U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB-254 166
FIELD TEST SAMPLING/ANALYTICAL STRATEGIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATES: COAL GASIFICATION
AND FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
J, W, HAMERSMA, ET AL
TRW SYSTEMS GROUP
REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA
APRIL 1976
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB-254 166
FIELD TEST SAMPLING/ANALYTICAL STRATEGIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATES: COAL GASIFICATION
AND FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
J, W, HAMERSMA, ET AL
TRW SYSTEMS GROUP
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 1976
-------
TECHNICAL
lctsc rc-:J IK &:,;;:. • •: cr:
D-UA
EPA- 600/2 -76-093b
4. TITL£ ANOSO'-TITUC
Field Test Sampling/Analytical Strategies and Imple-
mentation Cost Estimates: Coal Gasification and Flue
Gas 'Desutforizatipji -
.1 Ml Cf'll-N
5.
6. PEHFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
April 1976
. AUTHOR(S)
J.W. Hamersma and S, L. Reynolds
«. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
24916-6041-RU-00
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRW Systems Group
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21AAZ-015
II. CONTRACT/GHANT NO.
68-02-1412, Task 9
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 6-12/75
1*. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Task Officer for this report is R. M.Statnicfc, Mail Drop 62,
Ext 2557.
je. ABSTRACT Tne rep0rt; gives results of a determination of sampling and analysis im-
plementation costs for two energy related process technologies: wet limestone scrub-
bing of flue gas and a Lurgi coal gasification system. Two different sampling and
analytical approaches were costed which would yield the same information output.
The first approach, requiring two levels of sampling and analytical effort, is called
the phased sampling program. The second approach was a direct single effort to
achieve the same level of information for dec is ion-making as the phased approach.
In the test cases, costed from sample acquisition through analysis, the phased sam-
pling and analytical approach was the most cost effective.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIEHS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI t'wId/GfOU?
Air Pollution
Field Tests
Sampling
Analyzing'
Cost Estimating
Coal Gasification
Flue Gases
Desulfurization
Limestone
Scrubbers
Washing
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Lurgi
Phased Sampling
Direct Sampling
13B
14B
21B
07A.07D
08G
05A.14A
13H
'.. r;lSTfll8UTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
IS. SECURITY CLASS /THuftrporll
Unclassified
JO. SECURITY
Unclassified
g»A
1220-1 (S'73)
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U S Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to-the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.
Ill
-------
EPA-600/2-76-093b
April 1976
FIELD TEST SAMPLING/ANALYTICAL
STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
COST ESTIMATES:
COAL GASIFICATION AND FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
by
J.W. Hamersma and S. L. Reynolds
TRW Systems Group
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
Contract No. 68-02-1412, Task 9
ROAP No. 21AAZ-015
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Task Officer: R. M. Statnick
^•Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TRW Document No.
24916-6041-RU-00
ABSTRACT
The report gives results of a determination of sampling and analysis im-
plementation costs for two energy related process technologies: wet lime-
stone scrubbing of flue gas and a Lurgi coal gasification system. Two
different sampling and analytical approaches were costed which would
yield the same information output. The first approach, requiring two
levels of sampling and analytical effort, is called the phased sampling
program. The second approach was a direct single effort to achieve the
same level of information for decision-making as the phased approach. In
the test cases, costed from sample acquisition through analysis, the
phased sampling and analytical approach was the most cost effective.
iii
-------
PREFACE
This document describes the Development of Environmental Assessment
Sampling and Analytical Test Strategies and Sampling and Analytical Costs
prepared under Task 9 of EPA Contract Number 68-02-1412. It is the result
of one of several studies funded by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park (IERL-RTP) to provide background infor-
mation relevant to the development of sampling and analytical strategies for
environmental assessment programs. The conclusions and recommendations
contained in the report do not necessarily constitute the strategies or
methods which will be implemented by the Laboratory for such programs. A
series of reports defining the approaches and techniques to be used on
IERL-RTP projects will be issued beginning in February, 1976.
This work was conducted under the direction of Dr. R. M. Statnick,
EPA Task Order Manager and administrative direction of Dr. L. Johnson,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. The Applied Chemistry Department of the Chemistry and Materials
Laboratory, Applied Technology Division, TRW Systems and Energy, Redondo
Beach, California was responsible for the work performed on this program.
Dr. E. A. Burns, Manager, Applied Chemistry Department, was Program
Manager and the Task Order Manager was Dr. J. W. Hamersma.
Special acknowledgement is given to the many helpful discussions with
Mr. James A. Dorsey and Dr. Robert M. Statnick of the EPA during the course
of this task order and for the technical assistance provided by M. L. Kraft.
The contributions of Drs. C. A. Flegal, R. F. Maddalone, E. A. Burns,
and S. Quinlivan are also appreciated.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 SUMMARY ..... .... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND . 1
1.2 DEFINITION OF STRATEGIES 2
1.2.1 The Phased Approach 2
1.2.2 The Direct Approach 3
1.3 USE OF THE COST UNIT (C.U.) 4
1.4 SAMPLING 5
1.4.1 Classification of Streams for Sampling and
Costing Purposes ........ 5
1.4.2 Phased Approach Site Selection Criteria 6
1.4.3 Sample Site Selection 7
1.4.4 Stream Prioritization for the Phased Approach . . 9
1.4.5 Site Preparation Costs 9
1.5 ANALYSIS , , . . 10
1.5.1 Number of Samples Used for Costing ....... 10
1.5.2 Basic Analysis Scheme 12
1.5.3 Analysis Methods and Unit Costs ......... 12
1.5.3.1 Bioassy Testing 12
.1.5.3.2 Organic Analysis 17
1.5.3.3 Inorganic Compound Identification ... 17
1.5.3.4 Particulate Morphology . . 17
1.5.3.5 Coal Feed Analysis . ... 17
1.5;3.6 Inorganic Element Analysis ....... 17
1.5.3.7 Water Analysis 18
1.5.3.8 Gas Chromatographic Analysis ...... 18
1.6 COMPUTATION OF COSTS . 18
1.6.1 Sampling Costs 18
1.6.2 Analysis Costs ... ... 21
1.6.3 Repeat Factor for Direct Level 2 Sampling and
Analysis . . . 21
1.6.4 Replication Factor for Level 2 and Direct Level
2 Sampling and Analysis ...... 21
1.7 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . 21
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
2.0 CONCLUSIONS . . 25
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS . . 26
4.0 INTRODUCTION 27
5.0 PROGRAM RESULTS 29
5.1 STRATEGY .....' 29
5.1.1 General Considerations 29
5.1.2 The Phased Approach . 30
5.1.2.1 Strategy of the Phased Approach .... 31
5.1.2.2 Definition of Level 1 Sampling and
Analysis 32
5.1.2.3 Definition of Level 2 Sampling and
Analysis 33
5.1.3 The Direct Approach . 33
5.1.3.1 Philosophy of the Direct Approach ... 34
5.1.3.2 Data Requirements of the Direct Approach 34
5.2 GENERAL COSTING CONSIDERATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND
COMPUTATIONS ...... 35
5.2.1 Use of the Cost Unit (C.U.) • • • 35
5.2.2 Computation of Total Sampling Costs ....... 35
5.2.3 Computation of Total Analysis Costs . 38
5.2.4 Repeat Factor for Direct Level 2 Sampling
and Analysis 40
5.2.5 Replication Factor for Level 2 and Direct Level
2 Sampling and Analysis 40
5.3 SAMPLING 41
5.3.1 Types of Streams to be Sampled 41
5.3.2 Classification of Streams for Sampling
and Costing Purposes 41
5.3.3 Selection of Sampling Locations for the
Phased Approach 42
5.3.4 Sample Site Selection - Wet Limestone Scrubber . 44
5.3.5 Sample Site Selection - Coal Gasifier . . . ... 44
5.3.6 Stream Prioritization for the Phased Approach . . 50
5.3.7 Site Preparation Costs 51
5.3.8 Sampling Methods and Unit Costs 55
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
5.4 ANALYSIS 63
5.4.1 Number of Samples Used for Costing Assumptions . 63
5.4.2 Basic Analysis Scheme 63
5.4.3 Analysis Methods and Unit Costs 66
5.4.3.1 Bioassay Testing 66
5.4.3.2 Organic Analysis (Solids and Liquids) . 66
5.4.3.3 Inorganic Compound Identification ... 71
5.4.3.4 Particulate Morphology 71
5.4.3.5 Coal Feed Analysis ..... 71
5.4.3.6 Inorganic Element Analysis ....... 71
5.4.3.7 Water Analysis 73
5.4.3.8 Gas Chromatographic Analysis . 74
5.5 TOTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS 75
5.5.1 Computation of Repeat and Replicate Sample Costs 75
5.5.2 Computation of Sampling Costs ..... 75
5.5.3 Computation of Analysis Costs ..... 77
5.6 TOTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS - COAL GASIFIER ... 83
5.6.1 Computation of Repeat and Replicate Sample Costs 83
5.6.2 Computation of Sampling Costs 83
5.6.3 Computation of Analysis Costs .... 86
5.7 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 92
6.0 REFERENCES . . 95
APPENDIX A - MOBILE LABORATORY UNITS 102
A.I ADVANTAGES . . . 102
A.2 COMPONENTS 103
APPENDIX B - UNIT COSTS FOR WATER ANALYSIS (COMMERCIAL LABORATORY) 106
APPENDIX C - SITE PREPARATION COSTS 107
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of Site Sampling Costs . . 7
2. Summary of Sample Sites - Wet Limestone Scrubber ....... 8
3. Summary of Sample Sites - Coal Gasifier 8
4. Summary of Analysis Types Per Operational Condition --
Limestone Wet Scrubber 11
5. Summary of Analysis Types Per Operational Condition -
Coal Gasifier . 11
6. Major Unit Analysis Costs . 16
7. Sampling and Analysis Cost Summary ($) 22
8. Summary of Site Sampling Costs 38
9. Major Unit Analysis Costs 39
10. Summary of Sample Sites - Coal Gasifier 53
11. Summary of Sample Sites - Wet Limestone Scrubber 53
12. Site Preparation Costs 55
13. Summary of Site Sampling Costs 56
14. Summary of Analysis Types Per Operational Condition -
Coal Gasifier . 64
15. Major Unit Analysis Costs 69
16. Summary of Level 1 Field Sampling Costs - Limestone Wet
Scrubber 76
17. Summary of Level 2 Field Sampling Costs - Limestone Wet
Scrubber . 76
18. Summary of Direct Level 2 Field Sampling Costs - Limestone
Wet Scrubber 77
19. Basic Level 1 Analysis Costs - Limestone Wet Scrubber .... 78
20. Basic Level 2 Analysis Costs - Limestone Wet Scrubber .... 78
21. Basic Level 2 Analysis Costs - Direct Sampling - Limestone Wet
Scrubber 79
22. Limestone Wet Scrubber Sampling and Analysis Costs - Level 1 . 80
23. Limestone Scrubber Sampling and Analysis Costs - Level 2 ... 81
24. Limestone Scrubber Sampling and Analysis Costs - Direct Level 2 82
25. Basic Level 1 Field Sampling Costs - Coal Gasifier 84
26. Basic Level 2 Field Sampling Costs - Coal Gasifier 84
27. Basic Direct Level 2 Field Sampling Costs - Coal Gasifier . . 85
28. Basic Level 1 Analysis Costs - Coal Gasifier 87
29. Basic Level 2 Analysis Costs - Coal Gasifier 87
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Page
30. Basic Level 2 Analysis Costs - Direct Sampling - Coal Gasifier 88
31. Coal Gasifier Sampling and Analysis Costs - Level 1 ..... 89
32. Coal Gasifier Sampling and Analysis Costs - Level 2 ..... 90
33. Coal Gasifier Sampling and Analysis Costs - Direct Level 2 . 91
34. Sampling and Analysis Cost Summary ($) ...... 93
A-l. Environmental Assessment Van or Trailer Mobile Instrumentation
and Chemical Laboratory ......... 104
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Basic Analytical Scheme for Ldvel 1 13
2. Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 2 14
3. Bioassay Flow Chart 15
4. Sample Cost Computation Summary Sheet 19
5. Summary of Sampling and Analysis Costs 23
6. Sample Cost Summary Sheet 36
7. Typical Process Flow Diagram For Limestone Venturi Spray
Tower System 43
8. Sampling Diagram for a Lurgi Gasification Process 45
9. Gasification Plant Effluent Flow Diagram 46
10. Water Sampling Points for a Lurgi Coal Gasification Complex ... 47
11. Model of El Paso Lurgi Coal Gasification Complex 48
12. Summary of Sampling Sites-Coal Gasifier • • • • 52
13. Wet Limestone Scrubber - Sampling Site Summary Chart 57
14. Coal Gasifier - Sampling Site Summary Chart 58
15. Basic Analytical Schemes for Level 1 67
16. Basic Analytical Schemes for Level 2 68
17. Bioassay Flow Chart . 70
18. Inorganic Compound Characterization Scheme .... 72
19. Summary of Sampling and Analysis Costs ..... 94
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
This section includes a detailed summary of the results of this study
which is designed to stand alone as a separate document, if desired. For
this reason, several Tables and Figures from the succeeding sections are
included here.
1.1 BACKGROUND
To facilitate the development of a sampling and analysis strategy, the
number of scenarios considered was limited to those that would best illus-
trate the advantages of a coherent environmental sampling and analytical
strategy. Four scenarios are described in this document which stem from
treating two technologies by two different approaches. It is also further
assumed that the assessment would be performed only on a full-scale demon-
stration or commercial plant and that minimal or no information would be
available from environmental tests performed on bench or pilot scale units.
Thus, each case would be treated as an entire unit in which all feedstock,
waste and product streams would be evaluated.
The wet limestone scrubber flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit and the
Lurgi coal gasification process were chosen as examples of two new technologies
of interest to the EPA. In both cases, data are presently available and
as a result, each technology provides a good data base for verifying the
techniques used in this study. Finally, these examples represent the two
extremes for technology of interest with the scrubber being the simplest
and the coal gasifier one of the largest and most complex.
Two separate approaches have been chosen for the purposes of this
report:
• The phased approach in which two sampling trips of
differing aims and complexity are made to a given
site, and
• The direct approach where an attempt is made to obtain
samples in a single effort.
-------
1.2 DEFINITION OF STRATEGIES
The philosophy, information benefits and cost implications of each
strategy are discussed in detail in the following sections.
1.2.1 The Phased Approach
The phased approach requires two separate levels of sampling and
analytical effort. The first level, which utilizes qualitative and/or
semi-quantitative sampling and analysis procedures, identifies problem
areas and allows the prioritization of certain streams, components and
classes of materials. The second, level 2, sampling and analysis effort
provides more detail on those streams identified in level 1 as being
environmentally significant; level 2 will provide the information to
resolve the questions or data gaps identified in level 1. This informa-
tion will be used to define the control technology needs and may, in some
cases, give the probable or exact cause of a given problem.
The level 1 and 2 sampling and analysis efforts are intimately linked
in the overall environmental assessment effort. Level 1 and level 2 are
the bases for environmental assessments; they differ only in the informa-
tion output. For example, if a level 1 test showed the presence of 3-to
7-ring aromatics (PNA) and gave a positive mutagenicity test, level 2
sampling and analysis would be designed to determine the exact quantities
of organics, the percentages of PNA, and the identity of as many specific
PNA compounds present as possible. In addition, using the level 1 data
and any available level 2 results, the sample is again tested for cytotoxi-
city and mutagenicity in order to confirm and expand the bioassay infor-
mation. A test for carcinogenicity is also run if the results of these
tests are positive. The entire data package can then be used to assess
the control technology R&D needs for the stream.
Level 1 sampling and analysis has as its goal the identification of
the environmental significance of a source in a qualitative and/or semi-
quantitative manner. At the initiation of an environmental assessment,
little is known about the specific sampling requirements of a source both
practically and technically and hence, the emphasis is on survey tests.
For this reason, no. special procedure is employed in obtaining a quantita-
tively representative sample and the chemical, physical and biological
-------
testing 1s of a qualitative and survey nature consistent with the charac-
teristics of the sample.
Level 2 sampling and analysis has as its goal to provide definitive
data for use in the environmental assessment of a source. In order to
perform this in a timely and dost effective manner, the basic questions
to be answered and major problem areas must already have been defined in
level 1. Consequently, level 2 sampling and analysis is characterized by
obtaining representative samples, accurate stream flow rates, and by identi-
fication and quantification of specific organic and inorganic chemical
classes and individual species. In this effort, biotesting in selected
areas is expanded to include dose response data and also cardnogenicity
testing.
The results of this effort will provide sufficient information con-
cerning the problems delineated on level 1 in the areas of physical
characteristics, organic and inorganic chemical species, and biochemical
assaying such that control stream priorities and an initial estimate of
process/control system regions of overlap can be established.
1.2.2 The Direct Approach
The second approach that was examined was the direct single effort
approach designed to achieve the same level of information for decision
making as in the phased approach. Because nothing can be assumed, the
sampling and analysis effort must be planned to cover all components in
all streams. Although conceptually this approach is much simpler than the
phased approach, it will be shown that as the system becomes more complex,
it is not nearly as cost effective as the phased approach.
A direct approach is philosophically attractive for several reasons.
The primary reason is that by planning and executing a single compre-
hensive sampling and analysis effort, the environmental assessment can be
performed in a shorter period of time and thus minimize problems with the
operators of the source. In addition, this approach holds out the seldom
achieved possibility that the effort can be accomplished without making a
return sampling trip, and the resultant savings can be used to pay for
analysis that would not have been performed had even a small amount of
information been known about a stream.
-------
The second area where the direct approach is attractive concerns
sources for which considerable information is already available and
sources which are similar to several other sources that have already been
evaluated. In these instances prior knowledge can take the place of the
level 1 effort and serve to focus the direct level 2 effort.
The overall data requirements of the direct approach are the same as
for the phased approach. This requires that the same level of information
required for the overall assessment be obtained directly as that which was
obtained previously in two phases. Thus in the absence of definitive in-
formation to the contrary, the sampling and analysis effort must contain
provisions for treating all components of all streams in a quantitative
manner. This is a very difficult proposition in actual practice because
of sampling and analysis "surprises" that may make even the most elabo-
rately taken sample and most conservatively performed analysis inadequate.
Thus, in many cases, specific streams will have to be resampled in order
to obtain information equivalent to that proposed for the phased approach.
Because the direct level 2 approach is presently being practiced by the
EPA and various EPA contractors, there is considerable experience to
support this contention. The required repeat effort has been demonstrated
to be between 25 and 50%. An intermediate figure of 35% has been used for
this study. However, since this factor is being called out separately, it
can be altered readily if desired.
1.3 USE OF COST UNIT (C.U.)
In order to facilitate pricing of the manpower and analysis, it was
desired to use a unit of cost larger than the dollar. For this purpose,
the cost unit (c.u.) was defined to be equal to $250. In terms of site
sampling manpower costs, this is approximately equal to one man-day of
fully burdened labor including $70 of per diem and other general direct
costs (ODC's). The primary advantage of the c.u. is that by not using
dollars directly, the costing process can be implemented objectively with-
out the accumulated biases associated with dollar costs. Furthermore, the
cost unit permits ready utilization of correction factors (repeat analysis)
and application of economic factors in the future. In most summary tables,
however, a dollar figure is also given.
