Keport /y
February 1980
AIR POLLUTION
EMISSION TEST
O
GRAPHIC ARTS
Meredith/Burda, Inc.
Lynchburg, Virginia
t
Test 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
-------
EMB Report No. 79-GRA-1A
February 1980
Graphic Arts
Emission Test Report
Meredith/Burda, Inc.
Lynchburg, VA
Test 2
Environmental Protection Agency
EMB/ESED/OAQPS
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
II. Summary of Results 2
III. Process Description 17
IV. Sampling Locations 22
V. Sampling and Analytical Procedures 24
APPENDIX
A. Complete Calculations 26
B. Field Data 31
C. Laboratory Report 68
D. Field Test Notes 75
E. Project Participants 86
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
II-l 505/506 Pressroom Ambient VOC Concentration - p.3
II-2 VOC Concentration versus Location Inside Cabin Enclosure During
Operation - p.5
II-3 VOC Concentration versus Location in Cabin During Shutdown - p.6
II-4 Press 504 VOC Concentration versus Location During Shutdown,
Startup, and Operation - p.8
II-5 Infiltration Air Flow Measurement Results - p.10
III-l Plant Layout, Meredith/Burda, Lynchburg, VA - p.19
III-2 Cabin Enclosure Layout, Presses 505/506 - p.20
III-3 Air Flow Diagram, Presses 505/506 - p.21
IV-1 Flow'Rate Measurement Locations - p.23
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
II-l Summary of Results, Volumetric Flow Measurements 11
II-2 Summary of Results, Integrated Bag Chromatographic
Analysis 13
-------
I. Introduction
Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is required
to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources in industry
categories which may contribute significantly to air pollution. EPA is
currently developing standards for control of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) emissions from the Graphic Arts Industry, and testing was conducted
at this facility to provide background information for this study.
Emission measurements were performed at Meredith/Burda, Inc., Lynchburg,
Virginia, during January 22-24, 1980 by Emission Measurement Branch, ESED,
EPA personnel. A previous emission test was conducted at this facility
by Monsanto Research Corporation under Contract to EPA during December
1978 and has been reported separately^ '. The purpose of the testing
reported herein was to provide additional information to compliment
earlier results.
The specific purposes of this test program were:
(1) Determine the ambient pressroom VOC concentrations and the VOC
concentrations in the press cabin enclosures of presses 505 and 506
during operation and shutdown.
(2) Determine ambient VOC concentrations in the pressrooms and
near presses not equipped with cabin enclosures,
(3) Determine sources and rates of infiltration air into the room
housing presses 505 and 506, along with VOC concentrations of entering air,
and
(4) Collect VOC concentration and flow rates of various streams,
including the adsorber system inlet and outlet, to confirm that operating
conditions were similar to those present during earlier testing.
(1) EMB Report No. 79- GRA-1, "Emission Test Report, Meredith/Burda,
Lynchburg, Va" ESED/EPA, March 1979.
-------
II. Summary of Results
Since a number of different measurements were performed at this
facility, the results are discussed separately below as they relate the
specific test purposes identified in the Introduction.
1. Ambient pressroom and cabin enclosure VOC concentrations
for cabin-enclosed presses
The ambient or room area concentration in the portion of the building
housing presses 505 and 506 was measured using survey techniques at least
once during each day of testing. This concentration was found to vary on
each day. On January 22, the ambient concentration was generally between
150 and 220 ppmv on a toluene basis (1/22), with a peak value of 300 ppm.
This higher result was measured in a corner of the room where little
ventilation is present. On January 23, this was again 150 to 200 ppm in
the morning survey (l/23a), with later measurements before noon of 150
to 160 ppm (l/23b). After noon, one additional measurement was per-
formed and the room concentration had decreased to 60-70 ppm (l/23c).
On January 24, two additional surveys were performed; during the first
repetition, concentrations were between 90 to 150 ppm (l/24a), and
during the second, 110-220 ppm (l/24b). The concentration versus
location in the pressroom are results summarized in Figure II-l. The
original data from which this summary was prepared are included in
Appendix B.
On January 23, survey measurements were conducted inside the cabin
enclosures. One measurement was performed on each press while that unit
was operating. The concentration varied between 500-3000 ppm toluene
depending on the location inside the cabin. The higher concentrations
were present on the side of the enclosure where there is essentially no
air flow. The side near the wall where the enclosure was not complete,
-------
-------
and where the majority of the entering air passes, exhibited lower
toluene concentrations. The mean concentration in the enclosure exhaust
would be nearer to the values measured on the wall side of the enclosure.
