-------
International Fuel Cells FCR-13524
APPENDIX B
LANDFILL GAS PRETREATMENT MODULE TEST PLAN
FCR-12706A, DATED
MAY 1993 (REVISED JULY 1993)
B-l
-------
DEMONSTRATION OF FUEL CELLS TO RECOVER
ENERGY FROM LANDFILL GAS
Landfill Gas Pretreatment Module Test And Quality Assurance Plan
May 1993
Revised July 1993
Contract 68-D1-0008
FCR-12706A
Prepared for
AEERL
Global Warming Control Branch (MD-63)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
P.O. Box 739
195 Governor's Highway
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
-------
International Fuel Cells
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 OBJECTIVE B-4
2.0 QUALIFICATION OF LFG PRETREATMENT UNIT PROCESS
CONDITIONS B-5
1 Factory Test (Completed) B-5
2 Site Check-Out Test B-5
3 Phase II EPA Field Test B-5
3.0 PHASE II EPA FIELD TEST AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN B-6
3.1 Scope B-6
3.2 Phase II Testing/Schedule B-6
3.3 Sampling and Analysis Methods B-ll
3.4 QA/QC Procedures B-13
4.0 FIELD TEST PLAN FOR SCAQMD AIR QUALITY PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS B-15
4.1 Background B-15
4.2 Test Operation/Schedule B-15
4.3 Sampling and Analysis Methods B-15
4.4 QA/QC Procedures for Special SCAQMD B-16
ATTACHMENTS
FCCS 5736 B-19
PROCESS DESCRIPTION B-30
FACTORY TEST DATA B-45
SCAQMD PERMITS REQUIREMENTS B-51
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
B-3
-------
International Fuel Cells
LANDFILL GAS PRETREATMENT MODULE TEST AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
1.0 OBJECTIVE
The Test Plan details the EPA Phase II Field Test of the Gas Pretreatment Unit (GPU) to confirm
the functionality of the gas pretreatment module for the fuel cell power plant field demonstration.
It also describes the additional emissions testing that will be conducted to satisfy the requirements
of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit. Included is: a) a sched-
ule and all operating conditions under which tests will be made, b) all parameters to be measured,
recorded, and observed, c) a detailed description of the sampling and testing techniques to be
used, and d) specifications for all test equipment and instrumentation required to make the neces-
sary measurements. This plan addresses the quality assurance/quality control requirements of
EPA/Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory's Category IV projects. The verification
criteria will be the demonstration of the performance parameters of the Landfill Gas Pretreat-
ment System specification (FCCS5736). The key parameters of this specification are removal of
sulfur and halide contaminants to 3 ppmv each. A copy of FCCS5736 is provided in Attachment A
for reference.
IFC's philosophy is to demonstrate a potential commercial gas pretreatment module, that is de-
signed to be factory assembled and checked out, then delivered to any landfill with confidence the
process will meet the fuel specification. The Phase II Field Test will also address the flexibility of
the gas pretreatment process to clean landfill gas as a variety of different sites. Confirmation of
this includes a challenge test of the gas pretreatment module with dichlorodifluoromethane.
Dichlorodifluoromethane was selected because it is a light halogenated hydrocarbon which is dif-
ficult to remove. This challenge will be conducted once the desired operating parameters have
been selected. Implementation of the Test Plan to validate the operation of the gas pretreatment
unit represents a major step toward completion of that demonstration.
B-4
-------
International Fuel Cells
2.0 QUALIFICATION OF LFG PRETREATMENT UNIT PROCESS CONDITIONS
The initial test effort is to qualify the gas pretreatment unit process operating conditions. The
Landfill Gas (LFG) pretreatment unit process design and operating conditions were selected by
IFC and Bio-Gas Development Inc., using chemical industry and landfill gas purification experi-
ence and adsorbent and heat exchanger vendor recommendations. A detailed description of the
process design is provided in Attachment B. Qualifications of the process design and conditions
will be done in three steps:
1 Factory Test (Completed)
Factory Test was conducted to verify the thermal, mechanical, and electrical operability of the
LFG pretreatment unit. The test was completed in February 1993. The unit was operated for 16
hours (one complete adsorption-regeneration cycle on both sets of adsorption beds) at rated flow
conditions on N2 gas. The operating features of the unit, excluding the condensation and adsorp-
tion of LFG water vapor and contaminants, and excluding operation of the flare were verified.
Included in this Verification Test was the operation of the refrigeration system, the first and second
stage condenser-cooler heat exchangers, regeneration gas heater, thermal cycling of the regener-
able dehydration and activated carbon beds, automatic valve sequencing programmable control-
ler, pneumatic actuator and actuating valves, operation of all mechanical and electrical and com-
ponents, and verification of all process flows, system pressure, pressure drops, and temperatures
throughout the system consistent with the process design.
Factory Test data are provided in Attachment C.
2 Site Check-Out Test
The site check-out test will follow similar procedures used during the factory N2 test but will in-
clude rated flow operation on landfill gas, water vapor and contaminant removal by condensation
and by the regenerable adsorbent beds, and operation of the flare which destroys contaminants
regenerated from the adsorbent beds. The gas pretreatment unit will be operated for a complete
16 hour cycle. Inlet and exit gas samples will be obtained periodically during the check out test for
analysis off-site. These, along with samples of the raw LFG, will be returned to TRC Environmen-
tal Consultants Inc.1 for preliminary analysis.
Condensates from the first stage and second stage condensers will be analyzed for the presence of
hydrocarbons. Specifically, we will determine if the second stage condenser removes light hydro-
carbons.
All critical temperatures, including a continuous recording of all regenerable bed thermal cycles,
will be recorded. As in the factory test, process flows, pressures, and pressure drops will also be
recorded. These data and the results of the gas analyses will be reviewed following the check-out
test to determine if adjustments to the programmable controller are required for the Field Test.
3 Phase II EPA Field Test
The Field Test will be conducted at the process conditions derived during the site check-out test.
Some tuning of the regeneration timing (shortening of the adsorption-regeneration cycle) may be
required if analyses of the product gas samples indicates any significant landfill gas contaminant
specie breakthrough near the end of the adsorption cycle. Gas pretreatment unit performance
verification, including the flare destruction efficiency will be documented according to the test
plans described in Section 3 and 4 of this report and air quality permit requirements. A copy of the
South Coast Quality Management District permit requirements are provided in Attachment D.
1. Corporate Headquarters: 5 Waterside Crossing, Windsor, Ct 06095 , (203) 289-8631
B-5
-------
International Fuel Cells
3.0 PHASE H EPA FIELD TEST AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
3.1 Scope
The testing chain-of-custody and schedule to performed is provided in Table 3.1. IFC will
analyze the landfill gas entering the pretreatment unit, exiting the unit, condensates, and in-
let and exit flare gases. Operation of each dual regenerable beds (designated Bed "A" and
"B") will be monitored. Additionally, Bed A will undergo a special Challenge Test, involving
"spiking" the LFG with approximately 50 ppm of dichlorodifluoromethane to evaluate the
performance of the unit on a more highly contaminated gas typical of some landfill sites. To
accomplish this, the gas pretreatment unit will be analyzed as described above, in the follow-
ing modes:
- Pre-challenge - Air analyzed of Bed A characteristics before dichlorodifluorome-
thane injection.
- Challenge - Air analyzed during dichlorodifluoromethane injection and landfill gas.
- 24 hours after challenge on Penrose to judge the ability of the system to recover from
the Challenge Test.
The Phase II tests and schedule will be described in Section 3.1.2 below. Additionally, a sepa-
rate battery of tests, required by the SCAQMD air quality permit, will also be performed.
These will be discussed in Section 4.
3.2 Phase II Testing/Schedule
The Phase II testing will be performed over a three-day period. The day prior to the test,
initiation on-line measurements and instrument calibrations will be conducted. At least two
weeks prior to Field Test program, a TRC engineer will inspect the site and collect Tedlar bag
samples which will be analyzed off-site to resolve any analytical problems prior to the field
program. The program goal is to operated the LFG pretreatment unit for 500 hrs.
The following description assumes an eight-hour cycle time. If, as a result of the check-out
testing described in Section 2, it is determined that this should be adjusted, the following
would change according to the modified cycle schedule. Testing will begin on 0800 of Day one
when Bed A will be started and run for a short period of time (~ 1/2 hour) on LFG. This is the
pre-challenge test of Bed A. Inlet gases will be analyzed for the following:
- Total and individual sulfur compounds shown as Table 3.2-1.
- Volatile priority hydrocarbon and halohydrocarbon pollutants shown in Table 3.2-2.
- Phenol
- Elemental silicon for silanes and siloxanes in shown as Table 3.2-3.
Outlet gases will be monitored for total sulfur and individual halides. Condensate from Ves-
sel 1 will also be tested for total organics (as carbon).
At approximately 0830 of Day one the dichlorodifluoromethane challenge test will begin by
injecting the challenge gas to the inlet of the pretreatment unit. From 0830-0900, both the
inlet and outlet gas will be tested for dichlorodifluoromethane. After proper calibration of
the dichlorodifluoromethane additive is confirmed, testing for dichlorodifluoromethane will
be performed on the outlet gases only from 0900-1500. For the last hour of the eight hour
cycle, from 1500-1600, outlet gases will be tested for total sulfur, individual halides as well as
dichlorodifluoromethane. Additionally, the condensate from Vessel 2 will be tested for total
organics (as carbon). At approximately 1600, Bed A will be switched to the regeneration
mode and Bed B will be started for an eight hour "make" cycle.
B-6
-------
International Fuel Cells
At 0000 hours of Day two, Bed B will be switched for an eight-hour regenerative cycle. Bed A
will be put back into the "make" mode, running on straight LFG (without dichlorodifluoro-
methane "spiking").
At 0800 hours of Day two, normal testing of Bed B will begin. Bed B will be switched to the
make mode and run on LFG. From 0800 to 0900 inlet gases will be tested for the following:
- Total and individual sulfur (per Table 3.2-1)
- Volatile priority gases (per Table 3.2-2)
- Phenol
- Silicon (see Table 3.2-3)
The outlet gas of Bed B will be tested for total particulates. Condensate from Vessel 1 will
also be tested for total organics (as carbon).
At approximately 0900 of Day two, after calibration of the inlet gases is completed, the outlet
gases will be tested for H2S and total particulates. This will continue to approximately 1500
hours. For the final hour of the eight-hour cycle, from 1500-1600, the outlet gas will be tested
for the following:
— Total sulfur
- H2S
— Individual halides
- Total particulates
Condensate from Vessel 2 will also be analyzed.
At 1600 hours, Bed B will be regenerated for eight-hours and Bed A will be switched to the
"make" mode on LFG.
At 0000 hours of Day three, Bed B is switched to "make" and Bed A is "regenerated." Final
day testing begins at 0800. This test will determine how Bed A responds to normal operation,
24 hours after the challenge test. For the first hour (0800—0900) inlet gases will be tested
for:
- Total and individual sulfur (see Table 3.2-1)
- Volatile priority gases (see Table 3.2-2)
- Phenol
- Silicons (see Table 3.2-3)
Outlet gas measurements will be taken of the following:
— Total Sulfur
- H2S
- Individual Halides
- Total Particulates
Condensate from Vessel 2 will be tested for total organics (as carbon).
The final hour of testing (from 1500-1600) we will analyze only outlet gases. The tests will be
performed as described above.
B-7
-------
Ollll CM MCllCAIWIll 1MII (HU> CAI AXtLTtlf lltllKC MOUIIIMUtt
Table 3.1-1
BT
r+
n
TIME INltl
FtllCD OPCIATINd CAS
OAT (»•) ICO etWOItlONt
••• MC-1CST IAAPIC / AMALTtll **'
•~ INITIAL flU CHtcrOUT ANAITJII "'
1 MOO-OUO A IfG
OUO-0900 A • FICON 12
0900-1500 A • FICON 12
1500-1600 A • FICON 12
1600-2*00 1 IFC
i oooo-oeoo A IFC
ouo-0900 i ire
0900-1500 I LFO
1500.1600 1 IFC
1600 2100 A IFC
} 0000-0100 1 no
0*00-0900 A IFC
0900-1500 A IFC
1500-1600 A 110
hE VAlVt •• I OCA II CM
•- Fining im
until AKAirsis couintfm
OU11C1 CAI IVAMEHtUM •• (PtU 10 Futl Cill)
tMCIAl
ICAOMD
101AL TIITIM
SUIFUI «21 IIBIVIOUU. R 12 TOTAl
ONIT ONIT U1IMI ONLT fUTIOHATI (TAIll 1)
CMS nt (Mini CMIITI out ill orriiTi OfFtiit
llrv lln* llrw llm lln« t»f
S02 dilKl CC/ICB n
TIS ••• TCt
TCS TCI
TCI
TCt
TCS TCI TCt
mi tqulp For (!•• ml ivptl cK«k TCI
TCI Til TH
TCt TCI TCt TCI
TCS Til Til Til
Til Til
TCI Til Til Til
1 common
UIIN tiiir
CHAIl ItC'D
SVIOO IV1JI IVJOO IV100 tVIJJ «V100
•am IAWII umi Mv( 1/« INCH IUACILOK HAL I FIIIKCI
1.) va dilKit pul(>d Muornctnl (02 dilKtor
2.) CC/CCO: |ii cliroMtoarif* / lliclron Clpturt dllKtor
J ) flltiri invlMlrle MiiuriMnl on llll.r
4.) CC/FP«t f.i chroHinrlfA / M» ptioloMtrlc dltMtor
inn CAI
TOIAl 1
IWIVIDUAl
MfUl
R-12 CCNTOXMBI
WIT (TAIll A)
ONtlll ONI 111
HIM b««
cc/m
1 w in
Til
TCt
Til
Tit
cwcri
50 fftt
ICVtl
IV206 IV206
MIMIII.
•C • R 12
KILUTUTI
(TAill C)
IIIMIFTAI PCCIAl
UUOa t*r tCAOW
IIIAMI I TII1IW
IIIOXAMI
"•Ml (TAIll ») (TAIll I)
OffllTI
bn lute
Ce/W. NKl
Til
Offtlll
tub.
AAI
IVZM IV2M tvIM
/t iMtO(rif*r / Mil ipMlrocopr
.) CC/riOi III chrMl>|ri(4iy / flMt Iwlltillon dtltcllon
.) N^lCi hlflh prillurt liquid chro
.) Mil nolle lUtrptlon ipMlrM
n
n
nit
mum 11 oarun IOCATICK
ttlfit ICTKD
couincn um
IIHUO ro* raiiiN ittu.it
l«t Prtctlei)
TIC CALIUATKM CKOCCUT
VTICMl TIC TIITIM TO
OOtMW t CM.IIUTI PTU
• MI-CIU1.UIKI TIITIM.
• ouiinci mi or us A
wiM Arrto*. v> mot
R 12 Aden TO in.
•mui TUT 01 atom in
(HUITI • NultlpU tllplM
•• praetlcibll)
wwui IHT OF run in
AMEI At ICAtl it HOB
int tmcf ciuiiiMi nil
Note: R-12 - Dichlorodifluoromethane
-------
International Fuel Cells
TABLE 3.2-1
INDIVIDUAL SULFUR COMPOUNDS
Sulfur Constituent (ppmv)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
H2S
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Total Sulfur, as H2S (ppm)
Typical Value in LFG
1.03
3.0
0.5
8.0
0.02
<0.5
<0.5
114.5
TABLE 3.2-2
VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND HYDROCARBONS
VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(PPMV)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Dicholroethene
Dichlorethane
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene Isomers
CIS-1, s-Dichloroethane
Total Organic Chloride as Cl (ppmv)
Total Volatile Priority
Pollutants (ppmv)
Typical Values in LFG
0-33
0-0.25
0.41-2.0
0.1-1.0
3.5-13.0
0-12.0
0-0.5
0.6-2.8
0-0.6
4.7-35.0
1.0-6.3
0.4-1.4
6.9-22.0
4.1-5.1
14.5-67.1
21.7-105.3
B-9
-------
International Fuel Cells
TABLE 3.2-2 (Continued)
VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND HYDROCARBONS
Major Hydrocarbon Species (%)
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
N-Butane
150 Pentane
N-Pentane
Hexanes
Hydrocarbons
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Alpha Pinene
d-Limonene
Ethyl Butyrate
Ethyl Acetate
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Acetone
Butanol
CIS 13 Dichloropropene
Naphthene
Tetrahydrofuran
Nitrobenzene
Halohydrocarbons
37.
38.
39.
40.
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chlorodifluoromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Typical Values in LFG
41-48
0
0
0-0.01 ( 100 ppmv)
0
0-0.097 (970 ppmv)
0-0.018 (180 ppmv)
0.0040-0.039 (390 ppmv)
Typical Values in LFG
Unknown
Typical Values in LFG
Unknown
TABLE 3.2-3
SILICONES AND SILOXANES
Silanes
1.
Methoxytrimethyl Silane
Siloxanes
2.
3.
Octamethyl Cyclosiloxane
Decamethyl Cycosiloxane
Typical Values in LFG
Unknown
Typical Values in LFG
Unknown
Unknown
B-10
-------
International Fuel Cells
3.3 Sampling and Analysis Methods
3.3.1 Pretreatment Unit Inlet Gas Measurements
3.3.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds and Sulfur Compounds - TRC will collect two
30-minute integrated samples in Tedlar bags from 0800 to 0830 on each day of
the three day test. One bag sample will be analyzed by TRC on-site for total
sulfur, halohydrocarbons and the target halides, and for the individual sulfur
compounds. (Table 3.2-1)
The second bag sample will be analyzed by a TRC sub-contract laboratory for
the following compound classes (Table 3.2-2):
- Volatile priority pollutants by gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
(GC/MS).
— GI to C6 hydrocarbon species by gas chromatography/flame ionization de-
tection (GC/FID).
— Twelve additional volatile organic compounds and four halohydrocar-
bons compounds by GC/MS. This analysis excludes phenol.
3.3.1.2 Phenol - TRC will collect triplicate one-hour gas samples on a solid sorbent
tube during each test day. This sample will be analyzed by a TRC sub-con-
tract laboratory (Environmental Health Laboratory of Hartford, CT) for
phenol by High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).
3.3.1.3 Silicone Compounds — TRC will collect triplicate gas samples in a liquid ab-
sorbing reagent or on a solid sorbent tube during each test day. These sam-
ples will be analyzed by a TRC sub-contract laboratory (Environmental
Health Laboratory of Hartford, CT) for elemental silicon by Atomic Absorp-
tion Spectroscopy (AAS) or by a colorimetric analytical procedure. The ele-
mental silicon data will be used as a measure of the presence of silanes and
siloxanes.
3.3.2 Outlet Gas Measurements
Concurrently with the inlet gas measurements, TRC will collect and analyze samples
of the outlet gas as follows:
3.3.2.1 Total Sulfur - TRC will measure Total Sulfur (TS) concentration in the PTU
outlet gas stream continuously. The TS concentration will be measured in
accordance with EPA Method 6C, modified by the use of a hydrogen sulfide-
to-SO2 catalytic converter. The modified analyzer converts H2S to SO2, and
then measures the SO2 with a pulsed fluorescent Thermo Environmental
Model 43 SO2 analyzer. The result is a continuous measurement of total sul-
fur with a detection limit of approximately 10 ppb. Analyzer output will be
recorded on a data logger and a strip chart.
The TS sampling system will consist of a stainless steel probe, Teflon sample
line, pump, and the analyzer. The analyzer will respond to all sulfur-contain-
ing compounds, and will be calibrated with certified hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
compressed gas standards, and thus the TS data will be expressed as H2S.
B-ll
-------
International Fuel Cells
3.3.2.2 ON-Line Halides - TRC will measure Halogenated Organic Compound
(HOC) concentrations in the outlet gas stream semi-continuously with a Gas
Chromatograph/Electron Capture Detector (GC/ECD). The GC/ECD will
be calibrated with the halohydrocarbon isomer used as the spiking agent and
at least five additional halogens listed in Table 3.2-2. The system will be oper-
ated for eight hours each day, over the three-day program. The HOC sam-
pling system will consist of a probe, heated Teflon sample line, heated pump,
and the GC/EDC analyzer. The pump will continuously purge the analyzer
sample loop, and an automatic sampling valve will periodically be activated
to inject the sample loop contents into the analyzer.
3.3.2.3 Halides and Freon (GC/MS Method) - TRC will collect gas samples in Ted-
lar bags and analyze the samples for halohydrocarbons and the halogenated
organic compounds listed in Table 3.2-2. The purpose is to provide confirma-
tion for the analyses described in Section 3.3.2.2, to quantify the complete list
of Table 3.2-2 target halides, and to identify any significant non-target hal-
ides.
A 30-minute sample will be collected at the start of the first cycle, and a
60-minute sample will be collected for subsequent samples. The five samples
will be shipped to a off-site laboratory under and analyzed by low resolution
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).
3.3.2.4 Reduced Sulfur Compounds — TRC will conduct on-line semi-continuous
gas analysis for reduced sulfur compounds according to a modified EPA
Method 16. The individual sulfur compound analysis will be performed with
a Gas Chromatograph/Flame Photometric Detector (GC/FPD), which will
be calibrated with compressed gas standards containing a mixture of the sul-
fur compounds. A Hewlett-Packard 5890 gas chromatograph equipped with
an air actuated automatic gas sampling valve will be used. The system will
analyze the gas at approximately 15-minute intervals over each of the three
eight-hour test periods.
3.3.2.5 Particulate Matter Measurements - TRC will measure the Total Paniculate
Matter (TPM) concentration in the PTU outlet gas stream once during each
8-hour bed cycle. The TPM concentration will be measured using a modifica-
tion of EPA Method 5. A portion of the gas stream will be drawn through a
filter (99.5% efficient at 0.3 microns) at approximately 0.75 cfm for the full
eight-hours of each bed cycle. The filters will be returned to the TRC labora-
tory, and the TMP catch on the filter will be determined gravimetrically. We
expect the TPM catch to be very low and for this reason particle sizing will not
be feasible. Three eight-hour samples will be analyzed.
3.3.2.6 Volumetric Flow Measurements — TRC will measure volumetric flow rate of
the outlet gas stream with a hot-wire anemometer, the output of which will be
recorded continuously on a strip chart.
3.3.2.7 Gas Pretreatment Unit Condensate Samples - TRC will collect two liquid
condensate samples during each test day. These samples will be analyzed by
a TRC contract laboratory for total organic content. The results will be ex-
pressed in weight percent as carbon.
B-12
-------
International Fuel Cells
3.4 QA/QC PROCEDURES
3.4.1 Quality Commitment
The TRC Quality Assurance program (QA) is designed to ensure that emission mea-
surement work is performed by qualified people using proper equipment following
written procedures in order to provide accurate, defensible data. This program is
based upon the EPA Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems, Volume III (EPA-600/4-77-027b).
At the beginning of each test day, a meeting will be held to orient personnel to the
activities scheduled for that day, to discuss results from the previous day, and to de-
termine if any special considerations will be appropriate for the day's work.
3.4.2 QA/QC Procedures
3.4.2.1 Emission Measurement Methods
Sampling and measurement equipment including continuous analyzers, re-
corders, pilot tubes, dry gas meters, orifice meters, thermocouples, nozzles,
and any other pertinent apparatus are uniquely identified, undergo preven-
tive maintenance, and will be calibrated before and after the test program.
Most calibrations will be performed with standards traceable to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other appropriate refer-
ences. These standards include wet test meters and NIST Standard Refer-
ence Materials. Records of all calibration data are maintained in TRC files
and will be available on site prior to the first test period.
During the field tests, sampling performance and progress will be continually
evaluated, and deviations from sampling method criteria will be reported to
the Field Team Leader who then can assess the validity of the test run. All
field data will be recorded on prepared data sheets. The Field Team Leader
will maintain a written log describing the events of each day. Field samples
including field blanks will be transported from the field in shock-proof, se-
cure containers. Sample integrity will be controlled through the use of pre-
pared data sheets, positive sample identification, and chain-of-custody forms
as shown in Table 3.1-1. All sampling trains will be leak-checked before and
after each test.
3.4.2.1.1 Methods 1, 2, 4, 26
All Method related sampling runs will be maintained at 100±10
percent isokinetic. Probe and hotbox temperatures will be main-
tained within 25 °F of the temperatures specified.
Prior to the field test programs, full clean-up (background) evalua-
tions of all sampling equipment are periodically performed at the
TRC laboratories. This procedure will ensure the accuracy of the
chosen equipment and procedures.
3.4.2.1.2 Continuous Emission Monitoring System
The CEM system will be calibrated, leak, and bias checked at the
beginning and end of each emission test. In addition, manual mea-
B-13
-------
International Fuel Cells
surements of C>2 and CC>2 concentrations will be made on a regular
basis in accordance with EPA Method 3 as a comparison to the
CEM data. All calibration gases will be Protocol I or equivalent
(± 1 %). Multipoint calibrations will be performed on the analyzers
prior to the field program to establish linearity.
3.4.2.1.3 Analysis
All samples preparation and sample analyses will be performed at
or under the direction of the TRC Environmental Laboratories.
Standards of QA set forth in the Quality Assurance Handbook for
Air Pollution Measurement Systems. Volume III
(EPA-600/4-7-027b) and the Handbook for Analytical Quality Con-
trol in Water and Wastewater Laboratories (EPA-600/4-79-019,
March 1979) will be strictly followed.
In the analytical laboratories, all quality control samples including
field blank samples, reagents, and filter blanks will be analyzed with
the actual test samples. Blank values will be subtracted from actual
sample values.
The TRC Laboratory maintains a continuous QC program to moni-
tor instrument response and analyst proficiency, and to ensure the
precision and accuracy of all analytical results. This program has
been developed in consultation with EPA, NIOSH, and State regu-
latory agencies.
TRC participates in the audit programs of the EPA Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory (source and ambient air) and the
EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (water).
TRC will provide a compressed gas cylinder audit to the subcon-
tract laboratories conducting the toxic air analyses. Audit results
are reviewed by the Chemistry Laboratory Manager and the Emis-
sion Measurement Section Manager, and corrective action is initi-
ated when acceptance criteria are not met.
During the data reduction processes, all calculations will be re-
viewed initially by a person intimately associated with emission test
program, and finally by a senior scientist or engineer not associated
with the program. These QC checks will provide a means to ensure
that the calculations are performed correctly and that the data are
reasonable.
3.4.2.1.4 Laboratory Subcontractors
Subcontract laboratories have been selected by TRC to provide
analytical support not available at TRC. They offer state-of-the-art
laboratory services and professional staff experience with the rigor-
ous requirements of method development, sample analysis, and
quality control. Toxic organic samples will be analyzed by two sepa-
rate laboratories to provide additional quality assurance.
B-14
-------
International Fuel Cells
4.0 FIELD TEST PLAN FOR SCAQMD AIR QUALITY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Background
In addition to the EPA Phase II testing described in Section 3.0 above, emission testing will
be conducted to satisfy, the requirements of the SCAQMD permit. Samples will be collected
from the gas pretreatment unit inlet and outlet as well as the flare inlet and outlet. In addi-
tion, ambient air samples will be collected to assess the background. A single 60-minute sam-
ple will be collected for each pollutant in the inlet and outlet LFG and triplicate samples will
be collected on the flare inlet and outlet. This testing will be conducted on the second test
day. One series of tests are planned to meet the permit requirements.
42 Test Operation/Schedule
These tests will be performed on Bed B, operating in the "make" mode. The following gases
will be analyzed:
- Gas Pretreatment Unit Inlet Gas
- Outlet Gas
- Flare Inlet
- Rare Outlet
— Ambient Air
The specific schedule is shown in Section 3 (See Table 3.1-1).
43 Sampling and Analysis Methods
4.3.1 Gas pretreaztment unit Inlet and Outlet Gas Measurements
TRC will conduct the following tests on the PTU inlet and outlet to measure the
emissions of the compounds listed in Table 4.3.1-1.
Methane and Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (CARB Method 25..2) - TRC will col-
lect a pair of cold trap samples according to CARB Method 25.2 from the PTU inlet
and outlet. A single 60-minute sample pair will be collected from each location on
the second test day only. Each sample will be analyzed for methane and non-me-
thane hydrocarbons.
Reduced Sulfur Compounds (See Table 3.2-1) - Reduced sulfur compounds will be
analyzed for he AEERL demonstration and that data will be used for the SCAQMD
requirement.
Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen - will be analyzed according to EPA Method 3 using an
Orsat analyzer. A single set of 60-minute Tedlar bag samples will be collected and
analyzed on site.
Flowrate - will be measured at both locations with a Sierra hot wire anemometer.
Toxic Air Contaminants - will be measured on the AEERL program and the data
will be applied to the SCAQMD requirements. See Section 3.3 for sampling and
analysis methods.
B-15
-------
International Fuel Cells
4.3.2 Rare Inlet and Exit Measurements
The flare inlet and outlet emissions will also be tested to demonstrate compliance
with the SCAQMD permit. Also analyze the filter and backshelf (liquid droplets).
Triplicate 60-minute test runs will be conducted for each compound listed in Table
4.3.1-1 for the flare inlet and Table 4.3.2-1 for the flare outlet as outlined above.
Samples will be collected from 0800 to 0900, 0900 to 1200 and 1500 to 1600 on the
second day of the Field Test Program.
In addition to the pollutants listed above, particulates, nitric oxides and carbon diox-
ide will be measured at the flare outlet only. Triplicate 60-minute samples will be
collected according to EPA Methods 5,7E and 10 respectively during the first hour of
bed operation, the middle six hours and the final hour.
4.3.3 Ambient Air Measurements
Concurrently with the flare testing, TRC will sample the ambient air for the pollut-
ants listed in Table E. This will include a single 60-minute sample collected and ana-
lyzed as described above for each Table 5.2.2-2 constituent with the exception of par-
ticulates. Ambient particulates will be measured with a single high volume sample
collected over an eight hour period.
4.4 QA/QC Procedures for Special SCAQMD
TRC plans to follow and conform to a similar set of QA/QC procedures for the special
SCAQMD testing as it will follow for the EPA Phase II testing. These procedures were de-
scribed in Section 3.4.
B-16
-------
International Fuel Cells
TABLE 4.3.1-1
SCAQMD SPECIAL TEST OF PRETREATMENT UNIT
INLET AND OUTLET GAS, FLARE INLET GAS
The performance tests will be conducted at the maximum permitted steady state flow rates
and will include a test of the inlet gas to the treatment system, the product gas, and flare inlet
gas for:
1 Methane
2 Total Non-Methane Organics
3 Hydrogen Sulfide
4 Cl through C3 Sulfur Compounds
5 Carbon Dioxide
6 Toxic Air Contaminants, including but not limited to:
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1, 2 Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
7 Oxygen
8 Nitrogen
9 Moisture Content
10 Temperature
11 Row Rate
B-17
-------
International Fuel Cells
TABLE 4 3.2-1
SCAQMD SPECIAL TEST OF FLARE OUTLET GAS
The performance tests will be conducted at the maximum permitted steady state flow rates
and will include a test of the flare inlet gas for:
1 Methane
2 Total Non-Methane Organics
3 Oxides of Nitrogen
4 Carbon Monoxide
5 Total Particulates
6 Carbon Dioxide
7 Toxic Air Contaminants, including but not limited to:
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1, 2 Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
8 Oxygen
9 Nitrogen
10 Moisture Content
11 Temperature
12 Row Rate
B-18
-------
International Fuel Cells
ATTACHMENT A
FCCS 5763
LANDFILL GAS PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
COMPONENT SPECIFICATION
B-19
-------
TITLE.
LANDFILL GAS
PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
COMPONENT SPECIFICATION
REV LTR
—
AUTHOR
J.L, PRESTON
RELEASE NO.
D*t PL23J
DATE
-C- "^ -^
PRODUCT FILE ADDRESS•
POWER PLW/PROGRAM
SYSTEM t TAG NO.
PART NO.
DOCUMENT NO.
PC25/LANDFILL
FPRS
PAGE
FCCS 5736
OF
IFC FORM NO. 0054 REV 10-88
B-20
IFC FORM OOSU. B.OI.oi
-------
REVISION RECORD
(DASH No.)
RELNO.
LTH
DiSCRIPTION
DATE
IFC FORM NO. 0054A 1/86
ORIGINAL ISSUE
5/15/91
OOCMT. NO.
FCCS 5736
B-21
-------
1.0 SCOPE AND DESCRIPTION:
This specification defines the requirements for a landfill gas pretreatment system (pretreatment
system) for an EPA landfill-gas-to-energy demonstration utilizing a commercially available 200kW fuel
cell power plant. The pretreatment system will remove sulfur and halide contaminants, water, and
particulates present in raw landfill gas. Removal of the landfill gas diluents, including carbon dioxide,
nitrogen, and oxygen, are not required.
The pretreatment system shall include means for contaminant removal, on-site destruction of
contaminants removed from the system, delivery pressure regulation of pretreated landfill gas fuel to
The fuel cell power plant, and all controls. It is anticipated that the system will be a complete skid-
mounted and truck-transportable unit designed for exposed weather installation and unattended
operation with safety controls to provide automatic shutdown. It is desirable to apply a process
operating at a pressure as close to atmospheric as possible.
2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS:
At the time of contract, the latest version of the applicable documents with any amendments shall
apply.
2.1 NATIONAL STANDARDS:
This system must be suitable for siting in an industrial setting in the city of Los Angeles. It therefore
must be designed and built to recognize industrial standards such as ANSI 831 Code for Pressure
Piping, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, NFPA, FM, AGA and NEMA.
2.2 STATE AND LOCAL CODES:
City of Los Angeles Unified Building Code,
City of Los Angeles Electrical Code,
City of Los Angeles Bureau of Fire Prevention Code,
City of Los Angeles Health Department Code,
California State Industrial Code: Title 8,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rules & Specifications
DOCMT. NO.
FCCS 5736
REVISION
PAGE
IFC FORM NO. 00548 1/86
B-22
-------
3.0 REQUIREMENTS:
3.1 SUMMARY:
The gas pretreatment system will accept compressed raw landfill gas available at 80 to 95 psig from
an existing site supply and will supply clean landfill gas of an appropriate temperature, pressure,
humidity, and contaminant specification limit to the fuel cell on demand at a flow rate of up to
120,000 standard cubic feet per day (5000 SCFH). The system will provide the functions of water
and particulate removal, contaminant removal, contaminant incineration, and supply pressure
regulation on an automatic basis once operation is initiated.
3.2 INTERFACES:
3.2.1 Input Gas
The landfill gas feed to the pretreatment system will be available at up to 84
SCFM (5000 SCFH) and will have the following nominal properties:
Temperature 80-100°F
Pressure 80-95 PSIG
CH4 42-50%
C02
N,
38-48%
10-20%
Oxygen at less than or equal to 1 %
Water vapor: saturated at nominal delivery conditions
Heating value 425-510 BTU/SCF on a higher heating value basis
Total non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) of 862 ppmv
For the pretreatment system design the total halides as chloride is 264 ppmv and
total sulfur of 42 ppmv. These values are based on two times the EPA average
compositional analysis for 48 quantifications at 23 different sites shown in
Appendix A. Detailed compositional analysis for these values is given in Appendix
B.
IFC FORM NO. 00548 1/86
DOCMT. NO.
FCCS 5736
REVISION
PAGE'
B-23
-------
3.2.2 Output Gas Requirements to Fuel Cell Power Plant
0
•4
30
3.2.3
Flow
Pressure
Temperature
Dew Point
Total Sulfur
Total Halides
Particulates
Other Site Interfaces
Max Units
5000 SCFH
14 Inches of Water
(Column W.C.)
130 °F
20 °F
3 PPMv
3 PPMv
Particulate removal of 100% at 1 micron or'larger and
98% removal at 0.4 microns or larger
• Location: Los Angeles, CA
• Site Services Available
- Landfill Gas Supply
- Electricity
- Natural Gas
Water
— Other site services to be defined by Pretreatment System Supplier
3.3 OPERATING CONDITIONS:
3.3.1
3.3.2
Start-Up
The pretreatment system design should be compatible with eventual automatic
start-up. Manual start-up is acceptable for the demonstration program. Start-Up
Time: 1 shift.
Shutdown
Normal shutdown can be accomplished manually.
In the event of malfunction in the fuel pretreatment system, the pretreatment
system shall have provisions for automatic shutdown which protects the
pretreatment system and does not exceed any site emissions limitations.
DOCMT. NO.
FCCS 5736
REVISION
PAGE
IFC FORM NO. 00548 1/88
B-24
-------
3.3.3 Normal Operation
The operation of the pretreatment system shall not be linked with the fuel cell
power plant except that it can accept a shutdown signal from the fuel cell power
plant. The pretreat system should be capable of checkout and operation without
the fuel cell. A landfill gas pipeline operating at subatmospheric pressure (10 to
60 inches W.C. vacuum) is available to accept pretreated landfill gas during trials
without the fuel cell.
3.4 PRESSURE REGULATION:
Provide to the fuel cell power plant on demand pretreated landfill gas at up to 120,000 SCFD
(5000 SCFH) on a continuous, and uninterrupted basis at a delivery pressure of 4 to 14" of
W.C. Pretreatment system shall provide rapid flow response to changes in the fuel cell demand.
Delivery pressure shall not fall below 4" W.C. during increased demand from 0 to 5000 SCFH
in 15 seconds.
3.5 CONTAMINANT DISPOSAL:
The pretreatment system shall not collect and store hazardous contaminants on site for later
shipment off site. All contaminants regenerated from the pretreatment system shall be
disposed of on-site using an incinerator which shall preclude dioxin formation, and shall be
consistent with the current South Coast Air Quality Management District design specifications.
3.6 LIFE:
The pretreatment system adsorbents and absorbents shall be designed for a minimum life of 1
year. Quarterly filter replacement is allowable only if this can be accomplished without
shutdown of the unit. Active components (solenoid valves, pumps, etc.) may be serviced on
an annual basis.
3.7 PERMITTING:
The design specifications and stampings of the pretreatment system shall be consistent with
all national, state and local codes and regulations as listed in Section 2.
DOCMT. NO.
FCCS 5736
REVISION
IFC FORM NO. 00648 1/86
D ~A~J
PAGE 6
-------
3.8 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION:
The pretreatment system shall be modular, self-contained, and skid mounted. Materials of
construction should be compatible with the operating environment and operating schedule to
insure a minimum of two years of uninterrupted service. The system shall be designed to
operate outdoors in the Los Angeles, California area.
3.9 DOCUMENTATION:
. - Installation Manual and Drawings including Point of
Connection Interface Locations
- Operating Manual
— Overhaul and Maintenance Manual
- P&LDiagram
- Electrical Diagram
— Process Flow Diagram
— Equipment Drawings
— Vendor Supplied Literature for Purchased Equipment
- Foundation Loading Calculation Document
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE:
4.1 QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM:
The supplier shall have a Quality Control System that will ensure that parts are manufactured
to the requirements of this specification. IFC reserves the right to review the supplier's system
prior to contract award and to inspect parts and witness tests during manufacture and prior to
shipment. IFC or its representatives will act as the authorized inspector required by ANSI B31
Codes for Pressure Piping.
4.2 TESTING:
All testing required by applicable codes (e.g., ASME Code vessel pressure testing) will be
identified upon completion of the design, including a 24 hour pneumatic static test at 100% of
rated pressure.
4.3 REPORTS:
All test and code required documentation will be provided to IFC prior to delivery of the
pretreatment system.
OOCMT. NO.
FCCS 5736
REVISION
PAGE
7
IFC FORM NO. 0054S 1/88
B-26
-------
5.0 PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY:
5.1 IDENTIFICATION;
The pretreatment system shall have a metal identification plate attached with the following
information at a minimum:
LANDFILL GAS PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
IFC FCCS-5736
- vendor part number
— vendor serial number
property of U.S. EPA under contract 68-D1-0008
6.0 APPENDICES:
A. Landfill Gas Contaminant Composition for Pretreatment System Design
B. EPA Average Landfill Gas Contaminant Composition Analysis
OOCMT. NO.
FCCS 5736
REVISION
PAGE 8
IFC FORM NO. OOS4B 1/86
-------
LANDFILL GAS CONTAMINANT COMPOSITION FOR PRETREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION fPPMVl
TOTAL NON-
METHANE
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
fNHOCl
SATURATED
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
UNSATURATES,
ABOMATICS, TOTAL TOTAL
HALIDB AMD SULFUR SULFUR HALIDE
COMPOUNDS. ETQ. , AS S^ A3 GL
EPA AVERAGE *
(48 QUANTIFICATIONS,
23 SITES)
431
157
274
21
132
tt*
K)
oo
PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
DESIGN BASIS
(2 X EPA AVERAGE)
862
314
548
42
264
-------
APPENDIX
pPA AVBRAQB liKHDFILL QAB QOMTAMIMAMT COMPOBITIOH ANALYSIS
CHEMICAL MAM
Mo of
TlMI
Qutnl if I* J
COM.
CHEMICAL NAME
Mo. •!
Tbttt
Qu*ntl(l*il
Av.(«(«
Cone.
ETHANE
TOLUENI
HYDROGEN 5ULPIDE
HETHYUHS CHLORIDI
ETUYLIENZENE
XYLEHI
1.2 - DIMETHYL IEMIENI
TOTAL XYLEME ISOHESI
LIMOHEHE
-PIHCNE
DICHLOROO irLUORCHXTHAHl
ETHYLESTER IUTANOIC ACID
PROPANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
HETHYLESTEB IUTAHOIC ACID
ETHYLESTER ACETIC ACID
PROPYLESTER IUTAHOIC ACID
1.2 - DICHLOROEIUENI
METHYL ETHYL UTONI
TUIORICHETUANE
HETHLYCYCLOHEXANE
TRICHLOROETHEHE
NOHANE
IEH2EHE
ACETONE
ET1UHOL
2 - IUIAHOL
OCTANE
PENTANE
I - HETHOXY - 2 - METHYL PROPANE
HETHYLESTER ACETIC ACID
2 - RUTANOHE
HEX'Ml
IUTAME
1.1 - DICHLOROETHANE
I - IUTANOL
4 - HETHYL - 2 - PENTANONE
CHLOROMETHAME
2 - HETHYL PROPANE
I - HETHYLETHYLESTER IUTANOIC ACID
2 - HETIIYL. HETHYLESTER PROPAHOIC ACID
CARION TETRACHLORIDE
I.I.) TRIMETUYL CYCLOIIEXANE
2 - METHYL - I - PROPANOL
41
1
14
II
1
I
21
I
21
II
41
41
I
24
I
1
44
I
II
I
I
I)
I
I
I
I)
II
2»
I
I
21
I
I
I
II
I
I
111 21
41.11
II. II
14 41
14.11
11.11
12.21
10.12
t I*
t 21
1.14
1.2*
Ml
I. 01
1 II
l.Ot
01
II
II
12
41
41
I 11
1 II
III
l.ll
1.00
2.11
2.1)
2.4*
2.40
2.11
2.1*
2.01
l.ll
l.ll
I. II
1.44
1.44
1.41
I.I*
1.2 - DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROrLUOROHE THANE
2,} DIMETHYL FURAJI
2 - HETHYL HIRAM
HETHYL ItOIUTYL KnOHE
CHLORODirLUOROHKTIUNE
PROPEKE
ETHYL HERCATTAN
I.I.I - TRICHLOt'OETHAME
OICHLOROPLUOAOHLIHANE
TETRAHYDROFURAN
ETUYLESTER PROPAMOIC ACID
IROHDOICHIAROMITIUNE
) - METHYLHEXANE
ETHYL ACETATE
CIO.OKOIENIENE
CIOHI4 UNSATURATEO HYDROCARRON
METHYLTROPANE
2 - CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
1.1.2,2 - TETRACHLOROETHANE
ACRVLOHITRILE
I.I • DICHLOROETHENE
METHYUTHnPROPANOATE
HETHYL KERCAPTAH
1.1 - DICHLOROPROPANE
I - rROPYL KERCAPIAN
CILOROrORM
( - IUTYL HERCAPTAN
DICHLOROTETRAILUOROETHANE
DIMETHYL DISUUIOE
DIMETHYL IULTIDE
CARROHYL tuiriot
1.1.2-TRICIILORO 1.2.2-TRin.UOROETHAME
HEIIIYL ETHYL SULPIDE
RROHDHETHANE
1.1.2 - TRIQILOROETHAHE
I.) - IROHOalLOROPROPANE
1,2 - OIIROHbETHANE
ACROLEIN
21
2)
41
I
I
It
I)
)
II
24
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
20
I
1
10
2
2
I
2
2
I
I
I
I
I
.01
.*!
•4
II
II
II
14
II
II
12
10
41
14
41
42
42
II
II
II
24
II
I?
II
II
12
01
04
04
01
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 04
-------
International Fuel Cells
ATTACHMENT B
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
B-30
-------
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
Process Chemistry
The process chemistry of the Landfill Gas Pretreatment
System gas cleaning process is dictated by the composition of
the incoming landfill gas and its complex mixture of trace
contaminants. The fuel cell gas quality must be free of
water and all contaminants so as to consist of a mixture of
methane, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Raw landfill
gas trace contaminants and their concentration levels used as
a basis for the Landfill Gas Pretreatment System Process
design are shown in Table 1. The raw landfill gas consists
of a mixture of hydrocarbons, aromatics, halogenated
hydrocarbons, and sulfide gases at very low concentrations.
Two-stage, low temperature condensation followed by
activated carbon absorption are the process steps used to
clean the landfill gas. Overall, all contaminants except
butane and pentane are removed from the raw landfill gas at a
total 100% cleaning effectiveness. The process-specific
removal efficiencies shown in Table 2 are based on
experimental data from a comparative facility on the East
coast and related laboratory and bench-scale tests. As noted
in the process flow sheet, the first and second stage
condensation processes are designed to operate at +33°F and
-25°F respectively. Hexane and octane, aromatics,
trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene, and dimethyl
disulfide are condensed out at 99.5% and above. Part of the
B-31
-------
initial testing of the pretreatment system will be to
•
determine the effectiveness of the second stage condenser in
removing contaminants by condensation. The remaining
contaminants, mainly sulfides, and chlorinated hydrocarbons
(including any heavy hydrocarbons or contaminants not removed
by condensation) are removed by activated carbon adsorption
at 99.9% removal and above.
B-32
-------
TABLE 1 -
Raw Landfill Gas Contaminants and
Concentrations for Penrose Test Site
Design Raw Gas
Landfill Gas Trace Concentration Level
Contaminants fppm - by volume)
Hydrocarbons
Isobutane 95
Isopentane 963
n-Pentane 198
Hexane ' 297
Octane 81
AroTnatics
Benzene 2
Ethylbenzene 13
Chlorobenzene 1
Toluene 35
Xylenes 22
Styrene 0-5
Haloqenated Hydrocarbons
Dichloroethene 3
Dichloroethane 3
Methylene Chloride 12
Cis-1, 2-Dichloroethene 5
Trichlorofluroethane 0.6
Trichloroethylene 70
Tetrachlorethylene 6
Vinyl Chloride 1.4
Sulfides
Hydrogen Sulfide 103
Methyl Mercaptan 5
Ethyl Mercaptan 5
Dimethyl Sulfide 8
Dimethyl Disulfide 0.02
B-33
-------
TABLE 2
Trace Contaminant Removal Efficiencies
for Gas Cleaning Process Steps
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES OF PROCESS STEPS
1st Stage
Condenser
Activated
Alumina/
Molecular
Sieve
2nd Stage
Condenser
Activated
Carbon Beds
TOTAL
Hydrocarbons
CHC's)
Methane 0
Isobutane 0
Isopentane 0
n-Pentane 0
Hexane 0
Octane 96.0
Aromatics
Benzene 0.05
Ethylbenzene 97.4
Chlorobenzene 96.0
Toluene^ 87.8
Xylenes 92.0
Styrene 94.4
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Dichloroethene 30.4
Dichloroethene 29.8
Methylene Chloride 0
Cis-1.2-Dichloroethene 0
Trichlorofluoroethane 2.0
Trichloroethylene 0
Tetrachloroethylene 50.0
vinyl Chloride 0
Sulfides
Hydrogen Sulfide 0
Methyl Mercaptan 30.0
Ethyl Mercaptan 60.7
Dimethyl Sulfide 60.3
Dimethyl Disulfide 99.0
Inorganics & Other
Nitrogen 0
Oxygen 0
Carbon Dioxide 0
Water 61.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0
15.4
44.8
60.0
99.0
99.3
0
80.0
90.9
91.9
100.0
100.0
0
83.1
95.0
96.8
100.0
100.0
99.99
100.0
100.0
99.99
100.0
100.0
0
0
0
100.0
100.0
0
0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
4.0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
85.0
90.0
83.0
85.0
85.0
99.5
99.99
80.1
100.0
100.0
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
0
80.0
90.0
91.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
—
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
0
0
100.0
B-34
-------
In summary, the process chemistry of the Landfill Gas
Pretreatment System gas cleaning process relies on the
contaminants' physical phase separation (eg. condensation)
and on chemisorption or physical adsorption characteristic's
to produce an ultra clean product gas.
Process Operation
The Landfill Gas Pretreatment System is comprised of the
following three processes:
0 Clean Gas Production Process
° Regeneration Process
° Refrigeration Process
Clean Gas Production Process. The Landfill Gas Pretreatment
System clean gas production process is represented in a block
flow diagram as shown in Figure 1. This process incorporates
refrigerated condensation and activated carbon process units
to remove trace organic contaminants from the landfill gas.
The first and second stage refrigeration condensers
operate at +33°F and -25°F, respectively-
The first stage refrigerated condenser removes water,
aromatics, and sulfides which are discharged as condensate
to the Penrose plant's existing gas condensate pre-treatment
system. All remaining water in the landfill gas is removed
in the next process unit which consists of two activated
alumina and molecular sieve modules which have a high
capacity for adsorbing the remaining water vapor in the
B-35
-------
.FIGURE 1
CLEAN GA'S PRODUCTION PROCESS
LANDFILL GAS FROM EXTRACT SYSTEM
_ I 9(TF
1) f 20 PSIG
FIRST STAGE REFRIGERATION CONDENSER
T
+33*F
FIRST STAGE
LIQUID COALESCING SEPARATOR
i
+33*F
EXISTING
CONDENSATE
SYSTEM
ACTIVATED ALUMINA
MOLECULAR SIEVE ADSORPTION BEDS (2>
+38*F
SECOND STAGE REFRIGERATION CONDENSER
SECOND STAGE
LIQUID COALESCING SEPARATOR
-25T TO +35°F (ADJUSTABLE)
-»- FLASH
-25T TO +35*F
HC/HsS
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION BEDS (2)
FLARE
-2CTF TO
i
PARTICULATE FILTER
J -20*
NATURAL
GAS
(PILOT ONLY)
F TO +404F
AMBIENT AIR FINNED
TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER
REGENERATION
PROCESS-*
+50T
+50T
20 PSIG
TO FUEL CELL
B-36
-------
landfill gas. The two activated alumina and molecular sieve
modules operate in parallel so that one is always operational
when the second is being regenerated. The dry landfill gas
is then fed to the second stage refrigeration condenser.
This condenser can be operated as low as -25°F and
potentially condense out a mixture of hydrocarbons,
aromatics, halogenated hydrocarbons, and sulfides. Any
condensate is collected and flashed to a vapor state (by
dropping pressure and by indirect heating by ambient air) and
transferred to the enclosed flare for thermal destruction.
In the event that the second stage condenser is ineffective
in removing hydrocarbon contaminants, the downstream carbon
adsorption unit whose temperature is controlled by the second
stage condenser has been conservatively sized to remove all
heavy hydrocarbon, sulfur and halogen contaminant species.
The partially clean landfill gas then passes through the
activated carbon adsorption unit. Two beds operate in
parallel so one is always operational when the other bed is
being regenerated. The gas then passes through a particulate
filter and warmed indirectly by an ambient air finned tube
heat exchanger before being fed to the fuel cell unit. The
process operating pressure is designed to remain steady at 20
psig with the only nominal pressure loss across the
equipment. Thus the process can be controlled easily without
any critical pressure control problems.
B-37
-------
Regeneration Process. The regeneration process is
represented in a block diagram shown in Figure 2. This process
heats clean product landfill gas from the production process
and regenerates the activated alumina/molecular sieve and
activated carbon adsorption beds in the reverse flow
direction during their regeneration cycle and destructs the
spent regenerant gas in an enclosed flare. Two parallel bed
design provides operating flexibility for reliable operation
of the activated alumina/modecular sieve and activated carbon
units during regeneration and/or maintenance. An electric
gas heater is used to heat the recycled clean landfill gas to
550°F This heated, regenerant gas is used first to
regenerate the activated carbon bed. Second, the activated
alumina/molecular sieve bed is regenerated. Third, the
regeneration gas heater is bypassed and the activated
alumina/molecular sieve bed is cooled down with cold
regeneration gas. Lastly, the activated carbon bed is cooled
down. During transition from adsorption to regeneration
modes the regeneration gas is bypassed around the beds. At
all times the regeneration gas flows to the enclosed flare
ensuring continuous operation of the flare and continuous
thermal destruction of the contaminants and regeneration gas
prior to atmospheric dispersion.
Refrigeration Process. The refrigeration process shown in
Figure 3 uses R-22 refrigerant in the cycle which provides
refrigerated Limonene coolant at a nominal•33°F to the first
B-38
-------
FIGURE 2
REGENERATION PROCESS
FROM LFG PRODUCTION PROCESS
+50'F
i
REGENERATION GAS HEATER
550T (HOT REGENERATION)
5CTF (CDDL DOWN)
MOLECULAR SIEVE ADSORPTION BEDS (2)
1
i
HC/H2S CARBON ADSORPTION BEDS (2)
FROM
L3> ( SECOND STAGE
v REFRIGERATION
VAPOR/LIQUID SEPARATOR
— r%c_r [\iuc.r;.M i i
CONDENSATE
TRAP
( NATURAL
-\ GAS SUPPLY
) (PILOT ONLY)
ENCLOSED FLARE
FLARE EXHAUST
B-39
-------
and an adjustable -25°F to +35°F to the second stage
refrigeration condensers. The refrigeration process
incorporates a double-stage hermetically-sealed compressor
and plate-type evaporator. The refrigeration cycle operates
to maintain the Limonene coolant temperature setting at its
discharge from the evaporator. The compressor is driven by a
10 HP motor drive and operates continuously to recirculate
R-22 refrigerant in the refrigeration process. The process
operates with greater than 99% reliability based on past
operating experience. Both refrigerant R-22 and Limonene
coolant are completely recycled and are not purged or vented
from the process.
B-40
-------
FIGURE 3
REFRIGERATION PROCESS UNIT
COMPRESSOR
i
FINFAN CONDENSER
LIQUID RECEIVER
FILTER / DRYER
r
LIMONENE FROM
1ST 8c 2ND STAGE
^REGENERATION
yCONDENSERS
EVAPORATOR
TD LIMONENE
SURGE TANK 8<
1ST & 2ND STAGE
REFRIGENATION
CONDENSERS
B-41
-------
PROCESS WEIGHT
The total weight of each material in the 90.0 scfm of
raw landfill gas charged into the Landfill Gas Pretreatment
System facility and which has been used as the design basis
for the Landfill Gas Pretreatment System research operation,
is specified below:
Material
Pounds/hour
Hydrocarbons
Methane
Isobutane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
n-Hexane
Octane
Aromatics
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Styrene
Haloaenated Hydrocarbons
Dichloroethene
Dichloroethaene
Methylene Chloride
CIS-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Tri ch1oroethy1ene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Sulfides
Hydrogen Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Inorganics & Other
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
Water
104.999325
0.082714
0.995952
0.184816
0.367876
0.146294
0.008247
0.019849
0.001619
0.046381
0.033585
0.000149
0.004600
0.000356
0.008711
0.006772
0.001180
0.005292
0.015003
0.001258
0.050492
0.002074
0.000442
0.007149
0.000027
55.784094
1.530065
247.386467
2.454545
-------
International Fuel Cells
H2S Polishing
Due to possible high levels of Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) in landfill gas that could potentially slip through
the pretreatment system, zinc oxide beds have been placed downstream to effect removal of P^S from
both landfill gas feeding the fuel cell and the landfill gas being returned to the pretreatment system
for regeneration of the absorption beds. This added feature is shown in Figure 4.
B-43
-------
LFG PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
INPUT CONDITIONS
• 80SCFM
• Major CH4/CO2/N2
• 0.5% O2
• 130-475ppmv
hydrocarbons
• 78-95ppmv halides
• 100ppmv H2S
OUTPUT CONDITIONS
55 SCFM LFG
Major CH4/CO2/N2
0.5% O2
3ppmv Cl
3pmvS
DEHYDRATION
W
LFG
ACT.
ALUMINA
I
1 3A
MOLE
1 SIEVE
1
CONDENSATION
OF WATER
HYDROCARBONS
ADSORPTION
OF WATER
500°F
REGENERATION
ACT.
CARBON
X
7
^ CONDENSATION ADSORPTION^
HYDROCARBONS INCLUDING ORGANIC
SULFUR AND HALOGEN COMPOUNDS
500" F
REGENERATION
TO •*-
FLARE
WATER
DESORPTION
TO •*
FLARE
H/C. H2S
DESORPTION
, <
i
LFG TO
FUEL
CELL
ADSORPTION
OFHjS
REGENERATION GAS
(25SCFM)
ADSORPTION
OFH2S
FC35065 n
R931502
-------
International Fuel Cells
ATTACHMENT C
FACTORY TEST DATA
B-45
-------
International Fuel Cells
ATTACHMENT C - GAS PRETREATMENT UNIT
FACTORY TEST DATA
The LFG pretreatment unit bed temperature strip chart record for the N2 factory test is shown in
Figure L This record shows (he heating and cooling of the dehydration and activated carbon beds
during regeneration. While the dehydration bed (DAB 105) and carbon bed (CAB 107) are being re-
generated, dehydration bed 104 sand carbon bed 106 are in the adsorption mode and vice versa. Other
sample temperatures are shown to the left of the regeneration plots. For example, the first and second
stage condenser gas exit were operated at 35°F and -19°F, respectively. This test demonstrated that
the pretreatment unit can be operated and controlled at its design temperature. The pretreatment
unit controls allow flexibility in adjusting those conditions as needed.
Figure 2 contains a record of critical pressures and flows during the N2 factory test. (Note that the
flow meters FE103,135, and 134 are calibrated for fuel gas and therefore only show approximate val-
ues on N2 gas which was also supplied to the pretreatment unit at significantly lower temperatures
than the landfill gas would be supplied. Also, refer to the P&ID for the locations of the appropriate
pressure gages and gas flow meter). The factory test verified the volumetric flow capability of the
pretreatment unit at design flow is approximately 6 psid with N2 gas. This favorably compares with
the design value of 5 psid with landfill gas.
B-46
-------
W
L I u*l •«
H »»•!«
o
3
O
ti
-------
77/Mfc"
103
/Hl£7
tmtr
FAHtfC
PI- IH
Phno
ftnir
FIlTfA
fH-lll
aeh
&AB-
Pi-in
P/-/28
101
M-loL
CXnr
PM52.
P/-/34
Btf*
P/-IM)
Bur
Pf-l*
WJtf
PlfF
pnnt
r^
O
e.
o
3
ta
10
7?
(X
It
ILL
I1-T-
Jo
79
/r
112.
77
((-I
ol'^o
11. Y
TT
73.7
//v
7
s-r
s-r
/*.
s-v
o
3-0
7S-
ca ->
i
OO
101$
tX
/7.r
17
11.7
*•?.
3.*,
/£.*>
\0\
77
n.i
X1.6
S-f,
//-Oft-
7%
l-o
30*
XZ
S-C
A/3
/fr.a.
VA
Axjy
.3-
s-_c
S-fc
7(7
H-?
/•ST.*/
/Ztf
9O
21*
HA
!$.<»
5-7
/*>/
81
31
N/
P.O
^_
v-o
-------
TIMt
103
RfCf-
C.L£
FAHI/C
Pf-lffS
noir
757
PI IH
Pi-no
fii\\r
N-ltl
M-IH
f>/-ize
101
exrr
P/-/5Z.
FKlT,
pf-IH
RtOi
P/-/36
orr-n
stir
pu.rr/?
pier
rntit
Pt-l*
30f
I33t>
2i
VL
S-7
30 f-
vX
23.
2A6
Sil
8V
vX
1 8 •*{
4D.
Z/LD
/42
Zi^
S-7
78
v/
2
Jo*
^Z IM
L£0
8,8
1M
Slt'O
/Ytf
SSSU/?6
18-L
IJLL
£7
78
f.0.0
U&^
LMiQ.
(6.3
h'.L
4,0
£,/
I2£Q
o
0/?^6
. It
r/v
8V
£o
.x^
o
/•o
/£^
S'Q
0
[a
/ff-o
£L£
o
&
£2
,Vo
vX
2.2-0
VI
I3-5
o
0
Jll
tZ-c
^fl3
- o
85"
f/V
/ 000
27 o
18.3
iS.o
2-1
3-7
22. /
- o
7,0.0
/do
U.I
18-5
. 0
'3.7
IZ.I
vX
/ft-3
-------
/NLE7
'Ss
RtiV-
n«ir
PI- IH
IUIS3
PXIT
P/-//J
OVA-
10?
PHI?
r/«r
«r
stir
piLrr/
PJ/e/r
PUfit
r-f
O
D
rt_
O
m
5s
//oo
88
30
23.
/4£
ay
-o
85T
S-tf
m.
SYS
0
.70
7R
n-i
^o.o
ILiSL
t&L
$-//
50
. 3
Lt
tf-f
5, '5
3.V
2.6
29.0
\A/
*s
36
U-
72. /
n.y
-0
5-/r
1&.0
O
i
2s^£
S-/&
a?
