ESL-TR-90-33

                       EPA-600/2-90-052

DEGREASER SYSTEM POLLUTION PRE-
VENTION EVALUATION

SZABO, MICHAEL R, NUTTER, MARK T.

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.
AIR ENGINEERING AND MEASUREMENT
11499 CHESTER ROAD
CINCINNATI OH 45246

SEPTEMBER 1990

FINAL REPORT

NOVEMBER 1989 - SEPTEMBER 1990
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. DISTRIBUTION
UNLIMITED.
               AEERL
AIR AND ENERGY ENGINEERING RESEARCH
LABORATORY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA
27711
ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LABORATORY
AIR FORCE ENGINEERING & SERVICES CENTER
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA 32403

-------
                     NOTICE

PLEASE DO NOT REQUEST COPIES OF THIS REPORT FROM
HQ AFESC/RD (ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LABORATORY),
ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE PURCHASED FROM:
    NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
    5285 PORT ROYAL ROAD
    SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA  22161

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR CONTRACTORS
REGISTERED WITH DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
SHOULD DIRECT REQUESTS FOR COPIES OF THIS REPORT TO:

    DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
    CAMERON STATION
    ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA  22314

-------
Unclassified
SECURITY C'LAS'JlFlCATlO'i. Or THIS pACE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE SSlKwSSiM
1«. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Unclassified
2*. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY
2b. DE CLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
(• NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
PEI Associates, Inc.
A1r Engineering and Measurement
6c. ADDRESS (City. Jut*. »nd tlfCodt)
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
&i NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING
ORGANIZATION
Be. ADDRESS (Gty. Jf«t«. »ntt 2if Coat)
1 1 . TITLE (Ineluttt i*cunty Cuuifitttion)
Deqreaser System Pollution
66. OFFICE SYMBOL
(H tppliCfblt)

60 OFFICE SYMBOL
(H tpplitlUt)

1b RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
9. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited
S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
ESL-TR-90-33
7«. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
Air Force Engineering Services Center
7b. ADDRESS (City. SM(c. »nd ZIP Cod*)
HQ AFESC/RDVS
Tyndall AFB FL 34403-6001
9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.
64708F 3788 30 68
Prevention Evaluation
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) , .. , _.
Szabo, Michael Francis; Nutter, Mark Thomas
1J«. TYPE OF REPORT |13b. TIME COVERED
Final | FROM 11/89 TO 9/90
«. DATE OF REPORT (rcvJtfont/iO*/; IIS. PAGE COUNT
September 1, lytJO |
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
Availability of this report is specified on the reverse of the front cover
17. COSAT, CODES
HELD GROUP SUB-GROUP


18 SUBJECT TERMS (Cont/nut on r*v*n* if «wcMM/y ind identify 6y 6'oc* number)
Vapor degreaser, trichloroethane, TCA, air pollution,
industrial hygiene.
19 ABSTRACT (Continue on rtvtrit H ntttmiy «no* io> ntify by o/OC* luimbtr)
The purpose of this project was to investigate the capability of various
engineering changes to an existing vapor degreaser to reduce solvent emissions
to the atmosphere while remaining within the established Air Force exposure
limits for 1,1, 1-trichloroethane (TCA) . A 1970 vintage vapor degreasing
system serving the USAF's 4950 TW/AMFSM metal fabrication shop had been
converted from trichloroethylene to TCA and fitted with a lip vent exhaust
system to decrease worker exposure. Solvent consumption with this configura-
tion was two to three 55-gallon drums weekly, all presumed to be emmited to
the atmosphere via the lip vent. In sequence, various modifies- tions to the
degreaser and operating procedures were instituted to define their capability
to reduce emissions and comply with exposure limit requirement. They include
decrease and elimination of lip vent suction, a freeboard extension, add-on
chiller, and a freeboard extension plus add-on chiller.
20. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT
ID UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED D SAME AS RPT Q OTIC USERS
22*. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
Dr Jpseoh Wander
DO Form 1473. JUN 86
21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Unclassified
lit TELEPHONE Pnc'v* Art* Co*J 22(. OFFICE SYMBOL
(904) 283-4234 RDVS
Prtviout*dftiOf*»rtottol*tt SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
                                                           Unclassified

-------
   Unclassified	
SECURITY CIASSIHCAHQN o* THIS PAGE
 19. Abstract  (continued)

 Whereas the lip  vent  was  shown to lower workplace concentrations, it also  resulted
 in greatly increased  TCA  emission rates.   The elimination of the lip vent  with  the
 simultaneous  addition of  a  freeboard extension plus add-on chiller provided  approxi-
 mately equivalent workplace concentrations of TCA but with a decreased discharge  rate
 of TCA.  The  rate of  consumption of TCA was reduced by approximately 75 percent with
 this configuration  while  the same degree of worker safety was maintained as witn the
 lip vent   -  •
                                                                     i'v CtASVEiCATKV; r.-- THIS PAC;
                                               ii

-------
                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A.    OBJECTIVE;

The purpose of this project was to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of
applying a range of solvent conservation options to a vapor degreaser located at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB-4950 TW/AMFSM) while keeping worker breathing zone
concentrations at U.S. Air Force engineering targets  of 25 percent of Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) action limits of 43 ppm for an 8-hour time-weighted
average (TWA) and a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 56 ppm for TCA. The degreaser
uses 1,1,1 -trichloroethane (TCA) as a solvent.

B.    BACKGROUND;

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
(EPA-AEERL) and the U.S. Air Force Headquarters Air Force Engineering and Services
Center (AFESC) are involved in a joint program to identify methods of reducing pollution
from USAF Depot facilities throughout the U.S. The vapor degreaser being studied was
inspected and chosen as a test candidate for reducing emissions of TCA through various
pollution prevention options.  The degreaser utilizes a lip vent suction system that results in
excessive loss of TCA. Since TCA will be phased out of use over the next 10 years, its cost
will rise in the interim period, increasing the incentive for the implementation of solvent
conservation options.

C.    SCOPE:

The scope of the project included baseline degreaser measurements, effects of ventilation
patterns on solvent loss/worker exposure, and a series of physical modifications to the
degreaser system, such as reducing exhaust fan speed, increasing freeboard area, and
installing a freeboard chiller.  The physical modifications were designed to systematically
reduce solvent consumption at increasing cost levels.

D.    METHODOLOGY;

Solvent loss  and worker exposure measurements were taken during each test.  A portable
infrared analyzer (Miran 1A) and charcoal tubes were used for the solvent loss/exposure
measurements.  Various other ancillary parameters such as exhaust duct air flow,
atmospheric  pressure, degreaser temperature, and solvent level were measured during each
test  Both winter and summer operating conditions were tested.

E.    TEST DESCRIPTION;

An initial series of four test options was performed during the winter and spring from
February to April 1990. A second series of tests was conducted in late May/early June 1990
to represent  summer conditions. Both sets  of tests included baseline testing at full fan
speed, reduced fan speed, and an increase in freeboard height. The summer tests included

-------
the use of a chiller both alone and in conjunction with the freeboard extension, and
ventilation patterns were altered to isolate the degreaser room.

F.     RESULTS:
       Five test options controlled worst-case personal exposure to levels (at degreaser
midpoint) that achieved, or slightly exceeded, the Air Force Engineering Target Levels: (1)
baseline, (2) reduced lip vent suction, (3) fan off with freeboard extension, (4) chiller without
fan or freeboard extension, and (5) chiller with freeboard extension. One test option did not
reduce worst-case personal exposure to meet the Air Force Engineering Target Levels: fan
off with existing freeboard. Two test options achieved acceptable control from a worker
comfort standpoint:  (1) baseline operation and (2) chiller with freeboard extension. The use
of a chiller with freeboard extension resulted in a maximum reduction  in solvent consumption
of 72 percent.
G.     CONCLUSIONS:

Very significant reductions in solvent use are achievable from the WPAFB degreaser using
the chiller plus freeboard option, while simultaneously keeping worker exposure below Air
Force engineering targets, and with worker acceptance and support of the physical
modifications to the degreaser.

The installation of the chiller plus freeboard is technically feasible, requiring only a few days
of down time.  The economic payback for this degreaser is less than 1 year, based on
solvent and heat loss savings.

H.     RECOMMENDATIONS;

The degreaser should be operated with the chiller and freeboard  extension (no fan) on a
permanent  basis.  Continued isolation of the degreaser room with more permanent materials
is also necessary to maintain current levels of worker exposure.   Leaks in the degreaser
system should be repaired and will likely reduce worker exposure even further.  Better
recordkeeping on degreaser operation and solvent use would help in identifying causes of
excessive solvent consumption.
                                         iv

-------
                                         PREFACE
       This report was prepared by PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Onto, under Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Contract No. 66-02-4284, funded by the Air Force Engineering and Services
Center, Engineering and Services Laboratory (AFESC/RDVS), Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32403-
6001.

       This report summarizes work done between November 1989 and September 1990. by James
Bolano and Robert Schraft under the direction of Michael Szabo and Avinash Patkar, and In cooperation
wlh Mark Nutter, an of PEI Associates. The EPA work assignment officer was Chartes H. Darvin, Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Dr. Joseph D. Wander
was the Air Force project officer for this contract.

       Support and assistance provided by personnel of 4950 TW/AMFS. Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio,
is gratefully acknowledged. Jack Fluty and Roger Guernsey provided access to the facility In which this
study was executed, and Robert Howell wore sampling equipment for several days during the course of
performing his job duties. Ultrakool, Inc., GHbertsvilte, Pennsylvania, provided a freeboard chBler at a
substantially reduced cost in support of this research effort.

       This report has been reviewed by the Public Affairs Office (PA) and is reteasable to the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS). At NTIS, I will be available to the general pubfic, including foreign
nationals.
       This report has been reviewed and is approved for public release.
JOSEPH D. WANDER
Project Officer
                        .USAF.BSC
Chief, Environics DMsl
WAYNE P. CHEPREN, Cap*. USAF
Chief, Environmental Compliance
R&D Branch
FRANK P.  GALLAGHER III//Colonel, USAF
Director, Engineering  And
   Services Laboratory
                               (The reverse of this page is blank)

-------
                              TABLE OF  CONTENTS


Section                                Title                                     Page

 I            INTRODUCTION	1

             A.     OBJECTIVE	.1
             B.     BACKGROUND	.1
             C.     SCOPE	2

I            OVERVIEW OF TEST PROGRAM	4

             A.     SITE/DEGREASER DESCRIPTION	A

                   1.      Description of Operation	A
                   2.      Degreaser Deficiencies	7

             B.     BASELINE TESTING AND WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS	7

                   1.      Baseline Testing	B
                   2.      Modify Area Ventilation	8
                   3.      Reduction of Lip Vent Suction	B
                   4.      Cessation of Induced-Draft Fan Use	9
                   5.      Increase in Freeboard Height	9
                   6.      Use of Freeboard Chiller	9

             C.     INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE TARGETS	10

             D.     PROJECT SCHEDULE	10

III            SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES	13

             A.     SAMPLING EQUIPMENT.	...13

                   1.      Real-Time Measurement	13
                   2.      Full-Shift Air Sampling	13
                   3.      Short-Term Exposure-Limit Sampling	.14
                   4.      System Measurement	14

             B.     SAMPLING PROCEDURES	'..... 15

                   1.      Stack Measurement	 ~	~.	15
                   2.      Degreaser Midpoint Measurement	15
                   3.      Breathing Zone Measurements	15
                   4.      System and Environmental Measurements	16
                   5.      Solvent Use Measurements	16
                   6.      QA Objectives	.17
                                        vii

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                     (continued)

Section                          Title                                            Page

IV           STUDY RESULTS	21

             A.     OVERVIEW OF TESTING SERIES	21

                   1.    Initial Series of Tests in February/May (Winter Season)	22
                   2.    Second Series of Tests in May/June (Summer Season)	25
                   3.    Consecutive Tests in an 8-Hour Period (8, June 1990)	28

             B.     INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE IMPLICATIONS OF WASTE
                                MINIMIZATION OPTIONS	30

                   1.    Study Objectives	30
                   2.    Personal Exposure Data	31
                   3.    Degreaser Midpoint Data	31
                   4.    Reducing Worker Exposure	31

             C.     STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF MIRAN AND CHARCOAL TUBE
                                TEST DATA.	33

                   1.    Miran! A Real Time Data	33
                   2.    Charcoal-Tube Data	33

             D.     SOLVENTUSE REDUCTION ESTIMATES	35

             E.     TECHNICAL/ECONOMIC EVALUATION	40

                   1.    Reduced Fan Speed	41
                   2.    Fan Off	41
                   3.    Chiller	 41
                   4.    Freeboard Extension	41
                   5.    Chiller Plus Freeboard Extension	42

V           CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	43

             A.     CONCLUSIONS	43

                   1.    Option Effectiveness/Industrial Hygiene Considerations	43
                   2.    External and Degreaser Operating Conditions	43
                   3.    Solvent Use Reduction	44
                   4.    Technical/Economic Feasibility	45

             B.     RECOMMENDATIONS	45
                                        vSi

-------
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                     (Concluded)

SECTION                               TITLE                          PAGE

             REFERENCES	 47


APPENDICES

             A. Analytical Laboratory Certificates of Analysis	  49


             B. System Measurement Data Sheets	73


             C. Photographs of Operations	99

-------
                                      UST OF FIGURES


 FIGURE                                    TITLE                                   PAGE

 1             Overview of Plating Shop and Degreaser Room, Building 5,
              Wright-Patterson Air Force Base	5

 2             Summary of Schedule for Vapor Degreaser.	12

 B-1           Locations of Air Velocity Measurements in the Degreaser
              Exhaust Duct and Up Vent	76

 C-1           Operator Loading Parts into Vapor Degreaser.	100

 C-2           Vapor Degreaser and Remote Monitoring Station	100

 C-3           Remote Monitoring Station Showing Miran 1A, DL332F Data
              Logger, Strip-Chart Recorder and Portable Computer For
              Real-Time Display of Monitoring Data	101

 C-4           Monitoring Locations at Vapor Degreaser: Lip Vent
              Exhaust Duct (Charcoal Tubes and Miran 1A Port) and
              Degreaser Midpoint (Charcoal Tubes and Tedlar® Bag
              Sample)	101

 C-5           Cbseup of Up Vent Exhaust Duct Sampling Configuration	102

 C-6           Air Velocity Measurement at Degreaser Lip Vent	103

 C-7           Cbseup of Vapor Line Inside Degreaser, 3/4 Up Water Jacket	103

 C-8           Monitoring Location at Degreaser Midpoint Showing Charcoal
              Tube and Tedlar® Bag Sampling	104

C-9           Temporary Curtains in Place at Degreaser Room Threshold
              to Control Cross Drafts	104

C-10          Camera Location for Continuous Recording of Degreaser
              Activity	105

C-11          Degreaser Configuration for Freeboard Extension Tests
              Showing 20-Gauge Sheet Metal Extension and Work
              Platform (On Fbor Grating)	106

C-12          Operator Loading Parts Into Degreaser With Extension In
              Place	106

C-13          Parts Inside Vapor Degreaser With Freeboard Extension In
              Place.	107

-------
                                     LIST OF FIGURES
                                       (Concluded)
FIGURE                                   TITLE                                   PAGE
C-14          Secondary ChBter Coils Inside Vapor Degreaser	108
C-15          Compressor For Secondary Chiller Mounted Outside Degreaser
              Room	108
C-16          Cfoseup of Secondary Chiller Coils Inside Degreaser.	109
C-17          Post-Study Use of Vapor Degreaser Using Freeboard Extension
              Flap for Better Access	109
C-18          Composite Photo Showing Lip Vent Exhaust System in
              Baseline Configuration With 5-Inch Fan Pulley	110

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES


Table                       Title

 1         DATA SUMMARY FOR INITIAL SERIES OF TESTS (FEB. TO MAY 1990)	24

 2         DATA SUMMARY FOR SECOND SERIES OF TESTS (SUMMER TESTING)	26

 3         DATA SUMMARY FOR CONSECUTIVE TESTING (JUNE 8,1990) 	29

 4         STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF MIR AN 1A MONITORING VALUES	34

 5         STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CHARCOAL TUBE SAMPLES	36

 6         SOLVENT CONSUMPTION BY MONTH FROM WPAFB RECORDS 	,	37

 7         ESTIMATED EMISSION FACTORS FOR DEGREASER BASELINE AND CONTROL
           OPTIONS	38

 8         ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DEGREASER CONTROL OPTIONS	39
                                  xii

