United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality EMB Report 83-ASP-4
Planning and Standards ADDENDUM
Research Triangle Park NC 27711 March 1985
Air
vvEPA
Asphalt Concrete
Industry
Emission Test
Report
T.J. Campbell
Company
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
Volume 1
Addendum
-------
CORPORATION
DCN 222-078-03-15
EMISSION TEST REPORT
T.J. CAMPBELL ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANT
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
Addendum
Prepared for:
Mr. Clyde E. Riley
Task Manager
Emissions Measurement Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3850
Work Assignment 03
ESED Project No. 83-05
Prepared by:
M. R. Fuchs
E. P. Anderson
L. A. Rohlack
A. E. Behl
Radian Corporation
15 March 1985
8501 Mo-Pac Blvd. / P.O. Box 9948 / Austin, Texas 78766 / (512)454-4797
-------
INTRODUCTION
This addendum presents revisions and new data to be included with the
report, "Emission Test Report T.J. Campbell Company, Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa" (EMB Report 83-ASP-4). The purpose of this addendum is threefold:
• to present smoke point/flash point results for the recycled
asphalt pavement and asphalt cement which were not available
when the report was published;
• to include total organic carbon (TOC) results determined
according to the analytical protocol of EPA Method 5E; and
• to separate condensible hydrocarbons data from the extract-
able organics data presented in the report.
The term condensible hydrocarbons is new to the report. As explained
in the original report, extractable organics are related to the gravimetric
analysis of the ether/chloroform extract of the 0.1 N NaOH impinger solu-
tions. The extractable organics results in the original report included the
gravimetric analysis of the trichloroethane (TCE) rinse of the impingers
glassware. In this addendum, condensible hydrocarbon results are from the
gravimetric analysis of the TCE rinse. The gravimetric analysis results of
the TCE rinse have been removed from the extractable organics presentation.
Because of the above revisions, several sections of the report have
been rewritten. Section 2.2, Total Organic Carbon Results, has been revised
to present TOC results determined by the EPA Method 5E analytical protocol.
Tables 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 contain the revised TOC values. Section 2.3,
Extractable Organics Emissions Results, contains results from the 0.1N NaOH
impinger solution ether/chloroform extract only. Tables 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, and
2-10 contain the revised extractable organic emission results. Section 2.4,
Comparison of TOC and Extractable Organic Emission Results, reflects the EPA
Method 5E TOC results and ether/chloroform extract results. Section 5.2,
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Analytical Methodology, discusses the new or revised methods for TOC and
extractable organics analysis. Table 6-2 has been addended to include TOC
quality control data for the 0.1N NaOH impinger solutions reanalysis.
In addition, three new sections have been added. Section 2.11 contains
a discussion of the flash point and smoke point data which are presented in
Table 2-24. Section 2.12 contains a discussion of the condensible hydrocar-
bon results which are presented in Table 2-25. Section 2.13 contains a
comparison of the two analytical methodologies used to analyze the 0.1N NaOH
impinger solutions for TOC. The data are presented in Table 2-26.
-------
2.2 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON RESULTS
Controlled and uncontrolled total organic carbon (TOC) mass samples
were collected simultaneously with particulate mass samples using the modi-
fied EPA Method 5E sampling train. The TOC content of the 0.1N NaOH im-
pinge r and rinse solutions were analyzed directly using an instrumental
technique. TOC results, identified in the data tables as the "back-half
catch," are presented and discussed in this section.
2.2.1 Conventional Operation TOC Emission Results
Uncontrolled and controlled TOC results for conventional operation are
presented in Table 2-1 (English units) and Table 2-2 (metric units). Uncon-
trolled TOC loadings were 0.242, 0.0512, and 0.0562 gr/DSCF for Runs C-l,
C-2, and C-3, respectively. The controlled TOC loadings were 0.0410,
0.0501, and 0.0494 gr/DSCF for Runs C-l, C-2, and C-3, respectively. The
TOC (back-half catch) collection efficiency of the wet venturi scrubber was
83.1, 0.39, and 15.0 percent for Runs C-l, C-2, and C-3, respectively.
2.2.2 Recycle Operation TOC Emission Results
Table 2-3 (English units) and Table 2-4 (metric units) present results
of the uncontrolled and controlled TOC measurements performed during recycle
operation. Uncontrolled TOC loadings were 0.0534, 0.0523, and 0.389 gr/DSCF
for Runs R-l, R-2, and R-3, respectively. The controlled TOC loadings were
0.0643, 0.0421, and 0.0185 gr/DSCF for Runs R-l, R-2, and R-3, respectively.
The TOC collection efficiency of the wet venturi scrubber was 6.65, 12.9,
and 95.2 percent for Runs R-l, R-2, and R-3, respectively.