-------
1.4 SAMPLING
Only process feed, waste and product streams were considered for this
effort. Tiie principal reasons for this are that analyses of feed streams
are necessary to establish a baseline for potential contaminants and only
waste and product streams will have a direct effect on the environment.
Internal process streams, besides varying greatly from plant to plant, have
no environmental effect except in cases of leakage where the problem becomes
one mainly concerned with fugitive emissions. For tin's reason, a fugitive
emission study was included.
1.4.1. Classification of Streams for Sampling and Costing Purposes
The basic sampling strategy has been organized around the six general
types of sampling found in coal gasification or other complex technologies
rather than around the analytical procedures that will be required on the
collected samples. In this way, the complex and difficult task of organizing
the manpower and equipment necessary for successful field sampling can be
made such that meaningful units of cost can be established. In general for
costing purposes, it was assumed that a separate crew would be used to take
all the samples for a given category and that an accurate cost could be
assigned to this task.
The method used for the determination of specific costs for sample types
in this study relies on data obtained from the following four sources
(vide infra):
• A survey study of presently established costs obtained from
commercial organizations who routinely perform sampling
tasks of this nature,
• A compilation of data resulting from TRW's involvement in
projects of this nature,
t Joint discussions between project members and EPA officials
concerning the applicability of these data to coal conversion
processes,
• The assumptions made in formulating the cost unit figure itself.
-------
Using the gasifier as an example, these four factors were then used to com-
pute a total on-site time for taking the required number of samples in each
of the six sampling types. This was: computed as follows:
c u /sample = Tota1 on-site time (in man-days)*
• •' v number of samples
These values are shown in Table 1 and are used where applicable for both the
wet limestone scrubber and the coal gasifier. The six sample types are de-
lineated below.
• Solids and Solid Slurries - These are the coal input,
bottom ash, and any aqueous stream containing more than
5-10% solids.
• Liquor Streams
• .Aqueous - Water streams containing less than 5-10%
insoluble solids
* Non-aqueous - Homogeneous streams other than water
streams (usually organic).
t Gas - Streams containing no significant particulate matter. These
samples include process streams, process vents, and ambient
air samples.
• Flue gas containing particulate matter.
• Flue gas without particulate matter - These streams are essentially
the same as the gas streams except special procedures are used to
sample for acid gases and PAH compounds.
• Fugitive Dust Sampling - This includes local source sampling
and plant perimeter sampling employing high volume sampler
techniques.
1.4.2 Phased Approach Site Selection Criteria
The selection of sampling points in processes where phased level sampling
techniques are employed relies on the concept that level 1 sampling is
oriented towards obtaining survey and/or semi-quantitative results only,
* Note: one cost unit (c.u.) as defined in Section 1.3 equals one man
day or $250.
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SITE SAMPLING COSTS
Sample Type
1. Solids & Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-aqueous
4. Gas (Non-parti cul ate)
5a. Flue gas (Particulate)
5b. Flue gas (Non-parti -
culate)
6. Fugitive dust
C.U./Site
Level 1
0.50
.0.50
0.67
0.28
0.91
_*
0.36
Level 2
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.60
6.00
1.00
0.30
Actual $
Level 1
125.00
125.00
167.00
70.00
227.00
90.00
Level 2
250.00
175.00
250.00
150.00
1500.00
250.00
75.00
Lack of particul ate must be established with a level 1 test.
whereas level 2 and direct sampling programs are intended to acquire more
accurately and more definitively data necessary to perform an environmental
assessment. Stream parameters such as flow rates, temperature, pressure
and other physical characteristics will be obtained on both levels within
the accuracy requirements of a given level of sampling. Consequently, a
level 1 sample may be taken from any easily accessible port within the flow .
scheme of a given unit. For example, in obtaining a level 1 stack sample,
the probe may be inserted in any convenient location along the duct leading
to the stack and a pseudo-isokinetic sample may be taken in order to obtain
qualitative data. On level 2, however, where quantitative data are required,
isokinetic samples must be withdrawn from specific locations away from ducting
bends and other obstructions in order to ensure a sample representative of
the actual effluent.
1.4.3 Sample Site Selection
The site selection model used for the wet limestone scrubber is the
spray tower system installed at Paducah, Kentucky. Seven influent and
effluent sampling sites were selected involving four of the six sample types
discussed in the previous section. These are tabulated in Table 2. All
sites are sampled in the level 1 and direct efforts. The reduction in number
of sites, for level 2 sampling is discussed in Section 1.4.4 below.
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE SITES
WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
Sample Type
1. Flue Gas ( Parti cul ate)
2. Miscellaneous Stack
Gases
3. Aqueous
4. Reheater Fuel (Organic)
5. Limestone Inputs
(Solids)
Number of
Sites
Level 1
2
2
3
1
1
Number of
Sites
Level 2
2
2
2
1
1
Number of
Sites
Direct Level 2
2
2
3
1
1
The site selection model used for the coal gasifier is the Lurgi Coal
Gasification Complex proposed by the El Paso Natural Gas Company for con-
struction in New Mexico. A generalized flow scheme for sampling purposes
developed under Task 3 of this Contract (EPA 68-02-1412) was used to estab-
lish the number of sample sites in Table 3. All sites are sampled on level 1
and in the direct effort. The reduction in number of sites for level 2 samp-
ling is discussed in Section 1.4.4 below.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE SITES
COAL GASIFIER
Sample Type
1 . Solids & Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-aqueous (Organic)
4. Gas (Non-parti cul ate)
5a. Flue Gas (Parti cul ate)
5b. Flue Gas (Non-parti cu-
1 ate )
6. Dust (Fugitive)
Number of
Sites
Level 1
6
8
6
32
5
11
Number of
Sites
Level 2
8
6
4
20
3
3
11
Number of
Sites
Direct Level 2
8
8
6
32
5
11
-------
1.4,4 Stream Prioritization for the Phased Approach
A coal gasification process is a highly complex system consisting of a
wide variety of interrelated components. Level 1 sampling will show that
many influents waste and product streams are not environmentally significant.
These data can serve to reduce the number of samples required on level 2
substantially. A limestone wet scrubber, on the other hand, is a very
simple process as compared to a gasification system. The streams which
require sampling are small in number which naturally limits the number of
streams which can be assigned a low priority utilizing a phased sampling
approach. Thus it is important to remember that level 1 is designed to
allow allocation of resources so that level 2 can provide the desired infor-
mation for an environmental assessment. Direct level 2 sampling by defini-
tion can have no stream prioritization, and thus the maximum number of sites
will always be sampled in this approach.
A comprehensive stream prioritization based on the level 1 sampling
and analysis effort will result in the definition of many streams of low priority.
In many cases, the level 1 information will be sufficient to eliminate cer-
tain streams entirely from the level 2 effort. In some cases, limited
resources may require the omission of certain low priority streams.
For the purposes of this study, it was desirable to assign conservative,
but reasonable priorities to the various streams and in this manner eliminate
certain streams from further consideration for the level 2 effort. In the
case of the scrubber, there were so few streams that it was felt that it was
not reasonable to eliminate any streams except in the trivial case of the
input make-up water. However, careful examination of the gasifier streams
indicated that 15-20% of the streams could reasonably be expected to be
environmentally safe or of very low priority. The types and quantities of
streams that were eliminated are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
K4.5 Site Preparation Costs
Assigning a cost to this nebulous area is difficult because while the
extreme cases are not rare, in most cases, these costs are low to moderate
especially for the newly designed technologies being treated here. Accordingly,
a reasonably low cost was assigned to site preparation with the assumption
that higher costs are a special case out of the scope of this treatment.
-------
Thus it was assumed that the erection of scaffolding and providing power
would be the main site preparation cost; a further assumption was that
these costs would be associated to a large extent with stack sampling as this
is the most complex sampling procedure. The costs were set at $250 per
stack for level 1 and $500 per stack for level 2 and direct level 2 assuming
that the necessary access ports are available. In addition, preparation
for the other gasifier sites which should be minimal was set at $500 for
level 1, $1,000 for level 2, and $1,500 for direct level 2 corresponding
roughly to 2, 4 and 6 man days, respectively.
1.5 ANALYSIS
This section summarizes the rationale used to select the analysis pro-
cedures which are used for the samples collected and describes the assumptions
used to arrive at the individual unit costs.
1.5.1 Number of Samples Used for Costing
In the area of analysis, no effort was made to eliminate specific com-
ponents from a given stream. All analysis reductions with the exception of
the gasifier level 2 flue gas analysis are the result of the stream
reductions delineated in Section 1.4. It should be noted that several
sample types generate the need for two or more separate unit analysis.
Thus, the ash slurry stream generates a water sample and a solids
sample, and the wide boiling range organics obtained from the water
and organic streams are split into Cg fractions. The flue
gas particulate is collected as four samples for particulate analysis,
but this is reduced to two samples for bioassay analysis. An additional
trace element analysis is included on direct level 2 stack sampling
for the impinger train and an additional organic analysis is added for
analysis of volatile organic collected by a special tenax train. Level
2 gasifier flue gas sample analysis is postulated on the fact that no
particulate was found in the gas fired boiler on level 1 analysis.
Fugitive particulate samples were reduced to two samples each (>3p
and <3y) from two sets of four locations. A summary of the number
of analyses is shown in Tables 4 and 5 for the gasifier and scrubber,
respectively.
10
-------
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS TYPES PER OPERATIONAL
CONDITION - LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER3)
Sample Type
1. Bioassay: a. Water Insoluble^
b. Water SolublebJ
2. Organic Analysis
(per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound Identification
4. Parti cul ate Morphology
5. Inorganic Element Analysis
6. Water Analysis
7. Gas Chromatographic Analysis
Total Samples
Level 1
10
14
-
6
15
3
2
Level 2
2
4
8
10
6
15
2
0
Direct
Level 2
2
8
14
10
6
15
3
2
a) The number of analyses included in this table is based on the
number of sites developed in Section 1.4. These numbers will
be doubled if two operational conditions are sampled.
b) The distinction between water soluble and insoluble samples is
made only for level 2 analysis. See Section 1.5.3.1 for details.
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS TYPES PER OPERATIONAL
CONDITION - COAL GASIFIER3'
Analysis Type
1. Bioassay: a. Water Insoluble '
b. Water Soluble^
2. Organic Analysis
3. Inorganic Compound Analysis
4. Particulate Morphology
5. Coal Feed Analysis
6. Inorganic Element Analysis
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Liquid Chromatography
Total Samples
Level 1
57
56
--
37
6
58
8
36
Level 2
11
15
51
28
11
8
47
6
27
Direct
Level 2
32
28
88
50
37
8
72
8
49
a) The number of analyses included in this table is based on the
number of sites developed in Section 1.4. These numbers will
be doubled if two operational conditions are sampled.
b) The distinction between water soluble and insoluble samples is
made only for level 2 analysis. See Section 1.5.3.1 for details,
11
-------
1.5.2 Basic Analysis Scheme
The analytical schemes cited in this report are divided into 9
distinct analytical methodologies. Each of those methodologies is
essentially the same for both levels of the phased approach and differ
only in the level of sophistication involved.
Figure 1 illustrates a generalized flow scheme for the analytical cate-
gorization of level 1 samples. Each analysis type is assigned its own cost
unit per analysis factor and a brief statement of methodology is made for
each analysis type. The specific sample types to which each analytical
category relate are listed beneath each group.
Figure 2 consists of a basic analysis flow scheme as applied to level
2 sampling. The diagram format is the same as that for level 1.
1.5.3 Analysis Methods and Unit Costs
The unit costs shown in Table 6 were developed using data collected
from a wide variety of sources. Commercial price lists were used whenever
an analysis was routine. For semi-routine analysis or very specialized
analyses for which procedures are available, the appropriate authorities
were consulted for their estimates of the costs. Sources included the EPA
(various branches), EPA contractors (SRI, BMI, MRI, Radian), academic sources
and various commercial testing laboratories. Each analysis and unit cost is
briefly explained below.
1.5.3.1 Bioassay Testing
This series of tests is designed to test in a broad and general manner,
the negative health effects potential of a given source stream. Level 1
bioassay includes simplified cytotoxicity and mutagenicity testing on all
solid and liquid (water and organic) samples or fractions obtained. In
level 2 testing, the original tests are expanded and a carcinogenicity test
is added for use where appropriate. The number of samples includes all solids,
liquids, and gases. In addition to the biological tests, level 1 trace ele-
ment and organic tests are performed on the insoluble particulate and super-
natant in order to aid in interpretation of the data. These tests are not
included if the sample is entirely soluble. Level 1 and level 2 flow charts
are shown separately in Figure 3.
12
-------
]—fcj ;NC.;CAM:S [ Euv^rs s;
OS
5ICO
NECtlSASY)
.
I "-TO 3 ctASSf; S:i0
PA8I:CULAJEi AM) CASES
Figure 1. Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 1
o
o
PhYSiCAL SEPAPAIION
a CURSES SJ50
j »j IKC-aOAMics ] SI25
1
V/ATE8
OJAtlTY
TESTS
'AC' roi's i
CiGANiC
ExrwcriON
ANu/OS
S£.»A5ATICK
INTO 2bs
FSACIICNS
JH
. CRO/-rw:CS ?^iS:CAt s?;ASa
"" bo>i)0'C K! IO S CLASSES
J OC ANALYSIS Jjj
SOLIDS, SLURSIES, LIGU1US
o
CO
-------
Figure 2. Basic Analytical Scheme far Ltvel 2
14
o
—H
=D
rn
so
O
c:
CD
H —• j ? ^.^ I'
HSI
u
-------
SAMPLE
SOLIDS AND
IMMISIBLE
ORGANIC LIQUIDS
LEVEL 1
BIO ASSAY
CYTOTOXICITY
1 CONCENTRATION
$200
MUTAGENICITY
I CONCENTRATION
$600
COST
$200
$600
$800
LEVEL 2
3IOASSAY
CYTOTOXICITY
3 CONCENTRATIONS
$600
CARCINOGENICITY
1
$2000
MUTAGENICITY
1 CONCENTRATION
$800
-»
-»•
-••
-^
-»
ANALYSIS
INSOLUBLE
ORGANIC
$600
3 SAMPLES
INSOLUBLE
INORGANIC
$900
3 SAMPLES
SOLUTION
ORGANIC
$600
3 SAMPLES
SOLUTION
INORGANIC
$1200
3 SAMPLES
SOLUTION
ORGANIC
$200
SOLUTION
INORGANIC
$400
COST
— *- $3900
$7300
Figure 3. Bioassay Flow Chart
-------
TABLE 6
MAJOR UNIT ANALYSIS COSTS
Analysis Category
1.. Bioassay
a. Media Soluble
b. Media Insoluble
2. Organic Analysis (oer sample)
3. Inorganic Compound Identification
4. Particulate Morphology
5. Coal Feed Analysis
6. Inorganic Element Analysis
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Chromatographic Analysis
t Acid ^ases
• C,-Co Organics
• Sulfur Compounds
Cost Units
Level 1
3.20
3.20
1.00
1.10
0.50
0.33
0.25
Level 2
13.60
29.20
16.00
6.00
1.60
1 .38
1 .20
1.80
1.00
Actual Cost $
Level 1
800
800
250
270
125
95
63
Level 2
3400
7300
4000
1500
400
345
300
450
250
en
-------
1.5.3.2 Organic Analysis (Solids and Liquids)
• Level 1 - A survey liquid chromatographic technique is used to
separate the samples into 8 fractions for identification by
infrared analysis of compound types. Organic samples obtained
from water or organic streams are divided into a high (>150°C)
and low (<150°C) boiling fraction for separate analysis and x
costed as two samples.
• Level 2 - The results of level 1 are used to redefine the
level 1 technique so that fractions of each of the potential
classes can be separated for GC/MS analysis.
1.5.3.3 Inorganic Compound Identification
Inorganic compound identification is essentially a sophisticated experi-
mental extension of particulate morphological determinations. As such it
provides information needed for level 2 characterization. At present,
methodology for this type of analysis is ill-defined and costs are even
more elusive. For this reason, an upper limit of 6 c.u. or $1,500 was set
on the costs.
1.5.3.4 Particulate Morphology
Level 1 morphological examination of collected particulate will include
microscopic examination of shape, size, distribution, surface features, and
possible source. This will yield information as to general particle size
distribution as well as an identification of the particulate and classifi-
cation into general morphological types, as well as specific compound
identification by crystalline structure. Additional information as to par-
ticulate composition will be obtained in level 2.
1.5.3.5 Coal Feed Analysis
In addition to the regular analysis on level 2, a standard set of
ASTM analyses which includes sulfur forms, ultimate, proximate, and ash
analyses as well as sieve (size) analysis will be performed.
1.5.3.6 Inorganic Element Analysis
Spark Source Mass Spectroscopy (SSMS) is the analytical tool costed
for both the level 1 and level 2 trace element analysis.
17
-------
The level 1 analysis is designed to perform as a general survey scan
of all effluent streams for possible toxic or carcinogenic inorganic
species. Accuracy levels of + a factor of three were arbitrarily set for
level 1 analysis and a minimum detection limit of 1 ppm for all streams
tested. Level 2 accuracy was set at +_ a factor 0.5 with the same detection
limits. Of all the analytical techniques evaluated for level 1, SSMS was
the most versatile in that all elements can be detected at the prescribed
levels or lower.
1.5.3.7 Water Analysis
In addition to the normal liquid analyses, a set of approved EPA
analyses is included. Level 1 analyses will be done with field equipment
while level 2 analyses will be done in a commercial laboratory to achieve
increased reliability and accuracy.
1.5.3.8 Gas Chromatographic Analysis
These analyses will be performed on site by a multicolumn, multi-
detector gas chromatograph for level 1 and wherever possible for level 2.
In many cases, it will be necessary to perform the analyses on site because
of the sample instability. The differences in cost between levels 1 and 2
reflect the difference in accuracy and precision of the data obtained.
1.6 COMPUTATION OF COSTS
Figure 4 shows an example of the sampling and analysis cost summary
sheets used to compute the total costs for the level 1, level 2 and direct
level 2 effects. The following sections explain the individual items and
the methods used to compute each line.
1.6.1 Sampling Costs
The various components of the sampling effort are shown in Part I in
Figure 4. The central focus of all sampling costs is the manpower necessary
to perform the needed sampling tasks on-site. This number is obtained by
multiplying the unit costs for each sample type listed in Table 1 by the
number of sites listed in Tables 2 and 3. To this total (Item I-C-b in
Figure 4) are then added other costs such as! 1) preliminary arrangements
and pre-site survey, 2) trip planning and preparations, 3) correlation
and reporting and 4) other direct costs.