-------
                      CONVERSION  FACTORS  AND  EQUIVALENTS

1 atmosphere »14.7 b/itf • 29.92 in.Hg . 760 millimeter (mm) Hg
1 British Thermal Unit (Btu)« 2.928 x 1CH kilowatt-hours (kWh)
TO Centigrade - (To Fahrenheit - 32)/1.8
1 cubic foot (ft3)« 0.02832 cubic meter
1 gallon (gal) - 3.785 liters
1 horsepower (hp) - 0.75 kilowatt
1 inch (in) - 2.540 centimeters
1 liter»1.057 quarts (U.SJiquid)« 0.03531 cubic feet (ft3)
1 meter (m) - 3.281  feet (ft) - 39.37 inches (in)
1 millimeter (mm) Hg -1.36 cm of l-feO
I pound (Ib) - 453.6 grams « 0.454 kilogram
1 pound/square foot (Ib/ft2) -1.488 kilograms/square meter
1 square foot (ft2)» 0.0929 square meter (m?)
1 square inch (in2)« 6.452 square centimeters (cm2)
                                             xiii
                               (The reverse of this page is blank)

-------
                                  SECTION I

                                INTRODUCTION
A.    OBJECTIVE
      The purpose of this project was to investigate the technical and economic
feasibility of applying a range of TCA solvent conservation options to the Wright -
Patterson AFB (WPAFB), degreaser while keeping worker breathing zone
concentrations at 25 percent of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
            •
(OSHA) action limits for 43 ppm or an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and a
short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 56 ppm.
B.    BACKGROUND
      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory (EPA-AEERL) and the U.S. Air Force, Headquarters Air Force
Engineering and Services Center (AFESC), are involved in a joint program to identify
methods of reducing pollution from USAF Depot facilities throughout the U.S. A vapor
degreaser located in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), Building 5, Area B,
was inspected and chosen as a test candidate for reducing emissions of its solvent,
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), through various pollution prevention options. The de-
greaser utilizes a lip vent suction system to remove TCA vapors and prevent them
from entering the workers' breathing zone.  While this is effective, the  lip vent also
results in excessive Joss of TCA. It is estimated that the degreaser uses about 100
barrels of solvent per year. Since TCA may be phased out of use over the next 10
years, and its cost will most certainly rise in the interim  period, there is more incentive
for the implementation of solvent conservation  options. Previous degreaser studies
over the past 15 years have demonstrated that a number of physical modifications and
worker operating procedures can significantly reduce solvent consumption in vapor
degreasers.  A major study sponsored by EPA-IERL-Cin, In 19801 investigated the
impact of variables such as cover utilization, freeboard height, refrigerated chiller, lip

-------
exhaust vents, hoist system speed, load cross sectional area and solvent type on
vapor degreasers under carefully controlled conditions of temperature, humidity,
airflow and barometric pressure.  An increase in freeboard ratio from 50 to 100
percent resulted in a 50 percent reduction in solvent consumption. With the addition
of a freeboard chiller, an additional reduction  of 44 percent was achieved at  a
freeboard ratio of 100 percent. Use of machine covers resulted in solvent loss
reductions of 40-60 percent for nonboiling and boiling operation respectively. Other
studies conducted in the 1970's and 1980's have confirmed the results obtained in the
1980  EPA study.**

C.    SCOPE
      The scope of the project included baseline degreaser measurements, effects of
ventilation patterns on solvent loss/worker exposure, and a series of physical
modifications to the degreaser system, such as reducing exhaust fan speed,
increasing freeboard  area, and installing a freeboard chiller. The physical
modifications were designed to systematically reduce solvent consumption at
increasing cost levels.
      Solvent loss and worker exposure measurements were taken during each test.
A portable infrared analyzer (Miran 1 A) and charcoal tubes were used for the solvent
loss/exposure measurements.  Various other ancillary parameters such as exhaust
duct air flow, atmospheric pressure, degreaser temperature, and solvent level were
measured during each test. Both winter and summer operating conditions were
tested.
      Section 2 of this report provides an overview of the test program by presenting
the degreaser and site description, a discussion of the conservation options studied,
the industrial hygiene targets for worker exposure, and the project schedule.

-------
      Section 3 presents the sampling and analysis procedures utilized during the
study, including descriptions of all sampling equipment, sampling procedures, and
quality assurance (QA) objectives.
      Section 4 presents the study results by describing the tests performed in
chronological order over the 5-month test period; a technical/economic evaluation of
each test option is also presented, as well as the industrial hygiene implications of
each test option.
      Section 5 provides conclusions and recommendations.  Appendices include the
various test logs accumulated throughout the project, selected photographs of the
degreaser and test equipment, and QA summaries for charcoal tube data.

      The results of this report can be utilized by a wide audience of users who
operate  older vapor degreasers which are not equipped with the types of solvent use
minimization devices investigated in this study.  The tests were conducted under
actual operating conditions and the results reflect the variability inherent in the
operation of any vapor degreaser.  Users of this document can determine 1) the
importance of proper control of ventilation patterns to reduce cross drafts, 2)
monitoring techniques necessary to document changes in operator breathing zone
concentrations,  3) changes in breathing zone and area concentrations as a function of
physical modifications to the degreaser, and 4) reductions in solvent usage as a
function of the various options tested.

-------
                                  SECTION II
                           OVERVIEW OF TEST PROGRAM

A.    SITE/DEGREASER DESCRIPTION
      The vapor degreaser studied during this project Is located at WPAFB
Area B, Building 5 (Figure 1).  Although the degreaser 1s located in Its own
room, 1t was subject at the start of this study to significant cross drafts
across its open top because the degreaser room is under negative pressure.
Next to the degreaser room 1s a plating shop with a large centrifugal fan that
exhausts all of the hoods over the plating baths.  This fan causes a negative
pressure differential in the degreaser room.  Other activities in Building 5
also affect degreaser emissions; these activities are discussed in Section 4.
      The degreaser was manufactured by Phillips Manufacturing Co., Chicago,
Illinois, and has been in operation since 1979.  The solvent originally used
in the degreaser was trichloroethylene (TCE).  The company switched to TCA
3 years ago because of worker exposure concerns.  About 95 percent of the
parts degreased are aluminum.  Parts are degreased both manually and (for
larger parts) with the aid of an overhead hoist and conveyor located 4 feet
above the top of the degreaser.  Following are pertinent degreaser specifica-
tions:
            Model:  Phillips T156S
            Solvent:  1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)
            Solvent use rate:  100 drums/year
            Total dimensions:  L • 180 inches, W « 30 Inches, H » 96 Inches
            Working dimensions:  L « 156 inches, W « 24 inches, H - 96 inches
            Basket height:  18 inches
            Conveyor height:  4 feet from hook top of degreaser
            Height to water jacket center!1ne:  78 inches
            Present freeboard ratio requirements:  75 percent
            Freeboard height (water jacket center line to top):  15 Inches
            OSHA permissible emission limits:  350 ppm (8-hour TWA), 450 ppm
            (STEL)
      o     Present breathing zone level:  10 ppm
      1.    Description of Operation
            The vapor degreaser operates on the same principle as all vapor
degreasers:  steam coils located at the bottom of the sump heat the TCA

-------
    CONDENSER
    30 in. x 36 in.
      LIP VENT
    24 in.WORKING
        WIDTH

        MEN'S
     RESTROOM
      18 in. DUCT-
                       FOUNDRY
DEGREASER
   ROOM
     STORAGE
       ROOM
                                           PLATING
                                            SHOP
      Sampling Locations
0 Lip vent exhaust duct

0 Degreaser midpoint—operator's
   breathing zone height

0 Operator—breathing zone
               SCALE
                 iff
                 10
                FEET
15
20
 Figure 1.  Overview of Buildina 5 project area showing Degreaser Room
          and sampling locations.

-------
contained 1n the main tank.  The solvent bolls and generates vapors used to
clean the aluminum parts.  The height of the vapors 1s controlled by the water
jacket located along three sides of the main tank and the condenser coils
located only in the auxiliary tank, not around the entire main tank perimeter.
The water jacket helps to maintain a vapor line by not allowing the freeboard
walls to transfer heat from the hotter wall surface below the freeboard.
Solvent and moisture condensed on the coils fall onto a stainless steel  pan
that drains to an end trough.  The outlet flow from this trough empties  into a >
solvent/water separator.  The heavier solvent is returned to the auxiliary
tank and the lighter water evaporates or overflows through a relief tube if
the level 1s high enough.
            The freeboard section of the degreaser is measured from the  top of
the vapor line (about three-quarters of the height of the water jacket)  to the
lip of the suction vent.  This freeboard area 1s designed to permit drying of
parts before they are lifted out of the degreaser and to minimize vapor  dis-
turbance from air movement.  Freeboard ratio 1s defined as the distance  from
the top of the vapor line to the lip suction vent (freeboard) divided by the
width across the open top of the degreaser.
            Lip suction vents located on each side of the degreaser keep sol-
vent vapors away from workers by exhausting them to a stack located at one end
of the degreaser.  The freeboard ratio was Increased to 75 percent 3 years ago
by extending the lip suction vent out about 6 inches along the side of the de-
greaser closest to the exhaust stack.  This was done in response to a local
air pollution control agency request.
            The main degreaser chamber holds up to 150 gallons of solvent, and
capacity of the auxiliary condenser chamber 1s 250 gallons.  In normal
operation, the solvent in both chambers is balanced and only 250 gallons is
utilized.  The auxiliary chamber 1s located under the condensing colls on the
opposite end of the stack and does not have a lip suction vent.  Safety  fea-
tures on the degreaser include low solvent level/steam shut-off, water jacket
circulation/steam shut-off, solvent temperature/steam shut-off, and exhaust
airflow/steam shutoff.
            It is estimated that about 100 drums per year of solvent are used
in the degreaser.  Less than one drum (55 gallons) of waste solvent is shipped
out each year.  The rest 1s lost In evaporation and dragout.
                                       6

-------
      2.    Degreaser Deficiencies
            A number of deficiencies were noted  in  the  operation  of the  de-
greaser during the course of the project.  The most Important  was that the
water/ solvent separator was not functioning properly.   This occurred because
there was no cooling loop installed in the separator to decrease  the sol-
vent/water mixture temperature to about 155*F to allow  the  separation of sol-
vent and water to occur.  A new water/solvent separator was installed by Ul-
tralkool during the latter part of the project.
            In addition, the drain pan under the condenser  coils  was missing.
This meant that onty the solvent/water mixture condensed from  the coils
located over the top of the end drain trough (less  than 10  percent of total)
was being routed through the water/solvent separator.  The  remaining solvent/
water mixture (greater than 90 percent) was draining directly  back into  the
auxiliary sump.  A new drain pan was purchased by PEI and Installed by WPAFB
during the latter part of the project.
            The third mechanical problem noted is the presence of vapor  leaks
around the sight glass and a number of other pipe entrances Into  the degreas-
er.  These leaks were suspected and verified during the latter part of the
tests.  The leaks were left as is, and thus contribute  to the  breathing  zone
concentrations.
B.    BASELINE TESTING AND WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS
      The individual reconfigurations that were  evaluated during  this study
are as follows:
      o     Baseline testing (including worker operating practice observations
            and qualitative airflow study)
      o     Modification of area ventilation (roof fan  and  temporary curtains)
      •     Reduction of vent suction
      •     Cessation of induced-draft fan use
      «     Increase in freeboard height
      •     Installation of secondary strap-on chiller

-------
      These Items are presented in the order 1n which they were evaluated,  and
represent a progressive increase in complexity and cost.  A description of the
rationale behind each of these options is presented in the following para-
graphs.
      1.    Baseline Testing
            The baseline testing consisted of measuring the stack and area
concentrations of TCA with the system operating "as is."  In addition, worker
operating practices were videotaped and studied to determine how they might
affect solvent loss through the exhaust stack and worker exposure.  Video-
taping was continued during most of the tests.
            A qualitative airflow study of the air currents in the degreaser
room was conducted.  Ventilation smoke tubes were used to visualize the air
currents over the degreaser with the existing ceiling-mounted axial-flow fan
on.  Capture velocity at the lip vents and air velocity in the stack were
measured.  Static pressure was measured to determine whether the degreaser
room was under positive or negative pressure.
      2.    Modify Area Ventilation
            The results of the baseline testing in February 1990 indicated
that there was not a significant cross-draft problem in the degreaser room.
Thus, temporary curtains were not installed to isolate the degreaser room from
cross draft.  Later, during the test period in April, test results Indicated
that ventislation patterns had changed (presumably due to seasonal effects),
and curtains were installed in the doorway leading out of the degreaser room.
Plastic sheeting was also installed above the curtains, and air passages into
the room at higher elevations were sealed to further Isolate the degreaser
room and reduce cross drafts.  Other modifications to operating procedures  in
Building 5 were also necessary to reduce cross drafts and are discussed In
Section IV of this report.
      3.    Reduction of Lip Vent Suction
            This simple modification lowered collection velocity by decreasing
the speed of the induced-draft fan that exhausts the solvent vapors to the
atmosphere.  This was done by substituting a larger pulley on the fly wheel
                                      8

-------
and decreasing the motor pulley diameter.   Otherwise,  the  system was  left  "as
1s" to measure solvent emissions and worker exposure.
      4.    Cessation of Induced-Draft Fan Use
            For this option, the Induced-draft fan was turned completely off
and the system left "as 1s" to measure solvent emissions and worker exposure.
      5.    Increase in Freeboard Height
            This option resulted in an increase In existing freeboard from 15
to 24 Inches through the installation of a 9-in.  20-gauge  metal  extension
mounted directly on top of the existing Up suction vent (see Appendix C).
This resulted in a freeboard ratio of approximately 100 percent.  A movable
flap was Installed on one side of the freeboard extension  so that workers
could more easily insert and remove parts.  A temporary 6-inch step was also
installed in front of the degreaser so that parts could be Inserted easily
without lowering the movable flap.
      6.    Use of Freeboard Chiller
            A freeboard chiller was purchased at a heavily discounted price of
$6000 for research purposes.  The chiller was supplied and installed  by Ultra
Kool, Inc., Gilbertsville, Pennsylvania.  The freeboard chiller consisted  of
copper-finned nickel-plated refrigeration lines placed around the Inside pe-
rimeter of the main degreasing chamber, directly above the water jacket.  The
chiller operates at sub-zero refrigerant temperature (-20*F), and creates  a
cold-air blanket that settles on the top of the solvent vapor zone.  The cold-
air blanket Intercepts the rising heated solvent fumes, suppressing the
evaporation, Increasing the saturation level of the solvent vapors, and caus-
ing the fumes to form droplets and fall back Into the sump.
            The temperature of the cold-air blanket 1s kept at about  115'F
below the boiling point of the TCA (165*F), at about 50*F.  Parts being
degreased will not disturb the blanket enough to disrupt the vapor zone, pro-
vided they are properly Inserted into and extracted from the degreaser.
            Solvent fumes and some moisture will  condense on the cold coils of
the chiller.  Once each hour, the refrigeration cycle 1s reversed for several
minutes and warm gas flows through the refrigerant tubes to melt the  condensed
frost on the coils.  The liquid solvent/water mixture falls Into a trough

-------
below each coll and flows to the end of the degreaser and onto the drip pan
for the condenser colls 1n the auxiliary tank.  This mixture is then routed
through the solvent/water separator.
C.    INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE TARGETS
      The operator breathing zone concentration targets for the study origi-
nated with OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) and action levels (i.e.,
50 percent of the OSHA PELs) for TCA.  For this study, however, the target
breathing zone targets were based on the United States Air Force (USAF)
engineering control limit, which is 25 percent of the OSHA action level.
These limits for TCA are as follows:

                                     OSHA action       Study  target
                OSHA  PEL              limit, ppm        limit, ppmc
            350 ppm -  8-h  TWA"          175 ppm            43  ppm        •
             450 ppm - STEL            225 ppm            56  ppm

            a 8-h time-weighted average expressed in parts per mi 11 on (ppm).
              15-minute short-term exposure limit.
            c USAF engineering control limit.
Thus, the goal of the study was to keep the average area and personal breath-
ing zone concentrations of TCA at or below 43 ppm (8-h TWA) and 56 ppm (STEL),
while decreasing solvent consumption as much as possible.
D.    PROJECT SCHEDULE
      Testing of various options was classified as winter or summer depending
on the month it was conducted.  The winter set of tests began in February
1990, when baseline reduced fan speed, and fan-off tests were completed.
Additional operation of the degreaser from mid-March to early April was
monitored periodically, but no formal testing was conducted.  After Instal-
lation of the additional freeboard height (9 Inches) In mid-April, a test with
the new freeboard was conducted to complete the winter tests.
      The freeboard chiller was Installed 1n late April.  A failed test of the
chiller immediately after Its Installation and a second failed test in May
because the steam supply was shut down delayed the summer set of tests until
                                      10

-------
the last day of May; testing continued Into the second week In June.   These
tests Include:  chiller with freeboard extension,  freeboard extension only,
chiller without freeboard extension,  reduced fan speed, and baseline.
      A final test of all options in  one day was conducted on 8 June.  The
degreaser was then set up to run with the fan off and the secondary chiller
operating with the freeboard extension to test the Impact or solvent use over
at least one month of operation.
      Figure 2 summarizes the schedule followed for testing the various TCA
emission minimization options.
                                      11

-------
tNJ
                                                                  Week Beginning
      Winter Tests
       • Baseline
       • Reduced Lip Vent
         Suction8
       • Fan Off
       • Freeboard Extension
       • Chiller + Freeboard Extension
Summer Tests
   Chiller + Freeboard Extension
   Freeboard Extension
   Chiller Only
   Reduced Lip Vent Suction
   Baseline
   All Options • Single Day Test
        a Dashed line represents periodic checks
        b Failed test
                                  Figure 2. Summary of Schedule for Vapor Degreaser.