/M
-7
IV-V
is-H
-o
-S-/7
VA
C3fl
i
Ul
o
±LL
21
vx
3-7
i^
Z£L
SSCK?
a?
S-/6
/W
JM.
•*'
lg£
- &
v/
Z\-(
w
- o
IM5_
l&L
IX
LM.
-o
V/L
e/-/
-o
i£
IfcL
A?
/r
±-L£L
<&L
17
13L
V*?
- V
3SL
IK
AV
/V-J-
- n
K
/ V
-------
International Fuel Cells __ .-_„,.
FCR-12706A
ATTACHMENT D
SCAQMD PERMIT REQUIREMENT
B-51
-------
SENT BY:Commerce ; 9-17-92 8:32ftM
727
South Coast
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
21885 E. Copley Driv* Diamond Bar, CA 91 785-41 82 (714) 396-2000
December?, 1992
A/N 271694
EEA,' AJrand Energy Environ Research Lab
6055 EasLWashington BhntL
Mr. Andrew Washington
Gentlemen?
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH OPERATIONS
The equipment described below is granted a Permit to Construct and Operate (Application
Ntxmber271694) as allowed by amninder the conditions set forth by Rule 441 of the Rules
and Regulations of the District and is subject to the special conditions listed.
LANDFILL GAS,TREATING SYSTEM CONSISTING OF:
1. FIRST STAGE REFRIGERATION CONDENSER, 10" DIA. X 5'-0" H.
2. LIQUID COALESCING SEPARATOR, 6 5/8" DIA X l'-4« L.
3. CONDENSATS COLLECTION TANK, 4 1/2* DIA. X 2'-6" L
4. TWO MOLECULAR SIEVE ADSORPTION BEDS, EACH !'-€" DIA. X 2'-6"
H. . ...
5. SECOND-STAGE REFRIGERATION CONDENSER, 10" DIA. X 5'-0" H.
6. LIQUID COALESCING CONDENSER, 6 5/8 N DIA. X I1-4" L.
7. TWO HC/H2S CARBON ADSORPTION BEDS, EACH l'-6" DIA X 2«-6« H.
8. PARTICULATZ FILTER, LANDFILL GAS
9. PROCESS GAS HEATER
10. REGENERATION GAS HEATER, ELECTRIC
11. CONDENSATE TRAP, 3 1/2" DIA. X 2'-0" L
12. FLARE, 2«-0" DIA. X 1S'-0" H., WITH AN AUTOMATIC COMBUSTION
AIR CONTROL AND AN AUTOMATIC SHUT-OFF AND RESTART SYSTEM
13. COMPRESSOR, REFRIGERATION UNIT, 10 H.P.
14. AIR. COOLED CONDENSER, REFRIGERANT
15. LIQUID RECEIVER, REFRIGERANT
16. FILTER DRIER, REFRIGERANT
17. EVAPORATOR, REFRIGERANT, ALFA-LAVAL, PLATE TYPE, 0«-4" W X
0'- 5" L X l'-0" H.
18. D-LHfONENE SURGE TANK
19. TWO SULFUR REMOVAL BEDS
20. FIRST STAGE COOLANT PUMP
21. SECOND STAGE COOLANT PUMP
Located at 8301 Tujunga Avenue, Sun Valley, California.
B-5I
-------
BY: Commerce ; 9-17-92 8:33OM ; -> 203 72*7 2319;« 3
EPA 2 December 7, 1992
PERMIT CONDITIONS
1. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 07 THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL BE
CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL DATA AND SPECIFICATIONS
SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER WHICH THIS PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT 15 ISSUED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW.
2. THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD
OPERATING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES.
3. THIS BQUXPMENT SHALL BE OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY PERSONNEL
PROPERLY TRAINED IN ITS OPERATION.
4. OPERATION OP THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT RESULT IN THE EMISSION
OF RAW LANDFILL GAS TO THE ATMOSPHERE.
5. RECORDS SHOWING TOTAL DAILY VOLUME OF LANDFILL GAS
PROCESSED, LANDFILL GAS FLARED AND PRODUCT GAS SHALL BE
MAINTAINED AS APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT AND SHALL BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO DISTRICT PERSONNEL UPON REQUEST.
6. THE TOTAL VOLUME OF PROCESSED GAS BURNED IN THE FLARE SHALL
NOT EXCEED 60 CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE.
7. ALL RECORDS MUST BE KEPT FOR TWO YEARS AND MADE AVAILABLE TO
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER UPON REQUEST.
8. A SET OF TWO SAMPLING PORTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE FLARE
SHROUD AND LOCATED AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE FLAME ZONE
AND AT LEAST THREE FEET BELOW THE TOP OF THE FLARE SHROUD.
EACH PORT SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 90 DEGREES APART, AND SHALL
CONSIST OF FOUR INCH COUPLINGS WITH PLUGS. ADEQUATE AND
SAFE ACCESS TO ALL TEST PORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
9. A SAMPLING PORT, OR OTHER METHOD APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT,
SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE INLET GAS LINE TO THE FLARE, THE
INLET GAS LINE TO THE TREATMENT SYSTEM AND AT THE OUTLET GAS
LINE OF THE TREATMENT SYSTEM
10. THE FLARE SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A TEMPERATURE INDICATOR AND
RECORDER WHICH MEASURES AND RECORDS THE GAS TEMPERATURE IN
THE FLARE STACK. THE TEMPERATURE INDICATOR AND RECORDER
OPERATE WHENEVER THE FLARE IS IN OPERATION.
B-53
-------
SENT BY: Commerce ; 9-17-92 3:33OM ; -» 203 727 23i9; 8 4
EPA 3 December 7,1992
11* WHENEVER THE FLARE 19 IN OPERATION, A TEMPERATURE OF NOT
LESS THAT 1400 DEGREES T AS MEASURED BY THE TEMPERATURE
INDICATOR gg*T-T- BE MAINTAINED IN THE FLARE STACK. TBS
THERMOCOUPLE USED TO MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE SHALL BE ABOVE
THZ FLAME ZONE AND AT LEAST 3 FEET BELOW THE TO? OF THE
FLARE SHROUD AND AT LEAST 0.6 SECONDS DOWNSTREAM OF THE
BURNER.
12, A FLARE FAILURE ALARM WITH AUTOMATIC BLOWER AND LANDFILL GAS
' SUFPLY^VALVB SHUT-OFF SYSTEM APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER SHALL BE INSTALLED*
13. PRIOR TO OPERATING THIS EQUIPMENT, SIGHT GLASS WINDOWS SHALL
BE INSTALLED IN THE FLARE TO ALLOW VISUAL INSPECTION OP THZ
FLAME WITHIN THE FLARZ AT ALL TIMES. PERMANENT AND SATE
ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL SIGHT GLASS WINDOWS.
14. THE SKIN TEMPERATURE OF THE FLARE SHROUD WITHIN FOUR FEET OF
ALL THE SOURCE TEST PORTS «*IT.T. NOT EXCEED 250 DEGREES T.
IF'A HEAT. SHIELD IS REQUIRED TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, ITS
DESIGN," SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION; THE HEAT SHIELD, IF REQUIRED TO MEET THE
TEMPERATURE REQUIREMENT, SHALL BE IN PLACE WHENEVER A SOURCE
TEST IS CONDUCTED BY THE DISTRICT.
15. ANY BREAKDOWN OR MALFUNCTION OF THE LANDFILL GAS FLARE
RESULTING IN THE EMISSION OF RAW LANDFILL GAS SHALL BE
REPORTED TO THE SCAQMD MANAGER OF THZ PUBLIC FACILITIES
BRANCH WITHIN ONE HOUR AFTER OCCURRENCE, AND IMMEDIATE
REMEDIAL MEASURES SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM
AND PREVENT FUJtTUEK EMISSIONS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
B-54
-------
SENT BY:Coinnerce "~ '; 9-17-92 8:34OM ; -» 203 727 2319:« 5
EPA 4 December 7, 1992
16. WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF INITIAL OPERATION, THE APPLICANT
SHftT.T. CONDUCT PERFORMANCE TESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCAQMD
TEST PROCEDURES AMD FURNISH THE SCAQMD A WRITTEN RESULT OF
SUCH PERFORMANCE TESTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE
TESTS ARE CONDUCTED. WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE PERFORMANCE
TESTS SHALL BI PROVIDED TO THE SCAQMD SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR
TO THE TESTS SO THAT AN OBSERVER MAY BE PRESENT. ALL SOURCE
TESTING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
DISTRICT-.FOR APPROVAL AT LEAST SIXTY (60) DAYS PRIOR TO THE
START OF THE TESTS*
THE PERFORMANCE TESTS SHALL BE CONDUCTED AT THE STEADY STATE
FLOW RATE AND SHALL INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, A
TEST OF THE INLET LANDFILL GAS FLARE, THE FLARE EXHAUST, THE
INLET GAS TO THE TREATMENT SYSTEM AND THE PRODUCT GAS FOR:
A. METHANE
B. TOTAL NON-METHANE ORGAN!CS
C. OXIDES OF NITROGEN (FLARE EXHAUST ONLY)
D. CARBON MONOXIDE (FLARE EXHAUST ONLY)
E. TOTAL PAKTICUIATZS (FLARE EXHAUST ONLY)
F. HYDROGEN SULFIDE {EXCEPT FLARE EXHAUST)
G. ClTHROUGH. C3 SULFUR COMPOUNDS (EXCEPT FLARE EXHAUST)
H. CARBON DIOXIDE
I. TOXIC; AIR CONTAMINANTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
BENZENE
CHLOROBENZENS
1,2 DICHLOROETHANE
DICHLOROMETHANE
TETRACHLOROETYLEN2
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
1,1,1 TRlCHLpROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
J. OXYGEN
X. NITROGEN
L. MOISTURE CONTENT
M. TEMPERATURE
N. FLOW RATE
17- THE DATE OF INITIAL OPERATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
DISTRICT IN WRITING WITHIN THREE DAYS AFTER INITIAL
OPERATION.
18. THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE JANUARY 1, 1994. AN EXTENSION OF
TIME MAY BE REQUESTED IN WRITING, SUCH A REQUEST SHALL
INCLUDE THE REASON FOR THE EXTENSION, THE LENGTH OF THE
EXTENSION AND THE STATUS OF THE RESEARCH OPERATION.
B-55
-------
SENT BY:Commerce ; 9-17-92 8:35flM ; -* 203 727 2319;» 6
EPA $ December 7,1992
It if your responsibility to comply-with all laws, ordinances and regulations of other
{ovexciQental "gcnciei which are applicable to tfr« equipment.
THIS PERMTT TO CONyiRUCr AND OPERATE WILL EXPIRE ON JANUARY 1,
1994.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call, Mr. Ted Kowalczyk at (714)
39o»2S92.
Very truly yours,
Joseph Tramma
AQAC Supervisor
B-56
-------
International Fuel Cells FCR-13524
APPENDIX C
H2S REMOVAL OVER WESTATES CARBON UOC-HKP.
TESTS PERFORMED AT IFC AND WESTATES CARBON
C-l
-------
IFC laboratory test data for the removal of H2S using potassium hydroxide in pregnated activated car-
bon.
H2S HISTORY OF TWO INCH LOCATION IN KOH CARBON BED
DATE RUN TIME H2S INLET H2S EXIT PRESS SAT TEMP REACTOR
(hours) CONIC (ppm) CONC. (ppm) (psig) (F) TEMP (F)
7-16-93
7-19-93
7-20-93
7-21-93
7-22-93
7-23-93'
7-26-93
7-28-93
7-29-93
7-30-93
H2S HISTORY OF 4.76 INCH LOCATION IN KOH CARBON BED
DATE RUN TIME H2S INLET H2S EXIT PRESS SAT. TEMP REACTOR
(hours) CONC (ppm) CONC. (ppm) (psig) (F) TEMP (F)
7-16-93
7-19-93
7-20-93
7-21-93
7-22-93
7-23-93
7-26-93
7-28-93
7-29-93
7-30-93
H2S HISTORY OF 10.6 INCH LOCATION IN KOH CARBON BED
DATE RUN TIME H2S INLET H2S EXIT PRESS SAT TEMP REACTOR
(hours) CONC (ppm) CONC. (ppm) (psig) (F) TEMP (F)
0.9
2.6
4.2
5
6
10.3
11.4
13.5
17
21.4
26
29.5
31.9
34.9
37.5
42.1
57.9
63.5
72.4
77.7
82.1
94
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
97
98
98
98
94
94
92
97
96
95
95
96
84
0
0
0.6
1
0
20
23
29
38
38
49
49
49
52
52
58
70
68
72
66
66
55
20
20
20
20
20
50
50
50
20
20
20
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
69
69
69
69
69
68
68
69
65
67
67
68
68
65
66
67
63
66
66
68
69
88
70
71
70
71
71
70
71
71
67
71
69
70
72
66
67
70
65
70
67
72
70
75
4.6
10.7
22.7
26.1
30.2
35.5
42.9
58.8
64.4
72.9
78.6
82.9
93.3
99
99
97
98
98
94
92
97
96
95
90
95
84
0
0
1.3
2.7
5.2
9
12.5
23
24
26
32
38 '
19
20
50
20
20
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
69
68
67
67
68
65
67
64
67
66
69
69
87
71
70
71
70
71
67
70
66
70
67
73
70
74
7-16-93
7-19-93
7-21-93
7-22-93
7-23-93
7-26-93
7-28-93
7-29-93
7-30-93
4.6
12.1
27.5
36.4
59.6
73.6
79.1
83.5
924
c-:
-------
2130 LEO AVENUE • LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA « 90040-1634
TELEPHONE (213) 722-7500 • TWX 810-321--2355 • FAX (213) 722-6207
A Whtelabrator Technologies Company
July 26, 1993
Mr. Roger Lesieur
International Fuel Cells
195 Governors Highway
P.O. Box 739
South Windsor, Connecticut
06074
RE: H2S Breakthrough Test Results
Dear Roger:
We have completed work on the R2S breakthrough testing of UOCH-KP
using as close as possible the conditions described in your FAX
dated July 12, 1993. Two breakthrough tests were carried out. The
breakthrough tests were carried using the gas compositions listed
below and the breakthrough apparatus and adsorption tube shown in
the attached drawings.
Test
Test 2
H2S
O2
CO2
CH4
Balance N2
Rel. Humidity
Total Gas Flow
Time to
Bre akthrough
H2S Breakthrough
Capacity
1.0 vol.%
1.0 vol.%
39.3 VOl.%
39.3 vol.%
19.4 vol.%
40 - 45 %
1,450 cc/min
48 minutes
0.009 gH2S/CCC
0.2 vol.%
1.0 vol.%
47.5 VOl.%
47.5 vol.%
3.8 vol.%
45 - 48 %
1,450 cc/min
7,446 minutes
0.28 gH2S/ccC
/o F1-
Using the first set of test conditions, very rapid'H2S breakthrough
was observed. The observed results indicate no catalytic oxidation
of H2s to elemental sulfur was occurring under these high H2S and
low oxygen concentration conditions. The test was then repeated
using a lower H2S concentration and an excellent H2S breakthrough
capacity was measured. These results indicate the UOCH-KP will
operate very well using the proposed conditions and should give a
JUL 29
C-3
213 721 9723
PflGE.002
-------
H2S breakthrough capacity that exceeds the specifications for UOCH-
KP. The presence of CO2 and methane and the lower than normal
relative humidity do not seem to adversely affect the performance
of the UOCH-KP.
Following is a brief description of how the tests were carried out:
The H2S breakthrough apparatus consists of four rotameters and flow
control vales for metering the CO2, Methane, H2S and oxygen into
the apparatus. The methane was passed through a constant
temperature bubbler to produce a saturated stream which upon
blending with the other gases yield the desired relative humidity
of approximately 40 % that was required for the tests.
The DOCH-KP was contained in a reactor tube (see attached figure)
that held a bed of carbon that was 9" in length and 1" in diameter.
The outlet from the reactor tube was connected to an H2S monitor
which detected the breakthrough of H2S. A H2S breakthrough to the
level of 50 ppmv was used to determine completion of the test. The
H2S monitor made use of a high level alarm which shut off a timer
when 50 ppmv H2S was reached giving the exact time to reaching
breakthrough.
The UOCH-KP was pre-conditioned for 24 hours prior to the starting
of the test by running the humidified methane, CO2 and oxygen
through the system and the cample held in the reactor. After the
pre-conditioning was complete, the proper H2S flow was established
to begin the test run. The H2S breakthrough of the UOCH-KP sample
was calculated as follows:
(1.53X10-a)(C)(F)(tte)
H2S capacity (gH2S/ccC) =
(V)
Where: c «= Concentration of H2S in test stream, vol. %
F = Total system flow rate, cc/min
t^Time to 50 pprav breakthrough, minutes
V -= Volume of UOCH-KP used
Please give me a call at (213) 724-8565 if you have any questions
concerning the interpretation of results from this study or how the
testing was conducted. It has been our pleasure being of service
to International Fuel Cells.
Sincerely,
WESTATES CARBON, Inc.
James R. Graham, Ph.D.
Technical Director
C-4
JUL 29 '93 18:04 213 721
-------
MODIFIED H2S BREAKTHROUGH APPARATUS
CO2
5% H2S IN N2
UOCH-KP
IMPREGNATED CARBON
a.
LJ
02
1
40% RH
CARBON BED
WATER BUBBLER
timer
VENT
H2S MONITOR
METHANE
n
n
»H
(M
00
-------
FIGURE 2. H,S ADSORPTION TUBE
o
OS
22.66 CM
CARBON
BED
HEIGHT
PERFORATED
SUPPORT
.
1
25.4 MM
• »
I.D.
24.1
CM
30.48 CM
-------
International Fuel Cells FCR-13524
APPENDIX D
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS PRETREATMENT UNIT
PERFORMANCE TEST REPORT,
BY
JIM CANORA, TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION,
TRC PROJECT NO. 20300, MAY 1994
D-l
-------
Landfill Gas Pretreatment
Unit Performance Test
Report
International Fuel Cells, Inc.
South Windsor, Connecticut
TRC
TRC Environmental Corporation
D-2.
-------
Landfill Gas Pretreatment
Unit Performance Test Report
Penrose Landfill - Sun Valley, California
International Fuel Cells, Inc.
South Windsor. Connecticut
Prepared by:
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
James E. Canora
Project manager
TRC Project No. 20300
^—^m*^ May1994
TRC
TRC Environmental Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
•s (203) 289-8631 Fax (203) 298-6299
D-3.
-------
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION .1 D'6
1.1 Program Objectives D-6
1.2 Scope of Work D-6
1.3 Report Organization D-l 1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D-12
2.1 Recommendations for Phase in Program Emission Measurements D-l3
3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS D-14
3.1 GPU Dichlorodifluoromethane Challenge Test D-14
3.2 GPU Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds D-16
3.3 GPU Removal of Reduced Sulfur Compounds D-20
3.4 GPU Removal of Nonmethane Organics D-21
3.5 GPU Outlet Particulate Matter Concentration D-21
3.6 GPU Inlet Phenol Concentration D-21
3.7 Silanes and Siloxanes - GPU Inlet Concentration D-22
3.8 Flare Efficiency Test D-22
3.8.1 Flare Destruction of VOCs D-24
3.8.2 Flare Destruction of Sulfur Compounds D-24
3.8.3 Flare Destruction of Total Nonmethane Organics D-24
3.8.4 Flare Outlet Concentration of NOX, CO, and Particulate Matter . . . D-25
3.9 Ambient Concentrations of NOX, CO, and Particulate Matter D-25
3.10 Condensate Analyses D-25
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS D-27
4.1 GPU Inlet Measurements D-27
4.1.1 GPU Inlet Volatile Organic Compounds . D-27
4.1.2 GPU Inlet Reduced Sulfur Compounds D-29
4.1.3 GPU Inlet Phenol D-30
4.1.4 GPU Inlet Silicon Compounds D-30
4.1.5 GPU Inlet Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons D-30
4.2 GPU Outlet Gas Measurements D-30
4.2.1 GPU Outlet On-line Halides D-30
4.2.2 GPU Outlet Off-site Halides and Dichlorodifluoromethane
Analysis (GC/MS Method) D-31
4.2.3 GPU Outlet Continuous Total Reduced Sulfur D-32
4.2.4 GPU Outlet On-line Sulfur Compounds (GC/FPD Method) D-32
4.2.5 GPU Outlet Reduced Sulfur Compounds (Off-site GC/FPD Method) D-32
4.2.6 GPU Outlet Volumetric Flowrate D-33
4.2.7 GPU Outlet Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons D-33
D-4.
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
SECTION
PAGE
4.3 Flare Emission Tests D-33
4.3.1 Flare Inlet and Outlet VOC Emission Concentration D-33
4.3.2 Flare Inlet and Outlet Reduced Sulfur Compounds Concentration . D-33
43.3 Flare Outlet Paniculate Emissions D-34
4.3.4 Flare Outlet NOX, CO, and O2 Emission Concentrations D-34
4.3.5 Flare Outlet Volumetric Flowrate D-34
4.4 Ambient Monitoring for Particulate, NO,, and CO D-34
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE D-35
5.1 Emission Measurement Methods D-35
5.2 Analysis D-36
5.3 Program-Specific Quality Control Discussion D-37
List of Figures, Tables, and Appendices
Figure 1-1 Phase II Field Test Sample Locations and Test Results D-8
Figure 4-1 Preparation of Solvent Standards - EPA Method 18 D-28
Table 3-1 GPU Inlet/Outlet Emission Test Summary: Test No. 1 D-15
Table 3-2 GPU Inlet/Outlet Emission Test Summary: Test No. 2 D-17
Table 3-3 GPU Inlet/Outlet Emission Test Summary: Test No. 3 . D-18
Table 3-4 C1-C6 Hydrocarbons Emission Data D-19
Table 3-5 Flare Inlet/Outlet Emission Test Summary D-23
Table 3-6 Condensate Analyses D-26
Table 5-1 Summary of Results - Audit to Resolve Discrepancy Between
GC/ECD and GC/MS Analyses of Landfill Gas Samples . D-38
Table 5-2 Effect of Humidity on GC/MS Analyses - Audit to Resolve Discrepancy
Between GC/ECD and GC/MS Analyses of Landfill Gas Samples D-39
D-5.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was retained by International Fuel Cells, Inc.
(IFC) to conduct emission tests associated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Phase H Field Performance Test program at the Penrose Landfill in Sun Valley,
California. The test was designed to demonstrate the performance of a landfill gas purification
system for application to fuel cell power plants.
The gas purification system, identified as the Gas Pretreatment Unit (GPU), was tested
over three complete cycles during a three-day period from October 20 to October 22, 1993.
Additional emission tests were also conducted to satisfy the requirements of a South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit. The test program was conducted under the
direction of Mr. Jim Canora of TRC and Mr. Dick Sederquist of IFC. No personnel from EPA
or SCAQMD were present to observe the tests.
1.1 Program Objectives
The program objectives included a demonstration of GPU performance and flare
performance. The specific objectives are outlined below:
• Demonstrate that total sulfur emission concentration at the GPU outlet was below
3 parts per million volume (ppmv).
• Demonstrate that total halide emission concentration at the GPU outlet was below
3 ppmv.
• Demonstrate compliance with the 3 ppmv total halide limit when the GPU is
challenged with dichlorodifluoromethane at the GPU inlet.
• Demonstrate the performance of the GPU and the flare as required in the SCAQMD
permit.
1.2 Scope of Work
GPU emission tests were conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of the regenerative
bed cycles to evaluate performance over normal eight-hour cycles on each of the two
regenerative beds in the GPU. Gaseous emission measurements for sulfur compounds, halides,
and other target compounds were conducted at the GPU inlet and outlet simultaneously, at
specific times in the bed cycles. In addition, samples of liquid condensate from the first GPU
D-6.
-------
condenser were also collected and analyzed for sulfur and halides. Gas samples were collected
from sampling manifolds located at the GPU inlet, the exit of the first condenser, the GPU
outlet, and the flare inlet. See Figure 1-1 for sampling locations. Three eight-hour cycles were
tested.
Emission tests for key parameters were conducted on-site to provide real-time data for
an immediate assessment of GPU performance. The program strategy was to use on-site
continuous and semicontinuous methods as process monitoring data, and off-site laboratory
analysis of integrated samples for a formal demonstration of performance according to EPA test
methods. The on-site measurements included gas chromatography/flame photometric detection
(GC/FPD) for sulfur compounds, a continuous gas analyzer for total sulfur, and gas
chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD) for target halides. The quantification
accuracy of the on-site GC/ECD analysis was suspect because of the landfill gas matrix, and,
as a result, those results are not reported. The off-site methods, used to formally demonstrate
performance, included gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis for target
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and GC/FPD analysis for target sulfur compounds.
During the first test cycle, Bed A was challenged by injecting pure
dichlorodifluoromethane prior to the GPU regenerative beds while the dichlorodifluoromethane
concentration was measured in the GPU outlet gas stream by both on-line GC/ECD and off-site
GC/MS. The dichlorodifluoromethane test was designed to demonstrate the flexibility of the
GPU for any landfill gas application by challenging the unit with high concentrations of a light,
difficult to remove, halogenated hydrocarbon. The second and third test cycles did not include
dichlorodifluoromethane spiking.
The test matrix and target compound list is included in Appendix A. Test parameters and
methods used for VOCs and sulfur compounds during the GPU demonstration test are outlined
below. Additional test parameters were also measured to provide a more complete
characterization of the GPU inlet and outlet gas streams, and those methods are also listed
below.
GPU Outlet Measurements
• Sulfur Compounds (on-site)—On-line GC/FPD according to EPA Methods 15 and
16.
• Total Sulfur (on-site)—Continuous monitoring of total sulfur using a chemical cell-
type analyzer and a digital data, logger.
D-7.
-------
Carbon Bed Inlet
Sample Location
Condenser 11nlet
Dichlorpdifluoromethane
Addition Location
Condenser 1 Outlet
Dichlorpdifluoromethane
Monitoring Location
GPU Outlet Sample
Location
LFG
H2S
Adsorber
Cooler
Condenser
Dryer Bed A:
Water Vapor
Adsorption
Condenser
Condensate
Drain
Low
Temperature
Cooler
Carbon
Bed A
Paniculate
Filter
Flare Inlet
Sample Location
Flare Inlet
Sample Location
Regeneration Gas
(25 SCFM)
O
00
To Flare
Dryer
BedB
To Flare
Carbon
BedB
450°F Water and
H/C Desorption
400°F H/C
Desorption
OFF-LINE BED REGENERATION
Clean
to
Fuel Cell
Regen
Gas Heater
Clean Gas Production Process - This process incorporates H2S removal by the Glaus
reaction, refrigerated cooling and condensation, drying, cooling and hydrocarbon adsorption
process units to remove contaminants from the landfill gas.
The H2S removal bed reacts H2S with O2 found in the landfill gas to produce elemental sulfur.
This bed is non-regenerable and is replaced periodically. The first and second stage
refrigeration coolers operate at approximately +35°F and -20°F, respectively.
TRC
TRC Environmental Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
(203) 289-8631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPA/AEERL PHASE II FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 1-1.
PHASE II FIELD TEST SAMPLE LOCATIONS
AND TEST RESULTS
Date: 5/95
J DMwina No. 02030-05
-------
• Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds (on-site)—On-line GC/ECD according
to EPA Method 18.
• Sulfur Compounds (off-site)—GC/FPD analysis of Tedlar bag samples according to
EPA Methods 15, 16, and 18.
• Target Volatile Organic Compounds (off-site)—GC/MS analysis of Tedlar bag
samples according to EPA Method TO-14 using the test protocol target compound list.
• Particulate Matter—EPA Method 5.
• Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons/Methane—A Tedlar bag sample was analyzed by
total combustion analysis and flame ionization detector analysis according to
California Air Resources Board (GARB) Method 25.2.
• Gas Volumetric Flowrate—A calibrated process monitor was used.
GPU Inlet Measurements
• Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds (on-site)—GC/ECD analysis of Tedlar
bag samples according to EPA Method 18.
• Sulfur Compounds (off-site)—GC/FPD analysis of Tedlar bag samples according to
EPA Methods 15, 16, and 18.
• Target Volatile Organic Compounds (off-site)—GC/MS analysis of Tedlar bag
samples according to EPA Method TO-14 using the test protocol target compound list.
• Phenol—Samples collected on solid sorbent tubes, solvent extraction and analysis by
GC/MS.
• Silanes and Siloxanes—Collection in absorbing solution and total silicon
measurement by elemental analysis.
• Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons/Methane—A Tedlar bag sample was analyzed by
total combustion analysis and flame ionization detector analysis according to CARB
Method 25.2.
GPU Liquid Condensate Measurements
• Sulfur Compounds (off-site)—GC/FPD analysis of water samples was conducted for
target sulfur compounds using a purge and trap system.
• Target Volatile Organic Compounds (off-site)—Purge and trap, and GC/MS
analysis of water samples were conducted according to EPA Method 8260 using the
test protocol target compound list.
D-9.
-------
During the second bed cycle test series, emission tests were also performed at the flare
inlet and outlet, to provide data for the SCAQMD permit. The flare is used to control emissions
from the GPU during bed regeneration. Triplicate flare tests were conducted with sampling times
correlating to specific events in the bed regeneration cycles. Flare inlet and outlet samples were
collected during the carbon bed hot regeneration, the dehydration bed hot regeneration, and the
dehydration bed cold regeneration. The scope of work for the flare test is outlined below.
Flare Inlet Measurements
• Target Volatile Organic Compounds (off-site)—GC/MS analysis of triplicate one-
hour Tedlar bag samples were conducted according to EPA Method TO-14 using the
test protocol target compound list.
• Sulfur Compounds (off-site)—Triplicate one-hour Tedlar bag samples were analyzed
by GC/FPD according to EPA Methods 15, 16, and 18.
• Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons/Methane—Triplicate one-hour Tedlar bag samples
were analyzed by total combustion analysis and flame ionization detector analysis
according to CARB Method 252.
• Gas Volumetric Flowrate—Process monitor data was used.
Flare Outlet Measurements
• Target Volatile Organic Compounds (off-site)—GC/MS analysis of triplicate one-
hour Tedlar bag samples were conducted according to EPA Method TO-14 using the
test protocol target compound list.
• Sulfur Compounds (off-site)—Triplicate one-hour Tedlar bag samples were analyzed
by GC/FPD according to EPA Methods 15, 16, and 18 using the test protocol target
compound list.
• Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons/Methane—Triplicate one-hour Tedlar bag samples
were analyzed by total combustion analysis and flame ionization detector analysis
according to CARB Method 252.
• Particulate Matter—Triplicate tests were conducted according to EPA Methods 5 and
202.
• Nitric Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Diluents—Triplicate one-hour tests were
conducted according to EPA Methods 7E, 10, and 3A.
• Gas Volumetric Flowrate—The gas flowrate was calculated on the basis of
stoichiometric combustion and measured excess air.
D-10.
-------
1.3 Report Organization
Section 2.0 presents an executive summary, which includes a discussion applying the
results to demonstrate compliance with the GPU performance specifications. The test results are
presented in tables and discussions in Section 3.0 of this report. The test procedures are outlined
in Section 4.0, and Section 5.0 presents an overview of quality assurance. Included in Section 5.3
is a discussion of the quality control results and how those results effect the data uncertainty. The
report appendices contain copies of sampling and analytical data and descriptions of the GPU and
associated equipment.
D-ll.
-------
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Measured GPU outlet emission concentrations of halides and sulfur compounds were
below or only marginally above the method detection limits. The method detection limits
demonstrated that the GPU met the total halides and total sulfur performance standards during
all times of the normal eight-hour cycles on each of the two regenerative beds. The
dichlorodifluoromethane challenge test demonstrated that dichlorodifluoromethane was effectively
removed; dichlorodifluoromethane was nondetected at the GPU outlet, with greater than 7 ppmv
in the inlet.
GPU outlet sulfur measurements were performed with two types of on-site, on-line
measurements and off-site analyses of integrated samples. All three measurements demonstrated
compliance with the performance standard of 3 ppmv total sulfur.
The GPU outlet halide measurements were performed with both on-line GC/ECD
measurements and off-site GC/MS analyses of integrated samples. The on-line halide
measurements were conducted as a process monitoring tool and were not designed to
demonstrate compliance with the performance limit. The on-line method measured selected
halide compounds as a general indicator of GPU performance. The off-site GC/MS halide
method was used to demonstrate compliance with the GPU performance specification. Methylene
chloride was the only halogenated compound detected in the GPU outlet at a maximum
concentration of 0.032 ppmv, and the GC/MS method detection limit for all other halogenated
compounds was 0.002 ppmv. This data clearly demonstrated compliance with the 3 ppmv total
halide limit.
There was a discrepancy between on-line GC/ECD and off-site GC/MS measurements
which raised an uncertainty on the halide removal performance demonstration. As a result, an
audit was conducted using cylinder gases prepared in a landfill gas matrix. The results of that
audit indicated that the GC/ECD data may have been biased high due to the effect of the landfill
gas matrix. The GC/MS method measured two audit gases within 2% of the certified value. The
audit results minimized the GC/MS uncertainty and supported the use of the GC/MS method to
demonstrate compliance with the halide performance specification
Pollutant measurements conducted on the flare for the SCAQMD permit requirement
demonstrated that the flame destruction efficiency was 99.2% for nonmethane organics and
greater than 99.2% for sulfur compounds. Nitrogen oxides (NOJ emission concentration
D-12.
-------
averaged 10.4 ppmv and carbon monoxide (CO) emission concentration averaged 3 ppmv. Total
participate matter, including back-half organic and inorganic fractions, averaged 0.015 grains
per dry standard cubic foot (grains/dscf).
2.1 Recommendations for Phase m Program Emission Measurements
Increased quality control measurements should be conducted for the Phase m program
to minimize the potential for problems such as the disparity between the GC/ECD and GC/MS
measurements that occurred in Phase EL The disparity between the two measurements occurred
on each of the GPU inlet samples; dichlorodifluoromethane, trichloroethene, and
tetrachloroethene concentrations were consistently higher according to the GC/ECD
measurements. An audit was conducted to resolve the differences, and the results indicated that
the GC/ECD data may have been biased high. A detailed discussion of the disparity between
GC/ECD and GC/MS methods and the audit results is presented in Section 5.3.
Phase HI testing will also include GC/MS measurements for halogenated compounds at
the GPU outlet. This method can be used effectively to demonstrate compliance with the 3 ppmv
performance standard as demonstrated during Phase n. The GC/MS method detection limits are
sufficient to demonstrate that the GPU is greater than 100 times more efficient than required by
the performance specification. However, additional audits should be conducted, using cylinder
gas audits prepared in a landfill gas matrix, to minimize the uncertainty associated with the
measurements.
D-13.
-------
3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Emission tests were conducted in accordance with the test protocol during three complete
GPU cycles, with the SCAQMD permit tests conducted during the second cycle. Results are
summarized in the following discussions and tables; all sampling and analytical data are included
in the appendices.
3.1 GPU Dichlorodifluoromethane Challenge Test
The dichlorodifluoromethane challenge test was conducted on Bed A on October 20 from
0840 to 1640. The test consisted of metering a known quantity of pure gas into the inlet of the
first condenser with a calibrated rotometer. The spiking began after the first 30 minutes of
operation on Bed A and continued throughout the entire eight-hour cycle. Samples of the spiked
gas stream were collected in Tedlar bags prior to spiking at 0855, during the first 30 minutes
at 0930, again at 1255, and during the last hour of Bed A operation at 1530. GPU outlet bag
samples were also collected concurrently with the exception of the 0930 sample. The GPU outlet
gas stream was also analyzed by on-line GC/ECD at approximately one-hour intervals. The test
results are summarized in Table 3-1.
Dichlorodifluoromethane was injected at a rate designed to provide 50 ppmv in the
landfill gas stream entering the first condenser. Injection at the first condenser inlet was used
because the pressure at the true GPU inlet (Westates carbon bed inlet) is high enough to
potentially condense dichlorodifluoromethane vapors. The entire active system was challenged
with this method.
The inlet dichlorodifluoromethane concentration was measured on-site by analyzing the
landfill gas downstream of the injection point with GC/ECD to verify the spike rate; however,
off-site GC/MS analysis of the same sample indicated that dichlorodifluoromethane concentration
was much lower. An audit was conducted several months after the completion of the field
program to resolve the difference between the two methods. The audit demonstrated that the on-
site GC/ECD may have been biased by the landfill gas matrix and that the GC/MS data was
more accurate. As a result, the actual dichlorodifluoromethane spike concentration averaged 8.0
ppmv. This rate was below the 50 ppmv specified in the protocol, but is representative of
halogenated organic compound concentrations found in landfill gas.
D-14.
-------
TABLE 3-1
GPU INLET/OUTLET EMISSION TEST SUMMARY:
TEST NO. 1 - DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE SPIKING
International Fuel Cells
Penrose Landfill
October 20,1993
Pretreatment Bed A
Inlet Ftowrate: 81 scfm
Regeneration Fkrwrate: 25 •cfm
Output Ftowrate: 56 scfm
Flare Temperature: 1600oF
Time
CyieteTJrne
Dfchforodifluoromethane Spike Status (on/off)
Samp) ing Location
Total Sulfur-Continuous Analyzer (ppmv)
Reduced Sulfur-GC/FPD (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
hydrogen sulfide
carbonyl sulfide
methyl mercaptan
ethyl mercaptan
dimethyl sulfide
carbon disulfide
dimethyl disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur - see note
Volatile Organic Halogens-
GC/MS Analysis (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
dichiorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
tis-i;2-dichloroethene
l.l-dfchtoroethane
tetrachloroethene
chlorobenzene
Total Halogens (as haltde) - see note
Volatile Organic Compounds -
GC/MS Analysis (ppm v/v)
benzene
toluene
xytenes
etnyl benzene
styrene
acetone
2-butanone
ethyl acetate
ethyl butyrate
alpha-pinene
d-fimonene
tetrahydrofuran
Phenol-GC/MS (ppm v/v)
Sllanes/Siloxanes (mg/dscm)
Particulate Matter (grains/dscf)
O840-0910
"" '""""''^puri1'" '
Off
Condenser 1
Outlet
mrnfXmf-fftfK:
bag
0.39
0.079
O.04
O.04
62
0.05
0.11
7.71
baj
0.6
1.1
5.1
5.7
2.4
1.8
2.4
0.58
46.6
15
31
5.45
4.5
0.54
16
7
8.1
42
9
1.8
1.6
GPU
Outlet
<02
bag
O.004
0.004
O.004
<0.004
<0.004
0.002
0.002
O.004
bag
O.002
O.002
0.004
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.008
O.002
0.0035
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.005
O.004
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0910-0940
Hour I
On
Condenser 1
Outlet
•;:T;.:;;;.;;:::;: I.:.::;.;.:::::::; :;:::j.
:m:W:y?m^
<|lf$?iS:<
||p l||p
':. -:::u£ .';:•: : '":"•:::•:•
.!;;;;|;;|:: ;:;;:; : ,^
Illpif
GPU
Outtet
<0.2
on-line
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
;:;:!|;;.w;.-:.:;
£-.;|;.:../
0940-1540:
Hour 2-7
On
Con denser 1
OuSet
:>mwm;,.
bag
0.08
0.08
O.08
O.08
5.76
0.082
0.14
6.76
bag
7.4
0.09
4
4.8
1.9
1.7
4.4
1.2
75.1
1.3
46
17
11
0.97
11
7.7
8.1
8.4
18
5.4
1.6
O.06
<0.28
GPU,
Outlet
<02
bag
O.004
0.004
O.004
0.004
O.004
0.004
0.004
0.008
bag
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
< 0.002
O.002
0.0025
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.042
0.004
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.0008
1540-1640
HourB
Or»
Condenser 1:
Outlet:
,:,.,,,, ,,:;:;::,;:;,,,
bag
0.47
O.08
0.08
O.08
5.7
0.065
0.11
7
bag
8.7
0.85
3.5
3.9
1.7
1.4
3.7
1.1
74.8
1.1
38
17.3
10
0.6
14
6.3
8.1
6.3
16.2
9
1.3
GPU
Outlet
-------
The GPU outlet dichlorodifluoromethane concentration, measured by both on-line
•
GC/ECD and off-site GC/MS, was below detection limits throughout each eight-hour cycle. The
detection limit for the on-line GC/ECD was 0.4 ppmv and the GC/MS detection limit was 0.002
ppmv. The GC/MS method was 200 times more sensitive than the GC/ECD method for
dichlorodifluoromethane and demonstrated that the GPU removal efficiency was greater than
99.97%. The dichlorodifluoromethane spike test, using the GC/MS detection limit, also
demonstrated that total halide emissions from the GPU were less than 0.008 ppmv or less than
0.3% of the 3 ppmv performance specification.
3.2 GPU Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile organic compound (VOC) removal was measured over three bed cycles using
on-site GC/ECD analyses and off-site GC/MS analyses. Six target halides were analyzed by
GC/ECD and the VOC target compounds listed in the protocol (Table 3.2-2) were analyzed by
GC/MS. The results from the three cycles (identified as Tests 1-3) are summarized in Tables
3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.
The GPU outlet concentration of the target compounds was below or only marginally
above method detection limits as measured with both the GC/ECD and GC/MS methods. The
GC/MS method was more sensitive than the GC/ECD and showed that halide target compounds
were below 0.002 ppmv with the exception of methylene chloride, which was measured at trace
levels (below 0.02 ppmv) in two samples. Both measurement methods demonstrated that the
GPU met the performance specification of 3 ppmv over the entire eight-hour cycle of both beds.
The inlet concentrations of target VOCs measured by GC/MS were typical of landfill gas.
Halide concentrations over 1 ppmv in the inlet gas stream included vinyl chloride, methylene
chloride, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and
chlorobenzene. Additional VOCs measured in the inlet gas stream included toluene averaging
37.6 ppmv, xylenes at 17.3, or-pinene at 15.0, acetone at 14.8, ethyl acetate at 9.0, ethyl
benzene at 8.8, and ethyl butyrate at 7.0.
In summary, the off-site GC/MS measurements at the GPU inlet and outlet indicated that
the GPU efficiently removed halogenated and other VOCs to comply with the performance
specification. Only trace levels (less than 0.02 ppmv) of methylene chloride were detected in the
GPU outlet by GC/MS.
D-16.
-------
TABLE 3-2
GPU INLET/OUTLET EMISSION TEST SUMMARY:
TEST NO. 2
International Fuel CeUe
Penroee Landfill
October 21,1993
Pretreatment Bad B
Inlet Rowrate: 80 scfm
Regeneration Rewrote: 25 •cfm
Output Rowrate: 55 «cfm
Flare Temperature: -1600 oF
Time
Cycle Tbne
Sampfing Location
Methane (ppm v/v)
Total Non-Methane Organic* (ppm v/v a* carbon)
Total Sulfur-Continuous Analyzer (ppmv)
Reduced Sulfur-OC/FPO (pom v/v)
Sample Type
Compound
hydrogen sulfide
cartxxiyl sulfide
methyl mercaptan
ethyl mercaptan
dimethyl sulfide
carbon dwutfid*
dimethyl disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur - see note
Volatile Organic Halogen*
GC/MS Analysis (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
Compound
dichlorodjfUjoromethane
cts-1 ^-dichloroethene
1,1-dichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
Total Halogens (as halide) - see note
Volatile Organic Compounds -
GC/MS Analysis
benzene
toluene
xytenes
ethyl benzene
styrene
acetone
2-butanone
ethyl acetate
ethyl butyrate
alpha-pinene
d-limonene
tetrahydrofuran
Phenol-GC/MS (ppm v/v)
Silanes/Siloxanes (mg/dscm)
Particulate Matter (gralns/dscf)
1000-1100
HOUT1
Carbon Bed
Inlet
bag
106
0.16
2.79
0.44
6.57
<0.04
0.04
117
bag
0.26
1.4
4.1
5.8
2.8
2.4
4.8
1.4
57.0
1.7
47
28.2
12
1.1
15
3.7
10.8
8.4
18
18
2
GPU
Outtet
-------
TABLE 3-3
GPU INLET/OUTLET EMISSION TEST SUMMARY
TEST NO. 3
International Fuel Gate
PenroM LandfiB
October 21-22,1993
Pretreatment Bad A
Inlet Flowrate: 80 scfm
Regeneration Flowrate: 25 scfm
Output Flowrate: 55 scfm
Rare Temperature: 1600oF
Time
CvcteTtme
Sampling Location
Total Sulfur-Continuous Analyzer (ppmv)
Reduced Sulfur Compounds (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
hydrogen sulfide
carbonyl sulfide
methyl mercaptan
ethyl mercaptan
dimethyl sulfide
carbon disulfide
dimethyl disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur - see note
Volatile Organic Hatogens-
GC/MS Analysis (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
Compound
dichlorodrfluoromethane
vinyl chloride
r¥i«H~iiJ —i-i — :j —
metnyiene cnionoe
1,1-dichloroethane
uicniofoeuiene
tetrachloroethene
chlorobenzene
Total Halogens (as halide) - see note
Volatile Organic Compounds -
GC/MS Analysis (ppm v/v)
benzene
toluene
xytenes
ethyl benzene
styrene
acetone
2-butanone
ethyl acetate
ethyl butyrate
alpha-pinene
d-Jimooene
tetrahydrofuran
Phenol-GC/MS (ppm v/v)
Sllanes/Slloxanes (mg/dscm)
Paniculate Matter (gralns/dscf)
1800*1900
HouM
Carbon Bed
inlet
bag
927
0.197
2.91
0.48
6.51
O.07
O.07
104
bag
0.83
1.1
e fi
6.6
A *9
4.3
1.9
1.3
Z7
0.91
46.7
1.1
28
14.9
6.1
0.6
<\2
52
8.1
6.3
10.8
12.6
1.3
GPU
Outlet
<02
bag
O.004
0.017
O.004
O.004
O.004
O.002
O.002
0.017
bag
0.002
O.002
f\ f\4 C
0.016
^f\ /W>
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
0.032
0.002
0.005
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.01
O.004
O.002
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
190XK>100
Hour 2-7
Carbon Bed
Inlet
^•mmwm
bag
107
0.164
2.96
0.47
6.52
O.07
O.07
118
bag
0.95
1.2
4 4
11
C O
5.9
2.7
1.8
3.6
1.4
66.6
1.4
36
212
9
0.81
18
6.6
10.8
8.4
18
36
1.6
O.06
O.08
GPU
Outlet
<0.2
on-fine
O.01
0.035
O.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
0.035
bag
O.002
O.002
^f\ fW)
O.002
^ff\ f\r>o
O.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
< 0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.005
O.004
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.0002
0100-0200
HourS
GPU
Outlet ;
<02
on-line
O.01
0.026
0.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
0.026
bag
0.002
O.002
^ff\ /W^
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
< 0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.005
O.004
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.002
O.002
NOTES:
1. Total reduced sulfur is calculated as the sum of target compound concentrations as sulfur, plus the sum of
any unknown sulfur compounds quantified as hydrogen sulfide.
2. Total halogen is calculated as follows: multiply each compound concentration by the number of halide atoms and total.
D-18.
-------
TABLE 3-4
C1 - C6 HYDROCARBONS EMISSIONS DATA
International Fuel Cells, Inc
Penrose Landfill
October 20-21, 1993
Loacation
Condenser No. 1 Inlet
Condenser No. 1 Inlet
Condenser No. 1 Inlet
GPU Outlet
GPU Outlet
Date
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
Time
0840-0910
1255-1330
1540-1640
0840-0910
1255-1330
Emission Concentrations Measured By GC/FfD (ppm v/v)
ethane
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.5
n-prbparie
27
25
26
<0.4
<0.4
iisobutahe
18
16
16
<0.3
<0.3
C; ri-butarie
11
9.7
9.7
<0.3
<0.3
jsopentane
12
11
11
<0.3
<0.3
pentane
13
18
16
<0.3
<0.3
n-hexane
6.1
6
5.1
<0.2
<0.2
-------
3.3 GPU Removal of Reduced Sulfur Compounds
• •
Reduced sulfur compounds "were measured at the inlet and outlet of the GPU
simultaneously using on-line GC/FPD at the outlet and Tedlar bag samples with off-site GC/FPD
analyses at the inlet. Total reduced sulfur was also continuously monitored with a continuous
analyzer (InterScan wet chemical type) and data logger at the GPU outlet. Additional Tedlar bag
samples were collected from the outlet gas stream and analyzed off-site for confirmation of the
on-line measurements. The data is summarized in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. The total reduced
sulfur in the GPU outlet was below the detection limit of the continuous analyzer (< 0.2 ppmv)
at all times. All measurements indicated that the GPU was efficiently removing reduced sulfur
compounds and complying with the performance standard of 3 ppmv during the entire eight-hour
cycle on both beds.
The inlet concentrations of total reduced sulfur averaged 113 ppmv during Test 2 and
Test 3. During the dichlorodifluoromethane challenge test (Test 1), the inlet sample was
collected downstream of the carbon bed where the pressure was lower and, as a result, hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) was removed prior to sampling. The GPU inlet sulfur data from Test 1 is not
representative of the actual input to the GPU and is not included in the following averages: H2S
was the primary sulfur compound in the GPU inlet gas stream averaging 102 ppmv, followed
by dimethyl sulfide averaging 6.5 ppmv and methyl mercaptan averaging 2.9 ppmv.
Only trace levels of sulfides were detected in the GPU outlet gas stream with both on-line
GC/FPD and Tedlar bag sampling. Carbonyl sulfide was detected at levels ranging from below
the detection limit of 0.01 ppmv to 0.047 ppmv with the on-line GC/FPD. Carbon disulfide and
dimethyl disulfide were detected in one GPU outlet Tedlar bag sample at 0.004 ppmv each.
In summary, the data demonstrated that the reduced sulfur compound concentrations
entering the GPU were typical of landfill gas and that the GPU removed these contaminants
effectively. The GPU outlet concentrations were either below detection limits (detection limits
were 0.01 ppmv for the on-line method and 0.004 for the off-site analyses) or in the part per
billion concentration range which demonstrated that the unit was performing approximately 100
times better than the performance specification.
D-20.
-------
3.4 GPU Removal of Nonmethane Organics
During the second test cycle, methane and nonmethane organic compounds were measured
according to CARB Method 25.2 in the GPU inlet and outlet gas streams. Single simultaneous
samples were collected and the results are reported in Table 3-2. The results indicated that the
inlet concentration of nonmethane organic compounds was 5700 ppmv as carbon and the outlet
concentration was 13.8 ppmv. These data indicate a removal efficiency of 99.8% based on an
inlet gas flowrate of 80 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) and an outlet gas flowrate of 55
scfm.
3.5 GPU Outlet Particulate Matter Concentration
Particulate matter was measured during each of the three test cycles with single eight-hour
samples collected during each cycle. The concentration measured at the GPU outlet was below
0.0008 grains/dscfon Test 1, below 0.0004 grains/dscf on Test 2, and below 0.0002 grains/dscf
on Test 3. These low concentrations represented the sum of the material weights collected on the
filters and back-half organic and inorganic fractions. Each filter had less than 1.0 milligram (mg)
of particulate matter which was the analytical detection limit. Some trace levels were detected
in the back-half fractions. Since no particulate matter was detected on the filters, the results are
reported as "less than" values.
In summary, the particulate emissions at the GPU outlet were extremely low, as would
be expected in a landfill gas stream. The measured concentrations were trace level and were
below the Method 5 detection limit.
3.6 GPU Inlet Phenol Concentration
Three phenol samples were collected from the GPU inlet gas stream during the middle
of each of the three test cycles. The samples were collected on XAD-2 solid sorbent tubes and
analyzed by GC/MS off-site. Phenol was below the detection limit in each sample. The detection
limit was 0.06 ppmv on Tests 1 and 3 and 0.03 ppmv on Test 2.
D-21.
-------
3.7 Silanes and Siloxanes - GPU Inlet Concentration
Silanes and siloxanes concentrations were measured in triplicate at the GPU inlet during
each test cycle with an experimental test method. Samples were collected in potassium hydroxide
absorbing solution and analyzed for silicon by elemental analysis.
The results reported in Tables 3-1,3-2, and 3-3 are averages of the three test runs. The
silicon concentrations were less than 0278 mg/dry standard cubic meter (dscm), 0.145 mg/dscm,
and 0.072 mg/dscm on the respective test cycles.
3.8 Flare Efficiency Test
The flare was tested during the regeneration of Bed A. Samples were collected during
three phases of regeneration including the carbon bed hot regeneration, the dehydration bed hot
regeneration, and the dehydration bed cold regeneration. The highest concentrations of VOCs and
sulfur compounds were measured during the hot regeneration of the dryer bed. The data
demonstrated that the flare effectively destroyed VOCs and sulfur compounds during all phases
of regeneration including the worst-case hot dehydration bed regeneration.
The flare destruction efficiency was determined for key parameters using a calculated
volumetric gas flowrate at the flare exhaust. The gas flow was below the detection limit of EPA
Method 2; as a result, the calculation was required to determine destruction efficiency. The gas
flowrate was calculated based on the sum of the methane and nonmethane gas entering the flare,
the stoichiometric combustion air to oxidize the methane entering the flare, and a measured
excess air factor of 2.3 based on the 02 content of the flare exhaust. The calculated flare exhaust
flowrate was 368 scfm based on 25 scfm total gas flow entering the flare at 44.8% methane
concentration, the stoichiometric air, and the excess air. The airflow calculation is outlined in
Appendix H. Based on these calculations, there was 14.7 times more gas flow at the outlet
sampling location than there was at the inlet sampling location; a factor of 14.7 was used to
calculate the destruction efficiency.
The flare test data is summarized in Table 3-5, and discussions of the data are included
in the following subsections.
D-22.
-------
TABLE 3-5
FLARE INLET/OUTLET EMISSION TEST SUMMARY
International Fuel Cells. Inc.
Penrose Landfill
October 21.1993
GPU Inlet Rewrote: 81 scftn
Regeneration Rowrate: 25scfm
GPU Output Rewrote: 56 scfm
Flare Temperature: 1600oF
Time
Process Activity
Flare Samping Location
Methane (ppm vAv)
Total Non-Methane Organic* (ppm v/v as carbo
Oxides of Nitrogen (ppm v/v)
Carbon Monoxide (ppm v/v)
Total Particulates (gr/dscf)
Front half
Back half (organic)
Back half (inorganic)
Oxygen (S)
Moisture (%)
Temperature (oF)
Flowrate (scfm)
Reduced Sulfur Compounds (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
hydrogen sulfide
carbon yl sulfide
methyl mercaptan
ethyl mercaptan
dimethyl sulfide
carbon disulfide
dimethyl disuffide
Total Reduced Sulfur - see note
Volatile Organic Compounds-
GC/MS Analysis (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
Compound
derUorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
cJs-1 ,2-dchkxoethene
1,1-dichkxoethane
trichkxoethene
tetrachloroethene
chkxobenzene
benzene
toluene
xylenes
ethyl benzene
styrene
acetone
2-butanone
ethyl acetate
ethyl butyrate
alpha-pinene
d-limonene
tetrahydrofuran
1030-1130
CarbohBed
Regeneration
INLET
440000
1860
<0.1
80
25
bag
O.004
0.061
O.004
O.004
0.042
0.146
O.002
0.254
bag
3.6
1.5
0.28
0.02
O.02
0.02
0.17
<0.02
0.03
\2
0.04
0.04
<0.02
O.07
o.oe
0.04
O.04
0.05
0.07
0.04
OUTLET
<1
11.7
7.5
5.8
0.0182
0.0069
0.0005
0.0108
14.9
9.2
1186
bee
O.004
O.004
0.004
O.004
0.004
O.002
O.002
O.004
bag
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.002
0.007
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.005
O.004
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
1230.1330
Dryer Bed
Regeneration
INLET,
448000
21100
O.1
80
25
bag
O.016
O.016
0.087
0.016
73.9
O.008
0.908
80.4
bag
<2.0
<3.9
110
62
32
17
19
3.8
16
230
43.8
25
<2.4
150
28
5.4
Z1
3.6
1.4
0.99
OUTLET
<1
11.5
8.9
1.7
0.0178
0.0135
0.001
0.0033
15.03
9.1
929
baa
0.327
O.04
O.04
O.04
O.04
O.02
O.02
0.327
bag
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.004
O.002
0.002
O.002
0.065
O.004
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
1730-1830 ;; : ;;;
Dryer Bed •*•'• /-ft
:Cold Regeneration
INLET
463000
250
0.1
79
25
bag
O.004
0.014
O.004
O.004
0.031
O.002
0.005
0.05
bag
0.03
0.05
0.07
O.04
O.04
0.03
0.1
0.07
O.04
0.83
1.8
0.76
O.03
O.12
O.99
O.04
0.04
1.8
3.6
O.04
OUTLET
<1
6.8
14.9
1.6
0.0088
0.0072
0.0011
0.0005
13.5
8.6
990
ba£
O.004
0.06
0.004
O.004
0.004
O.002
O.002
0.06
bag
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.0025
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.02
0.004
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
NOTES:
1. Total reduced sulfur is calculated as the sum of target compound concentrations as sulfur, plus the sum of
any unknown sulfur compounds quantified as hydrogen sulfide.
-------
3.8.1 Flare Destruction of VOCs
As previously stated, the highest VOC concentration entering the flare occurred during
the dryer bed hot regeneration. One-hour Tedlar bag samples were collected simultaneously at
the inlet and outlet during each phase of regeneration. The samples were analyzed for target VOC
compounds by GC/MS according to EPA Method TO-14.
Toluene and acetone were the highest concentration VOCs entering the flare, at 230 ppmv
and 150 ppmv. Inlet halide concentrations were also significant with methylene chloride at
110 ppmv; cis-l,2-dichloroethene at 62 ppmv; 1,1-dichloroethane at 32 ppmv; trichloroethene at
17 ppmv; tetrachloroethene at 19 ppmv, and chlorobenzene at 3.8 ppmv. Flare outlet
concentrations of these compounds' were below the GC/MS detection limit of 0.002 ppmv,
indicating that the flare was completely oxidizing these compounds.
The destruction efficiency of the flare was calculated using the calculated flare exhaust
gas flowrate (airflow in the flare exhaust was below the detection limit of EPA Method 2 and
could not be measured). The destruction efficiency of methylene chloride was greater than
99.97% based on 368 scfm at the flare exhaust and 25 scfm at the flare inlet. The destruction
efficiency of tetrachloroethene, which is difficult to oxidize, was greater than 99.85%.
3.8.2 Flare Destruction of Sulfur Compounds
As with VOCs, the highest concentrations of sulfur compounds entering the flare occurred
during hot regeneration of the dehydration bed. Dimethyl sulfide was the highest concentration
compound at 73.9 ppmv. The outlet concentration of dimethyl sulfide was below the detection
limit of 0.04 ppmv. The destruction efficiency of dimethyl sulfide was greater than 99.2%.
3.8.3 Flare Destruction of Total Nonmethane Organics
The highest concentration of nonmethane organics was also measured during the hot
regeneration of the dehydration bed. The inlet concentration was 21,100 ppmv as carbon and the
outlet concentration was 11.5 ppmv. Based on a 14.7-fold increase in air flow at the outlet, the
destruction efficiency was 99.2%.
D-24.
-------
3.8.4 Flare Outlet Concentration of NQ^. CO. and Particulate Matter
The nitrogen oxides" (NOJ and carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations at the flare outlet
averaged 10.4 ppmv and 3.0 ppmv, respectively, over the three test periods. Particulate matter,
based on the front-half catch, averaged 0.009 grains/dscf over the three test runs. Particulate
matter, based on front-half and back-half catches, averaged 0.013 grains/dscf.
3.9 Ambient Concentrations of NO^. CO. and Particulate Matter
The ambient concentrations of NOX and CO were below the detection limits of the
analyzers. The detection limits were 1.0 ppmv for each compound. Particulate matter was
measured with one eight-hour sample collected within 20 feet of the flare on the day of the flare
emission testing. The particulate matter concentration was 267 micrograms per cubic meter
3.10 Condensate Analyses
One condensate sample was collected from the first cooler condenser during the first hour
of each cycle for a total of three samples. There was no condensate in the second condenser, as
a result, no sample could be collected. Each sample was analyzed for the target sulfur compounds
by GC/FPD and the target VOCs by GC/MS. The results are reported in Table 3-6.
The highest concentration VOCs were acetone and 2-butanone, which were detected in
each sample. The average concentrations were 16,700 micrograms/liter (ng/d) of acetone and
12,700 ug/{ of 2-butanone. The highest concentration of a target sulfur compound was
1,720 ug/
-------
TABLE 3-6
CONDENSATE ANALYSES
International Fuel Cells, Inc.
Penrose Landfill
October 20-21,1993
Date
Sampling Time
Sampling Location
Reduced Sulfur Compounds (ug/liter)
hydrogen sulfide
caibonyl sulfide
methyl mercaptan
ethyl mercaptan
dimethyl sulfide
carbonyl sulfide
dimethyl disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur - see note 1
Volatile Organic Compounds -
GC/MS Analysis (ug/liter) - see note 2
acetone
2-butanone
methylene chloride
4-methyl-2-pentanone
toluene
2-hexanone
xylenes
ethyl benzene
10-20
0900
First Condenser
<56
<98
<79
123
1760
97.2
99.9
22700
160000
100000
1600
15000
3200
1000
2620
990
10-21
1000
First Condenser
<56
<98
<79
<100
1720
<62
135
39000
150000
140000
2100
20000
6100
1900
3800
1800
10-21
1800
First Condenser
<56
<98
<79
<100
1720
<62
132
37300
190000
140000
2100
17000
5700
3100
4000
1400
NOTES:
1. Total reduced sulfur is calculated as the sum of target compound concentrations as sulfur, plus the sum of any unknown
sulfur compounds quantified as hydrogen sulfide. Each condensate sample contained a large unknown peak
2. Additional target volatile organic compounds were below the 2500 ug/L detection limit
D-26.