18
-------
I. TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-Site
Survey
a. Labor
b. ODC's
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (Variable)
a. Site Preparations
b. 2.0 x Field Sampling Labor Costs
C. Field Sampling Costs (2-Man Team)
a. Travel and Miscellaneous ODC's
.(1000 miles)
b. Field Sampling Labor and Per Diem
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Field Labor Costs
E. Repeat at 35% Items B, C and D (Only for Direct Level 2)
F. Total Sampling Costs
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs
B. Analysis Set-up Time, Duplicates,
Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs
D. Repeat at 35% Items A, B, C (Only for Direct Level 2)
E. Total Analysis Costs
III. TOTAL COSTS PER PROCESS CONDITION
Figure 4. Sample Cost Computation Summary Sheet
19
-------
Preliminary arrangements and pre-site survey costs (Item I-A in Figure
4) include the labor and other direct costs necessary to make the initial contacts
and arrangements for the assessment as well as a pre-site survey. Since this
is entirely an initial effort, there is no cost for Item A in all level 2
efforts. This labor was set at 6.0 man-days for the scrubber and 11.0 man-
days for the gasifier. Other direct costs include per-diem and air fares
for the pre-site survey which is based on a one-man effort for the scrubber
and a two-man effort for the gasifier. Travel distances were set at 1000
miles to both units.
Trip planning and preparation (Item I-B, Figure 4) includes site prepa-
ration costs as well as the internal detailed planning and equipment assembly
for the trip. Both items are highly variable and for this reason several
assumptions were made concerning these costs. The site preparation costs
assumptions are discussed in Section 1.4.5 Because trip planning and
preparation costs are highly dependent on the general experience of the
crew, the available knowledge, and/or the actual experience with a specific
type of source, no attempt was made to establish these costs directly.
Instead, they were set at a specific multiple of the field sampling costs
so that this factor.could be varied to fit a specific situation.
Based on TRW experience and the assumption of no prior experience for the
specified sources, this multiplier was set at 1.5 for level 1. This is
reduced to 1.0 for level .2 on the assumption that the level 1 organization
and experience would reduce these labor costs markedly. In the case of
direct level 2 sampling, the multiplier was set at 2.0 because it is neces-
sary to prepare for all possibilities and the need to obtain an ideal sample
on a single visit requires substantial additional effort.
Correlation and reporting of the results were arbitrarily set at 20%
of the field labor costs. The assumption was that this would include a
basic write-up with little or no interpretation.
Field sampling ODC's (Item I-C-a) were based on a 2-man crew for the
scrubber. For the gasifier, a 7-man crew was assumed for Level 1, 8 men
for Level 2, and 10 men for direct Level 2. Travel was based on a 2,000-
mile round trip for both examples.
20
-------
1.6.2 Analysis Costs
Analysis costs were based on commercial quotes whenever possible.
Estimates of non-routine analysis were based on EPA data or calculated as
explained in Section 1.5.3. Whenever commercial rates were used, an addi-
tional 25% was added for handling, tabulation and interaction with the
commercial laboratory. Because the analysis costs are idealized, a con-
tingency factor of 20% (Item II-B) was added to this cost for analysis
inefficiencies such as set-up time, duplicate determinations, etc. Finally,
correlation and reporting of the results were arbitrarily set at 20% of the
analysis costs.
1.6.3 Repeat Factor for Direct Level 2 Sampling and Analysis
As discussed in the section on strategy, Section 1.2.2, it was felt
that a significant number of samples would have to be retaken and analyzed
because of unforeseen circumstances. These repeats were set at 35% for
both the gasifier and the scrubber. These factors are shown at Items I-E
and II-D in Figure 4.
1.6.4 Replication Factor for Level 2 and Direct Level 2 Sampling and
Analysis
Because a single sample of given stream, although representative of
the day on which it was taken, has a high probability of not being repre-
sentative of all process conditions, it is planned that a second replicate
sample will be taken at all sample sites under a separate set of process
conditions and preferably on a different day. This replicate factor of 2
is applied to the total of Items I and II.
1.7 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the cost computations are shown in Table 7 and Figure 5
for the wet limestone scrubber and coal gasifier. These totals include
sampling and resulting analysis repeats of 35% for both direct level 2
efforts and a replication factor of two in order to obtain samples for two
process conditions for all level 2 efforts. Although the scrubber and
gasifier differ markedly in size, complexity, basic technology and cost
of assessment, the following conclusions are evidentt
t The phased approach was found to be more cost effective in all
aspects than the direct approach for both technologies. For the
21
-------
TABLE 7
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
COST SUMMARY -($•)
Strategy
Level 1
Level 2
Phased Total
Direct Level 2
Limestone Wet Scrubber
Sampling
5,100
18,850
23,950
41,450
Analysis
21,575
254,450
276,025
548,150
Total
26,675
273,300
299,975
589,600
Coal Gasifier
Sampling
28,425
53,950
82,375
194,370
Analysis
109,925
1,149,100
1,259,025
2,937,400
Total
138,350
1,203,050
1,341,400
3,131,770
r\>
rv>
-------
t = 3,130,000
ro
CO
8
z
g
u
700,000-
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
0
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER
LEGEND:
SAMPLING COSTS
ANALYSIS COSTS
LEVEL 1, 2 TOTAL DIRECT LEVEL
LEVELS 1 & 2 NO. 2 APPROACH
PHASED APPROACH
1,500,000 .
100,000 -
LEVEL 1, 2 TOTAL DIRECT LEVEL
LEVELS 1 & 2 NO. 2 APPROACH
PHASED APPROACH
Figure 5. Summary of Sampling and Analysis Costs
-------
gasifier, this amounted to a factor of 2.3; for the wet lime-
stone scrubber, direct costs were higher by a factor of 2.0.
The advantages of the phased sampling and analysis approach
were found to be approximately proportional to the complexity
of the process being sampled. Thus, while the phased approach
resulted in a 58% reduction in costs over the direct approach
in the gasifier, the corresponding savings for the wet lime-
stone scrubber were 49%.
Within the phased approach, the level 1 sampling and
analysis is only 8-10% of the total cost of the phased
effort. Thus, many qualitative judgments including
whether or not a full-scale endeavor is necessary can
be decided before a commitment is made to initiate a
detailed final (level 2) assessment.
The following were found to be cost sensitive items:
1. Flue gas (particulate matter) sampling has a
significantly higher unit cost on both levels :
1 and 2 than another type of sampling,
2. In level 1, bioassay testing constitutes the
major analyses costs. In both the phased
and direct level 2 effort, bioassay testing
and organic analysis costs followed by in-
organic compound identification are the
major cost sensitive items.
Sampling, although very important, consists of about 10%
of the total effort.
24
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
1. Two approaches, a phase two stage and a single direct effort, were
used to provide all necessary inputs for an environmental assessment and
were applied to a wet limestone scrubber and a coal gasification complex.
In the phased approach, the required information is obtained in two distinct
phases with differing objectives and technical sophistication while in the
direct approach, the same result is obtained in a single comprehensive effort.
2. The phased approach was found to be more cost effective in all aspects
than the direct approach for both technologies even though the scrubber and
coal gasifier differ markedly in size, complexity, basic technology, and total
cost of sampling and analysis. For the gasifier, this amounted to a factor of
2.3 for the wet limestone scrubber, direct costs were higher by a factor of 2.0.
3. The advantages of the phased sampling and analysis approach were found
to be approximately proportional to the complexity of the process being
sampled. Thus,while the phased approach resulted in a 58% reduction in
costs over the direct approach for the gasifier, the corresponding savings
for the wet limestone scrubber were 49%.
4. Within the phased approach, the initial (level 1) sampling and
analysis is only 8 - 10% of the total cost of the phased effort. Thus,
many qualitative judgments including whether or not a full scale endeavor
is necessary can be decided before a commitment is made to initiate a
detailed final (level 2) assessment.
5. The following were found to be cost sensitive items:
t Flue gas (particulate) sampling has a significantly
higher unit cost on both levels 1 and 2 than
another type of sampling.
• In level 1, bioassay testing constitutes the
major analyses costs. In both the phased and
direct level 2 effort, bioassay testing and
organic analysis costs followed by inorganic
compound identification are the major cost
sensitive items.
6. Sampling, although very important, consists of about 10% of
the total effort.
25
-------
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. This study should be continued in order to refine the philosophy,
assumptions and costing data used in this report, as well as to evaluate
EPA and EPA contractor's comments generated by this document.
2. Additional studies should evaluate the generality of this approach
by application of the methodology to other technologies.
3. Cost effective implementation of the above should include the
development of a computer program that will eliminate the intensive manual
labor involved in the calculation of costs and cost summaries such that
cost implications of additional scenarios based on differing assumptions
can be investigated in detail.
26
-------
4.0 INTRODUCTION (References 1, 2, 3)
The development of this set of environmental sampling and analytical test
strategies and test strategy costs has been prepared for the Process Measure-
ment Branch of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, in partial fulfill-
ment of Task 9 of Contract No. 68-02-1412.
The current energy shortage and the emphasis on the use of energy
with minimal environmental impact will result in the development of
large scale new industries for coal conversion, stack gas cleaning,
oil shale processing and greatly increased coal cleaning facilities.
These new technologies will, by nature of both their size and numbers,
have considerable positive or negative impact on the environment. In
addition, it is becoming of increasing importance to assess the impact
of existing industries on the environment. For these reasons, the EPA
is currently developing methodologies to assess both the technical
and economic requirements for this effort.
The strategy for the preparation of this report was to examine
two test methodologies and to apply them in a detailed manner to two
energy related technologies in order to ascertain the results of the
various assumptions involved. The wet limestone scrubber flue gas
desulfurization and the Lurgi gasification processes were chosen
because they are both examples of technologies in which substantial
effort to identify potential pollutants has already been performed
and thus provide a good data base for this study. In addition,
the wet scrubber unit is probably the simplest case that will
be of interest and the Lurgi process is both an example of a synthetic
energy technology and representative of a very complex plant.
For the purposes of this report, only feedstocks, inputs to con-
trol devices and all waste and product streams were considered. The sampling
and analysis of internal or interconnecting process streams was not
considered because this would increase the complexity of an environ-
mental assessment by an order of magnitude while providing only a
small additional amount of information.
27
-------
The environmental impact of these streams is mostly in the form of
fugitive emissions which is treated as a separate subject in the case
of the gasifier. If control technology is found to be necessary,
these process streams will have to be investigated as necessary to solve the
problem.
Analysis of the feedstocks and Inputs to control devices is
necessary in order to establish baseline data to help in evaluating
effluent streams which are discharged directly into the environment.
Fugitive emissions have not been included for the wet limestone
scrubber as this would necessitate a complete assessment of the
entire power plant complex. In the case of the Lurgi gasifier, a
simple effort has been included so that a firm decision can be made
whether or not a separate fugitive emission program should be
initiated.
In the interest of simplicity, two sampling and analytical
approaches designed to give the same level of information for decision
making were chosen. The first approach, called the phased approach,
requires two separate levels of sampling and analytical effort. The
first level, utilizing qualitative and semi-quantitative sampling and
analysis procedures, identifies sampling and analysis problem areas
and allows the.prioritization of streams, components and/or classes
of materials in the overall assessment. The second level sampling and
analysis effort after having been focused by level 1, will be designed
to give the desired information. This information will then be used
to define the control technology needs and may in some cases yield
probable causes or even isolate the problem.
• • • .-,._... .
The second approach that was examined is the direct single effort
strategy which is designed to achieve the same level of information
for decision making as in the phased approach. Because nothing can
be assumed, the sampling and analysis effort must be planned to cover
all components 1n all streams. Although conceptually this approach
is much simpler than the phased approach, it will be shown that
it is not nearly as cost effective as the phased approach.
28
-------
The strategy, site selection, analysis methods and their corresponding
costs are explained 1n the fdllowing sections along with a summary of the
results.
5.0 PROGRAM RESULTS
This section provides a detailed description of the results of the
program activities. The section is organized to provide a technical
summary of the findings of this effort, the strategy and underlying philos-
ophy of environmental testing, general costing considerations and assump-
tions, sampling considerations regarding the factors affecting site selec-
tion, methodology and unit costs, analysis procedures and analysis unit
costs, and finally, a summary of sampling and analysis costs.
5.1 STRATEGY
The general considerations and assumptions that were used in develop-
ing both the phased and direct sampling and analysis strategies are devel-
oped in the following sections,
5.1.1 General Considerations (References 3, 4, 5)
To facilitate the development of a sampling and analysis strategy, the
number of scenarios considered was limited to those that would best illus-
trate the advantages of a coherent environmental sampling and analytical
strategy. Consequently, two technologies were treated according to two
different approaches for a total of four cases. It was also further
assumed that the assessment would be performed only on a full-scale dem-
onstration or commercial plant and that minimal or no information would be
available from environmental tests performed on bench or pilot scale units.
Thus, each case would be treated as an entire unit in which all feedstock
and effluent streams would be evaluated.
The wet limestone scrubber flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit and
the Lurgi coal gasification process were chosen as examples of new tech-
nologies of interest to the EPA for environmental control and synthetic
fuel production, respectively. In both cases, substantial effort has
already been performed in the area of environmental assessment, and as a
result, each provides a good data base for verifying the techniques used
in this study. Finally, these examples represent the two extremes for
29
-------
technology of interest with the scrubber being the simplest and the coal
gaslfier one of the largest and most complex.
Internal process streams were not treated directly. Although single
unit technologies like a wet limestone FGD scrubber, for example, have a
minimum of in-process streams, a large coal gasification complex covering
several square miles has hundreds of interconnecting streams that have
only an indirect effect on the environment either by affecting the output
of units producing effluents or by inadvertent leakage. In the former
case, these streams may be investigated if control technology must be
developed, but this data is not necessary in order to make an executive
decision on the environmental impact of a given effluent stream.
Leakage from internal process streams results in a fugitive emission
problem. For this reason, an atmospheric sampling effort is included in
order to determine whether or not these emissions present a problem and to
identify some problem areas for further study rather than to provide a
complete fugitive emission analysis profile of the plant. A fugitive
emission study for the limestone scrubber was not included because this
would necessitate a complete environmental assessment of the power plant
complex which is outside the scope of this task.
Two separate approaches have been chosen for the purposes of this
report:
• The phased approach in which two sampling trips of differing
aims and complexity are made to a given site, and
• The direct approach where an attempt is made to obtain any
necessary replicate samples in a single effort.
The philosophy, information benefits and cost implications of each
approach are discussed in detail in the following sections.
5.1.2 The Phased Approach (References 6, 7)
The phased approach requires two separate levels of sampling and
analytical effort. The first level, utilizing qualitative and/or semi-
quantitative sampling and analysis procedures, identifies problem areas
and allows for prioritization of streams, components and classes of
materials. The second, level 2, sampling and analysis effort, after
having been focused by level 1, will be designed to provide information
30
-------
that will produce quantitative emission data concerning specific compounds
identified in level 1. This information will be used to define the control
technology needs and may, in some cases, give the probable or exact cause
of a given problem.
5.1.2.1 Strategy of the Phased Approach
The basic philosophy of this approach recognizes the intuitive feeling
on the part of sampling and analysis personnel that it is impossible to
prepare for every conceivable condition on the first sampling and analysis
effort. Thus, unknown conditions and components of streams will result in
unreliable information and data gaps that will require a significant percen-
tage of the analyses to be repeated with a refocused objective. In other
cases, the sample size or sampling procedure may not be adequate to quan-
titate components that are actually found in a stream. If elaborate
"state-of-the-art" sampling and analysis methods were employed, this would
involve considerable additional expenses as a result of this "real-time"
learning process. A second possibility is that many streams or even the
entire installation may not'be emitting hazardous substances in quantities
of environmental significance. If this fact could be determined by a
simplified set of sampling and analysis techniques, the resultant savings
in both time and funds could then be used for further testing in other
areas where there is greater need. A third possibility is that budgetary
limitations may require prioritizing a series of installations so that the
available funds can be used in assessing those installations most in need
of control technology. Again, a simplified sampling and analysis method-
ology would be an advantage to EPA's environmental assessment effort. Thus,
a phased approach offers potential benefits in terms of cost savings and
increased information that is obtained for a given level of effort.
The level 1 and 2 sampling and analysis efforts are intimately linked
in the overall environmental assessment effort. Level 1 focuses the sampl-
ing and analysis effort in level 2 with the resultant quantitative identi-
fication of specific species. For example, if a level T test showed the
presence of 3-to 7-ring aromatics (PNA) and gave a positive mutagenicity
test, level 2 sampling and analysis would be designed to determine the
exact quantities of organic constituents, the percentage of PNA, and the
identity of as many specific PNA compounds present as possible. In
31
-------
addition, using the level 1 data and any available level 2 results, the
sample is again tested for cytotoxicity and mutagenicity in order to confirm
and expand the bioassay information. A test for cardnogenicity is also
run if the results of the mutagenicity test are positive. The entire data
package can then be used to assess the control technology R&D needs for
the stream.
A detailed explanation of level 1 and level 2 analysis along with
their expected outputs is given in the following sections.
5.1.2.2 Definition of Level 1 Sampling and Analysis
Level 1 sampling and analysis has as its goal the identification of
the pollution potential of a source in a qualitative and/or semi-quantitative
manner. At the initiation of an environmental assessment, little is known
about the specific sampling requirements of a source both practically and
technically and hence, the emphasis is on survey tests. For this reason,
no special procedure is employed in obtaining a representative sample and
the chemical, physical and biological testing is of a qualitative and
survey nature consistent with the characteristics of the sample.
On this level, the sampling and analysis is designed to show within
broad general limits the presence or absence, the approximate concentrations,
and the emission rate of inorganic elements, inorganic anions and selected
fractions of organic compounds. Physical testing mainly concerns the par-
ticulate matter and includes size distribution as well as microscopic
examination in order to determine gross physical characteristics of the
material. Bioassay is designed to determine the cytotoxicity and mutagenicity
of a sample within broad limits.
The results of this phase are then used to establish priorities for
additional testing among a series of sources. Within a given source,
streams can be prioritized according to pollution potential. Finally,
within a given stream, component priorities can be established.
Level 1 serves a crucial role in that it provides environmental infor-
mation and permits certain questions to be answered. However, level 1 is
not designed to stand alone as an environmental assessment effort and its
most important function is to focus future sampling and analysis programs
32
-------
on specific streams and components for the level 2 effort. By delineating
specific sampling, analysis and decision making problem areas, the level 1
effort will establish the methodology of the level 2 effort in such a way
that answers can be provided to questions formulated by the level 1 effort.
5.1.2.3 Definition of Level 2 Sampling and Analysis
Level 2 sampling and analysis has as its goal to provide definitive
data that will complete the environmental assessment of a source. In order
to perform this in a timely and cost effective manner, the basic data to
be obtained and major problem areas must already have been defined in level 1.
Consequently, level 2 sampling and analysis is characterized by obtaining
representative samples, accurate stream flow rates, and by identification
and quantification of specific organic and inorganic chemical classes and
individual species. In this effort, biotesting in selected areas is
expanded to include dose response data and also card nogeni city testing.
The results of this phase will provide more detailed information con-
cerning the classes of chemicals delineated by level 1 in the areas of
physical characteristics, organic and inorganic chemical species, and bio-
chemical assaying such that control stream priorities and an initial estimate
of process/control system regions of overlap can be established.
5.1.3 The Direct Approach
The second scenario that was examined was the direct single effort
designed to achieve the same level of information for decision making as in
the phased approach. Because nothing can be assumed, the sampling and
analysis effort must be planned to cover all components in all streams.
Although conceptually this methodology is much simpler than the phased
approach, it will be shown that as the system becomes more complex, it is
not nearly as cost effective as the phased approach.
5.1.3.1 Philosophy of the Direct Approach
A direct approach is philosophically attractive for several reasons.
