EPA/600/R-12/063 | December 2012 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Emissions of Amphibole
Asbestos from the
Simulated Open Burning
of Duff from Libby, MT
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC), funded, directed
and managed this work through Contract Number EP-C-09-027 with ARCADIS. This report has
been peer and administratively reviewed and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use of a specific product.
Questions concerning this document or its application should be addressed to:
Paul Lemieux
National Homeland Security Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code E343-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-0962
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
ABSTRACT
This report describes an experimental effort to support the mission of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Region 8 by providing relevant information about the potential for
exposure of firefighters to amphibole asbestos fibers in the event of a forest fire in the region of
Libby, Montana. Libby is the location of a vermiculite mine where significant quantities of
amphibole asbestos existed. Mining operations resulted in asbestos contamination around the
vicinity of the mine, and Libby has been declared a Superfund site. These asbestos fibers are
otherwise known as Libby Amphibole (LA) asbestos. Should a forest fire occur in Operable Unit
3 (OU3), it is possible that fibers in duff and bark may be released into the air, possibly resulting
in inhalation exposures to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) workers fighting the fires, either on the
ground or in the air and (depending on wind direction and meteorological conditions) might also
result in exposure to residents of Libby. However, available data are not adequate to support
reliable quantitative estimation of the air concentrations of asbestos fibers that may occur in
smoke during a fire in OU3.
Due to difficulties in performing a test burn in the field that would result in uncontrolled
emissions of LA being released into the atmosphere, it was decided that performing a
laboratory-scale simulation of a wildfire involving LA-contaminated duff would yield emission
factors that could be used to perform exposure assessments that would be based on measured
emissions from a combustion environment. Some aspects of a real-world wildfire (e.g., upward
motion of air due to convective motion) were not able to be simulated.
As part of the Remedial Investigation (Rl) at OU3, this report describes a series of experiments
performed at the EPA's Open Burn Test Facility (OBTF), located at the EPA facilities in
Research Triangle Park, NC. These experiments involved making measurements of LA
released from the burning of contaminated source material (duff) from OU3 in a series of
controlled burns in the OBTF. The experiments were performed with the intent to simulate the
temperatures encountered in wildfires that may impact the release of LA fibers; realizing that all
the features of a wildfire might not be able to be simulated. The results of the OBTF study will
be used by Region 8 with USFS models that predict smoke PM levels during fires to yield
predicted concentrations of LA in air.
Under the conditions that were tested, fractions of phase contrast microscopy equivalent
(PCME) asbestos fibers ranging from 88% to 105% (average = 92%) appear to remain behind
in the residual bottom ash that remained after the burn was completed for the High Temperature
burn conditions and fractions of PCME asbestos fibers ranging from 88% to 115% (average =
99%) appear to remain behind in the residual bottom ash that remained behind after the burn
was completed for the Low Temperature burns. These observations suggest that the majority of
the LA fibers that are present in the duff do not become entrained into the air emissions.
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LI STOP FIGURES v
LI STOP TABLES vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 CONCLUSIONS 3
3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 4
3.1 Experimental Objectives 4
3.2 Critical Measurements 4
3.3 Secondary Measurements 6
3.4 Special Training/Certification 8
3.5 Chain of Custody 8
3.6 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) 8
3.7 Open Burn Test Facility 9
3.7.1 Burn Hut 9
3.7.2 Feed Chute 10
3.7.3 Burn Chamber 11
3.8 High Temperature Setup 11
3.9 Low Temperature Setup 12
3.10 Burn Hut, Baghouse and HEPA Filter 12
3.11 Burn Material 13
3.12 Amount of Material 15
3.13 Test Conditions 15
3.13.1 Scoping Test 16
3.14 Test Procedures 19
3.14.1 Burn Hut Preparation and Post-Test Cleanup 19
3.14.2 Control of Combustion Conditions 20
3.15 Sampling Methods 20
3.15.1 LA Combustion Exhaust Sampling Method 20
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
3.15.2 Ash Sampling 23
3.15.3 Burn Hut Wall Wipe Sam pies 23
3.15.4 Burn Hut Exhaust Gas Volumetric Flow Rate 23
3.15.5 Burn Hut Exhaust Gas Moisture 23
3.15.6 Burn Hut Filterable PM 23
3.15.7 Combustion Temperature 24
3.15.8 Duff Sample Feed and Burn Rate 24
3.15.9 Sam pie Collection Period 26
3.15.10 Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) 26
3.16 Analytical Methods 27
3.16.1 LA Analysis 27
3.16.2 PM2.5 in Exhaust Flue Smoke 27
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28
4.1 Burn Hut Operational Parameters and PM Results 37
4.2 Asbestos Results 38
4.2.1 MCE Filter Samples 38
4.2.2 Impinger Samples 42
4.2.3 Ash Samples 43
4.3 Tern perature Results 46
4.3.1 High-Temperature Run Conditions 46
4.3.2 Low Temperature Run Conditions 48
4.4 CEM Results 50
4.4.1 High Temperature Run Conditions 50
4.4.2 Low-Tern perature Run Conditions 52
4.5 Carbon Balance 54
4.6 Summary of Results 54
4.7 Exam pie Calculation of Input Parameters for Exposure Models 55
5.0 QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT 57
5.1 Amendment to the QAPP 57
5.2 Technical Systems Audit 57
5.3 Calibration of Sampling/Monitoring Equipment 58
5.4 Achievement of Data Quality Indicator(DQI) Goals 58
5.4.1 Critical Measurements 58
6.0 REFERENCES 65
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Results from Technical Systems Audit
Technical Systems Audit Checklist
Appendix B: Temperature and CEM Data
Appendix C: Flue Gas Sampling Worksheets
Appendix D: Raw Asbestos Analytical Results
Appendix E: Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Duff and Ash
Appendix F: Chain of Custody Forms
Appendix G: Certificates of Accuracy for EPA Protocol Gases
Appendix H: ARCADIS Internal QA Audit Report
IV
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Burn Hut Internal Dimensions (Dimensions in feet; not to scale) 10
Figure 3-2. Fuel Feed Ram and Chute 11
Figure 3-3. High Temperature Condition Burn Chamber 12
Figure 3-4. Low Temperature Condition Burn Chamber 12
Figure 3-5. Burn Hut, Baghouse, and HEPA Filter 13
Figure 3-6. Photograph of Propane-Fired Ring Burner 16
Figure 3-7. Photograph of Burn Chamber for High-Temperature Conditions 17
Figure 3-8. Grate Temperatures for Duff Combustion — High Temperature Scoping Test 18
Figure 3-9. Photograph of Duff Combustion — High Temperature Scoping Test 18
Figure 3-10. Grate Temperatures for Duff Combustion — Low Temperature Scoping Test 19
Figure 3-11. Photograph of Duff Combustion — Low-Temperature Scoping Test 19
Figure 3-12. OBTF Exit Duct with MCE Filter Sampling Scheme 22
Figure 3-13. Stainless Steel Nozzle 22
Figure 3-14. Duff Mass Loss during the High Temperature Burn 25
Figure 3-15. Duff Mass Loss during the Low Temperature Burn 26
Figure 4-1. Ternperatures from High Tern perature Run 1 47
Figure 4-2. Tern peratures from High Tern perature Run 2 47
Figure 4-3. Tern peratures from High Tern perature Run 3 48
Figure 4-4. Tern peratures from Low Tern perature Run 1 49
Figure 4-5. Tern peratures from Low Tern perature Run 2 49
Figure 4-6. Tern peratures from Low Tern perature Run 3 50
Figure 4-7. CO2 and CO from High Tern perature Run 1 51
Figure 4-8. CO2 and CO from High Tern perature Run 2 51
Figure 4-9. CO2 and CO from High Tern perature Run 3 52
Figure 4-10. CO2 and CO from Low Tern perature Run 1 53
Figure 4-11. CO2 and CO from Low Tern perature Run 2 53
Figure 4-12. CO2 and CO from Low Tern perature Run 3 54
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Performance Criteria for Critical Measurements 5
Table 3-2. Performance Criteria for Secondary Measurements 7
Table 3-3. Sampling and Measurement Test Sequences 9
Table 3-4. LA Fibers in Duff Material 14
Table 3-5. Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Duff Material 15
Table 4-1. Sampling Information from High Temperature Test Conditions 29
Table 4-2. Sampling Information from Low Temperature Test Conditions 30
Table 4-3. Sampling Information from Blanks 31
Table 4-4. Average Temperatures, CO2, and CO for High Temperature Test Conditions 32
Table 4-5. Average Temperatures, CO2, and CO for Low Temperature Test Conditions 33
Table 4-6. Average Temperatures, CO2, and CO for Blanks 34
Table 4-7. Carbon Balance from High Temperature Test Conditions 35
Table 4-8. Carbon Balance from Low Temperature Test Conditions 36
Table 4-9. Burn Parameters and PM Results for High Temperature Burn Conditions 37
Table 4-10. Burn Parameters and PM Results for Low Temperature Burn Conditions 38
Table 4-11. MCE Filter Results for High Temperature Burn Conditions 40
Table 4-12. MCE Filter Results for Low Temperature Burn Conditions 41
Table 4-13. Impinger Results for High Temperature Burn Conditions 42
Table 4-14. Impinger Results for Low Temperature Burn Conditions 43
Table 4-15. Residual Ash Results from High Tern perature Burn Conditions 44
Table 4-16. Residual Ash Results from Low Tern perature Burn Conditions 45
Table 4-17. Proximate and Ultimate Analysis Results for Residual Ash 46
Table 4-18. Summary of Results* from High Tern perature Burn Conditions 55
Table 4-19. Summary of Results* from Low Tern perature Burn Conditions 55
Table 5-1. Instrument Calibration Frequency 58
Table 5.2. Performance Criteria for Critical Measurements 60
Table 5-3. Performance Criteria for Secondary Measurements; High Temperature Burn
Conditions 61
Table 5-4. Performance Criteria for Secondary Measurements; Low Temperature Burn
Conditions 63
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AGO
APPCD
BTU
CBR
CEM
COC
DAS
Dl
DQI
DQO
EFA
EPA
GO
HASP
HEPA
LA
LOD
MCE
NA
NDIR
NHSRC
NIST
OBTF
Area of Grid Openings
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
British Thermal Unit
Chemical, Biological, and Radiological
Continuous Emissions Monitor
Chain of Custody
Data Acquisition System
Deionized
Data Quality Indicator
Data Quality Objective
Effective filter area
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Grid Openings
Health and Safety Protocol
High Efficiency Particulate Air
Libby Amphibole Asbestos
Limit of Detection
Mixed Cellulose Ester
Not Applicable
Non-Dispersive Infrared
National Homeland Security Research
Center
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Open Burn Test Facility
VII
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
ORD
OS HA
OU3
PCME
PM
PM10
PM2.5
PPE
PPM
QA
QAPP
QC
Rl
SHEMD
SOP
TBD
TC
TEM
ISA
UL
USFS
EPA Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Operable Unit 3
Phase Contrast Microscopy Equivalent
Particulate Matter
Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 10 urn
Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 2.5 urn
Personal Protective Equipment
Parts per million; ppmv- parts per million on a volume basis; ppmm - parts per
million on amass basis
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Control
Remedial Investigation
EPAs Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Division
Standard Operating Procedure
To Be Determined
Thermocouple
Transmission Electron Microscopy
Technical Systems Audit
Underwriters Laboratories
United States Forest Service
VIM
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge a number of people who have been instrumental in
performing this work. The experiments were performed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. under Contract
Number EP-C-09-027. EPA Region 8 provided significant technical guidance, and the authors
would like to acknowledge Christina Progess, Robert Edgar, Dan Wall, and Deb McKean.
Additional support was received from the Remedium Group, MWH, and Chapman Construction
as well as Charlie Webster of the US Forest Service, and SRC. The author would also like to
acknowledge Eletha Brady-Roberts of EPA/NHSRC for her QA support.
IX
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This project supports the mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by
providing relevant information about the potential for exposure of firefighters to amphibole
asbestos fibers in the event of a forest fire in the region of Libby, Montana. Libby is the location
of a vermiculite mine where significant quantities of amphibole asbestos existed. Mining
operations resulted in asbestos contamination around the vicinity of the mine, and Libby has
been declared a Superfund site. These asbestos fibers are otherwise known as Libby
Amphibole (LA) asbestos. The term "Libby Amphibole" is used in this document to identify the
mixture of amphibole minerals, of varying elemental compositions (e.g., winchite, richterite, and
tremolite), which have been identified in the rocks and ore of the vermiculite mine near Libby,
MT, and are characteristic of the elongated structures commingled with the vermiculite mined at
this location[1] (i.e., present in the ore vermiculite concentrate and processed materials).
Releases of LA asbestos to the environment in Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the LA Superfund Site
have resulted in contamination of soil, duff, and tree bark in the area surrounding the mine.
Disruption of the soil during a wildfire is expected to be minimal and largely confined to local
areas where firebreaks and other trench-digging activity might be expected to occur, therefore
the emphasis is on the combustion of duff, since it is directly exposed to the air, is impacted by
flames from the fires, and can potentially be affected by the convective air currents created
during a wildfire situation. Duff is defined as the biomass accumulated on the forest floor and
consists mainly of shed vegetative parts such as leaves, branches, bark and stems existing in
various stages of decomposition above the soil surface. Should a forest fire occur in OU3,
fibers in duff and bark may be released into the air. This release of fibers could result in
inhalation exposures to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) workers fighting the fires, either on the
ground or in the air and (depending on wind direction and meteorological conditions) might also
result in exposure to residents of Libby[2]. However, the data from the extensive
characterization of the contamination and subsequent risk assessments are not adequate to
support reliable quantitative estimation of the air concentrations of asbestos fibers that may
occur in smoke during a fire in OU3.
Due to difficulties in performing a test burn in the field that would result in uncontrolled
emissions of LA being released into the atmosphere, it was decided that performing a
laboratory-scale simulation of a wildfire involving LA-contaminated duff would yield emission
factors that could be used to perform exposure assessments that would be based on measured
emissions from a combustion environment. Some aspects of a real-world wildfire (e.g., upward
movement of gases due to convective forces) were not able to be simulated.
As part of the Remedial Investigation (Rl) at OU3, this report describes a series of experiments
performed at the EPA's Open Burn Test Facility (OBTF), located at the EPA facilities in
Research Triangle Park, NC. These experiments involved making measurements of LA
released from the burning of contaminated source material (duff) from OU3 in a series of
controlled burns in the OBTF. The LA emissions that were used for developing emission factors
from this study were the Phase Contrast Microscopy Equivalent (PCME) fibers, which are
analyzed by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) using the ISO 10312 method[3]. PCME
fibers are defined as fibers with the following dimensions: length >5 urn, width >0.25um, with an
aspect ratio >3:1. The fiber dimensions are the equivalent to the size fiber that would be
counted by a Phase Contrast Microscope to count fibers in an Industrial Hygiene setting. It
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
should be noted that PCME structures are a subset of the total structures analyzed and reported
by TEM analysis.
This effort was performed under a Category I Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that
described the procedures and data quality objectives (DQOs) for the measurements of LA fibers
per unit of particulate matter (PM) in smoke from burning contaminated material from OU3
under controlled conditions at the OBTF. The experiments were performed with the intent to
simulate the salient features of a wildfire as much as possible; realizing that all the features of a
wildfire might not be able to be simulated. The results of the OBTF study will be combined with
USFS models that predict smoke PM levels during fires to yield predicted concentrations of LA
in air[4].
The advantage of testing in a pilot-scale experimental facility is that the asbestos-containing
materials can be contained fully and the combustion gases can be "cleaned" with particulate
control equipment (a baghouse followed by a high efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filter to
prevent asbestos from escaping into the environment).
The burning occurred in a Burn Chamber placed in an enclosed shed (the "Burn Hut"). There
were two distinct experimental conditions: 1) a "High Temperature" condition intended to
simulate the rapid combustion that occurs during a wildfire; and 2) a "Low Temperature"
condition intended to simulate the smoldering combustion that occurs after the initial
conflagration associated with a wildfire that has subsided. For the High Temperature tests, the
Burn Chamber consisted of a grate with an up-fired propane burner to provide continuous high
temperatures and flame radicals to a supply of duff that was replenished periodically. For the
"Low Temperature" tests, the Burn Chamber consisted of a grate with a small propane torch
(not the same burner used in the High Temperature tests) to sustain the burning of a pile of duff
that was periodically replenished.
Duff was fed by gravity into the Burn Chamber and was replenished during the burn by the
addition of new duff through a feed chute. Air for the fire was provided by a fan that blew
measured quantities of air into the Burn Hut. Smoke from the burning material traveled through
an exhaust flue, where sampling was performed for LA, PM, and standard combustion exhaust
gases. Wherever possible, standard sampling and analytical methods were used.
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
Experiments were performed in EPA's OBTF to examine the potential for emissions of LA
asbestos fibers from the simulated open burning of duff samples collected from OU3 near Libby,
MT. The experiments were run in triplicate, and two different combustion conditions were
examined (High Temperature flaming combustion and Low Temperature smoldering
combustion).
Measurements were taken of combustion gases (O2, CO, CO2), total filterable particulate
matter, PM2.s, and asbestos fibers (airborne, residual ash, and wipe samples from the walls of
the OBTF). The duff starting material was also analyzed for asbestos as well as being
characterized as fuel using proximate and ultimate analyses. These measurements were
combined with measurements of the mass of duff burned and various flow rates through the
OBTF to generate an estimate of emission factors of fibers per PM (LA fibers per mass of duff
burned divided by PM2.s in terms of mass emitted per mass of duff burned). The emission
factors were combined to yield estimates of LA fibers per mass of PM2.5. This modified
emission factor can be linearly scaled based on measured quantities of LA fibers in the duff
samples to yield estimates of LA fibers per mass of PM2.5 as a function of distance from the
Libby vermiculite mine. These emission factors are intended to be used by Region 8 to perform
an exposure assessment of firefighting personnel that might be subjected to inhalation
exposures of LA fibers should a wildfire occur in the vicinity of the vermiculite mine. The results
may also be used to perform exposure assessments for the residents in and around Libby, MT.
Under the conditions that were tested, fractions of PCME asbestos fibers (the asbestos fibers
that meet the dimensional characteristics to be of health concern) ranging from 88% to 105%
(average = 92%) appear to remain behind in the residual bottom ash after the burn was
completed for the High Temperature burn conditions and fractions of PCME asbestos fibers
ranging from 88% to 115% (average = 99%) appear to remain behind in the residual bottom ash
after the burn was completed for the Low Temperature burns. These recovery estimates are
based on total numbers of LA fibers. It should be noted that having recovery numbers greater
than 100% do not mean that there was more asbestos at the end of the experiment than there
was at the beginning. It just means that the calculations resulted in numbers greater than
100%, mostly due to analytical variability between various terms in the calculations that are
based on analysis (e.g., LA in ash, LA in duff). These observations suggest that the majority of
the LA fibers that are present in the duff do not become entrained into the air emissions.
It must be emphasized that the emission factors generated in these tests represent results from
a laboratory simulation of a large, wide-area incident that might potentially involve hundreds, or
maybe thousands of acres of forest being involved in a wildfire. There are fluid mechanical
phenomena that occur at the full-scale that are unable to be reproduced in a small-scale
laboratory burn. In addition, the materials involved in a real wildfire incorporate the bark and
trunks of trees, the duff, and perhaps the soil in the affected area. This simulation sacrificed
some of the realism of a full-scale wildfire, in order to tightly control the variables that the
authors determined to be the most important, based on available literature, sampling data from
OU3, and their expert judgement. It is expected that the results generated from this study fall
within an order of magnitude of results that would be generated from a full-scale field sampling
effort, if one could be performed.
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS
3.1 Experimental Objectives
The goals of this series of tests were:
• To provide emission factors of LA fibers and PM less than or equal to 2.5 urn (PM2.5) to air
during a simulated open fire of duff collected from OU3;
• To provide estimates of the partitioning of LA fibers between air emissions and ash; and
• To determine how sensitive the results (both LA and PM2.5 release) are to burn
temperatures.
The DQO for these tests was that measurements of LA and PM2.5 in the residual ash and air
emissions should be of sufficient precision and accuracy to allow EPA Region 8 to use the data
for an exposure assessment of USFS personnel who might operate in the vicinity of a forest fire
near Libby, MT.
3.2 Critical Measurements
The following measurements were deemed to be critical to accomplish the experimental DQO:
• Sample volume (dry basis);
• Exhaust duct volumetric flow rate (dry basis);
• Exhaust duct moisture level;
• Weight of the burned material;
• Run time, including sample times, feed times, and total burn time;
• PM2.s filter weight;
• Concentration of LA associated with PM2.5;
• Concentration of LA in the duff that was burned;
• Burn temperatures; and
• Exhaust duct temperatures.
The range of LA concentrations that would occur in Burn Chamber smoke was not known a
priori. The analytical requirements for LA measurements reported in Section 4.2 are such that
concentrations of LA fibers in Burn Chamber smoke could be reliably detected and quantified if
they were present. Table 3-1 lists the performance criteria for critical measurements, as well as
the methods that were used and relevant Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
consideration.
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 3-1. Performance Criteria for Critical Measurements.
Measurement
Parameter
Burn Hut Exhaust
Velocity Traverses
Burn Hut Exhaust
Volumetric Flow Rate
Burn Hut Exhaust
Moisture Content
Sampling Time
Burn Hut Exhaust PlVh.s
Burn Hut Exhaust
Asbestos Sampling
Asbestos Analysis of LA
in Emitted Sample
Material
Temperature
Sampling Method(s)
EPA Method 1A[5]
EPA Method 2C[6] (to be
performed in conjunction
with M201A[7])
EPA Method 4[8] (to be
performed in conjunction
with EPA Method 201A[7])
Stopwatch
EPA Method 201A[7]
EPA Asbestos Sampling
Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) #201 5[9]
Modified EPA Method
5[10] (no filter)
SOP DUFF-LIBBY-
OU3[11]
N/A
Calibration/Certification
N/A
Standard Pitottube
Gas temperature
Volume of gas is compared
to National Institute of
Standards and Technology
(NIST)-traceable dry gas
meter before/after the
sampling campaign
Balance calibration check
Compare against NIST
Official U.S. time
Volume of gas is compared
to NIST-traceable dry gas
meter before/after the
sampling campaign
Balance calibration check
Post-test meter calibration
check
Volume of gas is compared
to NIST-traceable dry gas
meter before/after the
sampling campaign
N/A
Compare against a NIST-
traceable thermometer
Analysis Method
N/A
Manometer
K-Type Thermocouple
Standard Meter
Comparison
NIST-traceable Class
S weights
N/A
Standard Meter
Comparison
Gravimetric S-Class
weights
Standard Meter
Comparison
Standard Meter
Comparison
Transmission Electron
Microscopy (TEM)
K-type thermocouple
QA/QC Criteria
N/A
± 5% of actual value
±2°F(± 1 °C)
Leak rate less than
4% of the average
sampling rate
±0.5g
±1 min/30days
Leak rate less than
4% of the average
sampling rate
90to 110%
isokinetic flow
± 0.1 mg
± 5% of pre-
calibration
Leak rate less than
4% of the average
sampling rate
20-25 fibers per
sample being
optimal
± 2 °F(± 1 °C)
Completeness
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67% (minimum 4 of 6)
100%
100%
67% (minimum 4 of 6)
100%
100%
100%
N/A- not applicable
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
3.3 Secondary Measurements
The following measurements that characterize the burn conditions and characteristics of the
smoke are less vital, but are important to help understand what factors influence the release of
LA into smoke. These measurements and the tolerable levels of potential errors associated with
data collection as well as the limitations of the use of the data are listed in Table 3-2.
• Exhaust duct oxygen (O2);
• Exhaust duct carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Exhaust duct carbon monoxide (CO);
• Weight loss;
• Total filterable PM;
• Mass of ash;
• Concentration of LA in ash; and
• Inlet duct flow.
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 3-2. Performance Criteria for Secondary Measurements.
Measurement
Parameter
Burn Hut Exhaust
CO2/O2
Burn Hut Exhaust
CO
Weight Loss
Burn Hut Inlet
Volumetric Flow
Rate
Asbestos Analysis
of LA in Ash
Sampling
Method(s)
EPA Method
3A[12]
EPA Method
10[13]
N/A
EPA Method
2C[6]
SOP DUFF-
LIBBY-OU3[11]
Sub-parameter
Calibration error
Sampling system bias
Zero & calibration drift
Calibration error
Sampling system bias
Zero & calibration drift
Sampling system bias
Zero & calibration drift
Scale calibration check
Standard Pitottube
Gas temperature
N/A
Analysis Method
Instrumental calibration gases
Instrumental calibration gases
Gravimetric S-class weights
Manometer
K-Type Thermocouple
Transmission Electron
Microscopy (TEM) using ISO
10312[3]
Acceptance Criteria
(% Bias)
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±5%
±3%
± 10g
± 5% of actual value
± 2 °F(± 1 °C)
20-25 fibers per sample
being optimal
Completeness
90% of test periods
90% of test periods
100%
100%
100%
NA - Not Applicable
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
3.4 Special Training/Certification
Asbestos is a hazardous substance that can increase the risk of cancer and serious non-cancer
pulmonary diseases in people who are exposed by inhalation. All personnel involved in
handling, burning, and collecting samples during a testing sequence of the burn material from
OU3 required Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 40-hour health and safety
training, and wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).
EPA's Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Division (SHEMD) performed air
monitoring around the OBTF before, during, and after the burn of the material from OU3 to
evaluate the potential for any fugitive emissions of asbestos during the testing. SHEMD also did
personnel monitoring to assess the potential for worker exposure to asbestos.
3.5 Chain of Custody
A chain of custody (COC) record accompanied the samples. In the transfer of custody, each
custodian signed, recorded, and dated the transfer. All samples of asbestos collected as part of
this project were sent for preparation and/or analysis at EMSL Analytical, Inc.
3.6 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design)
Burns were initiated by starting a propane burner or torch and successively adding the source
material, while the burner/torch continued to operate throughout the duration of the experiment.
The testing was designed to collect and characterize the emissions from burning these
materials under conditions that simulate open-burn conditions found in a wildfire. The
continuous operation of the burner/torch was justified based on the fact that in a real wildfire,
any control volume of solid material that was burning would be continually exposed to heat from
adjacent control volumes of burning material. By doing this, the fluctuations in the burn are
minimized that might occur at the small-scale due to the burn charges being periodically
extinguished. Combustion performance was evaluated by Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM)
measurements of the exhaust flue gas concentrations, and by fuel bed temperatures as
measured by thermocouples (TCs). Samples included the feed materials, the combustion
residue ash, the PM, and the criteria pollutants in exhaust gases (O2, CO2, CO). Airborne
asbestos, if any, was determined by analyzing samples collected in the exhaust duct using two
simultaneous sampling techniques: The first method was based on a Modified EPA Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) for asbestos sampling[9], and the second was based on a modified
EPA Method 5 sampling train[10]. See Section 3.15 for more detail on sampling methods.
Temperatures in a wildfire can range from near-ambient, to temperatures greater than 2012 °F
(1100 °C)[14]. The experimental objectives to identify the potential temperature dependency of
LA emissions from duff combustion where balanced by budgetary limitations, which
necessitated selecting a limited number of conditions to test. Therefore it was decided to test at
two temperature conditions, defined as Low and High temperature conditions. The actual
temperatures selected as Low and High temperatures were largely determined by the
temperatures that were achievable by the experimental apparatus when operating within other
logistical constraints (feed rate, need for continuous burner/torch operation). The test matrix
consisted of two sampling conditions (High Temperature ~ 1800 °F (982 °C), and Low
Temperature ~ 800 °F [427 °C]) and was carried out in triplicate to allow the variability in the
results to be assessed. Hot blanks (propane burning only) were performed to determine the
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
baseline measurements for the tests. Table 3-3 summarizes the test matrix and the samples
that were collected to achieve the test objectives.
Table 3-3. Sampling and Measurement Test Sequences.
Test Duration
Scoping
First Hot Blank
Sample Collection
High Temperature
Setting
Hot Blank Sample
Collection
Low Temperature
Setting
Hot Blank Sample
Collection
OU3 Duff
Material
-90 min.
•/
-
V
-
•/
-
Burn Hut
Exhaust O2,
CO, C02
Cont.
•/
•/
V
•/
•/
V
Grate
Temp
Cont.
•/
•/
V
•/
•/
V
Bum Hut
Exhaust
Flows
Cont.
•/
•/
V
•/
•/
V
PM2.5
—60 min.
-
'(1)
^(3)
S(l)
'(3)
'(1)
Burn Hut
Exhaust
Asbestos
— 60 min
-
S(l)
^(3)
S(l)
^(3)
S(l)
Ash
Asbestos
-
-
N/A
^(3)
N/A
^(3)
N/A
Burn Hut
Wall Wipe
Sample
Asbestos
-
-
-
-
•/((,)
-
^(6)
» : Testing performed; - : Testing not performed, ^(n): (number of replicates)
TBD - to be determined
N/A - Not applicable
3.7 Open Burn Test Facility
3.1.1 Burn Hut
The OBTF was designed and constructed using various readily available standard building
elements. The building includes an enclosed burn region adjacent to a covered sampling area
where sampling equipment is protected from direct sun or rain. The basic structure is
composed of pre-coated sheet metal fitted to a frame of structural galvanized square tubing.
Base rails that are anchored to the concrete pad support the walls. The sheet metal walls are
attached to the square tubing frame by self-tapping Tek screws. This structure is commonly
used as a workshop or carport, and, for the standard design, the design wind load is 90 mph
with a roof live load of 293 kg/m2 (60 Ib/ft2). This design was modified by the addition of vertical
wall studs to match the dimensions of sheetrock wall board. The door is a standard 36 in. (91
cm) wide model offered for this shed. The window is a standard unit about 24 in. (61 cm) wide,
but the glass was replaced by 3/16 in. (0.48 cm) thick NeoCeram®, a clear ceramic material
used in woodstoves. The OBTF is designed to withstand 799 °C (1470 °F) in continuous
operation and has passed the Underwriters Laboratories (UL)-1482 lmpactTest[15]. This
material has a low coefficient of thermal expansion and will not create dangerous pressure
within its mounting frame. The interior was finished in 5/8 in. (1.6 cm) thick sheetrock that also
forms the backing to which aluminum foil can be attached. For these tests, the walls were lined
with aluminum foil, and in between each test condition, the foil was removed and replaced. The
wallboard seams were taped and spackled as in standard house applications. The board was
not painted. In general, volatile agents were avoided or other materials were substituted. The
final coating is a certified (ASTM B-479[16]) clean aluminum foil (Ultra-High Vacuum) purchased
9
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
from All Foils, Inc. The floor is made of 30.5 cm x 30.5 cm (1 ft x 1 ft) paving stones supported
by the underlying concrete pad to shield the scales from direct heat. A schematic diagram of
the Burn Hut is shown in Figure 3-1.
Total OBTF inside
Volume: 719 ft3
Figure 3-1. Burn Hut Internal Dimensions (Dimensions in feet; not to scale).
3.7.2 Feed Chute
In order to maintain the burn conditions for the minimum time to perform necessary asbestos
and PM sampling (approximately 1-hour) without 1) producing excess temperatures in the
exhaust duct that would exceed baghouse operating temperatures; and 2) having the sampling
period represent a period of time when the duff was burning and not reflect a very short time
where the duff might burn out and then either smolder or be completely combusted ash, the
material needed to be intermittently fed into the Burn Chamber over a nominal 1-hour period of
time. The gas temperature in the exhaust duct leaving the Burn Hut during a test can exceed
200 °F (93 °C). The gas can also be laden with fly ash and asbestos particles. For safety
reasons, it was not advisable for the OU3 material loading operation to require a test operator to
enter into the Burn Hut. In addition, opening and closing the Burn Hut access door will
introduce disturbances to the temperature and gas flow conditions inside the Burn Hut and will
create poorly characterized burning conditions. A round opening was therefore created on one
side wall of the Burn Hut to allow a stainless steel pipe to be installed and function as a feed
chute (Figure 3-2). With the feed ram retracted, the OU3 material charge was placed into the
receiver opening of the chute. The feed ram was then manually pushed in to deliver and drop
the charge into the burner setup.
10
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Figure 3-2. Fuel Feed Ram and Chute.
3.7.3 Burn Chamber
The release rates of LA and/or PM may depend on temperature. A real-world wildfire contains
temperature environments ranging from near-ambient conditions to temperatures exceeding
2000 °F (1093 °C). The two temperatures used in these experiments were selected based on
1) the desire to have two temperatures that were significantly different from each other in order
to identify a temperature dependency, if one existed; and 2) the experimental constraints of not
exceeding the baghouse inlet temperature and having an open burning combustion process
occurring inside an uninsulated environment where heat transfer would prevent achieving very
high temperatures. This dependence on temperature was investigated by performing burns at
two temperature settings: Low (~ 800 °F [427 °C]) and High Temperature ~ 1800 °F (982 °C).
The configuration of the Burn Chamber was slightly different for the two conditions.
3.8 High Temperature Setup
The Burn Chamber, shown in Figure 3-3 consisted of a stainless steel enclosure (dimensions:
30.5cm (1 ft) Wx 30.5 cm (1 ft) Lx91.3cm (3ft H)) sitting on the top of a 10-inch diameter
cast iron propane-fired burner capable of developing 320,000 BTU/hr of heat (32-Jet Nozzle
Cast Iron 25.4 cm (10-inch) Jet Burner http://www.tejassmokers.com/newproducts_page6.htm).
The propane-fired burner is capable of maintaining the desired high combustion temperature of
the duff. A smaller burner was tested initially, but was unable to achieve sufficiently high
temperatures to reach the targeted High Temperature test condition. A 25.4 cm (10-inch)
diameter (30.5 cm (1 ft) high) metal mesh screen basket, with a mesh screen bottom was
placed inside the combustion chamber to allow the combustion of the duff bags and the removal
of the ash after each burn.
11
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
3.9
Figure 3-3. High Temperature Condition Burn Chamber.
Low Temperature Setup
The Low Temperature setup (Figure 3-4) consisted only of the 10-inch (25.4 cm) diameter (1 ft
[30.5 cm] high) metal mesh screen basket, with a mesh screen bottom sitting on the scale. This
condition intended to mimic a smoldering biomass combustion scenario. A propane torch was
used to keep the burn going throughout the testing sequence.
Figure 3-4. Low Temperature Condition Burn Chamber.
The Burn Chamber was fitted with four K-Type TCs inserted in a radial fashion at about 1-inch
(2.54 cm) above the top of the grate to measure temperatures of the burning mass of material.
The Burn Chamber was mounted on a scale with a resolution of about ±0.1 Ib (0.454 kg) to
continuously monitor the mass of the fuel remaining. The propane tank is not mounted on this
scale, so the loss of propane during the burn will not confound the mass measurements.
3.10 Burn Hut, Baghouse and HEPA Filter
Smoke from the burning material traveled through an exhaust flue gas duct, where sampling for
LA and PM was performed. The duct was connected to a baghouse Model 72RT-21
manufactured by MAC Equipment and HEPA filters to avoid any LA release to the atmosphere.
The HEPA filter (AstrolCel I Model 905-000-348) has dimensions of 24 inch x 24 inch x 11 Y2
inch (61 cm x61 cm x29.2 cm) and was specifically installed in preparation for these tests to
ensure that no asbestos would escape into the atmosphere. The HEPA filter was rated for a
12
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
maximum service temperature of 93 °C (200 °F) and has an efficiency of 99.99% for 0.3 urn
particles. Figure 3-5 shows the Burn Hut, exhaust ductwork and the baghouse and the HEPA
filter.
Figure 3-5. Burn Hut, Baghouse, and HEPA Filter.
3.11 Burn Material
Based on initial discussions with EPA Region 8, the source materials most likely to release LA
to air during a fire in OU3 appeared to be duff and bark. Duff is defined as the biomass
accumulated on the forest floor and consists mainly of shed vegetative parts, such as leaves,
branches, bark and stems existing in various stages of decomposition above the soil
surface[17]. During an authentic wildfire, the principal material that is burned is duff and small
woody debris, while bark on large standing trees (the likely primary location of embedded LA
fibers) is usually only charred. In addition, available data collected during earlier duff LA
sampling efforts by EPA Region 8[11] indicate that the levels of LA (mass per unit mass) are
likely to be much higher in duff than in bark[18] (0.52% vs. 0.0026% over average of 6
samples). The main source of LA released to air during a fire was considered most likely to be
duff. For this reason, the study focused exclusively on duff as the burn material.
Pre-packaged 227 g + 45.3 g (0.5 ± 0.1 Ib) duff samples were shipped to EPAs Research
Triangle Park, NC facilities in large shipping containers (e.g., 208 Liters (55-gallon) cardboard
drums, lined with plastic). The duff collection, homogenization, handling and shipping were
performed according to the Libby OU3 QAPP Section B1.1 and B3, respectively[19].
The duff material was collected by EPA Region 8 at a location in relatively close proximity to the
vermiculite mine, with already-measured concentrations of LA fibers. Out of the approximately
300 bags of duff collected, four bags of duff were selected at random from the lot of material
collected in OU3, and these bags were submitted to the analytical laboratory for LA analysis by
TEM[3] (ISO 10312). The results from this analysis are shown in Table 3-4. Each bag was
dried and ashed, and the residue was suspended in water and applied to a filter for examination
by TEM, with the PCME asbestos fibers being the primary asbestos measurement since the
PCME fibers are the ones of health concern by the EPA. Based on the average of the four
replicate samples, the concentration in duff was 160 million (1.6 x 108) PCME fibers per gram of
duff (dry weight).
13
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 3-4. LA Fibers in Duff Material.
Parameter
Mass of duff
Mass of duff
Ratio
Mass of ash
Ratio (ash /
duff)
Effective Filter
Area (EFA)
Grid Openings
(GO)
Area of Grid
Openings
(AGO)
Mass
suspended
Susp vol
Vol filtered
F Factor
N
Ratio (PCME/
Total)
Concentration
in ash from duff
Concentration
in duff
Unit
g (as received)
g (dry wt)
dry wt/wetwt
g
g ash/g duff dry wt
mm2
—
mm2
g
ml_
ml_
-
total LA s
PCME LA s
Structures per
structure (s/s)
Total LA s/g ash
PCME LA s/g ash
Total LA s/g duff
(dry wt)
PCME LA s/g duff
(dry wt)
Replicate
1
209.15
198.60
0.95
121.97
0.61
1286
4
0.0132
0.25
100
0.3
0.003
77
12
16%
2.5 x109
3.9 x108
1.54E+09
2.39E+08
2
214.68
204.1
0.95
128.5
0.63
1286
4
0.0132
0.25
100
0.5
0.005
69
8
12%
1.34x109
1.56x108
8.46E+08
9.81E+07
3
212.15
200.91
0.95
113.49
0.56
1286
5
0.0132
0.25
100
0.5
0.005
61
16
26%
9.51 x108
2.49x108
5.37E+08
1.41E+08
4
210.4
198.77
0.94
114.9
0.58
1286
4
0.0132
0.25
100
0.5
0.005
62
14
23%
1.21 x109
2.73 x108
6.98E+08
1.58E+08
Mean
211.6
200.6
0.95
119.7
0.60
1286
4
0.0132
0.25
100
0.045
0.0045
NA
NA
19%
1.50E+09
2.67E+08
9.04E+08
1.59E+08
NA - not applicable
The average values were used throughout the calculations, since the exposure assessment
calculations require the use of average values, therefore the variability in the emissions across
replicate runs was not considered in the emission factor calculations other than as an indicator
of the reproducibility of the experiments. The duff was subjected to a proximate and ultimate
analysis, the results of which are shown in Table 3-5. Note that the ash % reported in Table 3-5
does not match the ash % reported in Table 3-4, since Table 3-5 represents completely
combusting the sample to find out how much inorganic content there is, whereas the residual
ash reported in Table 3-4 contained a considerable amount of unburned carbon.
14
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 3-5. Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Duff Material.
Analysis
Ash
Volatile Matter
Loss on Drying (LOD)
Fixed Carbon (Calculated)
C : Carbon
Cl : Chlorine
Oxygen by difference
H : Hydrogen
N : Nitrogen
S : Sulfur
Grind
Method*
ASTM D31 74-11 [20]
ASTM D31 75-11 [21]
ASTM D31 73-11 [22]
Calculation
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure ME-4A
Calculation
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure E16-2
GLI Procedure G-8
Result (Mass basis)
36.34 %
49.65 %
9.00 %
14.01 %
34.064 %
34.165%
240 ppm
27.47 %
4.140%
4.133%
0.970 %
0.856 %
< 0.05 %
Completed
Basis
Dried and Ground
Dried and Ground
As Received
Dried
Dried and Ground
Dried and Ground
Dried
Dried and Ground
Dried and Ground
Dried and Ground
Dried
* GLI Methods are Galbraith Laboratories, Inc. internal methods.
3.12 Amount of Material
Desired burn conditions involved having a batch of material nearly completely combusted prior
to feeding the next batch of material. Feeding too rapidly would cause material to accumulate in
the Burn Chamber and possibly produce temperatures in the Burn Hut exceeding safe operating
temperatures. Feeding too slowly would result in significant portions of the sampling duration to
elapse while no duff combustion was occurring. Previous experimental studies from the
OBTF[23] suggested that a burn rate of about 10 pounds per hour might be appropriate in order
to prevent the heat of combustion inside the Burn Hut from resulting in flue gas temperatures in
excess of 200 °F (93 °C) at the inlet to the baghouse. Based on this experimental study and
assuming burn duration of approximately one hour, the mass of duff required per burn was
calculated to be approximately 10 pounds (4.5 kg).
3.13 Test Cond itions
Burns were initiated by starting the propane burner and stabilizing its operation for 5 minutes
15
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
(High Temperature setting) or using a propane torch. Combustion was sustained for both Low
and High Temperature settings by adding two bags for the former and one bag for the latter at
regular intervals (every 5 min). For convenience and also for safety, the duff was added
packaged in paper bags and was not removed from the bags. The mass of paper (-7.5 g) in
the bags was small (-3.3%) compared to the mass of duff, and was not expected to
substantially influence the emissions of PM2.5. The temperature at which the material is burning
may influence the release of both LA and PM. The Low Temperature conditions were expected
to be around 430°C (800°F) and the High Temperature conditions were expected to be around
980 °C(1800 °F) or higher.
3.13.1 Scoping Test
To identify appropriate operating scenarios to achieve the High Temperature and Low
Temperature combustion conditions, a short series of scoping tests was run, using duff material
collected on the EPA's Research Triangle Park campus. The duff that was collected was
anticipated to be at least qualitatively similar to the duff from the vicinity of the Libby, MT,
vermiculitemine.
Figure 3-6 shows the propane-fired burner that ended up being used for the High Temperature
tests following the series of scoping tests. Figure 3-7 shows a photograph of the Burn Chamber
that ended up being used for the High Temperature combustion conditions. Note the Type-K
TCs mounted in a radial manner at the base of the Burn Chamber.
Figure 3-6. Photograph of Propane-Fired Ring Burner.
16
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Figure 3-7. Photograph of Burn Chamber for High-Temperature Conditions.
Figure 3-8 shows the maximum and minimum temperatures as recorded by Three out of four
TCs (one of the TCs was not laying down on the grate properly) as bags of duff were fed into
the Burn Chamber for the test conditions eventually identified as the High Temperature test
conditions for the experiments. There is a slight variation between the TCs measurements,
probably due to their locations on the grate with respect to the burner and with respect to the
location where the bags land. Figure 3-9 shows a photograph of the duff burning during the
conditions identified during this scoping test. The maximum temperature was used to assess
whether or not the target temperature was achieved to establish the High Temperature
condition.
17
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
o
o
I
D)
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
the location where the bags land and ignite provided necessarily higher temperatures reading in
the burn basket. The target temperature conditions were met at the grate midway through the
test.
700-
600-
Minimum Temperature
Maximum Temperature
Time (EOT)
Figure 3-10. Grate Temperatures for Duff Combustion — Low Temperature Scoping Test.
Figure 3-11. Photograph of Duff Combustion — Low-Temperature Scoping Test.
3.14 Test Procedures
3.14.1 Burn Hut Preparation and Post-Test Cleanup
It was necessary to prevent cross contamination of test samples between the two conditions
19
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
(Low and High Temperature). It was also crucial to minimize the opportunity for fugitive release
of asbestos-containing particles during and after the tests. Therefore, before the first High
Temperature test and after the last Low Temperature test, the inside of the Burn Hut was
cleaned according to the following procedures.
• Don PPE approved for working in an asbestos-containing environment;
• Remove aluminum foil lining, store the removed foil in drums designated for storing and
shipping asbestos-containing waste. (After removal from the wall, the aluminum foil was
folded in half with the exposed surface folded in, and folding continued until the foil could fit
into a 55-gallon asbestos-labeled drum.)
• Remove loose particulate materials from all internal surfaces using a vacuum cleaner
(Omega Vac) designed for removal and capture of asbestos and toxic dust. A new vacuum
filter and a clean inlet hose were used for each clean up event to reduce the opportunity for
sample cross-contamination;
• Collect vacuum cleaner catch into a labeled glass jar for archive and possible analysis; and
• Reline the walls with new aluminum foil.