-------
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL MKTHODS
The following discussions outline the test methods used for both the EPA demonstration
and the SCAQMD permit compliance test.
4.1 GPU Inlet Measurements
4.1.1 GPU Inlet Volatile Organic Compounds
GPU inlet samples were collected in Tedlar bags and analyzed on-site for six target
compounds by GC/ECD and off-site by GC/MS. The strategy of the on-site and off-site
measurements was to have an immediate indicator of performance on-site for key target
compounds such as dichlorodifluoromethane and to use the off-site GC/MS analyses to provide
a complete characterization of the full target compound list.
The sampling location was prior to the first condenser (downstream of the Westates
carbon bed) on the first test cycle and at the inlet to the Westates carbon bed for the second and
third test cycles. The bags were filled through a needle valve with the positive pressure in the
gas stream. During the dichlorodifluoromethane challenge test, one sample was collected and
analyzed prior to initiation of the spike and three samples were collected during the spiking. One
sample was collected during the first hour of the second test. Two samples were collected during
the third test cycle. Each sample was collected over approximately 30 minutes.
The samples were analyzed on-site for six target halides including
dichlorodifluoromethane by GC/ECD according to EPA Method 18. A Hewlett-Packard 5890
with a Model 3396A integrator was used for the analysis. The GC was equipped with a 75 meter
(m) by 0.45 millimeter (mm) DBVRX column purchased from J&W Scientific, Inc. Sample gas
was injected through a 0.5 milliliter (ml) loop with a gas sampling valve. The GC/ECD was
calibrated with gas standards prepared from liquid stock solutions purchased from a chemical
standards supply company. The gas standards were prepared according to EPA Method 18 using
the device depicted in Figure 4-1. Each of these standards contained the six target halides, and
the external multipoint calibration was programmed into the integrator. During the challenge test
(Test No. 1), dichlorodifluoromethane was quantified with a second calibration conducted by
analyzing three standards prepared by dilution of pure dichlorodifluoromethane gas.
D-27.
-------
NITROGEN
OR AIR
CYLINDER
PRESSURE
GAUGE
(IN. H.,0)
SYRINGE
SEPTUM
MIDGET IMPINGER
TEMPERATURE
GAUGE (°F)
HEAT WRAP
TRC
TRC environmental Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor. CT 06095
(203) 289-8631
FIGURE 4-1
PREPARATION OF SOLVENT STANDARDS
EPA METHOD 18
-------
The reason for the additional dichlorodifluoromethane calibration was that the
dichlorodifluoromethane concentration during the challenge test exceeded the original calibration.
In addition, the reliability of standards prepared from a liquid (the dichlorodifluoromethane stock
solution was in methanol) was considered less reliable due to the gaseous state of this compound
at ambient temperatures.
The on-site GC/ECD method was also audited with two gases containing 10.0 ppmv and
1.0 ppmv dichlorodifluoromethane, respectively, prepared by a specialty gas manufacturer. The
analysis of the higher gas was 12.5 ppmv and the lower gas was 1.7 ppmv.
The off-site GC/MS analyses was conducted on the same day as sampling by
Performance Analytical, Inc., of Canoga Park, California. The samples were analyzed by gas
injections on a GC/MS according to EPA Method TO-14. The samples were concentrated with
a cryogenic trap prior to analysis. The target compound list is presented in the protocol in
Appendix A (Table 3.3-2 excluding the C1-C6 hydrocarbons). Twenty of these compounds were
quantitated by external calibration curves prepared from gas standards. The remaining 10
compounds were identified by ion matching and quantified by internal standard. The internal
standard method is less accurate and is usually referred to as a semi-quantitative method. The
10 compounds measured by internal standard are listed below:
chlorodifluoromethane ethyl butyrate tetrahydrofuran
dichlorofluoromethane a-pinene 1-butanol
ethyl acetate d-Umonene naphthalene
nitrobenzene
In addition, the GPU inlet bag samples were analyzed for C1-C6 hydrocarbons by
GC/flame ionization detector (GC/FID). These analyses were also conducted off-site by
Performance Analytical, Inc.
4.1.2 GPU Inlet Reduced Sulfur Compounds
The same GPU inlet bag samples collected for VOC were also analyzed by GC/FPD for
seven target compounds. Samples were analyzed by gas injection on a Hewlett-Packard 5890
GC/FPD equipped with a 60 m by 0.53 mm ID capillary column (crossbonded 100% dimethyl
polysiloxane). These analyses were conducted off-site by Performance Analytical, Inc.
A multilevel calibration was performed for each compound.
D-29.
-------
4.1.3 GPU Inlet Phenol
Triplicate phenol samples were collected during each of the three test cycles and analyzed
off-site by GC/MS. The samples were collected on ORBOM7 solid adsorbent tubes using an
EPA Method 6 sampling system and analyzed according to Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) Method 32. The samples were analyzed by Mayfly Environmental. Each
tube was desorbed in 0.5 mf of methanol and 1.0 microliter (pf) was injected into the GC/MS.
A 50-nanogram spiked ORBO-47 tube was also analyzed, with 95% recovery.
4.1.4 GPU Inlet Silicon Compounds
The silicon target compounds including silanes and siloxanes were measured using an
OSHA experimental method. The samples were collected using an EPA Method 6 sampling
system with mini-impingers containing 20 mf of 0.01 N potassium hydroxide. Triplicate samples
were collected during each of the three test cycles. The samples were extracted in nitric acid and
analyzed by inductively coupled argon plasmography (ICAP).
4.1.5 GPU Inlet Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons
Total nonmethane hydrocarbons and methane concentrations were measured with a single
Tedlar bag sample, collected during the second test cycle, according to CARB Method 25.2.
Analysis was conducted by ATMAA, Inc., of Chatsworth, California, using total combustion
analysis/flame ionization detector (TCA/FID) analysis.
4.2 GPU Outlet Gas Measurements
4.2.1 GPU Outlet On-line Halides
The concentrations of six target halides were monitored according to EPA Method 18
with a GC/ECD. Samples were analyzed at approximately one-hour intervals throughout each
cycle. The target compounds included:
dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1,1-trichloroethane
trichlorofluoromethane trichloroethene
vinyl chloride tetrachloroethene
D-30.
-------
A Hewlett-Packard 5890 with a Model 3396A integrator was used for the analysis. The
GC was equipped with a 75 m by 0.45 mm DBVRX column purchased from J&W Scientific,
Inc. Sample gas was injected through a 0.5 ml loop with a gas sampling valve. Teflon tube was
used to transport the sample gas from the GPU to the analyzer. The samples gas was under
pressure; as a result, no sample pump was required.
The GC/ECD was calibrated with gas standards prepared from liquid stock solutions
purchased from a chemical standards supply company. The gas standards were prepared
according to EPA Method 18 using the device depicted in Figure 4-1. Each of these standards
contained the six target halides, and the external multipoint calibration was programmed into the
integrator.
The on-site GC/ECD method was also audited with two gases containing 10.0 ppmv and
1.0 ppmv dichlorodifluoromethane, respectively, prepared by a specialty gas manufacturer. The
analysis of the higher gas was 12.5 ppmv and the lower gas was 1.7 ppmv.
4.2.2 GPU Outlet Off-site Halides and Dichlorodifluoromethane Analysis
(GC/MS Method)
The off-site GC/MS analyses were conducted on the same day as sampling by
Performance Analytical, Inc., of Canoga Park, California. The samples were analyzed by gas
injections on a GC/MS according to EPA Method TO-14. A one-liter sample was concentrated
with a cryogenic trap prior to analysis. The target compound list is presented in the protocol in
Appendix A (Table 3.3-2 excluding the C1-C6 hydrocarbons). Twenty of these compounds were
quantitated by external calibration curves prepared from gas standards. The remaining 10
compounds were identified by ion matching and quantified by internal standard. The internal
standard method is less accurate and is usually referred to as a semi-quantitative method. The
10 compounds measured by internal standard are listed below:
chlorodifluoromethane ethyl butyrate
dichlorofluoromethane a-pinene
ethyl acetate d-limonene
tetrahydrofuran naphthalene
1-butanol nitrobenzene
D-31.
-------
42.3 GPU Outlet Continuous Total Reduced Sulfur
Total reduced sulfur was monitored continuously with an InterScan hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
analyzer calibrated on the 0-1 ppmv scale with EPA Protocol I gas. Sample gas was transported
from the GPU outlet with Teflon tubing, with the system positive pressure, to a manifold. The
analyzer drew sample gas from the manifold at ambient pressure. Data was recorded with a
Yokogawa digital data logger programmed for five-minute and one-hour averages.
The InterScan analyzer measures sulfur compounds with a wet chemical cell designed for
H2S. The analyzer also detects other reduced sulfur compounds; however, the calibration was
based on H2S. A multipoint calibration was conducted with a 22.5-ppm EPA Protocol I gas and
a dilution calibrator.
4.2.4 GPU Outlet On-line Sulfur Compounds rGC/FPD Method)
The concentrations of six reduced sulfur compounds were measured semi-continuously
with a GC/FPD according to EPA Methods 15, 16, and 18. Sample gas was transported from the
GPU outlet through Teflon tubing with the system positive pressure to a manifold, and
continuously pumped through an automatic gas sampling loop on a Hewlett-Packard GC/FPD.
Samples were analyzed automatically at approximately one-hour intervals throughout each test
cycle.
The GC/FPD was multilevel calibrated using certified calibration gases purchased from
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., and a Monitor Labs dilution calibrator. The GC/FPD was equipped
with a Supelco, Inc., Teflon packed column (BHT 100). The calibration gases contained the
following compounds:
hydrogen sulfide dimethyl sulfide
carbonyl sulfide carbon disulfide
methyl mercaptan dimethyl disulfide
4.2.5 GPU Outlet Reduced Sulfur Compounds TOff-site GC/FPD Method)
The same GPU outlet bag samples collected for VOC were also analyzed by GC/FPD for
seven target compounds. Samples were analyzed by gas injection on a Hewlett-Packard 5890
GC/FPD with a 60 m by 0.53 mm ID capillary column (crossbonded 100% dimethyl
D-32.
-------
polysiloxane). These analyses were conducted off-site by Performance Analytical, Inc. A
multilevel calibration was performed for each compound.
4.2.6 GPU Outlet Volumetric Flowrate
The volumetric flowrate was continuously measured with a calibrated in-line electronic
flowmeter. The flowmeter was a permanently installed device used as a GPU operational
parameter.
4.2.7 GPU Outlet Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons
Total nonmethane hydrocarbons and methane concentrations were measured with a single
Tedlar bag sample, collected during the second test cycle, according to CARB Method 25.2.
Analysis was conducted by ATMAA, Inc of Chatsworth, California, using TCA/FID analysis.
4.3 Flare Emission Tests
4.3.1 Flare Inlet and Outlet VOC Emission Concentration
Off-site GC/MS analyses were conducted on the same day as sampling by Performance
Analytical, Inc., of Canoga Park, California. Triplicate one-hour samples were collected
simultaneously at the inlet and outlet in Tedlar bags using the evacuated canister technique
according to EPA Method 18. The samples were analyzed by gas injections on a GC/MS
according to EPA Method TO-14. The samples were concentrated with a cryogenic trap prior to
analysis. The target compound list is presented in the protocol in Appendix A (Table 4.3-1).
These compounds were quantitated by external calibration curves prepared from gas standards.
43.2 Flare Inlet and Outlet Reduced Sulfur Compounds Concentration
The same flare inlet and outlet bag samples collected for VOCs were also analyzed by
GC/FPD for seven target compounds. Samples were analyzed by gas injection on a Hewlett-
Packard 5890 GC/FPD with a 60 m by 0.53 mm ID capillary column (crossbonded 100%
dimethyl polysiloxane). These analyses were conducted off-site by Performance Analytical, Inc.
A multilevel calibration was performed for each compound.
D-33.
-------
4.3.3 Flare Outlet Participate Emissions
Particulate emissions were measured according to EPA Methods 5 and 202 at the flare
outlet. Triplicate one-hour tests were conducted using non-isokinetic sampling. Samples were
collected non-isokinetically because the gas velocity in the stack was below the detection limit
of the pitot tube/manometer and hot wire anemometer methods.
Total particulate matter was determined as "front half which included material collected
in the probe wash and filter, and "back half which included both inorganic and organic material
collected in the impingers.
4.3.4 Flare Outlet NOt. CO. and Q.; Emission Concentrations
Triplicate one-hour tests were conducted according to EPA Methods 7E, 10, and 3A. The
reference method analyzers were housed in a mobile CEM laboratory parked at the base of the
stack. Sample gas was transported to the system through 50 feet of heated Teflon sample line to
a VIA, Inc., sample gas conditioner in the laboratory.
NOX concentration was monitored with a Thermo Environmental Instruments, Inc., Model
10 analyzer. CO concentration was monitored with a Fugi, Inc., infrared-type analyzer, and O2
was monitored with a Teledyne chemical cell-type analyzer. Data was recorded with a Campbell
Scientific, Inc., data system. Calibrations were conducted with EPA Protocol I gases.
4.3.5 Flare Outlet Volumetric Flowrate
Flowrate was calculated as the sum of the stoichiometric air required to burn 11.2 scfm
of methane and 13.8 scfm of carbon dioxide, with an excess air factor of 2.3 times the
stoichiometric air. The flare outlet air flowrate calculation is presented in Appendix H.
4.4 Ambient Monitoring for Particulate. NCy and CO
An eight-hour sample was collected on a high-volume sampler within 20 feet of the base
of the flare stack according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix B. The sampler was calibrated with a
certified calibrator prior to the field test.
NOX and CO concentration were also monitored for approximately 10 minutes with the
EPA Method 7E and 10 analyzers prior to conducting the emission tests.
D-34.
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The TRC quality assurance (QA) program is designed to ensure that emission
measurement work is performed by qualified people using proper equipment following written
procedures in order to provide accurate, defensible data. This program is based upon the EPA
Quality Assurance Handbookfor Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume III (EPA-600/4-77-
027b).
5.1 Emission Measurement Methods
Sampling and measurement equipment including continuous analyzers, recorders, pitot
tubes, dry gas meters, orifice meters, thermocouples, nozzles, and any other pertinent apparatus
are uniquely identified, undergo preventive maintenance, and were calibrated before and after the
test program. Most calibrations were performed with standards traceable to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other appropriate references. These standards include wet
test meters and NIST Standard Reference Materials. Records of all calibration data are maintained
in TRC files.
During the field tests, sampling performance, and progress were continually evaluated, and
deviations from sampling method criteria were reported to the Field Team Leader who then
assessed the validity of the test run. All field data were recorded on prepared data sheets or
laboratory notebooks. The Field Team Leader maintained a written log describing the events of
each day. Field samples including field blanks were transported from the field in shock-proof,
secure containers. Sample integrity was controlled through the use of prepared data sheets,
positive sample identification, and chain-of-custody forms. All sampling trains were leak-checked
before and after each test.
Methods 1. 2. 4. 5
All Method 5 related sampling runs were operated nonisokinetically. Probe and hotbox
temperatures were maintained within 25 *F of the temperatures specified.
Prior to the field test programs, full clean-up (background) evaluations of all sampling
equipment are periodically performed at the TRC laboratories. This procedure ensured the
accuracy of the chosen equipment and procedures.
D-35.
-------
Continuous Emission Monitoring System
The CEM system was calibrated, leak, and bias checked at the beginning and end of each
emission test. All calibration gases were Protocol I or equivalent (± 1%). Multipoint calibrations
were performed on the analyzers prior to the field program to establish linearity.
5.2 Analysis
All sample preparation and sample analyses were performed at or under the direction of
the TRC Environmental Corporation. Standards of QA set forth in the Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume III (EPA-600/4-77-027b) and the
Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories (EPA-600/4-79-
019, March 1979) were strictly followed.
In the analytical laboratories, all quality control samples including field blank samples,
reagents, and filter blanks were analyzed with the actual test samples.
The TRC Laboratory maintains a continuous quality control (QC) program to monitor
instrument response and analyst proficiency, and to ensure the precision and accuracy of all
analytical results. This program has been developed in consultation with EPA, NIOSH, and State
regulatory agencies.
TRC participates in the audit programs of the EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory (source and ambient air) and the EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory (water). TRC will provide a compressed gas cylinder audit to the subcontract
laboratories conducting the toxic air analyzes. Audit results are reviewed by the Chemistry
Laboratory Manager and the Emission Measurement Section Manager, and corrective action is
initiated when acceptance criteria are not met.
During the data reduction process, all calculations were reviewed initially by a person
intimately associated with the emission test program, and finally by a senior scientist or engineer
not associated with the program. These QC checks provide a means to ensure that the calculations
are performed correctly and that the data are reasonable.
D-36.
-------
Laboratory Subcontractors
Subcontract laboratories were selected by TRC to provide analytical support using state-
of-the-art laboratory equipment and professional staff.
5.3 Program-Specific Quality Control Discussion
In addition to standard emission measurements QC, this program used several redundant
measurements to maximize the confidence level. The parameters of key importance were halides
and sulfur compounds entering and exiting the GPU. Measurements were conducted with both
on-site and off-site methods by independent parties for both key parameters.
Sulfur compounds at the GPU exhaust were determined with three independent test
methods including on-line GC/FPD analysis, continuous on-line total reduced sulfur monitoring,
and off-site GC/FPD analysis of Tedlar bag samples. The three methods were in agreement; all
three methods demonstrated that the emission concentration of total reduced sulfur compounds
was below 0.2 ppmv.
Halides were analyzed at the GPU inlet and outlet by both on-site GC/ECD and off-site
GC/MS analysis. The on-site GC/ECD method also included analysis of dichlorodifluoromethane
audit samples prepared in nitrogen. The high-level audit was analyzed at 12.5 ppmv versus an
actual concentration of 10.0 ppmv. The outlet concentration measurements conducted by
GC/ECD and GC/MS concurred; both methods showed that emission concentrations were below
the detection limits. However, the inlet measurements showed some disparity between the two
methods with respect to quantification of three compounds including dichlorodifluoromethane,
trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene. The GC/MS measurements were consistently lower than
the on-site GC/ECD measurements. The cause of this disparity created uncertainty which
required resolution, so an audit was conducted in April-May 1994 using cylinder gases.
The audit was designed to test three possible causes of bias including the effect of a
landfill gas matrix, the Tedlar bag holding time effect, and the effect of moisture. The results
are summarized in Table 5-1. The audit indicated that the GC/ECD error for
dichlorodifluoromethane was 108% at the high level (50 ppmv) and 345% at the low level. The
cause of error may been the effect of methane on the ECD which has a known "quenching"
effect. The GC/MS audit results were within 2% for both levels. The complete audit results are
contained in Appendix L.
D-37.
-------
TABLE 5-1
Summary of Results - Audit to Resolve Discrepancy
Between GC/ECD and GC/MS Analyses of Landfill Gas Samples
Phase n Landfill Gas Program - GPU Demonstration Project
International Fuel Cells, Inc.
May 1994
CONCENTRATION (ppmv)
Performance Analytical (GC/MS1
Cylinder No./ Vendor Independent TRC 1st 8-hour
Compound Certification Laboratory (GC/ECD) Analysis Hold
Cylinder FF37098
dichlorodifluoro-
methane 2.0 1.4 8.9 2.0
trichloroethene 1.0 11* 9.4 12.0
tetrachloroethene 1.0 11* 9.8 12.0
Cylinder FF37105
dichlorodifluoro-
methane 50.0 49.7 104 51.0 54
trichloroethene 4.8 4.8* 4.3 5.4
tetrachloroethene 4.8 4.8* 4.3 5.3
Notes:
1. Methylene chloride was not included in the audit study because GC/ECD does not have
the required sensitivity.
2. * = estimated concentration based on internal standard.
D-38.
-------
The effect of humidity was also evaluated by comparing the detector response of a dry
and a saturated sample. The saturated sample was 9.9% lower than the dry sample. Humidity
results are summarized in Table 5-2.
TABLE 5-2
Effect of Humidity on GC/MS Analyses - Audit to Resolve Discrepancy
Between GC/ECD and GC/MS Analyses of Landfill Gas Samples
Phase n Landfill Gas Program - GPU Demonstration Project
International Fuel Cells, Inc.
May 1994
Response
Compound (area)
dichlorodifluoromethane 70677
methylene chloride
trichloroethene
tetrachloroethene
7768
11315
10294
Response (area)
Saturated
With Water
63950
7446
10808
9037
% Diff
9.9
4.2
4.6
13.0
D-39.
-------
Internationa] Fuel Cells FCR-13524
APPENDIX E
PROPERTIES OF d-limonene REFRIGERANT
E-l
-------
NOU-11-1994 11=26 FROM FLORIDA CHEMICAL CO.
TO
18185667886
P.02
from orange oil
CHARACTERISTICS;
D-LIMONENE
HEAT TRANSFER FLUID APPLICATIONS
REVISION DATE 2/15/91
I. rut Jmnnm k an effective and relatively inexpensive fluid for a variety of low temperature heat exchange
^^^^^^^y^^^^r. D-Limonene is a natunuly occurring product dttltad
Freezing Point
BoUing Point
Rash Point (TCQ «5°F
Molecular Wt
Specific He*
Dielectric Constant ......... . ........... « £3
Thermal Conductivity .................... 0.07 @ JCT F
HeatTrww.Coef06em ................... O.W BTU> per brow' F
rie* per CC
Vapor Pressure • • 2 mm
'.''!!'.'.'.!!'.!!'.!'.!!'.".!!'. 1*34
ThermalConductivity ...« 0.17482-(1.873 »«* temper* ure0K)
Joules
umUm Second*-Meters-KeMn
UOU1D
o.ooo
20.RSS
42.917
66.I6J
V0.6I5
116.262
143.106
171.148-
200.387
TEMP.
DEC F
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
KNTHALPY BTU/LB
. VAPOR P
MM HC
0.05
O.$0
3.S6
16.98
153.93
357.4B
734.36
I3«9.20
LATENT
170.957
159..166
I50.68?
I43.87K
138.249
IS.V223
128.255
122.780
116.206
VAPOR
170.957
1X0.224
193.596
210.043
228.S64
249.485
271.362
293.929
316.594
DENSITY, l.B/CF
UQUJD
$4.546
53.219
51.814
50.375
49.940
47.539
46.196
44.929
43.754
ENTROPY
LIQUID
0.00000
0.06579
0.12766
0.18628
0.24217
0.29572
0.34726
0.39703
0.44526
VAPOR
0.000029
0.000289
0.0016%
O.OO6S46
0.021144
0.056634
0.117443
0.230333
0.4IMCO
, BTU/LB-DEG
LATENT
0.37197
0..1I273
0.26927
0.23602
O.ZOV60
0.18774
0.16885
0.15166
0.13519
V
VAPOR
0.37197
0.37852
0. 39693
0.42230
0.4S176
0.48347
0.51610
0.54869
0.5K045
Densities at different temperature*/ water @ 40°C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Drying Agent: Anhydrous Sodium Sulphate
(typical water content of d-limonene between 250-500 PPM <3> 70° F)
Solvents for removal of oxidized d-fimonci*: Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(ie. from chiller units)
Tri-Qor Ethylene
Methanol
N-Mcthyl - 2 Pyrrotidone
(freeza 11°F)
Acetone
Akobol
Peatooene — (ether ketone made by Shell)
20
-20 -40 -«0
Viscosities in centipoises at different temperatures.
CasJcet Material Man-boles use Vitoo
Pump para use teflon
O-Rings usc.Fluro-Silkoo
Rubber gaskets mutt be periodically replaced.
Ajui-Oxidcnu BHT (use approximately I cup per 55 gallons d-iimonene).
Germicide: Ortho Phenyl Phenol
Rust will occur in the presence of d4imoncne. Stainless steel and some hard plastics (such as flourocarbon barrier plastic containers by Air Products.
Ernmaus, PA.) arc most compatible. D-Lunonene is often placed in contact with copper.piping .with minimal negative effect (k. d-Umonene picks
up elemental copper which turns fluid green).
PINT SAMPLES AVAILABLE ON REQUEST -
FLORIDA CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
Av* N P O Rsw GO*? t *bA Air«^J d ^IOCA '
475 D»k(n« Ave. N.. P.O. Box
Telephone No.: 813-956-1843
... Lake Alfred, FL33«50
Fax No.: 813-956-1503
1942
Co.. Inc. to be Mnrwe. «»d Ftori4< Chcfflic*!
. Hcfore vt\*$ t&y pcodoct. »4d iu label
E-2
U n M«ir*u ic the
(
-------
International Fuel Cells FCR-13047D
APPENDIX F
Laboratory Tests Showing Reaction Of H2S + CO2 To COS + H2O Over Alumina
F-l
-------
Alumina
Two tests were run with Alcoa F200 adsorbent. In the most recent test carbonyl sulfide was produced
duplicating the field experience at Penrose in May 1993 during which carbonyl sulfide was formed in
the pretreatment system. In the laboratory test an on line flame photometric chromatograph capable
of detecting hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide was used. The tabulated data is shown in Table 5.
As shown in the table, the disappearance of hydrogen sulfide corresponds to formation of carbonyl
sulfide. It is somewhat surprising that this reaction can occur at ambient temperatures of 60 °F.
Since the presence of the water vapor in the reactant stream inhibits the formation of carbonyl sulfide
based on chemical equilibrium, some discussion of the subject is in order. Some equilibrium composi-
tions are shown in Figure 11. The data in the figure show that the gas must be dry or almost completely
dry to attain quantitative conversion of the hydrogen sulfide to carbonyl sulfide. Even the water
formed in the reaction is sufficient to limit conversions. As the first step in the laboratory test, the
alumina was regenerated with nitrogen at 450 °F to simulate the regeneration that alumina undergoes
in the pretreatment system. When the reactants are subsequently passed over this very dry alumina,
the water vapor is removed in inlet section of alumina bed and the dry gases are free to react in the
downstream sections of the alumina bed. Furthermore, the very dry alumina apparently removes the
water of reaction allowing almost complete conversions.
Previous tests with alumina had been run to check for elemental sulfur formation by the reaction of
hydrogen sulfide with oxygen. Only rudimentary Kitagawa tubes capable of measuring only hydrogen
sulfide were used. No flame photometric chromatograph was available at that time. No regeneration
program to dry the alumina was run before the adsorption test. The data show hydrogen sulfide being
removed for less than one hour at ambient temperatures. Reactor temperatures were increased and
some hydrogen sulfide disappearance was recorded at 155 °F. No means was available to determine
the sulfur product. The fact that no ambient temperature reaction was found in this experiment is
attributed to the fact that the alumina was not pre-dried with a regeneration cycle. Hence, the "wet"
alumina did not dry the gas stream sufficiently to allow carbonyl sulfide formation.
F-2
-------
11
EQUILIBRIUM CONVERSION OF H2S TO COS
w\ i •-> A
C_T
CO2 f H2S = COS f H2O
50% CQ2
100ppm H2S
CO
O
O
O
(—
Q
LU
(—
ct
LU
1E-K) -=
1E-1 -=
1E-2 —
8 1E-3
en
04
O
2
O
I—
O
cc
u_
1E-4 -=
1E-5 -=
1E-5
WATER OF REACTION REMOVED BY DESICCANT
FORCES 100% H2S CONVERSION TO COS
WATER GENERATED FROM REACTION ONLY
0.1% WATER IN GAS
OPERATING TEMP = 50 F
' ' ' '
I
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 ' 160 180
TEMPERATURE (F)
F-3
-------
LABORATORY TEST DATA FOR THE REMOVAL OF H2S USING ACTIVATED ALUMINA
TJ
POINT DATE VH3V TEMPERATURES (d«g F)
(hr-1) 12346
CONDmONS: 60% CH4
60% C02
20PSIO
DRV GAB
OXYGEN SULFUR CONC. (ppm)
6 AVE (oono %) H28 In H2S out COS out
1
2
3
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
1920
1920
1920
53
56
57
57 57
58 58
60 60
54 54
55 58
57 54
58
56
54
55 0.0
57 0.0
57 0.0
100
100
100
6
83
85
100
TURNED ON OXYGEN TO 1%.
4
5
6
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
1920
1920
1920
58
59
60
60 59
60 60
61 62
57 55
57 58
57 58
TURNED ON THE SATURATOR (DEW
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/21/93
6/21/93
1920
1920
1920
1920
1920
1920
Left over the
cooling coils
1920
1920
62
62
62
63
64
69
65 64
67 85
68 66
69 87
72 89
60 77
59 60
60 61
00 62
81 63
62 64
67 67
53
56
56
POINT
60
61
62
64
64
68
57 1
58 1
59 1
APPROX 36
62
63
63
65
68
71
0
0
0
F).
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
weekend with N2 flowing. Condensate which had accumulated
was carried into and absorbed on the alumina.
51
52
Regenerated with
15
16
6/22793
6/22193
1920
1920
52
53
54 52
57 56
dry N2 for
5fl 53
60 57
50 48
52 51
six hours al
51 48
53 50
48
50
400-
46
50
51 1
53 1
450F
51 1
54 1
.0
0
.0
0
100
100
100
100
1
4
5
7
9
11
11
13
19
In the
97
100
<2
<2
96
94
94
98
100
98
98
100
98
<2
<2
83
88
COMMENTS
Stirling lilt dry and with no 02.
AlUr en* hour on ilrtim.
CompUU oonvtnlon ol H28 It COS.
AA*r 26 mlnutM with 02 lumtd on.
AA*r ont hour ind 20 mlnutM on 1% oxygin.
AH*r two houn on 1% 02, Ihi H2S mmi lo b* clmblng (n It lh« limp.).
H2S continuing lo clmb.
H2S continuing lo clmb.
H2S continuing lo clmb.
H2S continuing lo clmb.
At lo«l«mp«. v»ry IHU rctctionof 02 with H2S.
Shut down iltr 6 houn ol running.
No COS (ormillon
Shut dam tltr 2 houn. No COS obi
-------
International Fuel Cells FCR-13524
APPENDIX G
Site Specific Test Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision No. 2, December 1994
G-l
-------
Site-Specific Test Plan and
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Phase HI Landfill Gas Program
Penrose Landfill
TRC Project No. 02030-0000-00006
APPROVAL:
IFC Program Manager
TRC Project Manager
TRC QA Officer
IFC Project ManaeerZT
IFC QA Officer
EPA Project Officer
EPA QA Officer
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
c3/
G-2
-------
Phase IEQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page ii of 41
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Description of Phase m Activities 2
1.3 Process Description 4
1.3.1 GPU Description 4
1.3.2 Fuel Cell Power Plant Description 6
1.4 Scope of Work 6
1.4.1 Performance Demonstration 6
1.4.2 Emission Measurements 8
1.4.3 Measurement Data Summary 9
1.5 Schedule 9
1.6 Operation of the Fuel Cell 9
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES . 13
2.1 Overall Organization 13
2.2 IFC Organization and Responsibilities 13
2.3 TRC Organization and Responsibilities 13
2.4 Analytical Laboratory and Responsibilities 15
3.0 CALCULATIONS AND DATA QUALITY INDICATOR GOALS 16
3.1 General Description of Test Data and Calculations 16
3.2 Expected Values 17
3.3 Data Quality Indicators 18
3.3.1 Power Plant and Flare Stack Continuous Emission
Measurements 18
3.3.2 GPU Outlet Measurements (EPA TO-14 and EPA Method 16) ... 20
3.3.3 On-Line Raw Landfill Gas Heat Content Analyzer 21
3.3.4 GPU Outlet Heat Content Measurement 22
3.3.5 Power Plant Flowrate (Continuous Hot-Wire Anemometer) 22
3.3.6 Electrical Output 22
G-3
-------
PhasemQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page iii of 41
Table of Contents (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 23
4.1 Sampling Locations 23
4.1.1 Performance Demonstration Test 23
4.1.2 Emissions Testing 23
4.2 GPU Outlet and Raw Landfill Gas Sampling Methods 23
4.3 Power Plant and Flare Stacks Continuous Monitoring Methods 25
4.3.1 Sample Conditioning System 25
4.3.2 NOX Analyzer 25
4.3.3 SOj Analyzer 25
4.3.4 CO Analyzer 27
4.3.5 Oj Analyzer 27
4.3.6 CO2 Analyzer 27
4.4 Flowrate Monitoring 27
4.5 Power Plant Electrical Measurements 27
5.0 SAMPLE CUSTODY 28
5.1 Sample Documentation 28
5.1.1 Sampling Data Forms 28
5.1.2 Sample Identification and Labeling 28
5.2 Chain-of-Custody Forms 30
5.3 Laboratory Custody . 30
6.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES 32
6.1 Manual Sampling Equipment 32
6.2 Power Plant and Flare Continuous Monitoring Methods 32
6.3 In-Situ Flowrate Meters 32
6.4 Electrical Power Measurements/Power Plant Efficiency 32
6.5 On-Line Raw Landfill Gas Heat Content Analyzer 32
7.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 33
7.1 Continuous Emissions Monitoring 33
7.2 Heat Content Analysis of GPU Outlet Samples 33
7.3 GPU Outlet Constituent Analysis 33
7.3.1 Sulfur Compound Analysis 33
7.3.2 Volatile Organic Compound Analysis 33
G-4
-------
Phase HI QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page iv of 41
Table of Contents (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
8.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING 35
8.1 Overall Calculations 35
8.2 Data Validation 35
8.3 Identification and Treatment of Outliers 35
9.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS 37
9.1 Data Collection and Sampling QC Procedures 37
9.2 Analytical Laboratory QC Checks 37
10.0 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM AUDITS 38
10.1 Performance Audits 38
10.2 System Audit 38
11.0 CALCULATION OF DATA QUALITY INDICATORS 39
11.1 Precision 39
11.1.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring 39
11.1.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds - GPU Outlet Samples 39
11.1.3 GPU Outlet - Heat Content Analysis 39
11.1.4 Flowrate 39
11.2 Accuracy 39
11.2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring 39
11.2.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds 40
11.2.3 GPU Outlet - BTU Analysis 40
11.2.4 Flowrate 40
11.3 Completeness 40
12.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION 41
12.1 Emission Measurements 41
12.2 System Performance 41
G-5
-------
Phase HI QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page v of 41
List of Tables, Figures, and Attachments
TABLE PAGE
1-1 Typical Concentrations and Detection Limits of Targeted Compounds
in the Raw Landfill Gas at the Penrose Landfill 7
1-2 Measurement Data Summary 10
3-1 Data Quality Objectives 19
4-1 GPU Outlet and Sampling Matrix 24
FIGURE PAGE
1-1 Demonstrator System Schematic 3
1-2 Gas Pretreatment Unit Schematic 5
1-3 Demonstrator System Interface Conditions 11
2-1 Organization Chart 14
4-1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System Schematic 26
5-1 Data Reduction Form 29
5-2 Chain-of-Custody Form 31
ATTACHMENT
A Weekly Landfill Gas Methane Concentration Data from the Penrose Site • G-4
B Hourly Landfill Gas Heating Value Data from the Penrose Site G'B
C Schedule G'c
D Example Calibration Report of the On-Line Heat Content Analyzer . G-D
E May, September, and October 1993 Penrose Landfill Gas Analysis • G'E
F Electrical Output Meter Calibration Data • G-F
G-6
-------
Distribution
Phase HIQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page vi of 41
Name
Location
No. Copies
Ronald J. Spiegel
AEERL, Research Triangle Park, NC
IFC
John Trocciola
J. Lawrence Preston
Kelvin Hecht
South Windsor, CT
South Windsor, CT
South Windsor, CT
TRC
James Canoia
David Cogley
George Munyer
Windsor, CT
Lowell, MA
Irvine, CA
Performance Analytical
Michael Tuday
Canoga Park, CA
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
XXX
Los Angeles, CA
Pacific Energy
George Donlou
Commerce, CA
G-7
-------
Phase HI QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 1 of 41
1.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) is for the final demonstration phase of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) landfill gas/fuel cell energy recovery program.
The overall program objective is to demonstrate the feasibility of energy recovery from landfill
gas using a commercial phosphoric acid fuel cell. The plan has been prepared for EPA's Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL). This plan is designed to meet the
requirements of an EPA Category n quality assurance plan and a site-specific test plan.
The Phase m program has three objectives:
1) Demonstrate the performance of a landfill gas pretreatment system for up to one
year.
2) Demonstrate the performance of a 200-kilowatt (kW) fuel cell, including fuel cell
efficiency, operated with treated landfill gas for up to one year.
3) Measure air pollutant emissions per quantity of energy produced. Emissions from the
landfill gas cleanup system and the fuel cell power plant will be measured over a 30-
day period.
1.1 Background
The EPA has proposed standards for the control of air emissions from municipal solid
waste landfills. These actions have provided an opportunity for energy recovery from the waste
methane. International Fuel Cells Corporation (IFQ was awarded a contract by the EPA to
demonstrate energy recovery from landfill gas using a commercial phosphoric acid fuel cell. The
IFC contract includes a three-phase program to show that fuel cell energy recovery is
economically and environmentally feasible in commercial operation.
Phase I of the program was a conceptual design and cost analysis evaluation. Phase n
included construction and testing of a landfill gas pretreatment unit (GPU). The objective of
Phase n was to demonstrate the GPU effectiveness in removing fuel cell catalyst poisons such
as sulfur and halide compounds. The Phase n demonstration test was conducted in October 1993
at the Penrose Station in Sun Valley, California, owned by Pacific Energy. The Penrose Station
is an 8.9-megawatt (MW) internal combustion engine facility supplied with landfill gas from four
landfills. The Phase n data indicated that the GPU performance was acceptable.
Phase m of the program will be a complete demonstration of the fuel cell energy
recovery concept at the Penrose Station. The GPU and fuel cell generating system will be
operated and tested to evaluate the economic and environmental features of the concept.
G-8
-------
Phase IEQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 2 of 41
1.2 Description of Phase HI Activities
The test plan defined in this document pertains to Work Plan Subtask 3.3. Prior to the
onset of this task, per Subtask 3.2, a PC25" power plant will be installed at the site and its
performance will be checked using natural gas. This will verify normal power plant operation
prior to preparing the power plant for the landfill gas demonstration. The system will then be
modified to run on landfill gas. It will be connected to the GPU outlet and checked out on
landfill gas to verify proper operation prior to the Phase m demonstration test.
The demonstration system at Penrose Station consists of the existing gas collection
system, the GPU, plus a commercial fuel cell power plant. The GPU removes contaminants
from raw landfill gas and destroys the contaminants in an enclosed flare. The treated gas is
converted to electrical energy with the PC25 power plant, which is a 200 kW unit (140 kW on
landfill gas). A schematic of the demonstration system is presented in Figure 1-1. The landfill
gas at the Penrose facility has an average heat content of 430 BTU/scf. The variation in fuel heat
content is expected to be low as shown by the weekly methane concentration data included in
Attachment A and the hourly heat content included in Attachment B; this data was collected from
the on-line raw landfill heat content analyzer at Penrose Landfill.
The system will be operated for up to one year. System performance measurements will
be conducted periodically over the entire demonstration, and air pollutant emission measurements
will be conducted during a 30-day period during the second month of the demonstration. The
test parameters are outlined below.
System Performance Measurements
• GPU Output Gas Purity - analysis for sulfur and target-list volatile organic
compounds (VOCs including halides)
• Fuel Cell Efficiency, determined from the following measurements:
- GPU Output Gas Heat Content (on-line and manual methods)
- GPU Output Gas Flowrate
- Fuel Cell Electrical Output
• Availability, Maintenance, and Operator Requirements
Emission Measurements (Fuel Cell Exhaust and Flare Exhaust)
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitric Oxides (NOJ
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon Dioxide (COj)
Oxygen
Flowrate
Moisture
G-9
-------
Phase mQAPP
Revision No. 1
October 1994
Page 3 of 41
Figure 1-1
Demonstrator System Schematic
RAW
LFG
©
f "
DEMC
(A2) J EXHAUST (£) /
T
FLARE
/K
GAS
PRE-TREATMENT
UNIT
(GPU)
1
i
i TREATED
\ LFG v
1 @
S EXHAUST
FUEL CELL
POWER PLANT
1
i
i
i
DNSTRATOR SYSTEM
N
©
OUTPUT
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION INTERFACES: (¥).{c)
EMISSION TEST INTERFACES: Ul).
TRC
net
t Wittnldi Crosjmj
Windsor. CT 06095
(203) 289-4631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPAMEERL PHASE III FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 1-1.
DEMONSTRATOR SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
Oat* 6/94
Dnwwig No.02030-05
G-10
-------
Phase mQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 4 of 41
1.3 Process Description
The demonstrator consists of the landfill gas wells and collection system, a modular gas
pretreatment system, and a PC25 natural gas fuel cell power plant modified for landfill gas
operation. Landfill gas collected at the site is processed to remove contaminants in the
pretreatment system. This clean, medium-BTU landfill gas fuels the fuel cell power plant to
produce AC power for sale to the electric utility and cogeneration heat which, for the
demonstration, will be rejected by an air cooling module. All pretreatment and fuel cell process
functions are described in this section.
1.3.1 GPU Description
The demonstration site has a landfill gas collection system in place. The Penrose site will
provide compressed 85 psig gas to the gas pretreatment system. Since collection and
compression result in some condensed water, hydrocarbon, and other contaminants, the existing
site also has a condensate collection and treatment system.
A slipstream of landfill gas from the site will be supplied to the GPU at a pressure of 85
psig and regulated down to 20 psig. (A schematic of the GPU is presented in Figure 1-2.) The
first active bed of the GPU is a carbon adsorber designed to remove hydrogen sulfide. A first-
stage refrigeration condenser (— 33 °F) then removes most of the water contained in the
saturated landfill gas and some of the heavier hydrocarbon and contaminant species in the gas.
The first-stage refrigeration condenser acts as a bulk remover of water and nonmethane organic
compound (NMOQ species. This increases the flexibility of the pretreatment system to handle
very high levels of landfill gas contaminants without need for modification or increasing the size
of the regenerable adsorption beds, thus making the system an all-purpose landfill gas
contaminant removal system.
In the commercial application, the condensate from the first-stage condenser is vaporized
and incinerated to avoid all site liquid effluents. However, to avoid the extra cost and complexity
for the demonstration, this condensate is returned to the existing site condensate treatment
system.
Landfill gas exiting the first-stage refrigeration condenser is then sent to a dryer bed
where the water content of the landfill gas is reduced to a -50°F dew point. This bed is
periodically regenerated every eight hours with heated clean landfill gas (heated by an electric
heater). During regeneration, a second fully regenerated bed takes over the function. The
regeneration gas is subsequently incinerated in a low NO, flare. Following the dryer step, the
landfill gas proceeds to a second-stage low-temperature cooler (-20°F) to enhance the
performance of the downstream activated carbon bed
G-ll
-------
-» LFG
H S
rijO
Removal
•»
Cooler
4
Dryer Bed A:
Water Vapor
Adsorption
4
Low
Temperature
Cooler
4
RoH A
•*
Particulate
Filter
Condenser
Condensate
Drain
Regeneration Gas
(25 SCFM)
Clean
4LFG to
Fuel Cell
To Flare
OFF-LINE BED REGENERATION
Clean Gas Production Process - This process Incorporates H,S removal by the Claus
reaction, refrigerated cooling and condensation, drying, cooling and hydrocarbon adsorption
process units to remove contaminants from the landfill gas.
The H3S removal bed reacts H,S with O, (ound in the landfill gas to produce elemental sulfur.
This bed is non-regenerable and is replaced periodically. The first and second stage
refrigeration coolers operate at approximately +35°F and -20°F. respectively
TRC
!»C EmiiarannloJ Cwponrfun
S Waterside Clotting
Windsor. CT 06095
(203)269-8631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPA/AEERL PHASE III FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 1-2.
GAS PRETREATMENT UNIT SCHEMATIC
Date: 6/94 | Drawing No 02030 05
-------
Phase fflQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 6 of 41
Next, the landfill gas proceeds to the activated carbon bed which adsorbs the remaining
NMOCs including organic sulfur and halogen compounds. This bed is periodically regenerated
every eight hours, with the regeneration gas being burned in a low NOX flare. The flare (an
enclosed type) achieves greater than 98-% destruction of all NMOCs by maintaining the
combusted regeneration gas at a temperature of at least 1600°F for a residence time of at least
one second.
In order to avoid the carryover of attrition products (dust) from the regenerable beds, the
output gas is filtered through a submicron filter.
A clean, dry, particulate-free medium-BTU landfill gas exits the filter for consumption
in the fuel cell. A portion of this gas is extracted to provide regeneration gas. A backup natural
gas supply is used to initially qualify the fuel cell power plant before operation on landfill gas.
1.3.2 Fuel Cell Power Plant Description
Clean landfill gas is converted in the fuel cell power plant to AC power and heat. The
general fuel cell system consists of three major subsystems—fuel processing, DC power
generation in the fuel cell stack, and DC-to-AC power conditioning by the inverter.
The fuel cell converts hydrogen and oxygen in air electrochemically to produce AC
power and heat. The waste heat will be rejected by an air cooling module. The AC power will
be delivered to the utility grid.
1.4 Scope of Work
1.4.1 Performance Demonstration
The performance demonstration test of the landfill gas-to-energy demonstrator system will
be conducted for up to one year. The demonstrator system includes the GPU and the fuel cell
power plant. Measurement specifications and sampling frequency are outlined below.
• GPU Performance—GPU outlet gas constituent concentration measurements will be
conducted twice per week for the first month of the demonstration and biweekly
during the remainder of the demonstration. Integrated samples will be collected and
analyzed off-site by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and gas
chromatography/flame photometric detector (GC/FPD). The target compound list is
contained in Table 1-1.
G-13
-------
Phase fflQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 7 of 41
Table 1-1
Typical Concentrations and Detection Limits
of Targeted Compounds in the
Raw Landfill Gas at the Penrose Landfill
Sulfur Compounds (ppmv)
1. H2S
2. Methyl mercaptan
3. Ethyl mercaptan
4. Dimethyl sulfide
5. Dimethyl disulfide
6. Carbonyl sulfide
7. Carbon disulfide
8. Total sulfur as H2S (ppmv)
Volatile Organic Compounds (ppmv)
1. Dichlorodifluoromethane
2. 1,1-dichloroethane
3. Benzene
4. Chlorobenzene
5. Ethylbenzene
6. Methylene chloride
7. Styrene
8. Trichloroethene
9. Trichlorofluoromethane
10. Toluene
11. Tetrachloroethene
12. Vinyl chloride
13. Xylene isomers
14. cis-l,2-dichloroethene
15. Total halides as Cl
Typical Value in
Untreated Landfill Gas
102.0
3.0
0.5
6.5
< 0.07
0.2
< 0.07
109.0
0.3-0.9
1.2-2.9
1.1-1.7
0.6-1.4
4.5-12.0
4.0-11.0
0.5-1.1
1.3-2.4
0-0.6
28.0-47.0
2.4-4.8
0.1-1.4
5.0-28.0
3.9-5.9
47.0-67.0
Detection Limit
Objective
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.28
0.009
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.086
G-14
-------
Phase HIQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 8 of 41
Since the GPU is primarily a carbon bed system, breakthrough of organic compounds
is most likely to occur at the end of an on-line cycle, so sampling must be conducted
at the end of the cycle to assess performance. Samples will be collected during the
last hour of an eight-hour GPU bed "make" cycle (after seven hours of on-line
operation; before regeneration commences at eight hours).
The target list for GPU performance samples was developed from GC/MS and
GC/FPD measurements conducted during the Phase II GPU performance test. Each
target compound will be included in a multipoint calibration, and additional unknown
compounds detected by GC/MS will be identified by ion matching and quantified by
internal standard. The 10 next largest GC/MS peaks will be included in the nontarget
compounds category. No significant concentrations of nontarget compounds are
expected; however, the ion matching/internal standard method will prevent the
potential of missing the quantification of other halide compounds if the landfill gas
composition unexpectedly changes. If other halide compounds are identified, a
separate qualitative total halide result will be reported.
• Fuel Cell Power Plant Performance—Power plant efficiency, availability, and
maintenance and operator requirements will be demonstrated. The heating value and
flowrate of the fuel and the power plant output (kilowatt-hours) will be measured to
determine efficiency. The efficiency measurements are summarized below.
a) Power output will be measured continuously with a calibrated utility-grade digital
electric meter.
b) Fuel flowrate will be measured continuously with a calibrated process monitor.
c) Heat content of the clean fuel (GPU output) will be determined with ASTM
D3588-91 measurements conducted twice per week during the first month of the
test and biweekly for the remainder of the program. In addition, Pacific Energy
operates a continuous fuel heat content analyzer (gas chromatograph) on the raw
landfill gas which analyzes a sample every four minutes. The project plan is to
use the continuous analyzer weekly averages for efficiency calculations, after a
correction factor is developed from the ratio of the clean fuel ASTM D35 88-91
measurements to the raw gas on-line measurements. Development of a correction
factor will allow the on-line measurements to be used for fuel cell efficiency
calculation over the duration of the performance demonstration.
1.4.2 Emission Measurements
During the second month of the performance demonstration test, a 30-day emissions test
program will be conducted. Emissions will be measured from both the fuel cell power plant
exhaust and the GPU flare, five days per week over the 30-day period. The emission parameters
are outlined below.
G-15
-------
Phase m QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 9 of 41
• Power Plant Emissions—S02, NOX, CO, C02, 02, and exhaust flowrate will be
continuously monitored for 10 hours per day for the 30-day period. Pollutant
measurements will be conducted according to EPA Methods 6C, 7E, 10, and 3A.
Moisture will also be measured daily according to EPA Methods.
• GPU Flare Emissions—SO2, NOX, CO, C02, and O2 will be continuously monitored
for 10 hours per day for the 30-day period. Measurements will be conducted
according to EPA Methods 6C, 7E, 10, and 3A. Exhaust gas flowrate will be
determined with a process monitor flowmeter measurement on the flare inlet gas line
and an excess air correction factor.
1.4.3 Measurement Data Summary
A measurement data summary is provided in Table 1-2. Expected numbers of data points
have been calculated for 5, 13, and 26 weeks. This table assumes that the emission program will
begin during the second month of the performance demonstration. (The number of samples listed
in the table does not include quality assurance samples.)
System performance measurements may be taken for up to 12 months. Nine GPU output
system performance sampling events will have been conducted by the fifth week, 13 sampling
events in the first three months, and 19 within the first six months. Continuous emission
monitors will record levels of SOj, NOX, CO, C02, and O2. These data will be presented as 60-
minute average values in tabular format. Moisture and fuel cell flow rates will be measured once
daily by manual methods. Weekly summaries of information on system availability, maintenance
requirements, and operator requirements will be prepared by Pacific Energy.
1.5 Schedule
The performance demonstration test is scheduled to begin on December 1, 1994. The
emissions testing is scheduled to begin on January 2, 1995. A detailed schedule for performance
and emissions testing is presented in Attachment C.
1.6 Operation of the Fuel Cell
The fuel cell power plant will be started up using the normal automatic control
sequencing. The power level will be set at the design power output associated with landfill gas
(expected to be 140 kW AC net). The design power output is to be maintained for the duration
of the test. Operating parameters are listed on the schematic presented in Figure 1-3.
G-16
-------
Phase KIQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 10 of 41
Table 1-2
Measurement Data Summary
Parameter
Frequency
Expected Data Points
by the End of Week
5
13
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Sulfur compounds and
volatile organic compounds
GPU input gas heat
content (on-line)
GPU output gas heat
content (manual)
GPU output gas flow
Fuel cell electrical output
Availability, maintcninc?
requirements, and operator
requirements
Weekly for 4
weeks, then
biweekly
Weekly average
Weekly for 4
weeks, then
monthly
Weekly total
Weekly total
Weekly
9
5
9
5
5
5
• 13
13
13
13
13
13
26
Comments
19
26
19
26
26
26
2 samples per week for 4 weeks, then
1 sample every 2 weeks. Samples to
be taken during the last hour of the
make cycle.
(Pacific Energy) *
2 samples per week for 4 weeks, then
1 sample every 2 weeks.
(Pacific Energy) *
(Pacific Energy) *
(Pacific Energy) *
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
SO,, NO,. CO, CO,, 0,,
exhaust flowrate (fuel cell)
each measured at the flare
and fuel cell; a total of 10
measuring-point/parameter
combinations
Flare exhaust flowrate
Fuel cell exhaust moisture
Continuous;
presented as
hourly averages
Continuous
Once, daily
10
hours
/day
22 .
days
10
hours
/day
V;^
days
. .- 22:: •"
22 days of data for each parameter
over a 30-day test period; 10 hours
per sampling point per day, 5 days
per week. CEM monitors will be in
use on 2 sampling points per day for a
total of 20 hours plus setup,
calibration, and maintenance.
Determined by flare inlet fuel gas
flowrate plus excess air factor from
flare exit percent O, (based upon
complete combustion)
Web bulb/dry bulb temperature
measurement
* Pacific Energy will provide data.
G-17
-------
FLOW RATE: 370 SCFM
TEMPERATURE: 1600°F
PRESSURE: AMBIENT
COMPOSITION: 6* H/). 6H COp 88H N, » O.
EMISSIONS: 1 7ppmvCO. II.SppmvNMHCl.
69 ppmvNO.
FLOW RATE: 2SSCFM
TEMPERATURE: (MOOT (VARIABLE)
PRESSURE: AMBIENT
COMPOSITION: 44% CH,. 40% COr 15H N,. <1H O,
CONTAMINANTS: 80 ppmv TOTAL S (at H,S)
639 ppmv TOTAL HALIDES (n Cl)
FLOW RATE: 420 SCFM
TEMPERATURE: 120°F
PRESSURE: AMBIENT
COMPOSmON: 11HH,O.11*CO 71HN.7HO,
EMISSIONS: 048 ppmv NO^. 1.1 ppmv CO.
003 ppmv NMHCt (when corrected to 1SH OJ
GAS
PRE-TREATMENT
UNIT
(GPU)
FUEL CELL
POWER PLANT
DEMONSTRATOR SYSTEM
FLOW RATE: 80 SCFM
TEMPERATURE: AMBIENT
PRESSURE: 90PSIO
COMPOSITION: 44H CH, 40% CO- 161% M, 0 S% O,
CONTAMINANTS: 113 ppmv TOTAL S(a«H.S),
60 ppmv TOTAL MALICES (it CJ)
FLOW RATE: Si SCFM
TEMPERATURE: 60°F
PRESSURE: 4-14lnchefOlwaler
COMPOSITION: 44H CH, 40H COr 15 S% N,.
05HO
CONTAMINANTS: < 04 7 ppmv TOTAL S (11KS).
< 032 ppmv TOTAL HALIDES
(at CO
POWER OUTPUT: MO KW AC
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION INTERFACES: (B).(C]
EMISSION TEST INTERFACES: (AT). (A2). (A3)
TRC
IK Em4ra.rn.nkJ Gxporot^r,
S WaloraMa Crottlng
Windsor. CT 06095
(203) 289-6631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPA/AEERL PHASE Ml FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 1-3.
DEMONSTRATOR SYSTEM INTERFACE
CONDITIONS
Data: 6/94
| Drawing No 02030-05
B1-
i*
n
o
a.
o
B
-------
Phase HIQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 12 of 41
The plant will be operated in a grid connected configuration. All phases of the plant
operation are controlled by .a microprocessor control system (MCS). There are eight operating
modes, which are described below.
• De-energized/Ojf Mode—The MCS is off and the power plant can be shipped or
stored. If freezing weather exists, the plant water systems must be drained or
auxiliary power must be supplied.
• Energized/Off Mode—The MCS is on and the thermal management and water
treatment systems are active to prevent electrolyte and water freezing.
• Stan Mode—The thermal management and fuel processing systems are heated, the
fuel processing system starts generating hydrogen, the power section starts generating
DC power, and the power conditioning system starts delivering AC power for
auxiliary power loads. The continuous controls are automatically activated during this
mode.
• Idle Mode—The power plant is running but the power output is zero. All systems and
subsystems are operating and power for the power plant auxiliary loads is supplied
by the fuel cell. During power plant start-up, this mode is automatically entered from
the start mode when the start-up sequence has been completed.
• Load Mode—Customer loads are powered. Operation can be conducted in either of
four configurations: (1) grid connected, (2) grid independent, (3) grid independent
multi-unit load sharing, and (4) grid independent-synchronized with grid. If grid
connect is selected, the output is connected to the utility grid and power is supplied
at a dispatched level. The demonstrator power plant will operate only in the grid
connected mode.
• Hot-Hold Mode—The plant is shut down without cooling the cell stack. This mode
is entered following certain automatic shutdowns and it allows the power plant to be
restarted quickly with a minimum of power and fuel consumption after the cause of
the shutdown has been identified and corrected.
• Cool-Down Mode—The cell stack is actively cooled by the thermal management
system as part of the normal shutdown procedure before the Energized/Off Mode is
reentered.
G-19
-------
Phase mQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 13 of 41
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Overall Organization
IFC will provide project management of the demonstration team consisting of Pacific
Energy, Southern California Gas, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP),
and TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC).
IFC will be ultimately responsible for operating the plant and conducting the
demonstration in accordance with the approved QAPP.
Pacific Energy will provide the landfill gas site, facilities, and landfill gas supply from
their existing operation. Pacific Energy will operate the GPU, and monitor and document the
gas quality and quantity from this system during the demonstration. They will also document the
operating costs associated with the GPU and the utility connection from the fuel cell to the
electric utility grid. Pacific Energy will also operate the fuel cell on landfill gas and monitor the
fuel cell; they will document performance and cost, including kilowatt-hour (kWh) output,
availability, efficiency, and O&M costs.
TRC will conduct emission tests, collect and analyze GPU gas samples to determine
performance, and prepare the emission test report.
The project organization management team is outlined in Figure 2-1. The EPA Project
Officer will be Dr. Ron Spiegel, and the Program Manager will be Mr. John Trocciola of IFC.
Mr. Larry Preston of IFC will be the Project Manager, and the subcontractors including the
TRC technical staff will report to him. The quality assurance officers of both TRC and IFC will
report directly to the Program Manager, allowing them to bypass the technical staff for any
quality-related issues.
2.2 IFC Organization and Responsibilities
IFC will be responsible for the overall program management as well as providing the
GPU and power plant equipment. IFC will also provide a quality assurance officer who will be
responsible for evaluating measurement data independent of the Project Manager and the
technical staff.
2.3 TRC Organization and Responsibilities
TRC will provide all equipment and manpower to conduct emission testing on the power
plant, flare stack, GPU outlet, and the raw landfill gas. TRC will provide an on-site laboratory
trailer for the duration of the 30-day emission test. One technician will be assigned to the site
for the emission test period. The technician will be responsible for daily calibration and
maintenance of the emission monitoring equipment and sampling of the GPU outlet and raw
landfill gas. TRC will also provide a Quality Assurance Officer who will evaluate the
measurement data independent of the TRC Project Manager and technical staff.
G-20
-------
US EPA
PROJECT OFFICER
R. Spiegel. PhD
IFC
QA DIRECTOR
K. Hechl
IFC
PROGRAM MANAGER
J. Trocclola
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.
QA DIRECTOR
I
IFC
PROJECT MANAGER
J. Preston
9
K)
I
PACIFIC ENERGY
• LFG Site Owner ft Operator
• GPU Operator
• Install. Operate and
Maintain PC25
LOS ANGELES DEPT.
OF WATER AND POWER
• Provide metering
• Purchase power
ONSI ,S
CORPORATION
PC2S Fuel CeH
IFC
ENGINEERING
PC25FuelCel
Modifications
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY
Consultant
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
CORPORATION
EMISSION TESTING
Project Manager
J. Canora
5 Waterside Crosilng
Windsor. CT 06095
(203) 289-8631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPA/AEERL PHASE III FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 2-1.
ORGANIZATION CHART
Date 6/94
| Diawing No 02030 05
-------
Phase in QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 15 of 41
2.4 Analytical Laboratory and Responsibilities
Laboratory analysis will be conducted by Performance Analytical, Inc. (PAI) of Canoga
Park, California. PAI will conduct EPA Method TO-14 analysis for target VOCs (including
organic halides), EPA Method 16 analysis for reduced sulfur compounds, and ASTM Method
D3588-91 for heat content analysis of landfill gas samples. Analyses will be conducted under
the supervision of the laboratory director, Mr. Michael Tuday.
G-22
-------
Phase HIQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 16 of 41
3.0 CALCULATIONS AND DATA QUALITY INDICATOR GOALS
This section includes a general description of the data and calculations involved with the
performance demonstration and the emission tests, followed by a discussion of the expected
results, and then a discussion of data quality indicators (DQIs) and DQI goals.
3.1 General Description of Test Data and Calculations
The performance test includes a fuel cell efficiency evaluation and a GPU performance
evaluation. The calculations involved with these objectives are outlined below.
• Fuel cell efficiency will be calculated on a weekly basis using the following test data
and calculation:
Measurement Unit Measurement Type
Fuel cell energy output kWh Utility-grade electric meter
Fuel heat content BTU/scf Raw landfill gas on-line gas chroma-
tograph and empirical correction
factor developed for cleaned gas
Fuel use scf In-line totalizing flowmeter
Efficiency = Energy output fkWh) x 3413 BTU/kWh
Fuel use (scf) X heat content (BTU/scf) (Eq. 1)
• Fuel cell availability will be calculated weekly and tracked on a cumulative basis. The
fuel cell availability will be adjusted to compensate for factors which are not caused
by the power plant, as follows:
Raw availability (OPERATING TIME divided by elapsed clock time since first
start) is adjusted to account for
- unforced outages not due to power plant
- shutdowns due to operator error
- waiting time for replacement parts where parts were recommended the
customer have on hand
- periods of time when power plant could be worked but manpower not
available (weekends, vacations)
Adjusted availability = OPERATING HOURS
[(elapsed clock time) - adjustment]
G-23
-------
Phase El Q APP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 17 of 41
• GPU performance will be calculated on the basis of two measurements per week
during the first four weeks of the program and a biweekly measurement thereafter.