The primary reason is that by planning and executing a single comprehensive
sampling and analysis effort, the environmental assessment can be performed
in a shorter period of time and thus minimize problems with the operators
of the source who may not be exactly cooperative. In addition, this approach
33
-------
holds out the seldom achieved possibility that the effort can be accom-
plished without making a return sampling trip and the resultant savings
can be used to pay for analysis that would not have been performed had
even a small amount of information been known about a stream.
5.1.3.2 Data Requirements of the Direct Approach
The overall data requirements of the direct approach are the same as
for the phased approach. This requires that the same level of information
required for the overall assessment be obtained directly that was obtained
previously in two phases. Thus in the absence of definitive information
to the contrary, the sampling and analysu effort must contain provisions
for treating all components of all streams in a quantitative manner. This
is a very difficult proposition in actual practice because of sampling
and analysis "surprises" that may make even the most elaborately taken
sample and most conservatively performed analysis inadequate. Thus, in
many cases, specific streams will have to be resamp!ed in order to obtain
information equivalent to that proposed for the phased approach. Because
the direct level 2 approach is presently being practiced by the EPA and
various EPA contractors, there is considerable experience to support this
contention. The required repeat effort has been shown to be between 25
and 50%. An intermediate figure of 35% has been used for this study.
However, this factor is being called out separately and can be easily
altered if desired.
34
-------
5.2 GENERAL COSTING CONSIDERATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPUTATIONS
This section delineates the assumptions used in the development of
costs in Sections 5.2.3 and 5i2.4 and the method of computation of total
sampling and total analysis costs in Section 5.2.2. An example of sampl-
ing and analysis cost computation summary sheets is shown in Figure 6.
5.2.1 Use of the Cost Unit (C.U.)
In order to facilitate pricing of the manpower and analysis, it was
desired to use a unit of cost larger than the dollar. For this purpose,
the cost unit (c.u.) was defined to be equal to $250. In terms of site
manpower costs, this is approximately equal to one man-day of fully
burdened labor including $70 of per diem and other general direct costs
(ODC's). The primary advantage of the c.u. is that by not using dollars
directly, the costing process can be implemented objectively without the
accumulated biases associated with dollar costs. Furthermore, the cost
unit permits ready utilization of correction factors (repeat analysis)
and application of economic factors in the future. In most summary tables,
however, a dollar figure is also given.
5.2.2 Computation of Total Sampling Costs .
Figure 6 provides a listing of the elements of cost required to
estimate the environmental assessment sampling and analysis cost for each
process condition. Preliminary arrangements and pre-site survey costs
(Item I-A in Figure 6) include the labor and other direct costs necessary
to make the initial contacts and arrangements for the assessment as well
as a pre-site survey. As this is entirely an initial effort, there is no
cost for this item in all level 2 efforts. The labor was set at 6.0
man-days for the scrubber and 11.0 man-days for the gasifier. (The pre-
liminary arrangements and pre-site survey costs in a variety of cases
should average about 8.5 man-days). Other direct costs include per-diem
and air fares for the pre-site survey which is based on a one-man effort
for the scrubber and a two-man effort for the gasifier. Travel distances
were set at 1000 miles for both units.
35
-------
I. TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-Site
Survey
a. Labor
b. ODC's
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (Variable)
a. Site Preparations
b. N* x Field Sampling Labor Costs
C. Field Sampling Costs
a. Travel and Miscellaneous ODC's (2000 mi. round trip)
b. Field Sampling Labor and Per Diem
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Field Labor Costs
E. Repeat at 35% Items B, C and D (Use only for
Direct Level 2)
F. Total Sampling Costs/Process Conditions
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs
B. Analysis Set-up Time, Duplicates, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs
0. Repeat at 35% Items A, B, C (Use only for
Direct Level 2)
E. Total Analysis Costs
III. TOTAL COSTS - PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 1
*N = 1.5 for level 1
= 1.0 for level 2
= 2.0 for direct level 2
Figure 6. Sample Cost Summary Sheet
36
-------
Trip planning and preparation (Item I-B, Figure 6) includes site
preparation costs as well as the detailed planning and equipment assembly
and testing for the sampling effort. Both items are highly variable and
for this reason several assumptions were made concerning these costs. The
site preparation costs assumptions are discussed both in Section 5.3.7
and Appendix C and will not be discussed further here. Because trip
planning and preparation costs are highly dependent on the general ex-
perience of the crew, the available process knowledge, and/or the actual
experience with a specific type of source, no attempt was made to estab-
lish these costs directly. Instead, they were set at a specific multiple
of the field sampling costs with the idea that this factor could be varied
to fit a specific situation. Based on TRW experience and the assumption
of no prior experience for the specified sources, this multiplier was set
at 1.5 of the field sampling labor for level 1 (Item I-C-b, Figure 6).
This is reduced to 1.0 times the field sampling labor for level 2 on the
assumption that the level 1 organization and experience would reduce these
labor costs markedly. In the case of direct level 2 sampling, the multi-
plier was set at 2.0 because it is necessary to prepare for all possibilities
and the need to obtain an ideal sample in a single visit requires substantial
additional effort.
Correlation and reporting of the results were arbitrarily set at 20%
of the field labor costs. The assumption was that this would include a
basic write-up with little or no interpretation.
Field sampling (Item I-C-a) ODC's were based on a 2-man crew for the
scrubber. For the gasifier, a 7-man crew was assumed for Level 1, 8 men
for level 2 and 10 men for direct level 2. Travel was based on a 2,000 mile
round trip for both examples. The central focus of all sampling costs is
the manpower necessary to perform the needed sampling tasks on-site. This
is Item I-C-b in Figure 6. The cost requirements to acquire a sample of
a given type are given in Table 8. The derivation of these costs is
discussed in detail in Section 5.3.8.
37
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF SITE SAMPLING COSTS
Sample Type
1. Solids & Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-aqueous
4. Gas (Non-particulate)
5a. Flue Gas (Particulate)
5b. Flue Gas (Non-partic. )
6. Fugitive Dust
C.U. /Sample
Level 1
0.50
0.50
0.67
0.28
0.91
_ *
0.36
Level 2
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.60
6.00
1.00
0.30
Actual $
Level 1
125.00
125.00
167.00
70.00.
227.00
-
90.00.
Level 2
250.00
175.00
250.00
150.00
1500.00
250.00
75.00
Lack of particulate matter must be established with a Level 1 test.
5.2.3 Computation of Total Analysis Costs (References 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Analysis costs were based on commericial quotes whenever possible.
Estimates of non-routine analysis were based on EPA data or calculated
as explained in Section 5.4.3. Whenever commercial rates were used, an
additional 25% was added for handling, tabulation and interaction with
the commercial laboratory. Because the analysis costs are idealized, a
contingency factor of 2.0% (Item II-B Figure 6) was added to this cost for
analysis inefficiencies such as set-up time, duplicate determinations,
etc. Finally, correlation and reporting of the results were arbitrarily
set at 20% of the analysis costs. A summary of the analysis costs used
in this study by sample type for both level 1 and level 2 is presented
in Table 9.
38
-------
TABLE 9
MAJOR UNIT ANALYSIS COSTS
Analysis Category
1 . Bioassay
a. Media Soluble
b. Media Insoluble
2. Organic Analysis (oer sample)
3. Inorganic Compound Identification
4. Parti cul ate Morphology
5. Coal Feed Analysis
6. Inorganic Element Analysis
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Chromatographic Analysis
• Acid ^ases
• C,-Cg Organics
t Sulfur Compounds
Cost Units
Level 1
3.20
3.20
1.00
—
1.10
0.50
0.38
0.25
Level 2
13.60
29.20
16.00
6.00
1.60
1.38
1.20
1.80
1.00
.
Actual Cost $
Level 1
800
800
250
270
125
95
63
Level 2
3400
7300
4000
1500
400
345
300
450
250
00
10
-------
5.2.4 Repeat Factor for Direct Level 2 Sampling and Analysis
As discussed in the section on strategy, Section 5.1.3, it was
felt that a significant number of samples would have to be retaken
and analyzed because of unforeseen circumstances. These repeats were
set at 35% for both the qasifier and the scrubber. These factors are
shown as Items I-E and II-D in Tables 24 and 33 in Sections 5.5 and 5.6.
5.2.5 Replication Factor for Level 2 and Direct Level 2 Sampling and Analysis
Because a single sample of given stream, although representative of
the day on which it was taken, has a high probability of not being repre-
sentative of all process conditions, it is planned that a second replicate
sample will be taken at all sites under a separate set of process conditions
and preferably on a different day. This replicate factor of 2 is applied
to the totals of Sections I and II.
40
-------
5.3 SAMPLING
This section describes the rationale that has gone into the sample
site selection, sampling methodology and sampling unit costs for the
wet limestone scrubber flue gas desulfurization process and the Lurgi coal
gasification process.
5.3.1 Types of Streams to be Sampled
As stated in the introduction and strategy sections, only process
feed, product and waste streams are being considered for this effort. The
principal reasons for this are that analysis of feed streams is necessary
to establish a baseline for potential contaminants and only product and
waste streams will have a direct effect on the environment. Internal
process streams, besides varying greatly from plant to plant, have no
environmental effect except in cases of leakage where the problem becomes
one mainly concerned with fugitive emissions. For this reason, a fugitive
emission study is included.
5.3.2 Classification of Streams for Sampling and Costing Purposes
(References 4, 13 through 21).
The basic sampling strategy has been organized around the six general
types of sampling found in coal gasification or other complex technologies
rather than around the analytical procedures that will be required to
collect the samples. In this way, the complex and difficult task of
organizing the manpower and equipment necessary for successful field
sampling can be made such that meaningful units of cost can be established.
In general, for costing purposes, it was assumed that a separate crew would
be used to take all the samples for a given category and that an accurate
cost could be assigned to this task. The total cost was then divided by
the number of samples to obtain the unit costs. This value is shown in
Table 13 in Section 5.3.8 and is used where applicable for both the wet
limestone scrubber and coal gasifier. The six sample types are delineated
below while the costing is explained in Sections 5.3.7 and 5.3.8.
• Solids and Solid Slurries - These are the coal input, bottom
ash, and any aqueous stream containing more than 5-10% solids.
41
-------
t Liquor Streams
' Aqueous - Water streams containing less than 5-10%
insoluble solids.
• Non-aqueous - Homogeneous streams other than water
streams.
• Gas Streams containing no significant particulate matter. These
samples include process streams, process vents, and ambient
air samples.
t Flue gas containing particulate matter .
• Flue gas without particulate matter - These streams are essentially
the same as the gas streams except special procedures are used
to sample for acid gases and PAH compounds.
• Fugitive Dust Sampling - This includes local source sampling and
plant perimeter sampling employing high volume sampler techniques.
5.3.3 Selection of Sampling Locations for the Phased Approach
; - •
The selection of sampling points in'processes where phased sampling
techniques are employed relies on the concept that level 1 sampling is
oriented towards obtaining survey and/or semi-quantitative results only,
whereas level 2 sampling is intended to acquire more accurate data
necessary to complete the environmental assessment. Stream parameters such as
flow rates, temperature, pressure and other physical characteristics will be
obtained on both levels within the accuracy requirements of a given level of
sampling. Consequently*a level 1 sample may be taken from any easily access-
ible port within the flow scheme of a given unit. For example, in obtaining
a level 1 stack sample, the probe may be inserted in any convenient location
along the duct leading to the stack and a psuedo-isokinetic sample may be
taken in order to obtain qualitative data. On level 2, however, where quanti-
tative data are required, isokinetic samples must be withdrawn from specific
locations away from ducting bends and other obstructions in order to ensure
a sample representative of the actual effluent.
The sampling site alternatives for the phased sampling approach
are shown diagramatically for the wet limestone scrubber in Figure 7.
Similar consideration will apply to any solids two phase stream. In
the case of homogenous streams such as aqueous (non-slurry), non-aqueous
42
-------
co
GAS STREAM
LIQUOR STREAM
O LEVEL 1 SITES
O LEVEL 2 SITES (MEETS ALL EPA METHOD 5 AND ASTM CRITERIA)
O LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 SITES
O GAS COMPOSITION
9 PARTICULATE COMPOSITION & LOADING
& SLURRY OR SOLIDS COMPOSITION
OVERFLOW
THE POWER PLANT IS NOT INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS REPORT.
Figure 7. Typical Process Flow Diagram For Limestone
Venturi Spray Tower System
-------
(organic), and gas (without participate) streams, level 1 and level 2 sampling
sites and techniques could be quite similar.
5.3.4 Sample Site Selection - Wet Limestone Scrubber (Ref. 22)
The model used for a limestone wet scrubber is illustrated in Figure 7
by the spray tower system installed at Paducah, Kentucky. The seven indicated
sampling sites involve four of the six sample types discussed in the previous
section. These sites along with their respective flow diagram identification
numbers are listed individually below:
• Solids and Slurries - Process limestone and settling1 •
pond inputs, flow chart number 4 and 6.
• Aqueous samples - Process make-up water and settling
pond overflow, flow chart numbers 5 and 7.
• Non-aqueous sample - Reheater fuel, number 2.
• Flue gas (particulate) samples - Flow chart numbers 1 and 3
5.3.5 Sample Site Selection - Coal Gasifier (Refs. 4, 14, 23)
The Lurgi Coal Gasification Complex proposed by the El Paso Natural
Gas Company for New Mexico was chosen as a model for the coal gasifier.
Considerable planning for both sampling and analysis has been performed
under Task 3 of this contract (EPA 68-02-1412). A generalized flow scheme
developed for this task is shown in Figure 8. This figure shows an inter-
relationship between the various process units and sampling sites. This
diagram has been simplified for quick reference use into the single block
diagram in Figure 9 which shows input and output streams only. The water
system is shown separately in Figure 10. The various sampling locations
are shown superimposed on a model of the El Paso Plant in Figure 11.
In the coal gasification complex, with the exception of the stacks and
the solids and slurry streams, there is generally little or no difference
between the physical location of the sampling site for level 1 and level 2.
(However, sampling techniques will be different for levels 1 and 2). This
is due to the fact that the predominant number of streams are homogeneous
throughout the length of their respective transfer systems; and since most
samples are of the grab or composite type on both levels 1 and 2, the site
of sample withdrawal need not change.
44
-------
en
GAS LIQUOR
TREATMENT
(PHENOLSOLVAN
AND
GAS LIQUOR
STRIPPING)
WATER
TO ASH QUENCH AREA
PRODUCT
GAS
WATER •
JTTT
\.^ s CTA/-fe
(4b>
STACKS
POWER GENERATION TURBINES
AIR COMPRESSION TURBINES
FREE STANDING BOILER
STEAM SUPERHEATER POWER AND
STEAM TO
PROCESS UNITS
PHENOLS AMMONIA
® @
(So) DEWATERED COARSE ASH
(5b) CONCENTRATED FINES SLURRY
(5e) EXCESS WATER
(5d) AIR AND VAPOR
ADDITIONAL SAMPLES
GASIFIER LOCK HOPPERS
MISC. GAS VENTS
AMMONIA STORAGE
PHENOL STORAGE
NAPHTHA STORAGE
TAR AND TAR OIL STORAGE
(B) AIR SAMPLES
(1) PLANT BOUNDARY
(2) ENCLOSED COAL TREATING AREAS
(C) PLANT FLARE SYSTEM
Figure 8. Sampling Diagram for a Lurgi
Gasification Process Excluding Water System
-------
EMISSIONS TO AIR (B)
STACKS FOR
BOILERS, AND
POWER PLANT
AND AIR
COMPRESSION
TURBINES
STRETFORD
SULFUR PLANT STRETFORD
EFFLUENT ABSORBER
INCINERATION AND OXIDIZER ASH QUENCH
STACK . OFF GASES SLUICE VENT
NITROGEN
GAS
roo. INr
foWFR
VENTS
WATER
EVAPORATED
FR°M
PROCESS UNITS
SALEABLE PRODUCTS'
COAL
WATER
AIR
(OXYGEN)
INPUT AND
EFFLUENT STREAMS
FROM PLANT FOR
MANUFACTURE OF
GAS FROM COAL
ASH TO COAL MINE
OR SLURRY POND
WATER TO
EVAPORATION
POND OR TREATMENT
. PRODUCT GAS
.BYPRODUCT
SULFUR
. BY PRODUCT TAR
.BY PRODUCT OILS
BY PRODUCT
" NAPHTHA
©
©
vlv
©
©
AMMONIA SOLUTION
"(20% AMMONIA)
BY PRODUCT
PHENOLS
*NOT ALL UNITS HAVE
ALL PRODUCTS
REFUSE
Figure 9. Gasification Plant Effluent Flow Diagram
-------
RAW WATER
POND
W ,
LIME TREATMENT
AND FILTERS
r '
(u)
r
1
ZEOLITE
j SOFTENERS
I
© ..
LOW PRESSURE
BOILERS
± i 1
• STEAM
BLOWOOWN(A)
LOSSES VENT SLOWDOWNS
LIME PLANT UTILITIES
SLUDGE(A) COOLING SYSTEM
POTABLE WATER
DEMINERALIZERS
BLOWDOWN(A)
©
L
MEDIUM AND
HIGH PRESSURE
BOILERS
1
4- + +
OSSES VENT BLOWDOWN(B)
STEAM
(A)
(B)
TO ASH QUENCH AREA
TO COOLING TOWERS
AREA A - WATER TREATMENT AND BOILERS
LOSS
COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
WATER TREATMENT SLOWDOWN
CONTAMINATED GAS LIQUOR
PRODUCT DEHYDRATION
LIME SLUDGE
EVA
. POf
ASH QUENCH
AND
DEWATERING
i©
PORATION
-IDS
DEWATERED fc
ASH ._ w
QA)
V®
FINE ASH
POND
AREA B - ASH QUENCH AND DEWATERING AREA
EVAPORATION
AND DRIFT
AREA NAME
jAS PRODUCTION
JAS COOLING
GAS PURIFICATION
REFRIGERATION
METHANE SYNTHESIS
PRODUCT GAS COMP. AND DEHYDRATION
GAS LIQUOR SEPARATION
PHENOL EXTRACTION/GAS LIQUOR STRIPPING"
LOCK GAS STORAGE AND COMPRESSION
SULFUR RECOVERY
FUEL GAS PRODUCTION
FUEL GAS COOLING
FUEL GAS TREATING
AIR COMPRESSION
STEAM AND POWER GENERATION '
OXYGEN COMPRESSION AND STORAGE
AREA C - COOLING WATER SYSTEM
Figure 10.
Water Sampling Points for a Lurgi Coal
Gasification Complex (With Cooling Towers)
-------
CAUSTIC
AMMONIAN
PHENOLS v
,TAR
ASH
SLURRY
THICKENERS
OIL
NAPHTHA
SCREENING
LlSOOR SEPARATION
OXYGEN . -<
PRODUCTION^
,^ OXYGEN
00 STORAGE
OXYGEN
PRODUCTION
COOLING
TOWERS
SURFACE HOLDING POND
GAS LIQUOR SETTLE
'.AifTQEWATERING TRANSFER
C5AS
SUPERHEATER ST
GASIFIER
BANKS
STRETFORD
UNIT>.