2.2.3 Discussion of TOC Test Results
The uncontrolled TOC loadings varied from 0.0521 to 0.242 gr/DSCF
during conventional operation and from 0.0523 to 0.389 gr/DSCF during re-
cycle operation. The controlled TOC loadings varied from 0.0410 to 0.0501
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSIONS DURING CONVENTIONAL
OPERATION (ENGLISH UNITS)
Date
Run Dumber
Type Eni.aai.oni
Scrubber Pressure Drop (in. H,0)
Scrubber Water Flow Rate
Production Rate (ton/br)
Froce» Mix Type
Average Opacity (Percent)
Range
(GPMJ
Hean,
11/12
C-l
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.5
219
244
B-Hix
0 (0-1. 5)
11/13
C-2
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.4
219
235
B/C Mix
0 (-0-)
11/14
C-3
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.5
215
213
M-Mix
H/A
Average
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.5
218
231
0
Participate and Total Organic Carbon (TOO Reaulta
Front Half Catch - farticulate
(probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg-maa a
gr/DSCF
Iba/hr*
Iba/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
Back Half Catch - TOC
(impinger solutiona and rinse* )
mg-maa a
gr/DSCF
Iba/br*
Iba/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
Total Catch
mg-maa a
gr/DSCF
Iba/hr*
Iba/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
9360
7.60
762
3.12
299
0.242
24.3
0.0995
9660
7.84
785
3.22
172
0.0550
5.53
0.0226
99.3
128
0.0410
4.11
0.0168
83.1
300
0.0961
9.63
0.0395
98.8
10.800
8.49
910
3.87
65
0.0512
5.13
0.0218
10,900
8.53
855
3.64
244
0.0814
8.29
0.0353
99.1
150
0.0501
5.11
0.0217
0.39
394
0.132
13.4
0.0571
98.4
6950
5.58
599
2.81
70
0.0562
6.01
0.0282
7020
5.64
604
2.83
104
0.0332
3.45
0.0162
99.4
155
0.0494
5.11
0.0240
15.0
259
0.0823
8.53
0.0400
98.6
9040
7.22
757
3.27
145
0.116
11.8
0.0498
9190
7.34
748
3.23
173
0.0565
5.76
0.0247
99.2
144
0.0468
4.78
0.0208
59.5
318
0.103
10.5
0.0455
98.6
Average emiaaion rate of concentration and area-ratio metboda (Table 2-10)
H/A - not available
*lba/hr controlled emiaaion rate baaed on gaa flow rate uaing aaturation volume for the moiature content of the gaa
"Collection efficiency percent determined uaing Iba/br valuea
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSIONS DURING CONVENTIONAL
OPERATION (METRIC UNITS)
Date
Run Number
Type Emissions
Scrubber Pressure Drop (in. H-0)
Scrubber Water Flow Bate (LPSJ
Production Kate (Eg/8)
Procesa Mix Type
Average Opacity (Percent) Mean,
Range
11/12
C-l
Uncontrolled Controlled
34.3
13.8
61.5
B-Mix
0 (0-1.5)
11/13
C-2
Uncontrolled Controlled
34.0
13.8
59.2
B/C Mix
0 (-0-)
11/14
C-3
Uncontrolled Controlled
34.3
13.6
53.7
M-Mix
N/A
Averatte
Uncontrolled Controlled
34.3
13.7
58.1
0
99.3
Participate and Total Organic Carbon (TOO Reaulta
Front Half Catch - Particulate
(probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg-mas s
mg/DSCM
g/e*
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
Back Half Catch - TOC
(imp inger solutions and rinses)
mg-mas a
mg/DSCM
g/s*
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
9360
17,400
96.1
1.56
172
126
0.697
0.0113
10,800
19.400
115
1.94
244
186
1.05
0.0177
6950
12.800
75.5
1.41
104
76.0
0.435
0.00810
9040
16.500
95.5
1.64
173
129
0.726
0.0125
83.1
99.1
99.4
299
554
3.06
0.0498
128
93.8
0.518
0.0084
65
117
0.647
0.0109
150
115
0.644
0.0108
0.39
15.0
Total Catch
ing-mass 9660 300 10.900 394
mg/DSCM 17.900 220 19.500 302
g/s* 99.0 1.21 108 1.69
g/kg production 1.61 0.0198 1.82 0.0286
Collection Efficiency Percent** 98.8 98.4
7020
12.900
76.2
1.42
259
188
1.08
0.0200
99.2
70
129
0.758
0.0141
155
113
0.644
0.0120
145
265
1.49
0.0249
144
107
0.602
0.0104
59.5
9190
16.800
94.3
1.62
318
236
1.32
04)228
98.6
98.6
Average emission rate of concentration and area-ratio methods (Table 2-10)
N/A - not available
*g/s controlled emission rate based on gas flow rate uaing saturation volume for the moisture content of the gas
"Collection efficiency percent determined using g/s values
-------
TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSIONS DURING RECYCLE
OPERATION (ENGLISH UNITS)
Date
Run Number
Type Emission*
Scrubber Pressure Drop (in. H,0)
Scrubber Water Flow Rate (GPH)
Production Rate (ton/hr)
Process Mix Type
Average Opacity (Percent) Mean,
Range
11/11
R-l
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.8
223
229
Recycle-A
1.4 (0-5.8)
11/11
R-2
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.8
220
250
Recycle-A
0.3 (0-1.7)
11/12
R-3
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.9
219
236
Recycle-A
N/A
Average
Uncontrolled Controlled
13.8
221
238
0.85
Particulate and Total Organic Carbon (TOO Results
Front Half Catch - Particulate
(probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg-maas 4380 84.0
gr/DSCF 3.24 0.0227
Ibs/hr 411 2.72
Ibs/ton production 1.79 0.0119
Collection Efficiency Percent** 99:3
Back Halt Catch - TOC
(impinger solutions and rinaes)
mg-masa
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
Ibs/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent** -6.65
Total Catch
mg-mass 4450 322
gr/DSCF 3.30 0.0870
Ibs/hr 418 10.4
Ibs/ton production 1.82 0.0456
Collection Efficiency Percent** 97.5
5.260
4.37
499
2.00
88.2
0.0229
2.76
0.0110
99.4
72.0
0.0534
6.77
0.0296
238
0.0643
7.22
0.0337
63.0
0.0523
5.51
0.0220
162
0.0421
4.80
0.0192
12.9
5320
4.42
466
1.86
250
0.0650
7.41
0.0296
5570
3.75
474
2.01
111
0.0286
3.42
0.0145
99.3
95.2
6150
4.14
496
2.10
183
0.0470
5.63
0.0239
5070
3.79
461
1.94
94.5
0.0247
2.97
0.0125
99.4
576
0.389
46.6
0.198
72.0
0.0185
2.22
0.0094
237
0.165
19.6
0.0832
157
0.0416
4.91
0.0208
74.9
5310
3.95
460
1.93
252
0.0663
7.81
0.0330
98.4
98.9
98.3
Average emission rate of concentration and area-ratio metbode (Table 2-10)
N/A - not available
*lbe/hr controlled emission rate based on gas flow rate using saturation volume for the moisture content of the gas
"Collection efficiency percent determined using Ibs/hr values
-------
TABLE 2-4. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSIONS DURING RECYCLE
OPERATION (METRIC UNITS)
Date
Run Number
Type Emiajions
Scrubber Pressure Drop (in. H.O)
Scrubber Water Flow Bate (LPS)
Production Rate (Kg/S)
Process Mix Type
Average Opacity (Percent) Mean.
