:
DRE = 100 f 1 - flue gas emission rate\ (4-2)
^ feedrate )
As shown in Table 17, for the two tests in which p,p'-DDT was detected in the scrubber exit flue
gas (Tests 1 and 4), the DRE achieved was 99.9916 percent. This exceeds the 99.99-percent
POHC DRE requirement in the hazardous waste incinerator performance standard. The lower
bound DREs achieved for p,p'-DDT in Tests 2 and 3, based on the flue gas emission stream
PQL, were also greater than 99.99 percent. Lower bound DREs based on the flue gas emission
stream measurement PQLs were greater than 99.87 percent for chlordane, 99.901 percent for
p,p'-DDE, and 99.923 percent for p,p'-DDD. The expectation is that all three of these
compounds were destroyed at greater than 99.99 percent DRE; however, method PQLs were too
28
-------
rf £ •
TABLE 16. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE DECONTAMINATION EFFECTIVENESS
Parameter
j Test 1 (8/6/91) •%
i Soil feed
Concentration, mg/kg
Amount fed, g
i Kiln ash
: Concentration, mg/kg '
! Amount discharged, mg
; Fraction of amount fed, %
Test 2 (8/8/91)
Soil feed
Concentration, mg/kg
Amount fed, g
; Kiln ash
Concentration, mg/kg
Amount discharged, mg
j Fraction of amount fed, %
; Test 3 (8/13/91)
Soil feed
; Concentration, mg/kg
; Amount fed, g
; Kiln ash
; Concentration, mg/kg
Amount discharged, mg
, Fraction of amount fed, %
I Test 4 (8/15/91)
SoH feed
Concentration, mg/kg
Amount fed, g
: Kiln ash
Concentration, mg/kg
. Amount discharged, mg
! Fraction of amount fed, %
Chlordane p,p'-DDE
5*j-' : -•;'• ":-:•«., / ~
14 5.5
3.03 1.17
<0.1 <0.02
<16 <3.3
<0.54 ' <0.28
17 6.7
3.73 1.45
<0.1 <0.02
<17 <3.5
<0.47 <0.24
<10 3.4
<2.1 0.71
<0.1 <0.02
— a <0.44
13 4.8
2.78 1.07
<0.1 <0.02
<17 <3.4
<0.62 <0.32
p,p'-DDD
7.3
1.55
<0.02
<3.3
<0.21
7.3
1.59
<0.02
<3.5
<0.22
4.3
0.92
<0.02
<0.34
6.4
1.42
<0.02
<3.4
<0.24
p,p'-DDT
65
14.0
<0.02
<3.3
<0.02
92
19.9
<0.02
<3.5 '
<0.02
•
41
8.77
<0.02'
<0.04
46
10.1
<0.02
<3.4
<0.03
a— =
= Not applicable because not detected in the feed.
29
-------
TABLE 17. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE DREs
Parameter
Test 1 (8/6/91)
Pesticide feedrate, mg/hr
Scrubber exit flue gas emission rate, ng/hr
DRE, %
Test 2 (8/8/91)
Pesticide feedrate, mg/hr
Scrubber exit flue gas emission rate, yxg/hr
DRE, %
Test 3 (8/13/91)
Pesticide feedrate, mg/hr
Scrubber exit flue gas emission rate, /ig/hr
DRE, %
Test 4 (8/15/91)
Pesticide feedrate, mg/hr
Scrubber exit flue gas emission rate, jig/hr
DRE, %
a_ s Not applicable because not detected in
Clhlordane
791
<990
> 99.87
951
<860
> 99.910
<540
<890
a
712
<880
> 99.88
~*
the feed.
p,p'-DDE
305
<200
> 99.934
371
<170
> 99.954
183
<180
>99.901
275
<180
> 99.935
!
p,p'-DDD
405
<200
> 99.951
405
<170
> 99.958
234
<180
> 99.923
366
<180
> 99.951
=====
3,640
306
99.9916
5,100
<170
>99.9967
2,240
<180
> 99.9920
2,600
219
99.9916
=====
•
high to unambiguously establish this when these compounds were present at the lower
concentrations in the soil feed.
The data in Tables 16 and 17 confirm that incineration under the conditions tested was
sufficient to eliminate the contaminant organochlorine pesticide compounds from the soil, and
that the DREs attained were in compliance with the hazardous waste incinerator performance
standards in the two cases in which a clear DRE could be established. The data in Tables 16
and 17 also show that the addition of lime to the test soil in Test 4 had no effect on the
effectiveness of incineration in decontaminating the soil, or on the DREs for the organochlorine
pesticide compounds.
43 ARSENIC AND OTHER TRACE METAL DISTRIBUTIONS
As noted in Section 1, one of the primary objectives of the test program was to evaluate
arsenic's fate and its RE in a rotary kiln incinerator under operating conditions associated with
a 99 9999-percent dioxin DRE. Concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
selenium, silver, and mercury were measured in the soil feed, kiln ash, scrubber liquor, soil feed
TCLP leachate, and kiln ash TCLP leachate samples. Only arsenic concentrations were
measured in the scrubber exit and stack flue gases. Based on these concentrations, the trace
metals distributions among the discharge streams and the arsenic REs were determined. The
results of these evaluations are discussed in the following subsections.
30
-------
4.3.1 Arsenic Removal Efficiency
The primary test program objective was to evaluate whether a 99.96-percent arsenic RE
could be achieved during the incineration treatment of the site soils under conditions associated
.with a 99.9999-percent dioxin DRE in an incinerator equipped with a state-of-the-art APCS. As
noted in Section 1, arsenic RE is defined as:
RE = 100 fl - f^e gas emission rate] (4.3)
feedrate )
Table 18 summarizes the arsenic concentrations measured, and the resulting feedrates
and flue gas emission rates, for the four tests performed. As shown in the table, the arsenic RE
achieved for Test 1 at the scrubber exit, 99.89 percent, was less than the target of 99.96 percent.
This result was obtained on a quick-turnaround laboratory analysis. Based on this result, it was
decided to perform Test 4, with lime blended with the soil to evaluate whether lime addition
affected arsenic RE.
In contrast to the Test 1 experience, the arsenic REs measured at the scrubber exit in
Tests 2 and 3 were 99.990 and 99.991 percent, respectively, greater than the target 99.96 percent.
Tests 2 and 3 were performed with soil feed alone (no lime addition), and at the same nominal
incinerator and scrubber system operating conditions. The authors have no explanation for the
order of magnitude higher scrubber exit arsenic emission rate experienced in Test 1 compared
to Tests 2 and 3. The 99.991-percent scrubber exit arsenic RE in Test 4, in which lime was
added to the soil, was comparable to the REs in Tests 2 and 3.
Arsenic REs corresponding to the stack gas emission rates were uniformly 99.990 to
99.994 percent. Comparing stack arsenic emission rates to scrubber exit discharge rates shows
that no additional arsenic removal in the carbon bed/HEPA filter secondary APCS was achieved
for any test except Test 1. -
43.2 Test Sample Trace Metals Concentrations
Table 19 summarizes the concentrations of all eight of the test metals in the soil feed
and in each of the incinerator discharge streams analyzed (complete analysis results are given
in Appendix C). The table also notes the soil feed and kUn ash TCLP leachate metal
concentrations for each test, and the TCLP regulatory levels for each TCLP metal determined.
Comparing feed soil leachate, kiln ash leachate, and scrubber liquor metals concentrations to the
TCLP regulatory levels shows that no regulatory level was exceeded for any metal except arsenic.
No feed soil would be an arsenic TC hazardous waste. However, the Test 1 kiln ash was a TC
hazardous waste for arsenic, and the Tests 2 and 3 kiln ash leachates contained arsenic levels
near the regulatory limit. The arsenic concentrations in TCLP leachates of both the feed soil
and the kiln ash for Test 4 were reduced from the levels measured in the other three tests. This
suggests that adding lime, as was done in Test 4, renders the arsenic less leachable from both
the soil and the resulting kiln ash.
31
-------
TABLE 18. ARSENIC REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Parameter (8/6/91) (8/8/91) (8/13/91) (8/15/91)
SoU
Feedrate, kg/hr ,55.7 55,5 54.2 57.0
Arsenic concentration, mg/kg 1,040 1,040 794 803
Arsenic feedrate, g/hr 57.9 57.7 43.0 45.8
Scrubber exit flue gas
Flowrate, dscm/min 49.8 47.6 48.6 48.4
Arsenic concentration, jig/dscm 22.1 2.04 1.38 1.43
Arsenic emission rate, mg/hr 66.0 5.82 4.02 4.15
RE, % 99.89 99.9899 99.9907 99.9909
Stack gas
Flowrate, dscm/min 67.4 65.2 63.6 63.2
Arsenic concentration, /ig/dscm 1.14 0.93 1.12 1.16
Arsenic emission rate, mg/hr 4.61 3.64 4.27 4.40
RE, % 99.9920 99.9937 99.9900 99.9903
The data in Table 19 suggest that the scrubber liquor discharge might be a TC hazardous
waste for arsenic based on the total sample analysis results shown. However, the scrubber liquor
metal concentrations shown in Table 19 are for bulk scrubber liquor samples, which contain
suspended solids. A true TCLP leachate of the full test program composite scrubber liquor was
prepared by filtering the liquor and using the resulting filtrate as the leachate. Arsenic was not
detected in this composite scrubber liquor TCLP leachate at a PQL of 0.5 mg/L.
Because the TCLP test involved producing 20 g of leachate per gram of solid leached,
the TCLP leachate concentration in mg/L can be used to calculate the fraction of metals in-each
matrix that is "mobile," or leachable, in the procedure. For example, if all the metals in a solid
sample leached in the procedure (was 100-percent leachable), the resulting TCLP leachate metals
concentration in mg/L would be l/20th of the solid sample concentration in mg/kg. Thus the
ratio of:
on (leachate concentration (rnglL)} (4-4)
I solid concentration (mg/kg) )
represents the fraction of metals leachable in the procedure.
32
-------
TABLE 19. TRACE METALS ANALYSIS RESULTS
Sample
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
<0.44
0.066 < 0.005
<12 <0.45
0.059 < 0.005
<0.13 0.01
1,040
2.2
619
3.8
12
66
0.57
60
0.70
0.23
1.1
0.012
0.42
0.005
0.023
19
< 0.007
11
< 0.007
0.089
118
0.079
58
0.088
0.27
5.8
< 0.002
<1.0
< 0.002
< 0.002
<11
0.057
16
0.065
<0.13
<0.44
<0.005
<0.45
< 0.005
< 0.005
Test 1 (8/6/91)
Soil feed, mg/kg 1,040 56 1.7 16 120 10
Soil feed TCLP leachate, mg/L 2.2 0.89 0.009 < 0.007 0.086 < 0.002
Kiln ash, mg/kg 653 60 0.50 9.7 74 <1.0
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, mg/L 5.8 0.76 0.005 < 0.007 0.28 < 0.002
Scrubber liquor, mg/L 8.5 0.16 0.054 0.15 0.23 0.007
Test 2 (8/8/91)
Soil feed, mg/kg
Soil feed TCLP leachate, mg/L
Kiln ash, mg/kg
Kim ash TCLP leachate, mg/L
Scrubber liquor, mg/L
Test 3 (8/13/91)
Soil feed, mg/kg
Soil feed TCLP leachate, mg/L
Kiln ash, mg/kg
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, mg/L
Scrubber liquor, mg/L
Test 4 (8/15/91)
Soil feed, mg/kg
Soil feed TCLP leachate, mg/L
Kiln ash, mg/kg
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, mg/L
Scrubber liquor, mg/L
TCLP regulatory level, mg/L 5.0 100 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2
794
2.5
619
4.1
10
48
0.80
64
0.78
0.21
0.86
0.012
0.68
0.005
0.017
17
< 0.007
11
< 0.007
0.064
104
0.083
61
0.095
0.29
5.4
< 0.002
<1.0
< 0.002
< 0.002
<11
0.063
15
0.062
0.14
<0.43
< 0.005
<0.46
< 0.005
< 0.005
803
0.11
1,100
1.2
6.0
43
0.18
74
0.12
0.26
0.97
< 0.005
0.85
< 0.005
0.011
13
< 0.007
14
< 0.007
0.057
86
0.049
83
0.036
0.23
6.2
< 0.002
<1.0
< 0.002
< 0.002
15
0.058
<11
0.083
<0.13
<0.48
<0.005
<0.44
< 0.005
< 0.005
1.0
5.0
Table 20 shows these fractions leachable for each metal in each soil and kiln ash. Silver
is not shown in Table 20 because no soil or kiln ash sample contained silver. The "less than"
teachabilities in the table arose when the leachate contained no detectable metal; the "less than"
level corresponds to the PQL of the metal in the leachate. The "greater than" leachabilities in
the table arose when the leachate contained detectable levels of a metal not detected in the solid
sample. No fractional leachability was calculated when both the solid sample and the resulting
leachate concentrations were less than detectable.
The data in Table 20 show that chromium and mercury were sparingly leachable
(leachabilities of 2 percent or less) from all test soil samples, and that chromium was sparingly
leachable from kiln ash samples. Lead was also sparingly leachable from feed soil samples. Its
leachability from corresponding kiln ash samples apparently increased in the tests with raw soil
33
-------
TABLE 20. TCLP LEACHABLE TRACE METAL CONTENTS
Sample
Feed Soil
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Kiln ash
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Test 1
(8/6/91)
4.2
31
11
<0.8
1.4
<0.4
>12
18
25
20
<1.4
7.7
a
>9.6
Fraction
Test 2
(8/8/91)
4.2
17
22
<0.7
1.3
<0.7
>10
12
23
24
<1.2
3.0
—
7.9
ieachable, %
Test 3
(8/13/91)
6.4
33
28
<0.8
1.6
<0.7
>11
-
13
24
15
<1.3
3.1
—
8.3
Test 4
(8/15/91)
0.3
8.4
<10
<1.1
1.1
<0.7
7.8
2.1
3.2. -
<12
<1.0
0.9
—
>15
a_- = Not detected in the solid sample.
feed only (Tests 1, 2, and 3). For the test with lime added (Test 4), lead's leachability from kiln
ash was unchanged from its leachability from the corresponding soil.
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, and selenium were measurably (4 to 10 percent) to
moderately (10 to 30 percent) Ieachable from both soil feed and kiln ash samples in the tests
with raw soil feed alone (Tests 1, 2, and 3). Arsenic and barium teachabilities from both soil and
corresponding kiln ash were significantly reduced with lime addition (Test 4). Cadmium and
selenium leachabilities from the soil with lime added were also apparently reduced; and cadmium
leachability from the kiln ash resulting from the incineration of the soil mixed with lime was
apparently reduced as well.
34
-------
4.33 Discharge Distributions
Table 19 shows measured concentrations of the trace metals in the discharge streams
analyzed. These concentrations can be combined with feed soil and discharge stream mass
flowrate information to better show how the metals distribute among the discharge streams.
These distributions are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Table 21 summarizes the trace metal distributions among the incinerator discharge
streams, expressed as fractions (in percent) of the amount of each metal fed to the incinerator
for each test for all metals analyzed, except arsenic which will be discussed separately. Thus, the
value in the table represents the fraction of the metal fed to the kiln accounted for by the noted
discharge. The rows labeled "Total" represent the total amount of metal fed accounted for by
the sum of the discharges analyzed. Silver is also not listed in Table 21 because silver was not
found in any test sample analyzed, with the exception of one scrubber liquor sample. Selenium
is not listed because it was not found in three of four soil feed samples.
The data in Table 21 show that the kiln ash discharge accounted for most of the barium
and lead fed in all tests. The scrubber liquor accounted for about a factor of 10 less (i.e.,
10 percent) of the amount of barium and lead fed than the kiln ash. The kiln ash also accounted
for the predominant fraction of chromium fed in all tests, although the scrubber liquor accounted
for higher relative fractions of chromium. The behavior of cadmium was apparently inconsistent
from test to test. However, cadmium was only present in test soils at 1 to 2 mg/kg levels, so
small changes in kiln ash/scrubber liquor cadmium concentrations could cause large changes in
calculated kiln ash/scrubber liquor relative fractions. The addition of lime to the soil, as done
in Test 4, apparently did not affect metals distributions to kiln ash or scrubber liquor within the
variability of the data in Table 21.
No mercury was found in any kiln ash or scrubber liquor sample. The "less than"
fractions noted in Table 21 correspond to sample analysis PQLs. Ostensibly, most or all of the
mercury fed escaped the incineration system via the scrubber exit flue gas.
Arsenic distributions are summarized in Table 22. Arsenic was also measured in the
scrubber exit flue gas and in the RKS stack gas. The scrubber exit flue gas discharge fractions
are shown in Table 22; stack gas fractions are not shown. The scrubber exit flue gas would be
the typical atmospheric discharge from an actual incinerator treating CIC site soils. Further,
conclusions based on stack gas fractions do not differ from those based on scrubber exit flue gas
fractions. As arsenic was measured in all incinerator discharge streams, the "Total" row
represents the degree of mass balance achieved for arsenic in each test.
The data in Table 22 show that the arsenic distributions were quite similar in the three
tests in which raw soil alone was fed (Tests 1 through 3). Between 42 and 49 percent of the
arsenic fed was accounted for in the kiln .ash (treated soil) discharge. About 20 percent was
collected in the scrubber liquor. With lime added to the soil (Test 4), the scrubber liquor
fraction decreased to 13 percent of the amount fed, and the kiln ash fraction increased to
91 percent of the amount fed. The scrubber exit flue gas arsenic fraction was low, 0.1 percent
or less, in all four tests.
35
-------
TABLE 21. TRACE METAL DISTRIBUTIONS
Metal distribution, % of metal fed
Sample
Test 1 (8/6/91)
Kiln ash
Scrubber liquor
Total
Test 2 (8/8/91)
Kiln ash
Scrubber liquor
Total
Test 3 (8/13/91)
Kiln ash
Scrubber liquor
Total
Test 4 (8/15/91)
Kiln ash
Scrubber liquor
Total
Ba
90
6
77
91
6
69
92
7-
91
92
10
125
Cd
22
69
89
43
36
63
60
34
84
76
19
78
Cr
68
19
59
84
8
50
85
7
47
91
7
76
Pb
91
4
45
89
4
38
88
5
42
93
5
69
Hg
<7
<1
<8
<12
<1
<13
<12
<1
<13
<11
<1
<12
TABLE 22. ARSENIC DISTRIBUTIONS
Arsenic distribution, % of arsenic fed
Sample
Kiln ash
Scrubber liquor
Scrubber exit flue gas
Total
Test 1
(8/6/91)
42
18
0.1
60
Test 2
(8/8/91)
42
19
0.01
61
Tests
(8/13/91)
49
22
0.01
71
Test 4
(8/15/91)
91
13
0.01
104
36
-------
Overall mass balance closure for arsenic was improved in Test 4 .compared to Tests 1
through 3. Mass balance closure for arsenic was in the 60- to 71-percent range in Tests 1, 2,
and 3, improving to 104 percent in Test 4. Nevertheless, all mass balance closure results
achieved in these tests are considered quite good when viewed in light of past experience in
achieving trace metal mass balance closures from a variety of combustion sources, incinerators
included. Typical mass balance closure results from this past experience have been , at best, in
the 30- to 200-percent range. The fact that three of four closures achieved were less than
100 percent is expected, as some loss of arsenic via particulate dropout in the afterburner, or
slagging with holdup in the afterburner, is not unlikely.
A clearer picture of the variation in relative metal distributions with incinerator
operation is possible when the data in Table 22 are normalized by the total mass balance closure
achieved. Table 23 summarizes the test arsenic distribution data in this form. The distribution
fractions in Table 23 have been normalized to the total amount of arsenic measured in all the
discharge streams analyzed. Thus, these normalized values represent fractions that would have
resulted had mass balance closure in each test been 100 percent. Note that the sum of the
normalized values, as shown in Table 23, is indeed 100 percent. Use of distribution fractions
normalized in this manner allows clearer data interpretation, because variable mass balance
closure is eliminated as a source of test-to-test data variability. In other words, given that
variable and less than perfect mass balance closure is invariably experienced, the use of
normalized distributions is a best attempt to quantify metal partitioning phenomena.
The normalized distributions in Table 23 clearly show that about 70 percent of the
arsenic accounted for was discharged in the kiln ash, or treated soil, in the three tests feeding
soil alone (Tests 1 through 3). About 30 percent of the arsenic measured was accounted for in
the scrubber system Liquor. A small fraction of the arsenic measured was accounted for by the
scrubber exit flue gas. However, with lime added, in Test 4, the kiln ash arsenic fraction
increased to 88 percent and the scrubber liquor arsenic fraction decreased to about 12 percent.
The scrubber exit flue gas arsenic fraction remained negligible. Clearly, the addition of lime to
the soil stabilized the arsenic, tending to keep it in the kiln ash.
TABLE 23. NORMALIZED ARSENIC DISTRIBUTIONS
Arsenic distribution, % of arsenic measured
Sample
Kiln ash
Scrubber liquor
Scrubber exit flue gas
Test 1
(8/6/91)
70.2
29.6
: 0.17
Test 2
(8/8/91)
68.3
31.7
0.01
Test3
(8/13/91)
. 69.3
30.7
0.01
Test 4
(8/15/91)
87.8 .
12.2
0.01
Total 100 100 100 100
Apparent scrubber collection efficiency 99.44 99.953 99.963 99.937
37
-------
Trace metals can leave the kiln of a rotary kiln incinerator via two pathways: (1) in
entrained flyash carried in the combustion flue gas into the afterburner; and (2) in the
combustion flue gas as volatilized, vapor-phase metal. The data in Table 23 suggest that both
of these mechanisms were at work in Tests 1 through 3, in which soil alone was fed. Lime
addition would not be expected to affect the amount of soil entrained in the combustion flue gas;
thus, it would not be expected to affect the amount of arsenic lost from the kiln via the
entrapment mechanism. Therefore, it appears that the addition of lime in Test 4 caused the
arsenic in the soil to become less volatile, i.e., allowed the formation of arsenic compounds less
volatile than those present in the soil alone, and thereby decreased the arsenic loss from the kiln
through volatilization.
Arsenic concentrations were not measured in the scrubber inlet flue gas, so a direct
calculation of scrubber system collection efficiency is not possible. However, an estimate of the
flowrate of arsenic at the scrubber inlet can be obtained by summing the flows in the two
scrubber discharge streams: the scrubber exit flue gas and the scrubber liquor. This permits an
apparent scrubber collection efficiency to be calculated as:
Scrubber liquor fraction (4-5)
Scrubber liquor fraction + scrubber exit flue gas fraction
The apparent scrubber collection efficiencies for these tests are also given in Table 23. The
apparent-scrubber-collection-efficiency data in Table 23 show that the Calvert scrubber system
achieved an average of 99.95 percent arsenic collection in Tests 2, 3, and 4. The apparent
collection efficiency in Test 1 was lower, at 99.44 percent. However, the Test 1 result is
suspected to be an outlier.
4.4 PARTICULATE AND HC1 EMISSION DATA
Particulate levels at the Calvert scrubber exit and at the stack were measured by
Method 5 trains. Each Method 5 train was fitted with an impinger train to collect HC1 to
determine HC1 emissions. The results obtained are discussed in the following subsections.
4.4.1 Particulate load
Table 24 gives the particulate levels measured at the scrubber exit and at the stack in
the four tests. Flue gas particulate levels at the scrubber exit ranged from 9 to 19 mg/dscm
(corrected to 7 percent O9). These levels would represent the stack emissions of a typical
incinerator equipped with a'Calvert scrubber. At the RKS stack, after further passage of the flue
gas through a carbon bed absorber and HEPA filter, particulate levels ranged from 2 to
29 mg/dscm (at 7 percent O2). Particulate levels in the stack were decreased from levels
measured at the scrubber exit, in three of the four tests. For reasons unexplained, in Test 3 the
level in the scrubber exit was lower than in the stack. All particulate levels measured at both
sample locations, however, were substantially below the 180 mg/dscm (at 7 percent O2)
hazardous waste incinerator performance standard.
