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

-------