United States Office of Air Quality
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air " ~_ ~" _
Asphalt Concrete
Industry
Emission Test Report
Western Engineering
Company
Lincoln, Nebraska
Volume 1
EMS Report 83-ASP-5
April 1985
-------
SCA-TR-fiS-H-C
f£««l Report
Volume 1
Prepared lot
Mr. Cljtd't i. tile?
£»i»*ion* Iraoch Cffic« ftf
Air Qu< 2 icy ?S*ft«iing and
tfinagl* Parte, MC 2?? II
EPA Contrtcc Mo* 6S-02-3S51
tfork A««ignmenc No». 05 and 0?
froject Ho, S3/05
SMB Project No. 83-ASf-S
by
J, ?r»
GCA
3IVISICK
April 19*5
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Final Report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of
Air, Noise and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of company or product names does not constitute
endorsement by EPA, Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees,
current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations—as supplies
permit—from the Library Service Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Order; EHB Report-83-AS!>-*5, Volume I.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables. v
1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1
1.1 Objectives .................. l-l
1.2 Brief Process Description ......... 1-2
1.3 Emissions Measurement Program .» 1-2
1.4 Description of Report Sections ............. 1-4
2,0 Summary and Discussion "of Results , , 2-1
2.1 Emission Program Results ... ........ 2-1
3.0 Process Description and Operation 3-1
3.1 Process Description 3-1
3.2 Process Monitoring .............. 3-3
3.3 Testing Information ..... . 3-16
4.0 Sampling Locations ........ 4-1
4.1 Baghouse Inlet Sampling Location ............ 4-1
4.2 Baghouse Outlet Sampling Location ...... 4-1
4.3 Visible Emission Observations ............. 4-1
4.4 Process Sample Collection and Monitoring Locations . . . 4-7
5.0 Sampling and Analytical Equipment and Procedures ....... 5-1
5.1 EPA Reference Methods. . ....... 5-1
5.2 Analytical Procedures. 5-4
6.0 Quality Assurance. ........... 6-1
6.1 Calibration Procedures ..... 6-1
6.2 Sample Chain of Custody .... ..... 6-2
6.3 Data Reduction and Validation ...... 6-2
6.4 Sampling QC Procedures ........ 6-4
6.5 Analytical QC Procedures 6-5
6.6 Site Specific Quality Control. " 6-9
6.7 Discussion of Problems with Emission Testing 6-9
6.8 Deviations front the Test/QA Plan 6-11
111
-------
FIGURES
Number
1-1 Asphalt concrete process ..... .... 1-3
2-1 Six-minute average opacity during conventional operation ... 2-24
2-2 Graphic representation of visual emission observations .... 2-25
3-1 Schematic of aspKalt concrete drum-mix plant ......... 3-4
4-1 Sampling locations and parameters 4-2
4-2 Baghouse inlet location 4-3
4-3 Baghouse inlet sampling points . 4-4
4-4 Baghouae outlet sampling location .............. 4-5
4-5 Baghouse outlet sampling points ..... 4-6
5-1 Participate and TOC sampling train .............. 5-5
6-1 Data flow scheme ........,..»..'.. 6-3
IV
-------
PAGE NUMBERS TO BE CHECKED^
TABLES
Number . Page
2-1 Summary of Particulate and Total Organic Carbon Emission
During Conventional Operation (English Units) • 2-2
2-2 Summary of Particulate and Total Organic Carbon Emission
During Conventional Operation (Metric Units) 2-3
2-3 Summary of Uncontrolled"Particulate and Total Organic
Carbon Emission During Conventional Operation ....... 2-4
2-4 Summary of Controlled Particulate and Total Organic Carbon
Emission During Conventional Operation ,.......,., 2-5
2-5 Summary of Particulate and Total Organic Carbon Emission
During Recycle Operation (English Units) . ... 2-7
2-6 Summary of Particulate and Total Organic "Carbon Emission
During Recycle Operation (Metric Units) .......... 2-8
2-7 Summary of Uncontrolled Particulate and Total Organic
Carbon Emission During Recycle Operation ... .. 2-9
2-8 Summary of Controlled Particulate and Total Organic Carbon
Emission During Recycle Operation ...... 2-10
2-9 Breakdown of Sampling Run Weight Gains 2-11
2-10 Summaries of Impinger Back Half Results During Conventional
Operation Uncontrolled Total Organic Carbon and Impinger
Acetone Rinse Values ..... ... 2-13
2-11 Summaries of Impinger Back Half Results During Conventional
Operation Controlled Total Organic Carbon and Impinger
Acetone Rinse Values ......... ..... 2-14
2-12 Summaries of Impinger Back Half Results During Recycle
Operation Uncontrolled Total Organic Carbon and Impinger
Acetone Rinse Values , 2-15
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-13 Summaries of Irapinger Back Half Results during Recycle
Operation Controlled Total Organic Carbon and Impinger
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
Summary of Visible Emission Observations During
Summary of Visible Emission Observations during Recycle
Technical Data on Asphalt Concrete Plant Western
Technical Data en the Air Pollution Control Device
Result of Rinse Procedure! Check. .............
2-19
2-20,
2-18
2-19
3-2
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-9
3-10
3-12
3-15
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-10
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
On March 7, 1974, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) were
promulgated for the asphal: concrete industry. They established a limit on
particulate matter of 0.04 grams per dry standard cubic foot and a visible
emission limit of 20 percent opacity. The standards were reviewed in 1979 and
no revisions were proposed. Another review was initiated in 1982 with the
purpose of investigating the opacity limit of facilities utilizing recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP). The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA)
requested this review because of concern from members that emissions could be
higher during RAP production.
Reportedly, the utilization of RAP produces a "Blue Haze" plume due to
the emission of condensible hydrocarbons. Emission data from selected,
representative sources would be used in the development and/or review of the
NSPS regulations for the asphalt concrete industry. The Western Engineering
Company's facility was selected as an emission test program site based on the
following rationale: . '
• The plant was suitable for testing and obtaining useful data;
• The plant has been successfully tested for compliance with the NSPSi
• The facility is a typical design of a major vendor; and
• Western had a known production schedule producing RAP mixes.
l.l OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this test program were to obtain and evaluate data on
particulate emissions, .total organic carbon (TOC) , and visible emissions from
a facility utilizing recycled asphalt pavement. The Western Engineering
facility was selected and tested during both RAP and conventional production
modes. A series of simultaneous Method 5E emission tests were conducted both
at the inlet and outlet of the control device, in this case a baghouse. These
tests were conducted to provide a comparison of particulate, TOC, and visible
emissions during the two types of production.
1-1
-------
1.2 BRIEF PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Figure 1-1 is a layout of a typical asphalt concrete process. During
conventional production, virgin aggregate from any of 4 storage bins, is
loaded onto a conveyor. The quantity of aggregate from each bin is controlled
by a computer located in the control room. The virgin aggregate is fed to Che
burner end of the drum mixer. Liquid asphalt is injected into the drum mixer
2/3 of the drum length from the burner end and is mixed with the aggregate
material. As the asphalt concrete mix falls from the drum it is conveyed to a
storage silo for truck load-out. The gaseous emissions enter a knockout
chamber that reduces the gas velocity and promotes particle settling. From
the knockout chamber, the gas is drawn through a baghouse that traps the fine
particulate. The flue-gas is then exhausted to the atmosphere through a
12 foot high rectangular stack.
Recycle operation differs from conventional operation in that a
percentage of the virgin aggregate is replaced by recycled asphalt pavement
and a different asphalt cement is used. The RAP is fed to a collar located at
the center of the drum mixex from a separate bin. The rest of the RAP process
is the same as the conventional process.
1.3 EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
The test program was conducted at the Western Engineering Company's
mobile CMl asphalt concrete plant. The mobile facility was located on
Route 34, 12 miles west of Lincoln, Nebraska during the last week of
September 1984. The test program was designed to quantify uncontrolled
(baghouse inlet) and controlled (baghouse outlet) emissions during
conventional and recycle operations. GCA personnel were responsible for
sampling and analyzing process emissions except for TOC analyses which was
performed by Pollution Control Science of Miamisburg, Ohio. Midwest Research
Institute (MRI) was responsible for coordinating the test program with plant
personnel to insure that process conditions and control equipment were
suitable for testing, MRI was also responsible for the monitoring and
recording of necessary data on process and control equipment.
1.3.1 Part iculate^tass
Total particulate loading measurements were performed at the baghouse
in Let and ouci.ec, concurrently. The tests were cumim. Leu ,iu ayiiordoilCc »ith
EPA Method 5E. Four particulate runs, for both uncontrolled and controlled
emissions, were performed during conventional operation. Three uncontrolled
and two controlled runs were performed during recycle operation.
1,3.2 Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon (TOC) samples were concurrently collected at the
inlet and outlet to the baghouse. They were collected during the SPA
Method 5E tests mentioned above. Each sample consisted of 'organics chat were
collected in the impinger solutions downstream of the filter holder. The
1-2
-------
AGGREGATE
FEED BINS
BURNER
RAP
FEED BIN
RAP
FEED PORT
VYTY
BAQHOUSE
PRODUCT
FEED
STACK
STORAGE
SILO
TRUCK
FAN
Figure 1-1. Asphalt concrete process,
-------
itnpinger solutions were made up of 0.1 N NaOH, In addition Co the impinger
solutions, the acetone rinses of the impingers were dried to a constant weight
and gravintetrieally analyzed.
1.3,3 Gas Stream Analysis
The concentrations of CC>2 and 03 in the gas stream at the inlet and
outlet locations were determined by collecting an integrated sample in a
Tedlar bag and analyzing the sample with an Orsat analyzer. The analyses were
in accordance with EPA Reference Method 3.
1.3.4 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
The test program called for one inlet and one outlet test for Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). It was originally believed, at the tine of the
pre~site survey, that there was sufficient reserves of recycled asphalt
pavement for three Method 5E tests and one Modified Method 5E test for PAH.
However, due to scheduling changes, most of the RAP was utilized before the
test program began. Therefore, no PAH testing was performed.
1.3.5 Visible Emission Observations
Visible emission observations for opacity were performed concurrently
with the Method 5E runs. However, due to background interference
(i.e. clouds) not all of the runs have concurrent visible emission readings.
Readings representative of both operational nodes are included in the report.
1.3.6 Process SampleCollection and Monitoring
Discrete grab samples of RAP, virgin aggregate, asphalt cement and fuel
oil were obtained during this test program. The virgin aggregate samples were
analyzed for moisture content. The RAP samples were analyzed for moisture and
smoke point. Smoke point, flash point and viscosity analysis of the asphalt
cement samples were also conducted. The fuel oil sample is being held for
future analysis. Monitoring and recording the pressure drop across the
baghouse, along with all other pertinent process paraneters, was the
responsibility of Midwest Research Institute (MRI).
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF REPORT SECTIONS
The remaining sections contain the summary and discussion of results in
Section 2.0, Process Description and Operation in Section 3.0, Sampling
locations in Section 4.0, Sampling and Analytical Equipment and Procedures in
Section 5.0, and Quality Assurance in Section 6.0.
1-4
-------
SECTION 2.0
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section discusses the results of the emission test program conducted
at Western Engineering Company's asphalt concrete plant outside Lincoln,
Nebraska. Controlled and uncontrolled emissions were tested. The testing was
conducted during the production of conventional mix and 50 percent recycled
asphalt pavement mix. Problems encountered during this test program are
discussed in Section 6,0.
2.1 EMISSION PROGRAM RESULTS
The following subsections contain narrative, tables, graphs and figures
pertaining to the specific tests performed. Each subsection also contains a
discussion of the data.
2.1.1 Particulajie Mass Emission Results
A modified version of EPA reference Method 5E was used to collect both
uncontrolled and controlled emissions concurrently during conventional and
recycle production. The results are discussed in the following sections.
Additional information, field data sheets and lab analysis sheets can be found
in Appendices A and 0.
2,1.1,1 Conventional Operation—
Summaries of particulate and total organic carbon emissions for both
controlled and uncontrolled emissions during conventional operation are
presented in Table 2-1 (English units) and Table 2-2 (metric units). Four
controlled and uncontrolled sampling runs were performed. The test plan
originally called for three concurrent runs. However, problems with Run No. 2
necessitated an additional conventional run as a precautionary measure. The
four conventional operation runs are designated as 1» 2, 3 and 4. The
uncontrolled particulate mass loading were 45.700, 112.660, 86.836 and
53.500 grains per dry standard cubic foot, respectively. The corresponding
controlled particulate loadings were 0.008, 0.025, 0.028 and 0.022 for I, 2, 3
and 4, respectively. The average controlled particulate loading was
0.021 gr/dscf which is below the present NSPS standard of 0.04 gr/dscf. The
collection efficiencies of the baghouse for these runs was 99.98, 99.97, 99.96
and 99.95, respectively. A breakdown of uncontrolled and controlled
conventional emissions can be found in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. 5UHHARY OF PARTICULAR AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSION OURINC CONVENTIONAL OPERATION (EHCLISU UNITS)
Kl
N>
Date
Hun
CBiaaion Type
Production Rate (torn/hour)
Procesa Kix Type
Average Opacity (O
(•can, range)
Pirt'culate and Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) Reaulti
(proL*, cyclone and filtrr)
ng - Mil
gr/dicf
lb/hr
Ib/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent^
Rack Half Caleb - TOC
(iapinger aolutioni aitd riuieii)
•g - nan
gr/dicf
lb/hr
Ib/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent
Total Catch Particular - TOC
ng - •»!•
gr/dicf
lb/hr
Ib/tun production
Collection Efficiency Herci-nt
09/14/84
1
09/75/84
2
09/26/04
1
Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Control led Uncontrolled
St
. ?
