EPA-600 /R-94-060
April 1994
Application of Pulse Combustion to Incineration of Liquid
Hazardous Waste
By:
Carin DeBenedictis
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
\ TECHNICAL REPORT DATA f |||||||j|||
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) |j|l||[||||
lllliinifl "U
94-164415 j
1. REPORT NO. 2.
E PA-600/R-94-060
3. REC
V.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Application of Pulse Combustion to Incineration of
Liquid Hazardous Waste
5, REPORT DATE
April 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Carin DeBenedictis
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
See Block 12
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA (Inhouse)
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory-
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 9/91 - 8/93
14, SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. supplementary notes Project officer DeBenedictis is no longer with AE ERL; she was on
loan from EPA Region 4. For details, contact William P. Linak, Mail Drop 65, 919/
541-5792.
i^ABs-rRAc^The report gives results of a study to determine the effect of acoustic pul-
sations on the steady-state operation of a pulse combuster burning liquid hazardous
waste. A horizontal tunnel furnace was retrofitted with a liquid injection pulse com-
bustor that burned No. 2 "fuel oil. The fuel oil was doped with surrogate principal' or-
ganic hazardous constituents (POHCs)aThe -PGHCs used were carbon tetrachloride
and chlorobenzene. -Baseline conditions were tested when only fuel oil was burned as
well as hazardous waste operations*.i^For each test condition, the burner was oper-
ated in both a pulsing and nonpulsing mode. Large amplitude acoustic pulses were
generated by adjusting the burner frequency to match the natural frequency of the
combustion chamber. The combustion gases were sampled to quantify organic and
particulate emissions. The results showed destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
values that were greater than six nines (99. 9999%) for both pulsing and nonpulsing
operations. The pulse combustor for this study was equipped with a fuel vaporization
unit which may have enhanced the destruction capabilities of the burner.^TTis not
known if operating without a vaporizer or under non-ideal combustion conditions
would degrade burner, performance.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. 1DENTI F1 £RS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c, COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Organic Compounds i
Wastes Particles •
Incinerators
Pulsation
Toxicity
Liquids
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Liquid Hazardous Waste
Pulse combustion.
Particulates
13 B 07 C
14G
06T
07D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
102
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page;
Unclassified
22. PRJCE
EPA Form 2220-1 (3-73) E~ 8
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of acoustic
pulsations on the steady-state operation of a pulse combustor burning
liquid hazardous waste. A horizontal tunnel furnace was retrofitted with a
liquid injection pulse combustor. The pulse combustor burned No. 2 fuel oil
that was doped with principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs). The
POHCs that were used were carbon tetrachloride and chlorobenzene.
Baseline conditions were tested when only fuel oil was burned as
well as hazardous waste operations. For each test condition, the burner was
operated in a both a pulsing and nonpulsing mode. Large amplitude
acoustic pulsations were generated by adjusting the burner frequency to
match the natural frequency of the combustion chamber. Sampling of the
combustion gases was done to quantify organic and particulate emissions.
The results showed Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) values
that were greater than six-nines (99.9999 percent) for both pulsing and
nonpulsing operations. The pulse combustor for this study was equipped
with a fuel vaporization unit which may have enhanced the destruction
capabilities of the burner. It is not known if experiments without a
vaporizer or operating the pulse combustor under non-ideal combustion
conditions would help determine if acoustic pulsations can improve burner
performance compared to the nonpulsed operation.
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i -j -j
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES
VI1
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Scope and Application 1
1.2 MnzErdous Incinsrstion 3
1.3 Pulse Combustion 5
2. EXPERIMENTAL 8
2.1 Description of Equipment 8
2.1.1 Research Furnace 8
2.1.2 Pulse Combuslor 10
2.2 Surrogate POHC Selection 13
2.3 Tests and Measurements 15
2.3.1 Test Design 15
2.3.2 Determination of Volatile Organic Emissions 17
2.3.3 Determination of Semivolatile Organic Emissions 20
2.3.4 Determination of Particulate Emissions 22
3. RESULTS 23
3.1 Burner Operation 23
3.2 Volatile Organic Emissions 24
3.3 DRE Results 30
3.4 Semivolatile Organic Emissions 32
3.5 Particulate Emissions 32
3.6 Quality Assurance Measurements 33
4. CONCLUSIONS 38
REFERENCES 40
- v
l Pxeceding^SeBlank j
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Volatile Organic Screening Results A-1
Appendix B - DRE Calculations B-l
Appendix C - Semivolatile Organic Screening Results C-l
Appendix D - Particulate Loading Results D-l
Appendix E - Particle Size Distribution Results E -1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1 Horizontal Tunnel Furnace 9
2 Liquid Injection Pulse Combustor 11
3 Volatile Organic Sampling Train (VOST) 19
4 Scmivolatile Organic Sampling Train (semi-VOST) 21
5 a Volatile Screening Results - Baseline Tests 25
5 b Volatile Screening Results - Baseline Tests (continued) 26
6a Volatile Screening Results - POHC Tests 27
6b Volatile Screening Results - POHC Tests (continued) 28
7a Particulate Loading Concentration - Baseline Tests 35
7 b Particulate Size Concentration - Baseline Tests 35
8 a Particulate Loading Concentration - POHC Tests 36
8 b Particulate Size Concentration - POHC Tests 36
9 a Particulate Loading Concentration - Low Oxygen Tests 37
9 b Particulate Size Concentration - Low Oxygen Tests 37
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1 Test Matrix 16
2 DRE Results 31
3 Particulate Emission Results 34
* vii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE AND APPLICATION
Incineration is often utilized for the effective disposal of hazardous
wastes, The performance of an incinerator is measured by how completely
the principal organic hazardous compounds (POHCs) are destroyed, and also
by how completely the intermediate degradation products are oxidized. For
the ideal case of 100 percent combustion efficiency, air emissions from the
burning of pure hydrocarbons would consist only of carbon dioxide and
water. However, complete combustion is only a theoretical concept.
Therefore, depending on the waste being treated, Agency regulations
require 99.99% or 99.9999% destruction of the POHCs. Due to the growing
public concern about incineration, and in particular hazardous waste
incineration, research is continuing to look at ways of improving
combustion efficiencies, thereby minimizing the emissions of potentially
toxic compounds.
The purpose of this research was to determine if a pulse combustor
could improve the organic destruction capabilities of a pilot-scale research
furnace. This report discusses the results of experiments conducted on a
horizontal tunnel furnace that was retrofitted with a tunable pulse
combustor. The combustor was designed to burn No. 2 fuel oil which was
1
-------
doped with surrogate liquid wastes, The exhaust combustion gases were
sampled and analyzed to determine what effect large amplitude resonant
pulsations have on hazardous waste incineration performance parameters.
Previous work on the application of pulse combustion to hazardous
waste incineration (Stewart et al.. 1991) has shown that the excitation of
pulsations inside a Rotary Kiln Incinerator Simulator reduced soot
emissions during incineration of toluene and polyethylene by 50 to 75
percent. Also, the carbon monoxide (CO) and total hydrocarbon (THC)
levels were reduced during polyethylene incineration. The conclusions
from this previous study were that the introduction of acoustic pulsations
has a strong tendency to reduce the amount of unburned material exiting
the combustion chamber. However, no detailed chemical analyses of the
stack gas were undertaken. Therefore, the quantity and composition of
products of incomplete combustion (PICs) were not determined. The pulse
combustor for this previous work utilized natural gas as the primary fuel,
and surrogate hazardous wastes were introduced in a batch mode.
For the experimental research in this study, a liquid injection pulse
combustor was tested during the steady-state burning of a surrogate liquid
waste stream. Continuous emission monitoring of combustion gases was
done as well as volatile and semivolatile organic analyses. The results were
utilized to determine the effect of resonant pulsations on the thermal
destruction of selected organic compounds. In addition, a detailed chemical
screening procedure was done to characterize and quantify the PICs for
both the pulsating and nonpulsating modes of operation.
2
-------
1.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted
a National Hazardous Waste Survey in 1986, According to the survey
(Behmanesh et al., 1992), approximately 4 million tons per year of
hazardous waste is sent to various thermal treatment facilities. The
thermal technologies include direct incineration, fuel blending, and reuse
as a fuel. The survey also concluded that, of the 260 operating incinerators
within the United States, 129 were liquid injection units. The study showed
that most of the liquid hazardous waste is generated from the chemical
manufacturing industry.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) mandates that
the EPA set standards for hazardous waste incineration. The operational
standards include continuous on-line monitoring of process parameters
such as temperature and carbon monoxide emissions. The major
performance parameter is the destruction and removal of toxic organic
compounds which are contained in the waste stream. Specifically, RCRA
regulations state that hazardous waste incinerators must demonstrate a
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of four-nines (99.99 percent) or
higher. This type of demonstration is done through a trial burn which is
the primary step in the RCRA incinerator permitting process.
3
-------
DRE is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by the
following equation:
DRE = [(Win - Wout)/ Win] x 100 (percent)
where Win = mass feed rate of the POHC in the waste stream fed
to the incinerator
W0ut = mass emission rate of the POHC in the stack gas
Most well operated incinerators, including liquid injection systems,
are capable of achieving the 99.99 percent DRE standard. Trial burn
performance data (Oppelt, 1987) has shown that well-designed thermal
destruction units should be able to demonstrate high DRE if sufficient
temperature, oxygen, and feed controls are maintained. However, even i n
steady-state operations, conditions can exist within the combustion
chamber which prevent organic destruction from occurring. One such
condition that can have a negative effect on incinerator efficiency is
inadequate mixing of combustion gases, fuel, and waste. Research has
shown (Lee, 1988) that, at temperatures above 871°C (1600°F), combustion
reactions may not be limited by the chemical oxidation kinetics, but rather
by the mixing of oxygen with the organic fuel. Poor mixing within the
combustion chamber can lower the overall efficiency due to oxygen-
deficient pockets being formed within the flame zone.
To enhance the destruction performance of hazardous waste
incinerators, most facilities operate under excess air conditions. However,
4
-------
even with an excess oxygen supply, the formation of potentially toxic PICs
has been identified as a consequence of inadequate mixing between the
combustibles and oxidant (EPA Science Advisory Board, 1989). The focus of
this research was to determine if large amplitude acoustic pulsations could
improve air/fuel mixing in the combustion chamber, and therefore
improve the organic destruction capabilities of a liquid injection
incineration system.
1.3 PULSE COMBUSTION
Pulse combustion refers to a combustion process that varies in a
periodic manner. Pulse combustion is a relatively old technology. One of
the first applications of a pulse combustor was for the engine that
propelled the World War II "buzz bomb" (Reader, 1977). Today, a
significant market for pulse combustors is in the area of space and water
heaters. The Lennox® pulse furnace is an example of pulse combustion
technology being utilized in home heating applications.
Pulsating combustion occurs when the heat released by a
combustion process spontaneously excites a pressure wave within the
combustion chamber. When this pressure wave is in phase with periodic
heat release, pressure and gas velocity oscillations occur. In order to
excite large amplitude pulsations within a pulse combustor, the frequency
at which it operates must equal one of the natural acoustic modes of the
combustion chamber. When these frequencies are matched, resonant
5
-------
pulsations are excited in the combustion section as well as the tailpipe
portion of the pulse burner.
Studies on various pulse combustor designs (Zinn, 1985) have shown
that combustion intensity, convective heat transfer, and mass transfer
rates can be increased. Pulse combustors have also been shown to have
decreased levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions (Bartok et al., 1988),
Due to their increased combustion efficiencies, pulse combustors result i n
fuel savings and provide for lower operating costs.
One of the important benefits of a pulse combustor for hazardous
waste incineration is the improved mixing of combustion gases. The
resonant pulsations cause significant gas turbulence within the
combustion zone. The effect has also been noted downstream of the
primary chamber in the tail pipe section of a pulse burner (Dec and Keller,
1986). This improved mixing should minimize the formation of any cold
spots or oxygen deficient areas within the combustion chamber.
Based on these findings, it appears that pulse combustion should
improve the performance of a hazardous waste incinerator. The thermal
destruction of hazardous waste should be enhanced due to the
improvements in mass and heat transfer, as well as improved mixing
between the combustion air and the waste. The following investigation
was done to determine if such improvements would aid in the thermal
destruction of a liquid hazardous waste stream.
6
-------
As stated previously, in order to excite large amplitude pulsations
within a combustion chamber, the operating frequency of the pulse
combustor must equal a frequency equal to one of the natural acoustic
modes of the chamber. When this is achieved, resonance occurs within the
system. The amplitude of the pulsations is maximized at the point of
resonance.
Sonotech Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia) has developed a tunable pulse
combustor which is capable of operating over a fairly wide frequency
range. A tunable pulse combustor is not limited to one specific frequency
value, and therefore can be utilized with various combustion chamber
configurations. The tuning capability allows the burner to operate at a
specific frequency that produces resonant pulsations in the chamber.
7
-------
SECTION 2
EXPERIMENTAL
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT
2.1.1 Research Furnace
The experiments in this study were conducted using an 82 kW
(280,000 Btu/hr) horizontal tunnel furnace. This unit (see Figure 1)
consists of seven horizontal refractory-lined sections. The internal
diameter of the furnace is 52.1 cm (20.5 inches) at the end near the flame
and tapers to 26.7 cm (10.5 inches) midway through the horizontal
chamber. The total length of the furnace is 3.96 m (13 feet). The unit is a
versatile furnace in that it is equipped with numerous sampling ports.
These ports are utilized for extractive sampling of combustion gases as well
as pressure, temperature, and particulate measurements. Two quartz
windows are available for flame visualization. The furnace is considered a
pilot-scale model. However, critical parameters such as gas-phase
residence time and temperature profiles are comparable to full-scale
incineration facilities.