RECTISOL t
UNITS AND
PURIFICATION
POWEft
GENERATION
TURBINE
STACKS
AMI,, ,
COOLING TOVVEUS
FUEL GAS TREATING
LOCK GAS STORAGE
SULFUR
RECOVERY
COARSE
DEWATERED
ASH
Figure 11. Model of El Paso Lurgi Coal Gasification Complex (Total Area - 1.5 sq. mi).
-------
The streams assigned to each sampling category are listed below:
1. Solid and slurry stream. These include the feed coal, ash residue
slurries and sulfur byproduct streams and correspond to stream
numbers 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 5a, 5b and 9 in Figures 8 and 9.
2. Aqueous streams. These are represented in Figures 9 and 10 by
numbers 5c, 6b and 13 through 18. These include various water
inputs, byproduct ammonia, waste water from the ash quenching
area as well as the inputs and outputs to the cooling towers.
3. Non-aqueous (organic) streams. These are byproduct phenol,
naphtha, and tar streams. These are indicated by numbers 6a,
7, and 11 in Figure 8. These streams are also transported
via piping systems and samples are taken from in-line taps.
4. Gas (no particulate matter) streams. Sampling locations for gas streams
are more diverse than those for any other group. They include:
• product gas (12)
t oxidizer and absorber off gases (8)
• oxygen stream (3)
t ambient samples (B)*
• vents (A)*
• flare systems (C)*
5. Flue gas samples are represented in Figures 8 and 9 by numbers
4a, 4b, 4c, 4d and 10. In the model considered for this study,
there are fourteen stacks grouped in accordance with the
following configuration:
• four power generation turbine stacks (4a)
t four air compression turbine stacks (4b)
• one free-standing boiler stack (4c)
• four steam superheater stacks (4d)
• one Stretford unit tail gas incinerator stack.
From each group of four, one representative stack is sampled
in level 1. The free standing boiler and incinerator stack are
both sampled. The flue gas samples will be taken with the modified
SASS multicyclone system.
*See Figure 8 for location of additional samples
49
-------
6. ru'jltlvfl dust Camples are taken around the plant boundary and around
the coal storage' piles using high volume samplers. Sampler
positioning is the same on both levels 1 and 2.
5.3.6 Stream Prioritization for the Phased Approach
A coal gasification process is a highly complex system consisting of
a wide variety of interrelated components. Level 1 sampling will show that
many influent and waste streams are not environmentally significant. These
data will serve to reduce the number of samples required on level 2 sub-
stantially. A limestone wet scrubber, on the other hand, is a very simple
process as compared to a gasification system. The streams which require
sampling are small in number which naturally limits the number of streams
which can be assigned a low priority utilizing a phased sampling approach.
Also, it is important to remember that level 1 is designed to allow
allocation of resources so that level 2 can provide the desired information
for an environmental assessment. Direct level 2 sampling by definition
can have no stream prioritization, and thus the maximum number of sites will
always be sampled in this approach.
A stream prioritization based on the level 1 sampling and analysis
effort will result in many streams of low priority. In many cases, the level
1 information will be sufficient to eliminate certain streams entirely from
the level 2 effort. In some cases, limited resources may require the
omission of certain low priority streams.
For the purpose of this study, it was desirable to assign conservative,
but reasonable priorities to the various streams and in this manner eliminate
certain streams from further consideration for the level 2 effort. In the
case of the scrubber, there were so few streams that it was felt that it was
not reasonable to eliminate any streams except in the trivial case of the
input make-up water. However, careful examination of the gasifier streams
indicated that 15-20% of the streams could reasonably be expected to be of
very low priority. The types and quantities of streams that were eliminated
are discussed below.
It is anticipated that in a coal gasifier, coal and ash sampling and
fugitive dust sampling will show little or no reduction in the number of
sampling sites between level 1 and level 2. The lack of coal and ash sampling
site reduction stems from: 1) the high probability the ash will be significantly
50
-------
toxic, 2) the small number of streams available, and 3) the inconsistent
nature of the streams in question. In the sampling of fugitive dust,
the reduction of sampling positions would be unilateral rejection of the
requirement for that type of sampling. The prioritization to be effected
as a result of level 1 is for samples, not sampling sites. Data
provided within the framework of a phased level sampling approach may
in certain instances indicate the need to increase rather than decrease
the sampling requirements on level 2.
Water, flue gas, organics and gas samples could all show significant
sampling point reduction for the level 2 effort. The following items repre-
sent the anticipated data obtained as the result of level 1 sampling:
• Various treated water streams will be found to be environ-
mantally acceptable.
• Many blowdown vents, release valves and gas streams will
exist at safe waste stream levels.
• Gas fired boiler and incinerator stacks are expected to
yield a minimum of particulate and acid gas and, consequently,
many of these stacks may be eliminated from a second level
sampling effort.
t Process controls for liquid organic streams will generally
prove to be effective, thus reducing the number of level
2 samples.
The results of this site reduction comparing the number of level 1,
level 2 and direct level 2 sampling sites are shown graphically in Figure
12 for the coal gasifier and in tabular form in Tables 10 and 11 for both
the coal gasifier and the scrubber.
5.3.7 Site Preparation Costs (Refs. 2,5)
Site preparation costs are an item that is very hard to define because
of the extreme variation from site to site. In many cases, special valves
or ports may have to be installed at considerable cost. However, special
preparations most often involve: 1) scaffolding that must be erected in order
to acquire the sample, 2) providing auxiliary power to operate the sampling
51
-------
LEVEL ONE
LEVEL TWO
DIRECT LEVEL TWO
SOLIDS AND AQUEOUS ORGANICS GAS FLUE GAS DUST
SLURRIES SAMPLING CATEGORY
* THIS BAR GRAPH REPRESENTS SITE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST ONLY
AND DOES NOT REFLECT REPLICATE SAMPLES OR ESTIMATED RESAMPLING
EFFORT IN THE DIRECT LEVELS.
Figure 12. Summary of Sampling Sites - Coal Gasifier
52
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE SITES
COAL GASIFIER
>
Sample Type
1. Solids and Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-aqueous (Organic)
4. Gas ( Non-parti cul ate)
5a. Flue Gas (Particulate)
5b. Flue Gas(non-particulate)
6 Dust (Fugitive)
Number of
Sites
Level 1
6
8
6
32
5
11
Number of
Si tes
Level 2
8
6
4
20
3
3
11
Number of
Sites
Direct Level 2
8
8
6
32
• 5
11
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE SITES
WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
Sample Type
1. Flue Gas (Particulate)
2. Miscellaneous Stack
Gases
3- Aqueous
4. Reheater Fuel (Organic)
5. Limestone Input(Solids)
Number of
Sites
Level 1
2
2
3
1
1
Number of
Sites
Level 2
2
2
2
1
1
Number of
Sites
Direct Level 2
2
2
3
1
1
53
-------
hardware,or 3) installation of sampling ports (especially for level 2
participate matter samples). These preparations may or may not be pro-
video' by the plant maintenance crews. Other minor preparations may be
the providing of special tools, safety equipment, or the overhaul of a
valve or part to make it more serviceable. In more extreme cases, equip-
ment, pipes, or electrical wiring may have to be installed for safety
or sampling reasons.
Assigning a cost to this nebulous area is difficult because while
the extreme cases are not rare, in most cases, these costs are low to
moderate especially for the newly designed technologies being treated
here. The newly designed technologies will probably have sampling
ports for criteria pollutants. However, environmental assessment is to
identify new pollutants or new streams which need specifications; conse-
quently, it is not probable that all sampling facilities will be covered.
Accordingly, a reasonably low cost was assigned to site preparation with
the assumption that higher costs are not applicable to the processes
studied in this treatment. Thus,it was assumed that the erection of
scaffolding and providing power would be the main site preparation cost;
a further assumption was that these costs would be associated to a
large extent with stack sampling, since this is the most complex sampling
procedure. The costs were set at $250 per stack for level 2 assuming
that the necessary access ports are available. In addition, preparation
for the other gasifier sites which should be minimal was set at $500 for
level 1., $1,000 for level 2, and $1,500 for direct level 2, corresponding
roughly to 2, 4 and 6 man days, respectively. These costs are summarized
in Table 12. A more detailed explanation of the more general case is
given in Appendix C.
54
-------
TABLE 12
SITE PREPARATION COSTS3
Level 1
Level 2
Direct Level 2
Level 1
Level 2
Direct Level 2
No. Stacks
5
3
5
2
2
2
Cost Other Costs
GASIFIER
5.0 c.u. 2 c.u.
6.0 c.u. 4 c.u.
1.0 c.u. 6 c.u.
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
2.0 c.u.
4.0 c.u.
4.0 c.u.
Total
7.0
10.0
16.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Cost
c.u.
c.u.
c.u.
c.u.
c.u.
c.u.
The design drawing indicates the presence of sampling ports which
meet EPA published criteria.
5.3.8 Sampling Methods and Unit Costs (Refs. 4, 13-21)
As previously stated, all components to be sampled have been grouped
into six distinct categories. These six categories, along with the cost unit
figure established for each type on levels 1 and 2, are listed below in
Table 13. These costs include average on-site labor for equipment breakout,
assembly, sampling, disassembly and clean-up. Generally speaking, the dif-
ferences in cost between levels 1 and 2 stem from the greater degree of
sophistication required in acquisition of a level 2 sample. As stated
earlier, the requirements for obtaining a sample for quantitative analysis
are much more rigid than those for obtaining a sample for qualitative
analyses. Summary diagrams for sampling are shown in Figures 13 and 14.
55
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF SITE SAMPLING COSTS
Sample Type
1. Solids & Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-aqueous
4. Gas (Non-parti cul ate)
5a. Flue gas (Parti cul ate)
5b Flue gas (Non-parti -
culate)
6. Fugitive dust
c.u. /sample
Level 1
0.50
0.50
0.67
0.28
0.91
_*
0.36
Level 2
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.60
6.00
1.00
0.30
Actual $
Level 1
125.00
125.00
167.00
70.00
227.00
-
90.00
Level 2
250.00
175.00
250.00
150.00
1500.00
250.00
75.00
* Lack of particulate matter must be established with a level 1 test.
The method used for the determination of specific costs for sample types
in this study relies on data obtained from the following four sources:
• A survey study of presently established costs obtained from
commercial organizations who routinely perform sampling tasks
of this nature,
• A compilation of data resulting from TRW's involvement in
projects of this nature ,
• Joint discussions between project members and EPA officials
concerning the applicability of these data to coal conversion
processes,
t The assumptions made in formulating the cost unit figure itself.
Using the gasifier as an example, these four factors were then used to compute
a total on-site time for taking the required number of samples in each of
the six sampling categories. This was computed as follows:
, , _ Total on-site time (in man-days)*
c.u./sample number of samples
*See Section 5.2. One man-day equals one c.u. equals $250.
56
-------
tn
FLUE GAS
(PARTICULATE
MATTER)
LEVEL 1
SASS TRAIN
2 SITES
LEVEL II
MODIFIED
SASS TRAIN
2 SITES
MISCELLANEOUS
STACK GASES
LEVEL 1
GLC
GRAB
2 SITES
LEVEL II
GLC
GRAB
2 SITES
LIMESTONE
WET SCRUBBER
AQUEOUS
SAMPLES
LEVEL 1
TAP SAMPLE
3 SITES
LEVEL II
TAP SAMPLE
2 SITES
LIMESTONE REHEATER FUEL
INPUT (SOLIDS) (ORGANICS)
LEVEL 1
STOPPED
BELT GRAB
1 SITE
LEVEL II LEVEL 1
STOPPED
BELT GRAB TAP SAMPLE
1 SITE 1 SITE
LEVEL II
TAP SAMPLE
1 SITE
Figure 13. Wet Limestone Scrubber - Sampling Site Summary Chart
-------
in
CO
COAL 4 BOTTOM
ASH INCLUDING
ASH SLURRY STREAMS
LEVEL 1
GRAB
SAMPLE
6 SITES
LEVEL II
COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
8 SITES
WATER
EXCLUDING '
SLURRY STREAMS
LEVEL 1
TAP
SAMPLE
8 SITES
LEVEL II
TAP
SAMPLE
6 SITES
COAL GASIFIER
ORGANIC LIQUIDS
LEVEL 1
TAP
SAMPLE
6 SITES
AMBIENT AIR AND
PROCESS GAS SITES
LEVEL II
COMPOSITE
TAP SAMPLE
4 SITES
LEVEL 1
INDICATOR
TUBES
16 SITES
LEVEL II
ACID GAS
IMPINGERS
8 SITES
LEVEL 1
ORGANIC
SORBENT
TRAP
1 SITE
(PRODUCT
GAS)
FLUE GAS STREAMS
LEVEL 1
SASS
TRAIN
5 SITES
LEVEL II
ORGANIC
SORBENT
TRAP
1 SITE
(PRODUCT
LEVEL 1
GM
B
SAMPLES
(AMBIENT &
PROCESS)
15 SITES
GAS)
FUGITIVE
DUST SAMPLES
LEVEL II
MODIFIED
SASS
TR/
,IN
3 SITES
LEVEL 1
ORGANIC
SORBENT
TRAP
5 SITES
LEVEL II
INTEGRATED
AMBIENT
16
SITES
LEVEL II
GR.
AR
SAMPLES
(PROCESS)
4 SITES
LEVEL 1
GAS GRAB
5 SITES
LEVEL 1
REACTIVE
GAS IMPS.
5 SITES
LEVEL 1 LEVEL II
HIGH VOL HIGH VOL
SAMPLER SAMPLER
3 n 3 /*
CYCLONE CYCLONE
11 SITES 11 SITES
LEVEL II
ORGANIC
SORBENT
TRAP
3 SITES
Figure 14. Coal Gasifier - Sampling Site Summary Chart
-------
These average sampling costs were tabulated in Table 13 and used
as general costs applicable to other units. Special costs required to im-
plement the procedure by a certain site are defined as site preparation costs.
This computation can be illustrated for the solids and solids slurry
category. In this case level 1 sample acquisition for coal and ash consists
simply of taking a grab sample from any point along a stopped conveyor belt.
Equipment identification, travel to sampling point, establishing stopped
belt conditions, sample acquisition and travel to the next point, etc. for
6 sampling points were estimated to be a 3 man-days, or
0.5 e.»./,.»1. .
which is approximately 4 hours per sample. In level 2 coal and ash sampl
acquisition, greater care is exercised in obtaining a representative samp
by taking composite samples. The added cost incurred as a result of this
increased complexity raises the coal and ash cost to one cost unit per
sample on level 2; or, 8 hours are needed to obtain one sample.
Level 1 sample acquisition for water involves essentially the same
level of time effort as coal and ash in that it involves the assembly out
of the sampling equipment, travel to the sampling point, and sample
acquisition. Obviously, taking a tap sample is not so time consuming as
taking a stopped belt sample; however, there are a greater number of water
samples to be taken and more care must be exercised in the sampling technique.
In level 2 water sampling, the sampling technique is more complex insofar
as a representative sample must be obtained for quantitative analysis, thus
requiring composites of certain streams, refrigeration, etc. The time
interval required for the level 2 water sampling of 6 streams is 4.2 man
days. Hence:
' 0.7 c.u./sa^e
Therefore, a time period of approximately 5.6 hours is needed to obtain
one level 2 water sample.
59
-------
Obtaining a level 1 organics tap sample is slightly more difficult than
obtaining a level 1 water tap sample due to the greater diversity in available
tap locations and the various stream conditions which must be accounted for,
such as heat, viscosity, pressure, etc. Assuming 6 organics streams, the
total projected time figure for level 1 organics sampling is 4 man days;
therefore, 4/6 = 0.67 c.u./sample or about 5.4 hours per sample. Level .2
organics are even more complex in that specific stream characteristics must
be taken into consideration in order to obtain a representative sample.
Heated systems require cooling apparatus on the sampling equipment; three-
phase systems require a representative sample of each phase. Streams in
which heavy particulate exists should be sampled isokinetically. Many
organic streams are hazardous to tihe sampler and special precautions must be
taken for safety reasons. Considering the reduced number of streams on
level 2 and the above factors added into the cost, the time figure for level
2 sample acquisition becomes 4 man days,which calculates out to one cost unit
per sample or 8 hours per sample.
The gas sample category in level 1 contains the largest number of samples
and the gas sampling task requires the largest period of time for completion.
Level 1 gas sampling consists primarily of gaseous grab samples for on-site
GC analysis. This task involves obtaining ambient samples, vent samples,
pipeline samples, duct samples and possibly flare samples. Thirty-two loca-
tions have been decided upon and a duration time of 9 man-days has been
assumed; hence:
9 man-days n 00 . ,
32 samples = °'28 c.u./sample
or 2.2 hours per sample.
The gas sampling category on level 2 also contains the largest
number of samples and requires the greatest time for completion. Increased
complexity on level 2 is represented by a more extensive use of integrated
and composite samples and the increasingly difficult accessibility of
sampling locations. A total of 20 samples has been identified and the
proposed completion time is 24 man-days.
12 man-days _ 0_60 CtU>/sampie = 4.8 hours/sample
20 samples
60
-------
Flue gas sample acquisition is the most complex group of the six. The
instrumentation is complex, the equipment is cumbersome, problems are fre-
quently encountered, and the actual sample acquisition is time-consuming.
Level 1 flue sampling differs from level 2 flue sampling in that the sample
withdrawal point is not critical and isokinetic sampling conditions are not
necessary in order to obtain qualitative data. For the sampling of five flue
stacks on level 1, a total of 4.6 man days has been assumed, thus establishing
a c.u./sample figure of 0.91. The time required for obtaining one flue gas sample
would therefore be approximately 7 hours. On level 2 where isokinetic condi-
tions and replicate samples are required and sample port selection becomes
specific, the cost unit per sample rises from 0.91 to 6.00 to allow for the
added complications. This substantial increase is based on the fact that a
two-man crew is required to operate the equipment and takes three days to ob-
tain three replicate samples to be composited for analysis.
A special case for the flue gas sampling exists where no significant
particulate is found in level 1 sampling and analysis. This case by
definition can only be assigned to level 2. This modification includes
sampling for PAH compounds with a Tenax trap, acid gas impingers, and gas
samples for gas chromatographic analysis. The cost assigned to this task
was 1 man-day or 1.00 c.u. These costs were applied to the level 2
sampling of the gasifier stacks to reflect the assumption that level 1
sampling and analysis would show the absence of significant particulate
from the gas fired boilers.
Fugitive dust samples are taken with high volume particulate samplers
containing in-line cyclone attachments. The principal time involvement in
ambient particulate sample acquisition concerns sampler positioning and post
sampling sample transfer. The actual sampling time may last from 24 to 48
hours depending on particulate densities; however, during run times the
samplers may be left unattended.
Eleven positions for fugitive samples* have been identified on both
levels 1 and 2. This is the only sampling category wherein the unit costs
per sample are greater on level 1 than on level 2. Level 2 sampling is
expected to require less time than level 1 sampling for the following
two reasons:
Comprising eight upwind-downwind samples (including plant parameter and
coal storage area) and three other locations within closed buildings.
61
-------
• Areas for sample positioning will have been identified.
• Electrical outlet locations will have been established resulting
in fewer wiring problems on level 2 than on level 1.
Level 1 fugitive dust sampling is expected to require a total of four
man-days for eleven sampling sites, thus establishing a cost unit per
sample figure of 0.36. Level 2 fugitive dust sampling for the same number
of sites will require approximately 3.3 man-days resulting in a 0.30
c.u./sample figure.
