-------
Test:
Plate Tare(g)
2
3
4
5
e
7
O.HS-*
Back Up
Filter
Particle Size Determination
-<
Date:
Final (g) Net (mg) Filter Total % of
Net Total
O.IS'l/
Total
o.l
0.7
8.7
7,6
Cum % KCD
(Microns)
2.0 2.0
2.3
27^ £53
' 2,6 /00.0< ,
Test:
Plate Tare(g)
3
4
5
Rack up
Filter
Final (g) Net (mg)
o, isoo
0.1^53
(9./S75
0.21^2
Date:
Filter
Net
Total % of
Total
1.1
0,7
, 5
Cum % ECD
(Microns)
3.4 3-V 17.
2-2 7<5
9.2.
<
-------
PAKTICUI.ATK CLHANUP SMHHT
Date:
5/27/76
Plant:
T"//1V\ o'
Run Number:
Operator:
/ > £ Location Of Sample Port: A Ffc<.rna.g<* J'jU.l *
S 9
Sample Box No.
Barometric Pressure:
Ambient Temperature
Impinger H20
Volume After Sampling
Impinger Prefilled With
Volume Collected 52 ml
Weight After
» */
Weight Before jTjfi'-O £
Moisture Weight jS^Vg Moisture Total^> 7-7 g
Dry Probe and Cyclone Catch:
Container No.
Extra No. Weight Results
Probe, Cyclone, Flask
And Front Of Filter
Acetone Wash:
Container No.
Hxtra No.
Weight Results
Filter Papers and Dry Filter Particulate
Filter No. Container No. Filter No. Container No.
3 • ' '
Filter Particulate
Weight &.O&&J? g
Total Particulate
Weight O.0L&8 g
% Moisture By Volume
- ^.7^
7.72
Cc.
-155-
-------
SOJRCt TEST REPORT
LiC-A. *1QYORS ASSEMBLY PLANT
p-r. LOU 13, MISSOURI
.1 AC..D HIST METHOD EVALUATION
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY 160
1.0 INTRODUCTION 161
2.0 SAMPLE RUNS 163
3.0 RESULTS 164
4.0 DISCUSSION 166
APPENDIX - CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA 168
-157-
-------
FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE 1 - SULFURIC ACID MIST SAMPLING TRAIN 162
-158-
-------
TABLES
PAGE
TABLE 1 TEST RESULTS 164
TABLE 2 TEST RESULTS 165
TABLE 3 COIL RINSINGS VERSUS TOTAL RESULTS 165
-159-
-------
SUMMARY
In conjunction with the Regional Air Pollution Study (RAPS) a limited
source testing program is being conducted. This report details the results
of method evaluation field work related to sulfuric acid mist measurement.
The stack testing site for this evaluation was the power plant at the
General Motors Assembly Plant in St. Louis, Missouri. Tests were performed
using EPA Standard Method 8 and the Shell method. In addition a comparison
was made using a glass-lined probe versus a stainless steel probe.
The results of these tests indicate that a short glass-lined probe should
be used where possible and the Shell method yielded results comparable to EPA
Method 8. However, the results are inconclusive as to which method is best.
The ratio of,sulfuric acid to sulfur dioxide ranged from 1.53 to 2.93
percent.
We acknowledge and appreciate the excellent cooperation we obtained
from the engineering department and the power plant personnel at General
Motors.
-160-
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Currently, sampling for sulfuric acid mist is routinely performed as
part of the stack testing program under RAPS. Recent work by Hamil (1) and
Hillenbrand (2) have given rise to doubts of both accuracy and reproducibility
of EPA Standard Method 8 (Determination of Sulfuric Acid Mist and Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions From Stationary Sources). For this reason the Shell method
was used in all testing to date. This method was first described by Goks0yr
and Ross (3) and subsequently verified by Lisle and Sensenbaugh (4).