The location versus concentration data are presented in Figure II-2, along
with a corresponding room ambient measurement. Measurements were then
conducted in each press cabin during several shutdown periods. A summary
of these measurements are presented in Figure II-3. For 506-1 and 505-2
the press had been down for an undetermined amount of time. For 505-1
and 506-2 the cabin was entered within two minutes after shutdown. As can
be seen in Figure II-3, the concentration on the enclosed side of the
cabin is initially higher, and decreases slower, but after several minutes,
the concentration at all locations is relatively uniform. Comparing the
enclosure concentration to the ambient room concentration during shutdown
(also shown in Figure II-3), it can be seen that VOC continues to be
picked up during shutdown, and the average increase is from 0-80 ppm,
with an average of about 35 ppm. The highest increases are in the enclosed
area where the only fresh air flow is up through the cylinder and web areas.
On the open side of the enclosure, after purging, the concentration is only
about 0-25 ppm higher than the room concentration. These results are ..
developed from test 505-2 where the ambient was lowest of all measured.
For the other three tests, no corresponding direct ambient measurements are
available. However, using ambient data obtained earlier in the morning,
it appears that similar results are obtained.
2. Ambient pressroom and press area VOC concentrations for non-enclosed
press
A similar survey was conducted around Press 504, which has a controlled
dryer system, but no enclosure around the press itself. On January 23,
the ambient room concentration around Press 504 was 40-50 ppm. On the
-------
-------
CTl
-------
upper catwalk level at locations similar to those measured on Presses
505 and 506, the concentration during shutdown was between 50-90 ppm.
As can be observed in Figure II-4, an increase of between 5 to 35 ppm
above room ambient concentration was measured above Press 504 during
shutdown.
Monitoring was then conducted at a single point for the remainder
of the shutdown period and during startup. The location survey was then
repeated during operation. During startup and operation, the VOC
concentration was variable, with values ranging from 40 to 800 ppm. The
results are presented graphically in Figure II-4. The variation of VOC
concentration versus time plot is intended as illustration only, due to the
difficulty in translating the highly variable chart record in logrithmic
coordinates to linear form. The original chart record from which this
plot was prepared is included in Appendix B.
3. Pressroom 505/506 Infiltration Air Sources
On January 22, an inspection revealed that the only sources of
infiltration air into the room housing the cabin-enclosed presses
are a 12' x 14' doorway connecting this room to the remainder of the
plant, the ventilation slots in the floor beneath the press cylinders,
and the outside air drawn into the rooms through the heating and air
conditioning system. (See Figures III-l, III-2, III-3). The air source
from beneath the presses is the room housing the paper feed equipment.
No measurements were attempted in that area. Measurements were conducted
in the doorway to the pressroom. However, prior to measurement, a similar
door to Pressroom 503/504 was closed. This door was initially open before
testing. Velocity measurements were conducted using a hand-held
anemometer, with simultaneous VOC concentration measurements. The average
flow rate through the door was found to be 19,800 cubic feet per minute (cfm)
-------
00
-------
into the room, with an average VOC concentration of 64 ppmv. However,
turbulence was observed in the doorway area, and is evidenced by outward
flow at one measurement location. The measured VOC concentrations are
also higher than the sources from which this entering air would have
originated (the connecting hallway and the product storage room). The
calculated results are summarized in Figure II-5, with the original field
data included as Appendix B.
Based on the variability of the data and the difficulty of performing
accurate measurements in this type area, the final result is subject to
error and should be used as an estimate only.
4. Flow and Integrated Bag Sampling
Flow measurements were made using velocity traverses at the
following locations:
Cabin 506 uptake
Press on
Cabin 506 heat wheel return
Cabin 506 uptake
Press off
Cabin 506 heat wheel return
Cabin 505 uptake
Press on
Cabin 505 heat wheel return
505 room air supply
Press on
506 room air supply
Adsorber inlet (2 repetitions)
The results of these measurements are presented in Table II-l.
Sample locations are identified in Figure I.V-1. Complete calculations
are included in Appendix A.