Range
Particulate and Total Organic Carbon
Front Half Catch - Particulate
(probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg-maa a
og/DSCM
g/a*
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
Back Half Catch - TOC
(impinger aolutiona and rinses)
mg-maaa
mg-DSCH
g/a*
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
Total Catch
ing-mass
mg/DSCM
g/s*
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Percent**
11/11
B-l
Uncontrolled Controlled
5.43
14.1
57.8
Recycle-A
1.4 (0-3.8)
(TOC) Reaults
4380 84.0
7420 51.9
51.8 0.343
0.896 0.00593
99.3
72.0 238
122 147
0.854 0.910
0.0148 0.0168
-6.65
4450 322
7550 199
52.7 1.31
0.910 0.0228
97.5
11/11 11/12
R-2 R-3
Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled
5.43 5.47
13.9 13.8
63.1 59.6
Recycle-A Recycle-A
0.3 (0-1.7) H/A
5.260 88.2 5570 111
10,000 52.5 8590 65.4
62.9 0.348 59.8 0.431
0.919 0.00550 1.01 0.00726
99.4 99.3
63.0 162 576 72.0
120 96.4 890 42.3
0.965 0.605 5.88 0.280
0.0110 0.0096 0.0990 0.0047
12.9 95.2
5320 250 6150 183
10.100 149 9480 108
58.8 0.934 62.6 0.710
0.930 0.0148 1.05 0.0120
98.4 98.9
Averafte
Uncontrolled Controlled
5070
8670
58.2
0.942
237
378
2.47
0.0416
5310
9040
58.0
0.965
5.44
13.9
60.2
0.85
94.5
56.6
0.374
0.00622
99.4
157
95.2
0.619
0.0104
74.9
252
152
0.985
0.0165
98.3
Average emission rate of concentration and area-ratio methoda (Table 2-10)
N/A - not available
*g/s controlled emission rate based on gas flow rate using saturation volume for the moisture content of the gas
"Collection efficiency percent determined using g/a valuea
-------
gr/DSCF during conventional operation and from 0.0185 to 0.0643 gr/DSCF
during recycle operation. With the limited data available, it is difficult
to develop any correlations between process operation and the degree of
<
variability in the uncontrolled and controlled TOG emissions during conven-
tional and recycle operation.
The average uncontrolled TOC loading was 29.7 percent greater during
recycle operation (0.165 gr/DSCF) than during conventional operation (0.116
gr/DSCF). However, the average controlled TOC loading during recycle opera-
tion (0.0416 gr/DSCF) was 14.4 percent less than the average conventional
operation loading (0.0486 gr/DSCF). The average removal efficiency of the
venturi scrubber was 74.8 percent during recycle operation and 64.1 percent
during conventional operation.
-------
CORPORATMM
2.3 EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS
Analysis for extractable organics was performed on the 0.1N NaOH im-
pinge r solutions. Aliquots of the 0.1N NaOH samples were extracted with
chloroform and diethyl ether. The solvent was evaporated at room tempera-
ture to dryness and the mass of extractable organics determined gravimetri-
cally. Tables 2-7 and 2-8 contain a summary of uncontrolled and controlled
extractable organics and particulate emission results. Extractable organics
are identified as the "back-half catch" in Tables 2-7 and 2-8.
2.3.1 Conventional Operation Extractable Organics Emission Results
Uncontrolled extractable organics loadings were 0.0032, 0.0111, and
0.0169 gr/DSCF for Runs C-l, C-2, and C-3, respectively. The controlled
extractable organics loadings were 0.0227, 0.0131, and 0.0193 gr/DSCF for
Runs C-l, C-2, and C-3, respectively.
2.3.2 Recycle Operation Extractable Organics Emission Results
Uncontrolled extractable organics loadings were 0.0186, 0.0077, and
0.0140 gr/DSCF for Runs R-l, R-2, and R-3, respectively. Controlled extrac-
table organics loadings were 0.0121, 0.0286, and 0.0162 gr/DSCF for Runs
R-l, R-2, and R-3, respectively.
2.3.3 Discussion of Extractable Organics Emission Test Results
The uncontrolled extractable organics loadings varied from 0.0032 to
0.0169 gr/DSCF during conventional operation and from 0.0077 to 0.0186
gr/DSCF during recycle operation. The controlled extractable organics
loadings varied from 0.0131 to 0.0227 gr/DSCF during conventional operation
and from 0.0121 to 0.0286 gr/DSCF during recycle operation. Based on the
limited data available, it is difficult to develop any correlations between
process operation and the degree of variability in the uncontrolled and
-------
TABLE 2-7. SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE AND EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS EMISSIONS
DATE
RUN HO.
PROCESS OPERATION
VOLUME GAS SAMPLED (DSCF)
STACK GAS FLOW RATE (DSCFM)
STACK TEMPERATURE CF)
PERCENT MOISTURE BY VOLUME
PERCENT ISOKINETIC
PRODUCTION RATE (tons/br)
11/12
C-l
CONVENTIONAL
19.0
11.700
298
38.0
110
244
11/11
R-l
RECYCLE
20.8
14,800
296
24.4
95
229
11/13
C-2
CONVENTIONAL
19.6
11.700
289
39.6
113
235
11/11
R-2
RECYCLE
18.6
12,300
314
31.5
117
250
11/14
C-3
CONVENTIONAL
19.2
12,500
304
36.7
104
213
11/12
B-3
RECYCLE
22.9
14,000
317
27.7
111
236
CONVENTIONAL
19.3
12,000
297
38.1
109
231
RECYCLE
20.8
13,700
309
27.9
108
238
PARTICULATE - EXTRACTABLE
ORGANIC8 RESULTS
FRONT HALF CATCH - PARTICULATE
(probe, cyclone, and filter)
rag-masa
gr/DSCF
Ibe/hc
Iba/ton production
BACK HALF CATCH - EXTRACT-
ABLE ORCANICS
9360
7.60
762
3.12
4380
3.24
411
1.79
10,800
8.49
910
3.87
5260
4.37
499
2.00
6950
5.58
599
2.81
5570
3.75
474
2.01
9040
7.22
757
3.28
Average emIBaion rate of concentration and area-ratio methods (Table 2-10).
