E PA-600/R-94-070
May 1994
Pilot-Scale Evaluation of the Potential for Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutant* from
Combustion of Tire-Derived Fuel
Prepared by.
Paul M. Lemieux
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Eneigy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA bi bmhmmmmimmi miimi
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before compta || ll|]nHII|llw|l HIIRI
1. REPORT NO. J.
EPA-600/R-94-070
3. SI HHHMMHIIWI NIIM
PB94-169463
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Pilot-scale Evaluation of the Potential for Emissions
of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Combustion of Tire-
derived Fuel
S, REPORT DATE
M»y 1004
», PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Paul M. Lemieux
1. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
», PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
See Block 12
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
tH. CflNTHACT^fiHAkT no. gg-DO"0141
(Acurex) and CR814945-01-0
(Univ. of Arkansas)
13. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADORESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREO
Final; 2>92 - 10/93
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/000/13
u. supplementary notes ^EERL project officer is Paul M. Lemieux. Mail Drop 65, 919/
541-0962. y J
i«. abstractrep0rj gives results of experiments in a 73-kW (250.000-Btu/hr) rotary
kiln incinerator simulator to examine and characterize emissions from incineration
of scrap tire material. The purposes of the project were to: (l) generate a profile
of target analytes for full-scale stack sampling, not statistically defensible emission
factors for the controlled combustion of scrap tire material; and (2) where possible,
give insight into the technical issues and fundamental phenomena related to controlled
combustion of scrap tires. Wire-free crumb rubber, sized at <0.64 cm (<1/4 in.),
was combusted at two feed rates, two temperatures, and three kiln oxygen (02) con-
centrations. Along with continuous emissions monitoring for 02. carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, sulfur dioxide, and total hydrocarbons, samples were
taken to examine volatile and semi-volatile organics, polychlorinated p-dibenzodiox-
ins and dibenzofurans, and metal aerosols. In addition, a continuous polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbon analyzer was used in all tests. Samples were analyzed with em-
phasis on the 189 hazardous air pollutants listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amend-
ments, but other compounds were also identified, where possible. Overall, except
for zinc, potential emissions from tire-derived fuel do not appear to be significantly
different from emissions from conventional fossil fuel combustion in a well-designed
and well-operated combustion device.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
>. DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIPIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS ATI Field/Group
Pollution T oxicity
Tires
Fuels
Combustion
Incinerators
Emission
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B 06T
13F
21D
21B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
IS. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
134
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thtopage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
CPA Form 2120-1 (»-7J)
U.S. EPA i:TTT
T ^ % *" ' i
•eoOAi-ch.:--; - •;
PVxi'iadelpftia, t*
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Experiments were conducted in a 73 kW (250,000 Btu/hr) rotary kiln incinerator simulator to examine
and characterize emissions from incineration of scrap tire material. The purposes of this project are to: (1)
generate a profile of target analytes for Bill-scale stack sampling efforts, not to generate statistically defensible
emission factors for the controlled combustion of scrap tire material; and (2) where possible, give insight
into the technical issues and fundamental phenomena related to controlled combustion of scrap tires. Wire-
free crumb rubber sized to < 0.64 cm (< 1/4 in) was combusted at two different feed rates, two different
temperatures, and at three different kiln oxygen concentrations. Along with continuous emissions
monitoring for oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NO), sulfur
dioxide (SOj), and total hydrocarbons (THCs), samples were taken to examine volatile and semi-volatile
organics, polychlorinated p-dibenzodioxins and dibenzofiirans (PCDD/PCDF), and metal aerosols. In
addition, a continuous poiycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) analyzer was used in all the tests. Samples
were analyzed with an emphasis on the 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA), but other compounds were also identified where possible.
Results indicate that, if burned in a steady-state mode, TDF combustion will result in very low emissions
of CO, THCs, volatile and semi-volatile oiganics, and PCDD/ PCDF. Metal emissions were also very low,
with the exception of arsenic (As), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn). Uncontrolled sack concentrations of As and Pb
were 37.16 and 65.96 ng/Nm3, respectively. Uncontrolled Zn emissions were considerably higher, at
35,465 Hg/Nm^. Results also indicate that organic emissions can increase significandy when TDF is fired in
a non-steady mode. The continuous PAH analyzer appeared to track transient operation well, and gave
concentration results in the same range as those derived using EPA standard semi-volatile organic sampling
methodologies.
Overall, it appears that, with the exception of zinc, potential emissions from TDF combustion are not
significandy different from emissions from combustion of conventional fossil fuels, when burned in a well-
designed and well-operared combustion device. If unacceptable paniculate loading occurs due to zinc
emissions, then the emissions would have to be controlled by an appropriate particulate control device.
111
-------
PREFACE
The Control Technology Center (CTC) was established by EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to sate
and local air pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance can be accessed through the CTC. First, a
CTC HOTLINE has been established to provide telephone assistance on matters relating to air pollution
control technology. Second, more in-depth engineering assistance can be provided when appropriate.
Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of technical guidance documents,
development of personal computer software, and presentation of workshops on control technology matters.
The technical guidance projects, such as this one, focus on topics of national or regional interest that are
identified through contact with state and local agencies. In this case, the CTC became interested in
examining pollutants emitted from both the controlled and uncontrolled combustion of scrap tires.
Initial tests were conducted to examine the emissions from a simulated tire fire. These simulated open
burning tests were completed in 1989 and the final report tided "Characterization of Emissions from the
Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Tires" was published as EPA report EPA-600/2-89-05-4. In 1991, a
follow-up to the original open burning study was performed, where the previously sampled organic extracts
were subjected to Ames bioassays to determine mutagenic potencies of the extracts, then gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) analysis to determine which classes of compounds accounted
for the mutagenic activity. This report was published as EPA report EPA-600/R-92-127 entitled
"Mutagenicity of Emissions from the Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Rubber Tires."
The CTC has also published report EPA-450/3-91-024 entitled "Burning Tires for Fuel and Tire
Pyrolysis: Air Implications." This repon was a paper study examining the emissions from the use of scrap
tires as fuel for processes. Although data on criteria pollutants (CO, SOx, NO*, and particulates) were
available, little data were available as to the emission of air toxics, including metals and organic. This study
was funded in prder to help dose the data gaps uncovered in the paper study, and to give guidance to state
and local air pollution agencies as to which pollutants to measure during sampling tests.
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Portions of this work were conducted under EPA Contract 68-DO-0141 with Acurex Environmental
Corporation, and EPA Cooperative Agreement CR-814945-01-0 with University of Arkansas (J-E- Dunn).
The author would like to thanlc Acurex's Jeff Ryan, who was the Acurex task leader, and coordinated all of
the sampling and analytical activities; Marc Calvi, who operated the kiln, tire feeder, and flue gas cleaning
system; Mike Bowling, Ed Brown, and Ray Thomas, who operated the sampling equipment; and Hal Buck,
who built the tire feeder. Finally, the author would like to thank EPA/AEERL's Frank Briden, who
performed the XRD and XRF analyses.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT Hi
PREFACE iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES 1x
LIST OF TABLES x
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Scrap Tire Generation Issues 1
1.2. Tire Fires 1
1.3. Tire Derived Fuel 2
1.4. Air Emissions from TDF Combustion 3
1.5. Project Objective 3
2. EXPERIMENTAL 5
2.1. Experimental Equipment 5
2.1.1. Rotary Kiln Incinerator Simulator 5
2.1.2. Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) 6
2.1.3. Sampling Equipment 7
2.1.4. Data Acquisition System 11
2.2. Experimental Approach 11
2.2.1. Experimental Design 11
2.2.2. Experimental Procedures 12
3. RESULTS 16
3.1. Continuous Emission Monitor Samples 16
3.1.1. General Observations 16
3.1.2. Regression Analysis of CO and PAH Dan 16
3.2. Volatile Organic Samples 25
3.3. Semi-Volatile Organic Samples 30
3.3.1. MM5 Sampling Trains 30
3.3.2. Continuous PAH Analyzer 30
3.4. PCDD/PCDF Samples 31
3.5. Metals Samples 31
3.6 Particulate Data 33
3.7. XRD/XRF Results 34
Preceding page Wank vii
-------
3.8. Effect of Transient Operation 35
4. CONCLUSIONS 43
5. REFERENCES 46
APPENDIX A. QA/QC EVALUATION REPORT A-l
A. 1. Volatile Organic Samples A-l
A.2. Semi-Volatile Organic Samples A-l
A.3. PCDD/PCDF Samples A-2
A.4. Metals Samples A-2
A.5. QCER for CEM Data A-3
A.6. General QA Information A-3
APPENDIX B. VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING DATA B-l
APPENDIX C. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING DATA C-l
APPENDIX D. PCDD/PCDF DATA D-l
APPENDIX E. METALS DATA E-l
APPENDIX F. OTHER DATA F-l
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Rotary kiln incinerator simulator. 6
Figure 2-2. TDF feeder. 7
Figure 2-3. Location of sample points 9
Figure 2-4. Scatter plot matrix of experimental conditions. 13
Figure 3-1 ¦ Model predictions: emissions of CO as a function of TDF feed rate 23
Figure 3-2. Model predictions: emissions of PAH as a function of TDF feed rate 24
Figure 3-3. Comparison of VOC emissions between natural gas and TDF combustion.. 29
Figure 3-4. Kiln O2 and CO2 traces during run TBS 36
Figure 3-5. Stack O2 and CO2 traces during run TB8 37
Figure 3-6. PAH analyzer trace during run TB8 37
Figure 3-7. Kiln CO traces during run TB8 38
Figure 3-8. Sack CO traces during run TB8 38
Figure 3-9. Kiln O2 and CO2 traces during run TB9 -40
Figure 3-10. Stack O2 and CO2 traces during run TB9 40
Figure 3-11. PAH analyzermce during run TB9 41
Figure 3-12. Kiln CO traces during run TB9 41
Figure 3-13. Stack CO traces during run TB9 42
Figure F-l. CO Model 1 F-5
Figure F-2. CO Model 2 F-6
Figure F-3. CO Model 3 F-6
Figure F-4. PAH Model 1 F-7
Figure F-5. PAH Model 2 F-8
Figure F-6. PAH Model 3 F-8
1x
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Comparative fuel analysis, by weight 2
Table 2-1. Proximate and ultimate analyses of TDF 8
Table 2-2. Continuous emiss ion monitors 9
Table 2-3. Primary variables of interest 11
Table 2-4. Run conditions H
Table 3-1. CEM data taken at kiln exit. 17
Table 3-2. CEM data taken at SCC exit * ®
Table 3-3. Burner information for kiln and SCC 19
Table 3-4. Dan used for regression analysis 20
Table 3-5. Parameter* examined in regression analysis 21
Table 3-6. Model predictors 22
Table 3-7. Summary of VOC concentrations (ng/L) 26
Table 3-8. Estimated emissions ofVOCs (ng/J), based on TDF + natural gas 27
Table 3-9. Estimated emissions of VOCs (ng/J), based on TDF only. 28
Table 3-10. Stack concentration (jig/m3) of metals from TDF combustion 32
Table 3-11. Estimated metals emissions (ng/J) from TDF combustion 32
Table 3-12. Average emission factors for coal- and oil-fired boilers (ng/J) 33
Table 3-13. Paniculate data. 34
Table 3-14. TDF fly ash composition (wt %) as determined by X-ray fluorescence 35
Table 3-15. TDF fly ash composition as determined by X-ray diffraction 35
Table A-l. Rotary Kiln Tire Burn CEM Operation Summary. A-4
Table A-2. Data quality indicator results for CEM measurements A-6
Table F-l. Kiln tire burn runs F-2
Table F-2. Kiln tire bum sampling summary. F-3
Table F-3. Kiln tire burn paniculate summary F-4
Table F-4. Residuals from COEMISFAC regression models F-5
Table F-5. Residuals (x 1000) from PAHEMISFAC regression models F-7
x
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Scrip Tire Onrnrinn tmici
Approximately 240 million vehicle tire* arc discarded annually in the United State*'. Viable methods for
reclamation exist. Some of the attractive options for use of scrap tires include burning, either alone or with
another fuel, such as coal, in a variety of energy-intensive processes, such as cement kilns and utility
boiler*.2-5-4 Another potentially attractive option is the use of ground die material as a supplement to
asphalt paving materials. Congress has passed a law, the Tramptwrinn Rffir^nrv A a
pf 1991.* which mandates that up to 20 percent of all federally funded roads in the United States indude as
much as 9 kg (20 lb) of rubber derived from scrap tires per 907 kg (I ton) of asphalt by 1997. In spite of
these efforts, less than 25 percent of the total amount of discarded tires are re-used or re-processed, and the
remaining 175 million scrap tires are discarded in landfills, above-ground stockpiles, or illegal dumps. In
addition, these reclamation efforts do tittle to affect the estimated 2 billion tires already present in stockpiles.
Many landfills are refusing to accept tires because they present not only disposal but also health-related
problems. After burial, tires often float to the surface and become partially filled with water. Cutting the
tire in half or in pieces can reduce this tendency. However, it is very costly to cut or shred tires for
land filling purposes, and in any event, many sites lack the necessary equipment. Steel-belted radials, which
comprise the majority of the nation's discarded tires, are particularly difficult to cut and/or shred. Often,
they are simply stockpiled or illegally dumped. These stockpiles and dumps can become a bleeding ground
for many insects, especially mosquitoes, where water collects in the tires and creates an ideal breeding
habitat. The introduction and spread of several mosquito species has been directly attributed to the presence
of refuse tires.6
1.2. Tire Fim
The growing incidence of tire fires creates another potential health hazard. More tire stockpiles and
illegal dumps are coming into existence, and with them the occurrence of tire files. These fires, sometimes
started by arson, generate a huge amount of heat, making them extremely difficult to extinguish. Some of
these tire fires have continued for months. For example, the Rhinehait tire fire in Winchester, Virginia,
burned for nearly 9 months,7 exuding large quantities of potentially harmful compounds. Efforts to identify
and quantify compounds emitted during tire fires have been successful. Large quantities of volatile organ ia,
such as benzene, semi-volatile oiganics, such as polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and particulates
1
-------
are released into the atmosphere during tire fires.'*9 Emissions from simulated open burning of tires were
mutagenic and contained several known carcinogens.10*11
I V Tire Demed Fuel
The potential dangers of air emissions from tire fires, though, don't necessarily mean that controlled
combustion of scrap tires will produce harmful emissions. Tires can be burned whole, or can be shredded or
chipped before burning. Tires that have been processed into smaller pieces are called Tire-Derived Fuel
(TDF). There are three main industries that utilize either whole tires or TDF either as a sole fuel or a fuel
supplement.3 These industries are:
• Electric utilities that use TDF and whole tires as supplemental feed in power generation. One
company is using whole tires as its sole source of fuel in power generation.
• Cement manufacturing companies using tires and TDF to supplement their primary fuel
(usually coal) for firing cement kilns. Some of the companies are using tires or TDF directly in
the kiln, some are using tires or TDF in die precalciner (prior to the kiln).
• Pulp and paper companies using tires or TDF as supplemental fuel in their waste-wood products
boilers.
TDF can be additionally processed to remove the steel belts and the metal bead that surrounds the wheel
rim. TDF with the metals removed is termed wire-free, and TDF with the wire remaining is termed wire-in.
TDF can be purchased in a variety of size ranges all the way down to < 0.7 cm (< 0.25 in). TDF that is very
small is termed crumb rubber. TDF has a higher heating value than coal, and contains about as much sulfur
as a medium sulfur coal. Table 1-1 lists a comparative fuel analysis by weight for an average TDF and an
average coal.
Tabl^-l^omMrariy^idanaj2js^£wejghtJ2
Fuel
Composition (percent)
Heating
Value
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen Nitrogen
Sulfur
A*
Moisture
TDF
83.87
7.09
2.17 0.24
1.23
4.78
0.62
7,428
Coal
73.92
4.85
6.41 1.76
1.59
6.23
5.24
6,396
2
-------
1.4 Air Rm in ion i from TDF Comhmtlon
The main environmental concern of using whole tires or TDF as supplementary fuel is the potential for
increased air emissions. Pollutants of concern include criteria pollutants (CO. SO 2, NOx, and particulates),
metals, and unburned organic*. Tide III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) includes a list of
189 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPi) of concern.15 These include volatile oiganic species such as beniene,
polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzo(a)pyrene. metal species such as lead, and several
individual compounds such as polychlorinated p-dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDD/PCDF).
Past field data have shown that, for the most part, emissions of most criteria pollutants are reduced when
a fraction of the fuel input is replaced with tires or TDF.3-4 This includes SO2 (which drops if the primary
fuel is a high sulfur eastern coal), and NO„ (since tires have very little fuel nitrogen). Uncontrolled
emissions of particulates have generally increased slightly. In some cases the ash characteristics changed such
that the particulate control devices worked better, and overall paniculate emissions were reduced, especially
for systems containing electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Emissions data for other pollutants, however, are
either very limited or non-existent.
l.S. Project Objective
A significant data gap exists in the database of HAPs that can be formed from combustion of tires or
TDF. This makes it difficult for state and local air pollution agencies to grant air quality permits allowing a
facility to supplement its fuel with tires or TDF, since stack sampling is quite expensive, especially when a
list of target analytes does not exist. It was for this reason that the CTC funded this particular project. The
purposes of this project are to: (1) generate a profile of target analytes for full-scale stack sampling efforts,
not to generate statistically defensible emission factors for the controlled combustion of scrap tire material;
and (2) where possible, give insight into the technical issues and fundamental phenomena related to
controlled combustion of scrap tires.
There are several issues that are of concern with the use of TDF in combustion devices:
• The effect on products of incomplete combustion (PICs) of the mode of die feeding (e.g., whole
tires vs. shredded tires).
• The potential for the formation of classes of air toxics not normally found in the stacks of the
combustion devices while burning conventional fuels.
3
-------
* The impact of TDF-gene rated paniculate on operation of existing paniculate control devices.
* Potential for operational problems due to differences in feed characteristics.
* Potential operational problems due to differences in the residues that are generated.
This project will attempt to address the first two issues listed above. As much as possible, the Ian three
issues will be eliminated from the scope of the project by: 1) utilizing a very uniform feed so as to enable as
dose to steady-state operation as possible; and 2) to use a grade of TDF that will not generate significant
residue.
4
-------
2. EXPERIMENTAL
7 I f?T|^rim>nt«l
A tingle laboratoiy-scale oombuitor wu used to perform all the m and the tern were performed in as
wide a range of operating conditions at possible, to yiwmUw the process conditions in a variety of
combustion units. In addition, it wu decided that the scrap tire material be co-fired with natural gu as the
primary fuel, rather than coal or wood waste. By using natural gas as the primaiy fuel, k wu hoped that the
effect of the TDF could be isolated, rather than adding the additional experimental complications inherent
with burning an additional heterogeneous fuel like coal or wood.
311 Rotary Kiln Incineramr Simulator
The tests were all performed in the EPA's rotary kiln incinerator simulator (RKIS), located in the EPA's
Environmental Research Center in Research Triangle Park, NC. The EPA RKIS has been described in
detail previously14-1'. It has been established that the 73 IcW (250,000 Btu/hr) pilot-scale simulator exhibits
the salient features of full-scale units with thermal ratings 20 to 40 rimes larger. The simulator matches the
volumetric heat release, gas-phase residence time, and temperature profile of many full-scale hazardous waste
incineration units, and yet is flexible enough to allow parametric testing. A schematic drawing of the
simulator is presented in Figure 2-1. A small afterburner (43.8 kW; 150,000 Btu/hr) mounted at the base of
the secondary combustion chamber served to establish near-isothermal operating conditions throughout the
unit. Sample ports are located at various locations.
The effluent from the RKIS is ducted into a dedicated flue gas cleaning system (FGCS) consisting of a
1.1 MW (4,000,000 Btu/hr) afterburner, followed by a spray quench, baghouse, and wet scrubber. The
presence of the FGCS enables extremely flexible operation of EPA's research combunors such as the RKIS
without venting pollutants into the atmosphere.
Measurements made on the RKIS are not intended to be diwrrlv extrapolated to full-scale units. It is,
for example, vejy difficult to scale up some of the important gas-phase mixing phenomena from the
simulator, where, for instance, stratification is not a significant factor, to a full scale unit, where stratification
is known to be significant16. In addition, there are significant differences between kilns and other
combustion devices, and this study does not address those issues, although some of the information from
this study can be applied to other types of combustors, particularly those that burn TDF in the suspension
pR««. The purpose of the simulator is to individually examine the fundamental phenomena that occur in
full-scale units, and to gain an understanding of the qualitative trends that would be found in a full-scale
5
-------
rotary kiln. In no way should it be inferred that the concentrations of pollutants from this apparatus would
be the same as those from full-scale units.
Figure 2-1. Rotary kiln incinerator simulator.
2.1-2- Tire Derived Fuel (TDF)
TDF, consisting of wire-free crumb rubber, sized < 0.64 cm (< 0.25 in), was introduced into the kiln via
a vibrating feeder. This feeder (shown in Figure 2-2) consists of an AccuRate screw feeder (model # 604),
which dropped a controlled amount of tire material into a stainless steel tube connected to a vibrator (Dyna-
Slide model # S0496). The stainless steel tube was insetted through a water jacketed annular tube so that
the oudet to the feeder tube lied over the centerline of the kiln's internal recess chamber. Industrial grade
nitrogen (Ni) was purged through the feeder to cool and provide an inert atmosphere to prevent the in-
transit TDF from combusting or pyrolizing. The feeder enabled feed rates ranging from 0 to 2 kg/hr to be
continuously fed into the RIGS.
6
-------
The TDF material underwent a proximate and ultimate analysis, u well as an analysis for metals, the
results of which are tabulated in Table 2*1. TDF contains significant amounts of zinc (Zn). since Zn is
extensively used in the tire manufacturing process.
2.1.3. Sampling F^iiipmfnt
Gases were monitored with continuous emission monitors (OEMs) to measure oxygen (O2). carbon
dioxide (C02)» carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NO), and total hydrocarbons (THQ both before and
after the secondary combustion chamber (SCO), as well as sulfur dioxide (SOj) at the SCC exit. In
addition, a continuous photoelectric polycydic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) analyser sampled the gases at
the stack exit. Table 2-2 lists the gas analyzers used in this study. Figure 2-3 illustrates the sampling
locations used for this study.
\ . /
Feeding Tube
[Q
Ch
Nitrogen Purge
Figure 2-2. TDF feeder.
7
-------
Table 2-1. Proximate and ultimate analyses of TDF.
Moisture 0.84 %
Carbon 76.02 %
Hydrogen 7.23 %
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.34 %
Sulfur 1.75%
Total Halogens (calculated 0.31 %
as chlorine)
Ash
Proximate Analysis
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Ash
Fixed Carbon
Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Heating Value
7.20%
0.84%
65.52 %
7.20%
26.44%
<5 ppm
<5 ppm
295 ppm
51 ppm
2.14%
7.666 k]/ke
8
-------
Tabic 2-2. Continuoui emission monitors
Analyte Method Anihw
o2
paramagnetic
Bedcman 755.755R
CO
non-ditpenive infrared
Beckman 864
Horiba P1R-2000
co2
non-dispenive infrared
Bedcman 864,880
Horiba P1R-2000
NO
chemiluminescent
TECOIOA
SO2
ultraviolet
Tekdyne 611DAMC-X
TECO 48
Aiucon 207
THC
flame ionization
Bedcman 402
PAH
photoelectric
EcoChemPAS lOOOe
the SO2 analyzers had problems; three different analysers were tried before reliable opention wis
attained.
9
-------
VOCs were collected by a Volatile Organic Sampling Train (VOST) system17 located as shown in
Figure 2-3. For each run where VOCs were measured, VOST tubes were taken sequentially in triplicate (to
judge reproducibility) and each VOST tube was analysed separately. VOST samples were analyzed using a
gas chromatography mass spectrometer (GC/MS) system to determine the concentration of 59 separate
VOCs, 38 of which are listed under Title III of the CAAAs18-19. The majority of these compounds were
cither very near to or below the detection limiu of the equipment. The high frequency of concentrations
below the detection limit (BDL) requires that the average concentrations not be reported as precise values.
Concentrations below the equipment detection limits should not arbitrarily be assigned the value of zero,
nor should they be given the value of die detection limit. Rather, the actual value likely lies between the two
extremes. For the purposes of this study, however, if a compound was detected at above the detection limit
in one or more of the VOST tubes, then, for averaging purposes, the detection limits were used as the
concentrations for the other VOST tubes. All VOC data are presented in Appendix B, however, if a more
detailed treatment is required.
Semi-volatile organics and bulk paniculate were collected by isokinetic sampling protocols with a
Modified Method 5 (MM5) train20 located as shown in Figure 2-3. The MM5 procedure did not result in
multiple samples for each run, as was the case with VOST. Rather, a single integrated sample over the
course of the entire run was produced. Collected samples were analyzed using approved analysis
procedures21 for 95 semivolatile organic compounds, 61 of which are listed as hazardous under Title 11113-
Of the 61 listed compounds, 20 ate PAHs.
Metal aerosols were collected by the Multiple Metals Train (MMT),22 with the exception that the
potassium permanganate (KMnOi) impinger solution (used for collection of mercury (Hg) from the
sample) was omitted. No literature could be found that reported the presence of mercury in tires, and due
to the limited funding for this project, mercury analysis was omitted, which made it unnecessary to
con figure the sampling train for mercury sampling.
PCDD and PCDF were sampled using the MM5 train with the protocols laid out in EPA Method 2323
and analyzed by high resolution gas chromatography/low resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/LRMS),
using a Hewlett-Packard 5890/5970 Gas Chromatography/Mass Selective Detector (GC/MSD) system and
methods that are slight adaptations to EPA Method 23 and RCRA Method 828024. Isotopically labeled
internal standards for each congener class are incorporated during the extraction and cleanup phases of the
analytical procedures to enhance analytical accuracy. For the GC/MSD analyses, the procedures differed
from RCRA Method 8280 only in the number of labeled congeners used to calculate recoveries, i.e..
10
-------
congeners containing the 2,3,7,8 substitution positions are avoided as a safety precaution. An internal
standard was used that consisted of a 13Ci2-labeled congener from each tetra-octa PCDD/PCDF (except for
octa-CDF). The recovery standard ^Cn-hbded TCDD is added before injection on the GC. The recovery
must be within 40 and 120 percent to be acceptable.
2.1.4- Data Acquisition Svtt^m
All CEMs and thermocouples are connected to a microcomputer-based data acquisition system which
allows on-screen visualization of data, conversion of data to engineering units, and date/rime stamping of
data for later reference. This system, run on an Apple Macintosh Ha. uta the Strawberry Tree Workbench
Mac software3'. All files are output in tab-delimited ASCII format for later manipulation. Dau were
logged to disk every 10 sec. for all input channels.
2.2. Experimental Appmart.
7 7 i
A response-surface experimental design26 was used to reduce the number of tests required. The primary
variables of interest (both dependent and independent) are lined in Table 2-3. Note also that some variables
ate functions of other variables, for example, the feed rate of tires and the gas temperature inherently cannot
be totally separated from the oxygen concentration.
Tabl^^^Pnmar^ihibla^onnKrar
Independent
1) Kiln exit temperature
2) Kiln O2 concentration
3) Tire feed rate
4) Feed mode (batch vs. continuous)
Dependent
1) CO emissions
2) particulate emission*
3) metals emissions
4) PIC emissions (THC, PAH, volatile organic*,
semi-volatile omnia, and PCDD/PCDF)
U
-------
The test conditions were achieved by varying kiln firing rate, combustion air flow race, and tire feed rate.
Figure 2-4 illustrates a scatter plot the acperimental design points achieved with res pea to the independent
variables No. 1 through 3. For the tesponse-surfeoe methodology to be valid, data must be available over the
desired range of values of the independent variables. Variations in independent variable No. 4 (mode of
TDF feeding) were achieved by performing two additional tests: one test where the tires were introduced in
300 g batches spaced 10 min. apart; and one test where the kiln air flow rare was ramped up and down every
10 minutes to change the kiln oxygen concentration. Table 2-4 tabulates the run numbers and their
respective kiln operating conditions.
2.2.2. Emwimenrel Prr^i.nK
Since the feeder is water-cooled, it was removed when experiments were not being performed so that die
loss of cooling water would not lead to failure of the water jacket and thermal shock to the kiln's refractory
from having water being poured on the refractory onoe cooling water flow was re-established. Another side
effect of the feeder being water cooled was that it provided a heat sink for the hot kiln gases, resulting in
cooler operation than is normally found at the identical fuel and air settings without the feeder present. For
this reason, the kiln was run at a higher firing rate with the feeder installed so that temperatures could be
maintained.