3.14.2 Control of Combustion Conditions
The temperature of the burn was controlled by adjusting the flame of the propane burner for the
High Temperature conditions, or using a propane torch for the Low Temperature conditions.
Target temperatures were approximately 800 °F (425 °C, Low Temperature) and 1800 °F (982
°C, High Temperature). These target temperatures are within the high and Low Temperature
range expected from a wildfire. Although this range might not fully encompass the temperatures
that may occur during authentic wildfires, within experimental limitations and recognizing the
lack of being able to perform open air burning of LA-contaminated material at the field-scale, it
was determined to likely be adequate to determine sensitivity of the LA and PM2.s emissions to
burn temperatures and combustion mode (flaming or smoldering).
3.15 Sampling Methods
3.15.1 LA Combustion Exhaust Sampling Method
No validated sampling methods are available for measurement of asbestos from combustion
sources. Methods exist for measurement of asbestos in ambient air, and methods exist for
measurement of PM in stack gases. Therefore, to quantify the LA fibers in the smoke from the
exhaust duct, multiple hybrids of ambient asbestos methods coupled with stack PM
measurement methods were adapted and used so that acceptable samples could be acquired
and analyzed in spite of the lack of validated sampling methods. LA in Bum Chamber smoke
was sampled using two different techniques to ensure that LA data were acquired in the event
that the non-standard sampling environment made the standard method fail. The two sampling
methods used were: 1) the Mixed Cellulose Ester (MCE) Filter Method (the standard for ambient
measurement of asbestos); and 2) the Impinger Method (a variant on stack sampling methods).
3.15.1.1 MCE Filter Method
The MCE filter method is based on a Modified EPA SOP for asbestos sampling[9]. The
modification consists of using a Volatile Organic Sampling Train with a dry gas meter instead of
a personnel sampling pump. This SOP provides procedures for asbestos air sampling by
drawing a known volume of air from the exhaust flue gas and passing it through an MCE filter
20
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
(25 mm diameter, 0.8 |jm pore size). The filter was then sent to a laboratory and analyzed by
TEM, as specified in Section B.4.1 of the Libby OU3 Burn Chamber QAPP[19].
The sampling port for the MCE filters was selected at a location in the exhaust flue where gas
temperatures are sufficiently low that neither the filter nor the filter cassette would be damaged
by high temperatures. Sampling occurred using a flow rate of 5.1 ± 0.2 liters/min for the High
temperature setting conditions and a sampling time of 15 minutes per sample. The flow rate
through the filter was monitored during sample collection. If the flow began to decrease due to
filter plugging with PM before 15 minutes, the filter would be changed more frequently, so that
the target flow rate would be maintained during the entire hour of sampling. To better
encompass the entire burn period, an additional MCE filter sample was acquired during the Low
Temperature burn conditions during the 15 minutes after duff ceased to be fed. This scheme for
sample collection resulted in collection of four MCE filters per 1-hour burn under the High
Temperature conditions, and five MCE filters per 1-1/4 hour burn under the Low Temperature
conditions, with an average volume for each sample of 76.4 ± 3.4 liters per filter.
It should be noted that initially the MCE filter housing was positioned in the duct perpendicular to
the flow as per the recommendations of the method (this is contrary to probe positioning for
stack sampling). The initial results from the tests under High Temperature conditions showed
measurable asbestos fibers in the impingers (see Section 3.15.1.2), but none on the MCE
filters. These results led to the assumption that the MCE filters may not have sampled
isokinetically to allow the capture of the LA fibers using the filters perpendicular to the flow. A
new sampling scheme (Figure 3-12) with the filter housing pointed into the flow to allow
isokinetic sampling for the MCE filters was designed and used for the Low Temperature tests.
The revised sampling scheme for the Low Temperature tests consisted of attaching a 7.6 cm (3-
inch) long, 3.175 mm (0.125-inch) diameter stainless steel nozzle (see Figure 3-13) to the MCE
filter inlet using a specially manufactured O-ring fitting. This nozzle/filter assembly was directly
inserted into the duct effluent through a port drilled in the side of the duct as shown in the
attached drawing. Rigid tubing and fittings were used on the outlet of the filter to keep the
assembly straight in the duct. Flexible tubing was used between the rigid tubing outlet and the
pump/meter box. The target airflow rate passing through the MCE filter (25 mm diameter, 0.8
urn pore size) to ensure isokinetic sampling using this sampling scheme was 8.5 ± 0.5 L/min.
Four MCE filters were sampled per 1-hour burn, with a total volume of 128 ± 7.9 liters per filter.
An additional MCE filter was sampled for 15 minutes following completion of feeding the duff,
providing for an additional 129.4 ± 2.9 liters of sample of "smoldering" combustion effluent.
21
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
AIR FLOW
O
FRONT VIEW
0.125 INCH NOZZLE
AIR FLOW
TOP VIEW
Figure 3-12. OBTF Exit Duct with MCE Filter Sampling Scheme.
Figure 3-13. Stainless Steel Nozzle.
3.15.1.2 Impinger Method
The sampling port for the impingers was in close proximity to the sample port for the MCE filter.
The "impinger" sampling method is essentially EPA Method 5[10], with the only variation that no
filter is included upstream of the impingers in the sample train.
The sampling train consisted of the probe, followed by four impingers: two each containing 100
ml_ of deionized (Dl) water, one empty, and the last one containing silica gel. The impinger
water samples, along with the probe rinse water, were combined and submitted to the
laboratory for further preparation (the water samples were sonicated and filtered) and analyzed
22
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
by TEM by E MS L Analytical, Inc. in Libby, MT[3].
3.15.2 Ash Sampling
After the burn was completed, all the ash remaining from the combustion of the duff was
collected, weighed, placed into a glass bottle, and shipped to the analytical laboratory (EMSL
Analytical, Inc., in Cinnaminson, NJ) for analysis of LA in the ash as described in Section B4 of
the Libby OU3 Burn Chamber QAPP[1 9].
3.15.3 Burn Hut Wall Wipe Samples
Six wipe samples covering 1 square foot of the floor, ceiling, and each wall of the Burn Hut,
were collected after completion of each series of tests under each set of combustion conditions,
after the wall-covering aluminum foil had been removed and vacuum cleaning of the Burn Hut
interior surfaces was completed. The primary purpose of these samples was to ensure that the
Burn Hut was free from residual asbestos contamination so that subsequent entry into the Burn
Hut would not subject personnel to asbestos exposure, and to ensure that subsequent
experimental efforts in the OBTF could proceed without additional PPE requirements.
3. 15.4 Burn Hut Exhaust Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Flue gas volumetric flow rates were determined by EPA Method 1A: Sample and Velocity
Traverses for Stationary Sources with Small Stacks or Ducts[5] and EPA Method 2C:
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate in Small Stacks and Ducts
(Standard Pitot Tube)[6]. A measurement location in the effluent stream was selected to
minimize angular and cyclonic flow. For these tests, traverses were performed 1 .52 m (5 ft)
downstream of the Burn Hut exhaust duct inlet.
Using Method 1 A, the duct cross section was divided into an appropriate number of equal areas
and the probe was marked to signify the velocity traverse points. Due to the potential for flow
disturbance in small stacks, the sample extraction and flow measurement were performed apart
from one another. Sampling ports for extractive samples were located eight equivalent
diameters upstream of the velocity sampling ports to allow for the re-establishment of flow
stability. Using Method 2C, a traverse for velocity head and sampling duct gas temperature was
performed using a standard Pitot tube and TC probe to minimize flow disturbance. Sampling
duct gas volumetric flow rate was calculated by use of the resultant data, the sampling duct gas
density, and duct cross sectional area. Measurements were performed in conjunction with each
test run for filterable/condensable particulate. Flow data, along with pollutant concentration data
from concurrent methods was used to calculate pollutant mass emission rates. This
determination was made in conjunction with EPA Method 201A[7].
3. 15.5 Burn Hut Exhaust Gas Moisture
Sampling duct gas moisture was determined by EPA Method 4: Determination of Moisture
Content in Stack Gases[8]. In Method 4, a gas sample is extracted from the source with
moisture removed and determined gravimetrically and/or vol urn etrically. Method 4 samples
were taken as a part of the EPA Modified Method 5.
3. 15.6 Burn Hut Filterable PM
3.15.6.1 Burn Hut Exhaust
Filterable PM2.s sampling was performed according to EPA Modified Method 201A:
23
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Determination of PM10 and PM2.s Emissions from Stationary Sources (Constant Sampling Rate
Procedure) Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources[7]. An exhaust gas sample was
withdrawn from the sampling duct isokinetically and passed through a particle sizerwith a
nominal diameter of 2.5 urn. A 47-mm Glassmat filter was included in the particle sizing device
solely to collect PM with sizes less than or equal to 2.5 urn. The filtered dried gas was
measured with a calibrated dry gas meter and the filters were desiccated and weighed
according to the EPA Method 201 A.
3.15.6.2 Burn Hut Exhaust Total Filterable PM
Burn Hut total filterable PM was measured according to EPA Modified Method 5: Determination
of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources[10]. PM was withdrawn isokinetically
from the source and collected on a glass fiber filter maintained at a temperature of 120 ± 14 °C
(248 ± 25 °F). The filtered, dried gas was measured with a calibrated dry gas meter and the
filters were desiccated and weighed according to the EPA Method 5.
Both methods were modified slightly due to the small diameter of the sampling duct (10 inches),
which is lower than the minimum diameter (16 inches) listed in the method. Due to the small
diameter of the sampling duct and the large profile of the PM2.s head, a multi-point velocity
traverse was conducted before and after the runs and only single point sampling was
performed.
3.15.7 Combustion Temperature
The High and Low Temperature combustion conditions were determined with four K-Type TCs
inserted in a radial fashion at the top of the grate. These TCs served to measure the
combustion temperature continuously during the burn cycle.
3.15.8 Duff Sample Feed and Burn Rate
For the High Temperature combustion conditions, the duff material was fed by adding two bags
(215 g average per bag) at a time at regular intervals (every 5 min). The average duff burning
rate over the first sampling hour is about 35 g/min and this rate remained consistent within the
burn sequence or between different burn sequences as illustrated in Figure 3-14.
24
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
3000-
2500-
E~ 2000-
™ 1500-
1000-
500-
0-
Testl
•| 2500-
o
-o 2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
0-
Test 2
10 20 30 40 50
Cummulative burn time (min)
60
Figure 3-14. Duff Mass Loss during the High Temperature Burn
For the Low Temperature combustion conditions designed to mimic a smoldering burning
scenario, the duff material was added one bag (211 g_average per bag over the three burns) at
regular intervals (every five min). The average duff burning rate over the first sampling hour for
the burns is about 22 g/min and remained consistent with the burn sequence or between
different burn sequences as illustrated in Figure 3-15. This burning rate is much lower than the
High Temperature setting condition due mostly to the high firing rate of the cast iron propane-
fired burner compared to the propane torch and to the halved duff rate required to have
sustained combustion during the whole sampling run.
25
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
10 20 30 40 50
Cummulative burn time (min)
60
Figure 3-15. Duff Mass Loss during the Low Temperature Burn
3.15.9 Sample Collection Period
3.15.9.1 Extractive Sampling
Sampling started immediately after the feed material was ignited and continued for the whole
duration of the test (1 hour).
3.15.9.2 Continuous Measurements
Continuous measurements testing began in general about 30 minutes prior to the onset of the
propane fuel burning and continued for another hour after the last extractive sample had been
collected. These measurements were not deemed critical but aided in the understanding of the
combustion process.
3.15.10 Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs)
Continuous instrumental methods were employed via the use of CEMs to measure
concentrations of CO2, O2, and CO. These instruments were operated in accordance with EPA
Method 3A (CO2/O2)[12] and EPA Method 10 (CO) as described in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix
Burn Hut exhaust gas samples destined for measurement by the CEMs were conditioned to
remove water vapor and PM, which are interfering constituents. Components of the sampling
system in contact with the sample gas were constructed of Type 316 stainless steel or Teflon®
to minimize the possibility of surface chemical reactions, which can affect the accuracy of the
measurements. The CO2/O2 and CO sample collection and conditioning system consisted of a
heated probe and a particulate filter, followed by a moisture-removal trap and an out-of-stack
secondary particulate filter. A sample pump (such as Thomas Model 2107CA 18-TFE)
26
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
transported the effluent sample through a distribution manifold to the analyzers. The
configuration of the sampling system allowed the calibration gases to be injected either directly
to the analyzers or through the complete sample collection and conditioning system.
The concentration signal outputs from the CEMs were connected to a computer-based data
acquisition system (DAS). The DAS used a laptop computer and an analog-to-digital converter.
For the purposes of these tests, the data was logged at 6-second intervals without time
averaging data. The functioning of the DAS was checked by the EPA Metrology Laboratory to
verify that the indicated signal levels were in agreement with calibrated instruments such as
digital voltmeters, TC readouts, and other reference measurements.
All pre-test and post-test calibration procedures were performed as outlined in the specific EPA
methods.
3.15.10.1 Burn Hut Exhaust Gas COZ/OZ (EPA Method 3A)
CO2 and O2 concentrations were determined by EPA Method 3A - Determination of Oxygen and
Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer
Procedure)[12]. In Method 3A, a continuous gas sample is extracted from the stack and
conveyed to instrumental analyzers for the determination of O2 and CO2 concentration. Results
were used in the calculation of sampling duct gas molecular weight.
3.15.10.2 Burn Hut Exhaust Gas CO (EPA Method 10)
CO emissions were determined by EPA Method 10 - Determination of Carbon Monoxide
Emissions from Stationary Sources[13]. In Method 10, a continuous gas sample is extracted
from the sampling duct and conveyed to an instrumental analyzer (non-dispersive infrared
[NDIR] or equivalent) for the determination of CO concentration. Flow data from concurrent
EPA Methods 1 A[5] and 2C[6] were used to calculate CO mass emission rates.
3.16 Analytical Methods
3.16.1 LA Analysis
All MCE filters, collected water samples from impinger sampling, and ash material generated by
burning duff material in the Burn Hut were shipped to the analytical laboratory (EMSL Analytical,
Inc.) for estimation of the LA in each sample by TEM, as per Section B.4 of the OU3 Burn
Chamber SAP[19]. Sample packaging and shipping of air filters for the analysis of LA followed
the requirements described in OU3 SOP No. 8, Revision 1[24].
3.16.2 PM2.5 in Exhaust Flue Smoke
The mass of PM2.5 material emitted in smoke during the burn was measured by Resolution
Analytics, Inc. (Sanford< North Carolina) gravimetrically in general accord with the approach
described in EPA Method 201A - Determination of PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions from Stationary
Sources (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure)[7].
27
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A summary of the sampling information including sampling times, volumes, isokinetic rates and
sample mass collected can be found in Table 4-1 (High Temperature), Table 4-2 (Low
Temperature), and Table 4-3 (Blanks). The average temperatures, CO2, and CO can be found
in Table 4-4 (High Temperature), Table 4-5 (Low Temperature), and Table 4-6 (Blanks). The
results from the carbon balance calculations are shown in Table 4-7 (High Temperature) and
Table 4-8 (Low Temperature). During Test 2, the low range CO2 analyzer did not work, and the
results from that test are reported solely based on the high range CO2 analyzer. It is not known
why the CO2 from the second test is so low compared to Test 1 and Test 3.
Delta CO2 is used to determine the mass of carbon burned in each phase (pre-duff burning, duff
burning). For the pre-burning (burner only), ambient CO2 was subtracted from CO2 generated
from the burner. The Delta CO2 for the duff burning is the emissions of CO2 minus the CO2
generated during the pre-duff burning. For most of the experiments, the ambient CO2 is about
400 ppmv, and the CO2 emitted from the burner is about 1600 ppmv.
The combustion efficiencies for the duff burns, defined as the molar emissions of CO2 divided by
the molar emissions of CO + CO2 are 94.9 % with a standard deviation of 2.3% for the High
Temperature burns and 94.6 % with a standard deviation of 3.8% for the Low Temperature
burns.
28
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-1. Sampling Information from High Temperature Test Conditions.
Test ID1
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling (Burner Only)
EX-HT-IMP-01-1 21911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-1 22211
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-1 22811
Sampling Train
Type
Impinger Sampling
Method for Asbestos
Total PM Sampling
Using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling
Using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling
UsingSOP-2015
Impinger Sampling
Method for Asbestos
Total PM Sampling
Using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling
Using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling
UsingSOP-2015
Impinger Sampling
Method for Asbestos
Total PM Sampling
Using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling
Using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling
UsinaSOP-2015
Start
Time
10:00
14:15
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:56
15:12
15:28
9:13
10:52
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:21
11:37
11:53
8:49
10:09
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:34
10:50
11:06
End
Time
10:15
14:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
14:15
15:11
15:27
15:43
9:28
11:01
12:05
12:05
12:05
11:20
11:36
11:52
12:08
9:15
10:14
11:16
11:16
11:16
10:31
10:49
11:05
11:21
Sample Volume (Dry
Std. Liters)
1192.2
1229.6
751.2
76.6
75.6
73.6
75.6
1126.9
1110.1
753.2
74.9
78.9
76.0
82.6
1038.5
1119.8
769.4
48.4
75.6
78.7
70.8
Total Flue Gas Volume (Dry
Std. Liters)
2064330
2053359
2069390
515590
1825560
1831670
1828452
4571 40
1858606
1876974
1861996
466465
Isokineticity (%)
97
101
95
No n-lso kinetic
Sampling
106
102
108
No n-lso kinetic
Sampling
99
100
109
No n-lso kinetic
Sampling
Sample
Mass (g)
1429
1474
900
92
91
88
91
1351
1331
903
90
95
91
99
1245
1342
922
58
91
94
85
1Sample ID descriptor: AA-
CCC, the type of sampling
BB-CCC -NN-MMDDYY (where AA defines the sampling location; BB the combustion temperature setting;
train; NN, the run number; MMDDYY, month, day, and year when the test was run).
29
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-2. Sampling Information from Low Temperature Test Conditions.
Test ID
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
EX-LT-PM-03-021412
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021412
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 512
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021512
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021612
EX-LT-PM-03-021612
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 612
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021612
Sampling train Type
Impinger Sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM Sampling Using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling Using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling Using SOP-2015
Impinger Sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM Sampling Using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling Using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling Using SOP-2015
Impinger Sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM Sampling Using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling Using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling Using SOP-2015
Start
Time
10:55
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:21
11:37
11:54
9:01
10:50
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:28
11:42
11:58
12:15
8:05
9:36
9:40
9:40
9:40
9:40
9:56
10:13
10:29
10:46
End
Time
11:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
11:20
11:36
11:52
12:09
9:03
11:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
11:25
11:43
11:57
12:13
12:30
8:20
9:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
9:55
10:11
10:28
10:44
11:01
Sample Volume
(Dry Std. Liters)
1187.5
1187.4
745.0
139.6
127.8
127.4
126.1
1189.0
1167.3
753.7
105.5
132.0
127.8
127.7
131.1
1136.9
1142.8
747.9
127.0
134.4
124.3
132.6
131.1
Total Flue gas Volume
(Dry Std. Liters)
2134181
2136481
2127280
541 1 73
533773
530347
528099
2094171
2100541
2091134
34377
43258
42227
42454
42339
2042326
2047923
2041 983
518852
515172
513596
513650
523940
Isokinetic
rate (%)
97
99
92
106
98
98
98
99
99
95
81
102
99
100
100
97
99
96
100
107
99
106
103
Sample
Mass (g)
1423
1423
898
167
153
152
151
1425
1399
909
126
158
153
153
157
1363
1370
902
152
161
149
159
157
30
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-3. Sampling Information from Blanks.
Test ID
EX-PMHotBlank-01-
121511 (burner ON)
EX-Hot blank-PM-01-
121511
EX-Hot Blank-PM2.5-
01-121511
EX-Hot blank-MCE-
01B-121511
EX-PMAirBlank-01-
122911
EX-HT-PM-01 -122911
EX-HT-PM2.5-01 -
122911
EX-HT-MCE-01 B-
122911
EX-IMP LTBIank-01-
021712
EX-PMLTBIank-01-
021712
EX-PM2.5 LT Blank-
01-021712
EX-MCE LTBIank-01-
021712
Type of Blank
Sample
Burner ON
Ambient air
inside the Burn
Hut
Torch ON
Sampling train
Type
Impinger sampling
Method for
Asbestos
Total PM sampling
using EPA Method
5
PM 2.5 Sampling
using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling
using SOP-2015
Impinger sampling
Method for
Asbestos
Total PM sampling
using EPA Method
5
PM 2.5 Sampling
using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling
using SOP-2015
Impinger sampling
Method for
Asbestos
Total PM sampling
using EPA Method
5
PM 2.5 Sampling
using EPA 201 a
Asbestos Sampling
using SOP-2015
Start
Time
End
Time
EOT
13:48
13:48
13:48
13:55
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:15
9:45
9:45
9:45
9:45
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:55
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
Sample
Volume
Total Flue gas Volume
Dry Standard Liters
1814.6
1816.9
777.0
156.5
1061.0
1110.4
756.4
317.0
1170.9
1149.9
750.4
508.2
1863854
1838951
1860732
1854512
1854875
1856470
1854018
1855121
2042686
2038362
2045959
2063102
Isokineticity
%
100
101
110
Non-lso kinetic
sampling
101
101
115
Non-lso kinetic
sampling
100
100
96
101
Sample Mass
Grams
2177
2178
931
188
1272
1331
907
380
1404
1379
895
606
31
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-4. Average Temperatures, CO2, and CO for High Temperature Test Conditions.
Test ID
Air Sampling
Pre-Duff Sampling (Burner
Only)
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
Ai ig
Pre-Duff Sampling (Burner
Only)
EX-HT-IMP-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-1 22211
Air Sampling
Pre-Duff Sampling (Burner
Only)
EX-HT-IMP-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-1 22811
Temperature at the Grate (°C)
T1
8
712
878
878
878
899
888
846
884
15
785
857
857
857
845
839
858
890
5
659
888
888
888
955
934
846
763
T2
8
791
810
810
810
858
799
782
804
15
746
907
907
907
931
909
901
877
5
756
832
832
832
851
840
833
781
T3
5
919
829
829
829
852
826
820
819
17
772
746
746
746
700
759
763
761
5
939
936
936
936
974
929
953
846
T5
8
562
717
717
717
684
734
718
738
16
572
753
753
753
726
755
764
769
6
804
776
776
776
818
757
768
753
Temperature 4 inches
Above the Grate (°C)
T4
8
562
717
717
717
684
734
718
738
16
393
476
476
476
542
418
449
519
6
546
582
582
582
606
565
578
597
T6
8
493
556
556
556
578
582
592
430
16
496
527
527
527
560
506
520
531
6
484
596
596
596
615
593
588
603
Average CO2
Average CO
Delta C02
Delta CO
pprrr
644
1852
3717
3717
3717
3309
3648
3868
4074
1713
2381
2381
2381
2145
2328
2424
2692
1342
2674
2674
2674
2237
2548
2844
3236
7.50
75
75
75
37
70
96
95
0
58
58
58
21
46
74
98
0
61
61
61
11
41
86
127
NA1
1208
1865
1865
1865
1457
1796
2016
2222
1
68
68
68
30
62
88
88
NA
Nav2
667
667
667
431
615
710
979
57
57
57
21
46
74
98
NA
NAv
1332
1332
1332
895
1207
1502
1894
61
61
61
11
41
86
128
1Not applicable; 2Not available
32
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-5. Average Temperatures, CO2, and CO for Low Temperature Test Conditions.
Test ID
Ambient Air
Pre-Duff Sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
EX-LT-PM-03-021412
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021412
Ambient Air
Pre-Duff Sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 51 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021512
Ambient Air
Pre-Duff Sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021612
EX-LT-PM-03-021612
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 61 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021612
Temperature at the Grate (°C)
Tl
9
388
388
388
216
450
441
442
6
127
225
225
225
74
105
330
449
443
8
127
306
306
306
143
336
366
392
396
T2
NA
NA
Na
T3
9
323
323
323
229
378
351
320
7
135
340
340
340
106
323
506
493
436
8
143
486
486
486
408
545
487
497
505
T4
9
298
298
298
135
359
349
343
7
118
283
283
283
199
260
331
371
387
8
158
488
488
488
312
613
511
508
542
T5
9
395
395
395
132
488
480
471
7
101
203
203
203
55
81
320
423
476
8
107
236
236
236
61
228
325
354
431
T6
9
364
364
364
135
446
440
431
7
128
205
205
205
77
98
307
398
446
8
139
251
251
251
99
269
311
341
381
Duct
Temperature
(°C)
22
25
23
21
20
46
46
46
38
44
50
52
28
33
33
33
28
31
35
37
19
Average
CO2
Average
CO
Delta CO2
Delta CO
ppmv
426
604
604
604
708
608
569
416
454
916
1542
1542
1542
1055
1349
1854
2103
869
466
629
818
818
818
681
799
927
857
530
10
28
28
28
24
36
28
17
12
0
41
41
41
2
28
66
83
68
0
0
0
0
0
3
14
22
32
19
The torch emissions were not
available to determine the mass of
carbon burned from duff only
626
626
626
139
433
939
1187
415
41
41
41
2
28
66
83
55
NAv
189
189
189
52
170
298
228
64
0
0
0
2
14
21
32
19
33
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-6. Average Temperatures, CO2, and CO for Blanks.
Test ID
Ambient air
EX-PM HotBlank-01-
121511 (burner ON)
EX-Hot blank-PM-01-
121511
EX-Hot Blank-PM2.5-
01-121511
EX-Hot blank-MCE-
01B-121511
Ambient air
EX-IMP LTBIank-01-
021712
EX-PM LTBIank-01-
021712
EX-PM2.5 LT Blank-
01-021712
EX-MCE LT Blank-
01-021712
Temperature at the grate
T1
16
830
830
830
830
T2
19
748
748
748
748
T3
17
826
826
826
826
T5
17
144
144
144
144
Temperature
4 inches
above the
grate
T4
19
120
120
120
120
T6
17
672
672
672
672
NAv
153
153
153
153
117
117
117
117
437
437
437
437
191
191
191
191
116
116
116
116
117
117
117
117
Average
CO2
Averag
eCO
Delta
CO2
Delta
CO
ppmv
437
1845
1845
1845
1845
437
732
732
733
733
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO2
generated
from the
burner
CO
generated
from the
burner
ppmm
Mass of Carbon
generated from
the burner
sample
d
Total
NA
1408
1408
1408
1408
295
295
296
296
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2147
2147
2149
2148
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.27
1.28
0.55
0.11
1309
1291
1307
1302
NA
450
450
453
451
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.07
301
300
302
303
34
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-7. Carbon Balance from High Temperature Test Conditions.
Test ID
Pre-Duff Sampling (Burner
Only)
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
Pre-Duff Sampling (Burner
Only)
EX-HT-IMP-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM-02-122211
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-1 22211
Pre-Duff sampling (Burner
Only)
EX-HT-IMP-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM-03-122811
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-1 22811
CO2
Generated
from the
Burn
CO
Generated
from the
Burn
ppmm
1843
2845
2845
2845
2223
2740
3076
3390
1018
1018
1018
656
938
1084
1493
2033
2033
2033
1366
1841
2293
2890
1.2
65.8
65.8
65.8
28.9
60.4
85.9
85.2
55.8
55.8
55.8
20.3
44.8
71.6
95.0
59.2
59.2
59.2
10.7
39.8
84.0
124.0
Mass of Carbon Generated
from the Burner or Duff
(g)
Sampled
0.00
1.15
1.19
0.72
0.057
0.070
0.077
0.087
0.41
0.40
0.27
0.017
0.026
0.030
0.044
0.72
0.78
0.53
0.022
0.047
0.062
0.071
Total
Mass of Duff
Inserted
(g)
Total
Mass of Ash
Remaining
(g)
After 24 hours
Smoldering
Mass Loss Using the
Scale
(g)
During Testing
1990
1760
1792
355
444
503
552
660
662
661
103
151
179
246
1292
1305
1294
211
290
370
470
5081
5123
5255
2379
2397
2329
NAv
2030
2300
35
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-8. Carbon Balance from Low Temperature Test Conditions.
Test ID
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
EX-LT-PM-03-021412
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 412
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021512
EX-LT-IMP-03-021612
EX-LT-PM-03-021612
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 61 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 612
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021612
CO2
Generated
from Duff
CO Generated from
Duff
ppmm
Mass of Carbon Generated from
Duff (g)
Sampled
Mass of Duff
Inserted
(g)
Total
No OEM Data
956
956
950
212
661
1433
1811
633
289
289
287
79
259
455
348
98
39.8
39.8
39.6
2.0
27.5
64.5
80.8
53.9
16.2
16.2
16.1
2.3
13.3
20.9
30.7
18.5
0.40
0.39
0.25
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.003
0.012
0.020
0.017
0.005
697
699
696
2
10
21
27
10
210
211
210
14
47
83
67
21
Total
2542
636
845
641
630
2485
641
630
629
585
0
2568
640
643
641
644
0
Mass of Ash
Remaining
(g)
After 24 Hours
Smoldering
1090
917
1184
Mass Loss Using the
Scale
(g)
During Testing
1210
310
170
290
440
1290
290
390
420
190
210
1420
330
450
50
590
0
36
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
4.1 Burn Hut Operational Parameters and PM Results
Table 4-9 lists the test conditions and PM results for the three High Temperature burns and
Table 4-10 lists the test conditions and PM emissions for the three Low Temperature burns.
Although the PM2.s average bulk concentrations were similar for both the High Temperature and
Low Temperature test conditions, when normalized based on the amount of duff fed in the
experiment, the PM2.5 emissions for the High Temperature burns was roughly half that of the
Low Temperature burns. Note that the variability of PM2.5 emissions was higher for the High
Temperature tests (ranging from 6.1 to 12.0 g PM2.s per kg of duff burned) than they were for
the Low Temperature tests (ranging from 16.1 to 18.3 g PM2.5 per kg of duff burned). There is
not an obvious reason for this difference in variability, although fluid mechanics related to the
Burn Chamber might possibly be the cause. At any rate, a factor-of-two difference between the
highest and lowest value for an emission factor is not an unreasonably high amount of variability
for small-scale, batch, transient experiments. These emission factors compare favorably with
the EPA published emission factors from the AP-42 emission factor database[25] for prescribed
burning, which vary from 4 to 16 g PM2.5 per kg of biomass combusted. Total Filterable PM
including the condensable fraction presented in Table 4-9 and 4-10 were sampled using EPA
Method 201A, while total filterable PM were sampled using EPA Method 5.
Table 4-9. Burn Parameters and PM Results for High Temperature Burn Conditions.
Parameter
Date of burn
Mass of duff fed
Mass of ash collected
Flow rate through hut
Sample duration
Total volume through hut
Concentration of PM2.5
PM2.5 Emissions
Concentration of Total PM1
including Condensable
Total PM Emissions including
condensable
Concentration of Total2
Filterable PM
Total Filterable PM Emissions
Units
—
g (wet wt)
g (dry wt)
g
m3/min
min
L
mg/m3
g/kg duffed
mg/m3
g/kg duffed
mg/m3
g/kg duff^
Burn 1
12/19/2012
5081
4624
2379
34.4
60
2.06E+06
26.89
12
31.81
14.2
19.9
8.9
Burn 2
12/22/2012
5123
4662
2397
30.4
60
1.83E+06
21.64
8.5
29.21
11.5
9.28
3.6
Burn 3
12/28/2012
5255
4782
2329
31
60
1.86E+06
15.59
6.1
23.26
9.0
11.8
4.6
1per EPA Method 201 A; 2 per to Method 5
37
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-10. Burn Parameters and PM Results for Low Temperature Burn Conditions.
Parameter
Date of burn
Mass of duff fed
Mass of ash collected
Flow rate through hut
Sample duration
Total volume through hut
Concentration of PM2.s
PM2.s Emissions
Concentration of Total
Filterable PM including
Condensable1
Total PM Emissions including
Condensable
Concentration of Total
Filterable PM2
Total Filterable PM Emissions
Units
g (wet wt)
g (dry wt)
g
m3/min
min
L
mg/m3
g/kg dufffed
mg/m3
g/kg dufffed
mg/m3
g/kg duffed
Burn 1
2/14/2012
2542
2313
1090
35.6
60
2.13E+06
17.45
16.1
22.55
20.8
5.81
5.4
Burn 2
2/15/2012
2485
2261
917
34.9
60
2.09E+06
19.77
18.3
23.75
22.0
9.42
8.7
Burn 3
2/16/2012
2568
2337
1184
34
60
2.04E+06
20.72
18.1
23.4
20.4
10.2
8.9
1per EPA Method 201 A; 2 per to Method 5
4.2 Asbestos Results
Total LA fibers in the flue gas were calculated using Equation (1):
Nf,ue=N*S*Vt (1)
where Nf|Ue is the number of structures in the flue gas, N is the total number of structures, S is
the analytical sensitivity (cc"1), and Vt is the total volume of air sampled.
The analytical sensitivity is computed using Equation (2) (this equation is in ISO 10312, Section
8, Note 6)[3]:
S = EFA/(GOX* Ago* V* 1000* F) (2)
Where EFA is the effective filter area (mm2), GOX is the number of grid openings examined, Ago
is the area of a grid opening (mm2), V is the volume of air sampled (L), 1000 is the conversion
factor (L to cc), F, the "F-Factor" is the indirect preparation dilution factor. The Sampling and
Analysis Plan for OU3[11] describes the counting rules to meet necessary sensitivity
requirements for LA fibers.
4.2.1 MCE Filter Samples
Table 4-11 lists the MCE filter results for the High Temperature burn conditions and Table 4-12
lists the MCE filter results for the Low Temperature burn conditions. After the results from the
High Temperature tests were analyzed, and the MCE filters were not detecting LA fibers on all
38
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
runs, the filter cartridge was turned into the flow for the Low Temperature runs. This procedure
still did not result in significant fibers being found on the MCE filters. Based on MCE filter data,
only a small fraction of the LA fibers initially in the duff were found in the combustion emissions.
The poor performance of fiber collection on the MCE filters when placed either tangential to the
flow or isokinetically is not explainable at this point. Neither sampling configuration worked well
or was reproducible. It may be that filter cassettes are not suitable for particle collection in a
combustion system due to the characteristics of the flue gas. It may be that the MCE filter
material warped or changed its collection efficiency at the temperatures and water vapor
concentrations in the flue gas. There was no evidence that the filter buckled in the cassette.
Because of these sampling issues, the impinger results were used rather than the MCE filter
results.
39
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-11. MCE Filter Results for High Temperature Burn Conditions.
Burn
Trial
1
2
3
Burn
Date
12/19/11
12/22/11
12/28/11
Burn
Temp
High
High
High
Sample
ID
A
B
C
D
Mean
A
B
C
D
Mean
A
B
C
D
Mean
Volume
L
76.56
75.64
73.63
75.55
75.35
74.87
78.92
75.95
82.62
78.09
48.44
75.58
78.72
70.76
68.38
Sensitivity
S fee'1)
0.145
0.146
0.150
0.147
0.147
0.074
0.070
0.073
0.067
0.071
0.057
0.037
0.035
0.039
0.042
Count
Total PCME
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
23
8.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
1.75
Cone (f/cc)
Total
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.352
0.900
0.313
PCME
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.106
0.157
0.066
Volume through
the hut
cc
4.62E+08
4.61 E+08
4.66E+08
Percent Released
Total
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.003%
0.009%
0.003%
PCME
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.006%
0.009%
0.004%
40
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-12. MCE Filter Results for Low Temperature Burn Conditions.
Burn
Trial
1
2*
3
Burn
Date
2/14/2012
2/14/2012
2/16/2012
Burn
Temp
Low
Low
Low
Sample
ID
A
B
C
D
Mean (A-D)
A
B
C
D
E
Mean (B-E)
A
B
C
D
E
Mean (A-D)
Volume
L
139.6
127.8
127.4
126.1
130.3
105.5
132.0
127.8
127.7
131.1
129.6
127.0
134.4
124.3
132.6
131.1
129.9
GO
Counted
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sensitivity
S (cc'1)
0.055
0.060
0.060
0.061
0.059
0.073
0.058
0.060
0.060
0.059
0.059
0.061
0.057
0.062
0.058
0.059
0.0594
Count
Total
1
0
0
0
0.25
0
8
0
3
0
2.75
0
0
0
1
0
0.2
PCME
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cone (f/cc)
Total
0.055
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.466
0.000
0.181
0.000
0.162
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.058
0.000
0.015
PCME
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.175
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
cc
5.41 E+08
5.34E+08
5.30E+08
5.28E+08
5.33E+08
3.44E+07
4.33E+07
4.22E+07
4.25E+07
4.23E+07
4.26E+07
5.19E+08
5.15E+08
5.14E+08
5.14E+08
5.24E+08
5.17E+08
Percent Released
Total
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.09%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.13%
0.00%
0.032%
PCME
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.000%
MCE filter A cracked
41
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
4.2.2 Impinger Samples
Table 4-13 lists the asbestos data from the impinger samples from the High Temperature burn
conditions, and Table 4-14 lists the asbestos data from the impinger samples from the Low
Temperature burn data. Although the number of LA fibers per cc seen from the impinger
samples was greater than from the MCE filter samples, the fraction of the LA initially found in
the duff that was measured in the combustion gas exhaust emissions was only a fraction of a
percent. This observation suggests that significant numbers of LA fibers are not released from
the duff through either the flaming combustion regime or the smoldering combustion regime.
The results from the LA fibers in the residual ash must be examined to assess the overall mass
balance of asbestos from duff combustion. Since the results from the MCE filters were below
the detection limit, quantitation was not possible. (Note that the sampling flow for the MCE filter
is about 6% of the sampling flow for the impingers). Possibly the elevated temperatures in the
duct distorted or affected flow rate through the MCE filters. Because of this, the impinger results
were used for all emission factor calculations.
Table 4-13. Impinger Results for High Temperature Burn Conditions.
Parameter
Date
Volume of airthrough impinger
F factor
GOs
Ago
EFA
S
N (total LA)
N (PCME LA)
Ratio (PCME/ total)
Concentration in flue gas
Total Volume
Total fibers in flue gas over test duration
(number)
Total Fibers in the original duff over test
duration (number)
Fractional release from duff
Units
L
mm2
mm2
(cc air)"1
f
f
total f/cc
PCME f/cc
cc
Total LA
PCME LA
Total LA
PCME LA
% total
% PCME
Run 1
12/19/11
1192.2
0.10
4
0.013
360
0.058
176
36
20%
10.2
2.09
2.06+09
2.11+10
4.32+09
4.18E+12
7.35E+11
0.50%
0.59%
Run 2
12/22/11
1126.9
0.02
21
0.013
360
0.059
52
10
19%
3.04
0.59
1.83E+09
5.55+09
1.07E+09
4.21E+12
7.41E+11
0.13%
0.14%
Run 3
12/28/11
1038.5
0.02
6
0.013
360
0.222
51
11
22%
11.3
2.44
1.86E+09
2.11+10
4.54+09
4.32E+12
7.60E+11
0.49%
0.60%
42
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-14. Impinger Results for Low Temperature Burn Conditions.
Parameter
Date
Volume of airthrough impinger
F factor
GOs
Ago
EFA
S
N (total LA)
N (PCME LA)
Ratio (PCME/ total)
Concentration in flue gas
Total Volume
Total fibers in flue gas over test
duration (number)
Total Fibers in the original duff over
test duration(number)
Fractional release from duff
Units
L
mm2
mm2
(cc air)"1
f
f
total f/cc
PCME f/cc
cc
Total LA
PCME LA
Total LA
PCME LA
% total
% PCME
Run 1
02/14/12
1187
0.9
6
0.013
1295
0.016
50
7
14%
0.78
0.11
2.13E+09
1.66E+09
2.32E+08
2.09E+12
3.68E+11
0.08%
0.06%
Run 2
02/15/12
1189.0
0.9
4
0.013
1295
0.023
51
7
14%
1.19
0.16
2.09E+09
2.49E+09
3.41E+08
2.04 E+12
3.59E+11
0.12%
0.09%
Run 3
02/16/12
1136.9
0.90
5
0.013
1295
0.019
53
11
21%
1.03
0.21
2.04E+09
2.11E+09
4.37E+08
2.11E+12
3.72E+11
0.10%
0.12%
4.2.3 Ash Samples
Table 4-15 lists the results from analyzing the residual ash from the High Temperature burn
conditions for LA fibers, and Table 4-16 lists the results from analyzing the residual ash from the
Low Temperature burn conditions for LA fibers. These results are qualitatively consistent with
the combustion emissions results. A significant fraction of the initial LA fibers found in the duff
remain behind in the residual ash for both the High Temperature and Low Temperature burn
conditions. The High Temperature burn conditions showed total LA structures in the residual
ash ranging from 41 to 100 % of the total initial LA fibers, and, when based on PCME structures,
approximately 84 to 105% remained behind in the residual ash. For the Low Temperature test
conditions, 48 to 53 % of the total LA fibers and 88 to 115% based on PCME structures
remained behind in the residual ash. These results are more consistent than the ashing results
presented in Table 3-4 where the total LA structures in the residual ash ranged from 162 to 177
% of the total initial LA fibers, and similarly when based on PCME structures and 159 to 177%
remained in the ash. These numbers seem to be erroneous because no fiber is produced
during the ashing process but may be due to experimental problems. It might be interesting to
look at the fiber size distribution in these samples. It could be that the longer fibers get broken
during heating, yielding more of the shorter fibers.
Table 4-17 lists the results from a proximate and ultimate analysis of the residual ash. This
analysis showed that the residual ash still contained approximately 2 % carbon. These results
will be used in Section 4.5 for the carbon balance calculations.
43
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-15. Residual Ash Results from High Temperature Burn Conditions.
Parameter
Sample
Burn date
Mass suspended
Suspension volume
Vol filtered
F Factor
GO
Ago
EFA
S
Counts
C(ash)
Mass of duff fed
Mass of ash recovered
Ash/Dry wt ratio
Total fibers fed to fire
Total fibers recovered in ash
% Retained in ash
Units
-
-
g
ml
ml_
-
—
mm2
mm2
(9 ash)'1
total LA structures
PCME structures
total s/g
PCME s/g
ratio (PCME /total)
g dry wt
g
g ash /g duff
total LA
PCME LA
total LA
PCME LA
total LA
PCME LA
Results
1
12/19/11
0.25
100
0.1
0.001
12
0.0132
1290
3.26E+07
54
10
1.8E+09
3.3E+08
19%
4624
2379
0.51
4.28E+12
7.35E+11
4.18+12
7.75E+11
100%
105%
2
12/22/11
0.25
100
0.3
0.003
4
0.0132
1290
3.26E+07
54
8
1.8E+09
2.6E+08
15%
4662
2397
0.51
4.21 + 12
7.41 + 11
4.22+12
6.25+11
100%
84%
3
12/28/11
0.25
100
0.5
0.005
6
0.0132
1290
1.30E+07
58
22
7.6E+08
2.9E+08
38%
4782
2329
0.49
4.32E+12
7.60+11
1.76+12
6.68E+11
41%
88%
44
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-16. Residual Ash Results from Low Temperature Burn Conditions.
Parameter
Sample
Burn date
Mass suspended
Suspension volume
Vol filtered
F Factor
GO
Ago
EFA
S
Counts
C (ash)
Mass of duff fed
Mass of ash recovered
Ash/Dry wt ratio
Total fibers fed to fire (number)
Total fibers recovered in ash
(number)
% Retained in ash
Units
-
-
g
ml
ml_
-
—
mm2
mm2
(9 ash)'1
total LA
structures
PCME structures
total s/g
PCME s/g
ratio (PCME /
total)
g dry wt
g
g ash / g duff
total LA
PCME LA
total LA
PCME LA
total LA
PCME LA
Results
1
02/14/12
0.25
100
0.3
0.003
8
0.0132
1280
1.62E+07
57
24
9.2E+08
3.9E+08
42%
2313
1090
0.47
2.09+12
3.68E+11
1.00E+12
4.23E+11
48%
115%
2
02/15/12
0.25
100
0.3
0.003
6
0.0132
1280
2.15E+07
55
17
1.2E+09
3.7E+08
31%
2261
917
0.41
2.04E+12
3.60E+11
1.09E+12
3.36E+11
53%
93%
3
02/16/12
0.25
100
0.3
0.003
8
0.0132
1280
1.62E+07
58
17
9.4E+08
2.7E+08
29%
2337
1184
0.51
2.11E+12
3.72E+11
1.11E+12
3.25E+11
53%
88%
45
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 4-17. Proximate and Ultimate Analysis Results for Residual Ash
Analysis
115: Ash
302: Loss on
Drying (LOD)
810: Volatile
Matter
C : Carbon
Cl : Chlorine
H : Hydrogen
N : Nitrogen
S : Sulfur
ZZY: Grind
Method
ASTM D31 74-11
ASTM D31 73-11
ASTM D31 75-11
GLI Procedure
ME-12
GLI Procedure
ME-4A
GLI Procedure
ME-12
GLI Procedure
ME-12
GLI Procedure
E16-2
GLI Procedure
G-8
Result
95.16%
0.75 %
5.39 %
1.78%
614 ppm
< 0.5 %
< 0.5 %
< 0.5 %
Completed
Basis
Dried and
Ground
As Received
Dried and
Ground
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Ground
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Dried
Amount
1052 mg
199. 9 g
1052 mg
1.79 mg
506.7 mg
1.79 mg
1.79 mg
42.5 mg
Direct
4.3 Temperature Results
4.3.1 High-Temperature Run Conditions
Figures 4-1 through 4-3 show the temperature traces for the High Temperature run conditions.