-------
                                 SECTION III
                      SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

A.    SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
      Three types of data were collected for this study:  continuous real-time
measurement of TCA, full-shift charcoal  tube air samples,  and gas bag samples
(full shift and STEL).  In addition, various Instruments were used to perform
system measurement during the test periods.   A brief description of the types
of equipment used and their testing configurations Is presented in the fol-
lowing subsections.
      1.    Real-Time Measurement
            A Miran 1A™ General  Purpose Gas Analyzer was used to measure the
real-time concentration of TCA at the degreaser during each test event.  The
Miran 1A is a single-beam, portable Infrared spectrometer with a variable
path-length gas cell.  The analyzer consists of a radiation source, a mirror
system, a pyroelectric detector, a meter that provides absorbance and percent-
transmission scales, and a 0- to 1-volt output for a strip-chart recorder.
Data from the Miran were continuously logged on a strip-chart recorder and
stored on a Foxboro DL-332F Datalogger™.  The  DL-332F  1s a microcomputer-
based single-channel data logger which measures analog voltages supplied by
the Miran 1A, computes statistics based on programmed Input parameters, and
stores up to 3180 values.  Metrosonics MS-931F LoggerSoft™ software  Inter-
faced with the Datalogger to create a database for the real-time measurements.
      2.    Full-Shift Air Sampling
            Sorbent tubes containing activated charcoal were used to collect
full-shift (8-hour) air samples.  Quadruple-head sorbent tube holders (SKC No.
224-26-04) were used to collect four air samples simultaneously at each
sampling location.  Large charcoal tubes containing a 400-milligram front
section and 200-milligram backup charcoal sections were used to sample air
streams containing 300 to 400 ppm of TCA.  Small charcoal tubes containing
100-milligram front/50-milligram backup charcoal sections were used to sample
air streams of 1 to 100 ppm TCA.  DuPont Alpha 1™  and  P4LC™ constant-flow
air-sampling pumps collected the air for the sorbent tubes at a rate of
                                      13

-------
approximately 0.06 liter per minute (Lpm) per tube.  Sampling pumps were cali-
brated before and after the shift with a primary standard for air flow
calibration, a Gilibrator™ manufactured  by  Gilian  Corporation.
      When sampling was completed, the charcoal tube samples were stored at
40*F until they were analyzed by International Technology Analytical Services
(ITAS) in Cincinnati.  The charcoal tubes were desorbed 1n carbon disulfide
and analyzed by gas chromatography and flame ionization detection, in
accordance with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Method 1003 for halogenated hydrocarbons (revision 1:  8/15/87).  Certificates
of Analysis for the sorbent tube samples are included in Appendix A for refer-
ence .
      3.    Short-Term Exposure-Limit Sampling
      DuPont Alpha 1 air samplers configured in the bag-filling mode were used
to collect gas bag samples for STEL determinations.  Filling rates for 25-
liter TedlarR bags (SKC No. 232-15) were 0.04 Lpm for full-shift .samples and
1.6 Lpm for 15-minute STEL determinations.  The bags were purged prior to use
with ultra-zero air.  At the end of the work shift, the bag samples were read
out on the MirarvlA to determine the concentration of TCA for the period
sampled.
      4.    System Measurement
            Several instruments were used to periodically check system per-
formance during each solvent loss reduction test.  A Kurz Model 441™ Air Ve-
locity Meter was used to determine the airflow rate at the lip vent and in the
exhaust stack.  Ventilation smoke tubes (MSA No. 458481) were used to
characterize general area airflow patterns,  vapor-blanket stability inside the
degreaser, and airflow Into the degreaser room and the degreaser Itself.  A
digital multimeter manufactured by Extech Instruments was used to record the
temperature and relative humidity in the degreaser room, as well as the vapor
temperature and mid-line chiller temperature inside the degreaser tank.
Finally, a Neotronics EPM201 pressure meter was used to measure the static
pressure differential between the plating shop and outside Building 5.
Records of the system measurements are included In Appendix B.
                                      14

-------
B.    SAMPLING PROCEDURES
      1.    Stack Measurement
            The exhaust stack of the degreaser lip vent was sampled to
estimate the pounds/day solvent loss through the ventilation system in con-
figurations that required use of the induced draft fan, I.e.,  during baseline
testing and reduced fan operation.   Multiple charcoal  tube samples in the
stack provided an 8- to 9-hour time-weighted average concentration of TCA
exhausted during degreaser operation.  Continuous (air stream) sample extrac-
tion analyzed by the Mi ran 1A provided a real-time TCA concentration that was
averaged by the Datalogger™  for the  testing period.  The degreaser ventila-
tion stack was sampled with charcoal tubes at four points located equidistant
along the circumference of the exhaust stack (at 90* relative to one another).
The charcoal tubes were positioned in a vertical attitude to prevent chan-
neling of TCA around the charcoal;  4-inch lengths of plastic tubing were taped
Into the exhaust stack and positioned horizontally, or perpendicular to the
air flow, inside the exhaust stack to sample the air stream.  The Miran samp-
ling port was located below charcoal tube sampling points on the exhaust duct.
Photographs that show the relative positions of the Miran and charcoal tube
stack samples are presented in Appendix C.
      2.    Degreaser Midpoint Measurement
            Air samples located at a worker's breathing zone height beside the
degreaser were collected throughout the day (including lunchtime and breaks)
to estimate the worst-case exposure for the degreaser  operator.  Charcoal
tubes and sampling hoses (i.e., Miran and STEL bag-filling hoses) were posi-
tioned at the degreaser midpoint at a height of 5 feet (1.5 meters) above the
floor level [approximately 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) above the lip vent of the
degreaser tank] on a post that was placed at the same  point throughout the
study.  Three types of samples were collected at the degreaser midpoint: full-
shift charcoal tubes (4), a full-shift Tedlar  25-liter bag sample, and two  to
four 15-minute STEL samples, also collected in Tedlar   bags.
      3.    Breathing Zone Measurements
            The degreaser operator wore personal air samplers in his breathing
zone for the duration of the work shift.  One sampling manifold with four

                                      15

-------
charcoal tubes was clipped to the shirt collar, and the hose for the bag-
filling STEL sample (when being collected) was placed as close as possible to
the operator's chin.  The full-shift charcoal tube samples were turned off
during lunch, typically between 1100 and 1200 hours.
      4.    System and Environmental Measurements
            System performance and environmental conditions were evaluated by
measuring several key parameters, Including room and degreaser temperatures,
room static pressure, and exhaust ventilation rate (when the fan was opera-
ting).  For all tests involving the ID fan, capture velocity along the lip
suction vent and air velocity in the annular exhaust or duct were measured
using a thermal anemometer.  Twenty air velocity measurements were made at
multiple traverse points in centers of equal annular area in the exhaust duct.
The arithmetic average of the 20 velocity measurements was converted into a
volumetric air flow rate (cubic feet per minute) using the duct cross-
sectional area.  In addition, 50 traverse points were measured at the center-
line (25 along each side) of the lip suction vent, averaged and converted into
volumetric flow rate.  For reasons that could not be determined, the flow rate
calculated from the average duct velocity was always greater than that deter-
mined by measurements at the lip suction vent (consistently about 20 percent
higher).  However, system in-leakage most likely accounts for the difference
between the calculated flow rates.  A digital electronic multimeter was used
to measure degreaser room temperature and relative humidity, chiller mid-line
temperature, and degreaser vapor temperature.  Static pressure differential
between the degreaser room and ambient outdoor pressure was measured with a
digital pressure meter (Neotronics EPH201).
      5.    Solvent Use Measurements
            A record of solvent use maintained by the degreaser operator
dating back to 1986 was consulted to determine average annual consumption of
TCA.  Reportedly, the degreaser uses 120 to 150 drums of solvent per year;
however, the degreaser operator's record for previous years indicated approxi-
mately 95 drums per year were used.  Solvent use differed greatly in some
periods on this record when comparison was made between similar months in
consecutive years.  For example, in the 3-month period October-to-November

                                      16

-------
1988, 23 drums were used;  for the same period in  1989,  only  9  drums  were  used.
These Inconsistencies imply under-reporting on the solvent use record-the
workers may have forgotten to enter the solvent data.   Other possibilities
exist: the degreaser may have been used infrequently due to  budgetary con-
straints or the work in-house predominantly did not require  part  degreasing
during this period.
            For this study, the solvent level 1n  the degreaser was considered
a variable that could potentially affect degreaser emissions and, therefore,
was maintained at approximately the same level for each set  of measurements.
Sight glass on the side of the degreaser Indicates the solvent level in the
main tank; however, the level indicated fluctuates depending on the  tempera-
ture of the solvent in the degreaser as well as in the sight glass.   The sol-
vent level was marked on the sight glass during the baseline test in February
1990 and checked during each test.  The solvent level  was best controlled by
filling the tank up to a protective metal screen  that  covers the steam coils
Inside the main solvent tank.
      6.    QA Objectives
            a.    Mi ran 1A Analyzer
                  The Mi ran portable analyzer was operated  in  accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions.  The sampling team calibrated the unit before
and after each work shift for the majority of the experiment.   During the last
series of tests in early June, the Miran ran continuously and  required only
periodic zero adjustment for electronic drift.  Each time the  Miran  was zero-
adjusted, the team made a single mid-range Injection to check  calibration fit.
Calibration curves and continuous data were logged on  a strip-chart  recorder
to compare readings with calibration points, detect periodic shifts  in base-
line readings, and serve as a backup to the DL332F Datalogger™.
                  Tedlar  bag samples were prepared at known concentrations to
test/verify the bag sampling method.  Samples were prepared  by direct micro-
liter injection of liquid TCA Into the bag and dilution with ultra-zero (hy-
drocarbon and particulate-free) air to a known volume  using  constant-flow air
sampling pumps.  Samples prepared In this manner typically  read 20 percent
                                      17

-------
below their theoretical concentration.  A similar effect was seen with com-
parison of the real-time data with charcoal tube results.  Possible reasons
for this will be discussed at the end of this section.
            b.    Charcoal tube samples
                  Four charcoal tubes were collected simultaneously at each
sampling location.  Each tube on the sampling manifold was calibrated before
and after the work shift to determine the average flow rate or verify that the
flow was consistent (I.e., + 5%) for the sampling pump.  Start and stop times
were logged on a sampling data sheet.  Comments pertaining to sampling anoma-
lies, if any, were also logged on the data sheet.  Calculations for air sample
volume and TCA concentrations were checked by a second person.
                  Desorption efficiency of the charcoal tube analytical method
was studied independently from the sampling tests.  Several charcoal tubes
from each size and lot used in the study were analyzed after spiking the tubes
with known amounts of TCA.  Analyst-injected spikes and "blind" spikes
(prepared by the laboratory QA officer) were prepared and analyzed in addition
to routine method blanks.  Based on the results of this study, 100 percent
desorption efficiency was assumed for all subsequent analyses and
calculations.  Analyst spikes were periodically prepared during the study to
verify desorption efficiency.  Laboratory reports for the desorption
efficiency study (work Order XO-02-140 reported 28 February 1990) are included
in Appendix A.
            c.    Discrepancies
                  A discrepancy between the Miran data and the charcoal tube
data was noted at the completion of the study; the Mi ran data were consis-
tently 10-25 percent lower than charcoal tube readings throughout the study.
Despite the difference in absolute values, the two sets of data have a cor-
relation coefficient of 0.98. This discrepancy cannot be attributed to equip-
ment used for the study because the effect can be seen from the start of the
study to finish despite the fact that two Miran 1A analyzers, two sets of
syringes, and three calibration curves were utilized.  This fact should have
eliminated systematic equipment error, and control for systematic bias due to
setup parameters for the machine.

                                      18

-------
                                                B
                  A series of analyses of Tedlar  bags prepared at known con-
centrations was performed to determine the cause for the discrepancy.   Two
sources of systematic error were Identified:  pressure differential 1n  the
M1ran cell and Injection error when using micro!iter syringes.   Two sets of
Tedlar bags were prepared at 51.5 ppm TCA, with different syringes, and one
set of three Tedlar bags was prepared at 309  ppm.  No significant difference
in results was noted between the two sets of  low concentration  samples (i.e.,
no effect from different syringes).
                  Reportedly, static pressure inside the Miran  infrared cell
1s critical to accurate measurement of ambient chemical concentrations in the
workplace.  When the Miran 1s calibrated in a closed-loop configuration, the
cell is near ambient pressure due to the balanced flow (cell  inlet and outlet
pressure) afforded by the external pump.  However, when the analyzer was used
to measure workplace concentrations, the external pump was placed on the cell
outlet and 25 feet of polyethylene tubing was placed before the cell inlet.
The Miran was operated in a remote location and the tubing was  run to  the
degreaser to sample the ambient air (at atmospheric pressure).   Negative pres-
sure inside the Mir^n resulted from the sampling configuration  used.  Because
the sampled air was at reduced pressure inside the Miran cell,  the molar
volume of ths gas was smaller, transmittance  to the Miran detector was greater
and the resulting real-time concentration readings were lower.   This sampling
anomaly could account for a large portion of  the difference between charcoal
tube and real-time Miran data.
                  After the study was completed it was observed that,  typical-
ly, residual solvent in the syringe needles was injected with the measured
amount of TCA during closed-loop calibration  injections.  An additional 0.05
to 0.15 ML was injected Into the Miran at each calibration point.  Based on
injection volumes of 2.4 pL, this Injection error would produce 2 to 6 percent
systematic bias in the calibration curve, causing the calibration points to be
higher than calculated; field samples analyzed against this calibration curve
would have read lower than actual.
                  Other systematic error, such as adsorption of TCA onto the
Tedlar" of the sample bags (and others as yet undetermined),  may have  caused
cumulative error that biased sampling results of the Miran 1A™.   Because

                                      19

-------
systematic bias 1n the Miran data has been identified, charcoal tube data have
been the primary source for solvent loss reduction calculations in this
report.  This 1s the most prudent choice for reliable data because the
charcoal tube samples were collected and analyzed by a standard NIOSH method
that has been previously field-validated.
                                      20

-------
                                  SECTION IV
                                STUDY RESULTS

A.    OVERVIEW OF TESTING SERIES
      Measurements were made in an Initial  series of four tests during the
winter and spring from February to May 1990.  All solvent vapor control
evaluations were successfully completed except for the last option,  freeboard
extension with secondary chiller.   This test had failed twice because of
changes in onsite conditions (primarily airflow patterns) and loss of steam
supply in the Plating Shop.  The first four options completed compared well in
terms of anticipated decreases of solvent loss.  Stack concentrations between
baseline and reduced fan speed were statistically different in the first
series of tests but not in the second series, and breathing zone concentra-
tions between "fan-off" and freeboard extension differed significantly.
      After considering the results of the first series of tests, seasonal
variability indicated in records of solvent use and inherent day-to-day and
week-to-week variability of the degreasing process, it was decided that the
series of tests—all options—should be repeated within a short time span
(i.e., one week) to eliminate seasonal and week-to-week variability.  Four
full-shift tests were completed in early summer from 31 May to 5 June 1990.  A
repeat test of "fan-off without freeboard extension was not performed in
light of the unacceptable worker exposures monitored in the first series.
Finally, to eliminate day-to-day variability, a third series of tests was
performed during a single shift (90 minutes per test option) 8 June 1990.
      In the second (full-shift) series of tests, a control option not pre-
viously shown in the work plan was evaluated: secondary chiller operation
without freeboard extension.  This test was performed because future operation
of the degreaser in this configuration was likely.  The degreaser operators
proposed eliminating the freeboard extension because it reduced clearance
between the tank and overhead hoist, which limited access for parts, and
required the use of a platform (and bending further over) to hang or recover
parts Inside the degreaser.  Evaluation of degreaser operation with the
secondary chiller in operation and without the freeboard extension was tested
on 6 June 1990.
                                      21

-------
      Data summary tables for the project tests are presented in the following
subsections.  Data are organized In three sections according to the source/-
collection point for the data, I.e., exhaust duct, degreaser midpoint, or
degreaser operator.  Average concentrations in parts per million (ppm) TCA are
presented for the monitored periods.  With the exceptions of overnight and
STEL data, the monitoring results represent 8- to 9-hour samples collected
over the duration of the work shift, typically from 0700 to 1000.  Operator
breathing zone (OBZ) personal samples started when the degreaser operator
entered the Plating Shop, stopped over lunch break, and terminated at the end
of the work shift.  No corrections were made to the OBZ data for zero exposure
periods (lunch and other unsampled portions of the work shift).  The STEL data
represent the average concentration of TCA for 15-mlnute periods of peak
activity.  Overnight data are averages for 14-hour periods, beginning approxi-
mately 1600 and ending at 0600 the following morning.
      1.    Initial Series of Tests (Winter Season)
            Before testing baseline conditions, the airflow currents in the
degreaser room were evaluated with ventilation smoke tubes and a thermal
anemometer to evaluate the effect of directional airflow near the degreaser on
the vapor-line stability inside the tank.  Strong directional airflow through
the double doors next to the degreaser room was identified as a potential
source of vapor-line disturbance.  When the double doors were closed, however,
cross-drafts in the degreaser room were eliminated.  As a result, the first
control option, Installation of temporary curtains in the degreaser doorway,
was bypassed.
            During this initial survey, the sight glass for the main solvent
holding tank was cleaned of deposits and marked at the solvent level present
during the baseline monitoring.  When TCA was added the following week, obser-
vations were made of the level attained when one 55-gallon drum was added.  In
general, the desired solvent level was attained by adding one 55-gallon drum
of TCA after the solvent reached the steam colls and the tank required fil-
ling.  After the tank was filled, the TCA was slightly below the protective
screen Inside the tank.  The solvent level 1n the tank during all subsequent
tests was maintained within 2 inches (25 gallons) of the baseline mark on the
sight glass.