The Shell method is based on the condensation of sulfuric acid mist at
temperatures below its dew point (but above the dew point of water). The acid
is condensed in a water jacketed, spiral condenser maintained between 140° and
194°F, followed by a fritted glass plate. The condensed sulfuric acid is water
washed from the condenser and titrated. The gas sample, after passing through
the condenser, is then bubbled through chilled impingers containing hydrogen
perioxide which oxidizes the sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide for subsequent
analysis by titration. The equipment setup is shown in Figure 1.
The EPA Standard Method 8 is performed by withdrawing a sample from a
stack using a heated probe and passing it through a chilled impinger train
where the sulfuric acid is collected in the first impinger containing iso-
propanol. The sulfur dioxide passes through an entrainment filter into two
impingers containing hydrogen perioxide where it is oxidized and subsequently
titrated with barium chloride using a thorin indicator.
This test was run to compare the results obtained by using Method 8
versus the results from the Shell method. In addition, tests were run using
the Shell method to compare the results obtained by sampling with a glass-lined
probe versus a stainless steel probe and with and without a glass wool filter
plug inserted in the probe to remove particulates.
Testing was performed on a coal-fired boiler at the General Motors
Assembly Plant in St. Louis. The tests were conducted on 31 August and
1 and 2 September 1976.
For these tests a single sampling point was chosen and used for all tests.
-161-
-------
STACK
HALL
CHECK
VALVE
?
REVERSE-
TYPE
PITOT TUBE
VACUUM
LINE
ORIFICE
GAUGE
FIGURE 1
SULFURIC ACID MIST SAMPLING TRAIN
-162-
-------
2.0 SAMPLE RUNS
The first four tests were run with the Shell method using different
probes. Tests 1 and 2 were run using a 5 foot, glass-lined probe. A glass
wool plug was inserted into the back end of the probe on test number 2. This
is the procedure which was normally used on all previous tests. Tests 3 and 4
were run using a 10 foot stainless steel probe. A glass wool plug was inserted
into the back end of the probe on both tests. This procedure was tried since
this was how one test had to be performed when the glass probe was not avail-
able.
Tests 5 through 8 were run to compare Method 8 and the Shell method.
Tests 5, 6 and 7 were run using Method 8. The glass-lined probe was used,
followed by a flexible, heated Teflon sample line. This was then followed by
the ice bath with impingers for collection of the sulfuric acid and sulfur
dioxide. Runs 5 and 6 did not have a glass wool plug in the probe since this
is not indicated in Method 8. Run 7 was made with a glass wool plug in the
flexible heated line. Run 8 was made using the Shell method for comparison.
Tests 9, 10 and 11 were all run using the glass-lined probe and the
Shell method. On test 9 a glass wool plug was inserted in the back end of the
probe. On test 10 the glass wool plug was inserted in the front end of the
probe such that it would be in the end of the probe at stack temperature.
Finally, test 11 was run without a glass wool plug.
After all tests, the probe was rinsed and brushed clean and the rinses
were subsequently titrated for sulfuric acid. The Shell coil was rinsed and
dried after each test. With the exception of the SO- impingers on tests 9, 10,
and 11, all the Impingers were emptied and re-filled for each test. On the
last three test runs the S02 impingers were not changed between tests but were
allowed to accumulate and the results were averaged over the three runs.
-163-
-------
3.0 RESULTS
The results of all eleven tests are given in Table 1. The data is
reported in units of pounds per cubic foot since this avoids the additional
possible error in calculating stack gas flow rate. For illustration purpose
Table 2 presents the results in units of pounds per hour. The flow rates used
for the results in Table 2 were determined by a stoichiometric calculation of
the stack gases based upon fuel composition and Orsat gas analysis.
