PBS 9-230668
o EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Washington DC 20460
November 1988
Hazardous Waste Incineration
MEASUREMENTS OF PARTICULATES,
METALS, AND ORGANICS AT A
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR
-------
50272-1-0':
REPORT DOCUhENTATIQNi 1. REPORT hu.
PA5E i EPA/530-5W-B9-067
t
3. Recipient E wccession No,
4. Title and Subtitle
tCASUREMENTS IF PARTICULATES. METALS, AND DR6ANICS AT A HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATOR (FINAL DRAFT REPORT?
i 5. Reoort fore
' NOVEMBER 1988
6.
Autrmr(s)
SHIVA 6AR6/OSW
i 6. Performing Organization Kept. ND
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Haste
401 H. Street Sb
tohuwton. BC 20460
10. Project/Task/Hork Unit No.
t
i '
I 11. ContractiC) or Brant(6) No.
i (C)
j (5i 66-01-7287
i
| 13. Type of Report & Period Covered
' DRAFT REPORT ii/86
12. Sponsoring Organization fane and Address
MIDWEST RESEARCH 1NST.
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
. s
Tne EPA's Office of Solid Haste is developing aaenditents to regulations for hazardous Haste incinerators. Q5W. is
gathering additional data relative to these anendaents. Several issues arose during development of the amended regula-
tions that reouired this data gathering. The issues related to control device efficiency for participate and toxic
Ktals and tc the use ai total hydrocarbon wnitors to measure organic Missions. This report describes the field tests
at a hazardous waste incinerator that is part of this data-gathering effort. The types of data collected during this
test are participate emissions, particle size, selected toxic aetals emissions and their control device efficiency, and
organic Missions. Thxs report is divided into four section: a brief summary of the conclusions; a description of the
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
16. Availability Statement
RELEASE UNLIMITED
(See ANSI-239.1B)
19. Security Class (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This Page)
UNCLASSIFIED
OPT
iFm
21. No. of Pages
0
22. Price
0
ONAL FORK 272 (4-77)
•merly NTIS-35)
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM
THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-CH
-------
MEASUREMENTS OF PARTICULATES,
METALS, AND ORGANICS AT A
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Waste Treatment Branch
401 M Street. SW
Washington. D.C. 20460
Work Assignment Manager: Mr. Shiva Garg
November 15. 1988
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by the EPA's Office of Solid Waste under the
direction of Mr. J. Robert Holloway, Chief of the Combustion Section of the
Waste Treatment Branch, Waste Management Division. Major contributors were
Shiva Garg, Ivars Licis, and other members of the Incinerator Permit Writer's
Workgroup. Field testing and technical support 1n the preparation of this
document were provided by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under Contract
No. 68-01-7287. MRI staff who assisted with field sampling, laboratory
analysis, and preparation of the report were Andrew Trenholm, Thomas Lapp,
George Scheil, Eileen McClendon, Kevin EuDaly, and Scott Klamm.
-------
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction [[[ 1
2.0 Conclusions [[[ 2
2.1 Facility emissions and performance ..................... 2
2.2 Measurement methods .................................... 4
3.0 Project Description .............................................. 5
3.1 Project objectives ..................................... 5
3.2 Process description .................................... 6
3.3 Summary of sampling and analysis procedures ............ 10
3.4 Data reduction/interpretation .......................... 18
4.0 Discussion of Results ............................................ 27
4.1 Process data ........................................... 27
4.2 Partlculate emissions and size distribution ............ 33
4.3 Metals emissions and control efficiency ................ 39
4.4 Organic emissions ...................................... 47
Appendices
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
3-1 Process flow diagram 7
4-1 CO vs. total water input 34
4-2 Percent less than vs. Dso particle size. Run 4 46
4-3 Organic mass fractions 50
4-4 Percent of average mass total 54
4-5 CO vs. ratio of hot/cold THC 62
4-6 Comparison of total organic mass and THC measurements 64
4-7 CO vs. THC 66
-------
TABLES
Number
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
Process parameters monitored during testing
Summary of sampling and analysis parameters and methods
for metals and particulate
Summary of sampling and analysis parameters and methods
for organi cs
C x-C7 bl anks
d-C2 blank corrections
Semi volatile blanks
Nonvol ati le blanks
Process data— averages for Runs 1 through 4
Process data— averages for Runs 5 through 10
Particulate loading results from multiple metals
sampl ing train
Control device particulate removal efficiency
Particle size results
Metals input/output rates (excluding stack output)
Stack emissions of metals
Estimated metals removal efficiencies
Particle size distribution of metals
Metals concentrations in stack gas
Distribution of mass among major fractions (ppm as
orooane)
Page
11
12
14
22
23
25
26
28
30
36
37
38
41
42
44
45
48
51
IV
-------
TABLES (concluded)
Number Page
4-12 Distribution of mass among major fractions (% of total
mass) 53
4-13 G! and C2 volatile compounds 55
4-14 Volatiles emissions with alternate auxiliary fuels 57
4-15 Distribution of semivolatile organics 58
4-16 Distribution of nonvolatile organics 59
4-17 THC results 61
4-18 Cold THC vs. organic mass (ppm as propane) 65
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW) 1s
developing amendments to regulations for hazardous waste Incinerators. OSW,
supported by the Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, is gathering
additional data relative to these amendments. Several issues arose during
development of the amended regulations that required this data gathering. The
issues related to control device efficiency for particulate and toxic metals
and to the use of total hydrocarbon monitors to measure organic emissions.
This report describes the field tests at a hazardous waste incinerator
that is part of this data-gathering effort. The types of data collected dur-
ing this test are particulate emissions, particle size, selected toxic metals
emissions and their control device efficiency, and organic emissions. Testing
was conducted at the Mobay Corporation facility in Kansas City, Missouri.
The remainder of this report 1s divided into four sections. Section 2.0
is a brief summary of the conclusions derived from this study. Section 3.0
presents a description of the program including the program objectives, incin-
eration process description, sampling and analysis procedures, and data reduc-
tion. A discussion of the results of this study is provided 1n Section 4.0.
Two appendices contain additional information as follows: Appendix A presents
a detailed discussion of the sampling and analysis methods used in the study
and the associated quality assurance activities; and Appendix 6 provides the
experimental data from the study.
-------
SECTION 2.0
CONCLUSIONS
This section contains brief statements of the major conclusions deter-
mined from analysis of the data generated during this project. Further dis-
cussion of these conclusions and other aspects of the data are presented in
Section 4.0. The conclusions below are divided Into two categories: those
related to emissions from and performance of the incineration facility, and
those related to the measurement methods used on the project.
2.1 FACILITY EMISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE
1. Paniculate concentrations in the stack gas after the venturi/
packed-bed scrubber at this facility (operated at a pressure drop of 50 in
water) were about 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot (corrected to 7%
oxygen) and the estimated particulate removal efficiency was greater than
98%. Carry over of salts from the caustic scrubber to the stack may have
Increased the measured particulate emissions and decreased the estimated
efficiency.
2. Eighty-two percent of the particles emitted from the stack were
found to be less than 1 y in size. The carry over of salts from the scrubber
nay have been primarily 1 u or less particles, thus Increasing the proportion
of mass collected 1n this size range.
3. The estimated control system removal efficiencies for metals aver-
aged 98.8% for arsenic, 98.6% for cadmium, 99.2% for chromium, and 96.3% to
97.8% for lead.
-------
4. The distribution of metals in the stack gas by particle size showed
that most of the mass of each metal was in the less than 1-w size range. The
fraction of total metal in this size range varied from 54% for cadmium to 88%
for lead.
5. Most of the organic mass in the stack gas (80.7% average), as mea-
sured by the EPA Level 1 techniques, was Ci-C? volatile compounds. About 50%
of the mass was volatile compounds collected 1n a condensate trap on the sam-
pling line for the gas bag sampling train.
6. Barely detectable levels of formaldehyde were found in the stack
gas, about 1 ppm.
7. Very small quantities of C^Cj compounds were found in the stack gas
when the incinerator was operated at CO levels of 1000 ppm or less. At the
higher CO levels, up to 30 ppm of methane (calculated as ppm propane) was
found. Two ppm or less of ethane, ethylene, or acetylene were found during
operation at any of the tested CO levels.
8. Total hydrocarbons (THC) measured with a heated sample line and
monitor were 3 to 10 (one value at 27) times higher than THC measured simul-
taneously with a similar but unheated sample line and monitor. The difference
between these results is partially explained by a high bias for the hot THC
measurements and organic compounds collected in a cold condensate trap on the
sampling line for the cold THC measurements. However, the difference could
not be fully explained with the available data.
9. The hot THC monitor measured 2 to 8 times more organic mass than the
EPA Level 1 measurements. This difference was believed to be mostly explained
by the high bias for the hot THC measurements and a low bias for the Level 1
measurement. The low bias for the Level 1 measurement resulted from certain
portions of the organic compounds that could not be resolved during the gas
chromatographic analyses.
10. Measured values from both the hot and cold THC monitors tended to
increase as the stack gas CO concentrations increased.
-------
2.2 MEASUREMENT METHODS
1. The sampling method used to collect chromium +6 failed to provide
valid samples. This may have resulted from reduction of the chromium +6 to
chromium +3 by sulfur compounds collected 1n the samples.
2. As anticipated at the start of the project, the use of stainless
steel in the particle size sampling train appeared to contaminate those sam-
ples with chromium.
3. Considerable problems were experienced with plugging of the sample
line to the hot THC monitor and within the monitor. This caused a high bias
in the data and made continuous operation of the monitor difficult.
4. Modification of the Level 1 techniques used on this project are
needed to avoid problems that prevented measuring all of the organic mass.
The primary problem was masking of C,-C9 organic compounds by the extraction
solvents.
-------
SECTION 3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section presents the project objectives, summary descriptions of the
process and sampling and analysis, and a discussion of data reduction.
3.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of the test were as follows:
1. Determine the level of particulate matter emissions from a venturi
scrubber/packed bed scrubber system at the test facility.
2. Determine the metals removal efficiency for the air pollution con-
trol system (from metals feed rates and stack emission rates); analysis of the
scrubber effluent will be used to provide an approximate mass balance check.
3. Determine the particle size distribution of the particulate in the
stack emissions and the distribution of metals by particle size. The particu-
late size fractions of Interest are those which have been determined by EPA to
be the major contributor to inhalation health effects and to atmospheric
deposition.
4. Evaluate the following emission measurements over a range of incin-
erator operating conditions that result in carbon monoxide (CO) levels 1n the
range from 100 to 2,500 ppm.
a. Heated total hydrocarbon (THC) as recommended for the regula-
tion amendments vs. "Level 1" total organic mass
-------
b. Heated THC vs. unheated THC (similar to past THC measurements
at incinerators)
c. Heated THC vs. CO
Section 3.3.2 describes the heated and unheated THC measurements.
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The facility selected for this test consists of a John Zink, down-fired,
liquid-injection hazardous waste incinerator with a venturi/packed-bed wet
scrubber system. The following discussion briefly describes the incinerator,
the scrubber, and the operating conditions during testing. Figure 3-1 shows a
process flow diagram for the facility. The six sampling locations used during
this test are marked on Figure 3-1 as S1-S6.
3.2.1 Incinerator Description
The Incinerator has a single vertical combustion chamber with aqueous and
liquid organic waste, auxiliary fuel, and a lean waste gas stream cofired down
from the top of the chamber. Natural gas or fuel oil can be used as the
auxiliary fuel. The Incinerator has a design thermal capacity of 45 x
10* Btu/h. The initial section of the combustion chamber (4-ft long by 4-ft
diameter) has an external air atomized burner for the organic waste and burn-
ers for the auxiliary fuel. The section is designed to produce a high inten-
sity flame. The chamber then transitions to a second section 8 ft in diameter
by 32-ft long. A ring of 10 nozzles are located in the transition to feed the
aqueous waste and tempering water. The overall residence time for the combus-
tion chamber 1s about 2 s. The combustion gases pass from the bottom of the
combustion chamber through a submerged quench to the air pollution control
system.
The aqueous waste feed has a nominal feed rate of 10 to 12 gal/m1n (gpm)
at 40 to 60 pslg. It has a specific gravity of 1.04, a pH of about 10, and
contains about 3% ash. The organic waste has a nominal feed rate of 5 to
6 gpm at 10 to 30 pslg with a higher heating value (HHV) of 12,000 to
16,000 Btu/lb.
6
-------
Organic
Waste
Waste Gas
(Air)
Aqueous
Waste
Scrubber Water
• Caustic (NaOH)
Note:
Sx - Sample Point
Figure 3-1. Process flow diagram.
-------
3.2.2 Description of Air Pollution Control System
The air pollution control system consists of a variable throat venturi
scrubber followed by a packed-bed scrubber and mist eliminator. The venturi
scrubber normally operates at a pressure drop of 40 to 45 1n water. The
packed-bed scrubber is 8 ft 1n diameter and 25-ft high. It uses a caustic
solution countercurrent to the gas flow to collect acid gases. It operates at
a pressure drop of 10 to 12 1n water with polypropylene, Super Intalax
Saddles™ packing materials. A mesh-pad type mist eliminator is located at the
exit of the scrubber and has a pressure drop of about 1 1n water. The scrub-
ber system uses approximately 50 gpm of city water to maintain a constant
caustic level. The scrubber gas effluent is saturated with water (nominal
value of 55X water vapor) at approximately 180°F and has a nominal actual gas
flow rate of 27,000 cubic feet per minute (acfm).
3.2.3 Facility Operation During Testing
Operation of the facility is discussed separately below for the metals/
partlculate and organics portions of the test.
3.2.3.1 Facility Operating During Metals/Particulate Testing—
The facility operated under normal conditions during the metals/
participate phase of testing. Natural gas was used as the auxiliary fuel.
Nominal organic waste feed rate was 3 gpm, and aqueous waste feed rate was 6
to 7 gpm. The design of the incinerator makes it possible to evaluate the
APCD control efficiency using combustion chamber input and measured stack
output emission rates. All material in the combustion chamber is passed
through the quench tank/scrubber system, as opposed to being removed as ash.
Thus, 1f known metals quantities are spiked Into the combustion chamber,
measurement of stack emissions will provide a measure of APCD efficiency.
A measured quantity of arsenic trioxide (As203) was spiked Into the
stirred aqueous waste feed tank. Subsequent sample analysis showed arsenic
levels to be approximately 3 mg/kg of water. The Intended level of spiking
was such that the quantities of each of the spiked metals collected 1n the
metals train would be approximately 100 times the analytical method detection
8
-------
limit. This spike level was estimated from the aqueous waste feed rate, an
assumed APCD control efficiency of 99%, the volumetric stack gas flow rate,
and the total estimated metals train gas sample volume per run. The entire
27,000 gal aqueous waste feed tank was spiked and used for all three metals
test runs.
Concentrated solutions (500-5,000 mg/kg water) of chromium, cadmium, and
lead were prepared for each run and introduced into the tempering water line
using an injector pump. Cr(N03)2«9H20, Cd(N03)2»4H20, and Pb(N03)2 were used
to prepare the spiking solutions. These compounds could not be spiked
directly into the aqueous waste feed tank because of the potential for the
formation of precipitates within the tank. This could affect the actual
quantity of metal being pumped to the incinerator. The chromium level spiked
in Run 3 (- 10,000 mg/kg) is exactly double the amounts in Runs 2 and 4
(- 5,000 mg/kg). The injection pump was not run during periods of incinerator
operation when sampling was not being performed.
3.2.3.2 Facility Operation During Organics Testing—
During the organics phase of testing, the aqueous waste feed rate and
tempering water flow rate were varied from run to run to achieve constant
operation at the planned CO levels. The CO levels generally increased as the
aqueous waste and tempering water feed rates increased. Organic waste feed
rate and excess air levels remained relatively constant for Runs 5 to 7 and
10. During Runs 8 and 9, operating temperature and excess air levels, respec-
tively, were varied while other facility operations remained normal. Six runs
were conducted at the following conditions:
Run Nominal CO level (ppm) Temperature, excess 02
5
6
7
8
9
10
100
500
1,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
Normal, normal
Normal, normal
Normal, normal
Low, normal
Normal, low
Normal, normal
-------
For Run 5, fuel oil was used instead of natural gas for the auxiliary
fuel. Natural gas was used again for Run 6, and no auxiliary fuel was used
for Runs 7 through 10.
Process conditions were monitored and recorded on a log form at 15-min
intervals by MRI personnel. Process data collected include the list presented
in Table 3-1.
3.3 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This section provides a brief description of the test program. Testing
activities were separated Into two parts, metals/particulate and organics,
since there were insufficient sampling ports at the facility to conduct all
sampling at one time. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 summarize the measurements for each
portion of the test.
3.3.1 Summary of Metals/Particulate Sampling and Analysis Activities
Table 3-2 presents a summary of the sampling and analysis parameters and
methods for the metals/particulate series of tests. This table identifies the
location, frequency, method, and size for each sample taken, along with the
preparation and analytical methods to measure the analytes. Samples were
taken for metals (As, Cd, Cr, Pb) analyses from the liquid organic waste feed
stream, the aqueous waste feed stream, the scrubber makeup water, and the
scrubber effluent water. Stack gas samples were collected to measure the
metals emissions (including hexavalent chromium), particle size distribution,
particulate matter emissions, and oxygen and carbon dioxide levels. Thus all
feed streams, effluents, and emission sources were sampled to supply necessary
Information for a mass balance. The metals and particle size samples were
collected concurrently, followed Immediately by collection of the particulate
samples. Full descriptions of sampling activities are contained in
Appendix A-l.
10
-------
TABLE 3-1. PROCESS PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING TESTING
Incinerator
Firing rate Btu/h
Combustion chamber temperature °F
Aqueous waste feed rate gpm
Organic waste feed rate gpm
Auxiliary fuel feed rate (natural gas, fuel oil) Btu/h
Combustion air feed rate acfm
Oxygen content of flue gas %
CO level of flue gas ppm
Tempering water flow rate gpm
Spiked metals (As, Cr, Cd, Pb) feed rate* g/min
Quench water flow rate gpm
Outlet gas temperature "F
Venturi Scrubber
Pressure drop across venturi in water
Inlet water feed rate gpm
Packed-Bed Scrubber
Scrubber effluent pH pH
Scrubber effluent flow rate gpm
* Tests 1 through 4 only.
11
-------
3-2. SUttMW OF SMMIN6 AND MMIVSIS PAWMTtlB AMD HCTHDOS FOR MTA1S MID PARIICUATf
&uplt
SUBle
location'
Supllng Frequency
For tick run
Sampling
•ethod
Suple (lit
""b
MrlnD
Target
analytical , A
paranetert Preparation nethod Analytical •ethodt1'"
Organic liquid waste SI
SI
Aqueous waste $2
$2
Makeup water (city) S3
Recycle Miter S4
EFFluent water SS. SC
SS. $6
Coobustlon 90S
$7
DM grak suple every Tip (S004)
30 nln conpotitod
Into OBI tuple
t L (' ISO it per grak) A. I
One grib tuple every Tap (S004) 1 I (' ISO m per grak) A. B
30 nln coapo)Ited
Into one tuple
One grak Mmle every Tap (S004)
30 Blii composited
Into one (Mple
One grak tuple every Tap ($004)
30 •!« cooposlted
Into one staple
One grit SMple every Tip (5004)
30 « (SH-8«-6010)
Ignition (ASTN 048Z-60)
ICP (SU-8«-60IO)i
GfAAS (» 846-7000 teries)
as needed
Ignition (ASTM 0482-80)
ICP (SH-046-6010);
GFAAS (SM 846-7000 series)
•t needed
ld> (SU-846-MIO);
GFAAS (SM 846-7000 scries)
•t needed
ICP (SU-846-MIO):
GFAAS (SM 846-7000 teries)
at needed
Cr (heuvalent) Copreclpltitlon ICP (SM 846-6010);
(SM-846-7I9S). then GFAAS (SM 846-7191)
acid digest Ion at needed
(SU-846-30SO)
At. Cd. Cr. Pb HF/HNO digestion ICP (SM 846 6010);
In •icrowave PRV» GfAAS (SM 846-7000 seriet)
(ENB Draft Method) at needed
of parttculale;
acid dlgettlon
(SU-046-30SO) of
Inplnger solution
(continued)
-------
TABU 3-2 (continued)
Sanple
Conbustioa gas
(continued)
Note: Sailing
wltk prel
Sanple Sanpllng frequency
location* for each ran
$7 Contlnuout 3 k
S7 Continuous
~ 60-120 Bin
$7 Contlnuout 3 h
S7 Contlnuout 2 k
S7 Continuous 2 h
S«pll«g lest
nethod Simple slie series"
MM5-Cr6f 2-3 n3 (dry.) 1
MMS-M* T1D11 A. B
eye lones/
inpactor
M3 ' SO 1 (dry) A. B
MS 1-2 B3 (dry) C
M3 ' SO L (dry) C
nethod Huntert (e.g.. S004) refer to net hods published in 'Sampling and Analysis Methods for
fl> N refer to USEPA actkodt published in
the Code of federal Regulations. Title 40. Part 60.
Target
analytical
parameters
Cr (keiavalent)
At. Cd. Cr. Pb
by particle size
distribution
nr*»
Paniculate
M»'0»
Preparation nethod
Alkaline digestion
(EPA Draft Method);
copreclpttatlon
(SM 846 M95)
of toptnger
solution
HF/HNO digestion
in Bicrowave PRVs
(EPA Draft Method)
N/A
Desiccation
N/A
Haiardout Haste CoobusUon.' EPA 600/8-84-002
Appendix A; analytical
nethods beginning with
Analytical Bethodsc><<
ICP (» 846-6010);
GFAAS (SH-846-/I9I)
as needed
ICP (» 846 6010);
GFAAS (SU-846-7000 series)
as needed
Orsat
Gravlactric (EPA MS)
Orsat
; saapllng Bet hods beginning
SW 846 refer to Betkods
putMshed in USIPA Manual SM-846. third, edition.
N/A • Not appllcabl*.
' Refers to stapling locations depicted In Figure 2-1.
b A • (aseline tett (I run with no spiking): I • wtals rnoval efficiency test (3 runs with nets Is spiking of aqueous waste); C - partlculate test (4 runs one Inaedlately following
each A run and B run).
c ICP • Inductively coupled plataia Mission tpectroscopy; GfAAS • graphite furnace atonic adsorption spectroscopy.
d If an analytical result it lett than S tines tke detection Halt by Method 6010 for any analyte. that analyte will be analyzed by the appropriate series 7000 nethod of SW 846 for
that analyte usfng GfAAS.
e MMS-M • Modified Method S train used to collect iclalt (As. Cd. Cr. Pb)-inplnger solutions and recovery reagents nodlf led.
' NM»-Cr6 • Modified Metkod S train used to collect henavalent cliroailui-l«pinger solutions and recovery reagents nodlf led.
« MM17 • Modified Metkod 17 train (In stack filtration) uted to collect partlculate Mtter by particle tlie distribution (e.g.. > 10. S-IO. 1-5. < 1 u» tlie).
k Sanple voluae and sampling tin* to be determined froa partlculate loading of tke gas.
-------
IMU 33. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING AND ANMYSIS nwmias AM METHODS FOR OROUHCS*
sa»pi«
Sample location*
Coebustlon gas V
S/
s;
S7
57
S7
s?
Hole: Sampling method numbers (e.f
with pref (« M refer to UStPA
Sampling frequency
for each nm
Continuous 3-h
Continuous 3-h
Continuous 3-h
Continuous 3-h
Continuous 3-h
Continuous 3-h
Continuous 3-h
Sampling
method Sample liie
N3 ' SO I (dry)
MMSd 23 m3 (dry)
Integrated gas 10 IS t (dry)
sample (ledlar
bag plus con-
denstte)
Condensate volume
MM6f 90 L (try)
(DNPH)
M25A H/A
N2SA H/A
Plant's CMS* H/A
.. A- 132) refer te methods published in •Sampling and Analysis Methods for
methods published In the Code of Federal Regulations, title 40. Part 60. 1
Target
analytical
parameters
«v°*
Organlcs:
(> C,,)
Organlcs:
!;#,
(c,-cj.
Formaldehyde
THC
IMC
CO
Preparation method
N/A
CH Cl » ether
» toluene extract Ions*
CH Cl » etner
« toluene extractions*
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heated sample 1 inn
and analyzer
Unheated lines
Gas conditioning
Analytical methods'
On at
GC/flO. OB-I column
Gravimetric
GC/FID:
OB-I column
GS-Q column
GC/FID. GS-Q column
HPIC/IN (A- 132)
FID
FID
NDIR analyier
Hazardous Haste Combustion.* f PA. 600/8 84 002; sampling methods beginning
kppendix A.
H/A • Hot applicable.
* Organic Masurewnt nethod coeparlson test for 6 runs at varying CO levels.
Reran to
locations depicted In Figure 2-1.
c GC/FID • Gas chroMtograpfcy/f law ionlittlon detector; HtC • high perforMnce liquid chroiatography.
4 HNS - Modified Method S train mad to collect swlvolatile organic compounds- XAD trap and wdlfled recovery reagents.
' tther • (ethyl t-butyl ether. Entractlon required Is Mthylene chloride, ether, and toluene. Each e>tr*ct Is analyzed separately.
' NH6 • Modified Method 6 train used to collect formaldehyde- -a 1 1 fritted bubblers, aodif led taplnger solutions (2.4-dlnitrophenylhydrazine). and recovery reagents.
• Calibration check will be performed with certified calibration gases.
-------
A baseline run (Run 1) was conducted to determine the background level of
metals (As, Cd, Cr, Pb) in (a) the organic and aqueous waste feed streams,
(b) the scrubber influent (makeup water) and scrubber effluent water streams,
(c) the stack emissions, and (d) the particle size fractions. Chromium com-
pounds are used in the incinerator refractory; therefore, it was necessary to
document the background levels. No measurements for hexavalent chromium were
performed during the baseline run.
The particle size train was operated during the baseline run for two rea-
sons: (1) to identify any problems with collecting adequate samples in each
size fraction, and (2) to evaluate background chromium levels that might be
present because of the refractory and stainless steel parts in the train.
Particle size samples were extracted through a heated borosilicate glass
probe liner (nominally maintained at 10°F above the stack temperature) and a
nickel nozzle. Quartz nozzles could not be used since the available nozzles
were too large for isokinetic sampling at the desired rates. The best avail-
able choice was nickel nozzles of 0.375 in inside diameter, which allowed
isokinetic sampling rates of 25% to 2B%. During Run 2 particle size sampling,
problems were encountered with maintaining gas exit temperature above the dew
point. Recovery indicated that the final filter was saturated with moisture,
invalidating the results for the run. Run 3 was aborted because of overheat-
ing of the sampler following a thermocouple problem. Run 4 was performed
successfully, and ambient air was pulled through the system to purge the moist
stack gas remaining 1n the sampler while temperature was maintained above the
dew point. Run 4 and the baseline run provided the only usable data from the
test series.
Ho significant problems occurred with the MM5-M metals sampling of the
stack emissions. All four tests fell within the acceptable range for Iso-
kinetic performance, and all leak checks were passed. Method 3 (Orsat) sam-
pling for C02 and 02 was performed concurrently with particulate and metals
sampling, with an unheated, stainless steel probe attached to the probe sheath
of the appropriate train.
15
-------
3.3.2 Summary of Sampling and Analysis for Orqanics
Total organic emissions were measured both by THC stack concentration and
the total Level 1 organic analysis matrix. Compounds specifically identified
by GC/FID were methane, ethane, ethylene, and acetylene. Formaldehyde was
quantified using a special (DNPH) train and HPLC, since that compound has no
FID response. All other organics were reported by broad retention index (RI)
totals (e.g., RI 200-299) or as total mass. Full descriptions of the sampling
and analysis activities are contained in Appendix A.
Combustion gas was sampled 1n the stack for a period of 3 h. Several
sampling methods were required to obtain total emission data for the Ci and
Cjt Ci-C-7, and C7-C17 organic compounds, formaldehyde, and total hydrocar-
bons. These methods are listed 1n Table 3-3 and are summarized below. A pre-
evacuated Tedlar bag was used to collect stack gas for the Ci-C7 organic
compounds. Condensate in the sampling system was Impinged in a cold trap and
analyzed. The C7-C17 organic compounds were collected in a Modified Method 5
(MM5) sampling train. Formaldehyde was impinged in a 2,4-dinitrophenylhydra-
zlne (DNPH) solution using a Modified Method 6 (MM6) sampling train. THC was
measured using both heated and unheated sampling lines and a continuous FIO
detector.
One problem encountered during the test series was a broken XAD tempera-
ture thermowell in the XAD exit U-tube of the MM5 train. This resulted in the
Run 6 Isokinetic to be slightly out of the 100* ± 10X range (see data in
Appendix B-4). Examination of moisture data and the air leakage rate supports
the belief that significant ambient air did not enter the sample; EPA person-
nel agreed to use the data from the run.
The target analytical parameters listed 1n Table 3-3 were analyzed by
several «ethods. The volatile organic compounds (Ci-C,) were analyzed by
6C/FID using the method referenced In EPA-600/7-78-201. The suggested
Porapak Q column was replaced with a 30-m GS-Q megabore column to obtain reso-
lution of methane, ethane, ethylene, and acetylene. This column was also used
to analyze volatile organic compounds Impinged 1n the condensate trap. The
suggested OV-101 column was replaced with a 30-m DB-1, 5-u megabore column to
obtain resolution of the Ct-C7 paraffins.
16
-------
The semlvolatHe organic compounds (C7-C17) were extracted according to
the procedure given 1n "POHCs and PICs Screening Protocol," Southern Research
Institute, Draft Report, February 10, 1988, Section III-C with the following
changes: all sample components were extracted with methylene chloride, methyl
t-butyl ether, and a third time with toluene. The analysis of these compounds
was by 6C/FID using a 30-m, DB-1, 1-w megabore column. The condensate was
also extracted with each of the three solvents and analyzed as separate sample
fractions.
Formaldehyde was extracted with chloroform and analyzed according to the
method referenced in EPA-600/8-84-002 which uses high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC).
Total hydrocarbons were analyzed by EPA Method 25A for both heated and
unheated sampling lines with the following minor changes. The entire system
from probe to detector was heated to 150°C for the heated sample line
approach. For the unheated sample line approach, an ice-cooled water knockout
trap was used to remove condensables, and an unheated Teflon line conducted
the sample through a stainless steel pump to an FID.
3.3.3 Blanks
To give the best possible measure of organic levels, extra effort was
given to obtaining blank levels for each method. Prior to testing, the
following analyses were performed:
1. Ascertain low DNPH blanks for formaldehyde analysis. DNPH itself
was not available in high purity, and the solvents used have trace contamina-
tion which causes blank results of between 0.1 and 1 vg/L. The normal purifi-
cation procedure was improved by extraction of the DNPH with methylene
chloride Instead of chloroform. The final check was a full-proof rinse of the
complete sampling train and analysis of the recovered sample.
2. Test blank levels for gravlmetry and 6C/FID. The XAD cleanup speci-
fication 1n SW-846 suggests a TCO (C7-17) blank of 4 mg/kg resin which would
be equivalent to 0.1 vg/L of stack gas. No data were available for the other
17
-------
two extraction solvents. After verifying reagent purities, full-proof rinses
of two sample trains were analyzed in addition to a reagent method blank.
3. Optimize GC/FIO for high sensitivity and low background. The GC
needs to operate near maximum sensitivity, requiring very clean gas supplies
and special care to prevent contamination. Bonded phase Megabore columns were
used to prevent column bleed from limiting sensitivity. The GC was operated
at MRI instead of on site but used exactly the same components as if it were
at a field site. Blank bag samples were taken in conjunction with each vola-
tile organic bag sample.
3.4 DATA REDUCTION/INTERPRETATION
3.4.1 CEM Data Reduction
The CEM raw data were first converted from percent of full-scale values
to percent (02 and C02) or ppm (CO and THC) values using a data logging pro-
gram. This conversion was based upon the average of initial and final zero
and span calibration data.
Beginning with Run 8, adjustments were made to both the heated THC and
unheated THC scales mid-run to reduce excessive drifts. These instruments
were rezeroed and spanned at hourly intervals during Runs 8, 9, and 10. Sub-
sequently, calibration data for these runs were broken Into four parts: A, B,
C, and D. Each part has separate drift calculations. Appendix B-l contains
the summary of CEM calibration data. A 3% drift is considered acceptable by
EPA Method 6C for continuous monitoring. Drift percent values are based on
the average span for the run and may be slightly different from the raw data
printouts, which are erroneously based on the initial span only.
After each test, the CEM response delay time was measured by removing the
probe from the stack and sampling ambient air. Response delay time was calcu-
lated from the time taken for each individual monitor to attain 95X of the
ambient value. Appendix B-l presents the results. Readings for each monitor
were adjusted by the appropriate response delay time for each run to ensure
correctness of the data over the time interval specified.
18
-------
3.4.2 Volatile and Semi volatile Orgarvics Data Reduction
3.4.2.1 Volatile Organics—
Areas Integrated under each peak were summed to give a total peak area
for each run. This value was then divided by the average daily reference fac-
tor for propane, resulting 1n a total organics concentration for ppm propane
equivalent. The average daily reference factor was obtained from an average
of peak areas for a standard propane sample of known concentration. For low
molecular weight hydrocarbons (Ci^). retention times for individual peaks
could be compared to other standards to allow a breakdown of the total to
separate species (methane, ethane, acetylene, etc.). An example calculation
is shown below.
Retention time Peak area
Run 6 60 20,213 Avg. RF for propane = 3,885
102 48
111 1,304
Total 21,564
Total concentration » 21,564/3,885 = 5.55 as ppm propane
Retention time » 60 (methane) * 20,213/3,885 - 5.20 as ppm propane
102 (ethylene) * 48/3,885 » 0.01 as ppm propane
111 (ethane) * 1,304/3,885 = 0.34 as ppm propane
19
-------
3.4.2.2 Semi volatile Organics--
As with the volatile organics, areas under each peak for the semivolatile
organics were integrated and summed to give a total value. C12 was used as a
reference standard and a comparison of sample area to standard area allows a
quantitation of the sample to be made. Due to the numerous possibilities for
different chemical species present, further quantitation of individual com-
pounds was not feasible.
3.4.3 Blank Corrections
3.4.3.1 MM5 Metals Data—
MM5 data for the metals train was blank-corrected by the train proof
blank samples. Reagent blank corrections were not performed. The blank
correction procedure used is described below. All blank values are shown in
Appendix B-3.
Front and back halves of the train were blank-corrected separately. The
blank correction procedure usually involved a simple subtraction of the proof
blank value from the appropriate train sample. For those cases where blank
values and sample values were quite similar, however, the following criterion
was set:
If sample value s 2X blank value, the results are given as a pos-
sible data range minimum and maximum (blank-corrected and not blank-
corrected) .
If sample value > 2X blank value, the blank value is subtracted and
results are given as a single quantity.
An example calculation for the blank correction is shown below.
20
-------
Quantity
Sample
Front half
Back half
Total
Blank
Front half
Back half
Total
16.2
17.5
3O
15.0
1.65
TO~
Front half: Is 16.2 < (2 x 15.0) ... yes, then
m1n. » 16.2-15.0 * 1.2
max. = 16.2-0 (no correction) « 16.2
Back half: Is 17.5 < (2 x 1.65) ... no, then
Back half = 17.5-1.65 = 15.85
Total * front half + back half
min. = 1.2 + 15.85 = 17.10 ug
max. = 16.2 + 15.85 = 32.07 wg
3.4.3.2 Volatile Organics--
All C!-C2 and C3-C7 sample data were blank-corrected by the median blank
bag value for the test series. The median blank value in ppm propane was
determined and subtracted from the sample values for each run. Any negative
results were reported as "zero." Table 3-4 summarizes the blank data. Mo
blanks were applicable to the condensate samples.
Individual Ci~C2 compounds were blank-corrected by their respective blank
values. Individual blank values for C,-C2 compounds were calculated identi-
cally to that of the total C^Cj fraction. The median value for the test
series was chosen in all cases. Table 3-5 displays the blanks for each Cj-Ca
compound.
21
-------
TABLE 3-4. Ct-C7 BLANKS
Run
5
6
7
8
8S
9
10
Ct-C2 blank (ppm propane)
0.62
5.57
7.33
7.07
8.03
6.16
3.22
C3-C7 blank (ppm propane)
0.15
0.34
0.35
0.37
0.34
0.40
1.90
Note: C!-C2 median value used as blank » 6.16 jig
C3-C7 median value used as blank « 0.35 vg
22
-------
TABLE 3-5. C^Cz BLANK CORRECTIONS
Run no.
Compound
(as ppm propane)
Methane
Acetylene
Ethyl ene
Ethane
5
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.08
6
5.20
0.00
0.00
0.37
7
6.83
0.00
0.00
0.51
8
6.65
0.00
0.00
0.43
8S
7.60
0.00
0.00
0.44
9
5.75
0.00
0.00
0.41
10
2.63
0.16
0.15
0.28
Blank
value
5.75
0.00
0.00
0.41
(as ppm methane)
Methane 1.75 16.86 22.15 21.56 24.64 18.67 8.52 18.67
(as ppm acetylene)
Acetylene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00
(as ppm ethylene)
Ethylene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00
(as ppm ethane)
Ethane 0.12 0.54 0.73 0.62 0.64 0.59 0.40 0.59
a Median value for the test series.
23
-------
3.4.3.3 Seraivolatiles and.Nonvolatiles--
Two blank trains (Runs 6 and 7) and a method blank were analyzed and the
results used 1n determining blank corrections. For each sample component
(train and condensate) there were three extractions performed (methylene
chloride, ether, and toluene) making for a total of six blank corrections to
be calculated. In each of these six cases, the median value of the two blank
trains and the method blank was chosen as the blank correction value, which
was subtracted from the sample value. Blank correction for the nonvolatiles
used the same procedure. Tables 3-6 and 3-7 contain the blank values calcu-
lated for each sample fraction.
In some cases, large blanks have caused blank-corrected values of senri-
volatile and nonvolatile organic compounds to be negative. Note that these
negative quantities have been treated as such and have not been set to zero
unless the final sum of all extract fractions is still negative. This proce-
dure was followed to account for the natural scatter of the various blank
values. To have zeroed those fractions which were negative due to high blank
values would have resulted in a high bias in the scatter of blank-corrected
quantities.
3.4.3.4 Formaldehyde--
The DNPH reagent blank and blank train values shown below were used in
determination of a blank value.
DNPH reagent blank * 3.68 vg
Blank train = 6.38 pg
The blank train value was used because it represented a larger portion of the
sampling and analytical technique. This value was subtracted from the sample
values to calculate the blank-corrected values.
24
-------
TABLE 3-6. SEMIVOLATILE BLANKS
Total train blank
Blank type
Quantity (wg) Blank value
Train fractions
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
324.3
460.6
291.4
331.5
204.5
587.2
1236.0
1745.4
2355.5
324.3
331.5
1745.4
2401.2
Condensate fractions
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Total condensate blank
Blank total
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
308.4
215.1
185.2
480.5
741.5
452.0
788.8
648.4
495.1
215.1
480.5
648.4
1344.0
3745.2
a Median value of two proof blank trains and method blank.
25
-------
TABLE 3-7. NONVOLATILE BLANKS
Blank type Quantity (g/mL) Blank value (g/mL)
a
Train fractions
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Total train blank
Condensate fractions
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Total condensate blank
Blank total
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
Run 6 proof
Run 7 proof
Method blank
0.00088
0.00018
0.00015
0.00018
0.00025
0.00007
0.00010
0.00007
0.00007
0.00002
0.00002
-0.00005
0.00006
0.00011
0.00005
0.00001
0.00001
0.00006
0.00018
0.00018
0.00007
0.00043
0.00002
0.00006
0.00001
0.00009
0.00052
Median value of two proof blank trains and method blank.
26
-------
SECTION 4.0
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section presents the data obtained from the test and analyzes the
data relative to the project objectives. The section 1s divided into four
subsections. The first discusses process data and operation of the incinera-
tor. The following three sections present the results of the particulate and
particle size, metals, and organics measurements, respectively.
4.1 PROCESS DATA
This subsection provides a summary and evaluation of the process oper-
ating parameters under which the Incinerator operated during the metals/
particulate testing and the organics testing. Because the overall objectives
of each of these portions of the test were different, the process operating
parameters of interest differed. The process data for each portion of the
test 1s presented and discussed separately below.
4.1.1 Metals/Particulate Tests
The primary objective of the metals/particulate test runs (Runs 1-4),
with respect to the operation of the Incinerator, was to maintain similar
operating conditions for each of the test runs. Consistency between the runs
1s very Important, particularly with respect to the waste feed rates, combus-
tion chamber temperature, and pressure drop across the venturi scrubber. A
summary of the process data for several parameters for each of the four runs
1s presented in Table 4-1. The Initial run was performed without the addition
of metals to the waste feeds 1n order to obtain background data to help eval-
uate the results of the subsequent three runs. An average stack gas carbon
27
-------
TAH.I 4-1. HUCESS MM-WOIMfS FOR WHS I 1HROUGH 4
ro
oo
tt 10'*
(•t«/h)
24.0
9B A
31.9
28.9
ConbMtlm
thaiktr
tttporaturt
(t)
•S3
9S4
9S3
Qwnck 1
owtltt
•»
tMB.
rc)
90
91
91
F tut fat
Itvtl,
MM*
(«)
3.1
t.3
2.2
flu. gat
CO
Itvtl
(PP.)