38
-------
TABLE 24. FLUE GAS PARTICULATE LEVELS
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Parameter , >; (8/6/91)i (8/8/91) (8/13/91) (8/15/91)
Scrubber exit
. Participate loading at 7% O2, mg/dscm
Flue gas flowrate, dscm/hr
Particulate emission rate, g/hr
Stack
Particulate load at 7% O2, mg/dscm
Flue gas flowrate, dscm/hr
Particulate emission rate, g/hr
12
2,990
15 .
5
4,050
8
12
2,870
15
4
3,890
5
19
2,900
24
29
3,780
35
9
2,870
12
2
3,800
3
4.4.2 HC1 Emissions
The soil incinerated during this test program contained 0.042 percent chlorine. Table 25
summarizes the levels of HC1 measured in the scrubber exit flue gas and at the stack. As a
reminder, HC1 concentrations were determined by chloride analysis of the combined Method 5
impinger solutions. This procedure provides an estimate of maximum HC1 concentration by
assuming that all measured chloride exists in the form of HC1.
Measured HC1 concentrations at the scrubber exit ranged from less than 0.15 to
0.25 mg/dscm, with corresponding emission rates ranging from less than 7.23 to 12 mg/hr.
Measured levels at the stack were about the same as the corresponding scrubber exit levels. No
significance is given to the fact that stack levels were uniformly higher than scrubber exit levels.
All measurements were low, near the method PQL, and approximately the same.
Apparent scrubber system collection efficiencies are also noted in Table 25. These were
calculated using the chlorine feedrates and measured emission rates shown in the table. As
shown, apparent scrubber collection efficiencies were 99.95 percent, or slightly higher, in all tests.
These levels exceed the 99-percent collection efficiency required by the hazardous waste
incineration performance standards.
39
-------
TABLE 25. FLUE GAS HC1 LEVELS
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Parameter (8/6/91) (8/8/91) (8/13/91) (8/15/91)
Cl Feedrate, g/hr 23.4 23.3 22.8 23.9
Scrubber exit
Flue gas HC1 concentration, mg/dscm <0.15 0.25 0:23 <0.17
Flue gas HC1 emission rate, mg/hr <7.3 12.0 11.2 <8.4
Scrubber system collection efficiency, % > 99.969 99.949 99.951 > 99.965
Stack
Flue gas HC1 concentration, mg/dscm 0.28 0.38 0.29 0.18
Flue gas HC1 emission rate, mg/hr 18.9 24.6 18.1 11.6
System collection efficiency, % 99.926 99.904 99.927 99.956
40
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS
A detailed test program was performed at the EPA's IRF to define the incineration
characteristics of contaminated soil from the CIC Superfund site, in Edison Township, New
Jersey. The soils at the site are highly contaminated by organochlorine pesticides and trace
metals. Dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD) has been found in some soil samples at concentrations up
to 1.8 /ig/kg (ppb). The major metal contaminant is arsenic, present in site soils at levels up to
8,000 mg/kg. Cadmium, lead, chromium, mercury, and zinc have also been found at levels up
to several hundred to a few thousand mg/kg. The purpose of these tests was to evaluate the
incinerability of these soils in terms of the DRE for organochlorine pesticides (i.e., chlordane
and p,p'-DDT), the fate of arsenic in terms of the system RE, and the fate of other contaminant
trace metals. The specific test objectives were:
9 To confirm the ability of conventional rotary kiln incineration' to destroy
organochlorine pesticide contaminants in the soil, as measured by their absence
in the treated soil (kiln ash) discharge
» To confirm the ability of a conventional rotary kiln incinerator, with a high-
efficiency scrubber, to achieve an arsenic RE of 99.96 percent under operating
conditions associated with a 99.9999-percent dioxin DRE
The test program consisted of a set of four incineration tests in the IRF RKS equipped
with a high-efficiency scrubber system consisting of a Calvert Flux Force/Condensation scrubber.
The soil excavated for testing contained an average of 13 mg/kg of chlordane, 5 mg/kg
of p,p'-DDE, 6 mg/kg of p,p'-DDD, and 61 mg/kg of p,p'-DDT. It was also contaminated with
an average of 920 mg/kg of arsenic, 53 mg/kg of barium, 1 mg/kg of cadmium, 16 mg/kg of
chromium, 107 mg/kg of lead, and 7 mg/kg of mercury. In three of the four tests, raw soil alone
was fed to the loin of the RKS. In the fourth test, lime was blended with the soil, in the ratio
of 0.5 kg of lime to 10 kg of soil, to evaluate whether arsenic RE was affected. All tests were
performed at a kiln exit gas temperature of approximately 982°C (1,800°F), and an afterburner
exit gas temperature of 1,204°C (2,200°F). The Calvert scrubber was operated at a pressure
drop of approximately 12 kPa (50 in WC).
Test conclusions are as follows:
« Incineration under the conditions tested resulted in the elimination of the soil
pesticide contaminants. No pesticide was detected in any kiln ash (treated soil)
sample. Based on method PQLs, the decontamination effectiveness demonstrated
41
-------
was at least 99.38 percent for chlordane, 99.56 percent for p,p'-DDE, 99.66 percent
for p,p'-DDD, and 99.96 percent for p,p'-DDT.
• Pesticide DREs of at least 99.9916 percent were achieved for p,p'-DDT under the
conditions tested. None of the other pesticide contaminants was detected in the
scrubber exit flue gas, with lower bound DREs, corresponding to method PQLs,
ranging from at least 99.87 percent for chlordane to at least 99.92 percent for p,p'-
DDD.
• Arsenic REs of 99.99 percent can be achieved under the conditions tested, with
the Calvert scrubber, feeding soil alone. Adding lime to the soil does not
measurably improve arsenic RE.
• Chromium, mercury, and lead were sparingly leachable (with fractional
leachabilities of 2 percent or less) from the site soil in the TCLP test. Chromium
was also sparingly leachable from the incineration treatment kiln ash. Arsenic,
barium, cadmium, and selenium were measurably (4 to 10 percent) to moderately
(10 to 30 percent) leachable from both soil and resulting kiln ash samples.
• The addition of lime to the soil significantly reduced arsenic and barium fractional
leachabilities from both soil and resulting kiln ash. The fraction of arsenic
leachable from the soil was decreased from the 4- to 6-percent range to
0.3 percent with lime addition, the kiln ash fractional arsenic Reachability
decreased from the 12- to 18-percent range to 2.1 percent when lime was added
to the incinerator feed soil. Corresponding barium leachability from the soil
decreased from the 17- to 33-percent range to 8.4 percent, and from the
incineration kiln ash from the 23- to 25-percent range to 3.2 percent. Cadmium
leachability from both soil and kiln ash was also apparently reduced with lime
addition, as was lead leachability from kiln ash. Cadmium fractional leachability
from the soil decreased from the 11- to 28-percent range to less than 10 percent,
and from the kiln ash from the 15- to 24-percent range to less than 12 percent.
Kiln ash lead leachability was decreased from the 3- to 8-percent range to
0.9 percent with lime added to the soil feed. Lime addition had no apparent
effect on the leachability of selenium from both soil and kiln ash, or on the
leachability of lead from soil.
• Trace metal concentrations in TCLP leachates of both untreated soil and kiln ash
(treated soil) were significantly below corresponding TC regulatory levels for all
metals except arsenic. Soil leachate arsenic concentrations were 40 to 50 percent
of the regulatory level. Adding lime to the soil can significantly lower the
corresponding leachate arsenic concentration.
• Kiln ash leachate arsenic concentrations were near or above arsenic's TC
regulatory level, suggesting that treated soil could or would be a TC hazardous
waste. Lime addition can be used to decrease kiln ash leachate arsenic
concentrations.
42
-------
• The kiln ash discharge accounted for most of the barium introduced in the soil
feed and a greater fraction of the arsenic, chromium, and lead than accounted for
by the scrubber liquor discharge. The scrubber liquor accounted for a factor of
about 10 less of the barium and lead accounted for by the kiln ash; this stream
accounted for higher relative fractions of af'senic and chromium. No mercury was
detected in the kiln ash or scrubber liquor discharge; presumably, all mercury
introduced in the soil feed was discharged in the scrubber exit flue gas.
• Nominally 70 percent of the arsenic measured in the incinerator discharge was in
the kiln ash of all tests in which soil alone was fed; about 30 percent was.
accounted for in the scrubber liquor. A negligible fraction was accounted for in
the scrubber exit flue gas.
• In the test in which lime was added to the soil, the kiln ash arsenic fraction
increased to about 90 percent; about 10 percent of the arsenic measured was in
the scrubber liquor of this test. Scrubber exit flue gas continued to account for
a negligible fraction of the arsenic discharged. It appears that lime addition
reduced the volatility of arsenic in the kiln, removing the vapor-phase arsenic
escape pathway.
• Within the variability of the data, lime addition had no apparent effect on the
partitioning of the other trace metal soil contaminants between the kiln ash and
scrubber liquor discharge streams
• The Calvert scrubber apparent arsenic collection efficiency was nominally
99.95 percent, and was not affected by lime addition
« Particulate levels at the Calvert scrubber exit were nominally 10 to 20 mg/dscm
at 7 percent O2, well below the hazardous waste incinerator performance standard
of 180 mg/dscm at 7 percent O2
« Calvert scrubber apparent HC1 collection efficiencies were 99.95 percent or
greater, above the hazardous' waste incinerator performance standard of
99 percent
Test results suggest that conventional rotary kiln incineration in a unit equipped with
a high-efficiency scrubber system, such as the Calvert system tested, would be an appropriate
treatment. Elimination of contaminant organochlorine pesticides from the soil, and destruction
of the contaminants at a DRE of 99.99 percent, was achieved. Arsenic REs of greater than
99.96 percent were achieved in the system with the Calvert scrubber in normal operation. The
hazardous waste incinerator particulate and HC1 performance standards were easily achieved.
Incineration treatment of soils with arsenic concentrations in the range of the
concentrations of the soil tested may result in the treated soil being a TC hazardous waste.
However, adding lime to soil prior to incineration can significantly reduce the leachability of the
kiln ash arsenic in the TCLP test.
43
-------
As discussed in Section 6, almost all test program QA objectives were achieved. Three
PQL objectives were not met:
• For chlordane in flue gas (0.33 /zg/dscm achieved versus a 0.2 /*g/dscm objective)
• For a-BHC and y-BHC in soil feed (2 mg/kg achieved versus a 1 mg/kg
objective)
• For mercury in kiln ash (1 mg/kg achieved versus a 0.2 mg/kg objective)
None of the analytes was found in any corresponding test program sample. Failure to achieve
the PQL objectives for those analytes/matrices means that the level to which it can be stated
that the analyte was absent is higher than originally intended.
In addition, the mercury analysis accuracy objective was not met. Mercury was found
only in soil feed samples. No other test sample matrix, with the exception of one scrubber liquor
sample, contained mercury above the PQL. Failure to meet this objective means only that feed
mercury concentrations were likely known only to within a factor of 1.7 (±40 percent), instead
of to within a factor of 1.3 (±25 percent) as originally desired.
44
-------
SECTION 6
QUALITY ASSURANCE
This test program was carried out as outlined in the test plan for the program5. The QA
aspects of the program were carried out in accordance with the quality assurance project plan
(QAPP)6 for the program. All tests were performed in accordance with the procedures
documented in the test plan and QAPP.
All samples analyzed to obtain the data reported in this report were taken at the IRF
by members of the IRF operating staff. All samples were collected and/or recovered in
accordance with the methods appropriate to their eventual analysis. After appropriate
preservation, the samples were relinquished to the custody of the onsite Sample Custodian. The
Sample Custodian subsequently directed the splitting and transport of samples to the appropriate
laboratories for analysis.
Sample organic extractions and extract analyses for organochlorine pesticides were
performed in the IRF's onsite laboratories. Sample digestions and digestate analyses for trace
metals were performed by EPA's EMSL, in Cincinnati, Ohio, which is operated under contract
by Technology Applications, Inc. TCLP extractions were performed at the IRF; the extracts
were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, at the IRF, and for trace metals, at EMSL.
Analysis of Method 5 train impinger contents for chloride ion was performed at the IRF.
The sample chain-of-custody procedures described in the QAPP for these tests were
followed without deviation. No compromise in sample integrity occurred.
The QA efforts performed to ensure that data quality is known for particulate and CEM
measurements involved adherence to Reference Method procedures and CEM manufacturers'
specifications. No deviations from the QAPP occurred in these measurements.
Numerous QA procedures were followed to assess the data quality of the laboratory
analytical measurements performed in the test program. These included blank sample analyses,
duplicate analyses, and matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) sample analyses.
Method blank samples were analyzed for all sample matrices for which logical matrix blanks
could be prepared.
Results of QA procedures performed for the critical laboratory analytical measurements
are discussed, by analyte group, in the following subsections. The critical measurements
identified in the QAPP for the program were the organochlorine pesticide, trace metal, and flue
gas HC1 measurements. Other analyses performed in the program (e.g., proximate and ultimate
45
-------
analyses of composite soil feed samples) were identified in the QAPP as not critical.
Accordingly, these analyses are not discussed in this section.
6.1 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE CONSTITUENT ANALYSES
A total of 27 test program samples was analyzed for the organochlorine pesticide
constituents chlordane; a-BHC; 7-BHC; p,p'-DDD; p,p'-DDE; and p,p'-DDT. Included in this
number were three method blank samples and four MS/MSD sample pairs. Table 26
summarizes the sample collection, extraction, and extract analysis dates for all samples except
the TCLP leachate samples analyzed. Table 27 summarizes the sample collection, TCLP
extraction, organic extraction, and organochlorine pesticide analysis dates for the TCLP leachates
analyzed. All TCLP leachates were prepared within method hold time limits. All kiln ash and
Method 0010 train samples were extracted within method hold time limits. Two soil feed, three
soil, and the TCLP extraction blank were extracted 1 day after method hold time expiration.
Only the scrubber liquor matrix spike sample was extracted within the hold time limit. The other
scrubber liquor samples were extracted between 1 and 9 days after the 7 days method hold time
had expired. These hold times exceedances are not believed to have affected the test results.
All organic extracts were analyzed within method hold time limits.
Table 28 summarizes the precision, accuracy, completeness, and practical quantitation
limit (PQL) data quality objectives (DQOs) for the organochlorine pesticide target analytes.
Table 29 lists the measurement PQLs achieved for each sample matrix and compares them with
the PQL DQOs. The target DQO levels were met for all sample matrices, with the exception
of chlordane in the flue gas and all analytes in the soil feed. Although the achieved PQL of
0.33 jig/dscm is slightly higher than the target value of 0.2 /ig/dscm, the test objective for charac-
terizing the flue gas for chlordane was not significantly compromised. In the case of the soil
feed, p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE, and p,p'-DDT were quantitated at levels above the PQL in all feed
samples, and chlordane was quantitated in three of four feed samples. Thus, failure to achieve
the PQL objective for these compounds does not affect test results. The PQL achieved for
a-BHC and 7-BHC, at 2 mg/kg, was only twice the PQL objective of 1 mg/kg. The effect of not
achieving the PQL DQO in the soil feed for these analytes is that the detection limit at which
it can be stated that these compounds do not exist in the feed is slightly higher than originally
intended.
The six target organochlorine pesticide constituents were not detected above PQLs in
any laboratory or method blank.
Organochlorine pesticide constituent measurement precision and accuracy were assessed
by preparing one MS/MSD sample set for each of the soil feed, kiln ash, scrubber liquor, and
flue gas Method 0010 train sample matrices, and measuring spike recovery. Table 30
summarizes the spike recovery data obtained. The data in Table 30 show that 38 of 44 individual
spike recovery measurements, or 86 percent, were within compound-specific recovery ranges.
As the completeness DQO for this measurement was 70 percent, the measurement accuracy
DQO, as measured by the spike recovery from MS/MSD samples, was met. The data in
Table 30 also show that 20 of 22 duplicate sample spike recovery RPDs, or 91 percent, were
within the RPD DQO of 50 percent. Thus, the measurement precision DQO, as measured by
spike recovery from MS/MSD samples, was also met.
46
-------
TABLE 26. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE SAMPLE HOLD TIMES
Sample
Soil feed:
Test 1 ,
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
TestS
Test 4
Matrix spike
Kiln ash
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test 3
Test 4
Matrix spike
Method requirement
Scrubber liquor
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test 3
Test 4
Method blank
Matrix spike
Scrubber exit flue gas Method 0010 trains
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test3
Test 4
Method blank
Matrix spike
Method requirement
Collection/
preparation
date
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/14/91
8/20/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/21/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/13/91
8/23/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/6/91
8/13/91
Extraction
, date
8/20/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
8/20/91
8/21/91
, 8/20/91
8/12/91
8/12/91
8/12/91
8/20/91
8/21/91
8/21/91 '
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/23/91
8/23/91
8/23/91
8/23/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/6/91
8/13/91
Extraction hold
time, days
15
8
8
15
7
0
6
6
6
7
6
0
14
16
14
14
10
8
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Analysis
Analysis hold time,
date
9/3/91
9/4/91
9/4/91
9/3/91
9/4/91
9/3/91
8/16/91
8/16/91
8/16/91
9/6/91
9/6/91
9/6/91
8/26/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/6/91
9/16/91
9/13/91
8/15/91
8/16/91
9/16/91
8/26/91
9/13/91 /
8/15/91
8/15/91
days
14
22
22
14
14
14
4
4
4
17
• 16
16
40
4
25
25
24
14
24
21
9
8
39
13
29
9
2
40
47
-------
Ed
OH
^
C/3
S
S
^
S
S
8
erf
0
IK
CO
Ed
Jj2
H
3
o
SAMPLE H
Ed
Q
O
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTK
*
dd
5s
IS
M aT
!»•! £
^l"8
.w
•^""n
1"°
ol S2,
•— -« 83
i J-^
'x *-
S
B
.« o
s '•& a>
ol*
«
•O
TCLP
extraction hoi
time, days
B
a- .2 _
Collection/ TCL1
preparation extract
: date data
.s
s
V
NO NO VO NO NO C3
ON ON ON ON ON
ON ON ON ON ON
OO OO CO 00 t~~
ON ON ON ON ON
CO OO OO OO OO
CO OO CO OO OO
in .in >n fN i oo
t-1 T-H T-I rH 1 ?5
r-l iH <— 1 >— 1
ON ON ON ON
OO OO OO OO
_vJ |Mr) ._^ '^ *U"*
T~^ i^ S^ ^^ O\
C\ O\ O\ i-t^ i^
00 00 OO ^Q- ^5*
1 *
2 , 1
ft- I
s 11
^ »
tt» i™( CS CO ^^ "O *5
55 ^_, o e
«~ 1/3 « « « ^ pi
en 2 §
O
0
Q
Ed
C£
Di
1 — ,
EC
•<
*
|
C
C
E
Ed
a,
Ed
Z
S
c
El
P extraction fluid.
TABLE 28. ORGANOC
_i
.£
—
t
CQ
*»
O
a
Q
J
O^
&4
«T
B
OJ
'S ^
"5.
B
i
u
w^
1*
1..
Joo
2^0
ON
VI
B
_S
•5
c
Reference
Measurement/analytical
er method
*
i
c
c
i
j
1
!
<
S
E
o
(ft
« J 5
^-- "M. M
^ 0 ^
rM r-H O
000
0 O O
\O NO NO
o o o
4-1 •*-! *•*
<-3 ID 10
_ -
o£ .2^ !£
*™— SI* ^ 5^5 ^^ «~3 y {*•
o S 4? ^* 4? o t< 4j
CO tti ^*i ^J ^*; CO W r^i
J3 -O -"2^
o o o
CO OO OO
op J3 OO JS OO J3
^ M ^ M ^ M
OO .S OO 2 OO 2
les Soxhlet extraction, concentra-
i tion, and direct injection
GC/ECD
les Liquid-liquid extraction, con-
centration, and direct injection
; GC/ECD
les Method 0010 sampling, Soxhle
extraction, concentration, and
direct injection GC/ECD
Tj ™-«M ^ vj ^
'1 J '1 §"§• '1 „,
^^^^ di 1"5 ^9 Qi|».4
^M^IM •— 1 Q yj — ^^
§•§ B l-a S |
ii. fills
C-— *2s GgCLi CS
bfl « c (aO to rH &flC3
c5.s S O.SH o.s
•o
1
^
'o
CO
IB
C3
. H
1
1
2
.S
1
1
3
cl
8
o •
(rt \^
3> oo
"u ^
(/I T*
afli
h*
E^
o
-------
TABLE 29. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE PQLs: OBJECTIVES AND ACHIEVED
Sample type
Soil feed, mg/kg
Kiln ash, mg/kg
TCLP leachate, ^g/L
Scrubber liquor, ^g/L
Flue gas, /^g/dscm
K ,
DQO
1
1
10
10
0.2
•s
« f-
Chlordane
10
0.1
10
1
0.33
PQL
Achieved
a-BHC, 7-BHC, p,p'-DDD,
p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDT
2
0.02
2
0.2
0.06
TABLE 30. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE RECOVERIES FROM MATRIX SPIKE
SAMPLES
• Spike recovery, %
Compound
Chlordane
a-BHC
7-BHC
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDT
DQO
MS
176
a
-
205
187
107
Soil feed
MSD RPD, %
124 35
-
—
Ill 59
104 57
119 11
50
Kiln ash
MS
106
115
115
138
112
196
MSD
108
121
125
144
122
174
RPD, %
2
5
8
4
9
12
50
Scrubber
MS
117
61
65
97
89
93
MSD
95
45
50
80
73
77
liquor
RPD, %
21
30
26
19
20
19
50
Method 0010 train
MS
132
105
106
107
102
127
MSD
105
99
97
107
101
125
RPD, %
23
6
9
0
1
1
50
DQO
45-119
37-134
32-127
31-141
30-145
25-160
a— = Sample dilution factor prohibited quantitation.
49
-------
As a further measurement of precision, one sample each of the soil feed, kiln ash,
scrubber liquor, and Method 0010 train was analyzed in duplicate for the six target
organochlorine pesticide constituents. Neither the original nor duplicate analyses of the kiln ash,
scrubber liquor, and Method 0010 train samples showed the presence of any of the six
constituents above PQLs. As previously noted, a-BHC and -y-BHC were also not detected in the
soil feed samples. The RPDs of the duplicate analyses for the remaining four constituents in the
soil feed ranged from 11 to 30 percent; all of these RPDs were within the DQO for
measurement precision of 50 percent. Thus, the measurement precision objective was met: as
also measured by duplicate feed soil analyses.
62 TRACE METAL ANALYSES (MERCURY EXCLUDED)
A total of 58 samples was analyzed for trace metals in the test program. Included in this
total were five method blank samples and seven MS/MSD sample pairs. Table 31 lists the
sample collection dates and analysis dates for all samples except the TCLP leachates. Table 32
summarizes the sample collection, TCLP extraction, and TCLP extract analysis dates for the
TCLP leachate samples analyzed. The information in Table 32 shows that all TCLP leachates
were prepared within method hold time limits. The information in Tables 31 and 32 shows that
all metals analyses were completed within method hold time limits.
j
Table 33 summarizes the method blank trace metal analysis results. Also shown in
Table 33 are the results for five sets of laboratory digestion blanks analyzed. The test sample
data in Section 4 were not blank-corrected, with the exception of arsenic in the Method 108
sampling trains. For the Method 108 sampling trains, the laboratory analysis results for arsenic
in the filters and impinger solutions were blank-corrected as part of the data analysis.