110
• Convent iona 1
N/A
160499.84 48.40
45.700 0.008
8U89.17 2.115
26.09S 0.007
99.98
c 115.20
0.020
5.01}
0.162
N/A
160499.84 163.60
45.700 0.028
8089.37 7.15
26.095 0.021
99.92
*
»w
311
Conventional
0.25 (0-1.25)
183171.87*
112.660
22849.019
76.470
99
BO. 52
0.049
10.031
0.012
44
181452.39
112.709
22859.05
76.500
99
121.35
0.025
6.860
0.022
.97
100 . 50
0.021
5.5B9
0.018
.SB
221.fi}
0.046
12.45
0.040
.95
09/27/84
4
Average
Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled
[
10E1
Conventional
147755.98
86.816
18457.072
59.920
99,
17.10
0.022
4.634
0.015
147793.08
86.860
18461.71
59.910
99,,
171.61
0.028
7. 486
0.024
96
106.70
0.017
4.661
0.015
0
278.31
0.045
12.14
0.019
94
c n
J . V
267
Convent ion* I
N/A
64957.36
53.500
10831.32
40.580
74.16
0.047
9.459
0.03}
126.71
0.022
5.721
0.021
99.95
101.92
0.017
4.601
0.017
f. t.
299
Conventional
0.25 (0-1.25)
144672.15
75.081
15084.140
50.450
61.91
0.039
8.042
0.027
50.85
85011.52
51.547
108165.12
40.610
22B.65
0.019
10.32
0.038
99.91
144716.08
75.120
15092.18
50.470
117.528
0.021
5.545
0.019
99.96
106.08
0.019
4.971
0.017
18.52
223.61
D.uJ1* '
1U.5/
O.OJS
99. »7
'Invalid run torn filter.
bC£F b»ed on Ib/br valuei.
cCoiitaiain«tfld aaaple.
-------
TABU J-7, SWUM C* PAfttlCUlATfc AW I«t»t ORGANIC CA*«U«I EHlSSIW OWING CffltrttWIOKIl, Wlfclf JON tHETVlC IWIM)
But*
Horn
CaiMtoit %p*
•.*«.. F,..«,r, 1,«P
PtoilucitM ft*c« tkf/ft
^£«*i« HI* tygr*
alwraM* f^wifj* III
C*rkioTf*iri*';uTti '
PTMI Half C«teh-P*rfict»l«t*
g^g ff^iKS.!^!
i2&lj«E J i«>fi tffici*fsey t>«««*s»^
lack H»if Cilch ~ fOC
mf - mmmm
?. *e*
c.iiKii«crticiMef r«»f.t
Tal»l C««h p*rtieitl.t* - TOC
•|/4i«»
§/•
Collection efdcieBtr Pcreenl
*lo»*ljd ryn (orn lilmr.
^Cgt fcaatd an jbf'sir vilue«.
09/14/44 Ot«J/S4 Ot/2li/B4 ftt/JJ/14
1 1 1 * 4»sr*t«
bn.-.ont s ,.J (,-!J CoBttotlfd (fntonl ml 1*4 COM r»t ittd thWOOtrot I«t Coot rolled iinccn'it rsl S*d Conlrali»d llr.io.'iir!..'! 1?1 C.i.ij s,-j! Jf.i!
S.-S *.* J.» 5,5 S-4
71.1 t»,4 W.S SI. ft ?}.J
Con»»wia«al Conv^ntieAil C«4«*Mii C«a««r»lJt»«i*l (qnventio-nol
H/A O.ll (0-1. J4> Urt Krt O.JJ tO-t.Jf)
,
«»«„» 41,40 IIJJH.il* l!J,J} l«i»?S5.fi 1JI.4J S4»J},J« 1Z*.IJ r448Ji,lS llJ.M
10*5*4, ]J i»,JQ aj?r}8.04 ST.« »>»&Sl.tS §*.» HJJ«»,J4 JO.J1 !II?Jf.»f 4J.47
10 If .144 0.2S4 »?t.9() C.tM Z»S,.5» 0.143 t3M,2« O.rtJ »00,>«ft 0,«»
u.130 o.wi j«.J2c 9>iw Je,iws §.»ti io,i» o.oii Ji.i«.o o,0e«
«.» »».»r W.M «*.*> ».M
e 114,10 <0.)2 IPO.tO If, If 10&.W 74.lt 181, »1 4],»J 106.01!
45, IS 112,09 it,« iQ.Jl J».W 107. M »,» IV.40 47. /«
P.*J4 %,'im ft.SWt O.SI4 03SJ 1,1*8 Q.SfrO I.Oi) tl,***
O.tKM BfOl* 0.00* O.OOT tt.009 O.Ol* 0.80S O.OU O.SCSB
«/* 44.44 8 50. ij Jl.it
it,Mtf,K4 ISJ.M ttj4ji,j9 tty.K i*w*j.iw ??*,jj fsioi.si tii.ss w4»j».ei ju.ftt
IUD.24 O.SQ !«SO,t^ 1,17 212t.ll 1 . 5 J U*b.4l I.S* rtOi.SJ l,*l
13. 11 0.011 U.7* 0,11 30, Jl 0.02 W.H ft.lklf li.JS- 8,01?
».»J »»,fi M.M *f,ft Ht.SI
-------
TABLE 2-3. SUHKART OF UNCONTROLLED PART1CULATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBOH EMISSION DUSINC CONVENTIONAL OPERATION
Run Number 1
Date . 9/24/84
Volute Caa Sanpled (rtitf) 56.116
Stack C«« Flow »•!.' (dscfn) 20,638
Stack Tenparaturr, *K 779 '
Percent Hoiiture by Volume 22.3
Percent loakinetic 89.1
Production Bate (ti.n/hr) 310
Pruceai ffix Type Conventional
Petticulate and Tot.il Organic
Carbon (TOC> geiulla
Front Half Catch-Part iculate
(probe, cyclone and filter)
fS 160499.84
gr/
Convent ianal
147755.98
86.84
18157. 0>2
59.92
37.10
0.012
4.634
0.015
4
9/27/84
23.924
23.630
271
18.6
99.8
267
Convent iooal
84957.36
10835.866
40.58
74.16
0.047
9.459
0.035
Average
32.66
23,182
274
20.4
99.8
299
Conventional
144672.15
75.08
1SOB4.40
50.4,5
63.93
0.039
8.042
0.027
run torn filter.
^Contaminated ia*pl.:.
-------
TABLE 2-4. SUMMARY OP CONTROLLED ("ARTICULATE AN& TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSION DURING CONVENTIONAL OPERATION
Ryn Nuober
Date
Volume CM* Sanpled (dscf)
Stack Oia Flow Rite (decfn.)
Stack Ttaptricure, *F
Percent Hoiature by Volume
Percent loikinetic
Production Rate (ton/br)
Procest Mix Tyf»«
Particulars and Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) Reiults
fj Front Half Catch-Part icu lite
U»
Bg
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton preduccioii
Back Hi If Catch - TOC
Kg ~ wtaB
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton production
1
9/2*/84
W.500
29,597
256
19.0
98.7
310
Convent ioital
48.40
0.006
2,115
0,00?
115.20
0.020
S.035
0.162
2*
9/25/84
74,098
11,448
25J
17.7
101,1
111
Convent ionai
123.35
0.025
6.860
0,022
100.50
0.021
5. 589
0,018
3
9/26/84
93.270
31,527
248
17.9
101,3
3oa
Conventional
HI. 63
0.028
7.486
0.024
106.70
O.OU
4.661
0.015
4
f/27/84
90.568
11,032
253
16.9
97.9
267
Conventional
126.73
0.022
5.721
0.021
101.92
0.017
4.601
0.0172
Average
87.109
30,901
2S2
17.9
99.8
299
Conventional
117,53
0.021
5.540
0.019
106. 08
0.019
4.971
0.017
*Invilid run torn filter.
-------
2.L.I.2 Recycle Operation-
Table 2-5 v jlish units) and Table 2-6 (metric units) present the
results of uncontrolled and controlled emission testing during recycle
operation. The three uncontrolled and two controlled recycle operation test
runs are designated 5, 6 aid 7 (uncontrolled only). Uncontrolled particulate
mass loadings for the respective runs were 7.085, 10.939 and 8.655 gr/dscf the
corresponding controlled particulate loadings were 0,008 gr/dscf for 5 and
0,006 gr/dscf for 6. The average controlled emissions during recycle
operation was 0.007/dscf which is well below the NSPS limit of 0.04 gr/dscf.
The collection efficiencies for 5 and 6 were both above 99,9 percent.
Tables 2-7 and 2-8 provide additional information on uncontrolled and
controlled recycle emissions.
2.1.1,3 Breakdown of Sampling Run Weight Gains—
A breakdown of the sampling run weight gains for both conventional and
recycle operation is presented in Table 2-9. This table provides the weight
gain from the filter, front half and the acetone blank correction factor.
This correction factor is calculated from the weight gain of a spectro grade
acetone blank per ml and multiplied by the amount of acetone wash used in the
dry down procedure.
2.1.1.4 Discussion of Particulate Emissions During Conventional and Recycle
Froductioo—
One of the objectives of this test program was to compare the particulate
loadings during conventional and recycle production modes. Several general
observations were made based on the data presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-8.
These include;
* Compliance with the NSPS particulate emission standards of
0,04 gr/dscf was met for all runs.
* The collection efficiency of particulate by the baghouse was above
99.9 percent for all sampling runs.
During conventional operation, the uncontrolled emissions were much
higher than during recycle operation. This is due to the use of much finer
material, mostly sand, being used during conventional production. During
recycle production, 50 percent of the material fed to the drum was recycled
asphalt pavement.
One conclusion that can be drawn for these data is that during
conventional operation, the particulate loadings are higher than during
recycle operation. Therefore, any increase in opacity during recycle
operation, cannot be attributed to paniculate.
2.1.2 Total Organic Carbon Results
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)'samples were collected simultaneously with the
particulate mass samples from the uncontrolled and controlled locations
utilizing the Modified Method 5i sampling train. The 0.1 N NaQft impinger
solutions and rinses were analyzed for TOC using a Beckaan Model 915
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-5. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSION DURING RECYCLE OPERATION (ENGLISH UNITS)
Date
Run
Eolation Type
flaghoute Pressure Drop (in/ll2p)
Production Rat* (tons/hour)
Process Mix Type
Average Opacity (X)
(mean, range)
Pjirticutate and Total Organic
Carbon (TOG) Remit a
Front Half Catch-Part ioilate
gr/dacf
ro lb/hr
| Ib/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent1"
Back Half Catch - TCC
(inpinger solution! and riniei)
rag * an*
gr/dacf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton production
Total Catch Particulate - TOC
mg - mas*
gr/dacf
Ib/hr -
Ib/ton production
Collection Efficiency Percent
9/28/84 9/28/84 9/28/84
56 7 Average
4.3 4.7 4.7 4.6
329 313 307 316
RAP RAP RAP RAP
4.5 (3.5-5) H/A N/A 4.5 (3.5-5)
.
• -
11507.23 40,46 17136.08 35.23 13817.09 ' 14li3.47 37.84
7.085 0.008 10.939 0.006 8.65S B.890 0.007
1414.622 1.674 2085.637 1.483 1648.721 1716.330 1.578
4.300 0.005 6.660 0.003 5.370 5.426 0.005
99.9 99.9 N/A 99.9
54.53 321.90 173.24 295.55 63.84 97.21 308.71
0.034 0.062 0.111 0.053 0.04O O.062 0.057
6.704 13.319 21.085 12.440 7.617 11.802 12.879
0.020 0.040 0.067 0.038 0.025 0.037 0.040
—49.25 41.01 N/A -6.98
11561.76 362.36 17309.32 -330.78 13880.93 14250.68 346.56
7.119 0.070 11.050 0.059 8.695 8.950 0.064
1421.33 L4.99 2106.72 13.92 1656.34 1728.13 14.46
4.320 0.045 6,730 0.043 5.395 5.460 0.045
98.96 99.35 W/A 99.18
*No controlled run conducted.
^CEP b««ed on Ib/hr values.