35
33
33
Cabustton
air
flow ratt
(Kim)
6.000
6.100
6.030
Organic Aqutous
AuKtllarr fuil wattt wMtt
Natural Fiitl fttf ftod
gat oil ratt ratt
(Kf.) (gp.) (V.) («.)
2.600 0 3.0 6.4
S.7W 0 3.0 6.4
4.390 0 3.1 6.4
TMptrlnj
wattr
flow
ratt
'""'
•a
1.9
2.0
I Qwnck
wattr
flow
ratt
(9P»>
47
41
47
Scrubbtr
wattr
ftttf
ratt
(9P»>
60
43
SI
Vmtirl
Inltt
wattr
flow ratt
<»•>
198
196
196
Vtntvri
prnwrt
drop
(In M20)
SO
SI
SO
Scrubbtr
rtcyclt
flow ratt
(9P.)
540
$40
S36
Scrubbtr
alkali
fttd
ratt
(9P»
1.3
i.a
1.7
Scrubbtr
tfflutnt
flow
ratt
(91-)
90
as
Scrubbtr
tfflutnt
7
7
7
ContwnlMt for wrt te fry kaiti:
(*•»)•
H?0 MM
about 60.
-------
monoxide (CO) level of 33 ppm was maintained during the four runs. This range
is indicative of good combustion conditions within the combustion chamber.
As shown in the table, the principal process operating parameters were
relatively consistent during the four runs. The average organic waste feed
rate ranged between 3 and 3.3 gal/mi n and the average aqueous waste feed rate
ranged from a rate of 6.0 to 6.8 gal/min. The average combustion chamber
temperature was maintained over a close range of 950° to 954°C. During
routine operations, the combustion chamber temperature is maintained between
950° and 1000'C.
The plan for these four runs was to maintain the pressure drop across the
venturi scrubber at a level of 50 in. During the four runs, the average pres-
sure drop ranged from 49 to 51 in, which was quite consistent. A pressure
drop of 50 in was maintained specifically for these four tests and is somewhat
greater than the pressure drop employed during normal incinerator operation
(40-50 in).
A tabulation of the values for each process parameter recorded about
every 15 min during each of the four runs 1s presented in Appendix B-6.
4.1.2 Organic Tests
The primary objective with respect to the operation of the incinerator
during Runs 5 through 10 was to increase the level of CO in the combustion gas
across the six runs to attain levels from 100 to 5,000 ppm CO, as discussed in
Section 3.3.3.2. The attainment of these levels was to be accomplished by
modifying various operational parameters during each of the runs. During the
conduct of the runs at the higher CO levels, it was determined that the
attainment of the planned 3,700 and 5,000 ppm levels at 7X 02 was not pos-
sible. This is discussed further in Section 4.1.2.2.
A sunroary of the average values of several key operational parameters for
each of the six runs plus one supplemental run 1s presented 1n Table 4-2. The
following discussion of these data are divided Into three sections. First, a
brief discussion will be presented for those runs (5, 6, 7, 8S, and 10) that
29
-------
TMU 4-2. PROCESS MIA- AVERAGES FOR RUNS S IHWWQH 10
last
run
S
6
7
8
BS
9
10
CO
uncorrtctad
(IV)
I2S
Sit
1.0»
2.460
196
3.70S
2.4S8
CO
Mil
111
460
1.066
2.464
166
2.762
2.128
Hot
THC.
data
36.4
68
207
227
51.2
in
85.6
Cold
THC.
3.6
12
7.6
61
6.7
61
18
V
(S)
S.3
S.4
6.6
7.1
4.7
2.2
4.8
Htat Coafciatlon
Input. chatter
x 10"* ttaptratw*
(Btu/M CO
3S.2
33.2
33.7
34.1
34.5
41.3
35.7
8CS
793
802
765
629
820
BOO
Qutnck
outlet
9"
trap.
CO
92
91
91
91
91
93
91
Coibultlon
air
Flut gal (lean gas)
CO Itvtl flow ratt
(pp.) (acfa)
55
443
1.693
3. BIS
73
4.536
3.000
7.200
7.161
7.325
7.250
7.100
6.850
7.000
Oixlllary futl
Natural Futl
9« oil
(acfh) («pn)
0
4.257
0
0
4.129
0
0
ttobar
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Organic
watte
fttd
ratt
process
5.0
4.5
5.6
5.7
4.9
5.0
6.2
Aoutous
Hittt
fttd
ratt
data
13.9
10.7
12.3
14.4
13.4
13.4
12.0
tapering
water
ratt
<9P»)
0
0
2.2
5.0
3.5
7.6
7.8
Quench
wattr
rate
<9P»>
48
46
47
47
47
46
47
Ventwf
Inlet
water
flow rate
(9P»
227
222
214
212
222
225
225
Vtnturl
pressure
drop
45
43
40
39
46
43
43
Strutter
effluent
flow
rate
(9P»
„
76
86
88
81
74
90
Scrubber
affluent
(PH)
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
-------
achieved the desired CO levels with operation of the incinerator at or close
to normal. A comparison and discussion of the three runs (8, 9, and 10) at CO
levels between 2,000 and 2,500 ppm is presented next, followed by a discussion
of CO generation.
4.1.2.1 Operation at Low CO Levels--
Run 5 was designed to achieve CO and THC levels that represented rela-
tively normal incinerator operating conditions of 50 to 100 ppm CO in the com-
bustion gas. During the run fuel oil was employed as an auxiliary fuel. An
average stack gas CO level of approximately 100 ppm (at 7% 02) was achieved,
but a lower combustion chamber temperature of 865°C was required.
In Run 6, an average CO level of 460 ppm was obtained. During the ini-
tial stages of this run, it was determined that the use of fuel oil as the
auxiliary fuel presented difficulties in maintaining relatively constant CO
levels during the run. Therefore, the auxiliary fuel was changed to natural
gas and the control of the CO level was much improved. Using natural gas as
the auxiliary fuel and decreasing the combustion chamber temperature to about
800° to 820"C resulted in attainment of elevated CO levels and better control
of the CO levels during the run.
Run 8S (Run 8, supplemental) was performed to achieve average stack gas
CO levels close to those in Run 5 using natural gas as the auxiliary fuel.
The purpose was to compare organic emission levels between the two runs when
using different auxiliary fuels. For Run 8S, the operating parameters were
relatively close to those in Run 5, except for combustion chamber tempera-
ture. The combustion chamber temperature was 829°C in Run 8S as compared to
865'C in Run 5 using fuel oil as the auxiliary fuel.
Runs 7 and 10 achieved average stack gas CO levels of approximately
1,050 ppm and 2,125 ppm, respectively, with average operating parameters sim-
ilar to those used in Run 6. However, in both of these runs, it was necessary
to inject tempering water into the combustion chamber to elevate the levels of
CO. The generation of CO as a function of total water Input to the combustion
chamber will be discussed in Section 4.1.2.3. In Run 7, it was necessary to
31
-------
add an average flow rate of 2.2 gal/min of tempering water and for Run 10, an
average flow rate of 7.8 gal/m1n was required.
4.1.2.2 Operation at High CO Levels—
In the planned experimental design, the attainment of the higher CO
levels (3,700 and 5,000 ppm) was based on information relative to the facility
CO monitor used during the normal operation of the incinerator, but the levels
recorded by this monitor are not corrected to 7% oxygen. During the perfor-
mance of tests at lower CO levels, an inconsistency was observed between the
levels recorded by the plant CO monitor and the CO monitor used by MRI. This
inconsistency may be a result of the different physical locations of the moni-
tors or the different calibration procedures. MRI's CO monitor was rechecked
and is believed to be correct.
In Runs 8 and 9, the average CO levels recorded by the plant monitor were
approximately 3,800 and 4,500 ppm, respectively, However, the levels recorded
by MRI and corrected to 7% 02 showed the CO levels to be about 2,460 and
2,760 ppm, respectively. Attempts to Increase the CO levels to the proposed
levels of 3,700 and 5,000 ppm (at 7% 02) and maintain there steady were unsuc-
cessful. In Run 8, the elevated average CO level was obtained by maintaining
the average % oxygen levels at approximately the same levels as the previous
runs and decreasing the combustion chamber temperature to an average of
765*C. For Run 9, the combustion chamber temperature was maintained at an
average of 820"C and the flow of tempering water and aqueous waste feed was
Increased resulting 1n a low average % oxygen level. In Run 10, the average
combustion chamber temperature was 800*C and the average % oxygen level was
similar to levels observed in the previous runs at lower CO levels. For this
run, the organic waste feed rate was Increased about 20% over Run 9 while
maintaining about the same aqueous waste feed rate and flow of tempering water
as in Run 9. An average stack gas CO level of 2,130 ppm was observed for
Run 10.
An overall comparison of the average operating process parameters for
Runs 8, 9, and 10 show the following:
32
-------
• Run 8—low combustion chamber temperature (765°C), relatively normal
% oxygen level, stack gas CO level of - 2,460 ppm
• Run 9—combustion chamber temperature of 820"C, very low % oxygen
level, stack gas CO level of - 2,760 ppm
• Run 10—combustion chamber temperature of 800'C, relatively normal %
oxygen level, stack gas CO level of - 2,130 ppm
4.1.2.3 Carbon Monoxide Generation—•
In the attempts to generate elevated levels of stack gas CO during the
last three runs of these tests, one of the operating parameters that was
effectively varied was the total water input to the combustion chamber. For
this incinerator, there are multiple injection nozzles in the combustion cham-
ber for the introduction of aqueous waste feeds and city water, which is used
to temper the temperature in the chamber. All of these nozzles are at the
same level in the vertical combustion chamber so that the total water input
occurs at the same level.
The elevation of the stack gas CO concentrations in relation to high
total water input into the combustion chamber may be a direct result of the
cooling of the combustion temperature in the flame and resultant decrease 1n
the rate of oxidation of CO. Figure 4-1 compares the levels of CO in the
stack gas as a function of total water input into the combustion chamber. In
this comparison, total water input is defined as the total of the aqueous
waste feed and the tempering water flow rate. The results show that, over the
range studied, there appears to be a relationship between the two parameters.
4.2 PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particulate loading in the stack gas was determined during the same test
runs that involved metals sampling (Runs 1 to 4). The weight gain on the
filter of the multiple metals sampling train was added to the weight remaining
after evaporation of the acetone probe rinse to determine the particulate
33
-------
CO
30
28
26 -1
24
22 H
20
IB
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2 H
0
D
D
O.4
O.8
-l 1 —[—
1.2 1-6
(Thousand*)
CO (ppm)
i 1 r
2.4
2.8
Figure 4-1. CO vs. total water Input.
-------
weight. Table 4-3 presents the particulate weights and calculated participate
loading and emission rates for these runs. Complete data are provided in
Appendix B-2.
The particulate loading for each run was approximately 0.02 gr/dscf, well
below the hazardous waste incinerator performance standard of 0.08 gr/dscf.
These low results are typical of incinerator pollution control systems involv-
ing a high energy venturi scrubber. The emission rates are all between 1 and
2 Ib/hr. The emission rate for the baseline run (Run 1) was lower than for
any of the other three runs when metals were spiked. This 1s expected due to
the higher ash input to the combustor from the spiked metals in the latter
three runs.
Control device particulate removal efficiency was estimated from the ash
inputs to the combustor and stack particulate emissions. Table 4-4 presents
the results of this estimate. Ash input is calculated from the waste feed
rate, % ash, and specific gravity of the waste. The comparison showed greater
than 98* ash removal through the process. Actual ash removal efficiencies may
be greater than the table indicates, as the carry-over of salt particles from
the scrubber may have increased the stack particulate loading.
The distribution of particulate matter by particle size was also deter-
mined for Runs 1 and 4 by using an Andersen high capacity source sampler
(HCSS). The particle size train was also operated during Runs 2 and 3, but
the samples were invalidated as explained in Section 3.3. The particle size
results are summarized in Table 4-5. The net collected weight for each stage
of the sampler is shown, along with the percent of total and the cumulative
percent collected at each stage of the sampler. In addition, two methods of
expressing the size of particles collected by each stage (the Dso size and the
geometric mean diameter) are defined and used in Table 4-5.
Over 80* of the total particulate matter was collected 1n the submicron
range. This is expected following the high energy venturi scrubber. It is
likely that the venturi was successful In removing particles larger than 1-w
size so that the remaining particulate matter mainly consisted of submicron
particles.
35
-------
TABLE 4-3. PARTICULATE LOADING RESULTS FROM MULTIPLE METALS SAMPLING TRAIN
Run
1
2
3
4
Partlculate
wt. (g)5
0.0942
0.1359
0.1084
0.1206
Sample gas
volume (dscf)
78.647
78.299
77.126
77.810
Participate
loading (gr/dscf)
corrected to 7% 02
0.0196
0.0223
0.0199
0.0212
Emission
rate (Ib/h)
1.12
1.62
1.29
1.43
* Particulate weight is the net weight of the probe rinse plus the net weight
of the filter determined by EPA Method 5.
36
-------
TABLE 4-4. CONTROL DEVICE PARTICULATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Organic waste*
Run
1
2
3
4
Ash, %
0.136
0.045
0.064
0.034
Flow (gpm)
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.0
. Particular
Aqueous waste Ash Input rate emissions
Ash, %
2.96
3.07
2.71
2.96
Flow (gpm)
6.4
6.8
6.4
6.0
(lb/h)
101
109
90
92
(lb/h)
1.12
1.62
1.29
1.43
a
% Renoval
98.9
98.5
98.6
98.5
a Specific gravity = 0.97.
b Specific gravity = 1.04.
37
-------
TABLE 4-5. PARTICLE SIZE RESULTS
Results4
Nominal size ranae (microns)
i
> 10
Imoactor staae
2 Cyclone Filter
5-10 1-5 < 1
Run 1 (baseline)
Net weight (mg) corrected 3.20 2.20 2.85 49.78
Fraction (X of total) 5.51 3.79 4.91 85.78
Cumulative X (with filter) 5.51 9.31 14.22 100.00
D50 size (microns)0 , 10.20 5.61 1.38 0.01
Geometric mean diameter0 (microns) 14.3 7.56 2.78 0.167
Run 4 (elevated metals)
Net weight (mg) corrected 3.36 3.52 7.35 64.6
Fraction (X of total) 4.26 4.46 9.32 81.95
Cumulative X (with filter) 4.26 8.73 18.05 100.00
050 size (microns)0 , 9.61 5.22 1.22 0.01
Geometric mean diameter0 (microns) 13.9 7.08 2.53 0.160
a Additional support data are provided in Appendix B-2.
b Microns = Presented in units of aerodynamic particle diameter by assuming a
particle density of 1 g/cc.
c Dso » The particle diameter associated with the SOX collection efficiency
level for each size-classifying stage as determined by theoretical
calculations or by calibration.
d GMO - Geometrical mean diameter, the single value representation of the
particle size range collected on each size-classifying stage, determined by
the equation (assumed largest particle is 20 microns and 0.01 microns is
smallest):
(6MD)n » / (Dsa)n x (D
where n » Stage of concern.
n+1 * The upper stage next to the stage 1n question.
Note: Calculated particulate loadings were 0.02105 gr/dscf (measured at 25.6X
Isokinetic sampling) and 0.02823 gr/dscf (measured at 26.9X isoklnetic
sampling) for Runs 1 and 4, respectively.
38
-------
A general concern of any acid-neutralizing scrubbing system is that salts
formed in the process may be entrained in the gas stream and carry over
through the entire air pollution control system. This is possible because
salt fumes, which consist of very small particles, may be formed upon reaction
of acid gases and the neutralizing medium (i.e., caustic). Particles in this
size range would not likely be efficiently removed by the venturi or may form
after the venturi. Such salt particles may have increased the mass collected
in the smaller size ranges.
The total particulate loading results for the particle size train were
slightly higher (7% and 33* for Runs 1 and 4) than the results for the multi-
ple metals train. This shows very good agreement considering the much lower
volumetric sampling rates that were unavoidable for the particle size train
and the fact that it is a single point sampling method.
4.3 METALS EMISSIONS AND CONTROL EFFICIENCY
This section summarizes the results of sampling and analysis for metals,
including arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), and lead (Pb). Sec-
tion 4.3.1 discusses the total input and output rates for each metal and the
control (removal) efficiency of the scrubber system. Section 4.3.2 discusses
the results of metals analysis of the particle sizing train samples. Finally,
Section 4.3.3 discusses the results of sampling and analysis for hexavalent
chromium (Cr+s).
4.3.1 Metals Throughput and Control Efficiency
The testing for metals consisted of a single baseline run and triplicate
runs with elevated metals Input rates. For the elevated metals runs, addi-
tional metals were spiked Into streams fed to the combustion chamber. Cad-
mium, chromium, and lead were added via an aqueous spiking solution Injected
Into the tempering water feed to the combustion chamber. Arsenic could not be
spiked in the same manner due to reaction of the arsenic with other spiking
components and formation of a precipitate. Therefore, the arsenic was added
to the aqueous waste feed tank.
39
-------
The concentrations of metals in the feed streams are provided in Appen-
dix B-3. Arsenic in the aqueous waste was present at 1.4 vg/g in the baseline
run (Run 1) and after spiking was increased to 2.6 to 3.0 ug/g for the ele-
vated metals runs (Runs 2 to 4). This was the primary input of arsenic to the
incinerator. The metals spiking solution used for Runs 2 to 4 contained 1,700
to 2,000 ug/g cadmium, 4,400 to 10,500 vg/g chromium, and 520 to 760 vg/g
lead. The organic waste contained a larger amount of chromium for the base-
line run, at a concentration of 5.2 vg/g than the other runs. The other
aqueous streams (city water used for tempering water, quench water, and
scrubber water, and the scrubber alkali) contained small amounts of arsenic,
cadmium, and chromium. Lead was also present in these streams, particularly
1n the scrubber alkali in Runs 1 and 4 (9.8 and 3.2 vg/g, respectively).
These levels provided a significant contribution to the total Input rate for
lead.
Table 4-6 shows all the metals input rates for waste and process streams
fed to the combustion chamber and scrubber, and the metals output rates for
the scrubber effluent. Results for Run 1 (no metals spiking) reflect the
presence of arsenic in the aqueous waste and chromium in the organic waste.
As noted above, lead was also found 1n the scrubber streams, particularly the
alkali feed to the scrubber. The metals spiked 1n Runs 2, 3, and 4 elevated
the levels of arsenic 1n the aqueous waste and the level of other metals in
the tempering water. Input rates of metals to the scrubber were relatively
small compared to the combustion chamber input rates, except for lead. The
lead 1n the scrubber feed complicated the calculation of control device effi-
ciency for that metal as discussed later. The total input vs. output rates on
Table 4-6 did not show a good balance.
Table 4-7 shows the blank corrected stack emission rates. As described
1n Section 3.4, blank values from analysis of the proof rinses of the sampling
train were subtracted from sample values. (Blank values and unconnected sam-
ple values are provided in Appendix B-3.) Blank values were small compared to
sample values except for lead on the front half of the sample train, where the
sample values were less than twice blank values. This resulted in the range
of values for the emission rate of lead shown on Table 4-7. The minimum value
40
-------
TABLE 4-6. METALS INPUT/OUTPUT RATES (EXCLUDING STACK OUTPUT)
Rates, mg/m1n
Stream
Inputs to combustion chamber
Organic waste
Aqueous waste8 .
Tempering water0
Total
Inputs to scrubber
Quench water
Scrubber feed water
Scrubber alkali
Total
Outputs
Scrubber water effluent
Run
As
0
36
_g
36
0
0
g
0
64
1 (baseline)
Cd
0
1
g
1
2
2
g
4
0
Cr
57
6
_g
63
5
7
_7
19
159
Pb
0
2
g
2
16
20
Jl
107
191
As
0
81
_g
81
0
0
7
7
152
Run 2
Cd
0
0
112
112
2
2
g
4
71
Cr
20
7
289
316
5
5
10
20
289
Pb
0
12
39
51
15
14
_g
29
57
As
0
66
g
66
0
0
10
10
136
Run 3
Cd
0
0
122
122
2
2
g
4
84
Cr
18
3
646
667
5
5
_5
15
513
Pb
0
4
46
50
16
14
_9
39
353
As
0
62
JO
62
0
0
5
5
126
Run 4
Cd
0
0
115
115
2
2
1
5
104
Cr
11
7
296
314
6
7
_8
21
305
Pb
0
7
36
43
16
19
33
68
48
a Spiked with arsenic 1n Runs 2, 3, and 4.
b Spiked with cadmium, chromium, and lead 1n Runs 2, 3, and 4.
-------
TABLE 4-7. STACK EMISSIONS OF METALS
Run
1 (baseline)
2
3
4
Blank
As
0.4
0.9
0.8
o.a
corrected emission rate,a
mq/rain
Cd
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.8
Cr
1.1
2.1
4.3
3.9
Pbb
1.5-2.9
1.3-2.0
1.2-1.8
0.7-1.5
a Blank corrected using proof rinse sample from
multiple metals sampling train.
b Sample values were less than twice the blank
values. Range of values represents alterna-
tive blank correction procedures.
42
-------
for the range was calculated by adding the blank corrected front half sample
value (which results in a zero or near zero value) to the blank corrected back
half value. The maximum value was calculated by adding the front half sample
value (without blank correcting) to the blank corrected back half value. The
true value should be somewhere within the range presented.
The majority of the metals emissions were found in the front half samples
(i.e., probe rinse and filter) for the elevated metals runs. Nearly all of
the arsenic was found on the front half for two of three runs. About 70% to
80* of the cadmium and 80-95% of the chromium was found on the front half.
For lead, high blank values presented a similar comparison.
Table 4-8 presents the estimated metals removal efficiencies for the con-
trol device (quench followed by a venturi scrubber and packed tower). For the
efficiency calculation, the control device inlet rate was estimated to be
equal to the input of metals to the combustion chamber (aqueous waste, organic
waste, and tempering water including the spike solution). This should provide
a reasonable estimate of efficiency when the metals input rate for the
scrubber and quench feed water is small relative to the metals input rate for
the combustion chamber. This was the case for all metals- except lead. For
lead, it is possible that some of the metal in the scrubber feed water con-
tributed to the stack emissions. This would result in a higher measured stack
emission rate than the rate attributable to penetration of the scrubber by
metal fed to the incinerator. The value calculated for lead is, therefore, an
estimate of the minimum efficiency value.
4.3.2 Metals Distribution bv Particle Size
The distribution of metals in the stack gases by particle size was deter-
mined by analyzing samples from a particle sizing train operated during Run 1
(baseline conditions) and Run 4. Table 4-9 presents the data on metals by
particle size. The distribution of total particulate by particle size is also
shown for comparison. Figure 4-2 shows plots of particle size vs. cumulative
percent less than the size for each metal along with the particulate distribu-
tion for comparison. Only data from Run 4 were plotted on Figure 4-2. Those
data should better represent the control device performance than data from the
baseline run because larger quantities of the metals were present.
43
-------
TABLE 4-8. ESTIMATED METALS REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
% Removal
Run
1 (baseline)
2
3
4
Avg. runs 2-4
As
98.8
98.9
98.8
98.6
98.8
Cd
d
98.8
98.6
98.4
98.6
Cr
98.3
99.4
99.4
98.8
99.2
Pbb,c
d
96.1-97.4
96.3-97.6
96.5-98.3
96.3-97.8
a Based upon blank corrected stack emissions data.
b Range reflects range 1n stack emission rates
according to the blank correction procedures.
c Minimum efficiency.
d Input levels were too low to determine the
efficiency.
44
-------
IM1C 4-9. PMiTICU SIZC DISTRIBUTION OF NEML$
tn
Size ranee
91 fraction
Sttpl* MM (•Icront)
lew 1 (bajeline)
HCSS Stage 1 > 10
HCSS Stage 2 $-10
HCSS Cyclone I-S
HCSS Final ftltir < 1
ToUl detected
Run 4
HCSS Stage 1 > 10
HCSS Stage 2 5-10
HCSS Cyclone 1-S
HCSS Final filter < 1
ToUl detected
Reagent Hanks—Run 1
•lend acetone
link filter
GeoMtrlc
mem
OSO stie dlweter i
(iterant) (•icrow) fc
10.ro 14.3 < 0.0937
$.61 7.S6 < 0.0937
1.38 2.n < 0.0937
0.01 0.167 1.81
1.B1
9.61 13.9 0.211
$.22 7.08 1.06
1.22 2.53 0.36$
0.01 0.160 3. $4
$.17
0.269
0.307
taount in >i
Cd
0.282
0.166
0.19?
O.SOO
1.14
1.08
0.614
$.43
8.31
1S.4
< 0.00236
0.0242
wple. iq
Cr
4.09
2.48
6.20
30.8
43. S
20.0
32.2
109
93. S
2SS
0.233
UJL
CwuUtUe
DIstrltMllcn ly distribution by particle
particle size, X (lie. S lets than OSO
Pb At Cd Cr H> Part. As Cd Cr Pb Part.
0.383 02$ 92 $ 100 7$ 91 98 9$
0.562 0 IS 63 4 100 61 85 9$ 91
0.141 0 17 14 1 $ 100 44 71 94 86
17.7 100 44 71 94 86
18.8
1.38 47 B 7 4 96 93 92 93 96
0.2S6 20 4 13 1 $ 7S 89 79 92 91
0.652 7 3$ 43 3 9 68 $4 37 88 82
17. S 68 S4 37 88 82
19.8
0.089$
15.6
total detected
O.S77
0.024
3.6$ 15.7
Reagent Hanks -Run 2
Blank acetone
•lank filter
< 0.0937 < 0.00236 0.179 < O.OS20
0.231 0.0298 3.77 15.3
Total detected
0.231
0.0298
3.94 IS.3
-------
I.
.1,
ra
(O
w
0)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.1
1.0
Legend
A = Participate
• = Arsenic
• = Cadmium
* = Chromium
-I- = Lead
10
100
D50 Particle Size (Microns)
Figure 4-2. Percent less than vs. 050 particle size, Run 4.
-------
The metals results by particle size were not blank corrected; however,
the two sets of blank values are shown in Table 4-9. The blank values were
all low relative to sample values except for lead.
Blank filter values for lead were almost as high as the sample train
filter values, thus the submicron lead values may be artificially high. The
final filter stage of the sampling train accounted for most of the lead found.
The validity of the data on chromium by particle size was of concern
because the samples were collected in a stainless steel sampling device.
Stack gas concentrations calculated from the particle size train were 7 to
11 times higher than concentrations from the multiple metals train, as shown
in Table 4-10. This suggests that some contamination occurred, resulting in a
bias in the results for chromium.
4.3.3 Hexavalent Chromium Results
Analysis for hexavalent chromium (Cr+s) was performed on two types of
samples, stack gas impinger samples from a special sampling train and scrubber
effluent samples. No Cr"1"* results were obtained for either group of sam-
ples. The sampling and analysis methods that were used failed to provide
valid results. Appendix A-2 contains a discussion of the problems
encountered.
4.4 ORGANIC EMISSIONS
A wide array of sampling and analysis (S&A) techniques were employed (as
described in Section 3.3) to measure the total mass of organic compounds
emitted from the incinerator stack during Runs 5-10. Most of the techniques
were designed to provide a value for the mass of emissions without identifying
specific compounds. The mass was quantified within boiling point ranges,
which roughly equates to ranges in the number of carbon atoms in organic com-
pounds, using EPA Level 1 techniques. This mass measurement was compared to
measurements made with total hydrocarbon (THC) monitors. A few specific com-
pound analyses were made for low molecular weight compounds that are poten-
tially present in incinerator stack gases at the highest concentrations.
These compounds were formaldehyde, methane, ethane, ethylene, and acetylene.
47
-------
TABLE 4-10. METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN STACK GAS
Run no.
1
2
3
4
Tra1 n
Multiple
Particle
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Particle
metals*
size
metals*
metals*
metals*
size
Stack gas concentration
(uQ/dscm)
As
2.
1.
4.
4.
4.
4.
Cd
2
5
4
0
3
2
4.
0.
6.
7.
9.
12
0
9
5
9
0
.7
Cr
5.
36.
10.
21.
19.
209
4
1
3
3
5
7
6
6
3
Pb
.7-14.4
15.
.5-9
.0-9
.6-7
16.
6
.9
.2
.6
3
* Blank corrected.
48
-------
The following discussion of the results of these measurements is divided into
two subsections. The first presents the total organic mass results determined
by the Level 1 techniques. The second presents the THC measurements and com-
pares these to the organic mass measurements and to CO levels.
4.4.1 Total Organic Mass Emissions
The EPA Level 1 techniques employ several S&A methods to obtain a mea-
surement of total organic mass. Figure 4-3 shows the various fractions that
were separately analyzed. The fractions are identified on the figure by
approximate carbon numbers and by the boiling point range associated with the
chromatographic analysis. The major fractions separated were £i-C7 volatile
compounds, C7-Ci7 semivolatile compounds, and > C17 nonvolatile compounds.
The volatile fraction is further subdivided into C!-C7 condensate (compounds
collected in a wet cold trap), Ci-C2 gaseous compounds, and C3-C7 gaseous
compounds. These gaseous compounds are those that passed through the conden-
sate trap. Formaldehyde is a Ci volatile compound, but is shown separately on
Figure 4-3 because separate S&A techniques were required. Further subdivision
of the semivolatile and nonvolatile fractions will be discussed later because
those fractions did not account for a large portion of the total mass.
The mass found for each of the major fractions is shown on Table 4-11 for
each test run (see Appendix B for complete data tables). The values shown
were all blank-corrected to provide the best estimate of the mass. Sample
values that were less than twice the blank value before correction are foot-
noted to indicate less certainty about their quantitation. The blank values
and the correction procedure used are described in Section 3.4.
The total mass summed from the values for each fraction is biased low for
two reasons. First, the gas chromatography (GC) analyses for the volatile and
semivolatile fractions tend to underestimate the total chromatographable mate-
rial because the integrator could not clearly separate the smaller peaks from
normal baseline drift and noise. Thus, the smallest peaks were not counted in
the mass. This 1s probably more significant for the semivolatile fraction
where numerous small peaks are more common. Second, results could not be
determined for part of the analytical range in two cases. A water peak in the
49
-------
Array of Organic Measurement Techniques
Volatiles
C1-C7
Boiling Point: <100°C
I
8
•C1-C7 Condensate
•C1-C2 Gas
-C3-C7 Gas
-Formaldehyde
Semivolatiles
C7-C17
Boiling Point: 100-300°C
I
Sample Train/XAD
f- Methylene Chloride
Extract
-Methy It-butyl
Ether Extract
L-Toluene
Extract
Condensate
• Methylene Chloride
Extract
•Methy It-butyl
Ether Extract
•Toluene
Extract
Nonvolatiles
>C17
Boiling Point: >300°C
I
Sample Train/XAD
— Methylene Chloride
Extract
- Methyl t-butyl
Ether Extract
L- Toluene
Extract
Condensate
• Methylene Chloride
Extract
• Methyl t-butyl
Ether Extract
•Toluene
Extract
Figure 4-3. Organic mass fractions.
-------
TABLE 4-11. DISTRIBUTION OF MASS AMONG MAJOR FRACTIONS (ppm AS PROPANE)
Test
run
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avg.
Total
mass
9.1
19.6
60.2
134.4
24.6
46.4
49.1
Formaldehyde
< 0. 00064s
0.0028
< 0.0015a
0.0014a
< 0.0019a
0.0024
0.0018
Ci-C2
gas
Oa
Oa
1.3a
34.1
9.1
7.3
8.6
C3-C7
gas
3.7
1.0
8.8
22.0
1.4
6.0
7.2
Ci-C/
condensate
2.3
13.8 .
19.0
70.3
6.6
30.8
23.8
Semi-
volatHes
1.5
1.4
29.1
5.9
6.0
1.0a
7.5
Non-
volatile*
1.6
3.4
2.0
2.1
1.5
1.3
2.0
a Sample value was less than twice the blank value.
51
-------
volatile bag condensates obliterated any Ci or C2 peaks that may have been
present. Also, carry over of the three solvents used to extract the semivola-
tlle samples required that all peaks from C7-C, be rejected. Some of the sam-
ples showed large peaks in this area but they could not be differentiated from
the extraction solvent peaks.
The distribution of mass between the major fractions is shown in
Table 4-12 for each test run and as an average for all six runs. There is
some variation in the distribution from run to run, but few obvious trends
were observed that distinguish the different combustion conditions or CO
levels. Two trends that can be seen on Table 4-12 are that during the earlier
runs the Cl-C2 gas accounted for a smaller percent of the total mass and the
nonvolatiles accounted for a larger percent than during the later runs. The
incinerator operated at better combustion conditions (lower CO) during the
earlier runs. For the Ci-C2 gas fraction, Table 4-11 shows that the lower
percentage reflects lower mass emissions during the better combustion condi-
tions. For the nonvolatile fraction, the higher percentage reflects a rela-
tively constant mass emission rate regardless of the combustion conditions.
The distribution on Table 4-12 also consistently showed that the majority of
the mass is in the volatile fractions, with small percentages in the semivola-
tile and nonvolatile fractions. Figure 4-4 displays this distribution, using
the average data from Table 4-12. Variation in the total mass from run to run
is discussed in Section 4.4.2 along with the THC results.
Additional data were gathered on specific organic compounds in the C,-C2
fraction (methane, ethane, ethylene, and acetylene). These are the only
hydrocarbons (carbon/hydrogen compounds) possible in this fraction.
Table 4-13 shows the results for these compounds. Very little methane was
present in any run except Run 8, when the incinerator was operating under the
worst combustion conditions (high CO, lowest temperature). Essentially, no
ethane was present 1n any run. Low levels of ethylene and acetylene were
Identified in Runs 8, 9, and 10.
52
-------
TABLE 4-12. DISTRIBUTION OF MASS AMONG MAJOR FRACTIONS (% OF TOTAL MASS)
Test
run
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avg.
Ci-C2
gas
0.0
0.0
2.2
25.4
37.0
15.7
17.5
C3-C7
gas
40.7
5.1
14.6
16.4
5.7
12.9
14.7
Ci-C7
condensate
25.3
70.4
31.6
52.3
26.8
66.4
48.5
Semi vo Tat iles
16.5
7.1
48.3
4.4
24.4
2.2
15.3
Nonvolatiles
17.6
17.3
3.3
1.6
6.1
2.8
4.1
53
-------
AVERAGE ORGANIC MASS FRACTIONS
Nonvolatiles (4.0%)
C1-C2 Gas (17.6%)
Semivolatiles (15.3%)yf
C3-C7 Gas (14.6%)
C1-C7 Condensate (48.5%)
A-A. Avprnno ornanlr
-------
TABLE 4-13. C, AND C2 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Methane
Run
5
8S
6
7
8
9
01
01 10
ppm, propane
Oa
1.09a
Oa
1.12a
31.09
7.79
5.64a
ppm, methane
Oa
3.51a
Oa
3.62a
100.83
25.24
18.26a
Ethane
ppm. propane
Oa
0.03a
Oa
0.05a
Oa
0.02a
Oa
ppm, ethane
Oa
0.05a
Oa
0.08a
oa
0.03a
Oa
Ethyl ene
ppm, propane
0
0.02
0.01
0.14
1.23
1.10
1.52
ppm, ethylene
0
0.04
0.02
0.26
2.22
1.97
2.73
Acetylene
ppm, propane
0
0
0
0
1.81
0.18
0.28
ppm, acetylene
0
0
0
0
2.57
0.25
0.40
Sample value was less than twice the blank value.
-------
An additional short (about 20 min) test run (8S) was conducted to eval-
uate any effect on the volatiles emissions (particularly methane) from using
natural gas vs. fuel oil as the auxiliary fuel. Table 4-14 shows the compara-
tive results from burning natural gas during Run 8S and Run 5 where operation
of the incinerator was similar, except fuel oil was burned. Burning natural
gas may have had a slight effect, particularly on the d-C7 condensate frac-
tion. However, the CO level during Run 8S was slightly higher than during
Run 5, which may have contributed to the small differences seen. In general,
the difference in volatile organic emissions (including methane) between these
two runs 1s small compared to differences across the test series.
Data were also available to evaluate the distribution within the semi-
volatile and nonvolatile fractions. Both of these fractions were divided
between a sample tra1n/XAD (compounds collected 1n the front of a MM5 train
and on the XAD resin) and condensate (compounds that passed the front of the
train and XAD resin, but were collected in a water condensate trap) compo-
nent. These two components were each sequentially extracted in order with
methylene chloride, methyl t-butyl ether, and toluene. The diagram in
Figure 4-3 showed the resulting six fractions for the semivolatile and non-
volatile analyses.
Table 4-15 shows the distribution of mass among the semivolatile frac-
tions. The distribution for Runs 5, 6, 7, and 10 shows that most of the mass
was found in the condensate. The distribution for Runs 8 and 9 are similar,
but have a very different distribution than the other runs. Ninety percent of
the mass in Run 8 and 65X in Run 9 was collected 1n the train and XAD resin
and was extracted by the methylene chloride.
Table 4-16 shows the distribution for the nonvolatile fractions. In this
case a more consistent portion of the mass (31X to 73X) was collected 1n the
sample train and XAD resin and was extracted by the methylene chloride.
Essentially, no additional mass was found 1n the methyl t-butyl ether and
toluene extracts of the sample train and XAD. The distribution 1n the conden-
sate among the three extracts varied from run to run.
56
-------
TABLE 4-14. VOLATILES EMISSIONS WITH ALTERNATE AUXILIARY FUELS
Volatile organlcs, ppm as propane
CO, ppm Auxiliary C,-C7 Total
Run corrected to 7% 02 fuel C,-C2 C3-C7 condensate volatlles Methane Ethene Ethylene Acetylene
5 111 Fuel oil Oa 3.7 2.3 6.0 Oa 0* 0 0
8S 168 Natural gas 1.1* 5.5 11.0 17.6 0.7a 0.03a 0.02 0
a Sample value was less than twice the blank value.
in
-------
TABLE 4-15. DISTRIBUTION OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
% In each fraction8
Sample traWXAD
Test
run
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avg.
Total Methylene chloride
)g found extract
6.138
4.600
124.254
23.036
23.899
3.949
-
3b
2b
Ob
94
65
5b
28
Condensate
Methyl t-butyl Toluene Methylene chloride Methyl t-butyl loiuene
ether extract extract extract ether extract extract
Ob
Ob
Ob
Ob
Ob
Ob
0
5b
llb
Ob
Ob
3b
18b
6
9
13
70
4
2
8b
18
31
22
21
2
13
35
21
52
53
9
lb
17
36
28
* Blank-corrected values.
b Sample value less than twice the blank value.
-------
TABLE 4-16. DISTRIBUTION OF NONVOLATILE ORGANICS
01
ID
Test
run
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avg.
Total M
)g found
14.055
23.656
17.378
17.050
12,376
10.783
-
Sample tra1n/XAD
ethylene chloride Methyl t- butyl
extract
60
60
51
73
31
41
53
ether extract
Ob
Ob
ob
ob
ob
ob
0
% 1n each fraction*
Condensate
Toluene Methylene chloride Methyl t-butyl
extract
Ob
Ob
lb
lb
ob
ob
0
extract
12
22
Ob
16
19
39
18
ether extract
16
7
1
3b
22
5b
9
Toluene
extract
13
12
47
7
29
14
20
a Blank-corrected values.
b Sample value less than twice the blank value.
-------
4.4.2 Total Hydrocarbon Emissions
THC emissions were measured by two different techniques identified here
as hot and cold THC. The primary difference was that the hot THC had a sample
line and instrument heated to 150'C and the cold THC had an ice cooled conden-
sate trap near the stack sampling port and an unheated sample line. Both used
a flame lonization detector (FID) as did the organic GC analyses. Both tech-
niques are described in Appendix A. The cold THC technique was more closely
representative of historical THC monitoring techniques. The hot THC technique
was under consideration as a measurement technique for amended hazardous waste
Incinerator regulations.
Table 4-17 shows the results for both the hot and cold THC monitors com-
pared to CO levels and the Level 1 organic mass for each test run. It can be
seen that the THC as measured by the hot and cold technique differed consider-
ably. The difference was greater for the test runs with lower CO levels than
for the runs with higher CO levels. Figure 4-5 shows this trend 1n a plot of
the ratio of hot to cold THC vs. CO level. The ratio tended to decrease at
higher CO levels.
The difference between the two techniques could not be fully explained,
however, two contributing factors were identified. First, the condensate trap
on the cold THC removed organics (probably water soluble compounds) from the
sampled gas before this gas reached the FID detector. The condensate was
similar to the condensate collected with the gas bag samples for volatile GC
analysis. That fraction of the total organic mass measured was large (about
SOX) as discussed earlier, however, it was not large enough to explain the
difference between the two THC techniques.
The second factor is that the hot THC results are probably biased high.