The exhaust gases from the furnace are first sent through a single-
pass counter-flow heat . exchanger/ The heat exchanger cools the gases
/ /
from approximately 648 to 371°C (1200 to 700°F). All continuous emission
8
-------
TO AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DEVICE
HEAT
EXCHANGER
COOLING WATER
INLET
.t
^ EXHAUST GAS SAMPLING PORT
> r (semivolatile and particulate)
¦-~COOLING WATER EXIT
QUARTZ
OBSERVATION WINDOWS
VOLATILE ORGANIC
SAMPLING PORT
' / / / /
% % V s
' / / / /
S \ X %
/ / /
V % \ \
~ y s
% s. \ s
/// / / /
A V % \ ^
/ / / / /
r \ n \ s. •>
/ J J
% V
/ / /
w \ s.
o
s \ % \
\ s s \
• S f J s
\ X \ 1
y / /
V V s, >
/ /¦ /
\ ¦>
V X X %
/ / / / /
N % \ \
/ / / /
*¦ -V V 5 -1
X %
/ / /
s s
f f s
•- \
98 in.
14 in.
44 in.
Figure 1: Horizontal Tunnel Furnace
-------
monitoring is done immediately downstream of the heat exchanger. The
monitoring consists of the on-line measurement of O2 (Beckman model 755
paramagnetic), CO, CO2 (Beckman model 864 infrared), and NOx
(Thermoelectron Series 10 Chemi luminescent). Following the heat
exchanger and sampling ports, all combustion gases are sent to an air
pollution control system (APCS). The APCS consists of an 879 kW (3 * 106
Btu/hr) boiler which functions as a secondary combustion device.
Following this boiler, the gases are quenched and scrubbed of acid and
particulate before being discharged into the environment. The APCS is
oversized since it must handle effluents from other pilot-scale combustors
in the laboratory.
2.1.2 Pulse Combustor
A pulse combustor was designed by Sonotech to operate at a
maximum fuel input rate of 73 kW (250,000 Btu/hr). This is the maximum
heat capacity of the EPA research furnace. The pulse combustor was
welded in place at the large cylindrical end of the horizontal furnace (see
Figure 2).
The fuel for the pulse burner was No. 2 fuel oil. The design of this
pulse combustor features a natural-gas-fired fuel prchcater unit. The
purpose of this preheater unit is to vaporize the fuel oil prior to
introduction into the main flame of the pulse burner. The fuel oil is
pumped into the preheater unit through a spray nozzle. This causes the
10
-------
Figure 2: Liquid Injection Pulse Combustor
-------
fuel oil flow to be atomized into tiny droplets and creates a conical spray
zone above the natural gas flame. As this stream is heated, vaporization
occurs and the gas stream continues to flow out of preheater unit and on
through the primary combustion chamber of the pulse burner.
As stated previously, the goal of this study was to determine whether
large amplitude pulsations would improve the thermal destruction
capabilities of a furnace burning liquid hazardous waste. Therefore, in
order to generate a liquid hazardous waste stream, surrogate waste
compounds were added to the fuel oil feed stream. The surrogate wastes
that were chosen for these experiments were two chlorinated solvents
which were pumped directly into the fuel oil line upstream of the spray
nozzle and preheater unit. The solvent streams were introduced far
enough upstream of the preheater to allow for adequate mixing of the oil
and solvents. High accuracy piston pumps were utilized for solvent
pumping to provide precise mass flow rate measurements.
The remaining parts of the pulse burner are an air inlet port, a
flame holder, and a refractory-lined combustion section. The vaporized
fuel is sent to the main flame through another nozzle configuration which
is located inside of this combustion section. The frequency of the pulse
combustor is varied by changing the overall length of the combustion
zone. This is accomplished by moving the location of the primary flame
holder. The ability to change the combustor length provides for the
unique tuning capabilities of the Sonotech pulse combustion system.
12
-------
To find a point of resonance within the furnace, the output from a
pressure transducer was monitored during the tuning process. This
pressure transducer continuously monitors the pressure within the
furnace. During tuning, the entire frequency range of the pulse burner
is scanned. The location which yields the maximum output from the
pressure transducer (measured in volts) represents a point of resonance.
The nonpulsing mode of operation is set by tuning the pulse combustor to a
point where the pulsation amplitude, as measured by the pressure
transducer output, is at a minimum level.
In this investigation, the Sonotech pulse combustor was capable of
operating over a frequency range of 50-500 cycles per second (Hz) within
the furnace. The combustor produced acoustic pulsations with amplitudes
as high as 160 decibels (dB) within this frequency range.
2.2 SURROGATE POHC SELECTION
To demonstrate compliance with the DRE standard, EPA regulations
stipulate that incinerators must show adequate destruction of several
selected organic compounds. The designated compounds are referred to as
POHCs. These compounds are selected from a listing provided in the RCRA
regulations (EPA, 1981).
Ideally, the chosen POHCs should have the overall highest resistance
to incineration. If this is the case, a successful trial burn would
demonstrate a thorough destruction of the most "difficult to burn"
13
-------
compounds. However, several properties of thermal behavior should be
considered when defining any relative factor that deals with incineration
categories. Thus, different ranking schemes have been developed which
list POHCs in order of incinerability.
The heat of combustion ranking system has been widely used in the
past. This listing has been popular due to the fact that heat of combustion
values can be readily obtained for a majority of POHCs. However, a newly
developed ranking system based on a compound"s thermal stability at
oxygen-starved conditions has been put together by the University of
Dayton Research Institute. This ranking system was developed after it was
demonstrated that listing compounds by the criteria of stability at starved-
oxygen conditions correlated well with actual DRE performance data
(Dellinger, et al., 1986).
The current incinerator permit guidance (EPA, 1989) suggests that
POHCs should be chosen which rank high in thermal stability on both the
heat of combustion and low oxygen stability listings. In adherence to this
guidance, the two POHCs that were utilized for this pulse combustion study
were carbon tetrachloride and chlorobenzene. Carbon tetrachloride is
listed as the fourth highest thermally stable compound based on the heat of
combustion ranking, while chlorobenzene is in the highest difficulty class
based on the starved-oxygen stability criterion. These two compounds
were also preferred as POHCs since they do not posses characteristics, such
as reactivity or water solubility, which would cause difficulties i n
sampling and analysis.
-------
2,3 TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS
2.3.1 Test Design
Table 1 provides the experimental testing matrix that was utilized for
this study. It is important to note that two separate runs were completed
for each test condition. Two runs were required to directly compare the
burner performance during pulsing and nonpulsing operations. Within
each test condition, the only difference between pulsing and nonpulsing
modes was in the tuning position of the primary flame. All other
operational parameters, such as feed rates of air and fuel, remained
constant. The firing rate of the pulse combustor was set at 58.6 kW (200,000
Btu/hr) for the entire study.
Three separate test conditions are shown in Table 1. Condition 1
represents the baseline condition in which pure fuel oil was fed to the
combustor. No surrogate waste compounds were introduced for this
baseline testing. The purpose of doing this series was to determine the
tuning position that would produce large amplitude acoustic pulsations
(resonance point), as well as to define the flame location that would
generate pulsations at minimum amplitude. For baseline testing, the full-
scale organic analysis (volatile and semivolatile) was done as well as
particulate analysis. The organic analysis was done to determine the
contribution that fuel oil would have on PIC formation. Particulate
analysis was done to establish baseline particle emissions. No DRE
15
-------
Table 1
EXPERIMENTAL TEST MATRIX
Stack Gas Analyses
Volatile
Analysis
Semivolatile
Analysis
Particulate
Analysis
DRE
Computation
Condition 1
Baseline
(pulsing)
X
X
X
Condition 1
Baseline
(nonpulsing)
X
X
X
Condition 2
POHC in Feed
(pulsing)
X
X
X
X
Condition 2
POHC in Feed
(nonpulsing)
X
X
X
X
Condition 3
Low Oxygen
(pulsing)
X
Condition 3
Low Oxygen
(nonpulsing)
X
Operating Parameters for all Tests;
- Pulse combustor firing rate = ZOO,000 Btu/hr
- Rainbow Tunnel Furnace Temperature = 1800 °F
- POHCs = Carbon tetrachloride and chlorobenzene
16
-------
computations were performed at Condition 1 since no POHCs were fed into
the pulse combustor during this test series.
Test Condition 2 represents the two runs that were performed when
burning fuel oil containing the two chlorinated POHCs at a concentration
of 8.2 percent. As stated previously, the two chosen POHCs were carbon
tetrachloride and chlorobenzene. By measuring the emissions of these
compounds, DRE calculations were reported utilizing Condition 2 data.
For Conditions I and 2, the stoichiometric oxygen/fuel ratio (SR) was
set at a value of 1.2. Thus, a 20 percent excess oxygen level was introduced
for these conditions. The last experimental runs were performed at
Condition 3. The major difference between Condition 3 and the other
previous test runs was that oxygen levels were decreased significantly.
The SR value for Condition 3 tests was set at approximately 1.03, which
corresponds to an excess air level of only 3 percent. The purpose of
running at the lower oxygen level was to determine if resonant pulsations
could improve incineration performance under non-ideal combustion
conditions. Due to operational problems of the burner, however, no
volatile or semivolatile analyses were undertaken at Condition 3. The
testing at this condition consisted only of particulate sizing analysis.
2.3.2 Determination of Volatile Organic Emissions
The method that was utilized for collection and analysis of volatile
organic emissions in the stack gas was the Volatile Organic Sampling Train
17
-------
(VOST). This method is applicable to compounds with boiling points
between 30 and 100°C (86 and 212°F). Since this technique is applicable for
both of the POHCs in this study, the VOST data was utilized to calculate all
DRE results. In addition, a chemical screening process was utilized to
identify and quantify volatile PICs that were found by the VOST method.
Figure 3 provides a schematic of the components that make up the
VOST. A glass-lined heated probe is utilized to withdraw the exhaust
combustion gases from the pilot-scale furnace. The gas sample is then
drawn through a chilled water condenser and then onto a sorbent
cartridge. The sorbent, in this case, is Tenax® (Rohm and Haas) resin. The
gas then flows through a condensate knockout flask and on through
another condenser and Tenax®/carbon cartridge. A drying tube
containing silica gel is the final in-line unit for water vapor entrapment.
The VOST method specifies a gas sampling rate of 1 liter per minute and a
total sampling time of 20 minutes. As shown in Figure 3, a dry gas meter is
located in-line to ensure that adequate gas flow rates are maintained.
The volatile organic compounds that are collected on the sorbent
tubes were analyzed using a purge-trap-desorb (P-T-D) method. Chemical
analysis is done with a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS). In
this technique the sorbent traps are first thermally desorbed with
nitrogen at elevated temperatures. The nitrogen purge gas is then sent
through an analytical sorbent trap which contains resin, methyl silicone
packing, silica gel, and charcoal sections in series. The analytical sorbent
18
-------
Figure 3: Volatile Organic
Sampling Train
(VOST)
-------
trap is heated and purged with helium carrier gas which is immediately
sent through the GC/MS for volatile organic compound identification,
2.3,3 Determination rrf Semivolatile Organic Emissions ,
The method that was utilized for collection and analysis of
semivolatile organic emissions was the semi-VOST. This procedure is
applicable for organic compounds with boiling points above 100°C (212°F).
The moisture content of the stack gas was also determined with this testing
method.
A schematic of the semi-VOST train is shown in Figure 4. Exhaust
gases from the combustion process are withdrawn at an isokinetic
sampling rate. The gas sample is first drawn through a heated sampling
line and onto a filter. After filtering and passage through a condenser, the
gas then flows through a cartridge that is filled with absorbent resin. The
resin, in this case, is a porous polymeric material (Rohm and Haas XAD-2 or
equivalent), which must be cooled to approximately 15°C (60°F) during
sampling. The final component of the semi-VOST is a series of impingers
which collect condensed moisture from the stack gas. As with the VOST, the
semi-VOST is also equipped with a dry gas metering system. Semivolatile
organic compounds are analyzed and quantified by first extracting the
XAD-2 resin with methylene chloride. In this case, the Soxhlet extraction
process is utilized. The methylene chloride extract is then concentrated
and analyzed by GC/MS using a fused silica capillary GC column.
20
-------
Figure 4: Semivolatile Organic Sampling Train (semi-VOST)
-------
2.3.4 Determination of Particulate Emissions
Particulate matter in the stack gas was measured using two different
sampling systems. The first system measures particulate emissions
gravimetrically and yields a mass concentration value for particles greater
than 1 |im in diameter. The filter in the semi-VOST (see Figure 4) was
utilized for this method. The gas sample is drawn isokinetically and sent
through a cyclone unit followed by a high efficiency fiber filter. The
final particulate concentration value is determined by weighing the filter
before and after testing as well as collecting and weighing the entrapped
particles in the cyclone.
The second measurement system yields both a number
concentration value and an overall size distribution for particulate matter
in the stack gas. However, this method measures particles only less than 1
jim in diameter. The system consists of a Differential Mobility Particle
Sizer (DMPS) in conjunction with a Condensation Particle Counter. For this
analysis, the particles in the stack gas sample are charged and sent
through a series of electric fields. The sizes of the particles are classified
<
according to their ability to traverse through each field. As with the
previous method, a gas sample is drawn from the exhaust stack at an
isokinetic sampling rate.
22
-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS
3.1 BURNER OPERATION
Before any experimental runs
were completed while running the
During the scoping period, the pulse
state mode and the burner was fine
were encountered during this scoping
were undertaken, scoping exercises
pulse combustor on pure fuel oil,
combustor was operated in a steady-
tuned. No major operational upsets
period.
After the chlorinated POHCs were spiked into the fuel oil stream
(Conditions 2 and 3), however, problems occurred with the vapor feed
system. On several occasions runs had to be aborted due to clogging
problems in the main nozzle of the pulse combustor. The clogging was due
to soot being formed within the vaporizer and subsequently depositing o n
the walls of the nozzle. The soot was formed as a result of the fuel oil being
subjected to the open flame in the vaporizer unit. The nozzle was taken out
and cleaned as well as possible between tests. However, after each
cleaning attempt, reattachment of the nozzle required a welding operation.
The cleaning and welding operations eventually destroyed the integrity of
the nozzle port. Thus, due to these operational problems, a limited number
of experimental runs were able to be completed.
23
-------
3,2 VOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS
The results of the volatile compound screening procedure are
summarized in Figures 5 and 6. Note that the GC/MS analytical procedure
consisted of screening for 32 volatile compounds. The actual GC/MS output
is found in Appendix A, The volatile compounds that are identified i n
Figures 5 and 6 are a small subset from the overall screening list which
were present at levels above the Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL). In this
case, the PQL for all volatile compounds is 1 ng/L. The quantities depicted
in Figures 5 and 6 were determined by taking the mean value of three
replicate runs from the VOST. Error bars are also provided to show one
standard deviation.
