EPA- 600 / R- 9 5-064
April 1995
Technology Evaluation Report:
Support for MACT Determination
for Degreasing
by
D. R. Cornstubble, K. R. Monroe, E, A. Hill, and J. B. Flanagan
Research Triangle Institute
P. O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Parti, North Carolina 27709-2194
EPA Contract 68-D1-0I18, W.A. 059
EPA Project Officer: Charles H. Darvin
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
PB95-215992
Report Nos: RTI-96U-5171-13
Title: Technology Evaluation Report: Support for HACT Determination for Oegreasing,
Date: Apr 95
Authors: D. R. Cornstubble, K. R. Monroe, E. A. Hill, and J. B. Flanagan.
Performing Organization: Research Triangle Inst., Research Triangle Park, NC.
Performing Organization Report Nos: EPA/500/R-95/064
Sponsoring Organization: *Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Air and tnergy Lngineering Research Lab,
Contract Nos: EPA-68-D1-0118
Type of Report and Period Covered: Final rept. Mar 93-Jun 94.
Supplemental Notes: Portions of this document are not fully legible.
NTIS Field/Group Codes: 68A (Air Pollution & Control), 71Q (Solvents, Cleaners, &
Abrasivesj
Price: PC A05/MF A01
Availability: Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
VA. mbi
Number of Pages: 93p
Keywords: *Degreasing, *Air pollution abatement, Vapors, Emissions, Solvents,
stationary sources, Vacuum apparatus, Gravimetric analysis, Standards compliance.
Sectoral analysis, Field tests, *MACT(Maximum Achievable Control Technology), ^Maximum
Achievable Control Technology, Pollution prevention, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants..
Abstract: The report provides technical data to support Maximum Achievable control
IecnnoIogy (MACT) rule-making efforts. It quantifies emissions from innovative
alternative vapor degreasing systems, permitting comparisons of emissions to
conventional vapor degreasing systems. Tests were performed at two locations,
primarily using gravimetric analysis.
-------
ATTENTION
Portions of this report
are NOT legible. Due to
the importance of the
material, it is being made
available to the public.
It is the best
reproduction available.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before comf,
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-6GQ/R-95-064
iiiiiiiiiiiiunii
PB95-215992
4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Technology Evaluation Report; Support for MACT
Determination for Degreasing
5. REPORT DATE
April 1995
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
I R. Cornstubble, K.R.Monroe, E.A.Hill, and
J. B, Flanagan
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
96 U" 5171" 13
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Research Triangle Institute
P. 0. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-Dl-0118. Task 059
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
Task Final; 3/93 - 6/94
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15.supplementary NOTES ERL project officer is Charles H. Darvin, Mail Drop 91, 919/
541-7633,
i6. abstractrep0rt provides technical data to support Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rule-making efforts. It quantifies emissions from innovative
alternative vapor degreasing systems, permitting comparisons of emissions to
conventional vapor degreasing systems. Tests were performed at two locations,
primarily using gravimetric analysis.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b,IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Pollution
Degreasing
Vapors
Emission
Gravimetric Anslysis
Pollution Prevention
Stationary Sources
13 B
13 H
07D
14 G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
91
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 {9-73}
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must establish an emissions
standard with limits reflecting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for each
major source category emitting hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under the National Emissions
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants. New developments in vapor degreaser design create
the potential of nearly total elimination of HAP emissions during degreasing operations. A
number of companies have advertised very low emitting, well-controlled vapor degreasing
systems that are claimed to be representative of MACT.
The objective of this research project was to quantify solvent loss from low-emitting
vapor degreasing systems. Criteria for systems to be tested included available capacities,
types of solvents that can be used in the degreaser, operating parameters, and available
features usable by a wide range of industries. These data were then to be used as background
information for MACT regulations being developed by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
Two vapor degreasing systems were selected as representative of the generic designs
of systems capable of achieving MACT emissions levels. Both systems operated using
different forms of vacuum technology to control and reduce cleaning solvent emissions.
Emissions data from each system were determined by observing total system weight losses
before and after each degreasing cycle.
Results of the gravimetric analyses showed an emissions cap using this type of
technology of 10 lb over 3-8 hour test days, 3.3 lb/d or 0.42 Ib/h, for both systems. This is
considerably less than a standard open-top vapor degreaser, which has an emission rate of 1.6
lb/h.1 Thus, low emitting vapor degreasing systems show a 74 percent improvement over
conventional emission rates.
PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
Figures v
Tables v
Metric Equivalents vi
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Project Objective 1
1.3 Approach 1
1.4 Results . 2
2.0 Selection of New Degreasing Technologies for Testing 3
2.1 Selection Process . 3
2.2 Site Visits 8
3.0 Low Emission Vapor Degreaser (LEVD) Evaluation 9
3.1 Serec LEVD 9
3.1.1 Process Description 9
3.1.2 Onsite Testing 9
3.1.3 Gravimetric Analysis 12
3.1.4 Vent Analysis 14
3.2 Baron Blakeslee LEVD . 16
3.2.1 Process Description 16
3.2.2 Onsite Testing 16
3.2.3 Gravimetric Analysis 19
3.2.4 Vent Analysis 20
3.3 Summary . 21
4.0 Quality Assurance 23
4.1 Quality Assurance Project Plan Review and Data Quality Objectives .... 23
4.2 Calibrations 23
4.2.1 PIDs 23
4.2.2 LFE Calibrations .... 23
4.2.3 Mass Calibrations 23
4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control of Onsite Testing 24
4.3.1 Zero Drift 24
4.3.2 Replicate Measurements 24
4.3.3 Linearity Measurements 26
iii
-------
Page
4.4 Comparability of Solvent Usage Results 26
4.4.1 Sight Glass (Serec Only) 27
4.4.2 De greaser Weight (Both Sites) 27
4.4.3 Carbon Trap Weight (Both Sites) 27
4.5 Audits 27
4.5.1 Internal PID Audit 27
4.5.2 Field Audit at the Serec and Baron Blakeslee Test Sites 28
4.5.3 Data Review and Audit . 29
4.6 Findings 30
4.6.1 PID Failed To Perform 30
4.6.2 Weight Measurements Inadequately Sensitive 30
4.6.3 Unstable Results for Baron Blakeslee Degreaser Weighings 31
4.7 Data Quality Assessment 31
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 35
6.0 References 36
Appendices
A Checklist A.l
B Serec Test Data B.l
C Baron Blakeslee Test Data C.l
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Eage
3-1 Serec LEVD System, Testing Equipment and Instrumentation 10
3-2 Degreasing Cycle - Serec . 11
3-3 Baron Blakeslee LEVD System, Testing Equipment and Instrumentation ... 17
3-4 Degreasing Cycle - Baron Blakeslee 18
4-1 Scale Zero vs. Date and Time 25
4-2 Degreaser Weight vs. Cycle Number 32
TABLES
2-1 Vapor Degreasing System Manufacturers 5
2-2 Selection Criteria for Candidate Low-Emitting Vapor
Degreasing Vendors 6
3-1 Summary of Test Results 21
4-1 Hysteresis of Degreaser Weight Measurements before and after Equipment
Removal and Replacement at the Baron Blakeslee Site 26
4-2 Summary of Linearity Measurements 26
v
-------
METRIC EQUIVALENTS
Although it is EPA policy to use metric units, nonmetric units are used throughout
most of this document for the reader's convenience and to reflect actual test measurements.
Readers more familiar with metric units may use the following factors to convert to that
system,
Nonmetric Times Yields Metric
op
5/9 (°F - 32)
°C
ft
0.31
m
ft3
28.3
L
ft3 /min
0.00047
m3/s
gal
3.8
L
in.
2.5
cm
in. Hg
3.4
kPa
lb
0,45
kg
lb/in.2
6.9
kPa
vi
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This project was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
provide technical data to support Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule-
making efforts. It quantifies emissions from innovative alternative vapor degreasing systems,
permitting comparisons of emissions to conventional vapor degreasing systems. Tests were
performed at two locations, primarily using gravimetric analysis.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The U.S. EPA must establish an emissions standard with limits reflecting MACT for
each major source category emitting hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These standards would
be developed as National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
New developments in vapor degreaser design have the potential for totally eliminating HAP
emissions during surface cleaning. A number of companies have advertised systems that they
claim to be representative of MACT-that is, very low-emitting, well-controlled vapor
degreasing systems. These systems use vapor confinement techniques other than traditional
freeboard extensions, freeboard chillers, and automatic covers. Vapor confinement systems
are advantageous to existing industries, since they make possible the continued use of
traditional vapor degreasing solvents or new but similar compounds while significantly
reducing emissions.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this project was to quantify solvent loss by gravimetric
means from low-emitting vapor degreasing systems. The selection criteria for systems tested
included available sizes, types of solvents that can be used in the degreaser, operating
parameters, and available features usable by a wide range of industries. The emissions data
are to be used as supportive information for MACT regulations being developed by EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
1.3 APPROACH
Two vapor degreasing systems were selected as representative of the generic designs
capable of achieving the MACT level Selected systems were tested using gravimetric
analysis. The tests were conducted at the vendor's test facility. Emission rates were
determined by observing weight loss from the system during testing. Testing was conducted
during both operating and nonoperating test periods.
1
-------
1.4 RESULTS
Results of the gravimetric analysis showed an emissions cap using these technologies
of 10 lb over 3-8 hour test days, 3.3 lb/d or 0,42 lb/h, for both systems. Based on an
emissions rate of 1.6 lb/h, the vapor degreasing systems tested indicated a 74 percent
improvement over conventional vapor degreasers. Thus, the test results indicate that the use
of the vapor confinement technologies of the type tested will significantly reduce solvent
emissions during degreasing.
2
-------
2.0 SELECTION OF NEW DEGREASING
TECHNOLOGIES FOR TESTING
2.1 SELECTION PROCESS
Independent emissions data for new technologies in vapor degreasing are minimal or
nonexistent. One way to obtain additional information is to conduct emission tests of several
of these new designs. However, identifying which systems to test requires a selection process
based on predefined criteria.
Predefined criteria used to select new degreasing designs for testing were chosen to
define the utility of the system designs for a broad range of degreasing requirements. The
criteria were:
• Size ranges of cleaning chambers available. The cleaning chamber size
determines the workload (size and weight) capacity of a system. Some products
are very small, requiring only a small chamber. Others may be very large or
oddly shaped. Systems that are available in a variety of chamber sizes will be
useful to a wide range of industries. Depending on the type of industry, a new
system must be capable of degreasing a broad range of products and still be able
to keep up with current production rates.
Operating parameters of the system. The operating parameters of a system
include cycle time, operating temperature, operating pressure, production
capability, size of working chamber, and automation of the system. These will
define the range of products that the system is able to process.
• Tvpe of industries in which the system can be used. The type of industries in
which a system can be used may include aerospace, automotive, electronics, and
small job shops. The new systems must be capable of meeting production rates
for each of these industries and to perform as well as existing processes.
• Tvpe of solvents that the system is designed to use. A system that can use more
than one type of solvent will be useful for more applications. It will also
provide flexibility for future process changes due to the introduction of new
products or regulation of existing solvents. Traditional chlorinated solvents,
such as perchloroethylene (ICE) and trichloroethylene, may still be used in
these systems at low levels of emissions. Nontraditional vapor degreasing
solvents, such as flammables, may be used as well as traditional solvents.
3
-------
important for reducing potential installation costs for new equipment and
facilities. It also eliminates the capital costs of changeovers to new equipment
and solvents, if applicable,
• Location of installations. Systems in easily accessible locations for testing will
be favored. If available, comparable data, such as existing emissions data or
theoretical calculations, will be substituted for new testing data.
Availability of a system for loan to Research Triangle Institute (RTD. The loan
of a system means the system is available to RTI free of charge to perform
evaluation testing. Every opportunity was taken to acquire each vendor's
system on loan. The two candidate systems selected for testing were
unavailable for loan because they were needed at the vendor's for demonstration
to current and prospective customers. These two systems were tested at the
vendor's facility.
Based on the selection criteria above, a phone survey of system manufacturers and
vendors was conducted. The scope of the survey was to gather information on new degreasing
systems that met the predefined criteria. Table 2-1 lists the vendors contacted that
manufactured or marketed degreasing systems. Only 8 of the 35 vendors contacted were
actively pursuing new technologies in vapor degreasing. The remaining vendors had switched
from the production of vapor degreasing systems to the production of aqueous cleaning
systems because of the restriction on use of chlorinated solvents for degreasing.