With the exceptions of Runs No. TB8 and TB9, the following test protocol was used. The kiln was
allowed to come to thermal equilibrium at a given temperature by setting the main burner and afterburner
to the desired air and fuel flow rates. The main flame was then extinguished, and the tire feeder was
weighed and installed. Onoe the feeder was installed, the main flame was re-lit, and the desired run settings
were achieved. On blank runs (with 0 kg/hr TDF feed rate), the feeder was installed as well, and the
nitrogen purge was maintained; however, no TDF was fed. The desired TDF feed rate was dialed into the
feeder control, and the system was allowed to stabilize. Due to the time it took for the TDF to travel down
the feeder tube, it took approximately 30 minutes from the initiation of TDF feed before the system
stabilized. Once steady-state was achieved, sampling was initiated. For runs where no organic or metals
sampling was to be performed, OEMs were operated for 10 minutes, with the CEM results being averaged
over the 10 minute run time. For runs where organic or metals sampling was performed, sample duration
was determined by the requirements of the sampling methodology being used, which was determined by die
requirements that a given volume be pulled through the sample train at isokinetic conditions.
12
-------
TDF F—4 (kgftv) |
•
•• . / %
• • N l«
• • • • *
•
• •" » • n
• • ¦ • ••
• • • • ••
•
%
• «
m
•
•
>
•
•
* «
| Kin 02 (%)
•
• •
• • •' • •
•
•
•
• * •
. *
•
• • •
• a
•
•
:
•
•
•
•
*
•
• •
•
• . .
•
•
¦
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
i i i i i i i
| Klin T fC)
—i—i i i i—i »
0.S 1.0 1.S 2.0 4 s S 7 • B 10 MO 1000 1060 1100
Figure 2-4. Scatter plot matrix of experiment*! condition!.
13
-------
Table 2-4. Run conditions.
TDFFeed %ToulFud Kiln02 (%) IGlnT(°C) SCCT(°Q Other Simple?
TBI
0.74
7.23
8.28
1009
896
V
TB2*
1.95
16.95
7.17
1034
924
S
TB3*
2.02
17.14
7.35
1045
962
V,S
TB4*
1.81
15.50
8.51
1030
964
S
TB5*
0.00
0.00
9.23
990
952
v.s
TB6
2.05
17.30
7.64
1052
979
D,M
TB7
0.00
0.00
9.82
959
896
D, M
TB8*
2.31
19.18
6.45
1059
962
V.S
TB9+
1.74
14.97
8.38
1042
918
v,s
TB10
0.00
0.00
7.66
975
824
TB11
0.00
0.00
3.68
1029
830
TB12
0.00
0.00
5.71
1022
842
TB13
0.00
0.00
7.62
1001
857
TBI 4
0.85
7.80
7.85
1011
884
TB15
0.85
7.80
3.10
1065
875
TBI 6
0.85
7.80
5.07
1058
886
TBI 7
0.85
7.80
7.53
1033
901
TB18
1.70
14.54
5.40
1061
909
TB19
1.70
14.54
3.55
1082
910
TB20
1.70
14.54
8.32
1045
927
TB21
1.70
14.54
4.24
1077
925
TB22
1.70
14.54
6.06
1077
931
TB23
0.00
0.00
5.33
916
860
TB24
0.88
11.99
4.91
939
871
TB25
0.88
11.99
7.59
937
879
TB26
0.88
11.99
3.70
966
872
TB27
1.75
21.41
3.18
975
884
TB28
1.75
21.41
6.39
962
887
TB29
1.75
21.41
8.23
938
889
TB30
1.75
21.41
5.49
970
887
electrical noise problems on the CEMs.
non-continuous feed tests
14
-------
After sampling was completed, the kiln flame was extinguished, the feeder removed and re-weighed, and
the kiln re-lit. Mass feed rates were calculated based on the weight difference between the feeder at the
beginning and at the end of the day (including the mass of TDF added during the day to keep the feeder
full). Feed rates were adjusted by an estimate of the amount of TDF that was found to build up in the
feeder tube during calibration runs.
For Run No. TB3, the procedure above was performed, with the additional operation of changing the
volumetric flow rate of the main burner combustion air back and forth between 140 Nm3/hr (5000 scfli)
and 112 Nm^/hr (4000 scfh) every 10 minutes to simulate transient operation. For Run No. TB9, an
attempt was made to simulate the transient operation that might occur in a system feeding whole tires at
periodic intervals rather than feeding TDF continuously. This test wax performed by loading 300 g of TDF
into a 0.9 L (1 qt) cardboard container and feeding the containers into the kiln every 10 min, by using a
manual charging basket/ramrod feeder as described previously12'1'. Note that isoleineticity was not precisely
maintained during the transient tests, due to the constandy changing stack gas volumes.
Particulate samples that were found deposited in the sight ports on the TDF feeder were subjected to X-
Ray Diffraction (XRD) and X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis to determine composition and speciation of
the metals in the particulate.
15
-------
3. RESULTS
VI. rnntinnnn. Frr.it.inn Monitor S«mpl»«
3.1.1. General Observations
AU CEM daa were averaged over die course of the run to yield a * ingle number. The CEMi were giving
extremely noisy responses in runs No. TBI through TB5. This noise problem was traced to the electrical
circuits, and was eliminated in all runs after TBS. For this reason, validity of average responses from many
of the CEMs (especially CO, SO2, PAH) are questionable for runs No. TBI through TB5. Table 3-1 lists
the average values from the CEMs taken at the kiln exit sample port Table 3-2 lists the average values from
the CEMs taken at the exit of the secondary combustion chamber, with the exception of die PAH data,
which were taken at the duct sample port shown in Figure 2-3. Other data of importance, such as kiln and
afterburner firing rates, flow rates of the gaseous effluent leaving the kiln and secondary combustion
chamber (SCC), and relevant temperatures, are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, the NO and SO2 analyzers
were not always behaving as per required Quality Assurance guidelines, due to excessive drift of the responses
between initial pie-run calibration and post-run Quality Control checks.
Of particular note is the fact that THC measurements (both at the kiln exit and the SCC exit) were, for
all practical purposes (except for Run No. TB9, which wilt be discussed later), in the range from 0 to 5 ppm,
which is of the same order of magnitude as the resolution of the THC analyzer. In addition, CO
measurements were always (except, again, in the case of Run No. TB9) less than 100 ppm, indicating that
"good" combustion conditions were occurring. This is likely from the steady-sate feeding of die TDF,
which burned quite well when fed at a constant rate. Also note that for every run performed at steady-sate
conditions, stack CO measurements were on the order of 20 ppm; even those where no TDF was being
burned. This observation would indicate that the SCC was successfidly burning residual CO from the kiln
down to a lower limit of approximately 20 ppm. Emissions below this limit were not attainable from the
apparatus given the fact that the afterburner conditions were fixed for the entire set of runs.
3.1 2. Regression Analysis of CO and PAH Daa
Based on these initial observations, it was decided that THC, both at the kiln exit and SCC exit, as well
as CO at the SCC exit, would not be appropriate variables to examine with regards to the effect of TDF on
emissions. Daa were prepared for a regression analysis, with the dependent variables being the emission
rates of CO at the kiln exit; and the emission rate of PAH at the sack exit. Daa used for the regression
analysis are listed in Table 3-4. Note that only the steady-sate tests were used in the regression analysis.
16
-------
Table 3-1. CEM data taken at kiln exit.
Run
Oz
co2
CO
NO
THC
(%)
(%>
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
TBI*
8.28
7.33
33
52
3
TB2*
7.17
7.45
36
73
3
TB3*
7.35
7.70
16
58
0
TB4*
8.51
7.14
31
54
1
TB5*
9.23
6.31
44
39
0
TB6
7.64
7.77
20
55
1
TB7
9.82
5.85
17
32
2
TB8+
6.45
8.38
30
60
1
TB9+
8.38
7.32
700
53
43
TB10
7.66
7.09
30
39
¦1
TBI 1
3.68
9.34
38
53
0
TB12
5.71
8.22
36
47
1
TB13
7.62
7.15
35
40
0
TB14
7.85
7.25
35
46
I
TBI 5
3.10
9.97
42
62
2
TB16
5.07
8.86
40
57
1
TB17
7.53
7.43
35
50
1
TBI 8
5.40
8.92
44
62
1
TBI 9
3.55
10.00
48
64
1
TB20
8.32
7.35
41
54
1
TB21
4.24
9.59
47
64
1
TB22
6.06
8.71
43
62
1
TB23
5.33
8.08
28
56
0
TB24
4.91
9.03
50
66
1
TB25
7.59
7.55
45
64
1
TB26
3.70
9.71
51
65
2
TB27
3.18
10.24
59
68
1
TB28
6.39
8.54
54
66
2
TB29
8.23
7.39
54
58
1
TB30
5.49
8.94
53
68
1
electrical noise problems on the CEMs.
* non-continuous feed tests
17
-------
Table 3-2. CEM data taken at SCC exit.
Run
o2
co2
CO
NO
THC
SO 2
PAH
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(n«/m3)
TBI*
7.59
8.62
16
49
-2
12
1437
TB2*
5.43
9.44
14
64
-1
81
2278
TB3*
5.62
9.62
12
48
-2
59
2284
TB4*
6.78
9.07
20
62
2
67
3289
TBS*
7.50
8.44
16
52
1
14
1941
TB6
6.06
9.45
15
60
1
51
982
TB7
8.10
7.80
9
42
2
35
429
TB8+
5.20
10.07
18
58
1
76
1957
TB9+
8.85
8.11
70
46
6
26
214000
TB10
6.23
8.86
13
28
0
,
410
TBI 1
2.82
10.77
17
36
0
.
630
TBI 2
4.49
9.94
16
35
-1
404
TBI 3
6.17
9.01
16
30
0
,
426
TBI 4
6.60
8.99
16
35
0
42
767
TBI 5
2.48
11.18
20
46
0
1553
TB16
4.07
10.35
19
44
0
103
1313
TB17
6.28
9.15
17
41
0
106
702
TBI 8
4.30
10.46
19
50
0
1939
TB19
2.61
11.33
20
50
0
96
2364
TB20
7.12
9.00
18
45
0
82
1474
TB21
3.20
11.01
20
50
0
74
1937
TB22
5.01
10.18
20
50
0
78
1734
TB23
4.11
9.94
13
32
-1
7
925
TB24
4.40
10.30
19
36
-1
26
1581
TB25
6.85
9.02
18
37
-1
22
618
TB26
3.68
10.60
20
36
0
42
1550
TB27
3.47
10.83
20
37
0
108
1787
TB28
5.97
9.68
20
39
0
106
1632
TB29
7.36
8.88
20
36
0
100
1130
TB30
5.39
9.93
19
37
0
84
1551
^wecSSniob^ronem^nTv^EMr
4 non-continuous feed tests
analyzer non-operational
18
-------
Table 3-3. Burner information for kiln and SCC.
Run
Main
Burner
Ait Flow
Rate
(Nm3/hr)
Main
Burner Fuel
Flow Rate
(Nm3/hr)
Main
Burner
Fuing Rate
(kW)
sex:
Burner
Air
Flow
Rate
(Nin V
SCC
Burner
Fuel
Flow
Rate
(NmV
SCC TDF Kiln Ga* SCC Cm
Firing Firing Flow Flow
Rate Rate Rate Rate
(kW) (kW) (Nm'/hr) (Nm3/hr)
TBI
146.82
8.64
91.07
36.9
SSI—
3.43
37.23
9.28
160.36
196.32
TB2
161.55
8.75
92.30
36.9
3.43
37.23
21.96
171.75
208.84
TB3
158.55
8.92
94.02
36.9
3.43
37.23
22.50
148.97
208.92
TB4
165.48
9.03
95.06
36.9
3.43
37.23
20.50
147.56
215.89
TB5
144.59
9.03
95.18
36.9
3.43
37.23
0.00
136.83
194.20
TB6
165.29
8.95
94.22
36.9
3.43
37.23
22.74
172.33
21569
TB7
152.74
8.98
94.63
36.9
3.43
37.23
0.00
148.12
202.29
TB8
153.00
8.92
93.94
36.9
3.43
37.23
25.16
137.38
203.41
TB9
169.79
9.03
95.02
36.9
3.43
37.23
19.80
177.24
220.16
TB10
135.27
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
0.00
139.77
184.97
TBI 1
107.60
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
0.00
117.81
157.06
TB12
120.15
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
0.00
128.22
169.78
TB13
134.85
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
0.00
139.77
184.53
TB14
148.18
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
10.42
140.15
197.35
TBI 5
115.51
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
10.42
118.12
164.46
TBI 6
127.37
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
10.42
128.60
176.53
TB17
145.80
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
10.42
140.15
194.99
TB18
142.24
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
19.41
140.54
191.09
TB19
129.86
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
19.41
134.86
178.71
TB20
165.94
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
1941
15188
214.73
TB21
134.62
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
19.41
140.54
183.47
TB22
146.03
9.15
96.28
36.9
3.43
37.23
19.41
140.54
194.85
TB23
78.32
5.89
62.06
36.9
3.43
37.23
0.00
89.90
124.18
TB24
86.51
589
62.06
36.9
3.43
37.23
11.90
90.29
132.35
TB25
98.29
5.89
62.06
36.9
3.43
37.23
11.90
90.29
144.13
TB26
81.61
5.89
62.06
36.9
3.43
37.23
11.90
90.29
127.43
TB27
91.10
5.89
62.06
36.9
3.43
37.23
21.26
90.68
136.89
TB28
106.73
5.89
62.06
36.9
3.43
37.23
21.26
105.13
152.69
TB29
120.63
5.89
62.06
36.9
343
37.23
21.26
119.84
166.76
TB30
102.51
5.89
62.06
36,9
342.
37£_
21.26
105,07
J
19
-------
Run
CO emission
Estimated
PAH
Estimated
rate (g/hr)
CO
emission rate
PAH
emissions
(mg/hr)
emissions
fne/D
(n?m
TBI*
5.33
16.26
0.28
8.54E-04
TB2*
6.34
19.08
0.48
1.44E-03
TB3*
2.36
6.97
0.48
1.42E-03
TB4*
4.51
13.18
0.71
2.07E-03
TB5*
5.99
17.48
0.38
1.11E-03
TB6
3.56
10.50
0.21
6.19E-04
TB7
2.50
7.34
0.09
2.64E-04
TB8+
4.01
11.86
0.40
1.18E-03
TB9+
125.96
368.26
47.11
1.38E-01
TB10
4.13
11.92
0.08
2.31E-04
TB11
4.32
12.46
0.10
2.89E-04
TBI 2
4.45
12.84
0.07
2.02E-04
TBI 3
4.82
13.91
0.08
2.31 E-04
TB14
4.85
13.99
0.15
4.33E-04
TBI 5
4.77
13.76
0.26
7.50E-04
TB16
4.98
14.37
0.23
6.64E-04
TB17
4.84
13.97
0.14
4.04 E-04
TB18
6.00
17.31
0.37
1.07E-03
TB19
6.27
18.09
0.42
1.21E-03
TB20
6.20
17.89
0.32
9.23E-04
TB21
6.44
18.58
0.36
1.04E-03
TB22
5.98
17.25
0.34
9.81E-04
TB23
2.47
11.06
0.11.
4.92E-04
TB24
4.48
20.05
0.21
9.40E-04
TB25
3.99
17.86
0.09
4.03E-04
TB26
4.48
20.05
0.20
8.95E-04
TB27
5.18
23.19
0.24
1.07E-03
TB28
5.62
25.16
0.25
1.12E-03
TB29
6.53
29.23
0.19
8.50E-04
TB30
5.52
24.71
0.23
1.03E-03
* electrical noise problems on the CEMs.
~ non-continuous feed tests - not used in regression analysis
Hie (egression analysis was performed using the SAS statistical software package. Parameters examined
in the regression analysis (and their definitions) are listed in Table 3-5. The RSQUARE option in SAS
procedure REG was used to optain the best fining models using R**2 (multiple R-squared) as a selection
criterion. An attempt was made to model the variation in each of the response variables "Iff" in each of
three forms, namely its actual value, its logarithm, and its reciprocal. The available predictor set initially
consisted of KFEEDPCT, KILNT, KILN02, and either KILN GAS or JQLNFUEL, where use of each form
of the latter was used separately. In addition, all squares and two-factor products of the four predictors were
made available for selection. Once the highest R2 models were obtained in this way. then reciprocals and
20
-------
logarithms of KILN02, KILNT, and cither KILNGAS or KILNFUEL were made available for twitches
among the predictors, using the MAXR option, with the goal of obtaining an improved fit (higher R2) while
maintaining the original number of predictors. The ultimate criterion for choosing a final model was that all
predictors in the model were significant, and no other predictor could be added from within the excluded
list of predictors which attained significance when added to the model. A significance level of p $ 0.01.
indicating the probability level that the partial effect of a predictor is significantly diffident from xero, was
chosen as the acceptance criterion.
Table 3-5. Parameters examined in regression analysis.
Parameter
Definition
Dependent variables
KFEEDPCT
% of kiln fuel as TDF
KILN02
kiln O2 (%)
KILNT
kiln T (°Q
KILNA1R
kiln combustion air (Nm3/hr)
KILNFUEL
kiln natural gas fuel (Nm'/hr)
KILNGAS
kiln exhaust flow rate (NmMir)
Response variables
COEMISFAC
CO emissions (ng/J total heat input)
PAHEMISFAC
Table 3-6 lists the model predictors for the regression model. By multiplying the predictor by the value
of the coefficient and summing this total for all coefficients, the predicted value of the result can be derived.
Note that certain models require this total must be exponentiated after being calculated. The simplest
model for COEMISFAC involves only KFEEDPCT and KILNFUEL. This is attributed to the fact that
COEMISFAC was so reactive every time KILNFUEL underwent a change. The list of KILNGAS values are
relatively noisy by comparison. Model-1 and Model-2 apply almost identically to the prediction of
In (COEMISFAC). Estimated regression coefficients (R2) are shown for each model, p-values associated with
tests of the partial effects of each of the terms in the models were universally £ 0.0001. The best model
based on KILNGAS rather than KILNFUEL provides a direct prediction of COEMISFAC (without
exponentiation) and is characterized below in terms of its estimated coefficients as Model-3. Again, p-values
associated with tests of the partial effects of the individual terms in the model were all £ 0.0001. This model
involves three of the four pre-selected predictor variables, KILN02 having no significant effect in the model.
Furthermore, these predictors are specific to the untransfbrmed response, COEMISFAC By contrast, R2
drops to 0.9005 when the same predictors are used to predict In(COEMISFAC). The tingle difficulty with
use of either Model-1 or Model-2, is that they both seriously underestimate the observed response for Run
TB29.
21
-------
Table 3-6. Model predictors.
Predictor
Model-1*
Model-2*
Modd-3
COEMISFAC
intercept
KFEEDPCT
KILNFUEL
K1LNFUELA2
b(KILNFUEL)
1/K1LNFUEL
K1LNTA2
K3LNGASA2
KILNT x KILNGAS
PAHEMISFAC
Intercept
KFEEDPCT
KILN02
KILNT
KILNGAS
KFEEDPCTA2
K1LN02*KFEEDPCT
KILNT* KFEEDPCT
KILNT*K1LN02
KILNGAS*KFEEDPCT
KILNGAS*KILN02
KILNGAS'KILNT
K1LNGASA2
1/KILNGAS
1/KILNT
R2 - 0.95189
55.69512
0.019876
-14.822410
0.984505
R2 - 0.9206
3.7475E*00
-1.5930E-03
-1.0619E-02
1.3552E-03
-5.533IE-05
-6.2066E+02
R2 - 0.95193
-417.507
0.0198886
139.523
1016.867
R2 - 0.9778
7.1829E*01
-2.8505E-01
-4.4491E-02
-5.1808E-01
-1.4292E-03
3.7836E-04
-1.0769E-03
•
8.1143E-03
3.4782E-04
•
-1.7409E+03
R2 - 0.9374
26.888
0.383806
-8.706E-5
-4.93807E-3
1.210081E-3
R2 > 0.9410
-1.3428E-02
-2.2349E-04
-3.0193E-04
2.5232E-07
2.0806E-06
6.1586E-08
-3.0212E-07
1.0991E+01
* - model requires exponentiation of result to convert to predicted COEMISFAC and PAHEMISFAC.
A complete list of the residuals, i.e., [observed - fitted], for all 3 models can be (bund in Table F-2 in
Appendix F. Of course, the residuals shown there for Models 1 and 2 are not actually the residuals of the
least squares fit. The latter were the basis for the fit in the logarithmic scale; the former were obtained by
exponentiating the predicted logarithms and subtracting the result from the observed.
By varying individual parameters from the model while holding everything else constant, it is possible to
visualise the individual effects of predictors. Figure 3-1 illustrates the effect of TDF feed fraction on
emissions of CO (in ng/J total heat input), using nominal values of KILNT - 1000 °C, KILNGAS » 140
Nm^/hr, KILN FUEL » 9.lNm3/hr, and K1LN02 - 7%, for each of Models 1 through 3. Notice that
Models 1 and 2 are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Predicted COEMISFAC was insensitive to
kiln temperatures and oxygen concentrations, and did not even exhibit a significant effect of TDF feed rate.
Note that only the steady-sate tests were used for all of the regression analysis. The model would only
22
-------
predict an increate in CO emissions from a minimum of 10.3. to a maximum of 18.8 [ng/J total kiln fuel
input] while increasing TDF from 0 % to 20 % of the kiln fuel input. Apparently. TDF combustion, when
done in a steady-state mode, does not significantly increase CO emissions from those (bund during natural
gu combustion.
20-
18--
516"i
a 12-
110"
I 6
8 «
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
% Fuel as TDF
Figure 3-1. Model predictions: emissions of CO as a function of TDF feed rate;
using K1LNT - 1000 °C, KILN GAS-140 NmVhr, KILNFUEL-9.1N m'/hr, and K1LN02 - 7%.
It was unusually difficult to pinpoint an optimal model for PAHEM1SFAC. Of the three forms of PAH
response attempted, linear, logarithmic, and reciprocal, ln(PAHEMlSFAC) provided (he greatest collection
of acceptable alternative models. In fact, using SAS proc RSQUARE to examine all possible models, models
were found containing 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 predictors, all with R1 > 0.9 and all of whose predictors were
statistically significant at the 0.01 level (p S 0.01). Three predictor variables were shared in common
between R2 -optimal 5 and 9 term models, namely KILNGAS*KILNT, RK1LNGAS, and FEEDA2. Based
on use of Mallow's C statistic, the data suggested the 9-term model to be most appropriate. Among the 5 -
9 term semi-log models, this is the preferred one, though the background "full" model used to reach this
conclusion was based on only 4 error degrees of freedom, i.e., fitting a "FULL" model with 19 parameters to
23 data points. For the sake of comparison, we have included estimated coefficients and for both the R2
-optimal 5-term (Model-1) and 9-term (Model-2) models for prediction of In(PAHEMlSFAC). The partial
effect of each of the terms in the models is significant at the 0.01 level (p £ 0-01).
A complete list of the residuals, i.e., [observed - fitted], for all 3 models can be found in Table F-3 in
Appendix F. Of course, the residuals shown there for Models 1 and 2 are not actually the residuals of the
least squares fit. The latter were the basis for the fit in the logarithmic scale; the former were obtained by
exponentiating the predicted logarithms and subtracting the result from the observed. Value* shown in the
23
-------
following able are these differences multiplied by 10 . As is evident in Table F-3, the shrinkage in absolute
values of residuals is not universal in going from the best 5-term model to the best 9-term model, e.g., TB24
and TB27. Using linear PAHEMISFAC as the response variable, one 7-predictor model, labeled as Model-
3, nearly satisfied all criteria for model selection. The exception was that p i 0.0180 for the partial effect of
K1LNGAS*KILN02. whereas the p-values for testing the partial effects of all other predictors were
universally & 0.01 . However, it appears to be an excellent model, sharing four predictors in common with
Modd-2, having an acceptable R2 0.9410, and having smaller absolute residuals, in general, than cither
Modet-1 or Model-2. In addition, the data seemed to "home in" on the model, whereas with
ln(PAHEMlSFAC) as the response, choice among 5-9 predictor models was not easy.
Figure 9-2 illustrates the effect of TDF Seed rate on PAH emissions (as measured by die PAH analyzer),
in ng/J total heat input, using nominal values of K1LNT - 1000 °C, KILNGAS - 140 Nm3/hr, and
K1LN02 - 7%. for each of Models 1 through 3. Notice how Models 2 and 3 are almost indistinguishable
from one another. Increasing TDF feed from 0 to 20% increases the predicted PAH emissions from those
of natural gas alone by approximately a factor of 5, from aminumum of 1.9E-4 to a maximum 1.1E-3 ng/J.
PAH emissions were fairly insensitive to temperature and oxygen over the range of conditions studied,
although increasing TDF feed rates tended to increase PAH emissions for all oxygen levels. A useful
objective for future TDF combustion studies would be to perform some basic research on TDF pyrolysis
kinetics with special attention being given the transport phenomena in the vicinity of TDF panicles.
Overall, supplementing the fuel with TDF tends to increase PAH emissions, but not dramatically, provided
steady-sate operation is maintained.
Figure 3-2. Model predictions: emissions of PAH as a function of TDF feed rate;
using K3LNT - 1000 °C, KILNGAS-140 Nm'/hr, and KILN02 • 7%.
24
-------
V Volatile Organic
In gencrj, *e volaole organic compounds (VOCs) M w„ fiiH, d«« to p»aicj tpundooon
to*. A number of compound, id-HW comb)1„i(,„ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
However, several of the compounds found In combustion samples were alio present in the Add Uanb at
simda. le«l,; primarily
PIC from combustion in general, and could be attributed to PICs from the natural pi flame found in the
field blanks. Ho«e«r, be™™ U aho a tnedata™ rfT««. and ««,», ^ ma!*™
„e ubiquitous m labomory owi«,„m«nn. In addition, amp)*, contained triddomauoremethane.
which is a chlorofluotocatbon commonly uied in air conditioners. Appeodi, B contains .11 of d* «toile
o^nic data. Table 3-7 lurmMma the „uhs fh,„ A, voUrile organic mmple,,by «n^ the emu*,
uluts from all compounds that were present in concent™.™ pe,*, dun the quantitation levd on at least
one VOST tube. On compounds where one or more VOST tubes had concentrations below the
quantitation level, then the quantitation level wu used for averaging. The results from the
uichloroSuoiomethane, acetone and methylene chloride an considered suspec, and are not reported in
Table 3-7. Standard deviations are reported in parenthesis.
To evaluate the differences between conditions with and without TDF, average reported concentrations
from Table 3-7 were divided by the reported concentration for the 0 % TDF case (the natural gat blank),
and any values that resulted in a ratio less than 2.0 for all runs were discarded. The results from this
calculation are illustrated in Figure 3-3. Although emissions of most compounds during TDF TOmWrnio"
were not significantly different from those resulting from natural gas combustion, there were several
significant differences. Emissions of chloromethane, benzene, and styrene were consistently higher while
firing TDF.
Tires contain trace amounts of chlorine, which can apparently combine with other PICs present to form
chloro methane. The absence of other higher molecular weight chlorinated organics «nym that the TDF
chlorine was not initially associated with the organic tire matrix, but was possibly present in the inorganic
parts of the tire. The TDF analysis did not attempt to determine whether the TDF chlorine was organic or
inorganic, however, there may be chlorinated rubber in ores.
Benzene emissions were much higher while the RIGS was operating in a non-steady This appears
to indicate that TDF combustion can produce elevated levels of aromatic PICs when not combusted in a
steady-state mode. Styrene emissions were approximately 3 times higher than those found natural
gas combustion, regardless of the amount of TDF being burned. Emissions of carbon disulfide and toluene
25
-------
were elevated during the test when TDF was batch fed into the RK1S. These PICs are indicative of fuel-rich
combustion. Xylene levels were also elevated during the batch test
Interestingly, some PICs were reduced below levels found from natural gas combustion during unsteady
TDF combustion, most notably, 2-methy! propene. Levels of 2-methyl propene increased with the addition
of TDF during steady-sate operation, but were reduced during transient operation. It is possible that
during non-steady operation, local fuel-rich zones developed which promoted aromatic ring growth from
substituted alkenes.