TABLE 1
TEST RESULTS
H qn sn steam
H2S04 S02 Load
Test Ib/scf Ib/scf Ib/hr Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
6. 44x1 O"6
7. 02x1 O"6
3.97xlO"6
3.91xlO"6
5. 08x1 O"6
4. 60x1 O"6
5. 94x1 O"6
3. 94x1 O"6
3.85xlO"6
4.31xlO"6
5. 53x1 O"6
2. 77x1 O"4
2.47xlO"4
2.41xlO"4
2.1 Oxl 0~4
3. 33x1 O"4
3. OOxl O"4
2. 89x1 O"4
1.58xlO"4
1.89xlO"4
1.89xlO"4
1.89xlO"4
65x1 O3
63x1 O3
61xl03
52x1 O3
50x1 O3
45x1 O3
45x1 O3
35x1 O3
50x1 O3
50x1 O3
45x1 O3
Shell meth., Glass Probe, no glass wool
Shell meth., Glass Probe, glass wool
Shell meth., S..S. Probe, glass wool
Shell meth., S.S. Probe, glass wool
Meth. 8, Glass + Flex, no glass wool
Meth. 8, Glass + Flex, no glass wool
Meth. 8, Glass + Flex, glass wool
Shell meth., Glass Probe, glass wool
Shell meth., Glass Probe, glass wool stack
Shell meth., Glass Probe, glass wool oven
Shell meth., Glass Probe, no glass wool
end
end
-164-
-------
TABLE 2
TEST RESULTS
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
Steam Load
Ib/hr
65x1 O3
63x1 O3
61xl03
52x1 O3
50x1 O3
45x1 O3
45x1 O3
35x1 O3
50x1 O3
50x1 O3
45x1 O3
Coal Rate
Ib/hr
6989
6774
6559
5591
5376
4839
4839
3763
5376
5376
4839
Calc.
Flow Rate
SCFH
1114301
1080022
1045743
891409
844462
760110
760110
591092
844462
844462
760110
H2S04
Ib/hr
7.2
7.6
4.2
3.5
4.3
3.5
4.5
2.3
3.3
4.2
4.2
so2
Ib/hr
309
267
252
195
281
228
220
93
160
160
144
Table 3 is included to illustrate the effect of the probe in collecting
some of the acid mist. The coil rinsings and the probe washes were analyzed
separately.
TABLE 3
COIL RINSINGS VERSUS TOTAL RESULTS
Test
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
Coil Cond.
5.
3.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
3.
27x1 O"6
50x1 O"6
25x1 O"6
19xlO"6
71xlO"6
21xlO"6
69x1 O"6
22x1 O"6
6.
7.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
5.
Total
44x1 O"6
02x1 O"6
91xlO"6
91xlO"6
94x1 O"6
85x1 O"6
31xlO"6
53x1 O"6
% in
Coil
81.8
49.9
31.5
30.4
43.4
57.4
39.2
58.2
Comment
Glass
Glass
S.S.
S.S.
Glass
Glass
Glass
Glass
Probe
Probe
Probe,
Probe,
Probe
Probe
Probe
Probe
, no gl
, glass
glass
glass
, glass
, glass
, glass
ass wool
wool
wool
wool
wool
wool
wool
- oven
- oven
- oven
- oven
end
end
end
end
- stack end
- oven
end
, no glass wool
-165-
-------
4.0 DISCUSSION
As the data in Table 1 indicates for tests 5 through 8, there is little
apparent difference between the results from the Shell method and EPA Method
8. The results are lower on test 8, however the load was also lower during
that test, by the same percentage. Unfortunately, not enough test runs were
made under similar conditions to provide any clear decision as to which method
may be better. Since a better method was not singled out, tests will continue
to be run using the Shell method.
The results comparing the glass probe and the stainless steel probe are
much more helpful. As seen in Table 1 the results are clearly 33% lower with
the stainless probe. This is possibly caused by a shift in the equilibrium
between S03 and S0« in the presence of the metal probe or corrosion of the
probe. The mechanism is uncertain but the indications are that the stainless
steel probe should be avoided.
The extra length of the stainless probe may be the reason for the greater
retention of the acid in the probe as shown in Table 3. Also, the metal surface
may be the reason again. In either case the mechanism is again not clearly
known from the tests performed but the indications are that the shorter glass
probe should be used wherever possible. The results in Table 3 also emphasize
the need to rinse the probe thoroughly since half the sample ends up in the
probe and glass wool plug.