The systems manufactured by each of the eight vendors were rated according to the
predefined criteria (see Table 2-2). Of the eight vendors, Serec, Hahn & Kolb, and Baron
Blakeslee were chosen as possible candidates for evaluation testing. Sera; was chosen because
the technology and size range of the system was most adaptable. This system uses vacuum to
control emissions. It allows flexibility in the cleaning chamber size and types of degreasing
solvents that can be used. The system's operating parameters are favorable for vapor
degreasing processes. The cycle time is approximately 30 minutes, and the operating
temperature is near the boiling point of PCE. Serec's system is not manufactured as a retrofit.
It was unavailable for loan because it was needed at the vendor's for demonstration to current
and prospective customers.
Hahn & Kolb was chosen as a candidate because the technology, size range, and
operating parameters of the system make it adaptable to most industries. Currently, more than
700 of these units are reportedly operating in German industry. The Hahn & Kolb unit is a
closed system that continuously recirculates air internally to recover residual solvent. At the
end of a degreasing cycle, the chamber air is vented through a carbon adsorber. Solvents
usable in the system are limited to traditional chlorinated solvents. During review, PCE was
the solvent used in this system. The cycle time is approximately 15 minutes. Operating
temperature is near the boiling point of PCE and the operating pressure is atmospheric. The
4
-------
Table 2-1. Vapor Degreasing System Manufacturers
Vendor name
Technology currently
manufactured
Baron Blakeslee, Inc.
Full vacuum
Fentech, Inc.*
Full vacuum
Serec Corporation
Full vacuum
Durr Industries
Sealed"
Hahn & Kolb (USA), Inc.
Sealed
S & K Products
Sealed (alcohols only)
Forward Technology
Lip vent (fire suppression)
Abar Ipsen Industries'
Nitrogen
Detrex Corporation
Freeboard
Pctroferm, Inc. (AVD)
Freeboard
Ultra-Kool, Inc.
Freeboard
Corpane Industries, Inc.
OTVD1
Finishing Equipment, Inc.
OTVD
Vapor Engineering
OTVD
ACCEL
Aqueous
ACME-FAB
Aqueous
ADF Systems, Ltd.
Aqueous
Advanced Curing Systems
Aqueous
Advanced Deburring
Aqueous
Atcor Corporation
Aqueous
Barrett Centrifugals
Aqueous
Better Engineering Mfg.
Aqueous
Blackstone Ultrasonics
Aqueous
Blue Wave Corporation
Aqueous
Branson Ultrasonics Corp.
Aqueous
Crest Ultrasonics
Aqueous
Greco Brothers, Inc.
Aqueous
K & M Electronics, Inc.
Aqueous
Lewis Corporation
Aqueous
RAMCO Equipment Corp.
Aqueous
SONICOR Instruments
Aqueous
Surface Dynamics, Inc.
Aqueous
Tally Cleaning Systems
Aqueous
Technic Inc. Equipment
Aqueous
Unique Industries, Inc.
Aqueous
" Development stage.
b Sealed = operating pressure slightly negative.
c No information available.
* OTVD = Open top vapor degreasing
5
-------
Table 2-2. Selection Criteria for Candidate Low-Emitting Vapor Degreasing Vendors2
Size Operating Applicable Usable Retrofit Loan
Vendor name & location range parameters industries solvent(s) potential Location availability Total
Os
Serec Corporation
Providence, Rhode Island
Hahn & Kolb (USA), Inc.
Chandler, Arizona
Baron Blakeslee, Inc.
Long Beach, California
Durr Industries
Davisburg, Michigan
Forward Technology
Industries, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Petroferm, Inc. (AVD)
Fernandina Beach, Florida
Fentech, Inc.
Selbyville, Delaware
S & K Products
Chestnut Ridge, New York
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
20
17
15
13
13
11
10
10
4 = Excellent; 3 = Good; 2 = Fair, 1 = Poor
a Criterion ratings were assigned by technical personnel to select the most appropriate systems for emission testing as part of this research effort. Ratings do
not reflect overall quality or applicability of individual manufactured products for other applications.
-------
Hahn & Kolb system is an automated system and is not manufactured as a retrofit. This
system was eliminated from consideration because it was unavailable for loan. The vendor
was in the process of restructuring the company and had warehoused the demonstration unit.
Baron Blakeslee was chosen for the same reasons as Serec and Hahn & Kolb. Baron
Blakeslee's design and operation are similar to Serec's in that both operate under vacuum and
can use traditional and nontraditional solvents. PCE was also used in the Baron Blakeslee
system for the evaluations. The Baron Blakeslee cycle time is approximately 12 minutes. It
operates near the boiling point of ICE. The system is automated. Baron Blakeslee's system is
not manufactured as a retrofit. It was unavailable for loan because it was needed at the
vendor's for demonstration to current and prospective customers.
Those vendors in Table 2-2 that were not chosen as candidates for evaluation testing
include Forward Technology, Durr Industries, Petroferm, Inc., Fentech, Inc., and S&K
Products. Forward Technology was not chosen mainly because it is based on a traditional
vapor degreasing design with a lip vent exhaust and a fire suppression system. Solvents usable
in this system are limited to flammables. The solvent used in the observed system was
isopropyl alcohol. The system is not manufactured as a retrofit.
Durr Industries' and Hahn & Kolb's systems both operate on the same principle; they
continuously recirculate air in the system to recover residual solvent. At the end of a complete
degreasing cycle, the air in the chamber is vented through a carbon adsorber. Durr Industries
was not chosen as a candidate for testing because an evaluation tsst had already been
conducted for this system by an independent test laboratory.1
Petroferm's system is designed as a traditional vapor degreaser with an extended
freeboard chiller. The solvents used in this system are limited to perfluorinated carbons
(PFCs), The system can be manufactured as a retrofit package and would have potential in
most industries, Petroferm was not chosen as a candidate because this technology is not new
and, based on system design, the only usable solvents were PFCs, which have limited
industrial use.
Fentech's system uses the same vacuum technology as Serec's and Baron Blakeslee's
systems. However, the Fentech system is only in the development stage and could not be
considered for evaluation testing.
S&K Products' system is sealed much like Durr's but is a traditional vapor degreaser
that uses an exhaust treatment system to control emissions. The exhaust treatment system
consists of an organic filter and absorbing sprays. This system is designed for precision
cleaning applications, which limits the usefulness of existing equipment to a few industries.
According to system design, only flammable solvents are usable in S&K Products' system.
For these reasons, S&K Products' system was not considered for evaluation testing (Eric
Epner, Radian Corporation, personal communication to Martin Striefler, S&K Products
International, Inc., September, 1992, Test Results - EPA Vapor Dryer).
1
-------
2.2 SITE VISITS
A site visit was made to each of the four selected vendors to narrow the selection to the
two new systems to be tested in this project. Each of the vendors briefly described and
demonstrated their systems. Serec, Halm & Kolb, and Baron Bfakeslee were initially
determined to be acceptable for evaluation testing: Serec and Hahn & Kolb were initially
picked as test sites; however, Hahn & Kolb was eliminated from consideration due to the
unavailability of their system. Baron Blakcslee was then chosen as the second unit for
evaluation testing.
8
-------
3.0 LOW EMISSION VAPOR DEGREASER
(LEVD) EVALUATION
3.1 SEREC LEVD
3.1.1 Process Description
Serec's LEVD is a vacuum vapor degreaser designed to clean 500 pounds* of steel
per hour in an 11 ft3 degreasing chamber (see Figure 3-1). The system evaluated uses PCE as
the cleaning solvent, A general description of the system and its typical degreasing cycle
follows.
A basket of parts, or individual parts, is placed into the degreaser and the lid is closed.
The air in the degreasing chamber is evacuated by the vacuum system. A control valve is
then opened to introduce preheated PCE vapors from the distilling tank into the degreaser.
The parts in the chamber are degreased for approximately 10 minutes.
After degreasing, a control valve is closed to isolate the chamber from the distilling
tank. The solvent vapor in the chamber is evacuated and recovered in a holding tank. This
recovered solvent is returned to the distilling tank when needed. During the solvent recovery
step, the parts are dried and any liquid solvent is recovered. Thus, solvent dragout is
eliminated from the system.
Following the solvent recovery step, the chamber undergoes a purge step. This is
accomplished by returning the degreasing chamber to ambient conditions by opening a control
valve. The air/solvent vapor mixture in the chamber is then evacuated by the vacuum system
and vented through a carbon adsorber. The chamber is again returned to ambient conditions
and undergoes a second purge step. The goal of the second purge step is to ensure that the
solvent concentration in the chamber when opened is at or below a specified parts per million
(ppm) level. This air/solvent vapor mixture is also vented through the carbon adsorber. After
the second purge step, the chamber is returned to atmospheric pressure. The chamber lid is
opened, and the parts are removed.
Figure 3-2 represents a degreasing cycle including individual steps and their duration.
3.1.2 Onsite Testing
Figure 3-1 represents the testing equipment and instrumentation used to evaluate the
Serec system. At the start of the first test day, the operation and calibration of the floor
scale, laminar flow element (LFE), manometers, thermometer and temperature probe, and the
three photoionization detectors (PIDs) were checked. Appendix A summarizes the test
protocol used throughout testing. The test protocol is part of the approved program test plan.
* Readers more familiar with metric units may use the conversion factors listed at the beginning of the report.
9
-------
Lid
Control
Panel
Knock
Out
Tank
Chiller
Vacuum
Chamber
LFE
Ground
.'V* »•/<.A"*f»* AAV< A* AAv C
Sight
Glaaa
Support
(2) 4" x 4* Wood Seama
4' x 4' Platform 8as«
Figure 3-1. Scree LEVD System, Testing Equipment and Instrumentation
-------
Start
3 second
delay
Pull Vacuum on
Chamber-410 sec
Vapor Clean - 20 sec
Vapor Degrease •
600 sec
20 second
delay
Pull Vacuum on
Chamber
Vtepor Recovery ¦
120 sec
20 second
delay
Aerate*
40 sec
Pull vacuum on
Chamber
1st Purge >386 sec
1 7second
| delay
Aerate *
40 sec
Cycle
reset
Pufi vacuum on
chamber - 2nd pi*ge
425 sac
X
Aerate*
40 sec
J
7 second delay
* Open air valve and allow charrtber to
return to atmospheric pressure.
Figure 3-2. Degreasing Cycle - Serec
11
-------
Several modifications were made to the degreasing system to accommodate the floor
scale and the vent instrumentation, i.e., the LFE and accessory piping. These included
detaching the degreaser's supports from a cement foundation, replacing the steam lines and the
vent line with flex-hoses, and replacing the existing vacuum pump with a lower capacity
pump. The lower capacity pump was used because the existing pump was too large to place
on the scale. Performance of the lower capacity pump was expected to be lower than the
larger capacity pump. Thus, solvent recovered from the working chamber via vacuum was
expected to be less and emissions from the system to be greater than would be measured with a
normal unit.
After completing these modifications, the floor scale was placed between the degreaser
and its foundation (supported by two 4" x 4" wooden beams). The LFE and accessory piping,
manometer, and temperature probe were attached to the vent's flex-line. The discharge from
this arrangement was vented to a carbon canister, as shown.
After the initial set up, several degreasing cycles were ran to become familiar with the
operation of the Serec system.
3.1.3 Gravimetric Analysis
Two types of gravimetric analyses were performed for this evaluation test. The
primary analysis was to measure the weight loss of the entire Serec system with a floor scale.
A second independent analysis was to measure the weight gain of a carbon canister connected
to the vent of the system using a second floor scale. The canister was weighed to provide a
check against the weight loss from the system. No leak checks were conducted after
connections had been made.
A floor scale was rented from DIG I MATEX, Inc., to measure the weight loss of the
Serec system. This scale has a digital readout console, a 4' x 4* platform base, a capacity of
5,000 lb, and a readability of 0.5 lb. A 50-lb calibration weight was used to calibrate the scale
at the beginning and end of each test day.
The initial weight of the Serec system before testing began was 3,182.5 lb. The final
weight at the completion of testing was 3,178,5 lb (see Table B-l in Appendix B for Serec test
data). Over 4 test days and 22 degreasing cycles, the system lost 4.0 lb. The average loss per
cycle was 0.18 lb. The uncertainty of this loss was unknown, since no replicate measurements
were taken (no standard deviation calculated).