All cost unit per sample figures derived from the above study are
directly applicable to the limestone wet scrubber model. Due to the
relative simplicity of a limestone wet scrubber system, the number of
streams available for sampling is small. Consequently, in addition to
the previously mentioned six sampling categories, specific streams may
be identified. The two specifically identified streams for a limestone
wet scrubber not included in the sample type breakdown for a gasifier
are:
1) Reheater fuel input stream; this is essentially an organic tap
sample.
2) Limestone input; this is essentially a stopped belt solids sample.
For specific costing information relative to the sampling of a lime-
stone wet scrubber, refer to Table 13.
62
-------
5.4 ANALYSIS
This section describes rationale used to select the analysis procedures
which are used for the samples collected and describes the assumptions used
to arrive at the individual unit costs.
5.4.1 Number of Samples Used for Costing Assumptions (References 4, 5, 6,
14,24)
In the area of analysis, no effort was made to eliminate specific com-
ponents from a given stream. All analysis reductions with the exception of
level 2 flue gas analysis established for the level 2 analysis effort are the
result of the stream reductions delineated in Section 5.3. It should be noted
that several sample types generate two or more samples for separate unit
analysis. Thus, the ash slurry stream generates a water sample and a solids
sample, and the wide boiling range organics obtained from the water and organic
streams are split into separate high boiling (>Cg) and low boiling samples
(3p and <3y) from two sets of four locations. A summary
of the number of gasyifier analyses is shown in Table 14.
5.4.2 Basic Analysis Scheme
The analytical procedures cited in this report are divided into 9 dis-
tinct categories. Each of these categories is essentially the same at both
levels of the phased approach and differs only in the level of sophistication
involved.
Figure 15 illustrates a generalized flow scheme for the analytical
categorization of level 1 samples. Each analyses type is assigned its own
cost unit per analysis factor and a brief statement of methodology is made
for each analysis type.
63
-------
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
TYPES PER OPERATIONAL CONDITION -
COAL GASIFIER*)
Analysis Type
1) Bioassay: a. Water Insoluble1^
b. Water Solubleb)
2) Organic Analysis
3) Inorganic Compound Analysis
4) Parti cul ate Morphology
5) Coal Feed Analysis
6) Inorganic Element Analysis
7) Water Analysis
8) Gas Liquid Chromatography
Coal and Ash
Direct
Level Level Level
1 2 2
« I 6
033
3 3
000
688
688
000
•
000
Water
Direct
Level Level Level
1 22
8 ° °
68
16 12 16
0 0
000
0 00
868
868
000
Organic
Direct
Level Level Level
1 2 2
6 4 6
00
12 8 12
0 0
000
0 0 0
646
000
12 4 12
aThe number of analyses included in this table is based on the number of sites developed
in Section 5.3. These numbers will be doubled if two operational conditions are sampled.
The distinction between water soluble and insoluble samples is made only for level 2
analysis. See Section 5.4.2 for details.
-------
TABLE T4. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
TYPES PER OPERATIONAL CONDITION -
COAL GASIFIER a^ (Cont'd)
Analysis Type
1) Bioassay: a. Water Insoluble '
b. Water Soluble^)
2} Organic Analysis
3) Inorganic Compound Analysis
4) Particulate Matter Morphology
5) Coal Feed Analysis
6) Inorganic Element Analysis
7) Water Analysis
8) Gas Liquid Chromatography
Gas
Direct
Level Level Level
1 2 2
0 ° °
0 . 6 12
1 3 10
0 0
000
000
1 1 3
0 0 0
24 20 32
Flue
Direct
Level Level Level
1 2 2
15 ° 20
lb 3 0
5 3 25
3 25
15 0 15
000
15 6 25
000
0 35
Dust
Direct
Level Level Level
1 2 2
22 4C) 8C)
0 0
22 22 22
- 22 22
22 11 22
000
22 22 22
000
000
Totals
Direct
Level Level Level
1 2 2
57 11 32
15 28
56 51 88
28 50
37 11 37
6 8 8
58 47 72
868
36 27 49
en
C71
c) Samples were combined for more detailed testing.
-------
Figure 16 consists of a basic analysis flow scheme as applied to
level 2 sampling. The diagram format is the same as that for level 1.
5.4.3 Analysis Procedures and Unit Costs (References 8, 9, 10, 11, 25)
The unit costs shown in Table 15 were developed using data collected
from a wide variety of sources. Commercial price lists were used whenever
an analysis was routine. For semi-routine analysis or very specialized
analyses for which procedures are available, the appropriate authorities
were consulted for their estimates of the costs. Sources included the
EPA (various branches), EPA contractors (SRI, BMI, MRI, Radian), academic
sources and various commercial testing laboratories. Each analysis and
unit cost is briefly explained below.
5.4.3.1 Bioassay Testing (References 5, 26-32)
This series of tests is designed to test in a broad and general
manner, the health effects of a given source sample. The approach and
costs shown in Figure 17 were developed by the EPA's Experimental Biology
Laboratory. Level 1 bioassay includes simplified cytotoxicity and muta-
genicity testing on all solid and liquid (water and organic) samples or
fractions obtained. In Level 2 testing, the original tests are expanded
and a carcinogenicity test is added for use where appropriate. The
number of samples includes all solids, liquids, and gases. In addition to
the biological tests, level 1 costed trace element and organic tests are
performed on the insoluble particulate and supernatant in order to aid
in interpretation of the data. These tests are not included if the sample
is entirely soluble.
5.4.3.2 Organic Analysis (Solids and Liquids) (References 5,6, 33-43)
• Level 1 - A survey liquid chromatographic technique is used to
separate the samples into 8 fractions for identification by
infrared analysis of compound types. Organic samples obtained
from water or organic streams are divided into a high (>150°C)
and low (<150°C) boiling fraction for separate analysis and
are costed as two samples.
• Level 2 - The results of level 1 are used to redefine the level
2 technique. The level 2 organic analysis includes HPLC separa-
tion of the organic mixture and GC/MS analysis of eight of the
resultant HPLC fractions, i The cost is 2 c.u. per run and
66
-------
SCUSC£
FT- MH J >{]<-. JiSAN^s"! EJVEMS „,,
1 j 3V "••-
4
"HMlM^il ?'~X> CHS0^r°CSAf h
'AKTiCULATcS AND CASES
15. Basic Analytical Schemes for Level 1
=0
m
-o
70
O
o
c=
o
CO
SOLIDS, SLUSHIES,
J Cr.CANiCS | ?HYSiCAl. SCMUIiCN
*[ bp>iso-c [iisrcBCLAi:^ ja:
PnVSiCAL SePAt'-A.'iCN
'Nro 8 CLAIMS siiJ
OS
67
-------
ri
>•»:••=*• i — -i -
i—J1 - -• t—* •A'c-f---
' -'. • • . t ' • -~.l.-v
16. Ba^ic Analytical S^r.eir.ijs for Lev.;] 2
yo
rn
-o
33
O
o
c=
C5
07
68
-------
TABLE 15
MAJOR UNIT ANALYSIS COSTS
Analysis Category
1 . Bioassay
a. Media Soluble
b. Media Insoluble
2. Organic Analysis (per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound Identification
4. Parti cul ate Morphology
5. Coal Feed Analysis
6. Inorganic Element Analysis
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Chroma tographic Analysis
• Acid Gases
• C, -Cg Organ ics
• Sulfur Compounds
Cost Units
Level 1
3.20
3.20
1.00
—
1.10
—
0.50
0.38
0.25
Level 2
13.60
29.20
16.00
6.00
1.60
1.38
1.20
1.80
1.00
.
Actual Cost $
Level 1
800
800
250
270
125
95
63
Level 2
3400
7300
4000
1500
400
345
300
450
250
0»
10
-------
SAMPLE
SOLIDS AND
IMMISIBLE
ORGANIC LIQUIDS
LEVEL!
BIOASSAY
COST
CYTOTOXICITY
1 CONCENTRATION
$200
MUTAGENICITY
I CONCENTRATION
$600
$200
$600
$800
LEVEL 2
3IO ASS AY
CYTOTOXICITY
3 CONCENTRATIONS
$600
CARCINOGENICITY
$2000
ANALYSIS
$1200
3 SAMPLES
COST
-•*•
-^
INSOLUBLE
ORGANIC
$600
3 SAMPLES
INSOLUBLE
INORGANIC
$900
3 SAMPLES
SOLUTION
ORGANIC
$600
3 SAMPLES
SOLUTION
INORGANIC
$3900
— $2000
MUTAGENICITY
1 CONCENTRATION
$800
SOLUTION
ORGANIC
$200
SOLUTION
INORGANIC
$400
•*- $1400
$7300
Figure 17. Bioassay Flow Chart
-------
it is assumed that 8 runs per sample will be needed for a
total cost of 16.0 c.u.
5.4.3.3 Inorganic Compound Identification (References 44 ,45)
Inorganic compound identification is essentially a sophisticated
experimental extension of participate morphological determinations. As
such it provides information needed for level 2 characterization. At
present, methodology for this type of analysis is ill-defined and costs
are even more elusive. For this reason, an upper limit of 6 c.u. or
$1,500 was set on the costs. A proposed analysis scheme is shown in
Figure 18.
5.4.3.4 Particulate Morphology (References 6, 46-48)
Level 1 morphological examinations of collected particulate will in-
clude microscopic examination of shape, size, distribution, surface
features, and possible source. The method used includes.a polarized light
microscope for particles >0.5y and over, and scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) for < 0.5p particles. The usage of these two techniques will yield
infonnstioi'i as to ci'^nov-ftl particle'-; size distribution as well as classifi-
cation into general morphological types, and specific compound identifi-
cation by crystalline structure. This analysis is approximately $275.007
sample. Additional information on participate composition will be ob-
tained in level 2. This additional information is obtained at an additions!
cost of $125.00/sample by performing a SEM-EDX or X-ray microprobe analysis
to determine semi-quantitatively the elemental concentration of specific
particulate. '
5.4.3.5 Coal Feed Analysis (References 45, 48, 49)
In addition to the regular analysis, this is a standard set of ASTM
analyses for level 2 which includes sulfur forms, ultimate, proximate, and
ash analysis as well as sieve (size) analysis.
5.4.3.6 Inorganic Element Analysis (References 5, 8, 45, 50, 51, 52)
Spark Source Mass Spectroscopy (SSMS) is the analytical tool costod
for both the level 1 and level 2 trace element analysis. This technique
was chosen after, comparison with Neutron Activation Analysis (HA/V), X-R(iy
71
-------
Figure 18. Inorganic Compound Characterization Scheme
72
-------
Fluorescence (XRF), Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES)» and Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) for accuracy, precision, versatility, cost
and detection limits.
A level 1 analysis is designed to perform as a general survey scan of
all effluent streams for possible toxic or carcinogenic inorganic species.
In this type of scheme, the most important parameters for an analytical
technique are detection limits, multi-element capability, speed and cost.
Of lesser importance for level 1 are accuracy and precision. Level 2
analyses are designed to generate more accurate analytical data for specific
species found present during level 1 testing. Accuracy levels of +_ a factor
of three were arbitrarily set for level 1 analysis and a minimum detection
limit of 1 ppm for all streams tested. Level 2 accuracy was set at +_ a
factor of 0.5 with the same detection limits. Of all the analytical tech-
niques evaluated for level 1, SSMS was the most versatile in that all
elements can be detected at the prescribed levels or lower! The major
difficulty associated with this type of analysis is that organic matrices,
especially the oils and tars from the gasifier complex, must be removed
prior to analysis. Appropriate sample preparation techniques were eval-
uated and are included in the various analysis costs.
A more accurate and correspondingly more expensive SSMS procedure
is costed as a level 2 and direct level 2 analysis. The more accurate
(+50%) analysis is achieved using more sophisticated instrumentation and
comparing analytical values with standards prepared to approximate the
sample composition.
Although only SSMS was costed for level 2 analyses,anci11iary techniques
might also be used for specific elements, the usage of which would depend
on the completion and evaluation of level 1 analysis as to elements present
and approximate levels of concentration.
5.4.3.7 Water Analysis (References 28, 29, 53-59)
In addition to the normal liquid analyses, an entire set of approved
•*# ,
EPA analyses is included. The tests and the costs for analysis by commercial
laboratory are ta^ated in Appendix B.
73
-------
• Level 1 analyses are cc-sted via estimated labor
necessary to perform these analyses with portable Hach
kits which are used to allow flexibility 1n the field
and reduced cost.
• Level 2 analyses are to be done in a commercial laboratory
to achieve increased reliability and accuracy.
5.4.3.8 Gas Chromatographlc Analysis (References 60-70)
These analyses will be performed on site by a multicolumn, multi-
detector gas chromatograph for level 1 and wherever possible for level
2. In many cases, it will be necessary to perform the analyses on site
because of the sample instability. The differences in cost between levels
1 and 2 reflect the difference in accuracy and precision of the data
obtained.
74
-------
5.5 TOTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS - WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
The unit costs, number of sampling sites, and number of analyses
established for the wet limestone scrubber described in Section 5.3 and
5.4 have been used to compute itemized and total sampling costs for this
unit. The results of these calculations are tabulated in Tables 16-24.
5.5.1 Computation of Repeat and Replicate Sample Costs
It has been assumed for the purposes of this report that a 35%
repeat rate will be necessary because of the nature of direct level 2
sampling. No specific assumptions have been made as to where the major
portion of these repeats will occur and thus, this added cost is taken as
a direct percent of the sampling and analysis costs and added to the total.
In addition to the above costs, it may be necessary to sample two
or three process conditions in order to obtain adequate information for an
environmental assessment of the entire complex. By definition, two distinct
level 2 or direct level 2 efforts will have to occur at different times.
Two process conditions were assumed for this report. Thus, the total level
2 (direct or phased) costs were multiplied by a factor of two to provide
for this second effort. This increment is shown as Item IV in all summary
tables.
5.5.2 Computation of Sampling Costs
The method of computing sampling costs has been explained in Section
5.2. Tables 16, 17, and 18 show an itemized computation for level 1, level
2 and direct level 2 field sampling costs based on the number of samples
and unit costs derived in Section 5.3. These totals are tabulated in
Tables 22, 23 and 24 as Item I-C-b. To this is added an additional cost
of 1.5, 1.0 and 2.0 times the basic cost for trip planning and preparations
for level 1, level 2 and direct level 2 sampling, respectively. Additional
itemized costs are added as necessary for travel, ODC's, site preparation,
a pre-site survey and reporting. Finally, the total sampling costs are
computed.
75
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF LEVEL 1 FIELD SAMPLING COSTS
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER
a)
Site Type
1. Flue Gas (Particulate)
2. Water Quality
3. Limestone
4. Reheater Fuel
No. of
Site(s)
2
3
1
1
7
c.u./
Site
0.91
0.50
0.10
0.20
-
Total
c.u.
1.82
1.00
0.10
0.20
3.12
Actual
%
58.3
32.1
3.2
6.4
100.0
a) Labor and per diem costs to obtain one set of samples
for each sampling site.
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF LEVEL 2 FIELD SAMPLING COSTS
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER
a)
Site Type
1. Flue Gas(Particulate)
2. Misc. Stack Gases
3. Aqueous
4. Reheater Fuel
5. Limestone Input
No. of
Site(s)
2
2
2
1
1
8
c.u./
Site
6.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
-
Total
c.u.
12.0
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
13.2
Actual
%
90.9
1.5
4.6
1.5
1.5
100.0
a) Labor and per diem costs to obtain one set of samples
for each sampling site.
76
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF DIRECT LEVEL 2 FIELD SAMPLING COSTS*
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBERS
Si te Type
1. Flue Gas ( Parti cul ate)
2. Misc. Stack Gases
3. Aqueous
4. Reheater Fuel
5. Limestone Input
No. of
Site(s)
2
2
3
1
1
9
c.u./
Site
6.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
—
Total
c.u.
12.0
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
13.5
Actual
%
88.9
1.5
6.6
1.5
1.5
100.0
Labor and per diem costs to obtain one set of samples for each sampling
site.
5.5.3 Computation of Analysis Costs
The method of computing analysis costs has been explained in Section
5.2. The basic unit costs used to compute the total cost were derived in
Section 5.4 which assumes 100% efficiency. To this is added an additional
cost of 20% for set-up time, duplicates, etc. and another 20% for correlation
and reporting. In addition, another 35% was added to the total of the
above for repeat samples taken on direct level 2. Only the basic analysis
costs will be discussed in this section with the aggregate costs being
shown in Summary Tables 19, 20, and 21.
Tables 19, 20 and 21 show an itemized computation for level 1, level 2,
and direct level 2 sampling costs based on the number of samples and unit
costs derived in Section 5.4. Note that on all levels, bioassay and orgam'cs
analysis are the cost sensitive items and inorganic compound analysis is
the third most important item for both level 2 analyses. Thus, an all cost
benefit analysis should concentrate on these items.
77
-------
TABLE 19
BASIC LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS COSTS9)
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER
Sample Type
1. Bioassay
2. Organic Analysis
(per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound
Identification
4. Participate Morphology
5. Coal Feed
6. Inorganic Element
Analysis .
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Chromatographic
Analysis
9. Miscellaneous Costs
No. of
Samples
10
14
--
6
--
15
3
2
50
c.u./
Sample
3.20
1.00
--
1.10
--
0.50
0.38
0.25
-
Total
c.u.
32.0
14.0
~"
6.6
--
7.5
1.1
0.5
61.7
Actual
31
51.9
22.7
-~
10.7
--
12.1
1.8
0.8
100.0
a) These costs are based on one set of analysis per site
delineated in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Reporting and
replicates are listed in Tables 22, 23, and 24.
TABLE 20
BASIC LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS COSTS9'
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER
Sample Type
1. Bioassay
a. Soluble
b. Insoluble
2. Organic Analysis
(per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound
Identification
4. Particulate Morphology
5. Inorganic Element
Analysis
6. Water Analysis
7. Gas Chromatographic
Analysis
8. Miscellaneous Costs
No. of
Samples
2
4
8
10
6
15
2
0
1
48
c.u./
Sample
11.20
29.20
16.00
6.00
1.60
1.20
1.80
--
.30
-
Total
c.u.
22.4
116.8
128.0
60.0
9.6
18.0
3.6
--
.3
358.7
Actual
%
6.2
32.6
35.7
16.7
2.7
5.0
1.0
--
.1
100.0
a) These costs are based on one set of analysis per site
delineated in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Reporting and
replicates are listed in Tables 22, 23, and 24.
78
-------
TABLE 21
BASIC LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS COSTS - DIRECT SAMPLING^
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER
Sample Type
1 . Bioassay
a. Soluble
b. Insoluble
2. Organic Analysis
(per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound
Identification
4. Parti cul ate Morphology
5. Coal Feed
6. Inorganic Element
Analysis
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Chromatographic
Analysis
9. Miscellaneous Costs
No. of
Samples
2
8
14
10
6
—
15
3
2
1
61
c.u./
Sample
13.60
29.20
16.00
6.00
1.60
—
1.20
1.80
1.00
0.30
-
Total
c.u.