The glass wool plug 1s needed to keep the coil condenser clear of partic-
ulate for sources which may be heavy in particulates. As the results indicate
in Table 3, the glass wool plug should be inserted in the probe at the stack
end, just after the nozzle. This placement keeps the glass wool at stack
temperature rather than probe temperature and lessens the chance of absorbing
acid mist on the glass wool.
-166-
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hamil, H. F., et al, "Collaborative Study of EPA Method 8 (Determination
of Sulfuric Acid Mist and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources)", EPA 650/4-75-003.
2. Hillenbrand, et al, "Chemical Composition of Particulate Air Pollutants
from Fossil-Fuel Combustion Sources", Batlelle Columbus Labs, March 1973,
EPA-R2-73-216, PB219.009.
3. Gokstfyr, H., and K. Ross, "Determination of Sulphur Trioxide in Flue
Gases", 0. Inst. Fuel V35, p. 177 (1962).
4. Lisle, E. S. and J. D. Sensenbaugh, "Determination of Sulfur Trioxide
and Acid Dew Point in Flue Gases", Combustion 36, 12, (1965).
-167-
-------
APPENDIX
CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA
-168-
-------
STOICHIOMETRIC
FLOW RATE CALCULATION
BOILER #2
Coal Composition: 9/1/76
Moisture 11.25%
Ash 12.89
S 3.51 - 32 = 0.11 x 1
C 60.45 T 12 = 5.04 x 1
H2 4.0 :- 2 = 2.0 x 0.5
N2 1.0 :- 28 = 0.04
02 6.9 v 32 = 0.22 x -1
@ 46.6% excess air
N2 = 3.76 x 02
= 0.11
= 5.04
= 1.00
= -.22
5.93 moIs 0~ required
2.76
8.69
= 32.67
Mols Dry Flue Gas = C02 + S02 + N2 + excess 02 + N2 =
5.04 + 0.11 + 0.04 + 2.76 + 32.67 = 40.62 mols/100# coal
50.62 x 386.7 = 15708 SCF/100# coal
For Test 5: 5376 Ib. coal/hr.
= 53.76 x 15708 = 844462 SCFH
-169-
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCESS DATA FOR POWER PLANTS
Date
Net Unit Load - MW
Average Steam Load - 10' lb/hr
Boiler Heat Input
Fuel Burning Rate - Ib/hr
Fuel Heating Value - BTU/lb
Fuel Sulfur Content - %
Fuel Ash Content - %
Fuel Moisture Content %
3/31
/OS'S 7
3,/*
IZ.P/
H.-r?
f/i
io(.y(*
3,3 I
IZ.S?
;/.ar
9/a
lowb
3-S-/
u.#?
//.*£•
8/3
I/I
t/l
/o:oO
/|.-£o
11; o o
C3o
1:55
8:00
I'.ZS
(.
-------
ORSAT FIELD DATA
Location
Date 2
Tine
Conments:
Operator
Test
8-JI
10:45
\\\S
\'^3
4-f
\0: \ 0
iD.ii«r
/O-'^S
)|:00
ll'IS-
11:30
l;so
(C00)
Reading 1
l.Z
7.?
9.2
(*.(,
(p.S
(^.5
(..y
7(5
S.2
6.y
(0 )
Reading 2
7.?
f.o
*».5
7-?
7,7
?•-*
7.S
?. I
(0.0
7-V
(CO)
Reading 3
0
£
o
c>
c
0
0
0
0
0
A«V ' 100
C
Excess
100
7,3
-171-
-------
ORSAT FIELD DATA
Location
Date
Tine
* 6lr I
Comments:
Operator
Test
*-z
lo:lo
10:10
)|:oo
(CO )
Reading 1
7.y
M
5T.«
(0 )
Reaaing 2
CP.^
6> {/
s.fr
(CO)
Reading 3
o
o
o
^ .