For baseline testing when only fuel oil was burned, the first result
to be noted is that several chlorinated compounds were detected in the
exhaust gas stream. This result is not expected since No. 2 fuel oil should
not contain any chlorine compounds. It is possible that small amounts of
chlorinated contaminants were present in the fuel oil feed. However, the
same chlorinated compounds that are shown in Figure 5a were also found
on the field blanks from the VOST sampling (see Appendix A). In many
cases, volatile concentrations from field blank analyses were of the same
magnitude as the levels reported in the stack gas of the research furnace.
This leads to the conclusion that chlorine was not a contaminant in the
fuel. Instead, it is highly probable that airborne contamination in the
area around the research furnace contributed to the occurrence of
chlorinated compounds in the baseline results. Such outside
24
-------
500-
5
, 446.7
400-
300-
c
-------
100-
80-
87.3
m
S 60-
I
60.7
56.3
8 40-
c
20—
0
j3.9
Pulse/Nonpulse
Acetone
S 3.2
Pulse/Nonpulse
Benzene
j2.3
Pulse/Nonpulse
Toluene
Figure 5b: Volatile Screening Results
Baseline Tests (continued)
(Error Bars Represent One Standard Deviation)
26
-------
100-
80-
CD
C
c
o
"5
¦E
©
o
60-
40-
51,7
143.7
20-
0-
Pulse / Nonpulse
Chloro-
methane
16.5
8.9
28.7
I
8.2
0.8
0.0
Pulse / Nonpulse
Trichloro-
trifluoro-
methane
Pulse / Nonpulse
Methylene
Chloride
Pulse / Nonpulse
Chloro-
benzene
Figure 6a; Volatile Screening Results
POHC Tests
(Error Bars Represent One Standard Deviation)
27
-------
25-
20-
15-
10-
111.4
$3.4
Pulse/Nonpulse
Acetone
2.1
Pulse
Benzene
H 1.3 J 1.3
Pulse/Nonpulse
Toluene
Figure 6b; Volatile Screening Results
POHC Tests (continued)
(Error Bars Represent One Standard Deviation)
28
-------
contamination could also account for the large error bars noted in Figure
5a. Because the furnace was run at steady-state conditions, it is expected
that variances between replicate runs should be reasonably small.
Detectable emissions not containing chlorine and fluorine are
shown in Figure 5b. Of the compounds (acetone, benzene, and toluene)
shown in Figure 5b, acetone and toluene were once again found in the
field blanks. Therefore it cannot be stated with total certainty that these
two compounds represent true PICs. While acetone and toluene may have
been present in the stack gas, their reported low concentrations indicate
that outside contamination factors must also be considered.
In summary, the volatile screening results from baseline testing do
not provide substantial emission data to form conclusions on the effects of
acoustic pulsations. In most cases, the noted concentration levels were
quite small for both pulsing and nonpulsing conditions. Also, no
consistent trends were seen between volatile concentration levels and the
operational mode of the burner. Additionally, outside contamination may
have had a significant impact on the these baseline screening analyses.
Figures 6a and 6b provide the volatile screening results for test runs
where POHCs were added to the fuel oil feed stream (Condition 2). As with
the baseline results, several of the compounds detected in Figure 6A were
also present in the VOST field blanks and, therefore, outside contamination
factors cannot be ignored. The volatile screening results from Condition 2
show that, in most cases, reported concentrations of volatile compounds
-------
were small. In fact, many of the concentration values are relatively close
to the detection limits of the GC/MS. Making a comparison between such
low numbers does not form a good basis for conclusions on whether
acoustic pulsations were having a significant effect on combustion
emissions.
3.3 DRE RESULTS
Table 2 summarizes the results of DRE analysis. For carbon
tetrachloride, no measurable emissions were found in any of the test
series. Therefore, the minimum DRE value for this POHC is calculated by
using the PQL of 1 ng/L as the stack gas concentration value. Substituting
the appropriate feed and emission rates in the DRE equation yields a
minimum DRE of 99.999967 percent (see Appendix B for all DRE
calculations). An even greater destruction of carbon tetrachloride may
have been achieved. However, the sensitivity of the testing method allows
only for calculation of this minimum DRE level.
For chlorobenzene, the concentration in the stack gas was found to
be below the PQL during a pulsing operation. Thus for the pulsing
situation, DRE values are identical to the destruction levels reported for
carbon tetrachloride. In the nonpulsing mode of operation, detectable
levels of chlorobenzene were found. In this case, the highest detected
concentration yields a DRE value of 99.999954 percent.
30
-------
Table 2
PRE Results
Principal Organic Hazardous Constituent (POHC)
Operational
Mode
Chlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Pulse
> 99.999967 %
> 99.999967 %
Nonpulse
99.999954%
> 99.999967 %
Note: Minimum DRE values are calculated from the
practical quantitation limit of the analysis
method.
31
-------
It is important to realize that, for all of the tests in this study, the
VOST analysis shows a very high destruction of volatile organic
compounds. All of the results show a destruction exceeding 99.9999
percent, which is two orders of magnitude greater than the 99.99 percent
level mandated for hazardous waste incinerator permitting. When
comparing the pulsing and nonpulsing operational modes of the pulse
combustor, the results show that the volatile organic destruction was more
than adequate in both cases.
3.4 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS
The results from the semivolatile screening analysis are found in
Appendix C. These results indicate that, for both the pulsing and
nonpulsing modes of operation, semivolatile emissions were low. Note that
field and method blanks were analyzed as part of the semivolatile analysis
procedure. The phthalate compounds that were detected on the stack gas
samples were also found to be present on the field blanks. As with the
volatile analysis, the semivolatile screening results indicate that emissions
were essentially below the sensitivity limit of the testing method.
3.5 PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
The results of the in-line filter particulate measurements are shown
in Table 3. Actual measurements are found in Appendix D. The reported
values for particulate emissions are in milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter (mg/dscm). All of these results indicate that particulate emissions
32
-------
were well below the EPA hazardous waste incinerator standard of 180
mg/dscm. It is important to realize that particle emissions are related to
the type of feed that is introduced into the incinerator. The feed streams
that were utilized in this study did not contain significant quantities of
ash, nor did they contain appreciable amounts of soot producing
compounds. Therefore, low particulate emissions would be expected during
these testing periods. Measurements were still undertaken, however, to
determine if acoustic pulsations would have a significant impact on the
level of particulate emissions during steady-state operations.
The particulate size distribution results are shown in Figures 7
through 9, These results were obtained from the DMPS and apply for
particle diameters smaller than 1 p,m. Particulate loading and size
concentration curves are provided for each test condition. The actual
output from the DMPS equipment is provided in Appendix E. In these
figures, the general shape of the particulate distribution curves did not
change significantly when acoustic pulsations were introduced.
3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASUREMENTS
Data quality objectives set by the quality assurance project plan
(QAPjP) to meet EPA Category IV requirements were achieved. In this case
the data were primarily qualitative, with the goal of showing relative
differences between the fundamental parameters that were investigated.
The data were more than adequate considering the scope and data
requirements of this study.
33
-------
Table 3
Particulate Emission Results
Mass Concentration of
Collected Particulate (mg/dscm)
re
c
o
•S T3
w O
a
O
Baseline Tests
POHC Tests
Pulse
23.89
49.17
Nonpulse
2.04
45.05
34
-------
o o
* *2
o
A
O o
A A A
A A O * • °
o O ° 6
O Nonpulse
* Pulse
00*0°
o o
.01
.1
Particle Diameter (p,m)
Figure 7a:
Particulate Loading Concentration Baseline Tests
Particle Diameter ((xm)
Figure 7b:
Particulate Size Concentration Baseline Tests
35
-------
.01
A A A * A A
® *
O * A A
o o *
O A
O A
O
O o o
o
A
o
o
o
o
Particle Diameter (urn)
O Nonpulse
* Pulse
* A
A
* o
Figure 8a:
Particulate Loading Concentration POHC Tests
O Nonpulse
A Pulse
A A On 00o±A±A
OqoOOa
° o
o
O o
o
.01
Particle Diameter (urn)
Figure 8b:
Particulate Size Concentration POHC Tests
36
-------
6"
°2q2
A
O Nonpulse
* Pulse
o o 2 2 ®
.01
Particle Diameter (p.m)
Figure 9a;
Particulate Loading Concentration Low Oxygen Tests
O Nonpulse
A Pulse
— 2-
o
O
~
~
o
6**
O O A
o O
~
O ~
.01
.1
Particle Diameter (pm)
Figure 9b:
Particulate Size Concentration Low Oxygen Tests
37
-------
SECTION 4
CONCLUSIONS
For this study, steady-state operation of the pulse combustor was not
successful in isolating the effect of acoustic pulsations on combustion
emissions. Under the steady-state conditions tested, the introduction of
acoustic pulsations in the research furnace did not appear to affect
emissions. The volatile screening results show that emissions were very
low for all tests. At these low levels, outside contamination factors could
not be discounted. The semivolatile and particulate results also indicate
that acoustic pulsations did not impact these emissions. The DRE results for
the two chlorinated POHCs show that this pulse combustor achieved greater
than six-nines (99.9999 percent) destruction and removal. However, this
same level of destruction was achieved during pulsing as well as
nonpulsing operations.
A possible reason for the occurrence of low organic and particulate
emissions at all test conditions may have been due to the utilization of a
vaporized feed stream. For most liquid injection burners the liquid wastes
are injected into the main burner, atomized into fine droplets, and burned
in a suspension (Oppelt, 1987). This atomization is a critical parameter in
achieving high destruction efficiency. Good atomization will produce tiny
fuel droplets, thereby maximizing the available surface area for
combustion.
38
-------
For the pulse combustor in this study, the liquid fuel was atomized
through a nozzle configuration. However, the atomization and subsequent
vaporization of the droplets took place in a separate unit prior to
introduction into the research furnace. Therefore, the effect of acoustic
pulsations on the atomization of liquid feed could not be studied. It is
highly probable that the fuel burned efficiently because critical elements,
such as sizing of fuel droplets and fuel/droplet mixing, did not take place
within the main flame of the burner.
39
-------
REFERENCES
Bartok, W„ Lyon, R.K., Mclntyre, A.D., Ruth, L.A., and Sommerlad, R.E.,
(1988) "Combustors: Applications and Design Considerations," Chemical
Engineering Progress, Vol. 84/No. 3: 54 - 71.
Behmanesh, N., Allen, D.T., and Warren, L., (1992) "Flow Rates and
Compositions of Incinerated Waste Streams in the United States," /, Air
Waste Manage. Assoc., 42: 437 - 442,
Dec, J.E., and Keller, J.O., (1986) "The Effect of Fuel Burn Rate on Pulse
Combustor Tailpipe Velocities," Proceedings: International Gas Research
Conference, Vol 1: 498 - 507,
Dellinger, B., Graham, M., and Tirey, D., (1986) "Incinerability of Hazardous
Waste," Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 3, No.2: 139 -150,
Environmental Protection Agency, (1981) "Incinerator Standards for
Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities," Federal
Register, 46: 264.
Environmental Protection Agency, (1989) "Guidance on Setting Permit
Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn Results," Incineration Guidance
Series, Vol. 2: 22 - 23.
EPA Science Advisory Board, (1989) "Review of the Office of Solid Waste
Proposed Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinerators: Products of
Incomplete Combustion," Report of the Products of Incomplete Combustion
Subcommittee, Oct: 7 - 13.
Lee, K., (1988) " Research Areas for Improved Incineration System
Performance," /. of the Air Pollution Control Assoc., 38: 1542 - 1550.
40
-------
Oppelt, E.T., (1987) " Incineration of Hazardous Waste - A Critical Review," J.
of the Air Pollution Control Assoc., 37; 558 - 582.
Reader, G.T., (1977) "The Pulse Jet 1906 - 1966," J, of Naval Science, 3: 226-
232.
Stewart, C. R„ Lemieux, P. M.. and Zinn, B. T., (1991) "Application of Pulse
Combustion to Solid and Hazardous Waste Incineration," Proc. Int. Symp. on
Pulsating Combustion, Sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories and the
Gas Research Institute, Monterey, California, Aug; 6-8.
Zinn, B.T..(1985) "Pulsating Combustion," Mechanical Engineering, Aug:
36-41.
41
-------
Appendix A
Volatile Organic Screening Results
A-l -
-------
Vost Results
Volatile Compound
Baseline Tests
Chloromethanc - Pulse
Chloromethane - NonPulse
Bromomethane - Pulse
Trichlorofluoromethane - Pulse
Trichlorofluoromethane - NonPulse
Acetone - Pulse
Acetone - NonPulse
Methylene Chloride - Pulse
Methylene Chloride - NonPulse
1,1,1 Trichloroethane - Pulse
1,1,1 Trichloroethane - NonPulse
Benzene - Pulse
Benzene - NonPulse
Toluene - Pulse
Toluene - NonPulse
POHC Tests
Chloromethane - NonPulse
Chloromethane - Pulse
Bromomethane - Pulse
Trichlorotrifluoromethane -NonPulse
Trichlorotrifluoromethane -Pulse
Acetone - NonPulse
Acetone - Pulse
Methylene Chloride - NonPulse
Methylene Chloride - Pulse
1,1,1 f richloroethane - Pulse
Toluene - NonPulse
Toluene -Pulse
Benzene - Pulse
Chlorobenzene - NonPulse
Chlorobenzene - Pulse
Mean Standard Measured Concentrations (ng/l)
Cone, (ng/l) Deviation
59.3
78.55
12
150
16
127.7
39.07
93
170
120
3.4
1.25
3.8
4.4
2
6.9
2.19
9.4.