The temperature plots shown for the "grate" reflect an average of the temperatures from four
TCs, and the plots for 10.16 cm (4-inch) above the grate" reflect an average of two TCs. In
general, the temperatures both at the grate and above the grate each fluctuated approximately
100 °C over the course of the run and did not exhibit significant transient behavior in spite of the
semi-batch feed nature of the experiments. This stability is likely due to the influence that the
propane torch had on providing thermal input over the course of the burn. Across all High
Temperature burn conditions, grate temperatures ranged from approximately 700 to 850 °C.
46
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
800-
600-
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
800-
600-
(J
2
OJ
E 400-1
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
500-
400-
300
1
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
OJ
1
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
CL
CL
4000 -
3000 -
2000-
1000-
14:00
i
15:00
Time
Figure 4-7. CO2 and CO from High Temperature Run 1.
i
16:00
3000 -
2500-
2000 -
CL 1500-
1000 -
500 -
I
11:00
I
12:00
Time
Figure 4-8. CO2 and CO from High Temperature Run 2.
51
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
3500 H
3000-
2500 -
2000 -
Q_
Q_
1500-
1000 -
500 -
0 -
10:00
11:00
Time
"I
12:00
Figure 4-9. CO2 and CO from High Temperature Run 3.
4.4.2 Low-Temperature Run Conditions
Figures 4-10 through 4-12 depict the CO2 and CO emissions measured in the exhaust duct for
the Low Temperature run conditions. CO2 emissions ranged from approximately 700 ppm to
approximately 2100 ppm across all of the runs, with minor fluctuations corresponding to feed
events. CO emissions were in the 20-80 ppmv range across all the Low Temperature runs. The
contribution to CO2 is less influenced by the contributions from the propane torch due to the
lower firing rate of the torch.
52
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
1200 -
1000-
800 -
CL 600 H
400 -
200 -
0 -I
11
:00
Q_
Q_
3000-
2500-
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 -
11
:00
I
12:00
Time
Figure 4-10. CO2 and CO from Low Temperature Run 1.
i
12:00
Time
I
13:00
Figure 4-11. CO2 and CO from Low Temperature Run 2.
53
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
1000 -
800 -
600-
Q_
Q_
400 -
200 -
10:00
11:00
1
12:00
Time
4.5
Figure 4-12. CO2 and CO from Low Temperature Run 3.
Carbon Balance
A carbon mass balance was completed for the high and Low Temperature conditions using the
initial carbon in the duff material. The carbon generated from the duff only is about the same
order of magnitude as the carbon generated from the propane burner. To determine the carbon
emitted from the burner, the ambient CO2 was subtracted from the total CO2 emitted from the
burner (pre-duff burning); similarly, in order to determine the carbon emitted from the duff only,
the CO2 emitted from the burner (pre-duff burning) was subtracted from the combined burner
propane/duff burning. For the High Temperature setting, 82% of the total carbon fed was
emitted as CO2 and CO during the first hour of burning, while about 2.6% was recovered in the
ash 24 hours after testing. For the Low Temperature conditions, the average of carbon emitted
during the first hour burning is about 53% while about 2.2% was recovered in the ash 24 hours
after testing. The remaining carbon was burned out over the next 24 hours of the smoldering
process. These carbon mass balances were conducted using an average of three burns for
each temperature conditions. These results track the mass loss results reported in Section
3.15.8 comparing the two burn conditions.
4.6 Summary of Results
Table 4-18 lists the summary of results from the High Temperature burn conditions and Table 4-
19 lists the summary of results from the Low Temperature burn conditions, including the
estimated emissions of LA per kg of duff burned and the estimated emissions of PM2.5 in g per
kg of duff burned. These two numbers, along with the initial concentration of LA fibers in the
duff, are the main parameters that would be used for subsequent exposure calculations (see
Section 4.7).
54
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
It should be noted that there was relatively good precision on the calculated emission factors
and measured asbestos concentrations (i.e., order of magnitude variabilities are commonplace
with asbestos measurements). However, the duff feed was homogenized upon collection prior
to packaging for the burn experiments, and the majority of the LA remained behind in the
residual combustion ash, therefore it is not entirely unexpected that good reproducibility was
observed across tests, with approximately a factor of three between the lowest and highest
calculated emission factor.
Table 4-18. Summary of Results* from High Temperature Burn Conditions.
Run
Date
Burn temperature (°F)
Concentration of PCME LA in Duff s/g duff (dry wt)
Concentration of LA in smoke (PCME s/cc)
Emissions of LA (PCME s/kg duff)
LA Fraction relative to smoke
LA Fraction retained in ash
Cone of PMzs in smoke (mg/m3)
Emissions ofPM2s(g/kg of duff burned)
Emissions of LA Fibers per mass of PM emitted,
per initial fiber concentration in duff
LA / PM2.5/Cduff (PCME s/cc per mg/m3 per f/g)
1
12/19/11
1,543
1.59E+08
2.09
9.33E+05
0.53%
105%
26.9
12.0
4.9E-10
2
12/22/11
1,537
1.59E+08
0.59
2.29E+05
0.13%
84%
21.6
8.5
1.7E-10
3
12/28/11
1,611
1.59E+08
2.44
9.50E+05
0.54%
88%
15.6
6.1
9.9E-10
Mean (1-3)
all
1,564
1.59E+08
1.71
7.04E+05
0.40%
92%
21.4
8.8
5.5E-10
LA results from impinger samples were used in this analysis.
Table 4-19. Summary of Results* from Low Temperature Burn Conditions.
Run
Date
Burn temperature (°F)
Concentration of PCME LA in Duff s/g duff (dry wt)
Cone of LA in smoke (PCME s/cc)
Emissions of LA (PCME s/kg duff)
LA Fraction rel to smoke
LA Fraction in ash
Cone of PM2.5 in smoke (mg/m3)
Emissions ofPM2s(g/kg of duff burned)
Emissions of LA Fibers per mass of PM emitted,
per initial fiber concentration in duff
LA / PM2.5/Cduff (PCME s/cc per mg/m3 per f/g)
1
02/14/12
729
1.59E+08
0.11
1.0E+05
0.06%
115%
17.4
16.1
3.9E-11
2
02/15/12
488
1.59E+08
0.16
1.5E+05
0.09%
93%
19.8
18.3
5.2E-11
3
02/16/12
658
1.59E+08
0.21
1.9E+05
0.11%
88%
20.7
18.1
6.5E-11
Mean (1-3)
all
617
1.59E+08
0.16
1.5E+05
0.08%
99%
19.3
17.5
5.2E-11
* LA results from impinger samples were used in this analysis.
4.7 Example Calculation of Input Parameters for Exposure Models
These laboratory simulation experiments were all run using raw duff samples that were
collected in the near vicinity of each other, with an average LA concentration of 1.59 x 1011
PCME structures per kg of duff and a standard deviation of 5.9 x 1010 PCME structures per kg
55
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
of duff. This indicates approximately a factor of 2 spread in the potential EF values. It is
desirable to be able to use the results from these experiments to perform exposure
assessments for combustion of duff that contains very low numbers of LA fibers (such as the
duff from forests located far from the vermiculite mine), and for duff that contains high numbers
of LA fibers, (such as the duff located in the near vicinity to the mine).
In order to convert the emission factors into numbers that would be useful for this approach,
there are a few inherent assumptions that must be made. An inherent assumption in these
experiments was that one LA fiber is not influenced by the presence or absence of other LA
fibers, and that the mass of LA fibers in the air emissions is negligible when compared to the
mass of PM2.5. These two assumptions allow the following estimates to be made over a range
of concentrations of LA fibers in the duff, so exposures can be estimated in areas near to the
vermiculite mine where concentrations of LA fibers would be the highest, out to areas where LA
concentrations are low.
Equation (3) estimates the emissions of LA in PCME structures per kg of duff (EFduff) based on
an arbitrary LA concentration in the duff (Cduff).
EF, ff (structures emitted / kg duff) = duff „ (3)
uUTT \ o «A/ ' -\ cr\ -\ r\\.\
1.59x10
If one substitutes the concentration of duff from the samples burned in these experiments for the
Cduff term, the calculated emission factor reverts to the "Emissions of LA" quantity listed in
Tables 4-18 and 4-19.
Equation (4) estimates the emissions of LA fibers in PCME structures per gram of PM2.5 emitted
(Eduff) based on the EFduff from Equation (3) and the EFPM2.5 from Table 4-18 or Table 4-19.
EF,ff
Eduff (structures emitted I g PM2 5) = — (4)
^•TpMl.5
56
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
5.0 QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT
All measurements that are based on EPA methods utilized calibration and pre-/post-test metrics
to assess performance, including leak checks and CEM bias/drift checks. All QC protocols in
cited methods were followed. Laboratory QC for TEM analyses was performed in accordance
with Libby Laboratory Modification #LB-000029B[26].
The test program consisted of testing and sampling operations under two sets of conditions,
High and Low Temperature. Three tests were conducted for each test condition, i.e., testing
was conducted in triplicate.
Two hot field blanks (propane flame on only) and one cold field blank were collected. The blank
test sampling sequence mimicked the actual testing sequence that was used when burning the
duff material. The field blanks were sampled at each temperature condition and for the same
period as the test samples. The blank samples were recovered exactly as the test samples.
Analytical results for the blank samples were used principally to demonstrate the absence of
contaminants in these sample groups.
5.1 Amendment to the QAPP
This project was performed under an approved Category I, (Enforcement Final), QAPP entitled,
"Detailed QAPP for Activities at the Burn Chamber Facility (12/19/2011)". Two QAPP
amendments were subsequently added: Amendment 1 (12/27/2011) was added to replace a
cold blank test stated in the original QAPP with a hot blank (propane flame only), and adding 6
wipe samples to be taken between the two test sequences (High and Low Temperature setting).
The second amendment (02/07/2012) was added addressing three items that were discussed
during a conference call with Region 8 and other project team members following the
completion of the first phase of testing (High Temperature conditions). The modifications to the
original QAPP that were addressed in this amendment were:
• Modification of the EPA SOP for asbestos sampling
• Modification of the duff feed rate
• Inclusion of an SOP for Asbestos Wipe Sampling Kit Preparation.
5.2 Technical Systems Audit
A Technical System Audit (TSA) was performed at the OBTF at the start of the High
Temperature setting sampling sequence. The audit covered the following topics: quality system
documentation; project organization and responsibilities; field sample collection and monitoring;
field QA/QC; field documentation; sample handling and custody; and data management. This
two-day audit was conducted by Neptune & Company with support from RTI International on
December 19 and 20, 2011, to provide EPA with an independent external assessment of field-
specific QA activities at the OBTF.
The TSA audit report did not contain any findings, but two issues related to the quality system
documentation were observed. The first issue was to include an up-to-date and completed
signature page in the QAPP. The second issue was to include specific steps in the EPA
referenced standard methods in the QAPP.
The TSA report listed the following best practices observed:
57
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
• All pumps, thermocouples, and balances were certified within the past year and were
traceable to a NIST standard. The calibration certificates were kept on-site for easy review
and verification of equipment serial numbers to calibration certificates made for easy
comparison;
• All gases used to monitor and calibrate the CEMs were EPA protocol gases and contained a
certificate of analysis;
• A dedicated laboratory notebook for this project ensured that only project specific notes
were being retained; and
• The scanning of notebook pages, Chain of Custody forms, and FDS forms and including
these scans as part of the permanent data packages allowed for an easy chain of reference
throughout the entire test and provided data traceability.
5.3 Calibration of Sampling/Monitoring Equipment
There were standard operating procedures for the maintenance and calibration of all laboratory
equipment. All equipment was verified as being certified calibrated or having the calibration
validated by EPAs on-site (RTP, NC) Metrology Laboratory at the time of use. Each piece of
equipment being used for testing contained a calibration sticker indicating that the equipment
was within tolerance, the date of calibration, and serial number.
All instruments including pumps, Pitot tubes, thermocouples, and balances were calibrated prior
to the start of the testing. The instruments were adjusted to meet calibration tolerances and
recalibrated within 24 hours, if necessary. If tolerances were not met after recalibration,
additional corrective action was taken, possibly including recalibration or/and replacement of the
equipment. Table 5-1 lists the calibration frequency of the instruments used in the tests.
Table 5-1. Instrument Calibration Frequency
Equipment
Thermocouples
Stopwatch
Clock
Pressure Guage
Scale
Calibration/Certification
Compare to independent NIST thermometer (this is a
thermometer that is recertified annually by either NIST or
an International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-
1 7025 facility) value once per quarter
Compare against NIST Official U.S. time at
http://nist.time.goV/timezone.cgi7Eastern/d/-5/java once
every 30 days.
Compare to office U.S. Time @ time.gov every 30 days.
Compare to independent NIST Pressure gauge annually.
Check calibration with Class 2 weights
Expected Tolerance
± rc
± 1 min/30 days
± 1 min/30 days
± 2 psi
± 0.1% weight
5.4 Achievement of Data Quality Indicator (DQI) Goals
5.4.1 Critical Measurements
Target acceptance criteria for the critical measurements in terms of bias and completeness are
shown in Table 5-2. All the critical measurements met the acceptance criteria set in the QAPP,
with the exception of the asbestos measurements from the MCE filters. The concern over
potential MCE filter sampling failure due to the non-standard use of an ambient method inside a
relatively High Temperature stack is what led the authors to perform the second type of
asbestos sampling that used the impinger method, so that this critical measurement could be
made even if one of the two sampling methods did not work. So although the MCE filter method
58
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
failed, asbestos measurements were made in accordance with the QAPP.
5.4.2 Secondary Measurements
Target acceptance criteria for the secondary measurements are shown in Table 5-3 (for High
Temperature burn conditions) and Table 5-4 (for Low Temperature burn conditions) with
calibration error, system bias, and system bias for each test. In general the CEM
measurements met the data validation criteria set in the QAPP. One low range CO2 analyzer
failed during Test 2 of the High Temperature burn conditions. The measurements for CO2 were
taken by the alternate high CO2 analyzer. The calculations of the calibration error, bias, and
drift were performed in accordance with EPA Method 7E[27].
59
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 5.2. Performance Criteria for Critical Measurements
Measurement Parameter
Burn Hut Exhaust Velocity
Traverses
Burn Hut Exhaust
Volumetric Flow Rate
Burn Hut Exhaust Moisture
Content
Burn Hut Exhaust PM2.5
Burn Hut Exhaust Asbestos
Sampling
Asbestos Analysis of LA in
Emitted Sample Material
Asbestos Analysis of LA in
Emitted Sample Material
Temperature
Sampling Method(s)
EPA Method 1A
EPA Method 2C (to be
performed in conjunction
withM201A)
EPA Method 4 (to be
performed in conjunction
with EPA Method 201A)
EPA Method 201 A
EPA Asbestos Sampling
SOP#201 5
Modified EPA 5 (no filter)
SOP DUFF-LIBBY-OU3
MCE Filter Samples
SOP DUFF-LIBBY-OU3
Impinger Samples
N/A
Calibration/Certification
N/A
Standard Pitottube
Gas temperature
Volume of gas is compared
to NIST-traceable dry gas
meter before/after the
sampling campaign
Balance calibration check
Volume of gas is compared
to NIST-traceable dry gas
meter before/after the
sampling campaign
Balance calibration check
Post-test meter calibration
check
Volume of gas is compared
to NIST-traceable dry gas
meter before/after the
sampling campaign
N/A
N/A
Compare against a NIST-
traceable thermometer
Analysis
Method
N/A
Manometer
K-Type
Thermocouple
Standard Meter
Comparison
NIST traceable
Class S
weights
Standard Meter
Comparison
Gravimetric S-
Class weights
Standard Meter
Comparison
Standard Meter
Comparison
TEM1
TEM1
K-type
thermocouple
QA/QC
Acceptance
Criteria
N/A
±5% of actual
value
±2°F2
Leak rate less
than 4%
±0.5g
Leak rate less
than 4%
90 to 1 1 0%
iso kinetic flow
±0.1 mg
± 5% of
pre -calibration
Leak rate less
than 4%
20-25 fibers
per sample
being optimal
20-25 fibers
per sample
being optimal
±2°F
Test Value
N/A
± 1%of
reading
(velocity)
1 °F
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 5-3. Performance Criteria for Secondary Measurements; High Temperature Burn Conditions
Measurement
Parameter
Burn Hut
Exhaust CO2
(Low)
Burn Ht
Exhaust CO2
(High)
Sampling
Method(s)
EPA Method
3A
EPA Method
3A
EPA
Protocol Gas
1800 ppm
1020
Zero
(Nitrogen
Gas)
4.89%
2.10%
Sub-
parameter
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
Analysis
Method
Instrumental
calibration
gases
Instrumental
calibration
gases
Data Quality Validation Criteria
Acceptance
Criteria
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
Testl
Value
1 .05%
1 .26%
1 .92%
0.06%
0.80%
0.45%
0.18%
0.11%
1 .84%
3.61 %
3.76%
3.56%
1 .32%
0.62%
Test 2
Value
Instrument
Failure/Use
HighCO2
Instrument
2.00%
18.30%
18.12%
2.27%
0.09%
Tests
Value
0.05%
0.31 %
0.26%
0.20%
0.37%
0.28%
0.13%
0.05%
1 .62%
0.53%
2.60%
0.74%
NM
NM
Completeness
Acceptance
Criteria
90% of test
periods
90% of test
periods
All 3 tests
67%
67%
NA
67%
67%
NA
67%
67%
NA
67%
83%
33%
33%
67%
61
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Measurement
Parameter
Burn Ht
Exhaust CO
(High)
Sampling
Method(s)
EPA Method
3A
EPA
Protocol Gas
Zero
(Nitrogen Gas
899 ppm
452 ppm
Zero
(Nitrogen Gas
Sub-
parameter
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system bias
calibration
drift
Analysis
Method
Instrumental
calibration
gases
Data Quality Validation Criteria
Acceptance
Criteria
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
Test 1
Value
0.41 %
0.20%
3.03%
2.59%
0.10%
0.11%
0.06%
0.04%
0.07%
0.14%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
Test 2
Value
0.11%
0.20%
0.10%
0.02%
0.11%
0.34%
0.25%
0.20%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.07%
0.02%
Tests
Value
NM
0.08%
1 .89%
0.29%
0.18%
0.20%
0.29%
0.09%
0.10%
0.02%
0.03%
0.20%
0.01 %
Completeness
Acceptance
Criteria
90% of test
periods
All 3 tests
NA
100%
100%
NA
100%
100%
NA
100%
100%
NA
100%
100%
NA
62
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Table 5-4. Performance Criteria for Secondary Measurements; Low Temperature Burn Conditions
Measurement
Parameter
Burn Hut
Exhaust CO2
(Low)
Burn Hut
Exhaust CO
(Low)
Sampling
Method(s)
EPA Method
3A
EPA Method 10
EPA
Protocol Gas
1800 ppm
1020
Zero
(Nitrogen
Gas)
125 ppm
45.6
Sub-
parameter
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
Data Quality Validation Criteria
Acceptance
Criteria
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
Testl
Value
0.08%
0.38%
0.33%
0.17%
0.15%
0.00%
0.09%
0.20%
0.20%
0.02%
0.02%
0.33%
2.79%
0.26%
Test 2
Value
0.12%
0.01%
0.04%
0.02%
0.13%
0.02%
0.04%
0.44%
0.44%
0.09%
0.14%
0.20%
0.49%
0.03%
Tests
Value
0.07%
0.40%
0.08%
0.19%
0.51 %
0.19%
0.11%
0.13%
0.00%
0.19%
0.21 %
0.08%
0.43%
0.00%
Completeness
Acceptance
Criteria
90% of test
periods
90% of test
periods
All 3 tests
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
100%
63
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
Measurement
Parameter
Burn Ht
Exhaust O2
Sampling
Method(s)
EPA Method
3A
EPA
Protocol Gas
Zero
(Nitrogen Gas
21 .60%
8.94%
Zero
(Nitrogen Gas
Sub-
parameter
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Calibration
error
Sampling
system
bias
calibration
drift
Data Quality Validation Criteria
Acceptance
Criteria
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
±2%
±5%
±3%
Testl
Value
0.24%
0.57%
0.22%
0.06%
0.09%
0.72%
0.44%
0.09%
0.42%
0.31 %
0.05%
0.74%
0.37%
Test 2
Value
0.00%
0.04%
0.04%
0.12%
0.27%
0.13%
1.10%
0.03%
0.23%
0.09%
0.75%
0.15%
0.96%
Tests
Value
0.04%
0.12%
0.10%
0.06%
0.17%
1 .03%
0.05%
0.04%
0.86%
0.11%
0.17%
0.80%
0.15%
Completeness
Acceptance
Criteria
90% of test
periods
All 3 tests
100%
100%
100%
100
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100
100%
100%
100%
64
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Meeker, G. P.; Bern, A. M.; Brownfield, I. K.; Lowers, H. A.; Sutley, S. J.; Hoefen, T. M.;
Vance, J. S., The composition and morphology of amphiboles from the Rainy Creek Complex,
nearLibby, Montana. American Mineralogist 2003, 88, 1955-1969.
2. U.S. EPA Libby Asbestos Superfund Site Operable Unit 3: Initial Screening Level
Human Health Risk Assessment for Exposure to Asbestos.
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/libbv/docs/ous.htmltftabs-3 (August 22),
3. ISO Ambient Air -Determination of Asbestos Fibers -Direct Transfer Transmission
Electron Microscopy Method; ISO 10312:1995; 1st Ed. 1995-05-01; 1995.
4. U.S. Forest Service USFS Smoke Impact Spreadsheet (SIS) Model.
http://www.airsci.com/SISmodel/SIS Users Manual-6.17.03.pdf (June 29),
5. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 1 A, Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources
with Small Stacks or Ducts. In 1996; Vol. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Title 40,
Appendix A.
6. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 2C, Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric
Flow Rate (Type-S PitotTube). In 1996; Vol. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Title 40,
Appendix A.
7. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 201A, Determination of PM-10 Emissions (Constant
Sampling Rate Procedure). In Washington, DC, 1996; Vol. Code of Federal Regulations, Title
40, Part 51, Appendix M.
8. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 4, Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases. In
Washington, DC, 1995; Vol. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A.
9. U.S. EPA Asbestos Sampling, US EPA SOP #2015, 11/14/1994.
http://epa.gov/region9/toxic/noa/eldorado/pdf/EPA-ERT-Asbestos-Sampling-SOP-2015.pdf
(June 29),
10. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 5, Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources. In Washington, DC, 1996; Vol. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60,
Appendix A.
11. U.S. EPA Phase I Sampling and Analysis Plan for Operable Unit 3 Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8: September 26, 2007.
12. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 3A, Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide
Concentration in Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrument Analyzer Procedure). In
Washington, DC, 1989; Vol. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A.
13. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 10, Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from
Stationary Sources. In Washington, DC, 1996; Vol. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part
60, Appendix A.
14. Wotton, B. M. G., J.S.; McCaw, W.L; Cheney, N.P.; Taylor, S., Flame temperature and
residence time of fires in dry eucalypt forest. S.W.International Journal of Wildland Fire 2012,
2^,270-281.
15. Underwriters Laboratory UL 1482: Safety Standard for Room Heaters, Solid-Fuel Type,
2nd Edition (Northbrook, IL). http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/tocs/tocs.asp7frM482.toc (July
13),
16. ASTM ASTM B479-06 Standard Specification for Annealed Aluminum and Aluminum-
Alloy Foil for Flexible Barrier, Food Contact, and Other Applications.
http://www.astm.org/Standards/B479.htm (July 13),
17. Wikipedia Plant Litter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant litter (June 28),
18. U.S. EPA Phase IV Sampling and Analysis Plan, Remedial Investigation for Operable
Unit 3, Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, Part A: Data to Support Human Health Risk
Assessment; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8: June, 2010.
65
-------
Emissions of Ubby Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of Duff
19. U.S. EPA Remedial Investigation for Operable Unit 3 Libby Asbestos Superfund Site;
Quality Assurance Project Plan; Estimation of Asbestos Levels in Smoke Using a Burn
Chamber, September 13, 2011.
20. ASTM, "ASTM D3174-11 Standard Test Method for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal
and Coke from Coal" retrieved on 07/17/2012 from http://www.astm .org/Standards/D3174.htm.
2011.
21. ASTM, "ASTM D3175-11 "Standard test method for Volatile matter in the Analysis
Sample of Coal and Coke" retrieved on 07/17/2012 from
http://www.astm.org/Standards/D3175.htm. 2011.
22. ASTM, "ASTM D3173 -11 Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis Sample of
Coal and Coke" retrieved on 07/17/2012 from http://www.astm.org/Standards/D3173.htm. 2011.
23. Gullett, B.; Touati, A., PCDD/F emissions from forest fire simulations. Atmospheric
Environment 2003, 37, 803-813.
24. U.S. EPA, Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, OU3, Standard Operating Procedure No. 8 -
Sample Handling and Shipping. Revision 2. 2011.
25. U.S. EPA AP-42 Emission Factor Database.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html (October 27),
26. U.S. EPA Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, Laboratory Modification #LB-000029B -
Permanent clarifications to laboratory-based quality control (QC) sample analysis by
transmission electron microscopy (TEM)', December 7, 2006.
27. U.S. EPA, EPA Test Method 7E, Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from
Stationary Sources (Instrument Analyzer Procedure). In Washington, DC, 1990; Vol. Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A.
66
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
-------
APPENDIX A
Results from Technical Systems Audit
Technical Systems Audit Checklist
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY RESEARCH CENTER
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
February 14,2012
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Technical Systems Audit (ISA) Close-out Letter of Quality Assurance
Project Plan for "Burn chamber Study Design Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site Operable Unit 3".
From: Ramona Sherman
NHSRC QAM
To: PaulLemieux
NHSRC Principal Investigator
This letter confirms the close-out of the assessment of the project entitled "Burn
Chamber Study Design Libby Asbestos Superfund Site Operable Unit 3" sponsored
by the National Homeland Security Research Center on December 19 and 20,2011.
Based on our evaluation of your response to the draft assessment report, we have
determined that all deficiencies have been resolved.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance during the assessment. Please
contact me if you have any further questions about the assessment.
Respectfully,
u
Ramona Sherman
Quality Assurance Manager
If you have any questions about the assessment, please call me at 513 569-7640.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY RESEARCH CENTER
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
January 3, 2012
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Technical Systems Audit (TSA) Summary Report of the project titled
"Activities at the Open Burn Chamber Facility"
FROM: Eletha Brady-Roberts
NHSRC DQA
TO: Paul Lemieux, Ph.D
NHSRC Principal Investigator
For your consideration, I have attached the summary report of our
observations and findings from the TSA conducted in December 19 and 20, 2011.
Audit Scope
The main objective of the audit was to evaluate and examine the conformance of the
data collection activities to the project specific Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP). The review team interviewed ARCADIS employees, reviewed QA files and
observed the test being performed in the Burn Hut facility.
Audit Summary Report
The report contains no findings. However, two issues observation were noted that
require corrective action. You are asked to review the report for any technical errors
and to provide that information to me.
Audit Schedule
I request your response to this draft report within 15 days of receipt. Thank you in
advance for your timely review and response. When the observations have been
addressed, we will close out the audit and send confirmation.
Please distribute this memo to your contractor. If you have any questions
about the upcoming assessment, please call me at 513 569-7662.
cc: Shawn Ryan, Ph.D, Division Director DCMD
Gregory Sayles, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Director for Management
-------
INTRODUCTION: A technical systems audit was performed at the EPA (ARCADIS
operated) Open Burn Test Facility located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The
audit covered the following topics: quality system documentation; project organization and
responsibilities; field sample collection and monitoring; field QA/QC; field documentation;
sample handling and custody; and data management.
This two-day audit was conducted by Neptune & Company with support from RTI
International on December 19 and 20, 2011, to provide EPA with an independent external
assessment of field-specific quality assurance (QA) activities at the Open Burn Test Facility
(OBTF) operated by ARCADIS. The assessment was performed by comparing actual field
practices and documentation to the requirements specified in the project's quality assurance
project plan (QAPP) titled "Detailed QAPP for Activities at the Burn Chamber Facility'" and
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) Policies and Procedures Manual (PPM),
Chapter 13.2 Paper Laboratory Records, issued December 12, 2006. The checklist was
provided to field personnel prior to the audit.
A series of photographs were collected during the audit, these are provided as a separate file
in Appendix A. The auditors completed checklists are also provided with this report as
separate pdf files.
PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED:
The ARCADIS personnel shown in the table below were interviewed as part of this technical
systems audit. Without exception the ARCADIS staff was very knowledgeable,
approachable, and cooperative to suggestions about improving the defensibility of their data
and the reliability of their methodology.
Monday December 19, 2011
Entrance Briefing:
Ms. Eletha Brady-Roberts (EPA, NHSRC QAM); Dr.D Paul Lemieux (EPA-WAM); Ms. Libby
Nessley (ARCADIS, QA Officer); Dr. Abderrahmane D Touati (ARCADIS -WAL), Mr. John
Nash (ARCADIS); Mr. Jeff Portzer (Co-auditor RTI International); and Mr. Steven Walters (Co-
auditor RTI International).
ARCADIS Burn Hut Personnel
Dr. Abderrahmane Touati (Work Assignment
Leader)
Libby Nessley (QA Officer)
John Nash (Field Personnel)
Steve Terll (Field / Sample Custodian)
Daniel Janek (Field Personnel)
Justin Ashley (Field Personnel)
EPA / NHSRC Personnel
DrD. Paul Lemieux (Work Assignment Manager)
Mrs. Eletha Brady-Roberts (EPA, NHSRC QAM)
Phone / Email
919-541-3662 / dahman.touati(g),arcadis-us .com
919-328-5588 / libbv.nessley(S)arcadis-us.com
919-541-3362 / iohn.nash(o),arcadis-us.com
919-541-1569 / steve.terll(g),arcadis-us.com
919-541-2928 / danel.ianek^arcadis-us.com
919-541-2847 / robert.ashlev^arcadis-us.com
Phone / Email
919-541-0962 / lemieux.paul(a)epa.sov
513-569-7662 / roberts.eletha(3)epa.sov
Assessment Exit Briefing:
Ms. Eletha Brady-Roberts (EPA, NHSRC QAM); Ms. Libby Nessley (ARCADIS, QA Officer);
-------
Mr. Steven Walters (Co-auditor RTI International).
Audit Summary
The two-day audit began with an entrance briefing to review the objectives of the assessment
and to confirm the schedule and format. The audit included an assessment of quality system
documentation; project organization and responsibilities; field sample collection and
monitoring; field QA/QC; field documentation; sample handling and custody; and data
management. The audit also covered aspects from Notebook and other Documentation
procedures (PPM 13.2). The audit also included questions that were drawn from the
project's QAPP titled "'Detailed QAPP for Activities at the Burn Chamber Facility,'" which is
an appendix to another approved QAPP "OU3 Burn Chamber SAP," prepared by the US.
EPA Region," September, 2011. The QAPP was written as aCategory I enforcement quality
system document. This document was formatted based on the U.S. EPA Guidance
Document, "EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans EPA QA/R-5" The
QAPP focused on field sampling practices; equipment set up; quality system documentation;
data quality objectives; data management; and sample handling. ARCADIS developed a
Health and Safety Plan (HASP) that focused on proper asbestos sample handling;
decontamination of asbestos contaminated areas; and proper disposal of hazardous materials
(asbestos particulates). All on-site personnel involved with the field sampling of this project
signed the QAPP and HASP indicating that they have read and understood the documents.
At the end of the assessment an exit briefing was held with Ms. Eletha Brady-Roberts and
Ms. Libby Nessley to go over observations or issues identified during the audit that were not
in complete compliance with project's QAPP and to discuss best practices identified.
Each proceeding numbered section summarizes aspects covered in the questionnaire. If any
inconsistencies are identified recommended corrective actions are provided at the end of each
numbered section. Issues with recommended corrective actions (Items 1 and 3) are
considered Observations as defined in the SOP for Contractors Performing Audits for
NRMRL SOP.QA.003.02.
1. Quality System Documentation: There is a copy of the approved QAPP on site for
reference during field sampling; however the QAPP is lacking a completed signature
page. All personnel involved with field sampling have signed a blank page in the
QAPP indicating they have read and understood the QAPP. Any "small" changes or
deviations (i.e. sampling feed rate) from the QAPP will be sent via email to Ms.
Brady-Roberts for approval. Any "large" changes (i.e. a complete redesign in burn
chamber) will have to be approved by EPA Region 8 personnel. All changes that are
approved will be placed in a separate section of the three-ring binder containing the
original QAPP. This three-ring binder will also maintain field data sheets (FDS) and
chain of custody (CoC) forms for each test being performed. A dedicated, single hard
bound lab notebook (S/N #23355) is used to document all field practices including
CEM calibration and drift. This notebook is dedicated only to this project's work.
Each entry into the notebook was signed and dated by the record keeper and all
entries are made with indelible ink. All corrections are made with single strike
through marks with the initials of the individual making the correction including the
date of correction. This notebook is kept on site in the control room that houses the
-------
continuous emission monitors (CEMs), data acquisition system (DAS), and sampling
pumps. All samples collected contain an FDS form. All notebook entries are
scanned to become part of the electronic record, and all electronic records are backed
up regularly using flash drives. A data package will be created at the completion of
each test which will include all FDS forms, scanned lab notebook pages, analytical
data, and CoC forms. These data packages will be maintained in electronic form with
hard copies maintained in the project's three-ring binder that contains the QAPP,
deviations from the QAPP, and the HASP.
There are two issues that were observed that could improve the quality system
documentation. The first is to include an up-to-date and completed signature page to
the QAPP. Upon review of QAPP prior to the audit, RTI observed that standard
stack testing methods are referenced in the QAPP. For example, the Method 5
standard operating procedure is referenced in the QAPP; however specific Method 5
steps are not highlighted.
Recommended Corrective Action: Include a copy of a complete and up to date
signature page in the QAPP. RTI also recommends citing or including specific steps
taken from standard EPA methods referenced in the QAPP (i.e. Method 5). Method 5
as written contains several options for performing the procedure. Indicate which
steps are being used by field personnel. Since changes to the text of the QAPP may
not be completed, an alternative to adding steps to the QAPP would be to develop a
research operating procedure that highlights all technical process and procedures
including sampling methodology and equipment used during this project and add this
procedure as an appendix to the current QAPP.
Response to Comments (Abderrahmane Touati)
Filterable PM2.s and Total filterable OM were performed according respectively to
EPA Modified Method 201A: Determination of PMi0and PM2.s Emissions from
Stationary Sources (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure) Particulate Emissions from
Stationary Sources, as described in http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-
201a.pdf. and EPA Modified Method 5: Determination of Particulate matter
Emissions from Stationary Sources, as described in
http://epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-05.pdf. The modification to both methods
are explained in Section B.2.4.2
2. Project Organization and Responsibilities. All field sampling at the burn chamber
facility is conducted by ARCADIS personnel. All ARCADIS personnel involved
with sampling have successfully completed the OSHA 40-hour health and safety
training for Hazardous Waste Operations (HAZWOPER). All sampling personnel
have also completed their annual 8-hour OSHAHAZWOPER refresher course. Mr.
Jerry Revis (ARCADIS Safety Officer) developed a Health and Safety Plan (HASP)
and job safety analysis plan that are maintained in the project's dedicated 3-ring
binder. All sampling personnel have signed the HASP indicating they have read and
understood the HASP. ARCADIS sampling personnel have been trained on proper
asbestos sample handling including asbestos decontamination procedures, and proper
disposal of asbestos laden material. Attachment 1 illustrates the project's
organizational chart.
-------
Attachment 1: Project Organizational Chart
U.S. EPA Region 8 • U.S. EPA
Superfund Project Manager I Quality Assurance Manager
Christina Progess
Eletha Brady-Roberts
ARCADIS
Quality Assurance Officer
Libby Nessley
Work Assignment Manager
Paul Lemieux
ARCADIS
Work Assianment Leader
Dahman Touati
Project Engineer
Matt Clayton
U.S. EPA
Safety Officer
Marshall Gray
Jerry Revis
Sampling Team
Steve Terll
John Nash
Table 1 below describes the point of contact for the various organizations involved in
the project.
Table 1: Points of Contact
ORGANIZATION
EPA Region 8 Superfund Site
EPA RTF campus
EPA/NHSRC
ARCADIS
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
CONTACT PERSON
Christina Progess
Paul Lemieux
Eletha Brady -Roberts
Dahman Touati
-------
EMSL Analytical Inc. - Asbestos testing
Resolution Analytics Inc. - Particulate
Matter (PM) testing
3 Field Sample Collection and Monitoring (photos of the burn chamber were
taken to document actual materials used and burn chamber set up). The burn
chamber was installed and configured according to the technical plans laid out in the
project's QAPP with some minor changes. The first change includes the fabrication
of a rectangular burn chamber that will hold duff material while it is being burned.
The QAPP indicates a cut 55-gallon drum will be used as the burn chamber. The
second change is that 6 thermocouples are being used to monitor flame temperature
instead of the four thermocouples indicated in the QAPP. Four thermocouples are
installed to monitor flame temperature, while the remaining two thermocouples are
installed above the flame zone. A working feed chute has been installed to prevent
sampling personnel from entering an asbestos contaminated burn chamber in order to
add more asbestos-laden duff during testing. All sampling ports including isokinetic
sampling modules, CEMs, and sampling trains have been installed and were
operational prior to actual burn testing. All pumps and balances being used are
within yearly certifications. All balances and pumps were certified against NIST
traceable equipment to insure accuracy during operation. All certificates of
calibration are kept on-site in the control room for ease of reference. All gas
cylinders used for CEM calibration and drift testing are EPA protocol gasses with
certificates of analysis available on site for easy review.
During the audit a high temperature test was observed. During this test the flame's
temperature indicated 905 °C, 868 °C, 848 °C, and 697 °C for the four thermocouples
located in the flame zone. The QAPP indicates +/- 2 °F acceptance window of the
target flame temperature (1800 °F). The flame temperature acceptance window may
have to be re-adjusted because of the inherent differences in flame temperatures
throughout the entire flame. The target temperature of the flame cannot be
maintained with the acceptance window provided in the QAPP. Also, the
temperature units listed in the QAPP do not match the temperature units provided by
the DAS system. The unit conversion process could produce unreliable data if the
unit conversions are not calculated properly. Also, the sampling pump readouts for
flows were in cubic feet per minute (cfm) while the QAPP indicated flow targets in
liters per minute (L/min). The conversion of units from cfm to L/min could provide
unreliable data if the calculations are not completed correctly.
The duff material provided by EPA Region 8 personnel was pre-weighed by
ARCADIS personnel with actual masses recorded on the duff bag and FDS forms
prior to the burn test. The masses were entered into an FDS form that is part of the
final data package. Upon review of the Chain of Custody (CoC) form for the
shipment of duff material to the burn chamber facility, all material provided for the
burn chamber testing was from Libby, Montana OU3.
The feed rate described in the QAPP is 10 Ib/hr. This feed rate was not used during
the observed test. During the observed test a feed rate of 12 Ib/hr was used. The
CEMs were collecting data 30 minutes prior to the observed burn. The mixed
cellulose ester (MCE) filter was located in a cooler area of the exhaust duct;
indicating a duct temperature of 118 °F near the MCE filters cartridge. Upon
-------
completion of the high temperature test the remaining ash was collected and sent to
EMSL Analytical Inc. for asbestos testing.
The MCE filter collection was observed during the high temperature burn test.
During sample collection the first two MCE filter cartridges were sampled without
exposing the entire MCE filter in the duct. The last two MCE filter cartridges were
sampled by exposing the entire MCE filter in the duct. A negligible pressure drop
was observed during the two different MCE filter collections and flows for the two
different collections indicated consistent values near the target of 5 L/min. Future
MCE filter cartridge sampling will consist of "open faced" sampling where the MCE
cartridge inlet cap will be completely removed exposing the entire MCE filter in the
exhaust duct.
Recommended Corrective Action: The QAPP needs to be updated to accurately
describe the current burn chamber configurations; thermocouple configurations; and
duff feed rates. These changes to the QAPP did not indicate approval from EPA's
QAM. These differences need to be documented and approved by the EPA QAM.
The QAPP should be amended to describe the method of using the MCE filter
cartridges in order to insure that the desired sampling technique will be followed.
Experience has shown that actual flame temperature is difficult to monitor. The
inherent variations in flame temperature from one point in the flame to another point
in the flame can be difficult to control. The control limits for the target flame
temperatures may need to be re-evaluated.
Upon observing MCE filter collections, the auditors noticed the sampled filter
cartridges were not carried in the up-right position. Since the flow through the MCE
cartridge is low (5L/min) particulates do not get imbedded into the filter media.
Rough handling of the MCE cartridges could result in particle loss. RTI recommends
carrying the MCE filters cartridges in an upright position at all times. Also by
placing "fragile" and "this end up" stickers on the boxes used to ship the MCE
cartridges to the analytical lab may limit rough handling by shipping personnel.
Response to Comments (Abderrahmane Touati)
The Final signed version of the QAPP describes the burn chamber configurations,
and was approved by the EPA QAM. The control limit for the target flame
temperatures were not set due to inherent variations from one point in the flame
to another. The target flame temperatures were designated as "Hot Temperature"
and "Cold Temperature" settings in the QAPP.
4. Field QA/QC. All instruments including pumps, Pitot tubes, thermocouples, and
balances are within yearly certifications. The calibration certificates for each
instrument being used are up to date and available for review during the audit. The
equipment will be certified at the end of testing to insure minimal drift throughout
burn chamber testing. The check weights used for the daily balances check are
currently out of date but are only used as an initial accuracy check. Each balance was
-------
certified with NIST traceable weights according to the calibration certificates. Each
piece of equipment being used for testing contains a calibration sticker indicating that
the equipment is within tolerance; the date of calibration; and serial number. The
auditor verified the instrument stickers against the calibration certificates for each
piece of equipment being used by ARCADIS.
5. Field Documentation. All calibration and drift measurements for the CEMs are
entered into a dedicated laboratory notebook and FDS forms. All sampling flow rates
are entered onto FDS forms. All notebook pages and FDS forms are scanned into an
electronic format that is backed up using flash drives. Scanned lab notebook pages
and FDS forms are kept based on the unique test ID number with hard copies placed
into a specific section of the project's dedicated 3-ring binder.
6. Sample Handling and Custody. Mr. Steve Terll of ARCADIS is the dedicated
sample custodian who handles all sample shipments to the project's analytical labs.
Each sample has a unique sample ID number. The QAPP highlights the sample ID
naming scheme and this same naming practice was observed during the audit. Each
sample container contains a printed label indicating what the sample contents are.
FDS forms are generated for each collected sample. Once samples are recovered and
ready for shipment to the labs a single CoC form is created indicating which unique
sample ID numbers are being sent to the labs for testing. Attachment 2 below
indicates a typical CoC form generated for sending out MCE filter cartridges to the
analytical laboratory.
Attachment 2: CoC form
ARCADIS
••MMM
FUI9ISI4M5IM
ntcurn M «w«
RNfMBUMUMM
%
feport *»: nil lu: Arcadis
Dr. Dahman 1 ouati
Chain of Custody Record
ro»
KIWI 1 VAMI
Hum lii. i dl i.uil.i il.ni l.ibln ubnlinburn
( IN I null in ' */r. M n * .' i
S.Ttrll
HUH Kl SI
SAMPII ID KVC
IX-HIAH 1
I21011
EX-HT-MCE-OIB-
[21911
EX-HT-MCE-OIC-
i \ ; I-MI l-.-i) i)
12191 1 j
1 S \Mfll
OK \I\IUI\
Filler
Caswdc
MIC.
Candle
Rltcr
Cassette
i illCI
Cassette
DAIT.J
IIMI
12-I9-II
12-19-11
12-19-11
12-19-11
Na.orc«iUl«ra
1
t
1
1
I.MORA II)I\
LMSI. Analytical Inc. 107 Fourth Si
lihi>v,Mt5W23
til UIMKIV-
Ull'llkl IIIKMU
-------
All blank samples are to be collected in the same manner as samples collected during
the actual burn testing; however neither a hot blank nor a cold blank test collection
was observed during the audit. These blanks had been collected on the Friday prior to
the audit and this is consistent with the QAPP requirements.