-------
TAIII.E 2-6. SUHKARY OF PAHTICULATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSION DURING RECYCLE OPERATION (METRIC UNITS)
N>
A,
Uate
Run
Enitaion Type
• Baghoute Preaaure Drop (in/lljO)
Product ion Race (kg/()
tioeett Hit Type
Average Opacity (t)
(•ean, range)
Fjrticulate and Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) Remlti
Front Half Catch-Port i cul at e
(probe, cyclone and filLor)
xg - naaa
ng/dacoi
8/<
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Pirii-eni'
Back Half Catch - TOC
•g - oaaa
ng/d9c»
»/•
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Percent
Total Catch FartlcuiaK - TOC
•g ~,maaa
ng/d.co
«/•
g/kg production
Collection Efficiency Percent
9/3B/B4
5
Uncontrolled Controlled
4.3
82. »
RAF
*.5 (J.5-5)
11507.2} 40.46
16208 .08 18.10
178.738 0.211
2.1)0 0.0025
99.9
S4.53 371.90
77.78 141.81
O.UA5 1.678
0.010 0.020
-49.25
mt>l,7l> 362.16
16ZSS.86 160.11
179.081 1.889
2.160 0.02)
°B.gi
9/28/84 9/28/84
D 7 Average
Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled* Uncontrolled Controlled
4.7 4.7 4.6
78.9 77.4 79.7
RAP RAP RAP
N/A N/A 4.5 (3.5-5)
.>
17136.08 35.21 11817.09 14153.47 37.84
25013,30 11.73 19799.72 20140.17 16.01
262.780 0.18? 207.734 116.251 0.198
3.310 0.002) 2.680 2.713 0.0025
99.9 N/A 99.9
173.24 295.55 61.84 97.21 308.72
253.93 121.25 91.51 140.92 1)0.85
2.660 1.567 0.960 1.487 1.623
0.014 0.020 0.012 0.019 0.020
41.01 N/A ; -6.98
17309.32 330.78 11880.93 14250.68 346.56
25267.21 ' 114.98 19891.23 20481.29 146.86
265.440 I.7S4 208.694 217.740 1.821
3.164 0.022 2.692 2.730 0.021
99. H N/A 99.18
*No controlled run conJuct
'CEP bated on g/« values.
-------
TABLE 2-7. SUMMARY OF UNCOrfTROLLED PART1CUUTE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSION DURING RECYCLE
OPERATION
Hun Nuvber
Date
Volume Cut Sampled (d«cf)
Stack Gas Flow Race (dicfn)
. Stack Tenpcraeure, "F
Percent loakinetic
Production Rate (ton/hr)
Proceia Mix Type
Particular* and Total Organic
I Carbon (TOC) knult.
Front Naif Catch-Particulat*
(probe, cyclone and filter)
ng
gr/fltcf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton production
Back Half Catch - TOC
(inpingtr solution! and rinaea)
ng - nasi
gr/dacf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton production
9/28/84
24.315
23,294
340
20.5
103. 5
329
RAP
11)07.23
7. 085
1414.622
4.30
S4.53
0.034
6.704
0.020
9/28/84
24.279
22,244
346
21.1
104.6
313
RAP
17136.08
10.939
2085.637
6.66
17J.24
0.111
21.085
0.067
7
9/28/84
24.917
21,194
349
23.1
106.7
307
RAP
13817.09
8.655
1648.721
5.37
63.84
0.040
7.617
0.02S
Average
24.503
22,244
34}
21.96
104.93
316
RAP
14153.47
8.890
1716.330
5.436
97.21
0.062
11.B02
0.037
-------
TABLE 2-8. SUMMAR* OF CONTROLLED PARTICIPATE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON EMISSION DURING RECYCLE OPERATION
to
I
Run tiunber
Due
Volune Can S.iMpLeJ (Jicf)
Stack C» Fl;.w R.lttf (dicta)
Stack TcBptrutur.:, 'f
Percent Moisture by VoluM
Percent lotkinetic
Production Hjtr (ton/br)
Proceia MIK Tyi>«
Parttculate :inU 1'ntal Organic
Carbon (TOC) R»»uU«
(probe, cycliine ;mJ filter)
•g
(r/d
-------
TABLE 2-9. BREAKDOWN OF SAMPLING RUN WEIGHT GAINS
Date
Tine
Sample
description
Front half Blank corr. Filter & front
Filter "C. weight gain acetone half we.
(g) (g) (g) (g)
Conventional Controlled
9/24/84
9/25/84
9/26/84
9/27/84
9/24/84
9/25/84
9/26/84
9/27/84
1330-1601
1254-1830
0932-1154
0906-1641
1337-1715
1256-1526
1007-1102
0904-1408
LI-BO-M5E/I-1
LI-80-H5E/I-2
LI-BO-W5E-1-3
LI-BO-M5E/1-4
H-BI-M5E/I-1
LI-BI-M5E/I-2
LI-BI-M5E/I-3
L1-BI-M5E/I-4
0.01535
0.09207
0.1123
0.07726
Conventional
0.37783
0.26053
0.27436
0.71857
0.03413
0.03208
0.06043
0.05077
Uncontrolled
160.12961
183.11814
147.48802
84.24214
Unconventional Controlled
9/28/84
9/28/84
0815-1204
1231-1450
LI-BO-H5E/I-5
LI-BO-M5E/I6-6
0.01334
0.02145
0.02932
0.01438
Air Emissions
0.001
0.0008
0.0011
0.0013
Air Emissions
0.0076
0.0068
0.0064
0.00335
Air Emissions
0.001
0.0006
0.04948
0.12415
0.17273
0.12803
160.50744
183.37867
147.76238
84.96071
0.04266
0.03583
Acetone wash
volume
(ml)
325
285
375
450
2565
2250
2125
1100
325
200
Total
(g)
0.04848
0.12335
0.17163
0.12673
160.49984
183.37187
147.75598
84.95736
0.04166
0.03523
Unconventional Uncontrolled Air Emissions
9/24/84
9/28/84
9/28/84
0820-1043
1126-1302
1334-1429
LI-BI-M5E/I-5
Ll-BI-M5i/I-6
LI-BI-M5E/I-7
0.65816
0.40776
0.44267
10.85087
16.73242
13.37652
0.0018
0.0041
0.0021
11.50903
17.14018
13.81919
610
1400
700
11.50723
17.13608
13.81709
-------
analyzer. The analyses were performed by Pollution Control Sciences Inc. in
Miaoisburg, Ohio, The TOG results are designated as back half catches in Data
Tables 2-1 through 2-8 and are discussed in this section.
2.1.2.1 Conventional Operation—
Table 2-1 (engiish units) and Table 2-2 (metric units) present the TOC
results for both uncontrolled and controlled operation during conventional
production. For uncontrolled operation the TOC loadings were 0.049, 0.022 and
0.0^7 gr/dscf for Runs 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Run No. 1 at the
uncontrolled location was voided because of a contaminated sample. No TOC
results for this test are presented in the data tables. The controlled TOC
loadings during conventional operation were 0.020, 0.021, 0,01? and 0.017 for
Runs 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. It should be noted that, for run No, 2 only
about 73 percent of the sampling points were tested due to process shut down.
It is believed that this had a minimal affect on the quality of the data. The
collection efficiencies of the baghouse for Run 2, 3 and 4 were 44.6, 0 and
50.8, respectively. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 present more detailed uncontrolled and
controlled data for TOC emissions.
2.1,2,2 E,2Cwcl2 Operation——
TOC results for uncontrolled and controlled emissions during recycle
operation are presented in Table 2-5 (engiish units) and Table 2-6 (metric
units). Additional TOC information for uncontrolled and controlled emission
can be found in Tables 2-7 and 2-8. The uncontrolled TOG loadings were 0.034,
0.111 and 0.040 for Run 5, 6 and 7, respectively. Time constraints permitted
the collection of only two controlled emission samples. The results of these
TOC test were 0.062 gr/dscf for Run 5 and 0.053 gr/dscf for Run 6. The
collection efficiencies for Run 5 and 6 were -49.2 and 41.0, respectively as
shown in Table 2-6,
2,1.2.3 Discussion of Results—
The TOC results for uncontrolled emissions during conventional operation
ranged from 0.022 to 0.049 gr/dscf. The average TOC loadings was
0,039 gr/dscf. For controlled conventional emissions, the loadings only
varied from 0.017 to 0.020 with an average loading of 0.019 gr/dscf. For
uncontrolled emission during recycle operation the TOC loading results ranged
froa 0.034 gr/dscf to 0,111 gr/dscf. The average value was 0.062 gr/dscf.
The controlled emissions varied from 0.053 to 0.062 gr/dscf.
The average TOC loading at the controlled locations increased from
0.019 gr/dscf during conventional operation to 0,057 during recycle
operation. - It was expecte-i that there would be a similar elevation in TOC at
the uncontrolled location during recycle operation. The data did not show
this expected rise in TOC loading. This inconsistency can be explained as
follows.
For controlled Runs 5 and 6 and for uncontrolled Run 5, replicate TOC
samples were analyzed 9 times each ~.o establish a 95 percent confidence
interval. The results of these tests indicate that the TOC*'results of this
test program could vary an average of +22.8 rag/1. This value corresponds co
9 percent to 65 percent of the TOC sample results. The highest variability in
results were encountered with the sample with the lowest concentrations. The
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-10. SUMMARIES OF 1KPIHCER BACK HALF RESULTS DURING CONVENTIONAL OPERATION UNCONTROLLED TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON AND 1MPINGEK ACETONE RINSE VALUES
(Si
i— »
w
Run
Date
-Valuae Ga* Saapled (dscf)
• Stick Oat Flow Rate (dscln)
Production Rate (t«ms/hr)
Process Hix Typ*
Back Half Impinger Catch
Eg
gr/dacf
Lb/hr
Ib/ton production
Percent Acetone Rtnte Catch
of Total Inpingtr Catch
t
9/24/8A
56.116
20,638
110
CON
Acetone
TOC Rinte
a 109.91
0.011
5.541
0.018
«/*
Total
109.91
0.031
5. 541
0.018
TOC
80.52
0.049
10.031
O.OJJ
2
S/25/84
24.816
23,662
111
CON
Acetone
Rime
75,89
0.047
9.456
0.030
48.48
Total
156.41
0,0%
19.490
0.062
TOC
3J.1
0.022
4.634
0.01S
3
9/26/84
2S. 810
24,798
308
CON
Acetone
Rime
43. 37
0.025
5.418
0.018
53. 99
Total
80.4?
0.047
10.052
0.033
TOC
74. It
0.047
9.459
O.OJ5
4
9/27/84
23.924
23,630
267
CON
Acetone
Rime
412.63
0.260
52.629
0.197
84.96
Average
32.66
23,182
299
COM
• Total
486.79
0.307
62.088
O.J3I
TOC
63.93
0.039
8.042
0.027
Acetone
Rinse
177.30
0.110
22.501
0.082
75.5
b
Total
241.23
0.149
10.540
0.108
not include run 1.
-------
TABLE I'll. SUMMARIES OF K-VIHCER BACK HALF RESULTS DURING COHVEHTIONAL OPERATION CONTROLLED TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON AND IMPINGE* ACETONE RINSE VALUES
Run
Date
Voluoe Ca* Sampled (ducf»
Stick Kit Flow Rice dliclu)
Production Rite (toiu/hi)
PTOCCII Hi* Typ«
rx)
1
>— Bick Hi If Inplnger Catch
•g
gr/dicf
Ib/ton production
1
9/24/84
90.100
29.597
310
Convention*)
Acetone
TOC Rime Total
113.2 53.32 170.52
C.020 0.010 0.030
5.035 2.418 7.453
C.OI6 0.008 0.024
1
9/25/84
74.098
11.448
311
Conventional
Acetone
TOC Rinee Total
100.3 104.58 205.08
0.021 0.022 0.043
5.589 3.816 11.40
0.018 0.019 0.043
1
9/26/BJ, J
93.270
11.527
308
Conventional
Acetomi
TOC Rinte Total
106.7 61.61 168.31
0.017 0.010 0.017
4.661 2.691 7.352
0.015 0.009 0.024
4
9/27/64
90.S68
11.032
267
Convent ion* 1
Acetona
TOC Rinte
101.92 49.74
0.017 0.008
4.601 2.245
0.017 0.008
Average
87.109
30.901
199
Convention*!
Acetone
Total TOC Kinte Total
151.66 106.08 67.81 173
O.O23 0.019 O.OIIS 0
6.846 4.971 3.292 8
0.026 0.017 0.011 0
.89
.0315
.163
.026
of Total lapinger C»lih
32.S
4J. 7»
36.71
12.81
39.Hi
-------
Ut
TABLE 2-12. SUMMARIES OF IMPINGER BACK HAtP RESULTS DURING RECYCLE OPERATION UNCONTROLLED TOTJU. ORCABIC CARBON
AND IKPINCER ACETONE RINSE VALUES
Run
Date
Volume Gaa Sampled (dscf)
Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm)
Production Race (tons/hi)
Process Mix Type
Back Half Impinger Catch
mg
gr/d*cf
0.126 Ib/hr
Ib/ton production
5
9/28/84
24.315
23,294
329
RAP
Acetone
tOC Rin«e Total
54.43 26.31 80.84
0.034 0.061 0.095
6.704 3.230 9.934
0.020 0.010 0.030
6
9/28/84
24.279
22,244
313
RAP
Acetone
TOC Rinee
173.24 58.05
0.111 0.037
21.085 7.065
0.067 0,023
7
- 9/28/84
24.917
21,194
307
RAP
Acetone
Total TOC Rinse
231.29 63.84 153.10
0.148 0.040 0.096
28.150 7.617 18.261
0.090 0.025 0.059
Average
24.503
22,244
316.3
RAP
Acetone
Total TOC Rinse
216.94 97.21 79.15
0.136 0.062 0.065
25.880 11.802 9.518
0.084 0.037 0.030
Total
176.36
0.126
21.320
0.0670
Percent Acetone Rinse Catch
of Total Impinger Catch
32.55
25.03
70.58
42.77
-------
EPA audit TOG sample resulcs also show high variability at low concentrations.