'Percent Extractable Organic8 determined using Ibs/hr values and is tbe percentage of extractable organic8 of the total catch.
5070
3.79
461
1.94
(impinger solutions & riases)
ing-mas s
gr/DSCF
Ibs/br
Iba/ton production
PERCENT EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS*
4.0
0.0032
0.325
0.0013
0.04
25.1
0.0186
2.36
0.0103
0.57
14.1
0.0111
1.11
0 .0047
0.12
9.3
0.0077
0.811
0.0032
0.16
21.1
0.0169
1.81
0.0085
0.30
20.8
0.0140
1.68
0.0071
0.35
13.1
0.0104
1.08
0 .0048
0.14
18.4
0.0134
1.62
0.0069
0.35
-------
TABLE 2-8. SUMMARY OF CONTROLLED PARTICULATE AND EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS EMISSIONS
DATE
RUN NO.
PROCESS OPERATION
VOLUME GAS SAMPLED (DSCF)
STACK CAS FLOW RATE (DSCFH)
STACK TEMPERATURE (°F)
PERCENT MOISTUBE BY VOLUME
PERCENT ISOKINETIC
PRODUCTION RATE (tono/hr)
PARTICULATE - EXTRACTABLE
ORGANICS RESULTS
11/12
C-l
CONVENTIONAL
48.2
11.700*
(11.400)
159
32.0
(32.3)
102
(105)
244
11/11
R-l
RECYCLE
57.1
14.000
147
21.3
104
229
11/13
C-2
CONVENTIONAL
46.2
11,900
(11.400)
155
29.0
(32.3)
96
(100)
235
11/11
R-2
RECYCLE
59.3
13,300
(12,700)
152
26.6
(30.6)
111
(116)
250
11/14
C-3
CONVENTIONAL
48.5
12,100
(11.800)
153
27.5
(29.7)
99
(102)
213
11/12
R-3
RECYCLE
60.1
14.000
143
20.7
107
236
CONVENTIONAL
47.6
11.900
(11.500)
156
29.5
(32.1)
99
(102)
231
RECYCLE
58.8
13.800
(13.600)
147
22.9
(24.2)
107
(109)
238
FRONT HALF CATCH - PARTICULATE '
(probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg-masa
gr/DSCF
Iba/br
Iba/ton production
BACK HALF CATCH - EXTRACT-
ABLE ORGANICS
(impinger solutions & rinses)
ng-mas s
gr/DSCF
Iba/br
Iba/ton production
PERCENT EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS*
172
0.0550
5.53
(5.36)
0.0227
(0.0220)
71.0
0.0227
2.28
(2.22)
0.0093
(0.0091)
29.2
(29.3)
84.0
0.0227
2.72
0.0119
44.7
0.0121
1.45
0.0063
34.8
244
0.0814
8.29
(7.95)
0.0353
(0.0338)
39.3
0.0131
1.34
(1.28)
0.0057
(0.0054)
13.9
(13.9)
88.2
0.0229
2.76
(2.49)
0.0110
(0.0100)
110
0.0286
3.25
(3.11)
0.0130
(0.0124)
54.1
(55.5)
104
0.0332
3.45
(3.36)
0.0162
(0.0158)
60.7
0.0193
2.00
(1.95)
0.0094
(0.0092)
36.7
(36.7)
111
0.0286
3.42
0.0145
63.0
0.0162
1.94
0.0082
36.2
173
0.0565
5.76
(5.56)
0.0247
(0.0239)
57.0
0.0184
1.88
(1.81)
0.0081
(0.0078)
24.6
(24.6)
94.5
0.0247
2.97
(2.88)
0.0125
(0.0123)
72.6
0.0190
2.24
(2.21)
0.0094
(0.0093)
43.0
(43.4)
NOTE: Top number based on saturation volume for moisture content of gas: (bottom number) is moisture content calculated using impinger
catcb indicating the presence of water niat.
Average emission rate of concentration and area-ratio methods (Table 2-10).
Percent Extractable Organica determined using Ibs/br values and is the percentage of extractable organic a of the total catcb.
-------
controlled extractable organics emissions during conventional and recycle
operation.
The average uncontrolled extractable organics loading during recycle
operation (0.0134 gr/DSCF) was approximately 22 percent greater than during
conventional operation (0.0104 gr/DSCF). The average controlled extractable
organics loading during recycle operation (0.0190 gr/DSCF) approximated the
average controlled organics loading during conventional operation (0.0184
gr/DSCF).
The average uncontrolled extractable organics loadings are less than
the average controlled extractable organics loadings during both recycle and
conventional operation. Controlled emissions of extractable organics were
27.7 percent higher than uncontrolled emissions during recycle operation and
42.6 percent higher during conventional operation. A review of the data
indicates that the results are representative of conditions. The mass of
extractable organics per unit volume measured in the controlled emissions
was significantly higher than the mass of extractable organics measured in
the uncontrolled emissions. A possible explanation is that the scrubber
water contributes to the extractable organics concentration of controlled
emissions due to the concentration of extractable organics in the water mist
carried over from the venturi. The scrubber water would include organic
compounds that are water soluble or miscible that would concentrate in the
scrubber water to a degree depending on gas phase concentration, water re-
cycle, and make-up. Condensible hydrocarbons on the other hand would tend to
condense on particulate and be physically removed by the venturi. The con-
densible hydrocarbons would then be removed with the venturi pond sludge or
appear as an oily film on the pond water which would not be recycled. The
results indicate that the venturi controls condensible hydrocarbons by an
average of 82.0 percent during recycle operation and 76.8 percent during
conventional operation.