7. Data Management. Dr. Abderrahmane (DrDahman) Touati, Ms. Libby Nessley, Mr.
Steve Terll, and Mr. John Nash are responsible for on-site data management. All
notebook entries, FDS forms, and CoC forms are scanned to become part of the
permanent data package. This insures an easy chain of reference from notebook
entries to the actual FDS forms to CoC forms generated for collected samples. Hard
copies of the scanned documents are kept on-site in the project's dedicated 3-ring
binder. Electronic data provided by the DAS is saved to flash drives. The electronic
data are also included in the data packages containing notebook entries, FDS forms,
and CoC forms. Calculations will be performed using copies of the raw data files.
This insures that raw data files are not changed. The electronic data and analytical
data will be used by Paul Lemieux, Region 8 EPA personnel, and Dahman Touati.
The data will be used to determine exposures to asbestos material contained in
wildfire smoke if ever a wildfire occurs at the Libby Amphibole Superfund site near
Libby, Montana.
Best Practices Observed
1. All pumps, thermocouples, and balances were certified within the past year and are
traceable to a NIST standard. The calibration certificates are kept on-site for easy
review and verification of equipment serial numbers to calibration certificates made
for an easy comparison.
2. All gasses used to monitor and calibrate the CEMs are EPA protocol gases and
contain a certificate of analysis.
3. A dedicated lab notebook for this project insures that only project specific notes are
being retained.
4. The scanning of notebook pages; CoC forms; and FDS forms and including these
scans as part of the permanent data packages will allow for an easy chain of reference
throughout an entire test and provide data traceability.
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment: Page 1 of 16
Project: Activities as the Burn Chamber Facility
Location: EPA RTF Facility, North Carolina
Date of Audit: December 19 and 20, 2011
Assessor(s): Steven Walters and Jeff Portzer, RTI International,
(Subcontracted by Neptune and Company, Inc., a contractor to EPA).
Project Background:
Asbestos laden materials will be burned at the EPA Burn Hut Facility located in RTF, NC. The exhaust flue gas will be
sampled for particulates and gasses. Particulates will be collected using mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filters, as well as,
collected using an impinger system similar to EPA Method 5 sample collections. Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs)
will be used to evaluate CO, CO2, and O2. The filter based and impinger collections will be analyzed for asbestos
particulate deposits using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM).
Technical System Audit Objectives.
To provide the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with an independent, external quality assurance
(QA) assessment of technical activities in the field for Contract No. EP-C-08-007, Task No. 69, Work Order No. 02:
Activities as the Burn Chamber Facility
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 2 of 16
ITEM
Reference
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
A. QUALITY SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION
1 . Is there a copy of an approved
QAPP and SOP on-site for
reference during the sampling?
2. Have all field personnel
associated with the project read
and understood the QAPP and
SOP? How is this documented?
3 . Are there deviations from the
QAPP or SOPs since the project's
implementation or scope testing?
4. How are deviations from the
QAPP or SOP tracked and
documented?
5 . How are field measurements and
notes being recorded?
6. Do documentation practices
adhere to ORD PPM 13.2 (Paper
Laboratory Records)!
General
General
General
General
General
Section A. 9
(Documents
and Records)
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 3 of 16
ITEM
Reference
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
Additional Questions or Comments:
B. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
7. Are any contractors involved with
the field operations currently
planned for?
8. Have all personnel involved in
handling, burning, and collecting
samples received OSHA 40-hour
health and safety training?
9. Has a specific HASP been
developed? Did the sampling
crew receive a copy of the HASP
before the start of the sampling?
General
Section
A.8
Section
A.8
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 4 of 16
ITEM
10. Have all field personnel involved
with asbestos sampling at the
EPA Burn Hut been trained on
proper handling of asbestos-laden
material, as well as
decontamination of asbestos-
laden materials?
• How is this training
documented?
1 1 . Who will be responsible for:
• Maintaining the QAPP and
SOP as well as ensuring the
completion of all aspects of
the QAPP and SOP?
• Coordination of the study
with state and local agencies?
• Quality assurance
review/approval of the QAPP
and SOP including a QA
review/approval of the final
report?
• Production, collection, and
analysis of the flue exhaust
conditions at the EPA Burn
Hut facility?
• Coordinating technical
discussion and activities
between NRMRL, analytical
labs, and ARCADIS?
• Coordinating efforts with data
collection and reporting
activities at the EPA Burn
Hut facility?
Reference
Section A. 8
(Special
Training /
Certification)
Section A. 4
(Project/Task
Organization)
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 5 of 16
ITEM
Reference
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
12. Who is the point of contact at the
following?
• EPA Region VIII (Superfund
Site)
• ARCADIS
• Analytical Lab
General
Additional Questions or Comments:
C. FIELD SAMPLE COLLECTION and MONITORING
13. Was the Open Burn Hut Test
Facility assembled and configured
as described?
Section
B.I.1.1 and
Figure B.I
14. Has a working Feed Chute been
installed to prevent sampling
personnel from entering the burn
chamber to add additional fuel
(duff) to the fire?
Section
B.I.1.2
15. Was the Burn Chamber
assembled and installed as
Section
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 6 of 16
ITEM
described?
• Cut drum
• Propane burner
• Thermocouples (5) positioned
correctly
• Assembly on scale
• Propane tank off-scale
• Combustion air fan
16. Is the Burn Chamber equipped
with four K-Type thermocouples
inserted in a radial fashion to
properly monitor flame zone
burning temperatures?
Is one thermocouples installed
above the burn chamber to
measure temperature above the
flame zone?
17. Have all the sampling ports
including the isokinetic sampling
ports; gaseous monitors; and
sampling trains been installed and
operational?
18. Was the exhaust flue gas duct,
Baghouse, and HEPA filter
assembled and installed as
described?
Reference
B.I. 1.3
Section
B.I. 1.3
General
Section
B.I. 1.4
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 7 of 16
ITEM
19. Have the Baghouse (model 72RT-
21) and HEPA filters (AstroCell
Model 905-000-348) been
installed according to
manufacturer recommendations?
Are there are any modifications to
this system? Please specify.
20. Is the burn chamber mounted on a
scale with an accuracy of +/- 0. 1
pounds to continuously monitor
the mass of fuel remaining?
Is this scale NIST traceable?
Is the scale certified?
How often is the scale certified?
21 . Was the temperature of the burn
controlled within desired
tolerance for the "low" burn at
800°F by adjusting propane flame
and/or air flow rate?
22. Was the temperature of the burn
controlled within desired
tolerance for the "high" burn at
1800°F by adjusting propane
flame and/or air flow rate?
23 . Is the source material pre-
packaged duff in 0.5 Ib paper
bags?
24. Does the COC for the duff
material correctly document that
Reference
Section
B.I. 1.4
Section
B.I. 1.3
Section
B. 1.3 and
B. 1.3.2.
Section
B. 1.2 and
B. 1.3.2.
Section
B. 1.2.1
Section
B. 1.2.1
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 8 of 16
ITEM
the source is Libby OU3?
25. Is the feed rate of bags of duff
equivalent to the proposed 10
Ib/hr? (20 bags/hr @0.5 lb/bag)?
26. Was the optimum feed rate for the
bags of duff determined from the
scoping test?
27. Were the O2, CO, and CO2
CEMs and DAD started up and
logging data with the DAS 30
minutes before start of burning?
28. Was the location of the sampling
port for the MCE filters in a
location where exhaust flue gas
temperatures were sufficiently
low?
29. Was the location of the sampling
port for the impinger method in
close proximity to the sampling
port for the MCE filter?
30. Was the ash sample collected and
placed into a glass bottle with
label code according to the
sample coding scheme?
Reference
Section
B. 1.2.2
Section
B. 1.3.1
Section
B.I. 3.2 and
B.2.7.2
Section
B.2.1.1
Section
B.2.1.2
Section
B.2.1.3and
B.3.2
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 9 of 16
ITEM
3 1 . Briefly describe some of the
scoping tests conducted and initial
observations that may alter
current test procedures.
Reference
Section
B. 1.3.1
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 10 of 16
ITEM
32. Is the following methodology
used for Burn Hut test
preparations and post test
cleanup:
• Is PPE being worn by field
personnel?
• Is the aluminum foil lining
removed and placed in
appropriately labeled vessels for
shipping and storing asbestos
contaminated material?
• Is an Omega Vac or equivalent
vacuum used to remove asbestos
contaminated particulates from
the burn chamber walls? Is a new
inlet hose and filter installed to
prevent cross contamination from
sample to sample?
• Is the vacuum cleaner catch
collected and stored in
appropriately labeled glass jars in
the event this material is used for
further analysis?
33. Is the mixed cellulose ester
(MCE) filter 25 -mm diameter and
0.8 (im pore size being used?
• What type cassettes are being
used?
Reference
Section
B. 1.3.2
Section
B.2.1.1
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 11 of 16
ITEM
34. Is the sample air flow maintained
at 5 L/min? How is this
accomplished?
35. Was the Method 5 sampling train
set up according the standard
method?
• Was the filter removed from the
standard sampling train?
36. Was the ash sample collected at
the completion of each burn?
• Weighed?
• Placed into a glass bottle?
• Shipped to the analytical lab for
analysis of LA?
37. Was the Burn Hut exhaust gas
volumetric flow rate determined
using EPA Method 1A?
Was the measurement location 5
feet downstream of the inlet?
38. Was the Burn Hut exhaust gas
temperature measured?
39. Was the exhaust gas moisture
determined during Method 5
sampling?
40. Was the Filterable PM2.5
sampling performed according to
Method 201 A?
Reference
Section
B.2.1.1
Section
B2.1.2
Section
B.2.1.3
Section
B.2.2
Section
B.2.3
Section
B.2.3
Section
B.2.4.1
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 12 of 16
ITEM
4 1 . Was the Burn Hut exhaust total
filterable PM measured according
to Method 5?
Reference
Section
B.2.4.2
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
Additional Questions or Comments:
D. FIELD QA/QC
42. Are field instruments (e.g. dry -gas
flow meters) calibrated or
checked for calibration?
At what frequency?
43 . Are the calibration standards
traceable to NIST?
44. Have the CEMs been inspected
and function verified before
sample collection?
• CO2/O2 by EPA Method 3A
• CO by EPA method 10
General
General
General
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 13 of 16
ITEM
Reference
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
45. Are the calibration checks of the
CEMs meeting the criteria
specified in Table A.2 of the
QAPP?
Section A.7.3
Table A.2
46. What is the method and frequency
of thermocouple calibration?
General
Additional Questions or Comments:
E. FIELD DOCUMENTATION
47. How are calibration data for field
instruments recorded?
General
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 14 of 16
ITEM
48. Are readings from field analyses
documented in a dedicated
waterproof notebook?
Reference
General
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
Additional Questions or Comments:
F. SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY
49. Is there a dedicated sample
custodian on-site? Who?
50. Does each sample label include a
unique labeling system that is
described in the QAPP? Are
sample ID's written on each
sample container in permanent
marker or on labels in indelible
ink?
5 1 . Is there chain of custody forms
created for each sample being
collected? Are they available for
review?
52. Does a Chain-of-Custody
accompany each set of coolers?
Section B.3
Table B.2
Sample
Coding
Section B.3. 4
Section B.3. 4
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 15 of 16
ITEM
Reference
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
53. Does each cooler have a custody
seal?
General
54. How often are Field Blanks and
Trip Blanks collected?
General
Additional Questions or Comments:
G. DATA MANAGEMENT
55. Is there someone who is the
responsible for data management
on-site? Who?
Section B. 10
-------
Technical Systems Audit Checklist-EPA Burn Hut 2 used for Libby Amphibole (LA) Assessment:
Page 16 of 16
ITEM
56. Was a hard-bound laboratory
notebook with a unique
identification number assigned
for this project?
57. How are paper records, lab
notebook pages and electronic
data maintained? Who is
responsible for these records?
58. Will post calculations be made to
the raw data? Who will be
responsible for performing such
calculations?
59. Sample Preparation and
Collection:
• At what point during the
testing are the six wipe
samples collected? How
much surface area should be
sampled with each wipe?
Reference
Section A. 9.1
Section
B.10.1
Section
B.10.5
Section B.2
YES
NO
N/A
COMMENTS
Additional Questions or Comments:
-------
APPENDIX B
Temperature and CEM Data
-------
Summary Sheet for HT tests
Test ID
Ambient air
EX-PM HotBlank-01-121511 (burner ON)
EX-Hotblank-PM-01-121511
EX-HotBlank-PM2.5-01-121511
EX-Hotblank-MCE-01B-121511
EX-PM Air Blank-01-121511
EX-HT-PM-01-121511
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121511
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121511
Ambient air
EX-IMP LTBIank-01-021712
EX-PM LTBIank-01-021712
EX-PM2.5 LT Blank-01-021712
EX-MCE LT Blank-01-021712
Type of Blank Sample
Burner ON
Ambient air inside the burn hut
Torch ON
Sampling train Type
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP- 2015
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP- 2015
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP- 2015
Start Time
End Time
EOT
10:43
13:48
13:48
13:48
13:48
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:15
9:45
9:45
9:45
9:45
9:45
11:01
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:48
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
Sample Volume
Total Flue gas Volume
Dry Standard Liters
1814.6
1816.9
777.0
156.5
1061.0
1110.4
756.4
317.0
1170.9
1149.9
750.4
508.2
1863854
1838951
1860732
1854512
1854875
1856470
1854018
1855121
2042686
2038362
2045959
2063102
Isokineticity
100
101
110
Non-lsokinetic sampling
101
101
115
Non-lsokinetic sampling
100
100
110
101
Appendix B - Filel - EX-AII Blank-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
1/3
-------
Summary Sheet for HT tests
Test ID
Ambient air
EX-PM HotBlank-01-121511 (burner ON)
EX-Hotblank-PM-01-121511
EX-HotBlank-PM2.5-01-121511
EX-Hot blank-MCE-01 B-1 21 51 1
EX-PM Air Blank-01-121511
EX-HT-PM-01-121511
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121511
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121511
Ambient air
EX-IMP LTBIank-01-021712
EX-PM LTBIank-01-021712
EX-PM2.5 LT Blank-01-021712
EX-MCE LT Blank-01-021712
Moelcuar weight
g/gmole
28.9
28.9
29
29
28.8
28.8
29
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.7
28.8
Sample Mass
Grams
2177
2178
931
188
1272
1331
907
380
1404
1379
895
606
Temperature at the grate
Tl
16
830
830
830
830
153
153
153
153
T2
19
748
748
748
748
117
117
117
117
T3
17
826
826
826
826
437
437
437
438
T5
17
144
144
144
144
191
191
191
191
Temperature 4 inches above the grate
T4
120
120
120
120
116
116
116
116
672
672
672
672
117
117
117
117
Average CO2
Average CO
Delta CO2
Delta CO
437
1845
1845
1845
1845
437
732
732
733
733
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1408
1408
1408
1408
295
295
295
295
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix B - Filel - EX-AII Blank-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
2/3
-------
Summary Sheet for HT tests
Test ID
Ambient air
EX-PM HotBlank-01-121511 (burner ON)
EX-Hotblank-PM-01-121511
EX-HotBlank-PM2.5-01-121511
EX-Hot blank-MCE-01 B-1 21 51 1
EX-PM Air Blank-01-121511
EX-HT-PM-01-121511
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121511
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121511
Ambient air
EX-IMP LTBIank-01-021712
EX-PM LTBIank-01-021712
EX-PM2.5 LT Blank-01-021712
EX-MCE LT Blank-01-021712
C*-*2 genrated from the burner
CO&enerated from the burner
2146
2146
2148
2148
450
450
453
451
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mass of Carbon generated from the burner
sampled
Total
grams
1.27
1.27
0.55
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.07
1309
1290
1307
1302
300
300
301
302
Appendix B - Filel - EX-AII Blank-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
3/3
-------
Summary Sheet for HT tests
Test ID
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-PM2. 5-01 -121 911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-02-122211
EX-HT-PM-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-1 22211
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-03-122811
EX-HT-PM-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-1 22811
Sampling train Type
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP-2015
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP-2015
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP-2015
Start Time
End Time
EOT
10:00
14:15
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:56
15:12
15:28
9:13
10:52
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:21
11:37
11:53
8:49
10:09
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:34
10:50
11:06
10:15
14:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
14:15
15:11
15:27
15:43
9:28
11:01
12:05
12:05
12:05
11:20
11:36
11:52
12:08
9:15
10:14
11:16
11:16
11:16
10:31
10:49
11:05
11:21
Sample Volume
Total Flue gas Volume
Dry Standard Liters
1192.2
1229.6
751.2
76.6
75.6
73.6
75.6
1126.9
1110.1
753.2
74.9
78.9
76.0
82.6
1038.5
1119.8
769.4
48.4
75.6
78.7
70.8
2064330
2053359
2069390
515590
1825560
1831670
1828452
457140
1858606
1876974
1861996
466465
Isokineticity
97
101
95
Non-lsokinetic sampling
106
102
108
Non-lsokinetic sampling
99
100
109
Non-lsokinetic sampling
Appendix B - Files2 - EX-HT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
1/4
-------
Summary Sheet for HT tests
Test ID
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-PM2. 5-01 -121 911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-02-122211
EX-HT-PM-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-1 22211
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-03-122811
EX-HT-PM-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-1 22811
Molecular weight
g/gmole
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
Sample Mass
Grams
1429
1474
900
92
91
88
91
1351
1331
903
90
95
91
99
1245
1342
922
58
91
94
85
Temperature at the grate
Tl
8
712
878
878
878
899
888
846
884
15
785
857
857
857
845
839
858
890
5
659
888
888
888
955
934
846
763
T2
8
791
810
810
810
858
799
782
804
15
746
907
907
907
931
909
901
877
5
756
832
832
832
851
840
833
781
T3
5
919
829
829
829
852
826
820
819
17
772
746
746
746
700
759
763
761
5
939
936
936
936
974
929
953
846
T5
8
493
556
556
556
578
582
592
430
16
393
476
476
476
542
418
449
519
6
546
582
582
582
606
565
578
597
Temperature 4 inches above the grate
T4
8
562
717
717
717
684
734
718
738
16
572
753
753
753
726
755
764
769
6
804
776
776
776
818
757
768
753
530
530
530
568
468
556
523
527
527
527
560
506
520
531
596
596
596
615
593
588
603
Average CO2
437
1852
3717
3717
3717
3309
3648
3868
4074
1713
2381
2381
2381
2145
2328
2424
2692
1342
2674
2674
2674
2237
2548
2844
3236
Appendix B - Files2 - EX-HT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
2/4
-------
Summary Sheet for HT tests
Test ID
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-PM2. 5-01 -121 911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-02-122211
EX-HT-PM-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-1 22211
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-03-122811
EX-HT-PM-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-1 22811
Average CO
Delta CO2
Delta CO
ppmv
6
7.50
75
75
75
37
70
96
95
0
58
58
58
21
46
74
98
0
61
61
61
11
41
86
127
1415
1865
1865
1865
1457
1796
2016
2222
667
667
667
431
615
710
979
1332
1332
1332
895
1207
1502
1894
1
68
68
68
30
62
88
88
57
57
57
21
46
74
98
61
61
61
11
41
86
128
-^2 genrated from the bu| COgenearated f rom the burn
ppmm
2159
2845
2845
2845
2223
2740
3076
3390
1018
1018
1018
658
938
1084
1493
2033
2033
2033
1366
1841
2293
2890
1.2
65.8
65.8
65.8
28.9
60.4
85.9
85.2
55.8
55.8
55.8
20.3
44.8
71.6
95.0
59.2
59.2
59.2
10.7
39.8
84.0
124.0
Mass of Carbon generated from the burner or Duff
sampled
0.00
1.15
1.19
0.72
0.057
0.070
0.077
0.087
0.41
0.40
0.27
0.017
0.026
0.030
0.044
0.72
0.78
0.53
0.022
0.047
0.062
0.071
Total
1990
1980
1995
382
478
541
594
660
662
661
103
151
179
246
1292
1305
1294
211
290
370
470
Appendix B - Files2 - EX-HT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
3/4
-------
Summary Sheet for HT tests
Test ID
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-PM2. 5-01 -121 911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-02-122211
EX-HT-PM-02-1 22211
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-1 22211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-1 22211
Air sampling
Pre-Duff sampling
EX-HT-IMP-03-122811
EX-HT-PM-03-1 22811
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-1 22811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-1 22811
Mass of Duff inserted
Total
5081
5123
5255
Mass of ash remaining
After 24 hours smoldering
2379
2397
2329
Mass loss using the scale
During testing
NA
2030
2300
Appendix B - Files2 - EX-HT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
4/4
-------
Summary Sheet for LT tests
Test ID
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
EX-LT-PM-03-021412
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021412
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021512
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021612
EX-LT-PM-03-021612
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021612
Sampling train Type
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP-2015
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP-2015
Impinger sampling Method for Asbestos
Total PM sampling using EPA Method 5
PM 2.5 Sampling using EPA 201a
Asbestos Sampling using SOP-2015
Start Time
End Time
EOT
10:55
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:21
11:37
11:54
9:01
10:50
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:28
11:42
11:58
12:15
8:05
9:36
9:40
9:40
9:40
9:40
9:56
10:13
10:29
10:46
11:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
11:20
11:36
11:52
12:09
9:03
11:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
11:25
11:43
11:57
12:13
12:30
8:20
9:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
9:55
10:11
10:28
10:44
11:01
Sample Volume
Total Flue gas Volume
Dry Standard Liters
1187.5
1187.4
745.0
139.6
127.8
127.4
126.1
1189.0
1167.3
753.7
105.5
132.0
127.8
127.7
131.1
1136.9
1142.8
747.9
127.0
134.4
124.3
132.6
131.1
2134181
2136481
2127280
541173
533773
530347
528099
2094171
2100541
2091134
34377
43258
42227
42454
42339
2042326
2047923
2041983
518852
515172
513596
513650
523940
Isokinetic rate
97
99
92
106
98
98
98
99
99
95
81
102
99
100
100
97
99
96
100
107
99
106
103
Appendix B - File3 - EX-LT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
1/4
-------
Summary Sheet for LT tests
Test ID
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
EX-LT-PM-03-021412
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021412
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021512
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021612
EX-LT-PM-03-021612
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021612
Moelcuar weight
g/gmole
28.8
28.8
29.0
28.7
28.7
28.7
28.7
28.8
28.8
29.0
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
29.0
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
Sample Mass
Grams
1423
1423
898
167
153
152
151
1425
1399
909
126
158
153
153
157
1363
1370
902
152
161
149
159
157
Temperature at the grate (°C)
Tl
9
383
383
383
174
402
483
478
6
127
225
225
225
74
105
330
449
443
8
127
306
306
306
143
336
366
392
396
T2
9
375
375
375
90
491
471
442
7
13
16
20
22
24
24
8
103
152
152
152
43
93
198
317
419
T3
9
423
423
423
209
441
528
522
7
135
340
340
340
106
323
506
493
436
143
486
486
486
408
545
487
497
505
T4
9
403
403
403
118
525
484
482
7
118
283
283
283
199
260
331
371
387
8
158
488
488
488
312
613
511
508
542
T5
9
361
361
361
80
433
434
513
7
101
203
203
203
55
81
320
423
476
8
107
236
236
236
61
228
325
354
431
T6
375
375
375
99
545
429
418
128
205
205
205
77
98
307
398
446
139
251
251
251
99
269
311
341
381
Appendix B - File3 - EX-LT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
2/4
-------
Summary Sheet for LT tests
Test ID
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
EX-LT-PM-03-021412
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021412
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021512
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021612
EX-LT-PM-03-021612
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021612
Duct Temperature Degree C
9
33
26
31
35
38
9
33
46
46
46
38
44
50
52
28
8
24
33
33
33
28
31
35
37
19
Average CO2
Average CO
Delta CO2
Delta CO
ppmv
426
888
888
888
716
775
960
1118
454
916
1542
1542
1542
1055
1349
1854
2103
869
629
818
818
818
681
799
927
857
530
10
28
28
28
15
20
32
49
12
41
41
41
2
28
66
83
68
17
17
17
3
14
22
32
19
COz genrated from Duff
COienearated from the Duff
ppmm
Mass of Carbon gener;
sampled
grams
The Torch emissions were not taken to determine the mass of carbon burned from Duff o
626
626
626
139
433
939
1187
415
189
189
189
52
170
298
228
64
41
41
41
2
28
66
83
55
17
17
17
2
14
21
32
19
956
956
950
212
661
1433
1811
633
289
289
287
79
259
455
348
98
39.8
39.8
39.6
2.0
27.5
64.5
80.8
53.9
16.2
16.2
16.1
2.3
13.3
20.9
30.7
18.5
0.40
0.39
0.25
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.003
0.012
0.020
0.017
0.005
Appendix B - File3 - EX-LT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
3/4
-------
Summary Sheet for LT tests
Test ID
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
EX-LT-PM-03-021412
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021412
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021 41 2
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021412
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021512
Ambient air
Pre-Duff sampling (Torch Only)
EX-LT-IMP-03-021612
EX-LT-PM-03-021612
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021612
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021612
ted from the Duff
Total
Mass of Duff inserted
Total
Mass of ash remaining
After 24 hours smoldering
Mass loss using the scale
During testing
ily
697
699
696
2
10
21
27
10
210
211
210
14
47
83
67
21
2542
636
845
641
630
2485
641
630
629
585
0
2568
640
643
641
644
0
1090
917
1184
1210
310
170
290
440
1290
290
390
420
190
210
1420
330
450
50
590
0
Comments
NO CEM data for torch only
Aborted sample, filter torn
Appendix B - File3 - EX-LT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx
4/4
-------
APPENDIX C
Flue Gas Sampling Worksheets
-------
EX-HT-IMP.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Asbestos Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-HT-IMP-01-121911 EX-HT-IMP-02-122211 EX-HT-IMP-03-122811
RUN DATE 12/19/2011 12/22/2011 12/28/2011
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
1440-1540
0.982
1.55
29.91
43.121
73
-1.65
120
10.92
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.195
0.000207394
42.102
29.79
1.2
11.4
0.515
0.988
28.84
28.71
64.8
0.35
1,356
1,215
97.2
1105-1205
0.982
1.19
29.71
41.112
73
-1.60
131
19.24
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.990
60.0
0.193
0.000203162
39.795
29.59
2.2
15.7
0.907
0.978
28.84
28.59
59.4
0.35
1,244
1,074
106.1
1016-1116
0.982
1.13
29.50
37.821
69
-1.60
129
8.44
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.000
60.0
0.190
0.000196895
36.673
29.38
1.1
14.9
0.398
0.989
28.84
28.72
60.0
0.35
1,256
1,094
99.1
Results
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-HT-IMP.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Elapsed Pilot Dry Gas
Time Reading Meter Reading
0 1.2 377.635
5 1.2 381.509
10 1.2 385.105
15 1.2 388.609
20 1.2 392.205
25 1.2 395.801
30 1.2 399.309
35 1.2 402.902
40 1.2 406.305
45 1.2 409.901
50 1.2 413.606
55 1.2 417.204
60/off 420.756
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Terll Depth
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
12/19/2011
1440-1540
100 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
1 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.91 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.65 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.201 <-CALCULATED
0.195 <-input
1.30 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Averages->
1.20
Delta H
1.56
1.56
1.55
1.53
1.54
1.54
1.53
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
Flue Gas
Temp.
114
112
120
118
120
126
118
120
121
121
122
122
119.50
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
67
71
71
73
73
74
75
76
77
78
73
8 Rd Area:=> 0.35
RecArea:=> 0.00
0
0
Area Used 0.349066
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.79
0.990
28.73
% Iso
105.3
97.4
95.3
97.3
97.5
95.2
96.9
91.7
96.8
99.6
96.6
95.2
97.06
Volume
Metered
3.874
3.596
3.504
3.596
3.596
3.508
3.593
3.403
3.596
3.705
3.598
3.552
3.593
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.823
3.542
3.445
3.522
3.522
3.423
3.506
3.314
3.496
3.595
3.485
3.434
Velocity
(vs)
64.4
64.3
64.8
64.7
64.8
65.1
64.7
64.8
64.8
64.8
64.9
64.9
64.73
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-factor
1.30
1.29
1.28
1.29
1.28
1.27
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
TOTAL VOLU ME =
43.121
Run 1
-------
EX-HT-IMP.XLS
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
420.94
427.604
430.101
433.101
435.901
439.204
442.506
445.802
449.008
452.305
455.509
458.805
462.052
EX-HT-IMP-02-122211
12/22/2011
1105-1205
120 <-input
0.98 <-input
70 <-input
1 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.209 <-CALCULATED
0.193 <-input
1.23 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Delta H
1.20
1.20
1.19
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.19
1.19
1.20
1.19
1.20
1.19
Flue Gas
Temp.
128
126
130
131
133
133
130
131
130
135
131
135
131.08
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
69
69
70
71
71
73
74
75
76
77
77
77
73
% ISO
205.4
76.8
92.4
86.2
101.8
101.4
100.8
97.9
100.4
97.8
100.3
99.2
105.04
Volume
Metered
6.664
2.497
3.000
2.800
3.303
3.302
3.296
3.206
3.297
3.204
3.296
3.247
3.426
Volume
Metered
Standard
6.503
2.437
2.922
2.722
3.211
3.198
3.186
3.093
3.175
3.080
3.168
3.121
Velocity
(vs)
59.1
59.0
59.2
59.3
59.4
59.4
59.2
59.3
59.2
59.5
59.3
59.5
59.28
Square
Root
Delta P
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.99
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.23
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.21
1.22
1.21
28.84
29.59
0.990
28.73
TOTAL VOLUME =
41.112
Run 2
-------
EX-HT-IMP.XLS
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Averages~>
Pilot
Reading
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
462.189
465.106
467.705
470.609
473.908
477.105
480.402
483.608
486.905
490.305
493.302
496.705
500.01
EX-HT-IMP-03-1 22811
12/28/2011
1016-1116
130 <-input
1 <-input
70 <-input
1 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.5 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.208 <-CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.13 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Outlet
Delta H
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.12
1.13
Flue Gas
Temp.
123
121
122
124
124
128
129
129
129
130
143
145
128.92
Meter
Temp.
63
63
63
64
65
68
69
70
72
74
75
76
69
% ISO
92.1
82.0
91.6
104.1
100.7
103.6
100.6
103.3
106.1
93.3
106.9
103.8
99.01
Volume
Metered
2.917
2.599
2.904
3.299
3.197
3.297
3.206
3.297
3.400
2.997
3.403
3.305
3.152
Volume
Metered
Standard
2.858
2.547
2.845
3.226
3.121
3.200
3.106
3.188
3.275
2.876
3.260
3.160
Velocity
(vs)
59.7
59.6
59.6
59.7
59.7
59.9
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.7
60.8
59.98
Square
Root
Delta P
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.00
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.13
1.14
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.12
1.12
28.84
29.38
0.990
28.73
TOTAL VOLUME =
37.821
Run 3
-------
EX-HT-IMP.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 36.25
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 10
Depth of stack or duct 26.25
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 1.00 11.00
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
1.76
3.10
4.65
6.56
9.35
16.91
19.69
21.60
23.15
24.49
25.25
11.76
13.10
14.65
16.56
19.35
26.91
29.69
31.60
33.15
34.49
35.25
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
EX-HT-M2-01 .XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUN NUMBER EX-HT-M2-01-121911 EX-HT-M2-01-121911
RUN DATE 12/19/2011 12/19/2011
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches E2O)V2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
1420
29.91
-1.65
120
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.08
29.79
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
63.9
0.35
1,342
1,198
1555
29.91
-1.65
120
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.08
29.79
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
63.9
0.35
1,342
1,198
% difference
0.0
AVERAGE
1,342
1,198
1 average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
EX-HT-M2-02.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUN NUMBER EX-HT-M2-02- 1222 1 1 EX-HT-M2-02- 1222 1 1
RUN DATE 12/19/2011 12/19/2011
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches E2O)V2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
1025
29.71
-1.60
120
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.99
29.59
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
58.8
0.35
1,234
1,094
1222
29.71
-1.65
88
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.96
29.59
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
55.4
0.35
1,164
1,092
% difference
3.1
AVERAGE
1,199
1,093
1 average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
EX-HT-M2-03.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUN NUMBER EX-HT-M2-03-122811 EX-HT-M2-03-122811
RUN DATE 12/28/2011 12/28/2011
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches E2O)V2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
0958
29.50
-1.60
130
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.99
29.38
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
59.5
0.35
1,249
1,081
1125
29.50
-1.65
110
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.00
29.38
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
59.1
0.35
1,240
1,111
% difference
-1.0
AVERAGE
1,245
1,096
1 average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
USEPA
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
RTF, NC
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(vis)
(sf)
(cpmlO)
(cpm2.5)
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
Stack Gas Viscocity
Sample Flow, acfm
PM10 Cut Point, microns
PM2.5 Cut Point, microns
PM2 5 Test Results
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121911
12/19/2011
1440-1540
0.886
0.60
29.91
30.159
72
-1.65
119
5.42
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
26.527
29.79
1.0
11.3
0.256
0.990
28.84
28.73
64.7
0.35
1,355
1,218
95.5
192.2
0.49
9.91
2.43
(continued next page)
EX-HT-PM2.5-02- 1222 1 1
12/22/2011
1105-1205
0.886
0.61
29.71
30.523
74
-1.60
128
13.39
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.990
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
26.598
29.59
2.3
14.6
0.631
0.977
28.84
28.58
59.3
0.35
1,242
1,076
108.4
193.4
0.51
9.74
2.24
EX-HT-PM2.5-03- 1228 1 1
12/28/2011
1016-1116
0.886
0.61
29.50
31.123
69
-1.60
128
5.76
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.000
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
27.171
29.38
1.0
14.4
0.272
0.990
28.84
28.73
59.9
0.35
1,255
1,096
108.7
194.2
0.52
9.68
2.26
Results
-------
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUN TIME
EMISSIONS DATA
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE<2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE > 2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
TOTAL FILTERABLE PARTICULATE
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
PM2 5 Test Results
(continued)
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121911 EX-HT-PM2
12/19/2011
1440-1540
20.2
0.0117
26.9
0.123
3.7
0.00215
4.93
0.0225
23.9
0.0139
31.8
0.145
5-02-122211
12/22/2011
1105-1205
16.3
0.00946
21.6
0.0872
5.7
0.00331
7.57
0.0305
22.0
0.0128
29.2
0.118
EX-HT-PM2.5-03- 1228 1 1
12/28/2011
1016-1116
12.0
0.00681
15.6
0.0640
5.9
0.00335
7.67
0.0315
17.9
0.0102
23.3
0.0955
Results
-------
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
29.91
-1.65
1 1 n
I I U
60
1.77
0
20.9
79.1
0.01
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
ex: 1% = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH 201A
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
STACK TEMP, deg. F |
DELTA H, IN H2O |
110 |
0.595899 |
160 |
0.604832 |
60
0.588958
MW(DRY) 28.84
MW (WET; 28.73
PS= 29.78868
VIS= 191.25 204.44 178.21
CYCFLOV 0.4813 0.5274 0.4365
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!"
NOZZLE
DIAMETER
NOZZLE VEL
ft/sec
MIN VEL
ft/sec
MAX VEL
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN
in. H20
DEL. P MAX
in. H20
1
0.156
60.43897
44.06743
75.38326
0.565496
1.654795
2
0.171
50.3007
35.431
63.46295
0.365562
1.172829
3
0.185
42.97568
29.02434
54.89356
0.245312
0.87748
4
0.199
37.14156
23.73057
48.10413
0.163987
0.673843
5
0.21
33.35244
20.12246
43.71654
0.117912
0.556526
6
0.22
30.38931
17.12664
40.30016
0.085416
0.472942
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POINT
Point*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.20 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
110
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I
1.200
60.0
110
Setup-1
-------
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.71
-1.6
A on
IzU
70
1.77
0
20.9
79.1
0.01 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
120
0.607442
170
0.616872
70
0.599939
MW(DRY) 28.84
MW(WET 28.73
PS= 29.59235
VIS= 193.87 207.10 180.81
CYCFLOV 0.4914 0.5379 0.4462
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER 0.156
NOZZLE VEL 61.70423
ft/sec
MIN VEL 45.02303
ft/sec
MAX VEL 76.94141
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN 0.576287
in. H20
DEL. P MAX 1.683022
in. H20
| 0.171 0.185
| 51.35372 43.87536
I
| 36.21093 29.67605
I
| 64.77002 56.01992
I
| 0.372777 0.25037
I
| 1.192662 0.892184
I
| 0.199 0.21
| 37.9191 34.05066
I
| 24.27916 20.60378
I
| 49.08713 44.60682
I
| 0.167586 0.120688
I
| 0.685022 0.565681
I
| 0.22
| 31.0255
I
| 17.55589
I
| 41.11819
I
| 0.087622
I
| 0.480659
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
0.98 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
120
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 0.980
60.0
120
Setup-2
-------
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.5
-1.6
A OH
IJU
70
1.77
0
20.9
79.1
0.01 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
130 | 180
0.607395 | 0.617129
80
0.59949
MW(DRY) 28.84
MW(WET 28.73
PS= 29.38235
VIS= 196.51 209.77 183.41
CYCFLOV 0.5016 0.5485 0.4561
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER 0.156
NOZZLE VEL 62.99043
ft/sec
MIN VEL 45.9953
ft/sec
MAX VEL 78.52481
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN 0.587056
in. H20
DEL. P MAX 1.711064
in. H20
| 0.171 0.185
| 52.42417 44.78992
I
| 37.00473 30.33963
I
| 66.09814 57.16428
I
| 0.379985 0.255431
I
| 1.212358 0.90678
I
| 0.199 0.21
| 38.70951 34.76043
I
| 24.83804 21.09438
I
| 50.08574 45.51114
I
| 0.171193 0.123477
I
| 0.696115 0.574762
I
| 0.22
| 31.67221
I
| 17.99363
I
| 41.94905
I
| 0.089844
I
| 0.488311
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.00 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
130
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 1.000
60.0
130
Setup-3
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure :
Stack Temp :
Meter Temp :
CO2:
O2 =
Barometric Pres. :
Pilot Coefficient '
Aclual Nozzle :
Meier Box Gamma
Moislure % :
Dry Gas
Meier Reading
414.674
417.11
419.64
422.15
424.67
427.21
429.73
432.25
434.77
437.28
439.8
442.32
444.833
USEPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hul #1 Exhausl Duel Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Widlh
JTN Deplh
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121911
12/19/2011
1440-1540
-1.65
110
60
0
20.9
29.91
0.84
0.156
0.886
1
Delia H
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
ex: 1 % = 1 %
Flue Gas
Temp.
114
113
120
120
120
126
118
118
116
120
122
122
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
69
69
70
71
71
72
73
73
74
74
75
76
% ISO
92.7
96.2
95.9
96.1
96.8
96.4
95.5
95.5
94.8
95.5
95.5
95.1
8 Rd Area:=>
RecArea:=>
0
0
Area Used
Volume
Melered
2.436
2.530
2.510
2.520
2.540
2.520
2.520
2.520
2.510
2.520
2.520
2.513
Volume
Melered
Slandard
2.156
2.239
2.217
2.222
2.239
2.218
2.213
2.213
2.200
2.209
2.205
2.195
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Velocity
(vs)
64.4
64.4
64.8
64.8
64.8
65.1
64.7
64.7
64.5
64.8
64.9
64.9
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.79
0.990
28.73
Averages-> 1.20
0.60
119.08
72.25
95.52
64.71
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
30.159
Run 1
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Pitot
Reading
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meter Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Barometric Pres. =
Pitot Coefficient =
Actual Nozzle =
Meter Box Gamma =
Moisture % =
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
445.256
447.74
450.3
452.84
455.4
457.94
460.47
463.01
465.54
468.09
470.65
473.21
475.779
Stack Diameter (Rd): input
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
Rd Area:=> #VALUE!
Rec Area:=>
0.00
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-122211
12/22/2011
1105-1205
Area Used #VALUE!
-1.6
120
70
0
20.9
29.71
0.84
0.156
0.886
1 ex: 1 % = 1 %
Delta H
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
Flue Gas
Temp.
125
125
126
131
128
130
130
129
128
129
129
130
Average
Meter
Temp.
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
75
76
76
77
% Iso
104.9
108.1
107.1
108.4
107.1
106.9
107.1
106.6
107.1
107.5
107.5
107.7
Volume
Metered
2.484
2.560
2.540
2.560
2.540
2.530
2.540
2.530
2.550
2.560
2.560
2.569
Volume
Metered
Standard
2.175
2.242
2.220
2.238
2.216
2.207
2.212
2.203
2.217
2.221
2.221
2.225
Velocity
(vs)
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.3
59.1
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.1
59.2
59.2
59.2
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
Square
Root
Delta P
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
28.84
29.59
0.990
28.73
Averages-> 0.98
0.61
128.33
73.67
107.17
59.14
0.99
TOTAL VOLUME =
30.523
Run 2
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meter Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Barometric Pres. =
Pitot Coefficient =
Actual Nozzle =
Meter Box Gamma =
Moisture % =
Stack Diameter (Rd): input
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
Rd Area:=> #VALUE!
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-122811
12/28/2011
1016-1116
Rec Area:=>
0.00
Area Used #VALUE!
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.38
0.990
28.73
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Pitot
Reading
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
475.95
478.9
481 .45
483.97
486.53
489.1
491 .07
494.25
496.82
499.39
501 .95
504.52
507.073
Delta H
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
Flue Gas
Temp.
118
122
122
124
121
128
128
128
128
130
137
145
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
64
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
74
% Iso
123.8
107.4
105.9
107.6
107.5
82.7
133.3
107.3
107.1
106.7
107.5
107.5
Volume
Metered
2.950
2.550
2.520
2.560
2.570
1.970
3.180
2.570
2.570
2.560
2.570
2.553
Volume
Metered
Standard
2.600
2.247
2.216
2.247
2.252
1.723
2.776
2.235
2.231
2.218
2.222
2.208
Velocity
(vs)
59.4
59.6
59.6
59.7
59.6
59.9
59.9
59.9
59.9
60.0
60.4
60.8
Square
Root
Delta P
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Averages-> 1.00
0.61
127.58
68.92
108.70
59.91
1.00
TOTAL VOLUME =
31.123
Run3
-------
EX-HT-PM2.5.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 37
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 6
Depth of stack or duct 31
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 0.65 6.65
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
2.08
3.66
5.49
7.75
11.04
19.96
23.25
25.51
27.34
28.92
30.35
8.08
9.66
11.49
13.75
17.04
25.96
29.25
31.51
33.34
34.92
36.35
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
EX-HT-PM.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Particulate Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-HT-PM-01-121911 EX-HT-PM-02-122211 EX-HT-PM-03-122811
RUN DATE 12/19/2011 12/22/2011 12/28/2011
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(mg)
(gr/DSCF)
(mg/DSCM)
(Ib/hr)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
EMISSIONS DATA
Particulate
Catch, milligrams
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
1440-1540
0.986
1.56
29.91
43.459
63
-1.65
119
17.80
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.195
0.000207394
43.422
29.79
1.9
11.3
0.839
0.981
28.84
28.63
64.8
0.35
1,358
1,209
100.8
24.5
0.00871
19.9
0.0902
1105-1205
0.986
1.25
29.71
39.554
63
-1.60
128
17.90
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.990
60.0
0.195
0.000207394
39.202
29.59
2.1
14.6
0.844
0.979
28.84
28.61
59.3
0.35
1,241
1,078
102.0
10.3
0.00405
9.28
0.0375
1016-1116
0.986
1.27
29.50
39.905
59
-1.60
128
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.000
60.0
0.195
0.000207394
39.544
29.38
0.0
14.4
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
59.8
0.35
1,253
1,105
100.4
13.2
0.00515
11.8
0.0488
Results
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-HT-PM.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Elapsed Pilot Dry Gas
Time Reading Meter Reading
0 1.2 550.32
5 1.2 553.95
10 1.2 557.67
15 1.2 561.35
20 1.2 565.04
25 1.2 568.7
30 1.2 572.32
35 1.2 575.93
40 1.2 579.49
45 1.2 583.01
50 1.2 586.66
55 1.2 590.22
60/off 593.779
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
JTN Depth
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
12/19/2011
1440-1540
8 Rd Area:=> 0.35
RecArea:=> 0.00
0
0
Area Used 0.349066
md=
Ps=
100
1.2
60
1
0.75
29.91
1.7
-1.65
0.84
20.9
0
0.201
0.195
1.33
5
0.986
Delta H
1.60
1.60
1.56
1.54
1.54
1.55
1.53
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.55
1.55
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<~CALCULATED
<-input
<~CALCULATED
<-input
<-input
Outlet
Flue Gas
Temp.
114
113
120
120
120
126
118
118
116
120
122
122
Meter
Temp.