6,2
5.2
446.7
570,12
190
50
1100
3.9
0.67
3.1
4.3
4.2
60.7
7.23
56
57
69
9.3
2.19
11
10
6.8
378.3
379.29
270
65
800
1.2
2.02
3.5
0
0
22.0
20.30
0
26
40
3.2
2.65
6.2
2.4
1.1
56.3
55.05
0
110
59
2.3
0.32
2.7
2.1
2.2
87.3
89.37
45
27
190
43.7
7.51
36
44
51
51.7
32.08
85
21
49
1.3
2.19
3.8
0
0
6.5
1.25
7.9
5.6
5.9
8.9
5.78
14
10
2.6
11.4
13.50
2.9
4.4
27
3.4
0.67
4.1
3.2
2.8
28.7
20.21
52
17
17
8.2
9.38
19
2.1
3.5
1.2
2.02
3.5
0
0
1.3
0.10
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.42
2.8
0
1
2.1
3.58
6.2
0
0
0.8
0.74
1.1
1.4
0
0.0
0.00
0
0
0
Field Blank Results
Field - Chloromethane
Field - Trichlorofluoromethane
Field - Acetone
Field - Methylene Chloride
Field -111 Trichlororhethane
Field - Toluene
Measured Concentrations (ng/l)
26 5^9
43 28
48 4.5
130 100
73
32 2.6
A-2
-------
\
>
I
OJ
Pulsed Combustor VOST Volumes
Volume Met Temp
Sample ID j j Sampled C
/ <
142/05 ; 2D.003 35
90/06 20.000 35
531/32 20.010 36
07/08 19.992 36
13/14 19.994 28
270/16 19.998 33
490/15 20.002 33
10/11 20.000 31
523/56 20.000 35
532/42 20.017 37
50/226 19.983 36
497/767 20.000 39
352/AP22 19.999 43
Corr
Volume
19.029 * Broken
19.026
18.974
18.957
. 19.463
19.148
19.152
19.276
19.026
18.919
18.948
18.782
18.543
-------
PULSED COMBUSTOR
&cuiex- RTF Laboratory Results
EPA Method 5040/8240 Compounds
Hewlett Packard 5890 GC / 5971 MSD; 30m x 0.SJu DB624 fused silica capillary;
Tekmar LSC-2000 w/Carbotrap/Caiboaieve SHI.
POL = Practical Quantitation Limit;
N/D = Not Detected
J = Detected ®< PQL
N/A = Not Applicable
Sample Type
VOST
VOST
VOST
VOST
Master Index
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample ID
10.11
523,56
532,42
142
Sample Collected (Li Leis)
19 .276
19.026
18,919
19.029
Collection Date
07/15/92
07/15/9 2
07/15/92
07/13/92
PQL-
Analysis Date
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/11/92
8/11/92 "
ng/xL
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
Chloiomethane
85
21
4 9
ND
20
Vinyl chloride
ND
ND ¦
ND
ND
20
Bromomethane
3.8
ND
ND
ND
20
Chloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Tr ichloroflucromethane
14
10
2.6
ND
- 20
1,1 - Dichloioet her.e
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Acetone
A , 1
3.2
2. a
2.5
20
Methylene chloride
1'J
2 . 1
3.5
ND
20
Trans -1,2-dichloioethene
rjD
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1 - Dichloioethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Chloroform
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,l-Trichloroethane
3 , 5
ND
ND
ND
20
Carbon tetrachloride
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Benzene " ¦
6,2
ND
ND
ND
20
Trichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Bxomodichloxomethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
cis-1,3 -Dichloiopropene
ND
ND
ND
ND
' 20
Toluene
2 . 8
ND
1.0
1,3
20
trans -1,3 -Dichloiopropene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
ND
. ND
ND
20
Tetrachloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Dibroroochloromethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Chlor oberizene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Ethyl benzene
1,2
ND
ND
ND '
20
Total Xylenes
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Bromof oiiu
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroet ha rie
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
20
1,4-Dichloiobenzene
ND
ND
MD
ND
20
1,2-Dichloiobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
A-4
-------
$ample ID Number
Suiiogate Compounds Recovery
d6¦Benzene
1,2-Dichloioethane d-4
Toluene d-8
Biomofluoiobenzene
10,11
523,56
92
125
125
99
88
105
103
79
532,42
142
ICO
125
12 D
. aa
Analyst
Lotus i-£*-3 File Name-.pulsed 2
Laboratory Manager^
€3
104
102
72 '
5-—
A-5
-------
PULSED CGMBUSTGR
Acurex-RTP Laboratory Results
EPA Method 5040/8240 Compounds
Hewlett Packard 5890 GC / 5971 MSD; 30m x O.G3;u DB-624 [used silica capillary;
Tekmar LSC-2000 w/Carbotrap/Car bos 5 eve Sill.
PQL « Practical Quantitation Limit;
N/D = Not Detected
J = Detected @< PQL
N/A = Not Applicable
Sample Type
VOST
VOST
VOST
VOST
Master Index
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample ID
201/12
13,14
207,16
490,15
Sample Collected (Liters)
0
19 .463
19.148
19.152
Collection Date
07/15/92
07/15/92
07/15/92
07/15/92
POL
Analysis Date
8/1 0/9?.
¦ 8/10/92
8/10/92
a/10/92
" • ng/xl
ng
ng /1.
ng/L
ng/L
Chloromethane
2b
4.8
8.7
6.4
20
Vinyl chloride
NO
ND
ND
ND
20
Sromomethane
NO
ND
ND
' ND
20
Chloroethane •
NO
ND
ND
ND
20
Tr ichlorofluoiomethane
13
10
2.6
58
20
1,1-Dichloioethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Acetone
48
2.9
3.0
3.6
20
Methylene chloride
1 3 0
14
3 .4
42
20
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
l,1-Dichloroethane
ND
ND .
ND
ND
2 0
Chloroform
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
73
ND
1.4
2,1
20
Carbon tetrachloride
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND •
20
Benzene
ND
ND
5.6
3.1
20
Tr ichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichloiopropane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Biomodichloromethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Toluene
32
2 . 3
1 .4
10
20
trans -1,3 -Dichloropiopene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,2-Txichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Tetrachloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Dibr ornoch lor omethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Chlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Ethyl benzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Total Xylenes
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Bromofotm
ND
ND
ND
ND
C 20
1,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
l,2-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
A-6
-------
Sample ID Number 201/12 13,14 270,16 490,15
Surrogate Compounds Recovery % • % % %
d6- Benzene 98 89 102 108
1,2-Dichloioethane d-4 121 97 119 129
Toluene d-8 115 93 120 127
Bromof luoiobenzene 99 B0 ,98 102
Analys t Laboratory Manager^ . Date /£>~/y^f^_
Lotus 1*2*5 File Name-.pulsedl
A-7
-------
PULSED COMBUSTOR
Acuiex-RTP Laboratoiy Results
EPA Method 504 0/824 0 Compounds
Hewlett Packard 5890 GC / 5971 MSD; 30m x 0 .53u DB-624 fused silica capillary;
Tekmar LSC- 20CC v/Caibotrap/Cai bo:> ieve S1T[.
POL = Piactical Quantitation Limit;
N/D = Not Detected
J = Detected @< POL -
N/A = Not Applicable
Sample Type
VOST
VOST
VOST
VOST
Master Index
NA
NA .
NA
NA
Sample ID
9 0, 06
531,32
07 , 08
50,226
Sample Collected
19 . 026
18.974
18.957
18.948
Collection Date
07/13/92
07/13/92
07/13/92
07/22/92-
PQL
Analysis Date
8/11/92
8/11/92
8/11/92
8/11/92
ng/x:
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L -—^
ng/L
Chioromethane
12
150
16 .
... 51
20
Vinyl chloride
rro
ND
NT)
- ND
20
Biomome tha ne
3.8
4 . 4
2 . 0
ND
20
Chloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Tiichlorofluoromethane
9 , 4
6 .2
5.2
5.9
20
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Acetone
3 . 1
4.3
4 . 2
27
20
Methylene chloride
1 1
1 0
6 . 8
17
20'
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1-Dichloroethane
N!)
ND
ND
ND
20
Chloroform
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
3 . 5
ND
ND
ND
20
Carbon tetrachloride
un
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Benzene
6.2
2.4
1 .1
ND
20
Tiichloioethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichloropx opane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Bromodichloromethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
•cis -1,3-Dichloiopiopene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Toluene
2.1
2 .1
2 . 2
1 . 4
20
trans -1,3 * Dichloiopiopene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,2-Tiichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Tetrachloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
2 0
Dibromochloromethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Chlorobenzene•
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Ethyl benzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
Total Xylenes
ND
ND
ND
ND
2 0
Bromoform
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND 5
ND
20
A-8
-------
Sample ID Number 90,0.6 b31,32 07.08 50.226
Surrogate Compounds Recovery % '¦ % % %
d6-Benzene 96 92 105 101
1,2-Dichloioethane d-4 125 107 127 126
Toluene d-8 121 103 127 123
Bzotnof luorobenzene 88 75 i 91 86
A-9
-------
PULSED COMBUSTOR
Acurex-RTP Laboiatory Results
EPA Method 5040/8240 Compounds
Hewlett Packaid 5890 GC / 5971 MSD; 30m x 0.53u DB-624 fused silica capillary;
Tekmar LSC-2000 v/Carbotrap/Carbonieve S111.
PQL = Piactical Quantitation Limit;
N/D = Not Detected
J = Detected ®< PQL
N/A ¦= Not Applicable
Sample Type
VOST
VOST
VOST
Master Index
NA
NA
NA
Sample ID
352,AP22
497,767
463,64
Sample Collected (Liters)
18.543
18.782
0
Collection Date
07/22/92
07/22/92
07/22/92
POL.
Analysis Date
8/16/92
¦ 8/16/92
8/16/92
- ng/xL
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
Chloromethane
36
44
5.9 -
20
Vinyl chloride
ND
ND
ND
20
Brotnome thane
ND
ND
ND
20
Chlaioethane
ND
ND
ND
20
Ti ichlorofluoromethane
7.9
5 .6
28
20
1,1- Dichloioethene
ND
ND
ND
20
Acetone
2 .0
A .4
4 .5
20
Methylene chloride
b'A
17
100
20
Trans-l,2-dichloioethene
- ND
ND
ND
20
1,1 -Dich1oroethane
ND
Nl)
ND
20
Chloroform
NU
ND
ND
20
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
20
Carbon tetrachloride
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2•Dich1oroethane
ND
ND
ND
20
Benzene
ND _ /
\ ND
ND
20
Tr ichlor oethene
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
ND
ND
20
Bromodichloromethane
ND
ND
ND
20
cis-1,3-Dichloropiopene
ND
ND
ND
20
Toluene
1.2
1. 3
2.6
20
trans -1,3-Dichloropropene
ND
ND
ND
20
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
20
Tetrachloroethene
ND
ND
ND
20
Dibrocnoch lor ome thane
ND
ND
ND
20
Chloiobenzene
1 .1
1 , 4
ND •
20
Ethyl benzene
ND
ND
ND
20
"Total Xylenes
ND
ND
ND
20
Bromofoim
til)
ND
ND
2 0
1,1,2,2-Tetiachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
20
1,4 - Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
20
1,2- Dichloiobenzene
ND
ND
ND
20
A-10
-------
Sample ID Number
3S2.AP22 497,767 463,64
Surrogate Compounds Recovery
%
¦%
%
d6 * Benzene
102
107
99
1,2-Dichloroethane d- 4
130
130
110
Toluene d-8
124
121
105
Bromofluorobenzene
86
88
76
Analysc
Locus 1•2k
Laboratory Manager
File Name:pulsed'l
Date
A-11
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 10 Aug 92 10:03 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1149.D
Name: VOST,#27 0y#16,PULSED COMBUSTER ,L,AIR,EPA,
Misc: QUANTS @ 2,5ONG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last calibration: Mon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
Abundance
TIC: HPA1149.D
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
1 3
J , ^ r ,
5 LI I
18
17 S
16
15S
31
8
X-
11
11
L 9 IS
X-
25
24S
J^
30S
I33
fa
Time ->
5.00
10,00 15.00
1 I ^
20 ,00
39
im.
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1149-D
Wed Aug 19 15:34:06 1992
A-12
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 10 Aug 92 9:21 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1148.D
Name: VOST,#13,#14,PULSED COMBUSTER ,L,AIR,EPA,
bjisc : QUANTS @ 250NG
Me thod: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Mon Aug 17 ¦22:02:16 1992
Abundance
4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1.5000 0 0
*1000000
TIC: HPA1148.D
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA114 8.D
Mon Aug 17 23:02:29 1992
A-13
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 10 Aug 92 7:44 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1147.D
Name: VOST,#2 01,#12,FIELD BLANK ,L,AIR,EPA,
MiSC: QUANTS ffi 2SONG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Mori Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
Abundance
3200000
3000000
2800000
2600000
2400000
2200000
200Q000
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
-i i1 I
TIC: HPA1147.D
)
18
17 S
16
15S
11
L4tL9IS 25
W ' 24S
Time ¦>
5 . 00
r
10 . 00
31 36S
3 OS
r " \ " [
15 , 00
20 . 00
39
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1147.D
Hon Aug 17 22:34:23 1992
A- 14
Page
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 10 Aug 92 10:45 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1150.D
Name ; VOST,#490,#15,PULSED COMBUSTER,L, AIR, ,BFB,
Wise: QUANTS ® 2SONG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Mon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
Abundance
4500000 -t
i
1
TIC: HPA1150.D
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
18
17 S
16
15S
36S
C:\CHEMPC \DATA\KPA115 0.D
Wed Aug 19 15:48:53 1992
A- 1 5
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 10 Aug 92 11:42 pro
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1151.D
Name: VOST,#10 , #11,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,AIR,,BFB,
Misc: QUANTS @ 2SONG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240 _
Last Calibration: Hon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1151.D
Wed Aug 19 16:08:51 1992
A-16
Page 3
-------
quant report
Operator ID: M HOWELL Dace Acquired; 11 Aug 92 0:19 am
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA11S2.D
Name: VOST, #523,#56,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,AIR, ,BFB,
Misc: QUANTS © 2SONG
Hethod: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Mon Aug 17 22:02:16 199 2
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1152.D
Wed Aug 19 16:24:54 1992
A-17
PaQ e 3
-------
quant report
Operator ID; M HOWELL Date Acquired: 11 Aug 92 7:01 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1156.D
Name: VOST,#532,#42,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,EPA,
Misc: QUANTS © 250NG
Wethod: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Hon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
Abundance
TIC: HPA1156.D
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000' -
18
17 S
16
15S
Time ->
5 . 00
10 . 00
20.00
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1156.D Wed Aug 19 16:45:59 1992
A-18
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 11 Aug 92 7:38 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1157.D
Name: VQST,#142,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,EPA,
Misc : QUANTS 250NG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Hon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1157.D Wed Aug 19 17:04:43 199 2
A-19
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 11 Aug 92 8:34 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1158.D
Name: VOST,#90,#06,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,EPA,
Misc; QUANTS ® 2SONG
tfethod : VOST . M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Hon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
Abundance
2800000
2600000
2400000
2200000
2000000
1800000
1600000
1400000
[rime - > .