The performance limit is 3.0 ppmv of total sulfur and 3.0 ppmv of total halides.
Total sulfur and total halides will be calculated as follows:
- Total sulfur to be computed by summing the products of each sulfur species times
number of sulfur atoms per mole. Results will be plotted vs. operating hours.
- Total halides to be computed by summing the products of each halide species
times the number of halide atoms per mole of species (e.g., CQi = 4). Results
will be plotted vs. operating hours.
• Flare and power plant emissions. Concentration and flowrate measurements will be
used to calculate a mass emission rate of NOX, SO2, CO, and CO2 from the flare
stack and the power plant. Emissions from each source will be summed and
converted to mass emissions per energy output as follows:
Emissions (Ib/kWh)
Mass Emission Rate flb/hr)
140 kWh
(Eq.2)
3.2 Expected Values
The expected values are outlined below.
(1) Emissions
NO,
SO,
CO
COs
Mass Emission Rate
Flare
0.025
0.007
0!005
201
Fuel cell
+ o.'ooi
+ 0.000
+ 0.002
+ 333
(Ib/hr)
Total
Emissions
(Ib/kWh)
= 0.026 = 1.86 x 10^
= 0.007 = 5.00 x lO'5
= 0.007 = 5.00 X 10-5
= 534 = 3.81
(2) Total kWh = (140 kW) (demonstration hours) (availability)
(3) Availability = 80%
(4) Efficiency (fuel cell) = 38% LHV
G-24
-------
Phase IHQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 18 of 41
(5) Operation and maintenance: DFC will document O&M costs, and then use to
adjust the existing PC25A fuel cell O&M database for natural gas to project
O&M costs for landfill gas.
(6) Heating value GPU exit = 430 BTU/scf
(7) Total GPU scf to fuel cell = (55 scfm) (demonstration hours) (availability)
(8) GPU contaminants: total sulfur as H2S < 3 ppmv
total halides as HC1 < 3 ppmv
3.3 Data Quality Indicators
The DQIs are defined in this section for continuous emission measurements, integrated
sampling emission measurements, and process monitoring measurements. The DQIs established
in the "AEERL Quality Assurance Procedures Manual"—precision, bias or accuracy, and
completeness—are discussed below when applicable. In addition, DQI goals for precision,
accuracy, and completeness are summarized in Table 3-1 for each type of measurement.
3.3.1 Power Plant and Flare Stack Continuous Emission Measurements
Continuous emissions monitoring for NO,, SO2, CO, and CO2 will be conducted 10 hours
per day over a 30-day period on the flare stack and the fuel cell exhaust. Measurements will be
conducted using 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Methods 7E (NOJ, 6C (SOj), 10 (CO), and 3A
(COj) and 40 CFR 60, Appendix B and Appendix F quality assurance specifications. DQIs for
these measurements include precision and bias/accuracy. Definitions of these statistical terms and
DQI goals are discussed below.
Precision will be quantified on a daily basis by conducting calibration drift tests (zero
and span) according to 40 CFR 60 Appendix F - Quality Assurance Procedures. The amount
of drift, calculated as a percentage of the analyzer range for the pollutant analyzers over each
24-hour period, will be used as the precision DQI. This method of quantifying precision is
atypical of standard statistics, which generally use the standard deviation of repeated
measurements to define precision; however, the use of calibration drift to define precision for
continuous emission monitors is a long-established EPA convention. In effect, calibration drift
is a repeat measurement of a reference material at the beginning and end of a monitoring period.
The program goals for the precision DQI were developed from 40 CFR 60, Appendix
B and Appendix F specifications. For the flare stack measurements, the calibration drift goal for
NOX and SO2 shall be 2 x the Appendix B specification, or 5 %. On the power plant exhaust, the
NOX drift goal shall be increased to 4x the specification, or 10%. This higher drift goal is
necessary because of the low-concentration NOX emissions and the low analyzer range that will
be used. For the CO measurements on both stacks, the DQI precision goal will be 10%, which
is 2x the Appendix B specification. The CO2 measurement DQI goal shall be equal to the
Appendix B specification, which is ± 0.5% of C02.
G-25
-------
Phase fflQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 19 of 41
Table 3-1
Data Quality Indicator Goals
EPA/AEERL Landfill Gas/
Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
Parameter
Method
Operating
Range
Precision
Goal
Bias
(Accuracy)
Goal
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Sulfur compounds
Volatile organic compounds
(including halides)
GPU input gas heat content
GPU output gat heat content
GPU output gas flowrate
Fuel cell electrical output
EPA 16 & 18
EPATO-14
on-line analyzer
ASTM D3588-91
Process monitor
kWh meter
(a)
(a)
N/A
(a)
N/A
N/A
5%
15%
2%
2%
N/A
N/A
15%
15%
2%
2%
4%
2%
Completeness
Goal
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
SO2
NO, (flare)
NO, (fuel cell)
CO
CO,
o,
Flownte (flare)
Flowrate (fuel cell)
Moisture
EPA-6C
EPA-7E
EPA-7E
EPA-10
EPA-3A
EPA-3A
process monitor
continuous monitor
EPA-4
0-100 ppm
0-100ppm
0-2.5 ppm
0-100 ppm
0-25%
0-25%
N/A
N/A
N/A
5%
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
2%
N/A
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
N/A
15%
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(a) See Table 1-1 for detection limit objectives on sulfur compounds, volatile organic compounds, and heat content.
G-26
-------
Phase m QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 20 of 41
Bias or Accuracy for continuous analyzers will be quantified with cylinder gas audits
conducted according to 40 CFR 60, Appendix F. Each analyzer will be challenged with two
levels of calibration gas on each operation range. The accuracy DQI goal for all continuous
analyzers will be ± 15%, which is the accuracy specification in 40 CFR 60, Appendix F.
Completeness will be 100%, which means that data will be collected within the specified
quality assurance (QA) limits for at least 22 testing days of the 30-day emission test period
(weekend measurements will not be conducted). Additional monitoring days will be added to the
program if required to provide at least 22 days of data within QA specifications.
3.3.2 GPU Outlet Measurements fEPA TO-14 and EPA Method 16)
These measurements will consist of Tedlar bags filled from the pressurized GPU outlet
sampling valve. The bag samples will be delivered immediately after sampling to a local
laboratory and analyzed for VOCs and reduced sulfur compounds. DQIs will include blanks and
audits and two series of triplicate samples to determine precision. The DQIs and DQI goals are
discussed below.
Precision will be determined by collecting and analyzing replicate samples at the
beginning of the program. Since the concentration of volatile organics and sulfur compounds will
likely be near or below the method detection limits, triplicate Tedlar bag samples of an audit gas
will be also be submitted and analyzed. The following samples will be collected to quantify
precision:
• Analyze three samples collected concurrently and calculate relative standard deviation
of three compounds if three compounds are detected.
• Analyze three samples of Level 1 audit gas and calculate relative standard deviation
of three compounds.
• Laboratory duplicates will be analyzed weekly and the relative percent difference will
be calculated for three compounds on the Method TO-14 analysis and three
compounds on the Method 16 analysis.
Accuracy/Bias will be determined by analysis of two audit gases for both TO-14 and
Method 16 measurements. The TO-14 audit samples will contain three halogenated VOCs and
the Method 16 audits will contain three reduced sulfur compounds. Accuracy will be quantified
as follows:
Accuracy = C, - C. x 100
C.
Cm = measured concentration
C. = certified concentration
Completeness will be 100% for the TO-14 and EPA Method 16 measurements.
G-27
-------
Phase m QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 21 of 41
3.3.3 On-Line Pflw T^p^fill Gas Heat Content Analyzer
This analyzer is operated by Pacific Energy. A daily calibration is performed with a
certified gas standard containing carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, and methane, and the drift
from the certified concentrations of each compound is automatically recorded. An example of
the calibration report is presented in Attachment D.
Special consideration for representativeness is also discussed below for the heat content
measurements.
Representativeness. The project plan is to use the analyzer data for fuel cell efficiency
calculation. Since the analyzer measures the heat content of raw landfill gas, and heat content
of the treated gas is required to calculate efficiency, a correlation factor relating the treated gas
heat content to the raw gas heat content will be developed from simultaneous measurements.
These simultaneous correlation factor development measurements will be conducted twice per
week during the first month of the performance demonstration and biweekly thereafter.
The representativeness of using the raw gas analyzer and the correlation factor to
determine treated gas heat content is dependent on the variation of the raw gas heat content; if
the variation is low, the measurement representativeness will be good.
Selection of this measurement method was based on existing NMOC concentration data,
which shows minimal variation of heat content. This data was obtained in May, September, and
October of 1993 and is included in Attachment E. In summary, the variation of the raw gas heat
content is expected to be minimal, so that empirical factors correlating raw gas heat content to
treated gas heat content will be representative.
Precision will be measured with the daily calibration, and the deviation from the certified
gas concentration will be automatically recorded for each compound. The DQI precision goal
will be 1 % drift for each specific compound.
Accuracy/Bias will be determined by comparison of the raw landfill analyzer data to a
heat content measurement conducted according to ASTM D3588-91. Four samples of raw
landfill gas will be collected at 15-minute intervals over a one-hour period correlating to a one-
hour averaging period on the continuous analyzer. The average heat content of the four samples
will be compared to the continuous analyzer to determine accuracy. The accuracy goal for the
measurement is ± 1%.
Completeness will be 100%, meaning that beyond time spent for normal maintenance and
calibration, the continuous analyzer will be operational.
G-28
-------
Phase m QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 22 of 41
3.3.4 GPU Outlet Heat Content Measurement
The heat content of the GPU outlet gas will be measured with integrated samples
collected according to ASTM D3588-91. The DQI goals are as follows:
Precision will be determined by analysis of one series of triplicate samples collected
simultaneously. Precision will be calculated as the relative standard deviation, and the goal is
2%.
Accuracy/Bias will be quantified by the analysis of a single certified heat content gas
standard. The DQI goal for accuracy is also 296:
Completeness will be 100% for these heat content measurements.
3.3.5 Power Plant Flowrate (Continuous Hot-Wire Anemometer')
A calibrated hot-wire anemometer will be used to measure flowrate continuously. The
expected precision is 1 % based on the manufacturer's specifications. Accuracy will be quantified
by comparison to triplicate EPA Methods 1 and 2 measurements. The accuracy determination
will be conducted at the beginning of the 30-day emissions program.
3.3.6 Electrical Output
Electrical output will be measured by a kWh billing meter, which will be calibrated
according to the American National Standard Code for Electricity Metering (ANSI C12). The
expected accuracy and precision is 2%. Completeness of the power output measurement will be
100%.
The billing meter will be calibrated by LADWP prior to installation. The results of the
meter calibration for the existing meters at the Penrose Station are included in Attachment F.
G-29
-------
Phase HI QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 23 of 41
4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES
4.1 Sampling Locations
The sampling locations for the power plant, the flare stack, the GPU outlet, and the raw
landfill gas are indicated on the schematic presented in Figure 1-1. The GPU outlet and raw
landfill gas sampling locations are in one-inch pipes. The flare stack is a 32-inch-diameter
refractory lined stack with two sampling ports located 90° apart, one diameter upstream from
the outlet and approximately three diameters downstream of the nearest flow disturbance. The
power plant stack is a six-inch-diameter stack with two ports located 90° apart.
4.1.1 Performance Demonstration Test
Samples will be collected from the GPU outlet (location B) to verify GPU performance.
The sampling location is under 24 psig pressure. The sampling port consists of a gate valve with
a 14-inch tube Swagelok-type connector.
Electrical output (location C) will be acquired from the LADWP kWh electric meter.
Fuel flowrate will be measured with a process flowrate monitor located at the GPU outlet. A
treated fuel heat content sample will also be collected from the clean fuel line at the GPU outlet
using a valve connected to a Swagelok fitting.
4.1.2 Emissions Testing
Data will be acquired from the fuel cell power plant exhaust (Emission Point Al) and the
GPU flare exhaust (Emission Point A2) to establish the emissions characteristic of the
demonstrator system.
4.2 GPU Outlet and Raw Landfill Gas Sampling Methods
The test matrix is presented in Table 4-1. Tedlar bag samples will be collected twice per
week from the GPU outlet during the first month of the demonstration. The bags will be
analyzed for volatile organic compounds (including halides) and sulfur compounds according to
EPA Method TO-14 and Method 16. After the first month of operation, the volatile-
organic/sulfur compound sampling at the GPU outlet will be reduced to biweekly for the
remainder of the program. The Tedlar bags will be collected as grab samples over approximately
five-minute periods using a stainless steel valve to regulate the flowrate (sampling location is
under positive pressure so that no sampling pumps will be required). Heat content samples of
treated landfill gas will be collected in steel canisters by purging the canisters with at least 12
volumes of sample gas.
G-30
-------
Phase m QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 24 of 41
Table 4-1
GPU Outlet Sampling Matrix
Month
1
2
Week
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Number of Samples Collected
GPU Outlet
(TO-14/EPA 16)
2
2
2
2
1
1
GPU Outlet
Heat Content
(ASTM D3588-91)
2
2
2
2
1
1
Notes:
1. Month 2 sampling matrix will be continued for the duration of the demonstration.
2. GPU outlet heat content measurements will be conducted to correlate the on-line heat
content analyzer data obtained by Pacific Energy on the raw landfill gas with the heat
content of the clean GPU exit gas to the fuel cell. The corrected raw landfill gas analyzer
data will then be used for fuel cell efficiency calculations.
G-31
-------
Phase in QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 25 of 41
4.3 Power Plant and Flare Stacks Continuous Monitoring Methods
EPA Methods 7E, 6C, 10, and 3A will be used to measure flare exhaust and power plant
exhaust emissions of NO,, S02, CO, C02, and O2. Monitoring will be conducted 10 hours per
day on each stack for the 30-day period. The monitors will be calibrated daily with EPA
Protocol 1 gases and the drift performance specifications will be twice the 40 CFR 60,
Appendix B specification. A schematic of the measurement system is presented in Figure 4-1.
All continuous emission monitoring (CEM) data will be recorded in five-minute intervals
by a Yokogawa Model 2300 stripchart/data logger or equivalent. The CEM system will be
housed in TRC's equipment trailer located within 100 feet of the sampling locations.
Calibration gas will enter the system at the probe outlet. This method of inputting
calibration gas will challenge the entire system outside of the stack including heated sample line,
out-of-stack filters, and moisture condenser.
4.3.1 Sample Conditioning^System
An in-stack Alundum thimble filter with a stainless steel nozzle facing away from the
stack gas flow will serve to remove any particulate matter from the sample gas stream. The
thimble filter will be mounted on the end of a stainless steel sampling probe. The sample will
be drawn through 100 feet of heated (325 °F ± 25 °F) Teflon sample line through a condenser
system to remove the moisture from the gas stream. The sample will be drawn through the
tubing by a leak-free Teflon double-diaphragm pump to a stainless steel sample manifold with
an atmospheric bypass rotameter. The analyzers will then draw their samples from the manifold.
4.3.2 NO. Analyzer
A Thermo-Electron Corporation Model 10A chemiluminescent NO/NOX analyzer will be
used to determine NOX concentrations. The chemiluminescent reaction of NO and O3 (ozone)
provides the basis for the analytical method (NO + Oj -+ NO2 + O2 + light). A
photomultiplier-electrometer-amplifier produces a current proportional to the NO concentration.
The output of the amplifier provides a signal for direct readout on a meter indicator, or for
outputs to a recorder or computer.
4.3.3 SO7 Analyzer
A Western Research Model 721 SC^ analyzer will be used to determine SO^
concentrations in the stack gas. This instrument utilizes the ultraviolet photometric principle, and
was designed to meet the stringent California Air Resources Board (GARB) requirements to
ensure maximum accuracy and reliability, without NOx interference, in the 0-1000 ppm and
0-100 ppm ranges.
G-32
-------
TEFLON
STACK
WALL
NOZZLE
O
BY-PASS TO
ATOMSPHERE
O
BW«t»rlld»C(OillnB
Wlndioi. CT 06095
(203) 289*631
FIGURE 4-
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
-------
Phase ffl QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 27 of 41
4.3.4 CO Analyzer
A TECO Model 48 nondispersive infrared gas analyzer will measure CO concentrations.
The analyzer contains an infrared detector that uses the signal nondispersive beam technique with
alternate modulations of the sample and reference cells. Radiation absorbed by CO in the sample
cell results in a capacitance change in the detector which is proportional to the CO concentration.
4.3.5 Qi Analyzer
A Horiba Model PMA-200 O2 analyzer will be used to determine the concentration of
O2 in the stack gas. This instrument uses the paramagnetic principle, whereby the magnetic
susceptibility of the gas volume is measured by the force acting on a nonmagnetic test body
suspended in a magnetic field. The force is converted to an output current proportional to the
O2 concentration.
4.3.6 CO? Analyzer
An Infra-Red Industries, Inc., infrared CO2 analyzer will be used to monitor C02
emissions. This instrument operates on the principle of CO2 having a known characteristic
absorption spectra in the infrared range. Radiation absorbed by CO2 in the sample cell produces
a capacitance change in the detector which is proportional to the CO2 concentration.
4.4 Flowrate Monitoring
Flowrate will be continuously monitored in the power plant exhaust stack using a
calibrated hot-wire anemometer according to EPA Method 2D. The accuracy of this
measurement will be determined by comparison to the triplicate EPA Method 1 and 2
measurements. The flare exhaust flowrate will be calculated from measured inlet gas flowrate
and an excess air factor developed from the diluent measurements. The flare inlet gas flow is
measured with an in-line process monitor which sends a signal to the control room chart
recorder. The GPU outlet flowrate is also monitored with an in-line process monitor.
4.5 Power Plant Electrical Measurements
The power plant output is continuously monitored with a utility-grade kWh electric meter.
The meter is a digital-display-type meter (Model PMG 30018-15) calibrated according to ANSI
C12. Additional information is presented in Attachment F.
G-34
-------
Phase m QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 28 of 41
5.0 SAMPLE CUSTODY
The purpose of sample custody procedures is to document the identity of the sample and
its handling from its first existence as a sample until analysis and data reduction are completed.
Custody records trace a sample from its collection through all transfers of custody until it is
transferred to the analytical laboratory. Internal laboratory records then document the custody
of the sample through its final disposition.
In accordance with SW-846, a sample is considered to be under a person's custody if the
sample is:
• In that person's possession.
• In view of that person after acquiring possession.
• Secured by that person so that no one can tamper with the sample.
• Secured by that person in an area which is restricted to authorized personnel.
These criteria will be used to define the meaning of "custody" and ensure the integrity
of the samples from collection to data reporting.
5.1 Sample Documentation
Documentation of all samples and data collected during this program will be performed
using TRC data forms (both hard copy as well as computer) and bound laboratory notebooks.
5.1.1 Sampling Data Forms
Emission data from the power plant and flare exhaust will be recorded with a digital data
logger which provides a stripchart-type trend as well as periodic averages. The data will be
reduced on a daily basis according to EPA methods using a personal computer and Lotus 1-2-3.
A data reduction form similar to one presented in Figure 5-1 will be prepared daily. All
additional field data and observations will be recorded in bound laboratory notebooks.
5.1.2 Sample Identification and Labeling
The samples will be identified with the following information:
Sample location (GPU outlet or raw landfill gas)
Date and time of collection
Required analytical parameters
Sampler name
Project name and number
This information will be entered on to a TRC label and placed on the Tedlar bag sample.
The information will also be recorded in a bound laboratory notebook.
G-35
-------
Phase m QAPP
Revision No. 1
October 1994
Page 29 of 41
Figure 5-1
Data Reduction Form
CO
02
C02
NOx
SO2
THC
CO
NOx
TRC Environmental Corporation
CEM Data Sheet
Finn
Location
Tester
Test No.
Sample Loc
Date
TIME
Zero
Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Zero
Upscale ,
(Rack)
Analyzer
Cat,
Response
Cal. Back
Anatyzer
Response
Zero i
Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Ambient Temp, deg. F = CO
MEL Temp, deg. F = 02
Bar. Pressure, In Hg = C02
Vacuum Gauge = NOx
Pressure Gauge = S02
TH<3
Bridal Values
System
Cat
Response
LIMI To
System
Cat. Bias
% of Span
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+f " O 7*
Final Values
System
Cal.
Response
Cat
Upstream
Analyzer Bias Check
Response % of Span CO
LIMIT
0
0
0
0
+/-5%
02
C02
NOx
S02
THC
System
Cal. Bias
% of Span
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
out
* ofSoan
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calibration Gases
Mid
Cal
Hign
Cal
Tank ID
Mid Hlgrt
Analyzer
Range
.••• &
Units
ppm
250
PERCENT
25
PERCENT
20
ppm
250
ppm
250
ppm
100
ft* O% «
ZERC"
Cat Gas
Analyzer
Response
LIMIT
Analyzer
Cailb.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MID
Cal. Gas
Analyzer
Response
+/- 2% |
Avg.
Gas
Cone
-
•
-
-
-
-
Effluent
Gas
Cone.
-
ERR
•
ERR
-
ERR
-
ERR
-
ERR
-
ERR
Analyzer
CaUb.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HIGH
Cal. Gas
Analyzer
Response
+/- 2% •
W^^^ta^^^^
Analyzer
Cailb.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
W-2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 8C. •ubpart 4.1
G-36
-------
Phase IHQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 30 of 41
5.2 Chain-of-Custodv Forms
Custody of the samples will be documented using a chain-of-custody form (Figure 5-2).
The chain-of-custody form will completed providing sample identification, required analyses,
sample container descriptions, project identification. Prior to sample shipment, the TRC sampler
will relinquish custody of the samples by signing and dating the chain-of-custody form in the
"Relinquished by" box. The TRC sampler will require the laboratory to complete the "Received
by" box if the samples are to be hand delivered by TRC. If the samples are to be shipped by
common earner, TRC will relinquish the samples to the carrier airbill by entering the airbill in
the "Received by" box. Following completion of the chain-of-custody form, TRC will retain the
bottom copy and send the remaining copies along with the samples.
5.3 Laboratory Custody
Samples arriving at the laboratory will be compared against the chain of custody prior
to the laboratory acknowledging sample receipt by signing the chain-of-custody forms. The
laboratory will then continue the chain of custody by entering the samples into die laboratory
information system (LIMS). This is done by assigning an internal project number and individual
sample identifications. The samples will be stored in a controlled access area until analysis.
Sample transfers between the storage area and the analytical area of the laboratory are
documented through internal chain of custody generated by the LIMS.
G-37
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
CONTRACT NO:
SAMPLE RS(Siimluiit)
SimpU
Codt
Oil!
Rilinquiihtd by:
Rtlinquhhtd ky:
Rtlinquhhid by:
N« 0862
Sour
Oili/Timi
I
OaU/Tlmi
Conuinn
SiK Off
Rictivid by:
Rtctivid by:
Rictivtd by:
Rilinquhhid by:
Rilinqulihid by:
REMARKS:
I
Oitt/Timt
I
Rtciind by:
Rtctivtd by:
TRC
TRC Environmental Corporation
Ul
4
I
S1
a
53
O
-------
Phase IEQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 32 of 41
6.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
6.1 Manual Sampling Equipment
The TRC quality assurance program for source testing is designed to ensure that emission
measurement work is performed by qualified people using proper equipment and following
written procedures in order to provide accurate, defensible data. The program is based upon the
EPA Qualify Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume HE
(EPA-600/4-77-0276).
Sampling and measurement equipment, including continuous analyzers, recorders, pitot
tubes, dry-gas meters, orifice meters, thermocouples, probes, nozzles, and any other pertinent
apparatus, is uniquely identified, undergoes preventive maintenance, and is calibrated before and
after each field effort, following written procedures and acceptance criteria. Most calibrations
are performed with standards traceable to the National Institute for Science and Technology
(NIST). These standards include wet test meters, standard pitot tubes, and NIST Standard
Reference Materials. Records of all calibration data are maintained in TRC files.
6.2 Power Plant and Flare Continuous Monitoring Methods
The continuous measurements will be calibrated daily for zero and span drift according
to EPA Methods 6C, 7E, 10, and 3A. EPA Protocol 1 gases will be used. Calibration gas will
be introduced to the system at the probe outlet using a three-way tee. An excess flow of
calibration gas will be metered to the tee with the excess flowing into the stack through the
probe. On a weekly basis, a calibration bias test will be conducted by first conducting a zero and
span calibration, followed by a complete system calibration (the system calibration is conducted
with calibration gas delivered to the probe outlet as described above).
6.3 In-Situ Flowrate Meters
Calibration of the meters installed on the flare inlet and the GPU outlet were performed
by the manufacturer. Documentation of the calibrations will be provided with the final test
report.
6.4 Electrical Power Measurements/Power Plant Efficiency
Calibration documentation will be provided by LADWP for inclusion in the final report.
See Attachment A for a sample calibration form.
6.5 On-Line Raw Landfill Gas Heat Content Analyzer
This analyzer is automatically calibrated daily using a certified gas. The calibration gas
contains carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, and methane. The data system records the response
factor of each compound, compares it to the certified reference, and reports a deviation. An
example of a calibration report is included in Attachment D.
G-39
-------
Phase mQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 33 of 41
7.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
7.1 Continuous Emissions Monitoring
See Section 4.3.
7.2 Heat Content Analysis of GPU Outlet Samples
The heat content (BTU/scf) of the GPU outlet samples will be determined according to
ASTM Method D3588-91. This method covers procedures for calculating heat content from
compositional analyses of the samples. Compositional analysis of the samples will be conducted
using a gas chromatograph equipped with a thermal conductivity detector to measure the
concentrations of nitrogen, oxygen, methane, and carbon dioxide, and a gas chromatograph
equipped with a flame ionization detector to measure the concentrations of Cl through C6
hydrocarbons. For each gas chromatograph method, an initial calibration curve with a minimum
of three points is. analyzed using calibration gas standards containing the analytes of concern.
The calibration curve will span the expected concentration of the samples. The initial calibration
is verified at least once at the beginning of each 24-hour period with the analysis of a mid-level
Continuing Calibration standard. The percent difference of the continuing calibration response
factors shall be within ±15% from the initial calibration mean response factor. One field
sample per analytical sequence will be analyzed in duplicate to demonstrate the precision of the
analytical technique on the sample matrix. The heat content of the samples is then calculated
using the equations presented in ASTM Method D3588-91 from the measured chemical
composition.
7.3 GPU Outlet Constituent Analysis
7.3.1 Sulfur Compound Analysis
Tedlar bag samples will be analyzed for seven sulfur compounds and total reduced sulfur
as hydrogen sulfide utilizing a GC/FPD according to the procedures outlined in EPA Method
16. An initial calibration curve with a minimum of three points is analyzed using calibration gas
standards containing the analytes of concern. The calibration curve will span the expected
concentration of the samples. The initial calibration is verified at least once at the beginning of
each 24-hour period with the analysis of a mid-level Continuing Calibration standard. The
percent difference of the continuing calibration response factors shall be within ± 15 % from the
initial calibration mean response factor. One field sample per analytical sequence will be
analyzed in duplicate to demonstrate the precision of the analytical technique on the sample
matrix.
7.3.2 Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The Tedlar bag samples will also be analyzed by GC/MS for VOCs and specified
tentatively identified compounds. The analyses will be performed according to the methodology
outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic
G-40
-------
Phase IEQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 34 of 41
Organic Compounds in Ambient Air (EPA 600/4-84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April 1984 and May 1988). The method will
be modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses will be performed by GC/MS utilizing a direct
cryogenic trapping technique.
Verification of the mass calibration of the GC/MS is checked at the beginning of every
24-hour analytical sequence by the direct injection of 50 nanograms (ng) of bromofluorobenzene.
The calibration range of the target compounds is determined by the three-point curve. Linearity
is established over the range of the three-point curve if the percent relative standard deviation
of the response factors is less than 30% for each analyte. A continuing calibration is considered
to establish the same conditions of linearity and range as the initial calibration if the response
factor for each analyte is within 20% of the average response factor of the initial calibration. A
continuing calibration is performed at the beginning of each 24-hour period. A blank is analyzed
following calibration as a sample to demonstrate that the analytical system is free from.
contamination.
Internal standards and surrogates are introduced into the sample stream to monitor the
method efficiency. If the internal standard area changes by a factor of two (-50% to +200%)
and/or surrogate recoveries are less than 80% or greater than 120%, the internal standard/
surrogate gas standard is reevaluated by analyzing a lab blank. If the internal standard areas in
the blank are within a factor of two of the quantitation standard and surrogate recoveries are
within 80%-120%, then the sample analyses may be continued. The earlier low recoveries may
be attributed to a matrix effect. The sample must be reanalyzed to verify that a matrix effect was
the cause and not some intermittent problem. If the areas and recoveries remain poor in the lab
blank, then corrective action must e taken. This may include leak checking the system and/or
the preparation of a fresh internal standard surrogate mix.
A minimum of one duplicate is analyzed per analytical sequence.
G-41
-------
Phase HI QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 35 of 41
8.0 DATA REDUCTION. VALIDATION. AND REPORTING
8.1 Overall Calculations
• POLLUTANT MASS EMISSION RATE (SO2, NOX, and CO)
Concentration (ppmvd) x flowrate (dscfm) x 60 x k = pounds/hr
k (SOj) = 1.660 x 10-7
k(NOO = 1.194 x lO'7
k (CO) = 7.263 x 10-8
• FDEL rFT-i. EFFICIENCY (reference Figure 1-1 for measurement locations)
Efficiency (%) = fkwh at TCT) (3413 BTU/kwh) X 100
(scf at [B]) (BTU/scf)
where: scf = measured GPU exit gas by totalizer at [B], based on flow,
temperature, pressure.
BTU/scf = weekly average of 168 hourly readings at [A3] adjusted by
periodic exit samples taken weekly for first 4 weeks, and
monthly thereafter at [B], tested by ASTM D3588-91.
Adjustment to be made by comparing ASTM D3588-91
samples to hourly inlet sample value taken at same time.
8.2 Data Validation
Each 24-hour period of continuous emission data will be reduced on a separate Lotus file.
Transfer of all data logger averages and calibration data to the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet will be
performed manually each day. Copies of the raw data logger charts and the spreadsheet printout
will be mailed on a weekly basis to TRC's Windsor, Connecticut, office where an independent
QA check of the data will be conducted.
Laboratory data will be submitted to TRC for a QA evaluation. A QA specialist will
examine the data, check the precision and accuracy of the results (duplicate analyses and audits),
and report the findings to the TRC Project Manager.
8.3 Identification and Treatment of Outliers
Continuously monitored parameters are not expected to change significantly throughout
the program. Responses for CEM monitors and Pacific Energy process monitors will be
evaluated daily for the first week of the emissions testing. "Control limits" will be established
for CEM monitors and Pacific Energy process monitors at the end of the first week of the
G-42
-------
Phase DIQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 36 of 41
emissions testing. They will be updated weekly. Any deviations outside these limits will be
assessed to determine if: trends are developing, process aberrations are occurring, and/or
monitoring instruments are malfunctioning. These assessments will be performed by the
designated Pacific Energy representative, and the TRC field team leader. Results will be
summarized and reported to the IFC Program Manager each week.
Similarly, the analytical values for halide and sulfur compounds concentrations of the
GPU outlet gas will be evaluated weekly for the first week and biweekly thereafter to determine
the GPU effectiveness. Again, control limits will be established for halide and sulfur compounds
upon receipt of analytical data. The control limits will be based on IFC's knowledge of
concentrations significantly higher than expected for the GPU unit or concentrations that could
produce significant catalyst poisoning. TRC will coordinate with the analytical laboratory to
review quality control data and to generally assess validity of the analytical data. IFC and Pacific
Energy will assess GPU performance. Due to the constraints on analytical laboratory data
turnaround times,' it is unlikely that even preliminary data from the first week's test will be
available until the middle of the second week's test. TRC will work with IFC and Pacific Energy
to ensure that the first VOC/sulfur samples are taken early in the first week. TRC will take
pretest GPU exit samples prior to the initial fuel cell checkout on LFG (before start of the
demonstration test). TRC will also work with the laboratory to expedite analysis of these first
samples and to compare results to historical data from Phase n. TRC will communicate
analytical results to IFC within 24 hours of receipt.
Corrective action options are discussed in Section 12.0.
G-43
-------
Phase in QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 37 of 41
9.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
9.1 Data Collection and Sampling OC Procedures
Continuous emission monitoring QC checks include daily zero and span drift tests,
weekly audits, and weekly system bias checks. All continuous monitoring zero and span gases
will be delivered to the probe outlet to challenge the entire sampling system. This QC data will
be recorded on the data logger chart and will be identified with a felt pen. The data will then
be transferred directly to a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet as presented in Section 5.0.
In addition to the daily zero and span calibrations, the operator will conduct several daily
equipment checks to verify proper operation of sampling equipment. These checks include:
• Sample vacuum (high vacuum indicates an overloaded filter)
• Chiller condenser (temperature will be set at 40 °F)
• Data logger paper supply
• Condensation in sample line entering instrument rack (moisture indicates
condenser problem)
• Pressures on zero and span gas cylinders (additional gases will be obtained if
necessary)
9.2 Analytical Laboratory OC Checks
Blanks for both sulfur and VOC analyses will be conducted with each set of samples
received by the laboratory. The blank concentration of target sulfur compounds will be less than
2 ppbv and the blank concentration of target VOCs will be less than 1 ppbv.
Audit samples for this program will be purchased by TRC for target volatile, sulfur
compound, and heat content analysis. The results of the audit analyses will determine the
accuracy of the analyses. Accuracy (recovery) objectives are presented in Table 3-1.
Instrument calibration verifications for GC and GC/MS will be performed for target
volatile, sulfur compound, and heat content analysis. Acceptance criteria for the calibration
verification samples is presented in Section 7.0.
Laboratory duplicates will be performed for each analytical parameter for each analytical
sequence. The percent difference determined will be used to evaluate matrix effect on the
precision of the analytical technique. The precision objective for laboratory duplicate is 10%
relative percent difference (RPD).
Surrogate spikes will be added to each sample for target volatile organic analysis. The
recovery objectives for the surrogate spikes are presented in Section 7.0.
G-44
-------
Phase IHQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 38 of 41
10.0 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM AUDITS
10.1 Performance Audits
These audits will be conducted at EPA's discretion. EPA must provide the cylinder gases,
which would preferably be analyzed prior to the initiation of the 30-day period. The audits
should also be in the ranges of the expected concentrations, which are outlined below.
Analysis Critical Ranees
Sulfur 20-200 ppbv
VOCs • 50-200 ppbv
NO, (power plant) 0.5-2.0 ppmv
NOX (flare) 10-20 ppmv
SG>2 50-100 ppmv
CO 5-10 ppmv
Oj 5-15%
C02 10-20%
10.2 System Audit
If requested by EPA and approved by IFC, the TRC Director of Quality Assurance will
conduct a systems audit based on QAPP requirements. The audit would include assessments of:
project responsibilities, intercompany communication, intracompany communication, monitoring
instruments (measurements and quality control data), sampling, chemical analysis (methods,
record keeping, scheduling, quality control data, and reporting), data reduction, and report
preparation. The audit would be conducted with a formal checklist with provision for corrective
action and reports to the IFC Program Manager.
G-45
-------
Phase HI QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 39 of 41
11.0 CALCULATION OF DATA QUALITY INDICATORS
11.1 Precision
11.1.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring
Precision will be determined on a daily basis between 9:00 and 10:00 A.M. using a zero
and span calibration drift test. The drift will be calculated as a percentage of instrument range,
as follows:
% drift = [monitor value! - rcertified concentration") X 100
span value
11.1.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds - GPU Outlet Samples
A series of three samples will be collected simultaneously. Samples will be collected and
analyzed in duplicate. The precision will be calculated for each detectable compound by the
relative standard deviation (RSD), as follows:
RSD =_£_ x 100
X
Since the expected halide concentrations are near or below the detection limit, a series
of triplicate audit samples containing three compounds will also be analyzed and the RSD will
also be calculated.
11.1.3 GPU Outlet - Heat Content Analysis
The RSD from a series of three replicate samples will be calculated to determine
precision. The RSD calculation is defined above.
11.1.4 Flowrate
Flowrate monitoring precision by electronic flowmeters will be determined by the
manufacturer's specifications.
11.2 Accuracy
11.2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring
Accuracy will be determined by analyzing two audit gases for each parameter. The audit
cylinders will be EPA Protocol 1 (± 1 %) or equivalent. Accuracy will be calculated as follows:
accuracy = C_ - C, x 100
C.
G-46
-------
Phase HIQAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page 40 of 41
€„ = monitor response
C. = certified audit concentration
11.2.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds
Two audit samples will be prepared gravimetrically by a specialty gas manufacturer and
certified for ± 5 % accuracy. The audits will be analyzed with each set of samples submitted to
the laboratory and accuracy will be calculated for each compound. The sulfur audit gases will
contain three reduced sulfur compounds, and the halide audit gas will also contain three
compounds. Accuracy will be determined as previously described for continuous monitoring.
accuracy = [analyzed valuel - [certified value] x 100
certified value
11.2.3 GPU Outlet - BTU Analysis
One BTU audit cylinder gas will be purchased from a specialty gas manufacturer and
analyzed with the heat content samples. The accuracy will be calculated as outlined previously.
11.2.4 Flowrate
Single-point flow monitoring at the power plant stack will be certified for accuracy by
EPA Methods 1 and 2. Continuous electronic flowmeter (GPU outlet and flare inlet) accuracy
will be determined by the manufacturer's factory calibration.
11.3 Completeness
Completeness for continuous emission monitoring will be 100%, which requires at least
22 days of valid data captured. Completeness is specified at 100% for all measurements
including power output.
G-47
-------
Phase ffl QAPP
Revision No. 2
December 1994
Page-41 of 41
12.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Opportunities for collection of valid data depend on the duration of each type of
measurement, frequency of the measurements, turnaround time for receipt of data, data
assessment procedures, and assignment of responsibility for corrective action. The measurement
data summary (Table 1-2) provides a good overview. The program is structured with sufficient
time for data assessment and corrective action.
12.1 Emission Measurements
The emission measurements occur over a 30-day period. Fortunately, data will be
available on a daily basis, thus allowing sufficient time to collect valid data.
Corrective actions for on-site monitors may include actions by TRC or Pacific Energy.
The TRC technician will perform a system calibration and audit as well as a visual check of the
system. If the calibration and audit meet the specifications, Pacific Energy will be responsible
for checking out the gas purification unit, fuel processor, or fuel cell.
Corrective actions for flowrate and moisture determinations will include system checks
and repeat of measurements depending on results of EPA Method quality control checks.
12.2 System Performance
System performance measurements will occur over a period of up to 12 months. It is
anticipated that, on at least 18 occasions over the first six months, samples will be taken for
chemical analysis to determine sulfur/halide compound concentrations. The control limit for the
program shall be 1.0 ppmv total sulfur and 1.0 ppmv total halide. These control limits were
developed by dividing the GPU performance specifications by 3.
If chemical analysis data appears to be outside the current control limits, the first
corrective action will be to review chemical analysis quality control data and assess data validity.
Data validation would be performed by the TRC Laboratory Coordinator using analytical method
criteria. If data is suspect, a determination will be made as to whether reanalysis can correct the
problem. If this is not possible, a new round of sampling and analysis will be required.
If the analytical data is determined to be valid, it will be necessary to assess GPU
performance. Corrective action options for GPU malfunction (high concentrations of sulfur or
halide compounds) will be determined by the IFC Program Manager. One option would be to
suspend further testing pending correction of the malfunction.
G-48
-------
Attachment A
Weekly Landfill Gas Methane Concentration Data
From the Penrose Site
-------
OCT-06-1994 14:55 FROM PflCIFIC ENERGY
T
000
"28
<4 fin
V'
2/9
//u
r/r
y/y
¥**.
¥¥-9
vis
"
4/
//A^
4*, 4
^3.7
; V27
W.o
G-A2
Trar^p o-?
-------
Attachment B
Hourly Landfill Gas Heating Value Data
From the Penrose Site
G-Bl
-------
SEP-02-1994 16:
• " • r
15. IS.
TO
1824.
TRIGGER
1926.
ifsz.
1955.
918.
1940.
1956.
19S2.
TRIGGER 914
425. w- 424
424.1L3' (423."^ OPEN
OPEN dPENOPEN
OPEN
423
OPEN
OPEN
425.''"* 426.'** 425.'***
OPEN OPEN OPEN
OPEN OPEN
."7
G-B2
-------
SEP-02-1994 16:10 FROM PfiCIFIC B-eRGY
12F-
2. &= T-
-------
SEP-e2-1994 16:11
16. 15. 10.
FROM PfiCIFIC ENERGY
0. 9. 15.
TO
24.
1325.
1824.
TRIGGER
1933.
1915.
1932.
1933.
TRIGGER
692.
691.
698.
692.
TRIGGER
14.
1930
1930
1930
1925
' 1926;:.
1933.
E2SCFMFG
- 692.
"697.
- 695.
E2SCFMNG
0.
, SOURCE 315
14-. 12.
14.
1893;*:
•£2r
1919;
<*£
BUfFEFTif
15. 15.
15. 15.
11, SOURCE 511
1653. 666.
1825. 1824-.
1825.. 1325.
1824. .. 1824.
12;.- SOURCE 309
1832.,. : 1305.
1914..;-.: 1906.'
30??
SUFFER 8
4-22.
, 423.
418.
lb, SOURCE 504-
416.
423.
419.
4.24.
422.
420.
ftYO S IN 423.. IRlGGcR 514
42*.
4-21.
420
420.
420.
420
424.
A 20.
421
424.
419.
424.
418.
420
41C?
G-B4
-------
SEP-02-1994 IS: 11 FROM PflCIFIC ENERGY
IS.
15.
15.
16.
BUFFER *
1830.
1830.
182J-
1608.',
BUFFER *
1935.- :
1945-.'
1905V
18-93.
BUFFER *
696.
687.
689.
733.
BUFFER *
14.
14.
14.
« VS.
/BUFFER *
P:
1432.
422.
BUFFER *
) -58.
' -54.
-58.
-41.
IS.
15.
IS.
15.
15.
15.
IS.
10.
11, SOURCE 511
1830.
1830;
1827.
1653.
1830.
1830.
1819.
666.
ir, SOURCE 309
192Si'
1938': -
1374;.
183?.
1918.
1930.
1881.
1305.
13 ? SOURCE 311
695.
689.
683.
71$.
693.
691.
683.
592.
.14. SOURCE 315
14.
14.
14.
14
14.
14.
14.
17
15, SOURCE 5Q4
423." '" 424.
426. 423.
421
416.
47? _
424.
16, SOURCE 515
-58.
-54.
-58.
-43.
-58.
-54.
-57.
-54.
15.
IS.
16.
0.
s/e SCFM
1830.
1830..
1696.
0.
£2 GKW
1942.
1915.
1890.
0.
E2SCFMFG
694.
691.
721.
18.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
15.
n
A/0 8 JN
"~426T"~
424.
A7A.
424.
PEN VAC
-57.
-55.
-54.
-25.
15.
16.
16.
9.
1830
1830.
1790.
1655.
1667.
1942
1927.
1929.
1896.
16"66.
697
692.
716.
759.
641.
14
14.
14.
IS.
1 T
423
427.
423.
423.
420.
-59
-56.
-54.
-58.
-56.
- w
IS.
IS.
16.
IS.
. , TRIGGER
1330.
1802.
1609.
1825.
:,f TRIGGER
-fT949.
1929 .
" #1884.
1933.
.,. TRIGGER
693.
698.
773.
692.
., TRIGGER
14.
14.
16.
\4
., TRIGGER
42~7."
422.
423.
4!d4.
., TRIGGER
-56.
-ss.
-57.
-59.
IS.
15.
16.
15.
914
1830.
1S28.
1609.
1824.
914
i944.
1922.
1902.
1929.
914
691.
691.
756.
6V1.
914
14.
14.
IS.
1 4.
427.
423.
•424.
914
-55.
-56.
-53.
-58.
TO
IS.
IS.
16.
IS.
1830.
1827.
1608.
1825.
1949.
1905.
1898.
1930.
688.
688.
738.
690.
14.
14.
IS.
14
427-
422.
423.
424.
-54.
-57.
-46.
-58.
12037272319 P.05
4
M//J 41|
MAX 432.
JVVG, 4 £4,
-------
SEP-02-1994 16:11 FROM PflCIFIC ENERGY
TO
15. IS.
15. 15.
IS. 15.
15.
15.
15.
TT.
11, SOURCE 511
1830. 1830.
1830. 1830.
1830, 1831.
1830i 1830.
S/8 SCR1
1830.
1830.
1831.
.1830J •
£2 GKW
1946.
1966:
1949.
1831
1830.
1831.
1831.
1830.
1957
1941
12,. SOURCE 309
1957 .
19S2.:
1966
1953.
1956.
1953.
1925.
1939.
1960.
1955.
1918.
SOURCE 315
ISUFFtH
T 423.
I 427.
I 422.
423".
426.
422.
424.
425.
422.
425.
424.
422.
423 ._,_ 'fRJGGiR 914
426. " 4~2~7T"" "4'/7.
423. 423. 422.
423. 42S. •
427,
B
M ,u 4 17
4Z7
427.
\
-B6
-------
;un i.r\
15.
15.
15.
15.
BUFFER
1831.,
1330.
1831.
SEP-02-1994 16:12 FROM PflCIFIC ENERGY
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
* 11, 'SOURCE bll
1831.: 1831.
1831.
1831.
1830.
BUFFER. «,
1967.-;
1969^
.1831.
1831.
" 1830.
SOURCE 309
SUFFER'
696:
701.
701.
SUFFER
14.
14.
14.
>;l968. ' 1975.
-J 1975, . 19S2;
"'.'1948; 1963.
:/"l953.. 1939.
ff 13, SOURCE 311
'. ";;704. 703.
695.. 696.
699.; ' 701.
701. 699.
9 14, SOURCE 315
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
^4..
ff 15, SOURCE
15.
15.
15.
15.
S/8 SCFrt
1830.
1851.
1831.
1830.
£2 GKW
1968.
1985.
1957.
1946.
E23CFMFG
702,
697.
700.
698.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
IS.
15.
15.
15.
1831.,
1S30.
1831.
1831.
1830...
1966;,.
1963.
1984.
1958.
1941;
6.97..
701.
699.
701.
695.
1*.,
14.
14.
14.
4^
421.,
"4?5T
420.
423.
15.
15.
15.
15.
TRJGGER
1830.
1831.
1831.
1830.
TRJGGER
197.5.
1975.
1951.
1939.
TRIGGER
701.
700.
701.
694.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
>ii_
TRIGGER
-4-Z67-
421.
422.
15.
15.
15.
914
1S30.
1809.
1S31.
1830.
914
1980.
1952.
1953.
1955.
914
700.
70S.
701.
695.
914
14.
14.
14.
_i^
$14
"426.
421.
422.
TO
15.
16.
15.
1*51.
1725.
1831.
1830.
1974.
1954.
1957.
1966.
699.
725.
700.
694.
MAX' 4Z7
A^ei 422.£>
G-B7
-------
SEP-02-1994
* 11. SOURCE
1831. :; 133
1330.: i 1831.
1831; p. .1831..
; . .£." 1831..
*.. 12,' SOURCE 309
19 56.'
U.
«__15, SOURCE
"~~422~::~ 423.
425. 423.
421, 422.
A/0 B IN 421., TRIGGER
" 424. "'" 42S. 42~5.
422. 421. 400.
422. 421. 421.
914
425.
419.
421,
CO1, oo r.oo
426
419.
421
M
LJ
:
16, SOURCE 515
-61- -60.
-57J -56.
-63,_
-61.
.. ee_
-------
Attachment C
Schedule
G-Cl
-------
EPA LANDFILL GAS PHASE 3 SCHEDULE
t
MILESTONES FOR SUBTASK3.3
CONDUCT PERFORMANCE TEST
WORK ELEMENT
1 FIELD TEST
2 ASSESS
FINAL REPORT
END PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
•93
D
1994
J
F
M
A
M
/
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
1995
J
^
F
f
M
A
DRAFT—-
if
M
^
^
•w
J I J
I
I
r l
[\
FINA
\
A
L
S
0
N
D
HS940011-2
R942009
-------
Attachment D
Example Calibration Report of the
On-Line Heat Content Analyzer
-------
CAL
CYCLE 7IHE:
i'iODE:!
'CnL GAS S ! !v-:.«;ii--l; 3
CYCLE SfHRT Fli-iE;: te'/s<4
"COi'iP GUMP CAL RAk
r4Ai'i£ CODE CONC DATA
OLD
RF
RF
DEV
O!_D
RT
vT
i"i
; Y(
."/ROGEH
"TI iANE
117 39.601W
.1.5.1003
\
1.41S8S+6 3 5580.2
12668.0 31909.8
508770 33626.2
1,39822+6 29142.5
35627.3
31749.4
33693.4
29.1.36.2
t
0.1 46.97 47.03
0.5 94.,23 94 ,,37
0.2 104.67 334.63
0 . S 121.7 / .i. 2 :i.. j 7
G-D2
-------
;;iDf?s PENRGnL
il'IP NAME CORF' CODE
ANALYSIS
CYCLL TIM!;:: 24S
MODEs REMOTE
o 2
117
116
1 J 4
F'Slrt 7>B'Y &
ia a A0 DEC
MOLE %
39-6253
0.39671
15„1195
44.8585
100 j 0000
GAL/11CF**
CYCLE START TIlMEs 07.:--k
B. T . U. * Si::' -
0.0000
0.0000
0 .. 0000
FOR Cn!v;|-'FVFSSlBILlTY
0.
0,
0,
00
'97
'"/
.i-'IPK^SSIBlL.lTY FACTOR (1/Z)
-:'' :.-'.. i"nl.i.. y 1^U73S .PSIA -i 60 DEG ., F CORRECTED FOR CL/Z'' =
-! JV-.V.U,. <•? j.a,73O PSIA Z- 60 n^G, i:: CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) -
:.!••>:_ SPECIFIC GRAVITY -
!!.;'r:r i N':.'!i..>. '.^ 14,730 PS"- H -:
•:ri':.-V;v!HLIZE:j VOTOl... MOLE % =
G-D3
-------
3 0F 3
..'AT !:•.;: !.W/06/94 ANALYSIS Tli'lE;: 220
Vlrii:;.;- 07:;47 CYCLE Tl\':F.i 240
'.?i.-i).'.'»?? PEr!KU6£ MODE: REMOTE CYCLE START T'lHE;; 07-46
CCH'iP COI-iP CAL. R^tW OLD NEW* % OLD HEW*
HAhE CODE COHC DATA RF RF DEV RT RT I
;- O 2: j. 17 39.6010 1 „ 410 6 8+6 3553©. 2 35627.3 # 0.1 46-97 47'.S3;:;
'/:rGEN 116 0.39900 12668,0 31939.0 31749-4 * 0.5 94.23 9
:-:i.TfRfJfi|£N j.14 IS., 1000 508770 33626.2 33693-4 * 0.2 134 „ 67 104-^3^ v
••'•THANE 100 44,9000 1.30822 s-6 29142.5 29136.2 * 0,0 121..77 .1.21 .. 57:* Q
G-D4
-------
Attachment E
May, September, and October 1993
Penrose Landfill Gas Analysis
G-El
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmencal Testint; and Consulrin"
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICAL INC.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Client:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID: PTU-IN-2-1A (10/21/93)
PAI Sample ID: 9304074
Test Code:
Analyst:
Instrument ID:
Verified by:
QC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Kathleen Aguilera
Finnigan 45008/Entech 2000
Michael Tuday
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Received: 10/21/93
Date Analyzed: 10/21/93
Volume Analyzed: 3.5 ml
CAS #
75-01-4
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
S6-23-5
75-27-4
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
75-71-8
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Acetone
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethene
cis-1 , 3-Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
Dichlorodif luoromethane
RESULT
(MG/M3 )
3.5
37
ND
ND
14
ND
23
11
11
ND
ND
ND
5.6
ND
ND
13
ND
15
180
32
6.6
53
4.6
90
31
1.3 TR
DETECTION
LIMIT.
(MG/M3 )
1.4
2.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.9
1.4-
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
RESULT
(PPM)
1.4
15
ND
ND
4.1
ND
5.8
2.8
3.7
ND
ND
ND
1.7
ND
ND
2.4
ND
3.6
47
4.8
1.4
12
1.1
21
7.2
0.26 TR
DETECTION
LIMIT
(PPM)
0.55
1.2
0.25
0.36
0.41
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.99
0.29
0.35
0.26
0.44
0.23
0.21
0.26
0.31
0.71
0.37
0.21
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.28
ND
Not Detected
TR
Trace Level - Below Tndicateri Hsu-art- i nn _T.imii-
G-E2
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Testing ,mJ G'n»ultm2
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICAL INC.
TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
Client:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID: PTU-IN-2-1A (10/21/93)
PAI Sample ID: 9304074
Test Code:
Analyst:
Instrument ID:
Verified by:
GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Kathleen Aguilera
Finnigan 45008/Entech 2000
Michael Tuday
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Received: 10/21/93
Date Analyzed: 10/21/93
Volume Analyzed: 3.5 ml
GC/MS
SCAN NO.
49
156
174
595
957
1092
COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION
FREON 22
FREON 21
ETHYL ACETATE
TETRAHYDROFURAN
1-BUTANOL
ETHYL BUTYRATE
ALPHA-PINENE
d-LIMONENE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION
MG/M3 -pp^
ND
2
40
/^. 3
6 j.o
ND
40 g. Vf
100
1?
100 fl
ND
ND
G-E3
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Testing and Consulrin«
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICAL INC.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Client:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID: Bl-WG (09/09/93) (13:45)
PAI Sample ID: 9303221
Test Code:
Analyst:
Instrument ID:
Verified by:
GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Kathleen Aguilera
Finnigan 45008/Entech 2000
Michael Tuday
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Received: 09/09/93
Date Analyzed: 09/09/93
Volume Analyzed: 3.0 ml
CAS #
75-01-4
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
COMPOUND
VINYL CHLORIDE
ACETONE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 , 2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 , 2-DICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHANE
2-BUTANONE
CHLOROFORM
1 , 2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
RESULT
(MG/M3 )
3.1
26
ND
ND
15
ND
16
8.8
27
ND
ND
ND
4.4
DETECTION
LIMIT
(MG/M3 )
1.7
3.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
3.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
RESULT
(PPM)
1.2
11
ND
ND
4.5
ND
4.2
2.2
9.0
ND
ND
ND
1.4
DETECTION
LIMIT
(PPM)
0.67
1.4
0.31
0.43
0.50
0.43
0.43
0.42
1.1
0.35
0.42
0.32
0.53
ND = Not Detected TR - Trace Level - Below Indicated Detection Limit
G-E4
-------
^-«- Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Tesnnu and CunMilctru!
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICAL INC.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
(Continued)
Client:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID: Bl-WG (09/09/93) (13:45)
PAI Sample ID: 9303221
Test Code:
Analyst:
Instrument ID:
Verified by:
GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Kathleen Aguilera
Finnigan 45008/Entech 2000
Michael Tuday
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Received: 09/09/93
Date Analyzed: 09/09/93
Volume Analyzed: 3.0 ml
CAS /
56-23-5
75-27-4
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
m- & p-XYLENES
0-XYLENE
RESULT
(MG/M3 )
ND
ND
8.7
ND
8.6
120
20
6.3
39
3.1
67
22
DETECTION
LIMIT.
(MG/M3 )
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
3.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
RESULT
(PPM)
ND
ND
1.6
ND
2.1
32
3.0
1.4
9.1
0.73
15
5.1
DETECTION
LIMIT
(PPM)
0.27
0.25
0.31
0.37
0.82
0.44
0.25
0.36
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
ND
Not Detected
TR
Trace Level - Below Indicated Detection Limit
G-E5
'.M P.irk. CA 91104 • Phone SI^ 70°-1
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmenral Testing and Consi:lrma
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICAL INC.
TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
Client:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID: Bl-WG (09/09/93) (13:45)
PAI Sample ID: 9303221
Test Code:
Analyst:
Instrument ID:
Verified by:
GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Kathleen Aguilera
Finnigan 45008/Entech 2000
Michael Tuday
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Received: 09/09/93
Date Analyzed: 09/09/93
Volume Analyzed: 3.0 ml
GC/MS
SCAN NO.
28
969
1097
162
49
27
18
COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION
D I CHLOROD I FLUOROMETHANE
ALPHA-PINENE
d-LIMONENE
ETHYL ACETATE
n-BUTANOL
NAPHTHALENE
D ICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
CHLOROD IFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYL BUTYRATE
TETRAHYDROFURAN
NITROBENZENE
ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION
MG/M3
7
60
50
20
ND
ND
7
5
ND
2
ND
G-E6
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Ttfjtmi; .inJ
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICAL INC.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Client:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID: B2 (05/01/93)
PAI Sample ID: 9301501
Test Code:
Analyst:
Instrument ID:
Verified by:
GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Chris Parnell
Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Michael Tuday
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Received: 05/03/93
Date Analyzed: 05/03/93
Volume Analyzed: 5.0 ml
CAS #
75-71-8
75-01-4
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
COMPOUND
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE *
VINYL CHLORIDE
ACETONE
TRI CHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 , 2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1,2-DI CHLOROETHENE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHANE
2-BUTANONE
CHLOROFORM
1 , 2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
RESULT
(MG/M3 )
ND
3.5
40
1.3
0.53 TR
27
0.79 TR
19
9.1
27
ND
ND
ND
4.9
DETECTION
LIMIT.
(MG/M3 )
40
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
RESULT
(PPM)
ND
1.4
17
0.24
0.14 TR
8.0
0.20 TR
5.0
2.3
9.3
ND
ND
ND
1.5
DETECTION
LIMIT
(PPM)
8.2
0.39
0.84
0.18
0.25
0.29
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.68
0.21
0.25
0.19
0.31
ND = Not Detected TR = Trace Level - Below Indicated Detection Limit
* = Result Is Qualitative Only
G-E7
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental To tins: anJ C^n^ilrmu
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICAL INC.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
(Continued)
Client:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID: B2 (05/01/93)
PAI Sample ID: 9301501
Test Code:
Analyst:
Instrument ID:
Verified by:
GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Chris Parnell
Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Michael Tuday
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Received: 05/03/93
Date Analyzed: 05/03/93
Volume Analyzed: 5.0 ml
CAS #
56-23-5
75-27-4
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
7785-70-8
5989-27-5
COMPOUND
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
BROMOD ICHLOROMETHANE
TRI CHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
m- £ p-XYLENES
o-XYLENE
ALPHA-PINENE
d-LIMONENE
RESULT
(MG/M3)
ND
ND
8.4
ND
ND
150
24
7.6
52
4.0
86
35
160
240
DETECTION
LIMIT
(MG/M3)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
RESULT
(PPM)
ND
ND
1.6
ND
ND
41
3.6
1.7
12
0.94
20
8.0
29
44
DETECTION
LIMIT
(PPM)
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.22
0.49
0.27
0.15
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.18
0.18
ND = Not Detected
TR
Trace Level - Below Indicated Detection Limit
G-E8
20954 O.K.rne Srrt-LT. Cuuij.i P.irk. CA 0|VJ - Plume ^IS T^-Mr' • !
-------
Attachment F
Electrical Output Meter
Calibration Data
G-Fl
-------
JUL 1 '94 09:08
LflDUP RES PLflNSDEV
FROM INTL FUEL <"" ' g ft
TEL:213-367-0210
TO 92986399
Jun 27.94
PftGE.002
9:54 No.003 P.01
• The major components of tho revenue billing meter system are a bi-directional,
multifunction meter, two potential transformers, and two current transformers
monitoring a 30, 3 wire, delta service. (See Page 1 of the Attachment)
• The billing meter. PMG30018-15 i* programmed to display the Information shown
on Page 2 of the Attachment
• The billing meter is tested in ihe Meter Laboratory prior to Installation. Test results
are shewn on Pao^ 3 of the Attachment These results are within the ±2% of the
accuracy called for in the American National Standard Code for Eledrfdty Metering
(ANSI C12). LAOWP rules call for ail meters to be within ±1 % accuracy before
being installed, test Lab policy is to calibrate each metar within ±.5% accuracy.
• Each potential transformer (ratio 300 to 1) was tested in the Standards Laboratory
before installation. Each was tested at O, W, X, Y, and 2 burden. As indicated on
Pages 3 and 4 of the Attachment, each was within ±1% accuracy.
• Each current transformer (ratio 150 to 5) was tested in the Standards Laboratory
before installation. Each was tested at burdens from 0 to B2.0. As indicated on
Pages 5 through 8 of the Attachment, each was within ±1% accuracy.
• After the metering system was installed on the customers service, an install test was
performed on the system. As shown on Page 9 of the Attachment, this test
Indicates the meter was 100% accurate.
Also attached is a brochure for the Transdata EMS 96 Meter installed at this location.
AMG:sls
Attachments
PoaMT* brand tax 1nnsmittalm««no 7671 *«<»••••» l[
I r \
IS
S«—t.
JUN 27
13'SS
G-F?