59
59
60
61
62
63
64
64
64
64
66
66
% ISO
100.6
103.0
102.3
102.4
101.3
100.5
99.4
98.0
96.8
100.7
98.0
98.0
Volume
Metered
3.630
3.720
3.680
3.690
3.660
3.620
3.610
3.560
3.520
3.650
3.560
3.559
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.653
3.743
3.696
3.698
3.661
3.614
3.598
3.548
3.508
3.638
3.534
3.533
Velocity
(vs)
64.4
64.4
64.8
64.8
64.8
65.1
64.7
64.7
64.5
64.8
64.9
64.9
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.33
1.30
1.28
1.29
1.29
1.28
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.29
1.30
1.30
28.84
29.79
0.990
28.73
Averages->
1.20
1.56
119.08
63
100.07
3.622
64.71
1.10
TOTAL VOLU ME =
43.459
Run 1
-------
EX-HT-PM.XLS
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Averages~>
Pilot
Reading
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
593.887
597.24
600.6
603.94
607.26
610.55
613.82
617.08
620.35
623.65
626.91
630.14
633.441
EX-HT-PM-02-1 22211
12/22/2011
1105-1205
120 <-input
0.98 <-input
60 <-input
1 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.211 <-CALCULATED
0.195 <-input
1.28 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Delta H
1.26
1.26
1.25
1.25
1.24
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Flue Gas
Temp.
125
125
126
131
128
130
130
129
128
129
129
130
128.33
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
60
60
60
62
62
63
63
64
65
65
66
66
63
% ISO
103.1
103.4
102.8
102.3
101.1
100.4
100.1
100.2
100.8
99.7
98.6
100.8
101.10
Volume
Metered
3.353
3.360
3.340
3.320
3.290
3.270
3.260
3.270
3.300
3.260
3.230
3.301
3.296
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.342
3.349
3.329
3.297
3.267
3.241
3.231
3.235
3.258
3.219
3.183
3.253
Velocity
(vs)
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.3
59.1
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.1
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.14
Square
Root
Delta P
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.99
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.28
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
28.84
29.59
0.990
28.73
TOTAL VOLUME =
39.554
Run 2
-------
EX-HT-PM.XLS
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Averages~>
Pilot
Reading
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
634.035
637.61
641.05
644.37
647.49
650.94
654.29
657.55
660.86
664.12
667.38
670.63
673.94
EX-HT-PM-03-1 22811
12/28/2011
1016-1116
130 <-input
1 <-input
60 <-input
1 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.5 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.210 <-CALCULATED
0.195 <-input
1.26 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Outlet
Delta H
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.26
1.27
Flue Gas
Temp.
118
122
122
124
121
128
128
128
128
130
137
146
127.67
Meter
Temp.
53
54
55
56
58
60
60
61
63
64
64
65
59
% ISO
109.3
105.3
101.5
95.3
104.7
101.9
99.2
100.5
98.6
98.6
98.9
101.3
101.26
Volume
Metered
3.575
3.440
3.320
3.120
3.450
3.350
3.260
3.310
3.260
3.260
3.250
3.310
3.325
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.587
3.445
3.318
3.112
3.428
3.316
3.227
3.270
3.208
3.202
3.192
3.245
Velocity
(vs)
59.4
59.6
59.6
59.7
59.6
59.9
59.9
59.9
59.9
60.0
60.4
60.8
59.92
Square
Root
Delta P
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.00
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.26
1.24
28.84
29.38
0.990
28.73
TOTAL VOLUME =
39.905
Run 3
-------
EX-HT-PM.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 8
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 0
Depth of stack or duct 8
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
4.4 1.00 1.00
14.6
29.6
70.4
85.4
95.6
1.17
2.37
5.63
6.83
7.65
1.17
2.37
5.63
6.83
7.65
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0 avg
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
EX-IMP HotblankXLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Asbestos Test Results
RUNNUMBER EX-IMP Hot Blank-01-121511 EX-IMP Hot Blank-02-122911
RUN DATE 12/15/2011 12/29/2011
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
1348-1448
0.982
3.79
30.20
64.693
73
-1.65
135
21.10
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.000
60.0
0.250
0.000340885
64.083
30.08
1.5
17.1
0.995
0.985
28.84
28.67
59.6
0.35
1,249
1,097
99.7
1115-1215
0.982
1.13
29.68
38.867
75
-1.60
129
9.01
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.995
60.0
0.190
0.000196895
37.467
29.56
1.1
14.7
0.425
0.989
28.84
28.71
59.5
0.35
1,246
1,092
101.4
0
1/0/1900
0
0.000
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.000
0
0.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.000
60.0
0.000
0
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.000
#DIV/0!
28.84
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.35
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Results
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-IMP Hotblank.XLS
Sample Elapsed
Point Time
1 0
2 5
3 10
4 15
5 20
6 25
7 30
8 35
9 40
10 45
11 50
12 55
Stop 60/off
Averages->
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Pilot Dry Gas
Reading Meter Reading
1 312.533
1 317.801
1 323.203
1 328.504
1 333.805
1 339.208
1 344.704
1 350.102
1 355.504
1 361.909
1 366.308
1 371.803
377.226
1.00
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Terll Depth
EX-IMP Hot Blank-01-121511
12/15/2011
1348-1448
150 <-input
1 <-input
70 <-input
1 <-input
0.75 <-input
30.2 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.65 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.212 <-CALCULATED
0.250 <-input
3.29 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.982 <-input
8 Rd Area:=> 0.35
RecArea:=> 0.00
0
0
Area Used 0.349066
Delta H
3.29
3.29
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.88
3.90
3.89
3.90
3.93
3.92
3.94
3.79
Flue Gas
Temp.
55
55
55
57
57
57
59
58
57
59
57
59
57.08
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
67
67
67
69
71
73
74
74
77
78
79
73
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
30.08
0.990
28.73
% Iso
91.2
93.5
91.9
91.7
93.1
94.4
92.7
92.7
109.2
75.0
93.3
92.1
92.55
Volume
Metered
5.268
5.402
5.301
5.301
5.403
5.496
5.398
5.402
6.405
4.399
5.495
5.423
5.391
Volume
Metered
Standard
5.271
5.405
5.312
5.292
5.373
5.445
5.338
5.342
6.299
4.318
5.384
5.304
Velocity
(vs)
55.4
55.4
55.4
55.5
55.5
55.5
55.7
55.6
55.5
55.7
55.5
55.7
55.55
Square
Root
Delta P
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.00
K-factor
3.29
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.88
3.90
3.89
3.90
3.93
3.92
3.94
3.93
TOTAL VOLU ME =
64.693
Run 1
-------
EX-IMP Hotblank.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
RunTime:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Pilot Coefficient
02%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
500.646
503.908
507.203
510.501
513.703
516.902
520.106
523.402
526.601
529.803
533.07
536.305
539.513
EX-IMP Hot Blank-02-122911
12/29/2011
1115-1215
125
0.99
60
1
0.75
29.68
1.66
-1.6
0.84
20.9
0
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
0.211 <-CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.12 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Delta H
1.11
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.13
Flue Gas
Temp.
127
129
128
127
127
127
128
128
130
131
130
130
128.50
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
70
70
70
72
73
74
75
77
78
79
80
80
75
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.56
0.990
28.73
% Iso
102.8
104.1
104.1
100.6
100.3
100.3
103.0
99.6
99.7
101.6
100.4
99.5
101.33
Volume
Metered
3.262
3.295
3.298
3.202
3.199
3.204
3.296
3.199
3.202
3.267
3.235
3.208
3.239
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.173
3.205
3.208
3.103
3.094
3.093
3.176
3.071
3.069
3.125
3.089
3.063
Velocity
(vs)
59.4
59.5
59.5
59.4
59.4
59.4
59.5
59.5
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.48
Square
Root
Delta P
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.99
K-factor
1.12
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
TOTAL VOLUME =
38.867
Run 2
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-IMP Hotblank.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Averages->
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
RunTime:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
02%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Pilot Dry Gas
Reading Meter Reading
#DIV/0!
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
0.75 <-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
0.84 <-input
<-input
<-input
= #DIV/0! <-CALCULATED
<-input
#DIV/0! <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
<-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.00
0.00
1.000
28.00
Flue Gas
Delta H Temp.
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Outlet
Meter
Temp. % Iso
0 #DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Volume
Metered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
Metered
Standard
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Velocity
(vs)
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Square
Root
Delta P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
K-f actor
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.000
#DIV/0!
0.00
TOTAL VOLUME =
Run3
-------
EX-IMP Hotblank.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 36.25
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 10
Depth of stack or duct 26.25
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 1.00 11.00
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
1.76
3.10
4.65
6.56
9.35
16.91
19.69
21.60
23.15
24.49
25.25
11.76
13.10
14.65
16.56
19.35
26.91
29.69
31.60
33.15
34.49
35.25
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
EX-M2HotBlank-01.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUNNUMBER EX-M2HotBlank-01-121511 EX-M2 Hot Blank-01-12151 1
RUN DATE 12/15/2011 12/15/2011
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches E2O)V2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
1315
30.20
-1.65
140
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.00
30.08
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
59.9
0.35
1,258
1,096
1510
30.20
-1.65
135
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.01
30.08
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
60.2
0.35
1,265
1,111
% difference
-1.0
AVERAGE
1,261
1,103
1 average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
EX-M2 Hot Blank-02.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUNNUMBER EX-M2HotBlank-01-122911 EX-M2 Hot Blank-01-12291 1
RUN DATE 12/29/2011 12/29/2011
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches E2O)V2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
1009
29.68
-1.60
130
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.99
29.56
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
59.3
0.35
1,246
1,084
1225
29.68
-1.65
115
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.00
29.56
1.5
0.985
28.84
28.67
59.1
0.35
1,242
1,109
% difference
-1.0
AVERAGE
1,244
1,097
1 average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(vis)
(sf)
(cpmlO)
(cpm2.5)
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
Stack Gas Viscocity
Sample Flow, acfm
PM10 Cut Point, microns
PM2.5 Cut Point, microns
EX-PM2.5 Hot BlankXLS
USEPA
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
RTF, NC
PM2 5 Test Results
EX-PM2.5HotBlank-01-121511
12/15/2011
1348-1448
0.886
0.62
30.20
30.822
71
-1.65
137
8.78
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.000
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
27.438
30.08
1.5
18.3
0.414
0.985
28.84
28.67
59.8
0.35
1,252
1,095
109.8
196.3
0.52
9.69
2.43
(continued next page)
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank-02-122911
12/29/2011
1115-1215
0.886
0.61
29.68
30.729
74
-1.60
129
6.45
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.995
60.0
0.151
0.00012436
26.713
29.56
1.1
14.9
0.304
0.989
28.84
28.71
59.5
0.35
1,247
1,091
114.5
194.5
0.51
9.82
2.24
0
1/0/1900
0
0.000
#NUM!
0.00
0.000
0
0.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.877
60.0
0.000
0.00000000
#NUM!
0.00
#NUM!
#DIV/0!
0.000
#NUM!
28.84
#NUM!
#DIV/0!
0.35
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
2.26
Results
-------
EX-PM2.5 Hot BlankXLS
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
PM2 5 Test Results
(continued)
RUNNUMBER -PM2.5 Hot Blank-01-121511-PM2
RUN DATE 12/15/2011
RUN TIME
EMISSIONS DATA
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE<2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE > 2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
TOTAL FILTERABLE PARTICULATE
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
1348-1448
0.0
0.000000
0.00
0.0000
10.0
0.00562
12.87
0.0528
10.0
0.00562
12.87
0.053
5HotBlank-02-122911
12/29/2011
1115-1215
0.0
0.000000
0.00
0.0000
0.0
0.00000
0.00
0.0000
0.0
0.00000
0.00
0.000
0
1/0/1900
0
0.0
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
0.0
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
0.0
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
Results
-------
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
30.2
-1.65
"i ^n
1 OU
70
1.77
0
20.9
79.1
0.01
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
ex: 1% = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH 201A
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
STACK TEMP, deg. F |
DELTA H, IN H2O |
150 |
0.616974 |
200 |
0.627429 |
100
0.6082
MW(DRY) 28.84
MW (WET; 28.73
PS= 30.07868
VIS= 201.79 215.12 188.63
CYCFLOV 0.5166 0.5637 0.4709
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!"
NOZZLE
DIAMETER
NOZZLE VEL
ft/sec
MIN VEL
ft/sec
MAX VEL
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN
in. H20
DEL. P MAX
in. H20
1
0.156
64.874
47.38483
80.86432
0.616915
1.796638
2
0.171
53.99178
38.1276
68.0654
0.399416
1.272916
3
0.185
46.12925
31.2657
58.86383
0.268586
0.952015
4
0.199
39.86701
25.60285
51.57311
0.180104
0.730791
5
0.21
35.79985
21.7507
46.86134
0.129985
0.603359
6
0.22
32.61929
18.56166
43.19241
0.094663
0.51258
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POINT
Point*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.00 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
150
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I
1.000
60.0
150
Setup-1
-------
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.68
-1.6
A OC
Izu
70
1.77
0
20.9
79.1
0.01 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.133
0.151
0.17
0.185
0.199
0.206
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
125
0.608051
175
0.617645
75
0.600335
MW(DRY) 28.84
MW(WET 28.73
PS= 29.56235
VIS= 195.19 208.44 182.11
CYCFLOV 0.4961 0.5427 0.4508
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 1
DIAMETER 0.133
NOZZLE VEL 85.70917
ft/sec
MIN VEL 64.93813
ft/sec
MAX VEL 105.3662
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN 1.18741
in. H20
DEL. P MAX 3.126105
in. H20
2 3
| 0.151 0.17
| 66.49311 52.46054
I
| 48.99342 37.10209
I
| 82.62234 66.10344
I
| 0.675891 0.387612
I
| 1.922189 1.230408
I
4 5
| 0.185 0.199
| 44.29831 38.28463
I
| 29.97981 24.53396
I
| 56.55076 49.55066
I
| 0.253081 0.169487
I
| 0.900488 0.691353
I
6
| 0.206
| 35.72697
I
| 22.1277
I
| 46.58593
I
| 0.137871
I
| 0.611098
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
0.99 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
125
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 0.990
60.0
125
Setup-2
-------
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
-0.3
A yn
1 / U
95
2
17
81
0.1 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
170 | 220
#NUM! | #NUM!
120
#NUM!
MW(DRY) 29.00
MW(WET 27.90
PS= -0.02206
VIS= 198.36 211.75 185.13
CYCFLOV #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER
0
I
0
0
I
0
0
NOZZLE VEL #NUM!
ft/sec
MIN VEL #NUM!
ft/sec
MAX VEL #NUM!
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN #NUM!
in. H20
DEL. P MAX #NUM!
in. H20
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM! #NUM!
I
| #NUM!
I
| #NUM!
I
| #NUM!
I
| #NUM!
I
| #NUM!
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
0.77 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
170
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 0.770
60.0
170
Setup-3
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-PM2.5 Hot BlankXLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure :
Stack Temp :
Meter Temp :
CO2:
O2 =
Barometric Pres. :
Pilot Coefficient '
Actual Nozzle :
Meter Box Gamma
Moisture % :
Pilot Dry Gas
Reading Meter Reading
1 383.61
1 386.64
1 389.12
1 391 .78
1 394.23
1 396.76
1 399.31
1 401 .86
1 404.4
1 406.95
1 409.52
1 412.08
414.432
USEPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hul #1 Exhausl Duel Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Widlh
Deplh
EX-PM2.5 Hoi Blank-01-121511
12/15/2011
1348-1448
-1.65
150
70
0
20.9
30.2
0.84
0.156
0.886
1
Delia H
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
ex: 1 % = 1 %
Flue Gas
Temp.
133
136
135
135
140
140
136
138
138
138
140
140
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
69
69
69
71
70
70
71
72
72
73
73
73
% ISO
129.1
105.9
113.5
104.1
108.2
109.0
108.5
108.0
108.5
109.1
108.9
100.0
8 Rd Area:=>
RecArea:=>
0
0
Area Used
Volume
Melered
3.030
2.480
2.660
2.450
2.530
2.550
2.550
2.540
2.550
2.570
2.560
2.352
Volume
Melered
Slandard
2.708
2.216
2.377
2.181
2.257
2.274
2.270
2.257
2.266
2.279
2.270
2.086
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Velocity
(vs)
59.5
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.8
59.8
59.6
59.7
59.7
59.7
59.8
59.8
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
30.08
0.990
28.73
Averages-> 1.00
0.62
137.42
71.00
109.40
59.71
1.00
TOTAL VOLUME =
30.822
Run 1
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
60.0
Pitot
Reading
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meter Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Barometric Pres. =
Pitot Coefficient =
Actual Nozzle =
Meter Box Gamma =
Moisture % =
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
507.177
509.7
512.3
514.89
517.45
520.01
522.57
525.12
527.68
530.24
532.79
535.34
537.906
Stack Diameter (Rd): input
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank-02-122911
12/29/2011
1115-1215
Rd Area:=> #VALUE!
Rec Area:=>
0.00
Area Used #VALUE!
-1.6
125
70
0
20.9
29.68
0.84
0.151
0.886
1 ex: 1 % = 1 %
Delta H
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
Flue Gas
Temp.
130
128
128
127
126
127
130
129
130
129
132
132
Average
Meter
Temp.
71
71
71
72
73
74
75
76
76
77
78
79
% Iso
113.6
116.8
116.4
114.7
114.4
114.3
113.9
114.1
114.2
113.4
113.5
114.0
Volume
Metered
2.523
2.600
2.590
2.560
2.560
2.560
2.550
2.560
2.560
2.550
2.550
2.566
Volume
Metered
Standard
2.207
2.275
2.266
2.236
2.231
2.227
2.214
2.219
2.219
2.206
2.202
2.212
Velocity
(vs)
59.6
59.5
59.5
59.4
59.4
59.4
59.6
59.5
59.6
59.5
59.7
59.7
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
Square
Root
Delta P
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
28.84
29.56
0.990
28.73
Averages-> 0.99
0.61
129.00
74.42
114.43
59.50
0.99
Run 2
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-PM2.5 Hot BlankXLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meter Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Barometric Pres. =
Pilot Coefficient =
Actual Nozzle =
Meter Box Gamma :
Moisture % =
Stack Diameter (Rd): input
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
0.84
Rd Area:=> #VALUE!
RecArea:=> 0.00
Area Used #VALUE!
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.00
0.00
0.990
27.90
1 ex:
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
Pilot
Reading
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
Outlet
Flue Gas Meter
Delta H Temp. Temp.
#NUM! 0
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
% Iso
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
Volume
Mete red
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
Metered
Standard
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
#NUM!
Velocity
(vs)
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Square
Root
Delta P
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
Averages-> 0.77
#NUM!
#DIV/0!
0.00
#NUM!
#DIV/0!
0.88
Run 3
-------
Distance from far wall to outside of port 37
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 6
Depth of stack or duct 31
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 0.65 6.65
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
2.08
3.66
5.49
7.75
11.04
19.96
23.25
25.51
27.34
28.92
30.35
8.08
9.66
11.49
13.75
17.04
25.96
29.25
31.51
33.34
34.92
36.35
* mark these points on probe
-------
EX-PM HotblankXLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Particulate Test Results
RUNNUMBER EX-PMHotBlank-Ol-121511 EX-PM Hot Blank-02- 1229 11
RUN DATE 12/15/2011 12/29/2011
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(mg)
(gr/DSCF)
(mg/DSCM)
(Ib/hr)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
EMISSIONS DATA
Particulate
Catch, milligrams
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
1348-1448
0.987
3.65
30.20
64.609
74
-1.65
137
40.64
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.000
60.0
0.250
0.000340885
64.162
30.08
2.9
18.3
1.916
0.971
28.84
28.52
59.9
0.35
1,255
1,082
101.2
0.00
0.00000
-
0.000
1115-1215
0.986
1.26
29.68
39.788
65
-1.60
129
8.03
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.995
60.0
0.195
0.000207394
39.214
29.56
1.0
14.9
0.379
0.990
28.84
28.73
59.5
0.35
1,246
1,093
100.7
0.00
0.00000
-
0.000
0
1/0/1900
0
0.000
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.000
0
0.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
0.000
60.0
0.000
0
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.000
#DIV/0!
28.84
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.35
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.000
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Results
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-PM HotblankXLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Elapsed Pilot Dry Gas
Time Reading Meter Reading
0 1 209.177
5 1 215.2
10 1 220.58
15 1 225.97
20 1 231.26
25 1 236.46
30 1 241.7
35 1 246.96
40 1 252.18
45 1 257.66
50 1 263.12
55 1 268.67
60/off 273.786
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Depth
EX-PM HotBlank-01-121511
12/15/2011
1348-1448
150 <-input
1 <-input
70 <-input
1 <-input
0.75 <-input
30.2 <-input
1.8 <-input
-1.65 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.212 <-CALCULATED
0.250 <-input
3.56 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.987 <-input
Averages->
1.00
Delta H
3.56
3.56
3.64
3.65
3.65
3.62
3.63
3.67
3.67
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.65
Flue Gas
Temp.
133
136
135
135
140
140
136
138
138
138
140
140
137.42
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
70
70
70
70
70
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
74
8 Rd Area:=> 0.35
RecArea:=> 0.00
0
0
Area Used 0.349066
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
30.08
0.990
28.73
% Iso
111.9
100.2
100.3
98.4
97.2
97.5
97.2
96.3
100.7
100.2
101.8
93.7
99.61
Volume
Metered
6.023
5.380
5.390
5.290
5.200
5.240
5.260
5.220
5.480
5.460
5.550
5.116
5.384
Volume
Metered
Standard
6.027
5.384
5.395
5.295
5.205
5.225
5.225
5.166
5.404
5.374
5.453
5.017
Velocity
(vs)
59.5
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.8
59.8
59.6
59.7
59.7
59.7
59.8
59.8
59.71
Square
Root
Delta P
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.00
K-factor
3.56
3.64
3.65
3.65
3.62
3.63
3.67
3.67
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.70
TOTAL VOLU ME =
64.609
Run 1
-------
EX-PM HotblankXLS
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
674.075
677.32
680.68
684.05
687.37
690.69
694.04
697.35
700.67
703.96
707.28
710.58
713.863
EX-PM Hot Blank-02-122911
12/29/2011
1115-1215
125
0.99
55
1
0.75
29.68
1.7
-1.6
0.84
20.9
0
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
:-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.56
0.990
28.73
0.212 <-CALCULATED
0.195 <-input
1.26 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Delta H
1.25
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.26
Flue Gas
Temp.
130
128
128
127
127
127
130
129
130
129
132
132
129.08
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
61
62
62
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
65
% Iso
99.5
102.6
103.0
101.1
101.0
101.7
100.5
100.6
99.5
100.4
99.8
99.1
100.73
Volume
Metered
3.245
3.360
3.370
3.320
3.320
3.350
3.310
3.320
3.290
3.320
3.300
3.283
3.316
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.225
3.333
3.343
3.287
3.281
3.304
3.259
3.262
3.227
3.256
3.230
3.208
Velocity
(vs)
59.6
59.5
59.5
59.4
59.4
59.4
59.6
59.5
59.6
59.5
59.7
59.7
59.51
Square
Root
Delta P
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.99
K-factor
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
TOTAL VOLUME =
39.788
Run 2
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-PM HotblankXLS
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed Pilot
Time Reading
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
0.75
0.84
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5
Delta H
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<--CALCULATED
<-input
<--CALCULATED
<-input
<-input
Flue Gas
Temp.
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
0
Averages-> #DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
% ISO
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Volume
Metered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
Metered
Standard
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Velocity
(vs)
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
Square
Root
Delta P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
28.00
0.00
1.000
28.00
K-factor
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
TOTAL VOLU ME =
Run 3
-------
EX-PM Hotblank.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 8
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 0
Depth of stack or duct 8
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
4.4 1.00 1.00
14.6
29.6
70.4
85.4
95.6
1.17
2.37
5.63
6.83
7.65
1.17
2.37
5.63
6.83
7.65
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0 avg
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(mg)
(gr/DSCF)
(mg/DSCM)
(Ib/hr)
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
EMISSIONS DATA
Particulate
Catch, milligrams
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
EX-LT-IMPRun1.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Asbestos Test Results
EX-LT-IMP-01-021312
2/13/2012
0.982
1.41
29.85
41.316
73
-1.60
73
3.76
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
60.0
0.192
0.000201062
40.258
29.73
0.4
2.8
0.177
0.996
28.84
28.79
59.4
0.35
1,245
1,219
95.6
4.10
0.00157
3.60
0.016
Results
-------
EX-LT-IMPRun 1.XLS
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed Pilot
Time Reading
0 1.1
5 1.1
10 1.1
15 1.1
20 1.1
25 1.1
30 1.1
35 1.1
40 1.1
45 1.1
50 1.1
55 1.1
60/off
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
539.61
543.209
546.703
550.303
553.806
557.101
560.605
563.908
567.307
570.902
574.105
577.502
580.926
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Depth
EX-LT-IMP-01-021312
2/13/2012
80 <-input
1.1 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.85 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.203 <-CALCULATED
0.192 <-input
1.25 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Outlet
Delta H
1.37
1.37
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.42
1.39
1.40
1.39
1.39
1.40
1.41
Flue Gas
Temp.
53
54
56
57
75
81
81
83
88
84
83
83
Meter
Temp.
81
65
66
67
75
70
72
72
74
75
76
77
% ISO
97.7
97.8
100.8
98.0
92.4
99.7
93.6
96.5
102.2
90.5
95.7
96.3
8
0
0
Volume
Metered
3.599
3.494
3.600
3.503
3.295
3.504
3.303
3.399
3.595
3.203
3.397
3.424
Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
Area Used
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.451
3.453
3.552
3.449
3.196
3.431
3.221
3.315
3.493
3.106
3.288
3.308
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Square
Velocity
(vs)
58.5
58.5
58.7
58.7
59.7
60.1
60.1
60.2
60.4
60.2
60.2
60.2
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.25
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.29
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.28
28.84
29.73
0.980
28.62
Averages~>
1.41
73.17
73
96.77
3.443
59.61
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
41.316
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-IMPRun 1.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Elapsed Pilot Dry Gas
Time Reading Meter Reading
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
2/14/2012
80 <-input
1.1 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.203 <--CALCULATED
0.192 <-input
1.25 <--CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Flue Gas
Delta H Temp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp. % Iso
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Volume
Metered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
Metered
Standard
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Velocity
(vs)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Square
Root
Delta P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.25
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Averages~> #DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
0.000
0.00
0.00
TOTAL VOLU ME =
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-IMPRun 1.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Pilot Dry Gas
Reading Meter Reading
EX-LT-IMP-03-0215612
2/15/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <--CALCULATED
0.192 <-input
1.26 <--CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Outlet
Flue Gas Meter
Delta H Temp. Temp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
% Iso
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Volume
Metered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
Metered
Standard
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Velocity
(vs)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Averages-> #DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
0.000
0.00
Square
Root
Delta P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
K-factor
1.26
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
TOTAL VOLU ME =
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-IMP Run 1.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 36.25
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 10
Depth of stack or duct 26.25
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 1.00 11.00
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
1.76
3.10
4.65
6.56
9.35
16.91
19.69
21.60
23.15
24.49
25.25
11.76
13.10
14.65
16.56
19.35
26.91
29.69
31.60
33.15
34.49
35.25
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
EX-LT-IMPRuns2-4.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Asbestos Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-IMP-02-021412 EX-LT-IMP-03-021512 EX-LT-IMP-04-021612
RUN DATE 2/14/2012 2/15/2012 2/16/2012
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(mg)
(gr/DSCF)
(mg/DSCM)
(Ib/hr)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
EMISSIONS DATA
Particulate
Catch, milligrams
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
1105-1205
0.982
1.51
29.71
42.958
69
-1.60
80
9.20
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.192
0.000201062
41.936
29.59
1.0
3.5
0.434
0.990
28.84
28.73
62.7
0.35
1,313
1,256
96.6
0.00
0.00000
-
0.000
1110-1210
0.982
1.47
29.80
42.826
68
-1.60
102
10.16
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.192
0.000201062
41.988
29.68
1.1
6.9
0.479
0.989
28.84
28.71
63.9
0.35
1,338
1,233
98.6
0.00
0.00000
-
0.000
0940-1040
0.982
1.39
29.83
40.949
69
-1.60
83
8.86
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
60.0
0.192
0.000201062
40.148
29.71
1.0
3.8
0.418
0.990
28.84
28.72
60.1
0.35
1,258
1,202
96.7
0.000
0.00000
-
0.000
Results
-------
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-IMP Runs2-4.XLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
1verages~>
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
581.045
584.505
588.106
591.701
595.21
598.706
602.306
606.208
609.601
613.195
616.902
620.601
624.003
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Depth
EX-LT-IMP-02-021412
2/14/2012
1105-1205
80 <-input
1.1 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.203 <-CALCULATED
0.192 <-input
1.25 <--CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Outlet
Delta H
1.50
1.50
1.54
1.53
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
Flue Gas
Temp.
52
70
74
79
79
82
82
88
86
89
91
91
80.25
Meter
Temp.
64
65
65
67
68
69
69
69
71
73
75
75
69
% ISO
92.5
97.8
98.0
95.8
95.2
98.1
106.4
93.0
98.0
100.9
100.5
92.5
97.40
8
0
0
Volume
Metered
3.460
3.601
3.595
3.509
3.496
3.600
3.902
3.393
3.594
3.707
3.699
3.402
3.580
Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
Area Used
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.411
3.543
3.538
3.440
3.420
3.516
3.810
3.313
3.496
3.593
3.572
3.285
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Velocity
(vs)
61.2
62.2
62.5
62.8
62.8
62.9
62.9
63.3
63.2
63.3
63.5
63.5
62.83
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.25
1.28
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.26
1.26
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
TOTAL VOLUME =
42.958
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-IMP Runs 2-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
RunTime:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
02%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
624.175
628.803
632.307
635.907
639.309
642.903
646.402
649.909
653.407
656.895
660.301
663.609
667.001
EX-LT-IMP-03-021512
2/15/2012
1110-1210
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <-CALCULATED
0.192 <-input
1.26 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Delta H
1.51
1.51
1.47
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.46
1.45
1.44
1.45
1.44
1.45
Flue Gas
Temp.
88
91
91
93
93
103
107
110
111
113
111
111
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
63
63
64
66
67
68
68
68
72
73
74
75
% ISO
128.5
97.6
100.0
94.3
99.5
97.5
98.1
98.1
97.2
94.9
91.8
94.0
Volume
Metered
4.628
3.504
3.600
3.402
3.594
3.499
3.507
3.498
3.488
3.406
3.308
3.392
Volume
Metered
Standard
4.585
3.471
3.559
3.351
3.533
3.433
3.441
3.432
3.396
3.310
3.209
3.285
Velocity
(vs)
63.2
63.4
63.4
63.5
63.5
64.0
64.3
64.4
64.5
64.6
64.5
64.5
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-f actor
1.26
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.21
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.20
1.21
1.21
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Averages~>
1.20
1.47
101.83
68
99.30
3.569
63.97
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
42.826
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-IMP Runs 2-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
RunTime:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
02%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed Pilot
Time Reading
0 1.1
5 1.1
10 1.1
15 1.1
20 1.1
25 1.1
30 1.1
35 1.1
40 1.1
45 1.1
50 1.1
55 1.1
60/off
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
667.118
670.603
674.085
677.507
680.907
684.404
687.706
691.201
694.508
697.904
701.307
704.606
708.067
EX-LT-IMP-04-021612
2/16/2012
0940-1040
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.83 <-input
1.66 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <-CALCULATED
0.192 <-input
1.26 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.982 <-input
Outlet
Delta H
1.38
1.38
1.39
1.39
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.39
1.38
1.38
1.39
Flue Gas
Temp.
71
74
79
82
82
85
85
85
87
88
84
93
Meter
Temp.
64
63
65
65
67
69
70
71
72
73
73
74
% ISO
99.3
99.7
98.1
97.7
100.1
94.4
99.8
94.2
96.8
96.9
93.6
98.8
Volume
Metered
3.485
3.482
3.422
3.400
3.497
3.302
3.495
3.307
3.396
3.403
3.299
3.461
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.448
3.452
3.380
3.358
3.441
3.236
3.419
3.229
3.310
3.310
3.209
3.361
Velocity
(vs)
59.5
59.7
60.0
60.1
60.1
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.4
60.5
60.2
60.7
Square
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-f actor
1.26
1.27
1.26
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.25
28.84
29.71
0.980
28.62
Averages->
1.10
1.39
82.92
69
97.44
3.412
60.18
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
40.949
Run3
-------
EX-LT-IMP Runs 2-4.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 36.25
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 10
Depth of stack or duct 26.25
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 1.00 11.00
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
1.76
3.10
4.65
6.56
9.35
16.91
19.69
21.60
23.15
24.49
25.25
11.76
13.10
14.65
16.56
19.35
26.91
29.69
31.60
33.15
34.49
35.25
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
EX-LT-M2-02.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-M2-02-02 1412 EX-LT-M2-02-02 1412
RUN DATE 2/14/2012 2/14/2012
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%C02)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
1015
29.71
-1.60
81
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.07
29.59
1.0
0.990
28.84
28.73
61.3
0.35
1,287
1,230
1245
29.71
-1.60
81
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.06
29.59
1.0
0.990
28.84
28.73
60.7
0.35
1,275
1,218
% difference
0.9
AVERAGE
1,281
1,224
average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
EX-LT-M2-03.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUNNUMBER EX-LT-M2-03-021512 EX-LT-M2-03-021512
RUNDATE 2/15/2012 2/15/2012
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
1100
29.80
-1.60
102
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.07
29.68
1.0
0.990
28.84
28.73
62.4
0.35
1,310
1,208
1245
29.80
-1.60
102
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.07
29.68
1.0
0.990
28.84
28.73
62.4
0.35
1,310
1,208
% difference
0.0
AVERAGE
1,310
1,208
average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
EX-LT-M2-04.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TEST RESULTS
PRE POST
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-M2-04-02 1612 EX-LT-M2-04-02 1612
RUN DATE 2/16/2012 2/16/2012
(Pbar)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(%C02)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
CALCULATED DATA
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, % *
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
0915
29.83
-1.60
81
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.04
29.71
1.0
0.990
28.84
28.73
59.5
0.35
1,249
1,198
1110
29.83
-1.60
81
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.04
29.71
1.0
0.990
28.84
28.73
59.5
0.35
1,249
1,198
% difference
0.0
AVERAGE
1,249
1,198
average of isokinetic runs conducted.
M2
-------
EX-LT-MCE-1.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
MCE Filter Asbestos Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-MCE-01A-021312 EX-LT-MCE-01B-021312 EX-LT-MCE-01C-021312 EX-LT-MCE-01D-021312 EX-LT-MCE-01E-021312
RUN DATE 2/13/2012 2/13/2012 2/13/2012 2/13/2012 2/13/2012
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%C02)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
1.000
0.28
29.85
4.591
64
-1.60
54
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.614
29.73
0.0
1.4
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
58.3
0.35
1,221
1,246
101.1
0.971
0.28
29.85
4.895
68
-1.60
72
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.743
29.73
0.0
2.6
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
59.3
0.35
1,242
1,225
105.7
0.971
0.27
29.85
4.620
70
-1.60
85
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.457
29.73
0.0
4.0
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
60.0
0.35
1,257
1,211
100.5
0.971
0.28
29.85
4.570
73
-1.60
81
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.387
29.73
0.0
3.6
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
59.8
0.35
1,253
1,214
98.7
0
0.971
0.28
29.85
4.651
72
-1.60
57
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.473
29.73
0.0
1.6
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
58.5
0.35
1,225
1,243
98.3
-------
EX-LT-MCE-1.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-01B-021312
2/13/2012
80
1.2
60
2
0.27
29.85
1.85
-1.6
0.84
20.9
0
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.73
0.980
28.62
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
Sample
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
409.688
411.208
413.003
414.583
Delia H
0.27
0.27
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
59
75
81
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
68
67
69
% ISO
98.9
118.8
104.8
Volume
Melered
1.520
1.795
1.580
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.473
1.743
1.528
Velocily
(vs)
58.8
59.7
60.1
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.049
1.049
1.049
K-faclor
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.28
71.67
68
107.51
1.632
59.53
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.895
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-MCE-1.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-01C-021312
2/13/2012
80
1.2
60
2
0.27
29.85
1.85
-1.6
0.84
20.9
0
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.73
0.980
28.62
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
Sample
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
414.583
416.235
417.703
419.203
Delia H
0.27
0.27
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
84
87
83
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
70
70
71
% ISO
109.7
97.7
99.3
Volume
Melered
1.652
1.468
1.500
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.595
1.417
1.445
Velocily
(vs)
60.2
60.4
60.2
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.049
1.049
1.049
K-faclor
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.27
84.67
70
102.21
1.540
60.26
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.62
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-MCE-1 .XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-01D-021312
2/13/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.85 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <—input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <—input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.73
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
419.203
420.909
422.204
423.773
Delia H
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
82
81
81
81.33
Oullel
Meier
Temp.
73
73
73
73
% Iso
112.4
85.2
103.3
100.30
Volume
Melered
1.706
1.295
1.569
1.523
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.638
1.243
1.506
Velocity
(vs)
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.07
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.05
K-faclor
0.25
0.26
0.26
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.57
Run 4
-------
EX-LT-MCE-1 .XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-01E-021312
2/13/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.85 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <—input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <—input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.73
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
423.773
425.35
426.89
428.424
Delia H
0.27
0.27
0.29
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
59
56
56
57.00
Oullel
Meier
Temp.
72
72
72
72
% Iso
101.9
99.2
98.8
99.94
Volume
Melered
1.577
1.540
1.534
1.550
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.517
1.481
1.475
Velocity
(vs)
58.8
58.7
58.7
58.71
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.05
K-faclor
0.25
0.27
0.27
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.651
Run 5
-------
EX-LT-MCE-1 .XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
02%
C02%
Desired Nozzle :
Actual Nozzle :
K Factor =
Minutes/Point:
Meter Box Gamma :
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTP, NC
JTN
EX-LT-MCE-01A-021312
2/13/2012
Stack Diameter (Rd):
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
8 Rd Area:=> 0.35
RecArea:=> 0.00
0
0
Area Used 0.349066
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.85 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
1 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.73
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
405.097
406.602
408.107
409.688
Delta H
0.27
0.27
0.29
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
53
53
56
54.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
64
64
65
64
%lso
101.0
101.0
106.3
1 02.79
Volume
Metered
1.505
1.505
1.581
1.530
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.513
1.513
1.587
Velocity
(vs)
58.5
58.5
58.7
58.54
Square
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.05
K-factor
0.25
0.26
0.26
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.591
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-MCE-2.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
MCE Filter Asbestos Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-MCE-02A-021412 EX-LT-MCE-02B-021412 EX-LT-MCE-02C-021412 EX-LT-MCE-02D-021412 EX-LT-MCE-02E-021412
RUN DATE 2/14/2012 2/14/2012 2/14/2012 2/14/2012 2/14/2012
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%C02)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
1105-1120
1.000
0.30
29.71
4.927
64
-1.60
65
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.931
29.59
1.0
2.1
0.000
0.990
28.84
28.73
61.8
0.35
1,295
1,274
105.7
1125-1136
0.971
0.30
29.71
4.666
66
-1.60
80
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.515
29.59
1.0
3.5
0.000
0.990
28.84
28.73
62.7
0.35
1,313
1,257
98.1
1137-1152
0.971
0.30
29.71
4.666
68
-1.60
87
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.500
29.59
1.0
4.4
0.000
0.990
28.84
28.73
63.1
0.35
1,322
1,249
98.4
1154-1209
0.971
0.30
29.71
4.650
72
-1.60
92
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.454
29.59
1.0
5.1
0.000
0.990
28.84
28.73
63.4
0.35
1,327
1,243
97.8
1211-1226
0.971
0.30
29.71
4.673
71
-1.60
66
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.485
29.59
1.0
2.2
0.000
0.990
28.84
28.73
61.9
0.35
1,296
1,273
96.2
-------
EX-LT-MCE-2.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
02%
CO2%
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTP, NC
JTN
EX-LT-MCE-02A-021412
2/14/2012
Stack Diameter (Rd):
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
8 Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
0
0
Area Used
0.35
0.00
0.349066
80
1.2
60
2
0.27
29.71
1.85
-1.6
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
:-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
1 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
428.424
430.105
431 .801
433.351
Delta H
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
52
70
74
65.33
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
63
64
65
64
%lso
107.9
110.6
101.2
106.57
Volume
Metered
1.681
1.696
1.550
1.642
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.686
1.698
1.548
Velocity
(vs)
61.2
62.2
62.5
61.95
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-factor
0.25
0.26
0.25
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.927
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-MCE-2.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
02%
CO2%
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-02B-021412
2/14/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
433.351
434.805
436.403
438.017
Delta H
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
79
79
82
80.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
66
66
67
66
%lso
92.5
101.6
102.7
98.94
Volume
Mete red
1.454
1.598
1.614
1.555
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.408
1.547
1.560
Velocity
(vs)
62.8
62.8
62.9
62.81
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-factor
0.25
0.25
0.25
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.666
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-MCE-2.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
02%
CO2%
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-02C-021412
2/14/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
438.017
439.601
441.115
442.683
Delta H
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
86
88
87
87.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
68
68
68
68
%lso
101.0
96.7
100.1
99.26
Volume
Mete red
1.584
1.514
1.568
1.555
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.528
1.460
1.512
Velocity
(vs)
63.2
63.3
63.2
63.22
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-factor
0.25
0.25
0.25
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.666
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-MCE-2.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
O2%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-02D-021412
2/14/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <~input
29.71 <~input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
442.683
444.201
445.707
447.333
Delta H
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
90
91
94
91.67
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
70
75
70
72
% Iso
96.8
95.2
104.0
98.67
Volume
Metered
1.518
1.506
1.626
1.550
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.459
1.434
1.562
Velocity
(vs)
63.4
63.5
63.6
63.49
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-f actor
0.25
0.25
0.25
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.65
Run 4
-------
EX-LT-MCE-2.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
O2%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-02E-021412
2/14/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <~input
29.71 <~input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.120 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
447.333
448.909
450.504
452.006
Delta H
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
69
65
64
66.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
70
71
71
71
% Iso
98.5
99.2
93.3
97.00
Volume
Metered
1.576
1.595
1.502
1.558
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.514
1.530
1.441
Velocity
(vs)
62.2
61.9
61.9
62.00
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-f actor
0.25
0.26
0.26
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.673
Run 5
-------
EX-LT-MCE-3.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
MCE Filter Asbestos Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512 EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512 EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512 EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512 EX-LT-MCE-03E-021512
RUN DATE 2/15/2012 2/15/2012 2/15/2012 2/15/2012 2/15/2012
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
1110-1125
0.971
0.30
29.80
3.813
63
-1.60
91
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
3.724
29.68
0.0
4.9
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
63.1
0.35
1,321
1,257
80.9
1128-1143
0.971
0.30
29.80
4.788
65
-1.60
96
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.661
29.68
0.0
5.8
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
63.4
0.35
1,328
1,250
101.8
1142-1157
0.971
0.30
29.80
4.663
68
-1.60
105
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.514
29.68
0.0
7.6
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
63.9
0.35
1,339
1,240
99.4
1158-1213
0.971
0.30
29.80
4.677
70
-1.60
112
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.510
29.68
0.0
9.3
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
64.3
0.35
1,347
1,233
99.9
1215-1230
0.971
0.30
29.80
4.814
71
-1.60
81
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.628
29.68
0.0
3.6
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
62.5
0.35
1,309
1,268
99.7
-------
EX-LT-MCE-3.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTP, NC
ST
EX-LT-MCE-03A-021512
2/15/2012
Stack Diameter (Rd):
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
8 Rd Area:=>
RecArea:=>
0
0
Area Used
0.35
0.00
0.349066
80 <-
1.2 <-
65 <-
2 <-
0.27 <-
29.8 <-
1.85 <-
-1.6 <-
0.84 <-
20.9 <-
0 <-
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
0.119<-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
Sample
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
452.061
453.701
455.207
455.874
Delia H
0.30
0.30
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
91
90
Oullel
Meier
Temp.
63
63
% Iso
106.2
97.4
44.9
Volume
Melered
1.640
1.506
0.667
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.602
1.471
0.741
Velocity
(vs)
63.4
63.3
57.9
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.095
1.095
1.095
K-f actor
0.25
0.25
0.26
Averages-> 1.20
0.30
90.50
63
82.84
1.271
61.51
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
3.813
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-MCE-3.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle :
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point:
Meter Box Gamma :
EX-LT-MCE-03B-021512
2/15/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <—input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <—input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <—input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
455.874
457.406
459.001
460.662
Delia H
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
93
93
103
96.33
Oullel
Meier
Temp.
66
64
64
65
% Iso
98.8
103.3
108.5
103.55
Volume
Melered
1.532
1.595
1.661
1.596
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.488
1.555
1.619
Velocity
(vs)
63.5
63.5
64.0
63.66
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-faclor
0.25
0.25
0.24
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.788
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-MCE-3.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle :
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point:
Meter Box Gamma :
EX-LT-MCE-03C-021512
2/15/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <—input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <—input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <—input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
460.662
462.202
463.705
465.325
Delia H
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
103
103
110
105.33
Oullel
Meier
Temp.