The floor scale used to measure weight gain in the carbon canister was provided by
Serec. The scale had a capacity of 300 lb and a readability of 0.25 lb. A certificate verifying
the calibration of the scale was provided by Serec. The calibration was checked with the
50-lb calibration weight.
12
-------
On the first test day during preliminary testing, perchloroethylene odors were noticed
in the proximity of the vent connections between the system and the carbon canister. The
source of these odors was a hole in the vent arrangement that was made for the PID sample
tube. Before the next preliminary test run, the hole was covered, which reduced the
perchloroethylene odors substantially.
The initial weight of the canister was 22.8 lb. The final weight was 25.9 lb. Over 4
test days and 22 degreasing cycles, the canister gained 3.1 lb. The average gain per cycle
was 0.14 lb. The uncertainty of this gain is unknown, since no replicate measurements were
taken (no standard deviation calculated).
An additional measurement was performed to verify solvent losses from the system.
In the Serec system, recovered solvent from the degreasing chamber is sent to the holding
tank. Then the holding tank transfers solvent back to the distilling tank to prevent the tank
from emptying over several degreasing cycles. Because this internal transfer process would
have an adverse effect on the actual solvent loss from the system, the decision was made to
block the solvent transfer process and record the change of solvent level in the distilling tank
from cycle to cycle. The change in solvent level was measured by recording the change in
height of the distilling tank sight glass with a l/16th-inch graduated ruler at the beginning of
each cycle.
The change in height of the distillate tank's sight glass was used in conjunction with
the carbon canister weight gain to check the amount of solvent emitted from the Serec
system. Between each degreasing cycle, the distilling tank was not replenished with fresh
solvent in order to obtain the total depletion of solvent in the tank. Over 3 test days and 22
test runs, or 22 degreasing cycles, the distilling tank sight glass dropped from a height of
16.0625 in. (16 and 1/16 in.) to 7.125 in. (7 and 2/16 in.), or 8.9375 in. The distilling tank
inside diameter was 15.75 in. and the total solvent used over the 22 degreasing cycles
including the volume depleted in the sight glass (0.5 in.) was:
Volume = [ (x * D^2 ft2) / 4 * (height) ft] + [ (n * DsighI gto2 ft2) / 4 * (height) ft (3.1)
or
Volume= [(jc*(15.75/12)2) / 4 * (8.9375/12)] + [(* * (0.5/12) 2) / 4 * (8.9375/12)] (3.2)
Volume = 1.009 ft3
13
-------
The solvent usage per cycle is .046 ft3 (1.009 ft3/22 cycles) and for perchloroethylene, which
has a specific gravity of 1.62, the perchloroethylene utilized is then:
Solvent usage per cycle = (0.046 ft3) * (1.62*62.43 lb/ft3) (3.3)
= 4.64 lb/cycle
Over the 22 test runs, the average weight gain of the carbon canister in
perchloroethylene was 0.14 lb. The average percentage of perchloroethylene recovered based
on the 4.64 lb/cycle usage, therefore, was:
% recovery = (4.64 - 0.14) / 4.64 (3.4)
= 96.98 %.
See Appendix B for these calculations.
3.1.4 Vent Analysis
An internal audit of the three PIDs was performed by RTI (James Flanagan, RTI,
personal communication to Ken Monroe, RTI, August 25, 1993, Internal QA Audit of
Photoionization Detectors). The SPAN audit showed that by adjusting the SPAN
potentiometers to their lowest available gain, the three PIDs gave readings between 70 and
100 ppm for a 29.9-ppm standard, and between 18 and 30 ppm for a 7.98-ppm standard. The
ratios of high standard to low standard ranged between 3.4 and 3.5. The actual ratio of
standard gas concentrations was 3.75. The departure from linearity was less than 10 percent.
Based on these results, a ratio method was determined to be acceptable for use in both
evaluations.
Before running the first test cycle, operational checks were performed on the two floor
scales, LFE, manometer, thermometer, temperature probe, degreaser, and PIDs. Also, two
cylinders containing ZERO and SPAN gases required to calibrate the PIDs were checked.
In preparation for calibrating the PIDs, each cylinder of calibration gas was bled from
its cylinder into its own purged Tedlar bag. This procedure was necessary because the PIDs
must analyze the ZERO and SPAN gases at the same conditions as the vent conditions (e.g.,
atmospheric pressure).
Each PID was calibrated with ZERO gas (<1 ppm total hydrocarbons) and SPAN gas
(46.8 ppm PCE). The PIDs held zero when calibrated with the ZERO gas. The SPAN
reading on the 0- to-200-ppm scale for each PID, however, was between 1 and 1.5 times the
actual concentration of the SPAN gas. The decision was made to set the SPAN on each PID
to read 100 on the 0- to-200-ppm scale. Upon completion of the calibration checks, a test
cycle was now ready to begin.
14
-------
A second calibration check was made on each PID with the ZERO and SPAN gases to
make sure they were functioning properly. When the ZERO on each PID was rechecked with
ZERO gas from its Tedlar bag, the reading did not stabilize. A second check was made with a
fresh sample of ZERO gas from the same Tedlar bag. The reading was completely different
from the initial setting and would not stabilize.
The same procedure was performed on each PID with the SPAN gas. When trying to
set the SPAN on the 0- to-200-ppm scale to 100 ppm as done previously, the same instability
occurred as with the ZERO gas. Because of this instability, the PIDs were dropped from the
test protocol and testing continued with gravimetric measurements only.
The three PIDs and two cylinders of ZERO and SPAN gases were shipped back to RTI
to investigate the problems in the field. The vendor was contacted concerning the performance
of the PIDs.
Because the PIDs were not being used in the evaluation, the vendor suggested using
their detection tubes to check solvent concentrations in different areas over several test cycles.
Areas checked included the vent stream during purge steps, the exhaust of the carbon canister
during purge steps, and the degreasing chamber after the lid was opened. Gastec PCE
detector tubes with a detection range of 2 to 250 ppm were used. The solvent concentration of
the vent stream using the detector tubes was consistently greater than 250 ppm. The solvent
concentration of the exhaust of the carbon canister was consistently below 2 ppm. The solvent
concentration of the degreasing chamber was consistently below 15 ppm.
In addition to gravimetric analyses, it was decided to record maximum pressure
differentials across the LFE per purge step and the duration of the purge step during a
degreasing cycle. These data provided the average peak flow and the duration of exhaust gas
from the system. The maximum pressure drop was used to calculate the maximum flow rate
per purge step in cubic feet per minute (cfm). The maximum flow rates for purge steps 1 and
2 were 8.75 cfm and 8.95 cfm, respectively. Their average duration was 6.40 and 7.12
minutes, respectively. See Appendix B for these calculations.
Methodology for measuring solvent concentrations in the system's vent exhaust was
developed by RTI personnel, EPA's test method 25A, Determination of Total Gaseous
Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer, was not applicable to this
technology. Method 25A*s use is limited to measuring a single emission source, particularly a
vent stack. However, new LEVD technologies have multiple emission sources that include a
vent stack and an opening and closing working chamber. Therefore, EPA test method 25A
was not considered as part of the testing methodology for evaluating this type of technology.
15
-------
3.2 BARON BLAKESLEE LEVD
3.2.1 Process Description
Baron Blakeslee's LEVD system is a sealed, closed-loop vapor degreaser. It operates
under vacuum and recycles solvent by continuous distillation. The system consists of a
vacuum rated pressure vessel (the degreasing chamber), a distillation tank, a vacuum chill
tank, a distillate tank, a condenser, and a refrigeration unit (see Figure 3-3). The system
tested uses PCE as the standard cleaning solvent. A general description of the system and its
degreasing cycle follows.
The cleaning chamber can hold three baskets of parts. Typical baskets measure 6xhn x
11 xh" x 8". The production rate is three baskets per hour. After the baskets are loaded into
the chamber, the cover is closed and sealed. The air in the chamber is evacuated by a vacuum
pump to approximately 15 inches of mercury. The vacuum pump is turned off and PCE vapor
from the distillation tank is introduced to the degreasing chamber. This returns the chamber to
atmospheric pressure. The vapor preheats the chamber and vapor cleans the parts. After
vapor cleaning, a drain located in the bottom of the chamber is closed. The parts are then
sprayed until the chamber half fills with liquid. The drain valve opens to the distillate tank.
The drain valve closes. The parts are given a final spray rinse and drained again. The drain
valve closes, the vacuum pump is turned on, and the air/solvent vapor mixture in the chamber
is evacuated until a pressure of approximately 28 to 29 inches of mercury is reached. During
this evacuation step, any residual liquid solvent is driven into the vapor phase and is scavenged
from the chamber.
The solvent expelled from the vacuum pump is fed to the chilled solvent seal tank that
has a refrigerated condensing coil to condense the solvent. Any residual solvent in the stream
is fed to the knockout tank and then to the refrigerated condenser. The chamber is then
returned to atmospheric pressure with ambient air by opening a control valve. A warning light
and audible signal notify the operator that the cycle is complete. The chamber door is opened
and the baskets are removed.
A programmable controller is used to control the cycle, including turning pumps on
and off, timing elements, and sensing conditions. Lights on the control panel indicate when
operations are on or are being performed, if an error condition exists, and when the cycle is
complete.
Figure 3-4 represents a degreasing cycle including individual steps and their duration.
3.2.2 Onsite Testing
Several changes were made to the test protocol between the evaluation test for Serec
and the evaluation test for Baron Blakeslee. One previously mentioned change was to drop the
use of the PIDs in the evaluation for Baron Blakeslee due to continuing problems with the
16
-------
55-gal
Drum
(carbon)
0,5" Diameter
9T
'8
1.5* Diameter
Vent Line
2,0* Diameter
Vent Line
Atmosphere
Air Diffuser
Knockout
Tank
Closed
Panel
Control
Digital
Pressure
Transmitter
Refngeration
Unit
i
a
Vacuum i
Chamber
Dl-tO Console
(500 to x 0.051b)
DI-10 Console
(5000 fox 0.5 lb)
Con0»naor
Vacuum
Chill
Tank
Distillation' (
, i Tank 11«
Distillate
Tank
rytcuum
4* x 4* Wood Beam
4' x 4" Platform Base
Table
Scaffokltng
mm
Distillate
Pump
Figure 3-3. Baron Blakeslee LEVD System, Testing Euipment and Instrumentation
-------
Start
3 second delay
Drain for 180 seconds
10 second delay
PuB Vacuum • 30 sec
Vapor Clean * S sec
Vfepor Clean >120 see
Vacuum dry - 300 soc
Vacuum pump on
Puil Vacuum
oo Chamber • 20 sec
Cycle reset
* Open chamber fid slightly
and pufl vacuum for 30 sec.
Figure 3-4. Degreasing Cycle - Baron Blakeslee
18
-------
PIDs. Therefore, only gravimetric measurements were recorded for the Baron Blakeslee
evaluation test.
A second change was to use a floor scale to weigh a 55-galion drum of carbon
connected to the vent of the Baron Blakeslee system. This provided an independent check
against the weight loss of the system.
A third change was to check the daily drift of both floor scales by elevating the system
and drum of carbon from their respective scales at the beginning and end of each test day.
Also, both scales were tared at the beginning and end of the 4 day evaluation test to check the
weekly drift in the scales.
Minor modifications were made to the Baron Blakeslee system to accommodate the
floor scale and the vent instrumentation (i.e., the LFE and accessory piping). These included
tying off cooling water and electrical lines, down-sizing the vent stack diameter from 2 inches
to 1.5 inches, and attaching a Vi-inch diameter copper tube between the drum of carbon and
the exit of the LFE accessory piping (see Figure 3-3). These modifications were not expected
to alter the operation or efficiency of the unit.
After completing these modifications, the floor scale was placed beneath the degreaser
(supported by two 4" x 4" wooden beams). The LFE and accessory piping, pressure
transmitter, and temperature probe were attached to the modified vent stack. The operation
and calibration of the floor scales, LFE, pressure transmitter, and temperature probe were
checked.
After the initial setup, several degreasing cycles were run to become familiar with the
operation of the Baron Blakeslee system.
3.2.3 Gravimetric Analysis
Two types of gravimetric analyses were performed for this evaluation. The critical
measurement was to determine solvent weight loss of the Baron Blakeslee system with a floor
scale. A second independent analysis was to measure the weight gain of a 55-gal drum of
activated carbon with a second scale.
The floor scale used to determine weight loss of the system was rented from DIG!