9
-------
Average
118 fpm
FLOW = 118 fpm x 168 ft'
= 19,800 cfm
35
60
60
200
60
40
64 ppm
t
5'
M^BM
^^m^m
T
51
TT\
12'
456
O O O
^ 1 2 3
0 O G
14'
7-77-7
FIGURE II-5: INFILTRATION AIR FLOW MEASUREMENT RESULTS
10
-------
TABLE n-T
Summary of Results Volumetric Flow Measurements
LOCATION
506 - Press on
Cabin Uptake
Heat Wheel Return
Room Air Supply
506 - Press Off
Cabin Uptake
Heat Wheel Return
505 - Press On
Cabin Uptake
Heat Wheel Return
Room Air Supply
Adsorber Inlet
Run 1
Run 2
* o DLiCt '
TS ,ฐF Area, Ft'
85
75
70
85
75
85
75
70
90
90
7.07
4.91
16.06
7.07
4.91
7.07
4.91
16.06
28.27
28.27
1051
1836
1566
862
491
1150
1890
1386
2336
2406
Velocity Flow
FPM ACFM SCFM
7431 6696
9015 8224
25144 23630
6096 5473
2412 2193
8131 7266
9280 8466
22252 20916
66039 56615
68018 58350
*Temperature assumed
**Standard cubic feet per minute, 70ฐF, 29.92" Hg
11
-------
The measured flows are in general agreement with those measured during
previous testing, except that the flow to the adsorber was higher, 57,480
scfm versus 48,800 scfm.
Integrated samples were collected for chromatographic analysis at
the locations identified in Table II-2. The results of chromatographic
analysis are presented along with a comparative reading using the portable
analyzer used during the test period. The only compound peaks found
during analyses were toluene and benzene. Since there was no apparent
process source for benzene, calibrations were conducted using ethyl
alcohol to determine if the apparent benzene peak could actually be
ethanol (a flexible imprinting press that uses ethanol as a solvent
is used in the cutting area of each press to print store names, addresses,
etc.). The residence time analysis definitely shows that the questionable
peak is not ethanol and based on the information available, definitely
appears to be benzene. In general, the chromatographic analysis yielded
approximately 20% lower results than the field analyzer. No specific
reason is known for this difference. The complete laboratory report is
included as Appendix C.
The cabin uptake, adsorber inlet, and adsorber outlet VOC concentration
results are similar to those found during the earlier tests.
5. Conclusions
(a) The ambient pressroom VOC concentrations in the 505/506 room
were in all cases higher than those observed in the other pressrooms
at the plant, and the hallways and storage areas. Median ambient room
concentrations were 100-200 ppm versus 20-60 ppm for other areas. There
are two potential causes for the elevated concentrations; uncollected
fugitive emissions from the press units, or the loss of a portion of the
12
-------
TABLE II-2
Summary of Results - Integrated Bag Chromatographic Analysis
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
505/506 Pressroom ambient
Press 506 Cabin ambient (down)
Press 505 Cabin ambient (down)
506 Cabin uptake duct
Adsorber inlet
Adsorber outlet
Hallway 504-505
Inside Enclosure 506 (down)
M/B Standard Toluene 183 ppm
DATE
COLLECTED
1/23/80
1/23/80
1/23/80
1/23/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
ii
G.C. A
TOLUENE
(ppmv)
153.0
459.0
122.2
752.6
1419.1
25.6
8.61
183.0
NALYSIS
BENZENE
AS TOLUENE
(ppmv)
5.80
6.41
2.54
3.21
4.53
N.D.
N.D.
5.24
0V
ANALY
DATE
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
1/24/80
A
SIS OF BAG
READING
190
525
220
880
1800
Broken fitting
42
240
-------
collected solvent vapors through the air handling system at this
particular* facility. Discussions with plant personnel subsequent to
testing confirm that the most probable cause is that air is circulated
in the cutting area by a separate handling system, and this system
exhausts directly to the pressroom. The original design of the cabin
enclosure specified that a separating wall divide the cutting area from
the press enclosure. However, this wall was not installed during
construction, and as a result the cutting area air handling system is
withdrawing a portion of the solvent laden air from the press enclosure
and in effect discharging that portion to the pressroom. In addition, since
the recirculation pickup for the main air treatment unit is near that
exhaust, concentrated solvent laden air is being redistributed throughout
the entire room. Company personnel report that based on the identification
of this problem, engineering designs are being developed to correct this
distribution problem.
(b) The VOC concentration above the press inside the enclosures
of 505 and 506 during shutdown were higher than those observed above
an unenclosed press during shutdown. However, this is expected due to
the higher ambient room concentrations. Evaluation of concentration
changes (i.e. room average vs. level above press) is difficult because
of the differing reference ambient levels, but for the one case where
room ambient levels were comparable, the concentration increases were
approximately the same.
(c) The median VOC concentration inside the cabin enclosures during
operation were higher than those observed above a non-enclosed press
during operation. This is expected due to the additional fugitive
emissions captured by the enclosure. The cabin enclosure is not a normal
work area during operation.
