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


-------
  §
   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 £•
-------

-------
-------
  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