The analyzer had severe instability (especially after Run 6), which was later
traced to a buildup of condensible matter between the FID capillary and the
pressure regulator (after the FID detector). As a result the FID capillary
operated at a higher pressure than indicated on the control gauge. With dry
span gas the FID readings varied over a 3:1 range depending on flow. Sample
gas with SOX moisture would have shown an even greater effect because most of
60
-------
TABLE 4-17. THC RESULTS
CO. ppm
Run
5
8S
6
7
8
9
10
Uncorrected
125
196
511
1099
2460
3705
2458
Corrected
7% 02
111
168
460
1068
2464
2762
2128
Cold THC,
ppm as propane
Average
3.6
6.7
12
7.6
61
61
18
Range
2.2-6.4
5.7-7.4
9.7-19
5.5-10
7.5-118
42-101
13-28
Hot
ppm as
Average
36
51
88
207
227
199
86
THC,
propane
Range
8.6-58
49-54
41-104
28-284
84-377
123-291
67-109
Ratio
hot/cold THC
10
7.6
7.3
27
3.7
3.4
4.8
Total organic mass,
ppm as propane
9.1
-
20
60
134
25
46
-------
CT>
ro
f
3
o
£
0
£
-------
the moisture was condensing after the restriction. The wet basis hot THC
readings (about half the dry readings) are perhaps closer to the correct value
because the additional pressure differential caused by the condensing moisture
is approximately proportional to the correction to dry THC basis. Attempts to
locate the problem and to compensate for the problem were made during the
testing. In Runs 9 and 10 a modified calibration procedure was used to par-
tially correct for the bias. The probable result was that the high bias
became more severe until Run 9 when it began to moderate.
Another aspect of both the hot and cold THC readings is that there is no
blank correction as there is for the GC and gravimetric methods. During the
GC analyses both air and water showed false positive peaks. Although probably
not large, a similar false THC signal would be expected.
Figure 4-6 shows a comparison of the cold THC, hot THC, and total organic
mass for each test run. The hot THC value was consistently the highest of the
three, ranging from 2 to 8 times higher than the total organic mass. However,
the earlier discussions about the high bias for the hot THC and the low bias
for the total organic mass suggest that these two measurements may be 1n
better agreement than Figure 4-6 indicates. The cold THC was typically lower
than the total organic mass, indicating that some organic mass emissions are
not detected with the cold THC technique used. Some of these nondetected
emissions would be those collected in the condensate trap. Table 4-18 shows
the cold THC values compared to the total organic mass and the organic mass
less the volatile (C^C,) condensate fraction. The volatile condensate frac-
tion appears to explain the difference for some test runs, but the data are
not consistent.
The THC levels were also compared to CO levels for the test series.
Figure 4-7 shows a plot of CO concentration 1n the stack gas (uncorrected for
02, dry) vs. both the hot and cold THC concentrations. The uncorrected CO
values were plotted (instead of CO corrected to 7% 02) to provide comparable
data to the THC values. The plot shows a tendency for THC emissions to
increase as the CO level Increases, but no strong correlations were
observed. There is more scatter for the hot THC values, which probably
reflects the difficulties with the hot THC monitor described earlier.
63
-------
THC vs TOTAL ORGANIC MASS
5
Cold THC [Ml Total Organic Mass HH Hot THC
i
Figure 4-6. Comparison of total organic mass and THC measurements.
-------
TABLE 4-18. COLD THC VS. ORGANIC MASS (ppm AS PROPANE)
Total organic
Total mass less
Run Cold THC organic mass volatile condensate
5 3.6 9.1 6.8
6 12 20 6.2
7 7.6 60 41
8 61 134 64
9 61 25 18
10 18 46 15
65
-------
at
a>
1
Q.
i
'i
f.-t\j -
220 -
200 -
180 -
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
n _
+
+ +
•
+ +
a n
+
D
a
1 2
(Thousands)
CO luncorrectad for O2. dry), ppm
Cold THC + Hot THC
Flaure 4-7. CO vs. THC.
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
A-l
-------
This appendix contains a summary of sampling and analytical procedures
used during the Mobay test program and quality assurance results. Raw data
from the methods described are contained in Appendix B.
Page
A-l Sampling Methods A-3
1.0 Sampling Procedures for Metal and Particulate A-4
1.1 Process feed sampling A-4
1.2 Stack emissions sampling A-6
2.0 Total Organics Measurement Methods A-20
2.1 Volatile organic methods A-20
2.2 Semivolatile/nonvolatile organic methods A-22
2.3 Formaldehyde A-22
2.4 Total hydrocarbon monitoring methods A-22
A-2 Analytical Procedures A-26
1.0 Analytical Procedures for Metals and Particulate A-27
1.1 Process feed analysis A-27
1.2 Metals and particulate analysis A-27
2.0 Analytical Procedures for Organic Compounds A-31
2.1 Volatile organics analysis A-31
2.2 Semivolatile organics analysis A-38
2.3 Nonvolatile organics analysis A-40
2.4 Formaldehyde analysis A-41
A-3 Quality Assurance Audits A-43
1.0 Sampling Activities A-45
1.1 Metals and particulate tests A-45
1.2 Organics test A-46
2.0 Laboratory Activities A-47
2.1 Metals by atomic emission and atomic
absorption A-47
2.2 Gases by Orsat analysis A-49
2.3 Volatiles by gas chromatography analysis A-49
2.4 Nonvolatiles by gravimetric analysis A-50
2.5 Semivolatiles (C7-C17) by gas
chromatography A-51
2.6 Formaldehyde by high performance liquid
chromatography A-52
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A-l
SAMPLING METHODS
A-3
-------
SECTION 1.0
SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR METAL AND PARTICULATE
1.1 PROCESS FEED SAMPLING
The organic liquid waste and aqueous waste feed streams were sampled dur-
ing the metals testing. These streams were sampled Individually from feed
lines to the Incinerator. More detailed discussions of the sampling location
and methods are presented below.
1.1.1 Sample Container Preparation
Containers for these feed samples were prepared in the laboratory prior
to the tests. The containers were new clear or amber borosilicate glass bot-
tles with Teflon* screw-cap liners. No glue was used to attach the liners to
the caps. Bottles and liners were prepared as follows:
1. Hot water rinse
2. Soak in hot Acationox* solution or equivalent
3. Distilled deionlzed water rinse (3X)
4. Soak in 10% (v/v) nitric acid solution for at least 8 h
5. Distilled deionlzed water rinse, ASTM Type I (3X)
6. Air dry or oven dry at 105'C
7. Sealed with color-coded cap for "metals"
Steps 4 and 5 were excluded for nonmetals sample containers, and the caps were
coded for "clean."
A-4
-------
1.1.2 Organic Liquid Waste Feed Sampling
Organic liquid waste feed samples were taken from a valved tap located
directly in line and immediately prior to the burner. The sampling tap and
connections between the tap and the main feed line were flushed (allowed to
flow to remove stagnant material) each time before samples were collected to
ensure sample integrity and representativeness of the waste feed.
Samples were composited by collection directly into 1-L (32-oz) bottles
marked for equal volume graduations (e.g., 150-mL increments per bottle for
the six grab samples). A grab sample increment for each composite sample was
collected every 30 min during a 3-h test run with the first grab being taken
at the start of the run and the last grab being taken 30 min before the end of
the run. No grab samples were taken during port change. The samples were
stored near ice temperature until analysis.
Two composite samples were taken during the initial baseline test (one
run) and during each run of the metals removal efficiency test (three runs).
One sample from each run was analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, total chromium,
and lead. The second sample was analyzed for ash content.
1.1.3 Aqueous Waste Feed Sampling
Aqueous waste feed samples were taken from a valved tap located directly
in line and immediately prior to Injection into the thermal oxidizer. The
sampling tap and connections between the tap and the main feed line were
flushed (allowed to flow to remove stagnant material) each time before samples
were collected to ensure sample integrity and representativeness of the waste
feed.
Samples were composited by collection directly Into 1-L (32-oz) bottles
marked for equal volume graduations (e.g., 150-mL Increments per bottle for
the six grab samples). A grab sample increment for each composite sample was
collected every 30 n»1n during a 3-h test run with the first grab being taken
at the start of the run and the last grab being taken 30 m1n before the end of
the run. Mo grab samples were taken during port change.
A-5
-------
Two composite samples were taken during the baseline run and each of the
three metal runs. One sample was analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
total chromium. The second sample was analyzed for ash content. The samples
were stored near ice temperature until analysis or shipment for ash analysis.
1.1.4 Scrubber Water Sampling
The scrubber makeup water (city water) and effluent water were each
sampled from valved taps located directly in line and prior to injection
.(makeup) into the system and after release (effluent) from the system. All
sampling taps and connections between the taps and the main feed or effluent
lines were flushed (allowed to flow to remove stagnant material) each time
before samples were collected to ensure integrity and representativeness of
the makeup and effluent waters.
Samples were composited by collection directly into 1-L (32-oz) bottles
marked for equal volume graduations. A grab sample increment for each com-
posite sample was collected every 30 min during a 3-h test run with the first
grab sample being taken at the start of the run and the last being taken
30 min before the end of the run. The first grab of the effluent water was
taken 30 min after the start of the run and the last was taken at the end of
the run. No grab samples were taken during port change.
One composite sample of the makeup water was taken during the baseline
run. Two composite samples of the effluent waters were taken during the
baseline run and each of the three metal runs. For the makeup water, only the
composite sample from the baseline run was analyzed for arsenic, cadmium,
lead, and total chromium. The effluent water composite sample was analyzed
for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and total chromium. The alkaline composite sample
of the effluent water was analyzed for hexavalent chromium.
1.2 STACK EMISSIONS SAMPLING
Total mass loadings and mass distribution by particle size of the target
metals (arsenic, cadmium, total chromium, and lead) in the stack gas were
determined by obtaining samples with Modified Method 5 and Modified Method 17
A-6
-------
trains. Hexavalent chromium mass loading was determined by extracting samples
with a separate Modified Method 5 train. Participate matter, diluent gases
(carbon dioxide and oxygen), temperature, velocity, moisture content, and
volumetric flow rate were also determined as discussed in the following
sections. Table A-l shows the metals sampling trains employed and the
parameters sampled with each train. Figure A-l shows the location of sampling
ports and traverse points for the stack location.
1.2.1 Total Metals (Arsenic. Cadmium. Total Chromium. Lead) Mass Loadings and
Particulate (MM5 Train)
Particulate and the total mass loading of arsenic, cadmium, total
chromium, and lead were determined by samples extracted from the stack gas
using a Modified Method 5—Metals (MM5-M) sampling train. The sampling proce-
dure consisted of isokinetically sampling a volume of the stack gas and sepa-
rating the particulate by filtration in the train and impinging the metals
passing through the filter in a nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide absorbing solu-
tion. In general, the MM5 sampling procedures paralleled those specified by
USEPA, Methods 1 through 5 in 40 CFR 60. For guidance, the draft EMB Metals
Protocol, August 1, 1987, titled "Methodology for the Determination of Trace
Metal Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Stationary Source Combustion Processes,"
was used along with MRI's metals testing experience to develop the metals
protocol for this test program.
1.2.1.1 Apparatus—
The design of the MM5-M sampling train was based upon the apparatus
normally employed in USEPA Method 5, but modified for the special testing
requirements. The train consisted of a nickel nozzle, a heat-traced borosili-
cate glass probe Uner housed in a stainless steel sheath and a heated (120* ±
14'C) high efficiency quartz fiber filter (Whatman QM-A) supported on a
Tef1on*-coated screen mounted in a glass holder. The control module used to
control the gas sampling rate and monitor the stack gas parameters contained a
leakless vacuum pump, a dry gas meter, an orifice meter, the appropriate
valves, gauges, temperature controllers, and associated hardware. The
impingers and their contents are described below:
A-7
-------
TABLE A-l. DETAIL OF MM5 AND 17 TRAINS
|^^^HH^M^VH^^^HMav^^^^B^^^B^v^^^BB^^^^^^^^^^^^HHmB*i^^^H^I^BBIIBIHM»lll«HMIIIBH>
Train type Data requirements Test objective* Figure
MM5-M Arsenic A, B
Cadmium
Total chromium
Lead
Moisture
Temperature
Velocity
MMS-Cr(VI) Hexavalent chromium A, B
Moisture
Temperature
Velocity
MM17-Mb Arsenic A, B
Cadmium
Total chromium
Lead
MM5 Semivolatile organics C
Moisture
Temperature
Velocity
* A « Baseline test (1 run with no spiking).
B * Metals removal efficiency test (3 runs with metals spiking of
aqueous waste).
C * Organics test (6 runs at varying CO levels).
D Metals separated and analyzed by particle size distribution.
A-8
-------
N
South Port
Traverse Points Across Diameter
Distance from Inside Wall at Port
Point Inches Point Inches
r
2
3
4
5
6
1.0*
2.4
4.2
6.3
8.9
12.7
7
8
9
10
11
12
22.9
26.7
29.3
31.4
33.2
34.6*
*Adjusted Traverse Points
Port Dimensions (Inches)
Port
North
East
South
West
West (Lower)
Le.ngth
7
7
7
7
7
LEX.
4
3
4
3
3
Platform
12'4"
I
v
[Closed
\ Vent
Platform
Figure A-l. Stack sampling location.
A-9
-------
• The first impinger was an empty modified Greenburg-Smith (GBS) with
a 2-L capacity to collect condensate from the high moisture gas
stream.
The second and third impingers were GBS with a capacity of 500 ml.
Each contained 100 ml of 5% HN03 and 10* H202 (by volume) solution
for collection of metals passing the filter and the first impinger.
The fourth impinger was an empty modified GBS to catch any carryover
from the third Impinger.
The fifth impinger was a GBS and contained 100 ml of 0.5 N NaOH as
an add trap.
The final modified GBS impinger contained about 200 g of indicating
silica gel.
All glass-to-glass connections were made from threaded glass and Teflon8
ferrules. A schematic of the train is shown in Figure A-2.
1.2.1.2 Calibration--
The MM5-M equipment was calibrated, checked for proper operation, and
cleaned before and after the field test. Calibration procedures are described
1n the Project Quality Assurance Plan (Section 7).
1.2.1.3 Preparation--
All MM5-M train sample contact surfaces, glassware, rinse bottles
(Teflon* or polyethylene), and sample containers (new clear or amber borosili-
cate glass bottles with Teflon®-!ined screw caps) were thoroughly cleaned
according to the procedure described in Section 1.1, Process Feed Sampling.
No metallic components were used. All train components that were to contain
sample gas were sealed with plastic caps immediately after cleaning. During
train assembly in the field, all Impingers including loaded reagents were
tared for moisture determination.
A-10
-------
Quartz/Glass Liner
\
Thermocouple
—>
Nozzle—^^/^
$
Reverse - Type
Pilot tube
T/C
Check
Valve
*>
SSIfl
[1) 2L Modified Greenburg-Smith, Empty
Greenburg Smith, 100mL 5% IINO3 and 10% \\O2 Soln
Greenburg Smith, 100mL 5% HNO3 and 10% H2O2 Soln
Modified Greenburg Smith, Empty
f5) Greonburg Smilh. 100ml 0.5N NaOH Soln
© Modified Greenburg Smllh, Silica gel
Figure A-2. Diagram of MM5 train.
-------
1.2.1.4 Sample Recovery—•
At the end of a. test run after the final leak check, the sampling train
was disassembled into two parts, the probe and the sample box. The inlet to
the sample box was covered and both ends of the probe were sealed to prevent
sample loss and contamination. These components were then transferred to the
laboratory at MRI for recovery. At the laboratory, sample components were
recovered from the sample box and the nozzle. The sample component from the
probe was recovered in a clean laboratory hood. All liquid sample components
were transferred to tared bottles and weighed after recovery to verify that no
losses occurred during transport to the laboratory. Sample components were
recovered as follows:
• Front half acetone rinse—The nozzle, probe liner, cyclone bypass,
and the front of the filter holder were rinsed with brushing (nylon
bristle brush with Teflon'-coated rod) three times or more until
clean.
• Front half 0.1 N nitric add rinse—The same train components as
above were rinsed without brushing three times. These rinses were
combined and saved. A final water then acetone rinse was performed,
and the water and acetone discarded.
• Filter—The filter was removed with Teflon*-coated forceps and
placed and sealed in a glass petri dish along with any loose par-
ticulate and filter particles removed with a nylon bristle brush.
Back half—The first four impingers (condensate and nitric acid/
hydrogen peroxide solutions and carryover) were weighed for moisture
determination. The contents were transferred to a tared bottle.
The Impingers, connecting glassware, filter holder back, and the
filter support were rinsed with 0.1 N nitric acid into the bottle.
The bottle was weighed to determine the sample weight.
A-12
-------
The fifth impinger (caustic) and the sixth impinger (silica gel)
were weighed for moisture determinations. Contents of the caustic
impinger were archived, and the silica gel was discarded.
The first four sample components (for metals analysis) were stored at ice
temperature until analysis. The sample container containing the nitric acid/
hydrogen peroxide solution (back half) was vented (lid loosened to relieve any
pressure and retightened) upon receipt at the laboratory.
1.2.2 Total Hexavalent Chromium Mass Loading [MM5-Cr(VI) Train]
The total mass loading of hexavalent chromium was determined by samples
extracted from the stack gas using a Modified Method S-Chromium(VI)
[MMS-Cr(VI)] sampling train. The sampling procedure consisted of isokinetic
sampling of a volume of the stack gas and impinging the hexavalent chromium in
a dilute sodium hydroxide solution. A 0.1 N sodium hydroxide solu.ion was
used to preserve the alkalinity of the impinger contents during sampling.
This alkalinity was necessary to prevent conversion of hexavalent chromium to
trivalent chromium, although excess alkalinity would be detrimental to the
analytical effort due to the high salt content. Recent EPA studies of the
current state-of-the-art source sampling procedures for hexavalent chromium
have shown 50 to 9056 conversion of hexavalent chromium in the train during
sampling. Therefore, a filter was not used in the train so that the entire
sample could be quickly and directly collected in an alkaline medium, allowing
for periods up to 30 days in an alkaline solution (pH 8-10) without sample
degradation (Chromium Electroplaters Test Report, Entropy Environmentalists,
Inc., March 1986; EPA/EMB File No. 86 CEPI). In general, the MM5 sampling
procedures parallel those specified in USEPA Methods 1 through 5 in
40 CFR 60. For guidance, the "EPA Draft Method—Determination of Hexavalent
Chromium Emissions from Stationary Sources" and the latest available method
development information were used to develop the protocol for this test
program.
A-13
-------
1.2.2.1 Apparatus—
The design of the MMS-Cr(VI) sampling train 1s based upon the apparatus
normally employed In USEPA Method 5, with some modification for these testing
requirements. The train components were the same as those for the MM5-M train
described in the previous section, except for the elimination of the filter
and the change in the impinger sequence and contents which are described as
follows:
The first impinger was a Greenburg-Smith (GBS) with a 2-1 capacity
to accommodate the collection of condensate from the high moisture
gas stream. It contained 200 ml of 0.1 H sodium hydroxide or enough
to submerge the impinger stem tip at the start of sampling.
• The second Impinger was a GBS with a capacity of 500 n\L containing
100 mL of 0.1 N sodium hydroxide.
The third, fourth, and fifth Impingers were empty modified GBS to
catch any carryover from the second impinger.
The final modified GBS impinger contained about 200 g of indicating
silica gel.
All glass-to-glass connections were made with threaded glass and Teflon*
ferrules. A schematic of the train 1s shown in Figure A-3.
1.2.2.2 Calibration and Preparation-
All calibration procedures and preparation procedures were the same as
those for the MM5-M train described in the previous section. Details of
calibration procedures are described in the Project Quality Assurance Plan
(Section 7).
A-14
-------
Quartz/Glass Liner
Thermocouple
Nozzle—I
Potentiometer
Stack
Wall
Reverse - Type
PllolTube
en
Pilot
Manometer
Probe
Heater
Orllice
T/C
flflS
Check
Valve
Ice Bath
T/C T/C Fine Control
M ,, Valve
Sample Box
Silica Get
Vacuum Line
Main Valve
Airtight
Pump
Q 21 Modilied Groenburg Srnllh. 200 ml 0.1 N NaOH Soln
© Greenburg-Smllh, lOOmL 0.1N NaOH Soln
(3) Modilied Greonburg Sniilti. Empty
@ Modilied Groenburg Smilh. Empty
(5) Modilied Groenburg Smilh, Empty
(6) Modilied Groenburg Smilb. Silica get
Figure A-3. Diagram of MM5-Chrom1um(VI) train.
-------
1.2.2.3 Sample Recovery-
Train disassembly after each run was the same as for the MM5-M train.
All liquid sample components were transferred to tared bottles and weighed
after recovery to verify that no losses occurred during transport to the labo-
ratory. Sample components were recovered as follows:
Chromium(VI) train—The nozzle, probe Hner, and any connecting
glassware back to the first implnger were rinsed, with brushing
(nylon bristle brush with Teflon^-coated rod) three times or more
until clean. The solvent was 0.1 M sodium hydroxide. These rinses
were saved.
• The same train components as above were rinsed with brushing with
ASTM Type I reagent water three times. These rinses were combined
with the alkaline rinses and saved. The train components were
allowed to air dry prior to further sampling.
The first five impingers (sodium hydroxide and carryover) were
weighed for moisture determination. The contents were transferred
to a tared bottle which contained all other sample rinses from the
train. The Impingers and connecting glassware were rinsed and
brushed with 0.1 N sodium hydroxide into the bottle, removing all
visible residue from the Internal surfaces. A final water rinse was
performed and added to the sample. The bottle was weighed to deter-
mine the net sample weight.
• The silica gel impinger was weighed for moisture determination and
the contents disposed.
The first sample component (for hexavalent chromium analysis) was stored
at ice temperature until analysis.
A-16
-------
1.2.3 Metals (Arsenic. Cadmium. Total Chromium, Lead) Loading by Particle
Size Distribution
The loadings of arsenic, cadmium, total chromium, and lead were deter-
mined by particle size from samples extracted from the stack gas using a Modi-
fied Method 17~Metals (MM17-M) sampling train equipped with an Anderson High
Capacity Stack Sampler (HCSS). Sampling was performed at a single point in
the gas stream.
The Anderson HCSS is an in-stack, two-stage cascade impactor/cyclone sys-
tem that separates the particle size distribution into four size fractions
(nominally > 10, 5-10, 1-5, and < 1 urn). In general, the MM17 sampling proce-
dures parallel those specified in USEPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 17 as pub-
lished in 40 CFR 60. All procedures were in accordance with the "Operating
Manual for Anderson Samplers, Inc., HCSS, Heavy Grain Loading Impactor, Parti-
cle Sizing Stack Samplers," January 1, 1980, except that an extractive sam-
pling probe was used.
Samples were extracted through a heated borosilicate glass probe liner
(nominally maintained 10°F above the stack temperature) and a nickel nozzle.
Quartz nozzles could not be used as the available nozzles were too large for
isokinetic sampling at the desired rates. The best available choice was
nickel nozzles of 0.375-in inside diameter which allowed isokinetic sampling
rates of 25% to 28%.
To minimize the level of background metals, a 5.5-in diameter Whatman
QM-A quartz fiber filter housed in a Teflon®-lined stainless steel holder was
attached to the outlet of the HCSS. This was used instead of the glass fiber
thimble normally employed with the HCSS. The thimbles were suspected to have
a high metals background level.
The internal surfaces of the HCSS were thoroughly cleaned before each use
by scrubbing and brushing with hot soapy water, rinsing with hot tap water,
rinsing with deionized distilled water, rinsing with acetone, and finally dry-
ing in a heated oven. Samples were recovered by rinsing the surfaces with
acetone. Brushing was not done because of the potential for added contamina-
tion. All surfaces were oxidized and some surfaces were slightly pitted.
A-17
-------
Initially, the thimble holder was cleaned with hydrochloric acid to remove
oxides and accumulated scale. This was only done once before the first sam-
pling run. -It was not known which condition would provide the least contami-
nation under sampling exposure, bare metal, or an oxidized surface. After the
first run, this surface was again oxidized and scaled. The brown coloration
of some of the rinses and the visually observed sizes of some of the recovered
particulate matter indicate a potentially high degree of contamination from
the oxidized stainless steel surfaces of the HCSS.
1.2.4 Diluent. Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen (M3 Train)
The carbon dioxide and oxygen content of the stack gas was determined
from integrated (continuous constant sampling rate) samples extracted from the
stack gas using a Method 3 (M3) Integrated gas sampling train. The sampling
procedure consisted of extracting a sample at a constant rate into a leak-free
Mylar bag which was analyzed immediately after each sampling run for percent
carbon dioxide and percent oxygen by volume on a dry-basis using an Orsat gas
analyzer. Samples were extracted concurrently with other samples requiring
determination of gas molecular weight and pollutant concentration corrected to
standard diluent concentrations (e.g., corrected to 7% oxygen). The M3 sam-
pling and analytical procedures followed those specified in U.S. EPA Methods 1
and 3 in 40 CFR 60 for integrated multipoint sampling.
1.2.4.1 Apparatus—
The probe was an unheated stainless steel tube attached to the probe
sheath of the MM5-M, M5, and MM5 sampling train when each of those trains was
used. Diluent data from the MM5-M train was used for computing the applicable
MMS-Cr(VI) results since both trains were operated simultaneously. The inlet
probe tip was positioned to extract the sample within 3 in of the respective
M5 or MM5 sampling nozzle. Moisture and particulate matter were removed with
a filter coalescer and a water-cooled condensing coil. Constant flow rate was
maintained by using a calibrated rotameter. A schematic of the sampling train
is shown in Figure A-4.
A-18
-------
I-
Stainless Sleel Probe
Sample Buy
Valve f2
Rolomeler
O
•v—.
Pump
Water
Cooled
Condensing
Coll
Valve
Sluil Off Valve
( ^
Gauge
Filter
Coalescer
Figure A-4. Method 3 Integrated gas sampling train.
-------
SECTION 2.0
TOTAL ORGANICS MEASUREMENT METHODS
This section addresses organic emissions measurements from the stack. A
recently developed method for measuring total organic emissions was used and
compared with measurements of total organic emissions by a heated total hydro-
carbon (THC) analyzer with flame ionization detector (FID).
The methods are from several sources including those given in the recent
draft paper ("Screening Approach for Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents
and Products of Incomplete Combustion," L. Johnson et al, presented at APCA,
June 1988), the supporting Southern Research Institute (SRI) draft report
("POHCs and PICs Screening Protocol"), and the Level I Source Assessment
Manual.
2.1 VOLATILE ORGANIC METHODS
An integrated gas sampling system using Tedlar bags was used to extract
stack gas samples at a constant sampling rate from a single point in the stack
for volatile organic analysis. A schematic of the sampling apparatus is shown
in Figure A-5. A special water condensate trap with a septum port was used to
permit direct withdrawal of the condensate for analysis. The quantity of col-
lected condensate for each sample was determined gravimetrically. The volume
of the dry gas sampled was determined with a calibrated rotameter between the
trap and the bag. A blank bag filled with prepurified nitrogen was placed in
the bag box before each sampling and was analyzed along with the bag contain-
ing the sample.
A-20
-------
Teflon Shutoff Valve
S.S. Shell wn"ellon Liner
Teflon -
Line
i •
i >
Rolameter
Septum
Condensale Trap
Ice Balh
S.S. Quick-Connect
Sample Bag Blank Bag
(Tedlar) (Tedlar)
Microvalve
Vacuum
Gauge ffl
o
Rolameter
Shutoff
Valve
l
Vacuum
Gauge //2
Sloped for Gravity Assist
Tygon or
Rubber Vacuum
Tubing
OT
Pump
Dry Gas
Meter
Figure A-5. Integrated volatile organlcs sampling train.
-------
2.2 SEMIVOLATILE/NONVOLATILE ORGANIC METHODS
The MM5 train uses SW-846 Method 0010, September 1986 version, with 50:50
methanol/methylene chloride recovery solvent. A schematic of the MM5 sampling
train is shown in Figure A-6. A 180-min sampling period was used.. Modifica-
tions were as follows:
• The MRI design condenser and XAO module were used.
• Stainless steel probe nozzles and borosilicate glass probe liners
were used.
• The third impinger was dry.
• Borosilicate filters were used without weighing to constant weight.
• The target sample volume was 3 dscm.
2.3 FORMALDEHYDE
Sampling and analysis was performed according to the procedure given by
K. Kuwata, M. Uebori, and Y. Yamasaki, "Determination of Aliphatic and
Aromatic Aldehydes in Polluted Airs as Their 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazones by
High Performance Liquid Chromatography," J. Chromatogr. Sci., 17, 264-268,
1979. The train was operated as an EPA Method 6 train but with two midget
fritted Impingers containing 10 mL each of DNPH reagent. The sampling train
was operated at 0.5 L/min for the full 180-min test period. A schematic of
the sampling train is shown in Figure A-7. Sample recovery was performed at
MRI according to the reference method.
2.4 TOTAL HYDROCARBON MONITORING METHODS
Total hydrocarbons (heated sample line)~EPA Method 25A was used with the
following changes:
A-22
-------
Quarlz/Glass Liner
Thormocoulo
Nozzle—
Reverse - Type
Pilol Tube
(i /|>iloMin;
Polonllomeler \ Filler
T/C
!•
I >
Check
Valve
Manometer pmbo
Silica Gel
Vacuum Line
Airtight
Pump
Condenser wilh Ice Water Jacket
XAD Resin Cartridge with Ice Water Jacket. 70 g ol XAD
( 2L Modified Greenburg Smith, 100ml ol Double Distilled In Glass H2O
0 Greenburg Smith. 100ml. of Double Distilled in Glass I I2O
(5) Modified Groenburg Smilh, Empty
(6) Moclilind Greenburg -Sniilh, SIO2
Figure A-6. Modified Method 5 (MM5) semivolatlle organlcs sampling train.
-------
Quartz/Glass
Probe Liner
\
Quartz or Pyrex
Wool In Healed
Section lo Remove
Particulalo
l
Midget Bubblers
(Frilled Tip)
Midget Implngers
ifm 11 mm in m i I'll ii
Slack
Wall
1
Healing
Element
Ice Dath
Thermometer
Rale Meier Needle Valve
(Fine Adjust)
Thermometer
Glass Wool
Silica Gel
Vacuum
Line
Surge Tank
Needle Valve
(Coarse Adjust)
Leak-Free Pump
Figure A-7. Formaldehyde sampling train for wet scrubber stacks.
-------
The entire sample system from probe to detector was heated to 150°C.
• A Beckman 402 THC analyzer was used.
The calibration gas was propane.
EPA Protocol 1 cylinder standards of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 ppm
propane in nitrogen were available; the three cylinders which best
covered the sample concentration were used.
Total hydrocarbons (unheated line)—EPA Method 25A was used with the
following changes:
An ice-cooled water knockout trap removed condensibles.
An unheated Teflon sample line conducted the sample through a stain-
less steel pump to an FID.
The calibration gas was propane.
EPA Protocol 1 cylinder standards of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 ppm
propane in nitrogen were available; the three cylinders which best
cover the sample concentration were used.
A-25
-------
APPENDIX A-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
A-26
-------
SECTION 1.0
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR METALS AND PARTICULATE
1.1 PROCESS FEED ANALYSIS
Organic liquid wastes, aqueous liquid wastes, and scrubber waters were
all analyzed for metals content (As, Cd, Cr, Pb) according to the methods
outlined in Section 1.2.1.
Organic liquid wastes and aqueous wastes were analyzed for ash content by
Galbraith Laboratories. ASTM Method D482-80 was used as the reference method.
1.2 METALS AND PARTICULATE ANALYSIS
1.2.1 Metals Analysis
The analytical procedures for metals and hexavalent chromium were based,
to the extent possible, on published EPA methods. The determination of the
following metals was performed by inductively coupled (argon) plasma atomic
emission spectrometry (ICP-AES), graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrom-
etry (GFAAS), or visible spectrophotometry: arsenic, cadmium, total chromium,
lead, and hexavalent chromium.
The following samples were submitted for metals analysis:
Sample I—Organic liquid waste
Sample 2—Aqueous waste
Sample 3~Quench makeup water (city)
Sample 4—Scrubber makeup water
Sample 5a—Scrubber effluent water--Cr(VI) determination
A-27
-------
Sample 5b—Scrubber effluent water—total metals determination
Sample 6a~Scrubber alkali water--Cr(VI) determination
Sample 6b—Scrubber alkali water—total metals determination
In addition, the following portions of the sampling trains were included
for analysis for metals:
Sample 7(a, b, c)~Probe rinse [acetone (a) and acid (b)l and filter
(c)~MM5 train
Sample 8—Impinger solutions and rinses—MM5 train
Sample 9—Impinger solutions and rinses—Cr(VI) train
Sample 10—Total metals impactor particulate catch (final filter)—< 1 ym
Sample 11—Total metals Impactor particulate catch (third stage)—1-5 jim
Sample 12—Total metals impactor particulate catch (second stage)—
5-10 tun
Sample 13—Total metals impactor particulate catch (first stage)—> 10 vm
Sample 1 was prepared for ICP-AES analysis by dissolution in xylenes
according to Method 3040 of SVI-846.
Samples 2, 3, 4, 5b, 6b, and 8 (after reduction to less than 50 ml by
heating) were digested according to the atomic absorption portion of
Method 3050 for subsequent analysis of arsenic, cadmium, total chromium, and
lead. Following desiccation and weighing for particulate matter,
Samples 7(a, b, c) (combined) (MM5 train filter) and 10-13 (impactor stages)
were prepared for analysis by digestion with HF and HN03 in microwave PRVs as
described in the EPA/EMB Draft Metals Protocol.
Samples 5a, 6at and 9 were digested by the alkaline procedure described
in the paper by Butler et al. The digestate from this alkaline digestion was
analyzed according to the procedure In that paper.
Blank samples including filters and impinger contents were digested
according to the atomic absorption portion of the Method 3050 digestion or
HF/HN03 digestion.
A-28
-------
Following Method 3050 digestion, HF/HN03 digestion, or Method 3040 dis-
solution, the resulting digested samples were analyzed by ICP-AES according to
Method 6010 of SW-846 (third edition). The analytes were arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, and lead depending upon the analytes of interest for each sample.
If a sample result was less than five times the detection limit by Method 6010
for any analyte, that analyte was analyzed by the appropriate series
7000 Method of SW-845 for that analyte using 6FAAS. Any samples prepared for
analysis by Method 3040 were not analyzed by GFAAS.
After a total of three attempts were made to analyze the scrubber efflu-
ent and stack gas samples for hexavalent chromium, no results were obtained.
The initial attempt consisted of alkaline digestion of the samples followed by
coprecipitation with lead sulfate. The resulting precipitate was digested
with nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide. There was no yellow precipitate noted
for samples which were spiked either before the alkaline digestion or before
the coprecipitation step. After the nitric acid digestion, those samples
which were high spikes were analyzed on the ICAP, where it was found that
there was no recovery of the spikes. It was suspected that the problem may
have originated in the alkaline digestion as past experience indicated prob-
lems could occur. The samples were reprecipitated without the alkaline diges-
tion. A reference spike, or a sample which consisted only of water and spike,
was precipitated with the samples. The reference spike returned a yellow
precipitate while no other sample did, including spiked samples. The precipi-
tates were again digested with nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide and the high
spikes and the reference spike analyzed by ICAP. Again the spiked samples
showed no recovery but the reference spike was recovered at 114SL This indi-
cated that hexavalent chromium was likely being reduced by the samples them-
selves rather than the procedure not working properly.
Finally, the analysis as described in the paper by F. E. Butler, J. E.
Knoll, and M. R. Midgett, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 36(5),
581-584, which involved chelation and spectrophotometric determination after
alkaline digestion was tried. The detection limit was much higher for this
procedure and the samples were spiked with higher levels accordingly. The
analysis resulted in spike recoveries of approximately 65-70% for the stack
A-29
-------
gas samples, but the spikes still showed no recovery for the scrubber effluent
samples. It had been speculated earlier by personnel from EPA that the S02
content of the stack gas may affect the hexavalent chromium results. This
data indicated that something along these lines was taking place as one would
expect more species such as S02 to be absorbed into the scrubber effluent.
1.2.2 Particle Size Analysis
After sampling, the four size fractions were desiccated, weighed, and
then prepared for metals analysis according to SW-846 procedures. The four
particle size fractions ranged from 2 to 65 mg each, with most of the material
being recovered from the backup filter (fourth stage). The individual frac-
tions were then analyzed separately for metals content as per Section 1.2.1.
1.2.3 Particulate Loading Analysis
Particulate analysis was performed gravimetrically according to EPA
Method 5, 40 CFR 60. Filter weights and beaker weights are presented in
Appendix B-2. Following gravimetric analysis, components were analyzed for
metals content as per Section 1.2.1.
A-30
-------
SECTION 2.0
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
This section summarizes the analytical methods used for the test pro-
gram. Figure A-8 and Table A-2 depict the analytical scheme.
2.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS
Tedlar bag samples and blanks, and the associated water condensates, were
analyzed by GC/FID within 24 h of sample collection. The GC was a Varian 2400
equipped with two injection ports and two flame ionization detectors. The
protocol (IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment, 2nd
Edition, EPA-600/7-78-201, October 1978, pp. 55-61) suggested 1-mL gas and
1-WL condensate injection volumes. Actual GC injections of 0.5 mL for the gas
samples and 0.5 yL for the condensate samples were required to achieve maximum
resolution. See Table A-3 for parameters involved in the GC analyses of the
volatile samples.
For each type of volatile analysis on the different columns, appropriate
calibration curves were established and their linearity verified by calculat-
ing the correlation coefficient (r) for the regression lines described by the
area responses of the standard peaks of Interest. In all cases, the r value
was greater than the required 0.97; thus the calibration curves were assumed
to be linear.
Each day of analysis, initial daily check standards (the high concentra-
tion standards) were run before each type of sample analysis on the different
columns. Peak areas were compared with the average area of the appropriate
peak from the standard curve.
A-31
-------
Total Organic Measurement Approach
Tedlar Bag
volatllesa
Bag
GS-Q
DB-1
5\im
Condensate
MM5 Train
semlvolatllesb
nonvolatllesc
Methylene chl.
Extract
Condensate
DB-1
grav.
Methyl 1 -butyl
Ether Extract
Condensate
Toluene
Extract
Condensate
DB-1
grav.
Formaldehyde9
train
DNPH In impingers
Liquid
Chromatogram
a = Volatiles (C1-C7) = formaldehyde + bag (GS-Q & DB-1, Sum) + Cond. (GS-Q)
Bag DB-1 used for total, GS-Q for C1-C2
b = Semi-volatiles (C7-C17) = MeCI (DB-1, l.5|im) + ether (DB-1, 1-S^rn) + toluene (DB-1,
Total = Extract + Condensate
c = Non-volatlles (C17+) s MeCI (grav.) + ether (grav.) + toluene (grav.)
The extraction sequence is methylene chloride, ether, and toluene.
Each extract Is analyzed separately.
Figure A-8. Total organic measurement approach.
A-32
-------
TABLE A-2. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MATRIX FOR TOTAL ORGANICS
Sample fraction
Sampling method
Analytical method
Volatile* (d-C7)
b.p. < 100°C
Formaldehyde
(FID has no response)
Semivolatiles (C7-CX7)
b.p. 100-300-C
Tedlar bag
Impinger train w/DNPH
MM5 train
Nonvolatile (> Ci7)
b.p. > 300°C
MM5 train
Field GC/FID
30-m GS-Q megabore
30-m DB-1, 5-jim megabore
High performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)
GC/FID of methylene
chloride, methyl
t-butyl ether, and
toluene extracts (con-
densate analyzed as a
separate fraction)
Gravimetric analysis of
methylene chloride,
methyl t-butyl ether,
and toluene extracts
(condensate analyzed as
a separate fraction)
A-33
-------
TABLE A-3. ANALYSIS OF VOLATILE ORGANICS
Species of Interest Sensitivity
Column
Temperature and conditions
Detector
CO
C,-C2
(Bag fraction)
€3-67
(Bag fraction)
c,-c,
0.1 ppm 30-m GS-Q Helium carrier at 5-7 mL/m1n with
megabore helium makeup gas at 20 mL/m1n.
Detector temperature « 205 *C
Injector temperature - 210"C
Temperature program « 40°C to 120°C
at 6°C/m1n
0.1 ppm 30-m OB-1 Helium carrier at 5-7 mL/m1n with
5.0-pm helium makeup gas at 20 mL/m1n.
megabore Detector temperature = 205°C
Injector temperature - 187"C
Temperature program • 40°C
Isothermal
0.1 ppm 30-m GS-Q Helium carrier at 5-7 mL/m1n with
megabore helium makeup gas at 20 mL/m1n.
Detector temperature - 205'C
Injector temperature = 210'C
Long temperature program = 40°-182aC
at 6"C/m1n
Short temperature program = 125°C,
hold 3 m1n. to 150aC at !2°C/m1n,
hold until C7 peak 1s eluted.
FID
FID
FID
-------
If the area of any peak was not within ±15515 of the standard peak, the check
standard was reanalyzed until there was ±15% agreement between the check stan-
dard and standard curve or between duplicate runs of the daily check stan-
dard. When total analysis time for a particular type of analysis was greater
than 1 h, a final check standard was run. Peak areas were compared with the
initial check standard(s) as well as with the standard curve.