Table 34 summarizes the trace metal measurement precision, accuracy, and
completeness DQOs. Table 35 lists the PQLs achieved for each sample matrix. As shown, all
PQL DQOs were met, except for arsenic concentrations in the flue gas. The inability to meet
this PQL did not compromise the test objectives, however, because arsenic was detected in all
flue gas samples at concentrations above the PQL.
Trace metal measurement precision was assessed via duplicate sample analyses. Two
types of duplicate sample analyses were performed. First, eight samples were analyzed in
duplicate and two samples in triplicate, including separate digestions. Second, the IRF prepared
one set of MS/MSD samples for each sample matrix analyzed and submitted these samples for
analysis. Table 36 summarizes the duplicate sample analysis results, noting the RPD or percent
relative standard deviation (%RSD) for each sample/analyte pair. In Table 36, the set of
duplicate analysis results labeled "Test samples" corresponds to the sample duplicate analyses.
The set of results labeled "MS/MSD samples" corresponds to the MS/MSD sample sets prepared
at the IRF and submitted for analysis.
The data in Table 36 show that, of 62 unambiguous metal analysis RPD and %RSD
determinations, 55, or 89 percent, met the precision DQO of 25 percent RPD (30 percent in flue
gas train samples). As the completeness DQO for the trace metal measurements was 80 percent,
the precision DQO, as measured by duplicate sample analyses, was met.
50
-------
TABLE 31. TRACE METAL SAMPLE HOLD TIMES
Sample
Soil feed T
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test3
Test 4
Test 3 external matrix spike
Kiln ash
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Tests
Test 4
Test 3 external matrix spike
Scrubber liquor
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test 3
Test 4
Test 3 external matrix spike -
Test 3 scrubber liquor
pretest blank
Flue gas Method 108 train
Scrubber exit
Test 1 filter
Test 1 probe wash
Test 1 impingers
Test 2 filter
Duplicate analysis
Test 2 probe wash
Duplicate analysis
Repeat duplicate analysis
Test 2 impingers
Duplicate analysis
Test 3 filter
Test 3 probe wash
Test 3 impingers
Test 4 filter
Test 4 probe wash
Test 4 impingers
Method requirement
Collection/ Analysis
preparation date date
:J - - 'ffff *
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/14/91
1/8/92
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
1/8/92
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
9/11/91
8/13/91
8/6/91
8/6/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/15/91
8/15/91
•
¥
10/22/91
10/22/91
10/22/91
10/22/91
10/22/91
2/6/92
10/22/91
10/24/91
10/24/91
10/22/91
10/22/91
2/6/92
10/24/91
10/24/91
10/24/91
10/24/91
10/24/91
10/24/91
10/24/91
10/21/91
10/21/91
10/21/91
10/18/91
1/9/92
10/18/91
10/18/91
1/9/92
10/18/91
1/9/92
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/21/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
Analysis hold
time, days
78
78
78
78
69
29
. 77
77
77
70
68
29
79
77
77
72
70
43
72
76
76
76
71
154
71
71
154
71
154
66
66
66
67
64
64
180
(continued)
51
-------
TABLE 31. (continued)
Sample
Flue gas Method 108 train
Stack
Test 1 filter
Test 1 probe wash
Test 1 impingers
Test 2 filter
Test 2 probe wash
Test 2 impingers
Test 3 filter
Test 3 probe wash
Test 3 impingers
Duplicate analysis
Test 4 filter
Test 4 probe wash
Test 4 impingers
Method blank
Filter
Probe wash
Impinger solution
Matrix spike
Filter
Probe wash
Impinger solution
Method requirement
Collection/ Analysis Analysis hold
preparation date date time, days
(continued)
8/6/91
8/6/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/15/91
8/15/91
8/21/91
8/21/91
8/21/91
9/6/91
9/6/91
9/6/91
10/21/91
10/21/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
. 10/21/91
10/21/91
10/21/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/18/91
10/21/91
10/21/91
10/18/91
76
76
73
71
71
71
66
66
66
66
67
67
67
58
58 .
58
45
45
42
180
52
-------
TABLE 32. TRACE METAL SAMPLE HOLD TIMES FOR TCLP LEACHATE SAMPLES
Collection/
preparation
Sample date
Soil feed TCLP leachate
Test 1 8/5/91
Duplicate analysis 8/5/91
Test 2 8/5/91
Tests 8/5/91
Duplicate analysis 8/5/91
Test 4 8/14/91
Kiln ash TCLP leachate
Test 1 8/6/91
Test 2 8/8/91
Test3 8/13/91
Duplicate analysis 8/13/91
Triplicate analysis 8/13/91
Test 4 8/15/91
Test 3 external matrix spike 8/22/91
Method blank 8/27/92
Method requirement
Sample is TCLP extraction fluid.
TABLE 33. TRACE METAL
TCLP
TCLP extraction
extraction hold time,
date days
8/20/91
8/20/91
8/20/91
8/20/91
8/20/91
8/26/91
8/21/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/26/91
9/11/91
&
-
ANALYSES OF
15
15
15
15
15
12
15
14
9
9
9
11
22
28
BLANK
Analysis
Analysis hold time,
date days
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
12/31/91
SAMPLES
133
133
133
133
133
127
120
119
119
119
119
115
111
126
180
Concentration
Blank sample Ag
Laboratory blanks
3010 digestion blank, 100191-1, mg/L <0.005
3010 digestion blank, 100291-1, mg/L < 0.005
3050 digestion blank, 101091-1, mg/L 0.018
3050 digestion blank, 101591-1, mg/L < 0.005
3010 digestion blank, 093091-1, mg/L < 0.005
3010 digestion blank, 13092-1, mg/L 0.011
Method blanks
Scrubber liquor, mg/L < 0.005
TCLP extraction blank, mg/L 0.006
Flue gas Method 108 train filter, mg/filter
Flue gas Method 108 train impinger
solution, mg/L
Flue gas Method 108 train probe wash
solution, mg/L
As
< 0.026
< 0.027
< 0.096
< 0.096
< 0.096
< 0.027
< 0.096
< 0.027
0.0011
0.0073
< 0.005
Ba
0.002
0.002
< 0.001
0.003
0.002
0.007
030
0.028
Cd
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.002
0.003
< 0.002
< 0.005
0.004
< 0.005
Cr Pb
<0.007 0.051
< 0.007 0.037
Se
0.053
0.053
< 0.029 < 0.066 < 0.130
< 0.029 < 0.066 < 0.143
< 0.029 0.216
< 0.007 0.041
< 0.029 0.118
< 0.007 0.041
< 0.130
0.030
< 0.130
0.051
53
-------
O
a
Q
E""*
ASUREME]
W
Je5
j
1
S
u
H
*
Tf
i
CQ
£-1
SO
c
OJ
*H.
E
o
U
£
§r I ^
<
O
CU
e «
.2 t.
.52 °
*
W)
c
a
8
1
1
^5
•—
en
c
« -a
OJ Of
B E
2
a
S
s
U
u
i
2
n
B«
c
Measuremi
0
00
s
o
p
s
•£
U
2
^
,r*t
C
.2
•k
•oS
-il
1
»
c »o
•i!
o ^
60 S
5 S
0
SW-846
Method 60
•
-------
TABLE 35. TRACE METAL MEASUREMENT PQLs: OBJECTIVES AND ACHIEVED
Sample type
Soil feed and kiln ash, mg/kg
As
Ba
Cd '
Cr
Pb
Scrubber liquor and TCLP leachates, Mg/L
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Flue gas, /tg/dscm
As
1 DQO
25
1
2
8
20
250
10
20
80
200
.0,
PQL
Achieved
9.6
0.1 '
0.2
2.9
6.6
96
2,
5
29
51
5 0.75
55
-------
TABLE 36. METALS ANALYSIS PRECISION
Concentration
Sample Ag
Test samples
Soil feed, Test 2
Analysis, mg/kg < 0.005
Duplicate analysis, mg/kg 0.093
RPD, % -a
Soil feed TCLP leachate, Test 1
Analysis, mg/L < 0.005
Duplicate analysis, mg/L < 0.005
RPD, % -
Soil feed TCLP leachate, Test 3
Analysis, mg/L < 0.005
Duplicate sample, mg/L < 0.005
RPD, % —
Kiln ash, Test 2
Analysis, mg/kg < 0.449
Duplicate analysis, mg/kg < 0.460
RPD, % -
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, Test 3
Analysis, mg/L < 0.005
Duplicate sample, mg/L . < 0.005
Triplicate analysis, mg/L < 0.005
%RSD -
Scrubber liquor, Test 2
Analysis, mg/L < 0.005
Duplicate analysis, mg/L < 0.005
RPD, % —
»_ Not appropriate for calculation.
As
1,040
808
25
2.16
2.32
7
2.52
2.13
17
619
608
2
4.13
4.58
4.51
6
11.5
11.4
1
Ba
65.6
54.9
18
0.885
0.815
8
0.798
0.670
17
59.6
56.8
5
0.779
0.807
0.800
2
0.227
0.227
0
Cd
1.10
0.96
14
0.009
0.012
29
0.012
0.009
29
0.422
0.672
46
0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
0.023
0.024
1
Cr
19.0
18.1
5
< 0.007
< 0.007
—
< 0.007
< 0.007
—
11.3
11.8
4
< 0.007
< 0.007
< 0.007
'—
0.089
0.096
8
Pb
118
94.7
22
0.086
0.081
6
0.083
0.070
17
57.8
53.5
8
0.095
0.091
0.124
17
0.265
0.285
7
Se
< 0.130
< 0.130
—
0.066
0.058
13
0.063
0.059
7 •
16.4
< 10.7
_
0.062
0.068
0.071
7
< 0.130
0.183
—
DQO
25
25
25
25
25
25
(continued)
56
-------
TABLE 36. (continued)
Concentration
Sample Ag
Test samples (continued)
Scrubber exit flue gas Method 108 train
filter, Test 2
Analysis, /ig/filter
Duplicate analysis, /tg/filter
RPD, %
Scrubber exit flue gas Method 108 train
probe wash solution, Test 2
Analysis, jig/L
Duplicate analysis, /tg/L
Repeat duplicate analysis, pg/L
%RSD
Scrubber exit flue gas Method 108 train
impinger solution, Test 2
Analysis, /tg/L
Duplicate analysis, /tg/L
RPD, %
Stack flue gas Method 108 train
impinger solution, Test 3
Analysis, ng/L
Duplicate analysis, /tg/L
RPD, %
MS/MSD samples
Soil feed, Test 3
MS, mg/kg ' 6.86
MSD, mg/kg 7.03
RPD, % 2
Kiln ash, Test 3
MS, mg/kg 733
MSD, mg/kg 7.13
RPD, % . 3
As ? Ba Cd Cr
71.6
58.8
20
30.7
32.4
32.9
4
<5
<5
—
'
<5
<5
—
1,953 143 11.7 51.3
1,844 143 .14.1 72.1
6 0 19 34
1,339 172 13.9 55.0
1,232 179 14.5 55.0
844 0
Pb Se DQO
25
25
.
229 31.9
249 28.1
8 13 25
230 26.2
220 25.0
4 5 25
(continued)
57
-------
TABLE 36. (continued)
Concentration :
Sample Ag
MS/MSD samples (continued)
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, Test 3
MS, mg/L 0.049
MSB, mg/L 0.057
RPD, % 15
Scrubber liquor, Test 3
MS, mg/L 0.025
MSD, rng/L 0.032
RPD, % 24
Method 108 train filter
MS, ^g/filter
MSD, /ig/filter
RPD,%
Method 108 train probe wash solution
MS, Mg/L
MSD, Aig/L
RPD, %
Method 108 train impinger solution
MS, pg/L
MSD, /cg/L
RPD,%
As Ba Cd Cr
14.8 2.06 0.042 0.391
14.8 2.06 0.050 0.382
0 0 17 2
26.2 0.262 0.117 0.430
22.1 0.257 0.113 0.439
17 2 3 2
207
148
33
85.6
136
45
107
53.2
67
Pb Se DQO
0.285 0.193
0.241 0.193
17 0 25
1.27 0.477
1.27 0.467
0 2 25
25
•
25
25
58
-------
Trace metal measurement accuracy was assessed by preparing MS and MSD samples
and measuring spike recovery. Two types of MS samples were analyzed. First, as part of its own
laboratory QC program, EMSL spiked and analyzed five test samples. Second, as noted above,
the IRF prepared and submitted MS/MSD samples for analysis. Table 37 summarizes the spike
recovery data obtained. In the table, the internal matrix spikes were those prepared in the
EMSL laboratory as part of its internal QC program. The external MS/MSD samples were
those prepared at the IRF and submitted for separate analysis.
The data in Table 37 show that 68 of 85 spike recovery measurements, or 80 percent,
met the accuracy DQO of 75 to 125 percent recovery. As the completeness DQO for the trace
metal analyses was 80 percent, the accuracy objective for these measurements was met.
63 MERCURY ANALYSES
A total of 26 test program samples was analyzed for mercury. This total included two
method blank samples and four MS/MSD sample pairs. Table 38 summarizes the sample
collection and analysis dates. The TCLP leachate samples analyzed for mercury were aliquots
of the samples analyzed for the other trace metals. Sample collection and TCLP extraction dates
are as noted in Table 32. The mercury analysis dates for these samples are given in Table 38.
As shown, all samples, TCLP leachates included, were analyzed within the mercury analysis
method hold time limit of 28 days.
Mercury was not detected above the PQL of 2 /ig/L in either blank sample, a scrubber
liquor blank collected before the start of Test 3 and a TCLP method blank.
Table 39 summarizes the mercury measurement precision, accuracy, and completeness
DQOs. Table 40 lists the mercury PQL DQOs and notes the PQLs achieved. As shown, the
PQL DQO for mercury in the scrubber liquor and TCLP leachate samples was met. The
achieved PQL of 1 mg/kg of mercury in the soil feed and kiln ash samples was higher than the
PQL DQO of 0.2 mg/kg. Mercury was detected above the PQL in all feed samples, and below
the achieved PQL in all kiln ash samples. The effect of not achieving the PQL DQO for
mercury in the kiln ash is that the detection limit at which it can be stated that mercury is not
present in the kiln ash is higher than originally intended.
Mercury measurement precision was assessed via duplicate sample analyses. Two types
of duplicate analyses were performed. First, one sample from each sample matrix was analyzed
in duplicate, including separate digestions. Second, one set of MS/MSD samples for each
sample matrix was prepared and analyzed. Table 41 summarizes the duplicate sample analysis
results, noting the RPD for each sample pair. In Table 41, the set of duplicate analysis results
labeled "Test samples" corresponds to the sample duplicate analyses. The set of results labeled
"MS/MSD samples" corresponds to the MS/MSD sample sets.
In the case of the test samples, only the soil feed showed concentrations above the PQL.
Of the five unambiguous metal analysis RPD determinations, three met the precision DQO of
25 percent. Thus, the completeness for mercury measurement precision, as measured by
duplicate sample analyses, was 60 percent, lower than the precision completeness DQO of
59
-------
TABLE 37. METALS SPIKE RECOVERIES FROM MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLES
Sample
Internal matrix spikes
Soil feed, Test 1
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, Test 3 duplicate sample
Scrubber liquor, Test 1
Method 108 train impinger solution, Test 2
Method 108 train probe wash solution, Test 3
External MS/MSD samples
Soil feed, Test 3
MS
MSD
Kiln ash, Test 3
MS
MSD
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, Test 3
MS
MSD
Scrubber liquor, Test 3
MS
MSD
Method 108 train filter
MS
MSD
Method 108 train probe wash
MS
MSD
Method 108 train impinger solution
MS
MSD
Spike recovery, %
Ag As Ba Cd Cr Pb
88 79 94 91 89 80
14 90 91 94 89 94
11 90 92 92 89 91
105
105
171 85 90 73 78 84
176 80 90 89 109 91
183 83 109 87 83 84
178 76 113 91 83 ' 80
245 103 76 105 89 119
285 103 76 125 87 100
63 104 102 100 93 99
80 88 100 97 95 99
103
74
29
45
178
113
Se
98
94
96
80
70
66
63
85
85
88
87
60
-------
TABLE 38. MERCURY SAMPLE HOLD TIMES
Sample
Soil feed:
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Tests
Test 4
Test 3 matrix spike
SoU feed TCLP leachate
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test 3
Test 4
Kiln ash
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test 3
Test 4
Test 3 matrix spike
Kiln ash TCLP leachate
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test 3
Test 4
Test 3 matrix spike
Method blank
Scrubber liquor
Test 1
Test 2
Duplicate analysis
Test 3
Test 4
Test 3 matrix spike
Test 3 scrubber liquor pretest blank
Method requirement
Collection/
preparation
date
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/5/91
8/14/91
8/5/91
8/20/91
8/20/91
8/20/91
8/20/91
8/26/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/13/91
8/21/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/26/91
8/22/91
8/27/91
8/6/91
8/8/91
8/8/91
8/13/91
8/15/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
Analysis
date
8/29/91
9/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
9/13/91
9/13/91-
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
' 8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
. 8/29/91
Analysis
hold time,
days
,24
24
24
24
15
24
24
24
24
24
18
23
21-
21
16
14
16
23
22
22
22
18
22
17
23
21
21
16
14
16
16
28
61
-------
VI
VI
s
Q
H
§
D
C/3
s
is
I
W
ON
i
oa
§
o "™
!0 o
t/i
.0
•3
I
S ^ p"
M c S
dj ^
Measuremen
parameter
0
CO
10
01
2
>o
OO
(N
W)
cs
c r~
I?
II
•°s
IS
cs -a
j= o
cc r^
2
U
cS
C3 CS
> e
u
H S
g
w4 -^ •** **'
CQ ^^ •—< ~-H
rf
CO
S
aReference
62
-------
TABLE 40. MERCURY MEASUREMENT PQLs: OBJECTIVES AND ACHIEVED
PQL
Sample matrix DQO Achieved
Soil feed and kiln ash, mg/kg 0.2 1
Scrubber liquor and TCLP leachates, /*g/L 2 2
80 percent. Table 41 shows that one RPD was 26 percent, exceeding the precision DQO by only
1 percent. This observation, together with the small sample population, suggest that failure to
meet the precision DQO did not compromise the test conclusions based on the mercury data.
Mercury measurement accuracy was assessed by preparing MS and MSD samples and
measuring spike recovery. Table 41 summarizes the spike recovery data obtained.
The data in Table 41 show that only one of eight spike recovery measurements, or
13 percent, met the accuracy DQO of 75 to 125 percent recovery. As the completeness DQO
for the trace metal analyses was 80 percent, the accuracy objective for these measurements was
not met. Had the spike recovery DQO been 60 to 140 percent recovery, however, the objective
would have been met because seven of the eight spike recovery measurements, or 88 percent,
met this less accurate recovery DQO.
The failure to meet the mercury analysis accuracy objective means that the sample trace
metal contents were only generally known to within ±40 percent. This is less accurate than the
±25 percent originally desired. The test conclusions, however, are still valid and defensible,
although some conclusions are slightly less certain than would have otherwise been the case.
6.4 CHLORIDE ANALYSES
The impinger contents from the Method 5 particulate/HCl sampling trains were
analyzed for chloride to determine flue gas HC1 concentrations at the locations sampled. The
test plan and QAPP specified that analyses be performed by ion chromatography, Method 300.0.7
During the analysis period, however, several problems were experienced with the ion
chromatograph used, which resulted in an inability to attain acceptable instrument performance
because of an interfering ion. It was therefore decided to complete the impinger solution
chloride analyses via chloride specific ion electrode analysis so that sample hold time limits could
be met. All chloride samples were so analyzed, within the 28-day hold time limit.
As part of the chloride analyses, an impinger solution blank sample was analyzed and
found to contain chloride ion at 1.1 mg/L. Conversion of the chloride ion data to HC1 emissions
showed that the HC1 flue gas concentrations were very low without blank-correcting. Thus,
blank-correcting would have had no significant impact on the HC1 emissions data, so it was not
performed.
63
-------
TABLE 41. MERCURY DUPLICATE ANALYSIS AND SPIKE RECOVERY RESULTS
Mercury
concentration, Spike recovery, RPDj
Sample mg/kg % %
Test samples3
Soil feed, Test 2
Analysis 5.8 38
Duplicate analysis 8.5
MS/MSD samples
Soil feed, Test 3
MS 113 16
MSD 133
Kiln ash, Test 3
MS 50 26
MSD 65
Kiln ash TCLP leachate, Test 3
MS 63 16
i
MSD 74
Scrubber liquor, Test 3
MS 67 7 ;
MSD , 72
DQQ 75-125 25
aAll other matrix analyses for mercury performed in duplicate were below
thePQL.
64
-------
Table 42 summarizes the flue gas HC1 measurement precision, accuracy, and
completeness DQOs. The HC1 PQL achieved, 175 jig/dscm, was sufficient to show compliance
with the hazardous waste incinerator performance standard for HC1.
One impinger test sample was analyzed in duplicate, with an RPD of 2 percent. A
MS/MSD sample set was also prepared and analyzed. The RPD of the MS/MSD analyses was
0.4 percent. Thus, the precision DQO of 30 percent was met by both sets of duplicate analyses.
Spike recoveries were 113 percent for both analyses, which met the accuracy DQO of 75 to
130 percent recovery. The ability to meet the measurement precision and accuracy DQOs
suggests that the use of an alternative analytical method to that specified in the test plan and
QAPP did not adversely affect the test results.
65
-------
V)
o
g
H
W
s
3
D
c/a
2
S
o
EC
•
Ed
J
<
^
O
Q
c
•*«» wca
« B^
"S,
E
o
0
g?
S o
s ^^
b
•<
. Q
.1 h
« 0
g Q
U CO
CU pj
^
en
i
- -3
J
"5
.—
"«
en
1—1
2
r^
o
en
52
.1
EL,
.§
w
D
§
0^
K!
>n
T3
O
•5
S
J2
'1 0
Ss
!1
M e
10 .g
•a o
O jr;
r« JS
a3 a>
S &
«
CD
Z3
_e
U
1
8
i_
a>
Sa
'a,
'o
V5
"co
^
rcl
C
ctf
66
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA SW-846, 3rd
edition, November 1986.
2. 40 CFR, Part 261, Appendix II.
3. 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A.
4. 40 CFR, Part 61, Appendix B.
5. "Test Plan for an Incineration Treatability Study for Arsenic-Contaminated Soils from the
Chemical Insecticide Corporation Superfund Site, Revision 2," prepared by Acurex
Corporation under EPA Contract 68-C-9-0038, August, 1991.
6. "Quality Assurance Project Plan for an Incineration Treatability Study for Arsenic-
Contaminated Soils from the Chemical Insecticide Corporation Superfund Site, Revision 1,"
prepared by Acurex Corporation under EPA Contract 68-C9-0038, July 1991.
7. "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA-600/4-84-017, March 1984.
67
-------
APPENDIX A
INCINERATOR OPERATING DATA
68
-------
APPENDIX A-l
CONTROL ROOM DATA
69
-------
*"3 *c £• r?.
n i/i v> v, in >/•, in i/», IT, in in vj in in >rt «n >ri
d d d d d d d d d d d d o d d o' o o o
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
S
o' d ei
A A A
S5
ooooooooooooooooooo
p
d d d
f-r-r^r-r^t^t^r-r-r-r-r^r^r^r-t^t^w. ve r-
S o S o o S S o S S S o o S 8 S p q r- p
oooooooooooooooooo«-
tr. \f, \n tr, n ir. w, v. »/-. w, w.
8R
S
?,&&&> ?, >?, U=. 1?. 1?, V?, & 0000
•T'*r'')--a!^!'^;'«3-'»t^i'*^'sr
qppppqu^vjoqov. qqpqqvjq
u-, v,
5S
vn >r.
ir. OOOO !/*.>/-. O >/-. OOOOOO
>n o 2
•^ c^. ^
Ov Cv Ov
V, O W. O W.