C:\CHEMPC\BATA\HPA1158 .D
Wed Aug 19 17:30:15 1992
A-20
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 11 Aug 92 9:11 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1159.D
Name: VOST,#531,#32,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,EPA,
Misc: QUANTS S 2 50NG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Men Aug 17 22:02:16 199 2
Abundance
2800000
2600000
2400000
2200000
2000000
1600000
1600000
1400000
TIC: HPA1159.D
200000
time ->
5 . 00
10 .00
15 . 00
20 . 00
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1159.D
Wed Aug 19 17:35:51 1992
A-2 1 "
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 11 Aug 92 9:49 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1160.D
Name; VOST,#07,#08,PULSED CQMBUSTER, L, EPA,
Misc: QUANTS © 250NG
Me t hod: VOST.K
Ti tie: 8240
Last Calibration: Mori Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
Abundance
TIC: HPA1160.D
3500000
3000000 -
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000 H
18
17 S
16
36S
Time ->
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA116 0.D
Wed Aug 19 18:04:19 1992
A-22
Page
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 11 Aug 92 10:27 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA116l.D
Name: VOST,#50, #226 ,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,EPA,
Misc: QUANTS ® 2SONG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: .Mori Aug 17 22:02:16 1'992
Abundance
TIC: HPA1161.D
4000000
3500000 -
3000000 -
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
Tiroe - >
10 .00
20 . 00
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1161.D Wed Aug 19 18:48:55 1992 Page 3
A-23
I
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 16 Aug 9 2 9:13 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA116 5.D
Name: VOST,#352,#AP22,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,AIR, EPA,
Misc: QUANTS 0 250NG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Mon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA116 5 .D
Wed Aug 19 19:05:19 1992
A-2 -'4
Page 3
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 16 Aug 92 9:57 pm
Data file: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1166.D
Name: VOST,#497,#767,PULSED COMBUSTER,L,AIR,EPA,
Misc: QUANTS ® 250NG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Mon Aug 17 22:02:16 19 9 2
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1166.D Fri Aug 21 10:14:25 1992 Page 3
A-2 5
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: M HOWELL Date Acquired: 16 Aug 92 ll;02 pm
Data File: C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1167.D
Name: VOST,#463,#64 PULSED COMBUSTER,L,AIR,EPA,
Misc: QUANTS ® 2 5 0NG
Method: VOST.M
Title: 8240
Last Calibration: Hon Aug 17 22:02:16 1992
Sundance
3600000
3400000
3200000
3000000
2800000
2600000
2400000
2200000
2000000
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000¦
0 ¦
TIC: HPA1167.D
1
-f*-
Time - >
5 .00
I r
10 . 00
9 IS 25
I 2 4S
U
36S
T
15 .00
r" r
20 . 00
C:\CHEMPC\DATA\HPA1167.D Fri Aug 21 10:37:35 1992 Page 3
A-26
-------
VOST.XIS
VOST CALIBRATION CHECK REPORT
ftPA1145.D
08/10/92[
Total ng
% Recovery
I
ch!arometharse(spce)
258
103
vinyl chlorids(ccc)
279
112
bromomethane
270
108
chloroe thane
283
113
trichlorofluoromethane
274
110
1,1 -dichloroathene(ccc)
364
I 145
Acetone j
149
60
methylene chloride |
277
111
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
292
117
1,1 -dichloroethane(spcc)
263
105
bromochloromethane
(IS)
250
100
chloroform{ccc)
266
106
1,1,1 -trich loroethane
273
109
carbon tetrachloride
265
106
d6-Berizene
518
104
benzene
278
111
d4-1,2-dichloroethane {surr)
268
107
1,2-dichloroethane
256
102
1,4-difluorobenzen0 (is)
250
100
trichloroethene
262
105
1,2-dichIoropropane(ccc)
264
106
bromodichloromethane
270
108
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
272
109
d8-toluene (surr)
261
105
toluene(cec)
276
110
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
272
109
1,1,2-trichloroethana
273
109
tetrachloroethene
274
110
cJibromochloromethane
272
109
dS-chlorobsnzene (surr)
239
96
ehlorobenzene(spcc)
563
113
ethyl benzene(ccc)
296
118
m,p-xylene
198
40
o-xylene
289
116
bromoform(spcc)
251
101
4-bromofluorobenzene (surr)
255
102
1,1,2,2-tetrachIoroethanefspcc)
247
99
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
557
111
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
575
115
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
568
114
A-2 7
-------
VOST.XLS
VOST CALIBRATION CHECK REPORT
HPA1154.
D
08/11/92
Total ng
% Recovery
chiorornethane(spcc)
247
99
vinyl chloride(ccc)
202
81
bromomethane
178
71
chloroethane
220
88
trichlorofluoromsthan©
250
100
1,1-dichloroethene(ccc)
195
78
Acetone
294
118
methylene chloride
310
124
trans-1,2-dichloroothene
253
101
1,1 -dichloroethane(spcc)
252
101
bromochlorornethane
(IS)
250
100
chloroform(ccc)
244
98
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
233
93
carbon tetrachloride
232
93
d6-Benzene
460
92
benzene
294
118
d4-1,2-dichloroethane (surr)
275
110
1,2-dichlo roe thane
264
106
1,4-difluorobenzene (is)
250
100
trichloroethene |
226
90
1,2-dichloropropane(ccc)
235
94
bromodichloromethane
249
100
cis-1.3-dichloropropene
252
101
d8-toluene (surr)
251
100
toluene(ccc)
340
136
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
257
103
1,1,2-trichloroethane
258
103
tetrachtoroethene
256
102
dibromochloromethane
265
106
dS-chlorobenzene (surr)
235
94
chlorobenzene(spcc)
510
102
ethyl benzene(ccc)
294
118
rn.p-xylene
207
41
o-xylene
288
115
bromoform(spcc)
288
115
4-bromofluorobenzena (surr)
212
85
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane(spcc)
202
81
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
639
128
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
457
91
1,3-DichIorobenzene
510
102
A-28
-------
VOST.XLS
I VOST CALIBRATION CHECK REPORT
HPA1163.D
I
08/16/92 j
Total ng
% Recovery
I
chloromethane(spcc)
245
98
vinyl chloride(ccc)
235
94
bromomethana
218
87
chloroethana
250
100
trichlorofluorome thane
288
115
1,1 «dich!oroethene(cce)
229
92
Acetone |
330
132
methylene chloride
351
141
trans-1,2-dichicrcethene
289
116
1.1 -dichloroethane(spcc)
280
112
brom ochlorom ethan e
[IS)
250
100
chloroform(cec)
280
112
1,1,1-trichioroethane
266
106
carbon tetrachloride
257
107
d6-Benzene
471
94
benzene
268
107
d4-1,2-dichloroethane (surr)
313
125
1,2-dichIoroe thane
299
120
1,4-difluorobenzen*) (is)
250
100
trichloroethene |
257
103
1,2-dichioropropane(ccc)
272
109
bromodichloromethans
295
118
cis-1,3-dichloropropeno
298
119
d8-toluene (surr) I
289
116
toluene(ccc) |
330
132
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
302
121
1,1,2-trichloroethane
296
119
tetrachloroethene
296
118
dibromochloromethane
313
125
dS-chlorobenzene (surr)
234
93
chlorobenzene(spcc)
523
105
ethyl benzene(ccc)
265
106
m,p-xy!ene
519
104
o-xylene
255
102
bromoform(spcc)
309
124
4-bromofIuorob8nzens (surr)
228
91
1.1,2,2-tetrachloroethane(spcc)
208
83
1,2-Oich!orobenzene I
632
126
1,4-DichlorQbenzene (
507
101
1,3-Dichlorobenzene [
503
101
A-29
-------
/
/
Appendix B
DRE Calculations
B-l
-------
PRE Calculations for
Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs)
Pulsing Mode
Results: Stack Emissions of carbon tetrachloride and chlorobenzene were below detection
limits in all cases.
Practical Quantitation Limit (for volatile organics) = 1 ng/L
Given a stack flow rate = 40.57 scfm = 1148.8 L^min and a POHC input = 3.48 g/min, the
following minimum DRE value is calculated:
(1 ng/L)(1148.8 L/min)(l//g/1G00 ng) = 1.1488 fjg/ min
DRE - (Input - Output)/ Input
DRE = 3.48 q/min- (1.1488 t/g/minK1a/1Q£i/a)
3.48g/min
DRE (minimum) = 99.999967
Non-Pulsing Mode
Results:
(1) For carbon tetrachloride, the exit concentrations were less than the detection limit, so
DRE numbers will be the same as the pulsing mode.
(Z ) For chlorobenzene, two of the three replicate VOST runs had detectable concentrations in
the stack gas. These two exit concentrations equate to the following DRE results:
Exit Concentration = 1.4 na/L
(1.4*ng/L)(l 148.8 L/min)(1/vg/1000ng) = 1.6083 /jg/min
DRE = [3.48 g/min - (1.6083 yg/min)(1 g/10® //g)]/ 3.48g/min
DRE = 99.999954
Exit Concentration = 1.1 ng/L
(1.1 ng/L)(1148.8 L/min)(lyg/1000ng) = 1.2637 yg/min
DRE = [3.48 g/rnin - (1.2637 yg/min)(1 g/106 pg)]/ 3.48g/min
DRE = 99.999964
B-2
-------
Appendix C
Semivolatile Organic Screening Results
-------
GeoChem, Incorporated
Environmental Laboratories
Geochem(NC #336/SC #99008)
Project#9301-028 1 Site Name Pulsed Combuster
LAB ID, 0092 0093 0094
DATE ANALYZED 01/20/93 01/20/93 01/20/93
FIELD ID. FC92-07-13-01 PC92-07-15-01 PC92-Q7-1&-01
KEraoo
ANALYTE nq/ul • no/ul na/ul
B270 B*t«/N«utx*li
N-Nitroeod imethylamine
<
5
<
5
< 5
Aniline
<
5
<
5
< 5
8l02Chloroethyl Ether
<
5
<
5
<5
1,3-Dichloroben2ene
<
5
<
5
< 5.
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
<
5
<
S
< 5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<
5
<
s
<' 5
Benzyl Alcohol
<
10
<
10
< 10
BiH2ChloroiaopropylEthr
<
5
<
5
< 5
Hexachloroethane
<
5
<
5-.
< 5
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
<
5
<
5
< 5
Nitrobenzene
<
5
<
5
< 5
laophorone
38
360
15
BiB2ChloroethoxyKethane
<
5
<
5
< 5
1,2,4-Ttichlorobenzene
<
5
<
S
< 5
Naphthalene
3.
. 4 J
2.
.9J
2.8J
Benzoic Acid
<
25
260
260
4-Chloroaniline
<
5
<
5
< 5
Hexachlorobutadiene
<
5
<
S
< 5
2-Methylnaphthalene
<
5
<
5
< 5
Hexachlorcyclopentadien
<
5
<
5
< 5
2-Chloronaphthalene
<
5
<
5
< 5
2-Nitroaniline
<
25
<
25
< 25
Acenaphthylene
<•
5
<
5
< 5
Diraethylphthalate
<
5
<
5
< 5
2,6—Dinitrotoluene
<
5
<
5
< 5
Acenaphthene
<
5
<
5
< 5
3-Nitroaniline
<
25
<
25
< 25
Dibenzofuran
<
5
<
5
< 5
2 , 4,Dinitrotoluene
<
5
<
5
< 5
Fluorene.
<
5
<
5
< 5
4ChlorophenylPhenylEthe
<
5
<
5
< 5
Diethylphthalate
4.
1J
3.
, 8 J
3.8 J
4-Nitroaniline
<
25
<
25
< 25
N-Nitrosodiphenyl amine
<
5
<
5
< 5
Azobenzene
<
25
<
25
< 25
4-Broraophenyl PhenylEth
<
5
<
5
< 5
Kexachlorobenzene
<
5
<
5
< 5
soil water
parts per million = mg/kg mg/1
parts per billion = ug/kg ug/1
pql = practical quantitation limit due to matrix effects.
bdl = below method detection limit,
bql = below quantitation limit.
J = estimated concentration.
C-2
-------
GeoChem, incorporated
Environmental Laboratories
Geochem(NC #336/SC
#99008)
Project#9 3 01-028
2
Site Name Pulsed
Combuster
LAB ID.
0092
0093
0094
DATE ANALYZED
01/20/93
01/20/93
01/20/93
FIELD ID.
PC9 2-07-13-01
PC92-07-15-01
PC92-07-16-O1
METHOD
ANALYTE
na/ul
na/ul
no/ul
8270 contlnu«4
• - •
Anthracene
< S
< 5
< 5
Phenanthrene
6.8
12
.4. 5J
Di-N-Butylphthalate
46
51
71
Fluoranthene
< 5
<5
< 5
Pyrene
< 5
<5
< 5
Benz idIne
< 25
220
, < 25
Indeno <1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
< 5
< 5
< 5
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
< 10
< 10
< 10
Chrysene
<5 '
< 5
< 5
Benzo(a)Anthracene
< 5
< 5
< 5
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
< 10
< 10
< 10
Bi02EthylhexylPhthalate
S3
21
920
Di-N-Octylphthalate
< 5
< 5
< S
Benzo{B}Fluoranthene
< 5
< 5
< 5
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
< 5
< 5
< 5
Benzo(a)Pyre ne
< 5
< 5
< s
Dlbenz(a,h)Anthracene
< 5
< 5
<• 5
Benzo{g,h,lJPerylene
< 5
< 5
< 5
8270 Acid Ertr*ct*bl*«
2-Chlorophenol <5 <5 < S
Phenol <5 <5 <5
2-Nitrophenol <5 <5 <5
2-Methylphenol <5 <5 <5
4-Methylphenol <5 <5 < 5
2,4-Dimethylphenol <5 <5 <5
2,4-Dichlorophenol <5 <5 <5
4-Chloro-3~Kethylphenol <10 <10 <10
2.4.5-Trichlorophenol <5 <5 <5
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol < S <5 <5
2,4-Dinitrophenol < 5 <5 < S
4-Nitrophenol <25 <25 <25
4,6-Dinltro-2Methylphen <5 <5 <5
Per.tachlorophenol <5 <5 <5
soil water
parts per million = mg/kg ag/1
parts per billion = ug/kg ug/1
pgl = practical quantitation limit due to matrix effects,
bdl = below-method detection limit,
bql = below quantitation limit.
