NCD003446721_19910830_Celeanse Corporation - Shelby Fiber_FRBCERCLA RA_Mini-Trial Burn Testing Report OU-2 Remedial Action-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Westinghouse Environmental
and Geotechnical Services. Inc.
August 30, 1991
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
SUBJECT: Trial Burn Report -Operable Unit 2 Remedial Action
Hoechst Celanese, Shelby, N.C.
Westinghouse Project ALW-T -002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Dear Mr. Mallary:
•
Suite 700
3980 DeKalb Technology Parkway, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Enclosed please find a copy of the Trial Burn Report for the Hoechst Celanese site In Shelby, N.C. Coples
of the report have also been sent to John GUbert (EPA), Paul Meeter (Weston), Terry Bourbon
(Weston/REAC), and Charlotte Jesneck (North Carolina DEHNR).
Additional copies are being made, and when they are ready, you wUI receive five (5) additional bound
copies and one (1) unbound copy. Per her request, Ms. Jesneck will receive three (3) additional bound
copies. I expect these to be delivered to you and Ms. Jesneck by the end of next week.
If there are any comments or questions concerning the Information contained In this report, please contact
us.
Sincerely,
WESTINGHOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. !!,. IHJ'J/>.______, ~tt~e~r .. ~-9-
Project Manager Project Director
cc: Steve Olp -HCC/Shelby
Terry Elnaggar -GDC
Michael White -IEA
T002333C. WPS
A Westinghouse Electric Corporation subsidiary.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Westinghouse Environmental
and Geotechnical Servioos. Inc.
TRAIL BURN REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT 2
HOECHST CELANESE, SHELBY, N.C.
WESTINGHOUSE PROJECT ALW-T-002
DOCUMENT CONTROL NUMBER T002--0333
Prepared For
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
Shelby, North Carolina
Prepared By
Westinghouse Envlronmental and
Geotechnlcal Services, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
August 30, 1991
•
Suite 700
3980 DeKalb Technology Parkway, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
[phone]
fax [phone]
ilJla/L
Glenn Boylan
Project Manager
t:z~w .. ~,~
Everett W. Glover, Jr., P.E.
Project Director
A Westinghouse Electric Corporation subsidiary.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Pagel
Paga
List of Appendlces ........................................................................................................ 11
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 111
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Description .......................................................................... 1
1.2 Site History ....................................................................................... 1
1.3 Trial Burn Objectives ....................................................................... 2
1.4 Trial Burn Scope .............................................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS .............................................................................. 5
2.1 Stack Emissions .............................................................................. 5
2.2 Process Streams .............................................................................. 6
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS ................ 7
3.1 Incinerator Description .................................................................... 7
3.2 Waste Feed Characteristics ............................................................ 8
3.3 Incinerator Operating Conditions ................................................... 8
DESCRIPTION OF TEST METHODS .......................................................... 10
4.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan .......................................................... 10
4.2
4.3
4.4
Test Deviations .............................................................................. 11
Test Observations .......................................................................... 12
Sampling and Analytical Results ................................................... 13
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL. .......................................... 14
5.1 FleldQA/QC .................................................................................. 14
5.2 Analytical QA/QC .......................................................................... 14
I
I
I
I
Appendix
I
I II
I
I Ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ust of Appendices
TIiie
Trial Burn Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page II
Comments and Responses to the Trial Burn Plan
Draft Final Report
Summary of Results for Test Runs
June 11, 13, & 14, 1991
Industrial & Environmental Analysts, Inc.
{under separate cover)
Process Operational Data Trend Charts
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page Iii
A trial burn was conducted during the week of June 10, 1991 for the rotary kHn Incinerator at the Hoechst
Celanese Corporation faculty In Shelby, N.C. The unit Is being used to Incinerate glycol recovery unit
sludges as part of the site's source remediation project. The trial bum results demonstrate the
Incinerator's compliance with the Performance of Hazardous Waste Incinerators regulations and wUI
establish the process and operating parameters for the system.
The following performance criteria were demonstrated:
The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for the Identified principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) was 99.9988% or better. Regulations require 99.99%.
Chloride emissions did not exceed 0.02575 pounds per hour. The regulatory limit Is 4
pounds per hour.
The particulate concentration averaged 0.00359 grains per dry standard cubic foot,
corrected to 7% oxygen. The applicable regulatory standard requires 0.08 grains per dry
standard cubic foot.
This report discusses the objectives, results, operating conditions, and methods for the trial bum. The
report was prepared by Westinghouse Environmental and Geotechnlcal Services, Inc. for Hoechst
Celanese. The sampling and analysis data Included In the report were provided by Industrial &
Environmental Analysts, Inc. The process operating data and trend charts were provided by GDC
Engineering, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page 1
The Hoechst Celanese Corporation facillty in Shelby, North Carolina Is conducting the second phase of an
environmental remediation. This phase consists in part of remediatlng the source areas of groundwater
contamination on the site. As part of the source remediation, glycol recovery unit (GAU) sludges
containing ethylene glycol will be Incinerated. A transportable rotary kUn Incinerator wNI be used to
volatilize and destroy the ethylene glycol.
A trial burn was conducted during the week of June 10, 1991 to demonstrate the Incinerator's compliance
with the Performance of Hazardous Waste Incinerators regulations and to establish the process and
operating parameters for the system.
Hoechst Celanese contracted GDC Engineering, Inc. (GDC) to perform the remediation. GDC designed,
installed, and Is operating the incinerator. Westinghouse Environmental and Geotechnlcal Services Inc.
(Westinghouse) has been contracted by Hoechst Celanese to provide engineering oversight for the
project. Industrial & Environmental Analysts, Inc. (IEA) was contracted to collect and analyze the samples
required for the trial burn.
The trial bum consisted of three days of test runs. The test runs demonstrated the Incinerator's ability to
destroy the waste material while meeting all applicable emission limits. This report discusses the
objectives, results, operating conditions, and methods for all three day's tests.
1.2 Site History
The Shelby facillty began operation in April, 1960. Manufacturing operations at the facility Include the
production of polyester polymer resin and filament yarn. The principal chemicals Involved In polymer
production are dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol.
Several areas around the plant have been used for waste disposal. One area was used In the 1960's and
1970's to dispose of burned plant wastes and GAU sludges. These burn pit materials and GAU sludges are
located east of the main plant, near the wastewater treatment system. Other areas north of the plant
contain non-hazardous, Inert materials and construction debris.
Investigation of the Hoechst Celanese site began in October, 1981 when Hoechst Celanese retained
Westinghouse (then S&ME) to Install monitor wells and conduct hydrogeologlc and electromagnetic
surveys of the site. As a result of these surveys, Hoechst Celanese Initiated a groundwater sampling and
analysis program.
In October of 1984, the Shelby facillty was proposed for EPA's National Priority List (NPL), and was added
to the NPL in June, 1986. A Remedial Investigation was completed in July, 1987, which concluded that the
T002333A.WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T -002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page2
GRU sludges, burn pit material, and the groundwater contaminated by those materials should be
remediated. The EPA approved a two phase approach. Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) focuses on the
groundwater remediation. Operable Unit 2 (OU 2) addresses the source remediation.
The first phase of work was the groundwater remediation. This phase, OU 1, required the extraction and
treatment of contaminated groundwater associated with tha site. The Feaslblllty Study (FS) for OU 1 was
completed In February, 1988. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the OU 1 Remedial Action was signed In
March, 1988. The extraction and treatment systems were completed In 1989 and have been In operation
since.
The second phase of work, OU 2, Involves the remediation of the contamination source. The FS for this
unit was final In April, 1989. The ROD was signed In March, 1989, and Includes the following activities:
excavation and Incineration of GRU sludges and associated soils
excavation of bum pit material, plastic chips, and stream sediments
solidHlcatlon of Incinerator ash, bum pit material, plastic chips, and stream sediments
on-site disposal of solidttled materials
regrading and revegetatlng
monitoring
The site preparation and Incinerator mobilization was completed In January, 1991. Excavation of GRU
sludges and burn pit material began In February, 1991.
A mini bum was completed on April 30, 1991 for the purpose of obtaining Interim EPA approval to allow
incineration to continue while waiting for the trial bum results. The results of the mini bum, however, were
considered Invalid by the EPA due to Inconsistencies In the data. It was subsequently agreed that the
results of one day's tests of the trial burn (the June 13 tests, chosen by the EPA), would be expedited, and
interim operating approval would be based on the successful completion of these tests. These results were
submitted to the EPA on July 3, and Interim approval was obtained on July 11th.
1.3 Trial Burn Objectives
The objectives of the trial burn were to demonstrate the Incinerator's compliance with the Performance of
Hazardous Waste Incinerators regulations as defined In the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) 40 CFR Part 264.343, Subpart 0, and to establish the limits of operating and process parameters
that will meet these regulations.
The trial burn was also designed to demonstrate that the Incinerator will process the waste while meeting
the following emission limits:
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page3
99.99 percent destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for each Identified principal
organic hazardous constituent (POHC)
99 percent removal efficiency of HO or 1.8 kg/hr (4 lb/hr) of HCL emlsslon, whichever Is
greater
particulate emissions less than 18 mg/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf) corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(0.05 gr /dscf uncorrected)
The Trial Bum Plan was developed by GDC and Is documented In the 100% Remedial Design Report and
Draft Remedial Action Work Plan (Westinghouse Document Control Number 85050N-0263).
1.4 Trial Burn Scope
A meeting was held at the Hoechst Celanese facility on March 7, 1991 between Hoechst Celanese, GDC,
Flint Environmental Laboratories, Westinghouse, and the EPA to discuss the EPA's comments on the Trial
Burn Plan. (Flint Environmental was originally contracted by Hoechst Celanese to perform the sampling
and analysis during the mini burn and trial burn. When the bums were delayed, Flint had a scheduling
conflict, and was replaced by IEA.) The EPA comments, minutes of the March 7 meeting, and the
responses to the comments are Included In this report as Appendix I.
The trial burn consisted of three days of testing, with two sets of test runs per day. Each test was
monitored by stack sampling, process stream sampling, and recording of the process operational
parameters.
The stack tests Included ethylene glycol, semlvolatUe organics. particulate, chloride, metals, volatUe
organics (VOST), and continuous emission monitoring (CEM). The CEM measured oxygen (Oz), carbon
dioxide (COz), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NO,.).
The process streams tested were the waste feed, auxiliary fuel, makeup water, and ash. The tests for the
waste feed Included ethylene glycol, semlvolatiles, volatiles, TCLP metals, and chloride. VolatHes were
tested for the auxiliary fuel. Ethylene glycol, semlvolatlles, and volatiles were tested for the makeup water,
and ethylene glycol, volatiles, and semlvolatiles for the ash.
The specific methods and procedures used In the trial burn tests are described In Section 4.1, Sampling
and Analysis Plan.
The process operational parameters that were recorded were waste feed rate, primary exhaust
temperature, secondary exhaust temperature, percent oxygen In the secondary combustion chamber, kiln
draft, quench flow, baghouse pressure drop, stack carbon monoxide, stack oxygen, stack carbon dioxide,
scrubber pH, and stack gas velocity.
Because the waste did not contain Appendix VII constituents In high enough concentrations, a surrogate
POHC was added to be able calculate the DRE. Tetrachloroethene was chosen based on Its lnclnerablllty,
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page4
stack gas flow rate, and the expected accuracy of Its detection In the volatile organic analysis. Hoechst
Celanese provided sufficient volumes of tetrachloroethene from the plant Inventory. The purity of the
compound was confirmed through vendor documentation, on--slte screening, and laboratory analysis. The
details of the analysis, spiking procedure, and feed rate are described In IEA's Draft Final Report
(Appendix II).
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Pages
2-0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Ali of the test results for the three days of the trial bum are in IEA's Draft Final Report. This section presents
a summary of some of these data as presented in the IEA report. The table and figure numbers refer to
those Items in the IEA report.
2.1 Stack Emissions
Continuous Emission Monitoring (CEM)
IEA's CEM Mobile Laboratory measured oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxides of
nitrogen. The carbon monoxide measurements averaged less than 1 ppm throughout the test period.
Average oxygen and carbon dioxide measurements were between 11.5% to 12.5% for Oz, and 6% to 7.5%
for CQ,z. The average values for NO,, were between 35 and 50 ppm throughout the sampling period (Figure
1 ).
Particulate
Average values for the particulate concentration were 0.00359 grains per dry standard cubic foot, corrected
to 7% oxygen (Table 4). This concentration is approximately 20 times lower than the applicable regulatory
standard.
Chloride
The highest chloride emission was reported In the first day's test, 0.02575 pounds per hour (Table 4). This
is well below the applicable regulatory standard of 4 pounds per hour. The second and third days had
lower emissions.
Metals
Table 6 shows the average emission rate for the three days of the trial burn was 0.000035 pounds per hour
(lbs/hr) for chromium, 0.00025 lbs/hr for antimony, and 0.000024 lbs/hr for arsenic.
Semivolatlle Organics
Benzolc acid, phenol, di-n-buty1phthalate, and bis (2-ethylhexyi) phthalate were the only semlvolatffe
organic compounds detected. Benzolc acid (0.0526 mg) and phenol (0.0246 mg) were detected only once
each. Dl-n-buty1phthalate (0.0974 mg and 0.0426 mg), and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (0.0241 mg and
0.0426) were each detected In two tests (Table 8).
The samples were also analyzed for tentatively identified compounds (TICs). The majority of the TICs were
substituted aromatics.
Each of the semlvolatiie organic compounds and most of the TICs are common laboratory contaminants
and/or attributable to the XAD resin used for trap preparation. Their actual presence in the sample gas is
questionable and most likely Is attributable to anomalies in the analyses.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ethylene Glycol
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page6
Ethylene Glycol was not present in any of the stack samples In detectable levels (Table 10).