                                      22

-------
            Baseline measurements of the air velocity at  the lip vent indi-
cated that the local exhaust system operated between 2442 and 2600 cubic feet
per minute.  For the second test, the lip vent suction was reduced by instal-
ling a I0-1nch pulley on the fan drive.   Reducing fan speed by 50 percent
lowered the actual cubic feet per minute exhausted by the system by only 30
percent.  Further reduction was achieved by decreasing the effective diameter
of the motor pulley; the sides of this pulley are Independent and can be
screwed together or apart to vary the pulley diameter. The final flow rate
achieved during the reduced fan speed test was approximately 1400 cubic feet
per minute, 56 percent of the baseline ventilation flow rate (44 percent
reduction).
            Table 1 presents results of the initial series of tests conducted
1n February and April 1990.  Charcoal tube results for the first two induced-
draft fan test arrived on the same date and confirmed what had been Indicated
by the Hiran 1A data: concentrations at the degreaser are slightly lower at
reduced lip vent suction.  It should be noted that the difference between the
baseline and reduced suction tests is statistically significant at the 90
percent confidence interval (alpha - 0.10).  When the induced draft fan was
turned off, TCA levels were significantly higher statistically, and exceeded
the TCA concentration limits for the study, 43 ppm TWA and 56 ppm STEL.
            Based on the results of the first three tests, It was decided to
operate the degreaser system with reduced lip vent suction to evaluate solvent
use for a one-month period.  (During this time, freeboard testing was put on
hold pending equipment procurement.)
            While the degreaser was in the reduced-lip-vent-suction configura-
tion, operating conditions were periodically checked to ensure that TCA levels
were within the project's engineering targets.  Periodic  checks were performed
on 13, 22, and 30 March and 13 April.  The TCA concentrations at the opera-
tor's breathing zone over 2-hour periods or during STEL sampling were typi-
cally between 10 and 25 ppm, levels slightly higher than  those measured during
the first two tests, but within the engineering targets for the project.
Interestingly, lip-vent-exhaust-duct TCA concentrations increased throughout
the month of March.  TCA duct concentrations averaged 260 ppm on 13 March, 440
ppm on 22 March, and 560 ppm on 30 March.  These observations verify the pre-
viously reported increase in solvent use experienced during summer months.
                                      23

-------
      TABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR INITIAL SERIES OF TESTS (FEB. TO MAY 1990)
SAMPLE TYPE/location
CHARCOAL TUBE SAMPLES
Lip Vent Exhaust Duct
Degreaser midpoint
Operator
MIRAN 1 A/REAL-TIMF DATA
Lip Vent Exhaust Duct - day shift
- overnight
Degreaser midpoint — day shift
- overnight
TEDLAR RAG SAMPLES
Full Shift - Degreaser midpoint
STELAverage - Degreaser midpoint
- Operator
STEL#1 - Degreaser
- Operator
STEL#2 - Degreaser
- Operator
STEL#3 - Degreaser
- Operator
STEL#4 - Degreaser
- Operator
Average Concentration (ppm) of 1,1,1-TCA with Control Option
2/9/90
Baseline
391.1
15.1
1.5
264.4
37.5
NS
NS
NS
17.1
5.2
15.7
5.7
21.0
3.7
14.5
6.3
NS
NS
2/21/90
Reduced lip
vent suction
329.5
11.4
1.4
242.4
39.4
NS
NS
9.2
8.5
<1.0
5.0
<1.0
17.5
<1.0
4.5
<1.0
7.0
1.6
2/22/90
Fan off
NS«
(fan off)
86.4
12.1
NS
NS
42.2
13.2
48.9
33.5
46.4
10.0
40.0
9.1
18.9
69.6
61.7
45.2
65.1
4/19/90
Freeboard
extension
NS
(fan off)
28.1
.4.8
NS
NS
13.5
11.7
45.5
43.2
27.7
71.5
41.2
31.9
17.2
26.2
24.8
NS
NS
"TT
"Not sampled.

-------
            Two days before the final periodic check,  the freeboard extension
was installed.  The exhaust duct concentration averaged 370 ppm with freeboard
extension in place and induced fan operating.
            Although TCA levels at the degreaser were  within engineering
limits overall for the fan operating at reduced speed, personal comfort was
adversely affected; operators also reported generally  stronger TCA odor around
the degreaser and frequent headaches.  In response to  employee concerns, the
fan was returned to its original setting at approximately 2400 cubic feet per
minute on 13 April 1990.
            The degreaser was tested with the third control option, increased
freeboard ratio, on 19 April 1990.  Again, the lip vent exhaust fan was turned
off during this test. Time-weighted average TCA levels at the degreaser mid-
point and the degreaser operator's breathing zone were well within the
engineering targets for the study and showed a marked  improvement over the
previous test option (fan off without freeboard extension).  Breathing-zone
TCA levels during the freeboard extension test, however, were higher than both
the baseline and reduced-fan tests and caused discomfort to the workers opera-
ting the degreaser.  Upon completion of the freeboard  test, the Induced-draft
fan was turned on and operated at reduced flow (1400 cfm) in conjunction with
the freeboard extension.  After a few days, however, the fan was not operated
at night because the freeboard covers were located above the lip unit, which
caused large amounts of solvent to be exhausted during the degreaser cool-down
period.
      2.    Second Series of Tests (Summer Season)
            Table 2 summarizes the five tests performed in late Hay and early
June 1990.  Contrary to the first series of tests, the test options using the
induced-draft fan, baseline, and reduced speed did not show a significant
statistical difference in the duct concentrations.  The breathing zone
results, however, confirmed observations made by the degreaser operators
during the periodic checks in March: levels were higher with the degreaser
operating at reduced lip vent suction.
            With the exhaust fan off, addition of the freeboard extension or
secondary chiller achieved ambient TCA levels that met or only slightly
exceeded the engineering targets for the study.  With both options (freeboard

                                      25

-------
     TABLE 2. DATA SUMMARY FOR SECOND SERIES OF TESTS (SUMMER TESTING)
SAMPLE TYPEIocation
CHARCOAL TURK SAMPLES
Lip Vent Exhaust Duct
Degreaser midpoint
Operator
MTRAN 1 A/REALTIME DATA
Lip Vent Exhaust Duct - day shift
- overnight
Degreaser midpoint - day shift
- overnight
TFPf i^ft BAG SAMFLJSS
Full Shift - Degreaser
STELAverage - Degreaser
- Operator
STELftl - Degreaser
- Operator
STEL#2 - Degreaser
- Operator
STEL#3 - Degreaser
- Operator
STEL#4 - Degreaser
- Operator
Average Concentration (ppm) of 1,1,1-TCA with Control Option
6/5/90
Baseline
347.4
21.3
0.4
279.1
NS
NS
NS
15.7
14.8
1.3
13.1
1.7
15.6
1.4
14.2
1.2
16.1
1.0
6/4/90
Reduce lip
vent suction
350.0
44.5
0.8
312.2
47.1
NS
NS
36.0
30.8
6.1
30.9
7.9
30.7
4.3
NS
NS
NS
NS
6/1/90
Freeboard
extension
NS«
(fan off)
39.7
3.3
NS
NS
43.0
NS
38.8
64.3
7.4
60.1
5.5
85.5
10.6
47.2
6.1
NS
NS
6/6/90
2° Chiller
w/o extension
NS
(fan off)
NAb
NA
NS
NS
45.6
25.7
412
43.4
5.7
43.2
4.4
43.5
6.9
NS
NS
NS
NS
5/31/90
2° Chiller
w/ extension
NS
(fan off)
32.0
4.0
NS
NS
29.2
NS
27.2
23.9
5.8
28.6
9.9
21.8
5.5
21.3
1.9
NS
NS
MM
aNot sampled.
bNot analyzed.

-------
extension in place and secondary chiller operating),  the degreaser performed
well within the engineering targets.   Operation in this mode effectively
reduced ambient levels of TCA by approximately 25 percent,  and the degreaser
operators reacted positively; no ill  effects were noted. As a result,  the
degreaser was left in this configuration after testing was  completed.   Solvent
usage has been closely monitored since that time.
            Overall, TCA levels in the breathing zone during the summer
testing were higher than levels measured during the winter  season.  This
effect was evident in comparison of baselines, reduced lip  vent suction, and
freeboard extension tests.  Degreasing activity was minimal during the April
freeboard test; therefore, the increase in ambient levels during the summer is
attributable to increased activity and to the  higher temperature in the
degreaser room.
            The extra test performed (secondary chiller without freeboard
extension) showed results similar to the freeboard extension test and above
the exposure limits for the study.  The degreaser operators complained of
discomfort when the unit was operated in this mode without  the freeboard
extension or lip vent suction.
            The summer testing was performed with temporary curtains in place
at the degreaser room threshold because of changes in the airflow patterns
around the degreaser.  Directional airflow caused by a draft entering the
Plating Shop above the double doors (see photograph C-9 in  Appendix C) dis-
turbed the vapor-line inside the degreaser tank during two  previous attempts
to test the secondary chiller with freeboard extension.  The TCA levels were
consistently above 70 ppm at the degreaser midpoint with the secondary chiller
and freeboard extension in place and lip vent suction shut  down.  In addition
to temporary curtains, polyethylene sheeting was secured above the curtains to
keep air from entering the degreaser room above the hoist.   With the temporary
curtains and polyethylene sheeting in place, the double doors next to the
degreaser room were left open to facilitate part movement.
            Ventilation in the Plating Shop was modified to lessen air- flow
through the double doors next to the degreaser room.   The Plating Shop con-
tains approximately 20 dip tanks equipped with local  exhaust ventilation
(LEV).  A large air-handling unit exhausts 25,000 cubic feet per minute to
maintain air flow for the LEV.  Slowing this fan to one-third speed reduced
                                      27

-------
the draft through the double doors and thereby Improved the effectiveness of
the temporary curtains.
            During an overnight test in the spring, elevated concentrations of
TCA were found below the floor grating beside the degreaser.  On the morning
of 27 April, the sampling tube for the degreaser midpoint detached from the 5-
foot high post and fell to the floor grating; the monitoring equipment
Immediately detected an Increase In TCA levels from 50 to 250 ppm.  levels 2
feet below the grating, beside the main tank sight glass, were 425 ppm when
Measured the next day.  Ultimately, the Mi ran was used to Identify sources
(leaks) 1n the outer case of the degreaser that caused the high TCA levels.
            It 1s believed that leaks in the tank below the grating and dif-
fusion through the breathing zone at the degreaser midpoint decreased sensi-
tivity of the measurements between each control option.  Essentially, ambient
levels of 10 to 20 ppm TCA in the degreaser room resulting from leaks made it
difficult to measure small changes In fugitive emissions from one test to the
next, particularly at breathing zone height near the degreaser midpoint.
Leaks could not be repaired for the study because of the heavy work load in
the shop at that time.
      3.    Consecutive Tests in an 8-Hour Period (8 June 1990)
            Table 3 presents a data summary of the consecutive testing per-
formed over an 8-hour work shift.  Unlike the first two series of tests, the
data collected on the same day showed a much smaller difference between each
option for samples collected at the degreaser midpoint.  Samples for the con-
secutive day had a standard deviation s • 2.8 ppm; for the other two series,
excluding the "extra" test, s - 14.9 ppm.  Also, average concentrations mea-
sured at the degreaser midpoint were lower overall in comparison with the
Miran data for the other two series of tests.  Despite the data's smaller
statistical variation (possibly caused by the short sampling time), the con-
secutive test data correlate well with data from the other sets In terms of
overall ranking of control options.  In terms of fugitive emissions at the
degreaser midpoint, secondary chiller with freeboard extension performed very
well, but not quite as effectively as the Induced draft fan tests.  Fugitive
emissions were highest for the freeboard test.  All four test options studied
                                      28

-------
                 TABLE 3.   DATA SUMMARY FOR CONSECUTIVE TESTING (JUNE 8,  1990)
Sample type/location
                                        Average concentration" (ppm) of 1,1,1-TCA with
                                        	Control  Option	
           Reduced lip    Freeboard
Baseline   vent suction    extension
Secondary chiller
  w/extenslon
MIRAN 1A/REAL-TIME DATA
Degreasers midpoint
TEDLAR BAG SAMPLES
Lip vent exhaust duct
Degreaser midpoint

20.0

240.8
16.0

21.5 26.9

360.6
20.7 22.6

23.4

-
19.6
a Results shown are 90-m1nute averages for each control option.

  Exhaust fan was turned off for these options.

-------
performed below the engineering targets for personal  exposure (43 ppm TWA and
56 ppm STEL).
            Concentrations in the lip vent exhaust duct between the baseline
and reduced-!1p-vent-suction tests were quite different.  During the reduced-
lip-vent-suction test, it was noted that excursions at the degreaser midpoint
(i.e., during part removal from the tank) did not occur when the Induced-draft
fan was in operation; excursions, or TCA spikes, were observed during both the
freeboard and secondary chiller tests.  Apparently, the draft into the lip
vent was very effective in capturing solvent because no deflection from
baseline was noted even when parts were rapidly pulled from the tank.
Unfortunately, the part-removal challenge was repeated numerous times, which
caused extremely high TCA levels in the lip vent exhaust duct.  For this
reason, the disparity in duct concentrations between the baseline and reduced-
fan-speed tests is considered art1 factual; TCA levels at the degreaser mid-
point, however, should not have been affected.
B.    INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE IMPLICATIONS OF WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS
      1.    Study Objectives
            The purpose of this study was to evaluate a range of engineering
options for controlling (reducing) emissions of TCA while, as a condition of
successful control, assuring that personal exposures to employees operating
the degreaser would be no more than the Air Force engineering control limit,
25 percent of the OSHA action level, or 12 percent of the permissible exposure
limit (PEL), (43 ppm 8-hour TWA and 56 ppm STEL).  Throughout the study,
levels of TCA were maintained at less than one-half the OSHA action level.
Samples collected overnight and in the lip vent exhaust duct served to esti-
mate the amount of solvent loss over a 24-hour period; they are not part of
this discussion.  In this section, measurements performed at the degreaser
operator's breathing zone (OBZ) and the degreaser midpoint (at 5 feet,
breathing zone height) will be used to evaluate Industrial hygiene
Implications.
                                      30

-------
      2.    Personal  Exposure Data
            Personal  exposure to TCA was determined by two methods:   charcoal
tube samples collected 1n the OBZ for the full  work shift, and Tedlar  bag
samples collected for STEL determinations.  None of the samples collected
exceeded the OSHA PEL or action level; In fact, only 2 of 60 personal samples,
both of which were STEL samples, exceeded the Air Force engineering  target
limits.  The TWA exposure (full shift) was typically less than 10 ppm; the
operator's TWA during the fan-off test (the only exposure over 10) was 12 ppm.
The degreaser operator's STEL exposures tended to be less than 10 ppm in all
but two of the tests performed--fan-off and the winter freeboard test.  The
STEL exposure during the fan-off test ranged from 20 to 70 ppm TCA.   During
the winter freeboard test, STEL exposure ranged from 15 to 45 ppm TCA.  Be-
cause of the potential for employee discomfort, neither test option  where
samples exceeded STEL engineering targets 1s considered a usable long-term
configuration at the Building 5 degreaser.
      3.    Degreaser Midpoint Data
            Samples collected at the degreaser midpoint represent the "worst-
case" exposure for the degreaser operators.  In all three series of  tests, the
baseline and secondary chiller with extension options met the TWA and STEL
engineering control targets for the study.  The reduced-!Ip-vent-suction test
failed during the summer series but was under the limits and performed very
well during the winter series.  The fan-off without freeboard extension
(winter test) failed; the TWA and STEL measurements were above 43 and 56 ppm,
respectively.  The summer tests with the freeboard extension and secondary
chiller without extension failed to meet the criteria.
      4.    Reducing Worker Exposure
            Employee exposure to TCA could be further reduced by 1)  repairing
leaks in the degreaser near the steam line entry and sight glass, 2) replacing
gaskets around the condenser unit, 3) examining work practices to ensure that
parts are being dried 1n the freeboard zone before removal from the  degreaser,
and 4) modifying the degreaser room general ventilation.  Measurements made in
April Indicate that TCA vapor leaking Into the pit causes high concentrations
below the floor grating.  A thermal draft beside the degreaser created by hot
                                      31