2.1.1 d-C2
Clean separation of methane, ethane, ethylene, and acetylene was achieved
on the 30-m GS-Q megabore column. Calibration of the GC for these compounds
was accomplished by creating a five-point calibration curve (area response
versus concentration) using Scott Specialty Gases Mixture No. 54, Cx-C*
hydrocarbons at approximately 20 ppm each. Standards in the 4, 8, 12, and
16 ppm range were prepared by diluting the 20-ppm standard with ultrahigh
purity nitrogen in a 0.5-raL gastight Pressure-Lok syringe. It was determined
that the syringe had an estimated 0.02-mL dead volume associated with the
needle. Concentrations of the standards were corrected for this dead
\
volume. The dilution procedure was very reproducible with peak areas of
duplicate injections falling within the ±15% criteria and correlation
coefficients of 0.98 and greater for each compound.
Difficulties were encountered in separating the methane peak from the FID
response caused by air. The integrator program was able to separate to some
degree the two peaks at most standard concentration levels. Separation in the
20-ppm concentration standard was achieved for only one of two injections used
to prepare the calibration curve. The correlation coefficient for the methane
regression line was 0.98, still within the quality control criteria. However,
the regression line had a large y-intercept that could not be corrected fur-
ther; hence the results for methane may be overstated.
Individual concentrations of methane, ethane, ethylene, and acetylene, as
well as total chromatographable organics (TCO) in the Ci-C2 window, were cal-
culated as propane (C3). The average response factors for C3 from the daily
A-35
-------
Initial and final check standards for each day were used to calculate the con-
centrations found in samples analyzed that particular day. Results were
reported in ppra propane. Individual concentrations of methane, ethane, ethyl-
ene, and acetylene were also converted to concentrations of ppm methane for
the methane peak, ppm ethane for the ethane peak, and so on. From the cali-
bration curve, ratios of the slope of the propane regression line to the
slopes of the other regression lines gave multiplying factors by which the
individual concentrations as ppm propane could be converted to the individual
concentrations as ppm methane, ppm ethane, and so on. As discussed above,
methane concentrations may be overstated.
2.1.2 C3-C7
Total C3-C7 in the Tedlar bag fraction was obtained from the 30-m DB-1
5.0-w megabore column. A five-point calibration curve was set up using Scott
Specialty Gases Mixture No. 243, C,-C7 hydrocarbons at approximately 15 ppm
each. In-syringe dilutions of the 15-ppm standard gave standards in the 3-,
6-, 9-, and 12-ppm range. Again, this dilution method was quite reproducible
with duplicate injections falling within ±15% of each other and correlation
coefficients of greater than 0.99 for each compound. As discussed earlier,
standard concentrations were corrected for the syringe dead volume. In that
G! and C2 could not be separated on the DB-1 5.0-w column at the lowest reli-
able temperature on the GC, only data in the C3-C7 window were obtained from
this column. As with the C!-C2 analysis, TCO in the C3-C7 window was calcu-
lated as propane. Average response factors for C3 from daily initial and
final check standards were used to calculate the concentrations found in the
samples. Results were reported in ppm propane.
2.1.3 Cj-C-7 (Condensate)
The 30-m GS-Q column was used for the analysis of total (^-C, in the con-
densate fraction. During preliminary work, complete separation of the Ci-C7
n-paraffins had been achieved with this column using a relatively long temper-
ature program. Problems with the higher boiling compounds and the reproduc-
ibility of their area responses from duplicate injections developed just
A-36
-------
before sample analyses started on Run 5. The initial five-point calibration
curve with the 15 ppm Ci-C7 hydrocarbon gas mixture and dilutions thereof
showed that significant amounts of the C5, C6, and C7 n-alkanes were being
lost. Because the volatile sample holding time was 24 h or less, sample
analyses had to continue while an acceptable five-point calibration curve was
being established. Since the Ci to C* components in the standards and all
peaks in the samples were stable, the C3 standard peak was used to monitor the
daily standards.
Initially it was thought that the high-temperatures near the end of the
temperature program were causing leaks in the GC system which preferentially
affected the higher boiling standard compounds. To investigate this potential
high-temperature leak phenomenon, a shorter program with a lower final temper-
ature was developed. This program did not resolve the Ct and C2 peaks; how-
ever, the other hydrocarbons remained resolved.
The shorter temperature program was continued for the analyses of the
condensates from Runs 6-10. The condensate samples from Runs 6-9 were ana-
lyzed before a calibration curve using the shorter temperature program had
been established. However, the daily check standard C3 peak remained within
the ±15% criteria.
It was then determined that purging the standard gas cylinder for approx-
imately 1 min resulted in a representative aliquot of the standard mix and
more reproducible results—evidently the C5, C6, and C7 compounds were being
retained by materials in the cylinder regulator. An acceptable five-point
calibration curve was established before analysis of the condensate sample
from Run 10.
Analysis of Milli-Q water on the 30-m GS-Q with both the long and short
temperature programs used to analyze the condensates revealed a large water
peak response at 48 s in the shorter program and 60 s in the longer program.
Since this peak was present in both the Milli-Q water and the samples, it was
excluded from the TCO calculations. TCO in the Ci-C7 window of the condensate
samples was also reported in ppm propane.
A-37
-------
2.2 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS
Semivolatile and nonvolatile sample extraction was performed according to
the procedure given in "POHCs and PICs Screening Protocol" (Southern Research
Institute), Section III.C., with the following changes. All solvent rinses,
filter, and XAD were combined and extracted with methylene chloride, again
with methyl t-butyl ether, and a third time with toluene. Extraction blanks
were analyzed for all three solvents. No surrogate spike was used.
The back-half rinses and the condensates were extracted in a separatory
funnel three times with 60-mL portions of each solvent. The complete series
of extractions were made first at a pH of 3 and then again at a pH of 11. The
extracts from the back-half rinses were then combined with the extract from
the rest of the sample train. The condensate extracts were analyzed as sepa-
rate samples. Due to the large volume of water in the condensates, only the
blanks and Run 8 were extracted completely, 1-L portions of the condensate
from the other samples were extracted, and all analysis results are corrected
to the ratio of the full volume to the extracted volume.
Analysis of the methylene chloride, t-butyl methyl ether, and toluene
extracts of the MM5 train was accomplished by following the procedure outlined
in Section III.D. of "POHCs and PICs Screening Protocol" with the following
modifications.
Standards and extracts were analyzed by 6C/FID (Varian Model 2400) with
the following operating conditions:
Column: 30-m DB-1 1.5-u megabore column
Temperature program: 40°C to 200*C at 8'C/min
Carrier gas: 10 mL/min helium
Makeup gas: 20 mL/min helium
Injector temperature: 240'C
Detector: FID at 220"C
Injection volumes for the standards, the raethylene chloride, and the
t-butyl methyl ether extracts were 0.8 pL while 0.7 nL was injected for
A-38
-------
toluene samples. Results were corrected for the differences in injection
volume. Train condensates were also analyzed.
The standard stock solution for the semivolatiles was prepared according
to the procedure. However, working standards were not prepared by serial
dilution—rather, each different concentration level was prepared directly
from the stock solution.
A five-point calibration curve for semivolatile analysis was set up using
standards of 6-, 12-, 18-, 25-, and 30-pg/mL concentrations. Linearity over
the range of standards was verified by calculating the linear regression lines
and correlation coefficients for the three quantitation peaks: CIQ, Ci2» and
C1(,. Correlation coefficients were 0.9989, 0.9993, and 0.9988, respec-
tively. These values were greater than the required 0.97 in the protocol.
The requirements for precision and accuracy in the protocol were followed
with some qualification.
2.2.1 Standards
Each day of analysis, an initial daily check standard (the high concen-
tration standard) was run prior to analyzing samples. Peak areas were com-
pared with the average area of the appropriate peak from the standard curve.
If the peak areas associated with the three standard quantitation peaks (C10,
Ciz» Cn») were within ±15% of the initial calibration values, the daily qual-
ity control standard was considered to have passed. If the area of any of the
three peaks was not within ±15% of the standard peak, the check standard was
reanalyzed until there was ±15% between the check standard and standard
curve. After a day of sample analysis, a final check standard was run. Peak
areas were compared with the initial check standard as well as with the stan-
dard curve and generally were 1n the quality criteria range.
2.2.2 Samples
Duplicate sample injections were acceptable if the areas of a majority of
the major peaks were within the ±15% range from one injection to another.
A-39
-------
Complete quantltation of the C7 through C17 window in the samples was not
possible because of solvent peak interference. All sample extracts had traces
of the three extraction solvents (methylene chloride, t-butyl methyl ether,
and toluene) as a result of the extraction procedures used for the condensates
and the back-half rinses. Preliminary work with the train proof rinses showed
that peaks associated with toluene (the solvent with the highest boiling
point) eluted into the C7-C17 window. Quantitation was possible about 348 s
into the GC run. Since toluene was present in all samples, the summation of
peak areas for TCO (total chromatographable organics) was started at 348 s and
continued up to and included the retention time for C17. The C7 peak eluted
at approximately 145 s while Clo eluted at approximately 453 s. It was esti-
mated that C9 would elute at approximately 365 s; hence, the summation for TCO
includes peak areas falling in the C9-C17 window.
TCO in the semivolatile samples was normalized to dodecane (Ci2). The
average response factors for C12 from the daily initial and final check stan-
dards for each day were used to calculate the TCO found in the samples ana-
lyzed that particular day. Results, reported in ppm dodecane, were divided
into four window fractions—C7-Cio» Clo-Ci2, Ci2-Cm, and C1H-C17—as well as
a total sum for the entire C7-C17 window. Additionally, a factor of 4 (ratio
of C12 to C3) was used to convert the TCO in ppm dodecane to ppm propane.
2.3 NONVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS
Semivolatile and nonvolatile sample extraction was performed according to
the procedure given in "POHCs and PICs Screening Protocol" (Southern Research
Institute), Section III.C., with the following changes. All solvent rinses,
filter, and XAO were combined and extracted with methylene chloride, again
with methyl t-butyl ether, and a third time with toluene. Extraction blanks
were analyzed for all three solvents. No surrogate spike was used. Further
details of the extractions are given in Section 2.2.
The methylene chloride, t-butyl methyl ether, and toluene extracts from
the MM5 train components were gravimetrically analyzed without deviation in
accordance with the procedure in Section III.F. of "POHCs and PICs Screening
Protocol." The precision and accuracy of duplicate analyses were based on two
criteria:
A-40
-------
Duplicate sample weights had to be within ±20% of the average sample
weight
The difference between replicate weights had to be < 0.1 mg (the
required extent of accuracy)
A sample could fail the first test but still be within the limits of
required accuracy; hence a sample was reanalyzed only if it did not pass the
second test. Only one sample, the methylene chloride extract of the Run 7
condensate sample, did not pass the above criteria. The sample was reanalyzed
in duplicate. The results of the second analysis easily passed the precision
and accuracy criteria.
The respective method blank was subtracted from each sample. The remain-
der was multiplied by 10 to obtain the total ug per sample. Dividing by the
dry standard sample volume gave yg of sample per L of air sampled. To obtain
the ppm propane equivalent, it was assumed that half of the sample molecular
weight had no FID response; thus ppm propane was calculated:
(yg of sample/L of air sampled)-(0.5)-(24.1 yL per ymol of gas/44 yg propane
per ymol propane)
2.4 FORMALDEHYDE ANALYSIS
Formaldehyde analysis was performed according to "Determination of
Aliphatic and Aromatic Aldehydes in Polluted Airs as Their 2,4-Dinitrophenyl-
hydrazones by High Performance Liquid Chromatography," J. Chromatogr. Set., 17,
264-268 (1979). Exceptions to this procedure are as follows.
The entire impinger contents (- 200 mL) were extracted with three 5-mL
aliquots of dichloromethane. Dichloromethane was used to reduce the potential
for significant blank levels. The entire sample was extracted to improve the
method quantitation limit.
The following HPLC system and operational parameters were used for quan-
titation of the formaldehyde dinitrophenylhydrazone:
A-41
-------
Guard column: 10 cm x 4.6 mm, Whatman C-18 pellicular packing
Analytical column: Partisil 5 ODS 3, particle size 5 ym, 25 cm x 4.6 mm
ID, C-18
Detector: Spectrophotometric, 254 ran
Mobile phase: Acetonitrile/water (60/40)
Flow rate: Isocratic, 1.0 raL/min
The method accuracy was not measured from spiked air samples. The analy-
sis method accuracy was determined by analyzing spiked blank samples, i.e.,
200-mL water aliquots spiked with formaldehyde dinitrophenylhydrazone. The
average recovery was 80% with an RSD of B%.
A-42
-------
APPENDIX A-3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS
A-43
-------
Audits of sampling and laboratory activities were conducted to verify
compliance, to verify systematic accuracy and traceability, and to verify
accuracy and precision.~ The audits, along with corrective action requests for
any perceived problems, were presented to project management. Copies of the
audits were presented to department management and the QA Unit. The perceived
problems were investigated by project management and project staff. If war-
ranted, corrective actions were taken. The audit categories and the types of
correction action taken for each category are described below.
Compliance; Compliance to the plan was evaluated during on-site systems
audits and during records audits. Any compliance problems are discussed in
the appropriate technical section of the report.
Systematic accuracy/traceability; Selected data were traced through the
process. Where possible, the data were reconstructed mathematically. Any
accuracy or traceability problems noted during the audit have been corrected.
Accuracy/precision: The accuracy and precision of standards, calibra-
tion, and samples were evaluated relative to the established criteria and to
good laboratory practices. Any problems are discussed in the appropriate
technical section of the report.
A-44
-------
SECTION 1.0
SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
The project QA coordinator, Mr. Tom Dux, and a department QA coordinator,
Mr. Dennis Hooton, conducted field systems audits on 7/22/88 for the metals
and particulate tests. The department QA coordinator conducted a field sys-
tems audit on 8/2/88 for organics tests. The results of the audits, along
with the corrective action responses, were distributed on 9/19/88. The
results are summarized in this appendix.
Many of the methods used for this project were developmental and were
undergoing change based on EPA comment, up to the start of the field test.
The field audits were based on the draft plan, thus a number of deviations
were noted that were not relevant to the final plan. The deviations noted
below are only those relevant to the final plan issued on 8/16/88.
1.1 METALS AND PARTICULATE TESTS
Compliance: The sampling and sample preservation were not performed in
compliance to the draft plan. The MM5 probe nozzle was changed due to the
sample port configuration, with EPA's concurrence. The deviations were docu-
mented in the final plan. The procedures were conducted as described in the
final plan.
Documentation: Flow rates to the Orsat sampling equipment were routinely
adjusted, but the actual readings before adjustment were not documented. Only
Runs 1 and 2 documented the fact that adjustments were made.
A-45
-------
1.2 ORGANICS TEST
Compliance: The procedures were conducted as described in the final
plan.
Documentation: Traceability forms were not used for the gas bags as
required by the plan. However, the samples were adequately labeled and were
traceable to their records.
A-46
-------
SECTION 2.0
LABORATORY ACTIVITIES
A department QA coordinator, Mr. Dennis Hooton, reviewed the GC/FID cali-
bration procedures during analyses on 8/2/88. After analysis, the project's
QA coordinator, Mr. Tom Dux, reviewed the records and data for each type of
analysis, except particulates, to evaluate systematic accuracy and traceabil-
ity of reported sample results and to verify compliance to project proce-
dures. The results of each audit, along with corrective action requests, were
submitted to project management as follows: metals on 11/9/88, gases by Orsat
on 10/27/88, volatiles on 11/10/88, semivolatiles/nonvolatiles by gravimetric
on 10/27/88, semivolatiles by GC on 9/19/88 (calibration only) and 10/31/88,
and formaldehyde on 10/3/88. The results of each audit are summarized below.
2.1 METALS BY ATOMIC EMISSION AND ATOMIC ABSORPTION
Note: Cr+« data are not included in the discussion below.
2.1.1 Data Acquisition/Processing
Compliance: Original and final data for all metals were generated in
accordance with the procedures.
Svstematic accuracy/traceabi1ity: Arsenic calibration and standard prep-
aration for 9/11 were verified. Particulate impactor stage 1 data for arsenic
were verified and were traceable.
A-47
-------
2.1.2 Accuracy/Preci sion
Standards; All of the check standard criteria were met. All of the
reference standard criteria for NBS filters were met. Most of the criteria
for NBS 1643b (trace elements in water) were met; this standard is used as a.
low level accuracy check. The results for NBS filters are as follows:
Recovery (%)
NBS standard
2676 Ic or 2677 I*
2676 He or 2677 II*
2676 I lie or 2677 III*
As
93
110
102
Cd
96
102
101
Pb
97
112
104
*
As only.
Samples; Most of the accuracy (80-12056 as recovery of a spike) and pre-
cision (±20X relative to the mean) objectives were met as shown below.
According to the analyst, precision and/or accuracy may have been affected by
one or more of the following reasons; the scrubber alkali was extremely
viscous and the aqueous waste contained particulate matter.
Recovery (%)
Sample type
Scrubber effluent
Scrubber alkali
Aqueous waste
Organic waste
As
74*
119
a
118
Cd
101
110
115
99
Cr
69*
93
219*
102
Pb
81
245*
313*
105
J Spiked too low.
Did not meet objective.
A-48
-------
Precision (%)
Sample type
Run 2, front half
Run 2, back half
Scrubber effluent
Scrubber alkali
Aqueous waste
Parti cu late impactor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Cyclone
Final stage and thimble
Organic waste
As
0.55
1.3
5.9
44*
1.1
a
a
a
4.9
a
Cd
0.56
0.88
4.3
a
a
0.55
2.6
0.0
3.0
a
Cr
1.6
2.5
3.1
9.4
28*
0.3
2.7
4.2
0.97
5.2
Pb
2.0
4.9
80*
a
128*
1.9
1.4
2.8
1.6
a
* Near the detection limit.
Did not meet objective.
2.2 GASES BY ORSAT ANALYSIS
2.2.1 Data Acquisition/Processing
Compliance: Original data were generated and processed in accordance
with the procedure.
Systematic accuracy/traceabi1ity; Data for Run 9 were verified. No sys-
tematic problems were detected.
2.2.2 Accuracy/Precision
Standards: No objectives were established.
Samples; No objectives were established.
2.3 VOLATILES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY ANALYSIS
2.3.1 Data Acquisition/Processing
Compliance; Data were generated in accordance with the plan.
A-49
-------
Systematic accuracy/traceabi1Ity; The calibration curve for Ct-C% was
verified. The response factors used for C3-C7 Tedlar bag (DB-1) analysis were
not correct. The data were recalculated. The results for Run 9 samples were
traceable.
2.3.2 Accuracy/Precision
Standards: Certified standards were used for the initial calibration.
Calibration criteria for a daily standard was established as ±15* from the
initial calibration. Run 9 daily calibration was examined. The criteria was
met.
Samples; Precision objectives for samples were established as ±15* for
duplicate injections. Precision was continuously monitored. Run 9 results
were examined during the audit. The results met the criteria.
2.4 NONVOLATILES BY GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSIS
2.4.1 Data Acquisition/Processing
Compliance: Original data were generated in accordance with the
procedure.
Svstematic accuracy/traceabi1ity; The calibration check of the balance
was examined for all days. All samples from Run 9 were completely traced
through the documentation and verified. No systematic accuracy problems were
noted with the following exceptions: the individual results for triplicate
extractions of the train and condensates were first blank-corrected then
summed for a total concentration. However, some of the samples and/or blanks
had negative values. It was requested that the use of negative numbers and
values less than the detection limit be discussed in the report. The method
of calculation has been provided in the report.
Sample results were traceable with the following exceptions: the calcu-
lations in terms of ug/L and results for the total sample volume were not in
the original records audited. The formula and assumption for converting vg/L
to ppm and the sample volumes are provided in the report.
A-50
-------
2.4.2 Accuracy/Preci s1on
Standards; The accuracy objective for duplicate weighings was 0.1 rag.
This criteria was met.
Samples: The precision objective was ±20* for duplicate analyses.
Fifty-five percent of the determinations met the criteria. The remainder of
the determinations were near the detection limit of 66 jig* and should not be
considered as part of a completeness objective for precision.
2.5 SEMIVOLATILES (C7-C17) BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
2.5.1 Data Acquisition/Processing
Compliance: Original data were generated in accordance with the proce-
dure and within the holding times. Calibration deviations from the draft plan
were included in the final plan. However, final data were not calculated in
accordance with the procedure. The calibration curve was planned to be a
linear regression curve derived from calibration standard total responses vs.
total concentration. Instead, the calibration used was a response factor (RF)
derived from the daily calibration. Blank-corrected sample total responses
were planned to be used to obtain total concentration. Instead, nonblank-
corrected sample total responses were used. The deviations and justifications
are provided in the report. The results are to be blank-corrected for the
report.
Systematic accuracy/traceabi 1 ity: The calibration data for 9/20 were
verified. Methylene chloride condensate data for Run 9 were reconstructed and
thus verified. No systematic accuracy problems were noted. Data were trace-
able, with the exceptions of propane calculations for vg/L and the conversion
to ppm. The calculations for wg/L and the total sample volume were not in the
Calibration by a 1-g standard was performed before and after each set of
weighings, resulting in a mean of 1.000002 g and a standard deviation of
0.000022 g (or 22 vg) from 64 readings. If the method detection limit is
defined as 3 times the standard deviation, then the actual detection
limit is (3 x 22 vg) or 66 vg.
A-51
-------
original records audited. The formula and assumption for converting vg/L to
ppm and the sample volumes are provided in the report.
2.5.2 Accuracy/Precision
Standards: Calibration criteria for a daily standard was established as
±15* from the initial calibration. Two injections for 9/20 were examined dur-
ing the audit. The injections met the criteria.
Samples: Precision objectives for samples were established as ±15* for
duplicate injections. Precision was continuously monitored. Some of the
results were calculated and it was noted that some of the samples did not meet
criteria. The data were rechecked as appropriate.
2.6 FORMALDEHYDE BY HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY
2.6.1 Data Acquisition/Processing
Compliance; Compliance could not be determined because the procedure
referenced 1n the plan was too general. The necessary additional detail has
been provided 1n the report.
Systematic accuracy/traceabi1ity: Standard concentrations, the first
analysis curve, and Sample 9016 results were verified. Sample 9016 results
were traceable up to the formaIdehyde-DPNH (FDPNH) derivation concentration.
The conversion to free formaldehyde was not done, yet the results were pre-
sented as formaldehyde. This was discussed with project staff and the free
formaldehyde was then calculated.
2.6.2 Accuracy/Precision
Standards: The analytical standard FDPNH was synthesized and purified.
The purity had not been documented. The standard was later characterized by
high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance. The spectrum was consistent with
the proposed chemical structure and no impurities were found.
A-52
-------
An FDPNH performance standard in acetonitrile was independently prepared
from the synthesized standard. The result of 80% accuracy was well within the
60-140% accuracy objective.
Samples; Precision objectives (±15% relative to the mean) were met.
A-53
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA TABLES
B-l. CEM Data
B-2. Particulate/Particle Size Data
B-3. Metals Data
B-4. Organic Analysis Data
B-5. Formaldehyde Data
B-6. Mobay Process Data
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B-l
CEM DATA
Table B-l-1. CEM Data Summary
Table B-l-2. CEM Calibration Summary
Table B-l-3. CEM Response Delay Times (Minutes)
Table B-l-4. CEM Data
B-2
-------
TABLE B-1-1. CEH DATA SUMMARY
CD
Run 5
Average
LOM
High
Std. deviation
Variance
Run 6
Average
LOM
High
Std. deviation
Variance
Run 7
Average
LOM
High
Std. deviation
Variance
Run 8
Average
LOM
High
Std. deviation
Variance
Run 85
Average
LOM
High
Std. deviation
Variance
o2 (?)
5.3
4.5
5.8
0.3
O.I
5.4
4.1
6.3
0.2
0.1
6.6
6.0
7.0
0.1
0.0
7.1
5.8
8.5
0.5
0.3
4.7
4.6
4.8
O.I
0.0
1 Mln avg,
5.3
4.5
5.8
0.3
O.I
5.4
4.3
6.0
0.2
0.0
6.6
6.2
6.9
0.1
0.0
7.1
5.8
8.3
0.5
0.3
4.7
4.6
4.8
O.I
0.0
, C02 (I) CO (ppm)
10.4
10.1
II. 0
0.1
0.0
10.2
9.6
10.6
0.2
0.0
9.6
9.4
10.0
0.1
0.0
10.2
9.6
10.9
0.2
0.0
10.6
10.5
10.8
O.I
0.0
124.6
48.2
221.1
40.9
1,674.0
510.6
329.4
1,003.7
82.8
6,850.1
1,098.9
781.1
1,385.8
100.3
10,052.2
2,460.2
1 ,099.9
3,157.0
446.7
199,497.0
195.5
174.3
224.8
11.4
131.1
CO (ppm)
1 mln avg.
124.6
49.4
218.2
40.7
1,655.6
510.7
332.6
799.8
79.5
6,319.6
1099.2
849.4
1,350.5
92.3
8,526.7
2,462.5
1.107.3
3,144.9
437.8
191.692.8
196.0
177.3
219.0
11.3
128.6
CO (ppM)
corrected to
110.9
43.7
198.2
38.1
1,300.7
460.2
291.3
844.0
78.3
6,133.7
1068.1
748.5
1,349.6
100.0
10,003.4
2,464.4
1,113.2
3,080.9
409.4
167.582.5
167.9
149.2
193.1
10. 1
101.4
CO (ppM)
1 Mln avg.
corrected to
71 0,
110.9
44.8
195.6
35.9
1,289.3
460.3
293.6
694.0
75.3
5,672.8
1,068.3
810.7
1,313.3
92.3
8.520.2
2,465.7
1,129.1
2,993.9
397.2
157.786.8
168.3
151.8
188.8
10.0
100.2
CO (ppM)
1 hr avg.
corrected to
7*0,
102.4
73.2
148.0
21.1
445.9
452.7
380.6
546.6
50.7
2,573.7
1,057.6
960.8
1,132.0
46.9
2.195.9
2,466.5
2,267.2
2,607.2
87.8
7.707.1
161.6
154.1
165.3
2.0
4.1
THC (ppm)
heated. Met
15.6
3.7
24.9
3.3
10.6
34.5
16.0
40.6
2.3
5.5
88.6
11.8
121.5
16.6
277.1
95.5
35.5
158.9
30.9
957.9
21.6
20.6
22.9
0.4
0.2
THC (ppM)
heated, dry
36.4
8.6
58.2
7.6
57.7
88.0
40.8
103.6
6.0
35.8
207.0
27.6
283.9
38.9
1,512.7
226.8
84.3
377.4
73.5
5,404.2
51.2
48.9
54.4
1.0
1.0
THC (ppM)
unheated
3.6
2.2
6.4
0.8
0.7
12.0
9.7
18.6
1.4
2.0
7.6
5.5
10.3
1.5
2.2
60.5
7.5
118.2
27.0
726.7
6.7
5.7
7.4
0.4
0.2
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-1-1 (continued)
CO
Run 9
Average
Low
High
Std. deviation
Variance
Run 10
Average
Low
Htgh
Std. deviation
Variance
02 (I)
2.2
2.1
2.4
0.1
0.0
4.8
4.4
5.6
0.2
0.0
1 m\n avg,
2.2
2.1
2.4
O.I
0.0
4.8
4.4
5.4
0.2
0.0
, co2 it)
12.8
12.5
13.0
0.1
0.0
10.8
10.3
11.2
0.2
0.0
CO (ppm)
3,704.5
2,870.0
4,900.7
240.8
57,999.6
2,457.5
2,155.9
2,829.4
113.9
13,018.0
CO (ppa)
1 mln avg.
3.704.6
2.920.3
4,116.3
232.2
53,897.8
2,456.5
2,227.4
2,767.8
108.4
11,740.1
CO (ppa)
corrected to
71 0,
2,761.9
2,149.8
3,643.6
177.6
31,554.3
2,128.4
1,837.0
2,461.9
113.6
12,948.5
CO (ppn)
1 mln avg.
corrected to
71 0,
2,761.9
2,189.8
3,069.2
170.9
29,216.6
2,127.4
1.901.8
2.426.4
108.9
11,863.0
CO (ppa)
1 hr avg.
corrected to
7*02
2,762.4
2,656.2
2,904.2
63.2
3,989.4
2,153.0
2,035.9
2 ,274. 1
62.3
3,887.0
THC (ppm)
heated, wet
71.3
44.1
104.3
11.8
139.6
33.7
26.5
42.8
2.9
8.3
THC (ppm)
heated, dry
199.1
123.2
291.3
33.0
1.089.4
85.6
67.4
108.9
7.3
53.7
THC (ppm)
unheated
61.4
41.5
101.2
10.5
109.2
18.0
13.1
27.6
2.8
7.9
-------
TABLE B-l-2. CEM CALIBRATION SUMMARY
Parameter
Run 5
(1416-1735)
02
CO 2
CO
THC
UTHC
Run 6
(1335-1339, 1347-1732)
oa
CO 2
CO
THC
UTHC
Run 7
(1100-1424)
02
CO 2
CO
THC
UTHC
Run 8
(0945-1309)
02
C02
CO
Run 8A
(0943-0959)
THC
UTHC
Run 8B
(1006-1100)
THC
UTHC
Zero
Initial
3.67
3.45
5.75
7.13
14.84
2.73
2.87
2.05
2.57
15.87
1.59
2.53
2.11
4.36
3.69
1.56
2.82
1.97
3.75
4.36
3.28
4.5
Final
4.07
2.56
5.98
5.32
21.34
2.86
3.21
2.53
2.45
14.1
1.91
3.36
3.32
2.31
4.29
2.01
4.11
3.06
3.28
4.5
3.17
4.23
Span
Initial
54.57
82.59
50.39
31.96
56.93
53.48
81.55
26.4
6.89
39.08
51.85
80.73
49.11
67.44
78.18
51.4
80.25
98.71
82.56
60.92
94.21
61.74
Final
54.38
81.79
49.07
31.81
67.5
53.13
80.88
25.84
7.86
36.86
51.17
80.56
48.14
74.11
58.03
51.36
80.84
98.06
94.21
61.74
76.76
61.31
Dr1fta
Zero
0.79
1.12
0.52
7.05
14.73
0.26
0.43
2.01
2.47
7.70
0.64
1.07
2.64
3.04
0.94
0.91
1.67
1.14
0.55
0.25
0.13
0.47
(*)
Span
1.17
0.11
3.53
6.47
9.22
0.95
1.29
4.36
22.40
1.96
2.01
1.29
4.75
12.93
32.36
0.99
0.91
1.81
14.28
1.20
21.08
0.28
(continued)
B-5
-------
TABLE B-l-2 (continued)
Zero
Parameter
Run 8C
(1108-1200)
THC
UTHC
Run 80
(1209-1307)
THC
UTHC
Run 8S
(1437-1508)
02
C0a
CO
THC
UTHC
Run 9
(1218-1514, 1540-1608)
02
C02
CO
Run 9A
(1215-1253)
THC
UTHC
Run 98
(1302-1352)
THC
UTHC
Run 9C
(1404-1506)
THC
UTHC
Initial
3.17
4.23
2.95
4.2
2.01
4.11
7.26
2.86
4.47
1.64
2.71
3.66
2.2
5.03
2.15
4.7
2.2
4.15
Final
2.95
4.2
2.86
4.47
2.18
4.26
6.44
2.83
5.06
1.42
2.85
4.29
2.15
4.7
2.2
4.15
2.2
4.04
Span
Initial
76.76
61.31
80.5
61.1
51.36
80.34
50.99
78.38
59.79
51.65
80.78
79.69
69.32
61.75
61.03
62.24
124.06
62.4
Final
80.5
61.1
78.38
59.79
51.25
80.53
49.58
78.42
59.49
50.94
80.41
75.01
61.03
62.24
124.06
62.4
120.24
63.14
Drift* (%}
Zero
0.29
0.05
0.12
0.48
0.35
0.20
1.89
0.04
1.08
0.44
0.18
0.86
0.08
0.58
0.06
0.95
0.00
0.19
Span
5.24
0.32
2.65
2.82
0.57
0.05
1.36
0.09
1.62
0.98
0.66
7.24
13.08
1.44
69.69
1.23
3.18
1.45
(continued)
B-6
-------
TABLE B-l-2 (continued)
Parameter
Zero
Span
Dr1fta
Initial Final Initial Final Zero Span
Run 90
(1540-1603)
THC
UTHC
Run 10
(1127-1451)
02
CO 2
CO
Run 10A
(1127-1143)
THC
UTHC
Run 10B
(1151-1257)
THC
UTHC
Run IOC
(1312-1359)
THC
UTHC
Run 100
(1408-1451)
THC
UTHC
1.75
4.04
1.63
2.15
5.21
3.33
3.83
3.06
3.9
3.06
4.04
2.8
4
1.76
4.25
2.1
2.8
4.83
3.06
3.9
3.06
4.04
2.8
4
2.71
4.1
120.24
63.14
51.16
80.29
77.91
58.1
60.81
57.55
57.81
57.14
58.4
58.02
55.62
89.29
62.96
50.84
79.92
77.3
57.55
57.81
57.14
58.4
58.02
55.62
57.76
58.28
0.01
0.36
0.96
0.84
0.52
0.49
0.13
0.00
0.26
0.48
0.08
0.16
0.19
30.06
0.66
1.61
1.31
0.32
0.51
5.54
0.76
0.83
2.09
5.17
0.31
4.84
Based on average span.
B-7
-------
TABLE B-l-3. CEM RESPONSE DELAY TIMES* (MINUTES)
Run
5
6
7
8
8S
9
10
02
3:50
2:40
3:00
3:00
3:00
3:30
3:10
C02
3:20
3:00
3:20
3:20
3:20
3:50
4:00
CO
3:40
2:50
3:10
4:00
4:00
3:00
3:40
THC
2:00
2:00
3:10
2:10
2:10
2:00
3:30
UTHC
1:30
2:20
2:00
2:10
2:10
2:00
2:00
Delay time measured to 95% of reading.
B-8
-------
Table B-l-4. CEM Data
B-9
-------
I
o
v-OO
2-50
260
240
220
200
1 50
16O
14O
12O
ICO
•50
60
40
70 -I
14.2
Run #5, CO
14,
15
15,4 15,5- 16.;
Time i.'24 hr'j
16.6
17,4
17.5
-------
K>
Run #5, CO!
fcwrfvwM/V^vT ^v'V'V^^w,^^^w^
- &
t> -
I I
14,2 14,5
T I
1-5,4
15,5 1&,2
Time (24 hr)
17,4 17.5
-------
Run $5, CO (7% Oxygen)
250 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
200 -
1 50 -
DO £ A'
^ CL
IM \ 40 ~
120 -
10-0 -
.go -
60 -
4O ~
20 -
0 ~
H
h
f
J
V
V
V , ,
\!\ /"i d
, Mh fw^1 ^ v ^
i rf** 1 j. M n ( i 1
^ I ^Jll ri/t''ll'il U •
i* K xv I ^ I i1
n ' ' i }
\«^/
.T— * T
''"W
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
k2 14,6 15 15.4 15.5 16.2 16.6 17 17,4 17
Tim 5 ('24 hr'i
-------
Q
Q
23* -I
26O
240
220
-
15O
16O
140
120
100
50
60
20' ~
Run #5, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 min avg
14,6
iH
-F
i
T
T
T
15,4 15,9 16,
Time (24 hr)
17,4
17,5
-------
fc
a
Run $5, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 hr roll avg.
v>OO
2-50 H
2SQ ~
240 -
220 ~
2QQ -
130 -
1 60 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
•5-0 -
6O ~
4O -
20 -
o
14,2
14,6
15,4
i I r i
15.5 1&.2
17,4
17,5
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run $5, CO, 1 rnin avg.
•JW
280 -
26O -
24O -
220' ~
2OO -
1 80 ~
c 1 60 ~
03 C
A, 9-
01 1 4'v'
120 -
100 ~
.50 -
60 ~
40 ~~
.*•.
':,'
t
+
; +** ^
1 _irw- *• 'fi— -^T J- "ft" -L.
™i i rp n '
-H- /+ 4=^^+ +'"l++
+ -h 4. 4 ^ + 4^"-t--+ "^
_(. jTjh Th"'" i H*H~
"V -? "^ V 4;^
\ _jjfpt"
>%fci'"
-i^n»
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i
^
"t
1
14,2
14.6
15,4 15.6 16.2
Time (24 hr)
16.6
17,4
-------
Run #5, Oxygen
»
Q m-j-
7 -
6 -
CS —.
4 -
\ /"Vv
,-v
^
O
14.&
15,4 15,5 16,2
Time (24 hr'l
16.6
T I
17,4
17,5-
-------
CO
ll
Q.
10
n ,
4 -
Run #5; Oxygen, 1 min avg
i r
T \ 1 r
14,2
14.6
15.4
15,5
16.
Time (24 hr)
17
17,4 17.5
-------
Run #5, THC (Heated, dry)
oo
so -
60 -
4O
• -30
20
14.6
J
15
T
T
15,4 15,5 16.
Time (24 hr)
—1 T
16.6
17.4
17,-5
-------
t-i a
10 CL
100
70 ~
20
10 -
1 T
14.2 14.6
Run #5, THC (Heated, dry)
THC (
15.4 15.5 1fi,
Time (24 hr)
1 T
17
17.4 17,5
-------
Run #5, THC (Heated, wet)
40 ~
20
1O -
14,2
14,
r i I i i
15 15.4 15.5
Time ('24 hr'i
1 - 1 - 1
17
17,4
17,8
-------
Run #5, THC (UnheatecD
E Q.
K>
1 -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1—
14.2 14.5 1-5 15.4 15.5 IS.2
1 1 1 1 i
17 17.4 17.8
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #6, CO
1 .1 -
1 -
0,9 -
o.a -
22-9
ppm (thousands)
(Tho usand s)
•o o -o -o
4*
-------
II
Run #6, C02
10 -
-
5 ~
7 ~
5
4
"T „
13.5
14,
15.5
Time (24 hr'i
16- .5
-------
Run #6, CO (7% Oxygen)
7CO ~
6CO -
5CO -
400 -
2CO -
ico -
V
14,5
15,5
Time (24 hr'i
17,5
-------
Run #6, CO, 1 rnin avg, (7% Oxygen)
ro O.
01 a
7CO
BOO ~~
4W ~
14,5
-t
15.5
Time i'Z4 hr)
6.5
17.5
-------
oo C
ro O.
4 -
100 -
ico -
4-.
13,5
Run #6, CO 1 hr rolL avg.
(7% Oxygen)
14.5
16.5
17,5
Time 124 hr'i
-------
Run #6, CO 1 min avq
03
a
•BOO
7C-0 -
5<>O ~
4QQ
+++ V
13,5
14,5
15,5
Time (24 hr)
17,5
-------
Run $6, Oxygen
c .•,.
*l
h f
•5 ~
1 "—
14.5
Time (24 hr)
~!—
17.5
-------
Run #6, Oxygen. 1 rnin avg
AWfVV^
03
^
U5
+J
QL
4
14,5
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #6, dry THC (heated)
a
o a
1 10
ICO -\
so
50
70 H
40 ~
?O -
14,5
Time ('24 hr'i
17,5
-------
DO £
1 10
1 co —
•go -
~
40 -
10
-
Run #6, THC (dry, heated)
THC ('Unhcated'i
14.5
16,5
Time (24 hr'j
17.5
-------
40 -
25 ~
is* CL
15 ~
1O -
5 -
Run #6, THC (heated)
.A'
14,5
Time (24 hr)
17,5
-------
Run #6, unhecited THC
7 fc
t*> Q.
15 ~
17 ~
16
15
14
13
11
10
9
a
7
•5 -
13,5
14,5
16.
Tim«; i'24 hr')
-------
Run #7, CO
oo
oo
1.4
1 .3
1,2
1 -
0.6 -
0.5 ~
0.4 ~
0,3
1 1 ,5
12.5
Time (24 hr)
14.5
-------
Run #7, C02
c
cxi I'1
12
n -
10 -
e -
c —
4 ~
fA^^^
,5 12,5
Time ('24 hr')
14,5
-------
Run #7, CO (7% Oxygen)
co
o\
,4
,3
,2
1,1 -
1 -
0.9
0,5
0.-5 ~
0.4
0.1 -
r>
10
11 ,5
12.5
Time ('24 hr')
13,5
-------
Run #7, CO (/% Oxygen), 1 min avg.
OP
I
CO
D f
« C
6 w
£t-
a
a
1.4 -
1 .2
1.1
1
0.9
0.9
0.7
O.S
0,5
0,4
0,3
0.2
0,1
11,5
12,5
Time (24 hr)
14.5
-------
Run #7, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 hr roll avg.
. .
V)
G TI
03 3 p
w ° w
°°go
a
a
1.5
1.4
1,3
1.2 -
1.1 -
0.9
0.9
0,7
0.6
O,5
0.4
0.3
O.7
y
*»««*«*^
^x
*>*"
10,5
11 .?