The 95 percent confidence interval for Run 6 uncontrolled was +28.3 mg/1. If
similar confidence intervals were applied to the remainder o£ the test
samples, then a accurate interpretation of the TOC data cannot be made. Based
on this fact and the limited quantity of data, no conclusions or correlations
between convention and recycle operations can be made. The back half
emissions section provides explanations for inconsistencies in TOC data
including the negative removal efficiencies.
Additional information on lab results, TOC audit sample results and
confidence interval determination can be found in Appendix G.
2.1.3 Impinger Residue Film
These samples consisted of the impinger acetone rinses which were used to
remove the black film material condensed on the impingers and glassware. The
acetone rinses were dried to a constant weight and added to the TOC values.
These resulcs for the conventional and recycle operation are discussed in the
following sections.
2.1.3.1 Conventional Back Half Emissions—
Table 2-10 contains back half emission data for conventional uncontrolled
operation. The total TOC loadings for Runs 2, 3 and 4 were 0.096, 0.047 and
0,307 gr/dscf, respectively. No TOC value was obtained for Run 1 because of a
contaminated sample. The average back half TOC loading for conventional
operation was 0.149 gr/dscf with an average of 75.5 percent of the loading
coming from- the acetone rinses of the glassware. The corresponding
conventional controlled data is presented in Table 2-11. For Runs 1,2,3 and
4 the back half TOC loadings were 0.30, 0.043, 0.017 and 0.025 gr/dscf,
respectively. The average controlled back half TOC loading for conventional
operation was 0.031 gr/dscf with an average of 39,8 percent resulting from the
acetone rinses.
2.1.3.2 Recycle Back Half Emissions—
Back half TOC loadings for uncontrolled recycle operation are presented
in Table 2-12. The TOC loadings were 0.095, 0.148 and 0.136 gr/dscf for
Run 5, 6 and 7, respectively. The average total loading was 0.126 gr/dscf
with an average of 42.8 percent of the load found in the acetone rinses. Only
two controlled recycle runs were conducted. The back half results for these
two runs were O.iOo and 0.065 gr/dscf for Runs 5 and 6, respectively. The
average controlled back half loading was 0.088 gr/dscf. The average loading
found in the acetone rinse was 34.2 percent. Results for controlled back half
emissions can be found on Table 2-13.
2.1,3.3 Discussion of Impinger Back Half Results—
The back half TOC results are difficult to interpret. The back half
emission results show that from 20 to 85 percent of Che total load can adhere
to the glassware and must be rinsed off with acetone. Data Tables 2-1
through 2-8 do not account for this fact and present only the TOC values
obtained from the impinger solutions. In addition to this, the 95 percent
confidence interval established for some of the TOC samples show high
variability. Based on these facts, the conclusion can be made that the data
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-13, SUMMARIES OF IHPINGER BACK HALF RESULTS DURING RECYCLE OPERATION CONTROLLED TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
AND IMPINGER ACETONE RINSE VALUES
Run
Date
Volume Gas Sampled (dscf)
Stack Gas Flow Rate (ttscfm)
Production Rate (tons/hr)
•j3 Process Hix Type
Back Half Impinger Catch TOC
ng 321.90
gr/dicf 0.062
Ib/hr 13.319
Ib/ton production 0.040
Percent Acetone Rinse Catch
of Total Impinger Catch
5
9/28/84
80.787
25,087
329
RAP
Acetone
Rinse
238.86
0.046
9.883
0.030
42.85
6 7a
9/28/84
89,495 H/A
27,567
313
RAP
Acetone Acetone
Total TOC Rinse Total TOC Rinae Total
560.76 295.55 82.59 378.14
0.108 0.053 0.015 0,068
23.202 12.440 3.476 15.916 H/A
0.070 0.038 0.011 0.049
21.84
Average
85,14
26,327
321
RAP
Acetone
TOC Rinse
308.72 160.72
0.057 0,031
12.879 6.679
0.040 0.021
34,15
'
Total
469.44
0.088
19.558
0.061
*No controlled run conducted.
-------
for IOC shown in Data Tables 2-1 through 2-8 are highly questionable. The
fact that varying amounts of TOG can adhere to the glassware helps explain the
inconsistencies in ehe TOC data including the negative removal efficiencies.
The back half emission results in Tables 2-9 through 2-12 probably gives a
better indication of TOC loading than those provided in Tables 2-1 through 2-8.
2.1,4 Visible Emission Results
Visible emission observation reading were taken by a certified reader.
The opacity of a plume can be -assigned the greatest degree of accuracy when
viewed under conditions where a contrasting background is present. During
most of the test week overcast skies, creating a bad background, prevented
readings from being taken. Readings for both conventional and recycle
production that were obtained are discussed below.
2.1.4.1 Visible Emissions During Conventional Operation-
Opacity readings were performed during conventional test Run 2. Approxi-
mately 3 hours of readings-were conducted. Table 2-14 present the 6 minute
averages for this time period. The results are also represented graphically
in Figure 2-1. The average opacity during this conventional test was
0.25 percent. The maximum 6 minute opacity was 1.25 percent. Field data
sheets for these readings can be found in Appendix A.
2.1.4.2 Visible Emissions During Recycle Operation-
Table 2-15 presents the results of the visible emission observation
readings conducted during recycle production. Graphic representation of these
results is shown in Figure 2-2. These readings were performed during recycle
test 5 and continued into Run 6 and 7. The average 6 minute average opacity
during these readings was 4.50 percent. The maximum 6 minute average opacity
for this period was 5.0 percent. Field data sheet for these opacity readings
can be found in Appendix A.
2.1.4.3 Discussion of Visible Emission Results—
The average opacity rose from 0.25 percent during conventional opertion
to 4.5 during recycle operation. The particulate emissions data show that the
controlled particulate emission during recycle operation are well below the
controlled particulate emissions during conventional operation. Therefore,
the increase in opacity during recycle operation is not due to particulate
emissions and probaDiy due to an increase in condensibie hydrocarbon emissions.
2.1.5 Moisture Determinations of Process Samples
Discrete grab samples of virgin aggregate and recycled asphalt pavement
were obtained during each of the sampling runs. A representative portion of
these samples was weighed, dried and reweighed to determine weight loss due to
moisture.
2.1.5.1 Conventional Operation Moisture Results—
A total of four samples of virgin aggregate were taken one for each
conventional run. The samples were obtained directly from the feed
conveyors. Table 2-16A presents the moisture determination result for
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-14. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS DURING
CONVENTIONAL OPERATION
Date
Run No.
Time
Average opacity
for 6 minutes
9-25-84 2 1300
1312
1318
1500
1506
isia
1518
1524
1530
1536
1542
1548
1554
1600
1606
1612
1618
1624
1630
1636
1642
1648
1654
1700
1706
1712
1718
1724
1730
1736
1.25
0.625
0.625
0
0.208
0
0.416
0
0
0
0
0.208
0.208
0.208
0
0.416
0
0.208
0.208
0
0.208
0
0.416
0.833
0.208
0.416
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.625 AVE 0.25
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-15. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS DURING RECYCLE OPERATION
Dace Run No. Time
9-28-84 5 1032
1038
1044
'1050
1056
1102
1108
1117
1122
1128
1134
11 40
1146
1152
1158
1204
1210
1216
1222
6 1228
1239
1245
1251
1257
1303
1309
1315
1327
7 1333
1339
1357
1403
1409
1415
1421
1427
1433
1439
1445
1451
1457
Average opacity
for 6 minutes
3.54
4.58
4.37
4.79
5.0
4.37
5.0
5.0
4.79
4.16
4.79
4.58-
4.79
4.58
4.37
4.58
4.37
4.32
4.58
4.58
4.79
4.58
4.79
4.37
4.58
4.58
4.79
4.79
4.58
5.0
4.79
4.79
4.37
5.0
4, 53
4,79
4.58
4.37
4.79
4.37
5.0 "• AVG. 4.50
2-20
-------
conventional operation. The average moisture content of virgin aggregate
during conventional testing was 2.4 percent. The field data sheets can be
found in Appendix D.
2,1.5.2 Recycle Operation Moisture Results—
A total of 4 samples were taken for moisture determination during recycle
production. One virgin aggregate sample and one RAP sample for each recycle
test run. No sample was taken for 7 uncontrolled. The results of these tests '
are presented in Table 2-16B. The average moisture content of the virgin
aggregate during recycle operation was 3,3 percent. The average moisture
content of the recycled asphalt pav.ement samples was 3.1 percent. Field data
sheet for these determinations are in Appendix D.
2.1.6 Smoke Point Determinations
Two recycled asphalt pavement samples were collected during recycle
production. The results of the stnoke point tests are shown in Table 2-17.
The average smoke point temperature for the RAP samples was 352°F.
2,1.7 flash foint Determinations
Two different types of asphalt cement are used during production, one is
used during conventional production, the other during recycle production. One
asphalt cement sample was taken for each production mode. The results of the
flash point testing are presented in Table 2-18,
2.1.8 Viscosity of Asphalt Cemenc_ Saagles^
The two asphalt cement samples were also analyzed for viscosity. The
viscosity results are presented in Table 2-19.
2.1.9 Fuel Oil Sample
One fuel oil sample was taken and retained for possible analysis.
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-16. SUMMARY OF PROCESS SAMPLE MOISTURE MEASUREMENTS
TABLE 2-16A. CONVENTION OPERATION
Run No*
C-l
02
C-3
C-4
Date
9-24-84
9-25-84
9-26-84
9-27-84
Time
1436
1520
1045
1015
Virgin aggr«
Sample
wt. g
314.5
274.7
224.6
217.2
igace
Moisture
by weight %
2.1
2.0 .
2.3
3.2
TABLE 2-16B. RECYCLE OPERATION
Virgin aggregate
Run No.
R-l
R-2
Sample
Date Time wt. g
9-28-84 0920 212.5
9-28-84 1355 217.1
Moisture
by weight %
4.3
1.7
Recycle asphalt pavement
Time
0925
1358
Sample
wt. g
214.3
203.5
Moisturt
by weight %
2.0
4.1
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-17. SUMMARY OF SMOKE POINT DETERMINATIONS
Run
Collection
date
Time
Sample
type
Smoke
point
temperature °P
R-l
R-2
9-28-84
9-28-84
0925
1358
RAP
RAP
344
360
TABLE 2-18. SUMMARY OF FLASH POINT DETERMINATIONS
Run
Date
Time
Sample
type
Flash
point
temperature "C
Conven- 9-24-84
tional
Recycle 9-28-84
1422
1356
Asphalt: cement
Asphalt cement
244 °C
218°C
TABLE 2-19. VISCOSITY RESULTS OF ASPHALT CEMENT SAMPLES
Sample
Conventional
Recycle
Temp.
"F
140
140
Vacuum
(mm of Hg)
300
300
Viscosity
(poises)
1,153
876
2-23
-------
D-
4-
3-
n-
i
L r
ol nlnnl
J
J-f • • i | ! 1
I20C 1300 1400 ISOO . I60O 1700 I8C
TIME
Figure 2-1. Six-minute average opacity during conventional operation.
-------
I
NJ
Ul
- 4-
o
-------
3,0
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
This section provides a. brief description of the asphalt concrete plant
operated by Western Engineering Company, Inc., (Western) near Lincoln,
Nebraska. The procedures used to monitor the operation of the asphalt
concrete plant during both conventional and recycle operation are also
presented in this section.
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
A description of the Western asphalt concrete plant (including the
emissions control system) is presented in this section.
3.1.1 Process Equipment Description
Western operates a portable CMI plant presently located on Highway 34
between Lincoln and Seward, Nebraska. The plant normally operates 11 to
12 hours per day, 6 days per week. Technical data on the plant are presented
in Table 3-1.
The operation of this plant is typical of drum-mix plants. Figure 3-1 is
a schematic of the production process for a typical drum-mix asphalt concrete
plant. Western has four feed bins for virgin aggregate and one feed bin for
the recycled asphalt pavement (RAP). Aggregate from each bin is metered onto
a conveyor according to the type of mix desired and transported to the burner
end of the rotating drum. The programmable controller unit automatically
delivers the proper amount of each aggregate to the feed belt. The aggregate
is heated and moves down the drum as the drum rotates. When mixes containing
RAP are produced, the RAP is added tangentially to the drum midway between the
burner end and the terminal end. The RAP is mixed with the heated virgin
aggregate; then the asphalt cement is injected into the drum countercurrent to
the direction of the aggregate flow at a point about 5 feet down the drum from
the RAP entry point. No recycling agents are used by Western. (The Nebraska
Department of Transportation specifies that a 120 to 150 penetration grade
asphalt cement be used in mixes containing RAP). The final product drops out
the terminal end of the drum at a temperature of about 290°F for RAP mixes or
about 305°F for conventional mixes. The final product is lifted to a
100-ton-capacity surge bin that is insulated but not heated.