MATEX, Inc. The scale delivered had a digital readout console with a capacity of 5,000 lb
and a 4' x 4' platform base. It had been calibrated to a readability of 1.0 lb. This was
unacceptable because the calibration was performed in 1.0-lb increments instead of the
requested 0.5-lb increments. The vendor was contacted and the scale was recalibrated at
0.5 lb at the beginning of the second day (the first test day), A 50-lb calibration weight was
used to check the calibration of the scale at the beginning and end of each test day.
19
-------
The initial weight of the Baron Blakeslee system was 2,950.0 lb. The final weight was
2,947.2 lb (see Table C-l in Appendix C for Baron Blakeslee test data). Over 4 test days and
46 degreasing cycles, the system lost an average of 2.8 lb (minus drift), +/-1.8 lb (three
sigma). Therefore, solvent losses for this system are known to be less than 4.7 lb/46
degreasing cycles, or 0.10 lb/cycle.
DIGI MATEX, Inc., provided and calibrated the floor scale used to determine the
weight gain of the drum of carbon. The scale had a capacity of 500 lb, a readability of
0.05 lb, and a 16" x 24" platform base. Calibration of the scale was checked with the 50 lb
calibration weight.
The initial weight of the drum was 266.60 lb. The final weight was 267.15 lb. Over 4
test days and 46 degreasing cycles, the drum gained 0.55 lb. This small weight gain was
presumably due to the drum of carbon being partially desorbed every degreasing cycle. This
occurs because the system returns the degreasing chamber to atmospheric pressure by drawing
ambient air through the drum of carbon. See Appendix C for sample calculations.
3,2.4 Vent Analysis
Before running the first test cycle, operational checks were performed on the two floor
scales, LFE, pressure transmitter, temperature probe, and degreaser. The ZERO on the
pressure transmitter was checked and rezeroed before starting the first test cycle.
Maximum pressure drops across the LFE were recorded during the vacuum steps.
Maximum flow rates through the LFE for each step were calculated from these pressure drops
and averaged. They were 4.3, 4.0, and 4.1 acfm, respectively.
During the aeration steps, the pressure transmitter showed a negative pressure. This
was an indication that the system was pulling ambient air through the drum of carbon. These
values were not recorded since the LFE was only calibrated for unidirectional flow.
Before RTI arrived for the evaluation test, the vendor was using a portable flame
ionization detector (FID) to analyze solvent concentrations in the system's vent exhaust. Upon
approval from the vendor, this FED was calibrated with ZERO and SPAN gases previously
shipped to the vendor's site. These gases were at the same concentrations as the ones used in
the first evaluation test.
An initial calibration was performed with the ZERO and SPAN gases. The FID was
then used during several degreasing cycles to detect leaks from different areas of the system.
Areas checked included the connections on the vent line, the seal gasket on the chamber,
control valves, the cleanout plate located at the bottom of the distillation tank, the vacuum
pump, and the chamber after the lid was opened. Solvent concentrations around the
connections on the vent line were less than 30 ppm. Solvent concentrations around the seal
gasket on the chamber were 60 to 80 ppm. Solvent concentrations around the control valves
20
-------
were greater than 100 ppm. The solvent concentration around the cleanout plate was greater
than 3,000 ppm. The fasteners on this plate were tightened and the area was checked again.
The solvent concentration dropped to less than 1,000 ppm. Solvent concentrations around the
vacuum pump were less than 30 ppm. Solvent concentrations in the chamber after the lid was
opened were less than 30 ppm.
After using the FID to check these areas, the vent (upstream of the LFE) and the
exhaust air from the drum of carbon were checked during a degreasing cycle. The peak
concentration in the vent during purge steps was 8,500 ppm. During the aerating steps, the
peak concentration was 2,500 ppm. The exhaust air from the drum of carbon contained no
detectable emissions throughout a complete degreasing cycle.
3.3 SUMMARY
Table 3-1 Summarizes results from both evaluation tests.
Table 3-1. Summary of Test Results
Vendor name/
equipment tested
Initial
weight
«b)
Final Weight
weight loss Uncertainty
Ob) (lb) 0b)
Sercc (4 test days, 22 cycles)
System
Carbon canister
Baron Blakeslee (4 test days,
46 cycles)
System
Carbon drum
3,182.5
22.8
2,950.0
266.60
3,178.5
25.9
2,947.2
267.15
-4.0
+3.1
-2.8
0.55
Unknown3
Unknown3
±-1.8 (3o)
Unk.no wnb
a No replicate measurements were performed; no confidence level calculated.
b Calculated standard deviation = 0.
There are no adequate standard test methods for testing the emissions from LEVD
equipment. The use of gravimetric methods has been fairly standard for determining
evaporative emissions from traditional, open-top solvent systems. However, gravimetric
methods used in this test program were not adequate for the type of degreasing technology.
The new vapor degreasing, or solvent cleaning, technologies being developed are not easily
analyzed using gravimetric methods. Field-portable scales with the required levels of accuracy
and repeatability are not available. Standard industry methods require that an instrument have
an accuracy of 10 percent of the desired measure of value. If anticipated evaporative
emissions are approximately 3.3 Ib/d, the instrument should be capable of detecting at least a
0.33-lb change. These types of scales are available for permanent installation but not for field-
21
-------
transportable use. One manufacturer has data1 that indicate a solvent loss of 0.00132 lb/h. If
this equipment operated continuously, it would take 31 days to lose 1 lb of solvent. This level
of loss per unit of time does not lend itself well to field-type measurements.
22
-------
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
4.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN REVIEW AND DATA QUALITY
OBJECTIVES
The quality assurance (QA) project plan was reviewed internally and externally prior to
the field study. Uncertainties regarding the eventual uses of the data impacted the ability to
define reasonable data quality objectives. Because the vacuum degreasing technology has not
previously been tested by EPA, the only benchmark for solvent degreasing emissions was for
older, much higher-emitting technologies. In the absence of information specific to the
vacuum degreasers, measurement methods were used that would have been suitable for the
older technologies. However, as the results of this study show, these methods lacked the
sensitivity necessary to quantify the vacuum degreaser emissions with any precision.
4.2 CALIBRATIONS
4.2.1 PIPs
Three PIDs were obtained for the program to measure organic emissions. In principle,
these devices should be sufficiently sensitive to measure the concentration of the principal
solvent, PCE, down to the low parts-per-million range. All three detectors were tested at RTI
and were found to respond linearly when challenged with two well-characterized cylinders
from the RTI ppm gas repository maintained under EPA contract (James Flanagan, RTI,
personal communication to Ken Monroe, RTI, August 25, 1993, Internal QA Audit of
Photoionization Detectors).
Field calibrations of the PIDs were to be accomplished using a single 49.6-ppm PCE
calibration gas. However, because of operational problems, the PIDs were not used at either
of the sites. (See Section 4.6.1.)
4.2.2 LFE Calibrations
The LFE used to determine the air flow in the exhaust piping was calibrated by the
manufacturer but only in one flow direction. Because bidirectional flow was encountered at
the Baron Blakeslee site, the QA auditor advised project personnel to perform a calibration in
the reverse direction of flow upon their return to RTI. However, in the absence of
concentration data, which were to have been provided by the PIDs, these data are not used to
calculate emissions and, thus, are not critical to the project.
The two scales used to weigh the degreasing equipment and the carbon traps were
calibrated by the manufacturer prior to delivery. RTI had no means to check either balance
near the working weights, approximately 3,000 pounds for the scale used to weigh the
23
-------
degreasers. Absolute accuracy was not deemed critically important, provided the scales
responded accurately to weight differences near the operational point. To ensure the latter,
50 lb weights provided by the scale manufacturer were used regularly to check the accuracy of
this weight increment when added to the total weight of the degreaser or carbon trap. The
Serial Number of the weight used was 32807.
4.3. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL OF ONSITE TESTING
4.3.1 Zero.BKffi
Determination of zero drift was of key importance to reliable assessment of solvent
losses from the degreaser and weight gain (presumably due to solvent adsorption) by the
carbon traps. For the vacuum degreaser, weight changes of only a few parts in 3,000 were
expected due to the extremely low rate of solvent loss by this technology. Any drift of more
than about 0.5 lb over the measurement period of a few days could therefore be a significant
problem. For the carbon trap, the effect of drift would be relatively less because of the much
lower tare weight and more precise readability.
Serec
Zero drift, measured by initial taring of the empty balance followed by regular
recording of the scale's indication when the equipment was removed from it, was not
performed.
Baron Blakeslee
At this site, zero-drift measurements were made regularly. The net zero drift was
approximately +6 pounds over the several days of measurement. Because this is much larger
than the anticipated solvent losses, zero drift will contribute significant uncertainty to these
results. Figure 4-1 illustrates the zero drift measurements as a function of time.
4.3.2 Replicate Measurements
In conducting measurements, various types of replicates were performed including
immediate replicates, replicates before and after removal and replacement of equipment, and
replicates between days (i.e., end-of-day weight and weight at the beginning of the next day).
Replicates of the latter two types were performed regularly.
Immediate replicates were generally not significant because die balances were generally
stable to plus-or-minus the least significant digit.
Replicates before and after replacement of equipment frequently showed a hysteresis of
up to 5 lb either positive or negative. Table 4-1 illustrates the differences in weight
encountered before and after the equipment was removed.
24
-------
7
Begin
Degreaser Zero - ¦
Carbon Trap Zero - +
0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200
8/31 9/1 9/2 9/3
Hours
Figure 4-1. Scale Zero vs. Date and Tune
-------
Table 4-1. Hysteresis of Degreaser Weight Measurements before and after Equipment
Removal and Replacement at the Baron Blakeslee Site
Before removal
After replacement
Change
Date
Time
(lb)
(lb)
(lb)
08/31/93
1315 - 1319
2,953.5
2,954.0
+0.5
09/01/93
0834 - 0848
2,952.0
2,946.5
-5.5
09/01/93
1639 - 1642
2,948.5
2,949.5
+1.0
09/02/93
0805 - 0824
2,948.0
2,951.0
+3.0
09/02/93
1556 - 1603
2,948.0
2,952.0
+4.0
4.3.3 Linearity Measurements
Linearity of the balances was determined by adding a 50-lb weight to the equipment weight.
The difference in total weight is expected to be 50 lb. Table 4-2 summarizes the linearity
measurements.
Table 4-2. Summary of Linearity Measurements
Test site
Balance
Number of
observations
Average
(lb)
Standard
deviation
(lb)
Percent
bias
(lb)
Serec
Trap
4
50.0
0.082
0.0
Serec
Degreaser
5
49.9
0.22
-0.2%
Baron Blakeslee
Trap
3
50.02
0.03
+.06%
Baron Blakeslee
Degreaser
3
50.5
-0"
+1.0%
4.4 COMPARABILITY OF SOLVENT USAGE RESULTS
At both test sites, there were different ways to estimate solvent usage because of the
degreasers' differing configurations. At the Serec site, the weight loss from the degreaser,
weight gain at the carbon trap, and the height of the solvent in the sight glass could all be
used as independent estimates of solvent use. At Baron Blakeslee, the choices were much
more limited because of two factors; (1) the Baron Blakeslee degreaser had no sight glass for
observing solvent height, and (2) the exhaust gas was "backflushed" into the degreaser vent
and from there into the solvent condenser during each cycle. This caused solvent initially
trapped in the carbon trap to be returned to the degreaser. The weight gain in the carbon trap
26
-------
is less than it would have been without this backflush operation. Thus, the Baron Blakeslee
unit necessarily includes the carbon trap as an integral and inseparable part of the control
technology. In contrast, for the Serec unit, the solvent capture can be calculated separately
for the vacuum degreaser and for the carbon trap.
Bach measure of solvent usage is discussed below.
4.4.1 Sight Glass fSerec Only)
During normal operations, solvent is distributed in several different chambers within
the degreaser. However, this would invalidate sight glass readings. Therefore, for testing the
equipment, the system was modified so that all the solvent returned to a single chamber
equipped with an external sight glass. In this configuration, the level of solvent in the sight
glass should be directly related to net loss of solvent from the degreaser. This reading is
independent of any after-treatment control technology such as the carbon trap. To make an
accurate calculation of solvent consumption from these data, it is necessary to have accurate
information about the cross-sectional area of the solvent sump as a function of height and
information about the density of the solvent at the holding temperature in the sump.
4.4.2 Degreaser Weight (Both Sites)
At the Serec site, the change in degreaser weight should be directly related to solvent
loss without the after-treatment carbon trap. At Baron Blakeslee, the change in degreaser
weight is modified by the use of the carbon trap to capture solvent, which is backflushed into
the degreaser as part of the basic cycle. Without the carbon trap backflush as an integral part
of the Baron Blakeslee technology, vented emissions would be higher.