''
S!? 2>
-------
c .h
CO •
.2- -a
J
3 H
o
.
ft
0 B
II
O E
r-
t-
w> o« <>j ev vn vo v,
oo r» vo * r- oo vn
r^- r*- p- r*- i*- t*- oo
VO 00 OS
•«• Cv C~
t- t- f-
_« c —
OOfJCrtfj^g\OO^Cp^'Cfrr^
G\ O O O O ^ ON w^ CT* O O ^7
N PJ, I
= 8
^H ^^ ^ co co ^J
69 VO 00 t~
\O « vp W^.
p* SS
r'l c, m pi w w c, rt J2 Q £2
000000000009000900000000000000000000 000009
cs
00 —i O
f;
N
oo'odododogooodogodosodogoo'odooodadodod cc co co
{2
<<•, f. f, m « f, w «*i
S S
*"* S
£
"5.
§
D)
O
•O
O
I
o
71
-------
CD .TS Cuf
odd
A A A
SS8
d d o
1/1 Vi
rt c^
o\ c^
^t m
ON ^
ooooooooooooooooooo ooo
3338388383888888838 8S8
q q ui q q q u-, wi vj q q q n w, q q q >n «•. u% q q wj q q
fies^wwvosCiSS^JSSSSS&S**"^
III
O)
i
•s
•o
•g
8.
ra
•c
O
72
-------
.-I -a g- s:
-
O .h 5 5
< < I Ǥ
lei
co £
00
»? lart
a a H
E "E.
I E
O cc
al p
8
*
. ^
v6*tniotr, viini?, oe
f, <*•, « »«•, f, P«, t*> e»> «
v - « , , f, P-, ^ -^t \ « r, o 'l N
£- — .-O \o ee
'
, co r»
o ® \o
3 53 55 =< O
§«»r, o w. O «"• O V", o «n o
»«e»iVO«f. *o«-" €•>
«- — — NfMNNf, t<-, f,
Z'X O
£
"5.
s
ca
I
I
I
Q
73
-------
a .•? o.f
o o O w «-. >«
u-ivr. vr, •^••^•^•
S oo
V*. V} V, V} O t*»
ddddddddddddddddddddodo d d d
AA
OOOOWWWWWWWW'-'^'-' •»«*»» A A A
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA
S.s
0- ^—
§• S is =
1.11
3 •§ S
Q
fe ^ >2
| IE
|S 5
gggggggggSSSSSS^SSSSSSS S8|
dddddddo'dddo'do'doooooooo ooo
* * 2 2 S 5
ss
So
ci§
E "5.
o E
O g
| I
<§!
0 -S
ooooooooooooooooooooooo
n r-
r- >O
r> t-
o o o
r-» c** t*- t** t"» t** t**
& rt f^. « f^. « c^.
R s;
P. P;
Si
^
V)
s
O)
o
U=
O
o>
•c
D
74
-------
js
E
t.
o
c
1
bri
E
.0
^^ M
'
s- 55
Ci
1 '1 ^
< |
|'l|
.5
09 D. ''"•
Wet.
o § s_
H
« .a T
8 £ H
&, 1 >
us O '•"
CA .S ---
IP
.is 4 T
^1 2
^
.b £ T
^ E ^
.S
u
P
C^ f^* ^0 W fO f^ f^ f^ ?^ C^ ?^ <^ f^ C^
ooooooooooo ooo
v, in vn m n n n
co cc co ce ce oo ad co oo eo cd ce'oo'oo
inmn>nnpjp)j*^>n otpi
v> o in in in o o o in o in in o oo
®. **! *"t *^1ps|r1ri'~!cr!'^ '^'^'^
O ^N O\ O\ ^^ O^ ^^ ^N 00 ^N ^N ^^ ^^ 00
enp)pjNpip)p4Plp)p>pj PJPJP)
ooooooooooo o 0,0
\O\o\OvO\OvBV8inm\OVO mvOVB
pipipipipipipipipipipi pipipi
,
SSSSSSSSS'S.S S>J5
*oioO'-<»-tpip>f, «*>•* 5
~2<
a
D)
a
.•c -
Q
84
-------
« 8 * is
°IS
, -3
S
OQ
'E 8
cad.
=
a
2
00
c C
C o
3ff 1;l
t
OE
P
O *~* \O O VO OO
'OflC^'*OT-tt— (^fOQ'O
*^ "3" f^ **"! ^"^ OO ^O Ow OO
>-i 10
ov co
co -
CJ
1.
i
(0
ai
o
T3
P.
O)
•c
a
75
-------
5 IIP
.S •£ £• £!1
2 fl g €|
o £
3a
(& 1 e
e. •
03
<
: '"
> ^
Si
E •.
o E
& S
o a
C M
** «
1*1
£ £ £
181
r§
"i!31
3 ft.
O
m
•§>_
isa
P
CM CM CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM CM
CMCMCMCMNCMCMCM
CM CM CM CM ;CM o vo <> * >oi >o <> *o vo « * >o »c «' vd vd \o r, «/•; t/} 1/5 »n vi vi ir, »/•>»/•> wi vj v> v>
o o d d o e> o' o d d es o o o o o o o c> o o o
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA
g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
ooooooooooddoooo'oo'd odd
,.
« f, f, f, f, cr,
p", f,
-J •*' CM CM" «
.
-J
-------
C 3
«> O"
3 "t
w E-
'S
a
su
II
00 t— •* f- IT) CO I
to ro •«*• >n ^t 5
12
r~ t- .3
a \ft 5
iSsgiigissiigaglgll S§§
o rt «-< oo ro m i
t— oo o
SV^
00
00 00
£'3
o>
i
I
zxo
CL
Ol'
•c
o
77
-------
APPENDIX A-2
GAS TRAIN DATA
78
-------
s
51
cc
•i s
r t*5
S|
O b
8&
S« O >~*
S — O
°l| *
5 E •!=
€ s IE
Soli
M W O '—
oir
C5 W 3 OS
O £ S *
g .h £ r
S
w p <—
n viinvi
ddddddddd odd
q q q q q © q q q q q q
ooooooooo ooo
St/IUtvO^ODOONtM U1 rj CO
COOOOOOOOOOOOvON OOO\00
ddddddddd odd
vi in in
w, «n v.
oooooeooo ooo
N
N
O M 00
rq _i r-i
OOOOOOOOO OOO
ooooooooo ooo
z x 6
£
•5.
I
1
I
f
Q
79
-------
s
v, \r, v, i/*( v, v, IT, V) v\ v%
ooooeoodoo'ooodeoao eo'eeao
q q q q q q q q o o o o
o w! uS uS wi \n vi wi \r.
ooooooooo o o o
^"i^tr^oeeoNN * N r»
coaoooeow SS o\ ov w S S
«rtooovnoeow> mo
ow
eo«jjo\o;qq©qo ovoo
ooooooooo ooo
•
0)
s
o
&
o
80
-------
§
00
o
"p •&
oo B
re
5 I
OE
I?
11
73
C
•S 6 *
S2<
= s.
£ £
8 3-S ^
0 £ «
12
£ .b S ^
_e
5 | E
•3 -is S
•3-B
< -I *
J o < S
en
M
ppppppp>opp pop
dddddddo'o'd do'd
oooooooooo oo.o
«/i wi wi
oooooooooo ooo
v, v, v> v, vi v, v, v, vi v, w, vt in
do'o'ddddddd odd
vi n w, i ri
oooooooooo ooo
) N f)
ri pi M
*'
-------
00 »
ec o
li
a re
^O
8-S
O E
co ta o
OJ3 ^ (j
-1- 2 it
' *
-2
O
O '^
•— •—
« (A •— •—
cS S 5 2
n
<
»
u
oooooooooo 00,0
\*i TM c*» ^i ^) ^j fi CT*» f) f^ fn fn fn
o' d d d d d d d d d odd
vii/**i/}ini/"iv}i/''iV}v^vi v)V)i/)
ooao'ooododooooedoo'od oe'oo'oo'
•^••^•^•^^^••^•^•VTf ^n-»
OOOOOOOOOO OOO
S
-. oqqqooooo oo
iNr»r)pJNNcJtM« ,N«M
00 Ov Ov
o\ e\ e\ o\
oooooooooo ooo
*. *.
SSSSSo'So'Sg 5x0
0sOO^^c>ie>it*i«*i^ ^^»^
I
I
1
o
82
-------
o
o
CJ\ 60
if
re
•S s
li
S S
O E
.S 3 £•
2o|q
**
to
E
I
s, •- s
.!s eu
< i
•t .2
* I
s -a
4)
P
q q q q p q o p q o o pop
ddddo'o'ddddo ooo
ddddo'oooooo ooo
ppo.pppppppp pop
ooeoooooooo ooo
S
00 00
f.. (•* p. \f, v, \f>
-------
s
o
O
O\ CK)
\n .S
31
OE
o
E
IIP
0L| r/5
Sl*ii
^ e
<5|l
O ^
I S 2 S
n fc *
2 £
PJ?
e
.«- n. (—
< E ' ?•
U v-
5-S -
I *
^ o <
n
.E
B. £
.E
qqqooqqqqqq o q q
o o d do d d d d d d odd
o' o' d d d d d d d d d d o' o'
ooooooooooo o o o
ooooooooooo ooo
t** r^ co COOOQOOOCOQOOO OD
ooooooooooo ooo
/•> in w. >n >n >n in in in in ininin
ri pi (Nc4-
ooooooooooo ooo
cs
a
to
V. O
OQO
«ot*'.
2XO
S <1 >
D)
—
a
85
-------
" %
OE
3 a-1 7
D|fi
o
T3
O
I
I
O
86
-------
APPENDIX A-3
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM DATA
INCLUDING CALVERT SYSTEM OPERATING DATA
87
-------
IS
"I
U ca
3i
i E
CS (/}
8 S
^ o
II
S §•
s 2
r
.s S*
S'S p^-nvi«nvBw>v5 «n » m
y^ g £11 _!2*-4^4^*« W £
J8ISFI a
.2 £> >S >~
II
5SSSS2SSS SSSS
u ^
*j <; n. HI in in >n
-------
Tf\
8
0.
<
' JS
• -2
£
1
cc
.0
S
« v
S <->
51
uP b
« ^ ec
^ M -a
J5 ^ C
o 00 X
?2
w ~
M
0 a
"g B
g£
S g
*o
£§
n E
4} Cu
w O
3 £
1 °
W W ™*
~ 1
w g-
s*
** 'H
fe ^
O ^"
E
S i ^£
FT" ^^
'
re 1 ^ F
^* *-i U £—
11^
*•* WJ ^*
li|E
111?
.255s-
SI
.^ « £
~ a. "° •
'T- £ *
r^ C«
sc
s •§•'5
•i *
E e
u .s
D .*-
cS *• "" S
S .E
V
P
c\cvo\c\cvde\evoi»o\o\cv
.........I .«'
3S33335S3S 5-33
\p\O\O\P^\QVO\fi^^f^\O\O
'o '^ *o lo ^s ^5 15 ^5 ^3 ^5 ^3 05 %5
RiSSSlSKlSSS. £$8 8*8
s a a "a a s s s s s a s a
ir> u% xr, v, v*» v** vi trj »n in v, v« u%
aaaa-aaaaaa 2SS
saaaasaaaa as"
>
sssssssssssss
o o p p v. p es p o p <« o a\
f*ip^c4c^*HOt-
v, v, «o «n pi «n vi w, v. irtv>v>i«v>v>v!
-------
S-
s
u cf
ft) «-<
^i
S «
04
3f
•§ I
s ^
g s
i«
ii
If
8*
* C
oj c
E
i^
S Dt-
E
I81E
§ »«
I|5
3i
I
^
T3
»-l gj "O t,
pj 3
«J • 6
&
g
OOOOOOOOOPO
10 <^i 10 vi >ri vn wi w, vr, 10 >n
h; |S 00 06 06 in « I-; S F W in 00 f;
t»p»t~t>p»p»r»r»Pi-t»K f» p» t*
\O
sss
§ £ B S 8 S In K K K £ »2 £ s
sss
in O O O. O O. p O O O p pop
oooooooooo pop
in in in in in in m in m in in in m
intninininmininmin ininin
d d d d d d d d d d o'o'd
pppppppinppp p q in
*J*H^*-3^J«H*^^C*5«^fi •^W'"^
§§islli -
D)
t
a
n
e
I
•a
t
o
o
90
-------
II
li
11-
'» i
1 s ^
E
!S
111
CJ |M w« >—
JliS
8 «S
3 S 3 £
32
vo vd
. !§ >S
S3 SB'S
O O O C3 C5 O O C3 C3 O C3 O O
C3OOO— S
»-< M o fn o cn-<
o co »-i
rn i
D>
B
1
a.
o>
•c
O
91
-------
APPENDIX A-4
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITOR DATA
92
-------
o\
o^
O\ BO
xi .B
00 "H.
E
w 5
u E
1°
55
U
D a
f-
C\
" 9 9
'
9 9
9 "
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 "1 9 9 99
r- o
93
-------
co
*H
O
*-H
»-t ^
q\ e>a
oo .5
eo "5.
S
£ w
W u
°o
,2 o
W 3
u E
2 U
t> ^s
u *•* c "^ o\ r1* r"~ ^ QO ^ c?\ o ^ o o »•* f^c^ic^p^^^H oo f*i o
5 ° o
OT ke»
wJo**1i o tOtttnqc**. qw^oqqqqqqqqqqq oo o v>
5^ a 2 S 92 S ° ^ ^5 ^ ^ °' °' ® *o *^>t
Wr ^ *—•, _. ^^
c *?rq^-^or*ji—'fMOf^^HOfif^c^c^»H^Hf, I-H wo
D g
ttl rl
w O ^ ' ^ "^ ^ ^ ^ *. °°. M. °. "2 ^ t t f; "* «. "* w w p op
M U S « «
ooR's qi'jvnqqi'3ioqqqqqqinin
-------
O
••a-
o
2. I
ob "B.
e
« w
« M
w .a
U ft,
u ^" *" 1 ^^ J-^ fc^ . . ^- _._ _ ^ _ _ ^ ^^ ^^
«U
« U |
35 ,a
•g o'Ui
^ N^rtrtrt___________<__^rt^_ __
" ~ >rie!vll/^
-------
co ",
eg
« CO
Q 8
2 o
2 o
w a
o E
;y <•»
o O
2 U
oo
oooooooooooopooppoo p p »
&
U ^1 qqqqqqqqqq'qqqqqqqqq q q q
_ d d d d d d d o d d d d d d d d d d o odd
D .&
o >/-, P >/-) !/•; v. p p p p_ >/-. >/-, p w, p in p p_ p q q r-<
tii ii iii i i i i
ci
*—• »-C <-H T-4 »-l »-l «-H
M Q t&
U
£ U\O\U\OOOO'-*'"t^**-'r'lCNC'4r'«n**jrti'sr M
96
-------
APPENDIX B
OPERATING DATA PLOTS
97
-------
APPENDIX B-l
KILN AND AFTERBURNER OPERATION
98
-------
Test 1 (8/6/91)
o
O
•5
«
E
P
CO
99
-------
I
V
CO
CO t:
Q.
O
t^
«W
-------
a
I
00
CO E
-------
*J
cr>
E
oo %
o
CO 2
O S
h- o
j
55
cS4
a
3
u
E
P
ff
i{
Si
1
O ;
102
-------
APPENDIX B-2
SCRUBBER EXIT AND STACK CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORS
103
-------
<£>
CO
0
V
CL.
O
CO
O
•ff
CO
8
fl
s
_ CJ
s
8
1
e-s
.
s
8
o o
8
104
-------
CO
GO J
o
43
g-
CO
\
ff-
1
8
8
OT
rf
fr
«
F
_ b
8
AJ
1
03
8
o o
8
105
-------
^x E
CO :§
X, X O
o"
\
X
13
K-
CO
- p
sf
§•
8
ff
8
(S*
i
w
8
8
o o
8
106
-------
O)
in
co |
93
8
8
.y
s
O
D
V
E
P
_ o
8
BD
8
o o
8
107
-------
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY ANALYSIS DATA
In the analytical reports that follow, test program samples are identified by a unique
sample identifier. Table C-l outlines the convention for assigning sample identifiers. Table C-2
lists the sample identifiers for the test program samples collected. Table C-3 lists the identifiers
for the blank samples analyzed and Table C-4 lists the identifiers for the matrix spike samples
prepared and analyzed.
108
-------
TABLE C-l. IRF SAMPLE mENTIFIER CONVENTION
Form of Sample Identifier
YMDDHHMM 12345
Original Generation Suffix
Original Generation
Y- Year, last digit: 1 - 91. 2 - 92, etc-
M- Month:
Jan-1. Feb. 2. Mar-3. Apr -4, May -5, Jun-6,
Jul-7. Aug-8. Sep-9. Oct-A, Nov-B. Dec-C
DD— Day, numeric • ,
HH« Hour, numeric 24 hour convention
MM ** Minute, numeric
Suffix
1 — Sample type:
2 « Sampling Procedure
A Afterburner exit flue gas
B Scrubber liquor
E Scrubber exit flue gas
F Feed
K Kiln exit flue gas
P Preburn feed
Q Prepared in laboratory
S Suck gas
T Ash
Z Other
3 «• Sample Fraetion
0 Total sample
1 ' Individual impinger or impactor stage 1
2 Individual impinger or impactor stage 2
3 Individual impinger or impactor stage 3
, 4 Individual impinger or impactor stage 4
F Filter
I Combined impinger*
M Probe wash •+• Impinger
P Probe wash + Fiber
W Probe wash
X Sorbent nan (XAD-2)
Z Other
0 Not Applicable
A Cascade impactor
C Composite
F Fluoride train (13B)
G Grab
H Mercury train (W1A)
M Multiple metals train
P Method 5 (paniculate/HQ)
R Arsenic train (108)
S Modified Method 5 (0010)
V VOST(0030)
Z Other
4 — Preparation Procedure
0 None
B Organic extract in Benxen*
D Digestion or fusion digcatat*
E Aqueous leachate-EPtoxicfty
F Filtration Filtrate
G Organic extract in Hexan*
H Organic extract mHexan* of
TCLPleachate
M Organic extract fa Methylen* chloride
N Organic extract in Methylene chloride
of TCLPleachate
S Filtration solids
T Aqueous leachate • TCLP
.W Aqueous leachau-Water
Z Other
5 - QA DescriptioB
0 Not applicable
D Split sample duplicate
S Spiked sample
P Spiked sample duplicate
L Lab blank
M Method blank
F Field blank
T Trip blank
Z Other
109
-------
OOOO OOO
OOOO
88S§
III!
SSSS
oo co oq oo
OOOO
OOHffi
oooo
U U CJ U
d, a, b b
OOOO
88S§
S
c/a
B
^o
C3
2P
o
tj w w
S8 (S cs
•s-s
OOO
88S
•§§s
aaa
00 00 00
OOO
OOH
ooo
OOO
co en
t-l T-4
OO OO
OOO
88S
ggg
SSo
II 1
«3 ja a
OO
88
OO
88
XX
ss
as
00 OO
OO
00
oo
OO
OO
88
O
8
a-
o
8
o
o
o
oo
W
o
8
§
III
s s ^
sis
£i
SgS
°o
°g a
O
Ill
l|i
m
OOn
nO§
£^2
no
28
&fe
no
ii
as
00 00
no
R2
22
.O.
'S s
a 1
I
IS
CO
V)
= E
£ i
110
-------
a
ANALYZE
CO
fjj
£
so
I. BLANK
i
W
td
Cfl
H
0)
•H
w
O
.y
S
3i
3.
e?
i
S
en
1
C3
^
|l
i "i
0
o
c
' i*
, |
O O o
HH ^ >•<
fgj ^ Oi
O o O
Q C3 ^5
111
l|s
O
O
0
CQ
o
So • •
t-H
0
O
0
CO
^^
S
S
fc, j~S
O Nn
O N X
1 i§
o S ^
1 11
_ e ' B
.S - o o
ea • .S 'S 'S
o - .g 2 3 .5 3,
& e~^i "S5 *"* -g O CO O
CT'rH OiOO Crt*'3*-*"
^M ^3 ^* O cC *« t-i
^D ^_L' ^H ^ CJ V^ 4i
1 l?l lS|I 11
S ^r2r^ ^[H£ ^32
CO S . S S
O
O
O
^
00
JOOQOUTM
^i
c5
oo
1— 1
2
ffi
o
g
iH
•o
i
e
o
TCLP extract
H
O
O
O
O
f!
1
a
J20QGOOT
OOQGOOT
S ^
OO Q\
IOOO0001
T— 1
VH
S
j
8
o
o
T— 1
T— 1
J2
1-
111
-------
O
1
Z
CO
w
^£
CO
E
CO
H
«
<
§
S
G
w
S
pa
|S
0)
S
o
B
_u
u
1
1
S
in
S
0)
S
^
S
'C «?
o w
11
p
co
O
P-.
S
en
in
S
857QGOOS
125QOOOS
1§
§S
g
•a
"o
ta
n1
S
'S.
CO
CO P.,
1445FCOO
1445FCOO
in in
OO OO
L445FCOOS
L445FCOOP
0 S
rH rH
CO Pi
O O
O 0
18051445FC
18051445FO
•O
,§ Q
^J CO CO
*O ^^ ^1
co
cofc COPH
o o o o
a a o a
to wo uo ^>
§§ §?
rH rH rH rH
OO OO OO OO
rH rH ^"^ ^^
o o o o
11 11
en en S S
00 OO OO OO
rH rH ^H rH
co Cu
a o
0 O
2 2
bo in
90
rH rH
00 00
rH rH
U
ts
1
P-
J
f_
^ ,_,
« Q c§ Q
a S2 M c M »
ns ^^ ^^ *<3 ^£4 fZt
* *
co a,
1656BGOO
L656BGOO
en en
ss
656BGOOS
656BCOOP
en en
OO 00
rH rH
CO B«
O O
0 0
18151652BG
L8151652BG
u
O
3
^3
a5
5 ^ ^
Q »^ ^i
CO
D- Cu
CO
II
UN [L
11
S *^
-
CO PH
a o
x x
o o
oa
>n \o
s a
00 OO
.S
1
•e
o
•I
§
C MM
•g 22
•= Q -jsjs
I S S ^ ^
^o ^S S •§ •§
2 E E £ Cu
\u
S:
Q 1:
112
-------
APPENDIX C-l
PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSES
113
-------
Ms. Joan Bass
Acurex Corporation
Highway 65N., NCTR Building 45
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
September 16, 1991
Received: August 28th
Dear Ms. Bass:
Analysis of your compound gave the following results:
Your #, Our f, Analyses,
1819010FCOOO
MI000958
S-6739 As Received,
% Moisture by Karl Fischer Water 16.34
Dried and Ground Basis,
% Carbon 2.68
% Hydrogen <0..5
% Nitrogen" '0.092
% Chlorine 0.05
% Sulfur 0.013
% Ash . 94.fD7
BTU/ pound 46Ei
*We regret that we cannot determine Oxygen in dirt.
**The nitrogen results were determined by Leco Nitrogen analyzer. ,
We regret that we cannot determine Oxygen in the presence of high ash
content.