12
-------
RADIAN
CORPOOATIOM
2.4 COMPARISON OF TOG AND EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS
Two analytical procedures were used during this program to quantify the
concentration of uncontrolled and controlled organic emissions generated
during conventional and recycle operation. An instrumental technique was
used to determine the concentration of TOG present in the 0.1N NaOH impinger
solutions generated during EPA Method 5E testing. The same samples were
also analyzed using a extraction/gravimetric technique to determine the
concentration of extractable organics. The main objective of performing
both analyses on the same samples was to provide data that could be used to
assess the utility of both procedures in characterizing organic emissions
from asphalt concrete plants.
2.4.1 Comparison of Uncontrolled TOG and Extractable Organics
Emission Results
Table 2-9 presents a comparison of uncontrolled TOG and extractable
organics emissions during conventional and recycle operation. The average
uncontrolled TOG loadings during recycle operation (0.165 gr/DSCF) were 29.7
percent higher than during conventional operation (0.116 gr/DSCF). The
average uncontrolled extractable organics loadings during recycle operation
(0.0134 gr/DSCF) were 22.4 percent higher than during conventional operation
(0.0104 gr/DSCF). During recycle operation, the average extractable
organics loading was 8.1 percent of the TOG loading and 9.0 percent during
conventional operation.
2.4.2 Comparison of Controlled TOG and Extractable Organics
Emission Results
Table 2-10 presents a comparison of controlled TOG and extractable
organics emissions during conventional and recycle operation. Average con-
trolled TOG loadings during recycle operation (0.0416 gr/DSCF) were 12.5
percent lower than during conventional operation (0.0468 gr/DSCF). Average
controlled extractable organics loadings during recycle operation (0.0190
13
-------
TABLE 2-9. COMPARISON OF UNCONTROLLED TOG AND EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS EMISSIONS
RUN NUMBER
PROCESS OPERATION
DATE
VOLUME GAS SAMPLES (DSCF)
STACK GAS FLOW RATE
(DSCFM)
STACK TEMPERATURE (*F)
PERCENT MOISTURE BY VOLUME
PERCENT ISOKINETIC
PRODUCTION RATE (TONS/HE)
BACK HALF CATCH
ORGANICS RESULTS
(impinger solutions
& rinses)
rag-mass
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
Ibs/ton production
C-l C-2
CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL
11/12
19.0
11,700
298
38.0
110
244
EXT**
TOC* ORG .
299 4.0
0.242 0.0032 0
24.3 0.325
0.099S 0.0013 0
11/13
19.6
11.700
289
39.6
113
235
EXT
TOC ORG.
65.0 14.1
.0512 0.0111
5.13 1.11
.0218 0.0047
C-3
CONVENTIONAL
11/14
19.2
12,500
304
36.7
104
213
EXT
TOC ORG.
70.0 21.1
0.0562 0.0169
6.01 1.81
0.0282 0.0085
R-l
RECYCLE
11/11
20.8
14,800
296
24.4
95
229
EXT
TOC ORG.
72.0 25.1
0.0534 0.0186
6.77 2.36
0.0296 0.0103
R-2
RECYCLE
11/11
18.6
12,300
314
31.5
117
250
EXT
TOC ORG.
63.0 9.30
0.0523 0.0077
5.51 0.81
0.0220 0.0032
R-3
EffiYCLE
11/12
22.9
14,000
317
27.7
111
236
EXT
TOC ORG
576 20.8
0.389 0.0140
46.6 1.68
0.198 0.0071
AVERAGE
CONVENTIONAL
19.3
12,000
297
38.1
109
231
EXT
TOC ORG.
145 13.1
0.116 0.0104 0
11.8 1.08
0.0498 0.0048 0.
RECYCLE
20.8
13,700
309
27.9
108
238
EXT
TOC ORG.
237 18.4
.165 0.0134
19.6 1.62
0832 0.0069
* TOC - Total Organic Carbon
"EXT. ORC. - Extractable Organics
-------
TABLE 2-10. COMPARISON OF CONTROLLED TOC AND EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS EMISSIONS
RUN NUMBER
PROCESS OPERATION
DATE
VOLUME GAS SAMPLES (DSC?)
STACK GAS FLOW RATE
(DSCFM)
STACK TEMPERATURE ("F)
C-l
CONVENTIONAL
11/12
48.2
11.700*
(11.400)
159
PERCENT MOISTURE BY VOLUME 32.0
PERCENT ISOKINETIC
PRODUCTION BATE (TONS/US)
BACK HALF CATCH
ORCAHIC8 RESULTS
(impinger solutions
& rinses)
mg-maa a
gr/DSCF
Ibs/br
Ibs/ton production
(34.3)
102
(105)
244
C-2
CONVENTIONAL
11/13
46.2
11,900
(11,400)
155
29.0
(32.3)
96
(100)
235
EXT*** EXT
TOC** ORG.
128 71.0
0.0410 0.0227
4.11 2.28
0.0168 0.0093
TOC ORG.
150 39.3
0.0501 0.0131
5.11 1.34
0.0217 0.0057
C-3
CONVENTIONAL
11/14
48.5
12,100
(11,800)
153
27.5
(29.7)
99
(102)
213
EXT
TOC ORG.
155 60*7
0.0494 0.0193
5.11 2.00
0.0240 0.0094
R-l
RECYCLE
11/11
57.1
14,000
147
21.3
104
229
EXT
TOC ORG.