65
66
72
68
% Iso
100.4
97.8
104.9
101.05
Volume
Melered
1.540
1.503
1.620
1.554
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.498
1.460
1.555
Velocity
(vs)
64.0
64.0
64.4
64.17
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-faclor
0.25
0.24
0.24
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.663
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-MCE-3.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle :
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point:
Meter Box Gamma :
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
2/15/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <—input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <—input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <—input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
465.325
466.902
468.407
470.002
Delia H
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
111
111
115
112.33
Oullel
Meier
Temp.
69
70
70
70
% Iso
102.8
97.9
104.1
101.61
Volume
Melered
1.577
1.505
1.595
1.559
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.523
1.451
1.537
Velocity
(vs)
64.5
64.5
64.7
64.57
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-faclor
0.25
0.24
0.24
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.677
Run 4
-------
EX-LT-MCE-3.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle :
Actual Nozzle :
K Factor:
Minutes/Point:
Meter Box Gamma :
EX-LT-MCE-03E-021512
2/15/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <—input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <—input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <—input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.20
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
470.002
471.625
473.225
474.816
Delta H
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.30
Flue Gas
Temp.
88
79
75
80.67
Oullel
Meier
Temp.
71
71
72
71
% Iso
103.2
100.9
99.8
101.33
Volume
Melered
1.623
1.600
1.591
1.605
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.561
1.539
1.528
Velocity
(vs)
63.2
62.7
62.4
62.76
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
K-faclor
0.25
0.26
0.26
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.814
Run 5
-------
EX-LT-MCE-4.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
MCE Filter Asbestos Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-MCE-04A-021612 EX-LT-MCE-04B-021612 EX-LT-MCE-04C-021612 EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512 EX-LT-MCE-04E-021612
RUN DATE 2/16/2012 2/16/2012 2/16/2012 2/15/2012 2/16/2012
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%C02)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
0940-0955
0.971
0.28
29.83
4.603
65
-1.60
75
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.486
29.71
0.0
2.9
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
59.5
0.35
1,246
1,222
100.3
0956-1011
0.971
0.28
29.83
4.879
66
-1.60
82
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.746
29.71
0.0
3.7
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
59.9
0.35
1,255
1,213
106.9
1013-1028
0.971
0.28
29.83
4.520
67
-1.60
86
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.388
29.71
0.0
4.2
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
60.1
0.35
1,259
1,209
99.1
1029-1044
0.971
0.28
29.80
4.840
68
-1.60
85
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.682
29.68
0.0
4.1
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
60.1
0.35
1,259
1,209
105.7
1046-1101
0.971
0.28
29.83
4.790
69
-1.60
64
0.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
15.0
0.125
8.52212E-05
4.630
29.71
0.0
2.0
0.000
1.000
28.84
28.84
58.9
0.35
1,234
1,234
102.5
-------
EX-LT-MCE-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
02%
CO2%
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTP, NC
ST
EX-LT-MCE-04A-021612
2/16/2012
Stack Diameter (Rd):
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
8 Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
0
0
Area Used
0.35
0.00
0.349066
80
1.2
65
2
0.27
29.83
1.85
-1.6
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
-input
:-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.71
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
474.806
476.401
477.905
479.409
Delta H
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
71
74
79
74.67
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
64
65
65
65
%lso
105.8
99.8
100.3
101.95
Volume
Metered
1.595
1.504
1.504
1.534
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.556
1.465
1.465
Velocity
(vs)
59.5
59.7
60.0
59.72
Square
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.05
K-factor
0.25
0.25
0.25
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.603
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-MCE-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-04B-021612
2/16/2012
80
1.2
65
2
0.27
29.83
1.85
-1.6
0.84
20.9
0
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
<-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.71
0.980
28.62
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
Sample
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pilot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
479.409
481.102
482.701
484.288
Delia H
0.28
0.28
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
80
82
85
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
65
66
66
% ISO
113.0
106.7
106.2
Volume
Melered
1.693
1.599
1.587
Volume
Melered
Slandard
1.649
1.554
1.543
Velocily
(vs)
60.0
60.1
60.3
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.049
1.049
1.049
K-faclor
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.28
82.33
66
108.63
1.626
60.15
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.879
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-MCE-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
02%
CO2%
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-04C-021612
2/16/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <-input
29.83 <-input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.71
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
484.288
485.802
487.306
488.808
Delta H
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
85
86
86
85.67
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
66
67
67
67
%lso
101.3
100.5
100.4
100.76
Volume
Mete red
1.514
1.504
1.502
1.507
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.472
1.459
1.457
Velocity
(vs)
60.3
60.4
60.4
60.33
Square
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.05
K-factor
0.25
0.25
0.25
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.52
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-MCE-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
O2%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-03D-021512
2/15/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <~input
29.8 <~input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
488.808
490.5
492.008
493.648
Delta H
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
85
85
85
85.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
68
68
68
68
% Iso
112.7
100.5
109.3
107.50
Volume
Metered
1.692
1.508
1.640
1.613
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.637
1.459
1.586
Velocity
(vs)
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.33
Square
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.05
K-f actor
0.25
0.25
0.25
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.84
Run 4
-------
EX-LT-MCE-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pitot Coefficient
O2%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle =
Actual Nozzle =
K Factor =
Minutes/Point =
Meter Box Gamma =
EX-LT-MCE-04E-021612
2/16/2012
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.27 <~input
29.83 <~input
1.85 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.119 <-CALCULATED
0.125 <-input
0.25 <-CALCULATED
5 <-input
0.971 <-input
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.71
0.980
28.62
Sample Elapsed
Point
1
2
3
Stop
Time
0
5
10
15
Averages->
Pitot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.10
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
493.648
495.204
496.845
498.438
Delta H
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
Flue Gas
Temp.
69
64
60
64.33
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
69
69
69
69
% Iso
102.0
107.1
103.5
104.20
Volume
Metered
1.556
1.641
1.593
1.597
Volume
Metered
Standard
1.504
1.586
1.540
Velocity
(vs)
59.4
59.1
58.9
59.14
Square
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.05
K-f actor
0.25
0.26
0.26
TOTAL VOLUME =
4.79
Run 5
-------
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(mg)
(gr/DSCF)
(mg/DSCM)
(Ib/hr)
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
EMISSIONS DATA
Particulate
Catch, milligrams
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
EX-LT-PM Run 1.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Particulate Test Results
EX-LT-PM-01-021312
2/13/2012
1231-1331
0.986
1.38
29.85
41.226
71
-1.60
74
5.56
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
60.0
0.190
0.000196895
40.452
29.73
0.6
2.8
0.262
0.994
28.84
28.77
59.5
0.35
1,246
1,216
98.3
4.10
0.00156
3.58
0.016
Results
-------
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM Run 1.XLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed Pilot
Time Reading
0 1.1
5 1.1
10 1.1
15 1.1
20 1.1
25 1.1
30 1.1
35 1.1
40 1.1
45 1.1
50 1.1
55 1.1
60/off
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
713.989
717.4
720.8
724.14
727.65
731.15
734.54
738.01
741.55
745.01
748.35
751.85
755.215
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Depth
EX-LT-PM-01-021312
2/13/2012
1231-1331
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.85 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.200 <-CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.22 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Outlet
Delta H
1.35
1.35
1.43
1.42
1.42
1.39
1.37
1.36
1.37
1.36
1.37
1.38
Flue Gas
Temp.
53
53
58
60
74
81
83
83
87
87
84
84
Meter
Temp.
66
66
67
68
70
70
70
73
73
75
76
77
% ISO
97.6
97.3
95.9
100.8
101.4
98.9
101.4
102.9
100.9
97.1
101.2
97.1
8
0
0
Volume
Metered
3.411
3.400
3.340
3.510
3.500
3.390
3.470
3.540
3.460
3.340
3.500
3.365
Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
Area Used
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.378
3.367
3.302
3.463
3.441
3.332
3.411
3.460
3.382
3.252
3.402
3.264
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Square
Velocity
(vs)
58.5
58.5
58.8
58.9
59.7
60.1
60.2
60.2
60.4
60.4
60.2
60.2
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.22
1.30
1.29
1.29
1.26
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.25
28.84
29.73
0.980
28.62
Averages~>
1.38
73.92
71
99.38
3.436
59.66
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
41.226
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-PM Run 1.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Elapsed Pilot Dry Gas
Time Reading Meter Reading
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
EX-LT-PM-02-021412
2/14/2012
1105-1205
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <--CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.22 <--CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Flue Gas
Delta H Temp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp. % Iso
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Volume
Metered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
Metered
Standard
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Velocity
(vs)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Square
Root
Delta P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.22
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Averages~> #DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
0.000
0.00
0.00
TOTAL VOLU ME =
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-PM Run 1.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2 %
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Elapsed Pilot Dry Gas
Time Reading Meter Reading
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
2/15/2012
1110-1210
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <--CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.24 <--CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Flue Gas
Delta H Temp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outlet
Meter
Temp. % Iso
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Volume
Metered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Volume
Metered
Standard
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Velocity
(vs)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Square
Root
Delta P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.24
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Averages~> #DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
0.000
0.00
0.00
TOTAL VOLU ME =
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-PM Run 1 .XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 36.25
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 10
Depth of stack or duct 26.25
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 1.00 11.00
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
1.76
3.10
4.65
6.56
9.35
16.91
19.69
21.60
23.15
24.49
25.25
11.76
13.10
14.65
16.56
19.35
26.91
29.69
31.60
33.15
34.49
35.25
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
EX-LT-PMRuns2-4.XLS
US EPA
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RTF, NC
Particulate Test Results
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-PM-02-021412 EX-LT-PM-03-021512 EX-LT-PM-04-021612
RUN DATE 2/14/2012 2/15/2012 2/16/2012
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(mg)
(gr/DSCF)
(mg/DSCM)
(Ib/hr)
RUNTIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pitot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)!/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
EMISSIONS DATA
Particulate
Catch, milligrams
Concentration, gr/DSCF
Concentration, mg/DSCM
Emission Rate, Ib/hr
1105-1205
0.986
1.49
29.71
42.905
71
-1.60
81
7.33
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.190
0.000196895
41.934
29.59
0.8
3.6
0.346
0.992
28.84
28.75
62.7
0.35
1,314
1,257
98.6
6.90
0.00254
5.81
0.0274
1110-1210
0.986
1.44
29.80
41.936
69
-1.60
102
7.00
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.190
0.000196895
41.222
29.68
0.8
6.8
0.330
0.992
28.84
28.75
63.8
0.35
1,336
1,236
98.5
11.00
0.00412
9.42
0.0436
0940-1040
0.986
1.37
29.83
41.095
70
-1.60
81
7.55
0.0
20.9
79.1
0.84
1.049
60.0
0.190
0.000196895
40.358
29.71
0.9
3.6
0.356
0.991
28.84
28.74
60.0
0.35
1,256
1,205
99.0
11.700
0.00447
10.2
0.0462
Results
-------
Blue= Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM Runs2-4.XLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
K Factor Setup
Stack Tern p.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
O2%
CO2 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
755.445
758.99
762.64
766.1
769.79
773.36
776.92
780.48
783.99
787.67
791.25
794.7
798.35
US EPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Depth
EX-LT-PM-02-021412
2/14/2012
1105-1205
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
60 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.71 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <-CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.22 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Delta H
1.47
1.47
1.51
1.51
1.50
1.50
1.49
1.50
1.48
1.49
1.49
1.48
Flue Gas
Temp.
60
71
74
79
79
82
82
88
87
87
89
93
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
66
66
68
69
69
69
72
73
73
74
74
75
% ISO
97.6
101.5
96.2
102.9
99.5
99.5
98.9
97.9
102.6
99.6
96.1
101.9
8
0
0
Volume
Metered
3.545
3.650
3.460
3.690
3.570
3.560
3.560
3.510
3.680
3.580
3.450
3.650
Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
Area Used
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.495
3.599
3.399
3.618
3.500
3.490
3.471
3.416
3.581
3.477
3.351
3.538
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Velocity
(vs)
61.6
62.3
62.5
62.8
62.8
62.9
62.9
63.3
63.2
63.2
63.3
63.6
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-factor
1.22
1.26
1.26
1.25
1.25
1.24
1.25
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.23
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Averages~>
1.20
1.49
80.92
71
99.52
3.575
62.87
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
42.905
Run 1
-------
EX-LT-PM Runs 2-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
RunTime:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
02%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60/off
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
798.493
802.12
805.56
809.12
812.64
816.01
819.58
823.05
826.49
829.98
833.55
836.99
840.429
EX-LT-PM-03-021512
2/15/2012
1110-1210
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.8 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <-CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.24 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Delta H
1.48
1.48
1.45
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.42
1.41
1.43
Flue Gas
Temp.
91
91
90
92
91
103
106
106
111
116
110
111
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
64
65
65
67
68
68
70
70
71
73
74
75
% ISO
103.3
97.8
101.1
99.8
95.3
102.0
99.1
98.2
99.9
102.2
97.8
97.7
Volume
Metered
3.627
3.440
3.560
3.520
3.370
3.570
3.470
3.440
3.490
3.570
3.440
3.439
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.601
3.409
3.527
3.474
3.320
3.517
3.405
3.376
3.419
3.484
3.351
3.343
Velocity
(vs)
63.4
63.4
63.3
63.4
63.4
64.0
64.2
64.2
64.5
64.8
64.4
64.5
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-f actor
1.24
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.22
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.18
1.18
1.19
1.19
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Averages~>
1.20
1.44
101.50
69
99.52
3.495
63.95
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
41.936
Run 2
-------
EX-LT-PM Runs 2-4.XLS
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
RunTime:
K Factor Setup
Stack Temp.
Average Delta P
Meter Temp.
% Moisture
Sample Rate
Barometric Pres.
Delta H@
Static Pressure
Pilot Coefficient
02%
C02 %
Desired Nozzle
Actual Nozzle
K Factor
Minutes/Point
Meter Box Gamma
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Elapsed Pilot
Time Reading
0 1.1
5 1.1
10 1.1
15 1.1
20 1.1
25 1.1
30 1.1
35 1.1
40 1.1
45 1.1
50 1.1
55 1.1
60/off
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
840.654
844.15
847.58
851.05
854.46
857.86
861.31
864.76
868.21
871.51
875
878.38
881.749
EX-LT-PM-04-021612
2/16/2012
0940-1040
80 <-input
1.2 <-input
65 <-input
2 <-input
0.75 <-input
29.83 <-input
1.7 <-input
-1.6 <-input
0.84 <-input
20.9 <-input
0 <-input
0.199 <-CALCULATED
0.190 <-input
1.24 <-CALCULATED
= 5 <-input
0.986 <-input
Outlet
Delta H
1.36
1.36
1.40
1.36
1.37
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Flue Gas
Temp.
64
65
80
79
82
83
84
85
87
88
86
93
Meter
Temp.
66
67
67
68
69
70
71
71
72
73
73
74
% ISO
101.1
99.1
101.7
99.6
99.4
100.8
100.7
100.8
96.4
101.8
98.5
98.6
Volume
Metered
3.496
3.430
3.470
3.410
3.400
3.450
3.450
3.450
3.300
3.490
3.380
3.369
Volume
Metered
Standard
3.460
3.388
3.428
3.362
3.346
3.389
3.382
3.382
3.229
3.409
3.301
3.284
Velocity
(vs)
59.1
59.2
60.0
60.0
60.1
60.2
60.2
60.3
60.4
60.5
60.4
60.7
Square
Root
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
K-f actor
1.24
1.28
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.23
28.84
29.71
0.980
28.62
Averages->
1.10
1.37
81.33
70
99.87
3.425
60.09
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
41.095
Run3
-------
EX-LT-PM Runs 2-4.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 36.25
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 10
Depth of stack or duct 26.25
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 1.00 11.00
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
1.76
3.10
4.65
6.56
9.35
16.91
19.69
21.60
23.15
24.49
25.25
11.76
13.10
14.65
16.56
19.35
26.91
29.69
31.60
33.15
34.49
35.25
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%CO2)
(%O2)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H2O)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(vis)
(sf)
(cpmlO)
(cpm2.5)
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight-wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
Stack Gas Viscocity
Sample Flow, acfm
PM10 Cut Point, microns
PM2.5 Cut Point, microns
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1.XLS
USEPA
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
RTF, NC
PM2 5 Test Results
EX-LT-PM2 . 5-0 1 -02 1 3 1 2
2/13/2012
1231-1331
0.886
0.58
29.85
30.512
71
-1.60
74
0.0
2.0
17.0
81.0
0.84
1.049
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
26.867
29.73
0.0
2.8
0.000
1.000
29.00
29.00
59.3
0.35
1,241
1,219
96.6
179.8
0.46
9.80
2.43
(continued next page)
Results
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1.XLS
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
PM25 Test Results
(continued)
RUN NUMBER EX-LT-PM2.5-01-021312
RUN DATE 2/13/2012
RUNTIME 1231-1331
EMISSIONS DATA
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE<2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams 0.0
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF 0.000000
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM 0.00
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr 0.0000
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE > 2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams 0.0
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF 0.00000
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM 0.00
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr 0.0000
TOTAL FILTERABLE PARTICULATE
(mg) Catch, milligrams 0.0
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF 0.00000
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM 0.00
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr 0.000
Results
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.85
-1.7
pn
OU
60
1.77
2
17
81
0.01
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
ex: 1% = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH 201A
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F |
DELTA H, IN H2O |
80 |
0.578942 |
130 |
0.58747 |
30
0.572595
MW(DRY) 29.00
MW (WET; 28.89
PS= 29.725
VIS= 181.33 194.43 168.40
CYCFLOV 0.4487 0.4938 0.4049
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!"
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER
NOZZLE VEL
ft/sec
MIN VEL
ft/sec
MAX VEL
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN
in. H20
DEL. P MAX
in. H20
0.156
56.34159
41.00651
70.31695
0.51868
1.525154
0.171
46.89063
32.94412
59.20815
0.334772
1.081326
0.185
40.0622
26.95855
51.22264
0.224175
0.809315
0.199
34.62359
22.00629
44.89615
0.149378
0.621744
0.21
31.09136
18.62404
40.80794
0.10699
0.513668
0.22
28.32911
15.80689
37.62478
0.07707
0.436658
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POINT
Point*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.10 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
80
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I
1.100
60.0
Setup-1
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.71
-1.6
Op
oU
60
1.77
2
17
81
0.02 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
80
0.563038
130
0.571648
30
0.556515
MW(DRY) 29.00
MW(WET 28.78
PS= 29.59235
VIS= 180.59 193.69 167.66
CYCFLOV 0.4479 0.4931 0.4041
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER 0.156
NOZZLE VEL 56.24852
ft/sec
MIN VEL 40.94941
ft/sec
MAX VEL 70.1944
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN 0.512968
in. H20
DEL. P MAX 1.507299
in. H20
| 0.171 0.185
| 46.81317 39.99603
I
| 32.90201 26.92826
I
| 59.10346 51.13072
I
| 0.331161 0.221825
I
| 1.068613 0.799757
I
| 0.199 0.21
| 34.5664 31.04
I
| 21.98672 18.61281
I
| 44.8143 40.73256
I
| 0.147882 0.105979
I
| 0.614367 0.507549
I
| 0.22
| 28.28231
I
| 15.80393
I
| 37.55443
I
| 0.076405
I
| 0.431436
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.20 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
80
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 1.200
60.0
80
Setup-2
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.8
-1.6
Op
oU
65
1.77
2
17
81
0.02 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
80
0.569167
130
0.577871
30
0.562573
MW(DRY) 29.00
MW(WET 28.78
PS= 29.68235
VIS= 180.59 193.69 167.66
CYCFLOV 0.4475 0.4927 0.4037
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER 0.156
NOZZLE VEL 56.19817
ft/sec
MIN VEL 40.90887
ft/sec
MAX VEL 70.13391
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN 0.513509
in. H20
DEL. P MAX 1.509279
in. H20
| 0.171 0.185
| 46.77127 39.96022
I
| 32.86806 26.89895
I
| 59.05307 51.08762
I
| 0.331483 0.222016
I
| 1.070036 0.800838
I
| 0.199 0.21
| 34.53546 31.01221
I
| 21.96091 18.58901
I
| 44.777 40.69901
I
| 0.147984 0.106029
I
| 0.61521 0.508254
I
| 0.22
| 28.257
I
| 15.78132
I
| 37.52381
I
| 0.076419
I
| 0.432043
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.20 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
80
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 1.200
60.0
80
Setup-3
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1 .XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
60.0
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure :
Stack Temp :
Meter Temp :
CO2:
O2 =
Barometric Pres. :
Pilot Coefficient '
Actual Nozzle :
Meter Box Gamma
Moisture % :
Pilot Dry Gas
Reading Meter Reading
1.1 538.062
1.1 540.63
1.1 543.17
1.1 545.64
1.1 548.2
1.1 550.77
1.1 553.3
1.1 555.83
1.1 558.39
1.1 560.94
1.1 563.48
1.1 566.04
568.574
USEPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hul #1 Exhausl Du( Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Widlh
Deplh
EX-LT-PM2.5-01-021312
2/13/2012
1231-1331
-1.6
80
60
2
17
29.85
0.84
0.156
0.886
1
Delia H
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
ex: 1 % = 1 %
Flue Gas
Temp.
53
53
58
60
74
81
83
83
87
87
84
84
Oullel
Meter
Temp.
67
67
67
68
69
70
70
72
73
74
74
76
% ISO
97.1
96.0
93.8
97.2
98.7
97.6
97.8
98.6
98.4
97.8
98.3
97.0
8 Rd Area:=>
RecArea:=>
0
0
Area Used
Volume
Melered
2.568
2.540
2.470
2.560
2.570
2.530
2.530
2.560
2.550
2.540
2.560
2.534
Volume
Melered
Slandard
2.277
2.252
2.190
2.265
2.270
2.230
2.230
2.248
2.235
2.222
2.240
2.209
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Velocity
(vs)
58.2
58.2
58.5
58.6
59.4
59.8
59.9
59.9
60.1
60.1
59.9
59.9
Square
Rool
Delia P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
29.00
29.73
0.990
28.89
Averages-> 1.10
0.58
73.92
70.58
97.38
59.38
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
30.512
Run 1
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1 .XLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Localion:
City, Stale:
Operator's Inilials:
Run Number:
Tesl Dale:
Run Time:
Slalic Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meier Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Baromelric Pres. =
Pilol Coefficienl =
Aclual Nozzle =
Meier Box Gamma =
Moislure % =
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
60.0
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
EX-LT-PM2.5-02-021412
2/14/2012
1105-1205
-1.6
80
60
0
20.9
29.71
0.84
0.156
0.886
2 ex: 1% = 1%
Flue Gas
Delta H Temp.
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Stack Diameter (Rd):
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Widlh
Deplh
Average
Meter
Temp. % Iso
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
inpul
0
0
Volume
Melered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
Area Used
Volume
Melered
Standard
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
#VALUE!
0.00
#VALUE!
Velocity
(vs)
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
Averages-> 1.20
0.56
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.00
57.98
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
Run 2
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1 .XLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Localion:
City, Stale:
Operator's Inilials:
Run Number:
Tesl Dale:
Run Time:
Slalic Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meier Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Baromelric Pres. =
Pilol Coefficienl =
Aclual Nozzle =
Meier Box Gamma =
Moislure % =
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
60.0
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
2/15/2012
1110-1210
-1.6
80
65
0
20.9
29.8
0.84
0.156
0.886
2 ex: 1% = 1%
Flue Gas
Delta H Temp.
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
Stack Diameter (Rd):
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Widlh
Deplh
Outlet
Meter
Temp. % Iso
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
inpul
0
0
Volume
Melered
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rd Area:=>
Rec Area:=>
Area Used
Volume
Melered
Standard
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
#VALUE!
0.00
#VALUE!
Velocity
(vs)
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Averages-> 1.20
0.57
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.00
57.89
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Run 1 .XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 37
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 6
Depth of stack or duct 31
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 0.65 6.65
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
2.08
3.66
5.49
7.75
11.04
19.96
23.25
25.51
27.34
28.92
30.35
8.08
9.66
11.49
13.75
17.04
25.96
29.25
31.51
33.34
34.92
36.35
* mark these points on probe
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
USEPA
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
RTF, NC
PM15 Test Results
(Y)
(DeltaH)
(Pbar)
(Vm)
(Tm)
(Pg)
(Ts)
(Vic)
(%C02)
(%02)
(%N2)
(Cp)
(DeltaP)
(Theta)
(Dn)
(An)
(Vmstd)
(Ps)
(%H20)
(%H2Osat)
(Vwstd)
(Mfd)
(Md)
(Ms)
(Vs)
(A)
(Qa)
(Qs)
(I)
(vis)
(sf)
(cpmlO)
(cpm2.5)
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUN TIME
MEASURED DATA
Meter Box Y
Avg Delta H, inches H2O
Barometric Pressure, inches Hg
Meter Volume, ft3
Avg Meter Temp, deg F
Static Pressure, inches H2O
Avg Stack Temp, deg F
Water Collected, mL
Carbon Dioxide, %
Oxygen, %
Nitrogen, %
Pilot Tube Coefficient
Avg Sqrt Delta P, (inches H2O)1/2
Sample Time, min
Nozzle Diameter, inches
CALCULATED DATA
Nozzle Area, square feet
Standard Meter Volume, ft3
Stack Pressure, inches Hg
Moisture, %
Moisture (at saturation), %
Standard Water Vapor Volume, ft3
Dry Mole Fraction
Molecular Weight-dry, Ib/lb-mole
Molecular Weight- wet, Ib/lb-mole
Velocity, ft/s
Stack Area, ft2
Volumetric flow, acfm
Volumetric flow, dscfm
Isokinetic Rate, %
Stack Gas Viscocity
Sample Flow, acfm
PM10 Cut Point, microns
PM2.5 Cut Point, microns
EX-LT-PM2.5-02-021412 EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512 EX-LT-PM2.5-04-021612
2/14/2012 2/15/2012 2/16/2012
1105-1205 1110-1210 0940-1040
0.886
0.56
29.71
30.016
71
-1.60
81
0.00
2.0
17.0
81.0
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
26.309
29.59
1.0 *
3.6
0.000
0.990
29.00
28.89
62.6
0.35
1,311
1,252
92.1
180.8
0.45
9.90
2.43
(continued next page)
0.886
0.57
29.80
30.243
70
-1.60
102
5.69
2.0
17.0
81.0
0.84
1.095
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
26.618
29.68
1.0
6.8
0.268
0.990
29.00
28.89
63.7
0.35
1,333
1,231
94.8
185.8
0.48
9.77
2.24
0.886
0.57
29.83
30.007
70
-1.60
81
5.00
2.0
17.0
81.0
0.84
1.049
60.0
0.156
0.00013273
26.412
29.71
0.9
3.6
0.236
0.991
29.00
28.90
59.8
0.35
1,252
1,202
96.3
181.0
0.46
9.84
2.26
Results
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
RUN NUMBER
RUN DATE
RUN TIME
EMISSIONS DATA
FILTERABLE P ARTICULATE <2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE > 2.5um
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
TOTAL FILTERABLE PARTICULATE
(mg) Catch, milligrams
(gr/DSCF) Concentration, gr/DSCF
(mg/DSCM) Concentration, mg/DSCM
(Ib/hr) Emission Rate, Ib/hr
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Duct
PM2 5 Test Results
(continued)
EX-LT-PM2.5-02-021412
2/14/2012
1105-1205
13.0
0.00762
17.4
0.0818
3.8
0.00223
5.10
0.0239
16.8
0.00985
22.5
0.106
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
2/15/2012
1110-1210
14.9
0.00864
19.8
0.0911
3.0
0.00174
3.98
0.0183
17.9
0.0104
23.7
0.109
EX-LT-PM2.5-04-021612
2/16/2012
0940-1040
15.5
0.00906
20.7
0.0933
2.0
0.00117
2.67
0.0120
17.5
0.0102
23.4
0.105
: Unexplained negative moisture catch. Average of third and fourth runs used.
Results
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.71
-1.6
pn
OU
60
1.77
2
17
81
0.02
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
ex: 1% = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH 201A
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F |
DELTA H, IN H2O |
80 |
0.563038 |
130 |
0.571648 |
30
0.556515
MW(DRY) 29.00
MW (WET; 28.78
PS= 29.59235
VIS= 180.59 193.69 167.66
CYCFLOV 0.4479 0.4931 0.4041
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!"
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER
NOZZLE VEL
ft/sec
MIN VEL
ft/sec
MAX VEL
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN
in. H20
DEL. P MAX
in. H20
0.156
56.24852
40.94941
70.1944
0.512968
1.507299
0.171
46.81317
32.90201
59.10346
0.331161
1.068613
0.185
39.99603
26.92826
51.13072
0.221825
0.799757
0.199
34.5664
21.98672
44.8143
0.147882
0.614367
0.21
31.04
18.61281
40.73256
0.105979
0.507549
0.22
28.28231
15.80393
37.55443
0.076405
0.431436
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POINT
Point*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.20 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
80
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I
1.200
60.0
Setup-1
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.8
-1.6
Op
oU
65
1.77
2
17
81
0.02 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
80
0.569167
130
0.577871
30
0.562573
MW(DRY) 29.00
MW(WET 28.78
PS= 29.68235
VIS= 180.59 193.69 167.66
CYCFLOV 0.4475 0.4927 0.4037
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER 0.156
NOZZLE VEL 56.19817
ft/sec
MIN VEL 40.90887
ft/sec
MAX VEL 70.13391
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN 0.513509
in. H20
DEL. P MAX 1.509279
in. H20
| 0.171 0.185
| 46.77127 39.96022
I
| 32.86806 26.89895
I
| 59.05307 51.08762
I
| 0.331483 0.222016
I
| 1.070036 0.800838
I
| 0.199 0.21
| 34.53546 31.01221
I
| 21.96091 18.58901
I
| 44.777 40.69901
I
| 0.147984 0.106029
I
| 0.61521 0.508254
I
| 0.22
| 28.257
I
| 15.78132
I
| 37.52381
I
| 0.076419
I
| 0.432043
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.20 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
80
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 1.200
60.0
80
Setup-2
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
NOZZLE SPECS.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg
STACK STATIC PRESSURE, in. H2O =
AVG. STACK TEMPERATURE, deg. F =
METER TEMPERATURE, deg. F
ORIFICE DELTA H@, in H20 =
%CO2 =
%O2 =
%N2+%CC
MOISTURE FRACTIC
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
29.83
-1.6
Op
oU
65
1.77
2
17
81
0.02 ex
NOZZLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 % = 0.01
DIA
in.
0.156
0.171
0.185
0.199
0.21
0.22
METH201A
Cp
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
| 0.84
METH. 2
Cp
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
STACK TEMP, deg. F
DELTA H, IN H2O
80
0.569406
130
0.578113
30
0.562808
MW(DRY) 29.00
MW(WET 28.78
PS= 29.71235
VIS= 180.59 193.69 167.66
CYCFLOV 0.4474 0.4925 0.4036
NOTE: DO NOT USE ANY NOZZLE WHERE "MIN VEL" OR "DEL. P MIN" SHOWS "#NUM!'
NOZZLE 12345
DIAMETER 0.156
NOZZLE VEL 56.18143
ft/sec
MIN VEL 40.89539
ft/sec
MAX VEL 70.1138
ft/sec
DEL. P MIN 0.513689
in. H20
DEL. P MAX 1.509938
in. H20
| 0.171 0.185
| 46.75734 39.94832
I
| 32.85677 26.88921
I
| 59.03632 51.0733
I
| 0.33159 0.222079
I
| 1.07051 0.801198
I
| 0.199 0.21
| 34.52517 31.00298
I
| 21.95232 18.5811
I
| 44.7646 40.68786
I
| 0.148017 0.106046
I
| 0.615491 0.508489
I
| 0.22
| 28.24858
I
| 15.7738
I
| 37.51363
I
| 0.076423
I
| 0.432245
I
TOTAL RUN TIME, min.
NUMBER OF TRAVERSE POIN1
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/ F
DEL. P Point
1.20 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Running
Time
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Stack
Temp
80
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
AVG DEL I 1.200
60.0
80
Setup-3
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
60.0
Pitot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure
Stack Temp
Meter Temp :
CO2
O2
Barometric Pres.
Pitot Coefficient
Actual Nozzle
Meter Box Gamma
Moisture %
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
569.764
572.24
574.7
577.19
579.69
582.19
584.7
587.21
589.7
592.23
594.75
597.27
599.78
USEPA Stack Diameter (Rd):
Burn Hut #1 Exhaust Due Stack Dimension (Rec):
RTP, NC Width
Depth
EX-LT-PM2.5-02-021412
2/14/2012
1105-1205
-1.6
80
60
0
20.9
29.71
0.84
0.156
0.886
2
Delta H
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
ex: 1 % = 1 %
Flue Gas
Temp.
60
71
74
79
79
82
82
88
87
87
89
93
Outlet
Meter
Temp.
67
67
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
73
74
75
Averages-> 1.20
0.56
80.92
70.50
% Iso
90.5
90.9
92.2
92.8
92.7
93.1
92.9
92.5
93.8
93.4
93.4
93.2
92.62
8 Rd Area:=>
Rec Area: =>
0
0
Area Used
Volume
Metered
2.476
2.460
2.490
2.500
2.500
2.510
2.510
2.490
2.530
2.520
2.520
2.510
Volume
Metered
Standard
2.185
2.171
2.197
2.202
2.197
2.202
2.198
2.176
2.207
2.198
2.194
2.182
0.35
0.00
0.349066
Velocity
(vs)
61.6
62.3
62.5
62.8
62.8
62.9
62.9
63.3
63.2
63.2
63.3
63.6
62.87
Square
Root
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.10
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.59
0.980
28.62
TOTAL VOLUME =
30.016
Run 1
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
60.0
Pilot
Reading
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meter Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Barometric Pres. =
Pilot Coefficient =
Aclual Nozzle =
Meier Box Gamma =
Moislure % =
Dry Gas
Meier Reading
599.894
602.44
604.9
607.42
609.94
612.44
614.96
617.51
620.03
622.56
625.12
627.63
630.137
Stack Diameter (Rd): inpul
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Widlh
Deplh
Rd Area:=> #VALUE!
Rec Area:=>
0.00
EX-LT-PM2.5-03-021512
2/15/2012
1110-1210
Area Used #VALUE!
-1.6
80
65
0
20.9
29.8
0.84
0.156
0.886
2 ex: 1% = 1%
Delta H
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
Flue Gas
Temp.
91
91
90
92
91
103
106
106
111
116
110
111
Average
Meter
Temp.
66
66
67
68
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
% Iso
96.1
92.9
94.9
94.9
94.0
95.6
96.8
95.5
96.1
97.5
94.9
94.7
Volume
Melered
2.546
2.460
2.520
2.520
2.500
2.520
2.550
2.520
2.530
2.560
2.510
2.507
Volume
Melered
Standard
2.258
2.181
2.230
2.226
2.208
2.222
2.244
2.213
2.218
2.240
2.192
2.186
Velocity
(vs)
63.4
63.4
63.3
63.4
63.4
64.0
64.2
64.2
64.5
64.8
64.4
64.5
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
1.095
28.84
29.68
0.980
28.62
Averages-> 1.20
0.57
101.50
69.92
95.33
63.95
1.10
TOTAL VOLUME =
30.243
Run 2
-------
Blue = Input Items
Red = Calculated/Protected Items
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
Facility Name:
Sampling Location:
City, State:
Operator's Initials:
Run Number:
Test Date:
Run Time:
Static Pressure =
Stack Temp =
Meter Temp =
CO2 =
O2 =
Barometric Pres. =
Pilot Coefficient =
Actual Nozzle =
Meter Box Gamma =
Moisture % =
Stack Diameter (Rd): input
Stack Dimension (Rec):
Width
Depth
Rd Area:=> #VALUE!
EX-LT-PM2.5-04-021612
2/16/2012
0940-1040
Rec Area:=>
0.00
Area Used #VALUE!
md=
Ps=
Mfd=
Ms=
28.84
29.71
0.980
28.62
Sample
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stop
Minutes/
Point
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
60.0
Pilot
Reading
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Dry Gas
Meter Reading
630.32
632.8
635.3
637.81
640.29
642.78
645.29
647.8
650.31
652.81
655.31
657.83
660.327
Delta H
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
Flue Gas
Temp.
64
65
80
79
82
83
84
85
87
88
86
93
Outlet
Meier
Temp.
67
67
68
68
69
70
71
72
72
73
74
74
% Iso
95.2
96.1
97.7
96.4
96.9
97.6
97.5
97.4
97.2
97.1
97.5
97.2
Volume
Melered
2.480
2.500
2.510
2.480
2.490
2.510
2.510
2.510
2.500
2.500
2.520
2.497
Volume
Melered
Standard
2.197
2.215
2.219
2.193
2.198
2.211
2.207
2.203
2.194
2.190
2.203
2.183
Velocity
(vs)
59.1
59.2
60.0
60.0
60.1
60.2
60.2
60.3
60.4
60.5
60.4
60.7
Square
Rool
Delta P
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
1.049
Averages-> 1.10
0.57
81.33
70.42
96.96
60.09
1.05
TOTAL VOLUME =
30.007
Run 3
-------
EX-LT-PM2.5 Runs 2-4.XLS
Distance from far wall to outside of port 37
Nipple length and/or wall thickness 6
Depth of stack or duct 31
distance distance
from inside including
% of depth wall nipple*
2.1 0.65 6.65
6.7
11.8
17.7
25
35.6
64.4
75
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9
2.08
3.66
5.49
7.75
11.04
19.96
23.25
25.51
27.34
28.92
30.35
8.08
9.66
11.49
13.75
17.04
25.96
29.25
31.51
33.34
34.92
36.35
* mark these points on probe
M1 Points
-------
APPENDIX D
Asbestos Analytical Results
-------
INTERNAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY
1/17/2012 12:14:36 PM
Order ID: 271200007
Attn: Robert Marriam
Remedium Group, Inc.
Subsidiary of W.R, Grace
6401 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301
Memphis, TO 38119
Fax: (901)820-2061 Phone: (901)820-2023
Project: RN990272.0003
Samples collected 12/15, 28, 29/2012
Customer ID:
Customer PO:
Received:
EMSL Order:
EMSL Proj ID:
Cust COC ID
REME44
01/11/12 10:09 AM
271200007
Burn House
Test: TEM ISO 10312
Acct Sts: N30
! Inter- Lab Sample Transfer
\ Samples Relinquished:
i Samples Received:
i Package Mailed to Westmont:
Method of Delivery:
Includes: (Circle)
i Benchsheets Sample Slides
i Micrographs GridBox
Final Package Received:
Matrix Air
Slsprsn: rdemalo
Date
Date
Date
Sample filters
Other
Date:
Special Instructions
TAT: 96 Hour
Logged: rmahoney
Sample [v? Acceptable
Condition: -- Unacceptable
Comments
Initial Prep (Initials/Lab}:
Fitter Prep (Initials/Lab):
Grid Prep (Initials/Lab):
\For Special Projects Use Only
\ QC Selection:
Date Package Review:
Date Package Mailed:
Qtv: 3
Date: 1/11/2012
Order ID
Lab Sample # Cust Sample #
Location
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
J
Due Date
271200007 271200007-0001 EX-IMP Hot Blank-01-
271200007 271200007*0002 EX-HT-IMP-03-12281
271200007 271200007-0003 EX-IMP Hot Blank-02-
1/17/2012 10:09:55 AM
1/17/2012 10:09:55 AM
1/17/2012 10:09:55 AM
2.7/Z -
EMSL Analytical. Inc.. 107 West 4th Street. Libbv, MT
Page 1of1
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Project Name
Project Location
Sampling Location
Project Number
Laboratory
Laboratory P.O. #
USEPA
RTP, NC
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RN990272.0003
EMSL Analytical Inc.
Sample ID
EX-IMP Hot Blank-0 1-121511
64.005 dry standard cubic feet
EX-HT-IMP-03-12281 1
36.707 dij standard cubic feet
EX-IMP Hot Blank-02-1229l 1
37.455 dry standard cubic feet
Notes/Comments: J
, j
Relinquished BY: J£^^-»~c-«_-^£*-~
Date/Time: J^/I^J^2-^^
Received By: """^i?"^^— <2^£_-«=
Date/Time: " 1 P ' ^>6 '
Sample Matrix
Impinger DI H2O and DI H2O Rinse
Impinger DI H2O and DI H2O Rinse
Impinger DI H2O and DI H2O Rinse
/
S Relinquished By:
Date/Time:
- <-_M<2__ Received By: ,
( ( Date/Time:
Analysis Requested
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
t
UJ
--' '.*
ft
^ r"?^f$^$£~&2 -• Cflf^
' llrM^rJ^t/ ^'ho
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Phone Number: (919)544-4535
Fax Number: (919)544-5690
-------
Sample Volumes
Standard Conditions of 68°F and 29.92 inches Hg
Runft
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank-01-121511
EX-PM Hot Blank-01-121511
EX-IMP Hot Blank-01-121511
EX-MCE Hot Blank-OlA-121511
EX-HT-PM2.5-01-121911
EX-HT-PM-01-121911
EX-HT-IMP-01-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01A-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01B-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01C-121911
EX-HT-MCE-01D-121911
EX-HT-PM2.5-02-122211
EX-HT-PM-02-122211
EX-HT-IMP-02-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02A-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02B-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02C-122211
EX-HT-MCE-02D-122211
EX-HT-PM2.5-03-122811
EX-HT-PM-03-122811
EX-HT-IMP-03-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03A-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03B-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03C-122811
EX-HT-MCE-03D-122811
EX-PM2.5 Hot Blank-02-122911
EX-PM Hot Blank-02-122911
EX-IMP Hot Blank-02-122911
EX-MCE Hot Biank-02A-122911
Sample Volume, dscf
27.438
64.162
64.083
5.526
26.527
43.422
42.102
2.703
2.670
2.599
2.667
26.598
39.202
39.795
2.643
2.786
2.681
2.916
27.171
39.544
36.673
1.710
2.668
2.779
2.498
26.713
39.214
37.467
11.191
Sample Volume, dsl
776.96
1816.87
1814.63
156.54
751.16
1229.57
1192.20
76.56
75.64
73.63
75.55
753.17
1110.08
1126.87
74.87
78.92
75.95
82.62
769.40
1119.76
1038.46
48.44
75.58
78.72
70.76
756.43
1110.42
1060.95
317.03
-------
g
s
c
1
Q
O
IU
§
f
I
Is
M
IU
T
EMSLAnalytk
EFA (mm2)
Fitter Lot*
Re
P8J8USJ
auunioA
puadsnsaa
auin|OA
pusdsnaay
paiedoid
auinjOA
05
uopuozo
An
(puoijdo)
pawaoay auiniOA
v
(N
1
$?
i
I
CO
I
I
1
•\
•6
H
-------
D
I i
c
Date:
O
i
O
JO
n
CO
w
s
•^ *
6 "8
I If
K
M
«J
i
M
Cj
8|tA|BUVJO| Z
auinjOA
SLUHjOA
puadsnsay
pusdsnssy
c
ill
H "i *~
CO
uoiieuozo
AH
91BQ
a
9
\
I
£
i
g
f
6
1
;;
!1
I O
-------
*** '
«. f\
-------
b/
0^ IOJ! 10
2-
-------
f"
lid to
^ M d
8
e
c
o
z
*z n\ ~
'S \ A! 1 E •?•
S \« / 3 E
"3
K
o
c
S
o:
**• N / >-- 3
I II
< J §
E g E E
3 O 3 3
E e E E
c e c
I ii 1
o
i
IQ Rules:
1
2
tn
t » 1
s 8 2
ffl U Q
W 0 *
OJ % OJ
£ | £
c
r Calculatio
O
t>
IL.
SJ
3
Q.
C
Q.
DL
I
c
ra
o o* -S
^ w O
« -£ aj
3 C C
igSl
||| |
•c 0 0 §
•B IB t
1 i ^ ^
it 1 t E
^
*;
Is
S S
IB .^
I 8
— = -5
e. 1 1
3) !D w
3 U 3"
1 5E
,™, a*
I I
g i
> *
8 Ij 2 S3
« §t f Si.
1
UJ v.
= I
ti. «:
^ £•
^- m
W -5
O O en
™ "1
I "-"-
II
3 O
O O
a s
55 a
>. «
•S 2
~ 55
O IA
a: i
O
o:
b
e
Q.
a:
Analyzed by
CM
o
.— f*--
(5 g
" aj
$ 41
If sample tyi
or debris in
O
(£
i"
S1
E -^ ®
„ < 1
c c ~
L9
o *= c
E > a
O 1? -
t
1
I
J
ill
||1
O
ii
11
< o
-o £
E e
E f
£ 3
-£
E
-------
c1
5
E
^
1
~
I
E 5
I ?•§
C a, •--
=
e-
i » j3 o
? * p y
u) > Ji H > H XT ul
GO
§°
llf sample type ~ air, ts there
lor debris in the cowl? (Yes. t
8
Count! ng rules
{ISO, AMERA, ASTM)
o
V™
5
UJ
<¥
EM
rx.