14
-------
(d) At the time of shutdown of an enclosed press, there are
areas that do not flush uniformly with ambient air and therefore, there
remains a VOC concentration profile around the enclosure. However after
about five minutes of shutdown, the VOC concentration inside the enclosure
is relatively uniform. This is due to the particular enclosure design
used at this facility which has a large open area on one side, with
essentially a stagnant zone on the other. This would not be characteristic
of all enclosure designs. In addition, after 2 to 5 minutes after shutdown
when workers must enter the enclosure, the ambient concentration inside the
enclosure is nearly equal to the general pressroom ambient concentration.
(e) Infiltration air containing solvent vapors does enter the
505/506 pressroom from other areas of the plant. Using the data from this
test and those reported from the previous test, the following estimates
of the percentage contribution of solvent mass to the total inlet stream
to the adsorber system were developed:
Both Presses Running
infiltration: 20,000 cfm @ 60 ppm
inlet total : 50,000 cfm @ 1500 ppm
20,000 cfm x 60 ppm
% solvent mass from infiltration = .ซ -. x 100=1.6%
50,000 cfm x 1500 ppm
One Press Running
infiltration: 20,000 cfm x 60 ppm
inlet total: 41,000 cfm x 900 ppm
20,000 x 60
% solvent mass from infiltration = r-. -. x 100 = 3.2%
41,000 x 900 ~""
15
-------
Both Presses Down
infiltration: 20,000 cfm x 60 ppm
total inlet: 31,700 cfm x 260 ppm
20,000 x 60
% solvent mass from infiltration = = ! x 100 = 14.6%
31,700 x 260 ss***"
The net overall average would be a time-weighted average based on combined
press operating time.
The following operation time data was obtained from previous
testing:
MODE % of Time
Both presses on 60
One on/one down 33
Both down 7
The time weighted average can then be calculated as:
Overall % solvent mass in infiltration air =
0.60 (1.6%) + 0.33 (3.2%) + 0.07 (14.6%) = 3.0%
This result can be used to correct the average overall calculated
solvent recovery percentage from the previous testing for the affect of
solvent in infiltration air.
The results are that the original test averages; 95%, 94% and 102%,
are reduced by 3% to 92%, 91% and 99%.
(f) The results of chromatographic analysis show that toluene and
benzene were the only components detected.
16
-------
III. Process Description
The printing plant at Meredith/Burda, Lynchburg, Virginia consists
of six production presses in essentially three room areas, plus storage and
preparation areas. The production presses are separated as shown in
Figure III-l.
There are two separate solvent recovery systems at this facility.
Both incorporate carbon adsorption as the recovery procedure, but differ
in the manner by which the process solvent losses are collected.
The system designated as Phase 1 and 2 by the company collects
solvent vapors from the dryer exhausts of Presses 501, 502, 503 and 504,
from the floor sweeps in the rooms housing these units, and from three
preparation units (one proof press, one doctor blade wash unit, and one
cylinder wash unit). In addition, the rooms housing the production
presses are ventilated by roof fan systems which exhaust to atmosphere.
The system designated as Phase 3, (the system tested by EPA) collects
solvent vapors from the dryers of production presses 505 and 506, and from
cabin enclosures.around these production presses. No roof fan ventilation
units are used. The system is designed such that all air flow from the
room housing presses 505 and 506 passes through either the dryers or
the cabin enclosure and is routed to the solvent recovery system.
The enclosure, or cabin, covers the top one-third of the press unit
along its length, including the cutting and folding system. The ends and
room side are totally closed while the wall side is essentially open on
each enclosure. Schematic diagrams of the cabin layout and flow arrangement
of the Phase 3 collection system are given in Figures III-2 and III-3.
During normal operation of a press, the dryer exhausts are routed
directly to the main inlet duct to the adsorber. The cabin enclosure uptake,
for winter operation, is first passed through a heat wheel for preheating of
17
-------
incoming fresh air, and is then routed to the adsorber inlet. For summer
oepration, the heat recovery device is bypassed.
When a press is temporarily shut down (for example to repair a web
break) the dryer circulation fans are shut down, all dampers open fully,
and the heat wheel (if in use) is bypassed. The purpose of these changes
is to pass the maximum possible volume of air throughxcabin enclosure to
reduce the solvent concentration to a low level prior to worker entry
to the enclosure (during operation, the locations inside the enclosure
are not working areas).
At this facility, the cutting area is equipped with a separate air handing
system that exhausts into the press room. This air is used in the cutting and
folding operation, and to transfer trimmings.