TablO^^ummat^ofVOCconceiKrarion^ng/L).
compound
TB5
TBI
TB3
TB8
TB9
0 %TDF
7% TDF
17% TDF
19% TDF
15% TDF
(blank)
(steady-state)
(steady-
(ramp)
(batch)
state)
1>1,1, trichloroethane
0.55 (0.04)
0.88 (0.33)
1.00(0.34)
0.52 (0.01)
0.47 (0.05)
2-methyl propene
2.36 (0.92)
5.40 (3.40)
4.38 (1.08)
1.70(0.65)
0.50 (0.03)
2-methyl-2-propanol
0.52 (0.01)
0.51 (0.03)
4.10(6.20)
0.52 (0.01)
0.50 (0.03)
benzene
1.65(0.24)
2.93 (0.91)
2.83 (0.80)
17.00(16.11)
47.31 (53.91)
bromomethane
0.49 (0.06)
0.51 (0.03)
0.58(0.11)
2.82(1.68)
0.83 (0.64)
carbon disulfide
0.52 (0.01)
0.81 (0.62)
0.52 (0.00)
0.52 (0.01)
2.04 (2.68)
chlorobenzene
0.52 (0.01)
0.51 (0.03)
0.52 (0.00)
0.52 (0.01)
0.48 (0.04)
chloro methane
0.59(0.11)
1.68 (2.17)
8.81 (12.36)
55.03 (28.38)
11.17(6.67)
ethyl benzene
0.52 (0.01)
0.51 (0.03)
0.61 (0.06)
0.52 (0.01)
1.07 (0.25)
heptane
0.52 (0.01)
0.67(0.31)
0.56(0.17)
0.52 (0.01)
0.50 (0.03)
hexane
0.49 (0.06)
0.58(0.16)
0.55(0.06)
0.52 (0.01)
0.51 (0.01)
iodomethane
0.52 (0.01)
0.51 (0.03)
0.52 (0.00)
0.54 (0.05)
0.50 (0.03)
m,p-xylenc
1.52(0.17)
0.98 (0.40)
2.40 (0.29)
0.61 (0.12)
3.85(1.11)
nonane
0.68(0.15)
1.72(0.47)
0.96 (0.40)
0.52 (0.01)
0.59(0.15)
o-xylene
0.45 (0.06)
0.51 (0.03)
0.72 (0.07)
0.52 (0.01)
1.13(0.33)
styrene
0.65 (0.32)
1.85(0.37)
1.62 (1.54)
1.62 (1.05)
1.69(0.36)
toluene
0.97 (0.35)
1.18(0.65)
1.05 (0.24)
0.80(0.18)
2.78 (0.91)
In order to compare these quantities to other sources in the real world, it is appropriate to express the
emissions of these various VOC compounds as emission factors in terms of ng/J heat input. There are two
way* to perform the conversion; with or without taking into account the contribution from the natural gas.
Table 3-8 lists the estimated emissions of the same compounds in terms of ng/J, by including both the
natural gas and TDF contributions. Table 3-9 lists the estimated emissions with only taking into account
the TDF contribution, by dividing the results from Table 3-8 by the fraction of TDF fed (i.e., the blank
concentrations were not subracted out prior to dividing by the TDF fraction). It should be noted that
emissions from a unit that burns 100 % TDF are not likely to be a linear extrapolation from the 10-20 %
levels being co-fired here. There is very little literature on VOC emission factors from conventional
combustion devices burning coal or oil, but there are data for formaldehyde emission factors in the
-------
kwuuie* Avenge emission factors for formaldehyde emi»ions from oil-fired combustion souros avenge
around 1.74E-1 „g0, „d for ^ 7.32E.2 ng^ ^ „ on ^ ^ er
fealty burning TDF a* not significandy different from , properly operated facility burning conventional
fossil ftiels.
As an illustration of the differences between emissions from burning TDF in a controlled manner, as
opposed to uncontrolled combustion as is found in a tire fire, using dan reported from a study examining
emissions from the simulated open burning of scnp tires,' estimated beniene emissions were approximately
280 ngfl, which is approximately 5 orders of magnitude higher than those found in this study.
Table 3-8. Estimated emissions of VOCs (ng/R based on TDF * n.n.r.1,
TB5
TBI
0 %TDF
7% TDF
(blank)
(steady-natal
1,1,1, trichloroethane
2.24E-04
3.75E-04
2-methyl propene
9.60E-04
2.30E-03
2-mediyl-2-propanol
2.13E-04
2.15E-04
benzene
6.71 E-04
1.25E-03
bromomethane
2.00E-84
2.15E-04
carbon disulfide
2.13E-04
3.43E-04
chlorobenzene
2.13E-04
2.15E-04
chloromethane
2.40E-04
7.15E-04
ethyl benzene
2.13E-04
2.15E-04
heptane
2.13E-04
2.83E-04
hexane
2.01E-04
2.45E-04
iodomethane
2.13E-04
2.15E-04
m,p-xytene
6.21 E-04
4.17E-04
nonane
2.77E-04
7.29 E-04
o-xylene
1.85E-04
2.15E-04
styrene
2.63E-04
7.85E-04
toluene
3.97E-04
5.02F.-04
TB3
17% TDF
(steadvutatri
4.41E-04
1.94E-03
1.81E-03
1.25E-03
2.58E-04
2.30E-04
2.30E-04
3.90E-03
2.70E-04
2.48E-04
2.45E-04
2.30E-04
1.06E-03
4.25E-04
3.18E-04
7.16E-04
4.64E-04
TB8
19% TDF
—(use)
2.24E-04
7.37E-04
2.24E-04
7.36E-03
1.22E-03
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
2.38E-02
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
2.35E-04
2.64E-04
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
7.03E-O4
MM
TB9
15% TDF
flwtA)—
2.17E-04
2.33E-04
2.33E-04
2.19E-02
3.82E-04
9.43E-04
2.20E-04
5.16E-03
4.96E-04
2.33E-04
2.36E-04
2.33E-04
1.78E-03
2.71 E-04
524E-04
7.80E-04
1.29E-03
27
-------
Table 3-9. Estimated emissions ofVOCs (ng/J), based on TDF only.
compound
1,1,1, trichloroethane
2-methyl propene
2-methyl-2-pfopanol
benzene
bromo methane
carbon disulfide
chlorobervzene
chloromethane
ethyl benzene
heptane
hexane
iodomethane
m,p-xylene
nonane
o-xylene
styvene
toluene
TBI
TB3
TB8
TB9
7%TDF
17% TDF
19% TDF
15% TDF
(iteadv-ctate)
(stemdv-ttatel
(runo)
(b«tA)
5.36E-03
2.59E-03
1.18E-03
1.45E-03
3.28E-02
1.14E-02
3.88E-03
1.55E-03
3.07E-03
1.07E-02
1.18E-03
1.55E-03
1.78E-02
7.35E-03
3.87E-02
1.46E-01
3.07E-03
1.52E-03
6.42E-03
2.55E-03
4.90E-03
1.35E-03
1.18 E-03
6.29E-03
3.07E-03
1.35E-03
1.18E-03
1.47E-03
1.02E-02
2.29E-02
1.25E-01
3.44E-02
3.07E-O3
1.59E-03
1.18E-03
3.31 E-03
4.04E-03
1.46E-03
1.18E-03
1.55E-03
3.51E-03
1.44E-03
1.18 E-03
1.57E-03
3.07E-03
1.35E-03
1.24E-03
1.55E-03
5.95E-03
6.23E-03
1.39E-03
1.19E-02
1.04E-02
2.50E-03
1.18E-03
1.81E-03
3.07E-03
1.87E-03
1.18E-03
3.49E-03
1.12E-02
4.21 E-03
3.70E-03
520E-03
7.17E-03
2.73E-03
1.83E-03
8.58E-03
28
-------
CM
Figure 3-3. Comparison ofVOC emiuions between natural gas and TDF combustion.
29
-------
VV Sami-Vpl-riU Organic S.mnl«
3,31. MMS Sampling Train*
The complete SVOC analysis results are (bund in Appendix C. The results from the semi-volatile
organic compound (SVOC) analyses do not seem to indicate the presence of SVOC* in detectable
concentrations. Trace quantities of phenol were identified in several samples. Several phthalates were
present in two samples. A wide variety of phthalates are used as plasticizcrs and are common laboratory
contaminants. The presence of these phthalates as contaminants seems more plausible than their being
PICs. However, no phthalates were found in the field blank.
As with the volatile organic analyses, surrogate standards were added to the SVOC samples to assess
method performance. For several samples, achieved recovery values were less than target values, which
indicates possible target loss. Recovery performance data for each sample are included in Appendix C.
For two samples (TB4 - 17 % TDF steady-state and TB9 - 15 % TDF batch), the "less than"
concentrations reported are a factor of ten greater than the remaining results reported. These samples were
taken to provide bioassay analyses, and as such, required TCO and GRAV analyses. These samples therefore
had a larger final extract volume. It is for this reason that no surrogate recovery performance data are given
as well, since the surrogate standards might have generated a false positive response on the bioassays. The
bioassay results will be reported in a different document.
3.3.2. Continuous PAH An»tWr
As illustrated in Table 3-2, the PAH analyzer gave readings on all steady-state tests ranging up to 3289
ng/Nm^, which converts into 3.3 (ig/Nm^. This concentration is below the method detection level for
individual PAH compounds in the SVOC analysis. Considering that other past operiences with the PAH
analyzer gave good agreement with conventional SVOC analyses,28-29 it can be surmised that the results
reported from the PAH analyzer compare favorably with the PAH concentrations that were actually present
in the stack. At any rate, the PAH analyzer did not give a false positive signal, and, as shown in Figure 3-4,
tracked O2 and CO2 quite well during the ramping test (TB8), in spite of the ha that CO emissions did
not significantly change. This observation suggests that the PAH analyzer is quite sensitive to minor system
disturbances, and may be useful for process control purposes.
Overall, it appears that when combusted in a well-operated facility, emissions of SVOCs from TDF
combustion are not significantly different than from natural gas.
30
-------
3.4. PCDD/PCnF Sample*
Complete PCDO and PCDF sampling and analytical results aie found in Appendix D. PCDD/PCDF
samples (Method 23) were oolleaed during only 2 test conditions: TB7 - 0 % TDF (combustion blank) and
TB6 - 17 % TDF steady-state. The results of the PCDD/PCDF analyses indicate that PCDDs and PCDFs
were not detected during these test*. The results from the TB6 - 17 % TDF test reveals that
hexachlorodibenzofuran was present at a concentration essentially equal to the method detection limit.
Similarly, the results from the combustion background test (TB7 - 0 % TDF) revealed that
tetnchlorodibenzodioxin was present at a concentration also essentially equal to the method detection limit
The method blank did not detect either of these taiget analytes.
Since detectable quantities of chloromcthane were found in several of the VOC samples, and since
chlorine is present in small quantities in the TDF material, it may be possible that higher levels of PCDD
and PCDF might be found from a full-scale combustion system, since it has been shown that a significant
amount of formation of PCDD/PCDF occurs in the particulate control devices at temperatures around 300
°C, although moderate amounts of PCDD/PCDF formation can occur on in-flight particles.90 In these
tests, there was no paniculate control device installed, so concentrations repotted here only would represent
those found in the transition duct between the combustor and any particulate control device. At any fate,
though, it would be expected that PCDD/PCDF emissions would be low.
3.S. Metal* Sample
Appendix E contains all of the metals emissions data. Metal aerosol samples (MMT) were collected
during only 2 test conditions: TB7 - 0 % TDF (combustion blank) and TB6 -17 % TDF steady-state. The
intent was to analyxe the front and back halves of the sampling train separately to gain insight into the
distribution of metal aerosols. Unfortunately, the back half sample from the TB6 -17 % TDF feed ten was
damaged during shipment and was not capable of being analysed. The liquid from this damaged sample
may have also contaminated the front half sample of the TB7 - 0 % TDF feed test (blank), since relatively
high concentrations of lead and zinc were found in this fraction. The presence of these 2 metals may alto be
attributable to the fact that the combustion blank was collected after a number of TDF cms had been
performed, and a hysteresis effect might have occurred. This possibility is supported by the presence of tine
and lead in the back half fraction of the blank sample, which would not be affected by the damaged sample.
Table 3-10 lists the concentrations of metals and Table 3-11 lira the estimated emissions for the two tests
where sampling occurred. If we repeat the treatment given the VOC emissions by comparing the metal
emissions from these TDF combustion tests to emission factors from coal and oil in the literature, we can
31
-------
examine the emissions of these metal species with a point of reference that is more well understood. Note
that the linear extrapolation based on TDF feed fraction is more likely to be valid for metals than for
organic*.
Table 3-10. Stack concentration (ug/m^) of metals from TDF combustion.
metal
TB7 0% TDF
TB6 17 % TDF
(blank)
(steadv-state)
antimony
0.18
2.11
arsenic
1.12
37.16
beryllium
nd
0.05
cadmium
0.41
1.06
chromium
0.65
3.88
lead
8.05
65.96
manganese
2.82
5.79
nickel
0.71
3.51
selenium
0.83
4.50
zinc
286.94
35465
nd - none detected.
Table 3-11. Estimated metals emissions (ng/J) from TDF combustion.
TB7 TB6
0% TDF 17 % TDF
(blank) (steady-sute)
metal
TDF+natural fas
TDF onlv
TDF+natural (as
TDF onlv
antimony
7.72E-5
n/a
9.05E-4
5.32E-3
arsenic
4.80E-4
n/a
1.59E-2
9.35E-2
beryllium
nd
n/a
2.14E-5
1.26E-4
cadmium
1.76E-4
n/a
4.54E-4
2.67E-3
chromium
2.78E-4
n/a
1.66E-3
9.76E-3
lead
3.45E-3
n/a
2.83E-2
1.66E-1
manganese
1.21E-3
n/a
2.48E-3
1.46E-2
nickel
3.0E-4
n/a
1.50E-3
8.82E-3
selenium
3.56E-4
n/a
1.93E-3
1.14E-2
zinc
1.23E-1
n/a
15.21
89.47
n/a - not applicable
The literature27 reports the values found in Table 3-12 for emission factors from coal and oil for various
meals. To derive the average emission factors reported here, uncontrolled values for oil from reference 27
were avenged for both distillate and residual oil, and values for coal from uncontrolled dry bottom utility
boilers burning bituminous coal. By comparing Tables 3-11 and 3-12, it is apparent that, with the
exception of zinc, uncontrolled metal emissions from TDF combustion are similar in magnitude to those for
coal and oil. TDF combustion gives high Zn emissions due to the feet that there are high levels of Zn in
32
-------
tires, coupled with the feet that Zn is a volatile metal that tends to be emitted in the flyash as opposed to
remaining in the bottom ash residue.
ffisai ou seal
antimony n/t n/t
Lan®lic 5.00E-03 2.95E-01
bc7U,um 1.44E-03 3.48E-02
cadmium 5.64E-03 1.91E-02
chromium 1.49E-02 6.07E-01
7.95E-03 1.36E-01
manganese 8.61E-03 1.28E+00
nickcJ 3.08E-01 5.00E-01
selenium n/a n/a
n/a - not available ™
Source: Reference 27
* * Parfiaila** P«-
Particulate matter (PM) measurements were made from the MM 5 and MultiMetals trains. PM
measurements are not routinely made from MM5 trains as the typical Method 5 acetone front half rinse and
evaporation procedures are not compatible with the sample treatments leading to organic analyses.
However, the MMS sampling was the only particulate collection method common to til tests. The
paniculate data reported here are based on the total mass of paniculate collected on the filter as well as the
cyclone located upstream of the filter. All front half rinses were submitted for organic analysis. The
complete PM data are found in Appendix F.
The MultiMetals train is suitable for determining total particulate loading as the front half acetone rinse
and evaporation step is optional. Particulate values are also reported for the two tests where metals samples
were collected.
Table 3-13 lists the results for the PM measure menu. The PM measurements listed represent
uncontrolled emissions, such as those found prior to any installed PM control device. As expected, the PM
emissions during TDF combustion are higher than those from natural gas combustion. Interestingly, the
PM results from run TB9 (the batch feed run) were significandy higher than for the other runs. The MM$
filter on this nin was blacker than on the other runs.
33
-------
3.7. XRD/XRF Reiulti
After each run, there was a significant amount of ash residue deposited on the TDF feeding mechanism.
Samples from runs TB3 and TB6 were collected and analyzed for elemental composition with X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry. For this analysis, the samples were mixed with an organic binder and pressed
into pellets. The samples were first scanned for qualitative characterization. For better accuracy, it is
necessary to set up a quantitative scheme based on the matrix composition. Since the composition was
similar to fly ash, that scheme was applied. Element concentrations determined by this method are reported
here to two significant figures. Note that some elements identified from the XRF analysis (e.g., zirconium,
aluminum, and silicon) may have originated in the RKIS refractory insulation, and not from the TDF.
Results also confim the high Zn emissions found in the MMT samples. The concentrations for the balance
of the elements detected, in the qualitative scan, are reported to one significant figure. Table 3-14 lists the
results from the XRF analysis.
Table 3-13. Particulate data.
Run
% Total Fuel as
TDF
Particulate Loading
(me/Nm3)
TB2
16.95
43.67++
TB3
17.14
137.24*+
TB4
15.50
95.28"
TB5
0.00
17.37++
TB8+
19.18
132.95++
TB9+
14.97
285.46*+
TB6
17.30
101.01
TB7
0.00
4.14
+ non-continuous feed tests
++ based on filter weights from MM5 or Method 23 samples
34
-------
element 222 ~~ TB/i
aluminum 2.8 19
calcium 3.1 2£
chromium 0.002 Oqj
cobalt 0.005 0 qi
copper 0.002 o.ooo!
iron 0.86 O.83
lead 0.001 0.0009
magnesium 0.86 095
nidcd 0.007 0.003
phosphorus 0.001 0.0001
potassium 0.58 o.58
silicon 32 32
sodium 0.68 1.2
strontium 0.002 0.01
sulfur 0.0004 0.0003
titanium 0.15 0.084
line 2.4 5.2
^jrgoniur!^^|——^——^iw—
X-ray diffraction spectrometry (XRD) was also carried out on the two samples to determine the phases of
the major elements. XRD is usually capable of detecting phases down to several peroent. The phases
identified in the two samples are listed in the following table. Because of the many factors which influence
XRD reflections, it is mainly of value for qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. In certain cases, where
matrices are similar and sample preparation is controlled, it may be used for quantitative analyses. For this
analysis, the phases are listed in estimated order of decreasing concentration. The XRD spectra for TB3 and
TB6 can be found in Appendix F. Table 3*15 lists the results from the XRD analysis.
Table 3-15. TDF fly ash composition as determined by X-ray diffraction.
name
formula
JCPDS No.
present in TB3
sample
present in TB6
sample
cristobalite
Si02
39-1425
X
X
quartz
Si02
33-1161
X
X
willemite
ZnjSiO*
37-1496
X
X
anhydrite
CaSCU
37-1496
X
X
15-776
X
-
*_g. F.ffifo afTnnrif r
Sefccwd traces from the CEMs during the TB8 test, where the kiln combustion air was ramped up and
down, are shown in Figures 3-4 through 3-8. Notice how the Oj and COj trices (Figures 3-4 and 3-5)
35
-------
oscillate in a sinusoidal manner to mirror the changes in the combustion air. The fact that the response time
(«. 2 s) for the PAH analyzer was considerably faster than the response time for the CO analyzer (- 30 s),
coupled with the fact that the PAH analyzer (sec Figure 3-6) was considerably more sensitive to minor
system disturbances during periods of "good" combustion than die CO analyzer (see Figure 3-7 and 3-8),
that the PAH analyzer might prove to be an effective monitor for process control purposes. These
Hat* ieem to suggest that pyrolysis at the surface of the TDF particles is one of the rate controlling steps for
TDF combustion. Although the TDF was not burning in suspension phase, the low feed rates that were
used during these tests resulted in a fairly dispersed bed of burning TDF partides scattered around the
recessed chamber of the kiln. As such, it may be a valid assumption that individual TDF particles were
burning with little or no influence from nearby TDF particles. The transport of the pyrolysis products away
from the TDF particles, coupled with some boundary layer resistance, appear to significantly affect the
emission of PICs from TDF combustion. By ramping the combustion air up and down, it appears that the
boundary layer surrounding the TDF panicles is subjected to some transient disturbances, possibly de-
stabilizing the flame front that is in place at the outside of the particle's boundary layer. This phenomenon
might result in increased PIC emissions.
10
4-
3
Kiln 02 (%)
2-
1
Kiln C02 (%)
0
"T—*
SO
0
100
Time (min)
150
200
Figure 3-4. Kiln O2 and CO2 traces during run TB8.
36
-------
12
10
*
8
6
4-
2-
' Stack 02 (%)
Stack C02(%)
i i "| i i i i | i i i
50 100
Time (min)
150
200
Figure 3-5. Stack O2 and CO2 traces during run TB8.
3500
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 «' | 1 1 1 1 I 1
50 100 150
Time (min)
Figure 3-6. PAH analyzer trace during run TB8.
200
37
-------
I I I I I I I
50
| < I I
100
—I—I—.—I-
150
Time (min)
Figure 3-7. Kiln CO traces during run TB8.
200
: ¦ MlMllrfT"
\« ¦nHrnnrnvTiw i
0-—,
I I I I I I I I I
100 150 200
Time (min)
Figure 3-8. Stack CO traces during run TB8.
38
-------
Selected traces from the CEMs during the TB9 test, where batches of TDF were fed at discreet intervals,
are shown in Figures 3-9 through 3-13. The batch tests resulted in very high transient emissions followed by
periods of essentially background emission levels. Notice how the kiln O2 (see Figure 3-9), initially at
approximately 10 %, plummets to approximately 1 % during the batch introduction of TDF. Even the
post-SCC sack O2 (see Figure 3-10) is reduced to just over 2 % during the transient!. The PAH analyzer
(see Figure 3-11) measured a high (214,000 ng/ro') average concentration on the TB9 batch test, which was
not found on the corresponding MM5 train samples for SVOCs. However, since the transient events
resulting from batch feeding of TDF were very short relative to the total sampling time, the required
isokinetic sampling protocols may have resulted in an insufficient sample being pulled into the MM5 train.
These result* are qualitatively similar to results seen from earlier batch feed tests on this same facility while
burning polyethylene pipe,14 where non-isokinetic sampling procedures and larger sampling volumes were
required to produce detectable quantities of individual compounds. Note also how the PAH analyxer
(Figure 3-11) tracks the CO traces (Figures 3-12 and 3-13) very well. As mentioned earlier, the CO
analyzer is an acceptable diagnostic for "poor" combustion conditions, but cannot effectively differentiate
between different levels of "good" combustion.
These data suggest that burning TDF in batches, which roughly approximates feeding of whole tires, has
the potential to form significant transient emissions. This phenomena could be exacerbated in a system that
exhibits significant vertical gas-phase stratification, or operates at low excess air levels, such as cement kilns.
The size of the facility, however, will certainly impact the intensity of transient emissions resulting from
batch charging of tires or TDF, since for an extremely large facility, a constant stream of whole tires may
roughly approximate steady-state operation. Even so, the potential for generation of large transients should
not be ignored.
These two transient experiments highlight the limitations of using CO as a surrogate indicator of
combustor performance. While CO is high during periods of "poor" combustion, as is evidenced during the
batch feed tests, CO does not give a good indication of de-tuned combustor performance during periods of
relatively "good" combustion. In other words, the CO analyser is effective as a diagnostic of "poor"
combustion, but cannot differentiate between "good" and "great" combustion.
39
-------
Figure 3-9. Kiln O2 and CO2 traces during run TB9.
Figure 3-10. Stack O2 and CO2 traces during run TB9.
40
-------
8000000-
7000000
6000000-
5000000-
1 4000000-
?
3000000-
2000000 •:
1000000-
0
25000
20000-
15000
10000
5000
1
so
T
100
150
Time (min)
Figure 3-11. PAH analyser trace during run TBS).
200
200
Tim«(min)
Figure 3-12. Kiln CO traces during run TB9.
41
-------
25000
20000
15000-
10000-
5000-
ft 1^ 1^ 1^ 1^ ) 1 I * I * I • I 1 | ¦ I I i ^ ^ t ^•¦"T '
0 50 100 150 200
Time (min)
Figure 3-13. Stack CO traces during run TBS).
42
-------
4. CONCLUSIONS
A series of experiments were performed on a bench-sale rotary kiln incinerator simulator (RK2S) facility
to examine HAPs from combustion of TDF. Both steady-state and transient testing was performed so that
an evaluation of continuous vs. incremental TDF feeding could be achieved. Samples were analysed
continuously by CEM for O2, CO, CO2, NO, THCs, SOj, and PAHs. VOST, MM5. Method 23, and
MMT samples were collected to analyse for VOCs, SVOCs, PCDD/PCDF, and metal aerosols, respectively.
X-ray diffraction and X-ray fluorescence techniques were used to identify species in the fly ash. A regression
analysis was completed on the CEM dan to eximioe pollutant emission trends.
Several VOCs were identified, particularly chloromethane, benzene, and stytene. The concentrations of
those VOCs was affected by the amount and mode of TDF feeding. Emissions of benaene, in particular, are
particularly sensitive to transient upsets of the combustion process. Comparison of calculated emission
factors to those found in the literature for conventional fossil fuel combustion indicate that VOC emissions
from TDF combustion are comparable to those from coal and oil combustion.
No significant amounts of SVOCs were identified. The PAH analyzer indicated PAH concentrations on
the same order as the detection level of the SVOC analytical methods, with the exception of the test where
TDF was batch fed to the RK1S facility. The PAH analyxer indicated considerably higher transient
concentrations of PAHs during batch feeding, however, these elevated PAH levels were not detected with
the MM5 samples. It is possible that the short duration of the transients, coupled with the mandatory
isokinetic sampling protocols, prevented sufficient amounts of pollutants from being sampled.
Emission levels of PCDD and PCDF were found to be similar in magnitude to the combustion blank
which consisted of a natural gas flame. Those congeners of PCDD and PCDF identified in all samples were
on the same order of magnitude as the method detection level.
Elevated levels of arsenic, lead, and zinc were found in the stack gas. Zinc was present in significant
concentrations. Analysis of the fly ash residue indicate that the majority of the paniculate matter was SiOj,
AlfSi}Oi3, and ZnjSi04. Comparison of calculated emission factors from TDF combustion to those found
in the literature for conventional fossil fuel combustion suggests that, with the exception of line, the
magnitudes of metal emissions are similar to coal and oil, although the distributions are significandy
different, especially with respect to emissions of mercury and selenium, which are significantly higher from
coal combustion.
43
-------
The PAH analyzer tracked transient kiln operation during periods of "good" combustion more
effectively than the CO analyzer, and with a faster response. It may be significantly more effective than CO
for process control applications due to its sensitivity. Regression analysis of PAH analyzer measurements
indicated that an approximately five-fold increase (over natural gas emissions) in PAH emissions occurs
while increasing the TDF fuel input fraction from 0 to 20%.
Regression analysis of CO emissions from the steady-state tests did not find a significant correlation with
kiln operating conditions. A slight increase in CO emissions with increasing TDF feed rate was found.
The results suggest that burning TDF in batches, such as during the feeding of whole tires, has the
potential to form significant transient emissions. This phenomenon could be exacerbated in a system that
exhibits significant vertical gas-phase stratification, or operates at low excess air levels, such as cement kilns.
The size of the facility, however, will certainly impact the intensity of transient emissions resulting from
batch charging of tires or TDF, since for an extremely large facility, a constant stream of whole tires may
roughly approximate steady-state operation. Even so, the potential for generation of large transients should
not be ignored, especially in smaller facilities.
Data gaps still exist, since this limited study was performed on a small combustor, under controlled
conditions. The following issues might be addressed in future research.
• The effect of TDF panicle size and feeding mode on HAP emissions should be investigated more
fully. This study was done using a single TDF particle size, and included only limited testing on
different feeding modes.
• Emissions of HAPs from combustion of wire-in TDF should be investigated. It would be
logical to assume that emissions of metals from combustion of wire-in TDF may be significandy
different than from TDF that has had the wire removed. Combustion temperature would likely
affect metals emissions significantly, since the partitioning of metals between the bottom ash
residue and the fly ash would change.
* Characteristics of other TDF-generated residues, such as bottom ash, should be investigated,
especially in regards to teachability of metals, and slag composition and quality.
* Emissions of HAPs from co-firing of TDF with other solid fuels, such as coal, biomass-derived
fuels, municipal solid waste, or refuse-derived fuel should be investigated.