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1. TECHNICAL DATA ON ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANT
WESTERN ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Plant designation
Type plant
Mobility
Plant manufacturer
Model UDM-190Q
Date purchased
Capacity—rated/typical, cons/h (see text)
Burner—manufacturer
model No.
rating, raillion Btu's
blower, scfra
Drum size—diameter, ft
length, ft
Product temperature—conventional, °F
leogch, ft
Asplialt"No. of tanks
storage capacity, gal
grade
heater fuel
Storage—capacity, tons
type
insulated
Drum-mix
Portable
CMI
19783
430/300-330
Mr.
Hauck
JB 630-133
133.7
7,300
9,5/8.5^
40
275*290
40
30,000 gal
85-1000 or
120-150 pen.=
No. 2 fuel
100
Surge bin
Yes
aDrum modified in February or March 1983.
^Burner end of drum has larger diameter.
C85-100 penetration grade asphalt cement used for conventional mix',
120-150 penetration grade asphalt cement used for recycle mix.
3-2
-------
This plant is rated at 430 tons/h at 4.5 percent moisture removal but is
usually operated at about 300 to 350 tons/h. The actual production capacity
of an asphalt concrete plant is influenced by weather, type mix produced,
moisture content of aggregate and RAP, and usage race of the paving crew.
Daring this testing at the Western plant, the highest production rate
that could be .maintained was approximately 310 tons/hr which was actually
slightly below the normal usage rate of the paving crew. Plant personnel
indicated that the most important factor in this lower production capacity was
probably the cold and windy weather conditions experienced during the
testing. These conditions caused more of the heat from the flame to be lost
to the surroundings as radiant and convective heat from the outside surface of
the drum than would be lost during warmer and less windy weather. Also, more
heat was required to heat the cold aggregate and inlet air than would be
required under summer conditions.
At a production rate of 310 tons/h, the dust return mechanism between the
baghouse and the dryer-drum at the Western plant was overloaded when
conventional surface mixed was produced. The excess dust overflowed onto the
ground and had to be manually removed. Dust overloading was less during
production of mixes containing RAP.
3.1.2 Emission Control System Description
The process emissions from the drum-mix plant are evacuated from the
discharge end of the drum and go through a knockout chamber to remove large
particles and to slow the exhaust gas stream. From the knockout chamber, the
emissions are ducted to a negative-pressure baghouse. The specifications for
the baghouse are presented in Table 3-2.
At startup, the baghouse is preheated for several 30-second intervals
before aggregate is fed into the drum. The shutdown procedures involve
allowing the baghouse to run through its normal cleaning cycle while the drum
is cooling and the surge bin is being unloaded.
The bags in the baghouse were laundered and about 25 percent were
replaced when the plant was moved to its present site in August 1984. Since
that time, new seals have been installed on all the bags to ensure that no air
leaks would occur. The baghouse was "visolite" inspected on September 19,
several bags were replaced, and the baghouse was again "visolite" inspected on
September 20 before testing began on September 24.
3.2 PROCESS MONITORING
The operation of the drum-mix plant and the baghouse was monitored during
testing on September 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. Tables 3-3 through 3-7 provide a
list of the process and control device information that was obtained during
this period.
Although the design production rate of this plant is reported by CMI to
be 430 tons/hr at 4.5 percent moisture removal, during this testing the
highest production rate that could be maintained was approximately 310 tons/h
3-3
-------
AGGREGATE FROM
STORAGE
ASPHALT FflOM STORAGE
RECYCLED ASPHALT
PAVEMENT
PRODUCT TO STORAGE
TO
ATMGSI'lltltt
BAGIIOUSE
TREl
DUST RECYCLED
TO PROCESS
Figure 3-1. Schematic of asphalt concrete drum-mix plant.
-------
TABLE 3-2. TECHNICAL DATA ON THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE
WESTERN ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Type
Manufacturer
Total air flow rate
Age of baghouse
Number of bags
Bag material
Bag dimensions
diameter
length
Total cloth area
Pressure drop
Bag cleaning mechanism
Date current bags installed
Air-to-eloth ratio
Fan motor size
Baghouse outlet
Dust disposal
Negative pressure baghouse
Aeropulse
56,000 acfm
5 years
900
14 oz./ft2 Nomex
4.5 in.
8.5 ft
9,200 ft*
5 in. w.c.
Pulse jet
August 19843
6.3:1
2-100 hp each
Rectangular steel stack
Recycled to drum
aCurrent bags were installed new in August 1983. They were laundered and
reinstalled in August 1984.
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-3. PROCESS AND CONTROL INFORMATION—SEPTEMBER 24, 1984
I*rouli*e~ R,t£ltou£« Htif it«?r li»*ta~ Wind
i ion A|u?r**" inlet Mi* ***i- T«?*m»* t*v** -—.-__—___.,,»
1 IIM; tfili tjih i pit tp»* *F *F I in. w«c. Mel ftry try In. HA "P** t*ir» C. 110 ID.) S.J* Uf* 50 71 ?4.4? Lrt K Cloudy ukttff, No V.K.
I ; in i.M tOH i) li.4 »^S Tin MM! S.A Outlet *#•£ begaa 1:10,
inlet test be^«n 1;)?,
I:.'.'. JIH 111) ii U.6 l'7(t
:> 11.1 29i 0 11.7 272
2:1fl 10H 291 (i 11,7 27)
1*1
p, i;0i) 111 I'M 0 li.J >m
t;fi 112 2«*7 O 1S.M 2RH
1:H» JDS 2-J1 II ll.fi 281!
l:iV TO* 194 11 11. « 2?5
4: 11.4 274
*:'Hi 111 298 II U,4 272
5: It ll» JIW H li.l 27O
„„„..
1. Convent ional aurla^R mitt.
Hit 'Ml 5. A
1.1(1 Inn S.4S Lovcreil pruUuct ion race Co
1111 IDA S.h ' Aiphal t cr.ment sa«pli- taken
Kll ino S.i.5 49 t^ fit 29,92 15 E Atrnn-xat e snnple titken >t
111) inu f.&
i
lit '»5 >,4
nn mo 5,t
110 1011 t.4 V> tfc <»H , 29.91' in t; i;l<...dy s(sip», Kr> V.t,
IDS '»t i.4,
1'lft *(8 ^,6 Outlet t«-»t c<>"|»l*t* 49 5t A« 29.92 IS E Clnud? ikiei. Ha V.E.
readings.
110 in t.A
10? inn t.fi
ion inn 5,6 Inlet tc.l co«pirt«l 5:15.
-------
TABLE 3-4. PROCESS AND CONTROL INFORMATION—SEPTEMBER 25, 1984
w
Tirae
9:11
12-54
1:00
1:15
3:00
J:I5
Proiluc-
t inn
rat«',
tph
305
117
115
31)8
305
110
fiatc,
cph
290
30-?
ino
29)
290
295
inlet
RAP, AC, I4»*np. t
tph tph "T
0 14.7 2SO
0 15.2 275
0 14.', ?!5
0 14,6 375
0 14.5 ?80
Hi*
t t'JSIp . ,
•F
120
no
312
JI1
Burnrr
set™ Temp.
£ in. v.e. «*>r ftry
inn 5,fc "18 ' \i
100 ».* 44 51
KM) 5.6
illf) 5.6 45 54
1OO "i.5
R*U- Wind
lujtn id~ B«t]fontt!£ iir , Speeu ,
ity in. Hg mph I>i r. Cotmntnts
?1 29. Q2 30 SE Flant down from 9:^0- l?;30
deck.
l»t inlet test bepan 12:56.
57 31.31 30 SE Mu«tl>r clear skies. V,E.
readings taken.
Plant down from 1:31-2:45
creu.
4.4 ' in. 11 25 SE Clear ikiei. V.E. reading*
taken.
Completed lit inlet lest
at
3:26. Collected aggregate
3:30
3:45
4:1)0
4:15
4:10
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
312
J15
311
310
309
311
310
112
111
304
297
300
298
29ft
295
296
295
297
296
290
0 14. « 2«3 '
n 14,, 2*0
0 14.8 270
ii 14,2 ion
0 14.1 270
0 14.* 270
il 14.5 268
0 14. J 265
0 14.* 260
fl 14.1 365
J2n
111
in"»
MO
101
3OO
3»7
2<*
293
295
100 5.*
90 5.4
inn 5,6 45 55
ion 5.5
100 5.7
ion s.f,
ino 5.6 45 ">5
ino 5.7
100 1,6
ino s.6
•ample *t 3:20.
2nd inlet test begun at 4
'<4 3tl.1l 25 SE Clear skiea. V.E. readin
taken.
•M VI. 3 J 25 SE
Completed outlet test at
5:15.
:57
H*
2nd inlet teat completed at
5:49.
Ccnnt inueJ)
-------
TABLE 3-4 (continued)
ProJac- ft.^lmii.t*' Burner IU-Li~ Wind
I inn Ax*r**- inlet Mix ,>t-i - T (*&{•>* t ive -».-.™.-™.™_,».*«
race, p m<, MAI11 Ai:, ( I-HWJ*. , |«nii]t*, ( hiv., if, „„,_,._,_ (HIM id-- tijtrcnweter, Sj»*etl,
t|ih tph i f»li t |*M *F "I* t in. w.c. W^t l»ry i£y In. Hg »ph 0j r>
6 ;00 3W^ 2 ?.« f> |), J 2f»S 10? MM* ^ .*» i 2 *? 4O JO. 14 22
ft: IS 2K8 2?> i* 11.4 2?1 HU 1'W ^.?
^no >m 2'^ s^ 11.S j?:i VHt K*0 S.A PUut sliut down for day.
I. *:onv«-!"t ivn.il »iiii;*t-,- mij(€ 6. 2n-l tr»l^l test invjlid *1w*» Iw leaks in sanpling t,r*in.
2. Viftbln DH this iliiM*. ^- v'i-M ],•.'.! i-\i> * ?.?*> Kiiiymtn Jt 100 pL-rcPnl burner cap
1. ls£ Inlet cest tc«v;iH.i iiu*» to tan* tiller. *%. A^^r.-tf.iti» j»«if.£iir%' co»le«C * 2.fl percent.
l
CD
-------
TABLE 3-5. PROCESS AND CONTROL INFORMATION—SEPTEMBER 26, 1984
tion AKRr*- Inli"
r.ttf, Rili', K.U', AC. temf
Time tph tph Iph tph *F
Hurner Rel»- Wind
Mix set- Temp. tSvt' „____———_
tpm|>», ting, AP» . humid- Sariwaerer, Speed,
"f 1 in. «.c. Wet llry ity in. tig »ph Dir.
9:30 305
«:A1 105
m:fln 307
10:1 i till
4,3
14.5
11.3
J78
275
273
310
m
3 no
inn
100
loo
If HI
ino
KM
1.5
i.S
5.7
18
M.*ia
NW Cloudy -.ki.'j. No V.f.
readines taken.
Outlet t*«t begun a:3-.
Inlet test: bVftun IO:C*
sj
«.•>;»
10:30 3i>!
10;4^ JOT
0 lii.t
•I 14.0
1 1>0 5 , *
CO
vo
1 I ;iW }07
11:15 1(M
11.1
II 14.1
inn
Ml- 1111
'..<•
-5
>»
w.w
Inlet Celt
11:02.
Cloiidv ji
Nn V.F..
11:10 102
11:45 2»7
12:00 301
2HJ
0 1J. t
a ii,7
<) 11.9
297
Iftrl
'1.5
ur 1
11:30
13.*
IIHt
5.5
39 47 47
W.4R
10
NW ClnuJy skies. Ho V.
Not«3:
). Convent ianal ^tirfa^a' (nin.
1. Plant dawn fr»m II:19-7iO» for rrpjirs U'li.iin off v«nv feeder).
4, Production rat* lt»v/«Ttf^ at 2:OO to control rfn»t lit r.
S. Cancelled test in aft*rn*ton dut* to !nw product ton rate an«l short projected run time.
6. Afgjgreiate noifltur* content v 2.4 percent. "
-------
TABLE 3-6. PROCESS AND CONTROL INFORMATION—SEPTEMBER 27, 1984
1
I-*
o
Hroiluc- ft;iptuiui»e Huriier
cinit AR^r**™ inlet Miw Kft~
rate, Kar*"» HAP, AC, t***p. , ti-nfi,, ting*
TJBHJ , tph I |>I| tph tpli *F *F I
9:«n 2f>B 251 0 IJ.5 110 3(15 40
•
»:I5 269 2-S6 0 12.5 2*5 W2 «5
9:"i»l 2I>8 155 (» 17.0 JnO l.'.fl >0
9:'i5 ZAS 25J 0 13.4 270 WO 4ft
IO:fiO 35 :">5 45
1:45 2ft4 J5L' 0 IJ.J 2«» 1HB 4»
2:00 25H 24'. 0 12.2 JJO ?«« «O
2:15 26? 251. 0 11,1 J?i Till 40
J:15, 211 25« 0 12,9 250 IfiO 50
4:00 2J1 26<( 0 12.5 165 JOO 50
Relj- Hind
in'. ».<-. Wfi Dry it) in, Hfj «|>ti Dir. CoanenEi
4.7 44 4t 8*. 10. )0 5 H Cloudy iki*«. Ho r.J.
readin^M. Inlet ttft begun
9:04. Outlet tetc b^jun
9:06,
4.1
4.H
4.H
4.B :,k 49 M 1d.ll 5 N Cloudy ikle*. Ho V.E.