Volatlle Organlca
Of the twelve VOST results, tetrachloroethene was not detected In five, and the other seven show
tetrachloroethene at levels ranging from 22 to 100 ng (Table 11). These results gave acceptable
destruction and removal efficiencies for each test, ranging from 99.9988% to 99.9998% (Table 15).
2.2 Proceaa Streams
Chloride
The chloride analysis for waste feed for the first and third days were <42 and 45 ppm. The second day's
waste feed analysis for chloride was 140 ppm (Table 13). These numbers do not correlate well with the
stack chloride emission, where the first test had the highest concentration (Table 4).
Ethylene Glycol
The waste feed analyses showed 9300 and 9000 ppm of ethylene glycol for days 1 and 3, and 4600 ppm for
day 2. These values were consistent with the ash concentrations of 25 and 72 ppm for tests 1 and 3, and a
non-detect for test 2 (Table 13).
Samples of makeup water were taken each day of the trial burn, and combined to create one composite
sample. Ethylene glycol was detected In the composite makeup water sample at a concentration of 5100
mg/L (Table 13).
TCLP Metals
All three metals of Interest, chromium, arsenic, and antimony, were detected at low levels In the waste feed.
The maximum concentrations detected were 0.007 mg/L for chromium, 4. 7 mg/L for antimony, and 0.05
ppm for arsenic (Table 13).
Volatiles
Methylene chloride and acetone were detected In the waste feed and ash. Acetone was also detected In
the makeup water on day 2. Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes were detected In the fuel sample
of day 2. The tetrachloroethene used for the surrogate POHC was found to be greater than 98% pure.
Semlvolatlles
Dl-n-buty1phthalate (0.079 and 0.12 mg/kg) was detected In two waste feed samples. Bis (2-ethylhexy1)
phthalate was estimated to be in the waste feed and the ash, and benzoic acid In the waste feed, at levels
below the quantltatlon limit. No other semivolatile organic compounds were detected In the waste feed,
ash, or makeup water.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002--0333
Page7
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
3.1 Incinerator Descrlptlon
The transportable rotary kiln Incinerator used In the Hoechst Celanese project was designed, Installed, and
is operated by GDC. The Incinerator system consists of a feed system, rotary kHn primary combustion
chamber (PCC), secondary combustion chamber (SCC), and air pollution control equipment (APCE). The
system Is controlled and monitored by a computerized control system and automatic waste feed shut-off
(AWFSO). The entire system Is designed to be mobile, and wUI be removed from the Hoechst Celanese
site when the remediation Is completed.
Before entering the feed system, the excavated GRU sludge Is mixed with sawdust In a pugmUI to facUltate
material handling. This waste feed mixture is then screened and conveyed to a weigh hopper. The weigh
hopper readings are recorded by the control system and used to determine the feed rate. The waste feed
Is conveyed from the hopper to the rotary kUn by a feed screw.
The rotary kiln Is a refractory lined cylinder which turns about Its horizontal axis. The kiln Is Inclined slightly
to assist the flow of waste feed through It. The kiln utilizes a fossil fuel burner to vaporize the moisture and
contaminants from the waste feed. The vapors are then exhausted Into the SCC. The ash from the kiln Is
collected by a wet ash collection system, and conveyed out of the system for stabilization and disposal.
The exhaust gases enter the SCC where they are further heated by a fossil fuel burner and combustion air
control system, destroying the contaminants. These SCC off-gases then go through a quench duct where
a water quench lowers their temperature to about 375°F.
The APCE consists of a twin pulse air filter fabric collector (baghouse) and a packed bed scrubber. The
gases pass through the baghouse for particulate removal. They then enter the scrubber for gas polishing
and acid neutralization, H necessary. Prior to exiting the stack, the wetted gases traverse the entrainment
separator to remove any residual liquid which Is flushed to the ash quench tank.
Makeup water for the incinerator system is provided by the plant's process water system. The spent water
from the Incinerator system Is sampled and analyzed dally, and Is then pumped to the head of the plant's
wastewater treatment system.
The process Instrumentation and AWFSO systems are monitored and controlled by the operator In the
control trailer. These systems are tied to a computer which records the Incoming data, and provides a
graphic display of each parameter's status. Tabular reports and trend charts are also generated by the
computer system.
A more complete description of the incinerator system, including system drawings and specHications, can
be found in the Trial Burn Plan.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2 Waste Feed Characteristics
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Pages
The GAU sludges are predominantly ethylene glycol dlstUlatlon bottoms (polyester oligirners) containing
lesser concentrations of other Identified and unidentified organics. The sludges typically contain some
heavy metals with antimony being the predominant element.
As excavated, the sludges have a white to grayish white color and a consistency that Is similar to cottage
cheese. It can be excavated and handled easily with normal excavation equipment. Before incineration,
the GAU sludge Is mixed with sawdust (50% by volume) to make It easier to feed.
From the testing done as part of tha Operable Unit 2 Feasibility Study (1989), the following Information Is
estimated for the GAU material:
moisture
carbon
hydrogen
oxygen
nitrogen
sodium
chlorine
ash
antimony
lead
chromium
upper heating
value
25% average, 6% to 40% range
36.1%
7.8%
54.8%
0.003%
0.004%
0.024% average, 0.010% to 0.05% range
1.3%
0.332% average, 0.0087% to 0.64% range
O. 75 mg/kg average, 53 mg/kg maximum
3.0 mg/kg average, 40 mg/kg maximum
5440 BTU/lb average, 7700 BTU/lb maximum
3.3 Incinerator Operating Conditions
The process operating conditions for the Incinerator during the trial bum are tabulated in Section 2.0 of the
IEA Draft Final Report. The GDC Hourly Reports are presented in Appendix A of the IEA report. The daffy
trend charts of the operational data are in Appendix Ill of this report. This section summarizes the data
found in Table 1 of the IEA report.
The hourly average waste feed rate was generally above 2.5 tons per hour (tph). The maximum and
minimum hourly averages of 3.1 and 0.81 tph both occurred during the third day of testing.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Pages
The PCC temperature was very consistently around 1500°F. With one exception, the average Pec
temperatures stayed within a range of 1422° F to 1511 ° F. The exception was on the third day, when the
PCC temperature averaged 1287° F for one hour. The average sec temperature was also very consistent,
staying near 1aso°F, with a range of 1790°F to 1901 °F.
Average percent oxygen In the sec ranged from 4.3% to 7.8%. The kUn draft average stayed within a
range of -0.19 to -0.21 Inches H.i 0. (It should be noted that Table 1 of the IEA report has a typographical
error for the kiln draft reading on June 13, the 7 to 8 time period. The table reads 0.20, but the GDC Hourly
Report shows -0.20.) The average baghouse pressure drop, also In Inches of H.zO, fluctuated between 2.75
and 7.24.
Average values for the stack CO ranged from 0.5 ppm to 3.4 ppm. The average values for the percent
oxygen In the stack gas ranged from 11. 7% to 13.0%. Percent carbon dioxide averages ranged from 4.8%
to 6.8%. The range of average scrubber pH values was 3. 7 to 10.1. The average stack gas velocity had a
minimum value of 1143 feet per minute and a maximum of 2111 feet per minute.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T -002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page 10
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST METHODS
The test methods used In the trial bum are documented In IEA's Draft Final Report. This section presents a
summary of some of these methods as described In the IEA report.
4.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan
Process Stream Sampling and Analysis
Samples from the process streams were collected by GDC, Hoechst Celanese, or Westinghouse
personnel. The techniques used were discussed with IEA personnel to assure representative sampling and
adequate volumes. The measurement and monitoring of the surrogate POHC was the responslblllty of
GDC and Hoechst Celanese. Westinghouse provided the analytical data to IEA on the tetrachloroethene
used as the POHC. The sample was analyzed by Alpha Analytical.
The following table shows the analytical procedures used on the process stream samples.
PROCESS STREAM ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Analysis
TCLP Metals
Semlvolatlle Organics
Volatile Organics
Ethylene Glycol
Stack Gas Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
TCLP
SW-8468270
SW-8468240
GC/FID with
0.8% THEED column
The specific procedures used In the sampling of the stack gases are those contained In the EPA Method
procedure given In 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, EPA-SW-846, or In Methods Manual for Compliance With the
BIF Regylatlons. EPA/530-SW-91-010, whenever applicable. Any modifications to the methodologies were
at the approval of EPA and their subcontractors, and are specified In Section 3.3 of IEA's Final Draft Report.
Diagrams for all of the sampling systems are also presented In that section of the IEA report.
The number and location of sampling points were determined In compliance with EPA Method 1. Velocity
measurements were made using type-S pltot tubes conforming to the geometric specifications outlined In
EPA Method 2 combined with inclined oil manometers. Stack gas temperatures were measured with Type
K thermocouples.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page 11
The stack gas sample used for the CEM Instruments was collected using a stainless steel probe fitted with
a sintered stainless steel particulate filter. The sample was transported to the IEA trailer through a heated
3/8-lnch Teflon line.
Flue gas moisture was determined In conjunction with each traversing, lsoklnetlc sampling method. IEA
also reported flue gas moisture based on stack temperature at saturation levels.
An EPA Method 5 combined with EPA Method 0050 (lsoklnetlc version) sampling train was used to
simultaneously collect particulate matter and Ha;a2. Gravimetric analysis was completed In accordance
to EPA Method 5. The chloride analyses were completed by Ion chromatography In accordance to EPA
Method 26.
All of the sampling and analytical procedures used In the metals tests are contained In 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A (7-1-89 Edition), 40 CFR 61, Appendix B (7-1-89 Edition), and the proposed EPA multi-metals
method titled "Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions In Exhaust Gases from Hazardous
Waste Incineration and Similar Combustion Processes".
The procedures outlined In Method 0010 of SW-846 were used for the sampling and analysis of semlvolatUe
organics In the stack gases. IEA used a standard Method 5 train configuration with modifications to allow
the use of a condenser and XAD resin trap. The analyses, completed by Triangle Laboratories, were based
on the guidelines of Method 8270.
An EPA Method 5 sampling train was used to collect ethylene glycol. Since there Is no EPA procedure for
the collection of ethylene glycol, IEA followed the EPA Method 5 requirements for particulate collection.
The analyses for ethylene glycol were completed utilizing a GC/FID equipped with a 0.8% THEED column.
Flue gas samples for volatile organics were collected using a Volatlle Organic Sampling Train (VOST),
according to the procedures outlined In EPA Method 0030 of EPA-SW-846. Research Triangle Laboratories
completed the analyses following the procedures outlined In SW-846 Method 5040.
4.2 Test Deviations
There were very few instances during which IEA made modification to the standard methodology. In every
case, the Impact on overall data quallty was minimized whenever possible. The most significant deviation
to any methodology was In reference to the flue gas sample for chloride. The chloride In the stack gas
sample train featured a front hall DI water rinse that Is not required in the method. Chloride was detected in
the rinse, however the overall quantities of chloride were so small that this addition did not have a large
Impact on the data.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 Test Observations
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page 12
The following sections give a summary of the trial bum events. This Information has been compiled from
the field notes of Glenn Boylan (Westinghouse), and Mark Kadnuck of PRC Environmental Management,
Inc. The EPA contracted PRC to assist In the trial bum oversight
June 11, 1991
A meeting was held In the morning between Hoechst Celanese, GDC, Westinghouse, and EPA to review
the general procedures to be used during the trial bum. The spike rate for the tetrachloroethene was set at
20 pounds per hour. GDC had configured the baghouse to run In parallel, and EPA noted that they would
be required to run this way during regular operation. EPA noted that W any upsets occurred, sampling must
stop Immediately. Any upset that lasted more than 3 minutes would require 30 minutes of normal
incinerator operation before sampling could begin again.
The first feed sample was taken at 11 :45 am. Testing was delayed during the day by faUed seals In the
POHC pump, scrubber adjustments, a failed pH probe, and debris In the ash drag. The testing was
completed at about 8:00 pm.
June 12, 1991
The pump used to feed the POHC failed at about 1 :00 pm, but It was not noticed for about 2 hours. Since
sampling continued while no POHC was being fed, all of the sampling had to be discarded. It was decided
to set up a manual gravity feed system for the POHC addition. The tests were rerun the followlng morning,
so that the runs would not be done on separate days.
Hoechst Celanese and GDC set up a distillation flask to provide a drip feed of the POHC Into the feed
screw. The tetrachloroethene In the flask was manually kept at a minimum level by GOC personnel to
maintain a constant feed of the POHC.
June 13, 1991
The first feed sample was taken at 7:30 am, and stack sampling started at 8:08 am. Delays were
encountered because of pH, ash drag, and kiln pressure problems. The testing was completed at 9:00 pm.
The average feed rate for these tests was lower (about 2.1 tph) than expected.
June 14, 1991
The first test run started at about 7:00 am, and was completed without any major Interruptions. The
second run started at about 11 :00 am. It was Interrupted at noon by a feed screw problem, and was
started again at 1 :00 pm. The ash drag broke at about 2:00 pm, stopping the test until about 4:30. The run
was then completed without any major problems.
T002333A, WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4 Sampling and Analytlcal Results
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T -002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page 13
The sampling and analytical results are summarized In Section 2.0 of this report. Appendix Ill of this report
contains the process operational data trend charts generated by GDC.
The test results are tabulated and discussed In more detaU In Section 2.0 of IEA's Draft Final Report.
Appendix A of IEA's report contains the field data sheets, Appendix B contains the analytical data sheets,
Appendix C the equipment calibrations, and Appendix D contains the chaln-ol-<:ustody records.