44
-------
• The characteristics of TDF-generated flyash should be investigated more fully, including the
panicle size distributions and speciation of the metals, especially as a function of halogens 01
sulfur which might be present due to co-firing of other fuels.
• Some basic research, on a very small scale, should be performed, to examine the chemistry of
TDF pyrolysis and combustion.
• Tests on other types of facilities (such as a vertically-fired unit) should be performed. Studies
examining TDF combustion in suspension vs. bed-burning phases should be performed.
Overall, it appears that, with the exception of line, potential emissions from TDF combustion are not
significantly different from emissions from combustion of conventional fossil fuels, when burned in a wdl-
designed and well-operated combustion device. If unacceptable particulate loading occur, due to line
emissions then the emissions would have to be controlled by an appropriate paniculate control device.
45
-------
5. REFERENCES
1 Sladdt. T.A. Yotkihop BB Dmm«l Tcdinitliift with Energy Recovery for VehtHe Tins.
City and County of Denver, The Energy Task Force of the Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives.
U.S. Department of Energy, Denver, CO, 101 pp, February 1987.
1 Kearney, A.T. Scran Tire Ute/Diino«l Prepared for the Scrap Tire Management Council.
Washington, DC, September 1990.
5 Clark. C, K. Meardon, and D. Russell Burning Tim for Fuel and Tire Pvrolviii: Air Tmplinrioni-
EPA-450/3-91 -024 (NTIS PB92-145358). December 1991.
4 Pirnie, M. Air Emissions Associated with rh*- Combustion of Scrap Tinei for Energy Recovery.
Prepared for the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority. Columbus. OH, May 1991.
* Section 1038, H.R. 2950 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. First Session of
the 102nd Congress. Enacted December 18. 1991.
6 Hiverfield, L.E. and B.L. Hoffman "Used Tires as a Means of Dispersal of A
-------
11 DeMarini, D.M., P.M. Lemicux, J.V. Ryan, L.R. Brooks, and R.W. Williams, (1994) "Mutagenicity
and Chemical Analysis of Emissions from the Open Burning of Scrap Rubber Tires," Environ. Sci TechnoL,
Vol. 28, No. 1,136-141.
12 Jones, R.M., J.M. Kennedy, Jr., and N.L. Heberer, "Supplementary Firing of Tire-Derived Fuel
(TDF) in a Combination Fuel Boiler," TAPPI Journal, May 1990.
" Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549, November 15, 1990.
14 Linak, W.P., J.D. Kilgroe, J .A. McSorley, J.O.L Wendt, and J.E. Dunn, (1987), On the Occurrence
of Transient Puffs in a Rotary Kiln Incinerator Simulator I. Prototype Solid Plastic Wastes,/ Air PoU. Cont.
Assoc., 37, 54.
" Linak, W.P., ]A McSoHey, J.O.L. Wendt, and J.E. Dunn, (1987), On the Occurrence ofTransient
Puffs in a Rotary Kiln Incinerator Simulator II. Contained Liquid Wastes on Sorbent, J. Air PolL Cent.
Assoc., 37,934.
16 Cundy, VA, T.W. Lester, A.M. Sterling, A.N. Montestnic, J.S. Morse, C.B. Leger, and S. Adiarya,
(1989), "Rotary Kiln Incineration III. An Indepth Study - Kiln Exit/Afterburner/Stack Train and Kiln Exit
Pattern Factor Measurements During Liquid CCI4 Processing,"/ AirPoIL Cont. Assoc., 39,944-952.
17 Method 0030, "Volatile Organic Sampling Train," in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Volume II: Field Manual Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA-SW-846 (NTIS PB 88-239223), 3rd ed., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1986.
18 Method 5040, "Protocol for Analysis of Soibent Cartridges from Volatile Ofganic Sampling Train,"
in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Volume IB: Laboratory Manual Physical/Chemical Methods,
EPA-SW-846 (NHS PB 88-239223). 3rd ed., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. DC.
September 1986.
19 Method 8240, "Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for Volatile Organia." in Ten Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste. Volume IB: Laboratory Manual Physical/Chemical Methods. EPA-SW-846
(NTIS PB 88-239223), 3rd ed., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC September
1986.
47
-------
20 Method 0010, "Modified Method 5 Sampling Train," in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wane,
Volume 11: Fidd Manual Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA-SW-846 (NTIS PB 88-239223), 3rd ed., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1986.
21 Method 8270, "Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for Semivolatile Organic*: Capillary
Column Technique," in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume IB: Laboratory Manual
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA-SW-846 (NTIS PB 88-239223), 3rd ed., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, September 1986.
22 Gang, S., "Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions in Exhaust Gases from
Hazardous Waste Incineration and Similar Combustion Processes," in Methods Manual for Compliance
with the BIF Regulations, Burning Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, EPA/530-SW-91-
010 (NTIS PB91-120006) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. December 1990.
23 Method 23 in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60. Appendix A, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 1991.
24 Method 8280 in Test Mwhndu for Evaluating Solid Waste. Volume IB: Laboratory Manual
PhvsitaI/Chemical Methods. EPA-SW-846 (NTIS PB 88-239223), 3rd ed., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1986.
21 Lemieux, P.M., "Computer-Aided Data Acquisition for Combustion Experiments," Scientific
Computing and Automation, Vol 9, No. 5, April 1993.
26 Hicks, C.R., (1973), Fundamental Concepts in the Destpi of Experiments, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and
Winston Inc., New York, NY.
27 Brooks, G., "Estimating Air Toxics Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion Sources," EPA-450/2-
89-001 (NTIS PB89-194229), April 1989.
21 Lutes, C.C. and J.V. Ryan, "Characterization of Air Emissions from the Simulated Open
Combustion of Fiberglass Materials," EPA-600/R-93-239 (NTIS PB94-136231), December 1993.
48
-------
19 ChikhliwaU. E.D., J.W. Podknske, E. Pfeiffer, ™d W. Seifcrt. "The Deign. Implementation, and
Use of a Real-time PAH Analyzer for Combustion Products," Paper presented at the 9th Wotid Air
Congreu 6c Exhibition, Montreal, Canada, August 1992.
30 GuUctt-B K" P M Leroieux. and J.E. Dunn. (1994) "Role of Combustion and Soibent Parameters
in Prevention of Polychlorinated Dibenio-p-dioxin and Polychlorinated Dibenzofann Formation During
Waste Combustion," Environ. Sci TecbnoL, Vol. 28, No. 1,107-118.
49
-------
APPENDIX A. QA7QC EVALUATION REPORT
This project was performed under the Level III Quality Assurance Project Plan entitled
"Combustion of Scrap Tire* in a Rotary Kiln", and assigned QTRAK #86016/111. All critical
measurements met the data quality objectives satisfactorily. Certain non-critical measurements, such
as NO and SO2 did not meet dan quality objectives. However, die QA goals of the project were
met.
A.I. Volatile Orpnir
In general, the volatile organic compounds detected were fairly dose to practical quantitation
levels. A number of the compounds identified in combustion samples were not present in the field
blanks. However, several of the compounds found in combustion samples were also present in the
field blanks at similar levels; primarily chloromethane, acetone, and methylene chloride. Acetone
and methylene chloride ate ubiquitous in laboratory environments. Each VOST tube was
individually QC checked so as to ensure that species measured would indeed originate in the stack.
No tube contained more than 10 ng of any compound. Hie VOST tube QC checks did not
indicate inherent contamination at these levels. Therefore, the results from these compounds should
be considered somewhat suspect. All analytical method performance criteria were met during
analysis of these samples. Appendix B contains all of the VOC data, including surrogate compound
recovery.
A 7 Orpnlr Simple
The results from the semi-volatile organic compound (SVOQ analyses do not seem to indicate
the presence of SVOCs in significant concentrations. Trace quantities of phenol were identified in
several samples. Several phthalates were present in two samples. A wide variety of phthalaies are
used as plasticizcrs and are common laboratory contaminants. The presence of there phthalates as
contaminants seems more plausible than their being PICs. However, no phthalates were found in
the field blank.
As with the volatile organic analyses, surrogate standards were added to die SVOC samples to
assess method performance. For several samples, achieved recovery values were less than target
A-l
-------
values. It is possible that targes were lost on these samples. Recovery performance data for each
sample, as well as isokinetic sampling information, are included in Appendix C.
For two samples (20% TDF steady-state and 20% TDF batch), the "less than" concentrations
reported are a factor of ten greater than the remaining results reported. These samples were taken to
provide bioaxsay analyse*, and as such, required TCO and GRAV analyses. These samples therefore
had a larger final extract volume. It is for this reason that no surrogate recovery performance data are
given as well, since the surrogate standards might have generated a false positive response on the
bio assays.
a v Pcnn/PrPF S.mpfc.
PCDD/PCDF samples (Method 23) were collected during only 2 test conditions: 0 % TDF
(combustion blank) and 20% TDF steady-state. The results of the PCDD/PCDF analyses indicate
that PCDDs and PCDFs were not detected during these tests. The results from the 20% TDF test
reveals that hexachlorodibenzofuran was present at a concentration essentially equal to the method
detection limit Similarly, the results from die combustion background test (no TDF) revealed that
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin was present at a concentration also essentially equal to the method
detection limit. The method blank did not detect either of these target analytes. Appendix D
contains all of the data regarding the PCDD/PCDF analyses, including isokinetic sampling
information and surrogate standard recovery information.
A* M»r»U S«mple«
Metals samples (Method 29) were also only collected during only 2 test conditions: 0 % TDF
(combustion blank) and 20% TDF steady-sate. The intent was to analyze the front and back halves
of the sampling train separately to gain insight into the distribution of metal aerosols.
Unfortunately, the back half sample from the 20% TDF feed test was damaged during shipment and
was not capable of being analyzed. The liquid from this damaged sample may have also
contaminated the front half sample of the 0% TDF feed test (blank), since relatively high
concentrations of lead and zinc were found in this fraction. The presence of these 2 metals may also
be attributable to the fact that the combustion blank was collected after a number of TDF tests had
been performed, and a hysteresis effect might have occurred. This possibility is supported by the
presence of zinc and lead in the back half fraction of the blank sample, which was not affected by the
A-2
-------
duupd ampfc. Appendix E coin, J| „f ,,„ ^
surrogate compound recovery and isokinetic sampling information.
AS. OCFBforrFM^
A 3-point calibration was performed on each CEM daily. The data collected for cadi rest were
validated by post-ten zero and span checks. The results of post-test CEM aero and span checks are
presented in Table A 1. The overall accuracy, precision, and completeness data quality indicator
(DQI) levels achieved along with respective DQI goals for each CEM measurement are presented in
Table A 2. As Tables A-l and A-2 indicate, difficulties were encountered with the NO and SO2
measurements. Excessive drift was encountered during many of the tests performed. Fortunately.
these were not critical measurements, and the lack of data for these measurements does not
compromise die quality of this study.
A.6- General OA Inform"!™
Appendix F contains other analytical data, including a summary of all extractive sampling, dates
of individual runs, and the XRD spectra. Isokinetic variation is based on a single point location
sampling relative to the highest velocity traverse point established during the pre-test velocity
traverse. The highest velocity location was selected to maximize collected sample volumes. With the
exception of the test performed on 5/11/93, all test samples were collected within acceptance of
method isokinetic variation limits. The pretest velocity traverses, along with determined moisture
levels, were also used to derive volumetric stack flows.
A-3
-------
FS(%)
25 Span
14.7
02 Zero
02 Spaa
Dau
Meat.
*Bia*
Men.
%Biaa
5/13/93
IGbi
0.0
0.0
15.0
1.2
Stack
0.0
0.0
14.3
-1
5/17/93
IQIn
0.0
0.0
15.0
1.2
Stack
0.0
0.0
14.8
0.4
5/18/93
Kiln
0.0
0.0
14.7
0.0
Stack
0.0
0.0
14.7
0.0
5/19/93
Kiln
0.4
1.4
15.1
1.6
Stack
0.0
0.2
14.9
0.8
5/20/93
Kibi
0.0
0.1
14.7
0.0
Stack
0.0
0.2
14.7
0.0
5/21/93
Kiln
0.0
0.0
14.8
0.4
Stack
0.1
0.2
14.7
0.0
5/25/93
Kiln
0.1
0.6
14.8
0.4
Stack
0.1
0.5
14.3
l.i>
5/26/93
Kiln
0.1
0.2
14.9
0.8
Stack
0.0
0.2
14.7
0.0
5/27/93
Kiln
0.)
0.6
14.8
0.4
Stack
0.1
0.3
14.8
0.4
Avcraga
0.1
0.2
14.8
0.5
Std Dcv
0.1
0.2
02 COl
Avcnft Bm* (%) 0 4 0 5
Precision (%RSD) 1.4 0.7
N/A • Not Applicable
N/P • Not Performed
N/U . Not Used
Rotary Kiln Tire Bum CEM Operation Summary
FS (%) 20 Spaa I)
C02 Zee. C02 Spaa
Mew. %Bm* Maw. %Biai
0.0
0.0
15.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
15.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
15.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
14.9
-«.s
0.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
153
15
0.1
0.3
152
1.0
0.1
0.6
152
1.0
0.0
0.0
151
0.5
0.0
15.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
15-1
0.5
0.0
0.1
151
0.5
0.0
11.2
15.4
2.0
0.1
0.3
152
1.0
0.0
0.2
15.2
1.0
0.0
0.2
15.1
0.5
0.0
0.1
15.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
15.2
1.0
0.0
0.1
152
0.8
0.0
0.1
FS ppm
2000
Spaa
71
CO Zero
CO Spaa
Meat. %Biaa
Meat. HBia*
-O.I
717
0.2
]
0.1
714
0.1
5
0.3
712
-0.1
5
0.3
714
0.1
22
1.1
740
1.4
¦O.J
719
0.3
6
0.3
718
0.3
6
0.3
723
05
9
0.5
721
0.4
2
0.1
720
0.4
5
0.3
721
0.4
3
0.2
722
0.5
26
1.3
745
1.6
2
0.1
720
0.4
11
0.6
728
0.8
0
0.0
718
0.3
16
0.8
729
0.8
5
0.3
715
0.1
6.5
0.4
722.0
0.4
7.7
8.5
CO NO THC S02
0.4 5.2 0.4 34
1.2 8.5 51 17.7
(Continued)
-------
Tabic A-1. Rotary Kiln Tire Burn CEM Operation Summary (continued)
Data
5/13/93
Kiln
Stack
5/17/93
Kiln
Stack
5/18/93
IGln
Stack
5/19/93
IGln
Stack
5/20/93
Kiln
Stack
5/21/93
Kiln
Stack
5/25/93
Kiln
Stack
5/26/93
Kiln
Stack
5/27/93
IGbi
Stack
Awifu
S«d De»
FS ppm
25?
Spaa
253
FS ppm
500
Spaa
109
FS ppm
1000
Spaa
184
NO Zero
NO Spaa
THCZm
THCSpaa
S02 Ztm
S02 Spaa
Mm. Mm
M«w. %Biu
Mcaa.
%Bi»
Mo.
KBiai
Mcaa.
KBtaa
Maaa.
%Bias
8
3.2
265
4J
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
-1
-0.4
250
- I.J
-3
-n.fi
115
1.2
60
6.0
215
3.1
4
1.6
286
13.2
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
15
6.0
272
7.6
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
22
2.2
214
3.0
25
10.0
260
2.8
•/.
<1.4
104
-1.0
-H.K
276
9-2
I
0.2
no
0.2
14
-1.4
158
•2-li
4
1.6
220
-1
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
15
6.0
302
19.6
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
J.1
-.5.2
130
-">4
3
1.2
257
1.6
0
0.0
99
-.Vi
6
2.4
294
16.4
0
0.0
96
25
2.5
207
2.3
0
0.0
265
4.8
/
it i
105
•«.»
0
0.0
240
^ 1
0
0.0
108
0..'
32
3-2
222
38
6
2.4
234
h
2
0.4
109
0.0
8
32
281
11.2
0
0.0
106
l)l>
40
4.0
N/P
N/A
9
3.6
250
¦ i..1
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
3
1.2
280
10.8
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
70
7.0
N/P
N/A
13
52
238
fi.n
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
-2
-11.8
234
Mi
N/U
N/A
N/U
N/A
11
¦1.5
165
-1.9
6.3
2.6
261.3
7.7
-0.4
0.1
105.8
0.7
20.9
3.4
187.3
34
6.9
22.2
1.5
M
?29
-------
^^^^^^^^^^abl^-2^Dat^uadit^ndtaato™esult^>rCEA^neasufements^^^^^^
Accuracy • Precision C? Compktene**
Men. Got! Achiev. # Goal Achiev. Goal Acfaiev.
O2 <3 0.4 <10 1.4 >90 100
CO2 <3 0.5 <10 0.7 >90 100
CO <3 0.4 <10 1.2 >90 100
NO <3 5.2 <10 8.5 >90 11
THC <3 0.3 <10 5.1 >90 100
SO? <* 3.2 <10 17.7 >90 44
* Accuracy expressed at percent bias from fall scale of measurement range.
# Based on overall absolute value avenge of zero and span checks.
9 Expressed as percent relative standard deviation
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B. VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING DATA
B-l
-------
volatile organic sampling results summary
Source Description: Rotary Kiln Test Date: 4-29-93
Test Number VOST-1 Sampling Run No. TB1-V0ST
Condition 10 '/. Tirss Operator RT
Location Exhaust Duct E::haust Duct Flow Unknown DSCFM
Sample ID 50/CC5e AP15/759 100/CC57 99/89
Volume Collected (Liters) 19.19: 21.586 19.345 !<5.285
Detectible Compounds ;i 8 11 12
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
dichlorodi-f luoromethane
< 0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
- 0.52
chloromethane
0.54
< 0. 46
4.93
0.80
2-Methy1p ropene
f.27
2.82
2.28
7.24
vinyl chloride
' 0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
< 0.52
bromomethane
c 0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
0.52
chloroethane
< 0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
¦: 0.52
trichlorof luoromsthane
< 0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
< 0.52
5.1-dichloroethene
< 0.52
< 0.46
0.52
< 0.52
Carbon Disulfide
. 0.52
< 0.46
1.73
< 0.52
iodomethane
< 0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
< 0.52
Acetone
1.40
1.86
1.27
1.06
Vinyl Acetate
• 0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
: 0.52
methylene chloride
15.45
25.38
29.85
31.96
trans-!,2-dichloroethene
0.52
< 0.46
< 0.52
: 0.52
2-Methy 1-2-F'ropanol
0.52
<: 0.46
< 0.52
s 0.52
Hexano
< 0. 4t
\ 0.52
0.81
1,1-dichloroethar.e
< 0.46
¦- 0.52
«r ~
2-eutanono
«r
< 0. 46
. 0.52
chloroform
r*
< 0.46
0.31
.*. c- -
1,1,1-trichlaroethanc
0.93
\ 0.4o
0.8 V
1
carbon tetrachloride
0.52
< 0. 46
0.
. zz
bon-'ene
:.-i
r> "J*.
2. 20
j.
i,2-tii chloroethane
r.52
: 0.46
v. 52
.>.51
Flucrobenzene
0.52
< 0.46
0.52
. • w*-
2,S-Dimethy1-3-Hexene
¦. 0.46
0,52
Z-Ch 1 oro-2-Methy Ipr'of^ic
v. zz
< 0.46
v. 52
•! » «1
Hep tans
\ 0.4c
, c ~
:.:-
tricMoroethena
.•»'Z*.
0.4t
C* ~
V •
i, 2-J ict; loroprcs j.'ie
'¦ c'
: 0.4=
0.52
'¦ • Z Z
ait: r G'T.omc t h a n e
y • ZZ
, 0. 4c
< 0.32
1.4-C iciiane
0.31
< 0.4o
> 0.52
' .Z2
or cr;:! icM«»-ocet!-.c
v. 3"
0.46
. 0.52
¦ :7 *
. 3-i
¦ V.'ifc
•:.r;;
4 . < y * ~tr >' ' ¦
.In
•"
lyerifc
• -
B-2
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
VOST-1 — PAGE 2
ng.'L
2,1,2-trichloroethane
0.52
Bromoacetone
<
0.52
tetrachloroethene
0.52
2-He::anone
<
0.52
d i bromochloromethane
¦s
0.52
1,2-dibromoothane
<"
0. 52
chlorobenzene
<
0.52
11»2-Tetrachlorocthane
S
a
V • -J*.
ethyl benzene
<
0.52
jr,p->;ylene
0.94
Ncnane
1.94
o-xylene
X
0.52
Styreno
2.01
brosio-forjn
0.52
Cumene
0.52
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
0.52
1,l,2,2-tetr«chloroethane
0.52
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
\
0.52
Pentachloroethane
»:
0.52
1,3-Dichlorobenzcn«
<
0.52
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
0.52
1,2-D i ch1 oroben zene
<
0.52
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
0.52
"9/L ng/L ng/L
"V
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
\
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.46
«;
0.52
<
0.52
0.69
0.73
1.56
1.16
1.53
i n't
4. m
\
0.46
<
0.52
«*
0.52
2.25
1.74
1.3?
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.46
<
0.52
0.52
\
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
•C
0.46
<
0.52
\
0.32
K
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
'
0.46
<
0.52
0.52
<
0.46
<
0.52
0.52
<
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.46
<
0.52
<
0.52
Master Inde::
2046
2047
2048
2049
Surrogate Compounds Recovery
X
X
X
do-Benzene
no
100
104
98
d4-l,2-dichloroethane
10?
105
108
- 105
d8-toluene
96
106
97
102
A-bromofluorobeniene
10 i
101
104
110
B-3
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln Test Date: 5-13-93
Test Number VOST-2 Sampling Run No. TB2-V0ST
Condition 20 7. Tires Operator RT
Location Exhaust Duct Exhaust Duct Flow 121.6 DSCFM
Sample ID 512/570 CCB6/56 380/10B
Volume Collected (Liters) 19.16 19.172 19.359
Detectible Compounds 13 14 17
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
d i ch1orod i f1uoromethane
<
0.52
< 0.52
0.82
chloromethane
2.56
0.83
23.05
2-Me thy1p rop ene
5.61
3.61
3.91
vinyl chloride
0.52
< 0.52
< 0.52
bronomethane
0.52
< 0.52
0.71
chloroethane
<
0.52
< 0.52
< 0.52
trichlorofluoromethane
<
0.52
< 0.52
< 0.52
1,1-dichloroethene
<
0.52
< 0.52
< 0.52
Carbon Disulfide
<
0.52
< 0.52
< 0.52
iodomethane
<
0.52
< 0.52
< 0.52
Acetone
•1.60
1.60
10.23
Vinyl Acetate
<
0.52
< 0.52
< 0.52
methylene chloride
11.92
81.06
.57.78
trans-l,2-dichloroethene
<
0. 52
< 0.52
< 0.52
2-Methyl-2-Propanoi
<
0.52
< 0.52
11.26
He::ane
0.52 . .
0.62
-.< 0.52
i,1-dichlcroethane
0; 52
< 0.52 '
< 0.52
2-Butaiione
0.52
< 0.52
\ 0.52
Ch loro-f orro
6.52
< 0.52 '
< 0.52
1.1,1-trichloroethasie
0.91
.0.71
1.37
carbon tetrachloride
0.52
< 0.52
\ 0.52
benzene
1. 95
3.53
3. 00
1,2-ciichloroethane
0.52
0.52
0.52
Fluorobensene
0. 52
¦: 0.52
¦: 0.52
2,5-Dimethyl-3-He::er,fc
0.52
¦¦ 0.52
.: 0.52
2-Chloro-2-Metnylpropane
0. 52
; 0.52
'¦ 0.52
Heptane
0. 4r.
0.76
0.46
trichlorocthene
0. 52
< 0.52
; t.'. 52
1,2-cllchloroprupane
. 52
< 0.52
< 0.52
ti i b r omoae t it ane
j-, e -
0.52
' 0.52
1.4-Dic-:ane
0. £2
< 0.52
i'i c?"
iif-coodi ch lor-ontii cl.«r,c-
." i c ¦?
¦¦ 0,22
¦: 0.52
l S-l, 3-d ichlcrcpf c?i- •
! . 1:2
0.52
J-tfe.ny! -2-r-en': as'-.,:.,:
¦ 'C
C* —
. .c.:
U ; Jc.i"r
¦ z
1 *• ~r
*
i • -
B-4
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
VOST-2 — FAGE 2
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
1,1,2-trichloroethane
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.52
Kromoacetone
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
tetrachloroethene
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
2-He>:anone
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
dibromochlorootethane
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,2-dibromoethane
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
chlorobenzene
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,1,1,2-Tetrachlorocthane
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
ethyl benzene
0.58
0.68
0.57
m, p-xylene
2.58
2.55
2.06
Nonane
0.79
1.42
0.67
o-xylene
0.71
0.79
0.66
Styrene
0.97
3.38
0.51
bromo-form
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
Cumene
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.52
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,4-Dichloro-2-buten®
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
F'entachloroethane
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,3-D i chloroben zene
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
1,2-D i b romo-3-ch1oroprop ane
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.52
Master Index
2054
2055
2056
Surrogate Compounds Recovery
7. •
X
y.
dfc-Benzene
106
104
107
d4-1,2-d i ch1oroethane
107
97
103
d3-toluene
92
94
96
4-bromo-f luorobenzene
107
98
96
B-5
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS
SUMMARV
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Date:
5-18-93
Test Number VOST-3
Sampling Run
No.
TB3-V0ST
Condition No Tires
Operator
RT, JEB
Location Exhaust Duct
Exhaust Duct
Flow
173.6 DSCFM
Sample ID
700/10
165/02
531/108
Volume Collected (Liters)
19.229
19.145
19.037
Detectible Compounds
11
12
9
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
dichlorodifluoromethane
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
chloromethane
< 0.52
0.72
< 0.53
2-Methylpropene
2.48
3.21
1.38
vinyl chloride
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
bromomethane
< 0.52
0.42
< 0.53
chloroethane
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
trichlorofluoromethane
0.44
< 0.52
< 0.53
1,1-d i ch1oroethene
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
Carbon Disulfide
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
lodomethane
< 0.52
< 0.52 •
< 0.53
Acetone
2.61
3.12
2.59
Vinyl Acetate
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
methylene chloride
184.05
43.49
20.76
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
2-Methy1-2-Propanol
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.53
Hexane
0.52
0.43
, 0.53
1,l-dichloroethane
< 0.52
< 0.52
0^ 53
2-£utar,cr,e
0.52
< 0.52
'.••.53
chlorotcr.T.
0. 5^
¦ 0.52
. 0.53
1,1,1 -trich) uroetr.sne
0. 60
: 0.52
- 0.53
carbon tetrachloride
u. Z2
< 0.52
0.53
benzene
1 • So
1.38
1.70
1,2-cJichlo*oe thane
0.52
< 0.52
FlLiorober-,:er,e
. c ¦¦
: 0.52
, 0.53
2.5-D i ffie thy 1 -3-He;; ene
0.5:
0*33
I-Chlorc-2-Metny]propane
0.Z2
rt c."
0.53
Heptane
c.s;
0.5"
0«53
tr lcl'.lorcet'-ieris
=: 0.ZZ
c:*7'
j. 53
i, 2-J :ch i ir curca«oe
¦. 0. ZZ
p-t
53
d i 1: rojnofi'J ttuine
• C,Z2
/') «5;*T
1.fi-rii-sife
r. *•
e "
*.r ct.- J) z' ¦' " ••£. t«- : -..n-i;
i" e"~
tz
c-
. • y.
; . 53
r —
" ¦
. ; **
¦'
r- —
B-6
1 ft.orodue.d Irom
1 batl •vailabl*
copy. 3^
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
VOST-3
— PAGE 2
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
1.1.2-trichloroethane
Bromoacetone
tetraehloroethene
2-Hexanone
d i bromochlorooethane
1.2-dibroaoethane
chlorobenzene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ethyl benzene
n,p-xylene
Nonane
o-xylene
Styrene
browoform
Cumene
1.2.3-Tri ch1oroprap*ne
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Fentachloroethane
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibro»o-3-chloropropano
~
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.33
<
0.52
<
0.52
v
0.53
*
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
<
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
•v
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
1.61
1.63
1.33
0.83
0.54
0. 67
0.42
0.52
0.42
0.49
0.44
1.01
<
0.52
<
0.52
0. S3
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
•'
0.52
<
0.52
..
0,53
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.33
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
<
0.52
<
0.52
0.53
0.52
<
0.S2
/
0.53
2057
2058
2062
V.