-------
steam lines pulls TCA through the workers' breathing zones when they are 1n
the room.  Repairing leaks around the steam lines,  the sight glass,  and the
condenser would eliminate a significant portion of current employee  exposure
to TCA.  Work practices should be examined to ensure that workers pause when
removing parts from the degreaser to allow sufficient time for parts to dry
before removal from the bath.  This minimizes drag-out of TCA during part
removal.  For evaluation of the effect of TCA drag-out, real-time measurements
of TCA peak concentrations were made at the degreaser midpoint during the
removal of parts.  Parts were held In the freeboard zone at four time
increments--0, 2, 5, and 10 seconds-- before removal from the degreaser.
Consistent reduction in solvent drag-out was noted  with each increase in time
spent in the freeboard zone.  The data are summarized here.
Free-
board
time, s
0
2
5
10

No. of
tests
4
12
7
6
Concentra-
tion range,
ppm TCA
39.6-146.0
9.9-181.0
20.8-95.7
18.5-50.2
Mean con-
centration,
ppm
73.6
54.3
42.1
32.3
Reduc-
tion,
percent
-
26
43
56
Incremental
difference,
percent
-
26
17
13
      Finally, modification of the degreaser room general  ventilation could
also reduce personal exposure.  Exhaust ventilation mounted on the south wall
of the degreaser room (using the existing induced-draft fan or a separate
exhaust fan) would pull air across the degreaser and dilute TCA emissions
above the unit.  Replacement (supply) air mounted on the north wall and
directed at the degreaser operator may reduce breathing zone concentrations of
TCA even further.  After system leaks are repaired, background concentration
of TCA in the degreaser room should be checked to determine the need for or
benefit from modifications to room ventilation.
                                      32

-------
C.    STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF MIRAN AND CHARCOAL TUBE TEST DATA
      1.    Mi ran 1A Real-Time Data
            For each TCA control option, a single estimated concentration was
obtained for each hour of sampling by calculating the arithmetic mean of the
individual minute-by-minute concentrations determined by the Mi ran lA/Data
Logger.  This provided one measurement for each 60-minute period of sampling.
A student's T-test was then performed on the hourly averages to determine
whether significant differences occurred when comparing different control
options and between seasons for each control option.  Only day-shift data were
used for statistical comparisons.  All statistical comparisons were performed
at the 0.10 significance level (90 percent confidence level).  A summary of
the results of these comparisons is presented in Table 4.  The data indicate
that the baseline and reduced fan duct concentrations are not significantly
different for both sets of tests.  With the exception of the summer free-
board/secondary chiller without freeboard extension comparison, all other com-
parisons of concentrations of TCA measured under differing control require-
ments are significantly different.  With the singular exception of the base-
line tests, all of the seasonal comparisons were significantly different.
      2.    Charcoal Tube Data
            Duplicate charcoal tube samples (usually four) from full-shift
daytime testing were compared in the same manner as the Miran 1A real-time
data discussed In the previous section.  The results of the charcoal tube data
matched all but two of the Miran 1A statistical analyses, I.e., charcoal tube
data Indicated that the 19 February baseline and 21 February reduced-lip vent
suction tests were significantly different and the 21 February and 4 June
reduced-!1p-vent suction tests were not significantly different.  Seasonal
effects between Identical tests (baseline, reduced-llp-vent-suction and free-
board-extension) were noted at higher degreaser midpoint levels of TCA, but
operator exposures were actually lower than for the winter tests.  Duct con-
centrations for baseline were lower in the summer, and summer/winter values
for reduced lip-vent suction were equal.
                                      33

-------
TABLE 4.  STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF MIRAN 1A MONITORING VALUES
'£
Control option
* 2/9 baseline - 2/21 reduced lip vent
suction
• 2/22 fan off - 4/19 freeboard
extension
• 6/5 baseline - 6/4 reduction lip vent
suction
* 2/9 baseline duct - 6/5 baseline duct
* 2/21 reduced lip vent suction (duct) - 6/4
reduced lip vent suction (duct)
• 4/19 freeboard extension (duct) -
6/1 freeboard extension
* Chiller with freeboard extension -
chiller without freeboard extension
* 6/1 freeboard extension - chiller with
freeboard extension
* 6/1 freeboard extension • secondary
chiller without freeboard extension
t*
t- value
0.59
4.28
1.45
0.95
2.16
4.37
6.22
1.91
0.79
Probability
level Significantly different at
(P) 0.1 significance level?
0.5611
0.0007
0.1684
0.3598
0.0472
0.0005
0.0001
0.0759
0.4394
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

-------
            Comparisons between different control  options (I.e.,  baseline vs.
reduced-!Ip-vent suction) showed opposite effects  for winter and  summer.   In
winter, the duct, degreaser mid-point,  and operator levels were lower for
reduced lip-vent suction than for the baseline.   In summer, reduced lip-vent-
suction duct concentrations were equal  to baseline, but degreaser mid-point
and operator levels were significantly higher than the baseline.   A summary of
the results of these comparisons 1s presented 1n Table 5.
D.    SOLVENT USE REDUCTION ESTIMATES
      Preliminary estimates of solvent use reductions attributable to each
control option tested were performed using a combination of measured solvent
concentrations in the duct and at the breathing  zone and monitored use of
solvent.  These data were used to calculate emission factors for  the baseline
and various control options.
      Baseline emission estimates were calculated  based on 1) measured duct
concentrations of TCA and estimated operating hours per year, and 2) ambient
emissions of TCA, which were derived by subtracting the amount of solvent loss
through the exhaust duct from total estimated yearly solvent usage.  A review
of solvent-use logs provided by WPAFB resulted in  the data shown  in Table 6.
Data for all years except 1988 are Incomplete.  An estimate of 100 drums per
year (or an average of two drums per week) was established as the baseline
solvent use for the present set of emission calculations.  The calculated
emission factors are presented in Table 7.  Duct and/or degreaser emissions
factors are presented in pounds per square foot per hour for baseline condi-
tions and all control options.  Overall and Incremental reductions In emis-
sions are also displayed.
      All degreaser ambient emission estimates other than the baseline
estimates in Table 8 are based on percentage differences between  charcoal tube
data for the various control options measured at the degreaser midpoint for
the summer tests (see Table 2).  Reduction in fan  speed resulted  1n an
estimated 35 percent lowering of total TCA emissions.  Turning off the fan
completely reduced total emissions by another 20 percent.  Addition of
Increased freeboard extension on the secondary chiller decreases  TCA emissions
by another 33 percent.  The combination of chiller and Increased  freeboard
decreased emissions by another 21 percent.  Overall, it is estimated that

                                      35

-------
TABLE 5.  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CHARCOAL TUBE SAMPLES
Comparison
2/9 Baseline - 2/21 reduced lip-vent suction
- Duct
- Degreaser midpoint
- Operator
2/22 Fan off • 4/19 freeboard extension
- Degreaser midpoint
- Operators
6/5 Baseline • 6/4 reduced lip-vent suction
- Duct
- Degreaser midpoint
- Operator
2/9 Baseline - 6/5 baseline
- Duct
- Degreaser midpoint
- Operator
2/21 Reduced lip-vent suction - 6/4 reduced lip
vent suction
- Duct
- Degreaser midpoint
• Operator
4/19 Freeboard extension - 6/1
freeboard extension
- Degreaser midpoint
- Operator
t- value

4.27
4.88
0.51

33.51
9.06

-0.10
14.68
16.70

2.67
6.52
110.62


-0.88
24.86
10.40


6.76
7.06
Prob-
ability
level Significantly different at
(P) 0.1 significance limit

0.005
0.005
0.627

<0.001
<0.001

0.921
<0.001
<0.001

0.37
<0.001
<0.001


0.415
<0.001
<0.001


<0.001
<0.001

Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Yes


No
Yes
Yes


Yes
Yes

-------
               TABLE  6.   SOLVENT CONSUMPTION IN  DRUMS BY MONTR FROM WPAFB RECORDS
CO
Year
Month 86
January
February
March


April

May
June
July
August
September 9
October 7
November 9
December 6
Total 31
Avg. /Mo. 7.75
87
6
10
5


4a

-
-
-
-
4a
10
6
5
50
6.25
88
6
6
10


5

6b
10
7
13
10
9
4
9
95
7.91
89
8
8 ,
9


.

-
15
13
14
6
3
3
3
82
8.2
90 Avg. Comments
6 6.5
7b 7.75
9 8.25 Only 2 drums used in last
two weeks with reduced fan
speed
9b'd 5 Used 6 drums in April 90,
for avg.
6b'd 6
3d 12.5 Excludes June '90
10
13.5
7.25
7.25
5.5
5.75
39
6.5
           Partial months.
           Tank cleaned.
           Solvent lost because of improper use of covers.
           Partial chiller operation.

-------
TABLE 7.  ESTIMATED EMISSION FACTORS FOR DEGRBA8ER BASELINE
        AND  CONTROL OPTIONS  (pounds/square  foot/hour)
Condition Duct
Baseline 0.60a
Reduced f an ( 60% ) 0.36
No fan
Freeboard extension (no
fan)
Chiller only (no fan)
Chiller/freeboard
extension (no fan)
Degreaser
0.09b
0.18C
0.36C
0.24C

0.24C
0.19C

Reduction from
Baseline
Total (percent)
0.69d
0.45
0.36
0.24

0.24
0.19C

.
35
47
65

65
72

Incremental
reductions
(percent)
.
35
20
33

33
21

  Direct measured concentrations in the exhaust duct.


  Derived by difference based on total annual solvent consumption.

£
  Based on differences in charcoal tube concentrations at the  degreaser.


  Corresponds to 2 drums/week of solvent use (average).


  Corresponds to 0.56 drums/week of solvent use (average).
                                                           (See Table 2.)

-------
                            TABLE 8.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DEGREASER CONTROL OPTIONS
<*»

Option
Reduced fan
Fan off

Chiller (fan off)

Freeboard
extension (fan
off)
Chiller +
freeboard exten-
sion (fan- off)
Based on solvent

Capital Annual Annual solvent
cost O&M savings cost savings, $a
500C l,000d 12,250
500C l,990d 7,000 -
(16,450)*
14,500 l,850d>1 10,500-
(22,750)
1,500 l,990d 10,500-
(22,750)

15,500 l,850dfi 12,950-
(25,200)

cost of $350/drum (55 gallons).

Payback,
years
<1 month
<1 month
(<1 month)
1.2
0.6
1 month
(<1 month)

1
(0.6)


Technical
applica-
bility
Good
Poor8

Good6

Good6


Excellent1'




Priority
rating
3
h

2

2


1



Recommended priority for permanent installation at WPAFB.
£
	 _ *_ 	 <»_j . 	 _•«* 	 -•__._ . 	 	 	 - f 	
	 «_*^_a_* 	 	
	 _•• ft 	 *_* 	
* 	 ^ 	 *_» _
         curtains  and plastic  sheeting  at  degreaser  room doorway).
         Savings from not having  to heat exhaust air to  70*F,  24 hours/day, 180 days/year at
         $2.50/million  British Thermal  Units  of natural  gas plus reduced or total elimination of
         fan horsepower at 5 cents/kilowatt-hour.
         Meets or  slightly exceeds engineering limits for breathing zone concentrations; reduced-fan-speed
         option, however, still results in significant solvent loss through the exhaust stack.
         Savings calculated from  original  baseline instead of  reduced-fan-speed option as baseline.
         Does not  meet  industrial hygiene  target limits  for breathing zone concentrations.
         Not recommended as a  solvent use  minimization option,  unless combined with freeboard
         extension and  chiller.
         Chiller electricity costs of $140/year are  more than  offset by savings in fan horsepower.
         Meets all engineering target limits  for breathing zone concentrations.

-------
operation with the chiller plus Increased freeboard option in conjunction with
no exhaust fan has lowered TCA emissions by about 72 percent from the baseline
condition.
      The 0.19-pound per square foot per hour estimate for the chiller/-
increased freeboard/no fan option corresponds to 0.56 drum/week of solvent
based on the estimated operating schedule of the degreaser.  Solvent consump-
tion was monitored with the degreaser operating under these conditions from 9
June to 14 September, 1990, and 5 drums of TCA were consumed.  This calculates
to 5 drums in 14 weeks or 0.4 drum/week.  This Indicates that the 72 percent
reduction estimate for the chiller/increased freeboard/no fan option is
conservative.
      Although solvent consumption has been verified only for the most
stringent set of control options, it would be a simple matter to run the
degreaser for 2 to 4 weeks under any other set(s) of operating conditions to
verify emission factor(s) contained in Table 7.
E.    TECHNICAL/ECONOMIC EVALUATION
      A technical economic evaluation of the various control options was
undertaken to compare their feasibility and cost-effectiveness.  The control
                »:
options evaluated were reduced fan speed, fan off, Increased freeboard with no
fan, chiller with fan off, and chiller with increased freeboard and fan off.
In Table 8, the comparison of capital and operating costs for each option with
the annual cost savings shows simple payback (years to recover the capital
investment), the applicability of each option based on Its ability to maintain
breathing zone concentrations below Industrial hygiene targets, and the
recommended priority for permanent Installation on the degreaser.  A baseline
capital cost of $500 was applied to all of the options to account for curtains
and plastic sheeting installed In the doorway of the degreaser room to reduce
cross drafts and stabilize air flow in the vapor zone.  Annual solvent cost
savings are shown at two levels:  1) from a reduced fan baseline (a conserva-
tive incremental savings level), and 2) from the original baseline (a best
case estimate of solvent savings).  Each control option is briefly discussed
below.
                                      40

-------
      1.    Reduced Fan Speed
            The reduced-fan-speed option has a negligible additional  capital
cost (new fan pulley) an estimated annual cost savings of $12,250 in  TCA.   An
additional savings of approximately $620 1s estimated from not having to heat
the ambient air being exhausted from the stack to 70*F for 6 months out of the
year.  Reduction 1n fan horsepower provides an additional $380 savings.
Payback for this option 1s less than 1 month.  All Industrial hygiene breath-
Ing zone targets are met; however, a significant portion of TCA 1s still ex-
hausted to the stack.  Therefore, this option has a low priority for  permanent
use on the degreaser.  The degreaser Is currently set to run on reduced fan
speed If such 1s needed to reduce breathing zone concentrations in case of an
emergency, and this configuration can stay "as is."
      2.    Fan-Off
            This option involves no additional capital tool or operating
costs, and it offers $16,450 in TCA savings per year, heat less savings of
$1500 and fan horsepower savings of $490.  Payback Is less than 1 month.  It
is not an acceptable option by Itself, however, because breathing zone con-
centrations of TCA are substantially above the industrial hygiene targets.
Therefore, it is recommended as an option only In conjunction with the free-
board and/or chiller options.
      3.    Chiller
            Capital cost to Install a freeboard chiller is an additional
$14,000.  Annual operating costs for electricity are only about $140/year, and
these are offset by the fan horsepower savings of $490.  Heat loss savings of
$1500 are also obtained.  The TCA savings will be $22,750, and payback will be
0.6 year.  Industrial hygiene targets are met or slightly exceeded, and this
modification is rated second only to the chlller-plus-freeboard-extenslon
option for permanent Installation.  Installation of the chiller requires about
3 days and can usually be done during shutdown for cleaning of the degreaser.
      4.    Freeboard Extension
            Fabricated locally, the freeboard extension was at an additional
capital cost of $1000.  The extension has a fold-down section to assist in

                                      41

-------
lowering difficult parts into the degreaser.  The extension Is also easy to
remove (requires only a few minutes).  Annual O&M costs are zero, and payback
is  achieved in less than 1 month, TCA savings being equivalent to the
chiller-only option, $22,750 plus $1500 In heat loss savings and $490 in power
to operate the fan.  The freeboard extension Is rated second only to the
chiller plus-freeboard-extension option in terms of permanent installation.
It meets all of the industrial hygiene breathing zone concentration targets.
      5.    Chiller Plus Freeboard Extension
            This option has the highest additional capital  cost ($15,000 with
annual operating costs of $140), which are offset by fan horsepower savings of
$490, that result in zero annual operation costs.  Heat loss savings of
$1500/yr are also obtained.  Solvent loss savings are the highest of all
options, $25,200.  The 0.6 year payback is excellent.  All  Industrial hygiene
targets are easily met, and this option has the highest recommendation for
permanent installation on the degreaser.  Operators using the degreaser with
this configuration expressed no complaints regarding TCA odors and have ob-
served an obvious decrease in solvent consumption.
                                      42

-------
                                  SECTION V

                       CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


      A review of the results of this study to reduce TCA solvent consumption

in the vapor degreaser at Wright Patterson Air Force Base Area B, Building 5,
has led to the following conclusions and recommendations:

A.    CONCLUSIONS

      1.    Option Effectiveness/Industrial  Hygiene Considerations

            *     All solvent loss-reduction-option tests controlled degreaser
                  operator personal  exposure below the Occupational Safety and
                  Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit
                  (PEL), 350 ppm as  an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), and
                  short-term exposure limit (STEL), 450 ppm during l5-m1nute
                  periods of peak activity.