', reading*.
5.) Agyrenate sampled at iS:l5.
5.4
5.1 Production rate lowered 4u*
to bulldotcr probleaj. Teit
•topped from 10:45-2:00.
».fc
5.2 4I> 51 hi 10.)} $ N Cloudy tkiei. No V.E.
couplet* at 2:08.
4.9 riant production rate doun
Iron 2:21 until about 1:00
due to bulldozer problem.
fltat down froi* about 3;15~
3:30 due to lo*c of air
2:21 until 4:01.
4. a
5.0 46 54 54 10.11 Z E Cloudy •*<**, Ho t?.t.
(con! inited)
-------
TABLE 3-6 (continued)
Timp
4 MS
V.30
i:40
rroduc-
rttf.
Cph
276
27i
273
p.lti-, BAP,
1 |>h I pli
21.1 0
2h2 0
2S9 0
R.ighouae ttnrniT Rula- Wind
f ph *F "*f 7 in. w.c. Vet Dry ily in. Hft nph Dir. CofflEicnta
12. fl 2o« 295 52 VO
12.1 2*>H 318 VI l>. 9
17. f> 2n% 2°A i"> 4.4 Outlet test complete at
4:41.
Notes :
I. Convent.nortl curTac** mix. ,
2. No visible rtraissions rend due tu clouily nkiuft.
1* General production rate lower on thii date Ju*» l^ jirf>Hl^ro,t with th*» bn I tdnrr-r that WJDI used to load i»K£ rebate into the feed bin*. T#gt was i topped
during l wo periods uht-n prodirCtinn rate "aB hehtv 2^0 tph*
&. PJant down from ^Sont 1:15 until 3:30 iluf* to plant n»r pr^^siirt* J^fin, >
5. Aggregflte moisture cnntoot " 1^1 percent.
-------
TABLE 3-7, PROCESS AND CONTROL INFORMATION—SEPTEMBER 28, 1984
l*rt**lwc- ftngiioiisc Burnt-r Rel*- "-Jind
(Mill AKfcr«'~ ifilt'l Hil *t*l" TI?IIIJI. t I ve *._^__--*-——-
c;*t»-. KOC» „ SAP. ^i-, t*>np. , i**Mp., linK* AP, '—'~—' humid- ft*ro«eier, Sp«*cd.
1 IMF- I fill t (lit {|*ti t |>li *K *F t in, u.c. Mt't llry ity in. H}t R|>h Dir.
H;(iu }S< 1/1 HI HI.I 12(1 ?«<> Km 4.8 IS la 71 10.^5 5 St Cl l?a 110 HJ.J UO 3'W 10ft 4.4 lit •iu(l«t l«*t h*j|«n8!|S.
lit inlrt ir«t b^fan H:l$.
1»( intrt tr«l he^an A:20.
H: 1.1 l)l In1) |i.<> !•).<) Ui) :H*i I on ',.; Hl.int iluwn at H:it i
(ruck short •««•.
' r^iHiir i fl. Culled
Viillect DAP nani|>ie at 9:2S.
9: ifl 111 IhS |Sd .«,! 1|S 2«t) Kill f..« Plant Jiiwn »: M-lli; I'
I fMt1'* ?:h»irla4***
|H:','i HH ItiJ Jh<> 9.7 J.',» 1US Hi 4.0 J"> '.S S« 1(1.42 |;1 SE Kr«t;irt test, Partly cl.iuJy
»ki«f>. V.K. rcailinz hP)!it«
Ji Id; In.
|ii:»> 117 .IS'. IS.* ".(. 1« Mil "> 1.1
l»!is i.!l ISH ISI v.s (in ,'HI ?i" .',.<> i;UB|>l,. V.fc.
llr'.S 1li> I*>(V do «.l tl» J.I S <;•! *4.'i
I?:«M !.•'• B'. IS» «.', li» Ml JS fc.« l-t«l>l.
-------
TABLE 3-7 (continued)
tim:
12 i 3ll
12:45
1:00
1 : l>
IrHO
1:45
2:00
U) :
,1, 7:15
Ul
2:30
2:45
2:50
Mntia.
1. 50
•>. Vi
3. Th
Produc- »agbou«e
lon £?.rtf- in e ix
rate, Rnt?[ RAP, AC, tf*mp. | temp..
tph tfiti Iph tph *F *F
319 1V» 15S 9.5 }V> 295
112 151 152 9.2 34» 295
309 145 155 8.5 350 295
310 ISO 152 8.3 J45 295
1U HO 154 9.1 142 - 290
30(i 150 147 9.1 348 294
3OJ 149 149 9.1 340 285
115 152 154 9.3 34? 2S4
305 14? 155 9.1 J45 292
101 14S 150 ft. 9 J48 2««
101 150 142 9.1 145 2«0
percent RAP mix.
sible emissions reading tak*;n after tft;3n.
Riirner Kel«- Wind
HP vmp, tiwt
tfng, aP, ~ ™™~* hufflid™ BarOfliettfr» Speed,
? in. w.c. Wot Dry ity in, Hg oiph Dir, CoatiaeDti
78 4.7 40 49 43 30.52 25 S Scattered clouds. 2nd
outlet teit began 12:11.
71 4.7
70 4.7 . Complete 2nd inlet test at
1:02,
74 4.7
72 it.l 40 49 41 30.50 25-30 S Cl<-«r skies. Asphalt cew-u
.sdiRple taken at 1:30. &£f it\
Ird inlet test at 1:14.
72 4.9 Aggregate tagiple tnkert at
1:55, KAP sample taken at
!:5H.
71 . 5.1
72 4.7 3r<) inlet test completed j:
2:29.
79 5,0 40 49 43 10.48 25 S Scattered cluuds.
79 4.«
79 5.0 Complete 2nd out If t tent.
Two d£$rt»$aE.e -ind two RAP »ni«|i>luA tak^n on rhis (Jat«. A?xft-g.it^ mninr.irr content - ft»2 percent and 1.7 pfrci-nt, RAF moifiLut^ content • 2.0
and 4.3 p#rc
-------
(see Section 3.1,1). On September 27, the production rate was lowered to
about 270 tons/h due to problems with the loader that was used to fill the
feed bins. Assuming 310 tons/h as the maximum production capacity of the
plant, then 270 tons/h is 87 percent of capacity.
The baghouse inlet temperature was measured by a thermocouple in the duct
between the drum and the baghouse. The mix temperature was measured by a
thermocouple at the lower exit end of the drum. It should be noted that the
mix temperature for mixes containing RAP is approximately 20° or 30°P lower
than that for conventional mixes. Plant personnel reported that a lower mix
temperature is usually maintained for RAF mixes to minimize smoking. It
should also be noted that while the baghouse inlet temperature is generally
lower than the mix temperature when conventional mixes are produced, the
reverse is true when RAP mixes are produced. Plant personnel reported that a
thermocouple on the drum typically indicated a mid-drum temperature of 600* to
700°F when RAP mixes were produced. However, this thermocouple was inoperable
during the test period.
The burner was operated at or close to 100 percent of capacity during
most of the test period, A fuel burning rate of 7.75 gai/min of Ko. 5 fuel
oil was reported by plant personnel while the burner was at 100 percent of
capacity. This fuel rate was read off a flow meter at the burner. Due to the
inaccessability of this flow meter and for safety reasons, only the percent of
burner capacity was recorded during testing'.
The pressure drop across the baghouse was recorded from a water manometer
mounted on the baghouse. This pressure drop varied from 4.0 to 5.8 in. w.c.
The low pressure drops were observed during periods of low production or while
RAP mixes were being produced. These periods presumably corresponded to
periods of lower particulate loading on the filter.
Aggregate sieve/screen analyses and other data on the product mixes
produced on September 24, 25,^26, 27. and 28 are given in Table 3-8. It
should be noted that penetration grade 85-100 asphalt cement was reportedly
used with conventional mix, and penetration grade 120-150 asphalt cement was
reportedly used with EAP mix. Samples of both asphalt cements were taken to
determine their viscosity at 14QaF and smoke points. Conventional mixes were
produced on the first 4 days of testing and were used on the roadway surface.
A 50 percent RAP mix was produced on the last day of testing and was used on
the shoulder surface. Tuc aieVe/screer. analysis indicates that the RAP si*
contains less material that is greater than 3/8 in. or that is fine enough to
pass a No. 200 sieve than does the conventional mix. Plant personnel reported
that less of the very fine virgin aggregate is used in RA? nixes than in
convene ions1 mixes,
The stack from the baghouse was continuously observed during the
testing* Although a steam plume developed when the ambient temperature was
below about 50°F» it had no affect on visible emission readings.
A large amount of dust was emitted from the dust return system under the
baghouse. This was caused by an overloading of this dust return system and
leaks in the dust return auger and pipe. Additional airborne particulate
3-14
-------
matter was also observed blowing off the virgin aggregate storage piles and
neighboring fields. These were taken into consideration while the visible
emissions were being observed.
3.3 TESTING INFORMATION
The sampling crew from GCA set up equipment arid prepared for the test on
Saturday and Sunday, September 22 and 23. Due to a last minute schedule
change by Western, which MBI was not informed of, the plant produced RAP mix
on part of Friday and all of Saturday and Sunday, September 21, 22, and 23,
This drastically reduced the available SAP material before testing could begin
on Monday, September 23. Plant personnel reported that their contract with
the State required that they use all RAP material before conventional mix
could be substituted for RAF mix. Although Ton Wagoner, Plant Manager,
requested a waiver of this requirement through Pat Pattison, Vice President of
Western, the State of Nebraska would not grant a waiver. Because of the
diminished RAP supply, one Method 5E test at the outlet of the baghouse and
all Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) tests were cancelled.
One Method 5E test at Che baghouse inlet 2nd one at the baghcusc outlet
were performed while the plant was producing conventional mix on Monday,
September 24. Weather prevented additional testing on this date.
On Tuesday, September 25, one Method 5E test was run at the outlet, and
two Method 51 tests were run at the iolet. Both inlet tests were invalid,
however, due to a torn filter on the first run and sanpling train leaks on the
second run. Only conventional aix was produced, on this date.
On Wednesday morning, September 26, one Method 5E test at the baghouse
inlet and one at the baghouse outlet were performed while the plant was
producing conventional mix. The production rate was lowered in the afternoon
to help control overloading of the dust return vane feeder system and the
resulting dumping of dust under the baghouse. Due to this lower production
rate and projected short plant operating time, no tests were performed on
Wednesday afternoon.
On Thursday, September 27, one Method 5E test at the baghouse inlet and
one at the outlet were completed. Only conventional mix was produced on this
date. As discussed in the process monitoring section of this report, the
nrnrfiirtlft nn raf(» on this Hs»f.« wj»s 1 nuetr f.h&n Ch«r: riurrnej previous testing. The
test was stopped during periods when the production rate dropped below
80 percent of the 310 tons/h capacity observed on September 23, 24, and 25.
The plant was also down during part of this day due to a loss of air
prassurs. The loss of air pressure was caused by a stuck valve in tha pulse
cleaning mechanism in the baghouse. Compressed air is used throughout the
plant to control various gates and valves.
On Friday, September 28, two Method 5£ tests were run.at the baghouse
outlet, and three Method 5E tests were run at the baghouse inlet while
50 percent RAP mix was produced. Due to inadequate RAP material, additional
testing was not possible.
3-16
-------
The production rate on this date was lowered by about 7 percent at about
10:30 a.m. in order to balance plant production with demand by the paving crew
and to slow depletion of the RAP stockpile and thus allow collection of a
maximum amount of test data without jeopardizing the quality of the data.
3-17
-------
SECTION 4.0
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
A diagram of Western Engineering Company's asphalt cement process is
presented in Figure 4-1. The approximate location and the parameters measured
at each sampling location is also included in this figure. This section
contains a description of the sampling locations used for this emission test
program.
4.1 BAGHOUSE INLET SAMPLING LOCATION
Uncontrolled emissions were measured in the duct work between the
knockout chamber and the baghouse. The flue gas exits the knockout chamber
through a 54" diameter duct. This duct creates a 180" arc between knockout
and baghouse as shown in Figure 4-2. A preliminary velocity profile showed
minimal cyclonic flow. However, stratification of particulate against the
outside wall of the duct was possible. Sampling for particulate, flow rate,
moisture, TOC and C02~C>2 was performed at the baghouse end of the duct
before it diverged into the baghouse. This location was the only possible
sampling location. It was 6" upstream and 6" downstream from closest flow
disturbances requiring 24 sampling point as per EPA Method I. Figure 4-3
depicts sampling points for this duct.