The room ventilation system consists of two main heating/air conditioning/
humidity regulation units. Outside air is drawn into the building through
two separate sources, while approximately one third of the total is
recirculated from the press room.
18
-------
1
S05-
ur-i :
-------
/ ft ftV
WA^L
-------
To
CABltJ
T I 4 t t
ne ftr t
G
^ f
To
-------
IV. Sampling Locations
A. Area Surveys
Concentration measurements were conducted using area survey
techniques in the various pressrooms and around individual presses
at this facility. The location identifications are included in the
results presentation in Section II.and on the data sheets in Appendix A.
B. Flow Measurements
Volumetric flow rates were determined at the locations indicated
in Figure IV-1. The cabin uptake locations and adsorber inlet test
sites are described in more detail in the previous report of testing
at this facility. The heat wheel return test location was in a round
duct, with nearly ideal flow measurement distances before and after the
test point.
The room air supply test point was in a rectangular duct between
90ฐ bends. Flow distances before and after the test point were less
than one equivalent diameter.
C. Integrated Bag Samples
The collection locations of the integrated samples are indicated in
Table II-2.
22
-------
ro
-ifljlppppp
ogyeiy M/'T/JWS
fiiR SUPPLY FLOVJ
-------
V. Sampling and Analytical Techniques
Measurements were performed using area survey techniques and
source extraction procedures. The techniques used for each type
measurement are discussed separately below.
A. Area Surveys
A sketch of the area to be surveyed was drawn, and location
identification notations were entered at selected points. The
preselected path was then walked slowly while recording the
measured VOC concentration on a portable strip chart recorder.
As the selected location identificatin points were passed,
appropriate notations were entered on the chart record. The
instrument probe inlet was positioned approximately 1 meter above
floor level.
B. Integrated Bag Samples
Samples were collected into 10 liter Tedlar flexible bags
using either a lOOcc syringe with a three-way valve as a pumping source,
or through a teflon lined diaphram pump, where safety considerations
allowed. The samples were anlayzed by gas chromatography at Research
Triangle Park. The analysis procedure is outlined in detail in
Appendix C. A sample of calibration standard toluene was .retained for
analysis in the event sample losses were observed during storage
prior to analysis.
C. Flow Measurements
Volumetric Flow rates were determined using an s-type pitot
tube and an inclined manometer as described in EPA Method 2
(40CFR60 App A.). In most cases, less than the specified number
of traverse points were used due to physical access limitations.
However, the velocity distributions were relatively uniform, and
the use of fewer measurement points should not significantly affect
24
-------
the results. The measurement points are indicated on the data
sheets in Appendix B.
D. VOC Analyzer
The analyzer used in this test program was a Century Systems Model
OVA 108 organic vapor analyzer. This instrument uses flame ionization
detection to measure total organic concentration .. Toluene was used
as the calibration or meter reference compound. Toluene standards
were used for calibration, along with propane standards for
linearity tests and auditing.
25
-------
Appendix A
Complete Calculations
26
-------
FLOW SUMMARY
Meredith/Burda
506 Press on
Cabin Uptake Heat Wheel Return
*Assumed, not measured
FPM =
5129 x C_ x -Jlp'avg x T+460
P MW
Room Air Supply
Temp, F
MW
CP
Bp (barometric) "Hg
Static "H20/"Hg
P5 "Hg
"VAp avg
Velocity FPM
Duct size
Area, ft2
Flow, ACFM
Flow, SCFM
. . 85
28.8
.85
28.13
-5.5/-.40
27.73
0.292
1051
36" dia
7.07
7431
6696
75
28.8
.85
28.13
-7.77-.57
27.56
0.513
1836
30" dia
4.91
9015
8224
70
28.8
.85
28.13
+0.05/0
28.13
0.444
1566
68" x 34"
16.06
25144
23630
ACFM = FPM x area
27
-------
FLOW SUMMARY
T,ฐF*
MW
Cp
Bp "Kg
Static "H20/"Hg
FPM
Duct size
Duct area, ft
Flow, ACFM
Flow, SCFM
Meredith/Burda
506 Press Off
Cabin Uptake
85!