            *     All test options control degreaser operator exposure to
                  levels that achieved (or slightly exceeded) the Air Force
                  engineering target levels (25 percent of OSHA action level)
                  of 43 ppm 8-hour TWA, and 56 ppm STEL.

                  All test options controlled worst-case personal exposure to
                  levels (at degreaser midpoint) below the OSHA PEL and STEL.

            •     Five test options controlled worst-case personal exposure to
                  levels (at degreaser midpoint) that achieved (or slightly
                  exceeded) the Air Force Engineering target levels: (1)
                  baseline, (2) reduced Up-vent suction, (3) fan off with
                  freeboard extension, (4) chiller without fan or freeboard
                  extension, and (5) secondary chiller with freeboard exten-
                  sion.

            *     One test option did not reduce worst-case personal exposure
                  to meet the A1r Force engineering target levels: fan-off
                  with existing freeboard.

            *     Two test options achieved acceptable control from a worker
                  comfort standpoint: (1) baseline operation, and (2) secon-
                  dary chiller with freeboard extension.


      2.    External and Degreaser Operating Conditions


            *     Definite seasonal  effects were noted with regard to (1)
                  temperature, which Increased breathing zone levels 1n summer
                  over those 1n winter for the reduced-!1p-vent-suct1on and
                  freeboard-extension tests; and (2) ventilation patterns in

                                      43

-------
            which cross-drafts 1n the degreaser room during the summer
            tests caused vapor-line Instability and increased breathing
            zone levels.  Mitigation of the disruptive ventilation
            patterns tended to lower breathing zone levels.

            The 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) leaks at the main solvent
            tank sight glass, steam-line junctions, and condenser tank
            contributed to background levels of TCA In the degreaser
            room, which resulted In reduced sensitivity of degreaser
            emission measurement in the 10 to 20 ppm range and Increased
            breathing zone concentrations.

            A nonfunctioning water/solvent separator and lack of a drip
            pan to direct solvent/water condensation from the primary
            condenser tubes to the water-solvent separator have
          ^ contributed to solvent contamination and degradation and
            increased solvent use.  These conditions were rectified
            during the study.

            The lack of full water circulation through the degreaser
            water jacket during startup until after the TCA solvent was
            boiling is an operational problem that caused elevated
            levels of TCA during the first 25 to 30 minutes of operation
            during each day of testing.  This affected testing of
            another theory--that additional solvent savings might have
            been possible if, during the day when parts were not being
            degreased, all degreaser covers were left on with the steam
            turned off.  It would not have been possible, however, to
            keep water circulating through the jacket with no heat being
            applied to the degreaser.  Tests with two of four covers on
            the degreaser during operation resulted In higher breathing
            zone levels than with all covers off because of the buildup
            of heat and pressure under the covers.  Thus, tests other
            than baseline and reduced-fan-speed were conducted with all
            covers off.
3.    Solvent Use Reduction
            The calculated emission factors,  which reflect the baseline
            condition and emission/solvent reductions attributable to
            each control option, are considered to be the best estimates
            possible given the existing operating data.   These numbers
            could be verified by additional monitoring of solvent
            consumption over 2 to 4-week periods with each option.
            Consumption of approximately 0.5  drum per week with the
            chiller plus freeboard extension  in place, however, is con-
            sidered to be an accurate estimate of future operation of
            the degreaser.  This corresponds  to an approximate 75-
            percent reduction in solvent consumption over the baseline
            condition (from two to about one-half drum per week).  As a
            result, the chlller-plus-freeboard-extension option provides

                                44

-------
                  the greatest  amount  of TCA  reduction  in  addition  to the
                  lowest feasible worker exposure  level without  lip-vent suc-
                  tion.


      4.     Technical/Economic  Feasibility


            *      The application of all of the  control options  was considered
                  technically feasible; the most difficult option was
                  installation  of the  freeboard  chiller, which disrupted
                  operation for about  3 days.  Practical feasibility, however,
                  determined by breathing zone targets  and operator comfort,
                  is considered limited to  the chiller-plus-freeboard-
                  extension option.

            *      The use of the chiller/freeboard control option is con-
                  sidered to be a viable method  of satisfying pollution
                  control requirements without the need for add-on  controls at
                  the exhaust stack.  Add-on  control  equipment would need  to
                  be sized to control  about 2500 cubic  feet per  minute of  gas
                  flow.   This would  considerably increase  the cost  and
                  complexity of reducing TCA  use over the  use of the controls
                  used in this  study.  The  use of  the driller/freeboard
                  control option not only obviates the  need for  add-on
                  controls but  also  accomplishes pollution prevention without
                  adversely affecting  worker  breathing  zone concentrations of
                  TCA.

            •      All of the control options  tested 1n  this study are
                  considered applicable to  vapor degreasers in general, not
                  Just the WPAFB degreaser.

            *      Economically, the  payback periods for all of the  options
                  ranged from less than  1 month  to only 1.2 years.  The sav-
                  ings in solvent use, primarily,  plus  heat-loss savings and
                  fan horsepower savings  (which  offset  chiller operation
                  costs) were the reasons for the  almost negligible payback
                  periods.  Thus, expenditures for the  chiller plus freeboard
                  extension, the most  expensive  and effective control option,
                  can be easily justified.

B.    RECOMMENDATIONS


      *     The degreaser should be  operated  permanently with the chiller-
            plus-freeboard-extension options  installed  as  they are  now.  The
            lip-vent exhaust stack should be  fitted with a positive displace-
            ment damper If the  degreaser  is to be  continuously operated in
            this configuration. An  interlock system should be installed where
            the lipvent exhaust fan  would automatically activate if the
            chiller should become  inoperative while the degreaser is
            operating.


                                      45

-------
The degreaser water jacket circulation valving should be examined
and modified so that full water circulation through the jacket
occurs before the steam heat for the degreaser 1s activated.

A followup evaluation should be conducted in several months (I.e.,
before winter) to ensure that engineering controls In place are
performing properly and worker exposures are within acceptable
limits.  If it is deemed necessary for estimated solvent use
reductions for Individual control options to be further verified,
solvent consumption (and worker exposure and comfort) should be
monitored for a 2- to 4-week period for each option (I.e., the
length of time required to consume 1 drum of solvent).

After leaks in the degreaser system are repaired, background
levels of TCA in the degreaser room should be characterized to
determine their Impact on worker safety and to further evaluate
the results of this study.

Ventilation patterns around the degreaser must be periodically
checked and cross-drafts eliminated to maintain acceptable levels
of TCA 1n the vicinity of the degreaser.  Replacement of the
plastic sheeting above the plastic curtains with other permanent
material to Isolate the degreaser room Is recommended.  The
plating-shop ventilation fan should also be left at one-third
speed to help eliminate channeling of air Into the degreaser room
through the double doors.

As an added safety feature, additional ventilation could be added
to the degreaser room.  This would consist of an air inlet plenum
placed across or below the degreaser and designed to pull air away
from the operator breathing zone and out through a roof exhaust
vent.  A replacement air plenum would be located behind the
operator.

Recordkeeping in terms of TCA consumption, degreaser operating
hours, cleaning, and other operating changes or Incidents of note
should be ritualized by developing a form that is religiously
filled out by the operators.  This would help track solvent use
and help to identify operating conditions that result in excessive
consumption.

As new operators are hired, training should be conducted to hold
parts In the freeboard long enough for adhesive TCA to evaporate
completely.
                          46

-------
                                  REFERENCES


1.    Gerstle, R. U., KataH, V. S., and Schlndler, E.S., Evaluation of
      Solvent Loss From Vapor Degreaser System,  EPA-600/2-81-042, (NTIS PB81-
      176398)  March  1981.

2.    Stahell, A.M., 'Throwing a Cold Blanket on the Vapor Degrees1ng Pro-
      blem," Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 45, pp 83-86, 8,  August 1973.

3.    Wolf, C., "Reducing Solvent Losses In Degreasers," Metal Finishing. Vol.
      87, pp 45-46, 3 March 1989.

4.    Bursteln, E., "A Step-by-Step Guide to Controlling Solvent Emissions,"
      Metal Finishing. Vol. 126, pp. 15-16, August 1989.

5.    Nylen, G.C., and Osterman, H. F.  "Cool It to Cut Degreaslng Cost,"
      American Machinist. Vol. 127(11), pp. 140-141, 11 November 1982.

6.    Gerard D.R, "Solving Air Pollution by Reducing Emission Losses From
      Solvent Vapor Cleaning Systems,"  Journal of Testing and Evaluation.
      Vol. 17, No. 2, March 1989.  pp. 106-177.

7.    Polhamus, R.L., "Solvent Emission Reduction and Conservation Techniques
      Using Available Technology"  Proceedings 35th Annual Technical Meeting,
      Institute of Environmental Sciences (Anaheim, CA), pp. 292-293, 1989.
                 «i
8.    Wadden, R.A., Scheff, P.A., and Franke J. E., "Emission Factors for
      Trichloroethylene Vapor Degrcasers,"  American Industrial Hygiene
      Association Journal. Vol. 50, pp. 496-500, September 1989.

9.    Uiess, R.C., "Reducing Energy Costs In Vapor Degreaslng System,"  Plant
      Engineering,  pp. 66-67, March 28, 1985.
                                     47
                          (The reverse of this page is blank)

-------
      APPENDIX A

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
CERTIFICATES OF ANALYSIS
          49

-------
        INTERNATIONAL           ANAIYTICAI
        TECHNOLOGY             /VIWLI llV^/lli
        CORPORATION               SERVICES


                            CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
 Degreaser  System Pollution Prevention  Evaluation      Date:  February 28,  1990


 Attn: Mr.  Mark Nutter  (PEI)


 Job Number PN  3758-9

 This is the Certificate of Analysis  for the following samples:

    Client Project ID:     Degreaser System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
    Date Received by Lab:  February  13, 1990
    Work Order:            XO-02-110
    Number of  Samples:     18
    Sample Type:           Charcoal  Tubes


 I.  Introduction

Eighteen charcoal tube samples arrived at ITAS Cincinnati on February 13, 1990.
The samples were  sent for  analytical work in support of monitoring work for the
Degreaser  System  Pollution Prevention Evaluation project.  The samples were labeled
as follows:
Charcoal Tube # 2-09-P-A   Charcoal Tube f 2-09-P-G   Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube f 2-09-P-B   Charcoal Tube # 2-09-G-A   Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube t 2-09-P-c   Charcoal Tube t 2-09-G-B   Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube t 2-09-P-D   Charcoal Tube / 2-09-G-C   Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube t 2-09-P-E   Charcoal Tube t 2-09-G-D   Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube f 2-09-P-F   Charcoal Tube t 2-09-S-A   Charcoal Tube

II.  Analytical Results/Methodology
2-09-S-B
2-09-S-C
2-09-S-D
2-09-S-E
2-09-S-F
2-09-S-G
The analytical results for this report are presented by analytical test. Each set of
data will include sample identification information, the analytical results, and the
appropriate detection limits.

The analysis requested was 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.

Reviewed and Approved by:
Lawrence D. Anderson
GC Group Leader
002110   XO-02-110
                              American Council oi Independent Laboratories
                         International Association of Environmental Testing Laboratories                  5 Q
                             American Association ior Laboratory Accreditation


              IT Analytical Services • 11499 Chester Road • Cincinnati, OB 45246 • 513-782-4600

-------
Client:       Degreaser  System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
Work Orden   XO-02-140                                            IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
0021101                                                           CINCINNATI, OH
II.  Analytical Results/Methodology  (cont.)

The charcoal tube samples were desorbed with carbon disulfide and analyzed by
Gas Chromatography with Flame Xonization Detection.


III.  Quality Control

Immediately following the analytical data  for the samples can be found the QA/QC
information that pertains to these samples.  The purpose of this information
is to demonstrate that the data enclosed is scientifically valid and defensible.
This QA/QC data is used to assess the laboratory's performance during the analysis
of the samples it accompanies.  All  guantitations were performed from within the
calibrated range of the analytical instrument.
                                          51

-------
Client:
Work Order:
00211002
        Degreaeer
        XO-02-110
     System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
                                            IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                                            CINCINNATI, OH
                                                        1,1,1-Trichloroethane Concentre
Client Sample ID
                         Lab No.
Charcoal Tube * 2-09-P-A
Charcoal Tube t 2-09-P-B
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
Charcoal Tube
2-Q9-P-C
2-09-P-D
2-09-P-E
2-09-P-F
2-09-P-G
2-09-G-A
2-09-G-B
2-09-G-C
2-09-G-D
Charcoal Tube * 2-09-S-A
Charcoal Tube 2-09-S-B
Charcoal Tube 2-09-S-C
Charcoal Tube 2-09-S-D
Charcoal Tube 2-09-S-E
Charcoal Tube 2-09-S-F
Charcoal Tube 2-09-S-G
110-01
110-02
110-03
110-04
110-05
110-06
110-07
110-08
110-09
110-10
110-11
110-12
110-13
110-14
110-15
110-16
110-17
110-18
Method Blank
                            ug Front
                                              200
                                              190
                                              190
                                              190
                                               ND
                                               ND
                                               ND

                                             2600
                                             2400
                                             2300
                                             2400

                                           21,000
                                           21,000
                                           22,000
                                           22,000
                                               ND
                                               ND
                                               ND

                                               ND
ug Back
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND

                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND

                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND
                                                 ND

                                                 ND
Tota
                                                                                      2
                                                                                      2
                                                                                      2
                                                                                      2

                                                                                    21,
                                                                                    21,
                                                                                    22,
                                                                                    22,
ND
Not Detected
(<4 ug/Sample, Samples  1 - 11 )
(<8 ug/Sample, Samples 12 - 18 )
                                                                               52

-------
Client:
Work Order:
00211003
Degreaaer System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
XO-02-110
              IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
              CINCINNATI, OH
                              Standard Reference Material
Analyte
                  Theoretical
                    Value
 Value
Obtained
Percent
Recovery
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
                     1337
  1505
   112
                                          53

-------
 nra
INTERNATIONAL           ANATYTICAT
TECHNOLOGY              rilWLl lllsrilj
CORPORATION                SERVICES


                    CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
 Degreaser System Pollution Prevention Evaluation      Date: February 26, 1990


 Attn: Mr. Mark Nutter  (PEI)


 Job Number PN 3758-9

 This is the Certificate of Analysis for the following samples:

    Client Project ID:     Degreaser System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
    Date Received by Lab:  February 16, 1990
    Work Order:            XO-02-140
    Number of Samples:     9
    Sample Type:           Charcoal Tubes


 I.  Introduction

Nine charcoal tube samples arrived at ITAS Cincinnati on February 16, 1990.
The samples were sent for analytical work in support of monitoring work for the
Degreaser System Pollution Prevention Evaluation project.  The samples were labeled
as follows:

         Large Tube /I   ~    Small Tube f 1      Small Tube t 4
         Large Tube # 2       Small Tube f 2      Small Tube / 5
         Large Tube # 3       Small Tube f 3      Small Tube t 6

II.  Analytical Results/Methodology

The analytical results for this report are presented by analytical test. Each set of
data will include sample identification information, the analytical results, and the
appropriate detection limits.

The analysis requested was 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.



Reviewed and Approved by:
Lawrence D. Anderson
GC Group Leader
002140  XO-02-140
                              American Council oi Independent Laboratories
                         International Association of Environmental Testing Laboratories
                             American Association lor Laboratory Accreditation


              IT Analytical Services • 11499 Chester Boad • Cincinnati, OH  45246 • 513-762-4600

-------
Client:       Degreaeer  System  Pollution Prevention Evaluation
Work Order:   XO-02-140                                           IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
0021101                                                          CINCINNATI, OH
IX.  Analytical Results/Methodology (cent.)

The charcoal tube samples were desorbed with  carbon disulfide and analyzed by
Gas Chronatography with Flame Xonization  Detection.


III.  Quality Control

Immediately following the analytical data for the  samples can be found the QA/QC
information that pertains to these samples.   The purpose of this information
is to demonstrate that the data enclosed  is scientifically valid and defensible.
This QA/QC data is used to assess the laboratory's performance during the analysis
of the samples it accompanies.  All quantitations  were performed from within the
calibrated range of the analytical instrument.