12,5
Time i24 hr'j
14.5
-------
Run #/, CO, 1 rnin avg
d T"
'/! c
? O v?
£§i
£t-
a
a
1,4
1 ,3
1.2
1,1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6-
0.5
0.4
0,3
0,2
-V
1 1 ,5
1
12,5
Time (24 hr)
14,5
-------
c
oo l.
o f,
10
9
•3
6 -
4 ~
2 -
1 -
Run #7, Oxygen
10,5
1 1 ,5
1-3.5
14,5
Time (24 hr)
-------
10
Run #7, Oxygen, 1 min civg
a -
Q.
4 -
"1 ~
!^^
0
10,5
1 .5
Time (24 hr)
14,5
-------
Run #7, THC (Heated, dry)
f £
CD
3CO
280
260
24O
220
200
180
1 60'
1 40
120
ICO
8O ~
10,5
1 1 .5
T
12,5
Time ('24 hr'i
b
14,5
-------
*• 9-
w Ci
240
220
2CO
190
1 fiO
1 40
120
1 CO
eo
6O
40 -
10,5
Run #7, THC (Heated, dry)
THC (Unheatcd)
11,5
1
12,5
Time (24 hr')
13,5
14,5
-------
Run #7, THC (Heated, wet)
ISO
co
14O -
130 -
1 20 -
1 10 ~
100 -
go -
•30 -
70 ~
6O -
•50 -
40 -
•3O -
20 -
10 ~
10,5
11 .
12.5
Time i'24 hr')
14,5
-------
Run #7, THC (Unheated)
£
Q-
a
n
10
9
B
CT -----i
5
4
3 H
^^V
jaw0fYWSf
'.iWiHr
10,5
1 1 .5
12,5
Time (24 hr')
l .•«, .«=,
•- i •-
14.5
-------
3.5
Run #8, CO
2.5 -
f £§
*|s
1.5 -
/ -'\n
0,5 ~
1
1 1.5
Time ('24 hr'i
9.5
1O.5
13.5
-------
Run #8, CO2
"t^
§
t'
O.
12
11 ~
10 ~
d ~
~T ^_
y
6- -
5 -
4 -
3 -
n —
l -
.'"•. —
vvv^s^
,.. ,.„—....'..., _ —,—. — .— •.•..^.-..N....— — — • ^— ~ST , " T"" " — ' — ' 1"- "'-" ~ ~"~1 "^""m-"'1"""' T' -"-- --------«-V.- .-•-..-——
9.5
10,5
1 1 ,5
Time (24 hr)
-------
3,5
Run #8, CO (7% Oxygen)
3 ~
2,5 -
co r
i. feS
00 & 3
1,5 ~
r-, "=, —
1 1 .5
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #8, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 min avg
™ £ 6
£ a 2
4-
"*"
^+
•t
•+
4-
4-
V
11.5
Time ('24 hr)
12,5
-------
Run #8, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 hr roll avg
? £§
en k W
°
3,5
2.5 -
9,5
1 1 .5
Time (24 hr)
12,5
15.5
-------
Run #8, CO, 1 rnin civg.
Tl
.- 1~
ao
Jl
3 -
2.5 ~
0,5 ~
3.5
19.5
+
*
+
*
1 1,5
Time (2.4 hrj
12,5
-------
10
Run #8, Oxygen
. <-
QD **
i to
tn i."
ro C
i>
Q,
7 -
4
3
2
1 -
10,5
1 1 .5
Time (24 hr'i
12,5
13.5
-------
Run #8. Oxygen, 1 min avg.
f~
? £
in p
a
1Q
9 -
6 -
•5
4
3 H
•9.5
1 1,5
Time (24 hr)
-tt-
+
-L
4-
12,5
-------
Run #8, THC (Heated, dry)
4CO
•
&
•35-0 ~
3OO ~
250 -
2CO ~
O
T
1 1 ,5-
Time t'24 hr)
-------
co \_
01 a
4OO
3OO -
2
too
Run #8} THC (Heated, dry)
THC
11,5
Time (24 hr)
12,5
\
JLU
-------
Run #8, THC (Heated, wet)
a
200
190
1 50
17O
160
1 50
140
1 30
120
1 OO ~
so
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 -
1 1 .5
Time (24 hr')
12,5
13
-------
Run #8, THC (Unheated)
• £
01 n
140 -
1 20 ~
1 10 ~
100-
so -
•50 -
70 -
60 ~
5O -
40 ~
•3O -
2O -
1O -
" g
1
t
1
\
•h
1
~™ 1
f- i r •"•
,5 10,5
i1
/
I
(}
,
1
1 1
;"fi/U.i 1
1 *wrinr
, ' I ' ,
" III
•jAi
it ii
11,5 12,5 1-3
Time (24 hr)
-------
CD
I
300
280 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
200 -
180 -
160 ~
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
14.6
Run #8S, CO
ppm
14.5
15.2
Time (24 hr)
-------
CO ir
I V
tn 5-'
10 i-
1 1'
O.
Run #8S, C02
12
n
7 -
c:
4
• ~
•14.6
14,5
Tirnc (24-hr)
-------
Run #8S, CO (7% Oxygen)
CO
O> r-
300
2-5O
260
240
220
20O
1 -SO
1 &'v*
140
120
100
•90
6O
40
/""' \
14.6
14,a
15.2
Time (24 hr'l
-------
CO
Run #83, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 rnin avg.
£
CL
Cu
2SO -
2 GO -
240 -
22O -
zoo -
ISO -
1 SO -
14O -
120 -
ICO -
SO -
to -
4O -
20 -
o ~
+ +
+ J. _L "*" 4- +
4- 4-4'4-4.-t-+--1-i-4-+ 4-
"T
1 1 1 1 1
14,6-
14.9
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #8S, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 hr roll avg
300
CO
I
ro
280 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
200 -
180 -
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
4O -
20 -
0
14.6
14.8
15,2
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #8S, CO, 1 min avq.
3OQ
CO
I
a
a
2SO -
240 -
220
2OO
1 6-O
1 4O
120
IvO
50
60'
40
7O
14,6
14,6
Timu (24 hr)
-------
00 C
t>
CL
4 -
•..-•
Run #8S, Oxygen
14.5
14.5
Time ('24-hr)
-------
7
Run #8S, Oxygen, 1 rnin avg
00 ,-
4 ~
LL
14.5
14,5
15.2
Time ('24-hr)
-------
Run #8S. THC (Heated, dry)
00
60 ~
50 ~
40 -
14,6
14,5
Tim«r «'24-hr')
1-5.2
-------
00
Run #8S. THC (Heated, dry)
THC lUnhsate
'70
5O -
I4.S
14,5
15.2
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #8S> THC (Heated, wet)
s &
"7O
K>
14,6
15.2
Time (24-hr)
-------
Run #8S, THC (Unheated)
A* E
<0 d
a.
10
"7 —
4 -
2 -I
O
14.6-
'-•J
14,5
Tirne (24-hr)
-------
1 -
Run #9, CO
T"
O Q.
a.
o
£
4 -
2 -
,
14
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #9, CO2
15 ~
14 ~
13 ~
12 -
11 -
10 -
+J
oo C n —
2 fc!
1' 7 ~
O.
5 ~
4 -
3 ~
2 ~
1 ~
O ~
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13
14
Time (24 hr)
-------
oo _ C
2 ~
1 -
Run #9, CO (7% Oxygen)
/•v
14
Time ('24 hr)
16
-------
4 -
Run #9, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 rnin avg.
f f'v
-O *— ,-n
2 -
1 -
12
1-3
14
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #9, CO (7% Oxygen), 1 hr roll avg
4 ~
w
12
1-3
14
Time i'24 hr'j
-------
co
a
CL
o
Run #9, CO, 1 rnin avg.
4 -
O
13
1
14
Time (24 hr')
15
16-
-------
Run #9, Oxygen
4 -
oo C
I'
0.
2 -
I _
i r
ii r
13
14
Time ('24 hr'i
-------
Run #9, Oxygen, 1 rnin avg.
4 ~
~X ~
t'
Q.
2
14
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #9, THC (Heated, dry)
oa
^ £
oo a
n.
30O
2-5O
260 -
240 -
22O -
200 -
1 SO -
1 6O ~
120
ICO
so
60
4O
20
12
14
Time (24 hr'j
-------
"
a
D.
2-5O
2&0
240
220 ~
2OO ~
ISO -
140 -
12O
ICC- -
•50 ~
40 -
Run #9, THC (Heated, dry)
TMC i'Unheated)
14
Time (24 hr)
•1 fi
-------
Run #9, THC (Heated, wet)
00
0
1 -50
140
1 30
120
1 10
ICO
90
eo
70
50
40
2O -I
10 H
o
12
14
Time i'24 hr')
-------
Run #9, THC (Unheated)
120
00
a.
a.
go -
•so -
70
60 ~
5O -
40 ~
•3O -
20 -
10 -
12
1
14
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #10 Carbon monoxide
z
ro
il
"
2,5
2.6
2,4
2,2
2
1,5
1,6
1.4
1.2
1
0,5
0,4 -
0,2 -
0
1 1
1 T~
1 4
Time ('24 hr'i
-------
Run #10 Carbon dioxide
11
10
q -
_
TO t i
CO 4j
co *
5 ~
4 -
•5 ~
11
13
Time (24 hr)
14
-------
Run #10 Carbon monoxide (7% oxygen)
CO
I
Ti
£§
ag
2,5
2,6
2.4 -I
2.2 ~
2
1.9
1.6
1,4
1.2
1
0,6
0,6
0,4
1 1
vto
>, /M
^ 1l
rt
14
Time ('24 hr'j
-------
T"
30 Q W
00
CD
in
2,8
2.6
2,4
n i
2
1.8
1.4 -
1.2 -
1 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
o
1 1
Run #10 Carbon monoxide, 1 rnin avq.
to
02')
12
~T~
13
14
15
Time (24 hr)
-------
?ll
Run #10 Carbon monoxide, 1 hr rolLavg
tc- 7% 02)
2.e H
2.6 -*
2.4 -
2.2 -
2 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1 -
0,9 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
O
11
y*s
^l|l|l>M>*H*H%ft)HM
I
12
13
Time (24 hr')
1
14
-------
Run #10 Carbon monoxide, 1 rnin avg.
-
2.6 -
2.4 ~
2.2
1.4
1.2
1
o.a
o.e
0.4
o
11
1-5
Time (24 hr)
T~
14
15
-------
Run #10 Oxygen
oo
Tt KM
T |H>
1 ~
o
11
13
Time ('24 hr')
-------
ro
oo
Co
a
5 -
4 -
Run #10 Oxygen 1 rnin Averages
1 -
1 1
12
13
Time (24 hr)
14
-------
Run #10 THC (heated)
c
a
CO p
»o CL
a
a
14O
130
120
1 10
100
go
so
70
4O -
30 -
20 -
10 H
o
11
I
14
Time i'24 hr')
-------
e
T"
t>
C
a
£
o
£
a
140 ~
130 -
120 -
1 10 -
1 OO ~
•go -
BO -
70 ~
50
40
•3O
2O
10 H
11
Run #10 THC (Heated, dry)
THC (Unhcated)
]
t . J
(5
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #10 THC (heated)
•M
t'
^
c
&
00 £
vi> a
ro
w
E
a
o.
1W -
140 -
13O -
120 -
1 10 ~
ico -
go -
•so -
70 -
GO -
50 -
4-0 -
2O -
10 -
o -
«w ^WJ/W A>\. v^H' «* .'VvVjH^
i 1 i I i i I 1
11 12 1-5 14 1
Time (24 hr)
-------
Run #10 THC (unheoted)
O>
V£>
co
c
"D
ID
C
O
a
£
Q
C"
£
a
a
140 ~
130 ~
120 ~
1 1O -
ico -
go -
•so -
70 -
Gv -
__
£'v> -
40 -
30 ~
20 -
10 -
.
_J ^__^^W,J-^ rrvu^-vh^u,A v^vv'jv"' \
O II 1 1 1 1 I
11 12 13 14 1
Time (24 hr)
-------
APPENDIX B-2
PARTICULATE/PARTICLE SIZE DATA
Table fi-2-1. H5 Data Sunmary
Table B-2-2. Method 3 (Orsat) Results
Table B-2-3. Process Feed Ash Analysis
Table B-2-4. Part1culate Raw Data
Table B-2-5. Particle Size Results
Table B-2-6. Particle Size Raw Data
B-94
-------
TABLE B-2-1. MS DATA SUMMARY
Run
1
2
3
4
Sample volume
(dson)
2.227
2.217
2.184
2.203
Moisture
(*)
55.3
59.0
55.6
59.6
Isoklnetic
(X)
99.9
99.3
99.5
100.1
TABLE B-2-2. METHOD 3 (Orsat) RESULTS
Run
1
2
3
4
C02 (*)
10.0
11.4
11.0
11.4
02 (*)
7.8
4.2
5.8
5.2
TABLE B-2-3. PROCESS FEED ASH ANALYSIS
Sample
Ash
Run 1 Organic waste
Aqueous waste
Run 2 Organic waste
Aqueous waste
Run 3 Organic waste
Aqueous waste
Run 4 Organic waste
Aqueous waste
0.136
2.96
0.045
3.07
0.064
2.71
0.034
2.96
B-95
-------
TABLE 8-2-4. PARTICULATE RAW DATA
ID
cn
Filter wt. (g)
Run
1
2
3
4
Blank
Proof
Avg. Initial wt.
1.0280
1.0171
1.0108
1.0266
1.0120
1.0088
Avg, final wt.
1.1144
1.1212
1.0997
1.1266
1.0124
1.0090
Beaker wt. (a)
Avg. Initial wt.
92.8902
102.4311
103.5872
92.9302
100.9798
103.5034
Avg. final wt.
92.8984
102.4633
103.6071
92.9512
100.9800
103.5030
Participate wt.
Filter
0.0864
0.1041
0.0889
0.1000
0.0004
0.0002
Beaker
0.0082
0.0322
0.0199
0.0210
0.0002
-0.0004
(g) t
Total
0.0946
0.1363
0.1088
0.1210
0.0006
_
-------
TABLE B-2-5. PARTICLE SIZE RESULTS
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Baseline Run
Stack Temperature: 182°F
Selected Stack Gas Parameters:
Z Water
Z C02
Z 02
52.8
10.0
7.8
Test Sample Volume (Dry Std): 42.537 ft3
Z Isokinetic : 25.6
Loading (Dry): 0.02105 Gralns/SCF .--•
Impactor Stage
Results
Net Weight (mg) Corr.
Fraction (Z of total)
Cumulative Z
(with filter)
D50 Size (microns)1
Geometric Mean Size
(microns)
1
3.20
5.51
5.51
10.20
14.3
2
2.20
3.79
9.31
5.61
7.56
Cyclone
2.85
4.91
14.22
1.38
2.78
Filter
49.78
85.78
100.00
0.01
0.167
(continued)
B-97
-------
TABLE B-2-5 (continued)
Run No. 4
Stack Temperature: 188°F
Selected Stack Gas Parameters:
Z Water
Z CO?
Z02
59.0
11.4
5.2
Test Sample Volume (Dry Std): 43.096 ft3
Z Isokinetic: 26.9
Loading (Dry): 0.02823 Gralns/SCF
Impactor Stage
Results
Met Weight (ng) Corr.
Fraction (Z of total)
Cumulative Z
(with filter)
D50 Size (microns)2
Geometric Mean Size
(microns)
1
3.36
4.26
4.26
9.61
13.9
2
3.52
4.46
8.73
5.22
7.08
Cyclone
7.35
9.32
18.05
1.22
2.53
Filter
64.6
81.95
100.00
0.01
0.160
Assumed largest particle 1s 20 Microns and 0.01 microns 1s smallest.
Assumed largest particle 1s 20 microns and 0.01 microns 1s smallest.
B-98
-------
Table B-2-6. Particle Size Raw Data
B-99
-------
INPUT DATA FOR FILE MOBAHCSB
TEST DATE - 7-19-88
PROJECT # - 91O1L3614
TEST SITE - MOBAY Incinerator Stack
RUN ID - 1-baseline
% WATER- 52. 80
% CARBON DIOXIDE= 10. OO
% CARBON MONOXIDE" 0. OO
% OXYGEN- 7.80
ANDERSEN HCSS IMPACTOR
STACK TEMPERATURE- 182.O DEGREES F.
BAR. PRESSURED
STATIC PRESSURED
AVE. DELTA P=
PITOT COEFF. -
METER TEMP.-
PROBE DIA.=
£9.22 INCHES HG
-O.15 INCHES H20
O.59 INCHES H2O
.839
99.0 DEGREES F.
O.375 INCHES
SAMPLING TIME'
PRESSURE DROP*
SAMPLER TEMP.
PARTICLE DENS=
METER VOL.-
DELTA H=
ISO.0 MIN.
O.OO INCHES HG
205.0 DEGREES F.
1
46.Ill CUBIC FEET
O.18 INCHES H2O
SAMPLE VOL.-DRY STD. -
SAMPLE VOL.-WET STD.-
STACK VELOCITY-
NOZZLE VELOCITY-
MASS COLLECTED-
LOAD ING-
LOADING (DRY) -
CALCULATED RESULTS
42.537 CU. FT.DRY MOLECULAR WT.«
90.121 CU. FT. WET MOLECULAR WT. =
3178.6 FT./MIN. % ISOKINETIC-
813.4 FT./MIN. SAMPLING RATE-ACTUAL
58.029 MG. CYCLONE BLANK-
O.O0994 GRAIN/SCF STAGE BLANK-
O.O21O5 GRAIN/SCF FILTER BLANK-
29.91
23.62
25.6
O.624 CU. FT/h
0. OOO MG.
0. OOO MG.
O.OOO MG.
STAGE *
FINAL WT
(MG)
TARE WT
(MG)
NET WT
(MG) CORRECTED
FRACTION
% OF TOTAL
CUM. %
WITH FILTER
FRACTION
% WITHOUT FILTER
CUM. %
WITHOUT FILTER
JET VEL.
(CM/SEC)
D5O SIZE
(MICRONS)
DM/DLOGD
(GRAINS/SCF)
GEO MEAN
(MICRONS)
PARTICLE
COUNT
1 2 CYCLONE FILTER
1O512.4O 1O557.75 10418.55 11922.85
10509.20 1O555.55 1O415. 7O 11873.O7
3.20
5.51
5.51
38.79
38.79
2.20
3.79
9.31
26.67
65.46
2.85
4.91
14.22
34.54
10O. 00
49.78
85.78
10O. 00
O
1O.2O
68
5.61
O. O0145
7.56
127
1.38
0. OOO80
2.78
2. 37D+04 3. 57D+O4
U.38
(2. 78
B-100
-------
FILE NAME - MOBAHCSS
RUN * - 1-baseline
LOCATION - Incinerator Stack
DATE - 7-19-88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG. =VER 01/13/88 V2
07-25-1988 10:56:25
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)* 498.935
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)* 544.499
Meter Factor* 1.012
Final Leak Rate (cu ft/min)* O.OOO
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)* 46.111
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)* 42.546
Barometric Pressure (in Hg>* 29.22
Static Pressure (Inches H2O)* -0.15
Percent Oxygen* 7. 8
Percent Carbon Dioxide* 10.0
Moisture Collected (ml)* 1012.4
Percent Water* 52. 8
Average Meter Temperature (F)* 99
Average Delta H (in H2O)* 0.18
Average Delta P (in H2O)* O.594
Average Stack Temperature (F)* 182
Dry Molecular Weight* 29.91
Wet Molecular Weight* 23.62
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H2O)> O.7658
X Isokinetic* 25.6
Pitot Coefficient* 0.84
Sampling Time (Minutes)* 180.0
Nozzle Diameter (Inches)* O.375
Stack Axis #1 (Inches)* 35.6
Stack Axis #2 (Inches)* 35.6
Rectangular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)* 8.8O
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/min)* 3, ISO
Flov Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)* 27,988
Flov rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/min)* 22,458
Flov Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)* 1O,589
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)« O.OOOO
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/scf)» 0.OOOO
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)* O.OOOO
Emission Rate (lb/hr)* O.OO
Corr. to 7X 02 t 12X CO2
O. OOOO O. OOOO
Ho Back Half Analysis
B-101
-------
• • METRIC UNITS • •
FILE NAME - HOBAHCSS
RUN * - 1-baseline
LOCATION - Incinerator Stack
DATE - 7-19-88
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meter*)* 14.128
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meter*)* 15.418
Meter Factor* 1.012
Final Leak Rate (cu m/min>- O.OOOO
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meter*)* 1.3O6
Ga* Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meter*)* 1.2O5
Barometric Pre**ure (mm Hg>* 742
Static Pre**ure (mm H2O>« -4
Percent Oxygen* 7. 8
Percent Carbon Dioxide* 10.O
Hoicture Collected (ml)- 1O12.4
Percent Water* 52.a
Average Meter Temperature (O* 37
Average Delta H (mm H2O)* 4.6
Average Delta P (mm H2O)* 15.1
Average Stack Temperature (C)* 84
Dry Molecular Weight* 29.91
Wet Molecular Weight* 23. 62
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H2O)* 3.8596
X laokinetie* 25.6
Pitot Coefficient* O.84
Sampling Time (Minute*)« ISO. 0
Nozzle Diameter (••)* 9.52
Stack Axi* *1 (Meter*)* 0.9O4
Stack Axi* #2 (Meter*)* 0.9O4
Rectangular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meter*)• O. 818
Stack Velocity (Actual, •/•in)* 969
Flov rate (Actual, Cubic •/•in)* 793
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)* 636
Flov rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)* 3OO
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)- O.OOOO
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)* 0.0
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu •)* O. O
CaiMlon Rate (kg/hr)* O.OO
No Back Half Analyal*
PROG.-VER Oi/13/aa V2
07-25-19aa 10:56:28
Corr. to 7X O2 fc 12X C(
0.0 0.0
B-102
-------
FILE NAME - HOBAHCSS
RUN # - 1-baseline
LOCATION - Incinerator Stack
DATE - 7-19-fifl
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fraction
PROBE RINSE
IMPINGERS
Probe Rina-e Blank (mg/ml)* 0. OOOO
Impinger Blank
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Stack T Meter T
) (F)
183
183
184
183
183
183
183
183
183
182
184
184
184
183
183
183
182
182
182
183
183
182
182
182
182
183
183
183
183
182
181
179
179
180
181
181
Tare Wt.
(g)
0. OOOO
O. OOOO
Tare Wt.
0. OOOO
0. OOOO
In(F)
88
88
90
91
92
92
94
96
97
97
96
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
98
99
101
1O2
102
103
1O3
104
105
106
107
1O6
1O6
1O6
1O6
107
107
108
Blank
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Vol.
(ml)
O.O
O.O
Out(F)
87
88
89
90
91
91
93
95
96
97
94
96
97
97
97
97
97
97
98
99
1O1
102
102
101
102
1O3
104
104
105
105
1O5
104
104
105
105
105
Wt. Net Wt.
(g)
0. OOOO
0. OOOO
Net Wt.
(g)
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
B-103
-------
INPUT DfiTft FOR FILE MOBAHCS3
TEST DATE - 7-22-88
PROJECT # - 91O1L3614
TEST SITE - MOBPY Incinerator Stack
RUN ID - 4-particl* sizing
* WATER= 59.OO
% CARBON DIOXIDE= 11. 4O
* CARBON MONOXIDE= O. OO
% OXYGEN- 5. 2O
ANDERSEN HCSS IMPACTOR
STOCK TEMPERATURE- IBB.O DEGREES F.
BAR. PRESSURED
STATIC PRESSURE"
AVE. DELTA P=
PITOT COEFF.-
METER TEMP.-
PROBE DIA.-
29.36 INCHES HG
-O.15 INCHES H20
0.70 INCHES H20
.839
94.0 DEGREES F.
O.375 INCHES
SAMPLING TIME'
PRESSURE DROP=
SAMPLER TEMP.
PARTICLE DENS*
METER VOL.*
DELTA H«
180.O MIN.
0.OO INCHES HG
191.0 DEGREES F.
1
46.047 CUBIC FEET
O.18 INCHES H20
CALCULATED RESULTS
SAMPLE VOL.-DRY STD.- 43.096 CU. FT.DRY MOLECULAR WT. - 3O. 03
SAMPLE VOL.-WET STD.- 1O5.112 CU. FT.WET MOLECULAR WT. - 22.93
STACK VELOCITY- 3541.6 FT./MIN. % ISOKINETIC- 26.9
NOZZLE VELOCITY- 952.3 FT./MIN. SAMPLING RATE-ACTUAL- O.73O CU. FT/M
MASS COLLECTED
LOAD ING-
LOAD ING (DRY)-
STAGE #
FINAL WT
(MG)
TARE WT
(MG)
NET WT
(MG) CORRECTED
FRACTION
% OF TOTAL
CUM. X
WITH FILTER
FRACTION
X WITHOUT FILTER
CUM. X
WITHOUT FILTER
JET VEL.
(CM/SEC)
DSC SIZE
(MICRONS)
DM/DLOGD
(GRAINS/SCF)
SEO MEAN
(MICRONS)
PARTICLE
COUNT
78.828 MG. CYCLONE BLANK-
O.O1157 GRAIN/SCF STAGE BLANK-
O.O2823 GRAIN/SCF FILTER BLANK-
1 2 CYCLONE FILTER
1O375.68 1O494.SO 1O517.10 11689.6O
O.000 MG.
O.OOO MG.
O. OOO MG.
1O372.32 1O491.28 1O5O9.75 11625.OO
3.36
4.26
4.26
23.61
23.61
3.52
4.46
8.73
24.74
48.35
7.35
9.32
18.O5
51.65
1OO. OO
64.60
'81.95
1OO. OO
O
9.61
68
5.22
127
1.22
0. OO195 O.O0171
7. 08 2. 53
3. 41D+O4 8. 39D-K>4
(1.22
(2. 53
B-104
-------
FILE NAME - MOBHCSS3
RUN * - 4-particle airing
LOCATION - Incinerator Stack
DATE - 7-22-88
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)* 599.654
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)» £45.155
Heter Factor» j.. Q12
Final Leak Rate (cu ft/min)* O.OOO
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)* 46.O47
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)* 43. 059
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)* 29.38
Static Pressure (Inchee H2O)* -0.15
Percent Oxygen* 5. 2
Percent Carbon Dioxide* 11.4
Moisture Collected (ml)* 1316.5
Percent Water* 59. Q
Average Meter Temperature (F)* 94
Average Delta H (in H2O>* O. 18
Average Delta P (in H2O)* 0.7O6
Average Stack Temperature (F>* 188
Dry Molecular Weight* 3O. 03
Net Molecular Weight* 22.93
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H20>* 0.8391
X Isokinetic* 26.9
PROG.*VER O1/13/88 V2
07-25-1988 11:42:10
Pitot Coefficient* O. 84
Sampling Time (Minutes)* ISO. 0
Nozzle Diameter ( Inches > * 0. 375
Stack Axis #1 (Inches)* 35. 6
Stack Axis *2 (Inches)* 35.6
Rectangular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)* 8.80
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/min)* 3,543
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)* 31,181
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/min)* 24,926
Flow Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)- 10,216
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight - O.OOOO
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/scf)- O.OOOO
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)* O.OOOO
Emission Rate (lb/hr)« O. OO
Corr. to 7X 02 I 12X CO2
0.OOOO O. OOOO
No Back Half Analysis
B-105
-------
• • METRIC UNITS » •
FILE NAME - HOBHCSS3
RUN # - 4-particle sizing
LOCATION - Incinerator Stack
DATE - 7-22-88
PROJECT * - 91O1L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meter*)*
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
Meter Factor*
Final Leak Rate (cu m/min)*
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meter»)»
Gae Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)*
Barometric Pressure (•• Hg)«
Static Pre««ure (•• H20)*
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (•!)*
Percent Water*
PROG.-VER 01/13/88 V2
07-25-1988 11:42:12
Average Meter Temperature (O*
Average Delta H (mm H2O>*
Average Delta P (mm H20)*
Average Stack Temperature (O*
Dry Molecular Weight-
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H2O)<
X Isokinetic*
Pitot Coefficient*
Sampling Time (Minutes)*
Nozzle Diameter (mm)*
Stack Axis #1 (Meters)*
Stack Axis *2 (Meters)*
Rectangular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)«
Flov rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)*
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)»
Flov rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)»
Partlculate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)*
Partlculate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)
Partlculate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)«
Emission Rate (kg/hr)*
Mo Back Half Analysis
IS.960
18.268
1.012
O.OOOO
1.3O4
1.219
746
-4
S.2
11.4
1316.S
59.0
35
4.6
17.9
87
3O. 03
22.93
4.2292
26.9
O. 84
ISO. 0
9.52
O. 9O4
O. 904
O. 818
1,080
883
7O6
289
O.OOOO
0.0
O.O
O. OO
Corr.
to 7X O2
0.0
12X Ct
0.0
B-106
-------
FILE NAME - HOBHCSS3
RUN * - 4-particle sizing
LOCATION - Incinerator Stack
DATE - 7-22-88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
Point #
1
2
3
4
5
&
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
PROG.-VER 01/13/aa V2
07-25-1988 11:42:14
Delta P
(in. H2O)
0.790
O.790
O.75O
O.720
O. 830
0.780
O.79O
O.770
O. 74O
O.770
O. 79O
O.700
O.600
O.610
O.76O
0.700
O.720
O.73O
O. 740
0.75O
0.750
0.720
O.760
0. 70O
O.7OO
O.71O
O. 64O
0.67O
O.63O
O. 640
O. 61O
O. 64O
O. 610
O.610
O. 620
O. 570
Delta H
(in. K2O)
O. 18
0. 18
O. 18
0.18
0. 18
0. 18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
0. 18
0. 18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
0. 18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
0.18
O. 18
0.18
O. 18
0. 18
0. 18
0. 18
0. 18
O. 18
0.18
O. 18
O. 18
O. 18
0. 18
Stack
(F)
186
187
190
189
187
187
188
19O
190
189
188
187
188
187
187
19O
187
188
187
188
187
187
189
187
188
188
187
189
188
19O
191
189
190
189
189
192
T
In(F)
84
84
89
91
92
94
95
96
98
97
97
96
97
96
96
97
96
97
96
98
95
95
98
97
99
10O
93
93
93
95
97
97
97
96
97
98
Meter T
Out ( F )
83
83
88
88
89
91
93
94
97
96
96
96
96
94
94
94
93
95
95
98
95
93
96
96
99
1OO
90
91
91
94
96
96
97
96
96
97
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fraction
PROBE RINSE
IWPINGERS
Probe Rinee Blank (mg/ral>* O.OOOO
lapinger Blank
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Vol.
(ml)
0. O
0. O
Net !
(g)
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
B-107
-------
APPENDIX B-3
METALS DATA
Table B-3-1. Process Stream Metals Data
Table B-3-2. Metals Spiking Data
Table B-3-3. Metals Particle Size Data
Table B-3-4. MM5 Metals Train Raw Data
Table B-3-5. MM5 Raw Data
B-108
-------
TABLE B-3-1. PROCESS STREAM METALS DATA
O3
O
VO
Sample name
Run 1 (baseline)
Organic waste
Aqueous waste
Tempering water*
Quench water*
Scrubber water"
Scrubber alkali
Run 2
Organic waste
Aqueous waste
Metals spike
Tempering water*
Quench water*
Scrubber water*
Scrubber alkali
Run 3
Organic waste
Aqueous waste
Metals spike
Tempering water*
Quench water*
Scrubber water
Scrubber alkali
Specific
gravity
0.97
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.53
0.97
1.04
-
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.53
0.97
1.04
-
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.53
Feedrate
(gal/m1n)
3.0
6.4
0
47
60
1.3
3.3
6.8
-
2.0
46
43
2.0
3.0
6.4
_
2.0
47
43
1.8
(kg/m1n)
11
25
0
178
227
7
12
27
0.05073
7.6
174
163
11
11
25
0.06155
7.6
178
163
10
Concentration (mcq/q - mq/kq)
As
< 24.6
1.42
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
< 0.352
< 4.27
3.04
< 0.339
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
0.644
< 4.11
2.64
< 0.311
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
0.975
Cd
< 0.167
0.0267
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
< 0.0363
< 0.0291
< 0.00172
2.200
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.0217
< 0.0279
0.0122
1.990
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
< 0.0606
Cr
5.16
0.250
0.0308
0.0308
0.0308
0.942
1.64
0.265
5,700
0.0308
0.0308
0.0308
0.845
1.65
0.131
10.500
0.0308
0.0308
0.0308
0.472
Pb
< 6.00
0.0896
0.0884
0.0884
0.0884
9.81
< 1.04
0.446
759
0.0884
0.0884
0.0884
< 0.256
< 1.00
0.167
735
0.0884
0.0884
0.0884
0.832
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3-1 (continued)
Sample rtane
Run 4
Organic waste
Aqueous waste
Metals spike
Tempering water"
Quench water"
Scrubber water
Scrubber alkali
Specific
gravity
0.97
1.04
.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.53
Feedrate
(gol/mln)
3.0
6.0
_
2.0
48
58
1.8
(kg/»1n)
11
24
0.06742
7.6
182
220
10
Concentration (mcg/g - mg/kg)
As
< 2.49
2.62
0.632
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
< 0.000664
0.460
Cd
< 0.0264
< 0.00165
1.710
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.104
Cr
1.02
0.290
4.390
0.0308
0.0308
0.0308
0.818
Pb
< 0.945
0.293
523
0.0884
0.0884
0.0884
3.23
00
I
Analysis results for single grab sample of city water used for all four runs.
-------
TABLE B-3-2. METALS SPIKING DATA
Concentration (ug/gL_
Run
2
3
4
As
< 0.339
< 0.311
0.632
Cd
2,200
1,990
1,710
Cr
5,700
10,500
4,390
Pb
759
735 .
523
B-lll
-------
TABLE B-3-3. METALS PARTICLE SIZE DATA
CD
1
I—"
I— »
ro
Sanpla n«M
Run I
HCSS Stag* 1
HCSS Stag* 2
HCSS Cyclona
HCSS Final Flltar
Total Datactad
Run 4
HCSS Staga 1
HCSS Staga 2
HCSS Cyclona
HCSS Final Flltar
Slza ranga
of fraction.
•Icront
> 10
5-10
1-5
< I
> 10
5-10
1-5
< 1
050 slza.
•Icrons
10.20
5.61
1.38
0.01
9.61
5.22
1.22
0.01
GaoMtrlc
•ean
dlMeter,
•Icrons
14.3
7.56
2.78
0.167
13.9
7.08
2.53
0.160
Distribution by
Amount In samp la.
As
< 0.0937
< 0.0937
< 0.0937
1.81
1.81
0.211
1.06
0.365
3.54
Cd
0.282
0.166
0.192
0.500
1.14
1.08
0.614
5.43
8.31
Cr
4.09
2.48
6.20
30.8
43.5
20.0
32.2
109
93.5
>8
Pb
0.383
0.562
0.141
17.7
18.8
1.38
0.256
0.652
17.5
partlcla
As
0
0
0
100
4
20
7
68
Cd
25
15
17
44
7
4
35
54
Cr
9
6
14
71
8
13
43
37
slza. I
F1>
2
3
I
94
7
1
3
88
Part.
5
4
5
86
4
5
9
82
Cusnilatlva
distribution by partlcla
•I/a. j
As
100
100
100
96
75
68
Cd
75
61
44
93
69
54
I lass than 050
Cr
91
85
71
92
79
37
Pb
98
95
94
93
92
88
Part.
95
91
86
96
91
82
Total Datactad
5.17 15.4 255
19.8
-------
TABLE B-3-4. MM5 METALS TRAIN RAW DATA
Sample
Run 1
Front half
Back half
Total
Run 2
Front half
Back half
Total
Run 3
Front half
Back half
Total
Run 4
Front half
Back half
Total
Train. proof blanks
Front half
Back half
Total
Reagent blanks
Acetone/filter
0.1N/HN03
HN03/H202
Total
As
5.26
0.326
5739-
7.01
3.53
lO-
9.18
0.258
O4~
9.84
0.189
10.0
0.557
0.134
O9T
1.13
< 0.0937
0.00102
1.13
Quantity
Cd
1.58
8.21
9755
10.1
5.26
irr
13.3
5.26
TO~
16.0
4.98
21.0
0.110
0.739
O49~
0.840
0.0119
0.000184
0.852
(uq)
Cr
12.4
4.49
1O~
24.9
2.87
zrnr
49.2
3.08
527T
39.2
9.00
3O~
4.55
0.367
OF"
2.90
0.254
0.000225
3.16
Pb
16.2
17.5
3O
7.53
16.2
23TT
7.17
15.0
2Tn:
9.01
9.60
TO"
15.0
1.65
IO~
2.31
0.588
0.247
3TTT
B-113
-------
Table B-3-5. HM5 Raw Data
B-114
-------
FILE NAME - mobmetl
RUN # - MOBAY METALS RUN 1 (BACKGROUND)
LOCATION - (today Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/13/38
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
'••itial Meter Volume (Cubic Fact) =
. rtal Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)*
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)«
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)a
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)*
Static Pressure (Inches H2O)*
Percent Oxygen-
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Average Meter Temperature (F)=
Average Delta H (in H20)=
Average Delta P (in H20)»
Average Stack Temperature (F>*
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H20> =
X Isoktnetic*
iot Coefficient*
Sampling Time (Minutes)*
Nozzle Diameter (Inches)*
Stack Axis *1 (Inches)*
Stack Axis *2 (Inches)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/ruin) *
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)*
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/min)*
Flow Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)=
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g>*
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/scf)*
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)*
Emission Rate (lb/hr)*
No Back Half Analysis
O8-1O-1988
VI
01 : 48: 37
283. 645
463. 824
1.01S
84. £60
78. 647
-O. 15
7.8
1O.O
2O67.7
53.2
96
0.37
0. 474
183
29.91
O. £857
99.9
0.84
192.0
0.271
33.6
35.6
S.91
2,855
19,737
13,334
7,074
O.0942
O.0184
O.OO66
1. 12
Leak Correction* 0. OOOO
Corr. to 7* OS.
O.O196
B-115
-------
» * METRIC UNITS * »
FILE NAME - mobmet1
RUN * - MOBAY METALS RUN 1 (BACKGROUND)
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/19/88
'"-OJECT * - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)* 10.92O
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)* 13.275
Meter Factor- 1.018
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)- 2.397
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)* 2.227
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)» 742
Static Pressure (ram H2O)» -4
PROS.»VER O3/O4/87 VI
08-10-1988 09:49:25
Leak Correction=
0. OOOC
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)
Percent Water*
7.8
10. O
2067. 7
53.3
Average Meter Temperature (O* 35
Average Delta H (mm H2O)« 14.5
Average Delta P (mm H2O>* 12.O
Average Stack Temperature (O* 84
Dry Molecular Weight* 29.91
Wet Molecular Weight* 23.32
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H£O) = 3.4558
Isokinetic* 93.9
Pitot Coefficient* O. 84
Sampling Time (Minutes)* 192.0
Nozzle Diameter (mm)* £.88
Stack Axis #1 (Meters)* O.904
Stack Axis #2 (Meters)* O. 904
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)* O. 842
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/rain)* 87O
Flow rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)* 559
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)* 448
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)* 20O
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)« 0.1
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (rag/cu m)* 42.3
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)* 15.2
Emission Rate (kg/hr)« 0.51
No Back Half Analysis
Corr. to 7X 02
44.9
B-116
-------
PILE NAME - mobnurtl
RUN 4* - MOBOY METftLS RUN 1 (BflCKGRQUND)
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DflTE - 7/19/88
PROJECT # - 3101L3614
PR06.»VER 03/O4/87 VI
oa-io-isea
int *
1
a
3
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
£0
£1
£2
S3
'+
£5
£6
27
£8
£3
30
31
32
33
34
33
38
37
38
39
40
Delta P
(in. H2O)
0.300
0. 29O
0.380
0. 36O
O. 460
0. 46O
0.520
O. 460
O.S3O
0. S40
0. S30
O. 310
0.61O
0.580
0. £20
0.61O
0.590
O. 58O
0.410
0.410
O. 38O
0.390
0.410
0. 41O
0.49O
0.490
0.520
O.52O
0. 55O
O. 540
0.520
0. 52O
O. 52O
0.31O
O. 52O
0.51O
0.520
O. 5£O
O. 4flO
0. 3OO
Delta H
(in. H2O)
0.37
0.33
0.43
O. 45
0.56
0.53
0.65
0.55
O. 66
0.66
0.66
O. 66
0.81
0.73
0.79
0. 8O
0.74
0.73
0.51
O. 47
O. 46
0.46
0.47
O. 47
0.55
O. 54
0. £1
0.62
0.64
0.64
O. 61
O. 6O
0. 6O
0.59
0. £3
O. 60
0.63
0.60
O. 59
0.61
Stack
(F)
182
182
183
183
183
133
182
183
183
183
183
182
181
182
182
181
182
182
182
183
182
183
183
133
184
184
183
183
183
133
183
133
183
133
182
183
132
183
132
182
T '
In(F)
91
91
92
94
95
36
37
38
99
100
10O
1OO
100
1OO
100
1OO
100
1OO
1OO
99
93
99
39
too
88
89
90
32
93
34
34
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
Meter T
Out (F)
31
91
91
32
92
93
94
95
95
36
97
98
98
33
98
38
38
38
33
33
33
33
1OO
1OO
83
83
83
83
SO
31
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
36
36
B-117
-------
FILE NAME - mobmetl
RUN * - MQBAY METALS RUN 1 (BACKGROUND)
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/19/88
PROJECT tt - 9101L3614
PROG.«VER 03/04/37 VI
oa-io-i9aa 09:5O:2i
1
42
43
44
43
46
47
48
0.480
0.310
0.450
O. 44O
0.370
0.380
O. 290
0.280
O. 6O
0.63
0.52
0.51
0.44
0.47
0.36
0.33
182
1B£
183
1B3
182
182
181
181
97
97
98
98
97
37
97
97
96
96
97
97
96
96
96
97
Fract ion
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fraction
PROBE RINSE
IMPINGERS
Final
(g)
O. OOOO
1. 1144
Final
(g)
92. 8984
0. OOOO
Probe Rinse Blank
OO82
OOOO
Multiple leak checks uaad. Final readings for each segment are listed belo>
LK Rate (cfm) Time (mm)
0.002O 96.OOOO
O.OO1O 96.OOOO
B-118
-------
FILE NAME - mobchrl
RUN # - MOB AY CHROMIUM RUN 1 (BACKGROUND)
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/19/88
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
PROG.=VER 03/04/67 VI
O8-1O-1988 10:14s31
.rometric Pressure (in Hg)*
Static Pressure (Inches H20)*
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Overage Delta P *
Overage Stack Temperature
-------
FILE NAME - mobchrl
RUN * - MOBAY CHROMIUM RUN 1 (BACKGROUND)
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/19/SS
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROS.»VER 03/O4/87 V:
O8-10-1988 10:14:53
xnt *
3
4
3
£
7
a
9
1O
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
13
19
30
21
as.