28.8
.85
28.13
-6.8/0.5
27.63
0.239
862
36" dia
7.07
6096
5473
**
Heat Wheel Return
75
28.8
.85
28.13
-9.0/.66
27.47
0.137
491
30" dia
4.91
2412
2193
***
*Assumed
**Assumed using 2.2"H20 difference between cabin and heat wheel return
(from press on data)
***Partial traverse
28
-------
T,ฐF*
MW
Cp
Bp "Hg
Static "H20/"Hg
P5 "Hg
Velocity FPM
Duct size
Duct area
Flow, ACFM
Flow, SCFM
FLOW SUMMARY
Meredith/Burda
505 Press On
abin Uptake
85
28.8
.85
28.13
-S.6/-.63
27.50
.318
1150
36" dia
7.07
8131
7266
Heat Wheel Return
75
28.8
.85
28.13
-7.77-.57
27.56
.528
1890
30" dia
4.91
9280
8466
Room Air Supply
70
28.8
.85
28.13
+0.1/+0.01
28.14
0.393
1386
68" x 34"
16.06
22,252
20,916
*Assumed
29
-------
Adsorber
Inlet duct
T,ฐF*
MW
Cp
Bp "Kg
Static "H20/"Hg
P5 "Hg
"V Ap"avg
Velocity FPM
Duct size
o
Duct area, ft
Flow, ACFM
Flow, SCFM
90
28.8
.85
28.13
-20.2/-1.49
26.64
0.633
2336
72" dia.
28.27
66039
56615
90
28.8
.85
28.13
20.2/-1.49
26.64
0.652
2406
72" dia.
28.27
68018
58350
5128 Cn -\/Ap T4460
FPM p
p, MW
SCFM =
17.71 (FPM) (P5)
(T$ + 460)
30
-------
Appendix B
Field Data Sheets
31
-------
OX
oooooooo
-------
ROOM
-8
L
nO
OlO
11
12
-1
.01
ill*
'^
''-r-.,.
P"
-so;
1bf
^3i
I"
r
I
,.*
10
It 60
r2*
100
jo**
^P
f
1001
...L...1..U-
-------
//22/80
-------
5ซy,
40
V 4. I-) (. *>
AVC X"
-------
/ I
-------
Sol
SO
>}
D
C:
lA
OM W fc
__ ฃ ft !" "h
3. ฃ >i fo
5 ?Y ^i -J S:
-1 S
, O
I
g
I
Vป
%
S
i
s.
S
S
-
NT
I
I
-------
PL A is-
**>'** r
/
i
3
-in
lit
II? -fp/ป X
(,0
'ZOO
Co
40
^HKMW
12'
't
3'
"T
T
4 ^ 4,
00 ฉ
ฉ' 0^ 0s
// '
-------
/ nfti
Bfc* A*fo
it
\> r-
% ฐ
S)
<*>
ซ
s
-------
M 5 5
."/ J o
-
g
fc
%
S
D
i>
i
i/ป
t
R\
^
-4
-------
! _
:-4
33
C
u>
'-< r>
.sL
'^
3^
-5
;-6
m^^
D
Z<
'c^
>'"'
-7
.01
>8
C
c-
11
12
jzs
3
To
i^
/it.
t"^
-TD
'
-------
-2
-3
-4
r
C
-7
-8
10
11
ra
I.
M'
HIT
10
-------
fietc*
N.J.3.: 79
-------
r
r
r-C
r
r
C
r
c
c
c
,
1;
L.
c
c
c
i
O
zC
c ..
'
O -
s.
V-
i !
12
|
01
A
S
, C
A
Y-'
7.
01
a
9_
\fl.
$
9
?
i
f
i
'
I/
Y
i
*
J
^ i
it
i
P
CO
3
1
**
^
^
jj
.1
i
i
i i
Re
o
;\'
j
;j
,J
> V
r
1
\
\l
Ob
\ j *~
\
>
[
-
>fc1
i' &
KlU
N
A
5 I
.
~-
!
ฃ*>
p
I
c
X
'
^
t
r
j
L
riv
^
7( .
^
_
JJ
*
i
^
-
r
J
j
i
i
---
if
M0<
(fr^
-=f
^
irvn
^ r
1
10
tf,
c ri
*
j
.-
^
5^'
1
1
:,100
^
1
1
7
1001
>t
i
1
-
,^-N
<^
'A
->
^\
^"*>
^
* >
IM
-^
.>'
^
s
\
O
^
^
~y
Ds3
>
3^
S ~^
1
IU
12
01
-2
-3
-4
a.
d
*!
-6
|
i
j
EW2C
vilfiuk
uU
rปdi>
^
i.J=ฑ:
.1
U)(l<*C
(
*ป .
^x
" vC
f
I.,
!
f'
f
**
r
<'
I.
T
...-.-.
f
.
*''l
.;' '
" ;.j
"
!
, .
f'
:.i-
-"
.
t\
\
<
./^
<""'
ft
< - '^ '
"j. '
'*>.
.'
i
i'
t
j\
'":
-4-^-
ofilT'
' .'.'l>
"'.'>
.'