Sincerely yours,
R. Hutchens ^^
cec. Vice-President
GRH:dse
114
-------
Project: Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Report (lumber: CIC-3
Revision: 0
U.S. E.P.A I.R.F Laboratory
,O t et^en, DATE
115
-------
Project: Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Report Number: CIC-1
Revision: 0
U.S. E.P.A I.R.F Laboratory
Scrubber Liquor pH Report
Sample ID Number 18061616BGOOO 18081656BGOOO 18130840BGOOM
Collection Date 8/6/91 8/8/91 8/13/91
Analysis Date 8/20/91 8/20/91 8/20/91
pH value 9.22 10.54 7.3
Sample ID Number 18131656BGOOO 18151652BGOOO
Collection Date 8/13/91 8/15/91
Analysis Date 8/20/91 8/20/91
pH value 9.17 11.69
ANALYST 'Q^rZUp "fe . OxEA^ DATE *% - 3-J -
LAB SUPERVISOR"""^.,^.,-. x _^A ^Yo^i&n^^ DATE
116
-------
APPENDIX C-2
TRACE METAL ANALYSES
117
-------
DATE: June 20, 1991
TO: Howard Wall, RREL
FROM: Jim Voft, EMSL Analytical
Inorganic Group Leader
SUBJECT: Results of Metals Analyses
Attached, please find final results of the metals analyses for the samples submitted
on April 25 from the Chemical Insecticides Project !
If you have any questions on these data, please contact me at extension 7152.
118
-------
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ANALYSIS OF METALS BY ICP
CONTRACTOR: TAI ANALYST:
DATE RECEIVED: 04/25/91 DATE REPORTED
REQUESTOR: WALL MATRIX:
PAGES REPORTED: 1 METHOD:
FILE NAME: UALLS01 DISC:
DATE OF ANALYSIS: 05/08/91
CHECKED BY:
RESULTS ARE EXPRESSED IN ppra (mg/kg)
J. VOIT
05/14/91
SOIL
SU 846 - 6010,3050;7471
RCF/ICP 001
TAI LAB
91-2270
91-2271
91-2272
91-2273
LPC
BLANK
SAMPLE ID
P02261
P02261
P02261
P02261
IS050691.1
0513918
500
504
509
512
As
1260
771
875
784
2.07
<.070
Ag
<0.33
0.35
<0.34
<0.49
.194
<.010
Ba
63.3
52.1
59.1
59.9
2.09
<.006
Be
0.343
0.246
0.350
0.346
.198
<.001
Cd
2.25
1.47
2.11
1.86
2.047
.0007
Cr
16.5
17.0
17.5
17.5
2.081
<.002
Pb
54.6
79.6
104
103
1.926
<.035
TAI LAB
91-2270
91-2271
91-2272
91-2273
LPC
BLANK
SAMPLE ID
P02261
P02261
P02261
P02261
I $050691. 1
051391B
500
504
509
512
Sb
11.8
9.50
24.3
33.2
2.09
<.052
Se
<4.4
<4.7
<4.5
<6.6
2.15
<.080
Ti
164
185
145
156
2.10
<.005
Kg
7.84
8.90
10.5
8.57
.096
<.002
SUMMARY OF MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS (X RECOVERY)
SPL 91- 2272.
LEVEL OF SPIKE
ORIG SPL CONC
MAT SPK CONC
MAT SPK REC
SPL 91- 2272
LEVEL OF SPIKE
ORIG SPL CONC
MAT SPK CONC
MAT SPK REC
P02261509
Ufl/fl
MG/KG .
MG/KG
X REC
P02261509
ug/8
MG/KG
MG/KG
X REC.
AS
246
875
943.9
28.0
Sb
0
NS
NS
NS
Ag
6.15
<0.34
5.45
88.6
Se
246
<4.5
276
112
Ba
0
NS
NS
NS
Ti
0
NS
NS
NS
Be Cd Cr
0 6.15 0
NS 2.11 NS
NS 7.66 NS
NS 90.3 NS
Hg
100
7.84
*
*
Pb
61
104
180
123
119
-------
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DUPLICATE ANALYSIS
RESULTS ARE EXPRESSED IN ppra
TAI LAS
91-2272d
SAMPLE ID
P02261509
P02261509
REL X DIFF
As
875
827
5.7
Ag
<0.34
<0.40
NC
Ba
59.06
69.91
16.8
Be
0.35
0.28
23.5
Cd
2.11
2.40
12.9
Cr
17.52
17.90
2.2
Pb
104
; 128
20.4
TAI LAB
91-2272d
SAMPLE ID
P02261509
P02261509
REL X DIFF
Sb
24.32
20.14
18.8
Se
4.49
5.32
16.9
Ti
145
173
17.8
Hg
7.84
7.84
. 0.0
NS*NOT SPIKED
NC=NO CALCULATION
* HG SPIKE LEVEL INAPPROPRIATE TO SAMPLE CONCENTRATION;
NO RECOVERY CALCULATED
NOTE: IEC CHECK FOR l£t BE, PB OUTSIDE METHOD CRITERION OF 80 - 120%
120
-------
summary of results for analysis of metals by ICAP
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ANALYSIS OF METALS BY ICP
CONTRACTOR: TAI
DATE RECEIVED: 04/25/91
REQUESTOR: WALL
PAGES REPORTED: 1
FILE NAME: WALL$02
DATE OF ANALYSIS: 05/23/91
CHECKED BY:
RESULTS ARE EXPRESSED IN ppm (mg/1)
ANALYST:
DATE REPORTED
MATRIX:
METHOD: SW 846
DISC:
J. VOIT
05/23/91
LEACHATE
6010.3010;7471
RCF/ICP 001
TAI LAB
91-1932
91-1933
91-1934
91-1935
SPKBLK
BLANK
SAMPLE
P0226
P0226
P0226
P0226
ID
1500TCLP
1504TCLP
1508TCLP
1512TCLP
IS052091.1
052091
•
As
3.00
2.07
1.49
1.18
4.36
<.070
Ag
<.010
<.010
<.010
<.010
0.038
<.010
Ba
0.922
0.484
0.031
0.079
4.22
<.006
Be
0.002
0.002
<.001
<.001
1.03
<.001
Cd
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.014
0.108
<.002
TAI LAB
91-1932
91-1933
91-1934
91-1935
SPKBLK
BLANK
SAMPLE
P0226
P0226
P0226
P0226
ID
1500TCLP
1504TCLP
1508TCLP
1512TCLP
IS052091.1
052091
Cr
0.051
0.076
0.072
0.216
0.654
0.021
Pb
0.062
0.052
0.051
0.051
.1.06
<.035
Sb
0.175
0.058
0.077
0.113
3.06
<.052
Se
<.080
<.080
<.080
<.080
4.64
<.080
Ti
0.016
0.018
0.026
0.029
NS
<.005
NS = NOT SPIKED
121
-------
SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
SUMMARY OF MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS (% RECOVERY)
SPL 91- 1932
LEVEL OF SPIKE
ORIG SPL CONG
MAT SPK CONC
MAT SPK REC
SPL 91- 1932
LEVEL OF SPIKE
ORIG SPL CONC
MAT SPK CONC
MAT SPK REC
P02261500 150
ug/ml
ug/ral
ug/ml
% REC
P02261500
ug/ral
ug/ml
ug/ml
% REC
As
4.00
3.00
7.18
105
Cr
0.600
0.05,1
0.627
96.0
Ag
0.100
<.010
0.106
106
Pb
1.00
0.062
1.04
97.8
Ba
4.00
0.922
4.98
101
Sb
2.00
0.175
3.07
145
Be
1.00
0.002
0.984
98.4
Se
4.00
<.080
4.54
114
Cd
0.100
0.015
0.114
99.0
Ti
0
0.016
NS
NS
122
-------
Ms. Joan Bass
Acurex Corporation
Highway 65N., NCTR Building 45
Jefferson^ Arkansas 72079
September 16, 1991
Received: Sept. 5th
Dear Ms. Bass:
Analysis of your compound gave the following results:
Your #,
Our #,
Mercury,
18051030FCOTO S-7853 <0.002 mg/liter
% Spike Recovery,
18051245FCOTO S-7854
-------
Ms. Bass
Page 2
September 16, 1991
Your ft
Our f,
Mercury,
* Spike Recovery,
18271200QOOOM S-7861 <0.002 mg/liter
19041430QGOOT S-7862 <0.002 mg/liter
Sincerely yours>
Gail R. Hutchens
Exec. Vice-President
GRHtdse
124
-------
Mr. Dennis Tabor
Acurex Corporation
Highway 65 N. NCTR Building 45
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
August 30, 1991
Received: August 22nd
Dear Mr. Tabor:
Analysis of your compounds gave the following results:
Your #,
18061616BGOOO-MI000868
18081656BGOOO-MI000869
Our f, Mercury,
S-5783 0.007 mg/liter
S-5784 <0.002 mg/liter
<0.002 mg/liter
18131656BGOOOO-MI000870 S-5785 <0.002 mg/liter
S-5786 <0.002 mg/liter
S-5787 <0.002 mg/liter
S-5788 10.25 ppm
S-5789 5.78 ppm
8.47 ppm
18051445FCOOO-MI000879 S-5790 5.39 ppm
18130840BGOOM-MI000875
18151652BGOOO-MI000876
18051030FCOOO-MI000877
18051245FCOOO-MI000878
18061310TGOOO-MI000881
18081345TGOOO-MI000882
/ 3 i*srT+c>t>-i>
18131405TGOOO-MI000883
S-5791
S-5792
S-5793
<1.0 ppm
<1.0 ppm
<1.0 ppm
<1.0 ppm
Spike Recovery,
67.0 %
71.6 %
112.7 *
132.7 *
50.3 %
65.4 *
125
-------
Mr. Tabor
Page 2
August 30, 1991
fl Our */ Mercury, Spike Recovery,
18151325TGOOO-MI000884 S-5794 <1.0 ppm
18211320QGOOT-MI000885 S-5795 <0.002 mg/liter '
18141440FCOOO-MI000903 S-5796 6.17 ppm
'*
Sincerely yours,
Gail R. Hutchens
Exec. Vice-President
GRH:dse
126
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
DATE: December 23, 1991
SUBJECT: Metals Analyses Data of CIC Samples
FROM: Nathan C. Malof, Project Officer
EMSL Analytical
TO: Howard Wall
RREL
Attached are the metals .results on 20 samples submitted
September 19, 1991. The remainder of the data on the other 15
samples will submitted to you the week of January 6, 1992.
If you have any questions, call me at 7286.
127
-------
1
o
a
g>
LU
LL
Q
Z
o.
9
m
tn
CO
!
<
CC
2
CO
LU
tr
LL
O
£
:<
2
CO
CO
63
CD CM
- J,£
?glli
< Q S 2 5
CD
O)
Q S2
UJ CO
H- UJ = UJ Z IU O
Z H O 0 UJ 1- £
O < 01 < ^ < x
O Q DC Q. U. Q O
O
LU
CO
CO
LU
CC
D.
X
LU
LU
tr
i
CO
LU
CC
CM O CO
en co co
o en
co oo
o o
en o N r>»
co eo f- co ..
d d o d p *~
CM^intnineoenenN-NcocM
o'T~dc»^do'c>*~T~d*~
in co
•«• co co ^ o v !•>• T- N eo w
eacMpeaT^ejop^^o
dddddddd do o d
fs.COON-'>-CMf««W
inocMCMvoococoino _
f-^-jCMCMpCOCMCMCMCMO,,.:
d ddddddddd
co o
en
en
CMcoinveococMi-eMi-co
•".di^r^fegdPcbcMg-.
CO^T-'»-
-------
o
o
5
i
cc
o
"5
a
03
U
I
0>
M
.1 £
S s
£ g
•D
g
S £
Q S"
« *
||
3 '5.
O CO
0
£
6
5
eo
CD
M
«
fc
CO
o
o
Q
a.
2
d
O
§
o
z
f-
CM
"
fc
r-
8
§
o
g
0
O
z
093091-1
0
(0
0.
O
o>
CM
in
o
1
o m
co ^
o en
CO CM
en ^~
in en
co en
O CM
a
J
to
O
I
U
CO
If
o
CM
H*
•o
O
CM
•8
n
o
I
129
-------
i
CO CM
I O
g23
3i
g
E
o
5 S I ,-,•
il
CQ
g
§
a> 5
_ S 5
~
§ a; >
o S E?
LU
O —
LU W
t- >
o" o P ffi
ie LU 5 n
CC EC LU CO 5 O
t~ 111 3 LU * 111 C3
2 ff O C3 UJ S LU
O < UJ < = < X
U O t£ Q. u. O O
O
*coQQeoe>fr»enoeoeor«^*e:>T~«o5p
~ ir>*i™ ~ t>i «i o Vin'Wusinoey^JJJ0.
^co^^*-^^^-»"»-»"'~Wcoeor;;*j_!»-
Ve^e^vV V V ^°^!
£eincoN'StAeoineo(Bin(Oceeoin(eK>;CMeocoi-cn<((g>'j£
coirieneow'^WWeoescoiriKjjeogjgg^
T-mT-^»^»cnT-^^^-^^»"COci52^.^^.
n co CD o co en^*CMCMv>B2t^£SS5^'^'S" ^ ^
^» en *•" C3 **^ ^^ , ^^ w* ^^ ^% co c^ co ^> ....
ooooooo o o o o
te evieocoen»-encpeo'-_e»r-eocBenco»-evjeocJB
B coSin^coeriericdeocoverieNJencogggg;
incoinvinininvcoKeovcoen^gieSS
en co CD eo ^ ^9 en co c? en OD e\j en CM C£* CD en co co
*™ ^ ^ ^ C9 C3 c5 cd
?52SS*»?*5*2e5Sririg5g5
t, TTTTiiiiiiiiiiiii'!!
fe Qcnenenenenenenmennnenenmnenenen
(0 ooooooininooootnintnooinin
oooooooooooooooocsoo
g 1 l.lilJl!l|I|iiil
LU co t'=irr-^r-S'i'OCMTrTj-oo5X55
-i o wS5™$S$J52S5?J°°°
— '-^^"isSJoos^^coKgScocoggio
v»v"T»O^*»^^*"»"^CO CO CO
mco«^incor*r^o«-CMcovincD
_ wc\iwcocgc\jcvicvi
-------
u
I
§
0
I
i
§
o
$
3
6
S
n
m
*
s
—
«
X
SAMPLE ID 1
g
a
3> ^ ^ o> o
o co to »- jO
SCM CO CO S.
M ^ O) W>
« o in "* *
5r- O) CM CO
ri * '* °*
5 ^ 2 S «
so O O 2 £
i i i i i
§O) O) CD O>
o in o in
o o o o o
Spike
Duplicate
Duplicate
3010 101091-1
3010101591-1
CO * l>-
S S CM
1 1 1 JL J
5 5 o> at v
1
i
o
o
I
i
CO
in
i
IA
| S
I *
i I
CM
d
cV
a
f
131
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
January 10, 1992
Metals Analyses Data for the Chemical Insecticide Project
Nathan C. Malof, Project Officer 7/VjrA
EMSL Analytical '
Howard Wall
RREL
Attached are the metals results for samples submitted
September 17, 1991. The appended report CIC03 includes data , for
samples 91-05263 through 91-05270; report CICO4 includes results
for samples 91-05271 through 91-05276.
If you have any questions, call me at 7286.
132
-------
CE
Hi
I
D.
o
CE
o
III
a.
CO
UJ
2
LL
Q
a.
o
m
CO
LL
O
co
I
<
IT
2
CO
•D
CO
LU
CE
LL
O
CO
o
o
o"
o
I
CO
C\J
CO CE
Q
UJ
£lx8
^ £ HHO
2 < < UJ J2
< Q 5 2 Q
m
Q
UJ
LT
0.
0.
o>
en
O ^ CE
O O H
2£*
o «
LU CO
CE -i
O <
O Q CE Q.
£5,0
OC S LL m
UJ CO $ O X
§ S 5 * ^
LU
d < X
u. a o
GJ
s
CO
CO
LU
CE
a.
X
LU
LU
CE
i
CO
LU
CE
*.
0^000000000
°" q°;qqqqSe\iqqq,j
d ddddddodd
!MK ~ "" *]«_ ^^ ^^ >^ j-i >«. >^
O^OOOOOOO — _.
ooooqpqqpqqo;
V 6 V V V V V V V V V o
OOv^^vOOOOOOO
qcNqqqqqqqqq^
ddddddv'dddvd
« .in O)innepocvic\JN.p>e\iin
dNdoooooooo
5
w^.fMeviwesi^.uJW'V^
O'T
oo
V d V V
intnmmuninifl
OOOOOOO
ooqq
V V
in CM
§co
o
V V V
t i I
I I I I I I I I
O) O) O) OJ O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O)
§ i § i i i § i i i i §
§
s
s
o
O O Q O O O O
8§§88lcl
in u> in
co co co
^ (0 00 CO O O
T- O O r- *— ^
T- T- »— ^ CO CO
cococo^intpKoooo
(DOCDCDCDCOCDCOCOh1*
CNJCMCMCNjCgcgCMCMCMCM
inininininminintnin
t i t i i i i t i i
O> O> O>
O> O>
o> e» JQ co
133
-------
§
o
o
co
CO
co
CO
CC
o
O
CO
O
1
T3
03
O
>^
§ §
I =
£ §
(A ^
8 S.
o 2
CO ***
55 "a
|
| g
= 11
O CO
CO
CO
£
0
•o
o
CO
ffl
CO
s
HI
CO
O
O
O
111
a.
5
CO
9
m
CO
o
CD
i
8
CO
co
in
z
1
o>
T"
O
o
!
a.
a
co
g
I
55
CD m
o> en
r» in
en o
55 en
CD en
en en
to eo
o> en
en CD
o en
T- O
*~ CO
T T
en en
o o
o o
T
en
o
0
a. o
CO CO
eo
CD
CM
in .*
I!
•o
2
co
eo
O
a
i
i
CO
CO
£
I
o
01
4
o
m
CM
u
134
-------
-f
CC
1-
u
ME
o
t-
o
OL
O
c
Q.
CO
«^
^£
LU
LL
Q
*^
a.
o
m
I
LL
O
CO
CO
z
CC
o
LL
CO
_l
co
LU
cc
LL
O
CC
<
2
r>
CO
o
T1"
o
CO
o"
o
tO CM
CD o
-•= CM Tj •«• =
•S 2J 3 °° LL
-i ^ 'S tn tL
Q
LU
CC CD
P Q
H ft A; H
CO rr X S ^
J LU Of X /j OC
*«C p* •* • ff\ ft
^9 irf*
< ^ • CM 7^ C^ CO
1- en I O * s
SCO
CO
a |_ >
Q- LU OC -» ..
£^§2Lu!£
0 0 P LU "J < Q
< LU CO CC 2 LL {ij
OC OC LU CO S O ^
(— LU 3 LU . z LU O
Z H" C^ C9 LU ^™ UJ
O < LU < d < X
O Q CC 0. LL Q O
I
•mJ
2
S
™^
1
z
o
LU
CO
CO
LU
CC
£L
X
LU
LU
OC
i
CO
LU
CC
o>
CO
£
0
•o
o
a
to
CO
o>
1-
LU
CO
0
a
0
LU
d.
I
O
CD
J
CO
g
o
en
o
o
N
O
O
V
in
g
V
o
co
d
S
8
o
V
1
en
CM
g
405TGOTD
eo
CO
T-
CM
in
o
i
en
CO
co
CO
q
o
en
co
0
N
CO
T—
O
CO
CO
CM
CD
in
in
o
o
i
en
CM
g
CO
"a.
CO
CM
8
i
en
i
o
5
o
o
0
V
m
0
o
V
o
g
d
&
in
o
o
V
1
o>
CM
g
1
1.
a
CM-
8
i
en
8
o
o
1
o
g
V
8
o
V
d
in
8
o
V
i
en
CM
g
325TGOTO
in
ao
CM
8
en
3
o
8
o
3
0
CM
S
0
g
CM
CO
en
S
o
i
en
CM
g
405TGOTS
CO
00
CM
1
en
eo
en
o
5
o
CM
CO
CO
O
I
O
8
CM
CO
*•
K
in
o
o
i
en
i
405TGOTP
CO
00
8
1
en
in
o
o
i
o
o
V
o
o
V
00
d
CM
o
V
CO
g
o
1
en
g
o
O
O
CM
£
CO
CM
8
en
co
S
V
CM
O
O
o
V
in
o
0
V
CD
8
d
f-
CM
o
V
in
g
V
1
en
o
100QGOOT
to
en
£
CM
8
en
i
o
co
o
o
o
0
V
in
o
o
V
CM
O
O
d
N
V
in
g
V
1
en
o
T
en
CM
o
o
o
1
5
en
CM
q
en
CO
en
o
s
o
in
en
en
en
CO
O
i
§
o
T
en
§
o
o
CO
1C
a>
135
-------
eo
o>
c> co o)
u
o
o>
o
CO
CD
•i- at to
o CM o
O) n O
O)
O «»
Z to
o>
u
0>
•o
o
O
O
eg
in
U)
en
0)
tz
c
O
8 £•
s §
£ 8
52 "o
§.8
H- co
g s
w 9-
•a*
a Q.
O CO
i i i
e» o>
o o
m 0
eS g
.
CO D co
55
3 5
?
i
3
"3
O
S
o
z
CM
II
I
Q.
5 o
D> CM
•=• It
tfl ^3
•5 O
5 1
0) CD
•= CM
5- O
136
-------
! UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
DATE: February 7, 1992
SUBJECT: Revised Report - ClC/Wall As Analysis
FROM: Nate Mai of, Project Officer
EMSL - Analytical
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory - Cincinnati
TO: Howard Wall
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Report WallAs4A has been revised to include repeat duplicate analysis of
samples 91-05183, 91-05184, and 91-05185 at the request of Accurex/IRF staff.
In addition, the value reported for 91-05197 has been corrected and is included.
Also, in response to a previous query, the final volume of all filter sample
digestes is 50 ml.
If you have any questions, please call me at 684-7286.
Attachment
137
-------
ARSENIC ANALYSIS BY GRAPHITE FURNACE AA.
CONTRACTOR:
DATE RECEIVED:
REQUESTOR:
PAGES REPORTED:
ANALYST:
DATES OF ANALYSIS:
DISC:
CHECKED BY:
Technology Applications, Inc.
09/17/91
Wall
2
JCE
10/18,21/91:01/09/92
ARCTIC GFAA
PROJECT: CIC
DATE REPORTED: 10/31/91
MATRIX: Aqueous
METHODS:
FILE NAME:
APPROVED BY:
Federal Register;
R. 61,App. B.JMethod 108:
EMAP-NC; 200.9
WALLAS4A
/"
LAB SAMPLE ID
50 PPB CHK STD
QC19:30ppb
DGSTN BLK
SPK BLK
0.1 N NaOH
91-05183
91-05183
91-051 83 SPK
91 -051 84 DUP
91-05184
91-05184
91-05185
91-05185
91-05187
91-05188
91-05194
SO PPB CHK STD
91-05198
91-05186
91-05208
91-05217
DGSTN BLK
0.1 N NaOH
91-05189
91-051 89 SPK
91-05190
50 PPB CHK STD
91-05191
91*05191 DUP
91-05192
91-05193
91-05207
91-05210
91-05213
91-05214
91-05215
91-05216
50 PPB CHK STD
•
CLIENT ID
18081 01 8ERIOO
18081 01 8ERIOO
18081 01 8ERIOO
18081 01 8ERWOO
18081 01 8ERWOO
18081 01 8ERWOO
18081 01 8ERFOO
18081 01 8ERFOO
18081022SRFOU
18081022SRIOO
18131040ERIOO
T8131010QRIOS
18081022SRWOO
18151003ERIOO
18060945SRIOO
18131047SRWOO
18131047SRWOO
18131047SRFOO
18131047SRIOO
18131047SRIOO
18131040ERWOO
18131040ERFOO
18151003ERWOO
18151020SRIOO
18211000QRFOM
18211000QRIOM
18211000QRWOM
19131133QOOT
DATE OF
DIGESTION
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-04-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-08-91
10-09-91
10-08-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-08-91
DATE OF
ANALYSIS
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
01-09-92
01-09-92
10-18-91
10-18-91
01-09-92
10-18-91
01-09-92
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
10-18-91
As
(ug/L)
45.9
28.5
5.5
1920
28.0
<5
<5
2000
32.4
30.7
32.9
58.8
71.6
26.9
<5
<5
47.1
107
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
2096
42.2
44.0
<5
- <5
.23.2
39.8
22.4
<5
21.7
7.3
<5
<5
45.0
SPK/
STD
%REC
91.8
95.0
96.0
100
94.2
•
105
88.0
90.0
DUP
RPD
i
nc
5.4
i 1.5
I
nc
i
nc- no calculation
133
-------
ARSENIC ANALYSIS BY GRAPHITE FURNACE AA.