27. 2
233.6
224.0
60.0
9.6 •
--
18.0
5.4
2.0
.3
580.1
Actual
%
4.7
40.2
. 38.6
10.3
1.7
—
3.1
0.9
0.4
0.1
100.0
a) These costs are based on one set of analysis per site
delineated in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Reporting and
replicates are listed in Tables 22, 23 and 24.
79
-------
TABLE 22
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS
LEVEL 1
TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-site
Survey
1. Labor 6.0 c.u.
2. ODC's 1.0 c.u.
7.0 c.u. $1,750
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (Variable)
1. Site Preparations 1.0 c.u.
2. 1.5 x Field Sampling Labor Costs 4.7 c.u.
5.7 c.u. $1,425
C. Field Sampling Costs (2-Man Team)
1. Travel and Miscellaneous ODC's
(1000 Miles) 4.0 c.u.
2. Field Sampling Labor and Per
Diem 3.1 c.u.
7.1 c.u. $1,775
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc
0.20 x Field Labor Costs 0.6 c.u. $ 150
E. Total Sampling Costs 20.4 c.u. $5,100
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs 61.7 c.u. $15,425
B. 'Analysis Set-up Time, Duplicates, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 12.3 c.u. $3,075
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 12.3 c.u. $3,075
D. Total Analysis Costs ' 86.3 c.u. $21,575
III. TOTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS 106.7 c.u. $26,675
834 hrs. @
$32/hr.
80
-------
TABLE 23
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS
LEVEL 2
I. TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-Site
Survey
> Labor (Included in Level 1) °'° c'u'
2. ODC's 0.0 c.u.
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (Variable)
1. Site Preparations 2.2 c.u.
2. 1.0 x Field Sampling Labor Costs 13.2 c.u.
15.4 c.u. $3,850
C. Field Sampling Costs (2-Man Team)
1. Travel and Miscellaneous ODC's
(1000 Miles) 6.5 c.u.
2- Field Sampling Labor and Per Diem 13.2 c.u.
19.7 c.u. $4,925
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Field Labor Costs 2.6 c.u. $ 650
E. Total Sampling Cost 37.7 c.u. $9,425
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs ' 363.5 c.u. $90,875
B. Analysis Set-up Time, Duplicates, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 72.7 c.u. $18,175
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 72.7 c.u. $18.175
D. Total Analysis Costs 508.9 c.u. $127,225
III. TOTAL COST-PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 1 546.6 c.u. $136,650
IV. TOTAL COST-PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 2 546.6 c.u. $136,650
V. GRAND TOTAL LEVEL 2 COSTS 1093.2 c.u. $273,300
8540 hrs. @
$32/hr.
81
-------
TABLE 24
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS
DIRECT LEVEL 2
TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-Site
Survey
1. Labor 6.0 c.u.
2. ODC's 1.0 c.u.
7.0 c.u. $ 1,750
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (Variable)
1. Site Preparations 2.0 c.u.
2. 2.0 x Field Sampling Labor Costs 27.0 c.u.
29.0 c.u. $ 7,250
C. Field Sampling Costs (2-Man Team)
1 Travel and Miscellaneous ODC's
(1000 Miles) 6,5 c,u.
2. Field Sampling Labor and Per
Diem 13.5 c.u.
20.0 c.u. $ 5,000
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Field Labor Costs 4.0 c.u. $ 1,000
E. Repeat at 35% Items B, C and D 22.9 c.u. $ 5.725
F. Total Sampling Costs 82.9 c.u. $ 20,725
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs 580.1 c.u. $145,025
B. Analysis Set-up Time, Duplicates,
Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 116.0 c.u. $ 29,005
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 116.0 c.u. $ 29,005
D. Repeat at 35% Items A, B, C 284.2 c.u. $ 71,050
E. Total Analysis Costs 1096.4 c.u. $274,075
III. TOTAL COST - PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 1 1179.3 c.u. $294,825
IV. TOTAL COST - PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 2 1179.3 c.u. $294.825
V. GRAND TOTAL - DIRECT LEVEL 2 COST 2358.6 c.u. $589,650
18,426 hrs.' @
$32/hr.
82
-------
5.6 TOTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS - COAL GASIFIER
The unit costs, number of sampling sites, and number of analyses
established for the Lurgi coal gasifier described in Sections 5.3 and 5.4
have been used to compute itemized and total sampling costs for this unit.
The results of these calculations are tabulated in Tables 25-33.
5.6.1 Computation of Repeat and Replicate Sample Costs
It has been assumed for the purposes of this report that a 35% repeat
rate will be necessary because of the nature of direct level 2 sampling.
No specific assumptions have been made as to where the major portion of
these repeats will occur and thus, this added cost is taken as a direct
percent of the sampling and analysis costs and added into the total.
In addition to the above costs, it may be necessary to sample two or
three process conditions in order to obtain adequate information for an
environmental assessment of the entire complex. By definition, two dis-
tinct level 2 or direct level 2 efforts will have to occur at different
times. Two process conditions were assumed for this report. Thus, the
total level 2 (direct or phased) costs were multiplied by a factor of
two to provide for this second effort. This increment is shown as Item IV
in all summary tables.
5.6.2 Computation of Sampling Costs
The method of computing sampling costs has been explained in
Section 5.2. The basic unit cost used is the field labor necessary
to sample a specific site. Tables 25, 26 and 27 show an itemized
computation for level 1, level 2 and direct level 2 field sampling costs
based on the number of samples and unit costs derived in Section 5.3.
These totals are tabulated in Tables 31, 32 and 33 as Item I-C-b. To
this is added the additional cost of 1.5, 1.0 and 2.0 times this basic
cost for trip planning and preparations for level 1, level 2 and direct
level 2 sampling, respectively. Additional itemized costs are added as
necessary for travel, ODC's, site preparation, a pre-site survey and
reporting. Finally, the total sampling costs including repeats and
replications are computed. Note that the costs are relatively evenly
,83
-------
Table 25
BASIG LEVEL 1 FIELD SAMPLING COSTS3)
COAL GASIFIER
Site Type
1. Solids and Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-Aqueous
(Organics)
4. Gas (No Particulate)
5. Flue Gas
(Particulate)
6. Dust (Fugitive)
No. of
Sites
6
8
6
32
5
11
68
c.u./
Site
0.50
0.50
0.67
0.28
0.91
0.36
-
Total
c.u.
3.0
4.0
4.0
9.0
4.6
4.0
28.6
Actual
*
10.2
13.6
13.6
30.5
18.6
13.5
100.0
a) Field labor and per diem costs to obtain one set of samples
for each sampling site.
TABLE 26
BASIC LEVEL 2 FIELD SAMPLING COSTSa)
COAL GASIFIER
Site Type
1 . Solids and Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-Aqueous
(Organics)
4. Gas (No Particulate)
5. Flue Gas
(No Particulate)
6. Dust (Fugitive)
No. of
Sites
8
6
4
20
3
11
52
c.u./
Site
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.60
1.00
0.30
Total
c.u.
8.0
4.2
4.0
12.0
3.0
3.3
34.5
Actual
%
23.2
12.2
11.6
34.8
8.7
9.5
100.0
a) Field labor and per diem costs to obtain one set of samples
for each sampling site.
84
-------
TABLE 27
BASIC DIRECT LEVEL 2 FIELD SAMPLING COSTS3^
COAL GASIFIER
Site Type
1. Solids and Slurries
2. Aqueous
3. Non-Aqueous
(Organics)
4. Gas (No Parti cul ate)
5. Flue Gas
(Partlculate)
6. Dust (Fugitive)
No. of
Sites
8
8
6
32
5
11
70
c.u./
Site
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.60
6.00
0.30
-
Total
c.u.
8.0 '
5.6
6.0
19.2
30.0
3.3
72.1
Actual
%
11.1
7.8
8.3
26.6
41.6
4.6
100.0
a) Field labor and per diem costs to obtain one set of samples
for each sampling site.
85
-------
distributed. The gas samples incur a larger cost due to the large
number of samples that are being taken. The disproportionate cost in
the flue gas sampling between levels originates from the fact that for
level 2,only samples for organic analysis are being taken because in this
case, level 1 analysis would have shown no particulate in this gas fired
boiler. Direct level 2 costs are postulated on particulate being present.
5.6.3 Computation of Analysis Costs
The method of computing analysis costs has been explained in Section
5.2. The basic unit costs used in Tables 28, 29 and 30 were derived in
Section 5.4 and are the most efficient analysis. To this is added an
additional cost of 20% for set-up time, duplicates, etc. and another 20%
for correlation and reporting. In addition, another 35% was added to
the total of the above for analysis of samples taken from resampled
streams in the direct level 2 effort. Only the basic analysis costs
will be discussed in this section with the aggregate costs being shown
in Summary Tables 31, 32, and 33.
Tables 31, 32 and 33 show an itemized computation for level 1,
level 2 and direct level 2 sampling costs based on the number of samples
and unit costs derived in Section 5.4. Note that on all levels, bioassay
and organics analysis are the cost sensitive items and inorganic compound
analysis is the third most important item for both level 2 analyses. Thus,
all cost benefit analysis should concentrate on these items.
86
-------
TABLE 28
BASIC LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS COSTS
COAL GASIFIER
a)
Sample Type
1. Bioassay
2. Organic Analysis
(per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound
Identification
4. Parti cul ate
Morphology
5. Coal Feed
6. Inorganic Element
Analysis
7, Water Analysis
8. Gas Chroma tographic
Analysis
9. Miscellaneous Costs
No. of
Samples
57
42
40
37
—
58
8
44
30
316
c.u./
Sample
3.20
1.00
--
1.10
--
0.50
0.38
0.25
0.20
-
Total
c.u.
182.4
42.0
40.7
--
29.0
3.0
11.0
6.0
314.1
. Actual
%
58.0
13.4
13.0
--
9.2
1.0
3.5
1.9
100.0
a) These costs are based on one set of analysis per site
delineated in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Reporting and
replicates are listed in Tables 31, 32, and 33.
TABLE 29
BASIC LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS COSTS"'
COAL GASIFIER
Sample Type
1. Bioassay
a. Soluble
b. Insoluble
2. Organic Analysis
(per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound
Identification
4. Particulate
Morphology
5. Coal Feed
6. Inorganic Element
Analysis
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Chroma tographic
Analysis
9. Miscellaneous Costs
No. of
Sampl es
15
,11
51
26.
23
8
47
6
27
8
222
c.u./
Sample
13.60
29.20
16.00
6.00
1.60
1.38
1.20
1.80
1.00
.30
-
Total
c.u.
204.0
321.2
816.0
156.0
36.8
11.0
56.4
10.8
27.0
2.4
1641.6
Actual
%
12.5
19.6
49.7
9.5
2.2
0.7
3.4
0.7
1.6
0.1
100.0
a) These costs are based on one set of analysis per site
delineated in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Reporting and
replicates are listed in Tables 31, 32 and 33.
87
-------
TABLE 30
BASIC LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS COSTS. DIRECT SAMPLING'
COAL GASIFIER
M*
Sample Type
1 . Bioassay
a. Soluble
b. Insoluble
2. Organic Analysis
(per sample)
3. Inorganic Compound
Identification
^A^Parlicufafe
Morphology
5. Coal Feed
6. Inorganic Element
Analysis
7. Water Analysis
8. Gas Chromatographic
Analysis
9. Miscellaneous Cost
, No. of
Samples
29
28
88
45
1
42
8
72
8
37
8
365
c.u./
Sampl e
13.60
29.20
16.00
6.00
»*!.'• •
1.60
1.38
1.20
1.80
1.00
.30
-
Total
c.u.
394.4
817.6
1408.0
270.0
67.2
'
11.0
86.4
14.4
37.0
2.4
3108.4
Actual
%
10.7
26.9
46.3
8.9
i
2.2'
0.4
2.8
0.5
1.2
0.1
100.0
a) These costs are based on one set of analysis per site
delineated in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Reporting and
replicates are listed in Tables 31, 32 and 33.
-------
TABLE 31
COAL GASIFIER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS
LEVEL 1
I. TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-s1te
Survey
1. Labor 11.0 c.u.
2. ODC's 3.0 c.u.
14.0 c.u. $ 3,500
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (variable)
1. Site Preparations 3.5 c.u.
2. 1.5 x Field Sampling Labor Costs 42.9 c.u.
46.4 c.u. $n,600
C. Field Sampling Costs (2-Man Team)
1. Travel and Misc. ODC's (1000 Miles) 19.0 c.u.
2. Field Sampling Labor and Per Diem 28.6 c.u.
47.6 c.u. $11.900
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Field Labor Costs 5.7 c.u. $ 1,430
E. Total Sampling Costs 113.7 c.u. $28,425
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs 314.1 c.u. $78,525
B. Analysis Set-up Time, Duplicates, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 62,8 c.u. $15,705
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 62.8 c.u. $15,705
D. Total Analysis Costs 439.7 c.u. $109,925
III. TOTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS 553.4 c.u. $138,350
4323 Hrs. @
$32/Hr.
89
-------
TABLE 32
COAL GASIFIER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS
LEVEL 2
I. TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-Site
Survey
1. Labor 4.0 c.u. $1,000
2. ODC's (included in Level 1)
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (Variable)
1. Site Preparations 5.0 c.u.
2. 1.0 x Field Sampling Labor Costs 34.5 c.u.
39.5 c.u. $9,875
C. Field Sampling Costs (7-Man Team)
1. Travel and Miscellaneous
ODC's (1000 Miles) 23.0, c.u.
2. Field Sampling Labor and
Per Diem 34.5 c.u.
57.5 c.u. $14,375
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Field Labor Costs 6.9 c.u. $1.725
E. Total Sampling Costs 107.9 c.u. $26,975
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs 1641.6 c.u. $410,400
B. Analysis Set-Up Time, Duplicates,
Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 328.3 c.u. $82,075
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 328.3 c.u. $82.075
D. Total Analysis Costs 2298.2 c.u. $574,550
III. TOTAL COST. - PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 1 2406.1 c.u. $601,525
IV. TOTAL COST - PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 2 2406.1 c.u. $601,525
V. GRAND TOTAL LEVEL 2 COSTS 4812.2 c.u. $1,203,050
37,595 Hrs. 9
$32/Hr.
90
-------
TABLE 33
COAL GASIFIER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS
DIRECT LEVEL 2
I. TOTAL SAMPLING COSTS
A. Preliminary Arrangements and Pre-site
Survey
1. Labor 16.0 c.u.
2. ODC's 5.0 c.u.
21.0 c.u. $5,250.
B. Trip Planning and Preparations (Variable)
1. Site Preparations 8.0 c.u.
2. 2.0 x Field Sampling Labor
Costs and Literature Survey 144.2 c.u. $38,050.
152.2 c.u.
C. Field Sampling Costs (10-Man Team) .
1. Travel and Miscellaneous ODC's
(1000 Miles) 33.7 c.u.
2. Field Sampling Labor and Per
Diem 72.1 c.u.
105.8 c.u. $26,450.
D. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Field Labor Costs 14.4 c.u. $3,600.
E. Repeat at 35% Items B, C, and D 95.3 c.u. $23,835.
F. Total Sampling Costs 388.7 c.u. $97,185.
II. ANALYSIS COSTS
A. Direct Analysis Costs 3108.4 c.u. $777,100.
B. Analysis Set-up Time, Duplicates,
Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 621.7 c.u. $155,425.
C. Correlation, Reporting, Etc.
0.20 x Direct Analysis Costs 621.7 c.u. $155,425.
D. Repeat at 35% Items A, B and C 1523.0 c.u. $380,750.
E. Total Analysis Costs 5874.8 c.u. $1,468,700.
III. TOTAL COST -PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 1 6263.5 c.u. $1,565,875.
IV. TOTAL COST - PROCESS CONDITION NUMBER 2 6263.5 c.u. $1,565,875.
V. GRAND TOTAL - DIRECT LEVEL 2 COSTS 12,527.0 c.u. $3,131,750.
97,867 Mrs. @ $32/Hr.
91
-------
5.7 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the cost computations are shown in Table 34 and Figure
19 for the wet limestone scrubber and coa'i gasifier. These totals include
sampling and resulting analysis repeats of 35% for both direct level 2
efforts and a replication factor of two in order to obtain samples for two
process conditions for aVl_ level 2 efforts. Although the scrubber and
gasifier differ markedly in size, complexity, basic technology and cost of
assessment, the following observations can be made:
t The phased approach was found to be more cost effective in
all aspects than the direct approach for both technologies.
For the gasifier, this amounted to a factor of 2.3; for the
wet limestone scrubber, direct costs were higher by a factor of 2.0.
• The advantages of the phased sampling and analysis approach
were found to be approximately proportional to the complexity
of the process being sampled. Thus, while the phased approach
resulted in a 58% reduction in costs over the direct approach
in the gasifier, the corresponding savings for the wet limestone
scrubber were 49%.
• Within the phased approach, the level 1 sampling and analysis
is only 8-10% of the total cost of the phased effort. Thus,
many qualitative judgments including whether or not a full
scale endeavor is necessary can be decided before a commitment
is made to initiate a detailed final (level 2) assessment.
• The following were found to be cost sensitive items:
1. Flue gas (particulate) sampling has a
significantly higher unit cost on both
levels 1 and 2 than another type of
sampling.
2. In level 1, bioassay testing constitutes
the major analyses costs. In both the phased
and direct level 2 effort, bioassay testing
and organic analysis costs followed by inorganic
compound identification are the major cost
sensitive items.
t Sampling, although very important, consists of about 10%
of the total effort.
92
-------
TABLE 34
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
COST SUMMARY ($)
to
co
Strategy
Level 1
Level 2
Phased Total
Direct Level 2
Limestone Wet Scrubber
Sampling
5,ioa
18,850
23,950
41,450
Analysis
21 ,575
254,450
276,025
548,150
Total
26,675
273,300
299,975
589,600
Coal Gasifier
Sampling
28,425
53,950
82,375
194,370
Analysis
109,925
1,149,100
1,259,025
2,937,400
Total
138,350
1,203,050
1 ,341 ,400
3,131,770
-------
to
u
700,000.-
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
0
LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBER
LEGEND:
SAMPLING COSTS
ANALYSIS COSTS
LEVEL!, 2
TOTAL DIRECT LEVEL
LEVELS 1 & 2 NO. 2 APPROACH
1,500,000
1,000,000
§
8
z
8
500,000
100,000
COAL GASIFIER
f = 3,130,000
LEVEL 1, 2
TOTAL
LEVELS 1 & 2
DIRECT LEVEL
NO. 2 APPROACH
PHASED APPROACH PHASED APPROACH
Figure 19. Summary of Sampling and Analysis Costs
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
1. ASTM Committee D-19 and D-22, "Water; Atmospheric Analysis", 1971
Annual Book of ASTM Standards", Part 23, D1357-57,"Planning the
Sampling of the Atmosphere", p. 291-297. ; :
2. Brenchley, D. L., C. D. Turley and R. G. Yalme, "Industrial Source
Sampling", Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973.
3. Deriving, W. E., "Some Theory of Sampling", John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, 1955.
4. Hamersraa, J. W., Reynolds, S. L., "Tentative Procedures for Sampling
and Analysis of Coal Gasification Processes", TRW Systems Group,
Document No. 24916-6016-TU-OO, 1975.
5. Radian Corporation, "Sampling and Analytical Strategy for Potentially
Hazardous Compounds in Petroleum Refinery Streams", draft for review,
August, 1975.