...
'. .' '
r "
;.,
'' ^
<^\
^>
'_
dฑrฃr_L
l>3(
7,
6
1
1
10
i
. '
i? v
^
">
r ^
t
Lr
f ,
-?
';.
tOx'5'j
yivei
>^;L
t
K
-
2_
r '
[^
r
t
j
i '
J*
X)i
I
1
- ' t
-------
D
A,
(1)
o
-------
1
r
! r-
r
C
10
r-
r-
11
12
C
c
c-
c
-1
.01
>2
r<
-3
C
4
I
.
HOC
iH
li.
10
/
1001
-------
-------
Q J
Ho ff.
I oo
/oo
-------
nets
flfto jfeซ. r K'.O,
3*0
,70
^oo
170
2/0
-------
o
^
3
./*
JO
Jo
,o7
.ol
,o*
or/
3 ^
4.
f?- ,e''
P- ,oGy
t- ,(>/
(Q.
> >V '
I?
U
^ ,10
A7Cซ't*v.
-------
A-
o
O(-)
S
Q.
CU
L-
==., ,i
-------
D/777J
'--*>
1C*',
0$ (&
(,,2.
o
o o
AI-.2* &'
5-.30 3_.VT $
*W
6/6?
-------
ft etc* DATA
PL At/7
I- .i-1 1'
1- ,lฃ 3- JO
4. .1* 4- .H
s- .ซ ^' .11
(_ *)- 'ฐ
/o- ..K ' " '~lฐ'
/I- ./ป
- .0*
'- ..07
-------
PLAtJT
Altf
Q. O
-------
Z&/3
Fp/vv.
0.242.
/OS/
7.07
76
PPM
-------
"70
7/07
*V3/
-------
Cp
fV
27. 6
^^
ft "2-
7,07
-------
DATA
PLA*j-r
I Z 3 .*>
-------
fjf<0jfcx V N?
J
I - r $1
Z. /
3- ,
S"-
C,- .1
j
4. .*
^ A*
-------
.01
10
\ i
?i
.1
10
144
100|
-------
D/?7VJ
afire
"ฎV f*
& (ง>
(D
-------
-------
-------
nnrfl
PL A*/- : rflerecktt
> /*
200
OF
340
3/0
-------
vfi
* c 0 ft Tic ปJ ; LM n
74
ibM-rt
II
12
fl
4?
-1
.01
"
C
-4
-5
l(
G.
-------
_J
FIELD.AUDIT REPORT
PART A - To be filled out by organization supply unit cylinders (RTI)
1. Organization supplying*audit sample(s) and shipping address
Research Triangle Institute, P.O, Box 12194 . -
Research Triangle'Park.'North Carolina 277.09 .
2. Audit supervisor, organization, and phone number (EMB Technical
Manager)
'"Winton Kelley, QAD, EMSL, EPA '
3. Shipping instructions "- Name, Address, Attention
To be picked- up by. EPA 1/21/80 ' -
4.
5.
6.
Guaranteed arrival date for cylinders 1/21/30
Planned shipping date for cylinders 1/21/80
Details on audit cylinders for last analysis
Low Cone.
a. Date of. last analysis
b. Cylinder number
c. Cylinder, pressure, PSI
d. Audit gas(es)/balarice, gas
e. Audit gas(es) pprn
f. Cylinder construction
11/28/79
BAL 318
1500
Propane
in Air
" 20.8
Aluminum
High Cone,
11/28/79
BAL 317
1500
Propane
in Air
316
Aluminum-
-------
X 5 .
X''
PART B - To be filled out by audit supervisor
1. Organic chemical manufacturing process y^o"fe>JAtestge. />ri*,r(
t
4. Audit results
- : . - . Low Cone. High Cone'.
a. Cylinder "number "&flC'C?f? ^AC"3] T
b. Cylinder pressure before /5T&Q j
audit, psi
c. Cylinder pressure after l*TOc>- I
audit, psi
d. Audit date and measured ."
concentration, ppm
Analysis #1
Analysis $2
Analysis #3
RTI concentration, ppm ^- 2.0,%
(Part A, 6d)
2. Location of audit AWpo/"/A / /3^yปฃyฃl ^wtc: /( ^n?
-" . / r^- - . f
. ซ. A 2V
3. Name of individual audit and organization
-------
f. Audit accuracy*
Analysis #1
Analysis #2
Analysis #3
?.Z
f 7.0
;fZO?0
Percent accuracy
-Measured" Cone/ RTI tone:
(if any)
/
-------
Appendix C
Laboratory Report
68
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
January 29, 1980
1423.TEE.80.004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurements Branch .