CM
Grid storage location
0
c
1
c
o
.1
Archive filter(s) storage local
S
2
c
D
8
£ »•_
QA Type (Not QA, Recount Same
Different, Re-prep, Verified Analys
Reconciliation, Lab Blank, Intertat
a
ai
c *.
« I
3 O
oo
**- £
-
a. uj
a. "
25
X
LU
cL re
i— w
i°
C/) D
f? "
II
rv <«
Air
or
ff
rid o
mm2)
1
<
1
y»
t
(0
If
IS!
u- o
4)
O
O
Cl
4
JU.
k
ft)
W-
0-
§
Q
b
•6
o
**
o
<3~
O
o
o
S
£•
o
e
0)
O
Ji
o
-------
CD
O
to
0.
c
o
IS
m
D)
Si
CO S
c w
.2S
n
m
CO
D
E
3
(U
t£
1
*fe
UJ
5
D
a
O
UJ
m co
5 9
CD
5
CN
CM
5
9
a
5
H
i
i
X
UJ
^
UJ
Q.
< 3
co a.
< S
Q- <
UJ W
UJ
_l
HI Q.
< 1
Z CO
m CD
5 5
ion
ica
den
S
O
a
c
CD
Structure
Type
os
/S (U
<-> Q.
O
O
r-
I
3
O
O
U.
W-
U
^%4^
-5^-Sa
14-
\
o
va.
w-
S
I
o
-------
V-i
•d
(D
D)
03
a.
n
FJ
e
n
0}
%<4
-° ?
r» I*
CO O
C 30
O> J2
» 1
K %
2^
UJ
0)
U
r
E
3
E
a
31 °
LU
z
CD
HI
I
g
m to
3 9
tr
o
CO
CM
CM
O
I
Q_
ii
f~m.
X
UJ
o
z
UJ
$ I
Q- <
LU CO
O
LU
_l
D.
CO
00
•*^ to
O O £•
LL O
o
CO
o
(E
£
0)
•a
(U
^1
5t^
CO
D)
C
•r; C
fS 03
U Q.
^
O
e
ci
*
A
o
s
o
V.
C
0
e
UJ
O
If
Cxi
s?
CO
V*
u.
-2 2
1*-
o
8?
w.
Q
u.
i-
-------
0)
o>
e
o
IS
ro
£ ?•
>•» fc*
CO O
UJ
W
E
3
S
«
ill
ce
.
UJ
UJ
J 1
HI CO
O
UJ
UJ Q.
I!
CO CO
5 5
u-
o
c
c
_en
_a
W
ion
denti
O
£
a
cture
pe
T
S
O)
?S
Xo
AL
1
8
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen..J-22012\271200007 EX-HT-IMP-03-122811_B2_A5_01 LA.pgt
Collected: January 16,2012 10:22:32
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
116,55
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
1485
2.00
Dead Time; 40.17
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200007^EX-HT-!MP-03-122B11_B2_A5_01_LA.pgt
FS: 1000
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL; (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...7-2 2Q12\271200007_EX-HT-IMP-03-122811_B2_A5_02J_A.pgt
Collected: January 16, 2012 10:22:32
Live Time: 5i.84
Beam Voltage: 20.00
Count Rate: 3024
Beam Current: 2.00
Dead Time: 47.79 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
27120QOQ7_EX-HT~IMP-03-122811__B2^A5_02^LApgt
FS: 1100
Si
i
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Lrbby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 » FAX: (406) 293-7016 » www.EMSL.com
Locally focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...7-2 2012\271200007 EX-HT-IMP-03-122811 B2 A5 03_LA.pgt
Collected: January 16,2012 10:22:32
Live Time: 120.90
Beam Voltage: 20,00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
949
2.00
Dead Time: 37.78 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200007_EX-HT-IMP-03-122811_B2_A5_03_LApgt
FS: 1000
e
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC,
File; F:\Doaimen..J-22012\271200007 EX-HT-IMP-Q3-122811 B2 A5 04_LA.pgt
Collected; January 16,2012 10:22:32
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
103.04
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current;
1388
2.00
Dead Time: 38.64 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271 200007_EX-HT-IMP-03-1 22B1
)4_LA.pgt
FS: 1000
Si
8
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: {406) 293-9066 • FAX: (406) 293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen... 7-2 2012\271200007_EX-HT-1MP-03-122811_B2_A5_05_LA.pgt
Collected: January 16, 2012 10:22:32
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
120.80
20.00
Count Rate: 1018
Beam Current: 2.00
Dead Time: 38.74 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200007_EX-HT-!MP-03-122811_B2_A5_05_LApgt
FS: 1000
I
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 10? West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 • FAX: (406) 293-701S • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
iri m
c
o
0?
y
o
z
,§, xTSSv
° U] f ^
«
ecordina Rule
UL
S J^
5 51
6 g E E
1 ° I 1
c E 'c
s s s
o
- «a s
§ sS i
m "o o ^2 Q.
&- ti J 1
« g CL S ^J SJ
^ qj 0) ^ tQ t?
g 3 -3 Hr .re 8
S
3
Q.
C
i ^ 1
£- o — fr
E -i £ 'e —
n W -J i-i !l
B S > 5 c W C
il 1 1 1
Ji I II I
^ i
c
J-"
"O
3
«B
C
fr
1
O
"o
Sn,
11
U. CD
3 O
O O
* S
"m B
CO
c
•2 S
0)-O
e n
Ul
1"
5= 0
*
ft
CM
€*l 5>
-
W
j?
1
0)
•s
Q
X
g
en"
o
s
1C
--
CS
1
C
i"
V)
en
jj <
c x
lo-
O =
1
Q
fsi
fNi
Numiser:
Lab Job
CO
C3
ro
PS
c
c
Q. — ,
o &•
-D E
5£
o
UJ
o:
CN
ft
C
_o
a
rid stor
O
S
o
o
N,
o
o
w
CM
s
pie Num
t
w
lc
a
<
2
to
a.
P
a.
w
a
o
Number
u
Q
1
OT
C
Z
K „•
Recount Same
Venfiad Analys
si-
ll.
(— (u
ode
>.
£
_>
6
|
0.
ation (Indirect
3
C
"S
o
S
O
K
LL,
U.
O
O
o
K
o
C3J
O)
Z
£E
C Numbe
EPA CO
H
C
o:
1^
g. ra
O CD
f i
/
d
j
'
X
1
1
£
9
-S
<
!
!
R
1
a
C
§
N
'w
g
1
c:
z
ft
P
n
Q,
fl(
IE
e-
^
I '
CL -
?
0
j
i
j
i
I
i
j
i
!
L
:
:
?
.
•
fM
O
03
O
5J.
1*
o
c
c
5
m
-
1
i
C.
i
t]
J»
U
"i"
n
Js
•a;
W
O
u
2
c
c
a
l£
C
a
T:
nsions
E
Q
S
3
B
CO
*o
z
o
0
p
y)
a
o
o
o
§!
D
LU
O
£
CL
Sketch
j
-
>
^
3
i)
£
3
5
o
S
1
)
i
JZ
1
c
-J
"o
2-
C-
e-
&
*SW-
^
d
^
*%-.
HR?
>.
>
;$
^
(^
<=iv
^
^ <5
Sv
v
N C
p
^,
^
v)
-------
y Record z 7/2 ooos-z.
Chain of Custod
LABORATORY
EMSL Analytical Inc
107 WEST 4 TH Street Libby MT U.S 59923
REPORT FORMAT (CIRCLE ALL REQUIRED)
ELECTRONIC/VERBAL/FAX/HARDCOPY
LAB ID NO.
REMARKS (for lab use only)
SJ3UIB}UO3JO 'OM
5
PROJECT NUMBER
RN990272.0014 00001
PROJECT NAME
Burn hut #1
COLLECTED BY (SIGNATURE)
D. Janek
W U
N S
se
SAMPLE
MATRIX
RUSH
FACTOR
FIELD
SAMPLE ID
(N
en
»N
D.
£
S
(N
r3
rs
ex
^
o
1
M
en
r^l
-------
o
.
22 Cl
7/1 ooos-z.
TJ
U
O
U
2
s^
*e
o
•**
en
3
U
«*-i
o
c
•mH
A
J=
U
EMSL Analytical Inc
H Street Libby MT U.S 5
REMARKS
00
§s
z$
Hg
OS
o\
G-a
Ed a
n
>
00
1^
r< »
U 0
^
8d
Q H
SAMPLE
MATRIX
RUSH
FACTOR
F
S
rsi
a
(N
(N
(N
CM
O,
NQUISHED BY
g§
«
QUISHED BY
ll
H
S
^
-------
c
a>
o
a.
If*
t—
CO
Ul
"8
-------
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT 59923
Phone: (406) 293-9066 Fax: Email: moditeasbestoslab(g)emsl.com
Ann:
Robert Marriam
Remedium Group, Inc.
Subsidiary of W.R. Grace
6401 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301
Memphis, TN 38119
Customer ID:
Customer PO;
Received;
EMSL Order:
REME44
02/27/12 2:10PM
271200052
/arm «9
-------
o
o
'SITE
Structure
LIBS'!
V Asbestos .
&
to
S
3
IT
Recordina
!
a
a
X
X3
Analysed
c
CD
i
t
•z
f
EPA Sar
CM
UJ
narne:
Laboratory
ispecl Ratio (circle one):
Minimum ft
1
S
IS
T3
C
LLI
CL
Q
n
Q
u
11
i?
a u.
W Q
§
X
O
O
™J
O
til
— )
Instfumen
(^
\ Al
V>
1
=lndirect,
1
•D
C
II
i'
b
u
Q
IT?
||
5 (Q
co cd
GT ^
a? ^
Air vofim
or dustfa
o
"
;?
Voltage (K
ength (um): 0,5
Minimum L
J
*
U
se material
type = air, is there loo
in the cowl? (Yes, No)
tf sample
or debris
CM
O
CM
IK.
CN
12
T3
2
Date reo
X
0
0)*
c
o
Magnificat
£
i"
3
s
Minimum V
V
filter (%)
d particylate loading or
Estimate
(M
in
8
(M
CM
Mumber;
Lab Job
o
ng area
Grid openi
(mm 2)
O
wl
3 Ct
>- 111
Jo
O
s
o
CM
1
o
Ct
CD
05
XI
(8
II
_J
I
ta
LU
QC
CN
age location
Grid star
1
S3
CL
CA
Or
Number
u
Q
&
I
S/3
J!
rr
o
c
"S
§
03
1
1
c
c
C
Her(s) storage location
Archive f
>
E
m
Q
_>.
¥
O.
£X
"
w
ci
a>
ra CM
1 E
£•
>
'1
Target Sen
«£
O
s
c
sjot QA, Recount Same, R
?e-pn9p, Verified Anafysfs,
ion, Lab Blank. Interfab)
QA Type (
Different, F
Reconcilia
CM
o
S
.
u
i
•
c
:
i
C
j
i
T
ji
Q
see b@Jo
X.
m
2
|
3
J
i
[}
;
0
E
z
o
g
5
1
'<
•
s
"Be
c
_j
1
o
}-
^
.1
CL
CL
h-
n
L
Fraction of primary filter ysed for
indirect prep or ashing
tfarrlUKt and ilnstftil! finter i fli
-
§
s
^
First resuspension volume or rinsate
volume (rnL)
a
CJ,
^
^
Volume applied to secondary filler
(mL) or used for serial dilution
8
CS.
^
^
erial Dilutions
J
y
"z
a
c
"Cs.
s
Second resuspension volume (ml)
Ot
^
f
Volume applied to secondary filter
fmL) or ysed for serial dilution
^
£
^
Thsrd resuspension volume (ml)
>
Tr-
Volume applied to secondary filter
(mL)
C~v
s
A
LL
e
T
C
O
£
o:
^
i
<
£
'z
C
c
^-
*
Fraction of secondary filter used for
ashing
T—
^
•S
s
s material
-asbesto
o
z
1!
1
Z
CD
S
°
e^
6
u
o
amphiboie
'<&
Q.
m
£
o
II
0)
-type arnphibo
s
'3
l!
5
-------
s
g
I
1
: «
I 6
f o
SI
til s °s
^ i^. 13 in "o o
fll 11 ll
1 1 1 i f is
HI. If It
5
i
§
U. c
S- S
y> o
escadoi
Q.
o:
"O
I
_
C
<
2/2012
Q
•Q
'sg
>*
(13
<
Q
*"
1
jg
c
II
I
TD
IT
1
5
n
Q
Method
[ashed)
-^t
C
1
i
n ^
— z
Is
£ >
type = air, is
in the cowl? c
01 ta
If sampi
[or debri
»N
g
M
c
o
c
^
8
d particulate 1
03
Estirnafc
0
H
Ul
a:
CM
CM
age location
TJ
6
i
c
I
c
o
0
iller(s) storag
Archive
S
^
z
o
8
^ ^ (B
" <1
No! QA, Recour
?a-prep, Venfiei
tion, Lab Blank.
QA Type
Different,
RecondN
05 J;
m
B)
-o
"J
1?
Air
or d
imary
m2)
ory
Bia
Cate
up,,
a
1
1?
a 3.
a
«
D aj
•w n
tL
cs
ft
i
^L^=-
r
U-
o
4-
C3
Cr
S z
< t
S
<
z
O
-------
a>
ro
(0
0.
tr
LU
CD
CD
CD
111
O
O
UJ
O
CO
9
QC
o
3
o
u
K
LU 3
fc °
CO «>
ffi 2
— i *>
_J Ol
ID
f
o
o
LL
LU
£L
5
5
^
UJ
a.
in
Q.
^ LU
< _l
W Q,
< 5
0. <
LU C/3
O
Z
LU
_1
LU a.
5 5
< <
Z W
m CD
.S3
o
c
o
c
0)
T3
Structure
O)
C
6 I
o
o
M-
.3,
P
p
6
V)
r^
d
•M-
G>
^"i
t
-0
IP
6
to
m
I
O
2
a
V
U-
t
w
<~7
O
M-
3"
cS
5
-------
O)
re
Q.
3
o
o
£
LU 3
»I
CD «
a|
8
o
rsl
h-
CM
LU
CD
m
O
—i
DO
o
LU
<
CO
<
Q-
LU
EC
o
o
LU
O
cr
o
w
Q
O
LU
Q.
I-
LU
CL
1
LU
UJ Q.
1 i
Z CO
CD CD
o
c
XL
C
in
-------
(U
Dl
1
1U a
(- o
CO n
CD S
—! ")
CN
—)
HI
cr o
HI x
CD g
1 ^
i °
§ I
5 9
o
o
LL
LJJ
Q.
"• HI
HI Q.
5 HI
<4 _J
W O-
< 5
Q- <
HI W
8
o
z
LU
_l
0.
Z W
CD DO
ss
u- 0
o
ion
Iden
S
pe
O
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File; F:\Documen..,EMSL27-2\EMSL27-2 2Q12\27120QQ52_Floor_B2_D6_01_LA,pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
179,37
20.00
Count Rate;
Beam Current:
691
2.00
Dead Time: 36.26 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
2?1200052_Floor_B2_D6_01_LA.pgt
FS: 1000
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 « FAX: (406) 293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSU ANALYTICAL. INC.
File: F:\Documen. ,.EMSL27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\2712QOQ52_Floor_B2_D6_Q2_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
153.42
20.00
Count Rate;
Beam Current:
1231
2,00
Dead Time: 38.78 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
« 271200052_Floor_B2_D6_02_LA.pgt
FS: 1000
Si
8
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 » www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC,
File:
Collected:
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
F:\Documen...EMSL27-2\EMSL27-22012\271200052_Floor_B2_D6_06_LA,pgt
March 21, 2012 10:12:10
221.08
20,00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
723
2.00
Dead Time: 35.61 %
Takeoff Angle; 57.98
271200052_Floor_B2_D6_06_LA.pgt
FS: 1000
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 • FAX: (406) 293-7016 * www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen,,.EMSL27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Floor_B2_D6_12_LA.pgt
Collected; March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
198.54
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
572
2-00
Dead Time:
Takeoff Angle:
34.67 %
57.98
271200052__FIoor_B2_D6_12_LA.pgt
FS: BOO
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: {406)293-9066 • FAX: {406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen, ..EMSL27-2\EMSL27-22Q12\2712QQ052_Floor_B2_D6_13_LA,pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
119.97
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
763
2.00
Dead Time: 36.37 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Fioor_B2_D6_13_LA.pgt
FS: 540
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 • FAX: (406) 293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
1
S.
o
o
I *fi
i fl
~
S S
U. E
fr £
Tl ^
8 I
CO o
"c CO * i
s In B 1-
« SE S §§
o
T5
1
0
Q_
a
9
i
re
c
O
.
a> $
£>
imple type = air, is
ebris in the cowl?
s= o
N
f
c
o
en
c
=6
mated particuiate 1
«
LU
O
nting rules
), AHERA, ASTM)
O I/}
U ZZ,
%
UJ
ce
r^
01
1 storage location
5
O
_c
CO
c
c
b
c
o
£5
D
-------
0)
C3>
w
OQ w
Sf
-J si
A
w
CM
O
m
O
-3
m
LU
III
c-
CM
O
O
LU
<
O
w
Q
(T
O
Left Wall
LU
5
•^ UJ
LU a.
I "
I LU
< _l
W Q.
< 1
0. <
LU W
O
z
Lit
Z CO
m m
5 5
o
c
eg
tn
03
O
CO
O
O
c
o
c
Q>
T>
£
3 0)
15 §-
2 H
35
tn
-------
2
^
Paqe
B N
8
UJ
££
UJ 0
CD °-
O
=: uj
* 3
CO C£
9 g
CQ CO
5 9
oc
o
LU CO
UJ
_J
UJ 0.
I 1
w
CD
5 3
•*-* t/>
881
u- O
O
ion
ica
Iden
Structu
Type
01
5 1
O
3
O
5
*«\
s
e
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen..,27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Left Wall_C1_E8_03_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
84.86
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
2060
2.00
Dead Time: 46.23 %
Takeoff Angle: 57,98
271200052_Left Wall_C1_E8_03_LApgt
FS: 900
8
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: {406)293-7016 » www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Left Wall_C1_E8_04_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
41.02
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
2141
2.00
Dead Time: 44,73 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Left Wall_C1 _E8_04_LApgt
FS: 400
i
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Left Wall_C1_E8_05_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
106.72
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
853
2.00
Dead Time: 36.12%
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Left Wall_C1 _E8_05_LA.pgt
FS: 480
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 » www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen,..27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Left Wall_C1_E8_08_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time: 12.81
Beam Voltage: 20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
12172
2.00
Dead Time:
Takeoff Angle:
80.53 %
57.98
271200052_ Lett Wal!_C1^E8_08_LApgt
FS: 1100
Si
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 • FAX: (406) 293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Left Wa!l_C1_G4_10_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time: 154.64
Beam Voltage: 20.00
Count Rate: 873
Beam Current: 2.00
Dead Time: 36.49 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_LeftWaII_C1_G4_10_LA.pgt
FS: 800
T
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: {406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
I
i
Recording Rules:
Minimum Aspect Ratio (circle one):
none ( 2 3-j 2 5:1
Minimum Length (um): 0,5
0
1
?
1
1
1
I
c
S
Stopping Rules: 1
R. Pescador
Analyzed by
3/22/2012
Analysis date
a
Method (D=Direct, Nlndireet. IA=lndirect,
ashed)
I
1
st
If sample type = air. is there loo
or debris in the cowl? (Yes, No)
V
g
s
^
^
o
O)
c
T3
I
V
jS
3
o
t
S
•o
a
EC
Ifl
UJ
„
Counting rules
(ISO, AHERA, ASTM)
n
UJ
tM
1
(S
ra
1
a
6
Target Sensitivity:
Cinnaminson
ter(s) storage location
Archive f
NotQA
Jot QA. Recount Same, Recount
e-prep, Verified Analysis,
on. Lab Blank, Interlab)
QA Type (t
Different, R
Reconcifiat
Right Wall
EPA Sample Number;
UJ
o_
Sample Type (A=Air, D=Oust,
DF = Dustfall):
e (L), dust area (cm2).
t container area (cm2)
Air volum
or dustfa
2/27/2012
S
I
Number of grids prepared
re
m
d
Prepared by
3/5/2012
Preparation date
o
in
O
0
•a
»
X
o
Grid opening area
{mm2)
-
!!
M
8
(/)
-
Q
JB
8
to
«0
Primary fitter area
(rnm2)
o
«?
to
Secondary Filter Area
(mm2)
•o
V
u.
Category (Field, Rep..
Dup., Blank)
?
J!I
Primary filter pore size
(um)
Iculation:
F-factor Ca
Indirect Prep Inputs
Fraction of primary filter used for
indirect prep or ashing
[Fortfustancidusffati, e/ifer J.O/
First resuspension volume or rinsate
volume {rnL}
Volume applied to secondary filter
(rriL) or used for serial dilution
0
<.
§
^
Inputs for Serial Dilutions
Second resuspension volume (ml)
Volume applied to secondary filter
{ml} or used for serna, dilution
Third resuspension volume (mL)
Volume applied to secondary filter
(ml)
Input for Ashing of Secondary Filter
Fraction of secondary filter used for
ashing
tj Q >,
£* fi g
U- Q
o
II
Eg
^
jy
3K
II
C/3
Q
o
"o
Q.
£
O
a>
w
Sketch/ Comments
Mineral Qass (see below)
S
Z
o
g
5
Identification
Dimensions
No of Structures
£
I
§
0)
I
.1
ol
3 3?
P
C
i
o
(5
•o
o
_^
II
—•
\
—
*
o
S
M-
S
£
—
—
it
,—
&
*•
o
w
^
^
• ^
^
"^
It
•^
-**
£
^
i£
«-
—
If
\
njj=....
31
?
^
«
O
-5*-
A
—
—
^
7
. — -
s
ci
<%
T=T
^_
O
—
\
—
4
O5
Q
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen..,-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Right WalI_D2_D7_02_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time: 119.26
Beam Voltage: 20.00
Count Rate: 991
Beam Current: 2.00
Dead Time: 36-23 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Right Wail_D2_D7_02_LA.pgt
FS: 640
SI
8
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: {406)293-9066 « FAX: {406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen.-.-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Right Wall_D2_D7_01_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
40.24
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
5525
2.00
Dead Time: 60.41 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Right Wall_D2_D7_Q 1 _LApgt
FS: 1200
Si
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL; (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 » www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...7-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Right Wall_4_D6_03_LA,pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
54.70
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
1037
2.00
Dead Time: 41.09%
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
2712Q0052_Right WallJ4_D6_03_LA.pgt
FS: 250
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT» §9923
TEL: {406)293-9066 • FAX: {406)293-7016 » www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen,..-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Right Wall_D4_D8_04_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time: 46.26
Beam Voltage: 20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
952
2.00
Dead Time: 35,11 %
Takeoff Angle: 57,98
271200052_Right WaII_D4_D8J)4_LA.pgt
FS: 320
Si
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 • FAX: (406) 293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC,
File: F:\Documen...2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Right Wall_D4_D10_05_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time: 31.99
Beam Voltage: 20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
2378
2.00
Dead Time: 43.29 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Right WaiLD4_D10_05_LA.pgt
FS: 480
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL; {406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
o
o
S I
i 1
1O c
C Q
8 i
« o
*- c
0 S 01
rn Ti fe
o
•o
g
M
SD
QL
33
(0
>•
§
UJ
T)
Analyze
CM
o
S
(D
13
_
>*
ro
c
<
D
--
T3
c
n
I
Ji
1
D
II
&
o lET
£
C
is
o
iculate 1
t
£
T3
ID
Estimati
O
52
E
11
•I<
§0
o t/y
s
LLJ
^
CJ
cation
^
&
OJ
03
O
c
o
«
c
«3
C
C
b
1
a>
i1
s
sn
!
ft"
isi
Hi
-------
4)
O>
D.
tr
LU
m
5
D
Z
CO
o
—3
CO
O
e
LU 2
I- u
wl
> w
CD w
m S
3 8
-Q
W
1
S
O
Z
LU
LU
LU
O
g
LU
O
(T
O
CO
Q
o:
CD
o
0
Q
LU
Q.
LU
CL
SAMPLE
0
LU
z w
m m
5 5
O
o
O
c
-------
o 5
O LU
O rf
CM f
CM
h-
CN
tr Q
LU y
m u
LU
w
CQ «
m a
I
(f)
CL
LU
<
o;
o
w
Q
CE
O
8
o
LU
Q.
§
o
z uu
LU Q.
SAMPLE
O
Z
LU
LU CL
CD m
o
o
ID
13
S
O)
Si
o g_
o
0
•Q
M
1
O
Is
8
M
U-
0,
/
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen..AEMSL27-2\EMSL27-22012\271200052J3oor_E1J27_01_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
59.06
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
1640
2.00
Dead Time: 40.63 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Door_E1_C7_01_LA.pgt
FS: 640
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen.,, \EMSL27-2\EMSL27-22012\271200052_Door_E1_E6_02_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
115.47
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
1146
2.00
Dead Time: 38.58 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
27 \ 20Q052_Door_E 1_E6_02_LA.pgt
FS: 1000
Si
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen.,.\EMSL27-2\EMSL27-22012\271200052_Door_E1_E6_03_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
36,27
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
2880
2.00
Dead Time: 48.32 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Door_E1^E6J)3_LA.pgt
FS: 540
Si
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 • FAX: (406) 293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen... \EMSL27-2\EMSL27-22012\271200052_Door_E3_C8_07_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
62.29
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
583
2.00
Dead Time: 33.91 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Door_E3_C8_07_LA.pgt
FS; 250
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 » FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...EMSL27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Door_E3_C10_15_LA,pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
72.42
20.00
Count Rate;
Beam Current:
676
2.00
Dead Time: 35.29 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Door_E3_C10_15_LA.pgt
FS: 360
Si
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 * www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
r
S>
c
O
D
*H r \
cT i I-n
to \ AS I
* KI/
01
3
cr
D
.£
i
s
I
Ifl
<
i i
c
i
uf>
8
O
1 I
1 1
s s
-i S
1 1
I 1
'c "E
i S
£• o
ro s
-
I?
ri
T) 3
C =
a »
s s
a. a.? S
^ °> 5 &
43° a;; =
3 O tj 3 21
g-B £S ~
— * -a 5 S
O.U. E t, (T
O
Q.
C
0}
^
c
2
•volume (ml)
Volume app^ii
1
(ml) or used
^s
1
an
a.
£
0)
?
m
Analyzed by
t™
S
s
n
a
S
*o
1-
S!
Q
ts
a>
"O
c
¥
5:
-
tj
£
T3
C
„-
Method (D=Direi
ashed)
•S
1
E
S
8 °"
•2 Z
a) .
II
-5« T
w 6
ff sample type =
or debris in the c
«0
E
1
=
o
Ui
c
iipeoi ai
a
Estimated partic
O
W
i"
vs
Counting rules
(ISO. AH ERA, A
S
•Jg
UJ
EC
ft
C
O
*3
Grict storage loc<
§
V)
I
eg
O
c
O
1
2
Archive filter(s) s
<
O
o
z
I
(3)
K »
f& V 1}
f^ tB
11
E^£
11'
O £ 03
^^2
QAType^NotQA. F
Different, Re-prep,
ReconcHiation, Lab
§
o
u
I
(cm2
(cm2
are
are
Air vol
or dus
Prepa
,
CD CM
£ e
I
<
cP
f*
E*
U-
cC
VJ
u,
r-
u.
a
C~
o
u.
£•
£
O
-------
0)
en
«>
SO vi
el
n z
3
T!
(U
D OJ
S£
OT
cn
c
•^ c
rK <»
u Q.
O
•c
O
o
-y\
o
o
8
&
s:
J
\
?
N
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen. ..SL27-2\EMSL27-22Q12\27120Q052_Window_F2_B1Q_Q2_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
31.40
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
1015
2.00
Dead Time: 35.48 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052 Window F2 BIO 02 LApqt
— _™. — — | ^-^
FS: 200
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, LIbby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406) 293-9066 » FAX: (406) 293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...MSL27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\2712QOQ52_Window_F2_D6_Q3_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
1176
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
3980
2.00
Dead Time: 54.51 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052 J¥indow_F2_D6J)3_LA.pgt
FS: 250
EMSL Analytical inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL; {406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
iMSL ANALYTICAL, INC,
File: F:\Documen...SL27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Window_F2_D10_07_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
35.98
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
691
2.00
Dead Time: 34,72 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
271200052_Window_F2__D1Q_07_LApgt
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: {406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen...MSL27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Window_F4_C9_08_LA.pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
12,02
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
3132
2,00
Dead Time: 78,79 %
Takeoff Angle: 57.98
* 271200052_Window_F4_C9_08_LApgt
FS: 280
Si
10
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 « www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
Qualitative Spectrum
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
File: F:\Documen.,.MSL27-2\EMSL27-2 2012\271200052_Window F4 F4 09 LA pgt
Collected: March 21, 2012 10:12:10
Live Time:
Beam Voltage:
17.54
20.00
Count Rate:
Beam Current:
3225
2.00
Dead Time:
Takeoff Angle:
49.25 %
57.98
271200052_Window_F4_F4_09_LA.pgt
EMSL Analytical Inc. 107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT, 59923
TEL: (406)293-9066 • FAX: (406)293-7016 • www.EMSL.com
Locally Focused... Nationally Recognized
-------
o
s
't
& t3
«
"5
o
c
'a
a
> y £
low
i 2 °
*o o *
IP * "5>
f 1 f
t- S |_
£ o
* 4
»o«;
||l
lp
111
C
s
(U
3
4
K!
o
u.
^ .1 tl |
c ^5 ,s= *-
Q.t I £
i
1 O
C
01
m
c
s
4J
E
3
O
0
c
Oi , —
8"E
13 £
i p
w ^
ll 1
S
Is
fi
ffi P3
Q tfl
Sfi
11
i» g
^ 3~
>H
^3
11
2 £
5 B
E
8
st
ta
•5
•s?
e
I
> w
OD to
m £
I
1
2
&
(
Q
s
•4
y.
>s
s
1
a
(0
g
1
£
D
Z
«
Q.
F
EPASa
_j
S
UJ
i name:
Laboraton
o
•r
C
(N
CV
?
3
03
•o
! Analysis
Q.
s
d
D
<
II
<_
11
>- »
f:
Voltage («
s@ material
type " air. is there loc
in the cowl? (Yes, No
If sample
or debris
§
^f
CM
J3
ra
>.
J2
•D
0>
>
'£
Date rec
X
g
cn
c
o
1
1
>
fi filter {%)
d particulate loading o
Estimate
if;
o
(M
Number:
Lab Job
,
o
O9
C
8.
o fj
c E
C
H
W
<
ta
0) <
3 IK
•- UJ
C ^
id
o —
o
S
fs*
tfl
0
O
CM
g
iple Nunrt
5
-Q
as
n
1
t/3
S£
5
u
r.
CD
T3
5
i
(Q
d
S
«
S
cs
*o
Number
u
Q
ID
s
CO
(
'i
C
c
C
g
ID
?
O
n
1
S
ic
&
E
m
d
ja
g
a
a
i
S
Ii
%
^
ecount
tot QA, Recount Same, R
?e-prep. Verified Analysis,
lion. Lab Blank Intertab)
— • "- ra
ai — - =
6c o
91 C
oh K
e\
o
w
n
ion date
Preparat
o
s
i£
Secondary
Kmm2)
1
"c
C
t
f
a
1
T
C
c
c
£
i
I
f,
c
^
t
•?
LL
S
BS
y g
g
z
a
i_
I
|
z
o
EPA CO
UL
a.
a;
ir
1 _
y- S2"
Category (
Dup."Blan
A
*
1
o
fe provided t
data in appropriate ce
S
S
3re size (um)
a
&
CO
i
I,
er pore size
i_
CO
II
cn
O
I
i
s.
ii
c
,
,
.
V
see belo
eral Class
S
c
.S
"?
|
«
1
tfi
5
:>
i
o
5
Z
o
o
5
s
I
JC
f
Si
_r
3
^
«
Q.
>s
%
M
U
5
S
3-
o
g
J
C3
a
S
1
g
cj
o
£
5
o
a
i.
A
§
s
f
O
•s.
-------
INTERNAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY
3/2/2012 4:27:05 PM
Order ID: 271200062
Attn: Robert Marriam
Remedium Group, Inc.
Subsidiary of W.R. Grace
6401 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301
Memphis, TN 381 19
Fax: (901)820-2061
Project: RN990272.003 00001
Phone: (901)820-2023
Customer ID:
Customer PO:
Received:
EMSL Order:
EMSL Proj ID:
Cust COC ID
REME44
03/02/12 2:10 PM
271200062
Burn House
Test: TEM 6480
Matrix Wipe
TAT: 2 Week
Qtv: 1
AcctSts: N30 Slsprsn: rdemalo
Inter- Lab Sample Transfer
Samples Relinquished: Date
Samples Received: Date
Package Mailed to Westmont: Date
Method of Delivery:
Includes: (Circle)
Benehsheets Samp
Micrographs GridB
Final Package Received:
Special Instructions
Logged: rm
Sample
Condition:
Comments
Initial Prep (Ini
ahoney Date: 3/2/2012
5~»
e Slides Sample filters
ax Other .......
Grid Prep (Initials/Lab): d)o Date-R//c5J?o*2.
\r-or Special Projects Use Only
QC Selection: Date:
I Date Packaqe
Date Packaqe
Review: Date:
Mailed: Date:
• •• • . --- -
1
Jrder ID Lab Sample # Cust. Sample # Location
Due Date
71200062 271200062-0001 Wipe sample burn hut 3/16/2012 2:10:00 PM
EMSL Analytical. Inc.. 107 West 4th StreetJ-ibbv. MT
Page 1 of 1
-------
"i
ORY
a
2
Cfi
1
o
r-~
o
SL Analytica
Mt 59923
E
%
u
K
O
^3
5§
•<
as
*5
il
a
ou
». u
^ J
a- u
RKS
RE
U
o
c
U
SJ3UIEJU03 JO "OKI
o
o
o
I
OS
Xt
il
A
«
J2'
a
o
_; ^^
§1
PQ
COLLEC
S.Terl!
OH
a
tf
*g
su
Q2 Qu^
FIELD
SAMPLE
12"xl2"sheetrock
behind oil
o
(N
-------
sisA|euv
I
o
§
O
I
i
•
nj
I
re
S
c
of
R
esoc
X
5
v/1
-A
9
%
0.
C5
LHI
-------
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
107 West 4th Street, Libby, MT 59923
Phone: (406)293-9066 Fax: Email: mobUeasbesiosiab@emsl.com
Attn Robert Marriam
Remedium Group, Inc.
Subsidiary of W.R. Grace
6401 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301
Memphis, TN 38119
Fax: (901)820-2061 Phone: (901)820-2023
Project: RN990272.003 00001
Customer ID:
Customer PO;
Received:
EMSL Order:
EMSL Proj:
Analysis Date:
REME44
03/02/12 2:10PM
271200062
Burn House
3/22/2012
Test Report; Asbestos Analysis of Wipe Samples Using Method ASTM 6480-05
SAMPLE ID
AREA
SAMPLED
(cm'}
ASBESTOS ASBESTOS Sensitivity CONCENTRATION
TYPE STRUCTURES (str/cm2) (str/cm2) COMMENTS
Wipe sample
burn hut sheet
rock
27tsoooe2-ooot
929 None Detected
<2.99
149
<446
Initial report from 03/23/2012 18:16:06
Anatyst(s)
Ray Pescador (1)
R. K. Mahoney, Laboratory Manager
or other approved signatory
Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted-
Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. IJbby, MT
Test Report TEMMicro-7.21.0 Printed: 3/23/20126:16:06 PM
THIS IS THE LAST PAGE OF THE REPORT.
-------
a
!
I
1
S3
•£ IB
1 O
«
l-r E
u> B
Q o y £
1
3
&
eg
«i
m t«
m £
•Q
S
1
h-
S
M
0)
Q.
CO
i
yj
xi
8
a.
CD
C
c
Hi
J! jc
.S-x
^
n
•z.
"5.
(L
UJ
S.
UJ
(I)
c
Er*
3
s
flS
_f
o
C!
<*?
J
ra
«i
>>
c
UJ
a.
S
Q
II
Q
II
4) =•
1=
1- «
flj Li,
*
1
I
Q
X
O
09
O
5
en
ss
a
IJv
0^
4J
1
D3
•g
£
«
d particula
j)
US
LU
CM
g
o
N.
CNI
LJ
S
xa
o
_i
CO
o
o
I
03
CD
0*
|1
o
s"
1
(S
3K
c ^
|o
O
S
f
<
!
S3
ci
>•
1
a.
m
CD
S
[fl
£-
ro CM
II
O
0
•^
o
* ^J1
ra c: oj
si|
| i a
S. > J
s ii"
"iT -S
as i
'"I 8
Q' Q K
O
S
»
T!
S
03
a
a.
o
ro
ter Area
u.
£*
CD
11
C
O
o
01
IX
n
g
c
Calculatior
0
IS
u.
ul
72.0003
301
o G->
o> °
CTJ
Z
-s.
5
o
^
w
eral Cla
c
*
3
c
o
ift
b
o
tfi
2
3
O
r*
Q
6
z:
Structure
c
'c
a
c
C
C
X!
C
o
Q
yj
H
o
jy
o)
1
1
1
i
)
2
u
O
5
3
3
-C
T3
i
c
03
1
,,
ra
t
Q.
1
1-
B
L
§
N
V^
S
S
O
^
g
oc
2
0
?
^
M
h
§
£
§
u.
Q
«
g
,8
s s
-
-------
APPENDIX E
Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Duff and Ash
-------
Report Number: 40970
/ZGALBRAITH
W^ 1. i B 0 it A T Q K I ! S, INC.
Report Date: 2012-04-03
Laboratory Report
Report prepared for:
Dr Dahman Touati
Arcadis US Inc
SteF
4915 Prospectus Dr
Durham, NC 27713
Phone: 919-541-3662
Fax: 919-544-5690
Email: dtouatii5)arcadis-us.com
Report prepared by:
Debbie S Robertson
Purchase Order:
For further assistance, contact:
Debbie S Robertson
Report Production Coordinator
PO Box 51610
Knoxville.TN 37950-1610
(865)546-1335
debbierobertson@aalbraith.coni
Sample: Duff Sample
Lab ID: 2012-Q-7299
Analysis Method
11 5: Ash
ASTMD31 74-11
302: Loss on Drying (LOD)
ASTMD3173-11
810: Volatile Matter
ASTMD3175-11
811: Fixed Carbon (Calculated)
Calculation
C : Carbon
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure ME-12
Cl : Chlorine
GLI Procedure ME-4<\
d08: Oxygen by difference
Calculation
H : Hydrogen
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure ME-12
N : Nitrogen
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure ME-12
S : Sulfur
GLI Procedure E16-2
Received:
Result
36.34 %
9.00 %
49.65 %
14.01 %
34.064 %
34.165%
240 ppm
27.47 %
4.140%
4.133%
0.970 %
0.856 %
< 0.05 %
2012-03-28
Basis
Dried and
Ground
As Received
Dried and
Ground
Dried
Dried and
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Dried
Dried and
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Amount
1 056.73 mg
1 00.20 g
1 056.73 mg
Calculation
2.503 mg
2.41 8 mg
505.95 mg
Calculation
2.503 mg
2.41 8 mg
2.503 mg
2.41 8 mg
177.19 mg
Date (Time)
2012-03-30
2012-03-28
2012-03-30
2012-04-03
2012-03-30
2012-03-30
2012-04-02
2012-04-03
2012-03-30
2012-03-30
2012-03-30
2012-03-30
2012-03-30
ZZY: Grind
Copyright 2012 Galbraith Laboratories, Inc.
Reported results are only applicable to the item tested.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
Page 1 of 2
-------
Report Number: 40970
gjGALBRAITH
•^ itSOKATOKItS, INC.
Report Date: 2012-04-03
GLI Procedure G-8
Completed Dried
Direct
2012-03-29
Signatures:
Published By: Debbie.S.Robertson
• Physical signatures are on file.
• "Published By" signature indicates authorized release of data.
2012-04-03121:15:51.45-04:00
Copyright 2012 Galbraith Laboratories, Inc.
Reported results are only applicable to the item tested.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Report Number: 41240
/ZGALBRAITH
W^ 1. i B 0 it A T Q K I ! S, INC.
Report Date: 2012-04-12
Laboratory Report
Report prepared for:
Dr Dahman Touati
Arcadis US Inc
SteF
4915 Prospectus Dr
Durham, NC 27713
Phone: 919-541-3662
Email: dtouati@arcadis-us.com
Report prepared by:
Pat B Delozier
Purchase Order:
RB70756
For further assistance, contact:
Pat B Delozier
Report Production Coordinator
PO Box 51610
Knoxville.TN 37950-1610
(865)546-1335
DatdelozieriSaalbraith.com
Sample: Duff Sample Run #EX-LT-ASH-021 312
Lab ID: 2012-Q-7949 Received:
Analysis
11 5: Ash
Method
ASTMD31 74-11
302: Loss on Drying (LOD)
ASTMD3173-11
810: Volatile Matter
ASTMD3175-11
C : Carbon
Cl : Chlorine
H : Hydrogen
N : Nitrogen
S : Sulfur
ZZY: Grind
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure ME-4<\
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure ME-12
GLI Procedure E1 6-2
GLI Procedure G-8
Result
95.16%
0.75 %
5.39 %
1 .78 %
61 4 ppm
< 0.5 %
< 0.5 %
< 0.5 %
Completed
2012-04-05
Basis
Dried and
Ground
As Received
Dried and
Ground
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Ground
Ground
Dried and
Ground
Dried
Amount
1 052.03 mg
1 99.93 g
1 052.03 mg
1.791 mg
506.66 mg
1.791 mg
1.791 mg
42.46 mg
Direct
Date (Time)
2012-04-11
2012-04-09
2012-04-11
2012-04-11
2012-04-11
2012-04-11
2012-04-11
2012-04-10
2012-04-10
Signatures:
Published By: pat.b.delozier
• Physical signatures are on file.
• "Published By" signature indicates authorized release of data.
2012-04-12121:13:35.223-04:00
Copyright 2012 Galbraith Laboratories, Inc.
Reported results are only applicable to the item tested.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
Page 1 of 1
-------
APPENDIX F
Chain of Custody Forms
-------
3
£
o
0»
-e
o
1
u
o
c
05
c
o
PH
O
«! m
H »C3s
13 <"
G •*-•
£
S rS
W •-)
REPORT FOR
ELECTRONIC
MARKS
O
o
PROJECT NUM
RN990272J
+*
O
3
O
^H
I*
5 •*-
6^
E
Burn
S
e H
w
U
»3
1 8
£ u
Q
o
U
u
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Project Name
Project Location
Sampling Location
Project Number
Laboratory
Laboratory P.O. #
USEPA
RTF, NC
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RN990272.0003
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
Sample ID
EX-HT-MCE-02A-12221 1
74.87 dry standard liters
EX-HT-MCE-02B-122211
78.92 dry standard liters
EX-HT-MCE-Q2C- 1 222 1 1
75.95 dry standard liters
EX-HT-MCE-02D-12221 1
82.62 dry standard liters
EX-HT-ASH-J21911
EX-HT-ASH-122211
Notes/Comments: |
J/i taMaLt ektu.U A^^ k«^ i
Relinquished By: ^»f*:\J|e 1~JC.£JL
Date/Time: izJ^i/N 1
Received By: T ?c LML e./Ltm*~f**> /WJ-
7
JL S^Ci/ct^HJ^L Relinquished By:
t CC» , Date/Time:
- jLt/^3%3L Received By:
I £^t5 Date/Time:
Analysis Requested
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
Tt+d ~n*+r». A-~ ^2p£/,^54e=- -
/A-23- u /i.r**r
glfnt^JL**^- ft X,tf)aiit>***,
Ith-t/ii /¥ 3c
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Phone Number: (919)544-4535
Fax Number: (919) 544-5690
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Project Name
Project Location
Sampling Location
Project Number
Laboratory
Laboratory P.O. #
USEPA
RTP, NC
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
RN990272.0003
EMSL Analytical. Inc.