*
X
105'
104
-------
. j {rom
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Date: 5-21-93
Teat Number
Contl i t i on
Location
VOST-4
Ramping (20 V. Tires)
Exhaust Duct
Sampling Run No.
Operator-
Exhaust Duct Flow
TB4-V0ST
JEB
141.5 DSCFM
Sample ID
Volume Collected (Liters)
Detectible Compounds
535/757
19.47
o
101/186
19.271
11
13/26
19.2C>:
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
d i C h 1 orod i -f 1 uo rome thane
chloromethane
2-Me thy1p ropen e
vinyl chloride
bromomethane
chloroethane
trichlorofluaromethane
1,1-dichloroethene
Carbon Disulfide
iodomethane
Acetone
Vinyl Acetate
methylene chloride
trans-1,2-dichlorocthene
2-Methyl-2-Propanol
He>:ane . .
1. 1-dicMoroethane
2-Butanone
chloroform
1,1,1-trichloropthane
carbon tetrachloride
benzene
1,I-dich1 orsethane
Flucroteniena
2, 5-Dinethy i-3-He:.e^e
2-Ch 1 or o-2-Me thy 1 c rep fcr.w
Heptane
tr ichlo* ce'.!°.*ne
i, 2-diCi.»oripro»»t.f-
C '.l ent;
1.4-Di" -£
Lrsir.o 3: ;! I -¦ " :'.a "ii"-
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
22.30
72.78
70.02
0.96
2.02
2.13
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
1.00
4.31
3. 14
< 0.51
C 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
0.41
< 0.52
<. 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
0.52
0. 60
4. 45
5.76
5. 16
< 0.51
< 0.52
\ 0.52
14.20
26.05
11.75
< 0.51
; 0.52
< 0.52
: 0.51
< 0.52
0.52
, 0.51
< 0.52
<. 0.52
. 0.51
< 0.52
1 0. 5 2
•: o.5i
0.5"
0. 52
' 0.51
0.52
'. 0 • 5 2
0.51
0.52
' 0.52
< 0.51
0.52
: 0.52
35. 16
11.42-
4--42
0.51
¦ 0.52
0-52
, 0.51
. 0.52
0-52
0.51
^ 0.52
< 0.52
¦: 0.51
¦*» IT '"i
*'* c ~
'J.
.¦ • ta-—
... f- 1
A
» wl *
V • U-
c-
cm
c:. "¦*
• V » J i
. » wX.
C 1
l'< c"
t—•
. U.wl
.< • w
; 0.51
«r *
0.-2
;*v c"
r. "¦
• wJ 1
V * -i fc.
*-
» — 5
V C* -
e '
•
f '
. "
c- -
B-S
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
VOST-4 — paSE 2
ng/L
n9/l-
ng/L
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.S1
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
' 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
<¦' 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
<, 0.52
0.50
0.74
0.59
< 0.51
< 0.52
<- 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
2.61
1.74
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
. 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
s 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
< 0.51
< 0.52
< 0.52
2064
2065
2066
%
X
X
89
59
93
107
100
-109
89 '
85
87
101
106
ICC
1.1.2-trichloroethane
Bromoacetone
tetrachloroethene
2-Hexanon«
dibroooch1oromethane
1.2-dibromoethane
chlorobenzene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ethyl benzene
m,p-xylene
Nonane
o-xylene
Styrene
bromofarm
Cumene
1.2.3-Trichloropropane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethai.e
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Pentachloroethane
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Di ch1oroben z ene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibrofl»o-3-chloropropane
Master Index
Surrogate Compounds Recovery
d6-Benzene
d4-l,2-dichloroethane
<39-toluene
4-bromof1uorobenr ene
B-9
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Date: 5-23-93
Tnt Number VDST-5
Condition Batch (20 X Tiros)
Location Exhaust Duct
Sampling Run No.
Operator
Exhaust Duct Flow
TB5-V0ST
JEB
174.2 DSCFM
Sample ID
Voluae Collected (Liters)
Detectiblc Compounds
463/142
19.186
13
A100/36
21.153
11
522/340
19.062
13
ns/L ng/L ng/L
d ich1orod i f1uoromothane
< 0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
chloronethane
18. Bl
6.49
6.20
2-WethyIpropene
< 0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
vinyl chloride
< 0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
broaooethan*
1.57
<
0.47
0.44
chloroethane
< 0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
trichlorofluorooathane
< 0.52
<
0.47
0.73
1,1-dichloroethene
< 0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
Carbon Disulfide
5.13
<
0.47
<
0.52
icdofliethane
< 0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
Acetone
7: 74
7,48 .
9.88
Vinyl Acetate
< 0.52 .
0.47
<
0.52
methylene chloride
20.39
j
L ~ ¦
15. ?7
trans-1, i-UiCi'Ioroethcnc
; . Z2
'
: • •••'
/¦
6.55
26.94
o. s:
¦ 0.47
: 0.52
; >">.52
. 0.47
0.52
2,3-1/ ¦ "V/ 1 -"j-Helens
; 0.52
. 0.47
; 0.52
2-Ch i • Ipi opane
¦ 0.52
0.47
< 0.52
Hep
0 • Sj.
0.47
; 0.52
tr ilI".lo'
. 0.3"
0.47
0.52
1 ,?-ct;cl<: ..•••sprspane
e -
0.47
: C.52
aibi £¦¦•- w.T, cr.ii
V. 5,:.
47
. 52
1,4-2; 3 "
tr —
0.47
0.52
15 • : r. ': iiMit?
"k ¦¦
~ *
• > -
f"?
cic-. i wStnf'
. 5*
e -
J. i -
B-10
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
VOST-3 ~ PAGE 2
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
1,1,2-trichloroethanc
<
0.32
<
0.47
<
0.52
Broaoacetone
<
0.S2
<
0.47
<
0.52
tetrachloroethene
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
2-Hexanone
<
0.S2
<
0.47
<
0.52
dibrmochloroacthane
<
0.S2
<
0.47
<
0.92
1,2-dibroaoethane
<
0.S2
<
0.47
<
0.52
chlorobenzene
0.44
<
0.47
<
0.52
1,1,1,2-T«trachlaroethane
<
0.32
<
0.47
<
0.52
ethyl benzene
1.06
0.83
1.33
«,p-xylene
5.65
2.86
5.05
Nonane
<
0.S2
0.48
0.76
o-xylene
l.oe
0.83
1.49
Styrene
1.91
1.27
1.88
broMofor*
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
Cu*ene
<
0.S2
<
0.47
<
0.52
1,2,3-Trichloropr-opane
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
1,4-Dlchloro-2-butene
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
Pentachloroethane
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.S2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.32
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
1,2-Dibro«o-3-chloropropanc
<
0.52
<
0.47
<
0.52
Master Index
2067
2068
2069
Surrogate Compound* Recovery
X
X
X
d6-Benzene
64
63
•
82
d4-1,2-di chl oroe thane
99
114
106
d8-toluene
86
84
86
4-broeofLuorobenzcne
107
108
112
B-ll
-------
THUS BURN
Acurax-RTP Uborttery Raault*
EPA Kathod 8340 / VO«T Matrix
Hewlett Packard 5890 CC / 5971 MSO; 3On x 0..53u OB-624 fuaed eilica capillary
Takmar LSC-2000 w/Carbotrap/Carbosieve SIII.
PQL " Practical Quantitation Limit
N/D • Mot Datacted
J » Detected « PQL
N/A » Mot Applicable
Saaple Type
VOST
VOST
VOST
VOST
Hiittr Index
2053
2054
2055
2056
Saaple 10
701/335
512/570
CC86/56
380/108
Saaple Co11actad (Liters)
19.16
19.172
19.359
Collection Date
05/13/93
OS/13/93
05/13/93
Analyeia Date
06/08/93
06/08/93
06/08/93
06/08/93
PQL
n<3
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
dichlorodifluoroaethane
MO
KD
MO
0.82
10
chloroaethane
56.5
2.6
0.8
23.05
10
2-Methylpropene
MO
5.6
3.6
3.91
10
vinyl chloride
M0
ND
ND
ND
10
broaoaethane
M0
ND
. MO
0.71
10
chloroethane
NO
ND
ND
MO
10
trichlorotluoroaethane
NO
NO
MO
ND
10
1,1-dichloroethene
NO
ND
NO
NO
10
Carbon DLaulfide
MO
ND
KD
ND
10
iodoaethene
MO
ND
MO
MO
10
Acetone
21.3
1.6
1.6
10.23
10
Vinyl Acetate
MO
ND
ND
MO
10
methylene chloride
143.0
11.9
81.1
57.78
10
trans-1,2-diehloroethene
NO
ND
MO
MO
10
J-Mathyl-2-Propanol
NO
ND
MO
11.26
10
Hexane
NO
ND
0.6
MO
10
1,1-dichloroethane
NO
ND
ND
ND
10
2-Butanone
NO
ND
ND
NO
10
chlorofora
NO
ND
MO
NO
10
1,1,1-trichloroetbane .
ND
0.9
0.7
1.37
10
carbon tetrachloride
NO
NO
NO
MO
10
benzene
23.3
2.0
3.5
3
10
1,2-dichloroethaqe
MO
NO
MO
NO
10
Pluorobensene
NO
NO
MO
ND
10
2,5-Diaethyl-3-Hexene
NO
ND
MO
MO
10
2-Chloro-2-Methylpropane
NO
ND
MO
NO
10
Heptane
NO
0.5
0.8
0.46
10
trichloroethene
NO
ND
MO
NO
10
1.2-dichloropropane
' NO
NO
MO
NO
10
dibroaoaethane
NO
ND
MO
ND
10
1,4-Dioxana
NO
ND
ND
ND
10
broaodichloroeathaive
NO
ND
NO
ND
10
e le-1,3-dlchloropropene
ND
ND
NO
ND
10
4-Nethyl-2-Pentanone
HO
ND
NO
0.62
10
toluene
ND
0.82
1.29
1.04
10
trana-1,3-dichloropropene
NO
ND
NO
NO
10
1,1,2-trichloroethane
NO
ND
ND
ND
10
¦roaoacetone
NO
ND
ND
ND
10
ft-12
-------
tatrachloroathana
NO
ND
ND
ND
10
2-Uuimm
NO
ND
ND
NO
10
dibroaochloroMthana
m>
NO
MO
MO
10
1< 2-4ibroaoathana
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ehlotohwiim
ND
ND
ND
NO
10
1,1,1,2-Tatrachloroathana
MO
NO
ND
NO
10
•thyl bnxwM
KD
o.se
0.68
0.S7
10
a,p-xyl*n«
HO
2.S8
2.SS
2.06
10
¦oniiw
MO
0.79
1.42
0.67
10
o-xyiMM
WD
0.71
0.79
0.66
10
Stynoi
MO
0.97
3.39
0.S1
10
branfom
MO
ND
ND
NO
10
CUMM
MO
ND
ND
ND
10
1,2,3-Trichloropropana
NO
ND
ND
NO
10
1,1,2,2-tatrachloroathana
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
1f 4-Dlchloro-2-butana
NO
N0
NO
NO
10
*«ntaehloro«tluu»
MO
ND
NO
ND
10
1>3-Oi.chlorobanzana
NO
ND
ND
ND
10
1> 4-Dichlerobansana
ND
ND
NO
NO
10
1,2-DlehloeotenMiM
ND
ND
ND
NO
10
1,2-Dlbro«o-3-chloropropana
NO
ND
ND
NO
10
Nuttr Xadax
20S3
20S4
. 20SS
20S6
Surrogata Compounds Racovary
%
«
«
%
M-Immm
91
108
104
107
<14-1,2-diehloroathana
1S3
107
97
103
dl-toluwM
100
92
94
96
4-broanfluorobansana
94
107
98
96
Ao*1y,t Laboratory Hanagar 7/ At.h%~ _ Data P/l/tJ
tot"* 1-3U ril. laMt Cs \EXCEL\RPT\TMB2 .XL* " ; /
-------
TIRE BURN
Acurax-RTP Laboratory Results
EPA Method 8240 / VOST Matrix
Hewlett Packard 5890 OC / 5971 HSD; 30m x 0.53u DB-624 fused silica capillary
Tekmar LSC-2000 w/Carbotrap/Carbosieve SIII.
PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit
N/0 - Not Detected
J ¦ Detected •< PQL
H/A - Not Applicable
Sample Type VOST VOST VOST VOST
Master Index 20S7 2058 2062 20"
Sample ID 700/10 165/102 531/108 365/76
Sample Collected (Liters) 19.229 19.145 19.037
Collection Date 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 "
Analysis Date 06/08/93 06/08/93 06/09/93 06/09/93 PQL
ng/L n9/L n9/& n9 ng/(x)L
dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND ND 10
chloranethane ND 0.7 HD 26.85 10
2 -Methy lpropene 2.5 3.2 1.4 HD 10
vinyl chloride ND nd MD ND 10
bromasMthsne ND 0.4 nd ND 10
chloroethane ND ND MD HD 10
trichlorofluoromethane 0.4 ND ND HD 10
1,1-dichloroethene ND ND ND HD 10
Carbon Disulfide ND NO HD HD 10
lodomethane ND ND HD HD 10
Acetone 2.6 3.1 2.6 73.49 10
Vinyl Acetate ND ND HD ND 10
¦wthylene chloride 184.1 43.5 20.8 1119.42 10
trans-1,2-dichloroethene ND ND HD HD 10
2-Methyl-2-Propanol ND ND nd HD 10
Hexane ND 0.4 ND ND 10
1.1-dichloroethane ND nd ND HD 10
2-Butanone ND ND ND nd 10
chloroform ND ND ND ND 10
1.1.1-tricUoroethane 0.6 ND ND ND 10
carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND ND 10
benzene 1.9 1.4 1.7 23.64 10
1.2-dichloroethane ND ND ND ND 10
Fluorobenzene ND ND ND ND 10
2,5-Dimethyl-3-Hexene ND ND nd ND 10
2-Chloro-2-Hethylpropan« MD HD ND ND 10
Heptane ND ND ND ND 10
triehloroethene HD HD ND ND 10
1,2-dichloropropane ND ND ND ND 10
dlbromomethane ND nd ND ND 10
1,4-Dioxane ND ND ND ND 10
brostodichloromethane ND ND HD ND lO
cis-1,3-dichloropropene HD ND ND ND 10
4-MetKyl-2-Pentanone ND HD HD HD 10
toluene 1.37 0.85 0.7 HD 10
trans-1.3-dichloropropene ND ND ND ND 10
1.1.2-trichloroethane ND ND NO ND 10
Bromoacatone ND ND ND ND 10
ft-14
-------
tetrachloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
2-H«xanon«
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
dibro«ochloroa>ethane
HD
ND
ND
ND
10
1,2-dibronoethane
NO
ND
NO
ND
10
chlorobencene
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
•thyI benzene
ND
NO
ND
ND
10
¦,p-xylene
1.61
1.63
1.33
ND
10
Nonane
0.83
0.54
0.67
ND
10
o-xylene
0.42
0.52
0.42
ND
10
Styrene
0.49
0.44
1.01
ND
10
broMOfon
ND
ND
ND
NO
10
CUMM
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
1,2,3-Trlchloropropane
ND
ND
NO
ND
10
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
1,4-Dichloro-2-buten«
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
Pentachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
ND
ND
NO
ND
10
1,2-0ichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
1,2-Dibroe»-3-chloropropane
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
Matter Index
2057
2058
2062
2063
Surrogate Compounds Recovery
«
%
«
%
d6-Benzene
105
104
96
96
d4-l,2-dlchloroeth«ne
88
99
98
124
d8-toluene
88
96
95
92
4-broaofluorobenzene
106
100
102
101
>t»i /jSfWss-S/f Laboratory Manager Date.
Lotus 1-/-3 File Baii»! C:\BXCEL\RPT\TBSK3.XLS
B-tf
-------
APPENDIX C SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC SAMPLING DATA
C-l
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Teet Number M15-1
Condition 20 X Tires
Location Exhaust Duct
Operator KT
Run No. TB1-M15
Start Time 1434
Date: 5-11-93
Stack Diam. 8.25 " Ambient Temp. 80 *F
Pitot Cp 0.64 Baron. Pttess. 29.81 "Hg
Nozzle Diam. 0.623 " Static Proas. -3.3 "H20
Meter Y 1.014 Eat. Moisture 12.0 X
Meter dHS 1.91 Eat. Oxygen 7.5 X
Stop Tljne 1704 Est. 002 7.5 X
fit.
Clock
dP
' dH
Gas Meter
Temperatures,
•F
Meter T, "F
Vac.
It
Time
"H20
"H20
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
lop.
In
Out
0
1434
1.80
711.582
595
220
68
104
96
9.0
1
1457
1.60
729.000
597
220
94
124
102
9.0
2
1520
1.70
746.000
599
220
80
128
112
9.0
3
1540
1.70
761.000
587
220
76
126
106
9.0
4
1606
1.70
781.000
594
220
76
122
100
9.0
5
1631
1.70
800.000
595
220
84
122
104
9.6
6
1704
1.60
824.217
590
220
80
126
106
10.0
Average
1.69
594 220 80 122
104
Total Volune Metered, Vm
Total Saapling Time, 0
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity,
112.635 Cubic Ft.
150 minutes
NA grans
13.5 ft/sec.
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
7.20
7.40
12.0
28.1
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volune Collected:
Average Sampling Rate
149.0 SCEH
105.302 DSCF
0.702 DSCFTi,
131.1 DSCFM
2.9818 DSCM
1.612 ACTO
X Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic saoplirtf
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
C-2
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Number
Condition
Location
Start Tine
Stop Tine
H15-1
20 X Tires
Exhaust Duct
1434
1704
Teat Date: 5-11-93
Sampling Run Ho.
Operator
Exhaust Duct Flow
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
TBl-tfG
FT
131.1 D6CSM
2.9818 DSCM
66.9 X
*
TARGET ANALYTE
CAS#
ATC
w
SAMPLE
MASS
(<*)
__________
IDL
(ug)
Loading
(ub/M'3)
1
N-NITROSCOIMETHYLAMINE
62-75-9
*
ND
3
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
55-18-5
ND
5.7
< 1.91
4
PHENOL
108-95-2
*
ND
3.0
< 1.01
6
ANILINE
62-53-3
*
ND
2.5
< 0.84
7
BIS(2-€HL0e0GTHYL)ETHER
111-44-4
*
ND
3.6
< 1.21
8
2-CHLQR0RfflN0L
95-57-8
*
ND
6.1
< 2.05
9
1,3-DICHLOKBENZENE
541-73-1
*
ND
1.7
< 0.57
11
1,4-DICHLQROBENZENE
106-46-7
*
ND
1.9
< 0.64
12
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
*
ND
1.8
< 0.60
13
1,2-DICHLOBOBENZENE
95-50-1
*
ND
3.4
< 1.14
14
BIS( 2-CHLORDISOPRCFYL) ETHER
108-60-1
(0)
15
1-FHENYLETHANONE
98-86-2
ND
3.9
< 1.31
16
2-METHYLFHEN0L
95-48-7
*
ND
4.7
< 1.58
17
4-HEIWfLPHENOL
106-44-5
*
ND
0.1
< 0 .03
18
N-NITR050-DI -N-PRCFYLAMINE
621-64-7
*
ND
3.0
< 1.01
19
4-NITROSO-MORPHOLINE
59-89-2
ND
4.6
< 1.54
20
2-METHYL-B5NZENAMINE
98-84-0
ND
3.0
< 1.01
22
HEXACHLOROETHANE
67-72-1
*
ND
8.5
< 2.85
23
NITROBENZENE
98-95-3
#
ND
3.0
< 1.01
24
1-NITROSO-PIFERDINE
100-75-4
ND
25
ISCPHCB0NE
78-59-1
*
ND
4.4
< 1.48
26
2,4-DIMffrHYUHENOL
105-67-9
*
ND
2.6
< 0.87
27
BIS(2-CHLOBOETHCOCY)ME,niANE
111-91-1
*
ND
2.1
< 0.70
28
1,2,4-TRICHLORGBENZENE
120-82-1
*
ND
2.2
< 0.74
30
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
*
ND
. 1.3
< 0.44
31
4-CHLORQANILINE
106-47-8
*
ND
1.9
< 0.64
32
2,6-DICHLOBOFHENOL
87-65-0
*
ND
2.8
< 0.94
33
HEXACHLORCBOTADIENE
87-68-3
*
ND
34
HEXACHLORCFRCFEWE
70-30-4
ND
35
N-NITROSO-DI-N-BCmfLAMINE
924-16-3
ND
5.4
< 1.81
36
METHOXYMETHYLBENZEAMINE
5961-59-1
ND
2.4
< 0.80
37
4-CHLORO-3-METHYIiWSNOL
59-50-7
*
ND
.77
< 0.26
38
5-CHLORO-2-METHYLANILINE
95-79-4
ND
2.7
< 0.91
39
2-HETHYLNAFHTHALENE
91-57-6
*
ND
1.0
< 0 .34
40
HEXACHLOROCTCLOPENTADIENE
77-47-4
*
ND
41
1,2,4,5-TETRACHL0R0BENZENE
95-94-3
ND
3.1
< 1.04
42
2.4.6-TRICHL0R0PHEN0L
88-06-2
*
ND
43
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
9fc$5-4
*
ND
5.5
< 1.84
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
M15-1
PAGE 2
SAMPLE
MASS
IDL
Loading
«
TARGET ANALYTE
CAS#
ATC
(ug)
(ug)
(ug/M"3)
44
2,3,4-raiCHLOROPHEWOL
15950-66-0
*
ND
.97
< 0.33
< 0.37
< 0.54
45
2-CHLOHGNAFHTOALENE
91-58-7
*
ND
1.1
46
1-CHLORONAHfIHALENE
90-13-1
*
ND
1.6
47
2-NITROANILIKE
88-74-4
*
ND
"""""
49
DIMETHYL FJiATCALATE
131-11-3
*
ND
1.2
< 0.40
50
2.6-DINITROTOLOENE
606-20-2
*
ND
3.6
< 1.21
51
ACENAPHTHYLENE
208-96-8
*
ND
.30
<0.10
52
3-NITRQANILINE
99-09-2
*
ND
.79
<0.26
54
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
*
ND
.98
< 0.33
55
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
121-14-2
*
ND
2.9
< 0.97
56
feotachlokbenzene
608-93-5
ND
57
DIBENZOFORAN
132-64-9
*
ND
.84
<0.28
58
2,3,5,6-rorRACHLORCPHENOL
935-95-5
ND
——
59
4-NITFCFHENX
100-02-7
*
ND
2.7
< 0.91
60
2.3.4,6-TSTRACHLOROFHENOL
58-90-2
ND
61
2-NAPHTHALENAMINE
91-59-8
ND
1.1
< 0.37
62
DIETHYL FHATHALATE
84-66-2
*
ND
1.5
< 0.50
63
4-CHLORCraENYIIHENYL ETHER
7005-72-3
ND
64
4-NITRQANILINE
100-01-6
ND
.82
< 0.27
65
FLOOGENE
86-73-7
*
ND
1.3
< 0.44
66
DIPHENYLAMINE
122-39-4
ND
1.6
< 0.54
67
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
534-52-1
*
ND
68
AZ06ENZENE
103-33-3
ND
1.4
< 0.47
69
tt-(4-ETH0XYFHENYL) -ACETAMINE
62-44-2
ND
.26
< 0.09
70
HEXACHLOKBENZENE
118-74-1
*
ND
1.4
< 0.47
71
4-BBOMCFHENYL-PHENYLETHEF
101-55-3
ND
3.5
< 1.17
73
PEOTACHLORCFHENOL
87-86-5
~
ND
8.5
< 2.85
74
PEOTACHLORCHITROBENZENE
82-68-8
ND
75
H-HITROSODIFHENYLAMINE
86-30-6
ND
.29
< 0.10
77
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
*
ND
.55
< 0.18
78
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
*
ND
.90
< 0.30
79
DI-N-BOTYLPHATHALATE
84-74-2
*
ND
5.9
< 1.98
80
METHAPYRILENE
91-80-5
ND
1.1
< 0.37
81
DIPHENYLTRIAZENE
136-35-6
ND
82
FLUORAOTHENE
206-44-0
*
ND
0.9
<0.30
83
BENZIDINE
92-87-5
*
ND
84
PYREHE
129-00-0
*
ND
2.5
. < 0.84
85
N,N-DIMETHYL-AMINQAZOBENZENE
60-11-7
ND
2.0
< 0.67
87
BDTYL BENZYL FHATHALATE
85-68-7
*
ND
.4.8
< 1.61
88
3,3' -DnffiTTHYLBENZIDINE
119-93-7
ND
.98
< 0.33
89
2-ACETYLAMINOFLUORENE
640-19-7
ND
.39
< 0.13
90
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)FHATHALATE
117-81-7
*
ND
2.9
< 0.97
91
3,3' -DIMETHCKYBENZIDINE
119-90-4
ND
.61
< 0.20
92
3.3'-DICHLOPCBENZIDINE
91-94-1
*
ND
2.7
< 0.91
93
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
*
ND
.59
< 0.20
94
CHKYSB®
218-01-9
*
ND
1.6
< 0.54
96
DI-N-OCTYLPHATHALATE
117-84-0
*
ND
3.5
< 1.17
97
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACEN
57-97-6
ND
98
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHEME
205-99-2
*
ND
5.9
< 1.98
99
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
207-08-9
*
ND
9.3
< 3.12
101
BENZO(A)PYRENE
50-32-8
*
ND
6.8
< 2 .28
102
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
56^-5
ND
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
MM5-1
PAGE 3
1
I
1
1
! SAMPLE
1 1
1 t
1
1
s
1
1
: MASS
! IDL ; Loading
# ;
TARGET ANALYTE
CAS#
! ATC
: (ug)
I («g) ! (ug/M"3)
103 :
INDENO[ 1,2,3-cd]FYRENE
; 193-39-5
! *
: nd
! 11 ! < 3.69
104 ;
DIBENZO, h]AWIHRACENE
! 53-70-3
: *
i ND
: 8.4 i < 2.82
105 !
BENZO[ghi)FERYIJaffi
; 191-24-2
*
i
: nd
! 16 ', < 5.37
i
•
; REQUIRED
i
i
TOTAL !
RECOVERY ;
* !
SURROGATE STANDARDS
: VALUES
p/f :
MASS(ufl):
*
2 :
2-FLUOROFHENOL(ACID SUR)
: (2i-ioo)
F !
30 !
15 ;
5 !
D5-PHEN0L(ACID SOR)
: (10-94)
p :
24.58 !
12.29 :
21 :
D5-NITR0B&NZENE{B/N SUR)
: (35-114)
f :
8.88 ;
8.88 ;
48 J
2-FLD0RCBIHlENYL(fi/N SDR)
; (43-116)
f :
8.05 :
8.05 !
72 !
2,4,6-TRIBR0M0FHE»X( ACID6UR)
! (10-123)
f :
4.89 ;
2.445 !
86 ;
D14-TERPHENYL(B/N SUR)
: (33-141)
f ;
7.48 :
7.48 !
CAS# = CHHM ABSTRACT NUMBER.
ATC = AIR TCKIC COMPOUND.
IDL = INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
ND = NOT DETECTED.
J = UKTML'nfl) AT T-KSS THAN THE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
SURROGATE STANDARDS = COMPOUNDS SPIKED INTO THE SAMPLE PRIOR TO
EXTRACTION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE EXTRACTION EFFICENCT.
ACID SOR = ACID SURROGATE COMPOUND,SPIKED IN AT 200CJG/ML.
B/N SUR - BASE/NEUTRAL SURROGATE COMPOUND .SPIKED IN AT 100UG/ML.
P/F = PASS OR FAIL.
C-5
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description; Rotary Kiln
Date: 5-13-93
Teat Number M15-2
Condition 20 X Tires
Location Exhaust IXxrt
Operator FT
Bun No. TB2-M5
Start Tine 1221
Stack Dian. 6.25 " Ambient Temp. 80 *F
Pitot Cp 0.84 Baron. Press. 28.92 "Hg
Nozzle Diam. 0.623 " Static Press. -3.5 "H20
Meter Y 1.014 Est. Moisture 12.0%
Meter dH» 1.91 Est. Oxygen 7.5 X
Stop Tine 1532 Est. 002 7.5 X
It.
Clock
dP
dH
Gas Meter
Temperatures,
*F
Meter T,
Vac.
t
Tine
"H20
"H20
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
Iiqp.