238 44.7
0.0643 0.0121
7.22 1.45
0.0337 0.0063
R-2
RECYCLE
11/11
59.3
13,300
(12,700)
152
26.6
(30.6)
111
(116)
250
EXT
TOC ORG.
162 110
0.0421 0.0286
4.80 3.25
0.0192 0.0130
R-3
RECYCLE
11/12
60.1
14,000
143
20.7
107
236
EXT
TOC ORG.
72 63.0
0.0185 0.0162
2.22 1.94
0.0094 0.0082
AVERAGE
CONVENTIONAL
47.6
11,900
(11,500)
156
29.5
(32.1)
99
(102)
231
EXT
TOC ORG .
144 57.0
0.0468 0.0184
4.78 1.88
0.0208 0.0081
RECYCLE
58.8
13.800
(13,600)
147
22.9
(24.2)
107
(109)
238
EXT
TOC ORG.
157 72.6
0.0416 0.0190
4.91 2.24
0.0208 0.0094
*NOTE: Top number based on saturation volume for moisture content of gas: (bottom number) is moisture content calculated using impinger
catch results indicating the presence of water mist.
** TOC - Total Organic Carbon
***EXT. ORG. - Extractable Organica
-------
gr/DSCF) were slightly higher (3.2 percent) than during conventional opera-
tion (0.0184 gr/DSCF). The extractable orgenies loading was 45.7 percent of
the TOC loading during recycle operation and 39.3 percent during conven-
tional operation.
2.4.3 Discussion of TOC and Extractable Organics Emissions Results
Because of the limited quantity of available data, it is difficult to
develop an accurate comparison between the TOC and extractable organics
results. To formulate an opinion about the two procedures, one must first
evaluate the analytical procedures. It is important that several factors be
kept in mind. First, the TOC analysis results are indicative of the total
mass of soluble carbon, as organic species, in the sample. The extractable
organics analysis results are related to the mass of organic species having
a boiling point greater than 300°F. Also, the TOC analysis procedure is a
direct instrumental technique requiring a minimal amount of sample prepara-
tion (refer to Section 5.2). On the other hand, the extractable organics
analysis procedure requires sample preparation (refer to Section 5.2) by
means of extraction with chloroform and diethy 1 ether. The remaining ex-
tract is then evaporated to dryness at room temperature before weighing.
It is believed that the TOC analysis procedure is more suitable than
the extractable organics procedure for characterizing organic emissions from
asphalt concrete plants.
16
-------
RADIAN
2.11.4 Recycled Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Cement Smoke Point and
Flash Point Results
Smoke point determination was performed on a single sample of recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP) collected during the Campbell test program. The
sample was analyzed by the Oklahoma Testing Laboratory and by Radian. The
smoke point test results are presented in Table 2-24. The smoke point
determined by Oklahoma Testing Laboratory was 340°F. The smoke point deter-
mined by Radian was 370°F.
Samples of the asphalt cement (AC) used during the Campbell test pro-
gram were analyzed for smoke point and flash point. The AC smoke point and
flash point analyses were performed by the Oklahoma Testing Laboratory. The
smoke point and flash point data are presented in Table 2-24.
17
-------
TABLE 2-24. SUMMARY OF RECYCLED ASPHALT PAVEMENT (RAP) SMOKE POINT
RESULTS AND ASPHALT CEMENT (AC) SMOKE POINT AND FLASH
POINT RESULTS
Collection
Date
Sample Description
Sample
Type
Oklahoma
Testing
Smoke
Point
Radian3
Smoke Flash
Point Point
11-12-83 Recycled Asphalt Pavement RAP
340
370
11-08-83 McGee Asphalt Cement
AC
420
640
11-12-83 Allied Chemical Asphalt AC
Cement
345
550
aFlash point and smoke point analysis of the AC performed by Oklahoma
Testing Laboratories only.
18
-------
2.12 CONDENSIBLE HYDROCARBONS EMISSION RESULTS
The sample fraction which condensed on the walls of the chilled glass-
ware is referred to as condensible hydrocarbons. A trichloroethane (ICE)
rinse was used to recover the condensed hydrocarbons from the impingers.
The TCE was evaporated to dryness at room temperature to determine the mass
of condensible hydrocarbons. Condensible hydrocarbons results are presented
in Table 2-25.
2.12.1 Conventional Operation Condensible Hydrocarbons Emission Results
Uncontrolled condensible hydrocarbons loadings were 0.173, 0.0457, and
0.114 gr/DSCF for Runs C-l, C-2, and C-3, respectively. The controlled
condensible hydrocarbons loadings were 0.0558, 0.0140, and 0.0086 gr/DSCF
for Runs C-l, C-2, and C-3, respectively.
2.12.2 Recycle Operation Condensible Hydrocarbons Emission Results
Uncontrolled condensible hydrocarbons loadings were 0.136, 0.133, and
0.0619 gr/DSCF for Runs R-l, R-2, and R-3, respectively. The controlled
condensible hydrocarbons loadings were 0.0114, 0.0311, and 0.0173 gr/DSCF
for Runs R-l, R-2, and R-3, respectively.
2.12.3 Discussion of Condensible Hydrocarbons Emission Results
The uncontrolled condensible hydrocarbons loadings varied from 0.0457
to 0.173 gr/DSCF during conventional operation and from 0.0619 to 0.136
gr/DSCF during recycle operation. The controlled condensible hydrocarbons
loadings varied from 0.0086 to 0.0558 gr/DSCF during conventional operation
and from 0.0114 to 0.0311 gr/DSCF during recycle operation. With the
limited data available, it is difficult to develop any correlations between
process operation and degree of variability of the controlled and uncon-
trolled condensible hydrocarbon emissions during conventional and recycle
operation.
