FINAL REPORT AIR MONITORING PROGRAM Securement Of .

VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATIONFINAL REPORTAIR MONITORING PROGRAMSecurement of Wasteburning S.Bolf Course SiteSt. Loula, Michigan13

VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATIONFINAL REPORTAIR MONITORING PROGRAMSecurement of WasteburningGolf Course SiteSt. Loula, MichiganJune, 19829-0996CONESTOQA-ROVERS Ik ASSOCIATES LIMITED

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE1.0INTRODUCTION12.0AIR MONITORING PROGRAM22.1SCOPE22.2CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS2TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES AMPLING DATA93.04.05.06.0ORGANIC VAPOR MONITORING134.1COMBUSTIBLE GAS MONITORING134.2SPECIFIC COMPOUND MONITORING15PUBLIC COMPLAINTS175.1DUST175.2NOISE175.3TELEVISION RECEPTION INTERFERENCE18CONCLUSIONSAPPENDIX A - LETTER TO CITY OF ST. LOUIS RESIDENTSAPPENDIX B - TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE DAILYCONCENTRATIONSAPPENDIX C - WIND SPEED - WIND DIRECTION MONITORINGAPPENDIX D - EXPLOSIVITY/FLAMMABILITY MONITORINGAPPENDIC E - SPECIFIC COMPOUND MONITORING19

LIST OF FIGURESPAGEFIGURE 1MONITORING STATION LOCATIONS - PLANT SITEFIGURE 2MONITORING STATION LOCATIONS - GOLF COURSE SITE

I1-0INTRODUCTIONSecurement of the waste burningIand disposal area, located at the Edgewood Hills Golf Coursein St. Louis, Michigan, began in early January, 1982.Allwork proceeded in accordance with the provisions containedwithin the report entitled "Protocol - Securement of WasteIBurning and Disposal Area, Golf Course Site - St. Louis,Michigan", dated December, 1981. The Protocol was reviewedand approved by both the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, (USEPA) and the Michigan Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) During all activities involvingthe excavation, transport, handling or disposal of wastes,an ambient air monitoring program was implemented.IiiiiiiThisreport details the air monitoring program and provides allsampling data for the construction period.

2.0AIR MONITORING PROGRAM2.1SCOPEAll active work areas at the GolfCourse excavation site were continuously monitored forexplosivity and flammability, and were periodicallymonitored for the presence of five specific compounds(described in Section 4).Monitoring for particulateemissions was undertaken on a continuous basis at twolocations adjacent to the Golf Course Site, and at fourlocations adjacent to the Plant Site, during allperiods of construction activity (described inSection 3).2.2CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONSThe release of fugitiveparticulates from both the Golf Course and Plant siteswas minimized by application of calcium chloridesolution and/or water to all haul roads and work areasduring construction activities.

[A mechanical sweeper and construction equipment was available at all times to'effect road cleaning or collection of spilledImaterial.IPrior to commencing constructionactivities, each household located within one cityIblock of any haul road was visited by two Velsicoljrepresentatives.The scope of forthcoming work wascarefully explained to each resident and each householdIwas provided with a letter which detailed theforthcoming work and included a telephone number whichIcould be called in the event a resident perceived.elevated levels of air borne particulate matter, odors,'or noise, during construction activities.Ithe home telephone numbers of the Velsicol,In addition,Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited (CRA), andIContractor's on-site supervisors were provided to theCity of St. Louis Fire and Police Departments in theIevent that odors or air borne particulate matter proved to be a concern during non-working hours.IiiiA copy of the letter provided toeach household is contained within Appendix A.coNrs;-;:-,'.'-. L'.hrs i AS;-".';IAM:C. LIMITED

3' TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICUIATES MONITORING3,1SCOPEThe monitoring network consistedof four monitoring stations located adjacent to thePlant Site and two monitoring stations located adjacentto the excavation area at the Golf Course Site.Figures 1 and 2 illustrate monitoring station locationsat the Plant Site and the Golf Course Site,respectively.A meteorological station wasutilized to monitor wind speed and direction.Thisstation was located atop the project site office nearithe main entrance to the Plant Site.IThe location of each monitoringstation and the meteorological station was fieldIinspected and approved by the MDNR prior tocommencement of air monitoring.3.2IIEQUIPMENTEach monitoring station wasequipped with an Accu-Vol, Model GMWS-2310 Air Sampler- 4

rLEGENDPARTICULATEMONITORING STATIONfigure IPARTICULATE MONITORING STATIONSCRA9 - 0 9 9 6 - 24/OB/82ST. LOUIS PLANT SITEVelsico/ Chemical Corporation

PROPOSED1X(Am

Air flow through the sampler wasmaintained by a Kurz Model 310 flow controller.Theflow controller incorporated an electronic probe whichwas located in the orifice between the filter paper andthe electric motor.The probe automatically adjustedmotor speed to correct for variations in line voltage,temperature, pressure and filter loading.Air flow through the sampler wasmonitored by a pressure transducer and flow meter whichwas connected to a pressure tap at the exhaust end ofthe motor. The flow meter continuously recorded airflow over the twenty-four hour sampling period.An electronically operated minutecounter was incorporated into each sampler.Thisallowed an accurate determination of each samplingperiod.Filters measured 8 inches by 10inches in size and were of heavy duty glass fibreconstruction.Air samplers were housed inanodized aluminum shelters located on wooden platformsat a height of 10 feet to 15 feet above ground level.Each sampler was provided with an electrical servicefrom the City of St. Louis grid.- 7 -