4.4.3 Carbon Trap Weight (Both Sites)
With both types of equipment, the amount of weight gain in the carbon traps should
approximate the weight loss of the degreaser through the exhaust vent, provided there is no
uptake of water or other extraneous substance and that retention efficiency is high. However,
this weight gain will not include other routes of solvent loss including dragout, opening of the
degreasing chamber lid, and equipment leaks.
4.5 AUDITS
4.5.1 Internal PIP Audit
An internal audit of the PID devices was conducted by James Flanagan using well-
characterized gas cylinders obtained from RTFs ppm gas repository operated for EPA.
There was no indication at that time of unacceptable drift or irreproducibility later
encountered at the Serec site. The PIDs were not used at the Baron Blakeslee site.
27
-------
4.5.2 Field Audit at the Serec and Baron Blakeslee Test Sites
Audits were conducted August 17, 1993, at the Serec site and August 31, 1993, at the
Baron Blakeslee site. The audit at Serec was conducted by Bobby Daniels of the EPA and
Bill Buchan and Libby Beach of Acurex Environmental Corporation, The audit at Baron
Blakeslee was conducted by Jim Flanagan of RTI. The audit findings were as follows.
Serec:
• No concentration measurements were made. Concentration measurements were not
taken due to complications with the PIDs (see Section 4.6.1 for this discussion).
• No independent check on PID calibration or verification of span gas was made.
• All weight gain in carbon canister may not be attributable to solvent. Minute
adsorption of materials other than the degreasing solvent (e.g., oil, water) was
possible, but this would have had no bearing on the conclusions of this study.
• Sensitivity of the balance appeared to be greater than the Data Quality Objective
(DQO) stated in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Use of a more
sensitive and precise balance would not have overcome some of the other problems
with using a gravimetric method for this study. Some of these other problems
include variable weight loads presented by electrical wiring and piping attached to
the de greaser. A fundamentally different measurement technique would have been
necessary — for example total capture and measurement of emissions from the
system along measurement of flow/volume of contaminated air.
• (It may be that the DQO for emissions measurements as stated in the original
QAPP was overly ambitious. DQOs need to be only as stringent as required by the
use to which the data will be put. In this case it was necessary only to differentiate
this technology from the open-top technology and to put an upper limit on the
emissions that is clearly lower than the open-top emissions.)
• Exhaust vent connections were not leak checked before testing. No leak checking
was performed to determine solvent loss not captured by the carbon canister.
• Auditors were unable to determine if sufficient gravimetric data were taken to
calculate solvent loss. Auditors were unable to remain for the duration of the test
which spanned four days.
• No procedure was in place to assess daily balance drift. RTI implemented a check
of balance drift that used a standard 50-pound weight which was placed on the
equipment. The resulting weight was recorded. In all cases, the total weight was
50 pounds higher than the weight of the equipment alone, plus or minus one
increment in the least significant place (0.5 lbs for the degreaser; 0.05 lbs for the
28
-------
canister). In addition, zeroes were recorded daily, or more often, for this balance.
No zero drift was observed with the canister balance.
Baron Blakeslee;
• PIDs were not used at Baron Blakeslee. Although the PIDs were not used, an FID
supplied by Baron Blakeslee was used to measure concentrations in the degreaser
vent and in the cleaning chamber.
• Weight gain by the carbon drum was very small due in part to the "backflushing"
or reverse flow of adsorbed materials back into the degreaser. Minute adsorption of
materials other than the degreasing solvent (e.g., oil, water) was possible, but
would have had no bearing on the conclusions of the study.
Based on these findings, there were significant reservations about the usability of the
degreaser weight data because of the high tare weight, low weight change due to solvent loss,
high scale drift, and uncertainties due to moisture condensation on the refrigeration lines.
Procedures, including frequent checks of zero drift, were adequate.
The balances used at the Baron Blakeslee site were similar in type as at the Serec site.
4.5.3 Data Review and Audit
Raw and reduced data for both sites were reviewed internally. Observational data
were recorded in bound, numbered field notebooks. Virtually all recording was by manual
transcription; consequently, very rapidly changing values, such as flow rates, could not be
recorded with adequate time resolution to be used in calculating emissions. Several of the
problems with the balance performance were uncovered during review of the data set. These
problems included hysteresis and discontinuous weight histories. These are discussed further
in the next section.
29
-------
4.6 FINDINGS
Early in the study at the Scree site, it was found that the PIDs were giving erratic
results and would not hold calibration. A decision was made by mid-afternoon of the first day
of testing that the PIDs would not be used. Neither were they used at the Baron Blakeslee
site. The source of the problem is not known, but it is suspected that humidity or some other
environmental condition might play a part. The lack of these data did not preclude obtaining
useful results at the Serec site because weight loss was measurable using the scales and the
sight glass. At the Baron Blakeslee site, lack of these data was more problematic because the
weight data were not sufficiently precise to give an estimate of emissions with reasonable
relative precision. Because the concentration measurements are quite sensitive, it is possible
to calculate vent losses using concentration and flow rate information; however, vent
emissions do not include all contributions to solvent loss, such as component leaks and lid
opening losses.
For future work of this type, it is recommended that a suitable concentration
measurement device, not necessarily a PID, be available. This instrument should have the
following characteristics:
• Sensitivity to PCE in the range 1 to 1,000 ppm
• Relatively insensitive to humidity and other environmental factors
• Adequately linear, precise, and accurate over the entire range
• Suitable for measurement of both confined and fugitive vapors
• Strip-chart or digital recording capability
• Calibration gases available onsite in the appropriate ranges.
Method development work would be advisable prior to further field studies.
It was found that the weight measurements, particularly with the scales used for
weighing the degreaser apparatus (~ 3,000 lb), were not of marginally adequate sensitivity or
resolution to detect the small changes in weight encountered. At the Serec site, the apparent
weight change for a single cycle approximately equalled the least significant digit readable on
the scale. At Baron Blakeslee, the weight change per cycle was significantly less than the
readability of the scale. This poses a major concern. A fundamentally different method for
evaluating solvent loss is needed, if the objective is to make reliable measurements of such
small solvent losses.
In addition to the fundamental problem of scale resolution, there were contributions to
uncertainty due to the size, configuration, and operation of the equipment. At both sites, there
30
-------
were AC power lines, water lines, and air lines attaching the equipment on the balance and the
outside world. Small shifts in these lines could cause changes in the weight seen by the
balance. To partially combat this concern, the final weight change data at Baron Blakeslee
were recorded with the copper tube between the carbon trap and the degreaser disconnected.
Other weight uncertainties included water weight gain and loss due to condensation.
With the Serec unit, a steam unit caused the weight to change due to differing amounts of
condensate present during the cycle. At Baron Blakeslee, gradual buildup of frost was seen at
several places on the degreaser, and pools of water condensate were seen on the scale pan and
on the degreaser components.
4.6.3 Unstable Results for Baron Blakeslee Degreaser Weighings
H
Examination of the Baron Blakeslee data indicate that significant hysteresis was present
in this balance. Figure 4-2 shows the degreaser weighings {with dummy components in the
degreaser chamber; copper tube connected). Several large discontinuities are clear in the
weight record. This is most likely due to a malfunction, such as a nonlinear or "sticky"
analog-to-digital converter, within the balance. Another possibility might be equipment-
related-weight changes from factors such as cooling water circulation, for example.
The resolution of these scales was only 0.5 lb. This resolution was the maximum
achievable for the encountered weight ranges (2500 to 3500 lb) in industrial grade scales.
However, since the objective was comparison of this technology with open-top degreasers, this
type of scale was judged to be adequate to establish an upper bound on emissions, even if
quantification of the actual, small emission rate was not possible.
The result of these discontinuities is to introduce further uncertainty and lack of
confidence in the results. A discontinuous baseline prevents calculation of total solvent loss as
the net change in the degreaser weight over the 3-day measurement period. An estimate of
solvent loss can be calculated based on average weight loss for individual cycles, however.
4.7 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Several different calculations on degreaser measurement system error were performed.
They resulted in numbers on the same order of magnitude as the reviewer's. At Baron
Blakeslee, for example, the following uncertainties were encountered:
- Unexplained baseline shift between runs 35 and 36: 2.5 lb
- Net zero drift (possibly due to condensation) over 3 days: 6. lb
- Reproducibility error of large balance (9/3/93): ~2. lb
- Position of boards between degreaser and balance: ~ 2. lb
31
-------
2957—
2956—
2955-
»*~s
V)
-a
^ 2953- -
O
| 2952—
oo
&>
Q
2951—
2950—
2948
10
0
20
40
50
30
Cycle Number
Figure 4-2. Degreaser Weight vs. Cycle Number
-------
No convincing evidence of sensitivity changes could be deduced from the degreaser
plus the 50-lb calibration weight data. Virtually all these measurements were +1 least-
significant-digit, and did not indicate any changes over the three days. Thus, combining the
above "random" errors gives:
(2.52 + 22 + 22) = 3.8 (1-c) (4.1)
If this figure is multiplied by 2 and allow a little extra for the uncertainty introduced
by condensation drift would yield an overall uncertainty of about 10 pounds. This is deemed
very conservative. It applies specifically to the Baron Blakeslee data. However, using the
assumption that these two scales were of the same make and model, in which they tend to
behave the same mechanically, then the results would be the same for the Serec unit (-10 lb).
Whether calculated day-by-day or over the three test days, weight changes are smaller
than the above errors. Assuming a change of less than 10 lb cannot be quantified, the
emissions cap in pounds per year would be:
emissions per year = 10 lbs / 3 8 hr days * 313 days/yr2 (4.2)
emissions per year = 1043 lb/yr.
This is considerably less than the amount of emissions from the emission factor in AP-42
given above for QTVDs or:
emissions per year = 8.4 lb/h * 8 hr/day * 313 days/yr (4.3)
emissions per year = 21,034 lb/yr.
Based on these numbers, an emissions reduction for an entire year would be:
% reduction = 100% - (1,043/21,034)* 100 (4.4)
% reduction =95%.
Thus, at both test sites, it was possible to put an upper limit on emissions of 10 lb
over 3 test days, which can be used to compare with known emissions from other control
technologies. The reported data are compromised by the following factors:
* No concentration-flow data, gravimetric data only
* Poor relative precision of the scales
* Lack of drift data for the Serec measurements
Apparent balance malfunctions for the Baron Blakeslee measurements including
drift, hysteresis, and discontinuities in the weight record.
33
-------
Obtaining more precise values for the actual emissions will require additional method
development work and/or investment in appropriate measurement equipment. Whether this
investment is necessary or worthwhile should be decided in the context of ultimate data usage.
34
-------
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
New equipment designs using vacuum technology are capable of reducing solvent
emissions by 74 percent compared to open-top vapor degreasers.
Both of the systems tested use some form of vacuum technology to control and reduce
cleaning solvent emissions. Emission levels using this type of technology have been shown to
be less than 0.5 lb/d, or 0,06 lb/h, for both systems. Given an emission rate of 1,6 Ib/h for a
standard open-top vapor degreaser,1 the LEVD equipment shows a 74 percent improvement
over conventional emission rates.
The tests conducted here indicate that the use of PID equipment was not adequate for
this type of measurement. Their use may be adequate if the measurement of interest involves
worker exposure limits or the detection of cleaning system leaks. The PID equipment used
proved to be too sensitive to changes in ambient conditions, such as temperature and humidity.
In addition, pressure changes on the Tedlar bags containing the calibration gases caused
significant variation in equipment readings.
Standard test methods for emissions measurement of LEVD equipment need to be
developed. This may subsequently require the development of a test facility. If the
quantitative measurement of emissions from low-emitting vapor degreasers is of future
interest, a standard test method or methods must be developed. The test method must have a
level of accuracy and repeatability appropriate for a broad range of emission levels. Due to
the level of accuracy required to detect small evaporative losses, it may be difficult to develop
a field method. A facility may need to be constructed, or at least defined, in which a standard
method may be applied.
The use of mass loss as a measurement technique is not recommended due to the length
of time required to develop significant losses in new equipment designs. Even if a laboratory
facility is constructed and mass measurement equipment of sufficient accuracy is installed, the
test time will be prohibitive.
35
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Gavaskar, A.R., R.F. Olfenbuttel, and J.A. Jones. Onsite Solvent Recovery,
EPA/600/R-94/026 (NTIS PB94-144508),Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH, September 1993.
2. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, September 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Fourth Edition, Vol.I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP-42
(GPO 055-000-00251-7).
36
-------
APPFNnT¥ A
/\Jr fC JLr JL^l i\
r^TTTTr^TiTT tchp
V^XULLv^JVJL/XtS JL
A.l
-------
DAILY CHECK LIST
VERIFY FLOOR SCALE
Tare scale to 0
Place 50 lb. calibration weight on degreasef
Record value
If reading is NOT 50 ~/- 0.5 lb., recalibrate scale
Remove weight
Recheck zero
Record value
If reading is not 0 +/- 0 5 lb., repeat entire process
Record in notebook as follows:
FLOOR SCALE VERIFICATION
LOCATION: (Impco/Serec. Providence, Rl)
SCALE MODEL/SERIAL #:
DATE:
TIMI:
50 lb. Actual: (49.7)
Zero: {0.7}
Recalibrate: (Yes/No)
Name/S!gna.tura:
CALIBRATION CHECK OF PID'S
Turn function switch to STANDBY
Adjust ZERO switch until meter indicates zero
Bleed calibration gas into Tedlar bag
Turn function switch to the 0-200 range
Attach PIO probe to Tedlar bag
Record reading
Adjust SPAN setting to get a reading of 50 ppm
Turn function switch back to STANOBY
Record the zero value
Repeat if necessary
Record in notebook as follows:
PID VERIFICATION
LOCATION; (Impco/Serec, Providence, Rl)
PIO MODEL/SERIAL #:
DATE:
TIME*
Initial SPAN reading; (56.7)
STANOBY; (0.7)
Recalibrate: (Yes/No)
Name/Signature;
-------
CHECK OF LAMINAR FLOW ELEMENT {Once on installation or if moved)
Record in notebook as follows:
LAMINAR FLOW ELEMENT INSPECTION
LOCATION; (Impco/Serec, Providence, Rl)
LFE MODEL/SERIAL #:
DATE;
TIME:
VISUAL;
Name/Slgnaturt:
A.3
-------
A PDl?\inT¥ Q
/\a Jt JLJJL\ mj
SEREC TEST DATA
B.l
-------
Table B-l. Serec Test Data
Test Dales. 8)16193 to 8/19/93
Test data from pages I -25 of project notebook.
System
Purge No. 1
Purge No. 2
weight
Height
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
without
Carbon
of sight
press, drop
flow
press, drop
flow
Test
Start
test parts
can
glass
LFE
LFE
Duration
LFE
LFE
Duratk
No.
Date
time
wt.(lbs)
(ozs)
(inches)
(taffiO)
(CFM)
(min)
(in H20)
(CFM) (min)
initial
8/17
0935
3184.0
cal
8/17
8/17
8/17
1350
3234.0
3184.0
3182.0
2
8/17
1500
3182.5
22
81/2
16
1/16
3.10
9.20
5.87
2.90
8.62
6.37
3
8/17
1S57
3183.0
22
12 1/4
15
11/16
2.80
8J2
5.87
3.00
8.91
6.13
4
8/17
1647
3182 3
22
11 1/2
15
9/16
2.80
8.32
6.10
3.00
8.91
6.30
end
8/17
1731
3183 J
23
0
15
0
.
cal
8/17
3233.0
72
14
start
8/18
0825
3183.0
22
12 1/2
14
8/16
cal
8/18
3233.0
72
14 1/2
5
8/18
0850
3183.0
22
15 3/4
14
8/16
2.98
8.85
5.78
3.06
9.09
6.75
6
8/18
0943
3181.5
23
2 3/4
14
4/16
2.94
8.73
6.93
2.92
8.68
6.73
7
8/18
1037
3181.0
23
31/2
13
13/16
2.92
8.68
6.43
3.00
8.91
6.43
8
8/18
8/18
1125
1221
3181.0
3181.0
23
23
9
15 1/4
13
12
6/16
14/16
2.92
8.68
6.15
3.00
8.91
6.75
9
8/18
1324
3181.0
23
15
12
12/16
2.94
8.73
5.92
3.04
9.03
6.15
10
8/18
1415
3181.0
24
3/4
12
6/16
2.94
8.73
6.23
3.02
8.97
8.65
11
8/18
1508
31803
24
2 1/4
12
2/16
2.94
8.73
6.47
3.06
9.09
8.42
12
8/18
1558
31803
24
4 3/4
11
12/16
2.98
8.85
725
3.02
8.97
7.07
13
8/18
1655
3181.0
24
61/4
11
3/16
14
8/18
1750
3180.0
24
9
10
15/16
15
8/18
1838
3180.0
24
8 3/4
10
8/16
end
8/18
3179 J
24
12
10
2/16
cal
8/18
32293
74
12
start
8/19
0815
3181.0
cal
8/19
3231.0
16
8/19
0858
3181.0
24
13
10
0
17
8/19
0948
31783
24
15 3/4
9
13/16
IS
8/19
1036
3179.0
24
15
9
6/16
19
8/19
8/19
1126
31783
3179.0
25
25
51/4
71/2
9
8
0
10/16
20
8/19
1254
3179.0
25
71/2
8
7/16
21
8/19
1345
3179.0
25
11
8
2/16
22
8/19
8/19
1434
1515
3179.0
3179.0
25
25
121/2
15
7
7
13/16
11/16
23
8/19
1525
3178.0
25
11 1/4
7
7/16
end
8/19
1610
3178.5
25
133/4
7
2fl6
cal
8/19
1615
32283
75
133/4
Loss/Gain =
4.0
3
5.5
8
15/16
B.2
-------
Table B-l. Scree Test Data
• - Weight check w/o parts, immediately after steam starts.
Probable cause: condensate removed from line by steam?
initial - initial weight of system; calibration check with 50 pound calibration weight
end-end of test day
cal - calibration check with 50 pound calibration weight
start-start of test day
4
3
80
4
96
Calculations:
Solvent loss from system (lbs)«
Solvent gain in CA Obs) *
Amount of solvent transferred
out of distillate tank (in lbs;
pi^iy^^h^density of perc) =
% solvent lost from system
3/80 = 4%
% solvent recovered
100-4 = 96 %
B.3
-------
proje ; - <•-.;
SUBJECT
f-'l
-I—p
"T
T
FROM PAGE
-?—r
t££L
J_L
i t
%A~r--
«fJM£ L- :
i^joSa,
—Ltk.
-STfr.O*--
Z^ndiP.
_)—+.
0a3£.
AjV/v-.
Opto*
^f:to Tl I
oai : !_i
o,sy } r ¦
B.4
TO PACS
-------
PROJCCT NO
Subject
FrvOM Pr.
.. imf
' ; t-ii *1J
o
SLf
Lfe Smr/c. ftp
nty> j ,4^p 7i£{L!
Li toft — ^ — ..
£ .*T ... ..o r— /*J,P7 =
73a, (fclY(°*
i?L"23„ 11a
/• * • :
** ^ o.\. . ;:
0
-------
PROJECT ND
SUBJECT
£-,11-53.
tceo V,*. \oowV 4-o Ic-c-tf 4U.-«- "$ocoir |L
.-Av^_ so-W. * ^tjus4««JL# c>AjA.-tk*.S~o it o^lf W««^tw ioct^U.4- «s^dL fteo?i«4 it*.
£J»? SO
CrtstK—1LAHjWjj^, pt^v) <$L£ue*iT
£*t&cj$€ o e*Jc£v
oiS<_
flu.
r
i t
FROM PAGE-a,—~
' H
J.fg-L-5H Cptf Q ?*»tp^
. -Xmj Wtt<0 .. Ho/UZesSmi-A-y ..t~J .
(*J £&ve> ^^o^rp/noJ /& .QdA^Z.
V^RifY F/{k> & ,
ST®
'~^7r^/ <^r. .' f£ f?
/
^ ;, 345^^ • _;j:^rz
f>/s &*cu _:
ScA . "Pl^fi _T)T"(0 >AL, (J^ FcovA-t AsiTPt'ei
Gm&l...fcffls 1 *7 MP V££i>\CAt*)*J
Bum
MM-
'jp&i '&ij)*'fr~',oi~-o < , , (U- 4o ^v ....»xj O^ZPf teJt'
• X"TCm
Jl*. '^ I6-l<7t> *eJ»J
4?^-
/ -
* tot "f3 f £+chJ J . * ^-XjCnr^aJk-
cl^JL
> «^tg
'O ("Act
B.6
-------
v-r 11-iv riwnm
r»-C.tCT NO
^.EJECT
' °AGE
eHn
_r/3 vkk/^"•* O'&x^y^-^M ^
Bf-IL-f ~fei* U7H
¦D \ .1,1^ <> D- I Q/\V~* -trl
W__t^ __gy i ffWl:
. .^P A.f?« _ ft J* ¦ $~0—^f&W- 1 j
{ M ._ J [ ? , v , : 1 ; ; i [ / t ! j
-h-t
ft
'
1 _4__J
If*'* ,
; • • t ' 1 • •
[¦ ! H i i , i I ' 1 '
'Mi l -U-i-4 -
v
FFH-
4
-Hi
• t
1
4~
¦ t i
% *
Ill
! ' ! !
S i
-{
'" ' 1 (¦¦•:;;
t ¦ t i
' Mr•- 3t$2,Q 0^3 . j A**4r£&4£& itu££<. ^Zed/m^
'/o—r- r^~ 4^.^^ u~»
^iSSir
B.7
-------
SUBJEC
FROM PAGE
1 .
^d%Lz Ufb 3 J *? ° M*
.. f^r"^ «
cosset:
/J^l:
/yt/3
At/, m-
L--
' - ; '
^Ca^/c
WJpZ^L-^M:Hk-.JW'S.Jb^
-------
-------
PROJECT NO.
SUBJECT
8/ISf$3
»h
_jtyS.
g-|g^3
44-^
¦ ¦I ¦ ¦ T—¦ » • M - -. - —. —s^x -m—
s^S ' * 0 .*e.4»>^s u>«VsCA.A>#i- Lftlct
^ 'f ~ f^*WW<«-tf*ru«_
C^yM, &$7. .-rj
yj/M,
%£»*JV-P a.
—1 ———-—'—^— pu 3~*~? — "• —-——1———. —
TU.*. 41<- tf1 "Vv* H*>y on» dbtvtf^W otu.*- t-o ctwmuii k>TVW fi r
%*«gp^v. . %—at. (L_ % w*-* » !%•%,. „vir^
iA.W W~«*. lt.4.e^.i
A. J ._ r±A J -
-------
. LfG
RC:-1 PAGE-
15U Mfc< f tou>
ftj} fW CifWf
Ha* PJvw
pe«- 44*.
M».:^
/foo
/3-fr
-*«»¦
/cue.
T
»&*
Jl£-
31*2*5"
hrt.o,
3LJL .5 jtJ0.
i-
3aS3 0
nstis
mt-o
±n i
&*i a%
4,fe
WLq
I/8A0
< /2-
zA*ti
ff /&
3i£l
-------
S'J
- . FROM !"*" - J ¦*;
[it
AA^cJU
- % -
lb*
Its
&t {t-i ~i
for 3fW<°~^ <&fjt?-
*/m* J&:/o s%..
1%. .
M~.
--
,(y«.- *;ru)
MHJ-j M£. M~ y«SCK5^*
B.12
I
-------
+4
SUBJECT
FROM PAGE
"T
I133M. ... . «M«C
rescHtoiiocTOvu!* kkxhk ham*
. - OCTECTWI ru*(
* M« WMWWU V VSft Jraita I BfK W, ^Mauon M(f* d •»
i mow^iWk af KSCmCWXTKIU* t«i«a went? W.ui «f tint
' i ie* i* ti$% a 1/3 Hi-ren idU< $wi* npi**
T^ny4»»tyr» Port >nt»ii« TAlib
|k» ft t«M Ikcb
ti«*aCdMf( -
" *~ * "" m
1
fwm Bm.frg *iifirt
«rreiK«t»cM:
Qfcr^a*, fiUmgijlMii
yrf f$hn Ivftv
BssS
$1ftp
I paf afr«M CMC ^ M t
jrff £«
|pt frrw {
It feAt-
'JK* IttjWJNi* *#|
CtatfMM V «M<
¦^o
MR) HAZARDOUS rfOPEftTIB:
AraMf IM ¥*»*«< fen Dp*« IM V l«B»*l);M|pi
tfo« ma km irtern onow *&> ih «u. ¦ oxraa.