23
26
27
23
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
48
Dalta P
(in. H20)
O. 2OO
0. 130
O. 12O
0.060
0.320
O. 410
O. 440
O. 44O
O. 49O
O. 43O
O.44O
O. 43O
0.430
0.370
0.35O
0. 47O
O. 49O
0.430
0.390
O. 4OO
0.380
O.370
0.350
O.34O
0. 49O
O.46O
O. 480
0.310
O. 490
O.49O
O. 5OO
O.31O
O. 49O
O. 49O
Q. SOO
O. SOO
O. 59O
O.S1O
0. 36O
O. 47O
O. 46O
0. 48O
0.460
0.42O
O. 43O
O. 380
O. 39O
O. 220
Stack T
(F)
182
183
183
183
183
183
182
183
182
182
181
181
181
181
181
180
181
181
181
181
181
181
182
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
18O
180
ISO
ISO
:ao
ISO
ISO
ISO
181
181
1S1
ISO
181
130
181
181
181
ISO
B-120
-------
FILE NAME - mobmet2
RUN # - MOBRY METALS RUN £
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
SATS - 7/20/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG.*VER 03/O4/87 VI
O8-10-1383 03:38:27
.itial Meter Volume =* 0.0267
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)- 0.OO88
Emission Rate (lb/hr)» 1.62
Corr. to 7% 02
0.0223
No Back Half Analysis
B-121
-------
* * METRIC UNITS * *
FILE NAME - mobraet2
RUN » - MOBAY METALS RUN 2
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/20/88
•"-OJECT # - 91O1L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)"
Meter Factor-
Multiple leak checks, «•• end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)"
Barometric Pressure (ram Hg)«
Static Pressure (mm H2CO-
Percent Oxygen"
Percent Carbon Dioxide"
Moisture Collected (ml)"
Percent Wat er"
Average Meter Temperature (C)"
Average Delta H (mm H20>"
Average Delta P (mm H£O>"
Average Stack Temperature (C)»
Dry Molecular Weight"
Wet Molecular Weight"
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H20) =
Isokinet ic"
Pitot Coefficient"
Sampling Time (Minutes)"
Nozzle Diameter (mm)"
Stack Axis *1 (Meters)"
Stack Axis #2 (Meters)"
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)"
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)*
Flow rate (Actual, Cubic ra/min)»
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)«
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)-
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)«
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)»
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)-
Emission Rate (kg/hr)»
No Back Half Analysis
PROG."VER O2/O4/87 VI
08-10-1388 09:58:55
13.303
15.582
1.018
Leak Correction" -O. OO£
2.212
2.217
745
-4
4.2
11.4
243O.9
59.0 **Saturated Stack**
£7
14. 1
14.2
85
29.99
22.92
3.7502
99.3
0.32
192.0
e. 88
O.9O4
0. 9O4
0.&42
951
£11
490
201
O. 1
61.3
2O. 1
0.74
Corr. to 7% 02
51. 1
B-122
-------
FILE NAME - mobm«t2
RUN * - MOBAY METALS RUN £
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/so/aa
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
PROG.»VER 03/O4/87 VI
08-10-1988 09:59:22
. int #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1O
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
£0
£1
22
23
»
d5
26
27
£8
29
30
31
32
32
34
• 35
36
37
38
39
4O
Delta P
(in. H2O)
0.300
0.29O
0.470
0.460
0.530
0.560
0.580
0.58O
O. 59O
0.630
0.660
0.76O
0.60O
0.620
0.630
0.590
0.590
O.58O
O. 58O
0.570
O. 590
0.590
0.600
O. 610
0. 44O
0.440
0.530
0.510
O. 55O
0. 56O
0.580
O. 58O
o. sao
0.630
0. 6OO
0. 610
0.68O
O. 69O
0.680
O. 71O
Delta H
(in. H£0)
O. 34
0.31
O.44
O. 44
0.51
O.54
O. 57
0.56
0.57
0.61
0.65
0.76
0.62
O.61
0.62
0.57
O. 60
O.60
0.61
0.64
0. 57
O.60
0.60
0.60
O.4£
O.43
O. 51
O. SO
0.53
0.55
O.57
0.61
O.58
O. 62
O.62
O. 64
0.67
O.69
O. 68
0.71
Stack
(F)
183
183
186
186
186
186
186
186
186
186
186
185
185
186
186
186
185
185
135
135
136
186
136
136
136
136
186
186
136
186
186
185
136
136
135
185
186
136
136
186
T
In(F>
74
76
78
81
82
83
83
84
33
84
83
84
as
87
84
34
84
83
83
79
81
ao
79
79
77
78
78
78
78
79
79
ao
8O
30
80
80
SO
82
S3
as
Meter T
Out (F)
74
74
75
77
78
79
79
ao
81
81
32
82
83
84
33
34
83
83
83
81
81
80
80
30
77
73
78
78
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
• 81
8O
ai
B-123
-------
FILS NAME - mobmet£
RUN * - MOBAY METALS RUN £
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/20/88
PROJECT * - 91O1L3614
PROG.»VER 03/O4/87 VI
08-10-1988 09:39:50
1
42
43
44
43
46
47
48
0.890
0. SSO
0.300
0.480
O. 480
0.480
0.320
O. 31O
O. 69
0.65
0.48
0.48
0.45
0.47
0.32
0.31
186
186
186
186
186
186
185
185
84
84
86
86
•83
82
75
76
82
82
83
84
84
84
75
77
Fract ion
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fraction
Final Wt. Tare Wt. Blank Wt. Net Wt.
(g) (g)
o.oooo o.oooo o.oooo o.oooo
1.1212 1.0171 O. OOO4 0.1037
PROBE RINSE
IMPINSERS
Probe Rinse Blank (mg/ral)
Final Ut. Tare Wt.
(g) (g)
102.4633 102.4311
0.OOOO 0.OOOO
0.OOOO
Vol.
(ml)
10O.O
0.0
Nat Wt.
(g)
0.0322
O.OOOO
Impinger Blank (rag/ml)» O.OOOO
Multiple laak chacks used. Final readings for each segment are listed baloi
Lx Rate (cfm) Time (min)
O.O2OO 96.OOOO
O.OO8O 96.OOOO
8-124
-------
FILE NOME - mobchr£
RUN * - MOBAY CHROMIUM RUN 2
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/20/88
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
PROS.=VER 03/O4/87 VI
03-10-1988 10:13:35
Barometric Pressure (in Hg>*
Static Pressure (Inches H£0)*
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide™
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Average Delta P (in H20>»
Average Stack Temperature (F>*
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H£0) =
Pitot Coefficient*
Stack Axis 4*1 (Inches)*
Stack Axis *£ (Inches)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/ruin)*
'Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)*
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/min)*
3w Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/ruin)*
* * METRIC UNITS
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)=
Static Pressure (mm H2O)*
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Average Delta P (mm H£0)=
Average Stack Temperature (O*
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H£O)»
Pitot Coefficient*
Stack Axis #1 (Meters)*
Stack Axis *2 (Meters)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)*
P"ow rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)*
. jw rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)*
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/rnin)*
£9.33
-O. 15
4.2
11.4
£596.0
58.7 **Saturated Stack**
O. 33O
185
£3.99
££.95
0.7£5O
0.84
35.6
35.6
£.91
3, 044
£1,038
16,876
£,368
* *
745
-4
4.2
11.4
£536.0
58.7 **Saturated Stack**
13.5
85
£9.99
££.95
3.5S4O
O. 84
O. 3O4
O.9O4
0. 642
928
336
478
137
B-125
-------
FILS NflME - mobchr2
RUN * - MOBflY CHROMIUM RUN 2
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
OfiTE - 7/2O/88
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
PROG.«VER 03/O4/S7 VI
08-10-1383 10:16iO4
int
1
a
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ie
17
18
19
20
21
22
£3
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Delta P
(in. H20)
0.470
0.470
O.500
O. S4O
O. 49O
0.500
O.49O
0. 55O
0. 60O
O. 6OO
0.550
O. 62O
0.580
O. 650
0.630
0.490
0.510
O. 530
O. 49O
0.470
0. 36O
0.370
0.360
0.310
0.570
O. 55O
0.540
0.580
0.580
0.620
0.620
0.590
O. 53O
0.590
O. 580
0.630
O. 610
0. 610
0.600
O. S8O
O. 620
O. SOO
0. 53O
0. 54O
O. 430
O. 4OO
O. 4OO
0.330
Stai
-------
FILE NAME - mobmet3
RUN # - MOBAY METALS RUN 3
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DflTE - 7/2i/37
PROJECT * - 3101L3614
.itial Meter Volume (Cubic Feet) =
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)=
Meter Factor"
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)=
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)=
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)«
Static Pressure (Inches H2O)=
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide"
Moisture Collected (rnl) =
Percent Wat er*
Average Meter Temperature (F> =
Average Delta H (in H2O>»
Average Delta P (in H2O)»
Average Stack Temperature (F)=
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H20) =
* 1 sok i net i c=
Pitot Coefficient*
Sampling Time (Minutes)*
Nozzle Diameter (Inches)*
Stack Axis *1 (Inches)*
Stack Axis #2 (Inches)=
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet) -
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/rnin> =
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)=
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/rnin) =
Flow Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)»
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)=
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/scf>»
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft>»
Emission Rate (lb/hr)«
No Back Half Analysis
PROG.-VER 03/04/87 VI
08-10-1388 10:02:35
552.138
632.602
1.018
Leak Correction- 0.OOOO
81.896
77.126
29.42
-O. 13
5.8
11.0
2186.4
55.6 **Saturated Stack**
92
0.55
0. 468
183
29.33
23.32
0.6734
39.3
O. S3
132.0
0.271
35.6
35. 6
6.31
2, 814
13,451
15,638
6, 364
0.1084
O.O216
0.0077
1.29
Corr. to 7* 02
O.O139
B-127
-------
* * METRIC UNITS * *
FILE NAME - mobmet3
RUN * - MOBAY METALS RUN 3
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/21/37
•""ADJECT * - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
Final Meter volume (Cubic Meters)*
Meter Factor«
Multiple leak checks, see and of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)"
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)*
Static Pressure (mm H2O)»
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide"
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Average Meter Temperature (O*
Average Delta H (mm H2O)»
Average Delta P (mm H2O>*
Average Stack Temperature (O*
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H20)*
Isokinet ic*
Pitot Coefficient*
Sampling Time (Minutes)*
Nozzle Diameter (ram)*
Stack Axis *1 (Meters)*
Stack Axis #2 (Meters)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)*
Flow rate (Actual, Cubic m/min;*
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min>*
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)«
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g>* O.I
Partieulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)» 49. S
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu n)* 17.3
Emission Rate (kg/hr)* 0.59
No Back Half Analysis
PROG.*VER 03/04/87 VI
08-10-1988 10:03:23
15.834
17.913
1.01S
Leak Correction* O. OOO
2.319
2. 184
747
-4
5.3
11.O
2186.4
55.& **Saturated Stack**
33
13.9
11.9
84
£9.99
£3.32
3. 424O
99.5
0.33
192.0
£.88
0. 9O4
0. 9O4
0.642
858
551
445
197
Corr. to 7% 02
B-128
-------
FILE NOME - mobmetS
RUN * - MOBflY METftLS RUN 2
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DftTE - 7/£l/37
PROJECT * - 9101L2614
PROG.«VER O2/O4/87 VI
08-10-1988 10:03:50
int *
1
£
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
la
17
IS
19
£0
£l
£2
£3
•>
^5
£6
£7
23
£9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Delta P
(in. HaO)
0.210
0.220
O. 34O
0.320
0.380
0.390
O. 44O
0.430
0.540
0.510
0.500
O. 51O
0.540
O.550
0.580
0.550
0.510
O.490
0.400
0. 43O
0.450
0.450
O.43O
0.410
0.230
0.270
0.290
O. 35O
0.430
O.43O
0. 470
0.520
O. 520
0. 53O
0.590
0.550
0.570
O.S5O
O. 53O
0.520
Delta H
(in. H20)
0.26
0.27
O. 36
0.37
0.45
0.45
0.47
O. 47
0.61
0.61
0.61
O. 56
0. 60
0.62
0.66
0.62
0.59
0.54
O. 42
0. 49
0.51
0.51
0. 50
0. 47
0.22
0.27
O. 50
0.35
0.60
O.62
O. 55 •
0.62
O. 66
O. 67
O.70
0.68
0.66
O. 65
0.63
0.61
Stack
(F)
182
182
184
183
183
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
182
184
184
182
132
132
133
183
179
173
131
130
181
181
182
132
132
182
132
182
134
182
182
134
T
In(F)
86
87
87
88
90
91
91
93
94
95
96
95
95
96
97
95
92
92
94
92
94
92
91
92
82
85
37
83
87
aa
91
92
94
95
97
92
91
92
94
97
Meter T
Out (F)
86
87
87
88
88
89
90
91
92
92
94
94
94
95
96
95
94
94
94
92
92
92
92
92
32
34
34
as
35
36
87
as
39
9O
92
92
91
91
92
92
B-129
-------
FILE NAME - mobmet3
RUN # - MOBAY METALS RUN 3
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/21/87
PROJECT « - 9101L3614
PROG.=VER 03/04/87 VI
OS-1O-1988 1O:O4:19
1
42
42
44
45
46
47
48
0. 5SO
0.360
O. S4O
O. 54O
O. 55O
0.360
O. 54O
O. 570
O. SO
0.64
0. 7O
0.62
O. 62
0.63
O. 63
0.67
184
184
183
184
184
184
184
184
37
96
97
97
97
96
96
97
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
96
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fract ion
Final
(g)
0. OOOO
1.0997
Wt. Tare Wt.
(g)
O. OOOO
1.0108
Blank Wt. Nat Ut.
(g) (g)
0.OOOO O.OOOO
0.OOO4 0.0885
Final Wt. Tare Wt. Vol.
(g) (g) (ml)
PROBE RINSE 103.6O71 1O3.5872 100.0
IMPIN6ERS O.OOOO 0.OOOO 0.O
Probe Rinse Blank (mg/ml)« O.OOOO
Nat Wt,
(g)
0.0199
0.OOOO
Impinger Blank (mg/ml)
O.OOOO
Multiple l«ak check* used. Final readings for «ach segment are listed toelo
i_.* Rate (cfra) Time (min)
O.O1OO 96.OOOO
0.OO9O 96.OOOO
B-130
-------
FILE NAME - mobchrS
RUN * - MOB AY CHROMIUM RUN 3
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/21/aa
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG.*VER 03/04/87 VI
08-10-1938 10:16:44
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)*
Static Pressure (Inches H£O)*
Percent Oxygen=
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml) a
Percent Water*
Average Delta P (in H2O)»
Overage Stack Temperature (F)-
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Overage Square Root of Delta P (in H£0)
Pitot Coefficients
Stack Axis #1 (Inches)*
Stack Axis #£ (Inches)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/ruin)*
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)=
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/ruin)
: Cubic rn/rnin)*
B-131
12. 3
34
£9.99
£3. ££
3. 5394
0.34
O. 9O4
0. 9O4
O. 64£
896
57S
£O£
-------
FILE NOME - mobchrS
RUN * - MOBftY CHROMIUM RUN 3
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DflTE - 7/21/33
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
*nt *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22.
23
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
33
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
48
PROG.=VER 03/04/87 VI
08-10-1988 10:17sl3
D»lta P
(in. H2O)
0.340
0.340
0.360
0.370
O. 35O
0.420
O. 4OO
0.490
0.500
0.530
0.600
0. 62O
0.670
0.580
O. 590
0.530
0.380
0.640
0. 67O
O.SOO
0.6OO
0.460
0.450
0.430
O. 480
0.530
0.510
0.540
o. seo
0.550
0.570
0.580
0. 58O
0.310
O.53O
0.550
O. 530
0.520
0. 6OO
O.S3O
0.550
O. 53O
0.540
O. 440
0.370
0.380
0.270
0.270
Stai
(F
179
131
181
181
181
181
183
185
185
184
184
134
183
184
184
185
184
135
135
185
133
135
135
186
185
134
184
134
185
134
185
134
135
184
134
134
134
183
185
184
184
135
184
183
133
132
133
132
B-132
-------
FILE NAME - mobmet4
RUN * - MOBAY METALS RUN 4
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DOTE - 7/22/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG.*VER 03/04/87 VI
08-10-1938 10»O7:14
itial Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)*
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)*
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)*
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)*
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)*
Static Pressure (Inches H20)*
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Average Meter Temperature
Average Delta H (in H£O)=
Average Delta P
Average Stack
(in H2O)«
'emperature (F)
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P
X Isokinetic*
(in H2O):
634.316
713.972
1.018
Leak Correction* O. OOOO
S3.1O9
77.810
29.38
-0. IS
5.2
11.4
2579.8
59.6 **Saturated Stack**
94
0.36
0.539
186
3O.O3
22.86
0.7435
10O. 1
i-itot Coefficient* 0.83
Sampling Time (Minutes)* 192.0
Nozzle Diameter (Inches)* O. 271
Stack Axis #1 (Inches)* 33.6
Stack Axis *2 (Inches)* 35.6
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)* 6.91
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/min)* 3,12O
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/rnin)= £1,368
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/min)= 17,299
Flow Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)= 6,386
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weignt (g)* 0.12O6
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/scf>* 0.0233
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)* O.OO77
Emission Rate (lb/hr)* 1.43
Corr. to 7% 02
0.0212
No Back Half Analysis
B-133
-------
* * METRIC UNITS * *
FILE NAME - mobraet4
RUN * - MOBAY METALS RUN 4
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/££/88
-•M3JECT # - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Maters)*
Meter Factor*
Multiple laak checks, see end of printout
Nat Meter Voluma (Cubic Maters)*
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)*
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)*
Static Pressure (mm H20)»
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Average Meter Temperature (O*
Average Delta H (mm H£0)«
Average Delta P (mm H£0>*
Average Stack Temperature (O*
Dry Molecular Weight*
War Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H£O)*
Isokinetic*
Pitot Coefficient*
Sampling Time (Minutes)*
Nozzle Diameter (mm)*
Stack Axis *1 (Meters)*
Stack Axis *2 (Meters)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)*
Flew rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)*
Flow rate (Standard, Wat, Cubic m/min)*
Flo** rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)*
Particulate Loading - Front Half
PR06.»VER 03/O4/87 VI
08-10-1988 10:07:42
Laak Corrections
17.961
2O.£73
1.018
£.353
£.£03
746
-4
3. £
11.4
2379.8
39.6 **Saturated Stack**
35
14.3
14. £
86
30.03
£2.86
3.7473
1OO. 1
0.33
192.0
6.88
O. 9O4
0. 9O4
0.642
931
611
49O
198
o.ooo
Particulate Weight (g>* 0.1
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (rag/cu m)* 34.7
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)* 17.7
Emission Rate (kg/hr>* 0.65
Mo Back Half Analysis
to 77C 0£
48.5
B-134
-------
FILE NAME - mobm«t4
RUN # - MOBAY METALS RUN 4
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DfiTE - 7/££/88
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
PROG.-VER O3/04/87 VI
03-10-1383 10:03:10
int *
1
£
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
12
14
13
16
17
13
13
£0
81
£2
S3
£6
27
£8
£3
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
33
33
40
Delta P
(in. H20)
O. 330
0.320
0. 460
0.46O
0.500
O.49O
0.550
0.550
0.590
6.64O
O.710
0. £8O
O. 64O
0.64O
0.650
O.61O
O.6OO
0.650
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
O.56O
O. 58O
0.31O
0. 3OO
O.44O
O.460
0.520
O.54O
O.53O
0.580
O.610
0.61O
0. 64O
O.62O
0.680
0. 53O
O.770
0.72O
Delta H
(in. H2O)
0.37
O.35
0.48
0.43
0.53
O.50
0.56
0.56
0.60
0.66
0.73
O. 70
0.66
0.66
O.£7
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.60
O.60
0.60
0. £3
0.55
O.57
0.3O
O. £3
0.44
0.44
0.50
0.51
0.45
O.54
O. £0
0.53
0. £4
O. £2
0.71
0. 72
O. SO
0.75
Stack
(F)
134
185
185
185
185
136
136
136
186
186
186
186
18£
1S£
186
186
186
187
137
137
187
18£
187
137
137
186
18£
187
187
187
189
187
186
186
186
136
186
13£
136
136
T
In(F)
82
84
85
88
91
93
94
94
95
95
94
93
95
97
98
99
10£
101
100
101
99
1OO
102
102
31
S3
88
83
30
33
33
34
36
33
101
102
102
102
100
37
Meter T
Out (F)
82
82
83
84
85
87
S3
89
30
32
32
92
93
93
94
93
98
99
99
99
99
39
99
39
92
93
92
92
92
93
93
93
94
34
36
36
98
98
98
97
B-135
-------
FILE NAME - mobm«t4
RUN * - MOBAY METALS RUN 4
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/22/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
43
44
43
46
47
44
0. 75O
0.690
O.S10
O. 47O
0. 42O
0.460
0.420
0. 44O
0.75
0.72
O. S3
0.47
0.42
0.46
0.41
0.43
186
186
186
186
186
186
186
186
PROG.»VER 03/04/87 V
08-10-1388 10:08:38
96
36
96
35
94
93
93
94
97
36
96
95
96
95
95
95
0. 0000
1.1266
0. OOOO
1.0266
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fract ion
PROBE RINSE 92.9512 92.9302
IMPINGERS 0.OOOO 0.OOOO
Probe Rinse Blank (mg/ml)= 0.OOOO
Impinger Blank (mg/ral)» O.OOOO
Final Ut. Tare Ut. Blank Ut. Net Ut.
Final Ut. Tar* Ut.
(g)
0.OOOO
O.OOO4
Vol.
(nil)
10O. 0
0.0
(g)
0, OOOO
O.0336
Nat Ut.
(g)
0.0210
O.OOOO
Multiple leak checks used. Final readings for each segment are listed belc
Lk Rate (cfra) Time (min)
0.006O 36.OOOO
0.O090 96.OOOO
B-136
-------
FILE NAME - mobchr4
RUN * - MCBAY CHROMIUM RUN 4
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/22/38
PROJECT * - 3101L3614
PROS.»VER 03/04/87 VI
08-10-1383 10:17:48
Barometric Pressure =
Pitot Coefficient^
Stack Axis #1 < Inches) *
Stack Axis #2 ( Inches) *
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet ) -
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/rnin) =
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)=
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/ruin) -
:>w Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/ruin) =
* * METRIC UNITS * *
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)=
Static Pressure (mm H20)=
Percent Oxygen=
Percent Carbon Dioxide=
Moisture Collected (ml)-
Percent Water=
Average Delta P (mm H20)=
Average Stack Temperature (C)=
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
23.38
-0. 13
S. 2
11.4
2312.8
S3. & **Saturated Stack**
0.554
136
30. O3
22.87
O.74O4
0. 84
33. &
35.6
6.31
3, 114
21,524
17,2£3
£,382
746
-4
3.2
11.4
2312.8
53.6 **Saturated Stack**
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H2O)=
Pitot Coefficient*
Stack Axis *1 (Meters)*
Stack Axis #2 (Meters)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)*
"ow rate (Actual, Cubic m/rnin) =
. .ow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)«
Flow rate (Standard,. Dry, Cubic m/rnin)*
14. 1
86
30. 03
22. 87
3.7314
0.84
0. 3O4
O.3O4
0.642
343
S10
483
138
B-137
-------
FILE NOME - mobchr4
RUN * - MOBPY CHROMIUM RUN 4
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/22/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG.»VER 03/04/87 VI
OS-1O-1988 1O:1S:18
int #
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
V
^3
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
33
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Delta P
(in. H20)
0. 4OO
0.440
0.440
0.470
0.480
0.310
0.510
O. 340
0.340
0.720
O. 740
0.760
0.760
0.680
O. 64O
O.610
0.590
0.570
0.560
0.510
0.420
O. 44O
0.340
0.330
0. 630
0.630
0.640
O.610
O. 650
0.660
O. 630
0.630
0.640
0.630
0.650
0.620
0.590
0.6-+O
O. 600
0.390
0.320
0.380
O. 510
0.510
0.370
0.370
0.390
0.320
Stac
-------
APPENDIX B-4
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA
Table B-4-1.
Table B-4-2.
Table B-4-3.
Table B-4-4.
Table B-4-5.
Table B-4-6.
Table B-4-7.
Table B-4-8.
Table B-4-9.
Table B-4-10.
Table 8-4-11.
Organic Analysis Summary
Organic Compound Boiling Point Ranges
Volatile Organlcs Data for C,-C2 Hydrocarbons
Volatile Organlcs Data for C3-C7 Hydrocarbons
Condensate Analysis for Ci-C, Hydrocarbons
Sem1volat1le Organlcs Data (C^C, Hydrocarbons)
Nonvolatile Organic Analysis Data
Nonvolatile Organic Analysis Summary
MH5 Data Summary
Method 3 (Orsat) Results
MM5 Raw Data
B-139
-------
TABLE B-4-1. ORGANIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
09
Run
as
9
6
7
8
9
10
CO
196
129
911
1,099
2,460
3.709
2,498
CO at
71 02
168
III
460
1,068
2,464
2,762
2,128
Volatile fractions
THC, hot
(ppai)
91.2
36
88
207
227
199
86
THC, cold
(PP»>
6.7
3.6
12
7.6
60.9
61.4
18
c,-c2
(PP-)
I.I
0
0
1.3
34.1
9.1
7.3
C3"°7
(PP«>
9.9
3.7
1.0
8.8
22.0
1.4
6.0
Condansata
(ppai)
11.0
2.3
13.8
19.0
70.3
6.6
30.8
Total
volatllas
(PP->
17.6
6
14.6
29.1
126.4
17.1
44.1
Non volatllas
(PP«)
.
1.6
3.4
2.0
2.1
1.3
1.3
Saailvolatllos
(PP«)
—
1.9
1.4
29.1
3.9
6.0
1.0
Total
organ Ics
(PINO
—
9.1
19.6
60.2
134.4
24.6
46.4
-------
TABLE B-4-2. ORGANIC COMPOUND BOILING POINT RANGES*
Boiling point
range ("C)
Carbon No.
Specific
hydrocarbon
Boiling point
CC)
VolatHes
-160 to -100 C,
-100 to -50 C2
-50 to 0 C,
0 to 30 C,.
30 to 60 C.
60 to 90 C,
90 to 100 C7
Semlvolatnes
100 to 300 C7-C
NonvoTatlies
> 300 > C
17
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
-161
-88
-42
0
36
69
96
17
IERL-RTP Procedure Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment,
2nd Ed., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/7-78-201, October 1978.
B-141
-------
TABLE 8-4-3. VOLATILE ORGANIC* DATA FOR C,-C, HVOROCARBON8
Average area* tram duplicate Injection*
Hun 5 Run ft Run 7 Run 6 EMU 6$ Run 9 Run 10
Tlaw Saaplc Blank Saapfe Blmk Saayla Blank Saayla Blank Saipla Blank Saaple Blank Sample Blank
60 2,573 2.219 20.213 20,196 2B.422 20,240 197,822 28,478 29,287 32,538 58,897 29.037 50,591 11,686
OO 3^i
83 24
92 7768 780 1,236 723
102 48 $90 5,283 95 4.774 6,732 649
III 376 333 1,304 1,444 1,894 2,091 1,742 1,826 1,879 1.878 1,859 1,764 1,410 1,224
C.-C, total 3,292 2,562 21,564 21,640 30,906 30,331 172.615 30,304 31,262 34,416 66,309 26.801 59,928 14,285
tMpfe araa
Avg. RF lor 4,122 4.122 3,885 3,885 4,136 4.136 4.284 4,284 4,284 4,284 4,351 4.351 4,440 4,440
propane froa
dally atda.
Total cone, a* 0.80 0.62 5.55 5.57 7.47 7.33 40.29 7.07 7.30 6.03 15.24 6.16 13.50 3.22
pa* propane
i
Methane aa 0.71 0.54 5.20 5.20 6.67 6.63 36.64 6.65 6.64 7.60 13.54 5.75 11.39 2.63
pp» propana
Acatylana aa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.26 0.16
ppa propana
Cthylana a* 0.00 0.00 O.Ot 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.23 0.00 0.02 0.00 1. 10 0.00 1.52 0.15
ppa propana
Ethan* aa 0.09 0.08 0.34 0.37 0.46 0.51 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.32 0.28
Mathana aa 2.29 1.75 16.88 16.86 22.29 22.15 119.50 21.56 22.18 24.64 43.91 18.67 36.93 6.52
pp* «athana
Acatylana aa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.40 0.23
ppa acatylana
Ethyl ana at 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 2.22 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.97 0.00 2.73 0.26
pp» a thy I ana
Ethane aa 0.13 0.12 0.49 O.S4 0.67 0.73 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.40
ppai ethane
-------
TABLE B-4-4. VOLATILE ORGANICS DATA FOR Cj-C7 HYDROCARBONS
00
I
Average areas of replicate
JsJ?.
TIM
25
30
33
35
40
44
47
55
61
66
83
90
98
112
122
162
163
169
101
198
204
248
252
total
area
Avg. propane
RF of
stds
dally
Run
Sawle
26,618
584
1.603
1,165
1,156
486
103
61
171
32.167
7,880
5
Blank
269
290
135
212
80
116
15
53
1,169
7,880
Run
Sample
5,728
1,422
319
359
520
522
13
232
49
380
416
9,960
7,335
6
Blank
417
316
238
328
93
507
18
45
69
489
2,519
7,335
Run
Saeple
71.720
1,327
1,433
3,474
439
322
829
79,544
8,673
7
Blank
503
327
222
315
too
605
6
35
60
868
3,039
8.673
Run
Sample
110,667
17,343
27.328
4.965
1,260
2,947
9,406
1,094
794
419
842
4,756
737
967
183,547
8,229
8
Blank
819
287
353
118
195
450
42
83
68
77
561
3,053
8.229
Injections
Run 8S
Saapt* Blank
47.819
966
156
307
81
348
296
73
12
59
512
47,819 2,809
8,229 8.229
Run 9
Sample Blank
10.821
2,125 1,730
65 158
235
31
665
524
158
1,076 18
305
14,611 3.320
8,377 8,377
— _
Run 10
Sample Blank
49.332
13.314
336
983
181 1,002
5,897 234
116
93
472
55.410 16.550
6.703 8.703
Cone. (p|M) 4.08 0.15 1.36 0.34 9.17 0.35 22.30 0.37 5.81 0.34 1.74 0.40 6.37 1.90
-------
TABLE B-4-5. CONDENSATE ANALYSIS, C,-C7 HYDROCARBONS
00
TIM
105
295
317
1185
1275
C,-C7 total
saiple area
Avg. propane
RF fro*
dally stds.
Run 5
676
64
5.493
90
140
6,463
4,300
T1«ea
51
63
69
88
90
104
145
165
192
202
215
223
246
273
345
385
397
405
409
426
429
504
563
Average areas fron
Run 6 Run 7
34,333 24,004
24,087
8,236
287
673
1.438
849
690
367
164
208
107
69
60
54
36
47
185
34.541 61.353
4.367 4,424
replicate Injections
Run 8 Run 8S
25,504 25.947
13.419 4.297
235.370 12.785
4.360
1.515
180
100
280,348 43.129
4.346 4,346
Run 9 Run 10
23.401 33.677
31.092 49,543
4,396
463 332
54.956 87.948
4,446 4,335
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-5 (continued)
Time
Cone, (ppm)
Ratio of
condensate
to vapor
volume
Total cone.
(PP»)
Run 5
1.50
1.5
2.25
Average
Time0 Run 6
7.91
1.75
13.84
areas from
Run 7
13.87
1.37
19.00
replicate Injections
Run 8
64.51
1.09
70.31
Run 8S
9.92
1.11
11.02
Run 9 Run 10
12.36 20.29
0.53 1.52
6.55 30.84
Runs 6 through 10 used a shorter temperature program than Run 5.
-------
TABU 8-4-6. IfiMIVOLATILE OMANICS DATA
(C.-C.7 Hydrocarbon!)
CD
i
en
Total araa of paafca
Run 9 train
A - MtCI,
B - MaCi;
Avg. - MtCI,
A - Ethar
B - Ethar
Avg. - Ethar
A - Toluana
B - Toluana
Avg. - Toluana
Total train
Run 9 condanaata
A - MaCI.
B - MaClj
Avg. - MtCI2
A - Ethar
B - Ethar
Avg. - Ethar
A - Toluana
B - Toluana
Avg. - Toluana
Total condanaata
Run 3 total
Run 6 train
A - MaCI,
B - MaCll
Avg. - MfCI2
A - Ethar
B - Ethar
Avg. - Ethar
C7-tO
96,719
99,304
90,973
30,106
433,936
330,690
23,792
25,856
30.096
33.750
453.671
21 1 ,022
78,344
79,056
92,660
74,029
CIO-I2
46.401
36,096
15,168
16,446
256,464
230,464
23,792
23.024
239,870
279,627
63,600
62,080
47.096
45,464
22,466
20.192
C12-I4
6.944
8.104
3.672
2,688
0
0
4,768
2,304
2,624
3,360
2,040
3.104
4,432
3,752
3,624
3.520
CI4-17
33,424
50,992
17,968
15,904
1 1 .648
21,280
51.936
22.480
23,104
30,624
32.200
45,056
32,166
41,448
19,120
21,600
Avg. atd.
paak8
126,320
126.320
134,160
134,160
132,664
132,664
127,976
127.976
126,320
126,320
121,636
121.636
131,066
131,066
134.160
134,160
C7-10
24.4
25.1
24.8
12.0
11.9
12.0
119.6
131.3
135.6
172.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.6
9.0
8.3
136.0
63.2
99.6
115.3
287.6
19.1
19.2
19.2
22.0
17.6
19.6
ug/at
C10-I2
11.7
9.6
10.7
3.6
4.4
4.0
71.0
63.3
67.2
81.8
6.8
7.1
7.0
60.6
70.6
65.6
19.1
16.6
18.6
91.4
173.2
11.9
11.1
11.3
3.3
4.6
5.1
aaC,2
CI2-14
1.6
2.0
1.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.4
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.8
2.5
5.2
I.I
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
-9*
CI4-17 tot-l
13.5
12.9
13.2 303.0
4.3
3.6
4.0 207.7
3.2
5.8
4.5 2,072.7
21.7 2,785.3
14.6
6.4
10.6 772.3
3.8
7.7
6.8 2,427.2
9.7
13.5
11.6 3,897.7
29.0 7,097.2
50.7 9.882.7
7.6
10.1
9.0 403.7
4.5
5.1
4.8 306.1
LI tar a Cone.* pp* a»c
•a»p lad ug/L propana
2,387 0.1
2,387 -0.1
2.387 O.I
2,387 0.2
2,387 0.2
2,3P 0.6
2,387 1.4
2,387 2.4
2,367 2.6
1,883 0.0
1 ,683 0.0
0.0
0.0
O.I
O.I
0.1
0.5
0.8
1.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-6 (continued)
Total area of peaks
A - Toluene
B - Toluene
Avg. - Toluene
Total train
Run 6 condansate
A - MeC>2
B - MeClj
Avg. - MeClj
f> A - Ether
£ B - Ether
"^ Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene
B - Toluene
Avg. - Toluene
Total condensate
Run 6 total
Run 7 train
A - MeCI2
ft » Ut*f*l
Avg. - MeClj
A - Ether
B - Ether
Avg. - Ether
C7-10
574,720
482.432
29,984
30,528
34.933
34,871
103,053
484,382
91 ,792
91 ,256
63,820
56,579
C10-12
235,136
288,736
33,440
30,016
141,126
150,550
30,451
33,712
15,888
16,488
11,568
7,024
CI2-I4
0
832
5,504
0
2,720
2,832
1,920
0
5,464
5,624
3,344
2,464
C14-I7
34,496
35,392
49,304
12,320
14,400
18,016
18,288
18,664
38,176
36,664
17,264
15,840
Avg. std.
peak*
132.664
132,664
127,976
127,976
126,320
126,320
121,636
121,636
131.088
131,088
134,160
134,160
C7-10
157.9
132.6
145.3
184.2
8.5
7.6
8.1
8.8
8.8
8.8
30.9
145.2
88.0
104.9
289. 2
22.3
22.2
22.3
15.2
13.5
14.3
ug/ei
CIO-I2
64.6
79.3
72.0
88.3
10. 1
7.5
8.8
35.6
38.0
36.8
9.1
10. 1
9.6
55.2
143.5
3.9
4.0
3.9
2.8
1.7
2.2
asC)2
C12-I4
0.0
0.2
0.2
2.1
1.6
0.0
1.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.0
0.6
2.8
4.9
1.3
1.4
1.3
0.8
0.6
0.7
ugb Liters Cone.
Cl4-!7 total *aapled ug/L
9.3
9.7
9.6 2,270.7 1,883 0.3
23.4 2,980.4 1,883 0.3
14.1
3.1
8.6 799.8 1,883 0.3
3.6
4.5
4.1 1,492.9 1,883 0.5
5.5
5.7
5.6 3,072.3 1,683 1.3
18.2 5,365.0 1,683 2.1
41.6 8,345.4 1,883 2.4
9.3
8.9
9.1 366.7 2,420 0.0
4.)
3.8
3.9 211.5 2,420 0.0
PP» asc
propane
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-6 (continued)
A - Toluene
B - Toluene
Avg, - Toluene
Total train
Run 7 condensate
A - MeCI2
B - MeCI2
Avg. - NeCI2
CO
i Due to ATT problem ,
03 A - Ether
B - Ether
Avg. - Ether
Had to use high ATT <
A - Toluene
B - Toluene
Avg. - Toluene
Total condensate
Run 7 total
Run B train
A - MeCI2 2
B - MeCI 2 2
Avg. - MeCI,
Total area of peaks
^-lO CIO-I2 CI2-14
322,688 209,216 0
336,392 223,126 0
96,739 0
10.624,00
-
there Is only one good value
3,369,600
3,946,240
an this staple, hence MMller
1)6,400 1.303.980 0
123,040 1,348,080 0
,489,961 1,611,937 3,627,627
.389.280 1,631.680 3.479,424
Avfl. sttf.
CI4-I7 "•*
19.360 132,664
11,776 132,664
13,376 127,976
127,976
per group of peaks.
126,320
10,880 126,320
peaks were not picked
8,320 121,636
11,440 121,636
1,487,253 131,068
1,289,536 131,068
C7-10
68.7
92.4
90.6
127.1
24.1
0.0
24.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
up.
35.5
36.9
36.2
60.3
187.4
605.9
581.4
593.7
ug/ei
C10-12
57.3
61.3
59.4
65.6
0.0
3,026.9
3.026.9
890.9
996.6
923.7
390.7
404.1
397.4
4,347.7
4,413.2
392.2
397.1
394.6
asC,2
C12-14
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
882.8
646.7
864.7
uo** Liters Cone.
C|« 11 total seep led ug/L
If- 17
4.2
3.2
3.7 1,936.9 2,420 -O.I
16.6 2,119.1 2,420 -O.I
3.3
0.0
3.3 87,037.8 2.420 39.9
0.0
2.7
2.7 26,409.1 2,420 10.7
2.5
3.4
3.0 12,441.9 2,420 4.9
9.0 129.884.4 2,420 91.5
29.8 127.999.9 2.420 51.3
361.9
313.8
337.9 21.909.0 2,234 9.7
ppei asc
propane
0.0
-O.I
20.4
6.1
2.8
29.2
29.1
5.5
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-6 (continued)
Total area of peaks Avg. std.