T002333A. WPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trial Bum Report
Westinghouse Project ALW-T-002
Document Control Number T002-0333
Page 14
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
In addition to IEA's and GDC's own QA/QC programs, the EPA and Its contractors provided constant
oversight on the Incinerator operation and sampling procedures throughout the trial bum. Section 4.0 of
IEA's Final Draft Report gives a detaUed description of all of the quality control measures used In the
sampling and analysis for the trial bum.
5.1 Field QA/QC
IEA's checks for the process data collection and sampling aspects of the program Included:
the use of standard checklists and field notebooks to ensure accuracy, completeness,
traceability, and comparability of the process Information and samples
field checking of standardized forms by a second person to ensure accuracy and
completeness
strict adherence to sample traceability procedures
submission of field biased blanks
leak checks of sample trains before and after sample collection
5.2 Analytical QA/QC
IEA's quality control program for laboratory analysis makes use of different types of QC samples to
document the validity of the analysis data. The types of QC samples used during the trial bum Included
method blanks, calibration check samples, laboratory control samples, surrogate spikes, and matrix
spikes.
Several audits were performed in the field and in the lab to check performance. A performance audit of the
meter box showed that the boxes were within 2% agreement of the audit device. Audits were also
conducted for volatile organics and the XAD traps. The results of all of the quallty control samples and
audit checks are tabulated In Section 4.0 of IEA's Draft Final Report.
T002333A. WPS
-------------------
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'b
, .. r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TO:
FR(• ,l:
TEL: [phone] ,.
John Gilbe11 • EPA/ERT
Paul Meeter • WESTON
Terry Bourbon • REAC
.. ,.
DATE: 21 February, 1991
w.o. #: 3347-22-01-3478
SUBJECT: Hoechst Celanese Trial Burn Plan Review and Comments
1 have the following questions regarding the Trial burn: .
1. Westinghouse mentions r20 hours of "shakedown" operation prior to tho
trial bllt:I. Will thh time period consume more than 20% of the total
waste soil? Has any limit been established as to how much soil they can
use before and Including tho trial bum?
2. They mentioned perfonnlng pre-trial burn testing • can we get the
results?
3. Thoy plan on stabilizing the ash on a continuous basis as it Is removed
from the kiln. Do we want to know the results of aah samples prior 10
stab!llzatlon and does it matter'!
4. 'What Is the naphthalene and ethylene alycol cleanup level In the ash?
S. Can we &upply pcrfc-~-mance evaluation (audit) samples to them for semi-
volatiles and VOST? I would recommend it,
6. Ale they planning to shut down after the trial burn and wait until tho
results arc reported? Will they issue an interim and final report? We
will aupply them with , list of reportins. requirements for either,
7. Are there any applicable North Carolina air pollution standards?
~R PEG. 4 ATLANTA I· Feb ~~-91 10:00 No.005 ~.03
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
John Ollbert • E.PA/E.~T 21 Pcbrua:y, 1991
Here is a list of comments regarding the trial bum plan followed by L list of
corrections and changes to be made. The contrac\or must respond to CII-Ch Item.
l, What is the estimated concentration and feed rate of ethylene &lycol
during the TB? If it is sufficient, tho Incinerator must meet 99.99%
DRE for ethylene glycol also.
2, Samples or the auxiliary fuel, scrubber makeup water and POHC •P~
material should be taken. · · ,~-···
3, Ethylene glycol is not a 1tandard compound on the 8270 list,' please
provide estimated detection limlta for 1olls1 uh, waters and air 1amplos.
Provide justification that the MMS sarnpllnJ train will capturo ethylene
glycol and that standard extraction procedures will work. Is a
methanol/methylene chloride rinse appropriate for ethylene glycol? In
Section 1.$ of the TBP, it states, "the sensitivity of available analytical
methods for de~atlon of ethylene glycol la poor,• Can we do a
splk!ng and recovery pro&ram to prove that the methodology works?
4.
5.
Some sectloM ot the TBP Include sampling for antimony, Based on an
average concentradon ot 4,000 mi/kl In the waste feed and a feed rate
ot 2,000 lbt per hour, antimony will exceed tho Tier I screening limits
and must r1qulre stack sampllna, The operation plan Um chromium at
3 mg/kg. This also would exce_ed the tier 1 screening limits and must
requi.re &tack aamplini.
Will CEMs bo 11sed to measure co. and Oi for the staCk aample runs?
If so, then EPA Method 3A requirements must be followed, including: ' -
\ ... , .... .., ... ,.._ ' --
A heated tef'lon sample Uno from the probe to the conditioner,
callbratlon performed from the end of tho sample line through the
entire system, E.P A Protocol 1 certified calibration gases at zero mid
-lllld high re.nges. The use of Ice cooled lmpln2ers with short stems
11 acceptable as loni as the tf,fflple does not bubble through the
ltnp!nger water catch. ·
6. Calibration records for dry gas meters, temperature sensors an4 pltot
tubes must be provided prior to the trial blµ'rt.
7. Laboratory analysis of the spike material must be performed prior to the
trial bwu and results reporttd.
r•:;. 4 i'iiLArHA TEL: [phone] Feb 22,91 10:00 No.005 P.04
I~
:21 February, 1991 I John Gilbert -EPA/ERT
8. EPA Protocol 1 certification for gas cylinder, must be provided prior to
• 3 .
I the trial burn.
9. Quality control procedures for CO: artd O, must bo performed on the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.
CBMs prior to the trial burn as per Method 3A Section 8.
Automatic waste feed shut off systems must be operarto11al prior IO
feeding of any hazardous _waste material during shakedown and the trinl
burn. .
11. A WFSO will be demonstrated the day before the trial bum.
12. EPA Method 26 must be used for HCl.
13. i., there a stack gu velocity probo for continuous measurement? How
will retention time be con.tinned and 111alntalned throushout the
production bum7 ·
Corrections and chanses:
1, Table 1.1-Particulate emlss!ons must meet 0.08 gr/~ct corrected lO 7%
03• Is 0.08 &r/dscf anticipated?
.2. • Table 1.1 • HCI emissions mU$t meet 4,0 lbs/hr,
3. Table 4.4 • Needs to Include multi-metals sampling for antimony and
chromium. EPA draft multi-metals samplina train protocol is to be used.
4. Section 4.1.4.2 • Class or tef1on only, no other Inert materials acceptable.
5. Sectlor. 4.1.4.Z , The MM5 train will notcontain 1.0N NaOH.
6. Section-4.4.1 • Please explain the time values listed a.rter the lndlvldual
interloc!(s and how they relate io settings in Section 5.
7. Table 4.2 • Blank samples for the stack gas parameters, antimony,
chromium, and HCl are requited.
8. Table 4.2 • Explain the antimony duplicate.
7
i
I
I
~-J
iE':.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TEL: [phone] Feb 22,91 10:00 No.005 F.05
~
John Gllben -EPA/ERT • 4 • 21 February, 1991
9, Table 4.3 • HCI sample type is M26, particulate Is MS. Stack gas tor
chromium and antimony needs to be added. IndicatD how many VOST
tube pain mako up a sample run.
10. Section 4.1.4.1 Page 4,S -There· Is no aorbent module for thb train, it
should go to Section 4.1.4.2. ·
11. Please include a sample recovery description for 4,1.4.2 and 4.1.4.3,
12, Table 4.4 • Add andmony and chromium 10 analysis and methods,
13, Appendix A Page l • Add VOST train to the bonom of the page.
U. Why are tho two POHC'& ethylene ;lycol and naphthalene not ori the list
in Appendix A, Table 3-1.
13. The multi-metals train lmplnaers will contain lhe rea&ents specified In
the EPA draft multi-metals protoc;ol not lhe contents in Appendix A •
4.2.3.
16. Append.Ix A Section 4.2.4 • What is the intent ot CEM fr,r HCL, This
data will not be acceptable for the trial burn.
17, Section 4.2.6,6 • The dry gas meters for the multi-metals o.nli VOST
trains m11st also be pre and post calibrated.
' ' _J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of Trial Burn Plan Review Meeting
Hoechst Celanese, Shelby, N.C.
March 7, 1991
ATTENDEES:
John Gilbert. Ken Mallary (EPA)
Charlotte Jesnick (NC Div. of Solid Waste Management)
Theresa Bourbon (REAC), Paul Meeter (Weston)
Clinton Twilley (GDC), Art Rubenstein (Flint Environmental)
Bill Carter, John McBride, Steve Olp (Hoechst Celanese)
Glenn Boytan, Everett Glover, Subhash Pal (Westinghouse)
Everett Glover led the discussion of the questions, comments, and corrections that EPA and Weston/REAC
had about the trial burn plan.
The questions, comments, and corrections shown below In Italics are copied directly from Paul Meeter's
and Terry Bourbon's February 21, 1991 memo to John GIibert titled Hoechst Celanese Trial Byrn Plan
Review and Comments. Clarifications to the questions, comments, and corrections are shown in square
brackets.
QUESTIONS:
1. Westinghouse mentions 720 hours of 'shakedown' operation prior to the trial burn. Will this time
period consume more than 20% of the total waste soil? Has any limit been established as to how
much soil they can use before and including the trial burn.
Response:
The 720 hours Is the maximum numbers of hours allowed for the mini burn and the trial burn. The
limit for GRU waste Incinerated before and Including the trial burn Is 700 tons. The current
schedule calls for burning approximately· 600 tons of waste, which Is 30% of the total GRU waste
(2000 tons).
Discussion:
John Gilbert noted that the EPA will not approve the trial burn without full and complete data. Paul
distributed a list from a previous project which listed the data required. Paul will provide a list
specHlcally for this project to Flint Environmental.
EPA will provide a decision regarding the trial burn within 5 working days of the receipt of the data.
The previous agreement between EPA and Hoechst Celanese was to approve continued operation
of the Incinerator based on the results of the mini burn, even though the mini burn analytical work
is not OA/QCed. John was very uncomfortable with this. Steve pointed out that the waste was not
a hazardous waste. John and Paul agreed to allow continued operation based on the mini burn
results condltlonal on the following two points:
1) The EPA must observe the mini burn.
2) EPA will submit audit samples to Flint Environmental to be analyzed with the mini burn samples.
This is to provide some measure of quality assurance.
The mini burn Is scheduled to start on March 25th.
MINUTES2.WPS Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of Trial Burn Plan Review Meeting
Hoechst Celanese, Shelby, N.C.
**DRAFT**
Revised 3/27 /91
March 7, 1991
2. They [GDC] mentioned performing pre-trial burn testing -can we [EPA] get the results?
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Discussion:
This was resolved during the discussion of comment #1.
They plan on stabilizing the ash on a continuous basis as It Is removed from the kiln. Do we want
to know the results of ash samples prior to stabilization and does it matter?
Discussion:
The ash will be sampled on a regular basis as part of the incinerator operation. however, only the
stabilized ash sampling results must be submitted to EPA.
What Is the naphthalene and ethylene glycol cleanup level in the ash?
Discussion:
The levels of naphthalene and ethylene glycol in the ash will be monitored for the purpose of
Incinerator operations information only. There is a performance criteria for solidHied ash only.
Can w11 [EPA] supply performance evaluation (audit) samples to them for semi-volatiles and
VOST? I [Paul Meeter] would recommend it.
Discussion:
Yes, for both the mini burn and the trial burn.
Are they planning to shut down after the trial burn and wait until the results are reported? Will they
Issue an interim and final report? We will supply them with a list of reporting requirements for
either.
Discussion:
This was resolved during the discussion of comment #1.
Are there any applicable North Carolina air pollution standards?
Discussion:
Yes, they are specHled In the permit that GDC has already received and must be met.
COMMENTS:
1. What is· the estimated concentration and feed rate of ethylene glycol during the TB? If it is
sufflcie•nt, the Incinerator must meet 99.99% DRE for ethylene glycol a/so.
Discussion:
Since the waste is non-homogeneous, the concentration of ethylene glycol will vary widely.
Naphthalene will be used as a surrogate sample to check DRE. Since naphthalene Is more difficult
10 treat than ethylene glycol, the assumption is that 'four 9s' DRE on napthalene proves the same
or better DRE on ethylene glycol.
2. SamplE>s of the auxiliary fuel, scrubber makeup water and POHC spike material should be taken.
Discussion:
Agreed. 8240, 8270, and ethylene glycol analysis will be performed.
MINlITES2.WPS Page2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of Trlal Burn Plan Review Meeting
Hoechst Celanese, Shelby, N.C.
**DRAFT**
Revised 3/27 /91
March 7, 1991
3. Ethylene glycol is not a standard compound on the 8270 list, please provide estimated detection
limits for soils, ash, waters and air samples. Provide justification that the MM5 sampling train will
capture ethylene glycol and that standard extraction procedures will work. Is a
methanol/methylene chloride rinse appropriate for ethylene glycol? In Section 1.5 of the TBP
[Trial Bum Plan], it states, 'the sensitivity of available analytical methods for determination of
ethylene glycol is poor.• Can we do a spiking and recovery program to prove that the
methodology works?
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Discussion:
Flint Environmental will provide the EPA with the sampling procedure, stack sampling procedure,
and the detection limlts. A copy of these Is attached to these minutes.
Some sections of the TBP include sampling for antimony. Based on an average concentration of
4,000 mgjkg In the waste feed and a feed rate of 2,000 lbs per hour, antimony will exceed the Tier
I screening limits and must require stack sampllng. The operation plan lists chromium at 3
mgjkg. This also would exceed the tier 1 screening limits and must require stack sampling.