213 367
-------
vti t wr W» AftQOH
OffAtWtHf Of WATIt 4
PMG300I6-
S
LOAD
nUM*aATAIM*?OI9
TDC30018-
REAR PANEL VIEW
:t> «
mt-i
-------
JUL 1 '94 09:09
LflDUP RES PLflNSDEU
FROM INTL FUEL CELLS fl
TEL:2l3-367-0210
TO 92986399
Jun 27,94
PflGE.004
9:55 No. 003 P. 03
10
PARALLEL GENERATION - IARGE (PG-3)
BI-DIRECTIONAL XWH/KVARH KETER
01
03
03
04
05
09
10
U
15
16
17
21
25
29
39
40
UETER
DATE
TIME
KW
KHH
KVABH
tSt
KVASH
KW
KWH
KVAEH
KWH
KWH
KHH
KVARH
DISPLAY CHECK
MAXIMDK DEMAND
CONSUMPTION
OOHSUMPTIOH
MAXIMUM DEMAND
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTIOH
MAXIMUM DEMAND
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
HIGH PEAK
HTGH PEAK
HIGH PEAK
LOW PEAK
LOW PEAK
LOW PEAK
BASE
BASE
BASE
HIGH PEAK
LOW PEAK
BASS
TOTAL
TOTAL
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
OBLXVERED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DBIiTVESED
RBCET7ED
RECEIVED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
Rev 6 1/21/92 BGH
Page - 13 -
JUN 27 '
13:56
G-F4
213 3S7 8210
PftGE.003
-------
.. JUL 1 '94 09:B9
LflDUP RES PLflN&DEU
FROM INTL FUEL CE1 1 S ft
TEL:2l3-36?-0210
TO 929S6399
Jun 27,94
PflCS.005
9:S6 No.003 P.04
Meter Laboratory Meter Rsprot
IS 2197
Penrose Landfill
8301 Tujunga Avo
PMC30018-15
9-22-93
Meter Fora: 58 ' Meter Register: ZKS96
9.-17-93 07X20:01 Dowty
Rotation: ABC
Teat setting is
Volts-120,0
P.F.B0.5
3CHH Del
Seriea Full Load:
Series Power:
Serie* LigHt Load:
99.99
100.04
99.99
Series Full Load: -100.05
Seriea Power t -100.13
series Light Load: -100.03
Pf
Teat Setting 2:
Volta-120.0
P.F.-0.2
KVAR Del
Series Full Load: 100.OS
Seriaa Power: 100.03
Series Light Load: 100.11
Amps-5.00
Pf Offset-'l2;
Test Setting 3:
Volts-120.0
P.F.«1.0
KVAR Del
Series Full Load:' 100.06
series Power: 100.06
Series Light Load: loo.io
Anp«-5.00
Pf Offcat-0
27 '94 13:57
G-F5
213 367 0210
-------
International Fuel Cells FCR-13524
APPENDIX H
System Performance and Emission Test Report, by TRC Environmental
Phase HI Fuel Cell/Landfill Gas Energy Recovery Demonstration, Penrose Landfill
H-l
-------
System Performance and
Emission Test Report
Phase HI Fuel Cell/Landfill Gas
Energy Recovery Demonstration
Penrose Landfill
H-2
-------
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION H-7
1.1 Background H-8
1.2 Description of Phase HI Activities H-8
1.3 Process Description H-ll
1.3.1 GPU Description H-ll
1.3.2 Fuel Cell Power Plant Description H-14
1.4 Scope of Work f H-14
1.4.1 Performance Demonstration H-14
1.4.2 Emission Measurements H-17
1.5 Operation of the Fuel Cell H-18
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES H-21
2.1 Overall Organization . . H-21
3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS H-23
3.1 Fuel Cell Energy Efficiency H-23
3.2 Power Plant Emissions H-23
3.3 Flare Emissions H-26
3.4 Gas Pretreatment Performance Test H-26
3.5 GPU Exit Gas Heat Content H-28
4.0 CALCULATIONS AND DATA QUALITY INDICATOR GOALS H-30
4.1 General Description of Test Data and Calculations H-30
4.2 Electrical Output H-31
5.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES H-32
5.1 Sampling Locations H-32
5.1.1 Performance Demonstration Test H-32
5.1.2 Emissions Testing H-32
5.2 GPU Outlet and Raw Landfill Gas Sampling Methods H-33
5.3 Power Plant Emissions Monitoring Methods H-33
5.3.1 Sample Conditioning System H-35
5.3.2 NO. Analyzer H-35
5.3.3 SOo Analyzer H-35
5.3.4 CO Analyzer H-36
5.3.5 O. Analyzer H-36
5.3.6 CO-, Analyzer H-36
5.4 Flowrate Monitoring H-36
5.5 Power Plant Electrical Measurements H-37
H-3
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
•
6.0 SAMPLE CUSTODY H-38
6.1 Sample Documentation H-38
6.1.1 Sampling Data Forms H-38
6.1.2 Sample Identification and Labeling H-39
6.2 Chain-of-Custody Forms H-39
6.3 Laboratory Custody H-40
7.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES H-41
7.1 Manual Sampling Equipment H-41
7.2 Power Plant Continuous Monitoring Methods H-41
7.3 GPUExi' Gas Flowrate Meter H-42
7.4 Electrical Power Measurements H-42
7.5 On-Line Raw Landfill Gas Heat Content Analyzer H-42
8.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES H-43
8.1 Continuous Emissions Monitoring H-43
8.2 Heat Content Analysis of GPU Exit Samples H-43
8.3 GPU Exit Contaminant Analysis H-43
8.3.1 Sulfur Compound Analysis H-43
8.3.2 Volatile Organic Compound Analysis H-44
9.0 DATA REDUCTION. VALIDATION. AND REPORTING H-46
9.1 Overall Calculations „ H-46
9.2 Data Validation H-47
9.3 Identification and Treatment of Outliers H-47
10.0 QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS H-48
10.1 Data Collection and Sampling OC Procedures H-48
10.2 Analytical Laboratory OC Checks H-48
11.0 QUALITY CONTROL TEST RESULTS H-49
11.1 Fuel Heat Content Measurement H-49
11.2 GPU Exit Gas Contaminant Measurements H-49
11.2.1 Sulfur Compounds H-49
11.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds H-52
11.3 Fuel Cell Emissions H-52
12.0 CALCULATION OF DATA QUALITY INDICATORS H-55
12.1 Precision H-55
12.1.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring H-55
12.1.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds - GPU Outlet Samples .... H-55
12.1.3 GPU Outlet - Heat Content Analysis H-55
H-4
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
12.2 Accuracy H-56
12.2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring H-56
12.2.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds H-56
12.2.3 GPU Outlet Heat Content Analysis H-56
H-5
-------
List of Tables, Figures, and Attachments
• *
TABLE PAGE
1-1 Typical Concentrations and Detection Limits of Targeted Compounds
in the Raw Landfill Gas at the Penrose Landfill H-16
3-1 Fuel Cell Energy Efficiency Summary H-24
3-2 Fuel Cell Emissions Summary H-25
3-3 Gas Pretreatment System Performance Test: Summary of Contaminant Removal
Measurements H-27
3-4 Comparison of ASTM Method Heat Content Measurements on Treated GPU Exit Gas
to On-Line Raw Landfill Gas Heat Content Measurements H-29
11-1 Heat Content Measurement Quality Assurance Data Summary H-50
11-2 Gas Pretreatment System Outlet Halide and Sulfur Analysis QA Data H-51
11-3 Fuel Cell Emissions Testing QA Data Cylinder Gas Audit Summary H-53
11-4 Fuel Cell Emissions-EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7E and 10 QA Summary Including
Calibration Drift and Calibration Error H-54
FIGURE PAGE
1-1 Demonstrator System Schematic H-10
1-2 Gas Pretreatment Unit Schematic H-13
1-3 Demonstrator System Interface Conditions . H-19
2-1 Organization Chart H-22
5-1 Continuous Emission Monitoring Schematic „ H-34
ATTACHMENT
A Process Data H-A1
B GPU Exit Heat Content/Analytical Data-ASTM Method H-B1
C Power Plant Emission Data H-C1
D Flare Emission Data From Phase II H-D1
E GPU Exit Contaminant Measurement Data H-E1
F Calibration Data and Certifications H-F1
G ASTM Method Heat Content Analysis QA Replicates H-G1
H Halides and Sulfur Compound Audit Data H-H1
I Fuel Cell Emissions QA Data H-I1
J Fuel Cell Emissions Calibration Error Data H-J1
K Fuel Cell Exhaust Gas Flowrate Data H-K1
L ASTM Heat Content Analysis Audit Data H-L1
H-6
-------
1.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A demonstration of a 200 kilowatt fuel cell powered with purified landfill gas was
conducted at the Penrose landfill in Sun Valley, California. The program was the final
demonstration phase of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) landfill gas/fuel cell energy recovery program.
International Fuel Cells, Inc. (IFC) of South Windsor, Connecticut, installed and operated
the fuel cell system and TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted the test program.
The overall program objective was to demonstrate the feasibility of energy recovery from
landfill gas using a commercial phosphoric acid fuel cell.
The program objectives were as follows:
1) Demonstrate the performance of a landfill gas pretreatment system.
2) Demonstrate the performance of a 200-kilowatt (kW) fuel cell, including fuel cell
efficiency, operated with treated landfill gas.
3) Measure air pollutant emissions per quantity of energy produced.
Several alterations to the planned program were implemented for budgetary
constraints. The demonstration was conducted over a thirty-three day period beginning on
January 16 and ending on February 17 according to the technical specifications in the
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP); however, the demonstration was originally
planned to be conducted over one year. The shortened program had minimal effect on the
conclusions for air emissions and fuel cell efficiency because there was minimal variation of
system performance or emissions. A second alteration of the program was the elimination of
emission testing on the gas pretreatment unit flare stack (flare and fuel cell emissions data is
required to calculate total emissions from the demonstration system). The consensus between
EPA, IFC and TRC was that the flare stack emissions were sufficiently characterized during
the Phase n program and that only fuel cell emissions data was needed to complete the
required measurements. However, the shortened program provided less data to evaluate the
reliability of the system over time.
H-7
-------
1.1 Background
The EPA has proposed standards for the control of air emissions from municipal solid
waste landfills. These actions have provided an opportunity for energy recovery from the
waste methane. International Fuel Cells Corporation (IFC) was awarded a contract by the
EPA to demonstrate energy recovery from landfill gas using a commercial phosphoric acid
fuel cell. The IFC contract includes a three-phase program to show that fuel cell energy
recovery is economically and environmentally feasible in commercial operation.
Phase I of the program was a conceptual design and cost analysis evaluation. Phase n
included construction and testing of a landfill gas pretreatment unit (GPU). The objective of
Phase n was to demonstrate the GPU effectiveness in removing fuel cell catalyst poisons
such as sulfur and halide compounds. The Phase II demonstration test was conducted in
October 1993 at the Penrose Station in Sun Valley, California, owned by Pacific Energy.
The Penrose Station is an 8.9-megawatt (MW) internal combustion engine facility supplied
with landfill gas from four landfills. The Phase II data indicated that the GPU performance
was acceptable.
Phase ffl of the program was a complete demonstration of the fuel cell energy
recovery concept at the Penrose Station. The GPU and fuel cell generating system was
operated and tested to evaluate the economic and environmental features of the concept.
1.2 Description of Phase HI Activities
A PC251" power plant was installed at the site and its performance was checked using
natural gas to verify normal power plant operation prior to preparing the power plant for the
landfill gas demonstration. The system was then modified to run on landfill gas. It was
connected to the GPU outlet and checked out on landfill gas to verify proper operation prior
to the Phase in demonstration test.
H-8
-------
The demonstration system at Penrose Station consisted of the existing gas collection
system, the GPU, plus a commercial fuel cell power plant. The GPU removes contaminants
from raw landfill gas and destroys the contaminants in an enclosed flare. The treated gas is
converted to electrical energy with the PC25 power plant, which is a 200 kW unit (140 kW
on landfill gas). A schematic of the demonstration system is presented in Figure 1-1. The
landfill gas at the Penrose facility has an average heat content of 430 BTU/scf.
The system was operated for one month. System performance measurements were
conducted weekly over the entire demonstration, and air pollutant emission measurements
were conducted during a single day at the end of the one month demonstration. The test
parameters are outlined below.
System Performance Measurements
• GPU Output Gas Purity - analysis for sulfur and target-list volatile organic
compounds (VOCs including halides)
• Fuel Cell Efficiency, determined from the following measurements:
- GPU Output Gas Heat Content (on-line and manual methods)
- GPU Output Gas Flowrate
- Fuel Cell Electrical Output
• Availability, Maintenance, and Operator Requirements
Emission Measurements (Fuel Cell Exhaust and Flare Exhaust)
Sulfur Dioxide (SOj)
Nitric Oxides (NOJ
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon Dioxide (COj)
Oxygen
Flowrate
Moisture
H-9
-------
Figure 1-1
Demonstrator System Schematic
RAW
LFG
(A3)
^
DEMC
(&'
^ EXHAUST QJ\ /
~\
FLARE
f
^
GAS
PRE-TREATMENT
UNPT
(GPU)
! TREATED
i LFG
; ®
S EXHAUST
FUEL CELL
POWER PLANT
\
i
s
DNSTRATOR SYSTEM
•^
OUTPUT
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION INTERFACES: (B).(c)
EMISSION TEST INTERFACES: (AT). (A?). (A3)
TRC
5 Watenide Crossing
Windsor. CT 06095
(203) 289-8631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPA/AEERL PHASE III FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 1-1.
DEMONSTRATOR SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
Date: 6/94
| Drawing No 02030-05
H-10
-------
1.3 Process Description
The demonstrator consists of the landfill gas wells and collection system, a modular
gas pretreatment system, and a PC25 natural gas fuel cell power plant modified for landfill
gas operation. Landfill gas collected at the site is processed to remove contaminants in the
pretreatment system. This clean, medium-BTU landfill gas fuels the fuel cell power plant to
produce AC power for sale to the electric utility and cogeneration heat which, for the
demonstration, will be rejected by an air cooling module. All pretreatment and fuel cell
process functions are described in this section.
1.3.1 GPU Description
The demonstration site has a landfill gas collection system in place. The Penrose site
will provide compressed 85 psig gas to the gas pretreatment system. Since collection and
compression result in some condensed water, hydrocarbon, and other contaminants, the
existing site also has a condensate collection and treatment system.
A slipstream of landfill gas from the site will be supplied to the GPU at a pressure of
85 psig and regulated down to 20 psig. (A schematic of the GPU is presented in Figure 1-2.)
The first active bed of the GPU is a carbon adsorber designed to remove hydrogen sulfide. A
first-stage refrigeration condenser (— 33 °F) then removes most of the water contained in the
saturated landfill gas and some of the heavier hydrocarbon and contaminant species in the
gas. The first-stage refrigeration condenser acts as a bulk remover of water and nonmethane
organic compound (NMOC) species. This increases the flexibility of the pretreatment system
to handle very high levels of landfill gas contaminants without need for modification or
increasing the size of the regenerable adsorption beds, thus making the system an all-purpose
landfill gas contaminant removal system.
H-ll
-------
In the commercial application, the condensate from the first-stage condenser is
vaporized and incinerated to avoid all site liquid effluents. However, to avoid the extra cost
and complexity for the demonstration, this condensate is returned to the existing site
condensate treatment system.
Landfill gas exiting the first-stage refrigeration condenser is then sent to a dryer bed
where the water content of the landfill gas is reduced to a -50°F dew point. This bed is
periodically regenerated every eight hours with heated clean landfill gas (heated by an
electric heater). During regeneration, a second fully regenerated bed takes over the function.
The regeneration gas is subsequently incinerated in a low NOX flare. Following the dryer
step, the landfill gas proceeds to a second-stage low-temperature cooler (-20°F) to enhance
the performance of the downstream activated carbon bed.
Next, the landfill gas proceeds to the activated carbon bed which adsorbs the
remaining NMOCs including organic sulfur and halogen compounds. This bed is periodically
regenerated every eight hours, with the regeneration gas being burned in a low NOX flare.
The flare (an enclosed type) achieves greater than 98% destruction of all NMOCs by
maintaining the combusted regeneration gas at a temperature of at least 1400°F for a
residence time of at least one second.
In order to avoid the carryover of attrition products (dust) from the regenerable beds,
the output gas is filtered through a submicron filter.
H-12
-------
•> LFG
H,S
Removal
•»
4
Dryer Bed A:
Water Vapor
Adsorption
4
Low
Temperature
Cooler
4
Carbon
Bed A
•>
Particulate
Filler
Condenser
Condensate
Drain
Regeneration Gas
(25 SCFM)
ffi
»—»
OJ
Clean
4LFG to
Fuel Cell
To Flare «-
OFF-LINE BED REGENERATION
Clean Gas Production Process - This process incorporates HjS removal by the Claus
reaction, refrigerated cooling and condensation, drying, cooling and hydrocarbon adsorption
process units to remove contaminants from the landfill gas.
The H2S removal bed reacts H,S with O, found in the landfill gas to produce elemental sulfur.
This bed is non-regenerable and Is replaced periodically. The first and second stage
refrigeration coolers operate at approximately +35°F and -20°F, respectively.
TRC
IRC Envirennwnlal Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
(203) 289-8631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPA/AEERL PHASE III FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 1-2.
GAS PRETREATMENT UNIT SCHEMATIC
| Drawing No. 02030-05
-------
A clean, dry, particulate-free medium-BTU landfill gas exits the filter for
consumption in the fuel cell. A portion of this gas is extracted to provide regeneration gas. A
backup natural gas supply is used to initially qualify the fuel cell power plant before
operation on landfill gas.
1.3.2 Fuel Cell Power Plant Description
Clean landfill gas is converted in the fuel cell power plant to AC power and heat. The
general fuel cell system consists of three major subsystems—fuel processing, DC power
generation in the fuel cell stack, and DC-to-AC power conditioning by the inverter.
The fuel cell converts fuel hydrogen with oxygen in the air electrochemically to
produce AC power and heat. The waste heat will be rejected by an air cooling module. The
AC power will be delivered to the utility grid.
1.4 Scope of Work
1.4.1 Performance Demonstration
The performance demonstration test of the landfill gas-to-energy demonstrator system
was conducted for one month. Measurement specifications and sampling frequency are
outlined below.
• GPU Performance—GPU outlet gas constituent concentration measurements were
conducted twice per week. Integrated samples were collected and analyzed off-
site by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and gas
chromatography/flame photometric detector (GC/FPD). The target compound list
is contained in Table 1-1.
H-14
-------
Since the GPU is primarily a carbon bed system, breakthrough of organic
compounds is most likely to occur at the end of an on-line cycle, so sampling was
conducted at the end of the cycle to assess performance. Samples were collected
during the last hour of an eight-
hour GPU bed "make" cycle (after seven hours of on-line operation; before
regeneration commences at eight hours).
The target list for GPU performance samples was developed from GC/MS and
GC/FPD measurements conducted during the Phase n GPU performance test.
Each target compound was included in a multipoint calibration.
Fuel Cell Power Plant Performance—Power plant efficiency, availability, and
maintenance and operator requirements were demonstrated. The heating value and
flowrate of the fuel and the power plant output (kilowatt-hours) was measured to
determine efficiency. The efficiency measurements are summarized below.
H-15
-------
Table 1-1
Typical Concentrations and Detection Limits
of Targeted Compounds in the
Raw Landfill Gas at the Penrose Landfill
" - - '' ' '•'
Sulfur Compounds (ppmv)
1. H2S
2. Methyl mercaptan
3. Ethyl mercaptan
4. Dimethyl sulfide
5. Dimethyl disulfide
6. Carbonyl sulfide
7. Carbon disulfide
8. Total sulfur as H2S (ppmv)
Volatile Organic Compounds (ppmv)
1. Dichlorodifluoromethane
2. 1,1-dichloroethane
3. Benzene
4. Chlorobenzene
5. Ethylbenzene
6. Methylene chloride
7. Styrene
8. Trichloroethene
9. Trichlorofluoromethane
10. Toluene
11. Tetrachloroethene
12. Vinyl chloride
13. Xylene isomers
14. cis-l,2-dichloroethene
15. Total halides as Cl
Typical Value in
Untreated landfill Gas
102.0
3.0
0.5
6.5
< 0.07
0.2
< 0.07
109.0
0.3-0.9
1.2-2.9
1.1-1.7
0.6-1.4
4.5-12.0
4.0-11.0
0.5-1.1
1.3-2.4
0-0.6
28.0-47.0
2.4-4.8
0.1-1.4
5.0-28.0
3.9-5.9
47.0-67.0
Detection Limit
Objective
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.28
0.009
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.086
H-16
-------
a) Power output was measured continuously with a calibrated utility-grade digital
electric meter.
b) Fuel flowrate was measured continuously with a temperature and pressure
calibrated process monitor.
c) Heat content of the clean fuel (GPU Exit) was measured with an on-line heat
content analyzer on the GPU Inlet. The on-line system analyzes a sample
every four minutes. Data from the GPU Inlet on-line analyzer was corrected to
GPU Exit heat content using a factor developed from a comparison of periodic
measurements on the GPU Exit gas conducted by TRC. Seven GPU Exit
samples were collected during the performance test and analyzed by ASTM
methods for heat content and compared to the GPU Inlet on-line analyzer to
develop a correction factor. The corrected averages of the GPU Inlet on-line
analyzer were then used for efficiency calculations.
1.4.2 Emission Measurements
Emissions were measured from the fuel cell power plant exhaust over one day. Flare
emissions were not measured during the Phase ffl field program; however, flare emission
data from Phase n is included in the Appendices. The emission parameters are outlined
below.
• Power Plant Emissions—SO2, NOX, CO, CO2, O2, and exhaust flowrate were
monitored for six 1-hour periods on February 17, 1995. Pollutant measurements
were conducted according to EPA Methods 6C, 7E, 10, and 3A. Exhaust gas
flowrate was also measured according to EPA Methods 1 and 2.
H-17
-------
1.5 Operation of the Fuel Cell
The fuel cell power plant was started up using the normal automatic control
sequencing. The power level was originally set at the design power output associated with
landfill gas (140 kW AC net). This power output level was difficult to maintain due to
upsets in gas quality; as a result, the power plant was operated at 120 kW during the
performance test. Operating parameters are listed on the schematic presented in Figure 1-3.
The plant was operated in a grid connected configuration. All phases of the plant operation
are controlled by a microprocessor control system (MCS). There are eight operating modes,
which are described below.
• De-energized/Off Mode—The MCS is off and the power plant can be shipped or
stored. If freezing weather exists, the plant water systems must be drained or
auxiliary power must be supplied.
• Energized/Off Mode—The MCS is on and the thermal management and water
treatment systems are active to prevent electrolyte and water freezing,
• Stan Mode—The thermal management and fuel processing systems are heated, the
fuel processing system starts generating hydrogen, the power section starts
generating DC power, and the power conditioning system starts delivering AC
power for auxiliary power loads. The continuous controls are automatically
activated during this mode.
• Idle Mode—The power plant is running but the power output is zero. All systems
and subsystems are operating and power for the power plant auxiliary loads is
supplied by the fuel cell. During power plant start-up, this mode is automatically
entered from the start mode when the start-up sequence has been completed.
H-18
-------
FLOW RATE: 370SCFM
TEMPERATURE: 1600°F
PRESSURE: AMBIENT
COMPOSITION: 6% H,O.6H COr 88% N, & O,
EMISSIONS: 1.7 ppmv CO, 11.5 ppmv NMHCt,
8.9 ppmv NO,
FLOW RATE 25 SCFM
TEMPERATURE:
-------
• Load Mode—Customer loads are powered. Operation can be conducted in either of
four configurations: (1) grid connected, (2) grid independent, (3) grid independent
multi-unit load sharing, and (4) grid independent-synchronized with grid. If grid
connect is selected, the output is connected to the utility grid and power is
supplied at a dispatched level. The demonstrator power plant will operate only in
the grid connected mode.
• Hot-Hold Mode—The plant is shut down without cooling the cell stack. This mode
is entered following certain automatic shutdowns and it allows the power plant to
be restarted quickly with a minimum of power and fuel consumption after the
cause of the shutdown has been identified and corrected.
• Cool-Down Mode—The cell stack is actively cooled by the thermal management
system as part of the normal shutdown procedure before the Energized/Off Mode
is reentered.
H-20
-------
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Overall Organization
IFC provided project management of the demonstration team consisting of Pacific
Energy, Southern California Gas, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP), and TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC). IFC was ultimately responsible for
operating the plant and conducting the demonstration in accordance with the approved QAPP.
IFC also operated the fuel cell on landfill gas and monitored the fuel cell; they documented
performance and cost, including kilowatt-hour (kWh) output, availability, efficiency, and
O&M costs.
Pacific Energy provided the landfill gas site, facilities, and landfill gas supply from
their existing operation. Pacific Energy operated the GPU, and monitored and documented
the gas quality and quantity from this system during the demonstration. TRC conducted
emission tests, collected and analyzed GPU gas samples to determine performance, and
prepared the emission test report.
Laboratory analysis were conducted by Performance Analytical, Inc. (PAI) of Canoga
Park, California. PAI conducted EPA Method TO-14 analysis for target VOCs (including
organic halides), EPA Method 16 analysis for reduced sulfur compounds. Texas Oiltech
Laboratories, Inc conducted ASTM Method D3588-91 for heat content analysis of landfill
gas samples.
The project organization management team is outlined in Figure 2-1. The EPA
Project Officer was Dr. Ron Spiegel, and the Program Manager was Mr. John Trocciola of
IFC. Mr. Larry Preston of IFC was the Project Manager, and the subcontractors including
the TRC technical staff reported to him. The quality assurance officers of both TRC and
IFQ reported directly to the Program Manager, allowing them to bypass the technical staff
for quality-related issues.
H-21
-------
US EPA
PROJECT OFFICER
R. Spiegel, PhD
IFC
QA DIRECTOR
K. Hecht
IFC
PROGRAM MANAGER
J. Trocclola
I
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.
QA DIRECTOR
D. Cogley, PhD
IFC
PROJECT MANAGER
J. Preston
PACIFIC ENERGY
• LFG Site Owner & Operator
• GPU Operator
• Install, Operate and
Maintain PC25
LOS ANGELES DEPT.
OF WATER AND POWER
• Provide metering
• Purchase power
ONSI . '»
CORPORATION
PC25 Fuel Cell
PC25 Fuel Cell
Modifications
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY
Consultant
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
CORPORATION
EMISSION TESTING
Project Manager
J. Canora
TRC EnvuwvTwnkjl Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
(203) 289-8631
INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS INC.
EPA/AEERL PHASE III FUEL CELL/LANDFILL GAS ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM
FIGURE 2-1.
ORGANIZATION CHART
Dale 6/94
| Drawing No 02030-05
-------
3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
• -
3.1 Fuel Cell Energy Efficiency
Fuel cell efficiency was calculated from data collected during a six-day period from
January 24 to 30 and an eight-day period from February 9-17 and the results are presented
in Table 3-1. Efficiency was 37.1% and 36.5% for the respective periods.
Efficiency was calculated as the ratio of energy output to energy input. The energy
output was measured with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
electric meter and the raw data from the meter is included in Appendix A. Energy input
was calculated from fuel flowrate (measured with a Yokagawa calibrated gas flowmeter) and
the lower heating value of the treated landfill gas (measured by an on-line analyzer sampling
the GPU Inlet gas and an empirical correction factor). The flowmeter data and the on-line
heat content analyzer data is also included in Appendix A. Data used to develop the
correction factor for the on-line heat content analyzer is contained in Appendix B.
3.2 Power Plant Emissions
The power plant emissions are summarized in Table 3-2 and the field data is
presented in Appendix C. Emissions of NOx, SOj, and CO are reported as actual dry
concentration in parts per million:volume (ppmv), concentration corrected to 15% oxygen,
mass emission rate in grams per hour, and as a mass emission rate in grams per kilowatt-
hour. The power plant SO2 emissions were below the method detection limit. Emissions of
NOx averaged 0.0024.grams/kilowatt-hour. CO emissions were marginally above the
detection limit averaging 0.0096 grams/kilowatt-hour.
H-23
-------
Table 3-1
Fuel Cell Energy Efficiency Summary
Penrose Landfill - Phase m Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
January 24 - February 17,1995
Period
Jan 24-
Jan30
Feb9-
Febl?
Time
0707
1023
1102
0733
Energy
Output
(LADWP Meter)
(kWh)
16800
18400
(Kcal)
1.45E-K)7
1.58E407
Gas
Comuraption
(Yokagawa Meter)
(«cf)
392514
444025
(SL)
1.11E407
1.26E407
Lower
Heating
Value
(Btu/scf)
394
387
(Kcal/SL)
3.50
3.45
Energy
Input
(Kcal)
3.894E407
4.334E407
Efficiency
37.1%
36.5%
NOTES:
1. Heating value data is from Pacific Energy's on-line raw gas analyzer HHV hourly averages corrected to GPU exit LHV. A correction
factor (1.01) was developed from a comparison of six GPU Exit ASTM measuremens to six GPU Inlet HHV on-line averages.
The HHV was then converted to the LHV using the correction factor 0.900. The following equation was used for the complete conversion:
Exit LHV = GPU Inlet HHV x 1.01x0.900
2. Efficiency = Energy Output (kWh) x 860.5 Kcal/kWh x 100
Gas Consumed (SL) x LHV (Kcal/L)
SL = standard liters at 15.5 oC
-------
Table 3-2
Fuel Cell Emissions Summary
Penrose Landfill Phase III Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
February 17,1995
SAMPLING TIME
EMISSION CONCENTRATION
(actual dry measurements)
nitrogen oxides (ppmv)
sulfur dioxide (ppmv)
carbon monoxide (ppmv)
oxygen (%)
carbon dioxide (%)
EMISSION CONCENTRATION
(dry measurements corrected to 15% oxygen)
nitrogen oxides (ppmv)
sulfur dioxide (ppm)v
carbon monoxide (ppmv)
VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE (dscm/m)
STACK TEMPERATURE (oC)
MASS EMISSION RATE (grams/hour)
nitrogen oxides
sulfur dioxide
carbon monoxide
MASS EMISSION RATE (grams/kllowatt-Hr)
nitrogen oxides
sulfur dioxide
carbon monoxide
;:; 0800-
a- '&*. ::- 0900
0.3
< 0.5
1.5
7.96
12.5
0.14
< 0.23
0.68
10.1
56.7
0.35
< 0.80
1.06
0.0029
< 0.0067
0.0088
0950-
1050
0.17
< 0.5
1.8
8.01
12.6
0.08
< 0.23
0.82
10.1
56.7
0.20
< 0.80
1.27
0.0016
< 0.0067
0.0106
1155-
1255
0.31
< 0.5
2.1
7.88
12.7
0.14
< 0.23
0.95
9.4
43.3
0.33
< 0.75
1.37
0.0028
< 0.0062
0.0115
1332-
1442
0.17
< 0.5
2.3
7.8
12.3
0.08
< 0.23
1.04
9.4
43.3
0.18
< 0.75
1.51
0.0015
< 0.0062
0.0125
1457-
1557
0.41
< 0.5
0.6
8.03
12.4
0.19
< 0.23
0.28
9.7
42.8
0.46
< 0.78
0.41
0.0038
< 0.0065
0.0034
1622-
1722
0.18
< 0.5
1.9
7.91
12.5
0.08
< 0.23
0.86
9.7
42.8
0.20
< 0.78
1.29
0.0017
< 0.0065
0.0107
AVERAGE
0.26
< 0.50
1.70
7.93
12.50
0.12
< 0.23
0.77
9.7
48
0.29
< 0.78
1.15
0.0024
< 0.0065
0.0096
NOTES:
1. dscm/m = dry standard cubic meters per minute at 20 oC
2. grams/hour = actual ppm x Mol. Wt. x flowrate (dscm/m) x 0.0025
3. grams/kilowatt-Hr = grams/hour/120 kilowatts
-------
3.3 Flare Emissions
Flare emissions, measured on October 21, 1993 on the GPU installed at Penrose,
were 0.087 grams/kWh of NOx, 0.015 grams/kWh of CO, and an estimated 0.009
grams/kWh of SOj (estimate based on total sulfur measured at the flare inlet). The flare
emissions data summary table and calculations are contained in Appendix D.
3.4 Gas Pretreatment Performance Test
Seven GPU Exit gas samples were collected in Tedlar bags during the final hour of a
bed absorption cycle, and analyzed for sulfur and volatile organic target compounds. The
data is summarized in Table 3-3 and sampling and analytical data is in Appendix E.
Carbonyl sulfide was detected in five of seven samples; the highest concentration was
0.385 ppmv detected on February 10. The only halogenated VOC detected was methylene
chloride at 0.005 ppmv in the sample collected on January 19. The six remaining samples
contained no detectable levels of the halogenated target compounds. The detection limits for
halogenated compounds was 0.002 ppmv or lower for each halogenated compound, with the
exception of dichlorodifiuoromethane, which had a detection limit of 0.020 ppmv in five
samples. In summary, the measurements demonstrated that the GPU removed contaminants
to levels far below the 3.0 ppmv performance limit.
H-26
-------
Table 3-3
Gas Prctrcatment System Performance Test:
Summary of Contaminant Removal Measurements
Penrose Landfill - Phase III Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
January 19 - February 17,1995
SAMPLING DATE
Total GPU Operating Time (hours)
Sampling Time
GPU Process Counter
SULFUR COMPOUNDS (ppm)
hydrogen Sulfide
methyl mercaptan
ethyl mercaptan
dimethyl sulfide
dimethyl disulfide
carbonyl sulfide
carbon disulfide
Total Sulfur
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ppm)
dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-dichloroethane
benzene
chlorobenzene
ethyl benzene
methylene chloride
styrene
trichloroethene
toluene
tetrachloroethene
vinyl chloride
xylene isomers
cis- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
Total Halides as Cl
Jan 19
1685
17:00
24969
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.002
< 0.004
< 0.002
nd
< 0.02
< 0.001
0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.002
< 0.001
< 0.002
0.001
< 0.001
0.009
Jan 20
1701
09:22
24900
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.002
< 0.004
< 0.002
nd
< 0.02
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.003
< 0.001
< 0.002
0.003
< 0.001
nd
Jan 25
1710
16:14
53080
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.002
0.071
< 0.002
0.071
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.002
< 0.001
< 0.002
0.001
< 0.001
nd
Jan 26
1826
08:26
52362
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.002
0.077
< 0.002
0.077
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.002
< 0.001
nd
Feb9
2046
10:41
no data
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.002
0.173
< 0.002
0.173
< 0.02
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.004
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.002
< 0.001
nd
!: Feb 10
2069
09:29
23146
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.002
0.385
< 0.002
0.385
< 0.02
< 0.0012
< 0.0016
< 0.0011
< 0.0012
< 0.0015
< 0.0012
< 0.0009
0.0041
< 0.0007
< 0.002
0.0042
< 0.0013
nd
Feb 17
2235
12:55
23217
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.002
0.061
< 0.002
0.061
< 0.02
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.002
< 0.001
< 0.002
0.004
< 0.001
nd
NOTES:
1. nd=non-detected
2. All GPU Exit samples were collected during the last hour before regeneration.
-------
3.5 GPU Exit Gas Heat Content
•
The GPU Exit gas heat content was determined from the on-line GPU Inlet gas heat
content analyzer and a correction factor to determine the fuel cell efficiency. The correction
factor was developed from a comparison of six GPU Exit gas ASTM method heat content
measurements to hourly averages from the on-line analyzer. The GPU Exit gas heat content
averaged 1.0% higher than the Inlet and a factor of 1.01 was used to correct the GPU Inlet
gas on-line data to GPU Exit heat content. A summary of the correction factor development
is presented in Table 3-4 and the data is in Appendix B.
H-28
-------
Table 3-4
Comparison of ASTM Method Heat Content Measurements on Treated GPU Exit Gas
to On-Line Raw Landfill Gas Heat Content Measurements
Penrose Landfill - Phase III Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
Sampling Date
Sampling Time
Treated Landfill Gas Composition Measured
By ASTM Method at GPU Exit (%)
nitrogen
carbon dioxide
methane
ethane
propane
iso-butane
n-butane
iso-pentane
n-pentane
hexanes
hepatanes
GPU Exit HHV by ASTM Method
Btu/standard cubic foot
Kcal/standard liter
GPU Exit LHV by ASTM Method
Btu/standard cubic foot
Kcal/standard liter
GPU Inlet HHV by Pacific Energy
On-Line Analyzer
HHV (Btu/standard cubic foot)
HHV (Kcal/standard liter)
Heat Content Correction Factor
fGPU Exit HHV/GPU Inlet HHV1
Jan 19
16:44
16.266
35.542
44.165
0.024
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
446
3.97
402
3.58
437
3.89
1.02
Jan 20
09;27
17.251
38.896
43.807
0.029
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
443
3.94
399
3.55
435
3.87
1.02
Jan 25
16:09
16.244
39.555
44.142
0.049
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
447
3.98
402
3.58
445
3.96
1.00
Jan 26
08:31
16.34
39.531
44.092
0.037
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
446
3.97
401
3.57
445
3.96
1.00
Feb9
10:37
23.888
36.042
40.07
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
405
3.60
364
3.24
436
3.88
0.93
FeblO
09:26
17.656
38.863
43.481
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
439
3.91
395
3.52
429
3.82
1.02
Febl7
13^3
20.096
34.908
44.996
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
454
4.04
409
3.64
no data
no data
no data
NOTE 1: nd=non-detected
NOTE 2: Standard Conditions at 20 oC
NOTE 3: Average correction factor is 1.01 (Exclude Feb 9
data from average-suspected sampling error.)
-------
4.0 CALCULATIONS AND DATA QUALITY INDICATOR GOALS
This section includes a general description of the data and calculations involved with
the performance demonstration and the emission tests, followed by a discussion of the
expected results, and then a discussion of data quality indicators (DQIs) and DQI goals.
4.1 General Description of Test Data and Calculations
The performance test includes a fuel cell efficiency evaluation and a GPU
performance evaluation. The calculations involved with these objectives are outlined below.
• Fuel cell efficiency was calculated over a six-day operating period from January
24-30 and an eight-day period from February 9-17.
Measurement
Unit
Measurement Type
Fuel cell energy output
Fuel heat content
kWh
Utility-grade electric meter
BTU/scf Raw landfill gas on-line gas
chromatograph and empirical
correction factor developed for
cleaned gas
Fuel use
scf
In-line totalizing flowmeter
Efficiency = Energy output HcWhl x 3413 BTU/kWh
Fuel use (scf) x heat content (BTU/scf)
(Eq. 1)
H-30
-------
Fuel cell availability is not included in this report.
GPU performance was measured on the basis of seven measurements conducted
over the four week program. The performance limit is 3.0 ppmv of total sulfur
and 3.0 ppmv of total halides. Total sulfur and total halides were calculated as
follows:
- Total sulfur was computed by summing the products of each sulfur species
times number of sulfur atoms per mole.
- Total halides was computed by summing the products of each halide species
times the number of halide atoms per mole of species (e.g., CCl, = 4).
Power plant emission concentration and flowrate measurements were used to
calculate a mass emission rate of NOX, SO2, CO, and CO2 from the power plant.
Emissions from power plant and the flare (flare emissions were measured during
Phase II) were summed and converted to mass emissions per energy output as
follows:
Emissions (grams/kWh) = Mass Emission Rate (grams/hr)
120 kWh (Eq. 2)
4.2 Electrical Output
Electrical output was measured by a kWh billing meter, which was calibrated
according to the American National Standard Code for Electricity Metering (ANSI C12). The
accuracy and precision is 2%. Completeness of the power output measurement was 100%.
The billing meter was calibrated by LADWP prior to installation. The results of the meter
calibration for the existing meters at the Penrose Station are included in Appendix F.
H-31
-------
5.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES
•
• *
5.1 Sampling Locations
The sampling locations for the power plant, the flare stack, the GPU outlet, and the
raw landfill gas are indicated on the schematic presented in Figure 1-1. The GPU outlet and
raw landfill gas sampling locations are in IVi" pipes. The flare stack is a 32-inch-diameter
refractory lined stack with two sampling ports located 90° apart, one diameter upstream from
the outlet and approximately three diameters downstream of the nearest flow disturbance.
The power plant stack is a six-inch-diameter stack with two ports located 90° apart.
5.1.1 Performance Demonstration Test
Samples were collected from the GPU outlet (location B) to verify GPU performance.
The sampling location is under 24 psig pressure. The sampling port consists of a gate valve
with a W-inch tube Swagelok-type connector.
Electrical output (location C) was acquired from the LADWP kWh electric meter.
Fuel flowrate was measured with a Yokagawa process flowrate monitor located at the GPU
outlet (location B). Treated fuel heat content samples were collected from the clean fuel line
at the GPU Exit (location B) using a valve connected to a Swagelok fitting.
5.1.2 Emissions Testing
Data was acquired from the fuel cell power plant exhaust (Emission Point Al) and the
GPU flare exhaust (Emission Point A2) to establish the emissions characteristic of the
demonstrator system.
H-32
-------
5.2 GPU Outlet and Raw Landfill Gas Sampling Methods
Tedlar bag samples were collected twice per week from the GPU outlet during the
one-month demonstration. The bags were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (including
halides) and sulfur compounds according to EPA Method TO-14 and Method 16. The Tedlar
bags were collected as grab samples over approximately five-minute periods using a stainless
steel valve to regulate the flowrate (the sampling location is under positive pressure so that
no sampling pumps were required). Heat content samples of treated landfill gas were
collected in steel canisters by purging the canisters with at least 12 volumes of sample gas.
5.3 Power Plant Emissions Monitoring Methods
EPA Methods 7E, 6C, 10, and 3A were used to measure flare exhaust and power
plant exhaust emissions of NOX, SO2, CO, CO2, and O2. Monitoring was conducted for six,
1-hour periods on February 17, 1995. The monitors were calibrated before and after each 1-
hour test with EPA Protocol 1 gases and the drift performance specifications were within the
method specifications for each parameter except for NOx (the NOx analyzer was operated at
the 0-2.5 ppm range which was two low to meet the method drift specification). A schematic
of the measurement system is presented in Figure 5-1.
All continuous emission monitoring (CEM) data was recorded in five-minute intervals
by a Yokogawa Model 2300 stripchart/data logger. The CEM system was housed in TRC's
equipment trailer located within 100 feet of the sampling locations.
Calibration gas entered the system at the probe outlet. This method of inputting
calibration gas challenged the entire system outside of the stack including heated sample line,
out-of-stack filters, and moisture condenser.
H-33
-------
STACK
WALL
TEFLON
DIAPHRAGM
PUMP
BY-PASS TO
ATOMSPHERE
NOZZLE
o
O
§
I
5'
a.
§
OP
.
a
a
oo
s-
TRC
5 W«ler»ld» Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
(203)289-8631
FIGURE 4-1
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
cr.
o
-------
5.3.1 Sample Conditioning System
An in-stack Alundum thimble filter with a stainless steel nozzle facing away from the
stack gas flow served to remove any paniculate matter from the sample gas stream. The
thimble filter was mounted on the end of a stainless steel sampling probe. The sample was
drawn through 100 feet of heated (325°F ± 25 °F) Teflon sample line through a condenser
system to remove the moisture from the gas stream by a leak-free Teflon double-diaphragm
pump. The pump outlet was connected to a stainless steel sample manifold with an
atmospheric bypass rotameter.
5.3.2 NO, Analyzer
A Thermo-Electron Corporation Model 10A chcmiluminescent NO/NO^ analyzer was
used to determine NOX concentrations. The chemiluminescent reaction of NO and O3 (ozone)
provides the basis for the analytical method (NO + O3 -* NO2 + O2 + light). A
photomultiplier-electrometer-amplifier produces a current proportional to the NO
concentration. The output of the amplifier provides a signal for direct readout on a meter
indicator, or for outputs to a recorder or computer.
5.3.3 SO-. Analyzer
A Western Research Model 721 SOs analyzer was used to determine SO2
concentrations in the stack gas. This instrument utilizes the ultraviolet photometric principle,
and was designed to meet the stringent California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements
to ensure maximum accuracy and reliability, without NOX interference, in the 0-1000 ppm
and 0-100 ppm ranges.
H-35
-------
5.3.4 CO Analyzer
A California Instruments, Inc. nondispersive infrared gas analyzer was used to
measure CO concentrations. The analyzer contains an infrared detector that uses the signal
nondispersive beam technique with alternate modulations of the sample and reference cells.
Radiation absorbed by CO in the sample cell results in a capacitance change in the detector
which is proportional to the CO concentration.
5.3.5 O? Analyzer
A Horiba Model PMA-200 O2 analyzer was used to determine the concentration of O2
in the stack gas. This instrument uses the paramagnetic principle, whereby the magnetic
susceptibility of the gas volume is measured by the force acting on a nonmagnetic test body
suspended in a magnetic field. The force is converted to an output current proportional to the
O2 concentration.
5.3.6 CO-, Analyzer
An Infra-Red Industries, Inc., infrared CO2 analyzer was used to monitor CC^
emissions. This instrument operates on the principle of CO2 having a known characteristic
absorption spectra in the infrared range. Radiation absorbed by CO2 in the sample cell
produces a capacitance change in the detector which is proportional to the CO2 concentration.
5.4 Flowrate Monitoring
Flowrate was measured with triplicate tests according to EPA Methods 1 and 2. The
flare exhaust flowrate was calculated from measured inlet gas flowrate and an excess air
factor developed from the diluent measurements. The flare inlet gas flow was measured with
an in-line process monitor which sends a signal to the control room chart recorder.
H-36
-------
5.5 Power Plant Electrical Measurements
The power plant output was continuously monitored with a utility-grade kWh electric
meter. The meter is a digital-display-type meter (Model PMG 30018-15) calibrated according
to ANSI C12. Calibration data is included in Appendix F-2.
H-37
-------
6.0 SAMPLE CUSTODY
The purpose of sample custody procedures is to document the identity of the sample
and its handling from its first existence as a sample until analysis and data reduction are
completed. Custody records trace a sample from its collection through all transfers of
custody until it is transferred to the analytical laboratory. Internal laboratory records then
document the custody of the sample through its final disposition.
In accordance with SW-846, a sample is considered to be under a person's custody if
the sample is:
• In that person's possession.
• In view of that person after acquiring possession.
• Secured by that person so that no one can tamper with the sample.
• Secured by that person in an area which is restricted to authorized personnel.
These criteria were used to define the meaning of "custody" and ensure the integrity
of the samples from collection to data reporting.
6.1 Sample Documentation
Documentation of all samples and data collected during this program was performed
using TRC data forms (both hard copy as well as computer) and bound laboratory notebooks.
6.1.1 Sampling Data Forms
Emission data from the power plant and flare exhaust was recorded with a digital data
logger which provides a stripchart-type trend as well as periodic averages. The data was
redpced according to EPA methods using a personal computer and Lotus 1-2-3. All
additional field data and observations were recorded in bound laboratory notebooks.
H-38
-------
6.1.2 Sample Identification and Labeling
The samples were identified with the following information:
• Sample location (GPU outlet or raw landfill gas)
• Date and time of collection
• Required analytical parameters
• Sampler name
• Project name and number
This information was entered on to a TRC label and placed on the Tedlar bag sample.
The information was also recorded in a bound laboratory notebook.
6.2 Chain-of-Custody Forms
Custody of the samples was documented using a chain-of-custody form. The chain-of-
custody form was completed providing sample identification, required analyses, sample
container descriptions, project identification. Prior to sample shipment, the TRC sampler
relinquished custody of the samples by signing and dating the chain-of-custody form in the
"Relinquished by" box. The TRC sampler required the laboratory to complete the "Received
by" box when the samples were hand delivered by TRC. Following completion of the chain-
of-custody form, TRC retained the bottom copy.
H-39
-------
6.3 Laboratory Custody
Samples arriving at the laboratory were compared against the chain of custody prior
to the laboratory acknowledging sample receipt by signing the chain-of-custody forms. The
laboratory then continued the chain of custody by entering the samples into the laboratory
information system (LIMS). This is done by assigning an internal project number and
individual sample identifications. The samples were stored in a controlled access area until
analysis. Sample transfers between the storage area and the analytical area of the laboratory
are documented through internal chain of custody generated by the LIMS.
H-40
-------
7.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
7.1 Manual Sampling Equipment
The TRC quality assurance program for source testing is designed to ensure that
emission measurement work is performed by qualified people using proper equipment and
following written procedures in order to provide accurate, defensible data. The program is
based upon the EPA Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,
Volume m (EPA-600/4-77-0276).
Sampling and measurement equipment, including continuous analyzers, recorders,
pitot tubes, dry-gas meters, orifice meters, thermocouples, probes, nozzles, and any other
pertinent apparatus, is uniquely identified, undergoes preventive maintenance, and is
calibrated before and after each field effort, following written procedures and acceptance
criteria. Most calibrations are performed with standards traceable to the National Institute for
Science and Technology (NIST). These standards include wet test meters, standard pitot
tubes, and NIST Standard Reference Materials. Records of all calibration data are maintained
in TRC files.
7.2 Power Plant Continuous Monitoring Methods
The continuous measurement analyzers were calibrated before and after each test for
zero and span drift according to EPA Methods 6C, 71:, 10, and 3A. EPA Protocol 1 gases
were used. Calibration gas was introduced to the system at the probe outlet using a three-way
tee. An excess flow of calibration gas will be metercd to the tee with the excess flowing into
the stack through the probe. A calibration error test was also conducted once by first
conducting a zero and span calibration, followed by introducing a zero, high and mid point
calibration gas to the system.
H-41
-------
7.3 GPU Exit Gas Flowrate Meter
Calibration of the gas meter installed on the C!PU Exit was performed by the
manufacturer. Calibration documentation is provided in Appendix F-3.
7.4 Electrical Power Measurements
Calibration documentation provided by LADWP is included in Appendix F-2.
7.5 On-Line Raw Landfill Gas Heat Content Analyzer
This analyzer is automatically calibrated daily using a certified gas. The calibration
gas contains carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, and methane. The data system records the
response factor of each compound, compares it to the certified reference, and reports a
deviation. An example of a calibration report is included in Appendix F-l.
-------
8.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
8.1 Continuous Emissions Monitoring
See Section 5.3.
8.2 Heat Content Analysis of GPU Exit Samples
The heat content (BTU/scf) of the GPU Exit samples was determined according to
ASTM Method D3588-91. This method covers procedures for calculating heat content from
compositional analyses of the samples. Compositional analysis of the samples was conducted
using a gas chromatograph equipped with a thermal conductivity detector to measure the
concentrations of nitrogen, oxygen, methane, and carbon dioxide, and a gas chromatograph
equipped with a flame ionization detector to measure the concentrations of Cl through C6
hydrocarbons. For each gas chromatograph method, an initial calibration curve with a
minimum of three points is analyzed using calibration gas standards containing the analytes
of concern. The calibration curve spanned the expected concentration of the samples. The
initial calibration is verified at least once at the beginning of each 24-hour period with the
analysis of a mid-level Continuing Calibration standard. The percent difference of the
continuing calibration response factors shall be within ±15% from the initial calibration
mean response factor. The heat content of the samples was then calculated using the
equations presented in ASTM Method D3588-91 from the measured chemical composition.
8.3 GPU Exit Contaminant Analysis
8.3.1 Sulfur Compound Analysis
Tedlar bag samples were analyzed for seven sulfur compounds and total reduced
sulfur as hydrogen sulfide utilizing a GC/FPD according to the procedures outlined in EPA
Method 16. An initial calibration curve with a minimum of three points was analyzed using
H-43
-------
calibration gas standards containing the analytes of concern. The calibration curve spanned
the expected concentration of the samples. The initial calibration is verified at least once at
the beginning of each 24-hour period with the analysis of a mid-level Continuing Calibration
standard. The percent difference of the continuing calibration response factors was within ±
15% from the initial calibration mean response factor. One field sample per analytical
sequence was analyzed in duplicate to demonstrate the precision of the analytical technique
on the sample matrix.
8.3.2 Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The Tedlar bag samples were also analyzed by GC/MS for VOCs and specified
tentatively identified compounds. The analyses were performed according to the methodology
outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of Methods for the Determination of
Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air (EPA 600/4-84-041, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April 1984 and May 1988). The
method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were performed by GC/MS
utilising a direct cryogenic trapping technique.
Verification of the mass calibration of the GC/MS is checked at the beginning of
every 24-hour analytical sequence by the direct injection of 50 nanograms (ng) of
bromofluorobenzene. The calibration range of the target compounds is determined by the
three-point curve. Linearity is established over the range of the three-point curve if the
percent relative standard deviation of the response factors is less than 30% for each analyte.
A continuing calibration is considered to establish the same conditions of linearity and range
as the initial calibration if the response factor for each analyte is within 20% of the average
response factor of the initial calibration. A continuing calibration is performed at the
beginning of each 24-hour period. A blank is analyzed following calibration as a sample to
demonstrate that the analytical system is free from contamination.
H-44
-------
Internal standards and surrogates are introduced into the sample stream to monitor the
method efficiency. If the internal standard area changes by a factor of two (-50% to +200%)
and/or surrogate recoveries are less than 80% or greater than 120%, the internal standard/
surrogate gas standard is reevaluated by analyzing a lab blank. If the internal standard areas
in the blank are within a factor of two of the quantification standard and surrogate recoveries
are within 80%-120%, then the sample analyses may be continued. The earlier low
recoveries may be attributed to a matrix effect. The sample must be reanalyzed to verify that
a matrix effect was the cause and not some intermittent problem. If the areas and recoveries
remain poor in the lab blank, then corrective action must be taken. This may include leak
checking the system and/or the preparation of a fresh internal standard surrogate mix. A
minimum of one duplicate was analyzed per analytical sequence.
-------
9.0 DATA REDUCTION. VALIDATION. AND REPORTING
9.1 Overall Calculations
• POLLUTANT MASS EMISSION RATE (SO2, NOX, and CO)
grams/hour = concentration (ppmvd) x flowratc (dscm/m)xM.W. X 0.0025
M.W. (SOz) = 64
M.W. (NOJ = 46
M.W.(CO) = 28
• FUEL rFT.i. EFFICIENCY (reference Figure 1-1 for measurement locations)
Efficiency (%) = Hewn at TCI^ (3413 BTU/kwh) x 100
(scf at [B]) (BTU/scf)
where: scf = measured GPU exit gas by totalizer at [B], based on flow,
temperature, pressure.
BTU/scf = hourly average heat content measured with Pacific Energy's
on-line analyzer and a correction factor (correction factor =
1.01) developed from a comparison of six GPU Exit ASTM
measurements to six hourly averages from the Pacific
Energy analyzer.
H-46
-------
9.2 Data Validation
• -
Each 1-hour period of continuous emission data was reduced on a separate Lotus file.
Copies of the raw data logger charts and the spreadsheet printout are included in Appendix
C. Laboratory data was submitted to TRC for a QA evaluation. A QA specialist examined
the data, checked the precision and accuracy of the results (duplicate analyses and audits),
and reported the findings to the TRC Project Manager.
9.3 Identification and Treatment of Outliers
Continuously monitored parameters did nol change significantly throughout the
program. Responses for CEM monitors and Pacific Energy process monitors were evaluated
during the emissions testing and nothing unusual was observed. Similarly, the analytical
values for halide and sulfur compounds concentrations of the GPU outlet gas were constant
over the course of the program.
The GPU Exit heat content sample collected on February 9, was unusually low and
was considered to be caused by sampling error. It was likely that the sampling bulb was not
completely purged with sample gas.
H-47
-------
10.0 QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
10.1 Data Collection and Sampling OC Procedures
Continuous emission monitoring QC checks included zero and span drift tests,
calibration error tests, system bias checks, and audits. All continuous monitoring zero and
span gases were delivered to the probe outlet to challenge the entire sampling system. The
QC data was recorded on the data logger chart and is summarized in the following section.
10.2 Analytical Laboratory OC Checks
Blanks for both sulfur and VOC analyses were conducted with each set of samples
received by the laboratory. The blank concentration of target sulfur compounds was less than
2 ppbv and the blank concentration of target VOCs was less than 1 ppbv.
Audit samples for this program were purchased by TRC for target volatile
compounds, sulfur compounds, and heat content analysis. The audits were used to determine
the accuracy and results are summarized in Section 11.
Instrument calibration verifications for GC and GC/MS were performed for target
volatile compounds, sulfur compounds, and heat conicnt analysis.
Laboratory duplicates were performed for each analytical parameter for each
analytical sequence. The percent difference determined was used to evaluate matrix effect on
the precision of the analytical technique. The precision objective for laboratory duplicates is
10% relative percent difference (RPD). The results of laboratory duplicates are included
with the laboratory results in Appendix E.
H-48
-------
11.0 QUALITY CONTROL TEST RESULTS
11.1 Fuel Heat Content Measurements
Precision of the ASTM Method was measured by sampling and analysis of three
replicate samples collected of the GPU Exit gas collected on January 19, 1995. In addition,
four replicate samples of the GPU Inlet gas were collected and analyzed on the same day.
The results of these replicate measurements are summarized in Table 11-1 and the analytical
data is in Appendix G. The precision was within expected variation with a relative standard
deviation (RSD) of 0.11% for the GPU Exit samples and 0.6% for the GPU Inlet samples.
Accuracy of the GPU Inlet on-line analy/cr was also evaluated by comparison to the
four replicate samples collected on January 19. The results of this audit demonstrated an
accuracy of 1.1% based on the relative standard deviation
11.2 GPU Exit Gas Contaminant Measurements
Precision and accuracy measurements were conducted to assess sulfur compound and
VOC compound concentration measurements concluclcd on the clean gas at the GPU Exit.
The results are summarized in Table 11-2 and the raw data is in Appendix H.
11.2.1 Sulfur Compounds
Sulfur compound precision was determined by three replicate measurements of a 10.1
ppmv hydrogen sulfide audit gas. The RSD was within QAPP limits at 0.6%. Accuracy,
based on the hydrogen sulfide audit was 30.7% which was outside of the QAPP expectation
of 15%.
H-49
-------
Table 11-1
Heat Content Measurement Quality Assurance Data Summary
Penrose Landfill - Phase III Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
January 19 - February 10,1995
ASTM Method Precision Determined with Triplicate Samples of GPU Exit Gas
Sampling Date , Jan 19
Sampling Time 1
GPU Heat Content HHV (Btu/scf) 446
Measured Offsite by ASTM Method
Jan 19
2
445
Jan 19
3
446
Standard
Deviation
0.47
Average
446
Relative
Standard
Deviation
0.11%
ASTM Method Precision Determined with Quadruplicate Samples of Raw Landfill Gas
Sampling Date
Sampling Time
Raw Landfill Gas HHV (Btu/scf)
Measured Offsite by ASTM Method
Jan 19
1
446
Jan 19
2
452
Jan 19
3
447
Jan 19
4
445
Standard
Deviation
2.69
Average
448
Relative
Standard
Deviation
0.60%
Comparison of Four ASTM GPU Inlet Measurements to Pacific
Energy's On-LJne Analyzer
ASTM Method HHV (Btu/scf)
(Average of four samples collected
from 15:28 to 16:00)
Pacific Energy On-Line Analyzer HHV
(Btu/scf)
Mean '
Standard Deviation
Relative Standard Deviation
448
438
443
5
0.01
H-50
-------
Table 11-2
Cms Pretreatment System Outlet
Halide and Sulfur Analysis QA Data
Penrose LandfUl - Phase HI Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
January 19,1995
Sulfur Compound Precision (Determined from triplicate audit samples)
Compound
hydrogen sulfide
Concentration (ppra)
Sample 1
13.2
Sample!
13.1
Sample 3
13.3
•Average
13.2
Standard
Deviation
0.082
Relative
Standard
Deviation
0.6%
Halide Compound Precision (Determined from triplicate audit samples)
Copmpound
vinyl chloride
cis-l,2-dichloroethene
1,1-dichloroc thane
tetrachloroethene
Concentration (ppb)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 2
15
14
13
14
15
13
13
14
22
15
15
16
Average
17
14
14
15
• Standard
Deviation
3.300
0.816
0.943
0.943
Relative Standard
Deviation
19.0%
5.8%
6.9%
6.4%
Sulfur Compound Accuracy (Determined from analysis of one hydrogen sulfide audit)
Compound
hvdrogen sulflde
Measured
Concentration
(ppm)
13.2
Certified
Concentration
(ppm)
10.1
Difference
3.1
Accuracy
30.7%
Halide Compound Accuracy (Analysis of two certified audits-Cylinder No. 01046673 and 01046663
Compound
Cylinder No. 01046673
vinyl chloride
cis- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
1 ,1 -dichloroe thane
tetrachloroethane
Cylinder No. 01046663
trichlorofluoromethane
methylene chloride
Measured
Concentration
(Ppb)
17.3
14
13.7
14.7
70
91
Certified
Concentration
(ppb)
11.2
11.9
12.1
11.2
99.2
120
Difference
6.1
2.1
1.6
3.5
-29
-29
Accuracy
54.5%
17.6%
13.2%
31.3%
-29.4%
-24 2%
H-51
-------
11.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds
•
VOC precision was evaluated by three replicate measurements of an audit gas
containing four target compounds. The RSD ranged from 5.8% to 19% and averaged 9.5%
for the four compounds. VOC accuracy was determined by analysis of two audit cylinders;
one cylinder contained four target compounds and the second cylinder contained two target
compounds. On the first audit, accuracy ranged from 13.2% to 54.5% and averaged 29.2%.
Accuracy based on the second audit ranged from -24.2% to -29.4 %. Accuracy based on
these audits was above the expected range of 15%.