In
Out
-He
0
1221
2.80
824.517
606
220
11.0
1
1229
2.80
832.000
614
220
98
120
100
13.0
2
1255
2.80
857.000
620
220
87
140
112
13.0
3
1314
2.80
875.000
589
220
76
144
120
15.0
4
1331
2.80
892.000
593
220
70
150
122
15.0
5
1350
2.80
910.000
603
220
66
150
124
15.0
6
1410
2.80
930.000
620
220
65
150
124
16.0
7
1439
2.80
959.000
610
220
66
148
123
16.0
8
1505
2.80
983.000
592
220
58
146
122
16.0
9
1532
2.80
1010.081
621
220
60
146
122
16.0
Average
3.11
607
220
72
144
119
Total Volume Metered, Vn
Total Sampling Tins, 0
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity,
185.564 Cubic Ft.
191 minutes
608.9 grains
12.9 ft/sec.
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volume Collected:
Average Sampling Rate
140.4 SCFW
169.242 D6CF
0.886 DSCFM,
7.30
7.70
13.4
28.0
121.6 DSCFM
4.7924 DSCM
2.086 ACEM ======> 100.9 X Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic sampling
u&s conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
C-6
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Teat Number
Condition
Location
Start Tine
Stop Time
M15-2
20 X Tires
Exhaust Duct
1221
1532
Test Date: 5-13-93
Sampling Run No. TB2-M5
Operator RT
Exhaust Duct Flow 121.6 D6CFM
Volune Collected 4.7924 DSCM
Isokinetic 100.9 X
TABGET ANALYTE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOIETHYLAMINE
PHENOL
ANILINE
BIS(2-CHL0e0ETHYL)E,mER
2-CHL0R0FHEN0L
1.3-DICHLOBOBENZEWE
1.4-DICHLORCBENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
1,2-DICHLOBCBENZENE
BIS(2-CHLC®OISCPRCFYL)ETHEB
1-PHENYLETHANONE
2-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYIfHENOL
N-NITR06O-DI-N-FRCFYLAMINE
4-NITR06O-M0KPHCLINE
2-METHYL-BSNZENAMINE
HEXACHL060BTHANE
NITROBENZENE
1-NITROSO-PIPERDINE
IS0FH0R0NE
2,4-DIMEIHYLFHENOL
BIS(2-CHLOPDE,raaXY)METHANE
1.2.4-TRICHLORQBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
4-CHLORQANILINE
2,6-DICHLOBCFHENOL
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLORCPRCFENE
N-NITR06O-DI-N-BUTYLAMINE
KETHCKYMETHYLBENZEAMINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
5-CHLORO-2-METHYLANILINE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLCPENTADIENE
1,2,4,5-TCTBACHLORCffiENZENE
2,4.6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2.4.5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
SAMPLE
MASS
IDL
Loading
CASH
ATC
(Uff)
(Uff)
(i*/tT3)
—*
— —
62-75-9
*
ND
55-18-5
ND
5.7
< 1.19
108-95-2
*
1.0 J
3.0
0.21
62-53-3
*
ND
2.5
< 0.52
111-44-4
*
HD
3.6
< 0.75
95-57-8
*
ND
6.1
< 1.27
541-73-1
*
ND
1.7
< 0.35
106-46-7
*
ND
1.9
< 0.40
100-51-6
#
ND
1.8
< 0.38
95-50-1
*
ND
3.4
< 0.71
108-60-1
ND
98-86-2
ND
3.9
< 0.81
95-48-7
*
ND
4.7.
< 0.98
106-44-5
*
ND
0.1
< 0.02
621-64-7
*
ND
3.0
< 0.63
59-89-2
ND
4.6
< 0.96
98-84-0
ND
3.0
< 0.63
67-72-1
*
ND
8.5
< 1.77
98-95-3
*
ND
3.0
< 0.63
100-75-4
ND
* 1.—
78-59-1
*
ND
4.4
< 0.92
105-67-9
#
ND
2.6
< 0.54
111-91-1
*
ND
2.1
< 0.44
120-82-1
* •
ND
2.2
< 0.46
91-20-3
*
ND
1.3
< 0.27
106-47-8
*
ND
1.9
< 0.40
87-65-0
*
ND
2.8
< 0.58
87-68-3
*
ND
70-30-4
ND
924-16-3
ND
5.4
< 1.13
5961-59-1
ND
2.4
< 0.50
59-50-7
*
ND ¦
.77
< 0.16
95-79-4
ND
2.7
< 0.56
91-57-6
*
ND
1.0
< 0.21
77-47-4
*
ND
95-94-3
ND
3.1
< 0.65
88-06-2
*
ND
95-95-4
*
ND
5.5
< 1.15
C-7
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY M15-2
#
TABGET ANALYTE
CAS#
44
2,3,4-TWCHL0RCFHEN0L
15950-66-0
45
2-CHL0R0NAFHTHALENE
91-58-7
46
1-CHLCBCHAFHTHALENE
90-13-1
47
2-NITRQANILINE
88-74-4
49
DIMETHYL FHATHALATE
131-11-3
50
216-DINITROTOLUENE
606-20-2
51
ACENAFHTHYLHNE
208-96-8
52
3-NITBQANILINE
99-09-2
54
ACENAHRHENE
83-32-9
55
2,4-DINITBOIOLOENE
121-14-2
56
PEOTACHLORCBENZENE
608-93-5
57
DIEENZOFORAN
132-64-9
58
2,3,5,6-TBTBACHLOROPHENOL
935-95-5
59
4-NITBOPHENGL
100-02-7
60
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROHffiNOL
58-90-2
61
2-NAPHTHALQWMINE
91-59-8
62
DIETHYL FHATHALATE
84-66-2
63
4-CHLOBCFHENYLfflENYL ETHER
7005-72-3
64
4-HITBQAHILIHE
100-01-6
65
FLUCBESE
86-73-7
66
DIPHENYLAWNE
122-39-4
67
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
534-52-1
68
AZCBENZENE
103-33-3
69
N-(4-ETHQXYPHENYL)-ACETAMINE
62-44-2
70
HKXACHLORCBENZENE
118-74-1
71
4-BBCMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER
101-55-3
73
PBOTACHLOfCPHENOL
87-86-5
74
PEKTACHLOOOHITRCBENZENE
82-68-8
75
N-NITROSOOIPHENYLAMINE
86-30-6
77
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
78
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
79
DI-N-BOTYLFHATHALATE
84-74-2
80
METHAPYHILENE
91-80-5
81
DIPHENYLTRIAZENE
136-35-6
82
FLOORAKIHENE
206-44-0
83
BENZIDINE
92-87-5
84
PYRENE
129-00-0
85
N.N-DIMETHYL-AMINQA2CBENZENE
60-11-7
87
BUTYL BENZYL FHATHALATE
85-68-7
88
3,3' -DDBIHYUENZIDINE
119-93-7
89
2-ACETYLAMINCFLUORENE
640-19-7
90
BIS( 2-ETH*UffiCYL)FHATOALATE
117-81-7
91
3,3*-DIMETHCK¥BENZIDINE
119-90-4
92
3,3'-DICHLORCBENZIDINE
91-94-1
93
BEN20(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
94
CHFYSENE
218-01-9
96
DI-N-OCTYLFHATHALATE
117-84-0
97
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)AKTHRACEN
57-97-6
98
BENZO{B)FLOORANTHENE
205-99-2
99
BENZO (K) FLOORANTOENE
207-08-9
101
BENZO(A)FYRENE
50-32-8
102
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
56-49-5
cs
PAGE 2
SAMPLE
MASS
IDL
Loading
ATC
(ug)
(ug)
(ug/M"3)
*
ND
.97
< 0.20
*
ND
1.1
< 0.23
*
ND
1.6
< 0.33
*
ND
*
ND
1.2
< 0.25
*
ND
3.6
< 0.75
*
ND
.30
< 0.06
*
ND
.79
< 0.16
*
ND
.98
< 0.20
*
ND
2.9
< 0.61
ND
—-
*
ND
.84
< 0.18
ND
*
ND
2.7
< 0.56
ND
ND
1.1
< 0.23
*
ND
1.5
< 0.31
ND
ND
.82
< 0.17
*
ND
1.3
< 0.27
ND
1.6
< 0.33
*
ND
ND
1.4
< 0.29
ND
.26
< 0.05
*
ND
1.4
< 0.29
¦ ND
3.5
< 0.73
*
ND
8.5
< 1.77
ND
ND
.29
< 0.06
*
ND
.55
< 0.11
*
ND
.90
< 0.19
*
ND
5.9
< 1/23
-
ND
- 1.1
< 0.23
ND
*
ND
0.9
< 0.19
*
ND
#
ND
2.5
< 0.52
ND
2.0
< 0.42
~
ND
4.8
< 1.00
ND
.98
< 0.20
ND
" .39
< 0.08
*
ND
2.9
< 0.61
ND
.61
< 0.13
*
ND
2.7
< 0.56
*
ND
.59
< 0.12
*
ND
1.6
< 0.33
~
ND
3.5
< 0.73
ND
#
ND
5.9
< 1.23
*
ND
9.3
< 1.94
*
ND
6.8
< 1.42
ND
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
M15-2
PAGE 3
! SAMPLE ;
1
1
1
1
• : MASS
: idl
! Loading
#
! TARGET ANALYTE
; cas#
i ATC : (ug)
: (ug)
! (ug/M*3)
103 i
! INDENOf 1,2,3-od]FYRENE
I 193-39-5
i * : nd
: ii
; < 2.30
104 j
! DIBENZ[a,h]ANIHRACENE
! 53-70-3
J ~ ! ND
: 8.4
J < 1.75
105 !
! BENZO[ghi]FERYLENE
: 191-24-2
: * : nd
: is
J < 3.34
1
1
REQUIRED
•
TOTAL !
RBOOVER7
# ! SURROGATE STANDARDS
VALUES
i p/f
MASS(ug)!
... |
X
2 ! 2-FLU0R0PHE»X(ACID SUR)
(21-100)
: f
28.59 !
14.30
5 ! D5-FHEN0L(ACID SUR)
(10-94)
: p
28.70
14.35
21 ! D5-NITR0EENZENE(B/N £0R)
(35-114)
! F
15.05 :
15.05
48 2-FLU0R0BIFHENYL(B/N SUR)
(43-116)
! F
13.13 !
13.13
72 ! 214,6-TRrBRCMCPHEN(X(ACIDS0R)
(10-123)
! F
15.40 !
7.70
86 D14-TERPHENYL(B/N SUR)
(33-141)
: F
13.18 :
13.18
CAS# - CHEM ABSTRACT NUMBER.
ATC = AIR TOXIC COMPOUND.
IDL = INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
ND = NOT DETECTED.
J = DETECTED AT LESS THAN TOE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
SURROGATE STANDARDS = 0CMP0UND6 SPIKED INTO THE SAMPLE PRIOR TO
EXTRACTION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE EXTRACTION EFFICENCY.
ACID SOT = ACID SURROGATE CCMFOUND,SPIKED IN AT 200OS/ML.
B/N SOP = BASE/NEOTRAL SURROGATE COMPOUND,SPIKED IN AT 100UG/ML.
P/F = PASS OR FAIL.
C-9
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Number H£-3
Condition 20 X Tires
Date: 5-17-93
Stack Diam. 8.25 " Ambient Temp. 80 *F
Pitot Cp 0.84 Baron. Press. 29.76 Hg
- exhaust Duct Nozzle Diam. 0.623 " Static Press. -3.7 "H20
HT tteter Y 0.974 Est. Moisture 12.0 X
TB3-M15 Meter dH» 2.00 Est. Oxygen 7.5 X
ISrfTl« 1U8 1547 B»t. C02 7.5 X
Pht. Clock
» Tine
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
dP dH Gas Meter
"H20 "H20 Cubic Ft.
1118
1140
1212
1308
1348
1438
1512
1547
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
529.041
550.000
584.000
641.000
685.000
736.000
770.000
805.843
Stack Oven
675
676
676
673
678
665
664
662
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
•F
Meter T, «F
Vac.
Imp.
In
Out
"Hg
70
92
92
10.0
70
119
101
10.0
76
128
114
11.0
72
130
120
11.0
73
130
120
13.0
66
131
120
14.0
69
131
120
14.0
60
131
120
15.0
Average
3.50
671
220 70
124
113
Total Volume Metered, Vm
Total Sanpling Tine, 0
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity,
276.802 Cubic Ft.
269 minutes
754.8 grams
14".5 ft/sec.
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
Exhaust Duct Flow.
Gas Volume Collected:
Average Saaplii^ Bate
148.4 SCFM
246.692 DSCF
0.917 DSCEM,
131.5 DSCFH
6.9856 DSCW
2.251 ACFM ======> ioo
8.50
7.10
11.4
28.2
0 % Isokinetic
Mote: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic sampling
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
C-10
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING! RESULTS SttMAHY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Number
Condition
Location
Start Time
Stop Time
M15-3
20 X Tiree
Exhaust Duct
1118
1547
Test Date: 5-17-93
Saapling Run No.
Operator
Exhaust Duct Flow
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
1B3-MH5
RT
131.5 DSCIM
6.9856 D0CM
100.0 X
9
TARGET ANALYTE
CAS*
ATC
SAMPLE
MASS
(ug)
W
Loading
(ug/M"3)
1
N-KITROSCOIMETHYLAMIHE
62-75-9
*
ND
3
N-NITRQSCDIETHYLAMINE
55-18-5
ND
57
< 8.2
4
PHENOL
108-95-2
*
ND
30
< 4.3
6
ANILINE
62-53-3
*
ND
25
< 3.6
7
BIS(2-CHLCB0ETHYL) ETHER
111-44-4
*
ND
36
< 5.2
8
2-CHLCB0FHEH0L
95-57-8
*
ND
61
< 8.7
9
1,3-DICHLORCBENZENE
541-73-1
*
ND
17
< 2.4
11
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
106-46-7
*
ND
19
< 2.7
12
BENZYL ALOOHOL
100-51-6
*
ND
18
< 2.6
13
1,2-DICHLORCBENZENE
95-50-1
*
ND
34
< 4.9
14
BIS( 2-CHLO0OISCPROPYL) ETHER
106-60-1
ND
15
1-FHENYLETHAN0NE
98-86-2
ND
39
< 5.6
16
2-METHYLfHEN0L
95-48-7
*
ND
47
< 6.7
17
4-METHYLPHENOL
106-44-5
*
ND
1
< 0.1
18
N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE
621-64-7
*
ND
30
< 4.3
19
4-NITRC6O-M0RPH0LIHE
59-89-2
ND
46
< 6.6
20
2 -METHYL-BENZENAMINE
98-84-0
ND
30
< 4.3
22
HEXACHL0R0E1HANE "
67-72-1
*
ND"
85
< 12.2
23
nitrobenzene
98-95-3
*
ND
30
< 4.3
24
1-NITROSO-PIPERDINE
100-75-4
ND
25
ISOPHOROKK
78-59-1
*
ND
44
< 6.3
26
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENX
105-67-9
*
ND
26
< 3.7
27
BIS( 2-CHLOROETHOKY )MEIHANE
111-91-1
*
ND
21
< 3.0
28
1.2.4-TRICHLORCBENZEHE
120-82-1
*
ND
22
< 3.1
30
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
*
ND
>. 13
< 1.9
31
4-CHLORQANILINE
106-47-8
ND
19
< 2.7
32
2,6-DICHLOKCFHENX
87-65-0
*
ND
28
< 4.0
33
HEXACHL0RCH7TADIENE
87-68-3
*
ND
34
HEXACHLORCFRCFENE
70-30-4
ND
35
N-NITPCGO-DI -N-BUTYLAMINE
924-16-3
ND
54
< 7.7
36
METHQXYMETHYLBENZEAMINE
5961-59-1
ND
24
< 3.4
37
4-CHLC«>-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
* .
ND
8
< 1.1
38
5-CHLORO-2-MEIHYLANILINE
95-79-4
ND
27
< 3.9
39
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
*
ND
10
< 1.4
40
HEXAOTjOROCTCLCPENTADIENE
77-47-4
*
ND
41
1,2,4,5-TETRACHL0R0BENZENE
95-94-3
ND
31
< 4.4
42
2,4,6-TFICHLOeOPHENOL
88-06-2
*
ND
43
2,4,5-TRICHLOROFHENOL
*
ND
55
< 7.9
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY MM5-3 PAGE 2
«
TARGET ANALYTE
CAS#
ATC
SAMPLE
MASS
(ug)
IDL
(ug)
Loading
(ug/M"3)
44
2,3,4-TRICHLORCFHENOL
15950-66-0
*
ND
10
< 1.4
45
2-CHD0R0NAHfIHALENE
91-58-7
*
ND
11
< 1.6
46
1-CHLOflONAHfTHALENE
90-13-1
*
ND
16
< 2.3
47
2-NITRQANILIHE
88-74-4
*
ND
48
DIMETHYL PHATHALATE
131-11-3
*
ND
12
< 1.7
50
2,6-DIHTTROTOLDENK
606-20-2
*
ND
36
< 5.2
51
ACENAPHTHYLENE
208-96-8
*
ND
3
< 0.4
52
3-HITROAHILIHE
99-09-2
*
ND
8
< 1.1
54
ACENAFH1HENE
83-32-9
*
ND
10
< 1.4
55
2,4-DINITROTOLOENE
121-14-2
*
ND
29
< 4.2
56
FENTACHLOROBEMZENE
608-93-5
ND
57
DIBENZOPURAN
132-64-9
*
ND
8
< 1.1
58
2,3,5,6-TKTRACHLORCPHENCSj
935-95-5
ND
59
4-NITRCFHENCL
100-02-7
*
ND
27
< 3.9
60
2,3,4,6-TETFACHLORCFHENOL
58-90-2
ND
61
2-NAPHTHALENAMINE
91-59-8
ND
11
< 1.6
62
DIETHYL PHATHALATE
84-66-2
*
ND
15
< 2.1
63
4-CHL0R0RfflHYLraENYL ETHER
7005-72-3
ND
64
4-NITBQANILINE
100-01-6
ND
8
< 1.1
65
FLOORENE
86-73-7
*
ND
13
< 1.9
66
DIPHENYLAMINE
122-39-4
ND
16
< 2.3
67
4,6-DINITRG-2-METHYLFHENOL
534-52-1
*
ND
68
A2CBENZEHE
103-33-3
ND
14
< 2.0
69
N- (4-EraCKWHEHYL) -ACETAMINE
62-44-2
ND
3
< 0.4
70
HEXACHL0RCB8NZENE
118-74-1
*
ND
14
< 2.0
71
4-BaaiOPHENYL-HffiNYLETHER
101-55-3
ND
35
< 5.0
73
PEKTACHLOROPHENX
87-86-5
*
ND
85
< 12.2
74
PEWACHLOROHITHOBHHZENE
82-68-8
ND
75
N-NITRC6CCIPHENYLAttINE
86-30-6
ND
3
< 0.4
77
FHBHAKIHRBHB
85-01-8
*
ND
6
< 0.9
78
anthracene
120-12-7
*
ND
9
< 1.3
79
DI -N-BOTYLPHATHALATE
84-74-2
*
ND
59
< 8.4
80
METHAPYRILENE
91-80-5
ND
11
< 1.6
81
DIFHENYLTRIAZENE
136-35-6
ND
82
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
*
ND
9
< 1.3
83
BENZIDINE
92-87-5
*
ND
84
PYFENE
129-00-0
*
ND .
25
< 3.6
85
N, N-DIMETHYL-AMINQAZC6ENZENE
60-11-7
ND
20
< 2.9
87
BOTYL BENZYL PHATHALATE
85-68-7
*
ND
48
< 6.9
88
3.3'-DIMETHYLBENZIDINE
119-93-7
ND
10
< 1.4
89
2-ACETYLAMINOFLUORENE
640-19-7
ND
4
< 0.6
90
BIS( 2-EIHYIiEXYL) PHATHALATE
117-81-7
*
ND
29
< 4.2
91
3,3' -DIMEIHGKYBENZIDINE
119-90-4
ND
6
< 0.9
92
3.3" -DICHLOBCBENZIDINE
91-94-1
*
ND
27
< 3.9
93
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
*
ND
6
< 0.9
94
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
*
ND
16
< 2.3
96
DI-N-OCTYLPHATHALATE
117-84-0
*
ND
35
< 5.0
97
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACEN
57-97-6
ND
98
BENZO(B)FLOORANTHENE
205-99-2
*
ND
59
< 8.4
99
BENZO{K)FLOORANTHENE
207-08-9
*
ND
93
<13.3
101
HENZO(A)FYRENE
50-32-8
*
ND
68
< 9.7
102
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
56-49-5
ND
C-12
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUM»WRY
ms-3
RAGE 3
TARGET ANALYTE
CASK
103 ! If«EN0[l,2,3-ccJ3PYREIC
104 : DIBENZ[a,h}ANTH*CENE
105 I BENZOCghiJPERVLEKE
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
SAfPLE
ATC
MASS
IDL
Loading
(ug)
(uq)
(uq/Pr3)
¦ " ¦ ~ ~
*
M)
110
< 15.7
*
M)
04
< 12.0
*
M>
160
< 22.9
_ : REQUIRED : TOTAL
# : aPROGATE STAM)ARDS : VALUES ! P/F ! f*3SS(ug)
REOxery :
•/. :
2 ! 2-PUOW€NOL(ACID SUR)
5 : D5-F*€N0L(ACID SUR)
21 ! D5-NITR0BENZEJ€(B/N SLR)
40 ! 2-FUXROBIFVEKYL(B/N SUR)
72 ! 2,4,6-TRIBR0M0R-ENDL(ACIDSLF)
86 ! D14-TCRPhENVL(B/N SUR)
(21-100)
(10-94)
(35-114)
(43-116)
(10-123)
(33-141)
1 " t ' ¦¦¦¦ ¦
«
I
*
•
I
I
•
1
«
4
1
4
na :
NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
CAS# « OEM ABSTRACT NUMBER.
ATC * AIR TOXIC COMRQUM).
IDL » INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
M) = NOT DETECTED.
J - DETECTED AT LESS THAN TV€ INSTRJMENT DETECTION LDAEL.
SURROGATE STAMJARDS - COfOUNDS SPIKED INTO TVE SAMPLE PRIOR TO
EXTRACTION IN ORDER TO DETERMIfC EXTRACTION EFFICENCV.
ACID SU* f ACID SURROGATE COTTOJC^SPIVED IN AT 200UB/M-.
B/N SUR » BASE/fCUTWL SURROGATE COrFOUND,SPIKED IN AT 100UG/M..
P/F - pees OR FAIL.
NA * NOT APPLICABLE} SURROGATES NOT POOED TO SAPPLE
C-13
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Date*. 5-18-93
Test Number ttf5-4
Condition Ho Tires
Location
Operator
Ban No.
Start Tine
Exhaust Duct
FT, JEB
TB4-HI5
1130
Stack Diam. 8.25 " Ambient Temp. 80 *F
Pitot Cp 0.84 Barom. Press. 29.66 "Hg
Nozzle Diam. 0.623 " Static Press. -3.5 "H20
Meter Y 0.974 Est. Moisture 12.0 *
Meter dH® 2.00 Est. Oxygen 7.5 %
Stop Time 1431 Est. 002 7.5 X
Pint.
Clock
dP
dH
Gas Meter
Temperatures,
•F
Meter T, *F
Vac.
It
Time
"H20
"H20
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
Imp.
In
Out
"Hg
0
1130
3.50
806.138
596
220
56
91
91
14.0
1
1159
3.80
836.000
595
220
68
120
102
14.0
2
1218
3.80
857.000
596
220
70
127
110
14.0
3
1241
3.80
885.000
598
220
60
131
115
14.0
4
1256
3.80
898.000
597
220
60
130
116
13.0
5
1318
3.80
922.000
595
220
60
130
117
13.0
6
1338
3.80
944.000
590
220
56
130
117
13.0
7
1358
3.80
965.000
591
220
59
131
118
13.0
6
1415
3.80
984.000
604
220
60
131
118
13.0
9
1431
1001.188
Average
3.77
596
220
61
125
112
Total Volume Metered, Vm
Total Sampling Tine, e
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gals Velocity,
195.050 Cubic Ft.
181 minutes
617. 3 grains
18.2 ft/sec.
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volume Collected:
Average Sampling Rate
199.5 SCFM
173.557 DSCF
0.959 DSCFM,
173.6 DSCEM
4.9146 DSCM
2.243 ACEM
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
9.30
6.30
13.0
27.9
89.7 X Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic sampling
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
C-14
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Teet Nuaiber
Condition
Location
Start Tine
Stop Tine
Mi5~4
No Tiree
Exhaust Duct
1130
1431
Test Date: 5-18-93
Sampling Run No. 1B4-MJ5
Operator FT, JEB
Exhaust Djct Flow 173.6 DSCFM
Volume Collected 4.9146 DSCM
Isokinetic 69.7 X
TARGET ANALYTE
n-nitroscdmkthylaiiine
nunX
ANILINE
iJisgssg*™
1 • 3-dichlcrcbenzene
1 > 4-DICHLCCCGBNZEtlE
BENZYL aloghql
1 • 2-dichlckcbbnzene
2-METOYLPHBN0L
4-METBYIfHBNOL
SKST11
¦SSHSSr*
NITROBENZENE
1-nitroso-pipkrdihe
ISOHIOROHE
2,4-DIMETHYLFHENGt,
1.2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
4-CHLOBQANILINE
2,6-DICKLORCfMENOL
HEWCHLGRQBOTADIENE
hexachloroprcpene
N-NITBOSO-DI-H-BOTYLAHIHE
methoxymethylbenzeamine
4-CHLOfO-3-METHYlJ?HENOL
5-CHL0R0-2-MSTHYLANILINE
2-METHYUWIWIUALENE
HmCHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
1 ¦ 2.4,5-TETRACffl>CWCBEN2ENE
2,4,6-TOICHL0RCPHEN0L
2.4.5-TRICHL0R0FHEN0L
CAS#
62-75-9
55-18-5
108-95-2
62-53-3
111-44-4
95-57-8
541-73-1
106-46-7
100-51-6
95-50-1
108-60-1
98-86-2
95-48-7
106-44-5
621-64-7
59-89-2
98-84-0
67-72-1
98-95-3
100-75-4
78-59-1
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-65-0
87-68-3
70-30-4
924-16-3
5961-59-1
59-50-7
95-79-4
91-57-6
77-47-4
95-94-3
88-06-2
95-95-4
C-15
SAMPLE
wc
MASS
IDL
Loading
(ug)
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SOM1ARY M15-4 page 2
«
TARGET ANALYTE
CASS
ATC
SAMPLE
MASS
(ug)
Loading
(ug/TT3)
44
2.3,4-TRICHLORCBffiNQL
15950-66-0
*
ND
.97
< 0.20
45
2-CHUXtONAHttHALENE
91-58-7
*
ND
1.1
< 0.22
46
l-CHLOBONAHfTHALQffi
90-13-1
*
ND
1.6
< 0.33
47
2-NITBQANILINE
88-74-4
*
ND
49
DIMETHYL PHATHALATE
131-11-3
*
ND
1.2
< 0.24
50
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
606-20-2
*
ND
3.6
< 0.73
51
ACENAFHTHYLENE
208-96-8
*
ND
.30
< 0.06
52
3-NITRCIANILINE
99-09-2
*
ND
.79
< 0.16
54
ACKSAPOTHKNE
83-32-9
*
ND
.98
< 0.20
55
2,4-DIHITROTOLUKNE
121-14-2
*
ND
2.9
< 0.59
56
PKNTACHLOBCBEMZSNE
608-93-5
ND
57
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
*
ND
.84
< 0.17
58
2,3,5,6-TffTRAGHLORCCTENOL
935-95-5
ND
59
4-NITRCCTBMOL
100-02-7
*
ND
2.7
< 0.55
60
2,3.4,6-TWBACHLORCPHEMOIi
58-90-2
ND
61
2-NAPHTHALENAMINE
91-59-8
ND
1.1
< 0.22
62
DIETHYL PHATHALATE
84-66-2
*
ND
1.5
< 0.31
63
4-CHL0RQR1ENYIJPHEMYL ETHER
7005-72-3
ND
64
4-NITRQANILINE
100-01-6
ND
.82
< 0.17
65
FLOORENE
86-73-7
*
ND
1.3
< 0.26
66
DIPHENYLAMINE
122-39-4
ND
1.6
< 0.33
67
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
534-52-1
*
ND
66
A2C6ENZENE
103-33-3
ND
1.4
< 0.28
69
N-(4-CTHC0YFHENYL)-ACHTAMINB
62-44-2
ND
.26
< 0.05
70
HEXACHLOROEGNZENE
118-74-1
*
ND
1.4
< 0.28
71
4-BRCHCFHENYL-PHENYLETHER
101-55-3
ND
3.5
< 0.71
73
FEWTACHLORCPHENOL
87-86-5
*
ND
8.5
< 1.73
74
PEHTACHLOBOHITRCBENZENE
82-68-8
ND
75
N-NITB06CDIPHENYLAMINE
86-30-6
W>
.29
< 0.06
77
PHENAOTHFENE
85-01-8
*
ND
.55
< 0.11
76
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
*
ND
.90
<0.18
79
DI -N-BOrfUHATHALATE
84-74-2
ND
5.9
< 1.20
80
METHAfYRILENE
91-80-5
ND
1.1
< 0.22
81
DIPHENYLTRIAZENE
136-35-6
ND
82
FUWRANTHENE
206-44-0
*
ND
0.9
< 0.18
83
BENZIDINE
92-87-5
*
ND
84
FYRBffi -
129-00-0
*
ND
2.5
< 0.51
85
N,N-DIMETHYL-AMI NQAZCBENZENE
60-11-7
ND
2.0
< 0.41
87
BCTYl BENZYL PHATHALATE
85-68-7
*
ND
4.8
.98
< 0.98
88
3,3'-DIMETHYLBENZIDINE
119-93-7
ND
< 0.20
89
2-ACETYLAMINOFLOORENE
640-19-7
ND
.. .39
< 0.08
90
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) HJATHALATE
117-81-7
*
ND
2.9
< 0.59
91
3,3'-DIMETHCKYBENZIDINE
119-90-4
ND
.61
< 0.12
92
3.3' -DICHLORCBENZIDINE
91-94-1
#
ND
2.7
< 0.55
93
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
ND
.59
< 0.12
94
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
*
ND
1.6
< 0.33
96
DI-N-OCTYLPHATHALATE
117-84-0
*
3.36 J
3.5
0.68
97
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)AffTHRACEN
57-97-6
ND
98
BENZO(B)FU)ORANTHENE
205-99-2
*
ND
5.9
< 1.20
99
BENZO(K) FLIIORANTHENE
207-08-9
ND
9.3
< 1.89
101
BENZO(A)PYRENE
50-32-8
*
ND
6.8
< 1.38
102
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
56-49-5
ND
C-16
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY tM5-4 PASE 3
Loadiitt
# ! TARGET ANALYTE ; CAS# I ATC ! (u«) I (t«) ! (««/M"3)
1
1
! SAMPLE
•
1
: ; mass
I m.