J = estimated concentration.
C-3
-------
GeoChem, Incorporated
Environmental Laboratories
Geochem(NC #336/SC #99008)
Project#9301-028
Site Name Pulsed Combuster
LAB ID.
DATE ANALYZED
FIELD ID•
0095
01/20/93
PC92-07-22-01
0096
01/20/93
PC92-07-30-01
0097
01/20/93
GHB92-10-14-01
Nitaoo
AHALYTS
nq/ul
naZnL
aa/-al,
8270 Bas«/N«utr*la
H-Nitrosodlmethylamine
<
5
<
5
< S
Aniline
<
5
<
5
< 5
Bis2Chloroethyl Ether
<
5
<
5
< 5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<
5
<
S
< 5,
1,4-Dichlarobenzene
<
5
<
5
< 5'
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<
5
<
5
<*S
Benzyl Alcohol
<
10
<
10
< 10
Bis2ChloroiBopropylEthr
<
5
<
5
< 5
Hexachloroethane
<
5
<
5
< 5
N-Nitroaodipropylamine
<
5
<
5
< 5
Nitrobenzene
<
5
<
5
< 5
laophorone
<
S
<
5
< 5
Bio2ChloroethoxyKethane
<
5
<
5
< 5
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
<
5
<
5
< 5
Naphthalene
<
5
<
5
< 5
Benzoic Acid
170
<
5
< 5
4-Chloroaniline
<
5
<
5
< 5
Hexachlorobutadiene
<
5
<
5
< • 5
2-Hethylnaphthalene
<
5
<
S
< 5
Haxachlorcyclopentadien
<
5
<
S
< 5
2-Chloronaphthalene
<
S
<
5
< 5
2-Nitroaniline
<
25
<
25
< 25
Acenaphthy1ene
<
5
<
S
< 5
Diicethylphthalate
9.
.0
<
5
< 5
2,6-Dlnitrotoluene
<
5
<
5
< 5
Acenaphthene
<
5
<
5
< 5
3-Nitroaniline
<
25
<
25
< 25
Dibenzofuran
<
5
<
5
< 5
2,4,Dinitrotoluene
<
5
<
5
< S
Fluorene
<
S
<
5
< 5
4ChlorophenylPhenylEthe
<
5
<
5
< 5
Diethylphthalate
2.
8J
2.
2 J
< 5
4-Nitroaniline
<
25
<
25
< 25
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
<
5
<
5
< 5
Azobenzene
<
25
<
25
< 25
4-Bromophenyl PhenylEth
<
5
<
5
< 5
Hexachlorobenzene
<
5
<
5
< 5
so x 2. Wei
parts per million = mg/kg tng/1
parts per billion = 'ug/kg ug/1
Pql = practical quantitation limit due to matrix effects.
hdl = below method detection IJjnit.
bql ~ below quantitation limit,
j _ estimated concentration.
C-4
-------
GeoChem, Incorporated
Environmental Laboratories
Geochem(NC #336/SC #99008)
Project#9 3 01-028
Site Name Pulsed Combuster
LAB ID.
DATE ANALYZED
FIELD ID.
0095
01/20/93
PC92-07-22-01
0096.
01/20/93
PC92-07-30-01
0097
01/20/93
02392-10-14-01
KSTHOD
ANALYTE
ng/ul
8270 B*i«/N«utr*.li continued
ng/ul
ng/ul
Anthracene
Phonanthrene
Di-N-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzidine
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chryeene
Benzo(a)Anthracene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bia2EthylhexylPhthalate
D i-N-Octy1phthalate
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo{a)Pyrene
Dlben z(a,h)Anthracene
Benzo(g,h, i)Perylene
8270 Acid £xtx*ctaiblfts
< s
< s
57
< 5
S
25
5
10
5
S
10
110
< s
< 5
< 5
< S
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
43
< 5
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
S
s
5
10
5
5
10
260
< S
< 5
< 5
' 74
< 5
5
25
5
10
s
•5
io
5
S
s
5
S
5
5
2-Chlorophenol < 5
Phenol < 5
2-Nitrophenol < 5
2-Methylphenol < 5
4-Methylphenol < 5
2,4 -D imethy1pheno1 < 5
2,4-Dlchlorophenol < 5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol < 10
2.4.5-Xrichlorophenol < 5
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol < 5
2,4-Dinltrophenol < 5
4-Hitrophenol <25
4, 6-Dlnitro-2Methylphen < 5
Fentachlorophenol < 5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
25
S
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
S
25
5
S
soil water
parts per million = mg/kg tug/I
parts per billion = ug/kg ugfl
pgl = practical quantitation limit due to matrix effects,
bdl = below method detection limit,
bql = bel ow quantitation limit.
J = estimated concentration.
C-5
-------
Tentatively Identified Compounds(TIC'S) For Pulsed Combuster Sample's.
Sample ID; Test 1 (7/13/92) Oil only - High Noise
Lab ID: PC92-07-13-01
GC/MS ID: 9301-028-0092
CAS NUMBER j COMPOUND NAME J RT | SAMPLE MASS (ug/nl) |
I Trimethylbenzene isomer j11.11 16.69 J
7 91-28-6 j Phosphine oxid^,tripheny1 {35^. 2 J 67.49 [
54340-86-2 jBenzene,4(2-butenyl)-1,2-dimethylJ17.8\ 8.29 \
Sample ID: Test 2 (7/15/92) Oil only - Low Noise
Lab ID: PC92-07-15-92
GC/MS ID: 9301-028-0093
CAS NUMBER
2084-69-7
5434-0-86-2
COMPOUND NAME \ RT J SAMPLE MASS (ug/ml) 1
Trimethylbenzene isomer jll.lj 63.1 1
t
hi Ql 1 Q G1 j
Benzene,4(2-butenyl)-1,2-dinethyl{17.8 j 25.7 " {
Naphthalene,tetrahydro | 23.9 j 19.93
Sample ID: Test 3 (7/16/92) Chlorobenzene and Carbontetrachloride - High
Noise
Lab ID: PC92-07-16-01
GC/MS ID:9301-028-0054
No Tic's qualified for the positive identification threshold.
C-6
-------
Sample ID: Test 4 (7/22/92) Chlorcbenzene a,nd Carbontetrachloride - Low Noise
Lab ID: PC92-07-22-01 / /
GC/MS ID: 9301-028-0095
No Tic's qualified for the positive identification threshold.
Sample ID: TEST 5 (7/30/92) Trip Blank
Lab ID: PC92-07-30-01
GC/MS ID: 9301-028-0096
No Tic's qualified for the positive identification threshold.
Sample ID: Test 6 Laboratory Blank.
LAB ID: GWB92-10—14-01
GC/MS ID: 9301-028-0097
No"Tic's qualified for the positive identifieation.threshold.
Note: Posivive identification threshold means that any unknown peak search
against a reference library of known spectra must agree at 80% or
better with the fragmentation pattern of the unknown and the mass
intensities(m/e) of each fragment ion against the reference spectra.
Also the chemist's judgement is considered.
C- 7
-------
Appendix D
Particulate Loading Results
D-l
-------
Modified Method 5 Voluro® and Moisture Calculation Workah«at
PRCyeCT: PuSm combustion
TEST; CCM and Chioroberuen# le®d
LOCATION: Rainbow fumacs
TEST PARAMETERS: Puis® on
DATE: 7/16/92
TEST t: 3
Bar Pressure:
29.92
avg or net
Amb temp
80 |
| Volume
cu ft
80 |
I
1
80 |
I
1
80 I
82
I
202.90 1 2092 I 217.7 I 232.4 I 248.4
Last Imping
j Meter In
f Meter CM
FlowDH
XAOTemp
Stack Tin
Slack T oat
Pump vac
90
112
117
117
82
90 [
92
102 I
0.541 0.541 0.541 0.54
32
32 j
32 |
32
117
104
054
32
829
662 j
667
674 |
673
52
5.2 I
5.2 I
5.2
5.2
84 I
84 |
82 I
I I I
287 | 298.9 | 303.47 j
114
116 |
117 I
100 i
101
102 ;
0.54;
0,54 :
0.54 I
32
321
32 |
711 |
7191
733 I
5.6
5,6 J
5.6
Uncorrected volume
of gas aampled*
Meter Wet
M«t«rOut!ot
Mater Average
Average (tack
temp* 1168.5 dog R
Sampling
duration>
10056 cubic feet
572.5 deg R
556.62 deg R
564J56 deg R
901 water recovered in knpingers
38 water coBected In SK32
639 total final water volume
705 Initial water volume
234 total oondenaed
11.014 volume of water as gaa at «tp in cubic feet
-92.S20 volume of dry gaa (from meter) at «tp In cubic feet
103.53 total gas volume at etp in cubic feet
10.638 percent moisture in gas aampled
221 mi nut as
81.00 |
I
I
10057 |
I
0.00 I
I
112.50 |
!
96.63 j
I
0.54 |
I
32.00 |
I
708SO |
I
0.00 I
I
5.35 |
correction factor of dry ga» meter used -
0.98
D-2
-------
ISOWNET1CSTY AND PARTICULATE LOADING SUMMARY
TEST #: 3
RUN PARAMETERS: pub® on; FR 1200000 BTU/hf
DATE." 16 Jul 92
Slack diameter (inches)
Pto( exxr factor S fypa= 0.85cp
StreJ gM typ«= 0,99cp
Stack temp {dog
Moiecutar wo+gftl of gas (g/mol)
1.14
Stock gas volocfty (fi/s) («t stack conditions}
Gas wlurne exfting stack (ACFM)
Gas wlume exiting stack (SCFM)
Gas volume exiting etaek (SCMH)
CALCULATED ISOKINETIC VARIATION
Total volume of water condensed (ml)
Uncorrected gas volume from met* (cubic feet;
Average meter temp (dog R)
Orifice data H (Inches H20J
Sampling duration (minutes)
Sample nazrie dtetwtor (helm)
Nozzle fac» itm (square fwst;
Barometric Prewuro (inches Hg)
Stack pleasure (in Hg)
Stack pressure corrected tor delta H fin Hg)
Sample v»w collected st 103.61 percent of isokinetic
SAMPUE GAS VOLUME AND PARTICULATE DATA
Corrected dry volume from mater (cubic tost at mater temp} 96.49
Dry volume corrected to stp (cubic feet) 82.47
Dry volume corrected to itp (cubic meters) 2.62
Volume of condensed water *s gas *i *tp (cubic feet) 11.01
Total waf volume of gas at «tp (cubic feet) 103 46
Percent moisture of gas sampled 10.64
Mass o? particulate captured (grams) 0.1266
Particulate loading:
(mg Mfids/oi ft wet gas) 1.2442
(mfl sonda/eu rrrtr wet gas) 43,3384
(mfi ncbdskxt ft dry gas) 1.3323
(mg hdidsjai mfr dry gas) 48.1898
PROJECT: Pulse combustion
TEST: CC34 and Oilorofaonawvi teod w.lpu'se on
LOCATION: Rainbow futrvacn
8.00
o.es
1168,00
25.00
1.07
457
B3_4t
40.57
6S.&4
234.00
100.50
£64.50
not rrwaauted
221.00
0.84
0,0039
29.92
29.92
29.92
D-3
-------
Modified Method 5 Volume and Moisture Calculation Worksheet
PROJECT: Pulsa combustion
TEST: CCW andChkxobenzene
LOCATION: Rainbow furnace
TEST PARAMETERS: Ol f
-------
1S0KJNCTICITY AND PARTICULATE LOADING SUMMARY
PROJECT: Pube combustion
TEST: , CQ4 and Oiksrobonmoe w^xjfao ad
LOCATION: Rainbow fuma&o
TEST #: 4
RUN PARAMETERS:
DATE: 22 Jul 82
OH food; low no lie;
Firing rate - 20000C BTU/hr
Stack diameter (inches)
Pilot
-------
Modified Method 5 Volume and Moisture Calculation Worksheet
PROJECT: Pui«« combustion
TEST: Oil baseline
LOCATION; Rainbow furnace
TEST PARAMETERS: OH feed, high noise
DATE: 7/13/92
TEST #: 1
Bar Pre&sura:
29.92
avg or net
Amb temp
Volume
cu ft
Last Imping
92.078
96.5 | 101.2
110.1
139.6
Meter In
| Mater Out
Row OH
XAD Temp
Stack Tin
Slack T out
j Pump vac
UooofTOCted volume
ofga« aampied-
Meter Wet
Meter Outlet
Meter Average
64
BO
102
82
108 j
- I
84]
114J
— I
96 |
117
102
32
32
32 |
32
32
742 I
5.5 |
740
5.7
754 I
5.7 I
5.7 I
156.5
170.1 | 181J | 215.24
117
102
117 I
100 I
117|
— i
102 I
32 :
32 I
32 |
778
779 |
789 [
6-2 !