Discussion:
It was agreed to check the stack sampling for chromium
WIii CEMs be used to measure CO2 and 0 2 for the stack sample runs? If so, then EPA Method 3A
requirements must be followed, including:
A heated teflon sample line from the probe to the conditioner, calibration
performed from the end of the sample 1/ne through the entire system, EPA
Protocol 1 certified calibration gases at zero mid and high ranges. The use of Ice
cooled lmplngers with short stems Is acceptable as long as the sample does not
bubble through the lnpinger water catch.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Calibration records for dry gas meters, temperature sensors and pitot tubes must be provided
prior to the trial burn.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Laboratory analysis of the spike material must be performed prior to the trial burn and results
reported.
Discussion:
Agreed.
EPA Protocol 1 certification for gas cylinders must be provided prior to the trial burn.
Discussion:
The cer@calion papers will be provided to the EPA by Flint.
MINUTES2.WPS Page3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of Trial Burn Plan Review Meeting
Hoechst Celanese, Shelby, N.C.
••DRAFT••
Revised 3/27 /91
March 7, 1991
9. Quality control procedures for CO2 and o2 must be performed on the CEMs prior to the trial burn
as per Method 3A Section 8.
10.
11.
12.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Automatic waste feed shut off [AWFSO] systems must be operational prior to feeding of any
hazardous waste material during shakedown and the trial burn.
Discussion:
It was noted earlier that we are not feeding hazardous waste. However, It was agreed that the
AWFSO systems will be operational before any waste Is fed.
AWFSO wlll be demonstrated the day before the trial burn.
Discussion:
Based on the agreement discussed In comment #1, It was agreed that this will be done before the
mini bum.
EPA Method 26 must be used for HCI.
Discussion:
Agreed. A separate train will not be used.
13. Is there a stack gas velocity probe for continuous measurement? How will retention time be
confirmed and maintained throughout the production burn?
Discussion:
Yes. GDC will document the retention time calculation.
CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES: The following table and section numbers are from the Appendix II, Trial
Burn Plan, which was submitted to the EPA with 100% Remedial Design Report.
1. Table 1.1-Particulate emissions must meet 0.08 gr/dscf corrected to 7% 02. Is 0.08 gr/dscf
anticipated?
2.
3.
4.
Discussion:
Yes, emission standards are anticipated to be met.
Table 1. 1 -HCI emissions must meet 4.0 lbsjhr.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Table 4.4 -Needs to include multi-metals sampling tor antimony and chromium. EPA draft multi-
metals sampling train protocol is to be used.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Section 4. 1.4.2 -Glass or teflon only, no other inert materials acceptable.
MINUTES2.WPS Page4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of Trial Burn Plan Review Meeting
Hoechst Celanese, Shelby, N.C.
**DRAFT**
Revised 3/27 /91
March 7, 1991
Discussion:
Agreed.
5. Section 4. 1.4.2 -The MM5 train will not contain 1.0N NaOH.
Discussion:
Agreed.
6. Section 4.4. 1 -Please explain the time values listed after the individual Interlocks and how they
relate to settings in Section 5.
Discussion:
The values represent the minimum amount of time required before the Interlock trip can be reset.
7. Table 4.2 -Blank samples for the stack gas parameters, antimony, chromium, and HCI are
required.
Discussion:
Agreed.
8. Table 4.2 -Explain the antimony duplicate.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Discussion:
This was a typographical error.
Table 4.3 -HCI sample type is M26, paniculate is M5. Stack gas for chromium and antimony
needs to be added. Indicate how many VOST tube pairs make up a sample run.
Discussion:
There are three pairs per run. Flint to provide 2 hours of coverage during each run.
Section 4. 1.4. 1 Page 4.5 -There is no sorbent module for this train, it should go to Section 4. 1.4.2.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Please include a sample recovery description for 4.1.4.2 and 4.1.4.3.
Discussion:
To be provided to EPA by Flint. A copy is attached to these minutes.
Table 4.4 -Add antimony and chromium to analysis and methods.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Appendix A Page 1 -Add VOST train to the bottom of the page.
MINUTES2.WPS Pages
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of Trlal Burn Plan Review Meeting
Hoechst Celanese, Shelby, N.C.
March 7, 1991
Discussion:
Agreed.
**DRAFT**
Revised 3/27 /91
14. Why are the two POHC's ethylene glycol and naphthalene not on the list in Appendix A, Table 3-1.
Discussion:
This was an oversight. The table will be modified.
15. The mu/ti-metals train implngers will contain the reagents specified In the EPA draft multi-metals
protocol not the contents in Appendix A -4.2.3.
16.
17.
Discussion:
Agreed.
Appendix A Section 4.2.4 -What is the intent of CEM for HCI? This data will not be acceptable for
the trial burn.
Discussion:
This data will be deleted.
Section 4.2.6.6 -The dry gas meters for the multi-metals and VOST trains must also be pre and
post calibrated.
Discussion:
Agreed.
OTHER DISCUSSIONS:
Paul noted that only 10% (3 minutes) of the rotary kiln retention time is allowed to correct for upsets during
the trial burn. The validity of samples taken during an upset will be determined in the field on a case by
case basis.
Ken gave verbal approval to begin a new bench scale solidification study, but still requested submission of
a written test plan.
Ken requested that he be given 1-2 weeks notice before pit inspection was needed.
A mini burn coordination meeting was scheduled for 1 :oo pm the day before the mini burn was to occur.
It was agreed that the minutes of this meeting would become an official amendment to the 100% Design
Report.
M1NUTES2.WPS Page6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TO:
FROM:
Glenn Boylan
Westinghouse
Paul Meeter -WESTON
Terry Bourbon -WESTON REAC
SUBJECT: Review of Minutes of Trial Burn Plan Review Meeting
on March 7, 1991, Minutes Dated March 19, 1991
Here is our response to information provided by Flint as requested
during the meeting on March 19, 1991. The information from Flint
was provided to us on March 22 and March 27. A copy of the
information Flint provided on March 27 is included for your
records.
HOECHST CELANESE
Minutes of Trial Burn Plan Review Meeting
On March 7, 1991
Minutes Dated March 19, 1991
COMMENTS NUMBER 3
3. Ethylene glycol is not a standard compound on the 8270 list,
please provide estimated detection limits for soils, ash
waters and air samples. Provide justification that the MMS
sampling train capture ethylene glycol and that standard
extraction procedures will work. Is a methanol/methylene
chloride rinse appropriate for ethylene glycol? In Section
1.5 of the TBP, it states, "the sensitivity of available
analytical methods for determination of ethylene glycol is
poor." Can we do a spiking and recovery program to prove that
the methodology works?
Discussion
Flint Environmental will provide the EPA with the sampling
procedure, stack sampling procedure, and the detection limits.
hocOOla.rpt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CORRECTIONS NUMBER 11
11. Please include a sample recovery description for 4.1.4.2 and
4.1.4.3.
Discussion:
To be provided to EPA by Flint.
EPA-REAC RESPONSE:
Flint has provided descriptions requested in correction 11. The
method descriptions are acceptable.
Flint has indicated in the VOST sample train description that
ethylene glycol will be captured as part of that sampling system.
Flint also proposes GC/FID analysis for ethylene glycol.
The VOST sampling train is a single point constant rate sampler
without collection impingers. This train will not be acceptable
for ethylene glycol collection. A multi-point, isokinetic sampling
protocol must be used. Flint must respond in greater detail to the
concerns stated in Comment Number 3 including:
•
•
•
•
•
hoc00la. rpt
Extraction procedure for wastefeed, ash and stack
samples.
Provide GC/FID calibration curves .
Provide procedures used to generate calibration curves .
Provide GC/FID operating conditions .
Provide detection limits for all sample media .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F'ROM
3, 27. 1991
YORK
Reeearch Consultants A Olvlell,)n uf Fllnf environ mental Servrcte, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Terri Bourbon, Roy F. Weston
Joseph C. Zu,olo, Flint Environmenta~
Analysis or Ethylene Glycol ,.
DATE: March 27, 1991
Environmental
Analytical St>niccs
p. 2
()
Speaking with Mr. Gary Folk of IEA Laboratory of Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina and
with Ms. Linda Freeman of Air Toxics Limited of Rancho Cordova, California, ethylene
glycol analysis will be conducted by direct Injection of the stack collected condensate via
GC/FID.
1. Calibration will be done daily using a four (4) point working standard over the range expected for the test program. A callbration graph (peak area or height vs mg ethylene glycol) will be prepared.
2. Retention time for ethylene glycol will be determined by first analyzing clean water. ~~e~er~khM~en~~as~lectw~r~
~
e
~
l
e
M
g
~
~

will be injected to determine the AT for ethylene glycol.
3. The GC/F=ID will be operated Isothermal. Anticipated operating conditions for
temperature are:
in)eotion 250° detector :300" column 165°
4. The column is expected to be a glass. 3% carbonox 20m on 80/100 Chromosorb
101.
A Tradition of Dependable Serv,cia
8S25 Atjone Drive Sulle M San Diego, Calilornia 92126 [phone] (800) S25·7820
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM p. 2
4.1.4.3 VOST
The stack gas will be sampled for volatile organic compounds and priority
pollutants (plus the 10 highest peaks) using the VOST (Volatile Organics Sampling
Train). The VOST protocol (Method 0030) is outlined in "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste", SW-846, Third Edition, November 1986. The VOST is
designed to collect volatile organics with boiling points less than approximately
IOO°C using a pair of adsorbent resin traps in series.
Along with volatile organics ethylene glycol will be sampled with the VOST system.
A schematic diagram of the VOST sampling train is shown In Figure 4-4. Volatile
organics are removed from the gas In sorbent resin traps containing Tenax and
Tenax-charcoal maintained at 20°c. The first resin trap contains Tenax and the
second trap contains Tenax followed by petroleum-based charcoal. After sampling,
the resin traps are sealed and returned to the laboratory for analysis. A 20 liter
sample of gaseous effluent Is collected at a flow rate of 1.0 L/mln using a glass-
lined probe. A dry gas meter Is used to measure the volume of gas passed
through the pair of traps. An example VOST source sampling data sheet is shown
In Figure 4-5.
During the test, a VOST run (a total of three• runs will be conducted one each
sampling day) will consist of collecting three pairs of traps, with each pair exposed
to sample gas for 40 minutes et approximately a 0.5 L/mln flow rate. After each
run, two 40 ml VOA vials will be used to collect the aqueous condensate collected
In the condenser. For each run analyses will be performed on the thru resin trap
pairs and on one of the aqueous condensate vials. The samples will be collected
at a fixed point of average gas velocity in the duct. lsokinetlc sampling is not
required since all volatile-POHCs are In the ga.s phase.
Descriptions of the train components are given below:
Probe-• The probe is lined with borosilicate or quartz glass.
The glass liner provides an inert surface so that the sample
gas does not undergo changes in composition. The liner is
equipped with a connecting fitting that is capable of forming
a leak-free connection without sealing greases. The probe is
maintained at a temperature of at least 130°C prior to the first
condenser.
Isolation Valve--The isolation valve is a greaseless stopcock
with a glass bore and a sliding Teflon plug with Teflon wipers.
Condensers--The condensers are of sufficient capacity to cool
the gas stream to 20°C or below prior to the first sorbent trap.
The condensers are fined with leak-tree connections.
Sorbent Traps--The sorbent traps are of the inside-inside type
as Illustrated in Figure 4-6. The cartridg,, is approximately 1.6
I FROM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.21.1991 t4:4e
centimeters I.D. and 10 centimeters long. The first trap In the
series is packed with approximately 1.6 grams of Tenax GC
resin. The second trap Is packed with approximately 1 gram
each of Tenax GC resin and petroleum-based charcoal. The
secord trap is packed so that the sample gas passes through
the Tenax layer first and then through the charcoal layer.
Metering System--The metering system consists of vacuum
gauges, a leak-free pump, a calibrated rotometer, a dry gas
meter accurate to within :1: 2 percent at the required sampling
rate, and related valves and equipment. A thermocouple is
placed on the exterior glass surface at the exit of the first
condenser to monitor and maintain the gas temperature
entering the first sorbent trap at 20°c or less.
F'' 3
All sampling tubes will be brought pre-packed and conditioned from a certified
distributor.
Prior to and after sample collection, the cartridges will be leak-checked. After leak
checks have been completed at the end of sampling, the traps will be sealed with
their end caps and returned to their respective glass containers for storage and
transport. During transportation and storage, the traps will be maintained at 4°C
until analysis.
All sample traps will be shipped to the test site via overnight express service. At
the completion of each days sampling, the traps used will be shipped to the
analytical lab via overnight express.
The Tenax and Tenax/Charcoal sorbent trap;; will be according to Method 5040
of SN 846, Third Edition, November, 1986. This analytical method is base don the
quantitations thermal desorption of volatile compounds from the sorbent traps and
analysis by purge and traps GC/MS. The condensate collected for each sampling
day will be analyzed by direct Injection via GC/FID for ethylene glycol. The
estimated MDL for ethylene glycol using this procedure is 25 µg/ml.
4.1.4.2 Modified Method 5 (MM5) -EPA Method 0010, SW-846, Third Edition
Modified Method 5 sampling trains will be used for the collection of semivolatiles
and the ten most abundant POHCs. A MM5 field blank will be collected at the site
once during the test program. A MM5 sampling train will be set up, and a sample
will be recovered as an actual sample but without having had sample gas flow
through the system. The field blank sample will be analyzed by the same analytical
techniques used for all other emission samples collected by MM5.
The sample train consists of a glass-lined, heat-traced probe with a stainless steel
button hook nozzle and attached thermocouple and pitot tube. The probe will be
maintained at a temperature of 121°c :t 14°C (250°F :t 25°F). After the probe, the
gas passes through a heated glass fiber filter (Gelman Sciences, Inc.).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM 3.21.1991 14:41 F, 4
Downstream of the heated tilter, tho sample ;ias passes through a watercooled
module, then through a sorbent module containing approximately 30 grams of XAD
resin which is kept at a temperature below 20°c. The sorbent module is followed
by a series of five implngers. The first impingor, acting as a condensate reservoir
connected to the outlet of the XAD module, is modified with a short stem so that
the sample gas does not bubble through the collected condensate.