CONTRACTOR:
DATE RECEIVED:
REQUESTOR:
PAGES REPORTED:
ANALYST:
DATES OF ANALYSIS:
DISC:
CHECKED BY:
Technology Applications','Inc.
09/17/91
Wall
2
JCE
10/18,21/91:01/09/92
ARCDCGFAA
PROJECT: CIC
DATE REPORTED: 10/31/91
MATRIX: Aqueous
METHODS:
FILE NAME:
APPROVED BY:
Federal Register;
Pt. 61, App. B. Method 108:
EMAP-NC; 200.9
WALLAS4A
LAB SAMPLE ID
50 PPB CHK STD
QCl9:30ppb
DGSTN BLK
0.1 N NaOH
91-05195
91-05197
91-05199
91-05200
91-05205
91-05206
91-05209
91-05211
91-05212
50 PPB CHK STD
91 -05202 UNO
91 -05203 UNO
91 -05204 UNO .
SPKBLK
91-05196
91-05201
50 PPB CHK STD
CLIENT ID
19120853ZOFOS
18131010QRWOS
18131112QRFOP
18131112QRWOP
18060945SRWOO
18060945SRFOO
18151003ERFOO
18151020SRFOO
18151020SRWOO
18061000ERIDO
18061000ERFDO
18061000ERWDO
18131010QRFOS
18131112QRIOP
DATE OF
DIGESTION
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-09-91
10-08-91
10-09-91
10-08-91
DATE OF
ANALYSIS
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
10-21-91
As
(ug/L)
47.8
28.2
<5
<5
131
85.6
2952
136
<5
42.1
44.8
37.1
<5
54.6
7.1
1280
25.2
2136
4136
53.2
52.5
SPK/
STD
%REC
95.6
94.0
,
109
107
105
DUP
RPD
UNO- SAMPLE NOT DIGESTED
139
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268 •
DATE: February 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Results of ICP Analysis ;
FROM: Nathan C. MaTof, Project Officer :
EMSL - Analytical
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory - Cincinnati
TO: Howard 0. Wall
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Attached is a report containing the results of analysis on samples received
January 10, 1992. If you have any questions concerning this report,.please call
me on x7286.
140
-------
CC
UJ
I
0.
g
c3
UJ
Q.
CO
^
UJ
2
<
Q.
O
m
53
|
LL
O
CO
I
<
CC
2
CO
CO
UJ
CC
LL
o
£
<
2
CO
o
in
o
co
o
co
o
•D O
:= CO CJ
CM CO I g
- g ^ 5? 9
§ o! "It
> ii cr5 O
Jj CO CC
. CM
-3 O
o
UJ
I
^1x8
5j£'fE?Eo
z-5 < GJ co
< Q 2 5 Q
o
ui
ir
Q.
a.
s
O
Of ^
Pm
o o
< "J
CC CC
t UJ
o
o
o
UJ
E
§2
fc- ^
CO CC
UJ CO
-> III
a CD
111 <
CC CL
CO
CO
Ip
< O x
Z LU O
LU |_ UJ
d < x
LL a u
o
UJ
CO
CO
UJ
CC
Q.
iS
UJ
tr
I
§
CC
o
IO CO i— CO O>
m. m. •* 9 co
o o o
ooo>cncoincoi-cM
COOJCiJ<«-'T^'9-^-i-
CMCMCMW^^pjO^
o
S S 5 R ?5-
O O V
o o o v o
CMcncocooococoN'CO
r^r^^-«a-h»t^?^oo
i-T-t-i-cqco^eD—:
o o o
co
o p h-- o co
o o o o o
CMCMCJCJCJCMCMCNJCVl
O) O) O) O) 0) O) O) 0) O)
000000000
cocococococococooo
CO
8
in
o
co
»—
oo
co
Q. CO CL O
88! '
O o O
I— ii ii
m in in in m
o •<* •«• CM 2
£ ? 2 5 .o m00
co in in c? "35 \Z cs c^
cococoo3'a.oo
i-T-T-cNiOcococo
CM eo «*
(O CO (O
o o
oo
o o
oo
tn
-------
in
o
O
O
E
E
w
05
CO
O
O
75
a
CD
U
CO
o ••fc.
w c*
»— Q)
CD •>
o- o
o o
> Q)
"55 §
"- o
1^
^ »
CO 'O
to -a
co s
X «
9- co
tn 05
sl
I s
= •5.
a co
0)
co
.0
o
•o-
o
n
CD
3
5
t;
CO
O
O
SAMPLE ID
g
CD
3
CO O O
01 ? £
t
CM CO •*
0 ,-J 0
T- W 1—
O CM O>
O ,_; OJ
O O i-
o> d o
co cj T-
0> (-J 0
CO O> •^I
° o °
T- ^ T-
01 ^ oo
T— ^- ^p
CM CM .CM
go> o>
0 0
CO CO CO
T— ^ T—
Spike
Duplicate
3010013092-1
CO
2
CM
O
o
tc
m
1
^
•5.
CO <
S °°.
5- o
cd II
c o>
142
-------
APPENDIX C-3
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE ANALYSES
143
-------
Page 1 of7
EPA Method 8080 Analyses Data
By Hewlett Packard 5880A GC/ECD
Project:
Report Number:
Revision:
Chemical
Insecticide Corp
CIC-3
1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Anafyte / Concentration
Target Anafytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
P,pVDDT
18051030FCOGO 18051245FCOGO 180S1245FCOOD
866 826 827
Feed Feed FeedDup
Method POL
8-05-91
8-20-91
9-03-91
(mg/kg)
17.2
I
144
-------
Page 2 of 7
EPA Method 8080 Analyses Data
By Hewlett Packard 5880A GC/ECD
Project:
Report Number:
Revision:
Chemical
Insecticide Corp
CIC-3
1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Analyte / Concentration
Target Analytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
18061616BGOGO 18081656BGOGO 18081656BGOOD 18131«S«BGOOO
923 924 925 941
Scrubber Liquor Scrubber Liquor Scrubber Liquor Scrubber Liquor
Dup
8-06-91
8-22-91
8-26-91
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8-08-91
8-22-91
9-16-91
0*t/L)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8-08-91
8-22-91
9-16-91
8-13-91
8-23-91
9-16-91
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Surrogate Compound / Recovery (%)
Dibutylchlorendate
74.6
26.0
33.9
13.9
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
18130840BGOGF 181S1652BGOGO
940 942
Scrubber Liquor Scrubber Liquor
Field Blank
Method PQL
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Analyte / Concentration
8-13-91
8-23-91
9-16-91
8-15-91
8-23-91
9-06-91
C*g/L)
G*g/L>
Target Analytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
Surrogate Compound/Recovery (%)
Dibutylchlorendate
: PQL
< PQL
133
* - Sample's dilution factor prohibits quantitation.
ND - Not Detected
Date
D.te
145
-------
Page 3 of7
EPA Method 8080 Analyses Data
By Hewlett Packard 5880A GC/ECD
Project: Chemical
Insecticide Corp
Report Number: '< CIC-3
Revision: 1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Anatyte / Concentration
18151652BGOGS 18151G52BGOGP
933 944
Liquor Spike Liquor Spike Dup
8-15-91
8-23-91
9-06-91
(% Recovery)
8-15-91
8-23-91
94)6-91
(% Recovery)
Target Analytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p.p'-DDT
117
60.7
65.1
88.7
973
93.4
95.0
45.0
49.9
73.0
79.5
76.7
Surrogate Compound / Recovery (%)
Dibutykhlorendate
-------
Page 4 of 7
EPA Method 8080 Analyses Data
By Hewlett Packard 5880A GC/ECD
Project:
Report Number:
Revision:
Chemical
Insecticide Corp
CIC-3
1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matri»Type
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Anafyte / Concentration
18061310TGOGO 18081345TGOGO 18O81345TGOGD
802 801 800
Ash Ash Ash
Method PQL
8-06-91
8-12-91
8-16-91
(mg/kg)
8-08-91
8-12-91
8-16-91
(mg/kg)
8-08-91
8-12-91
8-16-91
(mg/kg)
Surrogate Compound / Recovery (%)
Dibutylchlorendate
105
98.9
100
(mg/kg)
Target Analytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
P.P--DDT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.100
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Anafyte / Concentration
181314OSTGOGO 18151325TGOGO
894 905
Ash Ash
8-13-91
8-20-91
9-06-91
(mg/kg)
8-15-91
8-23-91
9-06-91
(mg/kg)
18131405TGOGS
907
Ash Spike
8-13-91
8-21-91
946-91
(% Recovery)
181314O5TGOGP
90S
Ash Spike Dup
8-13-91
8-21-91
9-06-91
(% Recovery)
Target Analytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p.p'-DDT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
106
115
115
112
138
196
108
121
125
122
144
174
Surrogate Compound / Recovery (%)
Dibutylchlorendate
162
163
161
163
* - Sample's dilution factor prohibits quantitation.
ND - Not Detected
Analyst _
™f"
Lab Supervisor
Date
Date
"2- / JD I ?"2-
147
-------
PageS of 7
EPA Method 8080 Analyses Data
By Hewlett Packard 5880A GC/ECD
Project:
Report Number:
Revision:
Chemical
Insecticide Corp
CIC-3
1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Anatyte / Concentration
Target Analytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamxna-BHC
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
18O61000ESOGO 18O81018ESOGO 18O81018ESOGO
749 748 748
Flue Gas Flue Gas Flue Gas Dup
Analysis
Method PQL
8-06-91
8-06-91
8-15-91
(fig/train)
ND
ND
-------
Page 6 of 7
EFA Method 8080 Analyses Data
By Hewlett Packard 5880A GC/ECD
Project:
Report Number:
Revision:
Chemical
Insecticide Corp
CIC-3
1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Analyte / Concentration
Target Anatytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
18O61452QOXGM 18O614S3QOZZL
855 854
Resin Blank Ext Solvent Blank
8-06-91
806-91
8-15-91
(jig/train)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8-06-91
8-06-91
8-15-91
(fig/train)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Surrogate Compound / Recovery (%)
Octafluorobiphenyl 110
Diburylchlorendate 87.9
N/A
108
* - Sample's dilution factor prohibits quantitation.
ND - Not Detected
Analyst 1/Ofe
Lab Supervisor
Date
Date
I )& I
149
-------
Page 7 of7
EPA Method 8080 Analyses Data
By Hewlett Packard S880A GC/ECD
Project: Chemical
Insecticide Corp
Report Number: i CIC-3
Revision: ! 1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Sample Matrix/Type
18051030FCOHO 18051245FCOHO 18051445FCOHO
967 969 970
FeedTCLP FeedTCLP FeedTCLP
j ^a/4^f^» T frwfriatf T ^flrhflte
Method PQL
Collection Date
Extraction Date
Analysis Date
Anafyte / Concentration
Target Anarytes
Chlordane
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
8-05-91
8-28-91
9-13-91
&*g/L)
-------
CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORPORATION
METHOD 8080 8C/ECD ANALYSIS
ANALYTE
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
P02261500TCLP P02261505TCLP P02261509TCLP P02261515TCLP B03191400TCLPBK PQL
CHLDRDANE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDT
alpha-BHC
gatia-BHC
!
ND
< P8L
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
NO
< PQL
< PBL
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
2.46
< PQL
< PQL
ND
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
< PQL
< POL
!
HO i 10.0
ND ! 1.00
NO : i.oo
ND i 1.00
NO ! 1.00
NO : i.oo
t
1
PQL - PRACTICAL 8UANTITATION LIMIT
ND - NOT DETECTED
ANALYST
DATE M<
,
7
151
-------
CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORPORATION
METHOD 8080 6C/ECD ANALYSIS
DRAFT
ANALYTE
(•g/kg)
P05290940E
dg/kg)
P05290950E
(•g/kg)
POS2S1000E
(•g/tg)
P05291010E
dg/kg)
POL
—
1
1
t
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
alpha-BHC
gana-BHC
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
CHLORDANE
-------
Insecticide Corporation
P9L
Analyte P0529-CGMPOSITE <§g/kg)
ii*i*i*i***i**f***if**f*i****«ii*i*{itf<*Hi»i*****i*
* 2,4rD * . ND * 4.17 *
* 2.4,5-T * ' SD t 4.17 *
* Silvex * ND- * 4.17 t
* 2.3.7.3-TCDD * ND * 4.17 *
P052S-C3HPOSI7E = 1.0 ai. frois each of the four extracts yere coibined.
PSL = Practical Quantitation Liait.
fJD = Not detected. ,
Cheaist
La3oratory Supervisor _ _ . _ Date
153
-------
APPENDIX C-4
CHLORIDE ANALYSES
154
-------
Page 1 of 1
Particulate/HCl Train Chloride Report
By Ion-Selective Electrode
Project: Chemical
Insecticide Corp
Report Number: CIC-2
Revision: 1
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Collection Date
Analysis Date
Total Chloride (ing)
18060945SPIOO 18061000EPIOO 18081022SPIOO 18O81022SPIOD
699 £94 734 734
8-06-91
8-30-91
0.67
8-06-91
8-30-91
<0.42
8-08-91
9-03-91
8-OS-91
9-O3-91
0.88
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Collection Date
Analysis Date
Total Chloride (zng)
108081018EPIOO 18131051SPIOO 1813104OEPIOO 181S1005SPIOO
736 793 791 812
8-08-91
9-G3-91
0.62
8-13-91
9-03-91
0.61
8-13-91
9-03-91
0.56
8-15-91
9-03-91
0.56
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Collection Date
Analysis Date
Total Chloride (mg)
18151003EPIOO 18211000QPIOM
811
8-15-91
9-O3-91
<0.42
8-21-91
9-03-91
0.11
Matrix Spikes
Sample ID Number
Master Index Number
Collection Date
Analysis Date
Spike Recovery (%)
18131040EPIOS 18131040EPIOP
791 791
8-13-91
9-03-91
113.4
8-13-91
9-0341
UZ9
Note: 18211000QFIOM Total Chloride was calculated using a 100 "»T. volume which is the volume used to initially
fill the impingers.
Anatys
d*L<
kJ/v^^^-./^AT ) ^M^TT,
Date
Date
£>/ I £
-------
APPENDIX D
SAMPLING TRAIN WORKSHEETS
156
-------
APPENDIX D-l
METHOD 108 TRAIN WORKSHEETS
157
-------
ISOKICTIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Undated 09-11-91
Date: 8-6-91 Printed 09/11/91
Saaple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAJETER
No::le Diateter, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Heter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
t of Saaple Points
Total Sailing TIM fain)
Barotetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Eas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Sasple Voluae (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (ill
Vol of Liq e Std. Conds. (scf!
Mt. of Filter Particulate (gal
Ht. of Probe Wash Particulate (gin!
Nt of Combined Particulate (go)
02 Concentrstion (by CEM!
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEH)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
Performed by:
Test No. /Type:
Start/Stop Tine:
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
N(d) 0.248
dp) 0.64
(alpha) 1
R 6. 83
1
y a-i-m-
A(5) (1.03267
t 19
(theta) ( 173.00
P(b) 30.16
P (stack) -4
598.431
712.771
Via) I 114.34
VI (c) 147.26
V(ti std) ( 6.932
N/A
N/A
Hip) ( ERR
2 15.22
Z 3.28
X 0
I ( 81.50
rf
E Hill £of
18061000ER
1000-1259
-
)
)
)
)
1
)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE t — 1B061000ER
% I ; = 107.0
(scf) V(» std) = 105.71
(sci) Vd std? = 2.994
(dscfi) Q(s) t = '1759
(dsc«/iin)Q(s) = 49.8
(tcfi) Qta! ' = 2134
(aci/iin) Qta) ' = 60.4
(gr/dscf) C(s std) = NA
02(gr/dscf) C(s std) = NA
« 72 02(«g/dsci) C(s std) = NA
Particulate Eiission Rate Ub/hr) E(p) ; = NA
(kg/hr) E(p) = NA
Isokineticity
Hetered Sample Sas VdluK
Stack Bas flan, std cond.
std cond.
actual
actual
Particulate Loading, dry
Stack Eas Hater Vapor Proportion B(wo) =
Holecular Height of Stack Sas, Dry «(d) =
Met H(s) ; =
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg) P(s) [ =
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec) V(s avg) =
0.062
29,, 13
28,, 45
29,87
34.4
SlJSplE
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7
6
5
TOTALS
dClock
Tice
din)
9
*9
9
9
9
9
9
9
o
9
o
9
; 9
9
9
9
9
9
! 11
! 173
Velocity! Orifice
Head, dPIMeter.dH
(iriH20)i(in H20!
0.34 ! 1.3
0.34 ! 1.3
0.33 ! 1.2
0.33 ! 1.2
0.34 ! 1.3
0.33 ! 1.2
0.32 ! 1.2
0.32 ! 1.2
0.32 ! 1.2
0.32 ! 1.2
0.32 ! 1.2
0.32 i 1.2
0.31 ! 1.1
0.32 ! 1.2
0.32 i 1.2
0.33 ! 1.2
0.33 ! 1.2
0.32 ! 1.2
0.33 ! 1.2
! 6.19 ! 23.0000
Stack
Temp
(degF)
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
! 140
! 2660.0
Bas
Teno
in !
96
103
113
126
127
127
128
121
124
126
132
132
137
138
138
138
138
! 137
! 138
! 2419.0
Heter
(degF)
out
89
93
96
102
103
105
108
110
100
too
102
109
116
116
116
116
117
117
117
2032.0
SQRT(dP) !F
1
1
:v
0.5831 10
0.5831 !
0.5745 !S
0.5745 !
0.5831 !
0.5745 if
0.5657 !
0.5657 !
0.5657 IF
0.5657 !
0.5657 !
0.5657 !
0.5568 !
0.5657 !
0.5657 !
0.5745 !
: 0.5745 !
0.5657 !
0.5745 !
1
10.8440 !
Velocity Head
"I
lOrifice Heter Reading
t
iStack Teiperature
IHeter Teiperature
I
1
I
iRoot-Hean-Square dP
Ctc)
(deg F)
(deg C)
(degF)
(deg C)
(•we)
1B061000ER
dPUvgi = 0.326
dH(avg) = 1.211
T(s avg)
T(s avg)
140.0
60.0
Td »vg) = 117.1
T(i »vg) = 47.3
SKT(dP) = 0.571
158
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant! IRF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-8-91 Printed 09/11/91
Sasple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaieter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
t of Saeple Points
Total Sampling Tine din)
Barosetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20!
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Sas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net 6as Saaple Volume (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (•!)
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gn)
Kt. of Probe Wash Particulate (gn)
lit of Combined Particulate (gn)
02 Concentration (fay CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEH)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FDR SAMPLE I — IBOSIOIBER
Perforaed by: E Hill t
Test No./Type: 18081018ER
Start/Stop Tiie: 1018-1247
SYMBOL
NCd)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
H
A(s)
i
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
Vd)
VI (c)
Vltt std)
H(p)
X
X
Z
2
VALUE
(calc.)
0.295
0.84
1
6.88
(1.03267 )
16
( 144.00 )
30.1
-4
823.599
952.037
( 128.44 )
287.88
( 13.551 )
N/A
N/A
I ERR )
14.89
3.44
0
( 81.67 )
2 I = 106.0
(scf) Vd std) = 117.87
(sea) Vd std) = 3.338
(dscfc) Q(s) = 1681
(dsci/ain)B(s) = 47.6
(acfi) D(a) = 2168
(icn/iin) fl(a) = 61.4
(gr/dscf) C(s std) = NA
;Q2(gr/dscf) C(s std) = NA
« 72 02do/dsM) C(s std) = NA
Particulate Etission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p) = NA
(kg/hr) E(p) . * NA
, Isokineticity
Hetered Saaple Gas Volute
Stack Gas Flow, std cond.
std cond.
actual
actual
Particulate Loading, dry
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion
Molecular Height of Stack Gas, Dry
Net
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
B
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-13-91 Printed 09/11/91
Staple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAMETER
Noizle Diameter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Saaple Points
Total Sampling Tiae (Bin)
Baroietric Pressure (in Ha)
Stack Pressure (in H31)
Bas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Keter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Sasple Voluae (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (til
Vol of Liq « Std. Conds. (scf)
Mt. of Filter Particulate (gal
Ht. of Probe Wash Particulate (gin)
Mt of Contained Particulate (ga)
D2 Concentration (by CEH)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEH)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
Perforued by:
Test No. /Type:
Start/Stop Ties:
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
M(d) 0.295
C(p) 0.84
(alpha) 1
R 6.88
1 j
V
A(s) (1.03267
* 16
(theta) ( 144.00
P!b) 30.11
P(stack) -4
994.437
1120.22
Via) ( 125.79
VI (c) 202.33
V(n 5td) ( 9.524
N/A
N/A
H(p) I ERR
Z 14.9
J 3.47
Z 0
Z ( 81.63
E Hill ti
18131040ER
1040-1308
)
)
)
)
)
)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAHPLE I •
18131040ER
Isokineticity ' Z I • =
Hetered Sample Bas Voluae (scf) Via std) =
(sen) Via std} =
Stack Sas Flow, std cond. (dscfn) Q(s)
std cond. (dsc»/«in)Q(s) , =
actual (acfa) Bla) . =
- actual (acK/ain) Ota) '- =
Particulate Loadinn, dry (gr/dscf) C(s std) =
" fi 7i 02 (gr/dscf) CIs std) =
8 7Z 02(tg/dsca) CIs std) =
Particulate Eaission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p)
(kg/hr) E(p) ' =
Stack Bas Hater Vapor Proportion
Molecular Height of Stack Bas, Dry
IJet
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Ha)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
B(HO) '•
Mid)
11 (5) !
P(s)
Vis avg)
=
101.8
115.58
3.273
1716
48.6
2160
61.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.076
29,, 15
28,, 30
29.82
34.9
Swple ! dClock iVelocity
Point ! Tiee
! (tin)
1 ! 9
2 ! 9
3 ! 9
4 ! 9
5 ! 9
6 ! 9
7 ! 9
8 ! 9
1 ! 9
2 ! 9
3 ! 9
4 ! 9
5 ! 9
6 ! 9
7 ! 9
8 ! 9
^^^™
j_iuimn
I— -
TOTALS ! 144
Head, dP
(in K20)
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
___
Orifice
Heter, dH
(inH2D)
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
— ;
5.20 ! 37.6000
Stack
Ten?
(degF)
151
151
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
— —
2430.0
Bas Heter iSQRT(dP)
Teap (degF) i
in
97
113
126
134
137
140
141
142
129
143
145
145
144
144
145
145
— —
2170.0
out !
88
92
94
100
103
106
109
110
110
112
114
114
115
115
116
116
— —
1714.0
,0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
• 0.5657
0.5657
-— —
9.1211 :
FIELD DATA AVERASES FOR SAMPLE 8 - 1B131040ER
Velocity Head
Orifice Meter Reading
Stack Temperature
Heter Temperature
Root-Hean-Square dP
(•NC)
Cue)
(degF)
(deg C)
(degF)
(degC)
dP(avg) =
dH(avg) =
T(s avg) =
T(s avg) =
T(a avg) =
T(« avg) =
0.325
2.350
151.9
66.6
121.4
49.7.