MD 13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Attention: Mr. Winton Kelly
Dear Winton:
On January 25th (Friday) we received eight (8) bag samples and began the re-
quested analyses that day. All samples were completed by January 28th (Monday).
The results are found in the attached table.
Analysis was performed using a Shimadzu Mini 1 6C/FID. A set of AT-1200 Bentone
34 columns were used and best results achieved with a 75 C isothermal run. Each
sample was drawn through the sample loop for a period of one minute at .5 1pm
air by means of a low flow vacuum pump. Calculations were automatically computed
by a programable Shimadzu CR-1A Chromatopac. The standard used for calibration
was 186 ppm Toluene standard delivered with the other samples. Using the
calibration constant the unknown samples were run until 5% repeatability of the
analytical results was obtained. A machine blank was performed between each
sample run to assure no residual contamination.
It was not possible to complete analysis of all the samples on Friday the 25th,
so the bags were stored over the weekend. On Monday the 186 ppm Toluene stan-
dard showed a change in its calibration constant of 45% indicating a loss of
Toluene over the two day period. A sample which was analyzed on Friday was
re-analyzed on Monday and the results were repeatable using the respective
calibration constants. The remainder of the samples were analyzed on Monday in
the same manner as Friday.
As can be seen from the results, the analytical values are consistently lower
than the values measured by the Century OVA analyzer.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call upon us.
Very truly yours,
TRW, Inc.
ony EEggleston, Manager
Field Operations
TEE/tm
Enclosure
Progress Center
3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709 (9191 541-9100
-------
DESCRIPTION:
PLANT :
LOCATION :
PROJECT NO.:
COMMENTS :
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
BAG SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
MEREDITH BURDA
LYNCHBURG. VA
79 ORA 1
DATE
RECORDER
1/24/80
WR
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
505/506 Pressroom ambient
Press 506 Cabin ambient (down)
Press 505 Cabin ambient (down)
506 Cabin uptake duct
Absorber inlet
Absorber outlet
Hallway 504-505
Inside Enclosure -569- $"
-------
On January 28, 1980, eight gas samples were analyzed from a plant in Lynch-
burg, Va. One other bag contained a 186ppm Toluene calibration gas. Only two
peaks occurred in the gas samples, one with a retention time of 2.43 minutes
identified as benzene and one with a retention time of 5.07 minutes identified
as Toluene. A question arose as to whether the first peak could be ethanol as
opposed to benzene. The initial test conditions were repeated as closely as
possible. Benzene eluted at 2.54 minutes while ethanol eluted at 1.46 minutes.
At the levels which appeared in the original Lynchburg samples no overlap or
misidentification of peaks could occur.
-------
STflRT 91.19.11.14.; ::
T~
METHOD- 49 --- -
STflRT. 01.19.11.22.,
STflRT
1.1-2-
1.46-
STOP
STflRT- 01.19.11
STflRT 91.19.12.18.
STOP
1.1-3
1.47
J
-------
STfiRT- dt. 19.12.28.,-
i ,.
STRRT 91.19.12.33.
1.12
STOP
STflRT 81.19.12.53".
2.52
1.14
1.49
1.35
STOP
STflRT 91.19.13.14.
2.54
-------
STftRT 01.19.13. 14.-
STOP
CflL PM
STP T-M
flTTEH ""
SPEED
METHQO
SPL WF
IS UT
STflRT- 01
4 ' -: '
1009. .,-^ITV
0 ---..
10
40 .
100
i . .,;.
.19.13.34..
STOP
STflRT 01.19.13.38.
-------
Appendix D
Field Test Notes
75
-------
//7/cP
0\IA
600
10 fa
!
-------
f/f -7/o
CoC, <+ 42-
2.+$
-------
TLV
5-30
Co
27
-------
7 -
fagii.
&
.
aft*.
-------
I*
-------
79,'
zs
26
79.?
31?
-------
V *
3/7
x
-------
yes
2'
"'
17*
^
SsS
2 j* SOS
5-0^
506 A,
CkO-un, iL-fJi^iJL f/2&ฃL
j&" ' *
^ -SO 5/386
-------
20.
6ฎ 4
-------
7-
n
79, f C3
3/7
' To I
Jd-f / 70
//2V/ ^
' i-t .x^AA^ af (jAb
2
I'
/
6-^
-------
Appendix E
Project Participants
Winton Kelly EMB/ESED/EPA Team Leader
Frank Clay
John Brown "
Edwin Vincent CPB/ESED/EPA Process Engineer
86
------- |