6.2 |
6.2 |
Average stack
temp- 1227.2 deg R
926
34
660
712
246
11.673
113.73
125.40
123.16 cubic feet
57033 deg R Sampling
554.66 deg R .duration -
5625 deg R
water raoovered In impinged
water collected in SK32
total final water volume
Initial water volume
total condensed
volume of water as gaa at «tp in cubic feat
volume of dry gat (front mater) at ctpin cubic feat
total gaa volume at alp In cubic feet
246 minutes
8.3065 percent molature In gaa aampled
117
102
32
789
6.2
0.00 i
I
I
123.17 |
I
0.00 I
I
110.33 I
I
94.67 j
i
0.00 I
I
32.00 j
I
767.29 j
I
0.00 I
I
5.93 I
correction factor of dry gaa meter used -
0.98
D-6
-------
ISOKJNETTlCiTY ANO PARTICULATE LOADING SUMMARY
PROJECT: Pulse combustion
TEST: OS baaofino - Put»e 00
LOCATION: Rainbow furnace
TEST»: t
RUN PARAMETERS: 0*1 food; pufcso on;
Firing rata » 200000 BTU/hr
DATE 13 Jul 92
Stack diameter (Inches) 6.0Q
Pttot ootr factor S type= O.&Scp 0.85
Stral CM type* O.SScp
Stack tomp (dog R) 1227.00
Moteeuiar weight of gas (giVnol) 29.00
1.20 1.10
Stack gas votecfty (fl/s) (at stack conditions) 4.45
Gas volume exiting stack (ACFM) 83.92
Gas volume oxttmg stack (SCfM) 40.57
Gas volume editing stack (SCMH) 68.94
CALCULATED ISOKINETIC VARIATION
Total volume of water condensed (ml) 240.00
Uncorrected gas volume from meter (cubic feefj 123.10
Average meter temp (dog B) 562.50
Orifice delta H (Inches H20) not measured . ^
Sampling duration (minutes) 246.00 _ - -
Sample node diameter (inches) 0.84 '
Nozzle lace area (square feetj 0.0039
Barometric Pressure (inches Hg) 29.82
Stack pressure (In Hg) - 20.82
Stack pressure corrected tor defta H (In Hg) 29.92
Sample was cofieeted at 112.85 percent of Isokinetic
SAMPLE GAS VOLUME AND PARTICULATE 0ATA
Corrected dry volume from meter (cut*: feet at meter temp) 120.64
Dry volume corrected to stp (cubic fee? 113.6?
Dry volume corrected to «tp (cubic meters) 322
Voiume of condensed water as gas at stp (aibte feet} 11,67
Total wet votume of gas at stp (cubic feet) 125.34
Percent moisture of gas sampled 9.31
Mass of particuiato captured (grams) 0.0769
Particulate loading:
(mg soflds/cu ft wet gas) 0.6136
(mg so#ds&u mtr wst gas) 21.6899
(mg soflds/eu ll dry gas) 0.6766
(mg 80#ds/ai mtr dry gas} 23.8947
D-7
-------
MocSfiod M«thod S Volume and Moisture Calculation Worksheet
PROJECT: Pul*« combustion
TEST; Oil b&selirw
LOCATION: Rainbow furnace
TEST PARAMETERS: Oil feed, no pul&e
DATE: 7/!M2
TTPT M. *¦
.Ibbl i: a
Bar Pressure:
29.92
avg of not
Ambtemp
Volume
co ft
| Last Imping
[ Mater In
|
I Meter Out
Flow DH
XAD T#mp
| Stack Tin
Stack T out
| Pump vac
6.754
12.7
22.2
39.4 |
52 [
63 2
90
UnoocTBcted volume
of gas sampied-
MeterMet •
Meter Outlet
Mfltw Average
84
06 |
110
117 | 114 J
112 I
112
78
80
90 !
100 I
102 1
104 |
104
100.88 I
112
104
32
730 |
94.128 cubic feet
567.37 deg R
555.25 dag R
56131 dog R
796 water recovered In imp!rigers
31 walsr collected In S02
827 total final water volume
609 Initial water volume
218 total condensed
Average stack
temp* 1164.7 deg R
Sampling
duration-
206 minutes
0.00 I
I
I
94.13 |
I
0.00 I
I
107.38 |
I
95.25 |
I
O.OO I
i
32.00 j
I
704.75 |
I
0.00 l
-1
I
5.81
10.261 volume of water as gas at stp In cubic feet
87.099 volume of dry gasffram meter] at stp In cubic feet
87.360 total gas volume at sip In cubic feet
10.539 percent moisture In gas sampled
correction factor of dry gas meter used - 0.98
D-8
-------
ISOKlNETlCfTY AND PARTICULATE LOADING SUMMARY
PROJECT: Pufeo combmtkxi TEST 2
TEST: OB baseline - Pube off RUN PARAMETERS: Oi 00 putao
LOCAiTlON: Rainbow furnace Firing r*te « 20O0CC BTUflir
DATE 1 5 Juf 92
Stack diameter (inches) 6.00
Pttot cofT factor S type= O.SScp 0.85
Stral ght typa= 0.99cp
Stack temp (dog R) 1164.00
Molecular weight of g«s (g/moi) 29.00
1.14 1.07
Stack gas velocity (ft/s) (al stack conditions) *25
Gas volume exiting stack (ACFM) 69.10
Gas wlurne exiting atack (SCFM) 40.57
Gas volume exiting stack (SCMH) 68.94
CALCULATED ISOKINETIC VARIATION
Total volume of water condensed (ml) 218.00
Uncorrected gas volume from meter (cubic feefj &4.12
Awraae meter temp (dog (R) 561,30-
Orifice delta H (Inches H20) not measured
Sampling duration (minutes) 206.00
Sample nozzle diameter (inches) 0.84-
Nozzie tac« a/ea (square foeQ 0.0039
Barometric Pressure (Inches Hg) ' 29,92
Stack pressure fin Hg) ~ 29.82
Stack pressure corrected for delta H (In Hg) . - 29.92
Sample was cofiected at 104,77 percent of Isokinetic
SAMPLE GAS VOLUME AND PARTICULATE OATA
Corrected dry volume from meter (cubic feet at meter temp) #2.24
Dry volume corrected to stp (cubic feet) 87.08
Dry volume corrected to atp (cubic meters) 2,47
Volume of condensed water as gas at stp (cubic feelj 1026
Total wet volume of gas at stp (cubic foot) 07.35
Percent moisture of gas sampled 10,54
Mass of particulate captured (grams) 0.0050
Particulate loading:
(mg sofids/cuftwetgas) 0.0516
(mg sofids/cu mtr v*st gas) 1.6210
(mg soBds/cuftdrygas) 0.0576
(mg so&ds/cu irrtr dry gas) 2.0355
D-9
-------
\
IT
HIS SPREADSHEET BEGUN BV CCL TO SIJMMHRI2E PULSED CfJhBUSTOR FILTER HEIGHTS
nFIGONRL CiflTrt OH F'100 OF RT s r.'.HMF'LI HG NOTEBOOK FIND ON P82 OF CCLs GEUERHL VOL II NOTEBOOK
PRESRMPLI MG 0K1TE COMDITION POSTSRHPLING NET
IlLTER * HEIGHT fqj SAMPLED ' / SAMPLED HEIGHT Cg) HEIGHT GfllH Cgl
P.Pl U.59837 7/13/S:' * OIL - HIGH HOISE 0.67520 0.07K.91
KP2 0.597E.8 ?/15,"3;2 ' OIL - LOH NOISE 0.G027 0.00502
F:FM 0.5950-t 7/16/9:> ChlLOROBENSENE AND CCH-HIGH NOISE 0.72379 0.12075
RF'5 0.59-33-1 ¦ 7/22/
-------
Appendix E
Particle Size Distribution Results
E-l
-------
f-'i
TS I
nIPFEREl'ITIAL
MOBILITY PA
PTICLE 317
LP
non-pulse
BACKGROUND 7
/15/92
SAMPLE « 1
aerosol
FLOW PA'f E n
.3 LPI1
riEAS. MODE
: EVERY CI IN! .
MAXIMUM
1)1 A. MEASURED; .886 IJI'I
START;
14:52:25
DATE: 07-
15-•199 2
MINIMUM 1)1 A. MEASURED:
.017 UM
END; 15:
08 : 59
CONCENTRATION
PERCENTAGE
DIA
d:i: ameter
CHtt
MIDPOINT
NUI1BER
SURFACE
VOLUME
NUMBER
SURFACE
VOLUME
(UM)
(H/CC)
(UI1' *2/CC)
(UI1''3/1:0
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
1
- 01
0
0
O
0
O ¦ .
d"
.012
0
0
0
0
0
0
"r
.01''!
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
.017
0
0
0
0
0
0
i::
.019
1.G7E 5
215.261
- 686
37.392 '
3.4
.111
•6
.022
1..62E 5
248.O15
.912
69.699
?'. 316
.26
/
.02 5
8.86E 4
ISO.865
. 768
87.366
10.173
.385
s
.029
3.70E 4
100.818
. 494
94.7 51
11.765
.465
9
.03-4
1.33E 4
48.512
.275
97.416
12.531
,51
10
.039
1690.329
8 . 178
5-34E-2
97.753
12.66
. 518
11
. 04 5
351.779
2.269
1 -71E—2
97.823
12.696
. 521
£¦
.052
177., 604
1. 528
1„33E»2
97.8 58
X j- . /
. 523
3
.06
1420.249
16.293
. 164
98.142
12.977
. 55
.07
2827.174
43.252
- 503
98.705
13.661
. 632
1 5
-081
494.643
10.091
. 136
98.803
10 - 8
.654
Ifo
.093
209.788
5.707
8.85E-2
98.845
13,. 91
. 068
1 7
. 107
502293
1 8 . -<:..'22
» 326
98.94 5
14.198
.721
13
. 124
2 61 .. 5 3 3
12.653
r"\ J r"\
M j.
98.998
14.398
. 764
19
. 143
1947780
12.566
99.036
14.596
. 813
20
. 165
50.521
4.. 346
.. 12
99.046
14.665
. 832
21
. 191
56,5 6 /3
64 ,,666
2. 06
99.159
15.686
1»167
-'—A-
.221
22.776
3.484
. 128
99.163
15.741
1.188
'••i V
i., :.'f
.255
0
O
0
99.163
15.741
1.188
24
.294
0
0
0
99.163
15.741
1.188
25
» 34
16. 6 7 5
6.05
. %.'> 4
99.167
15.837
.1 .243
26
,392
380.065
188.126
12.304
99„244
13.808
3.244
„ 4 53
642.519
414.51
31.306
99.372
25.354
8 . -> 3 3
523
727.348
625.. 737
54.57 5
99.517
.. • 5 - 2,:> \i
17.205
- ¦ c::.
„ 604
414.564
475.599
47. 9
99.6
42.747
24.992
30
. 69B
926.32
1417.133
164.82
99. .784
65.127
51 ..787
31
. 806
1083„374
2208 . J. 4
296.569
.1 OO
IOO
100
¦. J
93:1.
0
0
<>
0
T01 At.
H ? C
5..01E 5)
, ..
\J « \J i., ,1.
C^TS)
.E+3UL
HE A SUM: J
^TTfrh-i—6WL.Y
GEO
riE; i •(;
. . .j. . 1::. ""
. 4 1 5
. 678
9PREAI> FACTOR;
;; 71 . 449
3 . .1,78
1 .39?
'{V
0-2
-------
•^-3
/
i I
TSI DIFFERENEl. AL MOBILITY PARTICLE SIZEK
PULSED COMBUSTION BLANK 7/15/92
SAMPLE it 1 AEROSOL.. I- LOW RATEs -3 LPI1 MEAfj- MODE: EVERY CHNL
MAXIMUM 1)1 A. MEASURED; . QB& UI1 START: 14:29:53
DATE s 07-
15-1792
MINIMUM DTA.. MEASURED:
.017 un
END: 14
:47:24 ' "
COMCEN FEAT ! 01-
)
PERCENTAGE
i-1A
i) IAI1ETER
CIHtt
MIDPOINT
NUMBER
SUREACE
VOLUME
NUMBER
SURFACE
VOLUME
(un)
(ii/CC)
(UI'i'-2/CC)
(UM'*3/CC)
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE.
:i.
-01
0
0
0
0
0
0
.012
0
0
0
0
0
0
-014
o
0
0
<>
o
0
(>17
0
0
o
0
0
r-
1.:
..019
6.34E 4
72.841
TT ".1
. .
27.093
•. 28
7.18E-3
.. 022
6.80E 4
104,158
. 383
56.145
. 68,
1.90E-2
"/*
..025
5.18E 4
105.833
.449
78.281
* 1.OS7
3.29E-2
8
.. 029
2.33E 4
63.58/
.312
88.254
1. 331
4.26E-2
.. 'J '!
5258.24
19-076
.108
90.498
1 .404
. 4. 59E--2
10
- 0 3 9
761.265
3.683
2.40E-2
90.823
1.419
4.67E-2
:l. l
.04 5
369.244
2.302
1.79E-2
90.98
1.428
4.72E—2
'¦I
-052
809.915
6.968
6 . 07E--2 '
91-326
1 .454
4 .9.1.E-2
*.>
_ 06
63.194
.725
7.30E-3
91.353
1.457
4.93E-2
14
. 07
371.67
5.686
6.61E-2
91.511
1.479
5.14E-2
1 5
081
3394.973
69.261
. 93
92.96
:l . 74 5
8.02E-2
16
.093
503.056
13.686
„ A.. X d-
93.175
1 .798
8.67E~2
1
. 10 7
489.206
1/./4o
.318
93.383
1 .866
. 6 6 E — P.
18
- :i 24
5:'31 . 68';
40.236
. tj .3 2
93.738
2.021
.. 1 j..
19
. 143
215.9/
13.933
- 333
93.831
2.074
- .1.33
20
. 165
54.653
4 - 702
. 13
93.854
2.0.9.2
J. 3 7
21
. 191
41.333
4 „ 742
. 151
93 - 87.1.
2.11
. 141
22
.22:1.
1.697
.26
9- 54E--3
93.872
2 -111
.. 142
2 3
. 2 5 5
0
0
O
93.872
2.111
. 1 42
24
.294
0
0
0
93.872
2.11.1
.142
2 13
. 34
0
0
0
93.872
2 . 111
. 142
*
O
• „ 392
o
0
0
93.872
2.111
. 142
.. 4 53
0
0
0
93.872
2. 111
. .1.42
«. ,>
C)
0
t'j
93.872
2 . J 11
.. 142
A..
.. 60 4
1090.086
1250.575
125.953
94 . 33 /
6.93 6
4 . 04
-¦'( ,
.. 698
5580 ..71
8537.. 664
992.. 974
96.719
39.721
34 .. 778
.1.
. 006
7689.941
1.56E 4
2107. 03:1.
J. GO
100
100
.yp
.931
0
0
<)
0
0
0
I ni Ai
S: /
34E 5
) 2.60E 4
/j23(>r^i34>)
-K:+:r- EJI ¦:
i 1! 1 r .1 IRI 1
v- I) i'vi —tttTT
V «¦ &
V
t
OLD..