The first lmpinger will be empty, the second and third implngers will each contain
100 mllllllters of distilled deionized water, the fourth will be empty and the fifth will
contain a known weight of silica gel. All connections within the train will be glass
or Teflon; no sealant greases will be used, Tho lmpingers are followed by a pump,
dry gas meter and a calibrated orifice meter. A schematic of this MM5 train Is
shown in Figure 4-7.
Sampling will be isokinetlc (± 10 percent) with readings of flue gas parameters
recorded at every sampling point during the traverse. In the event that isokinetic
sampling cannot be maintained, the train will be shut down and the problem
remedied. In the event that incinerator steady state operation Is not maintained,
or, If there are atypical fluctuations in monitored parameters, the testing will be
stopped until these conditions are stabilized.
Prior to sampling, all gas-contacting components of the train will be washed
according to the following procedure.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
GLASSWARE PRECLEANING PROCEDURE
Soak all glassware In hot soapy water (Alconox) 125°F or higher.
Water rinse three times.
Distilled/deionized water rinse three times.
Bake at 450°F for two hours.
1:1 v/v Methanol/methylene chloride rinse three times (pesticide grade).
Cap glassware with clean glass plugs or rinsed aluminum foil.
Leak checks on the MM5 sampling train will be performed before and after each sample
run and In the event that any portion of the train Is clisassembled and reassembled (ie:
due to filter or resin changes). The sample train leak checks and leakage rate (where
applicable) will be documented on the field test data sheet for each respective run.
Following completion of each test run, the MM5 trains wlll be transported to a
recovery area onsite. The sampling train recovery w\11 be as follows:
1. Remove the sampling train to the recovery site.
2.
3.
Note the condition of the train (i.e. filter condition, impinger contents color,
silica gel color, etc.).
Disassemble the filter housing and transfer the filter to its original petri dish
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM 3.~1.1991 14:42
with methanol/methylene chloride rins,id forceps. Seal the container with
Teflon tape and double label it with the appropriate sample information.
4. The front half of the train (nozzle, probe and front half filter housing) Is then
brush-rinsed with methylene chloride/ methanol solvent into an amber glass
container with Teflonlined cap. The rinse procedure is performed three
times, after which the container is sealed and double labeled.
5. The volume of condensate In the first impinger will be measured
gravlmetrically. The contents are then placed in an amber container and
labeled.
6. The contents of the second, third and fourth lmpingers are measured in the
same manner as the first impinger and the combined contents of these
three impingers are placed In the condensate amber glass container.
7. The silica gel is returned to its original container and weighed to obtain a
final weight.
8. The XAD-2 resin chamber Is capped a.nd sealed In a larger container for
transport. The back half filter housing, condenser coll, condensate
lmpinger, second and third impingers and connecting glassware are then
rinsed into a container with methylene c:hloride, and the container is sealed
and double labeled.
9, At this point, all containers will be checked to ensure proper sealing (Teflon
tape), proper labeling, and that all liquid levels are marked. All samples are
then logged onto the chain-ot-custoc1y record. The XAD-2 resin and
condensate/ lmplnger containers will be maintained at approximately 4°C
from the time of sample recovery to sample analysis.
Sorbent resins used in the MMS sampling train require extensive preparation and
quality assurance measures prior to use in the field to eliminate the possibility of
sample bias due to sorbent contamination. The XAD-2 resin used in the sample
train will be obtained from a certified distributor. The resin will then be precleaned
by Soxhlet extraction using the sequence outlined in the EPA Method 0010
Appendix B (SW 846, Third Edition). Likewise, the particulate filter will be
precleaned with methylene chloride prior to obtaining a tare weight.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P, e FROM
MULTIPLE METALS SAMPLING TRAIN
This method is applicable for the determination of total chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd),
arsenic (As), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), beryllium (Be), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), lead
(Pb), selenium (Se), phosphorus (P), thallium (The), silver (Ag), antimony (Sb), barium
(Ba), and mercury (Hg) emissions from hazardous waste incinerators and similar
combustion processes.
The stack sample is withdrawn isoklnetlcally from the exhaust stack, with particulate
emissions collected in the probe and on a heated filter and gaseous emissions collected
in a series of chilled lmpingers containing a solution of diluted nitric acid in hydrogen
peroxide in two implngers and acidic potassium permanganate solution in two (or one)
impingers. Sampling train components are recovered and digested In separate front and
back half fractions. Materials collected in the sampling rain are digested with acid
solutions to dissolve lnorganlcs and to remove organic constituents that may create
analytical interferences. Acid digestion is performed using conventional Part Bomb or
microwave digestion techniques. The nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide impingers solution.
the acidic potassium permanganate/hydrochloric acid impinger solution, and the probe
rinse/digested filter solution are analyzed tor mercury by cold vapor atomic absorption
spectroscopy (CVAAS).
Except for permanganate solution, the remainder of the sampling train catches are
analyzed for the rest of the metals previously listed by inductively coupled argon plasma
emission spectroscopy (ICAP) or atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). Graphite
furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (GFAAS) is used tor analysis of antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and thallium, If these elements require greater analytical
sensitivity that can be obtained by ICAP. Additionally, if desired, the tester may use AAS
for analyses of all metals If the resulting in-stack method detection limits meet the goal of
the testing program. For convenience, aliquots of each digested sample traction can be
combined proportionally for a single analytical detnrmination. The efficiency of the
analytical procedures Is quantified by the analysis of the spiked quality control samples
containing each of the target metals including actual sample matrix effects checks.
Actual in-stack method detection limits, as presented, have been determined using:
The procedures described in the EPA Draft Me1thod dated 10/29/90.
The analytical detection limits listed.
A volume of 300 ml tor the front half and 150 ml for the back half samples.
A stack gas sample volume of 45.0 dscf.
The values presented tor the total train are calculated as shown:
AX B = D
C
Where: A = analytical detection limit, ug/ml
B = volume of sample prior to aliquot for analysis, ml
C = stack sample volume, dscf
D -In-stack detection limit, ug/f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM
Analyte
Antimony
Chromium
Analysis Type
GFAAS
GFAAS
3,::l.}991 14l44
Method Detection
Umlt [oQ/ml)
1.0
3.0
GFAAS • Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
F'. ;-
In-stack
Detection
Limit <mQ Im')
0.3
11.5
A schematic of the sampling train is show. It is similar to the Method 5 train. The sample
train consists of the following components:
Probe Nozzle and Probe Limes of Borosilicate of Quartz Glass. Glass nozzles are
required unless an alternate probe nozzle prevents the possibility of contamination or
interference of the sample with Its materials of construction. If a probe nozzle other than
glass is used, no correction of the stack sample test results can be made because of the
effect on tt1e results by the probe nozzle.
Pitot Tube and Differential Pressure Gauge. Same as Method 2, Section 2.1 and 2.2.
respectively.
Filter Holder and Heatirn;i System. Same as Method 5, Sections 2.1.5 end 2.1.6, except
that a Teflon filter support must be used to replace the glass frit, and the filter will not be
desiccated or weighed.
Condenser, As stated in Section 5.1.3 of the method the condenser section will be
modified to eliminate the three lmpingers which are thfl tv,.,o permanganate impingers and
the impinger preceding the permanganate impingers. For this reason the condensing
system will consist of four (4) lmplngers connected in series. The first impinger will act
as a water knockout trap because of the high moisture condition of the flue gas. The
second impinger (the first HNO,/H2O2 impinger) will bo the same as the Greenberg Smith
impinger with the standard tip descried as the second lmpinger in Method 5. The last
impinger will contain a known quality of silica gel or equivalent desiccant. All sampling
train glassware will first be rinsed with hot tap water and then washed in hot soapy water.
Next, glassware will be rinsed three times with tap water followed by three additional
rinses with deionized distilled water. All glassware will then be soaked in 10 percent 0/ /V)
nitric acid solution for a minimum of four hours, rinsed three times with deionized distilled
water, rinsed a final time with acetone, and allowed to air-dry. All glassware openings
should be covered until the sampling train is assembled, prior to sampling.
Meterjn,;i System, Barometer and Gas Density Determination Equipment. Same as
Method 5, Sections 2.1.8 through 2.1.10, respectively.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDUSTRIAL &
ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSTS
FIELD DIVISION
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 12846 • Research Triangle Park:, North Carolina 277@
Shipping Address;
120 Southcenter Ct., Suite 200 • :Morrisville, North Carolina 275(:IJ
To: ____ ·J3____,_v(....:..ll\_l....:..T~_Y ___________ _
From: /J ,J;_iJ &JL<Z(c -'-"----'--'-~a...,--......;;c.=~----
Date: ---------Time: ____ Mi/PM
Receiver's Facsimile Number: --'-''';, .. <.:...I >"--__ _,_Lf-=•s_C>=--_1----'lf_D____,_) __
Number of Pages (including the cover sheet): ___ "l ______ _
Comments: -----------·---------
If all pages are not transmitted legibly, please l,u us know as soon as possible.
Facsimile Operaror: ___________ _
Telephone: [phone]S2 • :!()() 326-369S
Facsimile: 919--4(i-O-:l78S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECHHlCJIL APPJtoACH
Following review of the Request for Proposal, contacts with
Hoechst Celanese, and a pretest visit, IEA has developed a better
unders~anding of the purpose and goals of the program. The
Technical Approach we have developed for this program is
consistent with those developed by our staff for other clients
with similiar program objectives.
In this Section, we outline the specific tasks tt1at would be
performed to provide Hoechst Celanese the necessary support to
meet all the objectives of the subject program in a timely, cost
effective and quality conscious manner. The tasks described
below further assure Hoechst that IEA has a thorc,ugh
understanding of the program.
IEA will provide the equipment and trained personnel to collect
representative samples and perform process measurements necessary
to meet the goals outlined in the technical approach. Our staff
are competent and experienced in the procedures required for
collection of representative samples for all of the parameters of
interest for this program. Our location in RTP, NC and numerous
contacts within the research branch of EPA assists in keeping us
up to date on the latest development and protocol revisions.
This assures that IEJ1 uses the best procedures for providing
optimal service to the client.
The following subsections further detail the field sampling
components for the subject program. Presently, the field effort
features al-run miniburn on the incineration unit. Table l has
been provided to list the number and types of samples to be
collected during the field sampling effort. Also enclosed is an
example schedule for the field sampling effort.
Mohili;~ation -
The mobilization phase is comprised of the procurement,
preparation and calibration of all necessary equipment and
expendible supplies associated with the field effort. IEA is
well positioned for rapid mobilization for large scale efforts
because of the use of mobile laboratories and modular systems for
the various types of sampling equipment.
IEA will mobilize our Particulate Trailer for th~ completion of
the field sampling, The trailer will be used for sample train
setup and recovery to minimize sample contamination.
IEA ha1~ notified our s1ubcontract laboratories (Research Triangle
Laboratories and Triangle Laboratories) of the schedule changes
and remain in close contact with them to assure the project
schedule will be maintained,
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hr-'t-: lo '3" ll4'45PM 011 SITE SYSTEr1s
Tablt.1 1.
ANAL YT/CAL SUMMARY -Anticl~iJed Detection Limits
Hoechst Celanese ~lin/Bu.m Program
Samples for Analysis Total
Analytical Mini QC No. of
Methods Burn MS PE Blanks Analvses
Waste Feed
POHCs
-etiene glycol GC/FID 1 1 _, 1 3
-na ~alene 8270/BN 1 1 --· 1 3
Metals 7000 1 1 __ , 1 3
Chloride AOAC 6,187 1 --_., -1
Scrubber W1tgr
Volatlles 8040 1 --_., 1 2
Metals 6010 1 -_., 1 2
BNAs 8270 1 --·· 1 2
J1sh
POHCs
-ethylene glycol GC/FID 1 1 --1 3
-napthalene 8270/BN 1 1 -·· 1 3
Metals 7000 1 1 _, 1 3
Flue Gas
POHCs
-et~lene glycol M5/GC-FIO 1 ---1 2
-na thalene 001018270 1 --3 1 5
Particulate MS 1 ----1 2
Chloride EPA M26 1 --· 1 2
Metals EPA 1 -_,. 1 2
VOST 5040 3 -3 2 8
These values represent detection limits achie·1ed from slmlllar programs,
Higher detection limits may be reported due t1l matrix interferences.
Metals of Interest Include chromium and antimony.
POHCs for this program are napthalene and E1thylene ~11ycol
EPA will be providing all po,iormance sample,,.
All analyses performed by IEA exoept the follc,wing flue gas samples:
VOST Research TrlanglE1 Laboratories, ATP, NC
Anticipated
Detection
Limit
10 ppm
200 Ug/kg
(Cr 6 & Sb 40) mg/kg
to be determined
5-100 ug/L
(Cr ,03 & Sb ,2) mg/L
10-50 ug/L
10 ug/kg
200 uglkg
(Cr 6 & Sb 40) mg/kg
10 ug/L ;('-!i.~--,'"
' '
1 ug
,1 mg
100 ppb
to be determined
25 ng
Napthalene, metals Trie.ngle Laboratory, ATP, NC
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Miniburn sypling --
IEA will be responsible for the c:ollec1:ion of all flue gas
salllples. Hoechst personnel will colleGt samples of the process
streams. IEA will provide guidance and oversight for the
collection of all process stream1&.