As requested, the samples were spiked at  various levels, these levels and the
desorption efficiencies are reported on the following page.  The blind spikes were
spiked by the GC Group Leader.
                                            55

-------
Client:
Work Order:
002140
Degreaser System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
XO-02-140
                  IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                  CINCINNATI, OH
                                                    Desorption Efficiency Study,
                                                       1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Client Sample ID
             Lab No.
 mg
Added
   mg
Recovered
 Percer
Recover
Large Tube #1
Large Tube #2
Large Tube #3

Small Tube /I
Small Tube #2
Small Tube /3
              140-01
              140-02
              140-03

              140-04
              140-05
              140-06
16.7
16.7
16.7

1.67
1.67
1.67
  14.9
  16.0
  15.9

  1.65
  1.65
  1.64
    89
    96
    95

    99
    99
    98
Small Tube #4  (1)
Small Tube #5  (1)
Small Tube #6  (1)
              140-07
              140-08
              140-09
3.34
8.36
10.0
  3.67
  8.61
  10.1
   110
   103
   101
(1)  These are blind spikes.
                                            56

-------
Client:       Degreaser System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
Work Order:   XO-02-140
00214001
                                 IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                                 CINCINNATI, OH
                              Standard Reference Material
Analyte
Theoretical
  Value
 Value
Obtained
Percent
Recovery
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
   1337
  1505
   112
                                          57

-------
        INTERNATIONAL
        TECHNOLOGY
        CORPORATION
                                   ANATYTTPAT
                                   /llXTLljI lll/rULj
                                     SERVICES
                            CERTinCATE OF ANALYSIS
Degreaser
                                                     Date: March  15,  1990
Attn: Mr. Mark Mutter  (PEI)
Job Number PN 3758-9

This is the Certificate of Analysis for the following samples:

    Client Project ID:     Degreaser
    Date Received by Lab:  February 26, 1990
    Work Order:            XO-02-211
    Number of Samples:     29
    Sample Type:           Charcoal Tube
I.  Introduction

Twenty-nine charcoal tube samples arrived at ITAS Cincinnati on February 26,  1990.
The samples were sent for analytical work in support of monitoring work on the
Degreaser Project.  The samples were labeled as follows:
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Tube 12-21-S-A
Tube #2-21-S-B
Tube /2-21-S-C
Tube #2-21-S-D
Tube 12-21-S-E
Tube /2-21-S-F
Tube #2-21-S-G
         Charcoal Tube 12-21-P-A
         Charcoal Tube /2-21-P-B
         Charcoal Tube 12-21-P-C
         Charcoal Tube /2-21-P-D
         Charcoal Tube /2-21-P-E
         Charcoal Tube /2-21-P-F
         Charcoal Tube /2-21-P-G
Reviewed and Approved by:
 awrence D. Anderson
GC Group Leader
002211   XO-02-211
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal

Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
                                             Tube /2
                                             Tube 12
                                             Tube #2
                                             Tube 12
                                             Tube /2
                                             Tube #2
                                             Tube /2
                                             Tube 12
                                                     21-G-A
                                                     21-G-B
                                                     21-G-C
                                                     21-G-D
                                                     22-G-A
                                                     22-G-B
                                                     22-G-C
                                                     22-G-D
                                             Tube /2-22-P-A
                                             Tube /2-22-P-B
                                             Tube 12-22-P-C
                                             Tube 42-22-P-D
                                             Tube 12-22-P-E
                                             Tube #2-22-P-F
                                             Tube #2-22-P-C
                              American Council of Independent Laboratories
                         International Association of Environmental Testing Laboratories
                             American Association for Laboratory Accreditation
                                                                                 5 8
             IT Analytical Services • 11499 Chester Road • Cincinnati, OH  45246 • 513-782-4600

-------
Client:
Work Order:
00221103
    Degreaser
    XO-02-211
                          IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                          CINCINNATI, OH
                                             Analyte Concentration,  ug/Tube
Client Sample 10
                          Lab No.
                 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal

Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Tube «-21-S-A
Tube J2-21-S-B
Tube «-21-S-C
Tube #2-21-S-D
Tube #2-21-S-E
Tube /2-21-S-F
Tube #2-21-S-G

Tube /2-21-P-A
Tube /2-21-P-B
Tube /2-21-P-C
Tube #2-21-P-D
Tube #2-21-P-E
Tube #2-21-P-F
Tube #2-21-P-G
Charcoal Tube 12-21-G-A
Charcoal Tube #2-21-G-B
Charcoal Tube /2-21-G-C
Charcoal Tube #2-21-G-D
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Tube #2-22-P-A
Tube *2-22-P-B
Tube «-22-P-C
Tube /2-22-P-D
Tube #2-22-P-E
Tube «-22-P-F
Tube J2-22-P-G
Charcoal Tube /2-22-G-A
Charcoal Tube 12-22-G-B
Charcoal Tube #2-22-G-C
Charcoal Tube 12-22-G-D
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

08
09
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27
28
29
Front
19,000
19,600
22,000
22,200
1600
ND
KD
180
200
200
200
1100
ND
ND
1800
1700
1800
1600
1600
1200
1900
2000
40
1300
ND
15,000
13,000
15,000
14,000
Back
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total
19,000
19,600
22,000
22,000
1600
ND
ND
180
200
200
200
1100
ND
ND
1800
1700
1800
1600
1600
1200
1900
2000
40
1300
ND
15,000
13,000
15,000
14,000
ND • Not Detected
Detection Limit • 10 ug/Tube
                                           59

-------
Clients      Degreaser
Work Order:   XO-02-211
00221102
                             IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                             CINCINNATI, OH
                                  Spike Recovery,  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Client Sample ID


Charcoal Tube /2-21-S-E

Charcoal Tube #2-21-*-E

Charcoal Tube #2-22-P-F
Theoretical
  Value
  1.34

  1.34

  1.34
Percent
Recovery
   122

    84

    96
                                            60

-------
Client:      Degreaser
Work Order:  XO-02-211                                          IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
00221101                                                        CINCINNATI, OH
XI.  Analytical Results/Methodology

The analytical results for this report are presented  by  analytical test. Each  set of
data will include sample identification information,  the analytical results, and the
appropriate detection limits.

The analyte requested was 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.

The charcoal tube samples were desorbed with carbon disulfide,  and analyzed by
Gas Chromatography with Flame  lonization Detection.


III. Quality Control

As requested, samples /2-21-S-E, #2-21-P-E and 12-22-P-F were spiked  with  1.34 mg
of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.  The results are included in this  report.
                                         61

-------
        INTERNATIONAL
        TECHNOLOGY
        CORPORATION                SERVICES
                            CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
 Degreaser  System Pollution                        Date:Ma y 4,  1990
 Prevention Evaluation

 Attm  Mark Nutter  (PEI)


 Job Number PN    3758-9

 This is the Certificate of Analysis  for the following samples:

    Client Project  ID: Degreaser  System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
    Date Received:     April  23,  1990
    Work Order:        XO-04-186
    Number of Samples: 10
    Sample Type:       Charcoal Tubes


 I.  Introduction

Ten charcoal tube samples  arrived at ITAS Cincinnati  on April 23,  1990.   The samples
were sent  for analytical work in  support of monitoring work for the Degreaser System
Pollution  Prevention Evaluation.  The  samples were labeled as follows:


         WP-01        WP-03         WP-05          WP-07          WP-09
         WP-02        WP-04         WP-06          WP-08          WP-10


II.  Analytical Results/Methodology

The analytical results for this report  are  presented  by analytical test.  Each set of
data will  include sample identification information,  the  analytical results,  and the
appropriate detection limits.

The analysis requested was 1,1,1  - Trichloroethane.
Reviewed and Approved by:



— fc^fcf  ^
Lawrence DT/Anderson
CC Group Leader
                              American Council of independent Laboratories                    -«
                         International Association oi Environmental Testing Laboratories
                             American Association for Laboratory Accreditation


             IT Analytical Services • 11499 Chester Road • Cincinnati, OH 45246 • 513-782-4600

-------
Client:
Work Order:
004186A
FEZ  Associates
XO-04-186
IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
CINCINNATI, OH
ZZ.  Analytical  Results/Methodology (cont'd)
The charcoal tube samples were desorbed with carbon disulfide and analyzed
by Gas Chromatography with Flame Zonitation Detection by NIOSH Method 1003.
                                          63

-------
Clientj
Work Order:
00418602
Degreaeer System Pollution
XO-04-186
                         IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                         CINCINNATI, OH
                           Analyte Concentration,ug/tube
  Client Sample ID
                        Lab No.
                         1,1,1-Tri-
                          chloro-
                         •thane  (1)
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
  Charcoal
WP-01
WP-02
WP-03
WP-04
WP-05
WP-06
WP-07
WP-08
WP-09
WP-10
  Method Blank

  Detection  Limit
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
 690
 650
 730
 640
4700
4200
4100
3900
 3.5
  ND

  ND

   2
  ND « Not  Detected

  (1) All Back Halves
           Not Detected
                                         64

-------
       INTERNATIONAL
       TECHNOLOGY
       CORPORATION
        ANALYTICAL
          SERVICES
                          CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Degreaser
Prevention Evaluation

Attn: Mr. Mark Nutter   (PEI)
                             Date:   June 26,  1990
Job Number PN 3758-9

This is the Certificate of Analysis for the following samples:
    Client Project  ID:
    Date Received:
    Work Order:
    Number of  Samples:
    Sample Type:
Degreaser System Pollution Prevention Evaluation
June 14,  1990
XO-06-141,  XO-06-142, XO-06-143 and XO-06-144
52
Charcoal  Tubes
I.  Introduction

Fifty-two charcoal tube samples arrived at  ZTAS Cincinnati on June 14,  1990.  The
samples were sent for analytical work in support of monitoring work for the Degreaser
System Pollution Prevention Evaluation.   The  samples were labeled as follows:
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
64-D1
64-D2
64-D3
64-D4
64-D5
64-D6
64-G1
64-G2
64-G3
64-04
64-05
64-06
64-P1
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
64-P2
64-P3
64-P4
531-G1
531-G2
531-03
531-G4
531-G5
531-06
531-P1
531-P2
531-P3
531-P4
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
61-01
61-G2
61-G3
61-G4
61-G5
61-G6
61-P1
61-P2
61-P3
61-P4
65-D1
65-D2
65-D3
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube i
Tube 1
Tube i
Tube 4
65-D4
65-D5
65-D6
65-G1
65-G2
65-G3
65-G4
65-G5
65-06
t 65-P1
f 65-P2
* 65-P3
t 65-P4
Reviewed and Approved by:

         no*,  o
Lawrence D. Anderson
GC Group Leader
006141
                             American Council oi Independent Laboratories
                        International Association oi Environmental Testing Laboratories
                           American Association for Laboratory Accreditation
                                               65
            IT Analytical Services • 11499 Chester Road • Cincinnati, OH 45246 • 513-762-4600

-------
Client:      Degreaser System Pollution
             Prevention Evaluation                              IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Work Order:  XO-06-141, XO-06-142, XO-06-143 and XO-06-144      CINCINNATI, OH
00614101
II.  Analytical Results/Methodology

The analytical results for this report are presented by analytical test.  Bach set of
data will include sample identification information, the analytical results,  and the
appropriate detection limits.

The analysis requested was 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.

The charcoal tubes were desorbed with Carbon Disulfide and analyzed by Gas Chroma-
tography with Flame lonization Detection.
III.  Quality Control

Immediately following the analytical data for the samples can be found the QA/QC infor-
mation that pertains to these samples. The purpose of this information is to demonstrate
that the data enclosed is scientifically valid and defensible.  This QA/QC data is used
to assess the laboratory's performance during the analysis of the samples it accompanies.
All quantitations were performed from within the calibrated range of the analytical
instrument.

Tubes t 64-D5, 64-C5, 531-G5, 61-G5, 65-05, and 65-G5 were indicated for spiking.   The
recoveries for these tubes are included in this report.
                                            66

-------
Client:      Degreaser  System Pollution
             Prevention Evaluation
Work Order:   XO-06-141
006141A
                              IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                              CINCINNATI, OH
                          Analyte Concentration, ug/tube
  Client Sample ID
Lab No.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

 Front   Back   Total
  Tube * 64-D1
  Tube t 64-02
  Tube * 64-D3
  Tube * 64-D4
  Tube # 64-D6

  Tube t 64-G1
  Tube t 64-G2
  Tube t 64-G3
  Tube / 64-G4
  Tube / 64-G6
141-01
141-02
141-03
141-04
141-06

141-07
141-08
141-09
141-10
141-12
11,000
  8400
  8800
  9600
   5.0

  6500
  6200
  6500
  5800
   4.2
13  11,000
31    8400
15    8800
20    9600
ND     5.0
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
6500
6200
6500
5800
 4.2
  Tube t 64-P1
  Tube t 64-P2
  Tube # 64-P3
  Tube * 64-P4
141-13
141-14
141-15
141-16
    60
    62
    53
    58
ND
ND
ND
ND
  60
  62
  53
  58
   Method Blank
                           ND
           ND
        ND
   Detection Limit
   ND - Not Detected
                                             67

-------
Client:

Work Order:
006141B
Degreaser System Pollution
Prevention Evaluation
XO-06-142
           IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
           CINCINNATI, OH
                        Analyte Concentration, ug/tube
  Client Sample  ID
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube 4
531-G1
531-G2
531-G3
531-G4
531-G6
531-P1
531-P2
531-P3
' 531-P4
                   Lab No.
                               142-01
                               142-02
                               142-03
                               142-04
                               142-06

                               142-07
                               142-06
                               142-09
                               142-10
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

 Front   Back   Total
                                        4100
                                        3600
                                        3900
                                        3500
                                         3.6

                                         360
                                         230
                                         410
                                         450
          KD
         2.2
         2.3
         2.2
          NO

         2.4
         2.2
          NO
         2.5
4100
3600
3900
3500
 3.6

 360
 230
 410
 450
  Detection Limit
  ND  • Not Detected
                                     68

-------
Client:       Degreaser System  Pollution
             Prevention Evaluation
Work Order:   XO-06-143
006141C
                               IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                               CINCINNATI, OH
                         Analyte  Concentration, ug/tube
  Client Sample ID
Lab No.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

 Front   Back   Total
  Tube * 61-01
  Tube t 61-G2
  Tube / 61-G3
  Tube t 61-G4
  Tube # 61-G6

  Tube t 61-P1
  Tube / 61-P2
  Tube * 61-P3
  Tube t 61-P4
143-01
143-02
143-03
143-04
143-06

143-07
143-08
143-09
143-10
6000
6400
5900
5100
4.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6000
6400
5900
5100
4.3
190
230
200
210
ND
ND
ND
ND
190
230
200
210
  Detection -Limit-
  ND • Not Detected
                                            69

-------
Client:      Degreaser System Pollution
             PrevePrevention  Evaluation
Work Order:   XO-06-144
006141D
                               IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                               CINCINNATI, OH
                        Analyte Concentration, ug/tube
  Client Sample ID
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
Tube
65-D1
65-D2
65-D3
65-D4
65-D6
65-G1
65-G2
65-G3
65-G4
65-G6
65-P1
65-P2
65-P3
65-P4
Lab No.
                               144-01
                               144-02
                               144-03
                               144-04
                               144-06

                               144-07
                               144-08
                               144-09
                               144-10
                               144-12
                                       (1)
144-13
144-14
144-15
144-16 (1)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

 Front   Back   Total
                     33,000
                     33,000
                     29,000
                     32,000
                         2B
   2.3
    55
    50
    48
          ND
          ND
          14
          ND
          ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
     33,000
     33,000
     29,000
     32,000
         28
2500
2400
2500
2200
5.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2500
2400
2500
2200
5.4
2.3
 55
 50
 48
  Detection Limit
  ND » Not Detected
 (1)  These samples  or  extracts may have been switched.  There is no way to trace the
     possible error.
                                          70

-------
Client:      Degreaser System Pollution
             Prevention Evaluation
Work Order:  XO-06-141, XO-06-142, XO-06-143 and XO-06-144
006144
                                IT ANALYTICAL SERVICES
                                CINCINNATI, OH
                                  Quality Control
                                   Matrix Spikes
Client Sample*ID
  Lab No.
Theoretical
 Value, ug
Percent
Recovery
Tube * 64-D5
Tube / 64-G5
XO-06-141-05
XO-06-141-11
     200
     400
    101
    109
Tube #531-05
XO-06-142-05
     200
    117
Tube * 61-G5
XO-06-143-05
     100
    119
Tube * 65-05
Tube # 65-G5
XO-06-144-05
XO-06-144-11
     268
     268
    104
     89
                                         71

                              (The reverse of this page is blank)

-------
     APPENDIX B

SYSTEM MEASUREMENT
    DATA SHEETS
        73

-------
                                                         Section No. 	1.

                                                         Revision No. J	Q_
                                                         Date:    Dfcember  1?