Excess A»V -
37.3
-172-
-------
1I2S04 MIST and SU2 [-.MISSION DATA
Date !
Run No. ;
Vmc-Meter Volume, Ft^ ,
Vmstd-Meter Volume, Std. Cond.
Pg-Barometric Pressure, "Hg
AH-Avg. Orifice Pres. Drop, "H20
Vt-Vol . of Titrant, ml.
Vtb-Vol. of Titrant for Blank, ml.\
Vsoln-Vo^ . of solution, ml. |
Va-Vol . of Aliquot, Titrated, ml. I
Ib/scf H2S04 | X/0"^
lb/1°GBtuH2S04!
Ib/scf S02 x 10"4
lb/106 Btu S02 !
3/3 /
1
|0,«?
10. £3$
1W
0-1
54
-
/oO
/o
S.3.7
*U\
\
?.7
-
500
1.0
2.77
*/3l
I
10.1*
/OJ3
tf.tjCj
0.1
$.2,5
—
100
10
3. so
*/Al
E
7,zs
—
roo
1.0
e..V7
r/3/
l*^
ei-07
w-fU
^.v^
0- '
^5"
—
3
2,?y
-
/OO
ro
2,35
Vmstd = 0.0334 (Vm) CF /PB + AH \
\ TO"/
= Meter correction factor
CH2S04 =/1.08 x IP"4 1b-1 \ (Vt - Vth) (I)
\ g-ml /
v
lb/SCf
N_ = 0.01 Normal
Barium
Perch!orate
Vmstd
CS02 -(7.05 x 10"5 U)4_\ (Vt - Vtb) (N) A/soln\
\ g-ml / \Va 7=1
\Va J = Ib/scf
Vmstd
-173-
-------
H2S04 MIST and S02 EMISSION1 DATA
Ueol
Date
Run No. |
Vmc-Meter Volume, Ft3
Vmstd-Meter Volume, Std. Cond.|
PB-Barometric Pressure, "Hg !
AH-Avg. Orifice Pres. Drop, "H20
Vt-Vol. of Titrant, ml .|
Vtb-Vol. of Titrant for Blank, ml.\
Vsoln-V°"l- of Solution, mlJ
Va-Vol . of Aliquot, Titrated, ml.j
Ib/scf H2S04 ( x/0-k
lb/1°G Btu H2S04
lb/scfS02i x/0-7
lb/106 Btu S02 i
th\
3
;o.av
10.18*}
2^
O.I
i.Z
-
loo
10
I.IS
8/31
3
1,1
-
SCO
lo
2.41
*bi
i
10.30
lo,#l
mi
O.I
IIS
-
100
lo
]./?
8/31
t
(,S
—
soo
I.O
*.'?
*6/
3iV
\0-St
io.ttf
*f 17
O.I
L,o
—
Z&o
2.0
5.99
8'hl
vy
3.0
-
too
1 O
/.ss-
Vmstd = 0.0334 (Vm) CF /PB + AH
V
13.6
CFm = Meter correction factor
CH2S04 =^1.08 x ID'4 lb-1
g-ml
(Vt - Vtb) (N.)
Vmstd
fVsolnV Ib/scf
\ Va /
N. = 0.01 Normal
Barium
Perchlorate
CS02 s(7.05 x 10
-5
lb-1
g-ml
- vtb) (It)
= Ib/scf
vmstd
-174-
-------
II2S04 MIST and S02 EMISSION DATA
Date
Run No.
Vmc-Meter Volume, Ft3
Vmstd-Meter Volume, Std. Cond.
Pg-Barometric Pressure, "Hg
AH-Avg. Orifice Pres. Drop, "HgO
Vt-Vol. of Titrant, ml.
Vtb-Vol . of Titrant for Blank, ml.
Vsoln"Vol« of Solution, ml .
Va-Vol . of Aliquot, Titrated, ml.