Table l. li.sts the number and typ,3s of :aamples to be collected and
analyzed for the miniburn. IEA has budgeted for a team of 5
trained and experienced staff me111bers ·co complete the objectives
of the mini.burn sampling task. :,peciflc responsibilities of the
individual team members are list,3d bel,,w:
l -MS Operator ( Ethyl,ene gl:r'col then particulate/HCl)
1 -KM5/M5 Operator (Naphthalene then metals)
1 -VOST Operator
1 -Stack assistant
1 -Field Team Leader/Process Coordinator
The schedule ( and budget) calls for co:11pleting 1 sample run
during a single 10-hour day. Th,e rund!l.y will be preceded by an
B-hour day that features a safety orientation, equipment setup
and all preliminary measurements. IEA has sufficient reduncy in
terms of equipment and staffing ·t:o assu.re successful completion
of the field sampling.
The schedule remains ·somewhat fl,exible. Presently, IEA
anticipates completion during th,e montll of April and will require
3 days notice to ensure complete prepa~ation. All samples will
be hand delivered or express mailed to the appropriate laboratory
ilMUllediately after the sample run. Samples will be stored in
coolers and maintained at approp~iate temperature during sample
transport to ensure maintenance ,::,f sample integrity.
sampling und Analytical. Procedur~
-Particulate and Hydrogen Cnloride (HCl)
The RCRA hazardous waste regulations require the determination of
particulate and HCl concentrations in flue gas from hazardous
wa.ste incinerators. Tt1is is accomplished by employing a standard
EPA Method 26 sampling train which is modified by addition of
Greenburg-Smith impingers. The solutions will feature dilute
sulfuric acid (impingers 1 and 2) and sodium hydroxide (impingers
3 and <I) to ensure capture of HCl for subsequent quantitative
analysis.
Presampling preparation includes a soap and 1o1ater· wash followed
by DI water rinse. Sample recovery is consistent with those
identified in EPA Method 5. Particulate will be collected on a
preweighed quartz filter. The front half sample recovery will
fe,ature an acetone rinse. The back half sample will be limited
to the contents of the sulfuric acid impinger. The impingers and
connecting glassware will be rinsed with DI water. The sodium
3
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_.,r,,, lo · "~ lJ4: 47f'M (JI~ 51 fE SYSTEMS
•
Clock
Time
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
, , :15
11 :30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30 .... · .... : ::: .. : .;:.;,
MS -EthyGly
MS -EthyGly
Part./HCI
Part./HCI
Activity
MMS-POHC
MMS-PO~IC
Metals
Metals
VOST
VOST
FIGURE 1. DAILY SAMPLING SCHEDULE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
hydroxi.de impingers 1o1ill be discarded,
The standard Method 5 sampling pi~otoco.L is followed fo:: gravimetric analysis of the fron1: half, Hydrogen chloride concentrations are then determin,3d by Lon chromatography as outlined i.n EPA Method 26, IEA will C•lmplete a 2-hour run.
-EPA Method 0010 for Napthalene
This procedure is also a modific,!ltion ,Jf the standard EPA Method 5 sampling train utilizing a gla:ss fiber filter for collection of particulate and particulate phas,a semivolatiles and a sorbent resin (XA0-2) for the collection of gaseous phase semivolatile compounds. Pretest preparations inclu,ie and solvent rinsing of the sample train components and :sample bottles. Analysis by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) is employed to identify napthalene in the particulate, s 1::,rbent resin and impinger water samples.
Presampling preparation includes a soap and water wash followed by DI water rinse. ~.ll glasswar-9 will be solvent rinsed with methylene chloride and methanol, Sample recovery is consistent with those identified in Method 0010. Particulate will be collected on a quartz filter and saved in a glass petri dish. Tne sample train recovery will f,eature rinses with methylene chloride and methanol. The back half sample will be kept separate from the solvent rinses.
IEA has cc1lculated an anticipate-:1 concentration on naphthalene in the flue gas based on estimated spiking levels, flue gas flowrates and 99.99i destruction and removal efficiency. IEA recommends an increase in the spiking level to assure sufficient concentrations in the stack gas thus detectable amounts in the samples collected. Naphthalene is a particularly difficult POHC because of contamination potential and high blank values often associated with this compound, Basically, the higher the spiking level, the better the chcmce of obtaining detectable amounts of the parameter of interest. Miniburn sampling will feature a 4-hour sample run.
-EPA Method 5 for Ethylene Glycol
IEA will utilize a standard Method 5 train for the collection of sample for ethylene glycol. It is acknowledged that there is not an EPA validated proc:edure for this compound. The proposed procedure is consistent to the methodology that ~,as previously approved by EPA and their contractor,
Presampling preparation includes soap and water ~ashed, nitric acid rinse, acetone rinse and air dry, Sample recovery procedures will be limited to or rinse of the impingers.
Minibui:-n sampling will fE!at1.1re a 4-hour run simultaneously with the MM5 run.
5
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>'IPR 18 '9:c 04: 4BPM ON SITE SYS1U1S P,7/9
SAMPLING PARAMETERS FOFI STATED POHCS
Napll ialeoe
POHC Foedrate ~ 24.0 lb8/hr e.o
Ug/mln 4.54E+j)7 1,82E+08
Stack Cone., @99..99%
Ug/Scf o,3·r8
MM5 collected, micrograms
120 acf gas, 4 hr 45.4
Stack Cone., @99,999%
ug/sc! 0.0:38
MM5 collected, microgram&
120 ncf gas, 4 hr 4.5
Assume: 12,000 acfm stacl; flowrate
Naphthalene Detection Limits: 2 micrograms
~ Recommended spiking level. This will assure coliection
of a GUfficien1 quantity to see a detectable amoun 1
at 4, 5 and even Ciose to 6 9's
J. ~,< ,...,~I', tci .fbHc -~
1.513
181 ,6
0.151
18.2
/. 't,.;! !t-(0~ .. ~l.f<>Q(~ r<;lcK-_
Mi f1 vt"-f<d
t. SI~ J"-c') f:bb-lc. -
-C,~ sf..v:, a"
M.'1"'
I?> I. b /'o _'.~
bQ. '""f If,
6
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,O,i'R 1a '9:, ()4; 48PM ON SITE SYSTEMS
-Volatile Organic Sampling ·rrain (VOST)
The VOST system will be used to determine Products of Incomplete
Combustion (PICs) with boiling points generally less than 140
degrees Cina flue gas stream. Using Tenax and Tenax/charcoal
packed tubes as the sampling medium, the vos~ samples are
analyzed by state-of-the-art GC/~S procedures, enabling the
identification, if present, of many compounds. 'l'he stringent
storage and quality assurance methods required by EPA protocols,
including the transportation of all samples at 4 degrees c, are
routinely incorporated into the handling of all VOST samples,
allowing submittal of high quality data.
IEA plans a 20-minute sample at 1.0 liters per minute, 4 pairs of
tubes will be collected per run, Presently, only three pairs are
scheduled for analysis. IEA will also perform the VOST audit
required for all trie1l burns, EPA will provide the audit kit and
cylinder.
-Mul timetals sampling •rrain
IEA will collect samples of the flue gas for the determination
metals concentration in accordance to the recently developed EPA
procedure. This system specifies collection of various elements
utilizing a standard Method 5 train modified with different
impinger solutions to enhance the collection of various metals of
interest. These impinger include a dilute nitric nitric acid and
hydrogen peroxide solution in the first two impingers followed by
an empty impinger. J,11 fractions will be analyzed for antimony and chromium.
PROJEC':r QUALITY ASSUlUJJCE
IEA has made no attempt to address all of the technical elements
required to fulfill the requirements of a Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPjP). This text is intended to outline the basic
field program as presently configured. The ininiburn wi 11 provide
valuable information in 11ssessing incinerator performance as well
as sampling and analytical techniques. The majority of this
effort features standard EPA methodologies and should not present
any significant technical difficulties.
QC mechanisms in place for this program include the collection of
field bias blanks, field duplicates and audit samples (provided
by EPA). IEA will fully cooperate in any type of field or
laboratory audit designed to assess our precision, accuracy and
cc-mpleteness. Our field staff are well perpared for these type
of programs and IEA is confident that we will meet all objectives of the miniburn.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,:,pp 15 '·3:c [j4:4gp1•1 ON SITE SYSTGlS
FINAL REPORTS
IEA will provide final results within 7 days of completion of the field program as stipulated in o~r intercompany agreement with GDC. This rapid turnaround report will be limited to tabulated results and a brief discussion of data quality. The amount of data will be significant such th,1t incinerator performance on the critical i.ndicator parameters ( P1)HCs) ::an be evaluated.
IEA will submit a complete Final Report within 30 days to document the results of' the field program. These reports will provide a concise description of the g,:>als, methods, and conclusions of the program. Any deviations from the original test protocol and their impact 011 the quality of the data will be fully documented. Strengths and weakn,!sses of the data will be discussed. Included in the Final Repo:rt are some of the same sections as the test protocol wi':h additional sections and/or subsections for:
0
0
0
Results and Conclusions -cc,mpreh,msi ve listing of data gE,nerated, conclusions, and data rmomalies. Program QA/QC -docwnentation of 1.X: measures employed, chain-of-custody, data valiciation, data quality objectives. Field Activities -day-by-day explanation of the chain of events that occurred during the f:leld portion of the program. Deviations are fu1ly no1~ed, and field decisions are explained,
The Final Report will undergo senior tochnical review and QJ~ scrutiny prior to release to the clien1:. IEA will submit each report under the following schedule: niniburn report within 14 days. IEA will provide prelimin11ry ini:ormation in weekly progress reports by fax on each ~:huraday afte,rnoon after the fi,ald sa1npling effort until the formal miniburn report is submitted.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDUSTRIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSTS, INC.
P.O. B<>x 12841i
Researcb. Triangle Part, Nurth Ca1·olin.a 27709
FAX COVER SEIEE1'
TO:
DATE: TIME: It-:/(} v-a.m. __ p.m. __
Receiver's F11csimile Nwnber: (zlS-) ,,,(JC.> -z:~,10/
Number of Pages (including the cover shecit): _i~
Comments:
If all pages are not transmitted legibly, pl•::ase lt:l us know as soon as possible.
Facsimile Operator: _______ _
IEA Telephone Number: [phone]
IEA Facsimile Number: [phone]
IEA's Shipping Address: 3000 Weston P:1rkway, Cary, North Carolina 27513
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,u
SEKI-VOA
REVISION 1
1 OF 5
APR 17, 1991
AHALYSIS METHODS :roR DRl'ERl(DrING E.'THYLEtm
GLYcm, IN SoIL/,!\SH AHILJIATElt SAKeLES
A. SCOPE MD APPLICABILITY
The objective of thiR document is t•) outline the specific ana-
lysis methods necessary for determining the presence of Ethylene
Glycol in soil/ash and water samples.
B. SAFETI JJlfD QPERATili{G PRECAOTIQ~
1. At a 111inimU1t1: Wear protectilrCI, compatible gJ.ovei;:, eyP. gear,
and lab coat.
2. An updated Mato:t:ial Saf-ety Data Sh9at (MSDS l for Ethyli;,ne
Glycol is required on file in the standards Laboratory for
immediate reference.
3. Refer to your IBA Safety Manual.
C • PB9GJ3JlflJIB$
I· EX'l'RACTTON PROClIDJJR]l:S ll"QR SOIL/ASH M!Q>IJI$ •
1. Using an analytical balance (calibrated daily by analyst):
Weigh 10 grd.Ills or the sample into a tetred vial, (Record
the exact weight so that the pi:ecise conoentration can be
d1rt:erained) ;
2, Pipet 10 mls of the reagHnt grade water; Cap and place in
a sonic ba.th for 15 minutes 1
3. Remove from bath and allow to settle for 30 minutes;
4. Analyze .Liquid plllas,e of the salllple anci .c·,~cord re,sults in
:ag/]tg (PPM)
NOTE: There is l'IO e:ctracticn proc,eaure required f.cr w~,ters
however, results are to be recorded in mg/L (PPM).
II. ANALYSIS ME'l'HOQS_l'roR ETHyT.J'SfflK GLY(:oJ..i.
1. Analyze Ethylene Glycol t1sing ., GC/FID;
2. Conduct the emalysis utilizing the column:;; in the fe>llow-
ing manner:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
','-'' I , 1...ri I I 1,_i..J..• .t.' .1. '.' j ~, U ,
SEMI-VOA
REVISION 1
2 OF 5
APR 17, 1991
a. screen samples using a Chramosorb 101 (glass) collllln
whicb best i.ndicat.Qs ethylene Glycol levels in the
>100 PPM range. Dilute samples >100 PPM to the mid-
range of o to 100 PPM and analyze using a column
outlined belOlil' in section bar c:
NOTE: The tmrperature p1ogram used for the CbrOlllOsorb
column is an isothe1'118l run at 178 deg. C (Col-
Ullln ma>dmwa toperature is 225 dE,g. C) with a
carrier gas flow rate if 30 JIL/aj_n. Using the
Chronouorb lOl. colmm helps el.imi.nate the
•carryover' vhicll 118.Y be prevalent in highly
concentrated saaples.
b. Analyze sa.1aples i11 the o to 100 PPM rm1ge using an
o.st THEED (glass) column. MOTE: The temperature pro-
greJ11 for this 00l\1JU1 ia an ioothermal run at 124 dog. c
(Collllllil maJcimm temperature is 125 dE,g. C) with a car-
rier gas flou of 30 :aL/min.
c. As soon as a Hulcol capillary Column ( SUpelco-Bellefonte
Penn.) or equivalent can be obtained, tested, condi-
tioned, and calibration verifi&d, initiate w;c of· the
capillary ColUllln for routine, Ethylene Glycol analysis.
a. Analyze :i:nstn111ant Blm11ks between e&ch is-urple conte,ining
IIIlY levels of Ethylene Glycc,l.