"7-10
A - Ether 63.867
B - Ether 63,147
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene 473,642
B - Toluene 540,627
Avg. - Toluene
Total train
Run 8 condensate
7 A - MeCI j 234,990
£ B - MeCI2 237,848
*° Avg. - MaClj
A - Ether 152,658
B - Ether 165,754
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene 147,200
B - Toluene 301.843
Avg. - Toluene
Total condensate
Run 8 total
CIO-I2 CI2-I4 CI4-I7 peak" C7-IO
24,575 7.216 25.584 134,160 15.2
26,831 5,360 23,904 134,160 15.0
15.1
120,480 0 11.616 132,664 130.2
115,392 0 11.424 132.664 148.6
139.4
748.1
79,000 26.048 30,016 127,976 66.9
67,368 25.984 28.128 127.976 67.8
67.3
211,680 9.568 24.640 134.160 36.3
225,872 10,400 25,344 134,160 39.2
37.7
35,880 0 11,040 121,636 44.1
23,328 0 24,736 121.636 90.5
67.3
172.4
920.5
ug/«L
C10-12
5.8
6.4
6.1
33.1
31.7
32.4
433.1
22.5
19.2
20.8
50.3
53.7
52.0
11.1
7.0
9.0
81.9
515.0
as C)2
CI2-I4
1.7
1.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
866.2
7.4
7.4
7.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
876.0
ugb Liters Cone.
^14-17 t°tal sampled ug/L
6.1
5.7
5.9 285.9 2,234 0.0
3.2
3.1
3.2 1,749.4 2,234 0.0
346.2 23,944.3 2.234 9.6
8.6
8.0
8.3 1,038.9 2,234 0.4
5.9
6.0
5.9 980.7 2,234 0.2
3.3
7.4
5.4 816.8 2.234 0.1
19.6 2,836.4 2,234 0.7
366.5 26,780.7 2.234 10.3
pp« asc
propane
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.2
O.I
0.0
0.4
5.9
Run 9 train
A - MeCI.
B - MeCI.
Avg. - NeCI2
148,549 173,958 20,938 20,555 131,088
138.965 12,497,976 26,424 46,496 131,088
36.1 42.3
33.8 3,041.4
35.0 1.541.8
5.1
6.4
5.8
5.0
11.3
8.2 15.907.5
2,244 6.9
3.9
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-ft (continued)
o>
i
A - Ether
B - Ether
Avfl. - Ether
A - Toluene
B - ToltMM
Avg. - Toluene
Total train
HMO 9 condentate
A - MeCI2
B - MeClj
Avg. - MeCI2
A - Ether
B - Ether
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene
B - Toluene
Avg. - Toluene
Total condensate
Run 9 total
Run 10 train
A - M»CI2
B - MeClj
Avg. - MeCI-
S-.0
56.528
38.752
678,54?
699,695
43.840
43.376
39,416
34,774
439.627
238.297
126,912
133,928
Total area
CIO-I2
10,928
14.480
176,064
197,312
14,976
14,016
322,273
31 1 ,594
11,360
19,408
33,272
35,176
of peak!
CI2-I4
8.304
7,824
0
0
3,552
4.896
5,248
4.768
2,400
2,464
16,942
14,920
CI4-17
20,544
20,688
13,376
15,488
14.848
13.024
28,224
21,008
23.376
28.656
37.378
24.376
Avg. itd.
peak'
134,160
134,160
132,664
132.664
127,976
127,976
134,160
134,160
121,636
121.636
131.088
131,088
C7-IO
13.4
9.2
11.3
186.4
161.3
183.8
230.2
10.9
12.4
11.6
8.7
8.3
8.5
131.8
80.4
106.1
126.2
356.4
30.8
32.6
31.7
ug/«L
CIO-I2
2.5
3.4
3.0
48.4
54.2
51.3
1596.1
3.7
4.0
3.9
76.6
74.1
75.4
3.4
4.6
4.0
63.2
1,679.4
8.1
8.6
6.3
asC|2
CI2-I4
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
.4
.4
.4
.2
.1
.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.3
M.O
4.1
3.6
3.9
ug* Liters Cone. ppei asc
CI4-I7 totil •««P'««1 ufl/L propane
.9
.9
.9 211.2 2,244 -O.I 0.0
.7
.3
.0 2,391.2 2.244 0.3 0.2
17.0 16,509.8 2.244 7.2 4.1
.7
.7
.7 817.8 2.244 0.3 0.2
.7
.0
.9 3.607.4 2,244 1.4 0.8
7.0
8.6
7.8 4,709.6 2.244 1.8 1.0
17.4 9.134.8 2.244 3.5 2.0
34.4 27.644.6 2.244 10.7 6.0
9.1
5.9
7.5 514.1 2,353 0.1 0.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-6 (continued)
A - Ether
B - Ether
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene
B - Toluene
Avg. - Toluene
Total train
Run 10 condensate
f A - MeCI.
»— * £
at B - MeCI.
t"-» *
Avg. - MeCI2
A - Ether
B - Ether
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene
B - Toluene
Avg. - Toluene
Total condensate
Run 10 total
Method blank train
A - MeCI 2
B - MeCI2
Avg. - M«CI.
C7-IO
49,006
51,008
737,625
708,705
32,704
35,312
22,129
22,487
180,870
89.584
61,808
67,600
Total area
CIO-I2
9.006
7.840
155,296
169,152
7,744
8,672
149.151
151,945
19,440
18.544
29,584
32.136
of peaks
CI2-I4
2,496
2.304
0
0
0
0
3,808
4,096
2,192
0
2,528
1.608
CI4-I7
20.896
17,472
19,520
19,200
1 1 ,728
10.816
26,208
24,048
19,792
18,464
24,112
20,128
Avg. std.
peak"
134,160
134,160
132,664
132,664
127,976
127,976
134,160
134,160
121,636
121.636
131,088
131,088
C7-IO
11.7
13.9
12.8
202.7
194.8
198.7
243.2
8.2
8.8
8.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
54.2
26.9
40.5
54.3
297.5
15.0
16.5
15.7
ug/Bi.
CIO-I2
2.1
2.1
2.1
42.7
46.5
44.6
55.0
1.9
2.2
2.0
35.5
36.1
35.8
5.8
5.6
5.7
43.5
98.6
7.2
7.8
7.5
asC,2
CI2-I4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.0
0.7
1.6
6.1
0.6
0.4
0.5
-"
CI4-I7 total
5.0
4.7
4.9 203.6
5.4
5.3
5.3 2,486.3
17.7 3,204.0
2.9
2.7
2.8 525.3
6.2
5.7
6.0 1,891.8
5.9
5.5
5.7 2,073.0
14.5 4,490.1
32.2 7,694.1
5.9
4.9
5.4 291.4
Liters Cone. ppa asc
sampled ug/L propane
2,353 -0.1 0.0
2.353 0.3 0.2
2,353 0.3 0.2
2,353 0.1 O.I
2.353 0.6 0.3
2,353 0.6 0.3
2,353 1.3 0.8
2,353 1.7 1.0
i
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-6 (continued)
O3
I
in
ro
VlO
A - Ether 60,484
B - Ether 62,120
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene 581.408
B - Toluene 603.296
Avg. - Toluene
Total train
Method blank condensate
A - MaCI2 26,576
B - MeCI2 33,136
Avg. - MeCI2
A - Ether 8,082
B - Ether 13,602
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene 113,406
B - Toluene 126,882
Avg. - Toluene
Total condensate
Method blank total
Run 6 blank train
A - M0CI2 71,680
B - MaCI2 72,144
Avg. - MeCI,
Total area
CIO-I2
184.208
130,560
237,408
228.128
10,496
14,464
139.699
135,679
19.968
10,192
26,848
33,153
of peaks
C12-I4
3,968
4,032
3,712
0
3,392
0
4,736
6,088
3,008
0
4,048
6,432
CI4-17
25,104
23,456
31,776
24.864
42,736
16.046
33,152
34,269
39,392
18,496
28,896
23,296
Avg. Std.
peak"
134,160
134.160
132,664
132,664
131,088
131.066
131,088
131,088
121.636
121,636
131,088
131,088
C7-IO
14.4
14.8
14.6
159.8
165.8
162.8
193.1
7.0
8.1
7.5
2.0
3.3
2.6
34.0
38.0
36.0
46.2
239.3
17.4
17.6
17.5
ug/ei
C10-12
43.8
31.0
37.4
65.2
62.7
64.0
108.9
2.6
3.5
3.0
33.0
33.1
33.0
4.6
3.1
3.9
40.0
148.9
6.5
8.1
7.3
asC,2
C12-I4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.5
0.8
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.9
3.0
5.5
t.O
1.6
1.3
ugb Liters Cone. pp« asc
CI4-I7 totil ""Pled ug/L propane
.0
.6
.6 587.2
.7
.8
7.8 2,355.5
18.9 3.234.2
10.4
3.9
7.2 185.2
8.1
8.3
6.2 452.0
11.8
5.5
8.7 495.1
24.0 1,132.3
43.0 4,366.5
7.0
5.7
6.4 324.3
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-6 (continued)
A -
B -
Ether
Ether
C7-10
49,376
59.530
Total aree
CIO-12
43,248
28.528
of peaks
C12-I4
11.056
5.088
CI4-17
59,616
22,352
Avg. std.
peak"
134
134
.160
,160
Avg. - Ether
A -
B -
Avg
Toluene
Toluene
. - Toluene
319.520
311,400
123,616
120.256
0
0
12,544
12,224
132
132
,664
.664
Total train
C7-10
11.7
14.2
12.9
87.8
85.6
86.7
117.1
ug/«L
C10-12
10.3
6.8
8.5
34.0
33.0
33.5
49.3
asC,2
CI2-I4
2.6
1.2
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
ug Liters Cone. PPM asc
CH_I7 total sampled ug/L propane
14.2
5.3
9.7 331.5
3.4
3.4
3.4 1.236.0
19.5 1,891.7
Run 6 blank condensate
f *-
K B-
<-> Avg
A -
B -
Avg
A -
B -
Avg
NeCI2
MeCI2
. - MeCI2
Ether
Ether
. - Ether
Toluene
Toluene
. - Toluene
59,968
47,584
8,650
8,841
281 .561
138,141
52.800
42,592
145.526
145,116
18,848
21 ,576
0
0
3,272
2,888
1,984
2.320
18,944
17,152
36,776
29.504
29.240
32,648
131
131
126
126
121
121
,5««
.544
,320
.320
.636
.636
Total condensate
Run
6 blank total
14.5
13.2
13.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
84.4
41.4
62.9
79.0
196.1
12.8
11.8
12.3
36.8
36.6
36.7
5.6
6.5
6.1
55.1
104.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
1.4
4.6
4.6
4.8
4.7 308.4
9.3
7.5
8.4 480.5
8.8
9.8
9.3 788.8
22.3 1,577.7
41.8 3,469.5
Run 7 blank train
A -
B -
Avg
NaCI2
NeClj
. - MeCI.
89,600
81,416
60.312
98,304
7,224
7,840
37.496
36.320
131
131
.088
,068
21.8
19.8
20.8
14.7
14.2
14.4
1.8
1.9
1.8
9.1
8.8
9.0 460.6
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4-6 (continued)
Total area of peak* Avg. atd.
C7-IO
A - Ether 93,323
B - Ether 46,392
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene 473.080
B - Toluene 388.067
Avg. - Toluene
Total train
Run 7 blank condenaate
A - MaCI2 40,784
B - MaCI2 40,336
1 Avg. - MeCI2
i
' A - Ether 12,464
B - Ether 1 1 ,349
Avg. - Ether
A - Toluene 212,442
B - Toluene 129.009
Avg - Toluene
Total condentate
Run 7 blank total
CIO-I2 CI2-14 CI4-17 p**k C7-IO
19,184 4,768 29,984 134.160 12.7
9,936 2.664 16.032 134,160 11.9
12.1
184.944 0 9,408 132,664 130.0
209,193 0 9,984 132,664 106.6
118.3
191.2
23,392 2,016 17,648 131,344 11.3
23.840 0 14,912 131,944 9.8
10.9
273,936 3,328 20,640 126,320 3.1
249,004 2,688 17,624 126,320 2.9
3.0
23,904 1,736 26,792 121.636 63.7
16,392 1,932 24.496 121.636 37.3
90.6
64.1
219.3
ug/at aa C,2
C10-I2
3.6
1.3
2.5
50.7
56.4
93.6
70.4
6.3
9.8
6.2
69.2
61.9
69.9
7.2
4.9
6.0
77.7
148.2
C12-14
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.9
4.6
C14-I7
6.2
3.6
9.0
2.6
2.7
2.7
16.6
4.9
3.6
4.3
9.2
4.9
4.9
8.0
7.3
7.7
16.8
33.4
ugb Liter* Cone. ppa> ase
total aaaipled ug/L propane
204.9
1.749.4
2,410.9
219.1
741.9
648.4
1,604.9
4,019.9
a Baaed on 31.9 ug/al C,2<
b Based on seepIe voluaw of 10 el.
c Conversion of (24.1 uL/uaol)/(44 ug/ueol) x ug/L of saepla.
• Blank corrected value, blanks used were as follows (ug):
Train: MaCI2 • 324.3; Ether « 331.5; Toluene • 1,745.4
Condensata: MeClj • 219.1; Ether « 480.9; Toluene > 646.4
Total blank • 3.743.2 ug
-------
TABLE B-4-7. NONVOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA*
Avg. wt. for duplicates Corrected vrt.
(9M)
Methyl ene chloride
extracts
MM5 train
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
Blank train 6
Blank train 7
Method blank
Condensate
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
Blank train 6
Blank train 7
Method blank
Ether extracts
MM5 train
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7
F\UI I /
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
Blank train 6
Blank train 7
Method blank
0.00104
0.00159
0.00113
0.00146
0.00057
0.00067
0.00088
0.00018
0.00015
0.00019
0.00055
-0.00006
0.00030
0.00026
0.00047
0.00002
0.00002
-0.00005
0.00016
0.00017
0.00013
0.00013
0.00016
0.00014
0.00018
0.00025
0.00007
8,550
14,100
9,500
12,800
3,850
4,800
-
-
—
1.737
5,276
-770
2,750
2,380
4,528
-
-
"
-200
-50
-400
-450
-150
-300
-
~
™
(continued)
B-155
-------
TABLE B-4-7 (continued)
Avg. wt. for duplicates
(g/«D
Corrected wt.
(ug)
Condensate
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
Blank train 6
Blank train 7
Method blank
Toluene extracts
MM5 train
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
Blank train 6
Blank train 7
Method blank
0.00028
0.00022
0.00029
0.00011
0.00034
0.00012
0.00006
0.00011
0.00005
0.00006
0.00006
0.00010
0.00009
0.00006
0.00003
0.00010
0.00007
0.00007
2,231
1,620
2,250
500
2.774
582
-100
-150
200
150
-150
-500
Condensate
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
Blank train 6
Blank train 7
Method blank
0.00019
0.00030
0.00067
0.00014
0.00038
0.00018
0.00001
0.00001
0.00006
1,837
2.860
6,598
1,300
3,671
1.673
-
-
* Slight variations 1n numbers nay be present due to computer
. rounding.
D Corrected by subtraction of method blank wt. and multlpUca-
tlon by 10-*L sample volume.
8-156
-------
TABLE B-4-8. NONVOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Corrected wt.
(wg)
Run 5 train
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 5 condensate
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 5 total
Run 6 train
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 6 condensate
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 6 total
Run 7 train
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 7 condensate
MeClj
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 7 total
8,550
-200
-100
8,250
1,737
2,231
1,837
5,805
14,055
14,100
-50
-150
13,900
5,276
1,620
2,860
9,756
23,656
9,500
-400
200
9,300
-770
2,250
6,598
8,078
17,378
Gas sample Concentration
volume (L) vg/L
2,387 3.5
2,387 2.4
2,387 5.9
1,883 7.4
1,883 5.2
1,883 12.6
2,420 3.8
2,420 3.3
2,420 7.2
(continued)
Concentration
ppra as propane
0.9
0.7
1.6
2.0
1.4
3.4
1.1
0.9
2.0
B-157
-------
TABLE B-4-8 (continued)
Corrected wt. Gas sanple Concentration Concentration
(wg) voluue (L) vg/L pp» as propane*
Run 8 train
MeCl i
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 8 condensate
NeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 8 total
Run 9 train
MeClz
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 9 condensate
MeCl2
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 9 total
Run 10 train
MeC12
Ether
Toluene
Subtotal
12.800
•450
150
12,500 2.234 5.6 1.5
2.750
500
1.300
4,550 2.234 2.0 0.6
17.050 2.234 7.6 2.1
3.850
-150
-150
3,550 2.244 1.6 0.4
2.380
2.774
3,671
8.826 2.244 3.9 1.1
12.376 2.244 5.5 1.5
4.800
-300
-500
4.000 2.353 1.7 0.5
(continued)
B-158
-------
TABLE B-4-8 (continued)
Corrected wt. Gas sample Concentration Concentration
(ug) volume (L) vq/L ppm as propane
Run 10 condensate
MeClj 4,528
Ether 582
Toluene
Subtotal
Run 10 total
* f*AMua**e 4 rt« n
1,673
6.783
10,783
(24.1 uL/umol
2
2
of gas)
,353 2.9
,353 4.6
0.8
1.3
(44
of propane)
Blank values (wg) as follows:
Train: Methylene chloride » 1,800; Ether « 1,800; Toluene - 700
Condensate: Methylene chloride - 200; Ether - 600; Toluene » 100
Total blank - 5,200
B-159
-------
TABLE B-4-9. MM5 DATA SUMMARY
^«^WWHWM—
Run
5
6
7
8
9
10
Saaple volme
(dscn)
2.387
1.883
2.420
2.234
2.244
2.353
Moisture
(X)
60.7
60.8
57.2
57.9
64.2
60.9
Isok1net1c
(X)
98.9
82.7
93.9
96.7
94.2
98.5
TABLE B-4-10. METHOD 3 (Orsat) RESULTS
Run C02 (X) 02 (X)
5 8.4 8.0
6 10.5 6.0
7 9.4 7.4
8 9.8 7.6
9 11.4 3.6
10 10.8 6.2
B-160
-------
Table 8-4-11. MM5 Raw Data
B-161
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSVS
RUN » - MOBAY ORGANZCS RUN 5
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
PATE - 7/26/88
PROJECT * - 91011.3614
Initial Mot*i- Volum (Cubic Fa*t>-
Final Matar Voluaa (Cubic Faat>-
Mata»« Factor*
Multiple laak cnacka, saa and of printout
Nat Matar Voluma (Cubic Faat>-
8aa UoluMt (Dry Standard Cubic Faat>»
brie Praaaura (in Hg>»
Static Praaaura Uncnas H2O)»
Pai'eant Oxygan*
Pareant Carbon Oioxida*
Moiaturv Collactad («!>•
Pai'caiiC Watar-
Avaragv Matan Tawparatura (F>-
Avaraga Dalta H (in H2O>«
Avaraga Oalta P (in H2O>»
Ovaraga Stack Tawparatura (F>»
Dry Moll
Wat Moll
rular Waight»
rular Waignt"
Ovaraga Squara Root of Dalta P (in H2O>-
* laokinatic*
Pitot Coaffieiant*
Sampling Tiwa (Minutaa)-
Norzla Diavatar (Zncnaa>»
Stack Axim *1 (Inehaa)-
Staefc Axia *8 (Incnaa)-
Circular Stack
Stack Araa (Squara Faat>-
Stacfc Velocity (Actual, Faat/min)»
Flow Rata (Actual, Cubic ft/min)-
Flot* rata (Standard, Wat, Cubic ft/win)-
Flow Rata (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/win)-
Particulat* Loading - Front Half
Par-ticulata Waignt (g>«
Particulata Loading, Dry Std. (gr/aef>*
Partieulata Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)»
Eaiiaaion Rata (lb/hr)-
No Back Half Analysis
PROS.-VER 1O/01/88 V2
10-01-1988 17M7J1S
716.377
80S.083
1.O18
Laak Correction- O.OOOO
90.224
84.298
29.32
-O. IS
0.0
8.4
2786.4
6O.7 »*Saturatad Stack**
94
0.67
0.674
187
29.66
22.59
0,8152
98.9
0.83
192.0
0.274
3S.6
35.6
6.91
3,447
23,826
19,051
7,494
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
O.OO
Corr. to 7* 02 ft 12* CO2
O.OOOO 0.OOOO
8-162
-------
» » METRIC UNITS »
FILE NAME - MOBSVS
RUN « - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 5
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/28/as
PROJECT t - 91O1L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Meter Factor*"
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Bas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)»
Barometric Pressure- (mm Hg)»
Static Pr««»ur« (mm H3O>-
P«rc«nt Oxyy«n»
Pvrcvnt Carbon Dioxide*
MoiBtur* Co11metmd -
Dry Molecular Weight-
Wet Molecular Weight"
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H2O>-
% Isokinetic"
Pitot Coefficient-
Sampling Time (MinutM)-
Nozzle Diameter (mm)>
Stack Axis ttl (Meters)-
Stack Axis «2 (Meters)-
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)-
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)»
Flow rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)-
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)-
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)-
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)«
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)»
Emission Rate (kg/hr)-
PROG.-VER 10/Ol/Sa V2
10-O1-1968 17s17s18
20.385
32.795
1.O18
Leak Correction- 0.OOOO
8.555
2.387
745'
8.0
8.4-
2766.4
SO.7 **Saturated Stack**
35
17.0
17.1
86
29.66
23.59
4. 1086
98.9
O.83
192.0
6.96
0.904
0.904
0.642
1, 051
675
539
212
0. OOOO
0.0
O.O
0.00
Corr. to 7* 02 ft 12* COS
O.O O.0
No Back Half Analysis
8-163
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSVS
RUN * - MQBAY ORGANICS RUN S
LOCATION - Mobay Kan»a» City MO
DATE - 7/38/88
PROJECT « - 9101L3614
PROS.-VER io/oi/aa va
10-OI-1988 17jl7iSl
Point *
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
ia
13
2O
31
22
as
84
as
26
ar
as
89
30
31
32
33
34
39
36
37
38
39
40
D«lta P D*lta H Stack T M*t»r> T
In(F> Out
0.830 0.77 188 88 88
0.790 1.33 175 88 89
O.820 0.69 188 9O 88
O.81O 0.76 188 91 89
O.79O O.76 188 98 9O
0.810 0.83 187 93 9O
0.800 0.78 188 94 91
0.800 0.84 187 94 98
O.81O 0.89 167 94 93
0.790 0.69 167 93 93
0.820 O.79 188 99 93
0.610 0.80 188 94 93
0.790 0.77 187 99 94
O.74O O.74 187 96 94
0.74O 0.68 168 96 99
0.79O O.76 187 94 99
O.700 O.73 187 94 99
0.7OO 0.73 187 99 99
0.63O 0.63 187 99 96
0.63O 0.60 167 99 96
O.S2O O.SO 187 99 96
O.S3O O.SO 186 9* 99
0.40O 0.39 186 94 99
0.390 0.38 186 99 96
O.49O 0.49 184 98 92
0.490 0.30 189 91 94
0.320 O.99 187 94 99
O.58O O.32 187 94 93
0.300 0.47 188 94 93
0.48O 0.44 187 93 99
0.680 0.66 187 99 93
0.700 0.67 187 99 96
0.780 0.70 167 99 96
O.7OO 0.71 187 97 97
O.860 0.89 187 98 97
0.840 0.89 167 99 98
O.810 0.88 167 98 98
0.820 0.78 188 98 98
O.810 0.77 168 96 98
0.800 0.76 188 96 98
B-164
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV5
RUN * - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 5
LOCATION - Mobay Kan*a» City MO
DATE - 7/28/88
PROJECT * - 91O1L3614
PROS.-VER 10/O1/88 VE
10-01-1988 17i17:26
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
48
O.7SO
O. 740
O.660
0.67O
O.S1O
O.S10
O.33O
0.360
0.74
0.75
0.62
O. 64
O. SO
O. 44
0.28
0.28
187
187
188
187
187
188
187
187
97
97
97
96
94
93
92
91
98
98
98
98
97
96
95
95
Fract i on
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fract ion
Final Wt. Tar* Wt.
(g) (g)
O. OOOO O.OOOO
O.OOOO O.OOOO
Final Wt. Tar* Wt.
(g) (g)
PROBE RINSE O.OOOO O.OOOO
IMPINGERS O.OOOO O.OOOO
Prob* Rins* Blank (rag/ml)» O.OOOO
Impingvr Blank (rag/ml>» O.OOOO
Blank Wt. N*t Wt.
(g) (g)
O. OOOO O.OOOO
O.OOOO 0.OOOO
Vol.
(ml)
O. O
0.0
N*t Wt.
(g)
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
Multipl* l*ak ch«ck» us*d. Final reading* for *ach »«gm»nt ar» listed b«loM
Lk Rat* (cfm) Tim* (min)
O.OO30 96.OOOO
O. OO3O 96.OOOO
B-165
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV6
RUN * - MOBAY ORSANICS RUN 6
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DOTE - 7/29/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)-
Final Meter Volume -
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)-
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)«
PROG.-VER 10/01/86 V2
io-oi-i9ae i7ii8sio
trie Pressure (in Hg>*
Statie Pressure (Inches H2O)*
Percent Oxygen-
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Water*
Average Meter Temperature (F>-
Average Delta H (in H2O)-
Average Delta P (in H2O)-
Average Stack Temperature (F>-
Dry Molecular Weight-
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H2O>«
* Isokinetic*
Pitot Coefficient-
Sampling Time (Minutes)*
Nozzle Diameter (Inches)*
Stack Axis »1 (Inches)*
Stack Axis «2 (Inches)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/win)-
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)-
Flow rate (Standard, wet. Cubic ft/mm)
Flow Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate weight (g>-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/scf)-
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/eu ft>-
Smission Rate (lb/hr)*
No Back Half Analysis
SOS.257
889.846
1.018
71.2O6
66.
Leak Correct i on— 14. 6283
29.26
-O. IS
6.0
1O. 5
2284.1
6O.8 **Saturated Stack**
94
O.60
0.614
187
29.92
22.67
O.7749
82.7
O. 83
192. O
0.274
35.6
35.6
6.91
3,274
22,632
18,057
7,071
o.oooo
0.0000
o.oooo
o.oo
Corr. to 7* 02 t 12* CO2
O.OOOO 0.OOOO
B-166
-------
» «• METRIC UNITS *
FILE NAME - MOBSV6
RUN tt - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 6
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City WO
DATE - 7/39/88
PROJECT » - 91O1L3614
PROG. -VER 10/01/88 VS
10-01-1988 17:18x12
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
6as Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)*
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)»
Static Pressure (mm H2O)-
Percent Oxygen-
Percent Carbon Dioxide-
Moisture Collected (ml)*
Percent Wat er—
Average Meter Temperature (O*
Average Delta H (mm H2O)«
Average Delta P (mm H20)«
Average Stack Temperature (C>*
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H2O> —
% Isokinetic*
Pitot Coefficient-
Sampling Time (Minutes)*
Nozzle Diameter (mm)-
Stack Axis *1 (Meters)-
Stack Axis *2 (Meters)-
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)-
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)»
Flow rate (Actual, Cubic m/min>*
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)«
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/rain)-
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)-
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)-
Emission Rate (kg/hr)*
82.802
33.197
1.O18
Leak Correction- -O.4142
a. oie
1.883
743
6.0
10.5
2284. 1
SO. 8 **8aturated Stack**
34
IS. 3
IS. &
86
29.92
22.67
3. 9OS4
82.7
0.83
192. 0
6.96
O. 9O4
O. 9O4
O. 642
998
641
511
2OO
O.OOOO
o.o
0.0
0. OO
Corr.
to 7% O2 ft
O.O
tax coa
o.o
No Back Half Analysis
8-167
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV6
RUN * - MOBPY ORGANICS RUN 6
LOCATION - Mobay Kanma* City MO
DATE - 7/29/86
PROJECT * - 910113614
PROG.-VER 1O/O1/88 V2
1O-O1-1988 17ilSil9
Point »
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14.
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
39
36
37
38
39
40
Dvlta P D«lta H Stack T M«t«r T
(in. H20> In(F) Out 93
0.610 0.67 186 99 94
O.73O O.80 186 99 99
O.730 0.80 186 94- 99
O.8OO O.83 186 99 99
0.800 0.89 186 97 96
0.760 0.76 187 97 96
0.7SO O.73 187 96 96
0.720 0^70 187 96 96
0.720 0.69 188 97 98
B-168
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV6
RUN * - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 6
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 7/39/88
PROJECT » - 9101L3614
PROG.-VER 1O/01/88 V
1O-O1-1988 17il8i3O
41
43
43
44
45
46
47
48
O. 680
O.66O
0.590
0.580
O.460
O.45O
0.300
0.390
O. 62
0.63
0.59
0.56
O. 43
0.45
O.28
0.35
188
187
187
187
188
187
188
187
97
96
96
96
97
97
96
95
98
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fraction
Final Wt. Tare Wt. Blank Ut. Net Wt.
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Final Wt. Tare Wt.
(g) (g)
PROBE RINSE O.OOOO O.OOOO
IMPINGERS O.OOOO O.OOOO
Probe Rinse Blank Time (min)
O.17OO 96.OOOO
O.OO1O 96.OOOO
B-169
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV7
RUN » - MOBAY ORGAN I CS RUN 7
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City WO
DATE - a/i/aa
PROJECT * - 91O1L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)«
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)»
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see and of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)-
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet>-
Barometric Pressure* (in Hg)«
Static Pressure (Inch** H2O>-
Par cent Oxya««~
Pat-cant Carbon Dioxida-
Moiatur* Collvetad (•!)•
Parcant Wat»r-
PROS.»VER 1O/01/88 V2
10-01-1988
T«mp«ratur«
Avvraga 0«lta H (in H20>-
Ovvrag* D«lt» P (in H2O)-
Avvrag* Stack T«mp«ratur« »
Dry Molecular Wwight-
Uvt Molecular Weight-
Avarafl* Square Root of Delta P (in H30)
* Imokinetic-
Pitot Coefficient-
Sanpling Time (Minute*) •
Nozzle DiaiMter (Inche«)»
Stack AM is »1 (Znche«)»
Stack AM is *a (Inches)"
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, Fe«t/min)-
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft /win) -
Flot» rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft /win)
FlOM Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)-
Partieulate Loading, Qry Std. (gr/scf)-
Particulate Loading, Actual (B»*/CU ft)-
Eaission Rat* (lb/hr>-
Half Analysis
891.300
982.140
1.O1B
92.437
as. 450
29.21
-O. 13
6.O
10.5
2422.2
57.2
99
0.70
O. 663
186
29.92
23. 10
0. 8O96
93.9
0.83
192. O
0.274
35.6
35.6
6.91
3,389
23,426
18,683
8,001
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
0.00
Leak Correction- O.OOOO
Corr. to 7% 02 ft 12% COS
O.OOOO O.OOOO
B-170
-------
*• » METRIC UNITS
FILE NAME - MOBSV7
RUN * - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 7
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 8/1/88
PROJECT ft - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)»
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)*
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Sas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)*
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg>-
Statie Pressure (mm H20>*
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)*>
Percent
PROB.-VER 10/O1/88 VS
10-01-1388 17U8I5S
(mm H2O>
Avsrag* Ms-tvr T«mp«ratut-« CO-
flv«rag» Delta H (mm H20)-
Avsrag* Delta P (mm H80>»
Averag* Stack T«mp«ratur-» (O-
Dry Molecular Weight*
Wet Molecular Weight*
Average Square Root of Delta P
% Isokinetic-
Pitot Coefficient*
Sampling Time (Minutec)*
Nozzle Diameter (ram)-
Stack Axis »1 (Meters)*
Stack Axis «2 (Meters)*
Circular Stack
Stack 'Area (Square Meters)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min>*
Flo** rate (Actual, Cubic M/min)*
Flo** rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)*
Flo** rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)*
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)-
Particulate Loading, Di-y Std. (mg/cu m)
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)«
Emission Rate (kg/hr)»
No Back Half Analysis
as.asa
27.810
1.018
2.618
2.420
742
6.0
10. S
2422.2
57.2
37
17.8
16.8
86
29.92
23. 1O
4.0803
93.9
0.83
192. O
6.96
O. 9O4
O. 9O4
O.642
1,033
663
529
227
O. OOOO
O. O
0.0
0.00
Leak Correction* O.OOOO
Corr. to 7% O2 . 12X CO2
O.0 O.O
B-171
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV7
RUN » - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 7
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 8/1/aa
PROJECT » - 9101L3614
PROS.«VER 10/O1/86 V2
1O-01-196S 17:13i01
Point *
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
IE
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
as
26
27
23
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
Dvlta P
(in. H20)
O.77O
0.780
0.780
0.76O
o.aio
0.800
O.79O
O.78O
O.780
O.78O
O.77O
0.780
0.720
0.74O
0.720
O.7OO
0.680
0.660
0.600
O.6OO
O. 91O
O.48O
0.320
0.320
0.620
0.600
O. 640
0.660
O.74O
0.700
O.760
0.740
0.740
0.7SO
0.810
0.790
O.47O
0.680
0.700
O.7OO
D«lta H
(in. H2O)
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.88
O. 90
0.90
O.9O
O. 89
O.83
O.9O
0.90
O. 89
0.72
0.89
O. 83
0.89
0.80
0.77
0.69
O. 68
0.61
0.99
0.39
0.39
O.70
O. 7O
O.75
O. 79
0.80
0.79
0.81
0.79
0.72
0. 7O
0.76
0.79
0.90
0.64
0.60
0.69
Stack T M»t«r T
In(F) Out(F)
183 91 91
186 93 91
186 94 92
186 97 93
186 99 94
186 99 99
186 99 96
186 1OO 96
186 100 97
18S 99 97
189 1OO 98
186 1OO 98
189 99 98
189 99 98
189 98 98
189 99 99
189 99 99
189 1OO 99
189 10O 99
184 1O1 1OO
184 100 101
184 99 100
182 99 100
183 98 100
184 97 98
184 96 99
184 96 98
184 99 98
186 1OO 98
186 1OO 99
186 98 99
187 98 98
187 98 98
188 99 98
188 99 98
187 100 99
187 102 100
188 1O1 1O1
188 101 101
187 101 101
B-172
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV7
RUN * - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 7
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 8/1/88
PROJECT « - 9101L3614
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
0.690
O.66O
O. 610
0.610
0.520
0.510
0.350
O. 36O
0.69
0.68
0.58
0.55
O. 42
0.32
0.22
O. S3.
187
187
187
187
19O
192
190
190
PROS.-VER 10/01/88 va
10-01-1988
101
1OO
1OO
99
99
99
98
98
101
101
1O1
100
100
100
100
100
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fraction
PROBE RINSE O.OOOO O.OOOO
IMPINGERS O.OOOO O.OOOO
Prob* Rins* Blank (rag/ml)* O.OOOO
Impingar Blank
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV8
RUN » - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN S
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - a/a/as
PROJECT « - 91011.3614
Initial Meter volume (Cubic Feet)-
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)-
Meter Factor—
Multiple leak chocks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)-
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)-
PROQ.-VER 10/01/86 V2
1O-O1-1988 17sl9i4A
ferae Pressure (in Hg>—
Static Pressure (Inches H2O)-
Percent Oxygen-
Percent Carbon Dioxide-
Moisture Collected (ml>-
Percent Water-
Average Meter Temperature (F)-
Average Delta H (in H2O>-
Average Delta P (in H2O>-
Average Stack Temperature
(F)
Dry Moll
Wet Moll
rular Weight-
:ular Weight-
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H2O>«
* Isokinetic—
Pitot Coefficient-
Sampling Time (Minutes)-
Nozzle Diameter (Inches)-
Stack Axis el (Inches)-
Stack Axis *2 (Inches)-
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)-
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/min)-
FloM Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/min)-
FlOM rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/win)«
Flow Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)-
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g>-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/scf)-
Partieulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)-
Emission Rate (lb/hr)-
No Back Half Analysis
.836
1066. 560
1.O18
85.214
78.891
29.21
-0.15
7.6
9.8
23O2.4
57.9
97
0.59
0.559
186
29.87
23.00
O.7364
96.7
O. 83
192.0
0.274
35.6
35.6
6.91
3,088
21, 348
17,040
7, 176
O.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0. OO
Leak Correction- O.OOOO
Corr. to 7X O2 t 12* COS
O.OOOO 0.OOOO
B-174
-------
» » METRIC UNITS *
FILE NAME - MOBSV8
RUN « - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 8
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 8/2/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)-
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)-
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)-
Static Pressure (mm H2O)-
Percent Oxygen-
Percent Carbon Dioxide-
Moisture Collected (ral>-
Percent Water-
Average Meter Temperature (O-
Average Delta H (mm H2O)-
Average Delta P (mm H2O)-
Average Stack Temperature (C>-
Dry Molecular Weight-
Wet Molecular Weight-
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H2O)-
% Isokinetic-
Pitot Coefficient-
Sampling Time (Minutes)-
Nozzle Diameter (mra)-
Stack Axis ttl (Meters)-
Stack Axis #2 (Meters)-
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)-
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)-
FloM rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)-
FIOM rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)-
Flon* rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)-
Particulate Loading — Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)-
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)»
Emission Rate (kg/hr)-
No Back Half Analysis
PR08.-VER 10/01/88 V8
10-01-1388 17il9i47
27.830
30.SOI
1.018
2.413
2. 23A
742
-4
7.6
9.8
2302. 4
37. 9
36
IS. 1
14.2
as
29.87
23.00
3.7114
96.7
O. 83
192.0
6.96
O. 9O4
O. 9O4
0.642
941
6O5
483
203
O.0000
0.0
O.O
0. OO
Leak Correction- O.OOOO
Corr. to 7% 02 * 12* CO2
0.0 O. O
B-175
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSVS
RUN » - MOBAY ORGANXCS RUN 8
LOCATION - Mobay Kanoa* City
DATE - 8/2/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG.-VER lo/oi/aa va
1O-O1-1988 17x19:50
no
Point *
1
a
3
4
9
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
ia
19
SO
21
22
£3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
33
36
37
38
39
4O
Delta P Dvlta H Stack T M«t«r T
(in. H20) (in. H2O) (F) In(F) Out
O.78O O.81 186 84 84
O.78O O.76 187 89 89
O.810 0.79 187 88 86
O.8OO 0.82 187 91 86
0.8OO 0.82 187 92 88
o.aoo 0.82 tar 92 89
O.79O O.81 187 98 89
O.79O 0.83 166 94 9O
0.790 0.78 187 96 92
0.780 O.77 187 96 93
0.680 0.76 189 97 94
O.7SO 0.79 187 99 99
0.730 0.73 187 96 99
0.790 0.79 186 97 96
0.660 0.70 186 98 96
O.67O 0.74 189 99 97
0.660 0.74 189 1OO 98
O.66O O.7O 186 1O1 99
0.600 0.68 189 1O2 1OO
0.970 0.64 189 1O2 1OO
0.970 0.52 189 1O1 101
O.970 0.62 189 1OO 1OO
0.400 0.41 189 100 1O1
0.330 0.39 183 97 1OO
0.440 0.93 183 99 96
0.410 0.94 182 96 98
0.360 0.40 184 98 98
O.310 0.28 183 97 98
0.260 0.28 184 98 98
0.27O O.28 189 99 99
0.240 0.27 189 1O1 1OO
0.200 0.19 189 99 1OO
0.390 0.36 189 97 1OO
O.360 0.40 186 98 99
O.42O O.49 186 1O1 1OO
0.400 O.42 186 101 101
O.43O O.46 186 1O2 1O1
0.420 0.49 186 1O1 1O1
O.690 0.69 186 1O1 1O2
O.66O O.7O 186 98 1O1
B-176
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSVS
RUN tt - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 8
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - a/2/aa
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG.-VER 10/01/66 V3
10-O1-1986 17tl9sS4
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
46
0. 64O
0.630
0. 360
O. 33O
0.470
0.330
O. 4OO
0.330
0.66
0.67
0.68
O.63
O. 39
O. 33
O. 43
O. 34
166
166
166
164
163
186
166
166
1OO
1OO
108
1O3
102
1OO
104
101
101
101
1O1
102
1O2
1O2
103
1O3
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Final
(g)
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Wt.
Tar* Wt.
(g)
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Blank Wt. Net Wt.
(g) (g)
O.OOOO O. OOOO
O.OOOO O.OOOO
Fraction
PROBE RINSE
IMPINGERS
Probe Rinse Blank
Final Wt. Tare Wt.
(g) (g)
O. OOOO O. OOOO
0. OOOO O. OOOO
(mg/ml)» O. OOOO
Vol.
(ml)
O. O
0.0
Net Wt.