6. Stern, A. C., editor. "Air Pollution", Dynamic Press, New York,
Second Edition, Volumes I, II, and III, 1968.
7. Dorsey, J. A., Draft Copy, "Environmental Assessment Guideline Document",
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C., 1975.
8. Griefer, B. and J. K. Taylor , "Pollutant Analysis Cost Survey",
National Bureau of Standards, PB-241-991, December, 1974.
9. Accu-Labs Research, Inc., "Sampling and Analytical Services Fee
Schedule", April, 1975.
10. Barringer Research, "Sampling and Analytical Services Fee Schedule",
January, 1975.
11. Petroleum Analytical Research Corporation, "Sampling and Analytical
Services Fee Schedule", January, 1975.
12. Personal Communication; SASS multicyclone train operational costs.
J. W. Hamersma, TRW Systems Group, and R. M. Statnick and J. Dorsey,
EPA. August, 1975.
13. Mudge, L. K., G. F. Schiefelbein, C. T. Li, and R. H. Moore, "The
Gasification of Coal", Battelle Memorial Institute, Battelle Energy;
Program Report, July, 1974, 60 p.
95
-------
14. Shaw, H., and E. M. Magee, "Evaluation of Pollution Control in Fossil
Fuel Conversion Processes", Gasification; Section 1, Lurgi Process,
July, 1974, EPA-650/2-74-009-C.
15. ASTM Committee D-3, "Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke", 1971 Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Part 19, D1274-54, "Standard Method of Sampling
and Manufactured Gas", p. 22-231.
16. ASTM Committee D-2, "Petroleum Products", 1971 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Part 18, D270-65, "Standard Method of Sampling Petroleum
and Petroleum Products", p. 47-71.
17. Seeley, J. L. and R. K. Skogerboe, "Combined Sampling-Analysis Method
for the Determination of Trace Elements in Atmospheric Particulates",
Anal. Chem., 46,'(3'), 415-421, March, 1974.
18. ASTM Committees D-19 and D-22, "Water, Atmospheric Analysis", 1971
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 23, D2009-65, "Standard Recommended
Practice for Collection by Filtration and Determination of Mass,
Number, and Optical Sizing of Atmospheric Particulates", p. 506-513.
19. Flegal, C. A., J. A. Starkovich, R. F. Maddalone, M. L. Kraft, C. A.
Zee and C. Lin, "Draft Final Report Measurement Techniques for
Inorganic Trace Materials in Control System Streams", TRW Systems
Gr'oup, Contract No. 68-02-1393, 1975.
20. ASTM Committee D-19 and D-22, Water; Atmospheric Analysis", 1971
Annual Book of ASTM Standards", Part 23, D1605-60, "Sampling Atmos-
pheres for Analysis of Gases and Vapors", p. 349-380.
21. EPA, "Protection of the Environment", Federal Register, Vol. 36,
No. 247, 23 December 1971.
22. Epstein, M., C. C. Leivo, C. H. Rowland and S. C. Wang, "Test Results
from the EPA Lime/Limestone Scrubbing Test Facility", EPA 650/2-74-038,
Proceedings: Flue Gas Desulfurization Symposium, December, 1973.
23. "El Paso Natural Gas Company Burnham Coal Gasification Complex - Plant
Description and Cost Estimate", Application of El Paso Natural Gas
Co. before U. S. Federal Power Commission, Docket No. CP 73-131,
16 August 1972 (Rev. 20 September 1972).
24. Personal Communication, Ike Foster, "Ash and Ash Slurry Sampling",
Telecon, February, 1975.
96
-------
25. Personal Communication: Dr. Brown, Accu-Labs, Research, Inc.,
"Analysis costing for aqueous samples and for organic class analysis",
June 1975.
26. Personal Communication: L. Johnson, J. A. Dorsey.and R. M. Statnick,
EPA, "Cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity; technical
applications and costing problems", August 1975.
27. Olsen, D. A., "Air Pollutional Aspects of Organic Carcinogens",
Litton Industries, p. 59-67.
28. Taras, M. J., Greenberg, A. E., Hoak, R. D., and Rand, M. C.,
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater",
American Public Health Assoc., 13th Edition, 1971.
29. Dominick, D. D., "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
1971", Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory.
30. Samedov, I. G., and A. S. Kurbanov, "Pollution of the Air with
Carcinogenic Substances by Baku Petroleum Refineries",
Azerbaydzhanskiy Medit. Zh. 28(11). 62-67 (1971).
31. Plunkett, Edmond R., Handbook of Industrial Toxicology, Chemical
Publishing, New York, 1966.
32. Cropper, F. R., and S. Kaminsky, "Determination of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Admixture in the Atmosphere by Gas Chromatography",
Anal. Chem,. 35. (6), 735-743, May 1963.
33. Sawicki, E., T. W. Stanley, and H. Johnson, "Direct Spectro-
fluorometric Analysis of Aromatic Compounds on Thin-Layer Chrom-
atograms", Microchem. J.. 8. 257-284, (1964).
34. Sawicki, E., and H. Johnson, "Characterization of Aromatic Com-
pounds by Low-Temperature Fluorescence and Phosphorescence.
Application to Air Pollution Studies", Microchem, J., 8. 85-101,
1964.
35. Moore, G. E., R. S. Thomas, and J. L. Monkman, "The Routine Deter-
mination of Polycyclic Hydrocarbons in Airborne Pollutants",
J. Chromatog.. 26, 456-464, 1967.
97 .
-------
36. Tye, E., A. Morton and I. Rapien, "Benzo (A) Pyrene and Other Aromatic
Hydrocarbons Extractable from Bituminous Coal", Am. Ind. Hyq. Assoc. J.t
2Z, 25, 1966.
37. Sawicki, E., F. T. Fox, W. Elbert, T. R. Hauser and J. Meeker,
"Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Composition of Air Polluted by
Coal-Tar Pitch Fumes". Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 23. 482, 1962.
38. Sawicki, E., T. W. Stanley, S. McPherson, and M. Morgan, "Use of Gas-
Liquid and Thin-Layer Chromatography in Characterizing Air Pollutants
by Fluorometry", Talanta. 1_3_, 619-629, 1966.
39. Cantuti, V., G. P. Cartoni, A. Liberti and A. G. Torri, "Improved
Evaluation of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in Atmospheric Dust by Gas
Chromatography", J. Chromatog., 17, 60-65, 1965.
40. Lao, R. C., R. S. Thomas, H. Oja, and L. Dubois, "Application of a
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer-Data Processor Combination to
the Analysis of the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Content of Air-
borne Pollutants", Anal. Chan., 45.,(6), 908-915, May, 1973.
41. Personal Communication: P. W. Jones, Battelle Research, Columbus,
Ohio, "Level 1 Organic Analysis", July, 1975.
42. Level 2 organic analysis. Conference of EPA contractors for the
Radian report on the sampling and analytical strategy for potentially
hazardous compounds in petroleum refinery streams, July, 1975.
43. Forney, A. J., S. J. Gasior, W. P. Haynes, and S. Kate!1, "Analysis
of Tars, Chars, Gases and Water Found in Effluents from the Synthane
Process", U. S. Department of the Interior, Technical Report No. 76,
January, 1974.
44. Personal communication: Inorganic compound analysis. J. W. Hamersma.
TRW Systems, and R. M. Statnick and J. Dorsey, EPA, September, 1975.
45. Flegal, C. A., J. A. Starkovich, R. F. Maddalone, C. A. Zee, M. L. Kraft and
C. Lin, "Approved Procedures for Process Measurements - Trace
Inorganic Materials", TRW Systems Group, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1393,
February, 1975.
98
-------
46. ASTM Committees D-19 and D-22, "Water, Atmospheric Analysis", ASTM
Committee D-22, 1971 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 23, 01704-61,
"Standards Method of Test for Particulate Matter In the Atmosphere,
Optical Density of Filtered Deposit", p. 418-424.
47. Silverman, L., C. Billings, and M. First, "Particle Size Analysis
in Industrial Hygiene", Academic Press, 1971.
48. Lowry, H. H., "Chemistry of Coal Utilization", Suppl. Vol., John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1963.
49. ASTM Committee D-3, "Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke", 1971 Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Pt. 19, D271, "Laboratory Sampling and
Analysis of Coal and Coke."
50. Personal Communication: Robert Brown of Accu-Labs Research, Inc.,
"Trace Inorganic Materials Identification Via SSMS", October, 1975.
51. Veal, D. J., "Nondestructive Activation Analysis of Crude Oils for
Arsenic to One Part Per Billion, and Simultaneous Determination of
Five Other Trace Elements", Anal. Chem. 38J8), 1080-3, (1966).
52. Von Lehmden, D. J., R. H. Jungers and R. E. Lee, Jr., "Determination
of Trace Elements in Coal, Fly Ash, Fuel Oil and Gasoline—A Pre-
liminary Comparison of Selected Analytical Techniques", Anal. Chem.
46(2) 239 (1974).
53. Thomson, S. J., "Techniques for Reducing Refinery Wastewater",
Oil Gas J. 68 (40). 93-8 (1972).
54. Leithe, W., "The Analysis of Organic Pollutants in Water and Waste-
water", Ann Arbor Science, New York, 1972.
55. McCoy, J. W., "Chemical Analysis of Industrial Water", Chemical
Publishing Co., New York, 1969.
56. Hach Chemical Co., Sampling and Analytical Fee Schedule, 1975.
57. ASTM Committees D-19 and D-22, "Water; Atmospheric Analysis", 1971
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 23, D2580, "Standard Method of
Test for Phenols in Water by Gas-Liquid Chromatography", p. 690-97.
99
-------
58. Weston, R. F., "Separation of Oil Refinery Wastewaters", I & EC 42(4).
607 (1950).
59. Personal Communication: Dr. J. W. Eichelberger, "Direct aqueous in-
jection techniques for GLC analysis of organic water pollutants",
June, 1975.
60. Leibrand, R. J., "Atlas of Gas Analyses by Gas Chromatography",
Applications Laboratory Report 1006, March, 1966.
61. Greene, S. A., Moberg, M. L., and Wilson, E. M., "Separation of
Gases by Gas Absorption Chromatography", Anal. Chem., citation unknown.
62. Perry, R., and J. D. Twibell, "A Time Based Elution Technique for the
Estimation of Specific Hydrocarbons in Air", Atmos. Environ., 7J10),
1973, 929-937, Aptic No. 54931.
63. Obermiller, E. L., "Gas Chromatographic Separation of Nitrogen, Oxygen,
Argon, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Sulfur
Dioxide", J. of Gas Chrom. 6. 446-447, August, 1968.
64. Doran, T. and J. P. Cross, "Single Sample Analysis of the Mixture 02,
N2, CH4, CO, C02, C2H6, and N-C4H10", J. of Gas Chrom.. 260-262.
July, 1966.
65. Kim, A. G. and L. J. Douglas, "Gas Chromatographic Method for Analyzing
Gases Associated with Coal", Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations,
RI-7903, 1974.
66. Sussman, V. H., "Atmospheric Emissions from Catalytic Cracking Unit
Regenerator Stacks", NTIX, PB-216-644, June, 1957, 60p.
67. Brocco, D., V. Depalo, and M. Possanzini, "Improved Chromatographic
Evaluation of Alkanes in Atmospheric Dust Samples", Chromatog.,
86^(1), 234-238, November, 1973.
68. Adams, D. F., R. K. Koppe, "Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Hydrogen
Sulfide, Sulfur Dioxide, Mercaptans, and Alkyl Sulfides and Disulfides",
Tappi. 42J7), 601-605, July, 1959.
69. "Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis", Intersociety Committee,
American Public Health Association", Washington, D. C., 1972.
100
-------
70. Cropper, F. R., and S. Kaminsky, "Determination of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Admixture in the Atmosphere by Gas Chromatography",
Anal. Chem.. 35(6), 735-743, May, 1963.
71. Hamersma, J. W., and S. L. Reynolds, "Final Report: Review of Process
Measurements for Coal Gasification Processes", TRW Systems Group,
April, 1975.
72. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, "Air
Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants",
Cincinnati, Ohio, 4th edition, 1972.
73. Hollowell, C. D., and R. D. Mclaughlin,"Instrumentation for Air
Pollution Monitoring", Environmental Science and Technology. 7_(11),
November, 1973.
74. Watther, J. E., and H. R. Amberg, "Mobile Laboratory for Source
Sampling Kraft Mill Emissions", Crown Zellerbach Corporation,
Tappi. 5J.( 11), 126-129, November, 1968.
101
-------
APPENDIX A.
MOBILE LABORATORY UNITS
Mobile laboratories 1n the form of vans or trailers have been used
very effectively for a variety of source assessment efforts such as
stack sampling, ambient air sampling and water quality measurements. In
general, commercially available vans have been outfitted with a variety
of equipment necessary for assessing environmentally significant factors
for the source of interest.
A.I ADVANTAGES
The primary advantages of such vans lie in the fact that many
samples may be or are unstable, and delaying the analysis could result
in erroneous conclusions. In addition, the results for a given sample
are often quite unexpected and the presence of an on-site laboratory
allows the immediate re-analysis of a check sample and/or modification
of the experimental plan on a real time basis which allows the saving
of time, effort and cost.
In the phased and direct sampling efforts for the gasifier, many
effluent parameters must be determined on-site due to their unstable
nature and it is assumed that most other large scale plants will have
similar samples. In addition, the philosophical aims of level 1
testing in the phased approach can be enhanced greatly with an on-site
laboratory. A well-equipped laboratory will allow additional level 1
or "semi-level 2" samples to be taken so that the final level 2 effort
can be focused in greater detail with a resultant decrease in cost for
the level 2 effort. Finally, unanticipated problem areas can be
identified in greater detail for the level 2 effort.
Most sampling efforts require the rental of a van or trailer
to transport needed equipment, tools and reagents from the laboratory
to the sampling source. ' Additionally, driver and mileage rates must
be figured into the overall cost. Insofar as the above costs are
incurred as a natural outgrowth of most sampling efforts, the cost
effectiveness of a mobile laboratory unit is greatly enhanced, since
these normally incurred costs may be applied to the mobile laboratory
unit. An additional advantage is that sampling equipment assembly,
102
-------
sample transfer and equipment clean-up will be facilitated by additional
work space that is available in the mobile laboratory unit for all phases
and types of sampling operations.
A. 2 COMPONENTS
An itemized list of items that may be Included in an environmental
assessment van is shown in Table A-l. Most items are capable of per-
forming both level 1 and level 2 analyses. Some of the proposed
specific uses of this unit are described below as they relate to
level 1 and level 2 analysis. In general, sampling valves and
manifolding systems presently exist in a state of refinement such
that specific sampling controls are available for virtually every
application. Variable time period sampling panels capable of sequen-
tial stream selection and adjustable time/volume sampling parameters
for individually monitored streams are commercially available and
easily mounted in the mobile unit laboratory via side wall bulkhead
mounts. Portable generators facilitate sampling operations 1n areas
where electrical outlet availability is scarce.
Level 1:
• All sampling apparatus and tools may be stored assembled
and checked-out and post-sampling sample transfer and
equipment clean-up can be performed in a clean laboratory
atmosphere necessary for bioassay analysis.
• Hach analysis of water samples for qualitative assessment
of aqueous effluents.
• Qualitative ambient particulate determinations with
piezoelectric microbalance.
• Qualitative .ion measurements using specific ion electrodes.
• NO -SO concentrations with direct reading instrumentation.
^ ^\
• Qualitative organic and inorganic characterization via
infrared spectrophotometry.
• Qualitative determination of trace elements using the ring
oven technique.
• Qualitative and semi-quantitative organic and organo-sulfur
compound analysis via multiple detector GLC.
103
-------
TABLE A-l.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VAN OR TRAILER
MOBILE INSTRUMENTATION AND CHEMICAL LABORATORY
Instruments and Sampling Equipment
Cost
Hewlett Packard #680M Recorders (5)
Beckman #402 Hydrocarbon Analyzer
Leco Chemiluminescent NO Analyzer
A
Meloy Multiple GLC Detector
High Volume Samplers (4)
Modified SASS Train
Digital mV Meter with Multi Channel Switch
and Complete Set of Electrodes
Beckman #865 Infrared Spectrophotometer
Refrigerator for Water Samples
Trailer Outfitting
Furnishings
Calibration Gases and Regulators
Generator (110V)
Miscellaneous Bottles, Reagents, Tools, etc.
Miscellaneous Instruments, pH Meter,
Colorimeter, etc.
Instrument Racks (2)
TOTAL
Additional Costs
Lease $120-$130/mo. (14 months)
for an 8' x 35' trailer with some
custom work.
Equipment Installation - 600 hrs.
(Includes Checkout)
Average Cost to Move Trailer by
Professional Haulers; $1.20/mile
$ 4,000
6,500
5,000
7,000
4,000
15,000
4,000
5,000
200
$50', 700
$ 1,500
1,000
650
1,500
3,200
500
$ 8,350
$59,050
$ 4,500/3 yrs,
10,000
$ 2,400 *
*For 2 x 11,000 mile trip.
104
-------
Level 2:
t All sampling apparatus and tools may be stored assembled
and checked-out and post-sampling sample transfer and
equipment clean-up can be performed in a clean laboratory
atmosphere necessary for bioassay analysis.
• Quantitative colorimetric analyses or titrations may be
performed on impinger solutions, water samples, etc.
• Quantitative ion measurements using specific ion
electrodes.
• Reactive organic and organo-sulfur species can be
quantitatively and qualitatively determined via
multiple detector GLC.
• ' Semi-quantitative inorganic and organic characterization
via infrared and spectrophotometry.
105
-------
APPENDIX B.
UNIT COSTS FOR WATER ANALYSIS (COMMERCIAL LABORATORY)
Analysis Cost
Ammonia $ 12.00'
Acidity ' 5.00
Alkalinity 3.75
BOD 12.00
COD 10.00
Coliform (total) 10.00
Carbon (total) 8.00
Carbon (inorganic) 8.00
Carbon (organic) 17.50
Chloride 4.00
Chromium (high and low range) 3/50
Conductivity 3.50
Cyanide (total) 15.00
Dissolved Oxygen 4.50
Fluoride 12.00
Hardness (total) . 4.00
Microscopic (algae determination) 25.00
Nitrate 10.00
Oil and Grease 10.00
Organic Delineation 100.00
pH . 1.75
Phenols 16.00
Phosphorous (total) 7.00
Phosphorous (orthophosphate) 5.50
Phosphorous (organic) 7.00
Solids (total residue) 5.25
Sulfide 8.00
Sulfite 5.50
Sulfate 5.50
Tannin & Lignin 10.00
Turbidity 1.75
Packing, Shipping, Tabulation 100.00
$450.00 Total = 1.8 c.u,
106
-------
APPENDIX C
SITE PREPARATION COSTS
Site preparation costs for level 2 sampling can be very substantial when
special parts or sophisticated sampling equipment must be installed in an
optimum location. These costs could involve such items as cutting ports for
optimum traversing, installation of mechanical samples for solids, proportional
samples for solids and special equipment to sample high pressure streams.
For this report, it has been assumed that the above is available because of
the newness of the technologies. However, if this is not the case, the
following can be taken as reasonable median prices for site preparation:
Particulate 25K
Gas 8K
Liquid 2.5K
Solid 10K
107
------- |