«f 0KMFM tEStwRTOS (CMttCS Wft nt fJTK au.ftf?l£H CXJ
Mituk rvtr
r
**tf»efcr« :®«t* Cv*e*Ca»
KJ1 r*m, tSZ tape
tsuan
hhUrf b kp
• n% U~c<"S*-o
-------
dcrecT/OAj Tuec t-o<5
Assi**"*
TU*t3 /sfo
JhJJUV
*•" ! KT
toe AtioM
TCST Afc.
JW
"fip of Q0&-C-&K*~itr
Usf^d.m!
30 x yV
*r/&?f
tit-11
fit!?5!_G|cfe»-j2«f_ . (Jwfcij' Cw Cfriz
_G*yIiv.C*k
SfCLf
Top too
sa
-------
J-
SUBJECT
FROM PAGE
$:0$~
eo£<*n^ £t^J AjuljU /O
<5A4-_i jWt&JU*
tizGj I 4=] ^_lki_t3 '
• | e j I .*Zy _g,
i . i
B.15
-------
DATA FORM A1
0«QKt«tr N*m«/mod»):
Weight of Twt Part* py.
Weight ef Degr«M«r ~ Soh-ert (D):
\
'¦i> , \
DATE T##tf Tlm« Wolflht B«for« Wtlght Art»r
Z, Z, •
-------
PROJtCT NO
SUBJECT
FROM PAGE
DATA FORM A2
T«*t •: t
0«U:
*W
0$gr»*f«r Name/mod»fc
TIME
kiO^y
|nv)t
Exh«u*t Temp,
Vf
Vent Coflft,
C,
lnJ«t Pressure
Prestur* Drop
dP
*
0
/Q-t
/,9lt
Lt±
1-o
a. oi
i0
Te
¦j' ft!
J X
> (f
i. L
- *
A®
.r-V# I
JT
TV,,<>
y.**5r"
.
B.17
-------
DaU: Sffi f
Dogrewer Name/modd:
DATA FORM A2
TIME
Exhaust Ttmp.
VantCortC.
Ink* Pre**ura
Prwuri Drop
dP
5 *.t- j" If Jp~^
gf.fr Y
J2JJX
"TTop"
252£
M~4$~
5uEH
2C
zz:
-w
si
J2L
7FT
T^r
X&L
2ZL
"Z7T
R tS
-------
I'RO.tvl SC
FROM
: a'z
DATA FORM A2
"W Us
Deflre>tor NirrwfttKxW;
TIME
Exhaust Temp.
fi
VwrtConc.
Cy
Inlet Pre#surt
Pr&s»urt Drop
cU>
i_a
?5T5"
U'&vf
t5/T
Uz**"
6^«A
\f€*Jb
&*-«•
ife
pIE
TZT7F
221®:
T77F
w
51
-W-
s:
is:
TW
/pf
J£_
iLJL
B.19
-------
DATA FORM A2
4-
Twt ffc ^ m § ^
Date: <4fl
w ?t. ? f
0«gr*a**r N«m*ATK>d«fc
^M-
jfibfttiit
Scjl^
5W/(4
l/&
_££i_
22E
Presaam Drop
dP
/> y
"y/"
%
-------
jjfctuo.
AV 1|_. ,T[| T|
r ACT NO.
•JBJECT.
ClATt
DATA FORM A2
* U'f
--.S
Twti: 5",
D*t*:
w #. //
*j Wi$ *,
- uJ4
tnl
Otuh^
-------
SUBJECT
DATA FORM A2
T«t#i (a
DtU; If it
W Hfo.f'f
0«greaMr
Vent Cone.
KZ2Z
JUL
mi
TEE
-------
_ •rfjfriiTilr.-f-ii I.*
i* Mfdi
PROjiCT NO.
I'M
f"*AT£
t i
OATA FORM A2
TMtf: ft (Oil
Dal#: f/W
"w %if-
D«$fea«tr N*m«/nxKf«J:
TIME
fZ<.
r(t^
pnffa*
~^r
H3E
3EI2L
3Ha
™rtr?5™
TW
^jnf§i
2&nf
Exhau«t Temp,
V«nt Cone. fnf«t Preisuc*
2X3
321
TO"
^rr
ZSH
Us t'
(el
~23L
Fr**sur* Drop
df»
ITzlf ;
3C3E
35l
B.23
-------
DATA FORM A2
Tttt *:ef
W '??.<, f
Oegreasar N*me/mod#l:
(CJf *<<**¦
J-Sl-
TIME
\y€u4 «V
rtctifr
fitrvi fa-
l*t* .u
(JA*k
twfr
IPSH
mm:
use
lw
na
ms$i
Kll\oT
3J3x
>U
ir
***-
Exh*u#tTemp,
V»nt Cone.
C„
Hi
.!HdUff,
mrr
ZEE
Inlel Pres*ur» PrmunDrop
dp
(Of
1SE
TMi
T ^
_ZI
-7Tr
-2*l
B.24
-------
PROjtCI NO.
SUBJECT
(,^v'
(i.
CAT£
DATA FORM A2
T»«t fcJL I f'
D»t«: F/f
"W '81,4'*
Degreasar Nam«/mod«J:
trj#?"** (sf. Is
TIME
IM1
r
Ws>r|i**
l/4»v4-iV
j2_
f:
-------
SUBJECT
DATA FORM A2
T#*i f: 10
Date: tfjf
v. af-
W f
0«grvs*«f Nams/modol:
TIME
S
a
25C
333—I
T1TW
n7-*
TTTT
mm
iw
t£4L-
3ZBEZ
IPfr
SEZZZ
Z2l£JL_
MMZ
Exhautt T«mp.
Ti
^
~~~y?76
V«nt Cock.
C,
Ink! Pressure
TO"
mry
5SE
3SE
Pr»**ur« Drop
dP
TF
B.26
-------
i HC>JLC i ¦¦
SUBJECT
PATE
1 r i . T"T"
DATA FORM A2
l*i (I
r m
f-
Test#:
o«t«
D«gre»**r Hutw/rkkM:
TIME
Ejdwwt Twnp. VsntCone. inkt Pressure
Pressure Orop
dP
41
KC^
(jotHt S
-------
SUBJECT
DATA FORM A2
/ ?5ff~
W r<.fr=
D«gr»s$«r Ntm«ftnod»l;
TIME
fHSft.
Exhaust Temp.
Ti
Vent Cone,
C*
Ink! Pr»t«Uf»
K
Piwsur* Drop
dP
e>
IL1
lh +
$0. 4
L'.Sg
.fr-oi
iT.iT
i wr.
7t
—y- •;-¦ '
n-?i
-**
•
?/?* 3 (
^vj ¦*
. .. .
fO
f
i. n -
....
.
V
^;r>
XV; SJ
7^« f
/V?f
B.28
TO PACe
-------
APPENDIX C
BARON BLAKESLEE TEST DATA
c.i
-------
Table C-l. Baron Blakeslec Test Data
Test Dates: 8131193 to 913193
System
weight
without
Tea
Start
test parts
No.
wt. flbs)
8/31/93
0830
2950.0
1
8/31/93
0843
2957.5
2
8/31/93
0900
2952.5
3
8/31/93
0925
2953.0
4
8/31/93
0949
2953-5
5
8/31/93
1013
29533
6
8/31/93
1035
2953.5
7
8/31/93
1058
2953.5
8
8/31/93
1123
29535
9
8/31/93
1253
2954.0
8/31/93
1315
2953.5
8/31/93
1316
15
10
8/31/93
1319
2954.0
11
8/31/93
1344
2954.0
12
8/31/93
1410
2953.5
13
8/31/93
1436
2953-5
14
8/31/93
1500
2953.0
15
8/31/93
1529
2953.5
16
8/31/93
1602
29535
end
8/31/93
1622
29533
8/31/93
1624
29515
8/31/93
1626
25
9/1/93
0834
2952.0
9/1/93
0839
30025
9/1/93
0844
35
mm
0848
29465
mm
0855
mm
0901
2948.0
Carbon
drum
wt. (lbs)
266.60
267.45
267JO
267.60
267.60
268.05
268.05
268.05
268.10
268.15
268.15
267.95
268,00
268.00
268.05
268.05
268.05
263.10
268.10
267.05
266.90
316.90
0.10
268.90
Vent
temp.
91.0
90.8
90.2
88.6
79,3
Maximum LFE
dP (in. of H20)
PI P5 P7
Maximum LFE
flow (CFM)
775
77,4
1.3
1.3
1.2
3.9
3.9
3.6
78.8
1.7
1.4
1.4
5.1
4.2
4.2
80.7
15
15
15
45
45
4.5
815
15
1.3
1.4
45
3.9
4.2
1.4
1.3
1.7
4.2
3.9
5.1
1.4
1.6
1.6
4.2
4.8
4.8
1.4
1.4
4.2
4.2
88.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
4.2
4.2
3.6
Comments
Initial wt. w/o copper tubing connected between canister and system
Initial wt. w/ test parts & tubing connected between canister and system
Lost charge power on temperature probe
ZERO check on dP transmitter =* -0.2
Wt. before lifting system to check ZERO
Drift; condensate on scale; tubing attached
1.4
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.5
4.2
5.1
3.6
3.6
4.5
1.5 1.4 1.4 4.4 4.1 4.2 Average dF and/low
Wt w/ tubing attached
Wt. w/o tubing attached
Drift; condensate on scale; w/o tubing attached
w/o tubing attached
w/ calibration weight w/o tubing attached
Drift; condensate on scale; w/o tubing attached
After ZERO check, w/o tubing attached; reason for weight shift (5 J lbs) unknown
Drift
Wt. w/ tubing attached
-------
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
end
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Table C-l. Baron Blakeslee Test Data
mm
0907
2948.0
268.91
78.2
Wt. gain. Explanation - when lifting system to check ZERO, some cool
water in system emptied. Water was replaced after setting system back
on scale.
9/1/93
0927
2948.0
268.90
FID not wanned up before test 17. Unable to sniff system before
running test 17.
mm
0955
2948.0
268.95
80.2
mm
1025
29485
268.95
83.0
Attempted to take FED readings of vent; unsuccessful. PVC and rubber
stopper that FID sample port tube connected to assumed saturated w/
perchloroethylene, giving high readings, appro*., 20,000 ppm.
mm
1050
29485
268.95
85.4
mm
1114
2948.5
268.95
85.0
mm
1139
2948.5
269.00
845
mm
1152
2949.0
269.00
mm
1353
2949.5
269.05
895
mm
1416
2949.5
269.10
88.1
mm
1440
2949.5
269.10
87.6
mm
1505
2949.5
269.10
87.4
mm
1529
2949.5
269.15
87.7
mm
1552
2949.5
269.15
89.4
9/1/93
1615
29495
269.20
91.1
mm
1637
29495
269.20
w/tubing attached
mm
1639
29485
267.30
w/o tubing attached
9/1/93
1641
45
050
Drift; condensate on floor scale
mm
1642
29495
26750
Wt after ZERO checks
9/2/93
0805
2948.0
267.00
76.1
Wt. w/o tubing or parts
9/2/93
0808
29985
317,00
Wt. with 50-lb calibration wt
9/2/93
0822
5.0
Drift; condensate on floor scale
9/2/93
0824
2951.0
0.10
After ZERO check, w/o tubing attached
9/2/93
0826
Drift, w/o tubing attached
9/2/93
0828
29525
268.95
Wt w/ tubing attached
9/2/93
0830
29525
268.95
77.8
9/2/93
0854
29525
268.95
78.9
9/2/93
0918
29525
269.00
78.4
9/2/93
0942
29525
269.00
79.9
9/2/93
1006
2953.0
269.00
80.9
9/2/93
1030
29495
269.10
82.3
9/2/93
1054
29495
269.15
845
-------
Table C-l. Baron Blakeslee Test Data
38
9/2/93
1117
2949.5
269.15
86.6
mm
1140
2949,5
269,20
39
9/2/93
1239
2950,0
269.20
88.7
40
9/2/93
1303
2950.0
269.25
84.8
41
9/2/93
1327
2950.0
269,25
86.5
42
mm
1350
2950.0
269.25
87.3
43
9/2/93
1414
2950.0
269.30
85.7
44
9/2/93
1438
2950.0
269.30
84.0
45
9/2/93
1502
2949.5
269.30
83.1
46
9/2/93
152(5
2949.0
269.30
83.1
end
9/2/93
1550
2949.0
269.30
w/ tubing attached
9/2/93
1556
2948.0
267.30
w/o tubing attached
9/2/93
1559
6.0
Drift; condensate on floor scale
9/2/93
1603
2952,0
Wt. after ZERO check, w/o tubing attached (condensate on scale)
9/2/93
1607
0.35
Drift; condensate on floor scale
9/2/93
1610
267.30
Wt. after ZERO check, w/o tubing attached
9/2/93
1615
2945.0
Board on left side of system not put back in the same place. System
tipped off scale and was touching ground. Board and system
9/2/93
were re-adjusted and board put back in original place.