Ib/scf H2S04 X/o'k
lb/1°G Btu H2S04
Ib/scf S02 x /Q-V
lb/106 Btu S02
f/l
5
Io.y6
io.y>l
*f.3(,
O.I 6
3.3S
-
as-o
zo
*U?
<*/<
5
£0.o
-
£50
1,0
3,33
l/i
(o
/o.AT
/o.e^y
etafc
O.ff
2. 15
-
eso
eo
3.^0
f//
(>
u«
-
£SO
l.o
3.00
fA
7
lo,ol
9.9/7
i
-------
II2S04 MIST and S02 OMISSION1 DATA o^, Y*Le,
6kvs, tJoo/ C>l*« k-W Glftii Woo
Date
Run No.
Vmc-Meter Volume, Ft3
Vmstd-Meter Volume, Std. Cond.
PB-Barometric Pressure, "Hg
AH-Avg. Orifice Pres. Drop, "H20
Vt-Vol. of Titrant, ml.
Vtb-Vol . of Titrant for Blank, ml.
Vsoln'Vol- of Solution, ml .
VQ-Vol. of Aliquot, Titrated, ml.
Ib/scf H2S04 X/0~k
1b/1° Btu H2S04
Ib/scf S02 XJO"^
lb/106 Btu S02
1/1
w
30. SS"
30.S6S
.WJ6,
o./y
5.SS
-
ASO
40
Mo
ill
8
IW
10, iW
if ,3 7
0,1
I.CS
»
/oO
/O
|,7/
W/
^
^/.6S
~
SOQ
1.0
|.5«
I//
?
f,3
-
100
40
4.43
1/Z
9
lp.^>3
/.9.SG
o./
-------
H2S04 MIST and SO2 EMISSION DATA
\ftof i
GI.VJ
Date I
Run No. i
Vmc-Meter Volume, Ft3 i
Vmstd-Meter Volume, Std. Cond.1
PB-Barometric Pressure, "Hg
AH-Avg. Orifice Pres. Drop, "H20
VfVol . of Titrant, ml ,\
Vtb-Vol . of Titrant for Blank, ml.\
Vsoln-Vo1- of Solution, ml.
Va-Vol. of Aliquot, Titrated, ml.j
Ib/scf H2S04 \ x/0'6*
lb/loCBtuH2S04!
Ib/scf S02 i X/0*V
lb/106 Btu S02 i
Ik
/O
9.72
f.frf*
M.ss
o.l
3,1
"•m
100
2.0
I.(»1
tA
/ o
^.*
-
^50
^0
^.(,2
»A
//
f.fo
t*»
M.^/
a/
^,0
-
/oo
A.O
i.aa
»/*
if
1.*
-
/oo
*0
*.3/
f/z
^/tf,//
iff5
^f.
-------
GAS SAM!'!,INC I11 ]-.],!) DATA
Material Sampled For
Date B /3f
Bar. Pressure
Aml).ient Temp
Run No _ _ [
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
"'>
Location JS
Coiumcnl r, •!
No
Clock
Time
7o:To
. . 0, ___
10
£o
_30
llr\
-—
- --
Pilot
in. 1120
AP
o. (3
a 13
0-/i
0-/3
/O / ^
I. ^
Orifice
in 1120
/ill
P-/
O./
O,/
M J
' /. -
Tern
Stack i
•y/o
1
p'Ta rn
1'rohe
310
38O
-
•}; Op
Coil
I7(e
HA.
!<•(,
}(+G
i ^^ %^
__._ ,
._
J riiji i n;',c r
In Out
i
tfo\ 90
i(fO\ So
' \ ' " ' .
jVot 75
130 ' 7*
\
i y@ i Of\
- --;
-. .- -
i
Comment s:
-178-
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date
Plant
Location
Bl
Bar. Pressure
Ambient Temp
Run No 2.