4.2 BAGHOUSS OUTLET SAMPLING LOCATION
Controlled emission samples were collected at the outlet stack. Flue gas
was drawn through the baghouse by an induced draft fan and exited the fan
through a flow control damper located just downstream as depicted by
Figure 4-4. The gas then traveled vertically up a 12' rectangular stack. The
sampling ports were located 8 ft downstream of the flow control damper and
4 ft upstream of the stack exit. Figure 4-5 shows the seven, 3-inch sampling
ports located in the long side o£ a 39.5 by 52 inch rectangular stack. These
ports were used for particulate, TOC, orsat, gas flow rate and moisture
measurements.
4.3 VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATIONS
Visible emission readings were conducted, at the outlet stack during the
sampling runs. However, background interference limited the number of runs
that have concurrent readings. Approximately 3 hours of reading were
4-1
-------
FLOW RATE
VISIBIU EMISSIONS FLOw RATE
PANICULATE, TOC PARTICULATE TOC
02, CO.,, N2, MOISTURE o2, C02, N2
MOISTURE
\
OUTLET
STACK
BAGHOUSE
c
"—PRESSURE DROP
^ASPHALT
- CEMENT
STORAGE
FLASH PT
SMOKE PT
VISCOSITY
MOISTURE
SMOKE POINT
VIRGIN
AGGREGATE
BINS
MOISTURE
FUEL OIL
•Visible emission observation location
Figure 4-1. Sampling locations and parameters.
-------
Sampling Conducted for:
- particulate
- TOC
- 02, C02, N2
- Moisture
- Flow Rate
KNOCK OUT
CHAMBER
ROTARY KILN
Figure 4-2. Baghouse inlet location.
-------
•54
AI2
812-**-
— - — .
\
X
\
\
\
* • * » * •
DlS
*,
Oi *
3 -•*
PORT A
PORT 8
DISTANCE
IN Ineht*
Si.86
SO. 38
47.62
44.44
• 40, SO
•34.77
19.22
13.50
9.SS
6.37
• 3.61
• !. 13
Figure 4-3. Baghouse inlet sampling points.
4-4
-------
Sampling Conducted for:
I
Ln
particulate
TOC
02, C02, N2
Moisture
Flow Rate
BAGHOUSE
Figure 4-4. Baghouse outlet sampling location.
-------
^ T | 1 1|
• ' • ' • 1 • ! • *|*
! ! i i_ i
, T i i i
m ' » m m • • i •
' . ' 1 L -!— .
r ^ ^ i i i
• •!••* • " i a
*'"*.* * l *
1 ' ' - i
III I
jH AfgB.JHigl ^ * g. ^^
• * 1 * | * | • • »
. _, t _i i -L
^ i r
* A 1 * • , • A ' •——
* ! • L •
\~~ ' '" ' \ \ •
• 1 . •.At A^^_
l * 1 | i '
LJ LJ IJ LI LJ LJ II
_ „,.,„. _ ^ * T ^ *
, - „ .„, 9 T 5 *
* -i«»
42.S" 3aO" 32.3" 26.0" 18.5" 13.0" 6.5"
A 8 • C 0 E f . G
Figure 4-5. Baghouse outlet sampling points,
4-6
-------
performed during each production mode as weather permitted. Figure 4-1 shows
the approximate location of the observer in relation to the outlet stack
during the visible emission readings.
4.4 PROCESS SAMPLE COLLECTION AND MONITORING LOCATIONS
Grab samples of virgin aggregate and recycled asphalt pavement were taken
directly off their respective conveyor belts. Figure 4-1 depicted the
locations of these belts along with, the sampling locations for asphalt cement
and fuel oil. The pressure drop across the baghouse was monitored from a
U tube manometer located on the support structure of the baghouse. This
manometer was intalled by GCA because the original gauge was unreadable.
4-7
-------
SECTION 5.0
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES
GCA utilized several different sampling procedures to meet the goals of
this test program. These techniques included EPA Methods 1 through 5E,
Method 9 for visible emission and discrete grab sampling of raw materials.
Each procedure is discussed in the following subsections.
5.1 EPA REFERENCE METHODS
5.1.1 Method 1, Traverse Points
Sample traverse points for particulate sampling were determined in
accordance to 4QCFR6Q. This was performed using the most recent revision to
the method as defined in the Federal Register of September 30, 1983.
5.1.2 Method 2, Velocityand Volumetric Flowrate
A Type—S pitot tube and attached thermocouple was used to determine
velocity and volumetric flowrate of the flue gas streams being sampled. This
assembly was calibrated as required by the method.
5.1.3 Method 3, Fixed Gases.Excess Air and Dry Molecular Weight
Gas analysis was conducted using a stainless steel sampling probe
attached to the Method 5E probe. A gas sample was collected by means of a
one way hand pump. The stainless steel sample line was purged prior to the
collection of the*sample. An integrated sample was collected into a Tedlar
bag and analyzed with an Orsat analyzer in accordance with EPA Method 3.
Ambient air checks were performed before each orsat analysis as a QC check.
5.1.4 Method 4, Moisture Determination.
The moisture determination of the flue gas was performed in conjuncton
with the Modified Method 5E tests. The increase in volume of the impingers
was used to calculate percent moisture of the gas stream. In addition to
this, a wet bulb/dry bulb apparatus was used in conjunction with a
psychrometric chart to determine the relative humidity of the flue gas at the
inlet and outlet of the baghouse unit. The wet bulb/dry bulb apparatus
consisted of two thermocouples attached along side each other. The front end
of the first thermocouple extended out about 3 inches further than the second
5-1
-------
thermocouple. A cloth sock was placed tightly over the front 2 inches of the
first thermocouple (wet bulb). Prior to sampling, the cloth sock was
saturated with water. The two thermocouples were then inserted into the
center of the duct and the temperature of the wet bulb thermocouple was
monitored. After the temperature of the wet bulb thermocouple stabilized
(reaches equilibrium), the temperature of the dry thermocouple was measured.
5,1,5 Method 5S, Particulate/TOC Concentrations
Reference Method 5E was utilized to collect particulate matter and total
organic carbon simultaneously from each of the two flue gas sampling
locations, concurrently*
The RAC StacksamplrTM Method 5E sampling train features: a stainless
steel buttonhook nozzle; the required probe with pitot tube and thermocouple
attached (as per Method 5 revision of August 18, 1977) and a heated glass
liner with a thermocouple connection; a 4-inch glass filter holder containing
a Reeve Angel 934 AH glass fiber filter which has a collection efficiency of
greater than 99.99 percent*, a heated filter hot box with temperature
controller and thermocouple unit attached to the back half of the glass filter
holder (250 *10°F), four glass impingers, the first (modified) and second
(plated) both containing 100 ml 0.IN NaOH, the third (modified) empty, and the
fourth (modified) containing preweighed silica gel; a leakless lubricated vane
pump; dry gas meter; and an orifice meter. A schematic of the Method 5E train
is shown in Figure 5-1.
A leak check of the entire sampling train was conducted prior to and at
the conclusion of each sampling run, and before and after changing or
disconnecting any components of the train during the run. Leak checks before
the test run and after changing any constituent were conducted at 15-inch Hg
vacuum to ensure a leak rate of no more than 0.02 cfm. Leak checks conducted
at the end of a run, and prior to making any component changes or
disconnecting them to facilitate recovery, were at or above the highest vacuum
obtained during the run. The pitot cube assembly were also leak checked prior
to and after each sampling run to ensure validity of the velocity data.
Cyclonic flow angles were also checked at the inlet to the baghouse prior to
the sampling program.
All Method 5E sample recoveries were performed in the GCA High Cube
1. The front-half of the sample train, comprised of the nozzle, probe
and front-half of the filter holder was rinsed and brushed three
times with spsctro grade acetone. (Water was not used as a first
rinse as per the request of the EPA Task Officer. This was a
modification of Method 5E.) The sample was stored in a precleaned
500 ml amber glass container, sealed and labeled as -FH.
2. The particulate filter and any particulate adheriTng to the filter
holder was removed and placed in its original plastic petri dish.
This dish was sealed and labeled as -PF.
5-2
-------
3. The contents of each impinger was measured for volume increase, then
transferred to precleaned amber glass sample containers. The
itnpingers were then rinsed with 0, IN NaOtt. These samples were
labeled as -IMP 1 and -IMP 2+3.
4. The impingers, back half filter holder and connecting glassware was
then rinsed 3 times with spectro grade acetone. This was stored in
another 500 ml amber glass container and labeled -BH.
5. The silica gel impinger was reweighed for moisture gain.
6. After recovery all glassware was flushed three tines and rinsed with
distilled, deionized water. Then it was baked in a drying oven for
1 hour at lOO^C, Following this cleaning procedure, the glassware
was reassembled for the next test.
7. Field bias blanks of the acetone, DDI water, filter and 0.IN NaOH
were collected prior to the start of the flue gas testing program,
8. The liquid level was marked on all containers.
9. All samples were logged on GCA Chain of Custody Record Form.
10. Stored in cooler for transport.
5.1.6 Method 9, Visible Emissions
Visible emissions from the baghouse outlet were conducted when the
conditions permitted. Readings were recorded every 15-seconds during each
test period. The plume observer noted the location and distance from the
stack that the observations were made. Readings were made by a certified
observer. The results are presented as 6-minute averages. The decision to
observe the stack plume was made solely by the onsite EPA Task Officer on a
test-by-test basis.
5.1.7 Process Stream Sampling
Grab 'samples were collected from the two conveyor belt streams, the
asphalt cement tank and the fuel oil tank. Approximately 2-3 gallons of
material from the conveyor belts was collected during each emission run,
quartered and the two opposing quarters taken for a 1 gallon sample. Two
asphalt cement samples was taken directly from a tank truck. The fuel oil
sample was obtained from the storage tank. The analyses conducted on these
samples consisted of moisture content in the virgin aggregate and the RAP
samples, smoke point for the RAP sample, flash point, smoke point and
viscosity on the asphalt cement. The fuel oil is being held pending analysis.
The pressure drop across the baghouse was monitored by MRI personnel
utilizing a U-tube manometer installed by GCA. Existing equipment proved
faulty nessecitatiag the installation.
5-3
-------
5.2 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The test program produced samples from Method 5E for particulate, matter
and total organic carbon (TOO), moisture content for virgin aggregate and
recycled asphalt pavement samples, viscosity, flash and smoke points for the
asphalt cement and smoke point for the RAP samples. A description of each
analytical procedure is outlined below.
* Method 5E - Particulate—Gravimetric analysis conducted as per EPA
reference Method 5 and reference Method 5E. See Figure 5-1 for a
breakdown of this train.
« Solids Moisture Analysis—During each particulate and TOC run, one
sample of the virgin aggregate and recycled asphalt pavement was
collected for moisture analysis. The samples were collected in
plastic containers and taken directly to the onsite mobile
laboratory for moisture analysis. In the mobile lab, approximately
200 grams of the material was weighed into a tared beaker and dried
overnight at 105--C. The remaining sample was placed into 1-gal
metal cans. The sample is then desiccated and weighed co within
0.01 gram.
* Fjlash and Fire Points on Asphalt Cement—An aliquot of the asphalt
cement sample analyzed to determine the Flash and Fire points as
required by ASTM Designation D92-78.
* Smoke Point for Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP)—-A reference or
standard test procedure for the smoke point has not been
established. The smoke point for RAP was conducted as per
procedures provided by the SPA Task Officer. Each sample was dried
in a 140aF oven to constant weight. 500 grams of sample was placed
into a sample bowl. Heat was then applied so that the rate of
temperature rise of the sample was 25°F to 30°F per minute. When
the temperature of the sample reached 250°F, the heat was decreased
so that the rate of temperature rise was only 5 to 10°F per minute.
The temperature /tt which the material starts to smoke was recorded
as smoke point.
« Viscosity—The asphalt cement samples were analyzed by E. W. Saybolt
I** *T»1. „ „. „. _ T ™ _ „ ™ _ „ _ _.™.™"1_™.— — J JJ _ _—,m,^-»J-.._._._, * >• •* ^*
WUU2OCi&(¥ » JL 44 C dtiilHL/ (L.^5 Cl WC L C rtltGl A ¥ if 55^4 JU i.4 O%» Wf fc. \Jkca, i ** •*• ^ **
using a vacuum viscotneter.
5-4
-------
;°ROBE LINER
TEMPERATURE
SENSOR
O.IN NoOH
IMPINGE RS
e.
i
Ui
•CONICAL
TfUR HEATER
CONTROLLER
1. PROBE
2. CYCLONE
3. FLASK
4. PARTICULATE FILTER
5. IMPIKCEKS. STANDARD AND MODIFIED
6. THERMOMETER |£
7. CHECK VALVE
8. UMBILICAL CORD
9. VACUUM GAUGE
10. COARSE FLOW ADJUST VAL
11. FINE FLOW ADJUST VALVE
12. OILER
13. VACUUM PUMP
14. FILTER
15. DRV CAS METER
16. ORIFICE TUBE
17. HASTINGS METER
18. SOLENOID VALVES
19. HONOHETER
20. THERMOCOUPLE
21. PYROMETER
22. ICE BATH
23. O.IN NtOtl
24. SILICA GEL DBS ICC ANT
25. HOT BOX
Figure 5-1. Particulate and TOC sampling train.