: cas#
; ATC ! (uc)
; (uc)
.+
.—+ —.
-+
1 193-39-5
• * J W)
1 11
: 53-70-3
: * ! ND
: e.4
1 191-24-2
! » : ND
! 16
103 ! INDENO[ 1,2,3-cd]FYRENE 193-39-5 ! * ND I 11 ! < 2.24
104 ! DIBENZ[a,h]ANTHRACENE : 53-70-3 \ * ! ND ! 8.4 ! < 1.71
105 ! BENZOlfihilFERYUHE ! 191-24-2 ! « ! ® 1 16 ! < 3.26
! REQUIRED
1
1
TOTAL I RECOVERY
It
SURROGATE STANDARDS
: VALUES
; p/f
A . -
MASS(ug): X
_ \ - - I
2
2-FLOOROPHENOL(ACID SUR)
: (2i-ioo)
; p
134.91 ; 67.46
5
D5-FHENCL(ACID SUR)
: (10-94)
: p
134.75 ! 67.38
21
D5-NITR0BENZENE(B/N SUR)
: (35-114)
! P
58.82 ! 58.82
48
2-FWOPOBIPHENYLIB/N SUR)
: (43-116)
i P
51.27 ; 51.27
72
2.4,6-TRIBfiaMCFHEHOL {ACIDSUR)
: (10-123)
; p
67.28 ! 33.64
66
D14-TERPHENYL(B/N SUR)
; (33-141)
! P
56.79 ! 56.79
CASH = CHEM ABSTRACT NIMBEF.
ATC = AIR TOXIC COMPOUND.
IDL = INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
ND = NOT DETECTED.
J = DETECTED AT LESS THAN THE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
SURROGATE STANDARD6 = COMPOUNDS SPIKED INTO THE SAMPLE PRIOB TO
EXTRACTION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE EXTRACTION EFFICENCY.
ACID SUR = ACID SURROGATE COMPOUND,SPIKED IN AT 200UG/ML.
B/N SUR = BASE/NEUTRAL SURROGATE COMPOUND, SPIKED IN AT 100UG/ML.
P/F = PASS OR FAIL.
C-I7
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Teet Huniter tfC-5 5t*ek Diam. 8.25
Condition Ramping (20X) Pitot Cp 0.84
Location Exhaust Duct Nozzle Diaa. 0.623
Operator JKB Meter Y 1.014
Run No. TB5-MM5 Meter d» 1.91
Start T1m 1140 Stop Tim 1440
Date: 5-21-93
Ambient Te*t>.
Baron. Press.
Static Press.
Est. Moisture
Est. Ctxygen
Est. 002
80
29.70
-3.1
12.0
7.5
7.5
*F
"Hg
"H20
X
X
X
Pnt.
$
Clock
Time
dP dH
"H20 "H20
Gas Meter
Cubic Ft.
Temperatures,
Stack Oven
*F
lap.
Meter T, "F
In Out
Vac.
"Hg
0
1140
3.50
423.179
629
220
59
98
79
12.4
1
1200
3.50
437.600
630
220
60
108
82
12-8
2
1215
3.50
453.200
636
220
62
124
92
12.6
3
1230
3.50
468.600
634
220
68
131
100
13.5
4
1245
3.50
484.700
637
220
65
134
104
12.8
5
1300
3.50
500.500
640
220
64
135
106
13.0
6
1315
3.50
516.200
641
220
63
135
108
13.3
7
1330
3.50
532.000
643
220
58
137
109
13.5
8
1345
3.50
547.700
641
220
58
138
110
14.3
9
1400
3.50
564.100
642
220
64
139
no
14.4
10
1420
3.50
584.700
643
220
58
139
111
14.7
11
1440
605.643
Iverage
3.50
638
220
62
129
101
Total Volume Metered, Vb
Total Sampling Tine, e
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity,
182.464 Cubic Ft.
180 minutes
585.9 grans
15.4 ft/sec.
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Voliane Collected:
Averse Sampling Rate
162.9 SCEW
170.053 EGCF
0.945 DSCFM,
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
141.5 DSCFM
4.8154 DSCM
2.297 ACFM
6.40
8.40
13.1
28.1
96.6 X Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic sampling
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
C-18
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SttfiAHY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Date: 5-21-93
Test Number
Condition
Location
Start Tine
Stop Time
f»15-5
Ranping (20 X Tires)
Exhaust Duct
1140
1440
Saapling Bun Ho- TBS-ttC
Operator
ExhMwt Duct Flow 141.5 E6CJW
Volune Collected 4.8154 E6CH
Isokinetic 96.6 *
#
TARGET ANALYTE
CASS
ATC
SAMPLE
MASS
(US)
IEL
(UC)
Loading
Cug/1T3)
1
N-NITROSCCIMETHYLAMINE
62-75-9
*
HD
3
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
55-18-5
N>
5.7
< 1.03
4
PHENOL
106-95-2
*
1.69 J
3.0
0.30
6
ANILINE
62-53-3
*
HD
2.5
< 0.45
7
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
111-44-4
*
ND
3.6
< 0.65
8
2-CHL0ttCPHEN0L
95-57-8
*
ND
6.1
< 1.10
9
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
541-73-1
*
ND
1.7
< 0.31
11
1,4-DICHLQRCSENZENE
106-46-7
*
t®
1.9
< 0.34
12
BENZYL AL0GH0L
100-51-6
*
ND
1.6
< 0.32
13
1.2-DICHLQKSEMZENE
95-50-1
*
ND
3.4
< 0.61
14
BIS( 2-CHU»OISCCTOPYL)BIHSR
108-60-1
ND
•
15
1-FHENYLETHANCNE
98-86-2
ND
3.9
< 0.70
16
2-METOYLHJENOL
95-48-7
*
ND
4.7
< 0.85
17
4-MEIHYLFHENOL
106-44-5
*
ND
0.1
< 0.02
18
N-NITROSO-DI-N-PRCFYLAMINE
621-64-7
ND
3.0
¦< 0.54
19
4-NITB0SO-MOBFHCLINE
59-89-2
ND
4.6
< 0.83
20
2-METHYL-BENZENAMINE
98-84-0
ND
3.0
< 0.54
22
HEXACHLOROETHANE
67-72-1 • •
*
ND
6.5
< 1-.53
23
NITROBENZENE
98-95-3
*
ND
3.0
< 0.54
24
l-NITRDSO-PIFERDINE
100-75-4
ND
25
ISCFHORONK
78-59-1
*
ND
4.4
< 0.79
26
2,4-DIMETHYLFHENOL
105-67-9
ND
2.6
< 0.47
27
BIS( 2-CHLORCemiXY) METHANE
111-91-1
*
NET
2.1
< 0.38
28
1,2,4-TRICHLORCBENZENE
120-82-1
*
ND
2.2
< 0.40
30
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
*
ND
1.3
< 0.23
31
4-CHLORQANILINE
106-47-6
*
ND
1.9
< 0 .34
32
2,6-DICHLOROFHENCL
87-65-0
«
ND
2.8
< 0.51
33
HEXACHLQROBUTADIENE
87-68-3
*
ND
34
HEXACHLOBCFHOPENE
70-30-4
ND
35
N-WTROSO-DI-N-BOTVLAMINE
924-16-3
ND
5.4
< 0.97
36
METHOKYMETHYLBENZEAMINE
5961-59-1
ND
2.4
< 0.43
37
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLFHENX
59-50-7
*
ND
.77
< 0.14
38
5-CHL0BO2-METHYLANILIIC
95-79-4
ND
2.7
< 0.49
39
2-METHYUWHTHALENE
91-57-6
*
ND
1.0
< 0.18
40
HEXACHLOROCYCLCFENTADIENE
77-47-4
*
ND
41
1,2,4,5-TETRACMLORCBENZENE
95-94-3
ND
3.1
< 0 56
42
2,4,6-TRICHL/OROPHENOL
88-06-2
*
ND
43
2.4, 5--TFICHLOROPHENOL
95-9D-4
»
ND
5.5
< 0 .99
C-19
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUtMARY
MM5-5
PAGE 2
TARGET ANALYTE
2.3,4-TRICHLOROfflENOL
2-CHLGRONAFHTHALENE
1-CHLOBOHAPHTHALENE
2-NITRQANILINE
DIMETHYL PHATHALATE
2,6-DINITROTOLOEME
ACENAFHTHYLENE
3-NITROANILINE
ACENAPHTHENE
2 > 4-DINITRCTOLUENE
PENTACHLORCEENZENE
DIBENZOFURAN
2,3,5,6-TETRACHLORCRiENOL
4-NITBOFHENQL
2,3,4.6-TETRACHLORCHIENOL
2-NAFHTHALENAMINE
DIETHYL PHATHALATE
4-CHLOBCPHENYLPHENYL ETHER
4-NITRQANILINE
FLOORENE
DIPHENYLAMINE
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
AZCBENZENE
N- (4-ETHCKYPHENYL)-ACETAMINE
HEXACHLORCBENZENE
4-BROICPHENYLrPHENYLETHER
FENTACHLOGCFHENOL
PEKTACHLCStCHITRCSENZENE
N-N1TROSODIPHENYLAM1NE
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
DI -N-BOTYUWTHALATE
METHAPYRILEKE
DIPHENYLTRIAZENE
FLUORAKIHENE
BENZIDINE
FYRENE
N.N-DIMETHYL-AMINQAZCGENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHATHALATE
3,3'-DIMETHYLBENZIDIHE
2-ACETYWMINOfLPORENE
BIS(2-ETHYLWEXYL)PHATHALATE
3,3*-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE
3.3' -DICHLOROBENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
Dl-N-CCTYLPHATHALATE
7,12-DIMETHYl£ENZ(A)ANTHBACEN
BENZO(B)FLUORAKINENE
BENZO(R) FU.WRANTHENE
BENZO(A>PYRENE
3-MCTHYLCHOLANTHRENE
*
SAMPLE
MASS
IDL
Loading
CAS#
ATC
(«*)
(UB)
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SIM1ARY
M15-5
PAGE 3
TARGET ANALYTE
CAS*
103 i INDEHO[1.2,3-od]PYBEHE
104 I DrBENZ[a,h]AHTHRACENE
105 ! BENZO[ghi]PKRYI£NE
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
: ATC
-+
5 *
i *
: »
sample : : :
MASS i H3L i Loading !
(uc) 1 (ug) ! (ug/H'3) I
1 4
hd : ii : < i.98 :
hd : 8.4 : < i.52 :
M> : 16 J < 2.89 !
SURROGATE STANDARDS
2 ! 2-FLUOROFHENOL(ACID SDR)
5 1 D5-PHEN0L(ACID SOR)
21 ! D5-NITRCBENZENE(B/N SOR)
48 ! 2-FUJQRCBIFHENYL(B/N SOR)
72 ! 2,4,6-TRIBRCMCFHEN0L(ACIDSyR)
86 1 D14-TEKFHEIWL(B/N SOR)
! REQUIRED
1
(
TOTAL !
RECOVERY
: VALUES
: p/f
MASS(ug) '<
— jaI , |
X
! (21-100)
i p
102.8 i
51.40
i (10-94)
: p
100.7 ;
50.35
{ (35-114)
! P
76,85 !
76.85
S (43-116)
! P
45.73 !
45.73
5 (10-123)
: p
55.33 !
27.67
: (33-141)
: p
51.7 !
51.70
CAS# = CHEM ABSTRACT NUMBER.
ATC = AIR TCKIC COMPOUND.
IDL = INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
HD = WOT DETECTED.
J = DETECTED AT LESS THAN THE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
SURROGATE STANDARDS = COMPOUNDS SPIKED INTO THE SAMP[£ PRIOR TO
EXTRACTION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE EXTRACTION EFFICENCY.
ACID SOR = ACID SURROGATE COMPOUND .SPIKED IN AT 2000G/ML.
B/N SUR = BASE/NEUTRAL SURROGATE. COMPOUND, SPIKED IN AT 100UG/ML.
P/F = PASS OR FAIL.
C-21
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Number MM5-6
Condition Batch (20X)
Location Exhaust Duct
Operator JEB
Bun Ho. TB6-tt&
Start Tine 1253
Date: 5-25-93
Stack Diam.
Pitot Cp
Nozzle Clan.
Hater Y
Meter dH®
Stop Tiae
8.25
0.84
0.623
1.014
1.91
1600
Aabient Tenp.
Baron. Press.
Static Press.
Est. Moisture
Est. GBqrgen
Est. 002
80
29.95
-4.1
12.0
7.5
7.5
•F
He
"H20
%
X
X
Put. Clock
It Tijoe
dP
"H20
dH
Gas Meter
Temperatures,
*F
Meter T, *F
Vac.
"H20
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
Iup.
In
Out
Hg
4.20
607.046
677
220
57
91
88
12.1
4.20
628.900
676
220
65
130
98
13.2
4.20
645.900
651
220
68
141
107
17.8
4.20
663.200
693
220
65
148
114
19.0
660.454
.
4.20
681.191
684
220
61
122
114
11.6
4.20
698.600
634
220
65
147
116
12.0
4.20
715.700
627
220
68
148
119
12.7
4.20
735.200
619
220
65
151
121
14.4
4.20
752.400
669
220
62
152
122
15.5
4.20
769.500
720
220
65
154
124
17.0
4.20
786.900
672
220
63
155
124
18.0
803.996
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1253
1313
1328
1343
1358
1413
1428
1443
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
Average
4.20
666 220
64
140
113
Total Voluae Metered, Vm
Total Soipling TIjdc, 0
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity,
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volume Collected:
Average Sampling Rate
196.213 CUbic Ft.
172 minutes
518.1 grans
18.9 ft/sec.
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
8.40
7.30
11.1
28.2
195.9 SCFM 174~2 DSCEM
181.029 DSCF 5.1262 DSCM
. 1.052 DSCEW, 2.547 ACFW ======> 90.7 X Isokinetic
Note:
Avenge velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic sampling
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
C-22
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SttflARY
Souroe Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Nunber
Condition
Location
Start Tlae
Stop Tine
MC-6
Batch
Exhaust
1253
1600
Duct
Test Date: 5-25-93
SMplinft Run No. TB6-fH5
Operator OSB
gxhauet Duct Flow 1T4.2 D6CEU
Voluw Collected 5.1262 DGGM
Isokinetic 90.7 *
«
TARGET ANALYTE
CASH
Arc
SAHPUt
MASS
(UC)
m.
(*)
Loading
(uc/H*3)
1
N-NITROSCDIMBTHYLAMINE
62-75-9
—
*
ND
3
N-NITROSCOIETHYLAMINK
55-18-5
to
57
< 7.2
4
HfflNCt
108-95-2
*
ND
30
< 3.8
6
ANILINE
62-53-3
~
ND
25
< 3.2
7
BIS(2-C3IL0fi0ETHYL)EraER
111-44-4
*
ND
36
< 4.6
8
2-CHLOKSHENOL
95-57-8
*
ND
61
< 7.7
9
1,3-DICHLORCBBNZENE
541-73-1
*
ND
17
< 2.2
11
1.4-DICHLCBCBENZENK
106-46-7
*
ND
19
< 2.4
12
BENZYL AL0QH0L
100-51-6
*
ND
18
< 2.3
13
1,2-DICHLORCBENZENE
95-50-1
*
ND
34
< 4.3
"14
BIS(2-CHI/3(CISCPROFlfL)ETHER
108-60-1
ND
15
1-PHKNYUraANONK
98-86-2
ND
39
< 4.9
16
2-METOYLFHENOL
95-48-7
*
ND
47
< 6.0
17
4-HETHnfHENOL
106-44-5
*
ND
1
< 0.1
18
N-NITRCSO-DI-N-raoPlfLAMINE
621-64-7
*
ND
30
< 3.8
19
4-NITBOSQ-MORPHXINE
59-89-2
ND
46
< 5.8
20
2-METHYL-BENZENAHINE
98-84-0
ND
30
< 3.8
22
HEkACHLOBOBIHANE
67-72-1
*
ND
85
< 10.8
23
NITRC6ENZENE-
98-95-3
*
ND
30
< 3.8
24
1-NITB060-PIPERDINE
100-75-4
ND
25
ISCFHCBONE
78-59-1
*
ND.
44
< 5.6
26
2,4-DMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
*
ND
26
< 3.3
27
BIS( 2-CHLORQETHOKY )MSTHANE
111-91-1
*
ND
21
< 2-7
28
1,2,4-TRICHLORCBENZKNK
120-82-1
*
ND
22
< 2.8
30
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
*
ND
13
< 1.6
31
4-CHLCRQANILINE
106-47-8
*
ND
19
< 2.4
32
2,6-DICHLOBCRffiNX
87-65-0
*
ND
28
< 3.6
33
HEXACHLORGRTTADIENE
87-68-3
«
ND
34
HEXACHLOROPBCfENE
70-30-4
ND
35
N-NITBOSO-DI-N-BOrTVLAttlNE
924-16-3
ND
54
< 6.8
36
METHCKYMETHYLBENZEAMINE
5961-59-1
ND
24
< 3.0
37
4-CHLORO-3-METHYIJHENOL
59-50-7
*
ND
8
< 1.0
38
5-CHLORO-2-KETHYLANILINE
95-79-4
ND
27
< 3.4
39
2-METHYUttFHTHALENE
91-57-6
*
ND
10
< 1.3
40
HDCACHLOBOCYCLCFQTTADIEfffi
77-47-4
*
ND
— -
41
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLORCBENZENE
95-94-3
ND
31
< 3.9
42
2,4,6-TRICHLOBCPHENOL
88-06-2
*
ND
43
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
95-95-4
*
ND
55
< 7.0
C-23
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY 1*15-6 PAGE 2
«
TARSET ANALYTE
CASH
ATC
SAMPLE
MASS
(ug)
IDL
(ug)
Loading
(Ug/M"3)
44
2,3,4-TRICHLOBCFHEHX
15950-66-0
*
ND
10
< 1.3
45
2-CHLCRONARflHAMHB
91-58-7
*
ND
11
< 1.4
46
1-CHUXOUFHTHALENB
90-13-1
*
ND
16
< 2.0
47
2-NITRQANILINB
88-74-4
*
ND
48
DIMETHYL PH THALATE
131-11-3
*
ND
12
< 1.5
50
2,6-DINITRCflCLCKNE
606-20-2
*
ND
36
< 4.6
51
ACENAPHIHYLHNE
208-96-8
*
ND
3
< 0.4
52
3-NITRQANILINE
99-09-2
*
ND
8
< 1.0
54
ACENAFHIHENE
83-32-9
*
ND
10
< 1.3
55
2,4-DINITROTOLOENE
121-14-2
«
ND
29
< 3.7
56
FEHTACHLCRC6ENZENE
608-93-5
ND
57
DIBENZCFCRAN
132-64-9
*
ND
8
< 1.0
58
2,3,5,6-TETRACHLORCFHENCL
935-95-5
ND
59
4-NITBCPHENOL
100-02-7
*
ND
27
< 3.4
60
2,3,4,6-THTRACHLORCHfflNOL
58-90-2
ND
61
2-NAFHTHAL8NAMINE
91-59-8
ND
11
< 1.4
62
DIETHYL PH .THALATE
84-66-2
*
ND
15
< 1.9
63
4-CHL0fiCFHHNYLFMENYL ETHER
7005-72-3
ND
64
4-NITKMNILINB
100-01-6
ND
8
< 1.0
65
FLOCRENE
86-73-7
*
ND
13
< 1.6
66
DIFHENYLAMINE
122-39-4
ND
16
< 2.0
67
4.6-DINiraO-2-MBTHYLPHENOL
534-52-1
*
ND
66
AZCBENZENE
103-33-3
ND
14
< 1.8
68
H-(4-ffTH0KYPHENYL)-ACETAMINE
62-44-2
ND
3
< 0.4
70
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
118-74-1
*
ND
14
< 1.8
71
4-BR3M0PHENYL-PHENYLETHER
101-55-3
ND
35
< 4.4
73
PEKTACHLOBORBMX
87-86-5
*
ND
85
< 10.8
74
PEKTACHLOBOHITROBENZENE
82-68-8
ND
75
N-NITH06ODIPHENYLAMINE
86-30-6
ND
3
< 0.4
77
FHENAWTHRENE
85-01-8
*
ND
6
< 0.8
78
AKTHRACENE
120-12-7
*
ND
9
< 1.1
79
DI-N-BCTTYLPH. THALATE
84-74-2
*
ND
59
< 7.5
80
METHAPYRILENE-
91-80-5
ND
11
< 1.4
81
DIPHENYLTRIAZENE
136-35-6
ND
82
FLUORANIHEME
206-44-0
*
ND
9
< 1.1
83
BENZIDINE
92-87-5
*
ND
84
PYRENE
129-00-0
*
ND
25
< 3.2
85
N.N-DIMETHYL-AMINOAZCBENZENE
60-11-7
ND
20
< 2.5
87
BOTYL BENZYL PR THALATE
85-68-7
*
ND
48
< 6.1
88
3.3'-DIMETHYLBENZIDIJ®
119-93-7
ND
10
< 1.3
89
2-ACHTYLAMINOFLOORENE
640-19-7
ND
4
< 0.5
90
BIS(2-ETOYLHEXYL)FH THALATE
117-81-7
*
ND
29
< 3.7
91
3,3' -DIMETHCOCYBENZIDIHE
119-90-4
ND
6
< 0.8
92
3.3' -DICHLOROBENZIDINE
91-94-1
*
ND
27
< 3.4
93
BENZO(A)ANTHRACEHE
56-55-3
*
ND
6
< 0.8
94
CHFYSEHE
218-01-9
*
ND
16
< 2.0
96
DI-N-OCTYLFH THALATE
117-84-0
*
ND
35
< 4 4
97
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)AHTHFAC£N
57-97-6
ND
98
BEHZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
205-99-2
*
ND
59
< 7.5
99
BENZO(K)FU10BANTHENE
207-08-9
*
ND
93
< 11.8
101
BENZO(A)PYFENE
50-32-8
»
ND
68
< 8.6
102
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
56-49-5
ND
C-24
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY ft!5-6 PAGE 3
j ! SAMPLE i !
• j | ! MASS ! IDL ; Loading !
# i TABGET ANALYTE ! CAS# ! ATC ! (ug) ! (ug) ! (ug/M"3)
~
103 ! INDEN0[l,2,3-cdJFTOENE ! 193-39-5 i * I ND I HO ; < 14.0
104 ! DIBENZ[a,h]ANTCRACENE 53-70-3 ! * ! ND ! 84 1 < 10.7
105 i BENZOfghi]PERYLENE ! 191-24-2 ! * ! HD : 160 : < 20.3
1
1
! REQUIRED
: TOTAL :
RECOVERY •
*
! SURROGATE STANDARDS
i VALUES
P/F ! MASS(ug)!
*
2
2-FLOOROPHENOL(ACID SUR)
! (21-100)
1 1
l 1
NA
5
D5-FHEN0L(ACID SUR)
1 (10-94)
1 1
1 1
NA
21
D5-NITRCBEN2ENE(B/N SOR)
1 (35-114)
« I
4 •
NA
48
2-FLU0BCBIPHENYL(B/N SOR)
! (43-116)
< 1
l 1
NA |
72
2,4.6-TRIBRC«CPHENOL(ACrDSOR)
! (10-123)
1 1
< (
NA
86
D14-TERPHENYLCB/N SDR)
! (33-141)
1 1
( 1
NA
CAS* = CHEH ABSTRACT NUMBER.
ATC = AIR TOXIC COMPOUND.
IDL = INSTRCHENT DETECTION LEVEL.
ND = NOT DETECTED.
J = DETECTED AT LESS THAN THE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LEVEL.
SURROGATE STANDARDS = COMPOUNDS SPIKED INTO THE SAMPLE PRIOR TO
EXTRACTION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE EXTRACTION EFFICENCY.
ACID SUR = ACID SURROGATE COMPOUND, SPIKED IN AT 2000G/ML.
B/N SUR = BASE/NEUTRAL SURROGATE COMPOUND, SPIKED IN AT 100UG/WL.
P/F = PASS OR FAIL.
NA = NOT APPLICABLE; SURROGATES NOT ADDED TO SAMPLE
C-25
-------
APPENDIX D. PCDD/PCDF DATA
D-l
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Ifcmtber M23-1
Date: 5-19-93
Condition
Location
Operator
Run No.
Start Ti*e
20 * Tin*
Exhaust Duct
RT, JEB
TB1-M23
1150
Stack Dian.
Pltot Qp
Nozzle Diam.
Meter Y
Meter dHfe
Stop Tim
8.25
0.84
0.623
1.014
1.91
1520
Ambient Te*>.
Bam. FNat.
Static Press.
Bat. Moisture
Eat. Okqraen
Eat. 002
80 "F
29.52 Ik
-3.6 "TOO
12.0 X
7.5 X
7.5 X
Pht.
Clock
dP dH
Gas Meter
Teaeeraturee,
•F
Mater T. *F
Vac.
tf
Time
"H20 "H20
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
lap.
In
Out
"Hg
0
1150
2.80
26.185
626
220
63
98
88
7.0
1
1208
2.70
36.000
101
91
8.0
2
1215
3.00
101
91
10.0
3
1230
3.00
56.000
628
220
63
130
102
10.5
4
1250
3.00
74.000
627
220
63
136
110
10.5
5
1305
3.00
90.000
628
220
67
138
112
10.5
6
1320
3.00
105.000
629
220
70
140
114
11.0
7
1340
3.00
125.000
628
220
62
140
115
11.0
8
1400
3.00
145.000
627
220
65
140
116
11.0
9
1420
3.00
165.000
626
220
68
141
116
11.0
10
1435
3.00
180.000
627
220
58
142
116
11.5
11
1454
3.00
198.000
626
220
58
142
117
11.0
12
1520
227.663
627
220
92
142
117
11.0
tverage
2.96
627
220
66
130
108
Total Volume Metered, V»
Total Sampling Ti®e, 0
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity, v
201.478 Cubic Ft.
210 minutes
653.1 grans
14.6 ft/sec.