11.3 Fuel Cell Emissions
A series of cylinder gas audits were conducted on the emission monitoring system to
evaluate accuracy and the results are summari/.ecl in Table 11-3 with the raw data contained
in Appendix I. Audits on the CO2, O2, SO2, and CO analyzers were with the expected
range of 15% accuracy. Two NOx analyzer audits demonstrated the accuracy ranged from
20.7 to 22.4%. This was not unexpected at the low operating range of 0-2.5 ppmv.
In addition to audits, normal EPA reference method QC procedures were conducted
and the data is summarized in Table 11-4. Calibration error was within 2% for each
parameter with the exception of NOx because ol" the low range. Calibration drift was also
acceptable (below 2% for each parameter except NOx). The raw data for the calibration
error is contained in Appendix J.
H-52
-------
Table 11-3
Fuel Cell Emissions Testing QA Data
Cylinder Gas Audit Summary
Penrose Landfill - Phase HI Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
February 16-19,1995
Parameter
Carbon dioxide
Oxygen
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Nitric oxide (Note 1)
Nitric oxide (Note 1)
Nitric oxide (Note 2)
Nitric oxideJNote 3)
Cylinder No.
CC88851
CC97847
AAL7595
AAL7595
ALM048981
ALM048981
ALM025536
AAL7595
Certified
Concentration
6.12
12
24.8
25.8
1.4
0.7
2.37
2.37
Units
%
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Average
Response
6.2
12.1
23.8
24.4
1.46
0.76
1.84
1.88
Accuracy
1.3%
0.8%
-4.0%
-5.4%
4.3%
8.6%
-22.4%
-20.7%
Notes:
1. This audit was prepared from a 2.37 ppm NO certified cylinder with an Environics calibrator. The 2.37 ppm cylinder was also
used as a span gas, so this data point was actually a calibration error test rather than an audit.
2. This audit was prepared from a 50.8 ppm NO certified cylinder using the Environics calibrator. Accuracy was outside
the 15% objective. This accuracy was not unusual for the low range (0-2.5 ppm) used for the program.
3. This audit was prepared from a 26.7 ppm NO certified cylinder using the Environics calibrator. Accuracy was also outside
the 15% objective because of the low operating range.
H-53
-------
Table 11-4
Fuel Cell Emissions-EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7E and 10
QA Summary Including Calibration Drift and Calibration Error
Penrose Landfill- Phase HI Fuel Cell Energy Recovery Demonstration
February 17,1995
Calibration Error Summary
Parameter
nitric oxides
sulfur dioxide
carbon monoxide
oxygen
carbon dioxide
Percent Error
zero
3.2
0
1.2
0
0.4
mid-point
6.8
-0.2
1.8
-1.2
0
high-point
-0.4
0.4
0
0.4
-0.4
Calibration Drift Summary
Test
No.
1
2
3
' 4
5
6
Time
0800-0900
0950-1050
1155-1255
1332-1432
1457-1557
1622-1722
nitric oxides
Zero
Drift
16.8%
35.2%
17.2%
6.0%
-28.0%
-14.4%
Span
Drift
10.8%
21.5%
16.4%
3.2%
-32.0%
-11.6%
sulfur dioxide
Zero
Drift
-0.1%
-2.1%
-0.6%
-0.4%
0.5%
0.9%
Span
Drift
0.9%
-1.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
1.3%
carbon monoxide
Zero
Drift
-1.4%
-1.5%
-1.3%
-0.8%
-2.8%
1.9%
Span
Drift
-30.0%
0.2%
-0.3%
-1.6%
0.9%
2.1%
H-54
-------
12.0 CALCULATION OF DATA QUALITY INDICATORS
12.1 Precision
12.1.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring
Precision was determined before and after each test period using a zero and span
calibration drift test. The drift was calculated as a percentage of instrument range, as
follows:
% drift = [monitor value] - [certified concentration] x 100
span value
12.1.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds - GPU Outlet Samples
A series of three samples was collected simultaneously. The precision was calculated
for each detectable compound by the relative standard deviation (RSD), as follows:
RSD = s s = standard deviation
x x = mean value
12.1.3 GPU Outlet - Heat Content Analysis
The RSD from a series of three replicate samples will be calculated to determine
precision. The RSD calculation is defined above.
H-55
-------
12.2 Accuracy
• -
12.2.1 Continuous Emission Monitorinii
Accuracy was determined by analyzing audit gases for each parameter. The audit
cylinders were EPA Protocol 1 (± 1%) or equivalent. Accuracy will be calculated as
follows:
accuracy = Cm - C. x 100
C.
Cm = monitor response
C. = certified audit concentration
12.2.2 Sulfur and Halide Compounds
Audit samples were prepared gravimetrically by a specialty gas manufacturer and
certified for ± 5% accuracy. The audits were analyzed with the first set of samples
submitted to the laboratory. The sulfur audit gases contained hydrogen sulfide and the halide
audit gases contained six target compounds. Accuracy was determined as previously
described for continuous monitoring.
12.2.3 GPU Outlet Heat Content Analysis
One BTU audit cylinder gas audit was purchased from a specialty gas manufacturer
and analyzed with the heat content samples by the ASTM method. The analysis indicated
that the methane concentration was 3.5% lower than the certified value. Nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, and propane measured concentrations were within 2% of the certified values. The
remaining compounds (propane, butanes, and pentanes) had a variation greater than 10%.
The results of this audit indicated that performance was less than QAPP specifications,
H-56
-------
however, the net effect on heat content analyses is not significant. The comparison study
between the on-line Pacific Energy analyzer and ASTM method measurements showed that
the two methods were consistently within 2% (see Table 3-4).
H-57
-------
SUB-APPENDIX A
PROCESS DATA
H-A1
-------
•a t\w
'2k^4-
»iv».4 '//-•)
a* f %
V.IV b
ftfc* t VO
SCR09
P"ATf
1"
?
TIME
WEEKLV DATA'FOR
1_ JCR09 ""
F/COP'HOWS"
PENROSE FUEL CELU
'
YOKOOAWA
SCF
DIETER CABINE1
TOTAL FUELCON
X/fcO
SCROfl
LADWP(KW) CUM POWER
DIOI
. ,(BTU/SCF)
-------
27 '95 08:15
FROM IKTL FUEL CELLS B
TO 92986399
PflGE.002
J4-
15..
JFFER
L9S6.
1956.
995.
.
1918.
184 i-
LVOV.
;FFER
66/'-
69iJ.
JiR S
1 1J'
' il:
;FFE«
435.
[*is.
1419.
i jifftS
Ir (-61.
;«'-c,o.
« -66.
-64.
IS. 15.
-IS. IS.
11. SOURCE 511
1955. 1956.
1956. 1957.
2O04 . 2OO3 .
1993. 199O.
12. SOURCE 3O9
19O4. 1917.
191?. 1918.
1^16. 1922.
1911. 1910.
13. SOURCE 311
i.# 7 - 689 .
*.-'-'• . j - 689 .
695. 694.
698. 698.
14. SOURCE" 315
14. 1C.
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
« IS, SOURCE 5O4
23435. •W-435.
/S-436. M-434.
7 433. (,434.
-434. 434 .
fl 16. SOURCE
-61. -61.
-6O. -6O .
-64 . -64 .
-64. -64.
IS.
15.
S/B S'CFM
1956.
, 1914.
' 2002 .
1989.
E2 GKW
1924.
1922.
1923.
1914.
E2SCFMFG
69O.
70S.
6V4.
69S.
£2SCJrPlNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
fl/O B IN
2* 435.
/J 435.
5 434 .
434.
PEN VAC
-61 .
-57.
-64.
-64.
15.
IS.
1956. .
19S7.
1955.
20OO.
1984.
1911. .
1911.
1930.
1919.
1918.
68S. .
6S8.
694.
694.
699.
14. .
14.
14.
14.
14.
435. .
la 435.
n.435.
4 434.
435.
-62. .
-61.,,
-61.
-64 .
-64.
IS-
IS.
TRIGGER
1956.
1956.
1999.
1980.
TRIGGER
1911.
1839.
1922.
1914.
TRIGGER
685.
6S5.
695.
697.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
*7436 .
* 435.
3433. a
436.
TRIGGER
-61 .
-01.
-64.
-64.
15.
IS.
914
1957.
I860.
1998.
1973.
914
1921.
1772.
1926.
1933.
914
634.
6V L.
693.
4-95.,
914
14.
13.
14 .
14.
914
#437 .
*>435.
E£& ^ w* •
437.
914
-61 .
-56.
-64 .
-64.
IS.
15-
1957.
S£7.
1996.
1990.
1923.
736.
1924.
*1926.
683 .
331 .
b94 .
697.
1* -
7 .
i* .
14.
X'"" ^Vi
^/74^?^X
Y 423 .
0407433 .
437 .
-6O.
-45.
-64 .
-63.
^,
Oioo
C.N
H-A3
-------
MflR 27 '95 08U5
FROM INTL FUEL CFI I S B
TO 92986399
PRGE.003
14. 14. 14.
14.. 14. 14.
JFFER * 11. SOURCE. 511
1956. 1956. 1956.
1955. 3957. 1937.
1889. 1956. . 1956.
1956. 1955. 1956.
JFFER * 12, SOURCE 3O9
I9O2. 19O9. 1916.
L924. 192S. 1926.
186Z- 1912. 19O9.
1917. 1904. 1917.
JHFLH » 13, SOURCE 311
6S'9- 689. 693.
VO4 . 694 . 696 .
AS4.. 63/. 688.
638. 657. 6S9.
JFFER * 14. SOURCE 315
14. 14. 14.
1-a. 14. 14.
14. 1*. 14.
14. 14. 14.
;FfER * 15. SOURCE 5O4
439. 439. 439.
433- 442. 442.
437. 437. 437.
42i. 435. 435.
JrFfK a 16. SOURCE 515
-62. -62. -62.
-60. -59. -SJ.
-59. -61. -61.
-61. -61. -61.
14.
14.
S/8 SCFM
1956.
1953.
1955.
1956.
£2 GKW
1923.
1919.
19O5.
1924.
E2SCFMFG
69V-
695.
637 .
69O.
E2SCFMNG
14 .
14.
14.
14.
A/O B JN
440.
439.
436.
435.
PEN VAC
-62.
-53.
-61.
-61 .
14.
14.
1956. ,
1956.
1953.
1955.
1957.
. 1919. ,
1912.
1911.
1910.
1911.
691 . .
6V9.
699.
657.
688.
14. .
14.
14 .
14.
14.
44O. .
44O.
437.
433.
435.
-62. .
-62.
-57.
-61 .
-61.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
1956.
1781.
1955.
1956.
TRIGGER
1910.
1S96.
1930.
1911.
TRIGGER
695.
723.
6VO.
685.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14 .
14.
TRIGGER
441 .
437.
435 .
436.
TRIGGER
-61 .
-47.
-61.
-61 .
14 .
14,
914
1957.
1O13.
19S6.
1957.
914
1924.
1559.
1930.
1921.
914
691 .
677.
69O.
684.
914
14.
14.
14 .
14.
914
441 .
430,^
^-437.
914
-59.
-44.
-61 .
-61.
14.
14.
1956.
25.
1956.
1957.
1 922 .
89-
191.1 .
1923.
69< .
81 .
6SS.
683.
14.
2.
14.
14 .
442.
424 .
435.
437. ^
-61 .
-4 .
-62.
-60.
H-A4
-------
:1RR 30 '95 10:52
14. 14. JL4.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
IFFER « 11. SOURCE 511
,953. 1953. 1953.
.953. 1953. 1954.
L953. 1952. 1953.
.953. 1953. 19S3.
)FF£R * 12, SOURCE 3O9
,917. 1927. 1928.
.946. 1934. 1940.
1935. 1928. 1926.
1928. 1918. 1917.
JFFER « 13, SOURCE 311
694. 696. 694.
697. 696. 695.
701. 7O2. 703.
707. 705. 705.
IFFER * 14. SOURCE 315
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
IFFER * IS, SOURCE 504
442. 441. 442.
442. 442. 442.
441. 441. 441.
439. 439. 438.
JFFER * 16, SOURCE 515
-65. -65. -65.
-65. -64. -64.
-64. -64. -64.
-64. -64. -64.
FROM INTL
14.
14.
14.
S/B SCFM
1953.
1952.
1953.
1953.
E2 GKW
1935.
1937.
1928.
1918.
E2SCFMFG
695,
693.
7O4.
7O6.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
A/0 8 IN
442.
441.
441.
438.
PEN VAC
-65.
-64.
-64.
-64.
FUEL PR 1 S B
14.
14.
14.
1953.,
1953.
1952.
1953.
1953.
1926. .
1921.
1930.
1921.
1910.
695..
694.
699.
7O4.
70S.
14.,
14.
14.
14.
14.
443. ,
441.
440.
44O.
439.
-66.,
-65. .
-65.'
-64.
-64.
14.
14,
14.
TRIGGER
1953.
1953.
1953.
1953.
TRIGGER
1919.
1933.
1919.
1912.
TRIGGER
694.
702.
7O4.
7O4..
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
441.
440.
440.
439.
TRIGGER
-65.
-65.
-64.
-64.
TO 9298S399
14.
14.
14.
914
1953.
1953.
1952.
1953.
914
1931.
1931.
1927.
1930.
914
695.
697.
707.
7O4.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
441.
44O.
44O.
44O.
914
-65.
-64.
-64.
-64.
14.
14.
14.
1953.
1953.
1953.
1954.
1944.
1936.
1938.
1938.
695.
70O.
710.
7O2.
14.
14.
14.
14.
442.
441 .
439-
44O. „
-65.
-64.
-64.
-63.
PfiGE.003
V''
v V
V
H-A5
-------
MflR 30 '95
14.
14.
13.
14.
JFFER *
1982.
1982.
1953.
1953.
JFFER «
1909.
1917.
1927.
1917.
JFFER #
692.
691.
691.
694.
JFFER *
14.
14.
14.
14.
JFFER *
445.
445.
444.
442.
JFFER *
-66.
-66.
-66.
-65.
14.
14.
13.
14.
10:52
14.
14.
13.
14.
11, SOURCE 511
1983.
1983.
1952.
1953.
1982.
1978.
1952.
1953.
12, SOURCE 309
1915.
1927.
1930.
1927.
1915.
1933.
1931.
1928.
13, SOURCE 311
694.
690.
692.
696.
695.
693.
693.
694.
14. SOURCE 315
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
IS, SOURCE 5O4
445.
445.
444.
441.
445.
445.
443.
442.
16, SOURCE 515
-66.
-65.
-66.
-65.
-67.
-65.
-66.
-65.
FROM INTL
14.
14.
14.
14.
S/B SCFM
1982.
1981.
1953.
1953.
E2 GKW
1914.
1945.
1925.
1935.
E2SCFMFG
694. .
692.
717.
695.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
A/O B IN
445.
442.
443.
442.
PEN VAC
-66.
-65.
-65.
-65.
FUEL fFl 1 5 B
14.
14.
14.
14.
1982. ,
1982.
1981.
1953.
1953.
1910. ,
1907.
1952.
1923.
1921.
691. ,
694.
694.
738.
694.
14.,
14.
14.
15.
14.
445. ,
444.
442.
443.
441.
-66. ,
-67 X
-65.
-59.
-65.
14.
14.
IS.
14.
TRIGGER
1982.
1979.
1953.
1953.
TRIGGER
1901.
1951.
1923.
1919.
TRIGGER
694.
696.
769.
694.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
15.
14.
TRIGGER
444.
"443.
444.
441.
TRIGGER
-66.
-65.
-S3.
-65.
TO 92986399
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
1982.
1928.
1952.
1953.
914
1912.
1942.
1927.
1931.
914
695.
7O3.
711.
695.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
444.
443.
444.
441.
914
-66.
-64.
-62.
-65.
14
13
14
14
19S3
1953
19S3
1953
1913
1929
1926
1944
694
692
695
695
14
14,
14
14
/^~*^
Cv£45,
443
443
442
-66
-66
-66
-65
PPGE.004
H-A6
-------
* MAR
14.
14.
14.
UFFER *
1883.
1845.
1982.
1982.
UFFER *
1920.
1915.
1898.
1909.
IUFFER *
686.
701.
690.
692.
UFFER «
14,
14.
14.
14.
JFFER *
44O.
'" 447.
446.
M, ii/1' 445.
Hl/«. UFFER *
-65-
-58.
-67.
-66-
27 '95
12.
14.
14.
08: 16
13.
14.
14.
11, SOURCE 511
1883.
1199.
1982.
1983.
1883.
1974.
1982.
1982.
12, SOURCE 3O9
1911.
1594.
1906.
1915.
1916.
1890.
19O4.
1915.
13, SOURCE 311
685.
611.
689.
694.
685.
684.
687.
695.
14, SOURCE 315
14.
12.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
15. SOURCE 5O4
44O.
444.
446.
445-
439.
444.
446.
445.
16, SOURCE 515
-65.
-61.
-66.
-66.
-65.
-65.
-66.
-67.
FROM INTL FUEL CELLS
13.
14.
14.
S/8 SCFM
1883.
1982.
1982.
1982.
E2 GKW
1915.
1914.
19OS.
1914.
E2SCFMFG
684.
686.
687.
694.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
A/0 8 IN
439.
445.
446.
445.
PEN VAC
-65.
-66.
-66.
-66.
13.
14.
14.
1883..
1883.
1981.
1982.
1982.
1930.,
19O5.
1911.
1908.
19O7.
687. .
682.
689.
689.
694.
14..
14.
14.
14.
14.
439..
442.
445.
446.
444.
-65...
-65.'
-67.
-66.
-67.
B
3.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
1883.
1783.
1982.
1982.
TRIGGER
1903.
1912.
1907.
19O1.
TRIGGER
678.
715.
689.
694.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
444.
445.
446.
. 444.
TRIGGER
-65.
-52.
-66.
-66.
TO 923
0
14
14
914
1855
170O
1983
1982
914
1908
1902
1924
1912
914
689
715
692
695
914
14
14
14
14
914
445
445
446
444
914
-62
-46
-66
-66
PflGE.005
5.
14.
14.
1813.
1SOO.
1982.
1983.
1912.
1898.
1910.
1913.
696.
708.
691.
694.
14.
14.
14.
14.
H-A7
-------
MflR 30 '95
13.
14.
14.
14.
OFFER *
1883.
1845.
1982.
1982.
UFFER #
1920.
191S.
1898.
1909.
UFFER *
686.
701.
69O.
692.
UFFER 9
14.
14.
14.
14.
UFFER *
44O.
447.
446.
445.
UFFER tt
-65.
-58.
-67.
-66.
13.
12.
14.
14.
10:53
13.
13.
14.
14.
11, SOURCE 511
1883.
1199.
1982.
1983.
1883.
1974.
1982.
1982.
12, SOURCE 3O9
1911.
1594.
1906.
1915.
1916.
1890.
19O4.
1915.
13, SOURCE 311
685.
611.
689.
694.
685.
684.
687.
695.
14, SOURCE 315
14.
12.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
IS. SOURCE 504
44O.
444.
446.
445.
439.
444.
446.
445.
16, SOURCE 515
-65.
-61.
-66.
-66.
-65.
-65.
-66.
-67.
FROM INTL
13.
13.
14.
14.
S/B SCFM
1883.
1982.
1982.
1982.
£2 GKW
1915.
1914.
1905.
1914.
E2SCFMFG
684.
686.
687.
694.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
ft/0 8 IN
439.
445.
446.
445.
PEN VAC
-65.
-66.
-66.
-66.
FUEL fFi ' S
13.
13.
14.
14.
1883. .
1883.
1981.
1982.
1982.
193O. ,
19O5.
1911.
1908.
19O7-
687. .
682.
689.
689.
694.
14..
14.
14.
14.
14.
439.,
442.
445.
446.
444.
-65...
-65.'
-67.
-66.
-67.
B
13.
3.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
1883.
1783.
1982.
1982.
TRIGGER
1903.
1912.
1907.
1901.
TRIGGER
678,
715.
689.
694.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
444.
445.
446.
444.
TRIGGER
-65.
-52.
-66.
-66.
TO 92985399
13.
O.
14.
14.
914
1855.
17OO.
1983.
1982.
914
19O8.
19O2.
1924.
1912.
914
689.
715.
692.
695.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
445.
445.
446.
444.
914
-62.
-46.
-66.
-66.
14.
5.
14.
14.
1813.
1SOO.
19S2.
19S3.
19.12.
1898.
1910,
1913.
696.
7O8.
691.
694.
14.
14.
14.
14.
«i
445.
445.
445.
445.
-56.
-56.
-66.
-66.
PftGE.005
H-A8
-------
MAR 30 '95
X^ •
13.
13.
13.
JFFER *
1802.
L803.
L883.
1883.
JFFER *
L898.
L91O.
L924.
1920.
JFFER S
677.
670.
689.
686.
IFFER *
14.
13.
14.
14.
iFFER *
436.
441.
436.
44O.
FFER 9
-67.
-65.
-64.
-65.
A w .
13.
13.
13.
10:53
A W »
13.
13.
13.
11. SOURCE 511
1802.
1803.
1883.
1883.
1802.
1758.
1883.
1883.
12. SOURCE 309
1896.
1916.
1928,
1911.
1899.
1913.
1936.
1916.
13, SOURCE 311
677.
673.
689.
685.
677.
666.
687.
685.
14, SOURCE 315
14.
13.
14.
14.
14.
13.
14.
14.
15. SOURCE 504
436.
439.
436.
44O.
436.
437.
437.
439.
16. SOURCE 515
-67.
-65.
-64.
-65.
-67.
-65.
-64.
-65.
FROM INTL
AW*
13.
13.
13.
S/8 SCFM
1803.
1685.
1883.
1883.
£2 GKW
1910.
1382.
1926.
1915.
E2SCFMFG
678.
524.
687.
684.
E2SCFMNG
14.
10.
14.
14.
A/0 B IN
437.
438.
437.
439.
PEN VAC
-67.
-64.
-64.
-65.
FUEL CF1 1 S B
A W »
11.
13.
13.
1802. .
1802.
610.
1884.
1883.
1894..
1909.
O.
1926.
1905.
676. ,
678.
O.
687-
682.
14..
14.
0.
14.
14.
436. ,
438.
431.
437.
442.
-67..
-67.'
-68.
-64.
-65.
A +m* •
12.
13.
13.
TRIGGER
1802.
1207.
1883.
1883.
TRIGGER
1898.
710.
1918.
1903.
TRIGGER
675.
265.
686.
678.
TRIGGER
13.
5.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
438.
428.
438.
444.
TRIGGER
-66.
-64.
-64.
-65.
TO 9298S399
A W -
13.
13.
13.
914
1803.
1884 .
1883.
1855.
914
1913.
1925.
1923.
19O8.
914
673.
688.
686.
689.
914
13.
14.
14.
14.
914
439.
435.
439.
445.
914
-66.
-64.
-64.
-62.
A ^
13
13
14
1803
1883
1883
1813
19O3
1921
1930
1912
671
689
687
696
13
1*
14
14
44O
435
439
445
-66
-64
-65
-56
PRGE.006
H-A9
-------
13.
14.
14.
14.
UFFER
1883.
1845.
1982.
1982.
UFFER
192O.
1915.
1898.
1909.
UFFER
686.
701.
690.
692.
JFFER
14.
14.
14.
14.
JFFER
44O.
447.
446.
445.
JFFER
-65.
-58.
-67-
-66.
MftR 30 '95
13.
12.
14.
14.
10:53
13.
13.
14.
14.
* 11, SOURCE 511
1883.
1199-
1982.
1983.
1883.
1974.
1982.
1982.
# 12, SOURCE 3O9
1911.
1594.
19O6.
1915.
1916.
1890.
19O4.
1915.
* 13, SOURCE 311
685.
611.
689.
694.
685.
684.
687.
695.
9 14. SOURCE 315
14.
12.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
* IS. SOURCE 504
44O.
444.
446.
445.
439.
444.
446.
445.
» 16, SOURCE 515
-65.
-61.
-66.
-66.
-65.
-65.
-66.
-67.
FROM INTL
13.
13.
14 .
14.
S/B SCFM
1883.
1982.
1982.
1982.
E2 GKW
1915.
1914.
1905.
1914.
E2SCFMFG
684.
686.
687.
694.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
«/0 B IN
439.
445.
446.
445.
PEN VAC
-65.
-66.
-66.
-66.
FUEL rFl 1 «=;
13.
13.
14.
14.
1883. .
1883.
1981.
1982.
1982.
193O. ,
1905.
1911.
19O8.
1907.
687. ,
682.
689.
689.
694.
14..
14.
14.
14.
14.
439. ,
442.
445.
446.
444.
-65...
-65.'
-67.
-66.
-67.
B
13.
3.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
1883.
1783.
1982.
1982.
TRIGGER
1903.
1912.
1907.
1901.
TRIGGER
678,
715.
689.
694.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
444.
445.
446.
444.
TRIGGER
-65.
-52.
-66.
-66.
TO 92985399
13.
O.
14.
14.
914
1855.
17OO.
1983.
1982.
914
1908.
19O2.
1924.
1912.
914
689.
715.
692.
695.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
445.
445.
446.
444.
914
-62.
-46,
-66.
-66.
14.
5.
14.
14.
1813.
1SOO.
19S2.
1983.
1912.
1898.
191O,
1913.
696.
7O8.
691.
694.
14.
14.
14.
14.
445.
445.
445.
445.
-56.
-56.
-66.
-66.
PftGE.005
H-A8
-------
VlflR 30 '95 10:54
.14 - JL*. i^.
13. 13. 13.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
?FER « 11, SOURCE 511
926. 1926. 1926.
926. 1926. 1926.
926. 1926. 1926.
926. 1926. 1926.
FFER * 12, SOURCE 3O9
920. 1919. 19O9.
919. 1919. 1924.
934. 1917. 1934.
917. 1929. 1926.
FFER * 13, SOURCE 311
731. 729. 729.
723. 723. 723.
699. 696. 699.
b96. 697. 696.
rFER * 14, SOURCE 315
IS. IS. IS.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
-FER * IS, SOURCE 5O4
136. 436. 436.
139. 439. 438.
137. 437. 437.
138. 438. 438.
FFER V 16, SOURCE 515
-66. -66. -66.
-64. -64. -64.
-66. -65. -65.
-66. -66. -65.
FROM IKTL FUEL (Tl 1 5
1* -
13.
14.
14.
S/8 SCFM
1926.
1928.
1926.
1926.
E2 GKW
1922.
.1914.
1934.
1925.
E2SCFMFG
731.
725.
699.
697.
E2SCFMNG
IS.
IS.
14.
14.
A/0 8 IN
437.
437.
437.
438.
PEN VAC
-66.
-65.
-66.
-66.
JL4.
13.
14.
14.
1926. ,
1926.
1924.
1923.
1926.
1932. ,
1917.
1907.
1924.
1933.
732..
730.
722.
• 698.
697.
15..
IS.
14.
14.
14.
436. ,
437.
436.
437.
439.
-66..
-66. *
-65.
-66.
-6S.
B
i-i.
14.,
14.
14.
TRIGGER
1924.
1928.
1926.
1926.
TRIGGER
1914.
1918.
1927.
1934.
TRIGGER
729.
725.
698.
698.
TRIGGER
15.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
438.
436.
437.
439.
TRIGGER
-65.
-65.
-66.
-66.
TO 92986399
Ivi.
14.
14.
14.
914
192S.
1926.
1926.
1926.
914
1924.
1913.
1923.
1932.
914
727.
724.
696.
694.
914
15.
14.
14.
14,
914
439.
437.
437.
44O.
914
-65.
-66.
-65.
-65.
14
14
14
14
1926
1925
1926
1926
1917
1906
1918
1934
723
717
695
693
14
14
14
14
439
436
437
440
-64
-66
-66
-65
PRGE.008
H-A11
-------
14.
13.
14.
14.
UFFER
1926.
1926.
1925.
1925.
UFFER
1917.
1929.
1931.
1903.
JFFER
696.
691.
695.
69S.
JFFER
14.
14.
14.
14.
JFFER
438.
44O.
437.
438.
JFFER
-66.
-64.
-66.
-66.
MflR 30 '
14
14
14
14
* 11,
1926
1926
1926
1926
* 12.
1929
1934
1917
1917
9 13,
697
691
693
698
* 14.
14
14
14
14
* 15,
438
44O
438
438
95 10=53
14.
14.
14.
14.
SOURCE 511
1926.
1926.
1925.
1925.
SOURCE 309
1926.
1923.
1933.
1926.
SOURCE 311
696.
69O.
697.
699.
SOURCE 315
14.
14.
14.
14.
SOURCE 504
438.
439.
438.
438.
* 16, SOURCE 515
-66
-64
-65
-66
-65.
-64.
-66.
-66.
FROM INTL
14.
14.
14.
14.
S/8 SCFH
1926.
1927.
1925.
1926.
E2 GKW
1925.
1917.
1931.
1930.
E2SCFPIFG
697.
690.
698.
699.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
A/0 8 IN
438.
438.
437.
439.
PEN VAC
-66.
-65.
-65.
-66.
FUEL rn i s
14.
14.
1-4.
14.
1926.,
1926.
1926.
1926.
1926.
1918. .
1933.
1915.
1935.
1919.
695. ,
697-
690.
697.
699.
14.,
14.
14.
14.
14.
437 . ,
439.
437.
438.
439.
-66. ,
-65.'"
-65.
-66.
-66.
B
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
1926.
1925.
1925.
1926.
TRIGGER
1934.
1919.
1930.
1917.
TRIGGER
698.
69O.
700.
698.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
439.
437.
438.
438.
TRIGGER
-66.
-65.
-66.
-66.
TO 92986399
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
1926.
1926.
1925.
1926.
914
1932.
1932.
1916.
1939.
914
694.
692.
697.
699.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
44O.
437.
438.
439-
914
-65.
-66.
-66.
-65.
14.
14.
14.
14.
1926.
1926.
1926.
1926.
1934.
1919.
1915.
1941.
693.
693.
697.
698.
14.
14.
14.
14.
440.
437.
438.
439.
-65.
-66.
-66.
-65.
PflGE.007
H-A10
-------
14.
14.
•PER *
500.
300.
DOO.
301 .
•PER *
?36.
?30.
?27.
931.
FFER *
709.
702.
706.
704.
rFER *
14.
14.
14.
14.
rFER *
V2~l .
131.
H32.
l0T£R 4*
•58.
•57.
•58.
•58.
30 '95 10:54
J.4. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
11. SOURCE 511
2001. 20O1.
2001. 20O2.
2000. 2001.
2OOO . 2OOO .
12, SOURCE 309
1926. 1929.
1925. 1931.
1926. 1928.
1926. 1933.
13, SOURCE 311
708. 70S.
7OO. 698.
706. 705.
703. 7O6.
14, SOURCE 315
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
15, SOURCE 6O6
426. 427.
431. 43O.
432. 432.
432. 432.
16, SOURCE 515
-58. -58.
-57. -57.
-58. -58.
-58. -58.
FROM INTL
14.
14.
14.
14.
S/B SCFM
2OOO.
2001.
20OO.
20OO.
£2 GKW
1927.
1929-
1937.
1937.
E2SCFMFG
7O6.
699.
705.
706.
E2SCFrtNG
14.
14.
. 14.
14.
LFG8TUAV
428.
429.
432.
433.
PEN VAC
-58.
-57.
-58.
-58.
FUEL CELLS
J.4.
14.
14.
14.
20O1 . ,
2001.
2000.
2000.
2O01.
1936. ,
1925.
1937.
1935.
1932.
709.,
7O7.
701.
705.
7O4.
14.,
14.
14.
14.
14.
427. ,
429.
429.
432.
434.
-58. .
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
B
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
2001.
2001.
2001.
2OO1.
TRIGGER
1937.
1935.
1946.
1927.
TRIGGER
7O8.
706.
7O6.
7O2.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
430.
43O.
432.
434.
TRIGGER
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
TO 92986399
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
2001.
2000.
20O1.
2OO1.
914
1952.
1949.
1947.
1932.
914
7O8.
7O9.
7O6.
699.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
431. -^
. 429-X
'CS32.
435.
914
-58.
-58.
-58.
-57.
14
14
14
14
2001
2001
2001
2001
1947
1926
1935
1951
7O3
709
7O6
701
14
14
14
14
~ 431
43O
432
435
-57
-58
-58
-57
PRGE.010
H-A13
-------
MflR
*^.
14.
14.
14.
IUFFER *
20O4.
2002. •-
1796.
2OOO.
IUFFER n
1916.
1931.
1937.
1936.
1UFFER «
708.
698.
730.
7O9.
:UFF£R *
14.
14.
15.
14.
UFFER *
433.
433.
426.
427.
UFFER «f
-57.
-57.
-50.
-58.
30 '95 10:55
J.H . X«* .
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
11, SOURCE 511
2004. 2003.
"2OO4. 20O4.
2001. 20OO.
2001. 2001.
12, SOURCE 309
1930. 1932.
1923. 1933.
1943. 1946.
1926. 1929.
13, SOURCE 311
711. 711.
698. 698.
7O9. 71O.
7O8. 708.
14, SOURCE 315
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
15, SOURCE 6O6
433. 432.
433. 432.
427. 428.
426. 427.
16, SOURCE 515
-58. -58.
-57. -56.
-58. -58.
-58. -58.
FROM INTL FUEL rci i s
i*t .
14.
14.
14.
S/B SCFM
2003.
2005.
2000.
2OOO.
E2 GKU
1949.
1946.
1949.
1927.
E2SCFF1FG
711.
702.
710.
706.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
LFG8TUAV
433.
431.
428.
428.
PEN VAC
-58.
-57.
-58.
-58.
±4 .
14.
14.
14.
2O04. ,
2004.
2003.
2001.
2001.
1915. ,
1936.
194O.
1947.
1925.
71O. ,
705.
7O4.
710.
707.
14. .
14.
14.
14.
14.
433. ,
433.
428.
427.
429.
-58.,
-58.'
-57.
-58.
-58.
B
14 .
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
2O04.
20O3.
2OOO.
2001.
TRIGGER
1935.
1939.
1950.
1937.
TRIGGER
705.
703.
711.
708.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
434.
426.
427.
43O.
TRIGGER
-58.
-57.
-58.
-58.
TO 92986399
14.
JE.4.
14.
14.
914
2003.
2OO3.
20OO.
20O1.
914
1940.
1935.
1944.
1952.
914
7O6.
7O6.
710.
708.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
434.
426.
427.
431.
914
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
14
14
14
14
2006
1815
2001
2001
1940
1334
1936
1947
703
543
7O9
703,
14,
11,
14,
14,
434.
424,
427.
431,
-57,
-52,
-58
-57
PflGE.011
H-A1-4
-------
MflR
*•* •
14.
14.
14.
UFFER *
2003.
2004.
2004.
2004.
UFFER »
194O.
1940.
1935.
1916.
UFFER *
708,
703.
704.
708.
JFFER *
14.
14.
14.
14.
IFFER «
433.
434.
432.
433.
IFFER *
-58.
-57-
-58.
-57.
30 '95 10:55
.*.*» - AH .
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
11, SOURCE 511
2004. 2004.
2004. 2OO4.
20O3. 2OO4.
2004. 2003.
12, SOURCE 3O9
1947. 1939.
1948. 1931.
1947. 1936.
193O. 1932.
13, SOURCE 311
709. 708.
698. 7OO.
7O6. 7O5.
711. 711.
14, SOURCE 315
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
14. 14.
15, SOURCE 6O6
433. 433.
434. 433.
433. 433.
433. 432.
16, SOURCE 515
-58. -58.
-57. -57.
-58. -58.
-58. -58.
FROM INTL FUEL CE1 L5
J.<* .
14.
14.
14.
S/B SCFM
2003.
2004.
20O4.
2003.
E2 GKW
1941.
1928.
1941.
1949.
E2SCFnFG
7O4.
699.
7O8.
711.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
LFG8TUAV
433.
432.
433.
433.
PEN VAC
-58.
-57.
-57.
-58.
14 .
14.
14.
14.
20O4 . ,
2004.
2OO4.
2004.
2004.
1936. ,
1926.
1926.
1947.
1936.
7O7. ,
703.
70O.
708.
70S.
14.,
14.
14.
14.
14.
432. ,
434.
431.
432.
433.
-S8..,
-58.'
-58.
-58.
-58.
B
14.
14.
14.
- 14.
TRIGGER
2003.
2004.
2003.
2OO4.
TRIGGER
1927.
1928.
1933.
1935.
TRIGGER
7O4.
701.
711.
70S.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
434.
431.
433.
434.
TRIGGER
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
TO 929SS399
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
2004.
2003.
20O4.
20O3.
914
1932.
193O.
1938.
1940.
914
704,
70S.
711.
7O6.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
434.
431.
433.
434.
914
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
14.
14.
14.
14.
2004.
2004.
2004.
20O6.
1935.
1937.
1915.
1940.
704.
706.
710.
703.
14.
14.
14.
14.
435. ""
432.
433.
434.
4.
-57.
-58.
-58.
-57.
PRGE.012
H-A15
-------
m MAR 30 '95
14.
14.
14.
UFFER *
2O03.
2005 .'
2003.
2OO3.
UFFER «
1935.
1934.
1938.
1940.
JFFER 9
7O9.
696.
703.
708.
;FFER »
14.
14.
14.
14.
iFFER ff
432.
435.
433.
433.
CFER *
-53.
-57.
-58.
-58.
*. » »
14.
14.
14.
10:55
o.-» .
14.
14.
14.
11, SOURCE 511
2O04.
2004.
2003.
2004.
2O03.
2006.
2OO4.
2004.
12, SOURCE 309
1912.
1922.
1934.
1947.
1918.
1920.
1930.
1939.
13, SOURCE 311
7O9.
696.
703.
7O9.
709.
693.
705.
708.
14. SOURCE 315
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
15, SOURCE 6O6
431.
435.
433.
433.
43O.
434.
433.
433.
16, SOURCE 515
-58.
-57.
-58.
-58.
-59-
-57.
-58.
-58.
FROM INTL FUEL CELLS
A*» .
14.
14.
14.
S/B SCFM
2OO4.
2003.
20O4.
2003.
£2 GKW
1914.
1923.
1931.
1941.
E2SCFMFG
7O4.
696.
709.
7O4.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
LFGBTUAV
432.
433.
433.
433.
PEN VAC
-59.
-57.
-58.
-58.
J.4 .
14.
14.
14.
2003 . ,
2O03.
2003.
2003.
2004.
1939. ,
1917.
1920.
1943.
1926.
709. ,
701.
698.
708.
7O3.
14. ,
14.
14.
14.
14.
433. ,
434.
432.
433.
434.
-58. ,
-58.'
-58.
-58.
-58.
B
14 .
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
20O4.
2004.
2003.
2003.
TRIGGER
1927.
1922.
1945.
1927.
TRIGGER
702.
701.
7O6.
7O4.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
434.
432.
433.
434.
TRIGGER
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
TO 92986399
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
20O4.
2004.
2004.
20O4.
914
1938.
1927.
1925.
1932.
914
702.
702.
7O6.
7O4.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
434.
432.
432.
434.
914
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
14
14
14
14
2OO5
2004
2004
2O04
1933
1926
1936-
1935
699
7O2
707
704
14
14
14
14
435
433
432
435
-58
-58
-58
-57
PAGE. 013
4JL*
H-A16
-------
MflR 30 '95 10:55
_ • • —-T. i-».
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14..
JFFER * 11, SOURCE 511
»004. 2003. 2004.
£003. 20O4. 2003.
>004. 20O3. 20O4.
J003. 2OO4. 2OO3.
JFFER # 12, SOURCE 3O9
.927. 1923. 1930.
.945. 1938. 1947-
L927. 1928. 1929.
.935. ' 1912. 1918.
JFFER * 13, SOURCE 311
696. 695. 698.
707. 7O5. 7O3.
702. 707. 706.
709. 709. 709.
FFER * 14, SOURCE 315
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
14. • 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
FFER « 15, SOURCE 6O6
t35. 435. 435.
129. 432. 433.
132. 432. 428.
132. 431. 43O.
rFER * 16. SOURCE 515
•58. -58. -58.
-58. -58. -58.
-58. -58. -58.
•58. -58. -59.
FROM INTL FUEL CF1 1 R
o.*t .
14.
14.
14.
S/8 SCFM
2004.
2004.
2003.
2004.
£2 GKW '
1935.
1936.
1924.
1914.
E2SCFMFG
699.
699. •
7O8.
704.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
LFG8TUAV
435.
432.
432.
432.
PEN VAC
-58.
-57.
-58.
-59.
j.«* .
14.
14.
14.
2003. r
2004.
2OO3.
2004.
2OO3.
1933. ,
1929.
1944.
1941.
1917.
697.,
697.
699.
709.
701.
14.,
14.
14.
14.
14.
435. ,
435.
432.
432.
434.
-58.,
-58.''
-58.
-58.
-58.
B
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
2003.
2004.
2003.
2004.
TRIGGER
193O.
1944.
1940.
1927.
TRIGGER
697.
698.
707.
7O2.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
434.
430.
431.
434.
TRIGGER
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
TO 9298S399
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
2003 ..
20O3.
2003.
2OO4.
914
1934.
1948.
1933.
1938.
914
699.
702.
709.
702.
914
14.
14.
14.
14,
914
434.
432.
433.
434.
914
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
14.
14.
14.
14.
2003.
2003.
2003.
2005.
1938.
1941.
1939.
1933.
702.
7O2.
7O9.
699.
14.
14.
14.
14.
__
434.
433.
433.
435.
-58.
-58.
-58.
-58.
PflGE.014
UKV,
H-A17
-------
30 '95 10:56^
14. 14. 14.
14. 14, 14.
14. 14. 14.
UFFER * 11, SOURCE 511
2003. 2004. 20O4.
2OO4. 20O4. 2003.
20O4. 20O4. 2OO4.
20O4. 2OO3. 20O4.
JFFER * 12, SOURCE 309
1921. 1929. 1932.
1937. 1925. 1931.
L93O. 1935. 1926.
1927. 1923. 193O.
JFFER * 13, SOURCE 311
7O3. 7O5. 7O4.
697. 697. 696.
693. 696. 694.
696. 695. 698.
JFFER * 14, SOURCE 315
14.. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
14. 14. 14.
iFFER * 15, SOURCE 606
433. 433. 434.
438. 438. 438.
439. 439. 439.
435. 435. 435.
FFER * 16, SOURCE 515
-59. -59- -59.
-58. -58. -58.
-59. -58. -58.
-58. . -58. -58.
FROM INTL FUEL CELLS
*•* .
14.
14.
14.
s/a scFn
2O04.
2O04.
2003.
2004.
£2 GKW
1939.
1968.
1934.
1935.
E2SCFMFG
704.
70O,
694.
699.
E2SCFMNG
14.
14.
14.
14.
LFGBTUAV
435.
438.
438.
435.
PEN VAC
-59.
-58.
-58.
-58.
x-» .
14.
14.
14.
2OO3. ,
2003.
2OO4.
2003.
2004.
1927.,
1931.
1972.
1935.
1929-
704. ,
704.
700.
697.
697.
14.,
14.
14.
14.
14.
432.,
435.
439.
438.
435.
-59...
-59.'
-59.
-58.
-58.
B
-L*l .
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
2004.
2004.
2003.
2003.
TRIGGER
1925.
1960.
1937.
1930.
TRIGGER
7O3.
698.
70O.
697.
TRIGGER
14.
14.
14.
14.
TRIGGER
436.
439.
437.
434.
TRIGGER
-59.
-59.
-58.
-58.
TO 92986399
JL«« .
14.
14.
14.
914
2OO4.
2O03.
20O4.
2003.
914
1925.
1938.
194O.
1934.
914
699,
696.
699.
699.
914
14.
14.
14.
14.
914
436.
438.
436.
434.
914
-58.
-59.
-58.
-58.
0.4.
14.
14.
14.
2005,
2O03.
2003.
2003.
1941.
1939.
1933.
1938.
698.
693.
697.
702.
14.
14.
14.
14.
437.
439.
435.
434.
w
-58.
-59-
-58.
-58.
PAGE.015
H-A18
-------
SUB-APPENDIX B
GPU EXIT HEAT CONTENT
ANALYTICAL DATA - ASTM METHOD
H-B1
-------
=.€>
TEXAS w
ILTECH LABORATORIES
, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS
P.O. BOX 741905. HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
CLIENT: Environmental Solutions
SAMPLE: GPU Out 11 995 Btu-1
(1-19-95) 16:44
LABORATORY NO: 4690 A
TEST
77042
REQUESTED BY;
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
TEL: (7 13} 739- 5591
FAX: (7T 3} 789- 5593
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 6, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
Specific Gravity @ 60 °F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
MOL%
16.266
39.542
44.165
0.024
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.003
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.006
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.001
0.007
1 .0050
446
438
0.9978
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M. Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-B2
-------
EXAS WILTECH
LABOR
ATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITEJOO, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713) 789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
GPU Out 12095 Btu-1
(1-20-95) 09:27
4690 H
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
Februarys, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL%
17.251
38.896
43.807
0.029
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.001
0.001
0.015
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.008
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.006
NIL
0.014
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
2 Factor
1.0032
443
435
0.9978
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M;Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-B3
-------
EXAS
ILTECH LABORATORIES
, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
GPU Out 12595 Btu-1
(1-25-95) 16:09
4699 A
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER WO:
TEL: (713) 789^5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 6,1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL%
16.244
39.555
44.142
0.049
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 osia
0.012
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.012
Specific Gravity @ 60 °F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0052
445
437
0.9978
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M. Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-B4
-------
EXAS
ILTECH
LABOR
ATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713) 789^591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
GPU Out 12695 Btu-1
(1-26-95) 08:31
4699 B
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
Februarys, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL%
16.340
39.531
44.092
0.037
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.010
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.010
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air= 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0053
444
436
0.9978
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M/Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-B5
-------
EXAS
• ILTECH
LABOR
ATOPIES
, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713)789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CUENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
GPU Out 20995 Btu-1
(2-9-95) 10:37
4775 A
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 15, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL%
23.888
36.042
40.070
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.000
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air=1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0023
404
397
0.9980
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M: Sorurtaknsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-B6
-------
TEXAS w
ILTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713) 789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
GPUOut21095Btu-1
(2-10-95) 09:26
4775 B
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 15, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL %
17.656
38.863
43.481
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
100.000
GPM ® 14.650 psia
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.000
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0040
439
431
0.9978
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M/Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-B7
-------
TEX
AS
iLTECH ABORATORIES,
0 ^CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 770^ ^^^ ,
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274 W\ ^^^^^
CUENT: Environmental Solutions V REQUESTED BY:
SAMPLE: GPU Out 21795 Btu-1 REPORT DATE:
(2-17-95) 13:33 Gas (Air) PROJECT NAME:
LABORATORY NO: 4835 PURCHASE ORDER NO:
TEST
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
MOL% GPM
Nitrogen 20.096
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
Specific Gravity @ 60
Calculated Btu/cu. ft.
Dry basis ,
Wet basis ,
Z Factor
34.908
44.996
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
100.000
°F (air = 1)
@ 14.650 psia and 60 °F:
..454
446
TEL: (713)789-5591
FAX: (713)789-5593
Mf. Ken Pierce
February 24, 1995
P9-41038
RESULTS
@ 14.650 psia
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.000
0.9757
0.9979
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M. Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-B8
-------
SUB-APPENDIX C
POWER PLANT EMISSIONS DATA
H-C1
-------
f RC Environmental Corporation
CEM Data Sheet
Firm '
Location
Tester
Test No.
Location
Date
TIME
CO Zero
Upscale
O2 Zero
f Upscale:
C02 | Zero
NOx Q'.^Zjir6 •:•••
SO2 R :Zerb
,Ut*£«Lr
THC _zero
TUpaoaie^
IFC
Penrose
C. Scott
1-120 KW
Fuel Cell
2-17-95
0800-0900
(Rack) -
Analyzer
•'.'.!•' cpp.)j::
-0.8
87.9
0.2
20.1
0.1
20.1
-0.04
2.41
0.7
89,8
Cal. Back
Analyzer
Response
co C^zero^l
OJpscalO
NOx Q^Zefo . 1
II Upscale 1
Ambient Temp, deg. F = 75 CO
MEL Temp, deg. F = 75 O2
Bar. Pressure, in Hg = 29.24 CO2
Vacuum Gauge = NA NOx
Flowrate (Ipm) 6 SO2
THC
, Initial Values
System
Cal.
Response
-0.6
88
0.1
20.1
0.1
20.2
0.09
2.41
-0.1
88.5
System
Cal. Bias
% of Span
0.2
0.1
-0.4
0
0
0.4
5.2
0
-0.8
-1.3
0
0
Final Values
System
Cal,
Response
-2
87.7
0.1
20
0.2
20.2
0.51
2.68
-0.2
89.4
LIMITS || •*•/- 5% H
Cal.
Upstream
Analyzer Bias Check
Response % of Span
LIMIT
0
0
0
0
+/-5%
CO
02
CO2
NOx
SO2
THC
System
Cat Bias
% of Span
-1.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
0.4
0.4
22
10.8
-0.9
-0.4
0
0
+/- 5%
^•i'ZEROiS-
^Caii-OaS':
itAhajyzeir
Response
1.2
0
0.1
0.08
0
LIMIT ;
Drift
% of Span
-1.4
-0.3
0
-0.4
0.4
0
16.8
10.8
-0.1
0.9
0
0
Calibration Gases
Mid
Cal
50
10
10
1.25
50
High
Cal
90.4
20.1
20.2
2.37
90.7
TankID
Mid Hlah '
ALM38592
ALM022962
ALM022962
ALM43127
ALM36593
Analyzer
Range
a
Units
ppm
100
PERCENT
25
PERCENT
25
PPm
2.5
ppm
100
ppm
100
f/- J% |^^^^^»
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
1.20
0.00
0.40
3.20
0.00
MID
Cal, Gas
Analyzer
Response
51.8
9.7
10
1.42
49.8
0.00
+/-2% I
Avg.
Gas
Cone,
.
0.2
.
8.00
-
12.6
-
0.61
-
0
-
Corrected
Gas
Cone,
.
1.5
-
7.96
-
12.5
-
0.3
-
0.2
-
ERR
ALM38592
ALM022962
ALM02296S
ALM43127
ALM3659c
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
1.80
-1.20
0.00
6.80
-0.20
HIGH
Cal. Gas
Analyzer
Response
90.4
20.2
20.1
2.36
91.1
0.00
+/- 2% I
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
0.00
0.40
.-0.40
-0.40
0.40
0.00
+/- 2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C, subpart 4.1
-------
T&6 'Environmental Corporation
OEM Data Sheet •'">
Firm •'
Location
Tester
Test No.
Location
Date
TIME
CO Zero ;s
Upscale:;
O2 ; Zero ;
^Upscale ;;
CO2 i Zero s
J Upscale;
! NOx .^fZeram
n Upscale
SO2 Zero
:Upscale:
THC [^iZeroj-.
•UpscaleT
IFC
Penrose
C. Scott
2-120 KW
Fuel Cell
2-17-95
0950-1050
(Rack)
Analyzer
CaL
-0.8
87.9
0.2
20.1
. 0.1
20.1
-0.04
2.41
0.7
89.8
Cat. Back
Analyzer
Response
CO ll v_Zero;
1-^ Upscale; 1
NOx l-*Zero^i
It Upscale II
1
Ambient Temp. deg. F = 75 CO
MEL Temp. deg. F = 75 O2
Bar. Pressure, In Hg = 29.24 C02
Vacuum Gauge = NA NOx
Flowrate (Ipm) 6 SO2
, Initial values
System
CaL
Response
1.1
87.7
0
20
0.1
20.2
0.06
2.68
1.6
89.4
LIMITS
System
Cal. Bias
% of Span
1.9
-0.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
4
10.8
0.9
-0.4
THC
Final Values
System
Cat.
Response
-0.4
87.9
0.1
20
0.2
20.2
0.94
3.21
-0.5
88.2
o
°i
^+£5%_J|
Cal.
Upstream
Analyzer Bias Check
Response % of Span
LIMIT
0
0
0
0
+1-5%
CO
02
CO2
NOx
SO2
THC
System
cat. Bias
% of Span
0.4
0
-0.4
-0.4
0.4
0.4
39.2
32
-1.2
-1.6
0
0
+/- 5%
ZERO
CaL Gas
Analyzer
Response
LIMIT; ;;
' .
Drift
% of Span
-1.5
0.2
0.4
0
0.4
0
35.2
21.2
-2.1
-1.2
0
0
: Calibration Gases -.-""
Mid •
cat
50.7
12
6.12
49.6
High
Cal
90.4
20.1
20.2
2.37
90.7
TankID
Md - Hiqh '.
ALM25536
CC97847
CC88851
ALM25536
... . .-.,.L.- j-rir.-
Analyzer
Range
&
Units
ppm
100
PERCENT
25
PERCENT
25
ppm
2.5
ppm
100
ppm
100
^+^32^fc
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MID
Cal. Gas
Analyzer
Response
+1-2% |
Avg,
Gas
Cone,
.
2.1
-
8.00
-
12.7
-
0.68
-
-0.1
-
•[
Corrected
Gas
Cone.
.
1.8
-
8.01
-
12.6
-
0.17
-
-0.7
-
ERR
ALM3859S
ALM02296;
ALM02296:
ALM43127
ALM3659;
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-50.70
-48.00
-24.48
0.00
-49.60
0.00
I +/- 2% |
HIGH
CaL Gas
Analyser
Response
I
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-90.40
-80.40
-80.80
-94.80
-90.70
0.00
+/- 2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C, subpart 4.1
-------
f
TRC Environmental Corporation
CEM Data Uicei .
Firm ''
Location
Tester
Test No.
Location
Date
TIME
CO Zero
Upscale
O2 Zero
Upscale
CO2 Zero ?
Upscale
NOx -Zero ?
;., Upscale;
SO2 Zero
1 Upscale;
THC E-ZefQli.
|: Upscale
IFC
Penrose
C. Scott
3-120 KW
Fuel Cell
2-17-95
1155-1255
(Rack)
Analyzer
, Cal, .
-0.8
87.9
0.2
20.1
0.1
20.1
-0.04
2.41
0.7
89.8
Cal. Back
Analyzer
Response
CO rzero 1
[(""Ppscale ' 1
NOx ll zero 1
LJJps^|le_lj
Ambient Temp, deg. F = 75 CO
MEL Temp, deg. F = 75 O2
Bar. Pressure, In Hg = 29.24 C02
Vacuum Gauge = NA NOx
Flowrate (Ipm) 6 SO2
THC
. Initial Values
System
Cal.
Response
-0.6
87.9
0
20
0.1
20.2
0
2.3
-0.1
88.2
LlM S
System
Cal, Bias
% of Span
0.2
0
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.5
1.6
-4.4
-0.8
-1.6
Final Values
System
Cal, '
Response
-1.9
87.6
0.2
20
0.1
20.1
0.43
2.71
-0.7
88.3
0
+/- 5% b
Cal.
Upstream
Analyzer Bias Check
Response % of Span
LIMIT
0
0
0
0
+/- 5%
CO
O2
CO2
NOx
SO2
THC
System
Oat, Bias
% of Span
-1.1
-0.3
0
-0.4
0
0
18.8
12
-1.4
-1.5
0
0
+/- 5%
• "•'• TCP f\' : : ''
'•'•' ' '''T! iT.f^^^ '':'':'
j Anaiyier
Response
UMTT^^
Drift
% of Span
-1.3
-0.3
0.8
0
0
-0.5
17.2
16.4
-0.6
0.1
0
0
calibration Gases
Mid
Cat
50.7
12
6.12
49.6
High
Cal
90.4
20.1
20.2
2.37
90.7
TankID ' '
Mid Hlah '
ALM25536
CC97847
CC88851
ALM25536
Analyzer
Range
&
Units
ppm
100
PERCENT
25
PERCENT
20
ppm
2.5
ppm
100
ppm
100
^*^*J^J|
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MID
Cat, Gas
Analyzer
Response
0.00
+/- 2% |
Avg.
Gas
Cone,
-
0.8
-
7.90
-
12.7
-
0.51
-
-0.6
-
Corrected
Gas
Ctono,
-
2.1
-
7.88
-
12.7
-
0.31
-
-0.2
-
ERR
ALM3859;
ALM022962
ALM022962
ALM43127
ALM3659:
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-50.70
-48.00
-30.60
0.00
-49.60
HIGH
Cal Gas
Analyser
Response
0.00 1
^+/- 2% |
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-90.40
-80.40
-101.00
-94.80
-90.70
0.00
+/- 2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C, subpart 4.1
-------
f £6 Environmental Corporation
CEM Data Sheet ••:x::i>v.V "•'.•. ':;:
Firm '
Location
Tester
Test No.
Location
Date
TIME
co - y^-Zvtbm
Upscale;
02 :*::ZeroW'
Upscale5
CO2 : Zerd P
Upscale;
NOx Zertt::*
SO2 r"^Zerb"'i?
THC ':;v; JUJB^p;^:'-^:
1 Upscale
IFC
Penrose
C. Scott
4-120 KW
Fuel Cell
2-17-95
1332-1432
(Rack)
Analyzer
Cal.
-0.8
87.9
0.2
20.1
0.1
20.1
-0.04
2.41
0.7
89.8
Cal. Back
Analyzer
Response
CO [j Zero ••;-;
NOx I :; Zero •••'
Upscale
I
Ambient Temp, deg. F = 75 CO
MEL Temp.
Bar. Pressui
Vacuum Ga
Flowrate (Ip
, Initial Values
System
CaL
Response
-1.9
87.6
0.2
20
0.1
20.1
0.05
2.34
-0.7
88.3
LIMITS
System
CaL Bias
% of Span
-1.1
-0.3
0
-0.4
0
0
3.6
-2.8
-1.4
-1.5
deg. F = 75 O2
e, InHg = 29.24 CO2
jge = NA NOx
fn) 6 SO2
THC
Flnat Values
System
cat.
Response
-2.7
86
0.2
20.1
0.1
20.1
0.2
2.42
-1.1
88.5
o
°L
+/- 5% |
Cal.
Upstream
Analyzer Bias Check
Response % of Span
LIMIT
0
0
0
0
+/- 5%
CO
02
CO2
NOx
SO2
THC
System
Cal Bias
% of Span
-1.9
-1.9
0
0
0
0
9.6
0.4
-1.8
-1.3
0
0
+/- 5%
ZERO
CaL Gas
Analyzer
Response
LIMIT
Drift
% of Span
-0.8
-1.6
0
0.4
0
0
6
3.2
-0.4
0.2
0
0
Calibration Gases
Mid
Cal
50.7
12
6.12
49.6
High
Cal
90.4
20.1
20.2
2.37
90.7
-'*- TankID " • <
Mid - Hlah
ALM25536
CC97847
CC88851
ALM25536
Analyzer
Range
A
units
ppm
100
PERCENT
25
PERCENT
25
ppm
2.5
ppm
100
ppm
100
^+/^2^^j
Analyzer
Callb.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MID
Cal. Gas
Analyzer
Response
0.00
+/- 2% |
Avg-
Gas
Cone.
-
0
-
7.90
-
12.3
0.29
-
-0.8
-
Corrected
Gas
Cone,
-
2.3
-
7.80
-
12.3
-
0.17
-
0.1
-
ERR
ALM3859S
ALM02296:
ALM02296;
ALM43127
ALM3659C
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-50.70
-48.00
-24.48
0.00
-49.60
HIGH
CaL Gas
Analyzer
Response
0.00
+/- 2% I
Analyzer
Callb.
Error
-90.40
-80.40
-80.80
-94.80
-90.70
0.00
+/- 2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C, subpart 4.1
-------
CO
02
CO2
NOx
SO2
THC
CO
NOx
TRC Environmental rornoration
_L(Vi Data .;...•-.
Firm '
Location
Tester
Test No.
Location
Date
TIME
Zero
Upscale ;
Zero
j; Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Zero
Upscale
Zero :
Upscale^
IFC
Penrose
C. Scott
5-120 KW
Fuel Cell
2-17-95
1457-1557
(Rack)
Analyzer
.Cal,
-0.8
87.9
0.2
20.1
0.1
20.1
-0.04
2.41
0.7
89.8
Cal. Back
Analyzer
Response
zero.
uJJpseale^
u -igOL--^
Upscale
Ambient Tei
MEL Temp,
Bar. Pressu
Vacuum Ga
Flowrate (Ip
.Initial Values
System
Cal
Response
0.9
86
0
20.1
0
20.1
0.03
2.34
-1.3
88.5
LIMITS
System
Cal, Bias
% of Span
1.7
-1.9
-0.8
0
-0.4
0
2.8
-2.8
-2
-1.3
Tip. deg. F = 75 CO
deg. F = 75 O2
re. in Hg = 29.24 CO2
uge = NA NOx
m) 6 S02
THC
Final Values
System
Cal.
Response
-1.9
86.9
0.1
20.3
0.1
20.1
-0.67
1.54
-0.8
88.5
o
°I
+/- 5% •
Cal.
Upstream
Analyzer Bias Check
Response % of Span
LIMIT
0
0
0
0
+/- 5%
CO
02
CO2
NOx
SO2
THC
System
Cat, Bias
% of Span
-1.1
-1
-0.4
0.8
0
0
-25.2
-34.8
-1.5
-1.3
0
0
+/- 5%
:.v?,-Z.ERO;;i/
Cal Gas
lArialyier;:
Response
LIMIT :
Drift
% of Span
-2.8
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.4
0
-28
-32
0.5
0
0
0
Calibration Gases
Mid
Cal
50.7
12
6.12
49.6
High '
Cal
90.4
20.1
20.2
2.37
90.7
TankID
Mid , High
ALM25536
CC97847
CC88851
ALM25536
Analyzer
Range
&
Units
ppm
100
PERCENT
25
PERCENT
25
ppm
2.5
ppm
100
ppm
100
^+/^2^^j
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MID
Cal. Gas
Analyzer
Response
0.00 1
Avg.