                                                         Page:       6      of	LL
                       Time  /i' ^  3
                                       OAM
                                            Operator
Dry Bjib Temperature
Vapor Degreaser Temperature
Static Pressure  /v  f>>-cf    -  £.'%'$£'   in. H2O
Comments
                   •-^p-
                                                       S a
       -r
             . ,•<:/,•
                                           /«

                                                                r^-
                                                                I
           I    /
                         T'S' "
                                                       /g      _£   _/

                                                     ^.34  -C.kT'  -O.
                                                74

-------
                                                   Section No. 	2	
                                                   Revision No. 	Q	
                                                   Date:    December 12. 1989
                                                   Rage:       5     of 	LL
Date
Time   3      jS^T
                             Operator
      Exhaust Duct Measurements, tvirvn
                                                Comments
                    12
                    14
 6  / /
         16
                    17
                    18
 10
                    19
         20
                                       Average:
                                                                     ft/min
                                   -. tet&ft/m* Xlftfj
              Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                       Comments
 10 $60
          12
          13
          14 700
          16 7SU
          17
          18
          19
             7oO
20
          22
   too
          23
          24
                     25
          26
          27
 30
                               31
                                  100V
32
                     35
           36
37
                     38
                     39
                               41
                                                      c  I
42
                                            9
                                                                          50
                      43 6
                      47
                      49
                                                   Y&ociy Average:    7?$>   ft/min
                                         75
                                                             (763
                                                         \-ii3
                                                        f—^—m^—~
                                                         •> lrt/-->

-------
                                                     _3
Section  No.  _     	
Revision  No.  	J3	
Date:    Dpcember 12. 19RQ
Page:      4
                                                    of
11
           -•ft..
(50 total measurement locations)
Figure 3-2.  Locations of air velocity measurements
    in the degreaser exhaust duct and lip vent.
                         76

-------
                                                       Section  No.  	2	
                                                       Revision No. 	Q	
                                                       Date:    December 12.  1989
                                                       Page:       6     of	LL
Dale 0Z-
Time
Dry Bolt) Temperalure
         75.
Vapor Degreaser Temperalure
Humidity
Static Pressure
  O.
in. H2O
Comments
 A - -
                       X  "
 7)6
                                     f
                                              77

-------
                             Air
                                    Section  NO. 	2	
                                    Revision No. 	£L,	
                                    Date:    December 12. 1989
                                    Psage:      5     of 	U_
Date
Time
                         Operator
      Exhaust Duct Measurements, tvtnjn
                                          Comments
                  11
                  12
                  13  /£T.
                                                            >f
                                                    fr ~-c.i\

                                                    B--  ~°'3<°
                                                    c=  -o.yi
                                                    o -  -a 3-1
                  14

                  16
                                          -fa*
                  17
                  19
                  20
                                              Average: /V7g   ft/min
             Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                 Comments
  12-OC?
   ISoo
  \S.OO
  9 GO
          14
615-*
          15
         "750
         19
         20
&75
       21
                   22
          650
          615"
24
25
        26
        27
          1\50
                   26
        29
   too
30
          311 COO
          32 r\rr,
                             33
34
                 35
          36
          37
                 38
39
          40
  Too
          42
J

^ 1 /-I

                    43
                    44
                                                          c(A
          45
          46
          47
                      SOo
                    48
                    49
                                         500
                                   Kfi«^ Average:
                                                                      tt/min
                                      78

-------
                                                    Section No.  	2	
                                                    fjevisfon No. 	Q	
                                                    Date:    December 12. 1989
                                                    P.age:       5     of 	LL
Date
          T,me
                         /5,/7
                   Operator   ft t tf,
      Exhaust Duct Measurements, tvmjn
                                                 Comments
                    11
                    12
                        X."':.?'
                    13
                    14
                    15
 7   /frf
     tffit
                    16
          17
          18
 10
                    19
          20
                                        Average:
                                                                    - 20 -
                                                                      ft/min
                                                  f.Ji ff C-
              Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                       Comments
10
          11
   If®
          12
          13
          14
          16
          17
          18
          19
20
21 / /7
   ' '  •'
           22
           24
                     25
             55^
           26
                     30
31
                     33
           34
                     37
                     38
                     39
                     "
             63$
                              Iftotir) Average:  7Y7    ft/min
                              flowMTefcf*)' ~
                           <     955-0
                                         79

-------
                                                                         JL
                                Section  No.
                                P,evisfon No.
                                Date:    December 1?. 1989
                                Rage:
                                                       5
                                                                        of _ L
Date
           Time
                    °Peralor
      Exhaust Duct Measurements. fi/mJn
                                                  Comments
 10
                     11
                     12
                     13    .:•/.
                     14
                        / /
                    15
     SOD
                     16
          17
   ?tx>
                     16
                     19
          20
                                                                    JT«

                                         Average:
                                                                        ft/mln
               Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                         Comments

  /750
10700
           12
           14
           15
           16
           17
18
           19
           22 540
                      90  i ;>.
                      23 '/> -
26
700
           29
                                 31
           32
                      33
                      35
                      36
                      37
38
           39
                      40^00
                   42
                                                                             •so
                      43
                                 44
                      45
                      47
48
                   49
             375
                                                     YBtxny Average
                                                                    tt/min
                                          80

-------
                                                    Section  No.  	2	
                                                    Revision No. 	D	
                                                    Date:    December 1?. 1989
                                                    P.age: 	i_
                                                   of 	LI
                    Time  £330
                     Operator   yL(
     Exhaust Duct Measurements. fl/rrvn
                                        Comments
10
                   11
                   12
                   13
                   15
                   16
                   17
                   16
                   19
20
                               Average:
                                                                       ft/min
                                                                      X /7t ft  r
              Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                               Comments
11  e:~.i
         12
         14
         15
         16
                    21 £
 22
                    23
 24
 25
350
 26
                    26
                    30
    Voo
            31
        32
        34
                      35
                                   5flo
        36
           600
                               37
            38
                               39
        40
                   41
                                                          i -»-.
                                                                            •5B
                       43
                                 44
45
39)
                                 46 3-75
                   48 30T7
                       49250
                                 50250
                                YQotry Average:
                                                                              ft/min
                                        81

-------
                                                                         JL
                                           Section No. 	
                                           Revision No. 	
                                           Date:    December 12.  1QRQ
                                                       5     of 	LL
                               Operator
                                                                   jj
      Exhaust Duct Measurements. tVmJn
                                                   Comments
 10
                     11
                     12
                     13
                                                                       PAM
                    14
                    16
                    17
                  .  18
                    19
          20
                                         Average:
                                                                        ft/min
               Lip Vent Measurements, tt/min
                                                          Comments
  100
    if~>
3  y
10
11
13
           14
           15
           16
           17
          18
          19
20 375
           21
                     OO   x" *•
                     Z3 , / y
           25
                       300
           26
           27
           28
                     30
                                31  ,40
                                32
                      33  l^
                      34 60
                      35
                      36
                      37
                         400
                                38
                      39
                                 41
                                 42
                                 43
•5B
    -t
                                 44
                                           45
                                           46
                                           47
                                 46
                                 50
                                          Kfi*/^ Average:
                                                                               ft/min
                                            82

-------
Date
              -20
                         Time
                   Operator
Dry Bulb Temperature
Vapor Oegreaser Temperature
Humidity
Static Pressure
0
               fn. H2O
                                                                      "
Comments
                                                                    AL.CT--—
                                                        83

-------
Date
                         Time
Dry Bulb Temperature
Vapor Oegreaser Temperature
Humidity
                                    39. V%
Static Pressure
                                            In. H2O
Comments
                  fT (•nr
-------
                                                   Section No.     -t   2	
                                                   Revision No. 	Q	
                                                   Date:   December 12. 1989
                                                   Page:       5     of 	LL
Date
                 Time
                             Operator  fV\ .
      Exhaust Duel Measurements, n/irJn
                                                      Comments
      650
      ~7So
                    12
                13
                    14
      750
                16
                    17
                          ?oo
 10    £50
                    19
                20     S'S'O
                                             Average:
                                                                    ft/mfn
                                                   ft/** *W-
              Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                             Comments
   560
 8  600
   575"
 10
^00
          12
          13
          14
          15
       16
          17
          ^50
       19
20
                     21
                 22
              */ DO
                 23
                 24
                 25
          26  700
          27
                        7oo
                 28
          29
30
                            31
                                  760
          32
                     33  75-0
                     34
             775
                     35
          36
   £25-
          37
                     38
                               Sbc
          39
40
          42
46
                     48
50
325"
                                               YfrooT) Average:
                                                                           ft/min
                                            85

-------
                                                     Section No.	2	
                                                     Revision No. 	Q	
                                                     Date:    Derember 12. 19RQ
                                                     Page:       5     of 	LL
Date
            Time  3'./$
                    Operator
(gOEfi  Eifcs
sust Duct Measuremenls. tvm;n
                                      Comments
     -56 d)
                     11
                     13
                                                                               - PoeF
                     14
                $00
                     15
      (Xo
  10
                7oo
           16
                                     diX-w. f
                     17
                         700
                     1B
                     15
           26
   ISO
                                         Average:
                                                                      ft/mfn
               L'P Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                         Comments
   5SD
   Soo
 B S'i.o
           11
  12
           13
           14
           15
  16
           19
           20
            21
                        YZ5"
            23
            25 35*6
26
                      27
               5%
            30
           31
           37
                       38
                       39
                     42
                                  44
                                              375-
                     45
47
                     48
                                                    YOofo} Average:
                                                                    ft/min
                                           86

-------
0816
Time
°Pefator
Dry Bulb Temperature
Vapor Degreaser Temperature
Humidity
Static Pressure
                   in. H2O
Comments
                   *-a,
                                                                  ¥ if Or -
                                                      87

-------
Date
                       Time
Dry Bulb Temperature
Vapor Oegreaser Temperature
Humidity
Static Pressure
                                         In. H2O
                                                                   No
Comments
                            ^H2
                                               88

-------
Dale
Time
°perator
Dry Bulb Temperature
Vapor Degreaser Temperature
Humidity
Static Pressure
                    in. H2O
Comments
                                                        89

-------
Date
Time
Dry Bulb Temperature
           IS"
Vapor Oegreaser Temperature
Humidity
Static Pressure
                 in. H2O
                                
                                                                       ^ cf
                                             90

-------
                                                   Section  No. 	3	
                                                   Revision.No. 	Q	
                                                   Date:    December  12.  1989
                                                   Page:       5      of   11
Date
                                    Operator
      Exhaust Duct Measurements, twrjn
                                                      Comments
 10
                   11
                   12
                   13
                                                       Lr
                                                           Cfi

                                                           h  f**™


                                                           y    f^'
                    14
                   15
                    16
                   17
                    IB
                    1S
                20
                                              Average:
                                                                    ft/mln
              Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                             Comments
   too
 "  100
   160
   f JO
 to
•"]•(>
          12
       13
          16
          4»»
          17
       "iol
20
                     21
                 *
          23
                 24
          29
  ^0
30
                            31
                     32
          33
^
                     34
                            35
                     36
                            37
                               38
                               40
                               "00
                                                        1 -»
                     "
          Mo
43
                               47
                                               CFM,
                                      48
                                                  YQouy Average:   Lv/.S  ft/min
                                                                         *
                                             91

-------
                                                                          _3_
                                                                          _Q_
                                           Section  No. 	
                                           Revision No. 	
                                           Date:    December 1?.  19R9
                                           Page:       5     of	LL
Date
           Time
                    Optaur
      Exhaust Duct Measurements. fWrvn
                                                   Comments
 10
                     11
                     12
                     Id
                     15
                     16
                     17
                     16
                     19
          20
                                                                           £~-
                                                                           0
                               VZiociry  Average:
                                                                         ft/min
               Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                          Comments
   06
           11
           12
15
           16
           18
           »
           20
           22
                      23
25
           28
           »
           30
                      33
                                 34
                         fit)
35
                      36
                                 37
           36
           39
                                 41
                      42
                                                                              •So
                      44
45
                                 47
           48
                      50^0
                                                Average:
                                                                          .*    ft/min
                                                                             rt x
                                             92

-------
                                                    Section No. 	3	
                                                    Revision No. 	Q	
                                                    Date:   Dprember 12.  19RQ
                                                    Page:      s     of .
                                                                 11
Dale
          Time
                                   own
                              Operator
      Exhaust Duct Measurements. tWnJn
                                                Comments
    7op
 10
                    12
                    13
                                .o

                               VsJfc^X^
                    14
                    16
                    17
               657)
                    IS
          20
                                       Average:
                                                                      ft/min
                                                                     X /ft fj  =
               Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                       Comments
    Sot)
 10
11
           12
           13
           14
             12S"
15
           16
17
           18
19
                     21
22
           23
           24 Ac
           25
           26
                     27
           26
           29
           30
                     31 600
                     32
                        (,00
33
           35
                     36
37
38
39
                     40
           42
                                43
                                44
           45
             W
                                47
                                46
                                          49
                                              Average:
                                                                             ft/min
                                                                     ft/™ K
                                           93

-------
Date
                                           •*c~
Dry Bulb Temperature
Vapor Oegreaser Temperature
Humidity
Static Pressure
in. H2O
                                                                            SL
Comments
                                                      94

-------
                                                    Section  No.  	3	
                                                    Revision No. 	Q	
                                                    Date:    December 12. 1989
                                                    Page:       5     of    11
Date
      Exhaust Duct Measurements, tvrrjn
                                                Comments
                                             >r   Average:  /38t>    ft/min
              Lip Vent Measurements. tVmin
                                                       Comments
 10
          11
12
           14
           15
16
           19 go»
20
           21
                     22
                     23
             5*7?
           25
                     26
                     27
           26
           29
             {00
30
                     32
                     33
                     34
                     35
                     36
                                36
                     39
                     40
                        70 (7
                                42
                                43
                                44
                                45
                                46
                                                 1751-3
                                47
                                48
49
50
              Average:  7^7    ft/min
                                 *
                                             95

-------
Date
    Operator
Dry Bulb Temperature
Vapor Oegreaser Temperature
Humidity
Static Pressure
in. H2O
                                             exf .
Comments
                                                  >.
                                                       96

-------
                                                              _3
                                                              _0
                                     Section No. 	
                                     Revision No. 	
                                     Date:   December 12.  1989
                                     Page:     5     of 	LL
Date
                          Operator
     Exhaust Duct Measurements, tVmJn
                                           Comments
             Lip Vent Measurements, ft/min
                                                 Comments
   100
  too
  800
         11
12 goo
15
  460
         17
         18 ISO
         19
         20
  bS)
         21 600
                   22
         23
                   24 *»
25
557P
         26
         29
         30
                   36
                     6co
                   37
                      §00
                   38
                   39
         40
                            41
                     -700
                            42
                     TOO
                                                   24.
                                                                  •fo
                            43
                     10O
45
                   47
                   5tt?
                   48
                 50
                                                  Average:
                            __ ft/min
                          <™x4^2

-------
HSu&alfs'&lT'^i'jtfili':^:^                                 :.:•;:;;:'•:•;•;•:•'!. •". , ; : M •'.•<•'.'.
                                 Section  No. 	2	
                                 Bevisfon No.  	Q	
                                 Date:    December  1?. 1989
                                 P.age:       5       of 	LL
                     98

-------
       APPENDIX C




PHOTOGRAPHS OF OPERATIONS
            99

-------
  Figure C-1.  Operator loading parts into vapor degreaser.
Figure C-2. Vapor degreaser and remote monitoring station.
                         100

-------
Figure C-3. Remote monitoring station snowing Miran 1A, DL332F
           data logger, strip-chart recorder and portable
           computer for real-time display of monitoring data.
 Figure C-4.  Monitoring locations at vapor degreaser: lip vent exhaust
             duct (charcoal tubes and Miran 1A port) and degreaser
             midpoint (charcoal tubes and Tedlar® bag sample).
                             101

-------
Figure C-5. Ctoseup of lip vent exhaust duct sampling configuration.
                           102

-------
     Figure C-6. Air velocity measurement at degreaser lip vent.
Figure C-7. Closeup of vapor line inside degreaser, 3/4 up water jacket.



                                103

-------
Figure C-8.  Monitoring location at degreaser midpoint showing charcoal
            tube and Tedlar® bag sample.
 Figure C-9.  Temporary curtains in place at degreaser room threshold
             to control cross drafts.
                           104

-------
Figure C-10.  Camera location for continuous recording of
             degreaser activity (left foreground).
                        105

-------
       Figure C-11.  Degreaser configuration for freeboard extension tests
                    showing 20-gauge sheet metal extension and work
                    platform (on floor grating).
Figure C-12.   Operator loading parts into degreaser with extension in place.
                                   106

-------
Figure C-13. Parts inside vapor degreaser with freeboard extension in place.
                                 107

-------
Figure C-14. Secondary chiller coils inside vapor degreaser.Upper
            coils are covered with TCA frost. Note location of
            lip vent below freeboard extension.
  Figure C-15. Compressor for secondary chiller mounted outside
              degreaser room.
                           108

-------
  Figure C-16. Ctoseup of secondary chiller coils inside degreaser.
Figure C-17.  Post-study use of vapor degreaser using freeboard
             extension flap for better access.

                              109

-------
Figure C-18.  Composite photo showing lip vent exhaust system in
             baseline configuration with 5 inch fan pulley.
                            110

-------