Document re04xkwzz8gXrLy63ymYzvpvE

Monsanto / from iname ft location) E< E. Stewiatft't,, K] rummrich DATE : U,JECT : REFERENCE : January 19* 1972 POLLUTION CONTROL SEWER SAMPLERS ~ " . Messrs. Clarrie Buckley Julio Munoz Chester Moore Ed Stewart COMPANY COrJF d. i 4 i g h:\L CC: Bill Engman Mike Foresman Paul Heisler Gill Hippe Notes below are from our 1/18/72 meeting related to the discussion of comparative results between the slow, drum and flip-flop sewer sampler. I. Mercury Comparative lab results from in plant samples obtained . with slow and flip-flop samplers are about the same. When the sewer system tends to build up in solids the flip-flop results can be about three times greater than comparable samples from a slow sampler. Periodic air blowing of the sewer systems or heavy rains should suffice to keep solids from accumulating in the sewer system. ' It is believed that slow samplers for obtaining samples for Kg within the plant will be satisfactory. However, the in-plant slow samplers should be winterized where necessary. Routine checks for operational problems should be made. The tip of the sampler in the sewer stream should be designed, such that the tip is prevented from touching the bottom, top or sides of the sewer or box from which the sample is to be attained. Comparative results of the Waste Treatment Plant Influent samples obtained with the drum and the flip-flop samplers are. about the same. There would be no need to change the sampler with regard to mercury analysis. A traverse of the area immediately before the Parshall ` flume would indicate representative samples can be taken from Just about any location at the flume. Results obtained during three tests are as follows: DSW 295943 X STLCOPCB4065887 Messrs. Buckley/Munoz/taoore/Stewart POLLUTION CONTROL SEWER SAMPLERS Page 2 1/19/72 WGK 1/5/72 16 M GPD Flow ' 1/10/72 ' 8 M GPD Flow No. 1 * No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 11 ppb 13 15 13 11 . 4 ppb 4 4 5 3. .* See attached sketch for spot location. 1/10/72 8 M GPD Flow 4 4 4 3 II. PCB Comparative results in-plant between slow and flip-flop samplers are quite divergent. Data attached. It is believed the slow samplers do not pick up a representative sample with solids from the stream and hence give low results. Until we develop techniques to get a representative sample from the stream we will discontinue sampling in the plant with slow samplers. Comparative results of the Waste Treatment Plant Influent samples obtained with' the drum and the flip-flop samplers are also diver gent. Comparable samples are: Composite Drum (Existing) Flip-Flop 1/2/72 1/5 1/9 1/T2 1/1& ' 50 ppb 61 273 243' 49 43 144 21 389 733 The data are toa erratic for analysis. Additional comparative samples will be obtained and data will again be reviewed on 1/51/72. The traverse of the area immediately before the Parshall flume would indicate that representative samples cannot always be ob tained with regard to PCB. This is in conflict with the mercury data. Results obtained during the traverse tests are as follows: 'h'c, 94 'hi S DSW 295944 STLCOPCB4065888 Messrs. Buckley/kunoz/taoore/stewart POLLUTION CONTROL SEWER SAMPLERS Page 3 1/19/72 WGK II. PCB (contd.) ` 1/3/72 16 M GPD Flow 1/10/72 8 M GPD Flow 1/10/72 16 M GPD Flow Spot No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 114 ppb 64 148 265 561 234 ppb 200 . 192 241 195 155 ppb 128 152 155 217 The sampling point will be relocated to the converging section .of the flume. Will be designed as close as possible to get isokinetic results. We believe that better PCB results can be obtained from the flip-flop sampler than from the drum sampler. However, we will continue to use the drum results as 'official until vie get more comparative results between the drum sampler and the flip-flop unit. Will analyze again on 1/51/72. We also agreed that a flip-flop isokinetic sample be taken of the Treatment Plant Effluent. This should be taken at Effluent Manhole No. 2 and comparisons can be made with the existing drum sample. Will analyze comparative results l/pl/72. . In the near future we must also analyze the effluent stream at some point closer to the river than Effluent Manhole No. 2. To consider Effluent Manhole No. 3> the Pumping Station on the line v to the river from the pumping station. The latter is the true stream that a control agency may insist we sample. III. Waste Treatment Plant Requirements ' ' The flip-flop sampler would be better than the existing drum sampler. Both employ a fast pump required for isokinetic sampling. The major advantage with the flip-flop sampler lies in the sample obtained. The one gallon sample obtained can be handled better than the 55 gal. sample. Can be agitated better to obtain 8 or l6 oz. sample, has less wetted surface to collect contaminants, can start with fresh container every time arid there is less chance of introducing extraneous factors that can affect the end results. DSW 295945 STLCOPCB4065889 Messrs. Buckley/Munoz/Moore/Stewart POLLUTION CONTROL '. SEWER SAMPLERS Page 4 1/19/72 WGK III. Waste Treatment Plant Requirements (contd.) A change in sampling procedure will not conflict with historical data accumulated with drum sampler. Control agencies are inter acted in trends but are more concerned with todays results. Arrangements will bp made to get comparative data at the Waste Treatment Plant from the flip-flop and the drum sampler. After evaluation we will select a future time when the flip-flop will replace the drum as the standard sampler to be used at the Waste Treatment plant. IV. Effort, maintenance and costs of the flip-flop sampler are equal to or less than the existing drum sampler. Edward Stewart Technical Services Department /tm SW 29S946 STLCOPCB4065890 SAMPLING SPOTS AT PARSHALL FLUME AT UTP / DSW 295947 STLCOPCB4065891 1/18/72 Dec. 12 13 14 15 16 19 22 23 26 27 . 29 Jan. 2 5 9 l 16 PCB SAMPLE COMPARISONS (ppb) 2 -A Slow Flip-Flop 1 -B * * Slow Flip-Flop 50 <5D 79 431 1:5.5'V 124 231 1:1.9 157 252 1:1.6 28 10 9. (22iz) (4136) (roe) 42 3.66 1:8.7 4 330 38 (SD 1:3.2 9 ' (l592) 19 . 1226 132 251 1:1.9 3 15 15 42 1:2.8 4 142 3 22 32 68 1:2.1 Influent Drum Flip-Flop 57 43 1:0.8 { Slow 38 Effluent Drown 83 Fast *. 57 f 50 6l 273 1:4 243 49 f, y i} Grade 2<f $' 65 43 1:0.9 144 1;2.4 - 21 1:0.1 389 1;1.6 733 1:15.0 h\ It (5'' Lt /; hi - G> Denotes possible solids present in sample DSW 295948 STLCOPCB4065892