CMC)
SWT(dP) = 0.570
160
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-15-91 Printed 09/11/91
Saaple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARA1CTER
Nozzle Dianeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Iteter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in).:
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Hidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Sample Points
Total Sampling Tine din)
Baronetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Bas Iteter Initial Reading (cu ft!
6as Heter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net 6as Sample Volume (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected ,(«!)
Vol of Liq t Std. Conds. (scf)
Wt. of Filter Participate (go)
Wt. of Probe Wash Particulate (go)
Wt of Combined Particulate (gm)
02 Concentration (by CEH)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAIFLE t — 18151003ER
Performed by: E Hill &
Test No./Type: 18151003ER
Start/Stop Tine: 1003-1232
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
N(d) 0.295
C(p) 0.84
(alpha) 1
R
L
K
A (5)
6.88
(1.03267
I I =98.9
(scf) V(s std) = 111.66
(sc«) V(» std) = 3.162
tdscfn) fl(s) = 1708
(dsci/Bin)0(s) = 48.4
(acfn) 8(a) = 2121
(aci/iin) Ota) = 60.1
(gr/dscf) C(s std) = NA
« 71 D2(gr/dscf) C(s std) = NA
e TX 02(B9/dsci) C(s std) = NA
Particulate Eiission Rate Ub/hr) E(p) = NA
(kg/hr) E(p) = NA
Isokineticity
•• Hete'red Saaple Bas Voluce
Stack Eas Flott, std cond.
std cond.
actual
actual
Particulate Loading, dry
t 16
(theta) (444.00)
P(b) 30.1
P(stack) -4
123.043
244.673
V(B) ( 121.63 )
Stack Sas Hater Vapor Proportion
Molecular Height of Stack Gas, Dry
Net
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
VI (t)
V(n std)
H(p!
175.38
( 8.255 )
N/fi
N/A
( ERR )
14.85
3.56
0
( 81.59 )
6 (HO)
H(d)
M(s) -
P(s)
V(s aval
0.069
29.16
28.40
29.81
34.2
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
• 6
7
B
1
2
3
4
5
L
7
g
•
TOTALS
dClock
Tine
(•in)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
j, L
J--I—L-
rl n
144
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H20)
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.31-
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.32
u___mr
5.06
Orifice
Heter, dH
(in H20)
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
T -
35.2000
Stack
Tecp
(degF)
147
147
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
— —
2373.0
Eas
Teop
. in
85
114
128
134
138
141
141
144
132
143
144
145
145
145
145
146
—
2170.0
Heter
(degF)
out
84
87
93
98
103
107
109
112
112
114
115
116
116
117
117
118
1718.0
S»T(dP)
0.5657
0.5568
0.5568
0.5568
0.5657
0.5568
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5568
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5568
0.5657
8.9975
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR SAHfLE t •
Velocity Head CMC)
Orifice Heter Reading
Stack Teqperature
Heter Tetpenture
•
Root-flean-Square dP
C»c)
(deg F)
(degC)
(degF)
(deg C)
CHC)
18151003ER
dP(avg) = 0.316
dH(avg) = 2.200
T(s avg) = 148.3
T(s avg) = 64.6
T(« avg) = 121.5
T!« avg) = 49.7
SflRT(dP) = 0.562
161
-------
ISOKIJETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated 09-11-91
Cater OE-06-91 Printed 09/11/91
Sample Location: STACK
PARAMETER
Ha:zle Diaaeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Meter Correction Factor
Sta:k (Duct) Diaensions lin):
Radius (if round!
Length (if rectangular)
Hidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
1 of Saaple Points
Total Sibling Tiae (iin)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Eas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Hater Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas SaaplD Voluoe (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected ta!)
Vol of Liq 1 Std. Conds. (scf)
Wt. of Filter Particulats (gsi)
Ht. of Probs Wash Particulate COB)
Kt of Ceatined Particulate (OB)
C2 Contentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
>C Concentration (by diff.)
/
J&
Performed by: R JACKSwi
Test No. /Type: -1B060945SR
Start/Stop Tise: 0945-1220
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
N(d) 0.244
C(p) 0.84
(alpha) 0.99
ft 7
L
U
Als) 11.06901 )
« 16
(theta) ( 160.00 )
P(b) 30.16
P (stack) 0.4
. 16.855
133.572
V(a) I 116.72 )
VI (c) 145.16
V(N Std) ( 6.833 )
N/A
N/A
M(p) ( ERR )
y. 14.63
I 3.36
S 0
I ( 82.01 )
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE *
18060945SR
Isokineticity .XI :
Netered Saaple Bas Volute (scf) Via std),
(see) V(« std)
Stack Bas Flow, std cond. (dscfe) Qls)
std cond. (ds«/«in)0(s)
actual (acfi) Q(a) :
actual (aci/cin) Q(a)
Particulate Loading, dry (gr/dscf) Cls std)
1 71 02(gr/dscf> C(s std),
e Tl 02(tg/dscs) Cls std)
Particulate Eiission Rate Ub/hr) E(p) !
(kg/hr) E(p)
Stack Sas Hater Vapor Proportion
Molecular Heioht of Stack Sas, Dry
Wet
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
6 (wo) ;
Hid) ;
His) !
p(s) ;
Vis avo)
X
s
s
£
5
S
s
s
s
s
£
S
91.6
105. TO
2.999
2382
67.4
2855
80.9
HA
Itt
IW
MA
NA
0.041
29.12
2B.45
30.19
44.5
C2 Concentration (by CEM) X 14.63
C02 Concentration (by CEM) I 3.36
CO Concentration (by CEM) * 0
>C Concentration (by diff.) 1 ( 82.01 )
Stole ! dClock
Foint
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
•T
^
g
6
5
4
3
2
,_ _
TOTALS
Tias
(lin)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
_
-— • -
160
Velocity
Head, dP
tin H20)
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
_
-— "
8. SO
Orifice
Meter, dH
(in H20)
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1*98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
0
Stack
Teftp
(degF)
139
139
139
139
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
141
141
141
141
—
™™^—
31.6800 ! 2240.0
, Bas Heter ISQRIldP) IFIELD DATA AVERABE5 FDR SMfflE t
Tee?
in
98
111
129
132
135
139
132
135
137
139
139
140
141
141
140
138
—
=
2126.0
(degF)
out
95
99
104
108
111
116
115
116
116
118
119
121
121
121
- 120
119
— —
1
{Velocity Head Cue)
i 11'
;0. 7416 iQrif ice Meter Reading Cue)
:0.7416 !
0.7416 SStack Teaperature (deg F)
0.7416 ! «eg c)
0.7416 !
0.7416 {Meter Temperature (deg F)
,0.7416 ! Wes C)
f0.7416 !
0.7416 !Root-Hean-Square dP CHC>
0.7416 !
0.7416 !
0.7416 !
0.7416 !
0.7416 !
0.7416 !
, 0.7416 !
— 1
_,_„,— 1
j !
1819.0 ! 11.8659 !
dp (avg)
dH(avg)
Tts avg)
Tts »vg)
Tfa avg)
Tin avD)
= O.Ji50
= 1.980
= 140.0
= Ml.O
« 123.3
= 50.7
SQRTldP) = 0.742
162
-------
ISOKIIETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated
Date: 8-08-91 Printed
: Sample Location: STACK
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaueter,' Actual (in)
Pitnt Tube Correction Factor
•Sas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Hidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
t of Saaple Paints
Total Saapling Tine (sin)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H2Q)
Sas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Eas Sample Voluie "(cu ft)'
Vol of Liquid Collected dl)
Vol of Liq I Std. Conds.
Ht. of Filter Particulate
Ht. of Probe Wash Particulate (gal
Ht of Combined Particulate
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE I — 18081022SR
09-11-91 Performed by: R JACKSON 'JK
09/11/91 Test No./Type: 180B1022SR f£ Isokineticitv X I =
Start/Stop Tiae: 1022-1239
SYMBOL
f
i) N(d)
jr C(p)
(alpha)
i):
R
liar) L
lar) H
A(s)
1
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
cu ft)
ft)
Ft)' Vd)
) VI (c)
icf) V(* std)
9«)
ite (go)
(gin) M(p)
X
X
I
) X
VALUE
(calc.)
0.247
0.84
0.99
7
— —
aAiOftf \
• VQ7U1 1
14
( 132.00 )
30.1
0.4
136.745
24B.1B5
( 111.44 )
169.82
! 7.993 )
N/A
N/A
( ERR )
16.3
3.52
0
( 80.18 )
: Metered Saaple Bas Voluae (scf) Vd std) =
(sea) Vd std) =
Stack Bas Flo*, std cond. (dscfa) Q(s)
std cond. (dsu/iin)0(s) =
actual (acfi) Ota) =
actual (ace/iin) Q(a) =
Particulate Loading, dry (gr/dscf) C(s std) =
87Z D2(gr/dscf) C(s std) =
8 72 02(M/dscii! C(s std) =
Particulate Eiission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p) =
(kg/hr) E(p)
Stack Bas Hater Vapor Proportion . 6 (MO) =
Molecular Height of Stack Gas, Dry M(d)
Het M(s)
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg) P(s) =
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec) V(s avg) =
"~r~ /4 ^ ' /*\ i
_i_ •" i^jU rt<5.
107.4
101.46
2.873
2301
65.2
2806
79.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.073
29.22
28.40
30.13
43.7
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
w
4
5
6
e
4
TOTALS
dClock
Tiie
(•in)
' 10
10
10
. 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
132
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H20)
0.55
0.55
0.5
0.5
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
'
7.40
Orifice
Meter, dH
(in H20)
2.2
2.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
n
2
2
2
28.4000
Stack
Teop
(degF)
140
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
142
..
-
m-Knn
.
1974.0
Eas
Temp
in
99
111
124
123
132
134
128
131
133
136
138
13B
136
136
-
I^^_
—
•
1804.0
Meter
(degF)
out
96
97
101
106
111
113
114
115
116
117
119
119
119
119
1562.0
SQRT(dP)
0.7416
0.7416
0.7071
0.7071
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
10.1756
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR SAMPLE t - 1BOB1022SR
Velocity Head Cwc) dP(avg) = 0.529
Orifice Meter Reading
Stack Temperature
Meter Teiperature
CMC)
(deg F)
(deg C)
(deg F)
(degC)
dH(avg) =
T(s avg) =
T(s avg) =
Root-ffean-Square dP CMC)
2.029
141.0
60.6
Td avg) = 120.2
T(« avg) = 49.0
SflRT(dP) = 0.727
163
-------
1SOKIBET1C RESULTS
Plant! 1RF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-13-91 Printed 09/11/91
Saiple Location: STACK
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaaeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
6as Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Diuensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Hidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Saaple Points
Total Sampling Tiae din)
Baroaetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Sas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
6as Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Sanple Volume (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected dl)
Vol of Liq « Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gai)
Ht. of Probe Hash Particulate (gai)
Ht of Combined Particulate (ga)
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FDR SAHPLE t — 18131047SR
Perforsed by: R JACKSON .
Test No./Type: 18131047SR'
Start/Stop Tiae: 1047-1312
SYMBOL
N(d)
Ctp)
(alpha)
R
L
H
Ats)
1
(theta)
P(b)
P (stack)
Via)
VI (c)
V(M std)
M(p)
X
I
Z
I
VALUE
(calc.)
0.247
0.84
0.99
7
(1.06901 )
14
( 140.00 )
30.11
0.4
138.732
256.445
I 117.71 )
179.38
( 8.443 >
N/A
N/A
( ERR )
16.19
3.51
0
( 80.30 )
Isokineticity * l
Hetered Sample Gas Voluie (scf! V(n std)
(sea) V(« std)
Stack 6as Flon, std cond. (dscfa) Bis)
std cond.
-------
ISOKIfETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated
Date: 08-15-91 Printed
Sample Location: STACK
PARAMETER
Nozzle Dianeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Eas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Sasple Points
Total Sampling Tine (Bin)
Barcietric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Bas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Nit 6as Sample Volui* (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected •
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds.
Wt. of Filter Particulate (gut)
Wt. of Probe Wash Particulate (gn)
Wt of Combined Particulate
02 Concentration (by CEM)
CG2 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
09-11-91 Performed by;
09/11/91 Test No. /Type:
Start/Stop Tise:
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
n) Nfd) 0.247
or C(p) 0.84
ir (alpha) 0.99
n):
R 7
ular) L
ilar) H
A(s) (1.06901
1 14
, (theta) ( 140.00
i) P(b) 30.1
P (stack) 0.4
(cu ft) 270.684
u ft) 377.642
ft) Vti) ( 106'. 96
il) VI (c) 152.47
Iscf) V(w std) t 7.177
(g») N/A
.ate (gsi) N/A
f (gi) H(p) ( ERR
X 15.79
X 3.59
X 0
'.) - Z ( 80.62
R JACKSON^1
1B151020SR
1020-1245
)
)
)
)
)
)
Y "
12.1
?&
CALCULATED RESULTS FDR SAMPLE I — 18151020SR
Isokineticity X I
Hetered Saiple Gas Volute (scf) Vd
(sc») V(i
Stack Gas Flo*, std cond. (dscfa) Q(s)
std cond. (dsct/iin)P,(s)
actual _. (acfi) Q(a)
actual (aci/iin) Q(a)
Particulate Loading, dry (gr/dscf ) C(s
1 71 02(or/dscf) C(s
C Tt. 02(ig/dsci) C(s
Particulate Eiission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p)
(kg/hr) E(p)
Stack Gas Water Vapor Proportion
Molecular Weight of Stack Gas, Dry
Wet
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg)
Average Stack Velocity .(ft/sec)
std)
std)
std)
std)
std)
£
=
S
B(HO> =
M(d)
M(s)
P(s)
V(s avo) =
98.2
95.36
2.700
2231
63.2
269S
76.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.070
29.21
28.42
30.13
42.1
f f 0
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
0
TOTALS
dClock
Tite
din)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
140
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H20)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0
0
"
6.68
Orifice
Meter, dH
(in H20)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
0
0
=
27.4000
Stack
Teep
(degF)
137
137
137
137
137
138
138
138
138
138
138
140
140
140
0
0
1933.0
Eas
Teup
in
117
135
141
143
149
150
150
141
141
144
150
151
151
151
0
0
2014.0
Meter
(degF!
out
101
105
111
114
120
124
124
126
127
127
128
129
128
128
0
0
0.9
1692.9
SIKT(dP)
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.6928
0.6928
0.6928
0.6923
0.6928
0.6928
0.0000
6.0000
9.8138
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR SAKRE t - 1B151020SR
Velocity Head CMC) dP(avg) = 0.491
Orifice Meter Reading CHC)
dH(avg) = 1.957
Stack Temperature
Meter Tetperature
Root-Mean-Square dP
(deg F)
(deg C)
(degF)
(deg C)
CNC)
T(s avg) = 138.1
T(s avg) = 58.9
Td avg) = 132.4
T(» avg) = 55.8
SBRT(dP) = 0.701
165
-------
APPENDIX D-2
METHOD 0010 TRAIN WORKSHEETS
166
-------
ISOKIJET1C RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-6-91 Printed 09/11/91
Saple Location: Scrubber Exit
.PARAMETER
Nozzle Diameter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Sas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Hidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack !sq ft)
I of Sample Points
Total Sampling Time lain)
Barooetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Sas ttster Initial Reading (cu ft)
6as (teter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Sas Sample Volure (cu ft)
Vcl of Liquid Collected dl!
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Bt. of Filter Particulate (gin)
Wt. of Probe Nash Particulate (gin)
Wt of Combined Particulate (gal
D2 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
CflLCULATED RESULTS FDR SAMPLE t — 18061000EE
Perforaed by:
Test No. /Type:
Start/Stop Tine:
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
N(d) 0.263
C(p) 0.84
(alpha) 1
R 6.88
L
1J - — -
A(s) (1.03267
1 , 19
(theta) ( 173.00
P(b) 30.16
P(stack) -4
478.499
592.022
V(§) ( 113.52
VI (c) 166.12
V(n std) I 7.819
N/A
N/A
M(p) ( ERR
% 15.22
Z 3.28
X 0
X ( 81.50
E Hill w>
18061000ES
1000-1259
)
)
)
)
)
)
Isokineticity
Ketered Saisple Sas Voluae
Stack 8as Flew, std cond.
'std cond.
actual
actual
Particulate Loading, dry
« 7Z 02(gr/dscf) Cls std)
e 7! 02(e9/dsci) Cls std)
Particulate Eiission Rate (Ib/hr) Elp)
(kg/hr) E(p)
•L I
(scf) V(a std)
(sec) Vd std)
(dscfi) 8 Is)
(dsu/nin)Q(s)
(acfi) Q(a)
(acn/iin) Ota) "
(gr/dscf) Cls std)
96.5
106.40
3.013
1747
49.5
2153
61.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stack Sas Hater Vapor Proportion B(wo)
Molecular Height of Stack 6as, Dry H(d)
Wet His)
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Ho) P(s)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec) V(s avg)
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
1
' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
•j
t
dClock
Tiae
(sin)
9
o
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
' 9
, 9
9
9
9
. 9
5 ! 11
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H20)
0.35
0.35
.0.34
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
Orifice
Keter.dH
(in K2Q)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Stack
Temp
(degF)
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
6as
Teap
in
110
114
115
116
118
118
118
118
116
119
120
120
120
120
120
120
145 ! 120
Meter
(deoF)
out
94
95
97
98
100
100
101
101
99
101
102
102
103
103
103
103
103
SQRT(dP)
0.5916
0.5916
0.5831
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5568
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
145 ! 120 ! 103 ! 0.5745
145 : 120 i 103 : 0.5745
r i i n I 1 i
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR SAMPLE t •
Velocity Head Cue)
Orifice Meter Reading ("we)
Stack Temperature
Meter Tesperature
Root-Mean-Square dP
(degF)
(deg C)
(degF)
(deg C)
CNC)
0.068
29.13
28.37
29.87
34.7
18061000ES
dP(avg) = 0.328
dH(avg) = 1.211 •
T(s avg) = 145.0
T(s avg) = 62.8
!(• avg) = 109.3
T(« avg) = 42.9
SBRTtdP) = 0.573
167
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: 1KF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-8-91 Printed 09/11/91
Sitple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAMETER
No::le Diaeeter, Actual (in)
Pilot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Distensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Lencith (if rectancular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stactr (sq ft)
i of Easple Points
Total Ei^pHnfi Time (air.)
Earcssiric FrnsurE !ir> Vcj
Slack Pressure (in SCO)
sis Meter Initial Reading (ca ft;
3as Meter Final Riiding (:u ft!
Net fe= Eassle Vclia* to ft!
Vsl sf Liquid.Collected (•!!
Vcl of L:q « Std. Conds. (scf)
at. cf Filter Participate (gs)
!ft. of Probe Hash =art:c:.late (GUI)
Kt af CMbinei Articulate (ca)"
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Co-centriUcr, (by CEK!
C3 Ccncs-tration (by C3fi
K2 Concentration (bv diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE I •
1B03101BES
Performed by: E Hill
Test No./Type: 1BOS101BES
Start/Stoa Time: 1018-1247
Isokineticity
Hetered Sample 6as Vol-ute
SYMBOL
N(d)
C(o!
(alpha)
R
L
W
A's)
*
(theta!
P(b>
P (stack)
V(n)
VI (c)
V(w std)
flip!
V
r.
i
i
VALUE
(calc.)
0.302
0.84
1
6.33
(1.03267 )
16
( 144.00 )
30.!
-4
340.21E
468.143
( 127.92 !
286.27
( 13.475 )
N/A
N/A
( Er,F: )
14.39
3.44
0
( 81.67 )
X I
(scf) V(a std)
(son) V(a std)
(dscfa) 8(s)
(dscn/«iin)Q(s)
(acfi) Q(a!
(acjt/ain) Q(a)
Stack Bas Flow, sid cond,
std cor.d.
actual
actual
Particulate Loading, dry (or/dscf) C(s std! :=
" S Ti 02Car/dsc-! C!s std! F
S T!. 02iJic/dscB) C(s std) =
Particulate Eaission Rate (Ib/hr) E!o! :=
(kg/hr) Eip) =
ici.;:
117.75
1677
47.5
2165
61.2
Nfi
Ni".
Nfi
K\
Nfi
Stack Sas Water Vapor Proportion B(wo)
Molecular Weioht of Stack Bas. Dry Mid!
Wet M(s)
-Stack Pressure, absolute (in Ho) P'.s!
Averaoe Stact: Velocitv (ft/sec) V(s avc!
Sf^ple
Point
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
B
1
2
3
4
5
6
. 7
8
TOTALS
ddock
Tise
(Din)
9
9
9
9
9
9
Q
o
o
n
9
9
9
9
q
9
1
^ ^^^
144
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H2Q)
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
—
5. IB
Orifice ! Stack !
Keier,dH ! Temp
(in H2D) ! (degF)
2.4 ! 146
2.3 ! 146
2.4 ! 146
2.3 ! 146
2.3 ! 147
2.3 i 148
2.3 ! 147
2.3 ! 148
2.4 ! 149
2.3 ! 150
2.3 ! 150
2.4 ! 149
2.4 ! 150
2.4 ! 149
2.3 i 150
2.3 ! 150
— — 1— —
37.4000 ! 2371.0
Bas
Temp
in
127
131
132
132
133
133
136
134
128
134
135
134
136
137
137
137
— —
2136.0
Meter
(deaF)
oat
102
102
104
105
105
106
107
107
107
107
108
108
110
110
110
111
— —
1709.0
SBRT(dP)
0.5745
0.5657
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
— ~ —
— •
9.1036 !
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR SAtfftE I
Velocity Head
Orifice Meter Reading CMC)
Stack Teaperature
Deter Teqierature
Root-Mean-Square dP C«c)
0.10".
2?. 15
23.00
29.91
• 34.9
MffLEI-
(°HC)
CMC)
(degF)
(deg C)
(deg F)
(deg C)
1808101BES
dP(avg) !=
dH(avg) =
T(s avg) !=
T(E avg) =
T(§ avg) ,=
Tf« avg) ;=
0.324
2.333
148.2
64.5
120.2
49.0
SORT(dP):= 0.569
168
-------
ISOKItETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated 09-11-91 .Performed by: E Hill &
Date: 8-13-91 Printed 09/11/91 Test No./Type: 1B131040ES
Saaple Location: Scrubber Exit Start/Stop Tise: 1040-1308
PARAMETER
Nozzle Dianster, Actual tin)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
6as Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Difiensions (in):
Radius (if round!
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
t of Saiple Points
Total Sampling Tine (sin)
Baroaetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
6as Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net 6as Sample Volume "(cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected dl)
Vol of Liq « Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gs)
Wt. of Probe Wash Particulate (gin)
Ht of Combined Particulate (gu)
02 Concentration (by CEM!
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE t — 18131040ES
SYMBOL
N(d)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
H
A(s)
t
(theti)
P(b)
P(stack)
Vd)
VI (c)
V(N std)
M(p)
%
X
X
X
VALUE
(calc.)
