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

-------