III. §fiYiDARDS PREPARATIOJ~:;,_
1. Prepare Stanclards at the beginning or t.he analysis r.1ethocl
to establish .a ·three poi.11,t curTe required for deten1ining
co11centratioris:
2. For the 0.81 '!'BEED standards: lTepare in ~eagent water at
the following concentratlons:
a. 10 ppm;
b. 50 PPM: and
c. 90 PPM.
3. li'or CbrOJROsorlb 101 ColUllll'.1 Stan(lards: Prepare in reagent
water at the following concentrations:
SL. 200 PPM;
b. 500 PPM: and
c. 900 PPM.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' '-''' ,._.,., ' •'-'-•,._, '•'• .-• ...JlU a
T.V. AlfALYSIS OF THE COJJCHll'I'RA'l'ION LRYJ!LS..;.
;:,,1.,:..~_·-,_•\.I I -WJ.. '.'"", ._,..,.
SEIU-VOA
REVISIOM 1
3 OF 5
APR 17, 1991
1. Rurt the three concentration level standarcls, with water
blanks between, to establish a calibration curve; Follow
this method with an instrUlll@nt blank(s) to verify that
tllere is no instrument contamination;
2. EGtablish a curvo utilizing the rE!i;ults of the three stan-
dards. This curve should be based on a linear regression
analysis, detenmine the correlation coE!fficient .. The co-
relation coefficient should be greater than or equal to
0,9996. If it is out of the cor..trol limits, refer to the
IEA standard procedure to identify and correct calibra-
tion.
NC)'.I";g_: A nethod detection l:ill.it of :LO PPM has been established
for low level. cnnlyais, If 1:thyl.ene Glycol :l.s not:_ de-
tected by high level screen, concentration is then
determined by low leve,l analysis. If Ethylene Glycol
is detected in high l.eevel iu1alysis, a dilution factor
is calcualted for analysis of the saDIPle on the low le-
vel colmm.
D. PAR 'f'B9G83SING AND CAI;CJJUTICIJffl
I. 90],LrrY ASSJJRNJCElCQNTRQL prE'l'HQDH:.
l • EX'tractiort Proq;edurEt
a. Analytical balance i£: calibrated daily.
b. Record the exact weight of t:he soil saJ11ple to deter.mine
the precise concentrcrtion.
c. If analyzing a soil 01~ ash eruple, "t..altf! a sample Blank
through the extraction to verify that no contamination
occured.
2. Analysis Het;b,ods far EtlQ"lene Glycol
a. Analyze blanks butweun eacl1 sa:mple containing a11y
level of Etby.lene Glycol.
b. Al.l blanks are to be made tJf the s-SDe reagent grade
water as the standarcls.
c. As a part of every saaple batch of at aost 20 samples,
spike and anal yz,~ a Nntrix ~:pike/Matrix Spike Duplicate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-irr:-.,-.:..:,;:i.;,. •• .:.•;,.,;_, rr-,Ul'I J.C.!·1 l"'lC.t...LJ UlV.:..'=,lU\J IU
SIDU-VOA
REVISION 1
4 OF 5
APR 17, 1991
for a spiking frequem::y of nt least lDlt. spikes should
approxiaate 501 of the anticipated level of Ethylene
Glycol, so tlUt spiked Ethylene Glycol will be qll.an-
tifiable evon if the smiiple requires dilution.
J • pt-,andards PrOnnration:
a. calibrntion standards are to be analyzed before be-
·ginning the analysis of suples. At the leznst, t.he
lllid-level standard is to be, run after 10 SllJ1BPles or
three hours. If the wid-lffilel standard response bas
drifted 1110re than 101, re-calibration is required.
b. Use only the specifically oul:.linad concentration levels
required far Standards Pr01aration.
•· &1Blys;is:r Qf the l'.'.gngmtzaticm 1,evaJs;
a. Run the threer concentJ:ation level standards, with water
blanks bet.-woen, in an offort: to est:ablish a calibration
curve. This procedure mist 1,e followed by an inst.ruDent
blank llhieh is nocess.ary in verifying that samples are
free of inmtr,;mcnt ocrntaniriation.
II. gnRRE£TIYE ACTIONS
1. Re'fer to paragrapb rv-2 for Jle1:hod Detection Limits.
III , DAT,il< PROCESSDTG NRD '►'rl:!:rnzw.'1:IOHS
:s.
F.
a. calculations are preparec:l for mmple concentration using
a linear regDSSSion c:urve1 estahlisbed by the three-point
calibration.
!roQIPflMl'.
· 1,.. i'imtlytical Balance
2. 40lll. Vial
3. Pipet ( l.U ml)
4. Soiiic Bath
5. GC/FID
REFER1QJ~B§
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SEJCI-VOA
REVISIOlil 1
5 OF 5
APR 17, 1991
1. Ausley, J. seJtl-Vola.tile sample Laboratory. SOP: Analysis
Methods for Detenaining Ethylene Glycol in Soil/Ash and
water samples. Revision o. cary, 11.c.: Industrial and
Envirollll8Dtal Analysts, Inc.
2. TElohnical. Publications Divi.E,ion. SOP 5.29: Guidelines for the
Preparation or Standard operati11<3· PrOcedures. Revision 1.
cary, w.c: Inchmtrinl and Bnviro11mental J111alysts, Inc.
3. IBA Ellployee Safety Manual. Health and Safety Division.
E. Poore, ad. ca:r.y, ». c. : T ndusa·ial and Bnviro11lll8lltal
Analysts, Inc.
4. IEA Quality Asiirura:nce .aanual. J. PJoscyca, clld. Corporate
Dire<--tor, Quality Assurance • C&r)', R. c. : Industrial and
Environaental Analysts, me.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix II
Draft Anal Report
Summary of Resulta for Test Runs
June 11, 13, & 14, 1991
Industrial & Envlronmental Analysts, Inc.
This report Is supplied under separate cover
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.00000
3 . 75888 · .. · .... · · · .. · · .. ' · · · · · .......... · · ' ........ · · · · · .. · · ·: · · · · .... · .... · · · .. :-.. · .. · · · · · · · .... ·' · · · · · · .. · · · · · · · ..
2.581ffl8
1.25008
' ' . ' .
: : ;\: \/\ .,.,, \ t\~4 ,!\r : I
. : \; I • . . ·. . I .
'""''"""' : ..... · ............ ; .. ' ........ ,, .. ,: .... / ...... ,, ... ,.:,,,, ... ,,,, ...... : ........... , .. .. . : I . .
: I
8 . lfflillffl · ' . 1s:21:18 es118191 i !ia<r 16:21:18 86/11/91 KILN:SIC-Mt30.NEA8 2.58880
I
I
I
WASTE
5.88888
8.88888 · I 16:37:85 86/11/91 KILN:SIC-Ht38.HERS 1.87888
FEED RATE
16:37:85 86/12/91 _, ....___ _________ ___.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.00800
WASTE FEED RA TE
' .I
i
21:15:35 06/13/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.00000
3. 75000 ..... .
2.50000
1.25000
FEED
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sec & I(ILN TE1·1P
2488.88
...__"' ----------~---~-~---~-~----------1 , _.., -------: KILN :
t2811.81 .... · · · · · · · · · · ·: · ,. · · · · ,. · · · · ., ,. ;, ... , .. · ., · · · · · .. '.' · ., · ... · · · --· ,. · -:-., · .. · · · · ., " .. · ·: · · · · .. , · · .... ,., ·
. ' . ' . ' ' . . .
' ' . . 888 .888 ·.. · ......... ' ................ ' ..... ' ............... ,
1.89881
'="'=1sc--::: 22-=-:=2-4---,,es-=""'1=111-=-9-c--1 ------,1,----::D,---ay-s ----,,-ts=-: 22~: 2-4.,...,16=1=11,--:-=-:'/91
BCC: TIC-f13811.,t!RS 1858 .lffl KILN:TIC-K-488.HEAS 1499.88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
sec~ (,~ I(ILN TEMP
2488.61
sec
tBn.88 ............. . . .... · .................. · .................................. . . .
: KILN
. ' ' ' ' t211.II ····· .. , ... , .... ·:. ,. , ............. ~· · ........ , ..... ··;· ..... , ... 111 ·····:····· ,, ••• ,' '',., ·:., •••••••••• ,. ,, ,
. . . .
' ' . ' . . ' .
' ' ' '
....... , ........ ~ ................. , ..
8.18181 ,___ ____________ --,. ______ _____
16:38:31 16/11/91 1 Days 16:38:39 16/12/91 sec: TIC-f1381:flER8 1884 .88 KILH:TIC-K'488.HEAS 1497.00
I -
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
&: I(ILN
2-4fle.ee
: sec
888.888
e.aeeea -----==---------------------------' 21:1 ◄:33 86/12/91 ; "',1·:•, 21:1◄:33 86/13/91 SCC:TIC·A388:tfERS 1884.08 KILN:TIC-K400.HEAS 1504.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---' : ---·-_.,,\
\ KILN ' .
1200.00 ' '.' ' . ' ' ... ' ' ' . ' ' : ' ' . ' ... ' . '\ ......... ' : ....... :: . ' ' ' . ' . ' . ' ' ' .:. ' ' . ' ... ' ' ' ' ' .. ' ' .:. ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' .. ' ' ' ' ' /: ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' .. ' ' ' ' . ' . •,; ·-• .' l, (,
608.0i'li'I
0.00000 ,..__ _________________________ ___;!
19:48:48 06/13/91 C;J••·, 19:48:48 06/14/91 scc:TIC-A3i'18.MEAS 1890.01'1
K lLl'l: T IC-·K400. MEOS 1479. 00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sec 02
25.8888
18.7518 ················:···· ·················································································
12.5818 ... ·
6.25888· ............... : .................................................... _. .................................. . . .
8.HMJII.•'------------------' t6: t8: -46 16/tll/91 1 Days t6: 18:-46 116/U/91 KILN:RIC-K358.NER8 4.758t'l8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
sec 02
25.8888
18.7588 · · · · · · · '' · · · ., · · ,, · · · ,. · · ,. ,. ,, · ,, · · · · · ..
6.25880 · · · .. · · "' · · · · .... · · · -~--.. · · · · · · · · · ... · · · · · · · .... · · · · · .. · · · · · ---..; ---------------:--.........__~----.,_-
8.IMBIB ~-=-=--=:--,--=-,---------~:--:-----=--c~-=--c' 16:3,4:,42 86/11/91 1 D,r,, 16:3,4:42 86/12/91 KILN:AIC-K3511.NER8 4.21lili18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
sec 02
25.81188
18. 7588 .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .... · · · · .. · · · .. · · · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
12_5888
8_88888 ---------------~-~ 21:ta:37 86/t219t , 21:10:37 86113191 KILN:AIC-KS58."ER8 4_37888
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sec 02
25.0000
18.7500
12 .5808 ·
8.88008 ~--=--,----------------20: 12: 58 06/13/91 ; >,•):, 20: 12: 58 06/14/91 KILN:AIC-K358.MERS 7.471'Jl'J8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SYSTEM DRAFT
1 . 2588 · · .. · .......... · ·' · · · .... · .. · ...... '· .. · .... · · · .... · · ,: .. · · · ........ " · ":" ' .............. · :· .............. ' ..
' ' . .
2.5888 ,,,,,
. ' . '
3. 75811 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · '. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · ·' · · · · · · · · · · · · -:· · ·" · · · ·" ·" · · · ·: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
5.11188 .___.......,.,..-,.----------,----~~..,,.,,...,.,~ 16:t9!55· 18/10/81 1 !lays 1s: 18:55 86/11/81
ILN: PIC-K-411:HIAS -0 .25011
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SYSTEM DRAFT
t .2588 .. · · .. · · · · · · · · · · ·' · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ,:,. · · · '" .. · · · · ·" ,:, · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
' ' ' . '
.... --' ......... , .................. , . .
' .
. ' ' . 3 .7Sl!l8 "'".''''""'' ': ... '''''' '''''''' '.' ' .. ''.' .... ' .. ' '·:·'.'''.''''''''" ·:-''"" '"''''''' ·:.''' '' ''.' .. '"''
5 .8888 ~~..,,..,.._..,....,,.,. ____ __,....,,----~~~~
18:35:52,88/11/91 1 navs 18:35:52 88/12/91 ILN: PIC-K.tlMl'.ltEAS -8 .2788
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SYSTEM DRAFT
. 88880 .---....----..__.,-------.:....___.-...____ . .:.__-.v,• ... /--.---.__~,·• ----,._: --•• -~~--------·-. .
1.2500 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·' · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·: · · · .... · · · · .. · · · .. : .......... · · · · .... :, · · ...... · · ...... · ·' · .. · · · · · .... · .... ' . . .
2. 5888 ·
. ' . . . 3. 7588 .......... · · ·····: · · · · · · · ,, · · .... ,. :·· .. · ..... ,, · · · · · ·:··· · ........ · ·····:· ,. · .. ,. · .. ,. · .. ··: · .. · · · · · ,.,, ... ,,
5.8881'1 ------------------•------' 21:17:25; 86/12/91 ! i!:"F' 2t:t7:25 86/13/91 ILN:PIC-K-488:lfEAS -8.1680
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...... 1-·~~·1 r·•--~----/v----✓~v·-.. ----···----·-·'• .... ··'
. \ I . . . I . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
1.2500
2_5000 ·
3.7500 · ·
5_0000 '----------------------·---" 20:04:50 06/13/91 20:04:50 06/14/91 KILN:PIC-K400.HEAS -0.1800
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DIFF
20.mm11
' . 10 .el'Jtl\l .... · ·" · .... ''''' ,, ''.' ,, '''' ''''' ,. ''''' ,,, . ''' ..... ''' ''' ,,, ''''' ....... ,. '''''' ... ''''' ,,,, ,. '
5.000flll
0,000(10 ~16,,....:_2_3:--,3=2-tl_G_/..,,10_/_9_1 ______ t_D_a_y_s _______ 16_:_2-.3:_3_2_11_C_/_11_/_9..,1
scc:PJJT-B100.OU'f 5.50000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DIFF
28.fltll:lil
' ' 10. l)\}()0 '" "''"" '''' ·' ""'''' "''''''' '·'''"' · '" '''' "·"" "'""' ""' •.•'"" "'""""''''''''''' · ""'"
5 . 81'flllil ._.,-..._ ... --........ . ...... , ....... .