The meteorological stationconsisted of an R. M. Young Co. Model 6301 wind vaneand Model 6101 3 cup anemometer, and a direct currentpowered Rustrac twin recording translator.3.3iOPERATIONAll sampling units were calibratedI* -to 40 cfm (field) with an oil manometer prior to1commencing monitoring operations.IEach sampler was manually servicedat an interval of 1440 10 minutes as determined by theIsampler minute counter.For each daily servicingIperiod, the operator removed the spent filter andpressure transducer chart, installed a new filter andI pressure transducer chart, set the minute counter atzero, noted the time of day, and restarted theIsampler.*the pressure tranducer chart indicated a variance in*flow rate of 2 cfm from original calibration.iISampling units were recalibrated at any timeExposed filters were stored inindividual folders in the site project office.Filterswere shipped to the laboratory for dessication andIfinal weighing on a weekly batch basis.- 8 s & A ? S C C I A : E S LIMITED

Electric motor brushes werereplaced routinely at approximately monthly intervalsBrush replacement was staggered for all samplers inorder that not more than one monitoring station wasinactive on any given day. Following each brushreplacement, the sampler was recalibrated to 40 cfm(field).The meteorological station wascalibrated in accordance with the manufacturersinstructions prior to commencing monitoring.3-4SAMPLING DATAPre-weighed heavy duty glass fiberfilters were provided by the laboratory to the projectoffice in lots of fifty filters.The exposed filtersand pressure transducer charts for seven sampling dayswere shipped to the laboratory each week end. Uponreceipt by the laboratory, each filter was dessicatedfor twenty-four hours and re-weighed.Total suspendedparticulate concentrations were calculated according tothe following formulas:V FR x T x 0.0283SP - WF - Wi x 106V- 9 CONESTOGA-KOVtRS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

where:pVIi Air volume sampled (m3)FR Flow rate (SCFM)TI Sampling time (minutes)SP Mass concentration of suspended particulate(ug/m3)1V/i initial weight of filter (gm)Wp Final weight of filter (gm))Calculated suspended particulatematter concentrations were reported to CRA field(personnel within forty-eight hours of receipt of the,filters by the laboratory and are tabulated in AppendixB for the period January 19, 1982 to April 22, 1982.IWith the exception of routine maintainance, samplingwas conducted continuously in any area when excavation,Ihandling, transport, or disposal of waste occurredX -during this period,Ii)On March 4, 1982, the flow controller at StationP2 failed,IIiiiExceptions were as follows:A replacement was installed and thestation resumed operation on March 10, 1982.ii)During the period March 12 to March 14, 1982,Station P8 was inaccessible due to a severe snowstorm.- 10 C O N E S T O G A - R O V F - h S & A S S O C I A T E S LIMITED

iii) The flow controller failed at Station P3 onJanuary 29th.A replacement was obtained and theStation resumed operation on February 10th.Theflow controller again failed on February 19th, andwas replaced on February 24th.During the duration ofconstruction activity, a single excursion above thespecified limit occurred ( 150 ug/m3).This was onMarch 8, 1982 at Station P7 with a reported value of259 ug/m3.All other monitoring stations reportedvalues ranging from 37 to 93 ug/m3 for that day.Station P7 is located immediately adjacent to a gravelhaul road.The elevated level of suspended particulatematter was identified visually by CRA personnel on theday of occurance and was immediately controlled byapplication of calcium chloride solution to the haulroad.In general, suspended particulateconcentrations were normally reported in the range of10 ug/m3 to 70 ug/m3 for the duration of themonitoring program.The strip chart from the Rustracrecorder translator was removed weekly for datareduction.Integrated hourly averages for wind speed- 11 C O N E S T O G A - R O V E R S & A S S O C I A T E S LIMITED

and direction are contained within Appendix C for theperiod January 18th to March 21, 1982. Equipmentdifficulties were encountered during the period March7th to March 13th, and reported data is incomplete forthis period.- 12 C O N E S T O G - R O V F F S & A S S O C I A T E S LIMITED

4.0ORGANIC VAPOR MONITORING4.1COMBUSTIBLE GAS MONITORINGDuring the course of theexcavation of the waste burning and disposal area,flammability/explosivity was monitored continuously atthe excavation face with a Bendix Combustion AlertMulti-Channel Gas Detection System complete with tworemote sensors .The system was programed to soundan alarm siren should flammable vapors be present at aconcentration above 20% of the lower explosive limit(LEL).The system was also equipped with a FisherRecordall Recorder which provided the operator with astrip chart print-out of monitored LEL percentages.x The operator also had the capability of interrogatingthe system at will, which provided an LEL display ofthe highest and lowest values since the previousinterrogation.This operation was performed routinelyat least twice in each twenty- four hour period . A\continuous LEL display of the current percentage forithe highest reading sensor was also provided .Il C - M O V r P S & ASSOC Ei- LIMITED

Two remote sensors were employedfor the duration of the excavation phase of theproject.These were relocated as required to remain inclose proximity to the excavation face.Generally onesensor was located at a lower elevation and one at ahigher elevation near the face in order that heavierand lighter than air vapors would both be monitored.iInitially the sensors were each jfactory equipped with 250 linear feet of signal cable.This was found to be inappropriate due to the proximityof heavy equipment.]The sensor cables were modified toa total length of 400 linear feet each.This enabledthe operator to locate the sensors much more*effectively.Calibration of the system was]routinely checked on a daily basis using a calibrationkit supplied by the manufacturer.IThe entire system, which includedthe electronic controller, two sensors, one Fisher\recordall recorder, one space heater, and one poweralarm was housed in an enclosed trailer equipped withIfluorescent lighting.This enabled the operator toperform routine or emergency service at any time of the1day or night.iC O N E S T O G A - R O V C h S & A S S O C I A T E S LIMITED