1623
2952.0
System was lifted again and board on left side was placed back
in its original position.
9/3/93
0815
2948.0
267.05
Wt. w/o pans or tubing attached
9/3/93
0822
6.0
Drift; condensate on floor scale
9/3/93
0825
2955.0
Wt. after ZERO check, w/o tubing attached
9/3/93
0829
6.0
Before re-ZERO of scale
9/3/93
0830
0.0
Rc-ZERO scale
9/3/93
0831
19.5
Wt. of two 4"k4" boards that supported system during evaluation test
9/3/93
0832
2947.0
Wt. of system and two boards after re-ZERO
9/3/93
0.0
Re-ZERO scale
9/3/93
19,5
Wt, of two boards
9/3/93
0837
2948.5
Wt. of system and two boards after re-ZERO
9/3/93
0.0
Re-ZERO scale
9/3/93
19.5
Wt. of two boards
9/3/93
0840
2946,0
(2947.0+2948.5+2946.0>/3 = 2947.2
Wt. of system and two boards after re-ZERO
mm
0841
0.0
Re-ZERO scale
mm
0842
19.5
Wt. of two boards
mm
0844
2945.5
Wt. of system and boards (approx. 6" from edge of platform)
mm
0848
2943.0
Wt. of system and boards (at edge of platform)
-------
Table C-l. Baron Blakeslee Test Data
mm
0851
2993.5
Wl w/ 50-lb calibration wt.
9/3/93
0855
2946.5
Wt. of system and boards (appro*. 6" from edge of platform)
mm
0924
-0.05
Drift
mm
0925
267.15
Wt. after re-ZERO of scale
mm
092?
267.15
Wl after rc-ZERO of scale a second time
end mm
0928
317.20
Wt, of canister w/ 50-lb calibration wl
Loss/Gain* M -0J5
2
-------
SUBJECT
I
: from p;.g:
t
J'.J kjF'
C.6 '
-------
project no
FROM PAGE
kJs+LlZtJ *st~* y •_. —- . «?<>? ¦ *{S".
t':9b _ _ -J-&. .A.f<£
frt>f C-ojf • «^4m.L oj/ a> L6- itftv
50. 0 L/5 *
fti
cjL tA/
. Url* • {^jtr - Afl *v~ .
*1/V.r cai .. - ^98.^jV-2£
lL
jfc
A H-*- IxJvw.'.- f Cftu'lWy-.lai dUL ^ tg) • ! ¦
' ¦ 1 : : 1 :• M : :
J^LdA '
I|fi 0 jf *
\^jr -si K) tS £ —C.*t-
£9so^a
"^jt | ^1
ub, : ^
yrn 1 y
3/LA&
t/0 u
ns p^f.«
^Tipl'L' »»~>¦»
-------
! I
PROJlICT NO.
SUBJECT
*:-.HKriUr-ir fin-11.
I—T
FROM PAGS ... - -
'fht. /id} tn/h 5 ^(4 "f'H/C L'O^Cyt /(ff
.Iftc-lttyifa- d*
f- /"^j v,*J> a£fa (**f- 4-41-
Tnun
Iv,
i
~^e
.ct4i_s4
ct4i_54 . —JfjQa* it
— Q ^ <*v
zjorf/djuL'..
f^CoU.* tzTTt?
tcs^Uushc La„.F
t I
,,'i P»^ £$C— —; .. : * . •
< 'cfcJ£f&-$s**ftetjt ?Z $r
VV-v<»»c ind by:
C.8
— 1 MWV*J^ H _x-vvvy>t .^T r.f J /
($&wa| f-rf0
~fh
-------
SUBJECT
¦ ' F-;CM PACE
-—t
jesi
ff Mi
1/Jt - - -
wt. £*>
_au3JT
-Air^-r
MiuC
t?n.s~
^1S?..5L
im.i
ri j4.o
(l!t
m
i£_ ml
.JflSLS-
JM&-
jztstjL
J.WLS1
^5S,y
235LZ
zS
x
Jo
'xs-Mth.h r
;
y(*«k
C^«M
J^lS.Oil
TO PAGI
: s:G*.
iCATC
4*
Cjt*
t
-h
\
A/f-H &
J{J3L
t/l>*
Te*p-
°e
j5L
usJe
m£e
TfJ'f
Mi
ur
0,2-
tf.l
^(
Ls*iAv.
C&
fe-t
Sox
2fX
#L
koX$
ftttkHfu
Vyc*'- ^
C ^fc l %£/9
t'J-Ut
' 4h( rtiv. <\,H %
?Fjt
l-Ce/
o*^
(v*
Mt-
W&ed #nd UrKtarttoad S>y:
C.9
-------
W PAGE
W06
TT
Tj \J
-i
3ifi
• t?.ri
fs'
If
m
P«^C it
tajUtaffc,
{^
-------
PftOjCCT
SUBJ EC'
FAor.*. f> ?r
... Ph^k h'e„
It <**€
£JS±L
-«\~
7*9
It
AO
A!
fuy fH*-*
AT> lm
Cljml
Ufa
ItSu
fLun
%$", 1 (
5*
(*
. JKT- .*.
IX*
?? y
7^?
. 77.*
*>4as4~
* *«#>
«^-*•-*«-
n. ?4t
WA>
/"Of i
lass
rfupJ
(its
.
. |. _,
. . !
fn/n
—H—-—
J3M-
W"jn
- — 1
0 Til
K*t rfctf/M
C.11
£/4i
^fc«4(r
V/?i
-------
.rj
PROJECT NO
SUBJECT
~r
FROM PAGE
j ~
j/57vlui : 4A 0&<,f Sinck. /f-
:, Q^k d Ci1ck/ ffl
.': Mk lu,S<- W&O ft"- *
_LI
"h'i- " 3S00f^Ui
pLup. ...^-.T. J/W fa (j^» ¥500jf**. ifafit
$_^jV o&V* OfUiA, oLk^fa lifj i/My**,
-A _
Mn u
jOtjAA/jKr
fa+ittlfLhyi 2&.*~ 1 „„
ffiU Sc JU& ^ hc&\rkt^
.... I/Hunt* cLuJc
\}t%W C(£*n
fa . __
fetfAitr 1 VgjJ iki.Qtp SdPStt
f*M- -^} tente.: 5#f€-c
**
-------
PROJECT NO,
SUBJECT
1-1-13
1 j r j r
FROM PAGE
Me CJLmL* s,J*+-
re%f
t4o.
IM
3Wj
X'lSl 6?{t
. il&l.
£-HJ
4*J^W»
T#'
?/p5&&
?lMS
¦±*
^;t£|ibkfc
TitfJ.
Of 31
e5buL
/c22.€
!J*S
i«fc
ytJ
i$a
1*%
iter
1MX- tJ2£
wTV i£i
_^55>i0
&t>°At $
its"
am.s-
jiwU.
v>t. a*
35(.-l6
AVti.o
_O.LO__
7.ii. lo
„2 s4*)PT" CCttecfid
1t-v.
.15.4^
1M_
7t?
$•
"?W .
Gii*. if j ¦ •
< "M-*-- 4*^- j><-o-«yy*L*£k?-Ji
w
.'3-
; •- , .c
CJ3
$i*,.i?. lf((
-------
PROJECT NO.
SUBJECT
T—I—i—t—r
DATE
1
TTT1
t
M
th< S_ .
... .
¦
to
*-» 21SZ.0 ill! > S M M M
: f
1 /
: iU.A > JL
y I /i ! ! I i
MM
m%nXaIjO^ * / /
3-/4"? M ! .
• M;!
•
i i i • «
i
• i
i
i I i i I
: ' ' 1
! ' «'
! i
j
i ; ! ! 1
i ; * !
! 1
i
: ! j 1
I ,
1 ' 1
, . I
1
M
TTnr
¦
i i
_ , . j
1
i-
: | < i
1 ;M^M
i •
i
; 1
. • " LA • 1.....
i ; ¦ i
i
i
|
1 ! i !i
1 -i
i
-
l.
i ! .t .« i .j
•
i : M i -
1
f i" •
; i -
[
i
_ i i i
' I MM
! r
i
i
. ! i i MM
-
i ¦ ' i 1 : ' r j j- ! r
l
i
i M : • ; ¦ ; *
I
1 ¦ i : - : ; j ;
. ..:
S iii • ¦ : I • 1 i
; * ; j , :
j > i
i . ' i
' i
;.. < f
- « i. .
1
i
¦
- » • '
! 1 • ¦ * ! ! ! :
* i
•i
\ ; • ! ! j "f
¦ M ] i |
i.
: i
i i i M i
t
*
'M Mi :
" i
;j
-
! t
M ! 1
J
' • : ' ; • j •
¦!
t
i ! s • i
i » j !
t : * ; : «
i {
1
iii' !
V
M - : » •
I
• L.
i
i
- - j
•
i ! •
m » - ¦ ; i
: i
i
t
_ L. J
¦ ; . ; i
1
; 4 i :
i
! - '
*
i * • j . ; ! .^i : f , :
! i
; ill!
<
;
-
! ,1 ¦" • « J ¦ . " ¦
1 : ' ! : ¦ - - ; ! > ; ' : 1
i : ! ill-:
r
j
- 1 1 _ .
«« *
Jt
¦" /
jj
¦ K
*
K :• !
--V —
-4—1— » •
! C.14
iD * Til
MA U«-
TO ®*Gi
-------
1-2-93
FROM F
Tes-r
Tifi€
kit ntze
wr. CUs)
A"- dkrfc1*
*F
tt/l. /«.
<+>/ Sbit CAt. ur* .
(Liik #»¦. fair he* U C*(X*»}fk.
(JLtlc, <*/« e.
_3l
; -_: 3*.
..Ho
M
fx
_Vx
iGT
$vfj
t-^fi
Mi
for.fi
f:
H-fl
1*54
?*3i
£Kfl
o|t*r
«t?L'
Si 2$
£!//.
otVA
X)^>4
1-a-t>
1*4
1-Jk93
IjHj
"?->«
t-fc1>
1-HS
?,2f?
?--.*$
=?2fJ
ieJla
|3jj«Si
jtin
&fi.o
&w>e-
s.o
2 ?Sf,o
Z1S2.5
2?S*. 5"
Iff 2.5
215I.5-
jtfMr
__M.41.5r
ai7.**
Ji*. 00
U4t»
—ts&»
»a:ay
Hi*7
/*£
/X>>
fill
?-*S
Hli
-v1i
*ii3
$5?
/5:«.
ft':??
/t:©3
iC-.q
WIS
ai&*o
*1 So »o
?$fo,0
£156.0
Mfo.o
Jl/fSVO
.^r
1JWi«.
JIHto
.U
iisi.o
tcqrtf **(('
O,'o^
w
. _5 i3 /^*-
;u*.j
i Srh >dl d ^c(«.V -ff/yW ^ w/t
u JAW, W/. ^ rft^vW *»•! 4(k
^¦v,
-------
PROJECT NO.
SUBJECT
DATE ?- 3 ~fj
3-AdJ^
t—i—i—r
FROM PAGE
1—
I
4-W _ - -. J^Lft... mT_ -^- *d»cvdrs
4 pxJ* j ettikv j
m£t*.tJ*JL . '
Sif.tS-
o,f31 i
j ¦+ Vx.v ¦ tu-cL
s m* &
tLsB 4rH-*t
! jL^ijixb.
AHqi+io
Opto
*W«.5"
.0fST_
.AlW.SL
_^:*A^:l_ _t_
I
C.16
Shi/Sid
tO »iOI ... .
%/>/f>
-------
PROJECT N
TU9JEC"
"nCM PAGE
:
v~-**
1*5*
OqXf
0\X1
— a, oS"
zh*)* *S
t a*^6AjO
zW)* IS"*
t 2 S'
2rt^-r-2n3—
9-3-^
«t».1
tC4 !
2
------- |