0.000~0 ".-::--o--::-:---,--..,.----·----,---0 --------=----,-------' 16: 39: 34 !16/11/91 1 Days 16: 39: 34 •)6/12/91 sec: ?IJT-B180.OLIT '.5 .65000
I
I,
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I)II?F
20: 8f!llil
i 5 . rl11Ht · · · · · · · · · · · ·
. . ,,,,, ,.,, ,,,, ,, ',,,''' ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, .......... , ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,.,' ,.,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,''' ''' ., '' '' ,, '
.-.-···-_ ...... ··-.• \ ', ' ...
0.000(1~
;sec: ?lll~~i'~·i]tir 06/1219l _ 13000 1 Days
_.,,,
~frl;
.. ;,!
.· .. :i~
. •9i Ii
: .x~
--'14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fJ IF t.,
10.8000 . . ' . .
'' .,,, ,, '' ''''' .. , ''' '' ..... ' ,,, '' .,,,' ,, '··········••.•· ,, ,, , .. ',,.,' ·••.•···' ., '' ......... ,., .............. .
S.00000
0.00000 '--------------------------19:41:47 06/13/91
SGC:P!JT-Bl0e1.0UT ,l_ 14000
1 Days 19:41:47 06/14/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCRUBBER TEMP
1188.88
758 . -" ' " ' ' " ' ' . ' .. ' . ' " ' " " " ' ' " . ' . ' '' " ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' " ' . ' ,'., " ' ' " " ' ' ' ' ' ' "'., " " " " " ' " " ', ' ' " " ' . " " " " ' ' . . ' '
5118.888
' ' . ' ' 258 .889· .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·: · · · · · · · · · .. · · · · · · ', · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· .. ' .. · ...... ·. ·. ·: ................ .
--
8.81881), '
1e:18:2B 118/18/81 SCJIUllllll: m;.sctee .OUT 178 .888
. -
I Days 1e:1e:2B 88111191
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCRUBBER TEMP
1888.08
751.HI ·················'·················'························································'·················
' ' . ' .
5811.888
' ' . ' ' 2S8 .888 ......... '.'.' ... ''' ..... '.' '' ' .. '' ·:-.'.''.' ' .. ' .. '.' ·:-''''' ''' .. '' .. '' ·:-'''' ".'''.'.''' ·:' ''' .. '''' ''''''.
8.11811EB ·
1s:a1:44 88/11191
SCJIJDBIJI: ll'-SC118 .our 169 .eee 1 Da~s 1e:a1:44 118/12/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCRUBBER TEMP
1888.88
758. 088 · · · ...... · · · .. · · · ' · · · ...... · .. · · · · · 1 • • • • • .. • • • • .... • .,•, • .. • .. • • • • • • • .... ', • • • • • .... • • • .. • .. •., .. •
588.888
' ' ' 258.088 ·" · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·: · · · · · · · · · ·
8 . 88888 · ·
21•: 18:88 08/12/91 SCJIUDBIJl:TE::.SC:188.OUT tn.888 21:11:311 86/13/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCRlTBBER TE1\,1P
1000.00
750.000
500.000
250.01!1l!I ..... , · """'") 1~----~--~----~-~~~-~~ I
I I
0.00000 '--------·--------------::-,-,-•.....,.-----------'1
ts: 28: 59 061131st , ,,,,;;,, ts: 28: 58 86/14/St
SCRUBBER:IE-SC100.OUI 170.001!1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCR.lTBBER. PH
1S.eeee
11 .2588 ...... · · · · · · .. · · ·' · · · · · · ...... · · · · · :, .... · · · · · · · .. · · · ,', · · · · ...... · .... · ,:, .......... · · · · .. ,', .. · · · · .. · · ...... ·
' ' '
7 .SllHB · · .............. , .................. , .. ··•·····•··· ... ·,· ............ ·····
. ' ' . 3.758811 ........ ,, .. , .. ,,:,,, .. , .... ,,,,,,,'. .. ''"'"""'"":''"""""""":''''""""'"''''. .......... , .. ..
B.IBBIIB · 1s:14:19 e&/18/91 BCRUBBD: RIC-8288. IUJIS 8. Rlll88BBIIMI
I Oaqs 1&:14:19 86/11/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCRUBBER. PH
11. 2581 ...... · · · · · · · .. · ' .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. ' .. · .. · · ...... " · · ,', .... " .... " .. · · · · .... · .. · .......... ', ......... " ... ". ....
' ' ' ' 3. 75818 .......... · · · · .. ·: .... · · .. · .... · · .. : .. · .. · · · .... " .. · ·:" · " .. · .. " .... ":" .. · · .... · · · · ..... · .......... · .. ·
I Jllll!lll · 16:25:11116/11/91 SCJUIBIR:RIC-8288.NIAB 8.888illl 1 Days 16:25:17 116/12/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCRlTBBER. PH
1S.8889
11.251111 ................. , ................. '. ................. : .................. :-................. :••·········"·····
7.511888 ...
3.75888 .....
8 .88888 L.....,---------------------,-----~~-=-" 21:es:s1 86/12/91 · !.'•' ,;; 21:es:s1 86/13/91 SCRUBBER: RIC-82118. l'IDl8 8. 18888
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCR.lJBBER. PH
15.8888
6.fflffl88 '----·-------'--------'--------se: 41:27 86/13/91 SCRUBBER:RIC·S2ffl!I.HEAS 9.8311811 se:41:27 16/14/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK co
2811.888
158.11!111
188 .888 · · · · · .. · .. · · .. · · ·: · · · · · · · .... · .. · · ·; .............. · · ":" · · · · · .. · · · · .... -:· .. · .... · · · · · .... · '." · .. · · · · · · · · .. ..
58.8888
I 1.111888 ~~:;::;=::::::::;:=========~=;;::::::=====::l 16:16:-15 16/fl/9f I D;iy,, tG:16:-45 16/11/91
SCRUBBER:SC0-138.0UT t .58888
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACI( CO
288.808
158.888
' ' 188 .881 · · .. · · · · · · · .. · · ·" · · ·" · · .. · · · · · · · · · .. · · · · · · · · · · · ' .. ' '.' .. ,,, . ''''. '·'''''.'' .. ' .. '''' '·'''''' .. '' .... ''''
58.8888
8.88881 ~=:==;:::==;::::==::===========~==== 16: 26: 39 16/11/91 : oa,., 16: 26: 39 16/12/91 SCRUBBER:SC0-138.0UT 1.9881!18
I
I
I
I
2ffl! .881iJ
158.81!18
STACK CO
I 1ae.eae ................. ; ................. : .................. : ................. : ...... .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
58.liJliJ88
8.88088 '=================I 21:01:te 86/t2/9t 21:01:11 86113191 SCRUBBER:SC0-138.0UT t.38liJliJ8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STi\.CI( CO
288.000
150.008
50.0008
0.00000 ~=================I 18: 44: 39 06/13/91 '· ',\;u, 18: 44: 39 06/14/91 SCRUBBER:SCO-130.0UT 1.58088
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK CO2
30.0000
22.5000 '''''''''' ,, ' ',,;,, '''''''' ...... ' ,',,' '''' ''''' ,,,,' ,', ··········'' ,,,,,',, ,, ,, ' ...... '''' ,',,,''' ........ ,, ,.
15.0000
7 50000 '"""\' • •''' · '· ';,,,::--.~•·,-,._"';''I''''''.''''' 'C.L':' '''''' '•'''' '''' ,:, ,..,._,' ''" ''''''' ':' '''' '''' '''"''' • y" ' ---...... •• ------------~ - ---....,__ ~·· y • • . r . . , .
. / ' : : : :
,,.-· : ' . : : 8.00080 ..._ ______________________________ _____.
18:87:ss 06/10/St I lla',js 1s:07:ss 0s1111s1 SCRUBBER:SCOL-120.OUT 6.47000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK CO2
38.0000
22.5000 ',.,,' .. '' ,,, ''' ,:, .... ,, ',,,.'' ,,,,',' ,, '' ,, '''''. ,. ,,•, ..... ' .... ' .. ,,,.',,,,'' ...... ,.,,,,',, ,,. ''''' ,,,,,,,,
' ' ' . ' 7. 50000 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·: · · · · · ·" · · · · · · · · ·: · ·"" .. · · · ·" "· ·:" "" · · ·" · "" ":" · · · · "· · · · '.:.>""-'-'-"""" · · ·" "~~
. ._,_ . ..-.....~-:-----------"':"" ----~ -:-----------
' ' ' ' '
8.80080 '---------------------,,.----,-----' t6:28:2t 06/tt/91 1 Days ts:2s:21 08/12/St SCRUBBER:SCOL-120.OUT 7.03000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK CO2
30.0000
22.5000 ' ' ' ' ' ''' ,,, ''''.' ,, ''' ''''' .. ,,, '' .. ', ,,, '''''''' ''.'''' ,, ''' ,, ..... ' ''''' ,,,, , ... '' ,,,,'''''' ... ''.' .. , .
15 .iltUlil ······ ·
7.50000 ''''' ,,,,,,'''''' ,, ,,,,''. ,,, ''. ,. ',·,, .. ,,'''' ,, '''' ,,.,,''' '' ,,,, ..... ,,·, .,,,,.''' ,, ...... ,'' ''' '' '
0. iltltlilil .... 21-: il--8--,: 2,-1-0-6/_1'>_"-/-91-----,-!'-,;,,-,.1-,------2-1 :-08_:_21-116_/_1:l_/9 .... 1 SCRUBBER:SCOL-120.OUT 6.35000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STi1CI( CO2
\5 _\lilil0
7.50000 .. '' '' ,, ..... , .. ,,,''''''' . ... . --~-~-«~__,_-~.--·-·--·-: ---··,.,, ,,..---·--\ ··~ ... --'\
--,,.·
~l .il!ltlilil 1--c---,---------·---------------------' ts: 47: 45 0s11::1/8t -!"''1·, rn: ,17: 45 ilB/14181
'3CnUBD!m: SCOL · 120. OUT S. 32000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK 02
25.0000
18.7500 ..... ,.
12.5000
/\
I I
1\/ \ I I , , , , , ''''' j•''''', I',,',,,,',''',,,,,,''',,,,,'',','',','',,''',',''',,'''''''',,,''''''',',,','''''''','',''''''
I L' /'--, ' --~-'-.---·'-: ---: ~ I ~1 v-----:---: : :
6.25008 ... , ... ·
0.00000 '----------------------------' 16:09:21 06/10/91 1 Days 16:09:21 06/11/91 SCRUBBER:SO2-140.OUT 12.0700
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK 02
25.0000
18. 7588 ,,,,
6.25880
ll.1!10111!111 '-16,-: 2=9-: 28-,--0-6-/.,..,H-/9_1 _____ 1 ___ Da_y_s -----1,-6-: 2"""9-: 2-8-0=6-/1--2-/9_,1
SCRUBBER:SO2-140.0UT 11.9300
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK 02
18 7508
6.25tl0tl
0.00000 ~-------------------------~ 21:09:27 06/12/91 21:09:27 06/13/91 SCRUBBER:8O2-1-48.OUT 11 .99tltl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
02
c.:i0oe0 '-----------------------------------' 19:24:03 06/13/91
SCRUBBER: so;>-i ,1~ OUT 12 i smi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK GAS VELOCITY
5888.00
3750.00 ..... .
2588.00 ................. : ................. ; ................. / .................. :··················:··················
. ~
./
1250.00 ~/·:·
1.80800 '-------------'-----16:11:35 86/18/91 SCRUBBEJl:FT-D108.OUT 2816.00 1 Days 16:11:35 86/11/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK GAS VELOCITY
5888.88
375iL88
251111.1111 "· · · · · · .... · · · · ·; · · · · .. · · · · · · · .... : · · .. · · · · · .. · · · · · · .: ... · .. · ...... " ... :. · · " .... · · · · .... : .. · · · .. · · · · · ......
: . --~---.._,,. '-'-'"'":. --....
' ' .
~--w'7: r---: . -
1258. 88 ; \ · · · · · · '. ;
: I : :
11.11001111 --=16-==: 3-=-2: =511-==11-::--:6/..,...,.tt-=19-=-1 -----1---::D,--ay-s -----=-16=-: 3=2-=: se=-0=61=121:--:-::-:'St
SCRUBBER:FT-D188.0UT 1984.88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STACK GAS VELOCITY
5888 .tltJ
375il.tli!
0.00000 '---------------------' 21:11:37 06/12/91 21:11:37 06/13/91 SCRUBBER:FT-D180.OUT 1798.08
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gi\S VELOCITY
S000.00
37S0.00
2500.00
.'\
. ,/ \ ·-, _,..,_,-I ~ .. _ ... \/ I
\
12S0.00 t.:.-··•.r
0. 00000 .__ ____________________________ !
19:37:20 06/13/91
SCllUBBER:F'f-D100.OUT 1983.00 19:37:20 06/14/91