-------
SECTION 6.0
QUALITY ASSURANCE
A Test/QA Plan was prepared on September lBt 1984 for this test program.
Most of the procedures described in the Test/QA Plan were followed. Any
deviations from these procedures are noted in this section.
6.1 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
Calibration of the field sampling equipment was performed prior to, and
at the conclusion of the field sampling effort. Copies of the calibration
sheets were submitted to the field team leader to take on-site, and for the
project file. Calibrations were performed as described in the EPA publication
"Quality Assurance Handbook For Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume III,
Stationary Source Specific Methods, SPA-60Q/4-77-027B." Equipment calibrated
included the sample metering system, thermocouples, pitot tubes, and nozzles.
6.2 SAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
GCA follows sample custody procedures based on EPA recommended source
sampling procedures. Appendix E presents custody record sheets. The
importance of uncontaminated reagents, collection media and sample containers
in collecting valid samples was well recognized by GCA. The collection media
actually became part of the sample itself.
6.2.1 Field Operations
Preprinted sample tags were used to ensure the required information is
entered in the field. Each sample, duplicates and blanks had a completely
filled-in sample tag securely attached. Samples were then sealed with tape
and the level marked on the container. All samples were logged in the field
sample log. Samples were the transported in coolers or trunks which were in
the custody of GCA field crew members.
6.2.2 Laboratory Operations
Upon arrival at GCA, the samples and their chain of custody sheets were
submitted to the Sample Bank Manager. Each sample was logged into a large
bound master log and assigned a GCA Control Number, which was unique to that
sample, identifies it and follows it through all operations. All samples were
6-1
-------
locked in the GCA Sample Bank until required. The Sample Bank Manager
initiated a page for each sample in the custody notebook and ensured that each
handling of the sample was documented. Each analyst working with the sample
provided a record of such actions in the custody book, thereby maintaining the
chain of custody on the original sample.
In addition, 39 samples were delivered to Pollution Control Science Inc.
in Miamisburg, OH, by two members of the CCA field crew, for IOC analysis.
The samples were all contained in 500 ml amber glass bottles and were received
immersed in ice. Sample bottle label information was transferred to chain-of-
custody forms and were entered .into the PCS laboratory log and each bottle
assigned a five digit PCS sample number. The samples were then stored at 4°C
until removed for analysis.
6.3 DATA REDUCTION AND VALIDATION
Extensive QC measures were used to ensure the generation of reliable data
from sampling and analysis activities. Proper collection and organization of
accurate information followed by clear and concise reporting of the data was a
primary goal i.u tula pcQje<;C«
6.3.1 Data Seduction
Standardized forms were used to record sampling and analysis data. All
forms were filled in by the technician performing the work, then checked and
initialed by other project participants. Figure 6-1 shows the data flow
scheme for this "project.
Data reduction performed in the field was limited to EPA Method 5E
testing. Check runs for sample volume, moisture and associated parameters
were performed to determine percent isokinetics. Most data reduction was
performed using a Compaq portable computer*
6.3.2 Data VaIidation
Data validation is the process of filtering data and accepting or
rejecting it on the basis of sound criteria. Supervisory and QC personnel
used validation methods and criteria appropriate to the type of data and the
purpose of the measurement.
The following criteria were used to evaluate data:
* Use of approved cest procedures.
« Steady-state operation of the process being tested.
• Use of properly operating and calibrated equipment.
• Use of reagents that have passed QC checks.
6-2
-------
TEST CONDUCTED
DATA SHEET COMPLETED
I
DATA CHECKED BY TWO
FIELD CREW MEMBERS
I
DATA SUBMITTED TO,
FIELD TEAM LEADER
ERRORS AND OUTLIERS
I
PRELIMINARY DATA REDUCTION
CONDUCTED AND CROSS-
CHECKED IN THE FIELD
I
SAMPLES AND DATA
'RETURNED TO CCA
SAMPLES LOGGED IN LAB
ANALYSES PERFORMED
SAMPLES DELIVERED
TO CONTRACTOR
RESULTS SUBMITTED TO
LABORATORY PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR
"NOTED IN FIELD LOG BOOK
SAMPLING AND PROCESS
DATA SUBMITTED TO FIELD
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
DATA CHECKED AND
TRANSFERRED TO
COMPUTER SHEETS
I
COMPUTER SHEETS SUBMITTED
AND KEYPUNCHED
1
RESULTS RECEIVED FROM
COMPUTER. INPUT NUMBERS
CROSS-CHECKED
FINAL REPORT.^.
WRITTEN
DRAFT REPORT
SUBMITTED TO CLIENT
CORRECTIONS MADE AND
RESUBMITTED TO COMPUTER
.FINAL RESULTS RECEIVED
Figure 6-1. Data flow scheme.
6-3
-------
• Proper chain of custody maintained.
• Collection of the proper amount of particulate on substrates.
• Collection of the required blanks.
All preliminary data and Rough Draft Reports were edited and checked to
insure that the data presented were accurate and had not been transposed or
misplaced.
6.4 SAMPLING QC PROCEDURES
The following QC checks were used during the source testing segment of
this project.
• Method 2 - Velocity, Plowrate
Required use of calibrated pitot tubes
Check ror cyclonic flow
• Method 3 - Dry Molecular Weight
Orsat analysis were conducted in accordance to EPA Method 3
The analyzer was leveled and purged with sample gas prior to
each analysis
Ambient air checks were conducted
- Analyses were repeated until values agreed within 0.3 percent
• Method 5E - Partieulate
Sampling was conducted in accordance to Method 5E with
modifications as instructed by the EPA Project Officer
All appropriate method and field-bias blanks were collected
• Method 9 - Visible Emissions
visible emission observer was certified wic'uin 6 months oi
the test program
VE's were conducted ia accordance to Method 9 Guidelines
6-4
-------
6.5 ANALYTICAL QU PROCEDURES
6.5.1 Gravimetric Determinations
• All samples were dessicated and weighed to a constant weight.
t Some gravimetric analyses were conducted in the field, however all
applicable QC measures were observed.
• The balance used was checked with Class S weights before and after
each weighing session.
• Temperature and relative humidity was recorded during each weighing
session.
6.5.2 TotalOrganic Carbon
TOG sample were analyzed by PCS Inc. Included were 5 EPA audit samples.
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 6-1. In addition,
several samples were also analyzed in replicate to establish 95 percent
confidence intervals. The results of these analyses are presented in
Table 6-2.
6.5,3 Clean-up Evaluation
The clean up evaluation results for uncontrolled and controlled method
blank trains are presented in Table 6-3. Both blank trains were analyzed for
particulate and total organic carbon. The particulate analysis consisted of
the weight gain from the filter and the front-half acetone rinse of the
sampling train. For uncontrolled operations the front-half rinse consisted of
the nozzle, the probe, the cyclone and the front half of the filter house.
For controlled operations the front-half rinse consisted of the nozzle, the
probe, the cyclone bypass and the front half of the filter house.
The total organic carbon analysis for uncontrolled and controlled
operations consisted of a 0.IN sodium hydroxide rinse of the back half of the
sampling train. This back-half rinse consisted of the three impingers,
back-half filter holder, and connecting glassware for both uncontrolled and
controlled operations.
6.5.4 Ignitability
An aliquot of p-xylene was analyzed as a quality control sample. The
reported flash point was 28*C, The literature value is 27°C,
6.5.5 Smoke Point
At this time, there is no known quality control sample available to
establish the accuracy of smoke point determinations.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-1. RESULTS OF EPA AUDIT SAMPLES PERFORMED BY PCS
Measured Reference Percent
Sample ID TOG Cog/1) Cone, (tng/1) Error
EPA-1 95.5 91.5 +4.2
EPA-2 9.6 6.1 *36.5
EPA-3 5.4 6.1 -11.5
EPA-4 96.0 91.5 +4.7
EPA-5 93.8 91.5 *2.5
6-6
-------
TOC A&ALYSIS K
tCS 3*Epl* f
T«»t Rue
I* .tiilc 1 dag;'1 U
feult 2 C^/U
*ir *, j, **; * *S \
.\«J»« it 3 iGg; I/
fiesylt 4 Cog/1)
Ltiwit 5 (og/L)
Result & dag/i)
Result 7 tng/1)
Result S (as/ I)
S»sult 9 Cmg/l)
He4» result i»g/l)
Std. Deviation C«g/ L)
4W)S>i4
5-Ciitlst
260
:&o
150
250
iao
180
209
240
160
222
4CL5
4?06>-67 i €041-70
S-Iniet fe-D-ut'lss
«» »»
113 ;03
200 253
135 ^S
215 219
IfO 212
105 1?S
125 239
104 219
142 230
45, fe 24,6
,
-------
TABLE i-3. SUMMASf OF CLEANUP
Particulate
total organic " Train, 1 Train 2
blanks uncontrolled controlled
Front half
Filter tag) 0.21 ^ 0.14
Csg) -" 0.73 0.81
Back half
local organic eairlwaCfflg) 10,35 IZ.2.4
6-8
-------
6.6 SITE SPECIFIC QUALITY CONTROL
A new rinse procedure was developed for this test program. It was found
in a previous test program that residual acetone remained in the impingers
after rinsing, coatatninating the total organic carbon samples. To alleviate
this problem, additional steps were taken in the sample recovery procedure.
The new rinse procedure is presented in Section 5.0 of this report. The new
procedure was checked by setting up a sampling train, recovering it, then
analyzing the impinger contents for TOG. This was done 3 times. A blank of
the NaOH impinger solution was also checked. The results qualifying the new
rinse procedure can be found in Table 6-4. Lab analysis sheets can be found
in Appendix G.
6.6.1 Test Program Audit
A systems audit was conducted on the western engineering test program to
check if appropriate QC measures were followed by the GCA field crew and staff
members. The audit concentrated on adherence to the field test/QA plan
prepared for the program. A cdpy of this audit report can be found in
Appendix G.
6.7 DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS WITH EMISSION TESTING
Several problems were encountered during the testing runs. just below the requied range of 90 to 110 percent.
During"Run Nor 2,~ the"f ilter"at _the~ uncontrolled-1'ocation^ripp^d
^tKerefare^vaidinglche_samp.le_for_particulate_measurement. This sample was
still analyzed and presented in the tables. At the controlled location during
Run No. 2, a very high vacuum was being drawn by the sample box. An
investigation of this problem found that the orifice of a new Andersen,
Greenburg-Smith plated impinger was too small causing a very high pressure
drop. LacaJ:ing^thrs^pr.ob.lerozwas-time consuming and a§: a result. t-es-tine .had
to"b'e^:terrainated-because_produc±ion_had:_stapped_f or_;the -> day. Approximately^
75~perc'ent":o.f—th'ez.sampVingzpolntSL.w.er.e_tes.ted:^^These were the reasons for
scheduling the additional conventional run (4).
Other difficulties encountered in the test program included:
• Filter holder did not contain wells for thermocouple.
•, A fuse was blown in the sampling box during controlled Runs 3 and 6
controlled.
• A malfunction of the sampling pump during uncontrolled Run 4.
6-9
-------
TABLE 6-4. RESULT OF RINSE PROCEDURES CHECK
Run No.
1
I
2
2
3
3
Probe rinse
NaOH blank
Impinger No.
I
2
1
2
I
2
Concentration mg/1
4.40
2.63
1.53
2.30
2.65
1.52
1.50
1.93
• 6-10
-------
» A broken U-tube connector was replaced on Run 6 at the uncontrolled
location.
» During Runs 4 and 5, testing had to be halted because plant
production fell below the required 80 percent of capacity. Testing
was restarted when plant production was appropriate. All of these
minor difficulties and problems were dealt witli promptly and had no
effect on sampling results. The problems encountered are documented
in the daily sampling log found in Appendix E.
6.8 DEVIATIONS FROM TEST/QA PLAN •
Several deviations and alterations from the original test/QA plan were
made. The first change was in the scope of work. Since the raw materials
were in limited supply, only 2 recycle runs were recommended. In addition to
this, no PAH testing was conducted. The next modification was to the sampling
times at the uncontrolled location. Due to extremely high loading, the
sampling time was cut from 72 minutes to 48 minutes. The test plan also
stated that a wet bulb/dry bulb -apparatus would be used to check moisture
content. While this was the case, the wet bulb/dry bulb figures were used
only as a cross check to the iopinger volume increase.
Other deviations made included:
» The second impinger in each train was suppose to be a plated
Greenburg-Smith impinger. In some cases, the orifice at the tip of
these impingers sustained too high of a pressure drop. The best
impingers were chosen and used for the remainder of the test program,
» Visible emission readings were not taken during all runs because of
background interference.
» In the recovery of samples, instead of rinsing 6 times with
spectrograde acetone, it was done only 3 times.
* TOG analysis was not performed by GCA. It was done by Pollution
Control Science in Miaioisburg, Ohio.
• Cyclonic flow checks were performed only at the inlet location.
* No baghouse dust was collected.
* No analysis was performed on the fuel'oil sample.
All changes and modifications to the QA/Test Plan were accepted and approved
by the onsite £PA Task Officer.
6-11
-------
(Jimi'.l SMU.-S
Crivtr
------- |
|