19
-------
TABLE 2-25. SUMMARY OF CONDENSIBLE HYDROCARBONS EMISSIONS
Corrected TCE
Date Run Description Rinse Wt (mg)a gr/DSCF Ibs/hr Ibs/ton
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
Recycle Operation
11-11-83
11-11-83
11-12-83
Run R-l
Run R-2
Run R-3
Average
42.1
120
67.3
76.3
0.0114
0.0311
0.0173
0.0199
1.36
3.54
2.07
2.32
0.0060
0.0142
0.0088
0.0097
Conventional Operation
11-12-83
11-13-83
11-14-83
Run C-l
Run C-2
Run C-3
Average
174
41.8
27.0
81.0
0.0558
0.0140
0.0086
0.0261
5.59
1.43
0.89
2.64
0.0229
0.0061
0.0042
0.0111
UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
Recycle Operation
11-11-83
11-11-83
11-12-83
Run R-l
Run R-2
Run R-3
Average
183
160
91.9
145
0.136
0.133
0.0619
0.110
17.2
14.0
7.42
12.9
0.0750
0.0559
0.0315
0.0541
Conventional Operation
11-12-83
11-13-83
11-14-83
Run C-l
Run C-2
Run C-3
Average
213
58.2
142
138
0.173
0.0457
0.114
0.111
17.3
4.58
12.2
11.4
0.0710
0.0195
0.0571
0.0492
aCorrected for trichloroethane blank residue
20
-------
RADIAN
The average uncontrolled condensible hydrocarbons loading during re-
cycle operation (0.110 gr/DSCF) approximated the average uncontrolled con-
densible hydrocarbons loading during conventional operation (0.111 gr/DSCF),
The average controlled condensible hydrocarbons loading during recycle oper-
ation (0.0199 gr/DSCF) was approximately 24 percent less than the conven-
tional operation condensible hydrocarbons loading (0.0261 gr/DSCF). The
average removal efficiency of the venturi scrubber was 82.0 percent during
recycle operation and 76.8 percent during conventional operation.
21
-------
RADIAN
2.13 COMPARISON OF TOC ANALYTICAL METHODS
Two analytical methods were used to determine the TOC concentrations of
the 0.1N NaOH impinger solutions. The original method (the values reported
in the original report) consisted of acidifying the sample below pH 2 with
H2SO^ and purging with nitrogen to remove inorganic carbon. This method was
specified in the test plan for the T.J. Campbell emission test. The second
method was the EPA Method 5E protocol (see Appendix Section J.I).
To determine if the two methodologies yielded different results, the
original samples were reanalyzed using both methods. Table 2-26 presents a
comparison of the original analysis (acidification) and the reanalysis using
both methods (EPA Method 5E and acidification).
Results of the sample reanalysis indicate that EPA Method 5E protocol
yields lower results than the acidification and purge technique. A possible
explanation for the lower values obtained by EPA Method 5E is that the
absence of inorganic carbon is verified and if present the results are
corrected accordingly. With the acidification and purge method, this step
is not performed and if there is incomplete inorganic carbon removal, a high
bias would occur.
23
-------
TABLE 2-26.
SUMMARY OF T.J. CAMPBELL TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOG) EMISSION
RESULTS COMPARING TWO ANALYTICAL METHODS
Original Campbell TOC
Emissions: Method la
Campbell TOC
Reanalysis: Method la
Campbell TOC
Reanalysis: Method 2
1\UU ii» " '
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
Ibs/ton
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
Ibs/ton
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
Ibs/ton
UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
Recycle Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Average
Convent ional Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Average
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
448
655
504
536
205
434
297
312
56.8
68.9
60.5
62.1
20.6
43.6
31.9
32.0
0.248
0.276
0.256
0.260
0.0843
0.186
0.150
0.140
0.685
1.16
0.963
0.936
0.958
0.684
0.602
0.748
86.8
122
115
108
96.0
68.5
64.4
76.3
0.379
0.490
0.489
0.453
0.394
0.291
0.302
0.329
0.0534
0.0523
0.389
0.165
0.242
0.0512
0.0562
0.116
6.77
5.51
46.6
19.6
24.3
5.13
6.01
11.8
0.0296
0.0220
0.198
0.0832
0.0995
0.0218
0.0282
0.0498
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
Recycle Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Average
Conventional Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Average
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a Ac id if icat iona nd purge
bEPA Method 5E protocol
0592
0975
159
105
0532
139
129
107
7.10
11.1
19.0
12.4
5.32
14.2
13.4
11.0
0.0310
0.0444
0.0808
0.0521
0.0218
0.0604
0.0627
0.0483
0.290
0.159
0.190
0.213
0.188
0.154
0.233
0.192
34.8
18.1
22.8
25.2
18.9
15.7
24.1
19.6
0.152
0.0724
0.0964
0.107
0.0773
0.0669
0.113
0.0857
0.0643
0.0421
0.0185
0.0416
0.0410
0.0501
0.0494
0.0468
7.72
4.80
2.22
4.91
4.11
5.11
5.11
4.78
0.0337
0.0192
0.0094
0.0208
0.0168
0.0217
0.0240
0.0208
analysis
analysis
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
5.2 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
The previous section described sampling procedures. This section
describes the analytical procedures and points out where samples for
analysis were retrieved from the various sample streams.
The majority of analyses for this project were performed at Radian's
Austin laboratories. Samples for analysis resulted from the following:
• particulate, TOC/extractable organics/condensible hydrocar-
bons sampling train for controlled and uncontrolled air
emissions;
• particulate, TOC/extractable organics/condensible hydro-
carbons, and trace metals sampling train for controlled and
uncontrolled air emissions;
• polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons sampling train for controlled
and uncontrolled air emissions;
• scrubber water to and from the venturi; and
• virgin aggregate and recycled asphalt pavement.
Figures 5-7 through 5-10 present analytical schemes for the three
sampling trains, scrubber waters, and process samples. These figures indi-
cate where samples were retrieved from the various systems and the analyses
performed. The following analyses were performed:
• gravimetric analysis of solvent rinses,
• gravimetric analysis of ether chloroform extract of impingers,
• total organic carbon,
25
-------
CORPOOATIOI
• major organics and benzo(a)pyrene,
• trace metals,
• total solids,
• pH and temperature, and
• moisture.