Sample ID
EX-MCE Hot Blank-OlA-12151 1
156.54 dry standard liters
EX-HT-MCE-03 A- 1 228 1 1
48.44 dry standard liters
EX-HT-MCE-03B- 12281 1
75.58 drv standard liters
EX-HT-MCE-03C- 1 228 1 1
78.72 dry standard liters
EX-HT-MCE-03D-122811
70.76 drv standard liters
EX-MCE Hot Blank-02A-12291 1
3 17.03 dry standard liters
EX-HT-ASH-122811
Notes/Comments: |
>"O /
Relinquished By: /^C~^£«~-
Date/Time: __ ^J^/T<$ f2£J*
Received By: *Q-i*?ra~-/ O^f «=
Date/Time: j^j - ,3»<3 •
Sample Matrix
MCE filter cassette
MCE filter cassette
MCE filter cassette
MCE filter cassette
MCE filter cassette
MCE filter cassette
Ash
~{f Relinquished By:
/ Date/Time:
a^5i»»_ Received Bv:
| ^ Date/Time:
Analysis Requested
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
M£ '7ft 'ftM&xua*^- ( tft si
S/JJJZ, ^J^5~
ARC ADI S U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Phone Number: (919) 544-4535
Fax Number: (919) 544-5690
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Burn Hut #1 Outlet Duct
[EX-IMP Hot BIank-01-121511
64.005 dry standard_cubic feet
EX-HT-IMP-03-122811
36/707 _diy_standardcubie feet
EX-IMP Hot Blanic-02-122911
!! standard cubic feet
[Sample Matrix
Impinger DIH2U and DIH2O Rinse
Impinger DI H2O and DI H2O Rinse"
Impinger DI H2O~and bfJCO Rinse"
Analysis Requested
asbestos
asbestos
asbestos
Relinquished Bv:
Date/Time
——™-——»»____
Received By:
Date/Time:
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Phone Number: (919) 544.4535
Fax Number: (919) 544-5690
-------
Sample Volumes
Standard Conditions of 68°F and 29.92 inches Hg
ample Volume, dscf
Sample Volume, dsl
; Hot Biank-q-s i
l°_t Blanlf 01-12 151 1
Hot BJank-i"i 2 15 11 " " "
776.96
1816.87
11814.63
"l56,54
26,527
4.3;422
42.102
2.703
2.670
.2 "599"
2.667"
- 12 IB 1
EX :HT:MCE-qB-12 191 1
"
EX-HT-M CE-pip-121 91 i"
EX- HT:PMq2-1222 1 i
i~M P -02-1222 i "i
EX-HT:M CE-q2B-12 22 1 1
EX:Hf-Mci-02C-1222 1 i
EX:HT:MCE-q2 0-1222 1 1
: 1!:!? • s-M-i? 2? i
EX:HT-"PM03-1 228 11
1038.46
48.44
75.58
78.72
70.76
EX:HT: MCE-03 B- 12 28 1 1
...
EX:PM Hot Bla n k-02- 122 91 i
EX-IM P Hot Blank-bi-'liSil
EX-MCE Hot Bla n k-02 A- 12 2 9ii
756.43
1110.42
1060.95
317.03
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Projccl Name
Project Location
Sampling Location
Project Number
Laboratory
Laboratory P.O. #
USEPA
RTF, NC
Burn Hut #1
RN990272.0003
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
Sample ID
BH1 -Left Wall
BH1 -Right Wall
BH1 -Front Wall
BH1 -Rear Wall
BH1 -Ceiling
BHi -Floor
Sample Matrix
Sponge Wipe
Sponge Wipe
Sponge Wipe
Sponge Wipe
Sponge Wipe
Sponge Wipe
Analysis Requested
ASTM-6480
ASTM-6480
ASTM-6480
ASTM-6480
ASTM-6480
ASTM-6480
Notes/Comments:
Relinquished Bv:
Date/Time:
Received Bv:
Date/Time:
jarfy ^Vi&A*^
-------
APPENDIX G
Certificates of Accuracy for EPA Protocol Gases
-------
1PRAXAIR
DocNumber: 000010098
Praxair Distribution Mid-Ailniilir
145 Shimcrsvillc Rd.
Bethlehem, PA 18015
Telephone: (610)317-1608
Kacsimile: (610)758-8382
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS / EPA PROTOCOL GAS
J
Customer & Order Information:
CHEROKEE INSTRUMENTS INC *
901 BRIDGE ST
FUQUAY VARINA NC 2J75260
Praxair Order Number: 16230993
Customer P. O. Number: 11207
Customer Reference Number:
Certified Concentration:
fill Dale: 3/21/2011
I'ari Number. Nl CD19O5ZE-AS
lal Number; 917108033
Cylinder Stylt A Oulkr AS CGA S9Q
Cllilkkr Pre-xnrt A I'oliilix: 2000 |>S|Q 140cuft
Expiration Date:
Cylirx er Number:
4/3/2014
CC350219
17.80 % CARBON DIOXIDE
21.60 % OXYGEN
Balance NITROGEN
N 1ST Traceable
Analytical Uncertainty:
±1 %
±1 %
Certifcation Information: CertifiCc
This cylinder was certified ace
Do Not Use this
tionDate: 4/3/2011 Term: 36 Months Expiration Date: 4/3/2014
irding to the 1997 EPA Traceability Protocol, Document #EPA-600/R-97/121, using Procedure G1
Standard if Pressure is less than 150 PSIG
Analytical Data:
1 .
2
Component: CARBON DIOXIDE
Requested Concefitralion
Certified Concentration:
Instrument Used
Analytical Method
Lasl Multpoint Calibration.
First Analysis Data:
Z: 0 R: 18 1
R: mi Z: 0
2: 0 C: 1782
UOH: *
Component: OXYGEN
Requested Coneentralion:
Certified Concentration:
Instrument Used
Analytical Melhcd
Lasl Mul'.ipoinl Calibration
First Analysis Data:
2: 0 R: 2296
R: 22.98 Z: 0
2: 0 C: 2164
UOM: %
ia
17
S
N(
3/
C:
C:
R:
M,,..
21
21
SI
'.-,
'•
C:
C:
9.:
IBM
ference Standard
••:,
60%
Z-Zsro Gas, C-Gl
WENS ULTRAMAT SE SN 02^112
IN-DISPERSIVE INFRARED
BOTH
Date:
17.8 Cone:
17 a Cone:
16 1 Cone:
I Test Assay:
75%
60%
3S6/2011
1779
1779
1781
17 797 %
IMENS OXYMATSE S/N F1-111
RAMAGNETIC
0(2011
Date:
21.62 Cone:
2164 Cone:
22 98 Cone:
i Test Assay:
40(2011
21589
21SQ9
21 509
21 602 %
Analyzed by:
?obin Morgai
Reference Standard Type:
Ref. Sid. Cylinder # :
Ref Std COOK
Ref. SW. Traceable lo SRM *
SUM Sample*:
S RM Cylinder H
Second Analysis Oata:
G.VIIS
SA18907
18 09 %
2745
9-C-34
C AL01 6063
Z: 0
R: 0
Z: 0
UOM: •
S:
Z:
C:
Date:
Cone:
Cone:
Cone:
Reference Standard Type:
Ref Sid. Cylinder * :
Ref Sid Cone
Ref. Sid Traceable lo SRM f
SRM Sample*:
SRM Cylinder #
Second Analysis Data:
Mean Test Assay:
GUIS
CC14600
2294%
71-D-27
CAU015750
Z: 0
R: 0
2: 0
UOM: %
Date:
Cone:
Cone:
Cone:
Mean Test Assay:
Certified by:
0
0
C
Michelle Kostik
Information contained heffitn has
methods employed and IS complete to the ex!e t of the specific
information is offered wiih Ins understanding In
use of Ihe information con lamed herein exceet
been prepare! i at your lequest by qualified exparts within Praxair Distribute, inc While we belioue that
-------
1PRAXAIR
DocNumber: 000005848
Praxair Distribution Mid-Atlantic
145 Shimcrsviile Rd.
Bethlehem, PA 18015
Telephone: (610)317-1608
1-acMiiiile: (610)758-8.382
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS / EPA PROTOCOL GAS
I
Customer t? Onlff Information:
CHEROKEE INSTRUMENTS INC"
901 BRIDGE ST
FUQUAY VARINA NC ^75260
Praxair Order Number; 14207205
Customer P. O, Number: 10773
Customer Reference Number:
Certified Concentration:
6/10/2010
fan rVunfer Ml CD905L AS
la Number: 917022263
Cylinder Style # (Juliet AS CGA 590
('rlmltr Pressure if I 'about: WOO psig 140 cud
Expiration Date:
Cylinder Number:
8/19/2013
CC231945
9.28 % CARBON DIOXIDE
8.94 % OXYGEN
Balance NITROGEN
MIST Traceable
Analytical Uncertainty:
±1%
±1%
Cerlifcation Information:
This cylinder was
Do Not Use this Standard if Pi
Certification Date: 8/19/2010 Term: 36 Months Expiration Date: 8/19/2013
certified according to the 1997 EPA Traceability Protocol, Document SEPA-6QO/R-97/121, using Procedure G1
assure is less than 150 PSIG
Analytical Data:
(R-R
1 . Component: CARBON DIOXIDE
Requested Concentration.
Certified Concentration
Instrument Used.
Analytical Method
Last Multipoint Calibration
First Analysis Data:
Z: a R: 1C.26
R: 1026 Z: 0
Z: 0 C: 928
UOM: %
2 . Component: OXYGEN
Requested Concentration
Certified Concentration
Instrument Used.
Analytical Mslhtxl
Last MuKipoml Calibration
First Analysis Data:
Z: 0 R: 2306
R: 2308 Z: 0
Z: 0 C: B 96
UOM: %
J
9
S
N
II
C:
C:
R.
DM
9
9
S
n
71
C:
C:
R:
Hn
9/erenca Standard. Z=Zero Gas, C=Gas Candidate)
K
28%
EMENS ULTRAMAT 5E SN: D2-412
3N-DISPERSIVE INFRARED
12/2010
Date: 8/1 9/20 10
9 28 Cone: 9 26
S.26 Cone: 928
1026 Cone: 928
nTesl Assay: 928%
A
34%
EMENS OXYMAT SE S/N F1-11 1
IRAMAGNETIC
J2.2010
Dale: 8/17(2010
896 Cone: 8.943
8.96 Cone: 8943
2302 Cone: 8943
n Test Assay: 8943 'A
Reference Standard Type:
Ref Sid, Cylinder #•
Ref. Sid Cone
Re! Sid Traceable to SRM *
GM1S
CC 167398
10.26%
2745
SRM Sample S 9-C-04
SRM Cylinder *
Second Analysis Data:
Z: 0 R: D
R: 0 Z: 0
Z: 0 C: 0
UOM: %
Reference Standard Type:
Ref Std Cylinder*
Ref Sid Cone
Ref Std Traceable to SRM «
: CAL016D31
Date:
C: 0 Cone: Q
C: 0 Cone: 0
R: 0 Cone: 0
Mean Test Assay: 0 %
GMIS
CC153216
23.01 %
26S9a
SRM Sample*: 71-0-07
SRM Cylinder*
Second Analysis Data:
Z: 0 R: 0
R: 0 Z; 0
Z: 0 C: 0
UOM: %
CAL015449
Date:
C: 0 Cone: 0
C: 0 Cone: 0
R: 0 Cone: 0
Mean Test Assay: 0 %
Analyzed by:
Certified
Ashley Davila
ichelle Kostik
Information contained heroin has been
melhods employed and is com;
information is offered wilh the undersl
use ol" the inforrratrcn con tanned herein ex>
prepared al your rsquesl by qualiHed exp&rts wilhTi Praxair DisSribulion, inc. Whde we befjeve (ha! irw information ss accurate within tfte limits of !he analyl-Mf
ipJeie 10 Uie exter I of the specific analyses performed, we make no warranty or representation as lo the suitability o( the use of the information lor any purpose The
landing thi t any use of the .'nformalion is al Ihe sols discretion and risk of the user. In no event shall trio liability of Praxair D&tnbutwn, inc.. arising out o-1 t^e
;ce@c Ihe fea estabitshed f& providing such information.
-------
I
Praxair Distribution Mid-Atlantic
145 Shimersville Rd.
Bethiehem,PA180l5
Telephone: (610)317-1608
Facsimile: (610) 758-&3S2
Customer & Order information:
CHEROKEE INSTRUMENTS INC'
901 BRIDGE ST
FUQUAY VARINA NC 275260
Exp
Cyii
ration Date:
ider Number
899 ppm
Balance
10/3/2014
CC1 76394
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN
NIST Traceable
Analytical Uncertainty:
± 1 %
Certifcation Information:
This cylinder was
Do Not Use [his Standard if F
PGVPID3F12Q11
Analytical Data:
1 . Component: CARBON MONOXIDE
Requested Ccncen:rat:on:
Certified Cc-ncentrattcn:
Instrument Used:
Analytical Method'
Lasl Mulapoint Calibration:
Certification Date:
10/3/2011 Term: 36 Months Expiration Date: 10/3/2014
certified according to the 1997 EPA Traceability Protocol, Document *EPA-600/R-97/121, using Procedure G1
ressure is less than 150 PSiG
(R* teferense StenOard, 2=Ze/o Gas, C^Gas CsntSdate>
100 ppm
399 ppm
-IORIBA VIA-3COO S.'N Y9EY78LS
IDW
First Analysis Data:
Z: 0 R: 8fl7
R: 987 Z: 0
Z: 0 C: 896
UOM: PPM
C
C
R
M
r.-.;-?:
S97 Cone
397 Cone:
686 Cone:
ran Test Assgy:A
gas20ii
S3Q.03
900 S3
889.03
899.7 PPM
Analyzed by:
Informat;on ccrsainsd fisrain has
metticds sr>pto>'Bd
informaiiDn is oiTered wKh the understanding
use o: the information can tain&ti r.otsin
Praxair Order Number: 17906415
Customer P. O. Number: 11496
Customer Reference Number:
Certified Concentration:
fill Date: 9/21(2011
!'tm Number: Ml CQ900E-AS
LMNimtHn 817126-132
Cylinder Style &Oittkt: AS CGA350
<.~?litiacr?KssitK& yalatae. 2QCO psig 14QCU ±
Reference Standard Type: GMIS
Rsf. Std. Cylir.der# : CC2393S1
Ref. Std. Cone 890 PPM
Ref. SW. Traceable to SSM#: '16SOB
SRMSampte*: 2-1-05
CAL01S744
Second Analysis Data:
Z:
R:
Z:
DOM:
0
9S3
0
PPM
H:
Z:
C:
9SO
0
895
C:
C:
R:
S9t
ass
as?
Date:
Cone:
Cone:
Cone:
Mean Test Assay:
10J3HQ11
89<3
ess
89I>
395.6? PPM
Oo
Certified by:
Robin Morgan
in prepa ed at your recast by qualified experts wisnin ,°raxair DistfibqSon, Inc. WMle we bei:eve Lhal the inform alien is acajrats withjn ihe limils of lha analytical
the spedfic analyses performed, we make no warranty
-------
IPRAXAIR
QocNumber: 000012276
Praxair Distribution Mid-Atlantic
145 Shimersville Rd.
Bethlehem, PA 18015
Telephone; (610)317-1608
Facsimile: (610)758-5382
.'. --.--.' - - •
Customer & Order fnfortntitwn:
CHEROKEE INSTRUMENTS INC *
901 BRIDGE ST
FUQUAYVARINA NC £75260
Praxair Order Number: 17368288
Customer P. O. Number: 11391
Customer Reference Number:
Certified Concentration:
Fit! Dale: 7/14/2011
farlfUmlur: Ml CO450E-AS
Lot Numb*" 917119648
Cruder Style & Oalel: AS CGA350
Cylinder Pressure A I'alttare. 2MO psig 14QcufL
Exp
Cylir
ration Date: 7/26/2014 MIST Traceable
der Number SGS160204 Analytical Uncertainty:
452 ppm CARBON MONOXIDE ± 1 %
Balance NITROGEN
Certffcotion Information: Certification Date: 7/26/2011 Term: 36 Months Expiration Date: 7/26/2014
This cylinder was certified ao ;ording to the 1997 EPA Traceability Protocol, Document #EPA-SOO/R-97/121, using Procedure G1
Do Not Use this Standard if Pressure is less than 150 PSIG
PGVP ID#F12G11
Analytical Data:
1 . Co.Tiponent: CARBON MONOXIDE
Requested Concentration: -
Certified Concentration:
Instrument U&sd:
Analytical Msitioa:
Last Matipoini C
ffi=fjteferei?ce Standard, Z-Zara Gas, C=Gas Candidate)
50 pprn
ppm
HORIBA VIA-30CX) S/N Y9EY78L6
MOIR
(I30Q011
First Analysis Data;
Z: 0 R: 498
R: 4S6 Z: D
Z: 0 C: 446
UOM: PPM
C:
C:
R:
Me
Bate:
446 Cone:
•MB Cone:
498 Cone:
an Test Assay:
7«acoii
451.37
453.4
451 .57
452.05 PPM
Analyzed by:
Information eoniaried herein nss been
mElhads employst! and is torr.plsti
irfonmalicin is offered v,t
use o' th& information con tahed herein exi
Reference Standard Type:
Ref. Std. Cylinder #:
Ref. Std. Cone
Ref. Std. Traceable So SRM # :
SRM Sample *
SRM Cylinder tt
Second Analysis Oata:
Z: 0 R: 504
R: 503 Z: 0
Z: 0 C: 451
UOM: PPM
GMIS
SA13841
504 PPM
16SCt>
: 2-I-05
CAL015744
Date:
C: 45! Cone
C: 450 Cone:
Ft 503 Cone:
Mean Test Assay:
7/2SBQ11
451 £
4SO.E
451,6
451.26 PPM
Certified by.
Ashley Davila
Robin Morgan
request by qualified experts within Praxair Distribtj'Jor,. Inc. White WB balisva lhat ths informalion is accurate within IHe Bmils of the analytical
" irmed, we raahB rw warranty of representation 3S :o the suitability of She, use of the infornistton for any purposa. The
ith Hie understanding that any IBS of the information is at the sole discretion and risk of Ihe user. !n no svsfi! shal the Sabilily of Praxair Oisiributior. Inc., arising cut of tfia
(cs4d tha tea established for providirg such iaformetiorj.
prepgned at yojr f
aT.plete 10 the ext irrt of the ^aafic analyses pertorr
-------
DocNumber: DQ0013645
Praxair Distribution Mid-Atlantic
145ShimersvilIeRd.
Belhieheni, PA 18015
Telephone: (610) 3 i 7-1608
Facsimile: (610) 758-8382
. CEHiFIFI>
Customer & Order Informatio
CHEROKEE INSTRUt
901 BRIDGE ST
FUQUAYVARINA
- • •• -"- • •-••-:- "--;" .-.,•_-.- •. ... .; j :. ., ;^rr .-; • "-.... .-,-;• "•-,.;- ' -. . ... , ' .•.;- ..-".TT'V, -'..-... .-•. . ^'.^. ...'. .
nr
flENTSSNC* Praxair Order Number 179G641S fill not- 9I2O20U
Customer P. O. Number: 11496 A«M«4«r.- NIC0125E-AS
NC 275260 Customer Reference Number: lai****r 317126333
(ymkr Style &0*kl: AS COA350
Cylinder Pnstomi X Volume. 2000 pslg 140 cu. ft.
Certified Concentration:
Expir
Cylin
ationDate: 10/3>2014 NIST Traceable
ier Number CC42451 Analytical Uncertainty:
125 ppm CARBON MONOXIDE ± 1 %
Balance NITROGEN
J
Certifcaiion Information: Certification Date: 10/3/2011
Term: 36 Months
Expiration Date: 10/3/2014
This cylinder was certified according to the 1 997 EPA Traceability Protocol, Document #EPA-SOO/R-97/121 , using Procedure G1
Do Not Use this Standard if Pressure is less than 150 PSIG
PGVP IDS F1 2011
A naly ticul Data:
1 . Component:
Requested Concenjra'jcn:
Certified Ccncwitrgt:on
lns!nj.iicira Usafl:
Analytical Melted:
last Muitipo W Calfaration:
(R-Rafcfencs SJanrfwsl Z*2sro Gas, 0=Gai- <
CARBON MONOXiOE
125 ppm
12Bpprn
HtjJRIBA V1A-3000 S/N Y9EY7aLS
NDIR
First Analysis
Z: 0
R: 19B
Z: 0
UOM: PPM
Data:
R: 194
Zi 0
C: 125
C:
C:
H:
M«
125
125
tee
Dale:
Cone:
Cone:
Cone:
i Test Assay:
ar
124.79
124.78
124.79
12-1.7S PPM
Analyzed by:
Reference Standard Type:
RB!. Std. Cylinder* :
Ref. Std. Cone:
Ref. Std Traceable to SRK # :
SRM Sample!*:
SRMCyitider»:
Second AnaJysEs Data:
2: 3 R: 1SS C:
R: 133 K 0 C:
Z: 0 C: 126 R:
QMS
CC23S392
135 PPM
16SOt>
21 -WS
CAL015749
Date:
126 Cone:
125 Cone:
196 Cone:
UOM: PPM Mean Test Assay:
foraraon
125.36
125.35
125.3S
125.3B I'KM
Certified by: / -
Robin Morgan
Informatan contair^d harein has been prepare* at your rstjjesi by cualjjed experts wllnri Praxair Distribution, inc. Vkhle Vfs fcefevs that the informaiiori is accurate wilftn the fimrts of the analytical
methods employes and is complete to the exten of ihe spsdfic anaiysss perfonnecl, we mste no warrarsly or reprsssniaSon as to tre £Lit*Sity of the use of iho information for any purpose. The
information is offered with the understanding thai any uae csf the infonnation is a! tho sc.'s discretion and risk cf ihe user. In no event shall the liability of Praxair DisinbuUon. Inc.. arising out of the
use of the information con tainea herein oxcood me fea eslaBlished for provides such infomatid.n.
-------
PRAXAIR
DocNumber: oqOQ12465
Praxair Distribution Mid-Atlantic
145 Shimerevtllc Rd.
Bcthichem, PA 18015
Telephone: (610)317-1608
Facsimile: (610)758-8382
—
Customer & Order Information:
CHEROKEE INSTRUMENTS INC"
901 BRIDGE ST
FUQUAY VARINA NC 2752SO
Praxair Order Number: 17368288
Customer P. O Number: 11391
Customer Rejerewe Number:
Certified Concentration:
Fill ran: 7/25/2011
Part Number: NI C045ME-AS
917120746
AS GSA35D
Cylirtc/a-Pmsoire & Vahma: 2000 psig 140 eu. ft.
Expir
Cylin
ation Date: 8/8/2014 NIST Traceable
der Number: CC169591 Analytical Uncertainty:
45.6 ppm CARBON MONOXIDE ± 1 %
Balance NITROGEN
Certifcatlon Information; Certification Date: 8/8/2011 Term: 36 Months Expiration Dais: 8/8/2014
This cylinder was certified ace ording to the 1997 EPA Traceabiltty Protocol, Document #EPA-600/R-97/121, using Procedure G1
Do Not Use this Standard if P essurs is less than 150 PSIG
PGVPID#F12011
Analytical Dam:
1 . Component
Requested Concentration:
Certifiod Concentration- 4&6 ppm
instrument Used: HCRIBA VIA-3000 S/N YSEV7M.S
Anaf/ticai Method: NpIR
Last Multipoint Ca:ibration: 7J30/2011
(R-asletsiKS Standard. Z-Zero Sas, C=Gas Csntjidste)
CARBON MONOXI3E
First Analysis Data:
Z: 0 R: 49.8
R: 50 Zi 0
Z: 0 C: 453
OOM: PPM
C:
C:
R:
Me
45.S
45.5
S3
m Test/
Date:
Cone:
Cone:
Cone:
££<&•
,—H
e/1 ami
45.652
45.652
45.451
£5.5SS PPM
Rsfereree Slandarti Typo;
Ref. Std Cylinders:
Raf. Sid. Cone
Rsf. SW TracsablB to SRM # :
SRM Sample*:
SUM Cylinder*:
GMIS
CCSOS76
SO. 1 PPM
1 679c
3-I-37
FF28502
Second Analysis Data:
Z: 0 R: S0.2
R: SO Z: 0
Z: 0 C: 45.7
UOH; PPM
Date:
C: 45.7 Cone:
C: 15.7 Cone:
R: 50.1 Cone:
&oan Test Assay:
""sraaan
45.7
45.7
4S.7
4S.7 PPM
Certified by:
Ash
Robin Morgan
Information contained Herein has been prepared a! yo'jr request by qualified experts wlnin Praxair Distribution, he '.Vhile we believe that me information is accurate within the limits of the analytics)
me-Jiods emptoyad and is complete to the extent of the specifc a-alysas perfomned. we make no warrsn^ or rspresaritetior, as to tfie suiatifitjf of the use of the intorwafion for any purpose. The
information is offered with ids uidentanding tpa! ary USB of the information rs ai the sole discretion and rsk of «w user, (n ro avont shall lha CabJity of Praxair Distributnn. ln=., arising out of ihe
uss of Ihe hformaticn can tained herein cxcood the fee established :of providing such information.
-------
|AIR LIQUIDE I Air Liquids America
J Specialty Gases LLC
; SCOtt'
RATA CLASS
Dual-Analyzed Calibration Standard
1290 COMBERMERE STREET, TRJ3Y, M! 48083 Phone: 248-589-2950
CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY: EPA Protocol Gas
Fax: 248-589-2134
Assay Laboratory
AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA SPECIALTY
~f2'9~0~CO"WBERMERrSTREET~
TROY, MI 48083
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
GASES
P.O. No.: 59223-71-65000
LLC Document 8 : 43354000-002
Customer
CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING
QON-AL-L-EN
500 WEST WOOD STREET
PALATINE IL 60067
US
Gas Type :
APJALY 1IUAL lIMrUKmrt IIUIM uas i ype : wu^
This certification was performed according to EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay & Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards;
Procedure G-1; September, 7997.
Cylinder Number: CC30557 Certification Date: 040ct2011 ExpDate: °3Ott2014
Cylinder Pressure***: 2000 FpIG Batch No: TRO0043294
COMPONENT
OXYGEN
CARBON DIOXIDE
NITROGEN
CERTIFIED CONCENTRATION (Moles)
2.07 %
2.10 %
BALANCE
ACCURACY^
+ /- 1 %
+ /- 1 %
TRACEABILITY
Direct NIST and VSL
Direct NIST and VSL
**" Do not use when cylinder pressure is bftow 150 psig.
• • Analytical accuracy is based on the requirements of EPA Protocol Procedure G1, September 1997.
REFERENCE STANDARD
TYPE/SRM NO. EXPIRATION DATE
NTRM 2350
NTRM ZOOO
Q1Dec2011
01Jun2013
INSTRUMENTATION
INSTRUMENT /MODEL/SERIAL^
CAI/110PA/03018
VARIAW3400/10693
ANALYZER READINGS
CYLINDER NUMBER
KOI 6398
K026898
CONCENTRATION
23.20 %
5.006 %
DATE LAST CALIBRATED
!5Sep2011
16Sep2011
COMPONENT
OXYGEN
CARBON DIOXIDE
ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLE
PARAMAGNETIC
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
(2 = Zero Gas R = Reference Gas T = T8stlSas r = Correlation Coefficient)
First Triad Analysis
OXYGEN
Second Triad Analysis
Calibration Curve
Date: 040ct2011 Response Unit: 9i
Z1 =0.00000 R1= 23.20000 11=2.09000
R2 = 23.20000 Z2= 0.00000 72 = 2.09000
23 = 0.00000 T3 = 2.09000 R3 = |23.20000
Avg. Concentration: 2.068 %
CARBON DIOXIDE j
Date: 05Oct2011 Response Unit: AREA
Z1 =0.00000 R1 =264583.0 T1 =110947.0
R2 = 263017.0 Z2=0.00000 12 = 110916.0
Z3 = 0.00000 T3 = 110907.0 R3=J262998.0
Avo. Concentration: 2.102 %
Concentration = A + Bx ~ Cx2 +• Dx3 + £x4
r = 0.999998
Constants: A = -0.02240762
B = 1.00030E'795 C = 0
D = 0 E = 0._
Concentration = A + Bx + Cx2 + 0x3 -(-Ex4
r = 0.999993
Constants: A = -0.00267158
B = 1.89919E-05 C=0
0=0 E=0
APPROVED BY:
JEFF CR<
Page 1 of 1
-------
• AIR LIQUIDE
Air Liquids America
Specialty Gases LLC
1290 COMBERMERE
\ Scott'
RATA CLASS
Dual-Analyzed Calibration Standard
TREET, TROY, Ml 48083
Phone: 248-589-2950
Fax: 218-589-2134
CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY: EPA Protocol Gas
Assay Laboratory
P.O. No.: 57661-71-65000
AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA SPECIALTY GASES LLC Project No,: 05-80162-025
1290 COMBERMERE STREET
TROY. Ml 48083
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Customer
CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING
DON ALLEN
500 W. WOOD STREET
PALATINE IL 60067
This certification was performed according to EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay & Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards;
Procedure G-1; September. 1937.
Cylinder Number: ALM059575 Certification Date: 28Sep2009 Exp. Date: 27Sep2012
Cylinder Pressure1
COMPONENT
CARBON DIOXIDE
AIR
• Do not use when cylinder presjsure
Analytical accuracy is based on
2000 PSIG
CERTIFIED CONCENTRATION (Moles)
1,800 PPM
BALANCE
ANALYTICAL
ACCURACY * * TRACEABILITY
+ /- 1%
is below 150 psig.
the requirements of EPA Protocol Procedure G1, September 1997.
REFERENCE STANDARD
TYPEfSRM NO. EXPIRATlQfO
KTRM 2619 15Aug2013
INSTRUMENTATION
INSTRUMENT/MODEL/SERIALg
PIR/2000/609015
ANALYZER READINGS
DATE CYLINDER NUMBER
ALM060930
CONCENTRATION
5012. PPM
DATE LAST CALIBRATED
28Sep2009
COMPONENT
CARBON DIOXIDE
ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLE
NDI3
First Triad Analysis
(Z = Zero Gas R = Reference Gas T = Test Gas r = Correlation Coefficient)
Second Triad Analysis Calibration Curve
CARBON DIOXIDE
Response Unh:MVj
'87,90000 T1
Dale: 28Sep2009
Z1 = 0.00000 R1 =87,90000 T j =32-00000
R2 = B7.90000 22 = 0.00000 T2=32.10000
Z3 = 0.00000 T3 = 32.10000 R3 = 87.90000
Avg. Ccucenttation: 1798. IPPM
APPROVED BY:
Concentration = A + Bx * Cx2 + Ox3 -r Ex4
r- 0.999995
Constants; A = -2.0258154
6=54.69753075 C-0.077458B
D = -0.0005093 E-0
JEFF CROTEAU
-------
I AIR LIQUIDE | Air Liquids America
Specialty Gases LLC
RATA CLASS
Dual-Analyzed Calibration Standard
500 WEAVER PARK RD, LOMGMONT, CO 80501
CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY: EPA Protocol Gas
Phone: 888-253-1635
Fax: 303-772-767;
Assay Laboratory
AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA
500 WEAVER PARK RD
LONGMONT, CO 80501
P.O. No.: 57661-71-65000
SPECIALTY GASES LLC Project No.: 08-80873-001
Customer
CLEAN A!R ENGINEERING
DON ALLEN
500 W. WOOD STREET
PALATINE IL 60067
ANALYTICAL INFORM AT
ON
This certification was performed according to EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay & Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards;
Procedure G-1; September, 1997.
Cylinder Number: AAL20632 Certification Date: 050ct2009 Exp. Date: 040ct2012
Cylinder Pressure***: 2000 PSIG
ANALYTICAL
COMPONENT
CARBON DIOXIDE
AIR
*** Do not use when cylinder pre:
" Analytical accuracy is based on
CERTIFIED CONCENTRATION (Moles)
1,020 PPM
BALANCE
sure is below 150 psig.
the requirements of EPA Protocol Procedure G1, September 1997.
ACCURACY** TRACEABILITY
+ /- 1% Direct NIST and VSL
REFERENCE STANDARD
TYPE/SRM NO.
NTRM 2619
EXPIRATION, DATE
15Aug2013
CYLINDER NUMBER
ALM061048
INSTRUMENTATION
INSTRUMENT/MODEL/SERIALff
HORIBA/AIA-210/4276904010
ANALYZER READINGS
CONCENTRATION
5012. PPM
DATE LAST CALIBRATED
05Oct2009
COMPONENT
CARBON DIOXIDE
ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLE
NDIR
(Z = Zero Gas
First Triad Analysis
R = Reference Gas T = Test Gas
Second Triad Analysis
r = Correlation Coefficient)
Calibration Curve
CARBON DIOXIDE
Date: D5Oct2009 Response U»it:VO
Z1 = O.OOOOO Rl-0.50100 T =0.10300
HZcO.SOTOO Z2=O.OOOOO TJ-0.10300
Z3.0.00000 73 = 0.10300 H3-3.50200
Avg. Concentration: 1O17. iPPM
Concentration - A + Bx + CxZ + Dx3 + EK4
r = 0-9999S7
Constants: A--0.00177553
B= 1.0048298*;: C =
D= E =
APPROVED BY:
JON wrrzAK
1 n-f 1
-------
• AIR LIQUIDE
Air Liquide America
Specialty Gasss LLC
RATA CLASS
Dual-Analyzed Calibration Standard
1290 COMBERMERE STREET, TROY, Ml 48083
CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY: EPA Protocol Gas
Phone: 248-589-2950
Fax: 248-589-2134
Assay Laboratory
P.O. No.: 57534-71-65000
AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA SPECIALTY GASES LLC Project No.: 05-78153-006
1290 COMBERMERE STREET
TROY, Ml 48083
ANALYTICAL INFORMATI
Customer
CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING
DON ALLEN
500 W. WOOD STREET
PALATINE IL 60067
ON
This certification was performecj according to EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay & Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards;
Procedure G-1; September, 19917.
Cylinder Numbar: AAL9103 Certification Date: 27Jul2009 Exp. Date: 26Jul2012
2000 PSIG
ANALYTICAL
CERTIFIED CONCENTRATION (Moles) ACCURACY** TRACEABILITY
4.89 % +/- 1% Direct NIST and NMi
5.00 % +/- 1% Direct NIST and NMi
BALANCE
Cylinder Pressure
COMPONENT
CARBON DIOXIDE
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
1 Do not use when cylinder pressure is below 150 psig.
Analytical accuracy is based on ithe requirements gf EPA Protocol Procedure Gl. Saptamber 1997.
REFERENCE STANDARD
TYPE/SRM NO. EXPIRATION ! PATE
NTRM 2300 01Nov2010
NTRM 2350 01Dec20l1
INSTRUMENTATION
INSTRUMENT/MODEL/SERlALf
PIR/2000/609015
CA1/110P/V03018
ANALYZER READINGS
Hrst Triad Analysis
CARBON DIOXIDE
CYLINDER NUMBER
1D002807
KCH6398
CONCENTRATION
23.04 %
23.20 %
DATE LAST CALIBRATED
16JUI2009
01Jul2009
COMPONENT
CARBON DIOXIDE
OXYGEN
ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLE
Norn
PARAMAGNETIC
|Z = Zero Gas R = Reference Gas T = Test Gas
Second Triad Analysis
r = Correlation Coefficient)
Calibration Curve
Dale: 28Ju(2009 Rcsponsa LMt:MV
Z1 = O.OOOOO R1 = 102.5000 T1; = 36.50000
R2 = 10Z.5000 22 = 0.00000 13 = 36,50000
23 = 0.00000 73 = 36.50000 H3= 102.5000
Avg. Concentration: 4.888 %
Concentration = A + Bx + Cx2 + D«3 + En4
r= 0.999992
ConsUnts: A--0.0032Z681
B-0.13631533S C = -0.00057S4
D =1.402196-03 E = 0
OXYGEN
Dam: ZBJuIZOOS Response Unft:%
Z1"O.OOOOO B1-23.20000
H2 = 23.20000 Z2 = O,00000
Z3-0.00000 T3= 5.01000
Avg. Concentration: S.OO3
APPROVED BY:
Concentration « A +• En + Cx2.+ Dx3 + Ex4
1 = 0.999999
Conjtanti: A = -0.00675558
B-0.999S64&7-J C=0
-------
APPENDIX H: INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
August 13, 2012
Project Audited: Emissions of Amphibole Asbestos from the Simulated
Open Burning of Duff from Libby, MT
Project No: RN990273.0014.00001
Project Location: Open Burn Testing Facility (OBTF)
Audit Type: Data Quality
Audit Date: August 3-10, 2012
WA Leader: Dahman Touati
EPA WA Manager: Paul Lemieux
Auditor: Libby Nessley
ARCADIS/ORLS
QA Officer
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The goals of these tests were:
• To provide emission factors of LA fibers and PM less than or equal to 2.5 jim (PM2.5) to air
during a simulated open fire of duff collected from OU3;
• To provide estimates of the partitioning of LA fibers between air emissions and ash; and
• To determine how sensitive the results (both LA and PM2.5 release) are to burn temperatures.
The DQO for these tests was that measurements of LA and PM2 5 in the residual ash and air
emissions should be of sufficient precision and accuracy to allow EPA Region 8 to use the data
for an exposure assessment of USFS personnel who might operate in the vicinity of a forest fire
near Libby, MT.
The following measurements were deemed to be critical to accomplish the experimental DQO:
• Sample volume (dry basis);
• Exhaust duct volumetric flow rate (dry basis);
• Exhaust duct moisture level;
• Weight of the burned material;
• Run time, including sample times, feed times, and total burn time;
• PM2.s filter weight;
• Concentration of LA associated with PM2 5;
• Concentration of LA in the duff that was burned;
• Burn temperatures
• Exhaust duct temperatures
2.0 AUDIT ACTIVITIES
This was an internal audit of data quality (ADQ) performed by the ARCADIS ORLS QA
Officer, Libby Nessley. An ADQ requires a detailed review of the recording and transfer of raw
data, data calculations, documentation procedures and assessment of data quality indicator goals.
2.1 Audit Preparation
The following documents and information was used to perform the ADQ.
• Draft report titled Emissions ofAmphibole Asbestos from the Simulated Open Burning of
Duff from Libby, MT
• Category I QAPP titled Detailed QAPP for the Activities at the Burn Chamber Facility
• Project notebook (#2335)
• Electronic project files provided by the ARCADIS WA Leader
-------
2.2 Audit Scope
This was an internal ADQ performed by the ARCADIS QA Officer. Specific data reported in the
draft final report was randomly selected and traced back to the raw data found in the notebooks,
on data sheets or in electronic files.
2.3 Audit Activity
This audit concentrated on the data reported in Sections 4 (Results and Discussion) and 5
(Quality Control Evaluation Report) of the draft report. Data was randomly selected from the
tables and traced back to its origin in laboratory notebook entries, daily data sheets, electronic
files or analytical laboratory reports. In general, approximately 20% of the reported data was
reviewed. Copies of spreadsheets used to verify information in the report are included in
Attachment 1. Highlighted cells indicate cells that were checked and green means the data
matched the report was calculated or transferred correctly, yellow means there is inconsistency in
the report or the way the information is calculated in the spreadsheet.
3.0 SUMMARY
It was discovered that there were a number of inconsistencies between the first version of the
report (Duff Burn Report r5 072512_DT.docx) that was given to the auditor and the electronic
files being used to verify the data. When the ARCADIS WA Leader was asked about the
discrepancies, he indicated that the auditor had not received the latest version of the document.
At that time the most recent file (Duff Burn Report r5_revised.docx) was sent to the auditor to
use for the audit. The auditor also found several duplicated files in different folders in the
electronic files. This can be a problem if one goes in to change one file in a specific folder but
does not change all the files. In general, document control and file naming/storage procedures
could be improved. Specific issues found during the ADQ are detailed in Section 4.
4.0 Audit Results
This sections details specific audit findings and observations. Findings are items which could
have an impact on data quality and require corrective action. Observations are items that in the
opinion of the auditor do not have a detrimental effect on data quality and do not require a formal
response or corrective action.
Finding 1: Discrepancies in electronic files and data reported in tables. Inconsistencies found
in Tables 4-1 and 4-4 of the draft report. Using the EX-HT-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx file,
Summary Sheet for HT tests tab to compare the tables with, in Table 4-1, the Total Flue Gas
Volume for the first set of data (except the very first 2.06E+06) does not match the electronic
file. In Table 4-4, The T4 ant T6 temperatures don't match for the first Pre-Duff Sampling test.
Spreadsheets are included in Attachment 1. Green highlighted cells indicate data agreed with
that reported in the draft report, yellow highlighted cells indicated the numbers do not agree.
ARCADIS WAL Response: Tables 4-1 and 4-4 were corrected
Finding 2: Isokineticity for PM2.5 for the low temperature blank not putting from the right
-------
data set. In the Isokineticity calculation (column H) for the files named EX-All Blank-CEM-
Final Analysis.xlsx and EX-HT-Blank-CEM-Final Analysis.xlsx, the cell for the EXPM2.5 LT
Blank 01-021712 is not pulling the data from the same spreadsheet as the other low temperature
samples. Not sure if this is the wrong data from the wrong spreadsheet or if the spreadsheet was
not named correctly. This should be corrected. Spreadsheets are included in Attachment 1.
Green highlighted cells indicate data agreed with that reported in the draft report, yellow
highlighted cells indicated the numbers do not agree.
ARCADIS WAL Response: The spreadsheets were corrected
Finding 3: Having the same file in multiple folders is not good practice. The auditor noticed
that there is at least one file that is in multiple folders (EX-A11 Blanks-CEM-Final Analysis).
This is not good practice because if one is changed, the other is not. Prior to archiving the final
project file, make sure duplicate files are discarded.
ARCADIS WAL Response: A single folder was created to archive the final project file
Finding 4: There were several instances in Table 5-3 where DQI goals were not met and this
is not reflected in completeness. These discrepancies were corrected in the second version of the
report that was given to the auditor.
Observation 1: Figure 3-10 should show bag additions to be consistent with Figure 3-9. This
was done in the second version of the report that was given to the auditor.
Observation 2: Units need to be consistent or show both English and metric units. This was
done in the second version of the report that was given to the auditor.
Observation 4: Equations were not carried through all the temperature cells in spreadsheets.
In several of the spreadsheets, temperature data was copied from the cell above. Instead of
copying the equation in the cell, the actual temperature was copied and pasted. This was
corrected in revised spreadsheets.
-------
Attachment 1
Spreadsheets Reviewed
-------
fit
To« 10
Amtwsni an
±X-PM Hoi BLmk'Of- 121511 (burner ON)
EX-Hol blank-PM-01-12151 1
• ' ; " -: v'i-121511
FX KoEbbrA-MCE-QlB-l 21511
=X-PM AirBtank-01-121511
EX-HT-PM-OM21S11
• '.' • -'.'.' G . . ': ISP
• , ,i ... ,
EX-IMP LT Btank-Ci-021712
DC-PM2 5 LT Btflnk-01-B21712
tX-MCE LTR1--ir*-l)1-0;lr,M.-
III iiih
r ." i
•• ;•-
r_:i !
Sampling i rain Type
!•![.• i " "• li ' '.l
28,7
28,8
•mifilo Ma;
'.,r,*TFT.
3177
2173
131
188
1272
1311
907
'
140.1
895
6(3C
Temperature at the grate
i i
It
83D
830
R3C1
83CI
153
14-i
15?
T2
9
46
48
4§
•1B
117
117
117
T3
1.
826
826
626
826
•137
117
138
rs
144
144
144
144
191
IMI
191
Temperature 4 indie
T4
9
20
70
20
20
116
116
116
above the grate
T
1
6 2
6 2
6 1
6 2
117
117
117
Average COj
•
18fl5
IMS
1B4S
1845
73j
: -; -:
73 i
Avefagc CO
ppmv
000
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
Delta CO2
l;01
1201
1201
1201
88
8R
as
Delia CO
0
0
0
0
ll
li
r
-------
r/ntt
-------
-LI 'Ctw -rrrw ttMfysis* x/5/
rkrTe.sk
-------
Ash Weight
Jar# Jar Weight, g Jar Weight With Ash, g
#1 495.1 1086
#2 495.8 990.9
#3 495.5 901.6
#4 496.3 973
#5 495.6 923.5
Total 2478.3 Total 4875 Weight of Ash, g
-------
Thermocouple Probe IDs
PDAQ
A(#l)
B(#2)
C(#3)
D(#4)
E(#5)
F(#6)
TCID
TE103
TE102
TE???
TE203
TE202
TE201
Ash Weight
Jar#
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
Total
Jar Weight, g
490.5
496.1
496.0
490.5
495.8
495.6
2964.5
Jar Weight With Ash, g
1073.9
921,9
588.5
1022.6
866.4
870.4
Total
5343.7
Weight of Ash, g
2379.2
-------
Itxv
Ash Weight
Low Temp 02/14/2012
Jar# Jar Weight,;
#1
#2
#3
#4
Total
504.7
504.1
492.9
502.0
2003.7
Low Temp 02/15/2012
Jar# Jar Weight,:
#1
#2
#3
#4
Total
503.9
503.6
502.5
503.6
2013.6
Low Temp 02/16/2012
Jar# Jar Weight,;
491.0
490.8
491.0
490.7
#1
#2
#3
#4
Total
1963.5
Jar Weight With Ash, g
924.9
805.3
655.1
708.2
Total 3093.5
Jar Weight With Ash, g
774.9
819.2
704
632
Total 2930.1
Jar Weight With Ash, g
809.1
797.5
775.3
765.1
Total 3147
Weight of Ash, g
1089,8
Weight of Ash, g
Weight of Ash, g
1183.5
-------
|