6.302
0.84
1
6.88
(1.03267 )
16
( 144.00 )
30.11
-4
530.511
655.996
( 125.49 )
196.53
( 9.251 )
N/A
N/A
( ERR )
14.9
3.47
0
( 81.63 )
Isokineticity Z I
Hetered Sample Eas Voluie (scf) Vd
(sco) Vd
Stack Sas Plot., std cond. (dscfi) 8(s)
std cond. (dsct/iin)Q(s)
actual (acfi) Ola)
actual (acn/iiin) Q(ai
Particulate Loading, dry (or/dscf) C(s
8 7% 02(gr/dscf) C(s
6 n Q2(«9/dscB) C(s
Particulate Eiission Rate (Ib/hr) E!p)
(kg/hr) E(p)
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion
Molecular Height of Stack Bas, Dry
Net
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
std)
std)
std)
std)
std)
2
=
r
s
s
X
8(w) =
Hid)
M(s) =
P(s) =
V(s aval =
97.1
US. 96
3.284
1723
48.8
2163
61.3
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
0.074
29.15
2B.33
29.82
34.9
|7-5rf's;
Sanple
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TOTALS
dClock
Tioe
lain)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
o
144
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H20)
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
5.22
Orifice
Meter, dH
(in H20)
2.4
2.3
2,3
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
_^__
_
37.8000
Stack
Top
(degF)
151
151
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
_
2430.0
Bas
Teop
in
124
126
130
130
130
130
130
131
119
132
134
134
134
134
133
133
TTUn--,-
W^_
2084.0
Meter
(deoF)
out
102
103
103
104
105
105
106
106
105
106
107
107
108
109
109
109
1694.0
SQRTtdP)
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
. ,
9.1387
FIELD DATA AVERA6ES FOR SAMPLE f •
Velocity Head • CMC)
Orifice Meter Reading (*MC)
Stack Temperature
Deter Temperature
Foot-Mean-Square dP ("we)
(deg F)
(deg C)
(deg F)
(deg C)
18131040ES
dP(avg) = 0.326
dH(avg) = 2.363
T(savg)= 151.9
T(s avg) = 66.6
Td avg) = 118.1
Td avg) = 47.8
SflRT(dP) = 0.571
169
-------
1SOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: IKF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-15-91 Printed 09/11/91
Suple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diasetur, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Eas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Diatnsions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectanoular)
Nidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
i of Saeple Paints
Total Sampling Tiae din)
Baroietric Pressure (in Kg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Bas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Eas deter Final Reading (cu ft!
Net Bis Saaple Voluiw (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected til)
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate
0.5657 !
0.5568 iStack Teaperature (deg F)
0.5477 ! tdeg C)
0.5568 !
0.5477 IMeter Teanerature (deg F)
, 0.5568 !
-------
APPENDIX D-3
METHOD 5 TRAIN WORKSHEETS
171
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-6-91 Printed 09/11/91
Staple Location: Scrubber Exit
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SWPLE t
1B061000EP
Perforaed by: E Hill &
Test No./Type: 1B061000EP
Start/Stop Tiae: 1000-1259
PARAMETER
Hozzle Diaaeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Diisensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
1 of Sasple Points
Total Sampling Tiee (Bin)
Baroaetric Pressure (in Ha)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas feter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Gas Saaple Voluae (cu ft)
Vol of Liauid Collected (al)
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds. (scf)
Kt. of Filter Particulate (ga)
Hi. of Probe Wash Particulate (ga)
lit of Combined Particulate (ga)
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
SYMBOL
N(d)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
W
A (s)
1
(theta)
P(b)
P (stack)
V(a)
VI (c)
V(H std)
H(p)
Z
t.
I
Z
VALUE
(calc.)
0.247
0.84
1
6.88
— —
—
(1.03267 )
19
( 173.00 1
30.16
-4
198.16
308.564
( 110.40 )
148.03
( 6.968 1
0.0033
0.0109
( 0.0142 )
15.22
3.28
0
( 81.50 )
Isokineticity
Metered Saaple Bas Voluae
Stack Gas Flo*, std cond,
std cond.
actual
actual
Particulate Loading, dry
X I i= 103.9
(scf) V(a std) i= 102.07
(sea) V(a std) - 2.890
(dscfa) Q(s) j= 1764
(dsca/«in)Q(5) - 49.9
(acfa) fl (a) = 216:;
(acn/ain) Ota) = 61.2
(gr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0021
fo2(ar/dscf) C(s std) .= 0.0052
e 7Z 02(ag/dsca) C(s std) = 12
Particulate Eaission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p) = 0.032
(kg/hr) E(p) = 0.015
Stack Sas Hater Vapor Proportion B(wo) =
(tolecular Height of Stack Bas, Dry M(d) !=
Het B(s)
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg) P(s) =
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec) V(s avg>:=
0.064
29.13
28.42
29.87
34.9
Eaaple ! dClbck
Point ! TJBE
! (Bin)
1 ! 9
2 ! 9
3 ! 9
4 ! 9
5 ! 9
6 ! 9
7 ! 9
a : ?
i : 9
2 ! 9
3 : 9
4 i 9
5 ! 9
6 ! 9
7 ! 9
8 ! 9
7 ! 9
& i 9
5 i 11
TOTALS ! 173
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H20)
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
Orifice
Meter,dH
(inH20)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
6.30 ! 23.3000
Stack
Tern
(degF)
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
2755.0
Bas Meter !S8RT(dP)
Tesp (degF)
in
95
117
122
126
128
129
129
129
126
128
129
130
131
131
131
131
131
131
132
2406.0
out
92
97
100
104
109
110
110
111
102
107
111
111
111
111
111
112
112
113
113
2047.0
i • i i ••
0.5916
0.5916
0.5831
0.5831
0.5745
0.5831
0.5745
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
0.5657
0.5745
0.5745
0.5745
10.9398
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR SAMPLE I
Velocity Head Cue)
Orifice Meter Reading Cue)
Stack Teaperature
Heter Teaperature
Root-flean-Square dP
(degF)
(deg C)
(degF)
(deg C)
CHC)
18061000EP
dP(avg) = 0.332
dH(avg) , = l.Z>6
i
T(s avg), = 145,, 0
T(s avg) = 62.8
T(a avg) = 117.2
T(» avg) = 47.3
SaRT(dP) = 0.576
172
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF, Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-8-91 Printed 09/11/91
Satple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaaeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Bas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Kidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack fsq ft)
I of Sanple Points
Total Sampling Tits din)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in ICO)
Gas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading ~icu ft)
Net fias Sample Voluse (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (ill
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gm)
Wt. of Probe Wash Particulate (gin)
Wt of Combined Particulate (gm)
D2 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE I — 180S101BEP
Performed by: E Hill &
Test No./Type: 1SOB101BEP
Start/Stop Tiae: 1018-1247
SYMBOL VALUE
(calc.)
N(d) 0.263
C(p) 0.84
(alpha! 1 -
R
L
H
A(s)
1
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
Via!
VI (c)
V(N std)
«(p!
X
I
I
X
6.88
•
(1.03267 )
16
( 144.00 )
30.1
-4
313.475
409.28
( 95.80 )
166.34
( 7.830 )
0.0045
0.0085.
( 0.0130 )
14.89
3.44
0
( 81.67 )
Isokineticity
Metered Saople Bas Voluie (scf)
(sen)
Stack Bas Flow, std cond. (dscfi)
Z I
V(i
Vd
Q(s)
std)
std)
s
£
S
=
std cond. (dsci/iin)B(5) =
actual (acfi)
actual
-------
ISOKIfETIC RESULTS
Plants IRF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-13-91 Printed 09/11/91
Sitple Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAMETER
Nozzle Dianeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Eas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Hidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Saaple Points
Total Sampling Tine (ain)
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Eas Keter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Eas Keter Final Reading fcu ft)
Net Eas Sample Volute (cu ft)
Vol'of Liquid Collected (ill
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Nt. of Filter Particulate (go)
Nt. of Probe Hash Particulate (ga)
Nt of Combined Particulate (gi)
D2 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
H2 Concentration (by diff.)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE t — 18131040EP
Performed by: E Hill td
Test No./Type: 18131040EP
Start/Stop Time: 1040-1308
SYMBOL
N(d)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
H
A(s)
i
(theta)
P(b)
P (stack)
V(m)
VI (c)
V(M Std)
H(p)
I. .
X
I
Z
VALUE
(calc.)
' 0.263
0.84
1
6.88
(1.03267 )
16
( 144.00 )
30.11
-4
449.651
541.3
( 91.65 )
185.91
( 8.751 )
0.004
0.0161
( 0.0201 1
14.9
3.47
0
( 81.63 )
Isokineticitv XI : =
Hetered Sanple Eas Volume (scf) V(m std) =
(scm) V(m std) =
Stack Eas Flat, std cond. (dscfe) 0(s)
std cond. (dsci/iin)Q(s) ' =
actual (acfn) Q(a) . =
actual (acm/min) Cl(a) • =
Particulate Loading, dry (gr/dscf) C(s std) =
« n 02 (gr/dscf) C(s std) =
6 7% 02 =
liet His)
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg) Pis) =
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec) Vis avg) =
95.5
84.90
2.W4
1691
47.9
2169
61.4
0.0037
0.0084
19
0.053
0.024
0.093
29.15
28.11
29.82
35.0
Sacple
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TOTALS
dClock
Tisie
(nin)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
___
! 144
Velocity
Head, dP
(inH20)
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
Orifice
Heter,dH
(in H20)
1.2
1.2
1.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
i"™"1"
5.21 ! 19.2000
Stack
Teap
(degF)
151
151
152
152
152
, 152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
!
! 2430.0
Eas Meter
Teap (degF)
in
122
123
123
123
123
124
125
126
123
127
128
130
131
131
131
132
2022.0
out
100
100
101
102
102
103
104
105
104
105
105
105
105
106
106
106
1659.0
SQRT(dP) !F
1
:v
0.5745 iC
0.5745 !
0.5657 IE
0.5657 !
0.5657 !
0.5745 »
0.5745 !
0.5657 !
0.5745 !F
0.5745 !
0.5657 !
0.5657 !
0.5745 !
0.5745 !
0.5745 !
0.5657 !
T* *•" |
9.1299 !
iOrifice Meter Reading
I
I
!Stack Tetperature
i
!
!Meter Temperature
("we)
(deg F)
(deg C)
(degF)
(deg C)
SRoot-flean-Snuare dP CMC)
1B131040EP
dP(avg) = 0.326
dH(avg) = 1.200
T(s avg) = 151.9.
T(s avg) = 66.6
T(i avg) = 115.0
Td avg) = 46.1
SflRT(dP) = 0.571
174
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: IFF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 8-15-91 Printed 09/11/91
Saople Location: Scrubber Exit
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaaeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Sas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
t of Sasple Points
Total Sampling Tine din)
Baroietric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H2Q)
Sas Meter Initial Reading (cu 'ft)
Sas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Sample Volune (cu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected (ill
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (g»)
Ht. of Probe Wash Particulate (go)
Wt of Combined Particulate (gi)
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
Performed by: E Hill &
Test No. /Type: 18151003EP
Start/Stop Tiae: 1003-1232
SYMBOL
N(d)
Ctp)
(alpha)
R
L
H
A (si
t
(theta)
P(b)
P(stack)
Vd)
VI (c)
V(n std)
H(p)
X
I
:
i
VALUE
(calc.)
0,243
0.84
1
6.83
-
(1.03267 )
16
( 144.00 )
30.1
-4
551.225
642.847
( 91.62 )
139.53
( 6.568 )
0.0013
0.0085
( 0.0098 )
14.85
3.56
0
( 81.59 )
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SANPLE I — 18151003EP
Isokineticity XI =
Metered Saaole Gas Volute (scf) V(s std) =
(sci) Vd std) =
Stack Sas Flo*, std cond. fdscfi) Q(s>
std cond. (dsca/ain)Q(s) =
actual (acfi) 9 (a)
actual (acs/iin) Q(a) =
Particulate Loading, dry (gr/dscf) C(s std) =
8 n 02(gr/dscf) C(s std) =
g n 02(ig/dsci) C(s std) =
Particulate Eiission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p) =
(kg/hr) E(p)
Stack Bas Hater Vapor Proportion B(w) =
Molecular Height of Stack Bas, Dry M(d) =
Net His) =
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg) P(s) =
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec) V(s avg) =
95.4
85.05
2.408
1697
48.1
2114
59.9
0.0018
0.0040
9
0.026
0.012
0.072
29.16
28.36
29.81
34.1
rtb.
Saeple ! dClock
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
1
2
^
4
S
6
7
a
TOTALS
Tiae
din)
9
9
9
9
9
o
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
144
Velocity
Head, dP
(in H20)
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
5.02
Orifice
Meter, dH
(in H20)
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
_
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
18.2000
Stack
Teop
(degF)
147
' 147
148
148
148
148
148
148
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
2374.0
Sas Meter
Temp (degF)
in
81
100
106
131
130
133
130
131
109
130
131
133
134
134
135
135
1983.0
out
79
S3
89
95
102
107
109
109
108
109
109
109
110
111
111
111
1651.0
samdpj
0.5657
0.5568
0.5568
0.5568
0.5657
0.5568
0.5568
0.5657
0.5568
0.5657
0.5568
0.5563
0.5657
0.5657
0.5568
0.5568
8.9619 !
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR "SAMPLE •
Velocity Head
Orifice Meter Reading CMC)
Stack Teaperature
CHC)
18151003EP
dP(avg) = 0.314
dH(avg)
(deg F)
(deg C)
teter Teiperature
RooHlean-Square dP
Ctc)
1.138
T(s avg) = 148.4
T(s avg) = 64.7
(deg F) Td avg) = 113.6
(deg C) Td avg) = 45.3
S»T(dP) = 0.560
175
-------
ISQKINETIC RESULTS
Plait: !RF Undated 09-11-91
Ditii 08-06-91 Printed 09/11/91
Sicolt Location: STACK
PARAMETER ,
Na::le Diaceter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dieensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Am of Stack (sq ft)
t af Swale Points
Total Sailing Tite (sin)
Barossiric Pressure (in Ho)
Stack Pressure (in H2Q)
Sis Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Gas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Sas Sa/sple Volute (cu ft)
Vol of Licuid Collected (al)
Vol of Liq * Std. Conds. (scf)
Ki. of Filtsr Particulate (gal
Ht. of Probe Wash Farticulate (gal
!ft of Ccabinad rirticulate ( 37.01
VI (c) 103. 55
Vto std) I 4.874
0.0008
0.0033
H(p) ( 0.0046
2 14.63
X 3.36
I 0
2 ( 82.01
4
R JACKSOtf1,
18060945SP
0945-1140
)
)
)
)
,
)
i
i
)
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE I — 18060945SP
Isokineticity
Metered Sanple Gas Volune (scf)
(sea)
Stack Gas Flow, std ccnd. (dscfe)
2 I
Via
Vd
Q(s)
std)
std)
'Z
=
B
3
std cond. (dsci/ainJtMs) =
actual (acfi)
actual (aca/iin)
Particulate Loading, dry (gr/dscf)
8 72 02 (gr/dscf)
8 72 02(«g/dsM>
Particulate Emission Rate (Ib/hr)
(kg/hr)
Stack Gas Hater Vapor Proportion
Molecular Height of Stack Gas, Dry
Wet
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
9(a)
Q(a)
C(s
C(s
CU
E(p)
E(p)
std)
std)
std)
< S
; S
3
, X
[ _
3
': S
B(no) =
H(d)
His)
P(s)
V(s
avg)
r =
=
; =
s
100.7
78.36
2.219
2384
67.5
2854
80.9
0.0009
0.0020
5
0.019
0.003
0.059
29.12
28.47
30.14
44.5
Ei^jl: dClccr
Fa:nt i "is*
1
r)
3
4
C
4
«
»J
3
4
e
fa
TCTALS
(em)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
; 120
Velocity
Head, d?
(in K20)
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
6.60
Orifics
Meter, dH
(in K20)
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
' 1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
S3. 7600
Stack
Teao
(dsgF)
139
139
139
139
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
1676.0
Gas Meter
Tea) (dear)
in
104
120
138
141
144
146
139
145
148
149
149
150
1673.0
cut
97
102
107
111
116
118
119
121
124
125.
125
126
1391.0
SQRTidP)
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
0.7416
8.8994
FIELD DATA AVERAGES FOR SAMPLE « •
Velocity Head Cue)
Orifice Mster Reading
Stack Tenperature
Meter Temperature
Root-Mean-Square dP
Cwc)
(deg F)
(deg C)
(deg F)
(deg C)
Cue)
1B060945SP
dP(avg) , = 0.530
dH(avg) j = 1.980
T(s avg)' = 139,7
T(s avgV = 59..B
T(« avg)| = 127.7
T(m avg), = 53,1
SBRT(dP)' = 0.742
176
-------
ISOKINETIC RESULTS
Plant: IRF Updated
Date: 08-08-91 Printed
Saaple Location: STACK
PARAMETER
No:2le Diaseter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
6as Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (so ft)
I of Sample Points
Total Sampling- Tiae (sin)
Bar-Metric Pressure (in Hg!
Stack Pressure (in ICO)
Bas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Sas Meter Final Reading (cu ft!
Net Sas Sample Voluae leu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected dl)
Vol of Liq 6 Std. Conds.
Kt. of Filter Particulate
Ht. of Probe Wash Particulate
Wt of'Combined Particulate (go)
02 Concentration (by CEM)
CD2 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEM)
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
09-11-91
09/11/91
Performed by:
Test No. /Type:
Start/Stop Tiie:
R. JACKSON^/
18081022SP £&
'• 1022-1227
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAMPLE 1 — 18081022SP
Isokinetidty XI = 100.6
Hetered Sanple Gas Voluae (scf) V(s std) = 83.33
(sen) V(» std) = 2.360
n)
or
r
SYMBOL
N(d)
C(p)
(alpha)
VALUE
(calc.)
0.244
0.84
0.99
Stack Bas FloM, std cord, (dscfa) Q(s)
std cond. (dsci/ninlOts)
actual (acfe) Q(a)
actual (ace/tin) Ola)
= 2275
= 64.4
= 2815
= 79.7
Particulate Loading, dry (gr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0006
n): 8 7X 02(gr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0016
ular)
lar)
!
(cu ft)
j ft!
ft)
)
5Cf)
gn>)
ite (go)
(gal
)
Orifice
Meter, dH
(in H20)
1.98
1.98
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
R
I
H
A(s)
t
(theta)
P(fa)
P (stack)
Vd)
VI (c)
V(H std)
H(p)
I
X
X
X
Stack
Tesp
(degF)
140
141
141
141
141
141
141
7
(1.06901
12
( 120.00
30.1
0.4
45.562
138.318
( 92.76
168.23
( 7.919
0.0006
0.0024
( 0.0030
16.13
3.52
0
( 80.35
6as
Te«p
in
108
126
136
139
144
146
136
£ 7% 02(M/dsc») Cts std) = 4
\
i
)
Particulate Eiission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p)
(kg/hr) E(p)
= 0.011
= 0.005
Stack Bas Hater Vapor Proportion B(wo) = 0.087
Molecular Height of Stack Bas, Dry Mid)
Het H(s)
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Ha) Pis)
= 29.21
= 28.24
= 30.13
' Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec) V(s avo) = 43.9
(
>
>
1
'
Meter SQRT(dP)
(degF)
out
99 0.7416
101 0.7416
106 0.7071
111 0.7071
117 0.7416
119 0.7416
120 0.7416
T~- d f^r\
J~ ~~ rOU /ril5r
FIELD DATA AVERASES FOR SAMPLE t - 1B081022SP
Velocity Head CHC) dP(avg) = 0.529
Orifice Meter Reading CMC) dH(avg) = 1.830
Stack Teiperature (deg F) TIs ava) = 140.9
(deg C) TIs avg) = 60.5
Meter Temperature (deg F) Td avg) = 127.8
(deg C) T(i avg) = 53.2
SURT(dP) = 0.727
177
-------
ISOKIHETIC RESULTS
Plant: 1RF Updated 09-11-91
Date: 08-13-91 Printed 09/11/91
Staple Location: STACK
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaeeter, Actual (in)
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
Gas Meter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dimensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Nidth (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
I of Sample Points
Total Sanpllng Ti«e din)
Bar-Metric Pressure (in Ho)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
Bas Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
Bas Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Saeple Voluie leu ft)
Vol of Liquid Collected dl)
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gn)
Ht. of Probe Wash Particulate (gm)
Ht of Combined Particulate (gi)
02 Concentration (by CEM)
C02 Concentration (by CEM)
CO Concentration (by CEffl
N2 Concentration (by diff.)
Performed by: R JACKSON
Test No./Type: 18131051SP
Start/Stop Tiae: 1051-124B
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SAS°L£ 1 — 18131051SP
SYMBOL
N(d)
C(p)
(alpha)
R
L
H
A(s)
t
(theta)
P(b)
P (stack)
Vd)
VI (c)
V(w std)
M(p)
X
X
X
X
VALUE
(calc.)
0.244
0.84
0.99
7
(1.06901 )
12
( 112.00 )
30.11
0.4
384.884
467.45
( 82.57 )
162.57
( 7.652 )
0.0095
0.0118
( 0.0213 )
16.19
3.51
0
( 80.30 )
21 ' = 99.3
(scf) V(« std) = 74,48
(su) V(nstd) = 2.109
(dscfi) 8(s) ' = 2206
(risen/Bin)Q(s) = 62.5
(acfi) Q(a) = 2732
(aci/iin) 0(a) , = 77.4
dry (gr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0044
7X 02(gr/dscf) C(s std) = 0.0128
e 72 D2(io/dsci) C(s std) = 29
Particulate Eiission Rate (Ib/hr) E(p) :. - 0.083
(kg/hr) E(p) = 0.038
Isokineticity
Hetered Sample Bas Volute
Stack 6as Flow, std cond.
std cond.
actual
actual
Particulate Loading,
Stack Sas Hater Vapor Proportion
Molecular Heioht of Stack Bas, Dry
Wet
Stack Pressure, absolute (in Hg)
Average Stack Velocity (ft/sec)
B(wo) I
H(d) :
H(s)
P(s) :
V(s avo)
0.093
29.21
28.16
30.14
42.6
Sasple
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
___
TOTALS
dClock [Velocity
Tine [Head, dP
din) i (in H20)
10 ! 0.5
10 ! 0.5
10 ! 0.5
10 ! 0.5
10 ! 0.5
10 : o.s
10 ! 0.5
10 : o.s
10 ; o.s
10 0.5
10 0.5
' 2 0.5
— —
— !
* MM-m—
1
: 112 : 6.00
Orifice
Meter, dH
(in H20)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
!
! 21.6000
Stack
Teip
(degF)
138
138
137
137
136
136
137
137
137
138
138
138
t— m— „
! 1647.0
Bas
Teip
in
136
138
141
141
141
141
128
139
142
144
144
142
- —
•M
! 1677.0
Meter
(degF)
out
111
111
111
111
111
111
108
111
111
113
113
113
— -
i
'. 1335.0
SQRT(dP)
: 0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
0.7071
- —
•HH^B
8.4853
FIELD DATA AVERASES FOR SAWLE t - 1B131051SP
Velocity Head CMC) dPIavgy = 0.1500
Orifice Meter Reading ("we) dH(avg) = 1.800
Stack Temperature
Meter Tecperature
Root-Mean-Square dP
(deg F)
(degC)
(degF)
(degC)
Cue)
T(s avg) = 137.3
T(s avg) = 5B.5
Td avg) = 125.5
Td avg) = 51.9
SQRT(dP) = 0.707
178
-------
ISOKMETIC RESILTS
Plant: IRF Updated
Bate: 08-15-91 Printed
Sasple Location: STACK
PARAMETER
Nozzle Diaaeter, Actual (i
Pitot Tube Correction Factor
6as deter Correction Factor
Stack (Duct) Dinensions (in):
Radius (if round)
Length (if rectangular)
Width (if rectangular)
Area of Stack (sq ft)
t of Sanple Points
Total Sampling Tiae din)
Barotetric Pressure (in Hg)
Stack Pressure (in H20)
6as Meter Initial Reading (cu ft)
6as Meter Final Reading (cu ft)
Net Bas Sample Voluie (cu ft)
, Vol of Liquid Collected dl) -
Vol of Liq 8 Std. Conds. (scf)
Ht. of Filter Particulate (gal
Ht. of Probe Hash Particulate (g»)
Ht of Combined Particulate (gi)
09-11-91
09/11/91
))
ir
i):
liar)
ar)
cu ft)
ft)
Performed by: R JACKSON 'f¥'
Test No. /Type: 1B151005SP £•
-------
------- |