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
MolMular Ht
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volume Collected:
Average Sanpling Rate
7.80
7.70
13.3
28.0
156.8 SCEH 136.0 DSCFM
185.069 DSCF 5.2406 D6CM
0.881 D6CFH, 2.140 ACFM ======> 94.4 X Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
ling
D-2
-------
SAMPLE
1B-010X-1
CALIBRATION frAU: 04-17-M
Total Satple
Volute Volute
Vol we
Iijected Sawled
File Mm
(¦icrollUrt)
(¦icrtlitert) (**3)
Run
TB010I01
100
2 $.241
Mtf
RRf
Libeled literati/
Ualebeled Native/
Labeled Recovery
Libeled liter h1
TCOO
0.054
0.9)2
SAMPLE OCSCR[prior. K2J-I 20* Tire*
TCDf
1.411
0.046
P«C00
0.711
1.123
OATE REPORTfO' 0I-0M3
PeCDF
1.100
O.M
HeiCOO
0 .Mi
O.WS
OAfE IWECTEO: 07-JO-tt
HeiCOT
1.047
1.005
HepCOO
O.SfS
0.W4
PROJECT: Tire CwbMtloi
HepCOF
O.ttl
O.flt
0C00
0.436
1.137
OCOf
0.430
1.420
IKeroetical Coxeitratioi of Libeled Iiterul Staedardj il Snple
picara**/ Total Alt Injected
•icreliter (pf/iijectie*)
rcoo
2S0
SOO
TCOf
250
SOO
PeCOO
500
1000
PeCDf
SOO
1000
HeiCOO
500
1000
HeiCDF
SOO
1000
HepCOD
SOO
1000
HtpCDf
SOO
1000
CCDC
1000
2000
OCOf
1000
2000
Cor.ctmulio» of Labeled Recovery Stiidaid it Sitplt
(ptcwae*/ Ictll Mt I ejected
¦iciolitei) (pj/ikjectio*)
UCt 250 ' SOO
OUefl'iti'.Ji-li J! ljbtl(ti SttCOVHT Sttedlld
snit'.'.i* Tie* Amj Cwiet
::-.w >o*s$:
-------
TOTAL ICOOt
later¦
-------
101AL ICOfS
Libeled lautaal Stikdird OvaitiUtiu
Reteitioi Tim Aim CmiI
Rub 21.931 220003S
CoKtilritioa I 8*cov«rr
3*2.1 n.i
V*Ub«ltd TCOf OuUtiUtioa
Peak I RaUatiea Tim *'«» Court
lata) SMplt
IU« Nltt
(piCljrMj) (MMffMl)
Total Sm»U
C»K«»tr«tio»
(•f/R'3)
0 lS0Ml($)
TOTALS:
C.O
e.e
o.ooo
D-5
-------
roiM. PrtOO*
.•folri IiUtmI SliMbrd Ouutititioa
Mtutioi Tim Art* Cowtt
26.774 2213714
Coacoitrititi I Retowry
712.1 71.2
IMlAtlri PtCM 0«litilltioi
Nit I Rttlitioi riM
Ar«i Coot
Km
(picitrm)
Total &Ie
Urn
(MMfrm)
Total Snplt
C«Ktitriti»i
0 ItoMr(i)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
10TAL PtCOFi
libtltd Iitcim1 StiMltrd Ountititiot
Rotntioi Tilt Arta Couat
ta« 2S.73J 3482466
C«Kntriti«» * Rtcovtry
777.3 77.7
Utlibtl<4 PitOf Ouiititltioi
Ptlk I jtittitioi Tiat Arti Count
Total Staple
Hiss Hiss
(picigrm) (mmsdis)
Total Saaplt
Coaccatratio*
I *0/1*3)
0 ls«a«r(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
D-6
-------
101*1 HtlCDDS
Labeled liteml SUidird QaotititiM
Ritiitioi Tii* Aim Cowt
Rgi W.S32 J7221M
CoK«ttr«tiM t Imwrr
47S.S 47.S
Ulllbeled HftCOO OUMtitatm
p«jk I Ritiiti«i Um
Art* Cwit
nut
iticiwm)
Util Sm»1i
tan
(MMfTHt)
total SM»1*
tomitritin
(if/lTS)
0 I$M«r(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
«.«
0.000
10IAL HeiCOfS
Libeled 1 menu I Staiditd OuaitititiM
Retntioi Tin Aru Count
Run M.152 2(7(241
C»K*itritioi t *«#wrr
M4.S (7.4
iftlibeled NeiCOf Quaititatioi
Piik I Retiitioi IiM Arei Cotiel
1 30.394 6S401
1 Iscwrts) TOTALS:
. Has*
(picifrats)
22.*
V.*
Totll S«»W
Ml*
(HMtriM)
1.1
1.1
T«tal Sawli
CMCllt'itiei
(•fflO)
0.2H
0.2U
D-7
-------
TOTAL HtptOOl
Ltktltd latci **t SUtdtrd Owiititatioi
Atltitioi li§* Arti Coo it
Ml 32.120 1322960
CoKtitrjtioi % ftaovtry
545.1 54.4
thlaktltd HtpCOO Oniititatioi
Nit I AtWitioa Tin
Ar«« (wit
Total Saw l«
Hill Nits
(pictjrMi) (wwjrtis)
Total
CoK«itnti«*
(H/N*3)
0 1mmt{s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
TOTAL HtpCOfl
labtltd UUthI Standard Qgaititatioi
fttotioi Tilt Aril Cwit
ta( 31.135 220)758
C«K«itritiaii I tttcMT!
544.5 56.5
Ullabtltd HcpCDF OuiitiUtict
Nak I Reltition lilt Am Coo it
•its
(picifrtis)
Total SupU
Mast
(m no J fits)
Total Supl*
ClKiitritioi
0 IsoMr(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
D-8
-------
TOTAL QCOOs
Libeled liter ul Stitdaid QuitiUtioi
litutiei Tim Aru Gov it
Rut 35.lit 1SM743
CoKtittatin I (tcwtrir
1KJ.4 $3.2
Uilabeltd K00 QuattUatioi
Pelt I ReUitioa TiM Am Cauit
Total Sm»I*
lUn ton
(picttrMs) (mmomm)
Tital Swlt
CHMitnti**
0 1mmt(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
(.000
TOTAL OCOfS
labeled IittrMl Standard OuiltiUlioi
Keteitiet TiM Atm Count
Rui 35.414 10M743
Coieetttatioi t toctverr
1043.4 $3.7
Uilabelei 0C0F Ouiititatiot
Peat I ri«
Area twit
Hist.
Total ShpU
MM
(wofia)
Total Sawle
Coiceatratiea
0 Iso*«r(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
D-9
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Number M23-2 Stack Diam. 8.25
Condition No Tirae Pi tot Cp 0.84
Exhaust Duct Nozzle Dlaa. 0.623
Operator FT, JEB Meter Y 1.014
Run No. TB2-M23 Meter dH» 1.91
Start Tloe 1038 Stop Tiae 1348
Date: 5-20-93
Anbient Teap.
Baron. Press.
Static Press.
Est. Moisture
Est. Oxygen
Est. 002
80
29.65
-3.1
12.0
7.5
7.5
*F
"Hg
"H20
X
X
X
Pnt.
Clock
dP dH
Gas Meter
Temperatures,
*F
Meter T, *F
Vac.
V
Tiae
"H20 "H20
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
Iac>.
In
Out
"Hg
0
1038
3.20
229.436
580
220
48
90
92
7.8
1
1053
3.20
243.900
582
220
58
116
89
8.6
2
1108
3.20
258.900
584
220
59
125
97
8.4
3
1123
3.20
274.100
584
220
61
129
104
8.4
4
1138
3.20
289.400
586
220
64
132
108
8.4
5
1153
3.20
304.900
596
220
58
134
110
8.5
6
1216
3.20
329.000
602
220
57
134
112
8.5
7
1234
3.20
347.000
600
220
60
135
113
8.7
8
1254
3.20
368.000
604
220
65
135
113
8.8
9
1313
3.20
387.000
600
220
60
194
113
8.8
10
1330
3.20
404.400
599
220
50
136
114
8.8
11
1348
422.860
average
3.20
592
220
58
127
106
Total Volume Metered, Vn
Total Sampling Time, e
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity.
193.424 Cubic Ft.
190 minutes
539.5 grans
16.3 ft/sec.
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volune Collected:
Average Sampling Rate
178.2 SCFM
178.723 DSCF
0.941 DSCEWj
157.5 D6CEM
5.0609 DSCM
2.166 ACFM
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
9.80
5.90
11.6
28.0
=> 96.1 % Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Sixwle point isokinetic sampling
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
D-10
-------
SAMPLE:
I8-OIOX-2
CM.IBSAT10M MIE W-I7-M
IftUl SMplt
v«Um IoLvm
Vol«M
Iijected Uwled
Filt Mm*
(•icroliltrs)
(•icreliteri) (H"3)
Rill
iniom
100
2 S.041
Mtr
RRf
Libeled Iiter ill/
l/lllbeied Kitive/
Libeled Know?
labeled liter Ml
TCDO
0.1S4
0.132 SMPU DESCRIPTION W3-2 « Ufi».
TCOF
1.411
0.144
PeCOO
0.711
1.123
MTE RtPORTEO - 00-01-13
(••CM
1.100
0.7H
HtitOO
t.tti
0.11$
DATE IWKfEO: 07-30-13
HeiCOf
1.047
1.00S
HepCOO
o.sn
I.Hi
PROJECT: Tlrt C«*ntUi
HtfOf
0.K1
0.114
ocoo
0.414
t.ti?
OCOf
0.434
1.421
IWrMtiul C*K«rtTitiM «f UUI*4 Uttrul SUtfcrfc it SmtI<
fjcifrtas/ Total tot I»j*cl*4
•icreliUr (M/i*j*ctiti)
TCOO
2S0
soo
TCOF
2 SO
soo
PtCOO
soo
1000
PtCOf
soo
1000
HeiCOO
soo
1000
Micor
soo
1000
MtpCDO
soo
1000
HepCDF
soo
1000
OCOO
1000
2000
OCOf
1000
2000
Theoretic*! CoKHUition of Itbelttf Recovery Standard it SMplt
(pic»»rios/ Toti! Aat I»j«ct*d
•icoliltr) (pj/itjtction)
TCOO 2 SO " SOO
tvaitiliuoi of libeled Recovery Stixiitd
ti«f *rt« Cmi»!
Rji: ?2.«41 1?C0202
D-U
-------
TOTAL ICDOj
libolod Iittrul 5ti«4«rd Ou»»tititio«
tttutioi Hm tm Couit
tui 72.943 20774M
CoicntTitioa t Recover?
585.3 117.)
Uilibtltd ICDC Qviitititioi
Put I RlUltiol Titt *T«i Cwilt
2 2J.K1 92040
1 IsMtr(s) ior*is-
Total SiipW Total SMplt
Hits Diss Count? at ioi
(picijuos) (MMtriit) (u/«*3)
23.8
23.8
1.2
1.2
0.235
0.235
D-12
-------
10TM. TCOFs
Labeled I iter Ml Staidard (tout it at ion
Retutioc li« Ar«< Cmm
ftua ?!27X0)7
t feewtry
ttl.t IM.3
Uilabeltd TCOf Ouaatitatioa
Pelt I Reteitioa Tim
Area Covit
Haw
(picajraw)
Total Staple
MSI
(HMfrMt)
Utal laaplt
COK«»tfetUl
(h/k'j)
0 IsMtr(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
o.o
D-13
-------
TOTAL P(COOs
LibtWd IittTuI Standard QviitiUlioi
Tim Aril Cm it
tat H.IH 297S23S
Ualibtltd PKOC OmtiUtiM
Pill I Mtlitiu Tit* Ar*i CnM
« Immt(i) TOmS:
rom P»cofi
libtlttf IiUimI Stiidard Quiitiutipi
Rittatisi IiM »r«i Couit
Rvi ?5.787 444W4
V«lab*t*d PtCDF Ouaatitatioa
(~fik • R«t«itio» Tilt Aril Cwil
0 Isomi(s) TOTALS-
C«K«ltr*tio* X Rtctvtry
1124.1 112 .S
Total Sttpl* Iitil &Mpl«
flan Hats C**ct»tritioi
(picurm) (MMfraat) (•»/«*J)
0.0 «.« «.«M
Coictitratioi I Stcovary
1087.4 1M.7
Total Saiplt Total SmpU
Diss fla*s CoKfitratioa
(picigim) (aaaotrats) (ag/lT))
0.0 0.0 0.000
D-14
-------
TOTAL HeiCOOs
Labeled Iiterul Standard QuanUtitioi
Retention Tim Urn Cevtt
Run 29.til 2OO22S0
CMMDtntiM I l«c«vtrr
151.7 N.«
Unlabeled HtiCDO Ouaetitltioa
Peak I RetentiM Tia*
Dru Count
Tetnl Seiple
Mil Hits
(picefrm) (uMfrMt)
I till Sm»U
CoKeiltllien
((•/ID)
0 iMMl(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
TOTAL HeiCOfs
Labeled Internal Standard Ouintitation
Retention Tim Area Co«it
Rui 24.204 3321770
Concentration 1 Recovery
IS2.I 14.3
Unlabeled HeiCOF OuantiUtion
Peak I Retention Tin
Area Count
MtS
(picifraes)
Total Style
Ran
(MMtrias)
Total Stable
Cenceatralioa
(ng/H*J)
0 Iso»er(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
D-15
-------
191*1 HtpCOOs
L*b«lt4 luttrul Stiidiid (huntitition
Rttfitioi Ult Am Court
l«» 32. Ml 12MW
u»Ub*l*4 H«pCW Ouotitttio*
P«ik i Muititi Tim tiu coot
0 TOTALS:
TOTAL HtpCOFl
l«k«l«4 littrul Stiidird fcmtiUtio*
Kittitioi Tin Aru Court
««• 32.012 2130218
Uilibtltd HtpCOf 0wrtit»ti«»
P«t I HtlMtioi Ti»« Ar«a Court
0 lsOMr(t) TOHLS:
Co«c*itrati»i X Rttovtrjr
573.4 S7.3
Total Sttplt Total SmpU
Km Hits CoKtrtratioi
(piciirut) (*/H*3)
0.0 0.1 0.000
CsKMtrition * Rtcovtrr
S«.» S».t
Total Sup It ToUl Supl*
Ki» Matt CoK«itratio«
(pieajraw) (unojratt) (»fl/f*3)
0.0 0.0 0.000
D-16
-------
TOTAL OCOOJ
Libeled ltterul Stiidiid Ouutititioi
Rettetioi Tim tin CMit
Rut 3S.4M
Ceaeertrettoi X iKiwr
m.i ».o«v-U
Uilibeled OCOO OuaitiUtioi
Peit I #«t««tion tin
Arei C««*t
Utll Swlt UUl SM»I*
Kits MM CeKMlritiol
{picwtn) (aiMRMM) (n"l*3)
0 lssatr(s)
TOTALS:
0.0
0.0
0.000
TOTAL QCDfs
Labeled Uterul Stiidard Quiititatioi
Retutioi Tiie hn Couit
Rua 3S.tse 12M3SS
Coaceetretioi t Recwr
779.S J1.0 *r.
-------
APPENDIX E METALS DATA
E-l
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description; Rotary Kiln
Teet Nunber Stack Dian. 8.25
Condition 20 * Tires Pitot Cp p.84
Location Exhaust Duct Nozzle Diaa. 0.623
Operator JEB. RT Meter Y 0.974
Run Ho. TB1-M5M1 Hater dW 2.00
Start Tiae 1121 Stop Tiae 1451
Date: 5-19-93
Aabient Tesp.
Baroa. Press.
Static Press.
Eat. Moisture
Est. ObQWD
Est. C02
80 *F
29.52 Dk
-3.6 "H20
12.0 X
7.5 X
7.5 X
Put. Clock
# Tine
dP
"H20
dH
"H20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1121
1136
1151
1206
1221
1238
1303
1320
1340
1355
1410
1425
1440
1451
Average
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
Total Sampling Time, 0
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gas Velocity, v
Gas Meter
Tempera tores,
*F
Meter T. *F
Vac.
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
I«P-
In
Out
"Hg
1.466
630
220
56
88
86
5.6
15.000
631
220
62
100
69
5.0
28.000
634
220
61
107
95
5.2
42.000
626
220
65
112
100
5.2
56.000
627
220
63
114
104
5.3
72.000
628
220
60
114
105
5.3
95.000
628
220
61
116
106
5.5
110.000
629
220
63
116
106
6.0
129.000
628
220
68
116
106
6.8
144.000
628
220
60
116
106
6.6
157.000
625
220
62
116
106
7.0
171.000
628
220
65
117
106
7.4
186.000
627
220
57
118
106
7.5
195.812
628
220
62
112
103
Vn
194.346 Cubic Ft
Measured 02
7.80
210 minutes
Measured 002
7.70
577.6 grans
14.8 ft/sec.
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volume Collected:
Average Sampling Rate
156.4 SCFM
175.024 EGCF
0.833 D6CFH,
137.1 D6CEM
4.9561 D6CM
2.004 ACBTi
12,
28.
:> 88.5 X Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliainary traverse. Single point isokinetic sampling
uas coriducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
B-2
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Deecription:
Rotary Kiln
Teat Date: 5-19-93
Teat Nunber
M5MJ-1
Sailing An Mo.
TB1-H5H1
Condition
20 X Tiree
Operator
JIB, RT
Location
Exhaust Duct
Exhauat Suet Flow
137.1 D0CM
Start Tine
1121
VoIum Collected
175.024 DBCF
Stop Tiae
1451
Isokinetic
88.5 %
— Front Half —
— Back Half
Total
- -
Ug
ug/if 3
Kg ug/k"3
ug ag/a~3
Araenic
210.00
37.16
MA
MA
NA
NA
Beryllium
0.30
0.05
NA
NA
MA
NA
C&dnium
6.00
1.06
NA
MA
NA
NA
Chrcoius
21.90
3.88
MA
NA
NA
NA
Nickel
19.85
3.51
MA
NA
NA
NA
ttai^aneae
32.70
5.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
Selenium
25.40
4.50
NA
NA
NA
MA
Antiaony
11.90
2.11
MA
NA
NA
MA
Lead
372.7
65.96
NA
MA
MA
NA
Zinc
200400
35465
MA
NA
NA
NA
NOTE: Back Half saaple loot to shipping dance.
E-3
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Source Description: Rotary Riln
Date: 5-20-93
Test Number M5M1-2
Stack Diam.
8.25 "
Ambient Teap.
80 *F
Condition No Tires
Pilot Cp
0.84
Baron.
Press.
29.55 "Kg
Location Exhaust EOct
Nozxle Diam.
0.623 "
Static Press.
-3.1 "H20
Ooerator FT, JEB
Meter Y
0.974
Est. Moisture
12.0 X
Rm No.
TB2-M5M1
Meter dH8
2.00
Est. Oxygen
7.5 *
Start Time 1038
Stop Time
1348
Est. 002
7.5 %
Fht.
Clock dP
dH
Gas Meter
Temperatures,
•F
Meter T, *F
Vac.
«
Tiae H20
"H20
Cubic Ft.
Stack
Oven
lap.
In
Out
"Hg
0
1038
3.10
198.579
580
220
52
90
84
9.2
1
1058
3.10
217.600
584
220
60
105
90
9.4
2
1113
3.10
232.400
585
220
55
111
97
9.4
3
1128
3.10
247.000
586
220
54
114
101
9.4
4
1143
3.10
261.900
587
220
52
115
104
9.3
5
1200
3.10
278.600
598
220
55
115
105
9.2
6
1218
3.10
296.000
602
220
61
116
106
9.2
7
1236
3.10
313.000
600
220
64
117
106
9.6
8
1255
3.10
333.000
604
220
76
117
107
11.0
9
1313
3.10
351.000
600
220
68
118
107
11.0
10
1333
3.10
369.800
600
220
58
118
107
10.8
11
1348
384.593
Average
3.10
593
220
60
112
101
Total Volume Metered, Vm
Total Sampling Tine, a
Moisture Collected
Average Stack Gae Velocity, v
136.014 Cubic Ft.
190 minutes
498.1 grams
16.3 ft/sec.
Measured 02
Measured 002
Measured H20
Molecular Wt
Exhaust Duct Flow
Gas Volume Collected:
Average Sampling Rate
9.80
5.90
11.2
28.1
177.9 SCFM 158.0 DSCFM
167.901 DSCF 4.7545 DSCM
0.884 DSCFM, 2.027 ACFM ======> 90.0 X Isokinetic
Note: Average velocity based on preliminary traverse. Single point isokinetic sampling
was conducted at highest-velocity traverse point.
E-4
-------
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY
Source Description: Rotary Kiln
Test Date: 5-20-93
Test Number
Condition
Location
Start Tine
Stop Tine
M5TO-2
No Tires
Exhaust Duct
1036
1348
Saapllng Bun No.
Operator
Exhaust Duct Flow
Volume Collected
Isokinetic
TB2-MSM
JEB, FT
158.0 D6CRI
167.9 D6CF
90.0 %
— Front Half —
tv ug/n'3
Arsenic
6.05
1.12
Beryllium
<0.25
Cadmium
0.70
0.13
Chromium
3.55
0.65
Nickel
2.20
0.41
Manganese
6.00
1.11
Selenium
<1.00
——
Antimony
1.00
0.18
Lead
42.0
7.75
Zinc
1500
276.72
— Back Half —
Total
uc
Ug/m'3
Ug
uf/a~3
<1.00
<0.25
————
1.50
0.28
2.20
0.41
<1.00
3.55
0.65
1.66
0.31
3.86
0.71
9.30
1.72
15.3
2.82
4.50
0.83
4.50
0.83
<1.00
1.00
0.18
1.65
0.30
43.7
8.05
55.4
10.22
1555
286.94
NOTE: Front Half sample nay exhibit sooe cross-contamination fro® TBI back half.
E-5
-------
APPENDIX F. OTHER DATA
F-l
-------
Table F-l. Kiln tire burn rant.
4/29/93
TBI
5/U/93
TB2
5/13/93
TB3
5/17/93
TB4
5/18/93
TB5
5/19/93
TB6
5/20/93
TB7
5/21/93
TB8
5/25/93
TB9
5/26/93
TB10
5/26/93
TBI I
5/26/93
TBI 2
5/26/93
TBI 3
5/26/93
TBI4
5/26/93
TBI 5
5/26/93
TB16
5/26/93
TB17
5/26/93
TB18
5/26/93
TB19
5/26/93
TB20
5/26/93
TB21
5/26/93
TB22
5/27/93
TB23
5/27/93
TB24
5/27/93
TB25
5/27/93
TB26
5/27/93
TB27
5/27/93
TB28
5/27/93
TB29
5/27/93
TB30
F-2
-------
Table F-2. K8n Tire Bwu S»mpBin Sununujr.
Tire BTU
% o-f Load
0
Other
Condition
Steady
T«»t
Data
5-18
3-18
3-20
5-20
Run
No.
V0ST-3
MM5-4
M23-2
M5MM-2
Exhaust
DSCFM
173.607
173.607
157.311
137.991
BMpling Notes
10
Steady
4-29
VOST-1
Unknown
20
Steady
5-11
5-13
5-13
5-17
5-19
5-19
MM 5-1
V0ST-2
' MM5-2
MM5-S
M23-1
M3MM-1
131.088
121.592
121.392
131.520
136.050
137.141
TC0/SRAV Anolyf. 18
20
Ramp ing
3-21
5-21
VGST-4
MMS-3
141.482
141.482
20
Batch
5-25
5-25
V05T-&
Kr3-fc
174.184
174.184
TCO/0RAV Analyse
F-3
-------
Tm Run
MM5-1 (TB2)
MM 5-2 (TB3)
MM5-3 (TM)
MM 5-4 (TB5)
MM5-5 (TBS)
MM5-6(TB9)
MMT-1 (TB6)
MMT-2 (TB
TtW^F-3. KanTueBui^Mog^siaSSS
Paniculate Volume
2.982
4.792
6.916
4.915
4.81$
5.126
4.957
AL
5/11/93
5/13/93
5/17/93
5/18/93
5/21/93
5/25/93
5/19/93
m
0.13023
0.65767
0.66563
0.08536
0.64017
1.46328
0.5007
O.Oli
Part. Load.
(malm*)
43-67
137.24
95.28
17.37
132.95
285.46
101.01
4.14
F-4
-------
TibjeM^fa^iijifremCOEkOCTACeMHmeeBwdek
Raa
Modd-1
MnU-2
li«U.3
TB6
•OJ07
-0.196
-0343
TB7
0.163
0.156
-1.714
TBIO
-0.070
-0.068
0.622
TBI!
0.479
0.480
0.735
TB12
0.854
0.856
a717
TB13
1.921
1.923
2.723
TBH
-0.170
-OJ68
-1J10
TBI 5
-1.099
-1.099
4X697
TB16
-0.493
-0.493
•0.933
TB17
•OJ97
-0.897
-14)18
TBI 8
•0.581
¦0.583
4121
TB19
0.198
0.196
-0407
TB20
-0.004
•0.006
1.663
TB21
0.6*8
0.686
0.721
TB22
-0.639
-0.641
-0610
TB23
-1.698
-1.694
-1.746
TB24
1.381
1.382
1.007
TB25
-0.813
•0.811
-1.279
TB26
1.381
1.382
2.582
TB27
-2.007
•2.010
0.330
TB28
-0.037
-0.040
-1.155
TB29
4.036
4.033
1.734
TB30
^15 1
££!
INOO Predicted
Figure F-l. CO Model 1; Predicted MCOEM1SFAC) n. measured In(COEMISFAC)
-------
WOO Predicted
Figure F-2. CO Model 2; Predicted In(COEMISFAC) vt. measured In(COEMlSFAC).
8 10 IS 20 28 30
GOSM8FAC Predicted
Figure F-3. CO Model 3; Predicted COEMISFAC v*. measured COEMISFAC.
-------
T^bJ^^^faj^u^^xlOOO^on^AHEMISFAOiegaMOij^odjit
Run
Model*!
M.A1.2
MmU-3
TB6
•1.802
-0.436
-0J67
TB7
0.169
0.138
0.512
TB10
-0340
-0.360
-0.181
TBI 1
0.2 IB
•0.044
-0279
TB12
-0J60
-0.612
-&271
TB13
0.139
•0.090
0.497
TB14
-0.923
0.133
•0.632
TBI 5
0.3W
1.040
a 107
TB16
1.049
1.137
0.243
TB17
¦0.525
-0J18
-1.145
TBI 8
0.415
0.857
as io
TB19
-0.766
-0.444
0.659
TB20
3.105
2.088
1.023
TB21
-1.220
4.546
-0.252
TB22
1.934
-1.106
¦4.645
TB23
0.457
0.317
-0.945
TB24
0.776
3J57
2.065
TB25
•1.010
-1.937
-0.284
TB26
-0.670
1.501
0.70*
TB27
¦0358
-3.030
-1.412
TB28
2.676
¦0.054
1.046
TB29
•1.076
1.492
•0.414
TB30
-1.023
¦m
-m
-6.5
/ /
• ' X*
v'VC
.* / .
•7.0"
• ay
.y/'
? *7 8*
I
/ />•
,y //
-•.0"
/ / /
/ //
' •/./
/ •/
/ /
-t.8 -8.0 -7.8 -7.0 -8.8
INMH Pf«dtet*d
Figure F-4. PAH Model 1; Piedkned ln(PAHEMISFAQ w. measuicd ln(PAHEMISFAQ.
-------
Figure F-5- PAH Model 2; Predicted In(PAHEMlSFAC) vs. measured In(PAHEMISFAC).
F-8
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
a
GO
This report was printed specifically for your
order from our collection of more than 2 million
technical reports.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction avaftable from
our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document
or any order you placed with NTIS, please cad our Customer Services
Department at (703)487-4660.
Always think of NTIS when you want
• Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated
by the ongoing multibitlion dollar R&D program of the US. Government.
• R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20
other countries, most of it reported in English.
NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable
information:
• The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and
dataffles produced by Federal agendas.
• The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you
access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources.
For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products
and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and
foreign Government technology. Call (703)487-4650 or send this
sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.
Ask for catalog, PR-827.
Name
Address.
Telephone
- Your Source to U.S. and Foreign Government
Research and Technology.
------- |