Analysis of Extractable Organics—The extractable organics sample con-
sisted of the material obtained by extracting the 0.1N NaOH impinger solu-
tions with a mixture of chloroform and diethy1 ether. The extractable
organics content of the NaOH impinger samples was determined using the
following procedure. First, a 400 ml sample aliquot was adjusted to pH 7
using HC1 to improve extraction efficiency. The sample was then extracted
with three portions of a 3:1 mixture of chloroform and diethyl ether for a
total of 200 mis. The solvent was then filtered. The filtrate was evapo-
rated to dryness at room temperature (70-75°) and weighed to a constant
weight following desiccation.
Analysis of Condensible Hydrocarbons—The condensible hydrocarbon sam-
ple consisted of the material that condensed on the walls of the chilled
glassware. The condensed hydrocarbon content was determined using the
following gravimetric procedure. The impingers and associated glassware
were rinsed with trichloroethane (TCE). The volume of each rinse was deter-
mined gravimetrically, the entire sample was transferred to a tared beaker,
and evaporated at room temperature. When dry, the beakers were desiccated
24 hours and weighed to a constant weight to determine the mass of condensed
hydrocarbon. Each sample weight was corrected for the residue contributed
by the solvent.
Total Organic Carbon (TOG) Analysis—The TOC content of the EPA Method
5E sodium hydroxide impinger solutions and scrubber water filtrate samples
26
-------
was determined instrumentally using the procedure specified in EPA Method
5E. A Beckman Model 915B Total Carbon Analyzer was used to determine the
total carbon content and total inorganic carbon content of the sample. The
concentration of carbon present in the sample was determined by comparing
the sample results with the results of standards prepared using potassium
hydrogen phthalate. The total organic carbon content was determined by
subtracting the total inorganic carbon content from the total carbon content,
Gravimetric Analysis of Solvent Rinses—The sampling train for particu-
late and TOC/extractable organics and the train which combined trace metals
with particulate and TOC/extractable organics produced several solvent
rinses requiring gravimetric analysis. The solvent rinses included:
• acetone probe rinse, and
• trichloroethane probe rinse.
The rinse samples were placed in glass bottles and transported to
Radian's Austin laboratories for analysis. The volume of solvent in each
sample was determined gravimetrically and then the entire sample was evapo-
rated at room temperature. The sample could not be dried at elevated tem-
peratures because of the potential loss of hydrocarbons. When dry, the
beakers were desiccated for 24 hours and then weighed to a constant weight.
A constant weight is defined as two weighings that agree within 0.5 mg or 1
percent of the residue mass.
The residue in the solvent probe rinses collected during the trace
metals runs was dissolved in HC1, HNOo, and H^Oo and was analyzed by Induc-
tively Coupled Argon Plasma Emissions Spectroscopy (ICAPES).
Smoke Point Determination of Recycled Asphalt Pavement—The smoke point
of the RAP samples was determined using a test procedure developed by the
Oklahoma Testing Laboratory. Based on this method, a sample of RAP is first
dried to a constant weight in an oven set at 140°F. 500 grams of the dried
27
-------
RADIAN
sample is then placed in a stainless steel bowl and heated at a rate of 25
to 30°F per minute while stirring the RAF with a stainless steel spatula.
When the sample temperature is approximately 250°F, the heating rate is
decreased so that the sample temperature rise is 5° to 10°F per minute until
the smoke point is reached. The smoke point is recorded as the temperature
at which the RAP starts to smoke.
Smoke Point and Flash Point Determination of Asphalt Cement—The smoke
point and flash point of the asphalt cement used during testing was deter-
mined by the ASTM D92-Cleveland Open Cup procedure. Based on this method,
the test cup is filled to a specified level with the asphalt sample. The
temperature of the sample is increased rapidly at first and then at a slow
constant rate as the smoke point is approached. As soon as the smoke is
detected, the temperature of the sample is noted. To determine the flash
point, the temperature is increased and at specified intervals, a small test
flame is passed across the cup. The lowest temperature at which application
of the test flame causes the vapors above the surface of the liquid to
ignite is taken as the flash point.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, "Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire
Points by Cleveland Open Cup," Part 23, Petroleum Products and Lubricants
(I), D92-72, pages 27-32.
28
-------
CORPORATION
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON AUDIT SAMPLE MEASUREMENTS
Sample No. Date of Analysis
(A)
Actual
Values
(R)
Radian Analysis
Values (mg/L)
Percent Error
R-A/A x 100
EPA Prepared Sample Results (9/9/83)
EPA 1 10-28-83
EPA 2 thru
EPA 3 11-02-83
EPA 5
Radian Prepared Sample Results
Set 1 - Submitted 11-30-83
Radian #1
Radian #2
Radian #3
Radian #4
Radian #5
Radian #6
Set 2 - Submitted 12-12-83
Radian #la
Radian #2
Radian #3
Radian #4
Radian #5
Radian #6
4.1
61.2
61.2
4.1
80
40
80
4
4
40
80a
20b
20a
80b
80a
20a
4.5
70
69
3
85
45
81
4
3
41
85
21
19
84
77
21
9.76
14.4
12.7
-26.8
6.25
12.5
1.2
0
-25.0
2.5
6.25
5.0
-5.0
5.0
-3.75
5.0
fSample in 0.1 in. NaOH matrix
Sample in distilled water
Sample
Number
Radian 1
Radian 2
Radian 3
Date of
Analysis
Submitted
8-09-84
(A)
Actual
Value
593
119
59.3
(R)
Radian
Analysis
Method la
562
108
40.9
Percent
Error
R-A/AxlOO
-5.2
-9.2
-31.0
(R)
Radian
Analysis
Method 2b
604
167
128
Percent
Error
R-A/AxlOO
1.8
40.3
116
aEPA Method 5E Protocol
Acidification
29
------- |