MEAN :
2-94E-2
. :;,:i 1
. / <- -•
SPREAD 1 AC I'QR
: 2.385
1 . 566
1 . 134
E-3
-------
b ' (
SAMPLE ii 1
TBI DIFFERENTIAL MOBILIT Y PARI ICLE SIXER
NQNPULSE 4/22/92 CCL4&HCB
FLOllJ PATE: .3 LPil I1EAS. MODE:
AEROSOL
MAXIMUM
1)1 A. MEASURED: . 086 UM
START':
EVERY
09 : 22 :
CHNL
:c
DATE r. 07••••
22--1992
MINIMUM DIA.
MEASURED;
.017. UM
END; 09:47:58
CONCENTRATION
PERCENT'AGE
I) IA
DIAMETER
—
CM**
MIDPOINT
NUMBER
SURFACE
VOLUME
NUMBER
SURFACE VOLUME
( UM)
(H/CC)
(UM"-2/CC) ( UI*I'S3/CC )
CUMULATIVE PERCENT AGE
1
.01
O
O
0
i t
0 0
A..
. <>12
0
0
0
0
0 o
Tf
.014
0
0
0
0
0 0
¦'4
.01 7
0
''.)
0
*J
0 • 0
'"t
.019
- y'
4.47E-4 1
.42E--6
1
. 47E-4 '
1 . 52E--5 1.00E- C.
C-
. o22
7.S8E-2
1.20E--4 4
. 43E--:7
,1
. 77E-1
.1. 93E-5 1.31 E-6
.025
. 13
2.65E--4 1
.12c-6
A..
. 26E--4
2.83E-5 2.11E — 6
8
029
0
0
0
2
.26E-4
2.83E-5 2. HE—6
V
.034
. ;
(%
o
-ti.
,26E-4
2 - S ~S E — 5 2. 1 IE—6
10
- 03V
3.13E 4
151.. 62V
.992
11.875
5.155 .7
i 1
. 04 5
1.25E 5
810.. 523
6.122
59.474
32.708 5.02
.052 '
8.46E 4
728.453
6-353
91 - 554
57.471 9.504
13
- OA
1.30E 4
149.602
" 1.507
96.494
62.557 10.568
14
.07
5533.923
85.12
.99
98.602
65.45 11. .266
1 5
.081
2111.31
43.073
. 578
99'. 4 0 2
66.915 11.675
1 6
. 093
504.05
13.713
.213
99.593
67.381 11.825
1 7
. 10 7
213„156
7.842
„ J. 4
99.675
67.647 11.924
U3
.. J.. 4
164 „ 5.1. 5
7.959
.. 165
99.737
67.918 :I2.04
J. 9
. 143
14 5.482
9 . 386
. 224
99.792
68- 237 12.198
20
.. 165
SI „ 273
6 . 992
. 193
99.023
68.475 12.334
21
. 1VI
7 - 393
. 906 2
. 88E--2
99.. 826
68.505 12.355
y,
.221
3.26
.499 1
.83E-2
99.827
68.522 12.368
.255
0
0
o
99.327
68.522 12.368
24
. 294
o
0
O
99.827
68.522 12.368
2 5
, -34
O
99.. 827
63.522 12. 3c.8
. 392
o
{ )
0
99.827
68.522 12.368
2 7
. 4 53
0
0
r %
99.827
68.522 . 12.368
28
. 523
0
O
0
99.827
68.522 1.2.368
29
..304
2.092
2.4
.242
99.828
68.304 12.538
30
. 698
4 . 2 5 5
6. 5ts9
.,7 57
99.83
60.825 13.073
2.1
. SO-,
¦149. 517
917.054
123.137
1 00
too loo
'52
..931
<' V
0
0
i; *
0 0
"< OTA
i.!...::
3!::.
2941.oc
14 .1. . .::.89
*.*( ? if-: MEASI IPEi
1 .OA 1" A ONL
v' :+¦: &
HEO.
Ml-¦;AM::
4. 3'IE--2
. 121
„ 576
¦:-reai; factor
:: 1 2
3 •-'! 3
13-4
-------
2. ?
"I 3J I3I.FFEREH (7I.AL HUfclLJTY F'hRI [(l.l- r'iXl-rTHR
"H" 7/16,-'92 ! -i u : Mi.
li iJ- J J : H 1 AEROSOL FLOW RA'IE:: .3 22FI IIEhS. i'lODEs EVER'r Clil-iL,
MAX] ! H 'II L« :i: A . I1EASURED : .886 UH S I AK3 ; 09; 38:; 23
€; o/--Ig~3v?;-: riiwituni um. heasueed: • ,017 *• an eni>: vy
2 OMC EN"! RAT 101
•¦1
!~"(::.I'2CC)
CUHl.IL
Al 1 VIE.' i 1""F;
j.
.01
V
0
*,./
K.1
* <) J. 2
0
0
0
0
o
V"
„ 014
( 1
j't
0
.--•J, 7
i i
0
r.-!
-•¦m. v-
i ., 63E 5
187,. -;!86
„ 599
3.. 12
- \.f t
i.,hoe
24 5 .0.1.
. : ' > i:
25.943 '
'7 .. 00 1
025
1.30E 5
368,698
1 . 366
40 .413
3 „ 706
1.71E 5
520.663
2. 554
55.737
6.112
V
034
i„o7E 5
608-762
3 .448
69.173
8 . 926
1 0
- 039
1.4IE 5
6.85, 933
4 „ 4 86
80.525
12.097
•• :i
.. G4 5
1..01E 5
657.634
4 .967
88.687
15.136
.052
6 - ooi:: 4
5.16 - 3 4 3
4 . 503
93.493
17.523
!. 3
06
3.1BE 4
365.348
3 . ih 8
96.043
19-212
14
.07
2 . J. 21::. 4
325.04c-
3.78
97.744
20.714
1 5
.. 081
1.09E 4
223.. 044
2.996
98.619
21 ,.74 5
(
. 09 3
3926 . 263
"! 06.. 831
1 .,6 57
98.934
22.239
:
.. lo7
.' .. 8 J, ¦:.¦
58. 91
1 ,.055
99.064
22.. 511
i 8
- 1 24
¦ „ 'y1 4
3620:1
749
°9„ .1. :>¦
.s. "?<:>
A i..- y
i 'v
„ 14 -i
697' .. 30 3
32.112
. 767
99.164
a
*• v..' a., v
70
, J, 5
,.;6 5 - 044
..
„ 629
99.185
7 2.932
:i.
;..9.i
25.981
2. 981
9.49E-2
99.187
22.946
'46
' ,.'1
., 7:93
0
0
9 9".. 187
,. .. / C:*
«' 2
,-34
0
0
o
99.187
22.946
23
.. 392
0
0
Q
99.187
22.. 946
.3! 53
o
'.
0 i
99 . ;[ 87
22 ., 946
,
. 523
9 /' . j.
3-1 1. 203
29 .. S02
99.219
24 .. 32c-,
.. 604
1 719 . 368
j. 9 7 .. ,j •
198 ..651
99.356
33.642
.: 0
69!:;
400 2, i. 26
0,.l.3O.. 388
/ 17,'.. v95
9'9 . 6 7 7
61.v79
.. I
- 306
4032 A37
ri . 7 '-'8
1104 .. 78
1.00
j 00
. 931
0
O
?' t
0
0
• U !,>!,.
i „ 31E 6
1,':>E 4
,?(2:j4 .. ('¦ 5':.'
¦¦ 1 l.irv
HEASUREI./
i2
M9E-2
, 147
.27
,.'135
.65
. S3 8 8
•J.. 104
1.281
1. 462
1 . 606
1. 685
i . 736
1. '-72
.1. - eov
1 .,839
1 .. 844
1 .844
1. .8''!4
J. . 7 44
1 „844
I. .. 844
1 „ .3! 4
12.202
4 7.. 0O4
15-5
-------
IS I
DIFFERENTIAL. MOBILITY" PARTICLE SIZ
ER
7/29792 NON-
•PUL-SE: CCL4
LOW SR
SAI1I-
"LE t; 1
aerosol
FLOW RATE;
3 LP 11
ilC AS. MODE
= EVERY CHNL
maximum
01A. MEASURED
'; . 886 Uil
' START:
09;12:08
.
r
ShTK: O/-2°"-1992
til MI nun 1)1 A.
MEASURED;
-017 lilt
• END; 09;
34 s 03
CONCENTRATION
PERCENTAGE
um
t6l! AMIITER
c;h«
j-11 DPLIJ'HI'
NUMBER
SURFACE
VOLUME
NUMBER
surface;
VOLUME
(IJ1-1,1
>: «/co)
.034
2.S3E 5
1027.757
5.821
49.522
IS.395
8 . 317
10
- 039
2.8SE S
1396.848
9. 136
61.201
27.798
14.193
1
.04 5
2.93E 5
1692.027
14.29
73.064
40.533
23-385
12 -
. 052
2.59E 5
2229.128
19.442
33.546
55.538
35.89
1 "3
- 06
2.05E 5
2354.OS7
23.709
91.346
71.384
51 . 14
14
.07
1.01E 5
1546.053
17.981
' 95.934
01.791
62.706
¦1 ^
.081
o.C'BE 4
1242.286
16.695
98.397
90.153
73.438
16
. 093
2.6QE 4
708.271
10.985
99.4 5
94.92
80.. 504
1.7
. 107
9051„16
328.363
5.831
99.816
97.131
84.287
IB
'.123
2S33.«o4
137.080
m *-/ k_j» v.1
99.931
98.053
86. 11
i <::¦
. 143
°41.203
60. 72
1.45
99.969
98.462
87 - 043
20
' . 263
357.842
30.78 5
.849
99.983
98.669
87 _589
21
. 191
166.753
19.13
. 609
99.99
98.798
87.981
..221
11 5 - 41 5
17.657
.649
99.995
98.917
88.399
2'. 3
..,;:55
1 . 544
.315 1
.33E—2
99.995
98.919
88.407
2 4
- 294
O
Q
C'
99.995
98.919
88.407
.,.>4
0
0
0
99.995
98.919
88- 407
26
7 O
O
0
0
99.995
90.919
88.. 40':'
. 412:.
18.757
12.101
. 914
99.996
99.001
88.99 5
28 '
, 523
19.194
16.513
1.44
99.996
99.112
89.. 722
A'..
34 . 1 53
39.181
3 - 946
99.998
99.375
92.46
30
..698
26.858
41.009
4.779
99.999
99.652
95.534
31
. 806 '
25.342
51.7
6.944
lOO
lOO
lOO
32
..931
'j
0
0
0
0
0
I DIAL.
:
2.47E 6
1 . • !8l 4
155.468
:f::*FuR
S4!23)^;UICil i •
¦ .DAT A ONLY#>k
*E0.
MEAN::
... 64l:: "'2*
5 . 31E - 2
8.04E-2
..4'Hlr A P 1" AC 1 UK:
1 . 524
1.. 622
2.369
-------
TSI DIFFERENTIAL MOBILITY PARTICLE SIZER
7/29/92 PULSING CCL4 LOW SR' " •
SAMPLE W 1 AEROSOL FLOW RATEs -3 LPM HEAS. MODE: EVERY CHHL
MAXIMUM DIfl. MEASUREDt .806 UM " START: 08:45:56
DATEf 07-29-1992 . MINIMUM DIA. MEASUREDi -017 UM ENDt 09c07s59
FILE NAME 5 P7-29-92 RECORDt « 1
CONCENTRATION
PERCENTAGE
DIA
DIAMETER
^
CHH
MIDPOINT
NUMBER
SURFACE
VOLUME
NUMBER
SURFACE
VOLUME
(UM)
(H/CC)
(UVT2/CC)
(UM"3/CC)
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
1
.01
0
O
O
O
0
0
2
.012
O
0
0
0
0
0
3
.014
0
0
0
O
0
0
4
.017
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
.019
9.19E 4
103.491
.336
3.636
.573
.166
6
.022
2.28E 5
349-033
1.204
12.657
2.469
.803
7
.025
2-02E 5
412.022
1.75
20.642
4 ,707
1.67
a
.029
2.07E 5
564.63
2.769
28.649
7.774
3.042
9
.034
3.02E 5
1097.327
6.210
40.8X4
13.730
6.122
10
.037
3.17E 5
1536¦716
lO.OSl
S3.374
22.086
11.102
11
.045
3.13E 5
2024.131
15.288
65.78
33.081
10.676
12
.oi2
2.63E 5
2439.694
21.270
76.993
46.334
29.219
13
.06
2.35E 5
2705.727
27.251
86.318
61.032
42.721
14
.07
1.B2E 3
2764.022
32.309 .
93.516
76.16
58.769
15
.081
9.90E 4
2020.011
27.13
97.431
07.133
72.211
16
.093
3.96E 4
1O7S.069
16.72
98.990
92.989
80.495
17
.107
1.53E 4
536.688
9.97
99.604
96.013
65.435
is
.124
6295.8B2
304-503
6.299
99 . © 33
97.668
88.556
19
,lfl3
2Q8B.9BA
134.760
3.219
99,936
90.4
90.181
20
.165
720.651
62.606
1 .729
99-965
98.74
91.008
21
.191
379.21 .
43.504
1.386
99.98
98-977
91.694
22
.221
305.415
46.724
1.718
99.992
99-23
92.546
23
.255
110.516
22.546
.950
99-996
99.353
93.02
24
.294
27-571
7.501
-368
99 m 997
99.394
93.202
25
.34
0
0
0
99.394
93.202
26
.392
O
0
0
99.997
99.394
93.202
27
.453
O
0
0
99.997
99.394
93.202
28
.523
.354
- 304
2.65E-2
99-997
99.395
93.216
29
.604
IB.418
21.129
2.126
99.998
99-51
94.27
30
.698
19.896
oO . ^v)B
3.34
99.999
99.673
96.024
"3TT
.-806
29 .TOT
37-751
0-025
100
100
100 •
32 '
.931
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS; '
2.52E 6
1.S4E 4
201.63
*#FOR MEASURE!? DATA ONLY*#
GEO. MEAN; " 4.Q4E-2 S-76E-2 7.90E-2
SPREAD rACTORt X-309 1.571 2.06?
------- |