Gas
Cone,
-
0.1
-
8.10
-
12.4
0.07
-
-0.8
-
Corrected
Gas
Cone,
-
0.6
-
8.03
-
12.4
-
0.41
-
0.3
-
ERR
ALM3859;
ALM022962
ALM02296:
ALM43127
ALM3659:
•
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-50.70
-48.00
-24.48
0.00
-49.60
HIGH
Cal Gas
Analyzer
Response
0.00 1
+/- 2% |
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-90.40
-80.40
-80.80
-94.80
-90.70
0,50
+/- 2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C, subpart 4.1
-------
.
ITRC Environmental Corporaiion I
CEM Data Sheet I
Firm
Location
Tester
Test No.
Location
Date
TIME
CO h:. Zero :;
l| Upscale
02 :-::Zero^l
: 1; Upscale .
, CO2 p. Zero*
' Upscale"!
NOx I'"':'' Zero:"""]
-Upscale''
SO2 I .: Zero :: •-•
H Upscale
THC [I > = Zero 3|
([•: Upscale-
IFC
Penrose
C. Scott
6-120 KW
Fuel Cell
2-17-95
1622-1722
(Rack)
Analyzer
Cal.
-0.8
87.9
0.2
| 20.1
0.1
20.1
-0.04
I 2.41
0.7
I 89.8
Cal. Back
Analyzer
Response
CO 1 •• Zero
[I Upscale
NOx 1 zero
|j Upscale
Ambient Temp, deg. F = 75 CO
MEL Temp. deg. F = 75 O2
Bar. Pressure. In Hg = 29.24 CO2
Vacuum Gauge = NA NOx
Flowrate (Ipm) 6 SO2
THC
, Initial Values
System
Cal
Response
-1.9
86.9
0.1
20.3
0.1
20.1
-0.05
2.4
-0.8
88
System
Cal. Bias
% of Span
-1.1
-1
-0.4
0.8
0
0
-0.4
-0.4
-1.5
-1.8
o
Final Values
System
CaL
Response
0
89
0
20.2
0.1
20.1
-0.4
2.11
0.1
89.3
o
LIMITS II +/- 5% |
Cal.
Upstream
Analyzer Bias Check
Response % of Span
LMIT
0
0
0
0
+/- 5%
CO
02
C02
NOx
S02
THC
System
Ca|, Bias
JfcefSpan
0.8
1.1
-0.8
0.4
0
0
-14.4
-12
-0.6
-0.5
0
0
+/- 5%
yZERQ:-::
?;Cali:;(3as:'.
Q Analyzer
Response
LIMIT
Drift
% of Span
1.9
2.1
-0.4
-0.4
0
0
-14
-11.6
0.9
1.3
0
0
-Calibration Gases: -- -, -
VvMid/v-
• •:-• cal ••••••
50.7
12
6.12
49.6
High
•v" Cal
90.4
20.1
20.2
2.37
90.7
TankID
Mid ' Hldh
ALM25536
CC97847
CC88851
ALM25536
Analyzer
Range
&
Units
ppm
100
PERCENT
25
PERCENT
25
ppm
2.5
ppm
100
ppm
100
^+^32^1
Analyzer
Callb.
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
' MID
Caf. Gas
Analyzer
Response
0.00
+1-2% t
Avg.
Gas
Cone,
.
0.9
-
8.00
-
12.5
-0.04
-
-0.01
-
Corrected
Gas
Cone,
-
1.9
-
7.91
-
12.5
-
0.18
-
0.3
-
ERR
ALM3859S
ALM02296S
ALM02296;
ALM43127
ALM3659C
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-50.70
-48.00
-24.48
0.00
-49.60
HIGH
Cal Gas
Analyzer
Response
0.00
I +/- 2%
I
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
-90.40
-80.40
-80.80
-94.80
-90.70
0.00
+1-2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C, subpart 4.1
-------
FORM 75-5
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
Plant: Uf £
Unit Number Fu£\ d E L L
Load Condition: •• 12.O KvJ
Run No.: RoM O "Z.
Project No.: 0ZJD&0
Barometric Pressure at Ground Level ("Hg): ^&+
~T//n^ ; ^D/^>
Port Change Pitot
LeakChrck ' Pass Fail
/
Port 12 ^
Port ST>
Port «
\5^ftot - » \ ^3
0*5 S fpm 3^6 "T]"
Trarerse
Point
Number
Velocity
Head
On H:0)
Slack
Temp.
(F)
A <
Average:
Traverse
Point
Number
? /
Average:
Velocity
Head
On !l;0)
Stack
Temp.
-------
FORM 75-5
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
Ptanfc •£•&. /LA>S* L»Jr.l(
Unit Number X*«/ £*/f
Load Condition: •J/f J£)
Run No.: ^
Project No.: 9"£V/£ >/0«?-** • ^S'Q /
Date: ^ /^^7 ST
Stack Diameter fin.): /<5.0 S". t?
St/^ - -S*//2^ Asr^*^ * All.
/uec VW =: ^ PrA*,
Trarerse
Point
Number
Velocity
Head
On IKO)
Stack
Temp.
(F)
Traverse
Point
Number
Velocity
Head
On
Stack
Temp.
(F)
Al
Average:
//O
MA
-------
FORM7S-5
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
•v.
Plant: TfC Pt^/^se. Le^JlfcH
Unit Number ^>*/ (_e. (I
Load Condition: 7«Po /io
Run No.: «/
Project No.: 95"-//3- /O^oSo
Barometric Pressure at Ground Lerel ("Hg): ?*r>VZL
Pitot Tube ID: ^_^ ^.^ o ^ ^.^ '/^e,
Pitot Tube Coefficient: £>-^
Estimated Stack C03%-Af Oj%:l^"H,0%:^*^
Platform Elevation (feet): ^ '
Schematk of Stack Cross Section:
s«S/ ''f^-n
rrn-— ' -Lt s
Date: «^y/ ^/9C"
Stack Diameter fin.): /0-O
Stack Cause Pressure ("HjO): —
O-030
Operators: ///v^/Ctf
Port Change Pitot
Leak Check £as£
Port /I
Port 12
Port 13
Port «
£aji
Trarene
Point
Number
A /
3
?
V
r
^
-7
?
•\
Arerage:
VelocUy
Head
On II:0)
0.MS"
o.oy$
o o3d
0.03C"
o.ovo
D*>VD
d-OVO
O.o Vd
Stack
Temp.
(F)
//O
in
I/O
/!&
//to
//t
110
//o
Traverse
Point
Number
8 /
3
3
f
r
^
?
^
Areragr:
Velocity
Head
On 11,0)
£9.025
C-e>3o
6,o3&
O-oSc
O.O3&
a*>3o
6 .o'So
O.A?6
Vd.^?
Stack " 1
Temp. II
(F) 1
ft/ I
//O ]
y/^ I
//£> I
S/6
//O
l
-------
-------
K>
;C*
-------
\\A.V\\\A,
\\unijiTrmTmu
-------
-------
sjoz
i 'NOx
M°,T
I i^p
1 SQ2
i
-j
$
MI")
0 irn
so
M
r
W
mi
Ift
I!
1
n
I
ir
11
ut
10
H umrv
i
T
i
20 ! i
H~r
' I
i i
9hPtlA';'!
-jr--1-
nfrti
is
Ff
dFP|M
ff
F P|M
r t T
H
02
ilx
30
S 1
MTmr.mi-.nnj
40
i.
! j
Pit
11
81
IBI
HR
WR
T:I
iiV
wyf
- J-r— -fr-
IB
7 U
j j
-<\>'pn
"
ri
in
' i r
i i r
i!
!
- L
rii.
r j- j
>0(
80
so
ap
r^ 1 !
.jn:
JIP
r
:90
100
i I
90
100
TlPPM
-------
o\
0
iff r
'1 f t
I 1
i F i
rr,'i
• .'. i ! i I
[Q
| •• -;
20
T "'I
4 )
< J
41
1 )
< )
40
02
60
70
T^iT
I:-!}
' i I '
L|, 4
T
80:
i i n^-, r, \ \\ \V, > \ \ \\\\
90
,
P«I.J.
- W!
"T~P
liU
I I
r^
Oil
i i! |ioo
I' 1 * 1
-------
- V V \ -X. -V-
-------
a
oo
-------
tfffff^u-f^---
ill
ffi
VO
-------
a
-------
VWvAV-r-Y V
-------
tti^^+i^n-ujjjjijjijjij
-------
-------
nwftin?~i~t'Hi}'Ji~vin~.j!
'|l '!}''. _ i __'.!"
fi
100
-------
o\
-------
^
i:3|0
Ids
Hi
I^PHM
T
I I
I
Trrr
i i7.I i
I?IK
•TT
so
-13
40
ifijjl
ll-R
60o
IL
th
?
/^/W
-JSE.
o
$
JP
r
70
s;
80
iv-
ii.
tftl
0:i
i9o;
i ;
I !
.m
' ! i
:-H_^
5(.|.
-y
100
J__.:'.'._:
Iki-'-JJ
! i
> i i
190!
100
il.li.
-------
-------
s
W^WY
(IflJ
\n 5>
R
TO
_L
vv
.-3d
TsHFH
RP
pn
T
-ill
-I
7 U
M" i i
IT'
U HI
30
! i >
40
-H-i
60
60
70
70
pi >
BO;
U i
80
90
100
Ti-T
90
TT
100
-------
ffi
o
i 100
100
V—\-,-'- -V
-------
-------
-------
SUB-APPENDIX D
FLARE EMISSION DATA FROM PHASE II
H-D1
-------
TRC
TRC Environmental Corporation
SUBJECT.
SHEET NO _ OF .
PROJECT NO.
OATE —hLliLl.
BY JZ.
CHK'O.
\jO\ov-
Co
r \o«H
6.0T
CP-
\.
S C-
047
140
' 7
1HD k'jJ G>?J '_-,-
r\*~
'
ci ^
ra.-N
4 ' o-^.'
Vw..'
i. /Too
-- 0.003
H-D2
-------
TABLE 3-5
FLARE INLET/OUTLET EMISSION TEST SUMMARY
International Fuel Cells. Inc.
Penrosa LandfiB
October 21.1993
GPU Net Fkxwrata 81 tcfm
Regeneration Ftowrate: 25scfm
GPU Output Flown**: 56scfm
Flare Temperature: 1600 oF
^i^5l^*|S
FtareSampinfl Location #5 ^ vv •? .- ". -" .i>-
Methane (ppm v/v)
Total Non-Methane Organlcs (ppm v/v as carte
Oxides of Nitrogen (ppm v/v)
Carbon Monoxide (ppm v/v)
Total PartJculates (gr/dscf)
Front half
Back half (organic)
Back half (inorganic)
Oxygen (%)
Moisture (%)
Temperature (of)
Flowrate (scfm)
Reduced Sulfur Compounds (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
hydrogen suffide
carbonyt sutnde
methyl mercaptan
ethyl mercaptan
dimethyl suffide
carbon dauffide
dmethyl dmirfide
Total Reduced Sulfur - see note
Volatile Organic Compounds-
GC/MS Analysis (ppm v/v)
Sample Type
Compound
jthlnnuWL inrnm • tHarL*.
ww mji IMII uorometnane
IMIl J (-KlnrilJa
wiyicmonoe
cis-1 2-dKhloroethene
1.1-dkhloroethane
rT"T!'™iT!'™
tetracnloroetnene
CKLMDtJBI LLM M
*-
oenzene
toluene
xylenes
cu iyi EMI UJH 10
styrene
acetone
2-butanone
ethyl acetate
ethyl but/rate
d-imonene
tetaahydrofuran
, x. ^0103pr1130 ^ ^\
* * •••• Re0enerauon •• ^
.\ INLET x
440000
1860
^y^*\^^.
%
V' '-
, ^ ,
,,^ v^.
- v""- \J-
O.1
80
25
bag
O.004
0.061
O.004
O.004
0.042
0.146
0.002
0254
bag
3.6
15
f\ *^O
028
O.02
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.02
0.03
12
0.04
0.04
O.02
O.07
O.06
0.04
O.04
f\ f^C.
0.05
0.07
O.W
OUTLET
ss Dryer Bed ^; ":
.INLET
448000
21100
^Xj
,
~., s
t.
i -
s V lv.
„ , .
O.I
80
25
bag
O.016
O.016
0.087
0.016
73.9
O.008
0.908
80.4
bag
<2.o
4 4 n
110
62
32
4*
17
19
3.8
16
230
43.8
25
<2.4
150
28
5.4
2.1
O £
3.6
1.4
059
OUTLET;
^
115
8.9
1.7
0.0178
0.0135
0.001
0.0033
15.03
9.1
929
,
baj
0527
0.04
O.04
O.04
O.04
0.02
0.02
0.327
bag
O.002
0.002
_j» «WV^
O.002
O.002
O.002
,fl p^^%
O.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.004
OID02
O.002
O.002
0.065
O.004
0.002
0.002
^f\ fW}
O.002
0.002
O.002
, 1730-1830 , j ^
xv> DrvarBed ,"';]"
Cold Refleneration ' ••
\INLET
463000
250
^ f \ :
, -: ,v,v.
'-)". % ws A
'J
!
j
, ,-,
,' - ' ™ -
0.1
79
25
bag
0.004
0.014
0.004
O.004
0.031
O.002
0.005
0.05
bag
O.03
O.05
f\ ff9
0.07
0.04
0.04
_/• /v)
O.03
0.1
0.07
0.04
053
1.8
f\ ^&
0.76
0.03
O.12
O59
0.04
O.04
4 fl
IJt
3.6
O.04
OUTLET
<1
65
14^
1.6
0.0088
0.0072
0.0011
0.0005
13.5
8.6
990
bag
0.004
0.06
O.004
0.004
O.004
0.002
O.002
0.06
beg
O.002
O.002
_— /% nxy^
O.002
O.OQ2
O.002
_^f\ fWi
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
O.OC2J
O.002
^O.002
<0,002
0.02
-------
SUB-APPENDIX E
GPU EXIT CONTAMINANT MEASUREMENT DATA
H-E1
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
DATE
FACILITY -2T.FC
LOCATION
PROJECT NO.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (INHG)_
TEMPERATURE (DEG F) _
SAMPLE ID
SORBENT
TYPE
PUMP ID
ORIFICE (0
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE (IN HG)
START
TIME
STOP
TIME
ELAPSED TIME
(MIN)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
(L/MIN)
SAMPLE VOLUME
(L)
ffTut
ST**/
&JB
.wv?
ft-'-tz
ft
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
DATE
FACILITY
LOCATION r-f*
PROJECT NO,
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (IN HG)_
TEMPERATURE (DEGF)_
SAMPLE ID
SORBENT
TYPE
PUMP ID
ORIFICE ID
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE (IN HG|
START
TIME
STOP
TIME
ELAPSED TIME
(MIN)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE SAMPLE VOLUME
(L/MIN)
JkL
ffi
fc
STeef
STee/
Jo 6V?
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
DATE
FACILITY
LOCATION
PROJECT NO.
/ 6rf>V 0»T/tT
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (IN HG)_
TEMPERATURE (DEGF)_
SAMPLE ID
SORBENT
TYPE
PUMP ID
ORIFICE ID
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE (IN HG)
START
TIME
STOP
TIME
ELAPSED TIME
(MIN)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE SAMPLE VOLUME
(L/MIN)
(LJ
3V 19?
3
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
DATE /-(?0-?S~
FACILITY
LOCATION T?+
PROJECT NO.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (IN HG)
TEMPERATURE (OEG F)
SAMPLE ID
£P«*OT
/*<*
PUMP ID
ORIFICE ID
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE (IN HG)
—
START
TIME
t'.U'.t*
Qiir^
9tzr.oo
STOP
TIME
f •Oce
J3L
K
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
a:
DATE
FACILITY
LOCATION
PROJECT NO.
SAMPLE ID
6*>o»T
0n>/
trfaovT
1 3£"7?"
/ ™*^Jl S^ *^r C
TK.
6f>0 00
,Po3o-ft
SORBENT
TYPE
-S7€«/
&>I8
&*p
T/eT
PUMP ID
ORIFICE ID
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE (IN HG)
'
START
TIME
S£*fo
/L'.ofrjt
/fJV'.tv
STOP
TIME
«m>
/k'-ol**
5Wtc>
/fe;/5^OO
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (IN HG)
TEMPERATURE (DEG F)
ELAPSED TIME
(MIN)
V?0^«<1
*»*.-
#
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
(L/MIN)
13- L
>*u
SAMPLE VOLUME
(L)
Sbocc
«!-
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
DATE l'(
FACILITY
LOCATION
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (INHGI J*?.
TEMPERATURE (DEG F)
SAMPLE ID
T&l
/»(ftf
&T\> t
SORBENT
TYPE
r*.tl~
sr«(
PUMP ID
„
ORIFICE ID
•
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE (IN HG)
START
TIME
*.*<70
S^StA
t:Jl:oo
S3W5
STOP
TIME
*:,??<»6
il39V
3:3^c^
SZiW
ELAPSED TIME
(MIN)
.*>*«
/
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
(L/MIN)
PV£.
»<-
SAMPLE VOLUME
(L)
$~too c^
m
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
DATE
FACILITY
LOCATION
PROJECT NO.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (IN HG1
TEMPERATURE (DEG F)
-Co
SAMPLE ID
(rfooor
ero-i
yowr
6POOOT
P
STOP
TIME
JjQj •»/
/«>i»7-
'tr+fr' •'U
/£>:cj/:l&
ELAPSED TIME
(MIN)
/ ^^t /'^. .
76^-c
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
(L/MIN)
SAMPLE VOLUME
(L)
r
-------
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
DATE
w
PI
j-n-
FACILITY
LOCATION
PROJECT NO
SAMPLE ID
sss
7%l
^9°rr
87i> (
??$*
I
Zfe t
//V> Otyr
3o3o-G,
SORBENT
TYPE
O ~
8*1
&*(
&»\8
"YfJA-v
'&~\
ST^€-{
tx)l^>
Vn/ifcWCc' •
/*^
PUMP ID
•^p^^O^^y ^ ^^
ORIFICE ID
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE (IN HG)
START
TIME
Mi^f
59 '?r
«s-r
MS3
STOP
TIME
09 »«.'•«
69. 1C.
/Zf?
/3oo
TEMPERATURE (DEG F)
ELAPSED TIME
(MIN)
3*S<-C
/x«M.
^i ^^
SAMPLE FLOW RATE
(L/MIN)
^Vi
»1
^
SAMPLE VOLUME
(L)
r^c^
/i<_
s.oco
@ .33^17
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
Date of Report:
Date Received:
PAI Project No:
Purchase Order:
01/30/95
01/19/95
P95-7639
026197
Three (3) Tedlar Bag Samples labeled:
"GPU OUT 11995TB1" "GPU OUT 11995TB2'
'GPU OUT 11995TB3'
The samples were received at the laboratory under chain of custody on January 19,
1995. The samples were received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the
attached data sheets.
Sulfur Compound Analysis
The samples were analyzed for twenty Sulfur Compounds by gas chromatography/flame
photometric detection (FPD). The analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett
Packard Model 5890 equipped with a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film
(5 micron) crossbonded 100% Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x
0.53mm RTK-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve
chromatographic separation.
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The samples were also analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnigan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RT,-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
Data Release Authorization:
Reviewed and Approved
U VV
Chris Parnell
Senior Chemist
Michael Tu?
Laboratory Director
H-E10
0954 Osbome Street, Canotja Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Testini; :inj CoiiMilnns:
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/20/95
10.000 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
75-33-2
75-66-1
107-03-9
624-89-5
110-02-1
513-44-0
352-93-2
109-79-5
624-92-0
616-44-4
110-01-0
638-02-8
872-55-9
110-81-6
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Isopropyl Mercaptan
tert-Butyl Mercaptan
n-Propyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Methyl Sulfide
Thiophene
Isobutyl Mercaptan
Diethyl Sulfide
n-Butyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Disulfide
3-Methylthiophene
Tetrahydrothiophene
2,5-Dimethylthiophene
2-Ethylthiophene
Diethyl Disulfide
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
12.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.70
16.0
14.0
18.0
18.0
10.0
RESULT
PPb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
PPb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by:
Date:
H-E11
20954 Oshorne Street. Cnn<>i;;i Pjrk, CA 9H04 • Phone 818 709-IH9- F,i\ S!8 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Totina .ind Consulting
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : CPU Out 11995TB1
PAI Sample ID : f500229
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instmment: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed :
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/20/95
10.000 (ml)
CAS#
7783-0^4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
75-33-2
75-66-1
107-03-9
624-89-5
110-02-1
513-44-0
352-93-2
109-79-5
624-92-0
616-44-4
110-01-0
638-02-8
872-55-9
110-81-6
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Isopropyl Mercaptan
tert-Butyl Mercaptan
n-Propyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Methyl Sulfide
Thiophene
Isobutyl Mercaptan
Diethyl Sulfide
n-Butyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Disulfide
3-Methylthiophene
Tetrahydrothiophene
2,5-Dimethylthiophene
2-Ethylthiophene
Diethyl Disulfide
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
UMTT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
12.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.70
16.0
14.0
18.0
18.0
10.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
2C954 Q,Horne Street,
H-E12
Park, CA 9H04 • Phone 818 70*
/
2s
• FJX HIS 709-29I>
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Tonnn .inj Cunsulnn-j
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ED
TRC Environmental Corporation
GPU Out 11995TB2
9500230
Test Code: GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD#4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/20/95
10.000 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
75-33-2
75-66-1
107-03-9
624-89-5
110-02-1
513-44-0
352-93-2
109-79-5
624-92-0
616-44-4
110-01-0
638-02-8
872-55-9
110-81-6
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Isopropyl Mercaptan
tcrt-Butyl Mercaptan
n-Propyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Methyl Sulfide
Thiophene
Isobutyl Mercaptan
Diethyl Sulfide
n-Buryl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Disulfide
3-Methylthiophene
Tetrahydrothiophene
2,5-Dimethylthiophene
2-Ethylthiophene
Diethyl Disulfide
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
12.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.70
16.0
14.0
18.0
18.0
10.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
TR « Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by :
Date
H-E13
20954 Oshorne Street. CanoLM Pnrk. CA 9H04 • Phone 818 70^-
F.ix HIM 7&-2
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmenr.il Torinu nnJ GmMiltins;
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU Out 11995TB3
PAI Sample ID : 9500231
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instmment: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volorae(s) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/20/95
10.000 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
75-33-2
75-66-1
107-03-9
624-89-5
110-02-1
513-44-0
352-93-2
109-79-5
624-92-0
616-44-4
110-01-0
638-02-8
872-55-9
110-81-6
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Isopropyl Mercaptan
tert-Butyl Mercaptan
n-Propyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Methyl Sulfide
Thiophene
Isobutyl Mercaptan
Diethyl Sulfide
n-Butyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Disulfide
3-Methylthiophene
Tetrahydrothiophene
2,5-Dimethylthiophenc
2-Ethylthiophene
Diethyl Disulfide
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
12.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.70
16.0
14.0
18.0
18.0
10.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
PPb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by:
Date:
H-E14
20954 Obbome Street, U»m.i:.i Pdrk. CA 9M04 • Phone 818 709-IH9- F;ix 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmenr.il Totini: sinJ Om
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 2
Qient
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : N/A
PAI Sample ID : PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
74-87-3
75-01-4
75-00-3
74-83-9
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
75-15-0
76-13-1
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
1634-04-4
108-05-4
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
56-23-5
78-87-5
COMPOUND
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Bromomethane
Acetone
Trichlorofluoromethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Carbon Disulfide
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1.1-Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Vinyl Acetate
2-Butanone
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-TrichJoroe thane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.3
8.4
0.90
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.66
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
2.8
3.4
1.0
1.2
0.93
1.6
0.80
1.1
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
H-E15
20954 OsN>me Street. CanotM Park, CA 9M04 • Phone 818 709-1139 • F.ix Slh 70
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental forms; ,ind G.nMilnnu
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 2 OF 2
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID :
PAI Sample ID :
TestCode: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Date Sampled
Date Received;
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-27-4
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
10061-02-6
79-00-5
108-88-3
124-18-1
591-78-6
106-93-4
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
75-25-2
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
79-34-5
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
COMPOUND
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
2-Hexanone
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Bromoform
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LOOT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
0.75
0.94
1.1
2.4
1.1
0.93
1.3
0.59
2.4
0.66
0.75
1.1
1.2
0.49
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.74
0.84
0.84
0.84
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by:
Date
2CW54 ObKime Street. Cnmnj.i Pdrfc. CA
H-E16
• Phone 818 TC^-
Fnx 818 70^-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Enviriinnu-nr.il Tonm; ,inJ d'O^ultins;
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 2
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID :
PAI Sample ID :
TcstCode: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Chris Parnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
GPU OUT 1199STB1
9500229
Date Sampled;
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
DJ. = 1.00
CAS#
74-87-3
75-01-4
75-00-3
74-83-9
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
75-15-0
76-13-1
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
1634-04-4
108-05-4
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
56-23-5
78-87-5
COMPOUND
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Bromomethane
Acetone
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Carbon Disulfide
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Vinyl Acetate
2-Butanone
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
22
ND
ND
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.1 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.2
ND
ND
4.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.3 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
PPb
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.3
8.4
0.90
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.66
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
2.8
3.4
1.0
1.2
0.93
1.6
0.80
1.1
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date:
H-E17
20954 Oshorne Street, Canon,! P;irk. CA 91104 • Phone 818 709-1159 • Fax HIK 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental TL'suni: nr.J Con.Milnnu
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 2 OF 2
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU OUT 11995TB1
PAI Sample ID : 9500229
TestCode: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Chris Parnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-27-t
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
10061-02-6
79-00-5
108-88-3
124-48-1
591-78-6
106-93-4
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
75-25-2
100-42-5
1330-20-7 i
95^7-6
79-34-5
541-73-1
10^46-7
95-50-1
COMPOUND
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
4-MethyI-2-pentanone
trans-I,3-Dichloropropene
1,1.2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
2-Hexanone
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Etbylbenzene
Bromofonn
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
Ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTINO
LIMIT
ppb
0.75
0.94
1.1
2.4
1.1
0.93
1.3
0.59
2.4
0.66
0.75
1.1
1.2
0.49
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.74
0.84
0.84
0.84
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND « Not Detected
Verified by
Date
bobs
H-E18
20954 Oshome Street. Can.-iM P^rk. CA 9H04 • Phone 818 70^-1 IVJ • Fax 818 70^-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental TiMini: .inJ G'nMilnni:
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 2
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU OUT 1199STB1
PAI Sample ID : 9500229 (Laboratory Duplicate)
TestCode: GC/MSMod.EPATO-14
Analyst: Chris Paroell
Instnunent: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
74-87-3
75-OM
75-00-3
74-83-9
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
75-15-0
76-13-1
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
1634-04-4
108-05-t
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
56-23-5
78-87-5
COMPOUND
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Bromomethane
Acetone
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Carbon Bisulfide
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans-l^-Dichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Vinyl Acetate
2-Butanone
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
17 TR
ND
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.9 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.3 TR
ND
ND
4.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.91 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
PPb
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.3
8.4
0.90
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.66
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
2.8
3.4
1.0
1.2
0.93
1.6
0.80
1.1
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E19
20954 OsK.rne Street, C;IIIO.,M P.irk. CA 9H04 • Phone H|S
7^-1 M9 • F.iv
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Envirnnme nr;il Tot ins; .inj d >n>iilnni:
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 2 OF 2
Qient
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU OUT 11995TB1
PAI Sample ID : 9500229 (Laboratory Duplicate)
TestCode: GC/MSMod. EPATO-14
Analyst: Chris Parnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled: 1/19/95
Date Received: 1/19/95
Date Analyzed'. 1/19/95
Volumes) Analyzed: 1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-27-4
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
10061-02-6
79-00-5
108-88-3
12448-1
591-78-6
106-93-4
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
75-25-2
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
79-34-5
541-73-1
10^46-7
95-50-1
COMPOUND
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
2-Hexanone
1,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroetbene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Bromofonn
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
0.75
0.94
1.1
2.4
1.1
0.93
1.3
0.59
2.4
0.66
0.75
1.1
1.2
0.49
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.74
0.84
0.84
0.84
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND » Not Detected
Verified by
Date:
H-E20
20954 Oshome Street. Canoii.i P,,rk. CA 9H04 • Phone 818 709-11)9 • F:ix 8IH 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental ~R.-stini! nnj CnnMiltmu
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 2
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU OUT 11995TB2
PAI Sample ID : 9500230
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Chris Parnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500OTekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
74-87-3
754)1-4
75-00-3
74-83-9
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
75-15-0
76-13-1
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
1634-04-4
108-05-4
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
56-23-5
78-87-5
COMPOUND
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Bromomethane
Acetone
Trichlorofiuoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Carbon Disulfide
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,2 -Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Vinyl Acetate
2-Butanone
Chloroform
1,2-DicWoroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
20 TR
ND
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.1 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.3 TR
ND
ND
4.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.97 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LOOT
ppb
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.3
8.4
0.90
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.66
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
2.8
3.4
1.0
1.2
0.93
1.6
0.80
1.1
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date:
H-E21
20954 Osbome SrrcL-t, C^n,>u'.i Park, CA 91 ?04 • Phone 818 709-11 39 • Fa\ HIS 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Te : GPU OUT11995TB2
PAI Sample ID : 9500230
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Chris Parnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-27-4
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
100614)2-6
79-00-5
108-88-3
124-48-1
591-78-6
106-93-t
127-1&4
108-90-7
100-41-4
75-25-2
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
79-34-5
541-73-1
10&46-7
95-50-1
COMPOUND
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
2-Hexanone
1,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Etbylbenzene
Bromoform
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.9 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
0.75
0.94
1.1
2.4
1.1
0.93
1.3
0.59
2.4
0.66
0.75
1.1
1.2
0.49
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.74
0.84
0.84
0.84
TR « Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND » Not Detected
Verified by
H-E22
2W54 Obborne Street, Cnnoqn Pjrl. CA 9H04 • Phone 818 709-II3^ • Fax hi* 7Cs)-29l5
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Touns: ;inj CunMilrmi;
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 2
Qient
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPUOUT11995TB3
PAI Sample ID : 9S00231
Test Code: GC/MS Mod EPA TO-14
Analyst: ChrisParnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
74-87-3
75-01-4
75-00-3
74-83-9
67-64-1
75-69-4
75-35-4
75-09-2
75-15-0
76-13-1
156-60-5
156-59-2
75-34-3
1634-04-4
108-05-4
78-93-3
67-66-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
56-23-5
78-87-5
COMPOUND
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Bromomethane
Acetone
Trichlorofluoromethane
1, l-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Carbon Disulfide
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroetbene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Vinyl Acetate
2-Butanone
Chloroform
1 ^-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
15 TR
ND
ND
12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.9 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.4 TR
ND
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.90 TR
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
Ppb
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.3
8.4
0.90
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.66
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
2.8
3.4
1.0
1.2
0.93
1.6
0.80
1.1
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
20954 OsK.me Street, Canoiu Pnrk. CA 91
H-E23
• Phone HIS 709-1 1 W • F;u 818 7W-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
EnvironmentalTotiny ,inj C«>n>ulrmy
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 2 OF 2
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU OUT 11995TB3
PAI Sample ID : 9500231
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: ChrisParnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received;
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
1/19/95
1/19/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-27-4
79-01-6
10061-01-5
108-10-1
10061-02-6
79-00-5
108-88-3
124-48-1
591-78-6
106-93-4
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-4M
75-25-2
KXM2-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
79-34-5
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
COMPOUND
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
4-Mcthyl-2-pentanone
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
2-Hexanone
1,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Etbylbenzene
Brornoform
Styrene
m- & p-Xylcnes
o-Xylene
1,1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobcnzene
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
RESULT
Dg/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.9 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTINO
LIMIT
ppb
0.75
0.94
1.1
2.4
1.1
0.93
1.3
0.59
2.4
0.66
0.75
1.1
1.2
0.49
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.74
0.84
0.84
0.84
TR « Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by: K
H-E24
20954 Oshorne Street. CaruijM Prfrk. CA 9H04 • Phone 818 709-11W • F;ix «l.i
-------
Ship To: rerfofS*ksce jf^Lfi'mf £iC. >1IRC / i,r /
Ann: M''e.tt(*e,/ T^jnlaU
T
I'mject Name
'mjccl No.:_<
Site l.ocnlion:
Date: J«-"tA%
?^2
'V
G -6>
^~n
Jf.fl
i/ffs-
*
IU.ri np/Wftt
Wu.
6/»uooT //
6PuoUT If
trPu QuTll
Sample
No.
11£7ti\
7?£7tf 2
?7S7£3
Depth
.
Dale
V/7
V/T
1 ill 1C
t?ioo
/7-t>^
Rio*
Sample T^
Water
Solid
PC
Other
4-v
*'
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
Date of Report:
Date Received:
PAI Project No:
Purchase Order:
02/15/95
01/20/95
P95-7646
026197
One (1) Tedlar Bag Sample labeled:
"GPU OUT 12095TB1'
The sample was received at the laboratory under chain of custody on January 20,
1995. The sample was received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the
attached data sheets. „
Sulfur Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed for seven Sulfur Compounds and Total Reduced Sulfur as
Hydrogen Sulfide by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (FPD). The
analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 equipped with
a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film (5 micron) crossbonded 100%
Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x 0.53mm RT,-1, Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve chromatographic separation.
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnigan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RTX-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
Data Release Authorization:
Reviewed and Approved:
Kathleen Aguilera
Analytical Chemist
Michael Tuday ^-
Laboratory Director
H-E26
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/20/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND-Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E27
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 618 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client : TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU OUT 12095TB1
PAI Sample ID : 9500249
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/20/95
1/20/95
1/20/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTINO
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR » Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E28
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 813 709-1139' Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 12095TB1
9500249 (Laboratory Duplicate)
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD#4
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
1/20/95
1/20/95
1/20/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
VD
ND
REPORTING
LOOT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND-Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E29
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MSMod.EPATO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/20/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-X8-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-17-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
L2
TR1
ND'
Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
= Not Detected
Verified by:
Date
H-E30
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 12095TB1
9500249
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
1/20/95
1/20/95
1/20/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-4M
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroetheoe
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
ND
ND
2.1 TR
ND
8.7
3.7 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.1
ND
ND
0.49 TR
ND
2.0
0.85 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR * Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND * Not Detected
Verified by :
Date:
H-E31
20954 Osbome Street, Cano<-a Park, CA 9H04 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Ship To: fet fof^t^t^t, /C*A/«V«»/
Ann: J/.'fL«+/ TT.J^i,
f
Berint/WeH
OPwouT/
Sample
No.
aoVTP
Depth
.
Date
l-A*%
Time
9*zz
Pugc / of /
Project Name
Project No.:^
Site Locution
H;iic:Jfe*t|g
'£,
/
JeAtt>$c-L~j£/l
up / JQ / /yy<~
Sample Type
Water
Solid
Other
/f'*/Z.
1
a
.£>
X
^-
Sample Containers
Vol.
£U
7
No.
/
Type
^~o
/•*5«
Pres.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
X
4
/ Analysis /
' / ^/ / / / Remarks
X
(,fo y: ^ — '
Received by:
Relinquished by:
Received hy:
Company
^tV/n^^-.^rs,/ ^oX-r/i^r JJc
PA1C
Special Instructions / Shipment /Handling/ Storage Requirements:
Dale Time
/-J>o-95~ /^'/c
ll.^rvl^1^ /Qil^S
Jgf ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
2 1 Technology Drive
Irvine, California 927 IK
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
Date of Report:
Date Received:
PAI Project No:
Purchase Order:
03/16/95
01/25/95
P95-7671
026197
One (1) Tedlar Bag Sample labeled:
"GPU OUT 12595TB1
The sample was received at the laboratory under chain of custody on January 25,
1995. The sample was received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the
attached data sheets.
Sulfur Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed for seven Sulfur Compounds and Total Reduced Sulfur as
Hydrogen Sulfide by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (FPD). The
analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 equipped with
a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film (5 micron) crossbonded 100%
Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x 0.53mm RTX-1, Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve chromatographic separation.
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The sample was also analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnigan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RT-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
Data Release Authorization:
Kathleen Aguilera
Analytical Chemist
H-E33
Reviewed and Approved:
Michael Tuday
Laboratory Director
20954 Osbome Street, Carn^a Park. CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blink
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/26/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by:
Date:
H-E34
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park. CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 12595TB1
9500329
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD#4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/25/95
1/25/95
1/26/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
176
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
99.6
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
71.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
71.5
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by:
Date
H-E35
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 8!8 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 12S95TB1
9S00329 Laboratory Duplicate
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Suliiir Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tcdlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/25/95
1/25/95
1/26/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS*
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
193
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
109
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
78.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
78.4
REPORTING
LIMIT
PPb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2..00
4.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E36
20954 Osborne Street, CanuKa Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MSMod.EPATO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/26/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-71-8
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
. Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTINO
LIMIT
ppb
1.0
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR • Detected Below Indi
ND = Not Detected
^ Reporting Limit
Verified by:
Date:
H-E37
20954 Osbome Street, Canoj-a Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client : TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : GPU OUT 12595TB1
PAI Sample ID : 9500329
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/25/95
1/25/95
1/26/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-71-8
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
10CM2-5
1330-20-7
95-17-6
COMPOUND
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.2 TR
1.1 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.73 TR
0.25 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
1.0
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by:
Date:_
H-E38
20954 Osbome Street, Cano^ Park. CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Ship To:
Ann: .
Siimplr.
No.
IVpili
Dalr
1'iigf '_
I'nijccl NOIIIC:_
I'nijcrl N».:_c3.<
Sile Location:
,,i
-?0-L
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
Date of Report:
Date Received:
PAI Project No:
Purchase Order:
03/16/95
01/26/95
P95-7675
026197
One (1) Tedlar Bag Sample labeled:
'GPUOUT12695TB1
The sample was received at the laboratory under chain of custody on January 26,
1995. The sample was received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the
attached data sheets.
Sulfur Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed for seven Sulfur Compounds and Total Reduced Sulfur as
Hydrogen Sulfide by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (FPD). The
analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 equipped with
a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film (5 micron) crossbonded 100%
Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x 0.53mm RTX-1, Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve chromatographic separation.
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The sample was also analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnigan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RTX-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
Data Release Authorization:
Reviewed and Approved:
Kathleen Aguilera Michael Tuday
Analytical Chemist Laboratory Director
H-E40
20954 Osbome Street. Canoea Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/26/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS*
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR «= Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
2.
H-E41
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 12695TB1
9500337
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/26/95
1/26/95
1/26/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
190
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
108
REPORTING
UMTT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
77.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
77.2
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E42
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Simple ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/26/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-71-8
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
KXM1-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroetbeoe
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTINO
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTINO
LIMIT
ppb
1.0
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR » Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by: _
Date:_
H-E43
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 12695TB1
9500337
Test Code: GC/MSMod.EPATO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/26/95
1/26/95
1/26/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-71-8
75-01-4
75-69-4
15-4)9-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-DichIoroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.99 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
1.0
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by:
Date:_
H-E44
20954 Osbome Street, Caix>«a Park, CA 91304 • Phone Slri 709-1139- Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Ship To:
Aim: /t
If/_7"ffQftlJt
Nor
Sample
No.
Dcpih
Dale
t
I'mjerl N.IIIU:
I'n.jeit No.:_ £ Q 3&~4
Site I ucalion: [fir of* ia-
r^k_ JJ.
lime
Sumplc T
Water Solid
Olhei
A>L
Sani|ile ('(milliners
Vol. No.
'res.
CHAIN ()!•• CUSTODY HF.COUI)
Total Number of Samples Shipped: |
Shipper's Si
Signityire
Ciuiipuiiy
Relinquished by: /ft A r»'<
Received by:
.A
A\
Relinquished by:
Oaic
Time
Received by:
Relinquished by:
Received by:
Special Inslnictions / Shipment / Hahilling/ Storage RcquireiiKnis:
The msilerial(s) listed arc received for uniilysis mid/or Irealahilily cvaliiiilion iind reiiiiiin Hie
properly of Hie client und not Kn'vironiiienliil Sohilions, Inc. At Hie conclusion of Hie lest work,
till remaining materiiil(s) will he returned to the client for eventual disposal at a licensed facility.
~\
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
21 Technology Drive
Irvine, California 92718
KNVIItONMKNTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
2KI5 MiiclK-.ll Drive, Snilc 101
Walnut Creek. California 94598
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
Date of Report:
Date Received:
PAI Project No:
Purchase Order:
03/02/95
02/09/95
P95-7783
026197
One (1) Tedlar Bag Sample labeled:
'GPU OUT20995TB1
The sample was received at the laboratory under chain of custody on February 9, 1995.
The sample was received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the attached
data sheets.
Sulfur Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed for seven Sulfur Compounds and Total Reduced Sulfur as
Hydrogen Sulfide by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (FPD). The
analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 equipped with
a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film (5 micron) crossbonded 100%
Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x 0.53mm RTX-1, Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve chromatographic separation.
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
.84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnigan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RT.-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
Data Release Authorization:
Reviewed and Approved:
\
j-Jih Chfert Michael Tuday
incipal Chemist Laboratory Director
20954 Osborne Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139- Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed
N/A
N/A
2/9/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E47
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPUOUT20995TB1
9500780
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
2/9/95
2/9/95
2/9/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
424
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
241
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
PPb
ND
173
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
173
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E48
20954 Oshome Street, CanoKa Park. CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Qualify Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPUOUT20995TB1
9500780 (Laboratory Duplicate)
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
2/9/95
2/9/95
2/9/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-0^4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
411
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
233
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
167
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
167
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND » Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E49
20954 Osbome Street, Canoca Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
TestCode: GC/MSMod.EPATO-14
Analyst: Chris Casteel
Instrument: Finnigan 4SOOC/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
2/10/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-01-*
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
7M3-2
79-01-6
108-8S-3
127-18-1
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E50
20954 Osbome Street, Canoju Park. CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
s
o
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Qualify Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 20995TB1
9500780
Test Code: GC/MS Mod EPA TO-14
Analyst: Chris Parnell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
2/9/95
2/9/95
2/10/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. - 1.00
CAS#
75-0 1-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTINO
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E51
20954 Osbome Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
^ J 1 1
Ship To: ffffytf^ieuifJ 4\HI/y7thQ(
Ann: /w»'^Xtt'- HI
Page / of /
l*rojecl
Project
Site l.o
Daicj
Name
No.:
Zfr
3LA10-&,
calion:_fjf/x
A>£/- Lc«Jf;l
/
t ? / /nr
Sample T pc
Water
Solid
Other
4%
1
3
|
M
y
Sample Containers
Vol.
/«*•
No.
/
Type
XA
IVes.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
n
x
/Analysis / O C( cr- — > — 7 Q 7
/ /^y / / / Remarks
X
Lf>*f»Tl.-r I $00-7 80
ToliJ Number of Simples Shipped: / Shipper's Signature: sf+fst*~v
S
HHiqqiii.hr.) hy^fr^t //V/*pf ^t-*l
Received by: £ WVN jff'UU^OW' r"vif
P*IW
/*/ •
i^^**»- ••«
Relinquished by:
Received by:
Relinquished by:
Received by:
Company
/^ft/,vox.<^»tK-^^/ ^o/ur-ii? Jfrc..
^Al
Special Instructions / Shipment / 1 Untiling/ Storage Requirements:
The material(s) listed are received Tor analysis and/or trealahilily evaluation and remain the
property of the client and not Environmental Solutions, Inc. At the conclusion of the lest work,
all rci'.. -mini- mMterial(s) will be returned to the client for eventual disposal »l a licensed fticilily.
Dale Tlirtc
A X9/?^— / / •//
3/q/q,^ /|'-|t>
^ ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
21 Technology Drive
Irvine, California 92718
D ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
2815 Mitchell Drive. Suite 103
Walnut Creek. California 945°&VWKrw«
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Date of Report: 03/02/95
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing Date Received: 02/10/95
Windsor, CT 06095 PAI Project No: P95-7796
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora Purchase Order: 026197
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
One (1) Tedlar Bag Sample labeled: "GPU OUT 21095TB1"
The sample was received at the laboratory under chain of custody on February 10,
1995. The sample was received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the
attached data sheets.
Sulfur Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed for seven Sulfur Compounds and Total Reduced Sulfur as
Hydrogen Sulfide by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (FPD). The
analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 equipped with
a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film (5 micron) crossbonded 100%
Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x 0.53mm RTX-1, Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve chromatographic separation.
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The sample was also analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnjgan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RTX-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
Data Release Authorization: Reviewed and Approved
Ku-Jih Chen Michael Tuday
Principal Chemist H „, Laboratory Director
20954 Osbome Street, Canocn Park. CA °H04 • Phone 318 TO^-ll^ • Fax SI5 700-291 ^
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client : TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : N/A
PAI Sample ID : PAI Method Blank
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
2/10/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
PPb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND « Not Detected
H-E54
Verified by:
Date
Qsho
me rrreec
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 21095TB1
9500846
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD#4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
945
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
536
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
385
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
385
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
H-E55
Verified by
Date
20954 Osbome Street, Cnnoyn Pjrk. CA QH04 • Pho
70^-1 !
Fd\
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 21095TB1
9500846 (Laboratory Duplicate)
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
957
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
543
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
390
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
390
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
-H-^ns
H-E56
CA
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Chris Casteel
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
2/10/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E57
20954 Osbome Street, CanoiM Park, CA ^1304 • Phone 818 70^-11^ • Fax 81^ 70^-2015
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 21095TB1
9500846
Test Code: GC/MS Mod EPA TO-14
Analyst: Chris Pamell
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled
Date Received
Date Analyzed
Volume(s) Analyzed
2/10/95
2710/95
2/10/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- &, p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
3.3 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
16
ND
ND
3.9 TR
ND
14
4.8 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
0.95 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.1
ND
ND
0.91 TR
ND
3.1
1.1 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E58
FJ\
-------
Ship To: P^/l^^/L/u^/
Alln: s£f,'rL+**f /urJl~*t
f
HoringAVcll
No.
^•TOOof^
Sample
No.
tofa/Z?/
Depth
.
Date
V/flX/
lime
o9:a /A5r
/
Sample T PC
Water
Solid
Oilier
^
' -
1
c3
,s
JD
c
O
ti
?
?
Sample Containers
Vol.
/2i
No.
/
Type
l>res.
3
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
M
/M(o
Total Number of Samples Shipped: / Shipper's Signature: -^gt^ff^^^^.
Relinquished by: ^^J^, AJstA^^^st •v*'-1
•Sf^ . 9f i ^ " ^-l
Received by: K£>D\.in \Ot ^jlo\T ^
I1
Relinquished by:
M**-'*
\\ ^rv^lnLj(^K
Q
Received by:
Relinquished by:
Received by:
Company
C>*l//j*Vf x*r.«»X*/ OOf «jyfV>f 5^ -t^C.
OPV"T~
Special Instructions / Shipment / Handling/ Storage Requirements:
The material(s) listed are received for analysis and/or treatability evaluation and remain the
property of the client and not Environmental Solutions, Inc. At the conclusion of the test work,
all remaining material(s) will be returned to the client for eventual disposal at a licensed facility.
Hale Time.
&Jto /?J~ Jo.'O"^
c3llOrl5 lOlOr1)
^gj ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
21 Technology Drive
Irvine, California 92718
D ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
2815 Mitchell Drive. Suite 103
Walnut Creek, California 94598
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
Date of Report:
Date Received:
PAI Project No:
Purchase Order:
03/06/95
02/17/95
P95-7833
026197
One (1) Tedlar Bag Sample labeled:
'GPU OUT 21795'
The sample was received at the laboratory under chain of custody on February 17,
1995. The sample was received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the
attached data sheets.
Sulfur Compound Analysis
The sample was analyzed for seven Sulfur Compounds and Total Reduced Sulfur as
Hydrogen Sulfide by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (FPD). The
analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 equipped with
a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film (5 micron) crossbonded 100%
Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x 0.53mm RTX-1, Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve chromatographic separation.
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
The sample was also analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnigan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RT,,-1, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
Data Release Authorization:
Kathleen Aguilera
Analytical Chemist
H-E60
Reviewed and Approved:
Michael Tuc
Laboratory Director
Obhnme Street, Canon,-, Park, CA OI304 - Phone ^ 70Q-ll^ • F.TX 81^ 70Q-29!5_
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: J. Dan Taliaferro
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volumes) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
2/17/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND * Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E61
oi>,t Park. CA Q1304 • Phone 818 70^-11^ • Fax 31* T
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 21795
9500994
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: J. Dan Taliaferro
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
2/17/95
2/17/95
2/17/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
149
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
84.3
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
60.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
60.5
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E62
2QQ54 QsKime Street, Caru.LM Park, CA 91304 • Phone
709-1119 . Fax
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 21795
9500994 (Laboratory Duplicate)
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: J. Dan Taliafeno
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
2/17/95
2/17/95
2/17/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
154
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
87.6
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
62.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
62.9
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-E63
20954 Osbome Street, Canocn Park, CA 91304 • Phone 818 709-1139 • Fax 818 709-2915
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client : TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ED : N/A
PAI Sample ID : PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MS Mod EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
2/17/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-1
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluorometnane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylcnes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
- ND
REPORTING
UMTT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
H-E64
20954 Oshome Street, CHIIOIM Park, CA 9H04 • Phone 818 7
Verified by
Date
• Fax SIS TOO-1
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
GPU OUT 21795
9500994
Test Code: GC/MS Mod EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed;
2/17/95
2/17/95
2/17/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-4 1-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
4.9 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.3 TR
1.3 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
1.4 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.75 TR
0.31 TR
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by:
Date
H-E65
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Project ID: #2030-0000-00006
PAI Project ID: #P957833
Test Code: GC/MS Mod EPA TO-14
Instrument ID: HP5972/Entech 7000
Analyst: Chris Parnell
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled: 2/17/95
Date Received: 2/17/95
Date Analyzed: 2/17/95
Volume(s) Analyzed: 1.00 (Liter)
0.050 (Liter)
Client Sample ID
GPU OUT 2 1795
N/A (2/17/95)
PAI Sample ID
9500994
Method Blank
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Result
ug/m3
ND
ND
Detection
Limit
ug/m3
20
1.0
Result
ppb
ND
ND
Detection
Limit
ppb
4.1
0.20
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by:
Date:
H-E66
-------
I
Ship To: lCr~Tbr" 4*-*C*j-*-t >-
Aim: •** i K-GC
?O\rc^ti,
* / 7 / -/r
Sample Type
Water
Solid
Other
y
6
o
X
Sample Contiincrs
Vol.
No.
lypc
'
IVes
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
A
/ Analysis / ^f=* ^=aa==^
W//&^
^SQ'OH^M
Total Number of Samples Shipped*-^ Shipjicr's Signature:
(~\ / ) Signature
Relinquished by '•""A CUfaQtyO tJ(J^' ^-^.
Received by: ^ . J_\^\^y v^Lv^ ^r^\^*—~ 'I
Relinquished by: x-""^ •
Received by:
Relinquished by:
Received by:
Company
-TO?..
Special Instructions/ Shipment/ Handling/ Slorngc Requirements:
The material(s) listed are received for analysis and/or Ireatabilily evaluation and remain the
property of the client and nr.t Environmental Solutions, Inc. At the conclusion of the lest work,
all remaining material(s) will be returned to the client for eventual disposal at a licensed facility.
Dale Time
i- ~ /"7 - 'j "^ /5"oO
-2-|-7__9^ (SCO
D ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
21 Technology Drive
Irvine, California 92718
. D ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
2815 Milclicll Drive, Suilc 103
Walnul Creek, California 94598
-------
SUB-APPENDIX F
CALIBRATION DATA AND CERTIFICATIONS
H-Fl
-------
Appendix F-l
Example Calibration Report of the
On-Line Heat Content Analyzer
H-F2
-------
CAL\fc£/'T'4AJ
CUi'ir1 Cr-iL
C'!.i.0!:f. CONG
.!. ,,41 038-*-6 355:":.W,:2
.I.26.-/8., W 3.i.'/av,,8
••:.88776 33626 „/.:
.1... :••;•:• 822•*• 6 2v:L 42., 5
Borne.
t
A
H-F1
-------
H-F4
-------
3 0P 3
.:> •";.(.i\.:.^\'-...-b '.\
:...;••••;.. HAS ^TRiiAPKi;; 3
L V £;...!:•_ STAR ]" TI i Mi:-, i; 9? ;; ^j 6
i 17 39 „ :>&i :L(')
.i. j.o IB .. 39'?i::/ij
•-! 1.1.4 !. !.:'i.. 1@WS
j.i-!i-:i -i'-i ,. '::'00frj
Of-'-. !'A !-^l::'
:!. ..^.•i.'/i&B-f-f. 35^Be;,,2
1.26 68, 9 319 a9 .,0
"''ft37-v0 33626,. 2
i „ 3S02/:?'. 6 29142., 5
DL..I) HEW*
&,
H-F5
-------
Appendix F-2
Electric Meter Calibration Data
H-F6
-------
JUL 1 '94 89:08
LflDUIP RES PLflN&DEV
FROM INTL FUEL CFi Lg fi
TEL:213-367-0210
TO 9298S399
Jun 27.94
PflGE.002
9:54 No.003 P.01
PaeK|e Enerov Co-Generation Penross Landfill Metering Summary
The major components of tho revenue billing meter system are a bi-directional.
multifunction meter, two potential transformers, and two current transformers
monitoring a 30, 3 wire, delta service. (See Page 1 of the Attachment)
The bitting meter, PMG3001 8-1 5 Is programmed to display the information shown
on Page 2 of the Attachment
The bluing meter Is tested in the Mater Laboratory prior to Installation. Test results
are shown on Page 3 of the Attachment These results are within the ±2% of the
accuracy called for in the American National Standard Code for Electricity Metering
(ANSI C12). LAOWP rules call for all meters to be within ±1 % accuracy before
being Installed, test Lab policy is to calibrate each meter within ±.5% accuracy.
Each potential transformer (ratio 300 to 1) was tested In the Standards Laboratory '
before installation. Each was tested at 0, W, X, Y, and Z burden. As indicated on
and 4 of the Attachment, each was within ±1 % accuracy.
5)
before installation. Each was tested at burdens from 0 to B2.0. As indicated on
Pages 5 through 8 of the Attachment, each was within ±1% accuracy.
• After the metering system was installed on the customers service, an install test was
performed on the system. As shown on Page 9 of the Attachment, this test •
indicates the meter was 100% accurate.
Also attached is a brochure for the Transdata EMS 96 Meter installed at this location.
AMGisls
Attachments
PocMt" brand tax UansmittaJ m«n» 75711«
-------
or iwj AftOUIS
l*fAtTMtHT Of WATtt A WWW
PMG3001B-
LOAD
nUM*0ATA(Mt70l9
TDG300IB-
&)
to
CD
Tvv^
r
10
in
REAR PANEL VIEW
tt»T-1
-------
JUL 1 '94 09:09
LflDUP RES PLflN&DEU
FROM INTL FUEL CELLS fi
TEL:2l3-36?-0210
TO 92986399
Jun 27.94
PPtGE.004
9:55 No .003 P. 03
70
PARALLEL GENERATION - LARGE (PG-3)
BI-DIRECTIONAL XWH/KVARH METER
01
O2
03
04
05
METER
DATE
TIME
KW
KWH
09
10
11
15
16
17
21
25
29
39
40
KM
KWH
KVARH
KW
KWH
KVARH
KWH
KWH
KWH
KWH
KVARH
DISPLAY CHECK
MAXIMUN DEMAND
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
MAXIMUM DEMAND
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
MAXIMUM DEMAND
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
'CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
HIGH PEAK
nroE PEAK
HIGH PEAK
LOW PEAK
LOW PEAK
LOW PEAK
BASE
BASE
BASE
HIGH PEAK
LOW PEAK
BASE
TOTAL
TOTAL
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DELXV3SRBD
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
DBUVBRBD
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
DELIVERED
DELIVERED
6 1/21/92 BGH
Page - 13 -
H-F9
-------
JUL 1 '54 09-'09
LflDUP RES
FROM INTL FUEL CELLS fi
TEL:213-36?-0210
TO 92936399
Jun 27.94
PflGE.005
9:56 No.003 P.04
Meter Laboratory Meter Keprot
IS 2197
Ponroaa Landfill
8301 Tujunga Ave
FHG30018-19
9-22-93
Meter Fora: 5S
9.-17-93 07X20:01
Teat setting is
Meter Register:
Dovty
Volt*-120.0
p.r.-o.s
XKH Del
series Full Load: 99.99
Series Power: 100.04
Series Light Load: 99.99
KWh Bee
Series Pull Load: -100.05
Series Power: -100.13
series Light Load: -100.03
EKS96 Rotation: ABC
Pf Offset-60
Teat Setting 2:
Volts-120,0
P.F.-0.2
KVAR Del
£eri«« Pull Load: 100.OS
Seriea Power: 10O.03
Series Light Load: 100.11
Pf
Test Setting 3:
Volts-120.0
P.P.=1.0
KVAR Del
Series Pull Load:* 100.06
Series Power: 100.06
Series Light Load; 100.10
Aiap»-5.00
Orfcet-0
-------
Appendix F-3
GPU Gas Flowmeter Calibration Data
H-Fll
-------
MflY 15 '95
09:47
FROM INTL FUEL CFI 1 S fl TO 92986399 PWGE.kJi
YFCT Flow Computing Totalizer (Style B) TAG NO :
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Function specif icatton(l)
Function specification (2)
Function specif ication(3)
Plowmaur K -Factor or
Flow input loan K»
or F.
Volumatrle unit co*w. ^ „
or Flow in. anan factor ~ °r *•*
Totaliza fador«low 1 1
Flow span (t low 1)
Span facior°
^0 •
\
\
*o /
\
nryi^
\
-2^^^
\
\
ft0 '
^ '
^
^l\
F^JFVv
^^5"™""°°"
fmtmttvtiftferHrn . 1
SLFI^
i^Cfr
^^^^^a
t~^5r*v«p^f'»
^6l
Vffv\
S-cond
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
coefficient
Pulat ratnnsmixuon presetting
Analog retransmission presetting
Maximum measured temperature
Minimum iriaaaiirerl temperature
r^np4Ta1ur<.°'BO~"fi0ft
Operating tempwature
Maximum measured prawure
or density
Minimum measured prascure
or cMnuty
Raferance compemjtlon oreawira
or density
Ooarating praaaura or oansity
or Martina
Atmospheric pretturt
Companation factor k
Drynau fraction
Soecffic aight at normal
Operacjno oondMona "
Soadfic anthaipy at normal .
oparatina conaltion* nl
Deviation factor at normal
operating conditions K
-;,.(J)12-
*~
_25") ^
^z^H
U\ '
y\ '
\
n
n.'n '
"Oi*5)
M ,1 '
/
gg^Sj-T^HlgS^
•I'-^-'-jl^S?
&0~^
HZ
%
6P
'o^~
•F
"fe\c.
4^>\V
rO\o
T^iPr
^^^^
36
36
37
38
39
4O
"
-2
43
44
<$
Humidity compensation factor K»
Critical temperatura
Critical pressure
Te
Pe
Critical eompraaiibilitY factor Zc
COTIPI aaiibilitv factor at -r
Specific gravity
G
C07 molta Me
N|3 mol %
M.
nofm*< opwaiina condiooru
1«t-C- AX nocn
«*j
Span faoor(flow 3) <*>
Flow toolizar display^ low 3)
Flow rate ditpiay
-------
fiRY 15 '95 09:48
FROM INTL FUEL CF1 I S fl
TO 92986399
PflGE.003
Function Specification 11}
Qp'u"1
0:(Fo
1 :Sie
2 :G»
3 : Up
4 : We
^JComp*
SM"m
0 :T*(
1 : Pr«
2 :T«.
eta
IA B|C|D|O|F|
<• factory use only)
am
(
uid
iter energy (option)
•nperature. Saturated steam
ssure. Saturated steam
np. and Press.. Superheated
evn (including saturated status)
Gas
0 : General gasesiset a constant K)
1 : General gases("2" table is used)
2 : Natural gas
Liquid
0 : Temparaturetauadratic aquation)
1 : Density
(c
[D
0
1
2
3
4
S
Function Specification
Wator energy H] Temperature compsnsaQon signal
0 : 4T - Tamp. - Temp. (AUX) 0 : 4 to 20mA or Pt 100Q
1 : AT - Tamp. (AUX) - Temp. 1 : Preset value
Flow input signal 0 Temperature unit
0 : Pulse 0 :*F
1 : Analog (4 to 20mA) 1 :*c
[ Flow analog signal processing [7) PressJOensity conpeosasion signal
Flowmeter signal
4 to 20mA (linear)
4 to 20 mA (linear)
AP
AP
AP (aquara root extraction)
AP (square root extraction)
Lowoutoff 0:4to20mA
IVorlas, I.H-wet value
0% or le» J^j tr^.w* ,,«:T
IX or less
_0%orlee , . pfi g
1 % or I«B 2 : Kfl/em» abc.