(g)
O. OOOO
0. OOOO
Impinger Blank
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV9
RUN » - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 9
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 8/3/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)»
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)"
Meter Factor*
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Feet)"
Sas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Feet)»
Barometric Pressure (in Hg)»
Static Pressure (Inches
Percent Oxygen"
Percent Carbon Dioxide*
Moisture Collected (ml)»
Percent Watt
PROG.-VER 10/O1/88 V8
10-01-1986 17:20*29
Average Meter Temperature -
Average Stack Temperature (F>«
Dry Molecular Weight"
Uet Molecular Weight"
Average Square Root of Delta P (in H2O)>
X leokinetic-
Pitot Coefficient"
Sampling Time (Minutes)»
Nozzle Diameter (Inches)"
Stack Axis »1 (Inches)"
Stack Axis »2 (Inches)"
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Feet)"
Stack Velocity (Actual, Feet/min)-
Flow Rate (Actual, Cubic ft/win)•
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic ft/min)*
Flow Rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/min)•
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (gr/sef)-
Particulate Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)"
Emission Rate (lb/hr)-
No Back Half Analysis
66.910
131.330
1.O18
86.126
79.833
89.86
-O. IS
3.6
11.4
3014.3
64. a
108
O. 61
0.797
191
89.97
82.89
O.8812
94.8
0.83
198.0
0.274
33.6
33.6
6.91
3,766
26,033
80, 643
7,393
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
O.OOOO
0.00
Leak Correction" O.OOOO
Corr. to 7* O8 * 12X COS
O.OOOO O.OOOO
B-178
-------
* * METRIC UNITS »
FILE NAME - MOBSV9
RUN * - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 9
LOCATION - Mobay Karma* City MO
DATE - 8/3/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meter*)»
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meter*)•
Meter Factor"
Multiple leak check*, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meter*)•
6am Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meter*)-
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg)»
Static Pressure (mm H2O)*
Percent Oxygen*
Percent Carbon Dioxide-
Moistur* Coll»ct«d (ml)-
P«rc»nt Water*
Avvrag* M«t»r T*mp«ratur» (C>»
Avvrag* Dvlta H (mm HaO>-
Av«rag» 0«lta P (mm H2O>-
Av«rag« Stack Tvmparatur* (C)«
Dry Molvcular W«ight»
U»t Molvcular W.ight-
Avvrag* Square Root of Delta P (mm H2O)»
% Isokin«tic»
Pitot Coefficient-
Sampling Time (Minute*)»
Nozzle Diameter (ram)*
Stack Axis *1 (Meter*)-
Stack Axi* *S. (Meter*)*
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meter*)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/win)—
Flow rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)-
FIOM rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)*
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/min)*
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g>-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)-
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m)*
Emi**ion Rate (kg/hr)*
No Back Half Analysis
PROG.*VER 10/O1/88 V2
10-O1-1986 17i20:32
1.89S
4.291
1.018
2.439
2.244
743
-4
3.6
11.4
3O14. 5
64.2
39
IS. 5
20.2
88
29.97
22.29
4. 441O
94.2
O. 83
192.0
6.96
O. 9O4
0.904
O. 642
1, L48
737
58S
2O9
O.OOOO
O. O
0.0
0.00
Leak Correction* 0.OOOO
Corr. to 7% O2 ft 12* CO2
0.0 O. O
B-179
-------
PILE NAME - MOBSV9
RUN • - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 9
LOCATION - Mobay K«n»*» City MO
DATE - a/3/aa
PROJECT * - 91O1L3614
Point *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
1*
IS
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
PROS.-VER io/oi/aa v2
1O-O1-1988 17i20:3S
D«lt« P
(in. H2O)
1. 1OO
1.1OO
1. 100
1.10O
1. ISO
1. ISO
1.100
1. 1OO
1.10O
1.050
1.050
i.OSO
O. 970
0.970
0.970
0.910
0.880
o. aeo
O. 75O
O. 75O
0.630
O. 61O
O. 44O
0.430
0.430
0.480
0.630
0.410
0.7OO
0.660
0.720
O. 67O
0.720
0.720
O. 53O
0.490
O. 98O
0.980
O.930
0.930
D«lta H
(in. H20)
0.77
O. 8O
O. 84
O. 84
0.81
o.aa
O. 86
0.80
0.78
o. ao
O. 8O
O. 82
0.76
0.74
O. 74
0.70
O. 67
O. 66
0.62
O.62
0.52
O. 48
O. 35
O. 34
O. 41
0.42
0.52
0.36
0.55
0. SO
O. 6O
0.55
0.55
0.55
O. 40
0.37
O. 75
0.71
0.76
0.73
Stack T Mmtmr T
(F> In(F> Out
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV9
RUN * - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 9
LOCATION - Mobay Karma* City MO
DATE - 8/3/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROS.»VER 10/01/86 V2
1O-O1-1988 17i2Oi4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
46
0.670
0.870
O. 74O
0.780
O. 540
O. 54O
0.340
O. 32O
O. 65
O. 61
o. 52
o. so
0.38
O. 35
0.24
0.20
192
192
192
192
192
192
191
191
105
98
97
99
1O1
102
102
101
106
99
98
99
99
1OO
1O1
1O1
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fraction
PROBE RINSE
IMPINGERS
Prob* Rins* Blank
O. OOOO
O.OOOO
Final
(g)
O.OOOO
O. OOOO
(rag/ml)
Wt. Tar* Wt.
(g)
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Wt. Tar* Wt-.
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Blank Wt.
O. OOOO
O. OOOO
Vol.
(ml)
O. O 0.
O. O O.
N*t Wt
0. OOOO
0. OOOO
N*t Wt,
(g)
OOOO
OOOO
Iraping*r Blank d. Final readings for «*eh *«gm«nt ar» listed b«lot»
Lk Rat* (cfm) Tim* (min)
0. OO1O 96. OOOO
0. O02O 68. OOOO
0. OO1O 28. OOOO
B-181
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV1O
RUN • - MOBAY ORGAN I CS RUN 1O
LOCATION - Mobay Kan*a* City MO
DATE - a/s/sa
PROJECT « - 9101L3614
Initial M*t*r Volum (Cubic F**t>»
Final «*t*r Volum* (Cubic F**t>-
M*t*r Factor*
Multiple l*ak ch*ek*, ••• *nd of printout
N*t M*t*r Volun* (Cubic F**t)»
Gas UoluM* (Dry Standard Cubic F**t>-
Baro**tric Pr*«»ur* (in Hg)»
Static Pr***ur* (Inch** H2O>-
P*re*nt Oxyg*n«
P*rc*nt Carbon OiOMida*
Koistur* Coll«ct«d (ml)-
PcrcOTit Uat«r«
PRO3.-VER io/oi/aa va
10-O1-1988 17>21:13
152. 133
Ovarao* «»t»r T*Mp«ratur«
Av*rag* D«ita H (in H2O)-
«v«raa» Ovlta P (in H2O)-
Av«rag» Stack T««p«ratur* (F)-
Dry Moil
U*t Moll
:ular U«ight>
rular U*ight>
Av»raa» Squar* Root of D«lta P
1C I«ottin«tic*
(in HSO)
Pitot Coefficient-
Saapling Tim* (Minut**)-
Nozzl* Dian*t*r (Inch**)-
Stack Axis »1 (Inch**)"
Stack Axi* *2 (Inch**)"
Circular Stack
Stack Ar*a (Squar* F**t)"
Stack Velocity (Actual, F**t/Min)»
Flow Rat* (Actual, Cubic ft/win)"
Flow rat* (Standard, W*t, Cubic ft/min)-
Flow Rat* (Standard, Dry, Cubic ft/win)-
Partieulat* Loading - Front Half
Particulat* W*ight (g)»
Particulat* Loading, Dry Std. (gr/*cf>-
Particulat* Loading, Actual (gr/cu ft)-
EMi**ion Rat* (lb/hr)«
1.018
91.2O6
83. 105
29.14
-O. 15
6.2
10. a
2743. 7
SO. 9
105
0.70
0.685
187
29.98
22.69
0.8156
98.5
0.83
192.0
0.274
35.6
35.6
6.91
3,452
23, 864
18,957
7,419
0.0000
O.OOOO
0.0000
O.OO
L*ak Correction- O.OOOO
Corr. to 7X O2 * 12% CO2
O.OOOO O.OOOO
No
Half Analy*i»
B-182
-------
* * METRIC UNITS * »
FILE NAME - MOBSV1O
RUN * - MOB AY ORGANICS RUN 10
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 8/8/88
PROJECT * - 91O1L3614
Initial Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)- 4.3O8
Final Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)- 6.845
Meter Factor- 1.O18
Multiple leak checks, see end of printout
Net Meter Volume (Cubic Meters)- 2.583
Gas Volume (Dry Standard Cubic Meters)- 2.353
Barometric Pressure (mm Hg>- 74O
Static Pressure (mm H2O)- -4
Percent Oxygen- g. 2
Pvrcvnt Carbon Dioxida- 10.8
Moi»tur« Collected (ml)- 2743.7
Percent Water" 60.9
Average Meter Temperature (C>» 41
Average Delta H (mm H2O>- 17.8
Average Delta P (mm H2O)- 17.4
Average Stack Temperature (C>- 86
Dry Molecular Weight- 29.98
Wet Molecular Weight- 22.69
Average Square Root of Delta P (mm H£O)« 4.11O7
% Isokinetic- 98.5
PROS.-VER 1O/O1/88 V2
10-O1-1988 17i21H6
Leak Correction* 0.OOOO
Pitot Coefficient-
Sampling Time (Minutes)»
Nozzle Diameter (mm)-
Stack Axis *1 (Meters)-
Stack Axis *2 (Meters)-
Circular Stack
Stack Area (Square Meters)*
Stack Velocity (Actual, m/min)-
FloM rate (Actual, Cubic m/min)-
Flow rate (Standard, Wet, Cubic m/min)»
Flow rate (Standard, Dry, Cubic m/rain)-
Particulate Loading - Front Half
Particulate Weight (g)-
Particulate Loading, Dry Std. (mg/cu m)'
Particulate Loading, Actual (mg/cu m>-
Emission Rate (kg/hr)-
O. 83
192. O
6.96
O. 9O4
O. 9O4
O. 642
1,052
676
537
21O
O.OOOO
0.0
0. O
O. OO
Corr. to 7* O2 * 12* CO2
o.o o.o
No Back Half Analysis
B-183
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV10
RUN • - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 1O
LOCATION - Mobay K»n»*« City MO
DATE - 8/8/88
PROJECT * - 9101L3614
PROG.-VER 10/01/88 V2
1O-O1-1988 17:21:18
Point *
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
a
9
10
li
12
13
14
IS
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
33
36
37
38
39
4O
D«lta P D»lt* H Stack T M«t»r- T
(in. H2O) (in. H2O) (F) In(F) Out(F)
O.930 0.80 189 95 95
0.870 0.82 188 94 94
0.900 0.93 187 97 94
O.9OO O.9S 187 98 95
0.890 0.95 188 1OO 96
0.890 0.97 187 10O 97
0.890 0.97 188 1O2 98
O.910 1.00 187 103 99
O.900 0.95 188 1O3 1OO
0.9OO O.96 186 103 1OO
0.880 0.95 187 1O5 1O1
0.880 0.95 187 1O4 1O2
O.86O 0.9O 187 1O4 102
O.8SO 0.9O 188 104 1O2
O.82O 0.82 188 103 1O3
O.81O 0.84 187 1O3 1OS
O.78O O.78 187 1O4 1O3
O.79O O.74 188 1O4 1O3
0.7OO 0.68 187 1O4 1O3
0.690 0.67 187 1O6 1O4
O.53O 0.55 186 1O8 1OS
0.520 0.55 185 HO 106
O.32O 0.4O 183 111 1O8
O.320 0.35 184 111 109
0.450 0.45 187 1O6 107
O.45O 0.47 187 1O5 1O7
0.430 0.45 187 106 107
O.4OO 0.35 188 1O7 1O8
0.320 0.26 188 1O8 1O8
0.280 0.25 187 1O8 1O8
O.360 0.3O 188 1O7 1O8
0.360 0.34 187 1O6 IO8
O.6OO 0.6O 187 106 1O8
0.830 0.84 187 1O7 1O8
0.84O 0.9O 187 1O7 1O7
0.840 0.95 187 110 1O8
0.850 0.95 187 HO 109
0.890 0.95 188 1O9 1O9
O.8SO 0.90 188 109 1O9
0.830 0.85 187 HO 1O8
B-184
-------
FILE NAME - MOBSV10
RUN * - MOBAY ORGANICS RUN 1O
LOCATION - Mobay Kansas City MO
DATE - 8/8/88
PROJECT # - 9101L3614
PROG.*VER 10/O1/88 V2
1O-O1-1988 17:21:23
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
O. 800
0.760
O. 66O
O.67O
O. 55O
O.520
0.310
O. 32O
O. 81
0.79
O. 67
O.59
O.59
O. 52
O. 27
O.25
187
187
187
189
186
187
188
188
11O
1O9
1O9
1O8
108
11O
112
110
1O9
110
1O8
108
loa
1O9
no
no
Fraction
DRY CATCH
FILTER
Fract ion
PROBE RINSE
IMPINGERS
Probe Rinse Blank (rag/ml)
Impinger Blank (g)
O. OOOO O. OOOO O.OOOO O.OOOO
O.OOOO 0. OOOO O.OOOO O.OOOO
Final
(g)
0. OOOO
O. OOOO
IB/ml) »
Wt.
O.
Tare Wt.
(g)
0. OOOO
0. OOOO
OOOO
Vol.
(ml)
0.0
0.0
0.
O.
Net Wt
(g)
OOOO
OOOO
Multiple leak checks used. Final readings for each segment are listed below
Lk Rate (efm) Time (min).
O.OO1O 96.OOOO
O.OO1O 96.OOOO
B-185
-------
APPENDIX B-5
FORMALDEHYDE DATA
Table B-5-1. Formaldehyde Results
B-186
-------
TABLE B-5-1. FORMALDEHYDE RESULTS
Run
5
6
7
8
9
10
DNPH
Blank
Sample
volume (dson)
2.359
2.837
2.593
2.584
2.611
2.539
Reagent Blank
Train
wg in
sample
1.83
1.93
16.2
16.3
5.01
4.92
10.7
10.8
5.83
6.78
14.0
13.9
3.72
3.49
3.82
6.41
6.35
Average
vg
1.88
16.3
4.97
10.8
6.31
14.0
3.68
6.38
Blank Blank
corrected corrected
vg ug/n>3
< 1.88 < 0.80
9.9 3.5
< 4.97 < 1.9
4.4 1.7
< 6.31 < 2.4
7.6 3.0
Blank*
corrected
ppb (vol)
< 0.64
2.8
< 1.5
1.4
< 1.9
2.4
B-187
-------
APPENDIX B-6
MOBAY PROCESS DATA
Table B-6-1.
Table B-6-2.
Table B-6-3.
Table B-6-4.
Table B-6-5.
Table B-6-6.
Table B-6-7.
Table B-6-8.
Table B-6-9.
Table B-6-10.
Table B-6-11.
Table B-6-12.
Summary Runs 1 through 4
Summary Runs 5 through 10
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
B-188
-------
IMU 1-6-1. HOMY PHOCfSS OUTA-SUtMRY RUNS 1 THWUW 4
Haat CoefettUoH
(•put. chatter
i 10"' teuperature
<8tu/h) (t)
CO
1
00
Run I
Mm 2
Run]
Dm 4
M
28.8
».»
29
951
9M
954
9S4
Quenck fly* gat
out let oxygen
91* level.
t*ep. wtt*
CC) (1)
90 1.1
91 1.4
91 2.1
91 1.9
Flue (at
GO
35
31
31
11
Contention
air
(lean 9**)
flew rate
t.OOO
6.000
6.100
6.010
Auxiliary fuel
Natural
(»cfh)
2.600
3.270
5.770
5.910
fuel
oil
(9JHI)
0
0
0
0
Organic
watte
feed
rate
(9P-)
3
3.3
3
3
Aqueow
waste
feed
rate
6.4
6.8
6.4
6
water
flow
rate
na
2
1.9
2
Quench
water
flow
rate
47
46
48
48
Scrubber
feed
rate
(90)
60
43
43
58
Vtnturl
Inlet
water
flow rate
198
196
196
195
Venturl
pressure
drop
(In)
50.4
50.6
51
49
Caustic Scrubber Scrubber
(crabber alkali effluent
recycle feed flow
flow rate rate rate
(gp«) (go) (90)
540 1.3 92
530 2 69
540 1.8 90
535 1.8 88
Scrubber
effluent
;
7
1
J
* Convert ton for wet to dry bath: M>2 (dry)*
-------
IMlf I-*-}. MOMY HOCUS MfA--SUMMV IMS S THKMH 10
Qu*«ck
Mm S
Mm 8
Mm 7
Mm 1
Mm IS
Mm 9
Mm 10
A*9. CO
wtcorncttC
m
sti
1.099
2.460
194
1.70S
2.451
AM. CO
• 71 0
(P-)
Ml
IU.9
460.2
1.061.1
2.464.4
167.9
t.711.9
7.121.4
me
«rjr
(PP-)
•at*
16.4
•
207
226.1
SI. I
199.1
K.6
unc
(PP»>
i.s
12
7.1
H.S
6.7
11.4
II
Htat Coabntlon outlet
Input. ckntir g*t Flu* 911
t4 « 10*' tMpwatw* top. CO ttvtt
(Mt)1 (MM/11) CC) CC) (PM)
S.I 35.2 MS
S.4 11.2 791
I.I 11.7 M2
7.1 14.1 76S
4.7 34.5 129
2.2 41.3 120
4.1 IS. 7 800
92 SS
91 443
91 1.693
91 3.815
91 73
93 4.S36
91 3.000
CoabMtlofi
air
(Urn a«)
flow rat*
7.200
7,161
7.325
7.250
7.100
6,850
7.000
A*»niar
natural
«a*
(acfk)
0
4.2S7
0
0
4.129
0
0
1 fuel
Fuel
0(1
***r
o.s
0
0
0
0
0
0
Organic
Mitt
rat*
<9P»
procets <
S
4.S
S.I
S.7
4.9
S
6.2
^___.
watt*
rat*
(9P»
Mt
13.9
10.7
12.3
14.4
13.4
13.4
12
Is__|(||
water
flow
rat*
<9P»
0
0
2.2
S
I.S
7.1
7.1
OJMK*
water
flow
rat*
41
41
47
47
47
41
47
Vmtvrl
Inlet
water
flow rat*
(9P-)
227
222
214
212
222
22S
22S
Vcnturl
prmurt
drop
(In)
45
43
40
39
46
43
43
Scrubber
•fMumt
rat*
(9Pn)
69
76
86
86
•1
74
90
Scrubber
•fflumt
(pH)
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
Convcrtlon for «*t to •>» basli:
(•>>)•
-------
TABU B 6-3. NOMV PROCESS MTA--MM I
O3
I
Heat CoBbustlon
Input. chatter
« IO"6 teaperatwe
KM (Itu/h)
1150
120S
1220
I23S
1250
1105
1320
1455
1510
1S2S
1540
1SSS
1610
1625
Avg:
26
26.1
26.2
26.2
2S.1
26.3
25.*
26.1
26
26.2
26
26.1
26.1
26
26.01
CC)
949
941
949
951
946
950
953
9SI
9SS
9SS
9SS
9S7
958
960
9S2.64
Quench Flu* gas
out Itt oiygen
gas le»el.
leap. wet*
CC)
90
90
90
90
90
90
91
90
91
91
90
90
91
91
90.36
(0
3.2
3.1
3.3
J
3.3
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
3
3.11
Flu* gas
CO level
3
3
3
3
2.9
3.1
3
3
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.04
Aqueous
waste
feed
rate
(91*)
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.42
Tempering
water
flow
rat*
(«•)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
Quench
water
flow
rate
<*•>
46
47
46
48
46
47
48
48
46
47
46
47
48
47
47.07
Scrubber
water
flow
rat*
(9P-)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60.00
Venturl
Inlet
water
flow rate
<9I*>
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
196
198
198
197.86
VenUrl
pressure
drop
(te>
SO
SO
50
SO
SO
49
52
SO
$0
51
SO
SI
50
52
$0.43
Caustic
scrubber
recycle
flow rat*
(9P»
$40
$40
$40
540
540
540
$40
S4S
$3$
540
53$
$3$
$40
$40
$39.64
Scrubber
alkali
flow
scrubber
<«*>
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.30
Scrubber
effluent
flow
scrubber
(9P»)
100
90
90
90
90
90
90
93
95
93
95
96
90
90
92.29
Scrubber
effluent
(PH)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.00
1 Conversion for wet to ery basts: »? (dry). H>2 (w*t)/(l-«H;0)
-------
TMU 1-1-4. NMM WOCISS DMA--** 7
I
KM i
IOM
1050
to "*
itao
1305
111*
1470
Av,:
Httt
tnpvl.
10.1
70.5
nm
n.t
71.64
COMMtlO*
chMktr
ttM*riturt
CO
M4
141
946
n7
»4».M
OjuMck
OMtltt
«••>.
17
II
fl
9:
11.74
FlM t*l
Ml*
(*)
I.I
1.4
1.7
1C
| *
1.1
1.44
f IM fM
CO Itml
1.046
11
17
It
a
13.1*
CMkMUon
tlr
(Itw *M)
f lo» rttt
6.000
6.100
6.000
t.ooo
6.000
1.005.06
AuiUUry fw«l wattt wattt
Natural Fvtl ftttf f«td
tat oil ratt rat*
(acfk) (aj») (9f») <9f»)
4.600 0 3.3 6.6
1.000 0 1.3 6.7
1.000 0 1.3 7.7
1.000 0 3.3 7.7
3.400 0 3.3 6.9
3,270.59 0.00 3.30 6.01
Itoptrtnf Qv**cl»
wattr watar
flow flow
ratt rata
4 46
I 46
7 46
7 46
7 47
7.17 46.41
Mttr
rttt
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43.00
VtMtWl
Ultt
MM rtt*
m
195
196
191
195
195
195
195
IM
196. OS
Vtwtvrl
"ET
u
41
SO
51
SO
so
51
SI
55
50.59
CtMtlC
icrukbtr
rtcycl*
flow rttt
570
520
KM
530
530
530
630
530
530
530
CM
530
CM
KM
510
577.65
Scrakbtr
tlktll
flow
tcrubtatr
7
7
*
2
2
9
2
2
2
2
2
z
7.00
Strubktr
Ifflutnt
flow ScruMwr
icrubWr tf fluent
66 7
66 7
63 7
63 7
66 7
75 7
75 7
75 7
75 7
75 7
66 7
75 7
66 7
71 7
69 7
69 7
69.15 7.00
1 Ctnvtnttn for *tt to «ry toll: »? (try)- »?
k Avtrtft for CO «ott not IncluM Mrtl rttOnf at I.DM.
-------
TASlt 1-6-5. NOMY PROCFSS DATA-RUN 3
CD
I
VO
MM
111$
1130
114$
1200
121$
1230
124$
1300
131S
1330
134$
1400
141$
1430
144$
1500
ISIS
Avo,:
He«t
Input.
« 10"'
(6t»/li)
33.9
36.9
36
37.9
36
37.6
36.1
28.4
26.4
26.2
26.3
76
26.2
26.4
26.3
26.3
26.7
31.86
Coetantton
chamber
temperature
It)
947
936
947
953
958
959
961
956
956
9S8
954
957
9S7
9SS
949
95$
9S4
954.00
Ouench
outlet
»«
IMP.
rc)
90
92
90
91
91
91
91.
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
91
90
90.82
Flue gat
onygeti
level.
wet*
<«>
3.6
1.7
2.1
2.1
2
2.2
2
2.1
2.S
7.6
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.3
7.S
2.31
Flue«M
CO level
(PP.)
32
32
29
32
37
37
37
34
34
34
37
37
32
32
34
29
34
33.41
Ceabustlo*
(lean gas)
now rate
(acf.)
6.100
5.700
6.000
6.000
6.200
6.200
6.100
6.200
6.100
6.000
6.200
6.200
6.000
6.000
6.200
6.200
6,000
6,082.3$
Au« 1 Han
natural
gas
(Kfh)
3.800
8.200
7.600
7.600
7.600
7.600
7.600
5.000
$.000
4.600
4.600
4.800
4.800
4.800
4.800
4.800
4.600
$.764.71
> fuel
Fuel
oil
(9P»
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Organic
waste
feed
rate
(9P»)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.00
Aqueous
waste
feed
rate
(9P»>
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.40
Tempering
water
flow
rate
(9P»>
2
2
7
2
7
2
2
2
2
7
7
2
2
1.5
1.5
7
2
1.94
Quench
water
flow
rate
(9PI)
48
48
47
47
47
47
48
47
48
47
47
48
47
48
47
48
48
47.47
Scrubber
water
flow
rate
(9t»)
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43.00
Venturl
Inlet
water
flow rate
(9P>)
195
195
195
195
201
198
196
195
195
198
198
19S
19$
19$
19$
19$
19S
196.06
Venturl
pressure
drop
(In)
$4
SI
$1
SO
$4
$1
49
SO
SO
SO
$1
50
54
S3
SO
$3
SO
SI. 24
Caustic
scrubber
recycle
flow rate
(9P»)
530
$40
540
540
540
540
540
540
$40
$40
540
540
540
540
540
$40
540
539.41
Scrubber
alkali
flm
scrubber
<9f->
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1. 6
1.80
Scrubber
effluent
rim
scrubber
<9P«>
90
99
96
96
24
81
90
130
90
99
87
93
90
93
90
90
90
89.86
Scrubber
effluent
(PH)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
;
7
7
7
7.00
* Conversion for wet to dry baslt: M2 (dry)- I0; (wet)/(l-B<20)
-------
Mftc 1-1-1. HOMY rmcrss MM- m* 4
HMt CO** tlM
Q»MC«
art 1*1
Input. chaaoar aat
> 10"* tvaptratw* tM>.
Ttat
NO
IH
MO
IOM
1020
CD ion
^- IOSO
S I10S
1120
HIS
IIU
I20S
1220
I23S
1250
IMS
1120
IMS
Ava:
(lt.A>
21.1
21.4
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
n.t
21. S
21.1
21.1
21.7
21.7
21.1
21.1
21.2
21.3
21.00
CO
Ml
Ml
M7
141
147
Ml
Ml
M4
Ml
W7
Ml
MS
M4
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MO
M4.ll
ro
II
II
II
•1
•1
II
tl
II
•1
II
»l
•1
•1
•1
II
11
•1
11
•1.00
Mw fat
tovtl,
Ml*
m
1.7
2.1
I.I
1.7
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
2.1
1.7
1.7
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
2
2.2
2
I.W
CO lavtl
(W>
24
27
20
27
12
21
12
21
21
17
14
1?
17
21
12
14
12
14
M.U
CaatMtlo*
flan rat*
(*»•>
S.MO
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.200
(.000
1.200
1.000
1.000
1.100
1.000
1.000
1.200
1.100
1.000
1.000
1.000
S.OOO
1.027.71
Awl liar.
1"
(atfk)
7.000
1.400
1.400
S.MO
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.000
1.000
1.200
1.000
S.MO
S.MO
S.MO
S.MO
S.20D
$.100
S.200
s.tii.n
riMl
oil
(*-)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Organic
MMt*
rata
ItPn)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.00
Mil*
It*
rat*
<«->
S.I
S.I
S.I
I.S
1.4
6.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
S.I
S.i
S.i
S.i
S.i
S.t
i.OI
Ttaparlnf
Mt*r
MM
rat*
(«-)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.00
QMnck
M*t*r
MM
rat*
(tP.)
41
47
47
41
47
47
4t
41
47
41
47
41
47
41
40
46
47
47
47.M
Scrub**
vatar
Mow
rat*
(IP.)
SI
M
M
SI
SO
SO
40
SO
SO
II
SI
SI
SI
SO
SI
SI
SI
so
SI.OO
»»»t«rl
Ul«t
vat*r
Mow rat*
(*->
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
112
it;
112
114.13
Vwtart
armtur*
0.)
S2
47
4*
41
4t
• 4t
40
4t
SI
to
41
41
41
41
41
41
SO
41
41.00
Cam tit
terubbtr
racycla
f Iw rat*
<*->
S30
S»
$40
SM
$10
SIS
$1$
$3$
SIS
$40
$40
$10
$10
$10
SIS
SIS
$1$
$40
$14.17
Scr*bbar
alkali
MOM
tcriitoar
(*->
I.I
1.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
1.0
1.1
I.I
1.1
1. 1
1.1
I.I
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Scruootr
*m«mt
MOM
icruoktr
(IP*)
14
•1
10
17
10
to
07
•7
17
71
90
90
93
to
to
to
90
90
M.OO
Scrukfctr
tfftumt
(PH)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.00
Conversion for v»t to •>» aatls:
-------
1ABU 8-6-7. PROCESS MIA- KUK $
Quench
Heat CoabutUon outlet
Input. charter oai
« 10"" tnperatvr* IMP.
141$
1430
144$
f 1500
G IS1S
"1 1530
1S45
1600
161$
1630
164$
1700
171$
1730
I*./,) CO
34.2 854
34.2 BSD
34.
34.
34.
3$.
J9.
38.
3$.
35.
3$.
3$.
35.
866
86$
864
864
866
870
86$
863
873
873
871
3S.2 872
CO
92
92
92 .
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
92
92
92
Flu* gat
CO Irv.l
(«->
SS
6$
X
30
40
SS
60
4$
SS
60
62
70
6$
75
Coctantlon
air
(Itan fat)
flow rat*
(act*/)
7.150
7.200
7,150
7.100
7.100
7.100
7.100
7.150
7.200
7.200
7.200
7.200
7.200
7.300
Auxiliary
fuel, oil
(9P-)
0.4
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
Organic
wait*
feed rate
(9f»)
S
5
$
5
S
5
S
S.I
S
$
S
S
S
$
Aqueous
wast*
feed rat*
(9P»
12.6
12.6
12.6
13.3
13.3
13.9
14.1
14.4
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
Tempering
water
flow rat*
(9P»
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quench
water
flow rat*
(9P»
47
48
48
47
47
48
48
47
48
47
46
48
49
48
Venturl
Inlet
water
flow rate
<9P»)
231
22S
22$
22$
228
228
228
22$
22$
22$
228
228
226
225
Venturl
prttture
drop
(In)
46
46
46
46
47
47
48
44
43
44
44
44
4$
43
Scrubber
effluent
flow rat*
<9P»
48
60
72
60
69
7$
7$
7$
72
60
66
66
69
84
Scrubber
•f fluent
(PH)
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
Avg: 3S.19
86S.43
92.43
SS.I4
7.167.86
0.49
$.01
13.89
0.00
47.S7
226.71
4S.21
67.93
7.10
-------
IMU i-t-i. mass MTA--M* *
1341
1402
1417
03 1431
l
_ 1440
3 ISO*
l»tl
ISM
1610
162S
1640
I6SS
1710
I72S
*"!
NMt
.ur«
(kte/fc)
33
33
33.1
32.*
32.7
32.0
33
32.f
33. (
33.4
33.1
33.4
33.4
33.0
33.17
CwkttttM
t«p*r*ten
(•c)
001
OOf
000
7M
7*S
7*2
7*3
70S
nt
m
700
7*1
71*
70S
7*3.07
Mttot
tt*».
CCJ
•I
•2
»2
II
II
•1
•1
*I
•I
•1
•1
•1
•1
»l
•I. 21
f to* ft*
O» l*«*l
<*•>
370
340
310
300
400
SOD
610
630
3*0
470
4N
3M
410
too
442.M
*lr
f lev rtU
(•eta)
7.100
7.000
7.200
7.200
7.300
7.100
7. ISO
7.300
7. ISO
7. ISO
7.200
7.100
7.200
7.100
7.160.71
AwllUry
(Ml. 9*
(OCA)
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.600
4.600
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.257.14
OrfMlc
Mttt
r**il rM*
(*»>
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.S
4.S
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.S1
HMU
f**4 r«t»
(""
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.70
Mt*r
flax rM*
(«•>
HA
M
DA
M
M
M
M
IA
HA
IA
HA
HA
HA
HA
6.»0*
Mt*r
f ton rtt*
'-'
47
47
a
4*
40
40
47
40
40
47
47
40
40
40
47.71
Voter!
Mttr
flw rtt*
(«•>
222
21*
222
222
222
222
22S
222
21*
222
22S
22S
222
222
222.21
VMterl
•rtttw*
•*•»
(to)
43
44
43
43
43
43
42
41
42
43
44
43
42
43
42.7)
$ai*k»r
•rriiMnt
flow rit*
(*»>
07
7S
II
72
75
72
72
71
M
72
S4
04
75
*1
76.2*
Sera
•rri
(pi
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.1
bfew
Nut
*)
0
AvtrMi oM*(M4 frai M<*«y.
-------
TABU 8-6-9. PROCESS DMA-RUM 7
CO
1
t— •
VO
1105
1122
1137
USD
120S
1222
123S
1250
130S
1320
I33S
1350
140$
1420
Heat
,10-*
•09
•OS
80S
•04
800
799
799
•01
•04
•02
801
799
796
797
Quenrt
outlet
9*»
CO
II
91
ft
91
91
90
91
90
91
91
91
91
91
91
flue 9M
CO level
(PP.)
1.500
»,3SO
1.750
1.650
1.700
1.850
1.8SO
1,700
1.400
1.600
1.800
1.900
1.800
1.850
Coaftvstton
air
(lean oat)
flew rate
<««.)
7.300
7,400
7.350
7.300
7.300
7.300
7.300
7.350
7.350
7350
7.400
7,300
7.350
7,350
Auxiliary
fuel. 9«s
(•tfb)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oroantc
wast*
feed rate
(9P>>
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
Aqueous
waste
(9P-)
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12
12.1
12.1
12.2
12.5
12.3
12.3
12.3
Tempering
water
flow rate
<9f»)
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2,3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2
Quench
water
flow rate
(9P»
48
47
48
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
47
48
47
46
Venturl
Inlet
water
flow rate
(•»>
219
219
213
225
?2S
219
216
204
186
1BO
22S
222
222
219
Venturl
pressure
(In)
40
40
40
44
41
40
40
39
37
37
42
40
41
40
Scrubber
effluent
flow rate
(9P»)
81
87
84
21
72
72
66
90
190
81
105
M>
81
84
Scrubber
effluent
<»M)
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
33.71
001.SO
90.86 1.692.86
7,33$.71
0.00
$.60
12.26
2.19
47.36
213.86
40.07
86.00
7.10
-------
TMU •-•-!•. Haass DATA--MM i
NMt CoMMtfM Mitt
M 10 tMpWtHT9 tWp*
NO
IOOS
1020
101S
IOSO
IIOS
till
1111
IIS7
1210
1224
IMS
1300
A*:
<«./»>
M.I
M.I
M.I
11.0
M.I
M
M.I
M
M.2
M.I
M.2
M.I
M.I
M.ll
cej
712
706
711
77*
76*
772
764
7M
747
7SO
741
741
74S
764.67
CO
II
•1
91
M
II
•1
II
II
90
II
90
M
II
90.6*
MW9M
CO Itvtl
(PP.)
3.700
4.100
4.100
4.200
4.100
1.100
4.400
4.1SO
3.100
1.IM
3.SSO
1. 100
4.650
1.115.31
CaftMtlO*
(ItM fit)
f IM rttt
(««.)
7.100
7.100
7.300
7.400
7.200
7.150
7.100
7.200
7.300
7.300
7.3SO
7.2SO
7.100
7.2SO.OO
AvillUry
futt. *M
(tcfk)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Orftnlc
M*tt
ftttf ritt
(IP.)
S.7
S.7
S.7
S.7
S.7
S.7
S.7
S.7
S.7
S.7
6.7
S.7
S.7
S.70
Mttt
ftttf ritt
(IP*)
13.4
14.2
14.7
14.7
13.1
14.7
14.1
14.4
14.7
14.7
14.7
IS
14.6
14.37
•Mttr
flat ritt
(*->
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.*
S
5.1
4.95
QMKk
Mttr
MM ritt
(IP.)
47
47
47
41
47
«
47
47
41
41
47
46
41
47.31
Vtntwl
Inltt
Mttr
riM rttt
(IP.)
710
210
207
IM
222
222
222
211
211
216
71*
719
719
212.31
VMtw<
prniort
*•<»
«*)
31
37
37
12
41
40
40
41
3*
40
31
30
42
18.77
ScraMtr
tfflHMt
flM ritt
(«*)
71
7S
75
123
45
IM
10
•3
•1
90
M
90
07
00.01
ScriiMtr
tfflutnl
(PH)
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7
7.12
1441
144*
14SI
I4M
1501
ISO*
1510
M.S
34.4
34.S
M.t
M.S
34.7
34.4
Oil
031
021
021
•21
020
130
11
II
11
M
II
K
11
•7.2
70.4
H.I
72.1
71.1
7I.S
10.3
7.100
7.100
7.100
7.100
7.100
7.100
7.100
4.000
4.100
4.200
4.700
4.700
4.100
4.100
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.1
4.9
4.9
4.9
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
3.1
I.S
3.S
3.S
3.5
3.6
3.5
46
47
41
47
47
47
47
772
222
27?
772
222
277
222
46
47
46
46
47
47
46
M
II
75
It
11
II
11
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
34.SI
179.S7
11.14
72.N
7.100.00 4.121.57
4.90
13.40
3.S3
47.00
777.00
46.41
•0.57
7.10
-------
TMIE 8-6-U. PROCI5S DAI* -HUM 9
CD
1
VO
UD
1220
1235
1250
1305
1320
I33S
1350
1405
1423
1435
1450
1511
1551
1606
Heat
(•U/l.)
41.1
41.3
41.4
41.4
41. J
41.3
41.2
41.1
41.4
41.3
41.2
41.2
41. J
41.2
Queue*
Combustion outlet
chanter 9*1 Flue «at
tnperature tnp. CO level
rc>
677
•27
•29
•30
131
Ml
•24
•20
•12
•14
•14
•08
•06
805
(•C)
93
93
93
•3
93
93
91
96
96
93
93
93
94
94
(PP»
4.700
4.500
4.950
4.700
4.500
3.500
5.100
4.200
4.900
4.350
4.000
4.900
4.800
4.400
CoBtMistiOH
air
(lean gat)
flow rat*
(-1.)
6.800
4.850
6.850
6.850
6.900
6.900
6.850
6.850
6.850
6.850
6.900
6.850
6.850
6.850
Auxiliary
furl, gas
(acfh)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Organic
waste
r*«d rat*
(9P»)
NA
NA
m
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Aqueous
wast*
f*rd rat*
(9P<0
13.4
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
Toperlng
water
flow rate
(9P«)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.6
7.7
8.3
8
8
8.1
8.1
8.1
Quench
water
flow rat*
<9*">
47
a
48
47
48
47
48
748
48
47
47
47
48
48
Venturl
Inlet
water
flow rate
(9P.)
231
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
222
222
Venturl
pressure
drop
(In)
44
43
43
43
43
43
44
43
42
43
43 '
43
43
43
Scrubber
effluent
flow rat*
(9P*»
45
72
60
78
102
99
66
75
72
66
81
75
72
72
Scrubber
effluent
(PH)
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7
7
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
41.26
819.86
93.57 4.535.71
6.857.14
0.00
?.30»
13.36
7.56
47.57
225.00
43.07
73.93
7.11
Average value obtained fro* Nokay.
-------
1MU 1-6-12.
M1A-
10
DO
ro
o
o
1136
11 JO
1205
1222
1236
!«6
1333
1361
1406
1420
1439
I4SS
tog:
Hurt
Input.
(Mii/h)
36.2
36.4
3S.6
3S.I
36.4
34.1
M.J
13
36.7
36.3
36.2
36.6
36.2
36.72
CMtMtlM
cftMktr
tMparatur*
(t)
103
•00
•oo
796
796
m
717
Ml
•01
•01
•02
no
•02
Tfl.M
«**•*»
wtl*t
•**
(•c)
II
II
II
II
II
•1
II
II
II
•1
II
II
II
11.00
MM |M
CO 1*v*l
<»•)
3.100
2.MO
7.600
3.250
2.700
3.100
3.100
3.000
2.900
2.100
S.OOO
3.IM
3.000
2.M.H
Ceabmtlo*
air
(iMKfM)
f IOM rat*
(Kl.)
7.000
7.050
.000
.140
.100
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.050
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.011.64
fwl, g»»
(acfh)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Organic
Matt*
ft*4 rat*
(IP.)
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.ZO
Slwrj
(aqiMowi)
Mitt*
f**d rat*
<9*">
17
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12.00
Maltr
flow rat*
(«•>
7.7
7.6
7.1
7.1
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.1
7.1
7.9
1
7.9
7.11
Qwnch
Mitar
MOM rat*
(«•)
41
47
41
47
47
47
47
46
46
«
47
a
47
47.31
Vwrtwl
t*l*t
Miter
flow rat*
(•••)
225
225
22S
22S
222
221
231
222
225
221
221
226
225
225.69
«*ntw<
prMtiir*
drop
(U)
42
42
43
44
42
43
43
42
44
43
43
43
44
42.12
Strutter
tfflUMt
MOM rat*
«P»
M
•1
II
II
90
71
60
10S
76
75
111
131
100
09.62
Scrabter
<*>
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.10
------- |