0%orta< 3 : Kfl/em' G
[Fj Plow rate time
0 : *Js»c
1 : aVmin
2: «/h
3: a/day
Function Specification^)
|G|H J|K|L|O
Self -diagnostic Content*
Code
Good
-
FAIL-O
Err-01
6rr-02
Err-03
Err-09
Err-1 1
Err-12
Err- 13
Err-21
Err-22
Err-23
&T-31
E/r-32
Err-33
Erf— 41
Err— 42
Err~43
Diagnostic Content*
CPU failure
RAM memory data lose
A/O converter failure
O/A converter failura
Pub* retranonission owarflow
Battery not instaltad. or
voltage too low
Flow low limit ovarrange
Flow high limit ovarrange
Analog flow input high limit
overran?*
Prets^density low limit ovarrange
PrenVdansity high limit ovarrenga
Compensation prati. ovarranga
Temp, low limit ovarrange
Teme. high limit ovarrange
Companation tamp, ovarranga
Tamp. (AUX.) low limit ovarrange
Temp. (AUX.) high limit ovarrange
Negative temp, difference
Alarm-lamp
—
PAIL
(red)
ALM
(yellow)
Light
Flash
Uflht
Alarm
output
—
ON
—
ON
4 : Mfaabs.
5 : MPa G
| L| lemptAUA; comperuiuofl si
item vaild only for the /DT.
1 : 4 to 20mA or Pt 100*1
0 : Preset value
Function Specif icatk>n(3
[]7 P Q
grtal
• an
o|s|o
|_N] Pulse retransmission
0 : Preset value (lor maintenance)
1 :Flow1
2 : Flow 2 .
3 : Flow 3 (uncompensated)
{T] Retransmission pulse width
O : Duty ratio 5O%
1 :0£mS
2 : 1mS
3:20mS
4:33mS
5 :SOmS
6 : IQOmS
r51 Analog retransmission / Flow high
and low limit alarm
0 : Preset value (tor maintenance)
1 : Flow 1 •
2 : Flow 2
3 : Flow 3 (uncompensated)
Totalizer reset
0 : Enable (for display value only)
1 : EnabMwhole value)
2 : Inhibit
H-F13
-------
Appendix F-4
Reference Method Calibration Gas Certifications
H-F14
-------
03/23/95 09:02
FAX 313 589 2134
SCOTT SPECIALTY
©002
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
1290 COMBERMERE STREET, TROY, Ml 46083
(810)589-2950 FAX:(810) 589-2134
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: EPA PROTOCOL GAS
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
C/OESI
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Assay Laboratory
Scon Specialty Gases, Inc
1290Comberrnere
Troy. MI 48083
Purchase Order: 25886
Scott Project 0 : 573696
This certification was performed according to EPA Traccability Protocol For Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards; Procedure Gl; September, 1993.
Cylinder Number : ALM048981 Certificate Date : 1/30/95 Expiration Date :
Cylinder Pressure + : 1900 psig
Certificate Date: 1/30/95
Previous Certificate Date : None
7/30/95
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Componenfc
Nitric Oxide
Total Oxides of Nitrogen
Certified Concentration
2-34 ppm
2-37 ppm
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
Reference Value Only
Balance Gas: Nitrogen
+Do not me when cylinder prcruure it below 150 pti(.
*Anilyiinl accuracy a inclusive of usual known cmc aourco which it lent bcludt preeirion of the memircman processes.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Type Expiration Date
NTRM 0025 11/21/96
Cylinder Number
ALM-042671
Concentration
2439 ppm Nitric Oxide in Nitrogen
INSTRUMENTATION
Instrument/Model/Serial #
NO:Horiba/OPE-235/483814
Last Date Calibrated
1/16V95
Analytical Principle
Chcmiiuminesccncc
ANALYZER READINGS
21-0.00 R1-M.CO T1XJO
R2«86,00 22-0.00 T2»ajO
Z3-0.00 T>8.30 R3-66.00
Avg. Cone, of dot. Cyl 2.34ppm
DM*. 1/3O9S Anpanu (Jnt*. m.
21-000 R1-8B.OO T1>«.30
R2-B6.00 Z3O.OO T2««.30
23-0.00 T>«,30
Avg. Cone, or Cud. CyC 2.34 ppm
(•1.00000
80^83810000
0 -O.OOOOOOCIOO
NTRM 0025
A--0.017292000
0=0-000000000
E-0.000000000
Special Notes
Cylinder
Analyst
H-F15
-------
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
1290 COMBERMERE STREET, TROY, Ml 48083
(810)589-2950 FAX:(310) 589-2134
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: EPA PROTOCOL GAS
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
C/OESI
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
Assay Laboratory
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc
1290 Combermere
Troy, MI 48083
Purchase Order: NI95233
Scott Project # : 574285
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
This certification was performed according to EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Cslibratian Sti^isrdr; Procedure G!: SepfKr.be.-, 1P92.
Cylinder Number: ALM050644
Cylinder Pressure + : 1900psig
Certificate Date: 12/14/94
Previous Certificate Date : None
Expiration Date : 6/14/95
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Components
Nitric Oxide
Total Oxides of Nitrogen
Certified Concentration
1.59 ppm
1.69 ppm
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
Reference Value Only
Balance Gas: Nitrogen
+Do not use when cylinder presssure is below 150 psig.
•Analytical accuracy is inclusive of usual known error sources which al least include precision of the measurement processes.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Type Expiration Date
NTRM002S 11/21/96
Cylinder Number
ALM-042671
Concentration
24.39 ppm Nitric Oxide in Nitrogen
INSTRUMENTATION
instrument/Model/Serial #
NO:Horiba/OPE-235/483814
Last Date Calibrated
11/29/94
Analytical Principle
Chemiluminescence
ANALYZER READINGS (Z-Z*roG«s R-Referenee G« T-TestGas r-Correlation Coefficient)
Components
Nitric Oxide
First Triad Analysis
D«t»: 12/7/94 RMPOHM Units: mv
21-0.00 R1-86.00 T1«5.70
R2«86.00 22*0.00 12*570
22*0.00 T3«5.65 R3-86.00
Avg. Cone, of Cud Cyl. 1.60 ppm
Second Triad Analysis Calibration Curve
Oat*: 12/14/94 RMpontt Units- mv
21-000 R1«86.00 T1-5.65
R2>86.00 22-0.00 T2-5.6S
23*0.00 T3-S.65 R3-86.00
Avg. Cone, al Cu*l Cyl: 1.59 ppm
234
Coftc«ntntio«xA*Bz*Cx *Dx *Cx
r-1 .00000 NTRM 0025
Constants A«-0 017292000
B-0 28381 0000 C=0.000000000
D-0.000000000 E«0000000000
Special Notes
Interference Free Multi-Component EPA Protocol Gas
Mail
H-F16
Analyst
-------
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 WEAVER PARK ROAD, LONGMONT, CO 80501 (303) 442-4700, (303) 651 -3094 FAX (303) 772-7673
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: EPA PROTOCOL GAS
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
GEORGE MUNYER
C/O E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Assay Laboratory
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 Weaver Park Road
Longmont, CO 80501
Purchase Order 25886
Scott Project # 08-16764
CGA Fitting 350
QC Number 26059422
Rle Number 16764-02
This certification was performed according to EPA Traceabaity Protocol to Atsay and certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, Procedure G1: September. 1993.
Cylinder Number ALM-038592 Certification Date 12/05/94 Expiration Date 12/05/97
Cylinder Pressure 2000 psig Previous Certification Dates None
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Components
(Carbon Monoxide)
(Nitrogen)
Certified Concentration
90.4 ppm
Balance
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
* Analytical uncertainty is inclusive of usual known emy scourees which at least Include precision of me measurement processes.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Type Expiration Date
NTRM1679 08/11/94
GMIS NONE
Cylinder Number
ALM-041528
AAL-5975
Concentration
97.10ppmCO/N2
47.20ppm CO / N2
INSTRUMENTATION
Instrument/Model/Serial *
Horiba AIA 24 564163071
Last Date Calibrated
11/03/96
Analytical Principle
Non-Dispersive Infrared
ANALYZER READINGS
(Z=ZeroGas R=Reference Gas T= Test Gas r=Correlation Coefficient)
Components
(Carbon Monoxide)
First Triad Analysis
Date: 11/28*4 Response Units: mv
21 - 0.0000 R1 - 0.2030 T1 - 0.4440
R2 - 0.2030 Z2 - 0.0000 T2 - 0.4440
23 - O.OOOO T3 - 0 4440' R3 - 02030
Avg. Cone, of Cult Cyl « 80 .81 ppm
Second Triad Analysis
Data: 12/05*4 Response Units mv
21-0.0000 R1- 02030 T2 - 0 4390
R2 - 02030 22 - 0.0000 T2 - 0 4390
Z3 - 0.0000 T3 - 0.4390 R3 - 0-2O30
Avg. Cone, of Cusl Cyt » 69.90 ppm
Calibration Curve
Concentration « A + Bx + C»+D»+Ej«
r - 0.999650 NTHM 1079
Constants: A * 32072
B - 243.78 C «= -146011
D - 94.8572 E = 0
Special Notes Do not use when cylinder pressure is below 150 psig.
H-F17
Analyst: DianSf L Beehler
-------
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 WEAVER PARK ROAD, LONGMONT, CO 80501 (303) 442-4700, (303) 651 -3094 FAX (303) 772-7673
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: EPA PROTOCOL GAS
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
GEORGE MUNYER
C/O E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Assay Laboratory
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 Weaver Park Road
Longmont, CO 80501
Purchase Order 25886
Scott Project * 08-16764
CGA Fitting 660
QC Number 26069408
File Number 16764-01
Thi» oartfcatlon mi performed according to EPA TraoMbdlty Protocol to A»*ay and owtHotton of Gauous Calibration Standards, Procedure Q1: Sapfcmbar, 1B83.
Cylinder Number ALM-043127 Certification Date 12/06/94 Expiration Date 12/06/96
Cylinder Pressure 2000 psig Previous Certification Dates None
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Components
(Nitric Oxide)
(Nitrogen Oxides)
(Nitrogen)
Certified Concentration
94.2 ppm
94.2 ppm
Bale
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
Reference Value Only
' Analytical uncertainty ii indu«
-------
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 WEAVER PARK ROAD, LONGMONT, CO 80501 (303) 442-4700, (303) 651 -3094 FAX (303) 772-7673
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: EPA PROTOCOL GAS
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
GEORGE MUNYER
C/O E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Assay Laboratory
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 Weaver Park Road
Longmont, CO 80501
Purchase Order 25886
Scott Project * 08-16764
CGA Fitting 660
QC Number 26079408
File Number 16764-03
This cwUftcaUon was performed according to EPA Traoaabdlty Protocol to Assay and certification of Gawou> Calibration Standards: Procedure G1; September. 19S3.
Cylinder Number ALM-036593 Certification Date 12/06/94 Expiration Date 12/06/96
Cylinder Pressure 2000 psig Previous Certification Dates None
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Components
(Sulfur Dioxide)
(Nitrogen)
Certified Concentration
90.7 ppm
Balance
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
* Analytical uncertainty is indusrve of usual known error scourges which at toast include precision of the measurement processes.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Type Expiration Date
NTRM 1662 06/18/95
NTRM 1694 05/10/95
Cylinder Number
ALM-032684
ALM -024092
Concentration
947.7ppm SO2 / N2
93.6ppm SO2 / N2
INSTRUMENTATION
Instrument/Model/Serial #
Nicotet FTIR / 8220 / AAB9400251
Last Date Calibrated
08/18/94
Analytical Principle
Scoff Enhanced FTIRrw
ANALYZER READINGS
(Z=Zero Gas R=Reference Gas T= Test Gas r=Correlation Coefficient)
Components
(Sulfur Ocude)
First Triad Analysis
Data: 11/29/O4 Response Units: mv
21-0000 R1 « 93.800 T1 - 90 520
R2 - 93.000 22 « 0.000 T2 - 80.520
23 - 0.000 T3 » SO.S20 R3 - 93.800
Avg. Cone. otCusl. Cyl. « 90.5 ppm
Second Triad Analysis
Data: 12/06/94 Response Units: mv
21-0000 R1-93800 T2-90881
R2 - 93.800 22 - 0.000 T2 - 90.881
23 « 0.000 T3 - 90.881 R3 = 93.600
Avg. Cone, ol Cust. Cyl. « 90.9 ppm
Calibration Curve
Concentration - A + Bx + Cjc + Dn-f Ex*
r- 0999994 NTHM 1662
Constants A = 0.33897300
8 = 0.94412400 C = 0.00002S56
0=0 E -0
Special Notes Do not use when cylinder pressure is below 150 psig.
H-F19
Analyst: Diana L Beehler
-------
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
1290 COMBERMERE STREET, TROY, Ml 48083
(810)589-2950 FAX:(810) 589-2134
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: EPA PROTOCOL GAS
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
. C/O ESI
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
Assay Laboratory
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc
1290 Combcrmere
Troy, MI 48083
Purchase Order: 25886
Scott Project # : 573696
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
This certification .vas performed according to F.PA Traccability Protocol For Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards; Procedure Gl; September, i9V_).
Cylinder Number: ALM022962
Cylinder Pressure +: 1900 psig
Certificate Date : -11/21/94
Previous Certificate Date : None
Expiration Date : 11/21/97
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Components
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
Certified Concentration
20.1 %
203. •/.
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
Balance Gas: Nitrogen
+Do Dot use when cylinder pressure is below ISO psig.
'Analytical accuracy is inclusive of usual known error sources which at least include precision of the measurement processes.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Type Expiration Date
SRM 2659A 3/7/98
NTRM 1674 9/28/95
Cylinder Number
CLM-006904
ALM032599
Concentration
20.72 % Oxygen in Nitrogen
6.981 % Carbon Dioxide in Nitrogen
Instrument/Model/Serial #
O2: Bcckman/755/1001192
HORIBA /PIR 2000/02609015
Last Date Calibrated
10/25/94
11/21/94
Analytical Principle
Paramagnetic
Non-Dispersive Infrared
ANALYZER READINGS (Z-ZeroGts R-Reference G«s T-TestGas r-CorreUtion Coefficient)
Components
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
First Triad Analysis
Second Triad Analysis
Calibration Curve
Data- 11/21/94 Racponta Urwi: nw
Z1-0.00 R1-100.00 T1 -96.80
R2«100.00 22=0.00 T2«96.80
23*000 T3-96.80 R3-10000
Avg. Cone, of Cuct Cyl 20.1 *
Data: 11/21/94 Ra*pon*a Untti: mv
Z1«0.00 R1^910 T1 «139.30
R2^9.10 Z2-0.00 T2«139.30
73<100 T3»139.?0 R3-59 10
Avg. Cone, of Cut! Cyl 20.2 S
234
r=1. 00000 SRM2659A
Comtanu A=O 001203800
6=0.207210000 C -0000000000
D'OOOOOOOOOO E«0 000000000
234
r-0 99999 NTRM 1674
Constanta: A«-2. 548840000
0=0.000005683 £=0000000000
Special Notes
Mail
H-F20
Analyst
-------
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 WEAVER PARK ROAD, LONGMONT. CO 80501 (303) 442-4700. (303) 051 -3094 FAX (303) 772-7073
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: Interference-Free Multi-Component EPA Protocol Gas
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
GEORGE MUNYER
C/O E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Assay Laboratory
Scott Specialty Gases. Inc.
500 Weaver Park Road
Longmont. CO 80501
Purchase Order 25886
Scott Project # 08-16764
CGA Fitting €60
QC Number 26069412
File Number 16764-04
ThBC8ttificete>n<»p»rtoiTnadneeordrg to EPA Tracaetoiity Protocol to Aa^ 1993.
Cylinder Number ALM-025536 Certification Date 12/06/94 Expiration Date 12/06/96
Cylinder Pressure 2000 psig Previous Certification Dates None
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Components --. .--:.,-=:
(Carbon Monoxide)
(Sulfur Dioxide)
(Nitric Oxide)
(Nitrogen Oxides),
(Nitrogen)
Certified Concentration
50.7 ppm : •_ -/ - - - -
49.6 ppm " : --—•-.--- - .
50.8 ppm -—-—•-—-•—;
50.8 ppm —•- --
Balance
* ArnlylieeJLricertBjntyBiridusive of ustBllOTOiim error so^
REFERENCE STANDARD
Type
NTRM1679
GMIS
NTRM1662
NTRM1693
GMIS
NTRM1684
Expiration Date
08/11/94
NONE
06/18/95
12/17/94
12/09/95
08/13/96
INSTRUMENTATION
Instrument/Model/Serial *
Horiba AIA 24 564163071
Nicotet FTIR / 8220 / AAB9400251
Nteotet FTIR / 8220 / AAB9400251
ANALYZER READINGS
Cylinder Number
ALM-041528
AAL-5975
ALM-032684
ALM-021565
ALM-038821
ALM-024460
Last Date Calibrated
11/03/96
11/18/94
11/18/94
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
Reference Value Only
Concentration
97.10ppmCO/N2
47.20ppmCO/N2
947.7ppm SO2 / N2
47.2ppm SO2 / N2
483.6ppm NO / N2
95.2ppm NO / N2
Analytical Principle
Non-Dispersive Infrared
Scott Enhanced FTIRTV
Scott Enhanced FTIRTM
(Z«=2eroG«» R-Ret»fence Gat T^TertGo ^Correlation Coefficient)
Components
(Carbon Monoada)
First Triad Analysis
CM»:11/28AM Reepome Unite nw
21 - 0.0000 Rl - 02030 T1 - 0.2220
R2- 02030 22-0.0000 T2 - 0.2220
23 - 0.0000 T3 - 02220 R3 - 02030
Avg. Cone, of CuBt Cyl. - 50.91 ppm
Second Triad Analysis
Calibration Curve
DeJK 12/06/94 ReeponeeUnit* mv
21 - aOOOO R1 - 02020 12 - 0.2100
R2- 02020 22-003000 T2 - 02190
23-0.0000 T3- 0.2180 R3 - 02O20
Avg Cone, of Curt. Cyl. - 50.51 ppm
Concentration - A+Bx+de+Oo+E*
r - o.ooaaso NTRM IOTB
Contents: A - 32072
B-243.78 C--146.811
D - 94.8572 E - 0
Do»: 11/28*4 Responee Unt»: mv
21 - 0.000 R1 - 47200 T1 - 49.834
R2- 47200 22-0.000 72-49.034
23 - 0.000 T3 - 49.834 R3 - 47200
Avg. Cone, of Cut Cyl. — 49.C ppm
(Nitric Oxide)
Date: 11/29/04 Response Units: mv
21 - 0.000 R1 - 95.220 T1 - 50.825
R2-95220 22-0.000 T2 - 50.825
23 - 0.000 T3 - 50.825 R3 - 95.220
Avg. Cone. of Cust Cyl - 50.6 ppm
Date: 12/0804 Reapora Unrts: mv
21 - 0.000 R1 - 47.200 T1 - 49.567
R2- 47.200 22-0.000 T2 - 49587
23 - 0.000 T3 - 49.507 R3 - 47200
Avg. Cone, of Cust Cyl. - 49.8 ppm
Data: 12/0804 Response Unrts: mv
21 - 0.000 R1 - 95.220 T1 - 50.822
R2 - 95.220 22 - 0.000 T2 - 50.822
23 - 0.000 T3 - 50.822 R3 - 95.220
Avg. Cone, of Cust Cyl. - 50.8 ppm
Concentration - A+Bx-t-Qo+CbcH-E*.
r - 0.999904 NTRM 1802
Conttants: A - 0.56422400
B - 0 95784200 C - -0.00005789
D - 0.00000 E - 0
Concentration - A+Bx+C»+OxH-Ex<
r — 0.989978 GMIS
Contents: A- -0.11814400
B - 0.56528900 C - 0.00048048
D - 0.00000053 E - 0
Special Notes Do not use when cylinder pressure is below 150 psig.
Reviewer
Analyst: Diana L Beehler
-------
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 WEAVER PARK ROAD, LONGMONT, CO 80501 (303) 442-4700, (303) 651 -3094 FAX (303) 772-7673
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: Interference-Free Multi-Component EPA Protocol Gas
Customer
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
GEORGE MUNYER
C/O E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92718
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Assay Laboratory
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
500 Weaver Park Road
Longmont, CO 80501
Purchase Order 25886
Scott Project # 08-16764
CGA Fitting 660
QC Number 26069413
Rle Number 16764-05
This certification wai performed according to EPA Traceabiltv Protocol to Assay and certification ol Gaseous Calibration Standards; Procedure G1; September. 1883
Cylinder Number AAL-7595 Certification Date 12/06/94 Expiration Date 12/06/96
Cylinder Pressure 2000 psig Previous Certification Dates None
ANALYZED CYLINDER
Components
(Carbon Monoxide)
(Sulfur Dioxide)
(Nitric Oxide)
(Nitrogen Oxides)
(Nitrogen)
Certified Concentration
25.8 ppm
24.8 ppm
26.7 ppm
26.7 ppm
Balance
Analytical Uncertainty*
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
±-\% NIST Directly Traceable
±1% NIST Directly Traceable
Reference Value Only
* Analytical uncertainty is inclusive o) usual known error scouro»s which at least include precision of the measurement processes.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Type Expiration Date
NTRM 1678 07/31/96
GMIS NONE
NTRM 1662 06/18/95
NTRM 1693 12/17/94
GMIS 12/09/95
NTRM 1684 08/13/96
Cylinder Number
AAL-8680
A LM -02484
ALM -032684
ALM-021565
ALM -038821
ALM-024460
Concentration
45.70ppm CO / N2
24.94ppm CO / N2
947.7ppm SO2 / N2
47.2ppm SO2 / N2
483.6ppm NO / N2
95.2ppm NO / N2
INSTRUMENTATION
Instrument/Model/Serial #
Horiba AIA 24 564163071
Nicolet FTIR / 8220 / AAB9400251
Nicotet FTIR / 8220 / AAB9400251
ANALYZER READINGS
Last Date Calibrated
0.039007
08/18/94
08/18/94
Analytical Principle
Non-Dispersive Infrared
Scott Enhanced FTIRTM
Scolt Enhanced FTIRTM
(2=2eroGas R=Reference Gas T= Test Gas r= Correlation Coefficient)
Components
(Carbon Monoxide)
First Triad Analysis
Second Triad Analysis
Calibration Curve
Date: 11/29/B4 Response Units: mv
21 - O.OOOO R1 - 0.4220 T1 - 0.4410
R2 « 0.4220 22 - 0.0000 T2 - 0.4410
23 - 0.0000 T3 - 0.4410 R3 - 0.4220
Avg Cone, of Cust. Cyl. • 25.60 ppm
Dak: 12/0894 Retponu Units: mv
Zl - 0.0000 R1 - 0.4220 T2 - 0.4390
R2 - 0.4220 22 - 0.0000 T2 - 0 4390
23 - 0.0000 T3 - 0.43BO R3 - 0 4220
Avp. Cone, of Cust Cyl. - 25.77 ppm
Concentration = A +
r - 0.999676
Constants:
B - 65.666
D - 6.3325
Bx + Cc+Dn+Ex.
NTRM 1678
A= 1.1676
C - -24.5470
E-0
(Sulfur Dioxide)
(Nitric Oxide)
Date: 11/29*4 Response Units: mv
21 - O.OOO R1 - 47.200 T1 . 24 808
R2 - 47200 22 - 0.000 T2 » 24 809
23 - O.OOO T3 - 24.6O9 R3 • 47.2OO
Avg Cone, of Cust. Cyl - 24 6 ppm
Date: 11/29/94 Response Units: mv
21 - 0.000 R1 - 05.220 T1 - 26.603
R2 - 85 220 22 - 0.000 T2 = 26.803
23 = 0.000 T3 •= 26 .803 R3 - 85.220
Avg. Cone, of Cust. Cyl. » 26.8 ppm
Date: 12/06/94 Response Urtts: mv
21 - O.OOO R1 - 47.2OO T1 - 24.718
R2 - 47.2OO 22 - O.OOO T2 - 24.716
23 - O.OOO T3 . 24.716 R3 - 47.2OO
Avg. Cone of Cust. Cyl. « 24.7 ppm
Date: 12/0694 Response Units: mv
21 - 0.000 R1 - 85.220 T1 - 26.550
R2 = 85.220 22 - 0.000 T2 - 26.550
23 « 0.000 T3 « 26.550 R3 - 95.220
Avg. Cone, of Cust. Cyl •> 26.6 ppm
Concentration = A+Bx+Cx2+Dx34-Ex4
r - 0 999994 NTRM 1662
Constants: A - 0.33897300
B - 0 94412400 C * 0.00002656
D - 0 E - 0
Concentration - A + Bx+Cc+Dn+Ex«
r - 0.999978 GMIS
Constants: A = 0.07613710
B •= 0.54383300 C «= O.OOO42472
D - 0.00000049 E » 0
Special Notes Do not use when cylinder pressure is below 150 psig.
Arialyst: Diana L. Beehler
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
6141 EASTON ROAD
PLUMSTEADVILLE
Phone: 215-766-8861
PA 18949-0310
CERTIFICATE OF
PO BOX 310
Fax: 215-766-2070
ANALYSIS
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
C/0 E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE
CA 92718
PROJECT #: 01-62683-002
P0#: 25886
ITEM #: 01046673 4EL
DATE:11/23/94
CYLINDER #: SCOTTY-4EL
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: +/- 10%
COMPONENT
CIS 1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE
NITROGEN
REQUESTED GAS
CONG
ANALYSIS
(MOLEST
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
11.9
10.3
12.1
11.6
11.2
12.0
11.2
12.3
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
ANALYTICAL METHOD: MICROGRAV
ANALYST:
TED NEEME
H-F23
FREMONT. CA SANJ3ERNARDINC^CA LONGMONT. CO TROY, Ml CHICAGO, IL SARNi,. ONTARIO AVON LAXE. OH ' HOUSTON TX
MARIETTA GA
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
sped
From:
6141 EASTON ROAD
PLUMSTEADVILLE
Phone: 215-766-8861
PO BOX 310
PA 18949-0310
CERTIFICATE
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
OF
Fax: 215-766-2070
ANALYSIS
C/0 E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE
CA 92718
PROJECT #: 01-62683-001
P0#: 25886
ITEM #: 01046663 4EL
DATE:11/23/94
CYLINDER #: SCOTTY-4EL
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: +/- 5%
COMPONENT
ACETONITRILE
1,3-BUTADIENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
HALOCARBON 11
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NITROGEN
REQUESTED GAS
CONG
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
ANALYSIS
fMOLEST
120
0
114.0
116.0
115.0
99.2
120.0
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
ANALYTICAL METHOD: MICROGRAV
ANALYST:
TED NEEME
H-F24
FREMONT. CA SAN BERNARDINO, CA LONGMONT, CO TROY. Ml CHICAGO. IL SARNIA. ONTARIO AVON LAKE, OH HOI i
BATON ROUGE LA MARI^Ti GA DURHAM
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
6141 EASTON ROAD PO BOX 310
PLUMSTEADVILLE PA 18949-0310
Phone: 215-766-8861 Fax: 215-766-2070
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 01-62683-003
P0#: 25886
C/0 E.S.I. ITEM #: 0104260 4EL
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE DATE:11/28/94
IRVINE CA 92718
CYLINDER #: SCOTTY 4EL ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: +-5%
REQUESTED GAS ANALYSIS
COMPONENT CONG fMOLES1
HYDROGEN SULFIDE 10. PPM 10.1 PPM
NITROGEN BALANCE BALANCE
1 CAN BASED ON. ^ANALYSIS OF
LOT#431204
ANALYST:
GLENN GUNN
H-F25
FREMONT. CA • SAN BERNARDINO. CA LONGMONT. CO TROY, Ml CHICAGO, IL SARNIA, ONTARIO AVON LAKE OH HOUSTON TX
- » IPM.. . .
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
Shipped
From:
2600 CAJON BLVD.
SAN BERNARDINO
Phone: 909-887-2571
CA 92411
CERTIFICATE OF
Fax: 909-887-0549
ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
21 TECHNOLOGY DR
IRVINE
CA 92718
PROJECT *: 02-35787-001
POtf: 2030-6 .-5 •
ITEM 3: 02027,111 4SS
DATE: 1/19/95 -
CYLINDER *: SCOTTY 11
BLEND TYPE : CERTIFIED
COMPONENT
N- BUTANE
.TAR20N DIOXIDE
ETHANE
HELIUM
ISO BUT AN' E
ISGPENTANE
^TT*^~l~S,^/*»'-1>7
.1 - j. r\(j(j£*L\
N-FZKTANM
:-'7;0?ANT
METHANE
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY:
MASTER GAS
REQUESTED GAS
CONC MOLES
3. %
1. %
9'•
- . ' /o
» \, . P. C/
. . Sx - '*
.-, \ JV5. %
!<- "" 1. %
" ' e. %
BALANCE
V-2%
,*™^-
"-- "V-.
ANALYSIS
(MOLES}
3.05 %-'
1.02 %
8.98 %
.50 %
3.04 % """
.996 X
4.98 %
.983 %
6.03 %
BALANCE -
H-F26
PUIMSTEADVILLE. PENNSYLVANIA / TROY. MICHIGAN / HOUSTON. TEXAS / DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH PLAINFIELD NEW JERSEY / FREMONT CALIFORNIA / WAKEFIELaMASSACHUSggCj
-------
SUB-APPENDIX G
ASTM METHOD HEAT CONTENT ANALYSIS QA REPLICATES
H-G1
-------
TEXAS WILTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSI^
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
CLIENT: Environmental Solutions
SAMPLE: GPU Out 1 1 995 Btu-1
(1-19-95) 16:44
LABORATORY NO: 4690 A
TEST
77042
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
TEL: (713) 789-5591;
FAX:(7l3)789-559c
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 6, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
Respectfully Submitted,
v ~V _ . ~^-^
MOL %
16.266
39.542
44.165
0.024
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.003
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 osia
0.006
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.001
0.007
1.0050
446
438
0.9978
Nader M. Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-G2
-------
TEXAS w
ILTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713)789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
GPUOut11995Btu-2
(1-19-95) 16:49
4690 B
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 6, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL %
16.387
39.546
44.025
0.042
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.011
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.011
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air=1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0050
445
437
0.9978
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M.NSorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-G3
-------
TEXAS w
ILTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS-
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713)789-5591;
FAX: (713) 789-5593'
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
GPUOut11995Btu-3
(1-19-95) 16:54
4690 C
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 6, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL%
16.304
39.529
44.125
0.042
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.011
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0.011
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0051
446
438
0.9978
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M/Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-G4
-------
-^ fj
TEXAS ipiLTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713) 789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
RLG11995Btu-1
(1-19-95) 15:29
4690 D
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
Februarys, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL %
16.181
39.780
43.959
0.038
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.024
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.010
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.010
0.025
Specific Gravity @ 60 °F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0078
446
438
0.9977
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M/Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-G5
-------
TEXAS w
ILTECH LABORATORIES
, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713) 789-5591:)
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
RLG 11995Btu-2
(1-19-95) 15:37
4690 E
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
Februarys, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL %
16.134
39.720
43.930
0.029
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.166
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.008
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.068
NIL
0.082
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air = 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
2 Factor
1.0105
452
444
0.9977
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M. Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-G6
-------
TEXAS w
ILTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL (713) 789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
RLG 11995Btu-3
(1-19-95) 15:49
4690 F
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
Februarys, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL %
16.195
39.705
44.012
0.047
0.013
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.022
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 psia
0.012
0.004
0.001
0.001
NIL
NIL
0.009
NIL
0.027
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air= 1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0071
447
439
0.9977
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M/Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-G7
-------
TEXAS WILTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL: (713) 789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
RLG 11995Btu-4
(1-19-95) 16:00
4690 G
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 6, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL %
16.374
39.757
43.907
0.020
0.007
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.029
NIL
100.000
GPM (5> 14.650 psia
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
NIL
0.012
NIL
0.022
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air=1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Z Factor
1.0080
445
437
0.9977
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M/Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
-------
SUB-APPENDIX H
HALITE AND SULFUR COMPOUND AUDIT DATA
H-H1
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
LABORATORY REPORT
Client: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Address: 5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, CT 06095
Contact: Mr. Jim Canora
Client Project ID: IFC #2030-6
Date of Report:
Date Received:
PAI Project No:
Purchase Order:
02/15/95
01/18/95
P95-7630
026197
Seven (7) Tedlar Bag Samples labeled:
'EPA 16-118-A1"
"T014-118-A1"
"T014-118-A4"
"EPA 16-118-A2'
"T014-118-A2"
"EPA16-118-A3"
"T014-118-A3"
The samples were received at the laboratory under chain of custody on January 18,
1995. The samples were received intact. The dates of analyses are indicated on the
attached data sheets.
Sulfur Compound Analysis
Three of the samples were analyzed for seven Sulfur Compounds and Total Reduced
Sulfur as Hydrogen Sulfide by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (FPD).
The analytical system used was comprised of a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 equipped
with a flame photometric detector (FPD). A thick film (5 micron) crossbonded 100%
Dimethyl polysiloxane megabore column (60 meter x 0.53mm RTX-1, Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to achieve chromatographic separation.
Data Release Authorization:
Reviewed and Approved:
Kathleen Aguilera
Analytical Chemist
Michael Tuday
Laboratory Director
20QS4 Oshnrne Street. Cano-ji Park. CA
H-H:
l • Phone
- P.
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis
Four of the samples were analyzed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) for selected Volatile Organic Compounds. The analyses were performed
according to the methodology outlined in EPA Method TO-14 from the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA 600/4-
84-041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1984
and May, 1988. The method was modified for using Tedlar bags. The analyses were
performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, utilizing a direct cryogenic
trapping technique. The analytical system used was comprised of a Finnigan Model
4500 GC/MS/DS interfaced to a Tekmar 5010 Automatic Desorber. A 100% Dimethyl
polysiloxane capillary column (RT,,-!, Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA) was used to
achieve chromatographic separation.
The results of analyses are given on the attached data summary sheets.
H-H3
20954 OsKime Street. CanotM Park. CA 9H04 • Phone SI? TC
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Tot my and Cun
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD#4
Matrix: TedlarBag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/19/95
10.0 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.60
9.80
7.90
10.0
10.0
6.20
7.70
5.60
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
H-H4
Verified by
Date
^0^4
P irl ( "
14 . P| .
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
EnvimnmenralTonriL! and CunMilnni;
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client : TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : EPA16-118-A1
PAI Sample ID : 9500193
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/18/95
1/18/95
1/19/95
0.20 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
18,400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18,400
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
280
490
390
510
510
310
390
280
RESULT
PPb
13,200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13,200
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
200
200
200
200
200
100
100
200
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by:
Date
/r
H-H5
PA 01 }^ .
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Tcsrma nnJ CnnMilrms;
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
EPA16-118-A2
9500194
Test Code : GC/KPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD #4
Matrix: Tcdlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/18/95
1/18/95
1/19/95
0.20 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-*
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
18,300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18,300
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
280
490
390
510
510
310
390
280
RESULT
ppb
13,100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13,100
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
200
200
200
200
200
100
100
200
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND - Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-H6
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
EnvironrnenralTount: ;inj Ci'n-.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client : TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : EPA16-118-A3
PAI Sample ID : 9500195
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jib Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD#4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/18/95
1/18/95
1/19/95
0.20 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-*
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
18,500
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18,500
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
280
490
390
510
510
310
390
280
RESULT
ppb
13,300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13,300
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
200
200
200
200
200
100
100
200
TR - Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-H7
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Environmental Tc-rmg ar.J C<'n>ultini:
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
EPA16-118-A3
9500195 (Laboratory Duplicate)
Test Code : GC/FPD Reduced Sulfur Analysis
Analyst: Ku-Jih Chen
Instrument: HP5890A/FPD#4
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
1/18/95
1/18/95
1/19/95
0.20 (ml)
CAS#
7783-06-4
463-58-1
74-93-1
75-08-1
75-18-3
75-15-0
624-92-0
COMPOUND
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Methyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Mercaptan
Dimethyl Sulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Dimethyl Disulfide
Total Reduced Sulfur
(as Hydrogen Sulfide)
RESULT
ug/m3
18,300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18,300
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
280
490
390
510
510
310
390
280
RESULT
ppb
13,100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13,100
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
200
200
200
200
200
100
100
200
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-H8
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MS Mod EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Volume(s) Analyzed:
N/A
N/A
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
7M3-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluororaethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-H9
20054 CKKime Street. CJIUILM Park. CA 9H04 • Phone ^]S 70°-in° • F,i
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory-
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
: TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
N/A
PAI Method Blank
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan4500GTekmar5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled
Date Received
Date Analyzed
Volume(s) Analyzed
N/A
N/A
1/20/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppo
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-H10
PA 01 ^-'4 • Hi TV-
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
TO14-118-A1
9500196
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled: 1/18/95
Date Received: 1/18/95
Date Analyzed: 1/19-20/1995
Volume(s) Analyzed : 1.00 (Liter)
0.20 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-*
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
38
ND
ND
54
50
ND
ND
4.6 TR
96
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
15
ND
ND
14
13
ND
ND
1.2 TR
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-H11
20954 Oshorne Street. Canoi'n Park, CA 91304 • Phone
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
TO14-118-A2
9500197
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled: 1/18/95
Date Received: 1/18/95
Date Analyzed: 1/19-20/1995
Volume(s) Analyzed : 1.00 (Liter)
0.20 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
1(XMM
100-12-5
1330-20-7
95-17-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Sryrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
39
ND
ND
53
52
ND
ND
4.1 TR
93
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
15
ND
ND
13
13
ND
ND
1.1 TR
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
u / -
H-H12
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client : TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID : TO14-118-A3
PAI Sample ID : 9500198
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TCM4
Analyst: K. Aguilera/C. Casteel
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Instrument: HP5989A/Entech 2000
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled: 1/18/95
Date Received: 1/18/95
Date Analyzed: 1/19-20/1995
Volume(s) Analyzed : 1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-01-4
75-69-4
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-U-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-17-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
55
ND
ND
61
58
ND
ND
4.9 TR
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
22
ND
ND
15
15
ND
ND
1.3 TR
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by:
Date:
H-H13
-CmoLM Park. CA QlV-» • Phone Si* 7?0-]|
-------
Performance Analytical Inc.
Air Quality Laboratory
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
PAGE 1 OF 1
Client
TRC Environmental Corporation
Client Sample ID
PAI Sample ID
TO14-118-A4
9500199
Test Code: GC/MS Mod. EPA TO-14
Analyst: Kathleen Aguilera
Instrument: Finnigan 4500C/Tekmar 5010
Matrix: Tedlar Bag
Date Sampled
Date Received:
Date Analyzed
Volume(s) Analyzed
1/18/95
1/18/95
1/19/95
1.00 (Liter)
D.F. = 1.00
CAS#
75-014
75-694
75-09-2
156-59-2
75-34-3
71-43-2
79-01-6
108-88-3
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
95-47-6
COMPOUND
Vinyl Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene chloride
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m- & p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
RESULT
ug/m3
ND
390
310
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.8 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ug/m3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RESULT
ppb
ND
70
91
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0 TR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REPORTING
LIMIT
ppb
2.0
0.90
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.94
1.3
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
TR = Detected Below Indicated Reporting Limit
ND = Not Detected
Verified by
Date
H-H14
it- >rreer (..,111
-------
V
J
Ship To: /^V/rtf/v-tA^ «*» ///•*• /W"*:*/ 'jge / of/
Attn: /fyfck* »i /vft!rt(
•Ntr-
£73« /* -/
£fl*/C -//I
&* /£ -//J
TS /?-//?
fa/y -//?
A/?-//ff
/; /y-//,
Sample
No.
T-/*/
•-J2-
'-/iZ
-A I
-At.
-A *>
(-4^
Depth
• —
—
—
"•rojcct Name
Vojcct No.:_;
Silo l.oralinn
J7£l
3&£c>
*V / /
-(*
»*
?
.Tr
//", ^
/A'O 5"
//.ro
///r
/7!/$-
Sample T
Water
Solid
pe
Olhur
A-r
As
A-r
AV
A'.r
fir
'\-r
c3
i
o
V
y
• '
^
)C
)f
Sample Containers
Vol.
/z^-
lli-
/iC-
IzL
III
fai
I2L
No.
Type
^.
72
/ft
7^_
TI?.
rpi
IVes.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
/•
V
X
t
\y
/
*
/Vfl Analysis /
W/i
4
r
Y)
/ / f^C\ i — ' • — i / ~~) {•")
/ / \ M j f G> 3 *-^
/ Rerruirks
Ascltr ^f>/^ ^l^OOili
/1vcf-'7~ £cs>~f?/f C\ ^TO 0 \ c\ M
/^t/c//— $c~s?/-e. <^\ciOO|nt5
A»'C /-/ /»*- ^ ''S' ^^
The mnleriiil(s) listed nre received for :in;ily is and
property of the client :md not Environmenl \ Soliil
:ill romninrnc inafprinlfs) will l»- i-i-ini-m-il »<• a / uT^^rf _fs>C.,
^-S^E
/^lZT
Pf\ 1
Us:
/ 6 / ~.rt -f^r~ fl T/' <:
/or li eatalsility evaluation and remain the
ions, Inc. At the conclusion of the lest work,
Dale Time
/ //g/?j~ /?'0&
///X/9S XJ5/0^
///^/^ /^/o^3
'
» / (Si /OS I/. IA
$3 ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
21 Technology Drive
Irvine, California 92718
n ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
2815 Milchcll Drive; Suilc 103
Walnill Crppl- r<-ilif(\mi-i (>-(<:nu
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
iped
From:
6141 EASTON ROAD
PLUMSTEADVILLE
Phone: 215-766-8861
PA 18949-0310
CERTIFICATE OF
PO BOX 310
Fax: 215-766-2070
ANALYSIS
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
C/O E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE
PROJECT #: 01-62683-002
P0#: 25886
ITEM #: 01046673 4EL
DATE:11/23/94
CA 92718
CYLINDER #: SCOTTY-4EL
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: +/- 10%
COMPONENT
CIS 1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE
NITROGEN
REQUESTED GAS
CONG
10,
10
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
ANALYSIS
fMOLEST
11.9
10.3
12.1
11.6
11.2
12.0
11.2
12.3
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
•ANALYTICAL METHOD: MICROGRAV
ANALYST:
TED NEEME
H-H16
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
>ped
From:
6141 EASTON ROAD
PLUMSTEADVILLE
Phone: 215-766-8861
PA 18949-0310
CERTIFICATE OF
PO BOX 310
Fax: 215-766-2070
ANALYSIS
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
C/0 E.S.I.
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
IRVINE
CA 92718
PROJECT #: 01-62683-001
P0#: 25886
ITEM #: 01046663 4EL
DATE:11/23/94
CYLINDER #: SCOTTY-4EL
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: +/- 5%
COMPONENT
ACETONITRILE
1,3-BUTADIENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
HALOCARBON 11
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NITROGEN
REQUESTED GAS
CONC
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
ANALYSIS
fMOLES1
120.0
114.0
116.0
115.0
99.2
120.0
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
BALANCE
'ANALYTICAL METHOD: MICROGRAV
ANALYST:
TED NEEME
H-H17
FREMONT. CA SAN BERNARDINO. CA LONGMONT. CO TROY. Ml CHICAGO. IL SARNIA. ONTARIO AVON LAKE. OH HOUSTON. TX
BATON ROUGE. LA MARIETTA,^ DURHAM. NC PLUMSTEADVILLE. PA SOUTH PLftlNFIELD NJ . WAXgciFLP V* RRPnt TWF
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
6141 EASTON ROAD PO BOX 310
PLUMSTEADVILLE PA 18949-0310
Phone: 215-766-8861 Fax: 215-766-2070
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 01-62683-003
P0#: 25886
C/O E.S.I. ITEM #: 0104260 4EL
21 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE DATE:11/28/94
IRVINE CA 92718
CYLINDER #: SCOTTY 4EL ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: -1—5%
REQUESTED GAS ANALYSIS
COMPONENT. CONG (MOLES')
HYDROGEN SULFIDE 10. PPM 10.1 PPM
NITROGEN BALANCE BALANCE
1 CAN BASED ON,YO^ALYSIS OF
LOT#431204
'-,r n
ANALYST:
GLENN GUNN
H-H18
FREMONT, CA • SAN BERNARDINO, CA LONGMONT, CO TROY, Ml CHICAGO, IL SARNIA. ONTARIO^
-------
SUB-APPENDIX I
FUEL CELL EMISSIONS QA DATA
H-I1
-------
CYLINDER GAS AUDIT DATA SHEET
CLIENT:
INSTRUMENT:
MODEL:
DATE:
TEST LOCATION:
POLLUTANT:
RANGE: O~
AUDITOR
20%
MID-RANGE AUDIT £y //#?&? ** C£&&85~/
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
£,z
/SY3£
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
ts, 2
/r/ rv
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
(,, Z~
/& o /
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
£,Z-
CYLINDER
VALUE
^,/z.
ACCURACY = /3Z,
HIGH-RANGE AUDIT
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
CYLINDER
VALUE
ACCURACY =
COPY OF GAS CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE? Y
HARD COPY OF RESPONSES AVAILABLE? Y
N
N
ACCURACY CALCULATION
ACCURACY =
Cm - Ca
Ca
X 100
Where:
Cm
Ca
Analyzer Response during audit in units of Applicable
Standard or Appropriate Concentration
Average Audit Value, in this case Ca = Calibration Gas
Cylinder Concentration
H-I2
-------
CYLINDER GAS AUDIT DATA SHEET
CLIENT:
INSTRUMENT:
MODEL:
DATE:
Ot.
FfA /& .
TEST LOCATION:
POLLUTANT:
RANGE: 0_
AUDITOR
Fuel
MID-RANGE AUDIT ^////OV* *• /
CYLINDER
VALUE
/Z.o
ACCURACY = j,g %
HIGH-RANGE AUDIT
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
CYLINDER
VALUE
ACCURACY =
COPY OF GAS CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE? Y
HARD COPY OF RESPONSES AVAILABLE? Y
N
N
ACCURACY CALCULATION
ACCURACY =
Cm - Ca
Ca
Z 100
Where:
Cm
Ca
Analyzer Response during audit in units of Applicable
Standard or Appropriate Concentration
Average Audit Value, in this case Ca = Calibration Gas
Cylinder Concentration
H-I3
-------
CYLINDER GAS AUDIT DATA SHEET
CLIENT:
INSTRUMENT:
MODEL:
DATE:
SO-2.
TEST LOCATION:
POLLUTANT: _
RANGE: C
) s c-Lt-
lu
AUDITOR
MID-RANGE AUDIT £yL/*JDC/?Jfc AA£"7S"?5"
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
23. "7
/£>.%£>3
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
Z3.?
/£.Y3
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
2S.?
/o:23
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
Z3. g
CYLINDER
VALUE
zy.g
ACCURACY = *J.& ^
HIGH-RANGE AUDIT C<4\t**V6R*t ttLM2.'S&3Lr
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
Vl,.3
09:&9
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
v^.s-
JO'.oJ
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
V£.k
/o:it>
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
Vfc.s-
CYLINDER
VALUE
y?c.
ACCURACY = 6».-3 S
COPY OF GAS CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE? Y
HARD COPY OF RESPONSES AVAILABLE? Y
N
N
ACCURACY CALCULATION
ACCURACY =
Cm - Ca
Ca
Z 100
Where:
Cm
Ca
Analyzer Response during audit in units of Applicable
Standard or Appropriate Concentration
Average Audit Value, in this case Ca = Calibration Gas
Cylinder Concentration
H-I4
-------
CYLINDER GAS AUDIT DATA SHEET
CLIENT:
INSTRUMENT:
MODEL:
DATE:
C O
TEST LOCATION: Fo*Tl
POLLUTANT:
RANGE:
C C?
AUDITOR
MID-RANGE AUDIT Cy2t*fD£**t tmLTSjS'
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
2.4. Up
10:03
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
zH.z.
IOMS
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
•M. "5
lb:Z.S
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
2V.V
CYLINDER
VALUE
2--5.S
ACCURACY = S!6> %
HIGH-RANGE AUDIT £y//AGfie»* 4^^7ZS5"3^
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
M1.H
C^/SS
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
H1.S
I 0:0^
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
M^.^
ID*. i8
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
y?v
CYLINDER
VALUE
5Z>."7
ACCURACY = Z.S" ^
COPY OF GAS CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE? Y
HARD COPY OF RESPONSES AVAILABLE? Y
N
N
ACCURACY CALCULATION
Cm - Ca
ACCURACY =
Z 100
Where:
Cm
Ca
Analyzer Response during audit in units of Applicable
Standard or Appropriate Concentration
Average Audit Value, in this case Ca = Calibration Gas
Cylinder Concentration
H-I5
-------
CYLINDER GAS AUDIT DATA SHEET
CLIENT: IT
INSTRUMENT:
MODEL: JD
DATE: 2.H
-
TEST LOCATION:
POLLUTANT:
RANGE: C> - 3.
AUDITOR
C.
MID-RANGE AUDIT
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
/C4U?
1 1 •. 1.8
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
MO
CYLINDER
VALUE
Mo
ACCURACY = U^TJ
HIGH-RANGE AUDIT
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
o. 7U
|l '.2-0
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
0*7b
CYLINDER
VALUE
0.70
ACCURACY = -gvVo
COPY OF GAS CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE? Y
HARD COPY OF RESPONSES AVAILABLE? Y
N
N
ACCURACY CALCULATION
ACCURACY =
Cm - Ca
Ca
Z 100
Where:
Cm =
Ca =
Analyzer Response during audit in units of Applicable
Standard or Appropriate Concentration
Average Audit Value, in this case Ca = Calibration Gas
Cylinder Concentration
-------
CYLINDER GAS AUDIT DATA SHEET
CLIENT: tL
INSTRUMENT:
MODEL: 10
DATE: ^-'v
TEST LOCATION:
4g. 0 POLLUTANT: A/Oy
RANGE: o- 3- S"
AUDITOR
MID-RANGE AUDIT
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
l.^
12 :oi>
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
I.W
CYLINDER
VALUE
^.37^
ACCURACY = ^3.4
HIGH-RANGE AUDIT
RESPONSE
TIME
AUDIT
RESPONSE 1
\*1%
M '-o-g
AUDIT
RESPONSE 2
AUDIT
RESPONSE 3
AVERAGE
RESPONSE
us?
CYLINDER
VALUE
j*m* >^
J-37^
ACCURACY = ^0,7
COPY OF GAS CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE? Y
HARD COPY OF RESPONSES AVAILABLE? Y
N
N
ACCURACY CALCULATION
Cm - Ca
ACCURACY = X 100
Ca
Where:
Cm
Ca
Analyzer Response during audit in units of Applicable
Standard or Appropriate Concentration
Average Audit Value, in this case Ca = Calibration Gas
Cylinder Concentration
0
-------
OO
-------
-------
a
K-4
»—»
O
-------
ffi
-------
K)
-------
SUB-APPENDIX J
FUEL CELL EMISSIONS CALIBRATION ERROR DATA
H-J1
-------
K
tH
K)
CO
f-jejf
so
_!!ffi
! ,0-2
'^
^?
> f
J J £
02
Ht
m:
Ifl
10
Ini
II!
JFK-:
ffiW
FF'M
'
20,
-3-2PPM
IJFJFJN
i.OF'PM
__i'_j.:_
FP
M
: ;'
F.I
n.
FLT
f x
il
30
I
30
h H
j:
);
40
U»-
! Mr!,
Ii
5)
CO;
l
(H
HR
OM
J=
rMi
Hi
£
;4pF>M
m
w
hi
70
5
M
If
x
ni
80
fJ
ii
CF
I !
J
90
C.(J^_
20.1
Co
PI
\\\\U \R
i
i I I
! rii
lul
CAu
-------
33
So,
-------
-------
CO
NOx
TRO Environmental Corporation
ICEM Data Sheet
Firm
Location
Tester
Test No.
Location
Date
TIME
IFC
Penrose
C. Scott
1-120 KW
Fuel Cell
2-17-95
0800-0900
Ambient Temp. deg. F
MEL Temp, deg. F =
Bar. Pressure. In Hg :
Vacuum Gauge =
Flowrate (Ipm)
75
75
29.24
NA
6
CO
O2
CO2
NOx
SO2
THC
Mid
cal
50
10
10
1.25
50
High-
Gal
90.4
20.1
20.2
2.37
90.7
TankID
Mtd Hlan
ALM38592
ALM022962
ALM022962
ALM43127
ALM36593
ALM3859S
ALM02296;
ALM02296:
ALM43127
ALM3659:
System
Cal.
% of Span
0.02
Cal. Back
Analyzer
Response
Cal.
Upstream
Analyzer
Response
Bias Check
% of Span
Zero II
Upscale^]
: Zero ,:J
Upscale ||
0
0
0
0
LIMIT II +/- 5%
CO
02
C02
NOx
S02
THC
ZERO
Cal. Gas
Analylef-
Response
1.2
0
0.1
0.08
0
LIMIT:;;
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
0.12
0.00
0.50
0.03
0.00
0.00
+/- 2%
IMID ;
Cal. Gas
JAhalyzer
: Response
51.8
9.7
10
1.42
49.8
I
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
0.18
-1.20
0.00
0.07
-0.08
0.00
+/- 2%
HIGH
Cal. Gas
Analyzer
Response
90.4
20.2
20.1
2.36
91.1
Analyzer
Calib.
Error
0.00
0.40
-0.50
-0.00
0.16
0.00
+/- 2%
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C, subpart 4.1
-------
SUB-APPENDIX K
FUEL CELL EXHAUST GAS FLOWRATE DATA
H-K1
-------
FORM 75-5
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
plant: ^£rC
Unit Number: Fu£\£ £ LL
Load Condition: lLt> K»J
Run No.: Ro N O 2.
Project No.: Q £050
Barometric Pressure at Ground Level ("IIg): y\. 3O
Pilot Tube ID: '/t/ *
Pilot Tube Coefficient: _
• • 7
Estimated Stack C0:7c:^0,%:4_ 11,0%:^
Platform Elevation (feet):
Schematic of Stack Cross Section:
Date: &£& /~7, f$~
Stack Diameter (in.): / ' 0 -
*^,Vs4:t2'
Stack Cause Pressure ("IKO):
Operators: £/ZA/& ^
y
5-
^
7
^
Average:
Velocity
Head
On 11,0)
.oM
°y
.o»,s-
.o«V
c,*y
.»v
. dy
•y
/ay
Traverse
Point
Number
^ /
z
3
y
S'
(*
"7
%
Average:
1 — ^
Velocity
Head
(In 11,0)
. £) £
' ^<35~
» o V
• oy
.<>y
.^>v
.03
.0c^
Stack
Temp.
(F)
/3V
yjjV
/^y
/<3V
/^v
134
/c5y
/^v
13 I
= =^=___ 1
-------
FORM7S-S
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
Plant" "T~-f>1 L^ *^r~ _. J Ar* if
1 14111. ^ f\~ 1 +S\ /t^S *• £~&*\CLf*\\
Unit Number: %>JCJf
Load Condition: ••//f'Jfa)
Run No.: 5
Project No.: 9 <://p / O^ 6 S O
Barometric Pressure at Ground Level ("Hg): ^ 9. y^
Pitot Tube ID: ^> fr £7er0ahJ.
Pitot Tube Coefficient:
Estimated Stack CO,%:^^1)?%; ?.yil,0%: 7-^^>
Platform Elevation (feet): /
/^
Schematic of Stack Cross Section:
f ^— « • '
^/ ,-j.p _• t/4'6 f
Date: ^ //'/^T S"
Stack Diameter fin.): /6.Q r
Stack Gauge Pressure ("11,0): — £>.&&&
Operators: ^r^f^^^f^
Port Change Pitot
Leak Check Pass Fail
Port 81 ,
Port 12
Port #3
Port IU
\Jtl (fr>=)r JI.Hl
Sf J*^^\ • jj // , 2^7
y*l)tf ^. ty^J^ ^ ^i i/O f 7/^w'i
Traverse
Point
Number
Velocity
Head
(In 11,0)
Stack
Temp.
Traverse
Point
Number
Velocity
Head
(In 11,0)
Stack
Temp.
(F)
Al
5
Average:
O.OiO
So*
a i
3
r
//O
//£>
Average:
-------
FORM 75-5
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
Plant: TfC /W,e Lc~Jlt,lt
Unit Number: £,*/ £e//
Load Condition: 7cPo {*J
Run No.: Y
Project No.: 9 ,. '
Schematic of Stack Cross Section:
. 5.0 9^ _, x '-^
"7 — "L"~ - jf) i *••
Date: ^//5t/9r
//
Stack Diameter fm.): X^)-O
Stack Gauge Pressure ("H:0): — d5 • O 3o
Operators: ///<•-• /ctf*
Port Change Pilot
Leak Check Pass Fail
Port f 1
Port 12
Port S3
Port #4
yr/ £-Vs)r >2.?Z.
Ac.£~+ r yoo .03
i«.^>-r 3,3/.P^
/C^t Wy ~ /Md ?r/,~^ «r /£ *? fr/srt
Traverse
Point
Number
>f /
i
?
V
r
^
•?
*
Average:
Velocity
Head
(In II-O)
O .^^5"
<3.
<5.
Vd/^7
Stack
Temp.
(F)
))/
t/o
//to
//o
//6
I/O
///
///
//>-3
-------
SUB-APPENDIX L
ASTM HEAT CONTENT ANALYSIS AUDIT DATA
H-L1
-------
EXAS =ILTECH LABORATORIES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
10669 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042
P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274
TEL (713) 789-5591
FAX: (713) 789-5593
CLIENT:
SAMPLE:
LABORATORY NO:
TEST
Environmental Solutions
Audit 12395 Btu-1
(1-23-95) 9:20
4690 J
REQUESTED BY:
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
Mr. Ken Pierce
February 6, 1995
IFC, 2030-6
P9-41038
RESULTS
Natural Gas Analysis by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D 1945:
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-pemaRe >^~
N-butane
Iso-pentane
N-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
MOL%
5.083
0.994
67.969
8.791
7.163
4.844
4.829
0.159
0.159
0.009
NIL
100.000
GPM @ 14.650 osia
2.338
NIL
1.576
1.514
0.058
0.057
0.004
NIL
7.510
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (air=1)
Calculated Btu/cu. ft. @ 14.650 psia and 60°F:
Dry basis
Wet basis
2 Factor
0.8470
1353
1329
0.9954
Respectfully Submitted,
Nader M/Sorurbakhsh, P.E.
Laboratory Director
H-L2
-------
PAGE
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
Chipped
From:
2600 CAJON BLVD.
SAN BERNARDINO
Phone: 909-887-2571
CA 92411
Fax: 909-887-0549
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
21 TECHNOLOGY DR
IRVINE
CA 92718
PROJECT #: 02-35787-001
POn: 2030-6 ;•£ :;''
ITEM *: 020274-11 4SI
DATE: 1/19/95 ^, .
CYLINDER *: SCOTTY 11
BLEND TYPE : CERTIFIED
COMPONENT
S-EUTANE
CARBON DIOXIDE
'ETKAN'E
HELIUM
ISOBUTAN'E
ISOPENTANS
NITROGEN
\' r\~^\?t~n » VT — ^
iv-i-iN ^.-asji
r-'r:>~i"ANTF
I.-—.TITF ; VT —
i.i.ir.iiNi
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY:
MASTER GAS
REQUESTED GAS
CONC MOLES
Q o/
*J* . /o
1 O/
J- - /O
9• /a
>. \, .f. C/
. . iS- ">
- v ' 'AC «'
. . -^ o D . /->
•-"„. « o/
S • X . /o
" ' e %
BALANCE
+/-2% '. •-*-";.
_•*•-;*»*- s
1^ *v,
ANALYSIS'
(MOLES)
3.05 .%-
1.02 ' %
8.98 %
.50 %
3.04 X ""
.996 %
4.98 %
.983 %
6 03 %
BALANCE -7
H-L3
PUIMSTEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA / TROY, MICHIGAN / HOUSTON, TEXAS / DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH PLAINFIELD, NEW JERSEY / FREMONT, CALIFORNIA / WAKEF1ELD, MASSACHUSETTS / LONGMO_NT._COLORADO_
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/R-98-002b
2.
I. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Demonstration of Fuel Cells to Recover Energy from
Landfill Gas; Phase III. Demonstration Tests, and
Phase IV. Guidelines and Recommendations*
5. REPORT DATE
January 1998
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. C. Trocciola and J. L. Preston
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
FCR-13524E
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
International Fuel Cells Corporation
195 Governors Highway
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-Dl-0008
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 1/93 - 4/95
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES APPCD project officer is Ronald J. Spiegel, Mail Drop 63, 919/
541-7542. (*) Volume 2. Appendices. Volume 1 is the technical report.
16. ABSTRACTrj-jie repOr^ summarizes the results of a four-phase program to demonstrate
that fuel cell energy recovery using a commercial phosphoric acid fuel cell is both
environmentally sound and commercially feasible. Phase I, a conceptual design and
evaluation study, addressed the technical and economic issues associated with oper-
ating the fuel cell energy recovery system of landfill gas. Phase II included the de-
sign, construction, and testing of a landfill gas pretreatment unit (GPU) to remove
critical fuel poisons such as sulfur and halides from the landfill gas, and the design
of fuel cell modifications to permit operating on low heating value (LHV) landfill gas.
Phase III was the demonstration test of the complete fuel cell energy recovery sys-
tem. Phase IV described how the commercial fuel cell power plant could be further
modified to achieve full rated power on LHV landfill gas. The demonstration test
successfully demonstrated operation of the energy recovery system, including the
GPU and the commercial phosphoric acid fuel cell modified for operation on landfill
gas. Demonstration output included operation up to 137 kW; 37.1% efficiency at 120
kW; exceptionally low secondary emissions (dry gas, 15% O2) of 0.77 ppmV carbon
monoxide, 0.12 ppmV nitrogen oxides, and undetectable sulfur dioxide; no forced out-
ages with adjusted availability of 98. 5%; and 709 hours operation on landfill gas.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Pollution
Energy
Fuel Cells
Phosphoric Acids
Earth Fills
Gases
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Sulfur
Halides
Pollution Prevention
Stationary Sources
Global Warming
13 B
14 G
10B
07B
13 C
07D
07C
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
462
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 222O-1 (9-73)
H-L4
-------