"Hg Comments:
90
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
No
Clock
Time
M'.is
O
5
IS
13
3S
VS
Meter
(Ft.3)
ifC«.«7
2fo«/J
^o(.,y
^9'3.05
Pitot
in. H20
AP
0. li
0,13
0.13
eu3
Orifice
in H20
4H
(9./
<9J
OJ
O.I
Temperatures Op
Stack
Voo
Jrobe
3<*
3yo
3VO
3VO
Coil
IL1
l(,l
IS(*
US
Impinger
In
us
IJLO
1*0
loo
Out
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date 213 I
f
Plant
Location
Bar. Pressure
Ambient Temp
Run No 3
"Hg Comments :
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
No
Clock
Time
O
/5
35
«/S
Meter
(Ft.3)
•W3.05
^/(,,fr
*tt/.A
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date O/3 i
Plant 6
Location &)\r
Bar. Pressure
Ambient Temp
Run No
_"Hg Comments.
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes _
Operator
No
Clock
Time
I \3o
. O
Is
3S
VS
Meter
(Ft.3)
^9^3. *9
^^,3
A9J;,3
aw^.^
Pitot
in. H20
A?
0-0
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date
Plant
SO*
Location PI r 2.
Bar. Pressure
Ambient Temp
Run No
"Hg Comments :
'///
F(ex
2. Z
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
No
Clock
Time
O
S
/O
IS
13
IS
Meter
(Ft.3)
M$$>uo
*f3S,i
AW*, i
*?«//, A
ifv^ y0
3C,0
te$
3yr
Coil
Impinger
In
Out
Comments:
4 -(It*
-182-
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date
Plant
Location
Blr *i
Bar. Pressure
Ambient Temp
Run No
"Hg Comments :
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
No
Clock
Time
" O
IS
iO
35
to
Meter
(Ft.3)
HVfr.oo
«ro
AU^.ff
aw.e
M^,if
Pitot
in. H20
AP
fi)./0
0,10
0,1
O.I
Orifice
in H20
ZiH
(P./V
O,//
G.M
0,/y
Temperatures Op
Stack
^^
•
3UST
Probe
3SS
JS6-
3C»O
3CO
Coil
Impinger
In
Out
r^mnante- A 1-4**- Ce^^ll^ flH,U#/ A. tV TKf«MX\ ftflT Y M>C*x .
-183-
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date ^//
Plant \p tA Location jy
Bar. Pressure H_^.3Gt "^2 Comments: i
Ambient Temp f O °F ^
Run No /
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes No
Operator
Ir *^
(/4iS u^)/f/^
in
Clock
Time
U-./0
0
/o
2.0
30
3&
Meter
(Ft.3)
*te* 7 7
2.?U0.7
lfU3, S"
^1frt.y
a.K.7.7?
Pitot
in. H20
AP
o,of
0.0
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date *J/(
Plant G> (M Location
Bar. Pressure ^^.37 "Hg Comments :
Ambient Temp
Run No
r *2
skdl
.&J
04
»*\
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
No
Clock
Time
i ;3o
o
/o
(,
Impinger
In
Out
Comments:
-185-
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date
Plant
Location Q\ir
Bar. Pressure
"Hg Comments :
Ambient Temp ft S
Run No
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
No
Clock
Time
O
/o
is
IS
IS
vs
Meter
(Ft.3)
iinsjL
^^g K w^
0 ^** C* i t
^V g ^j .j ^ ^^
2387.7
*»f.*S
Pitot
in. H20
AP
^.^
(9.//
(9J3
ftU
(P-/-L
Orifice
in H20
ZiH
o./
(p./
0 /
(P./
O.I
Temperatures Op
Stack
3*0
3*5
390
3?o
3 fr>
'robe
JAJ
335
MS
Mt>
J4T0
Coil
^
/^
/6,^
^7
Impinger
In
/ko
Out
*^>
Comments:
i
-186-
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date
Plant
50 x
Location fiir
Bar. Pressure
Ambient Temp
Run No (O
"Hg Comments :
Glus
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes
Operator
No
Clock
Time
MM*
0
ST
/s-
35-
^S
s-o
Meter
(Ft.3)
AWfoS
l
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For
Date
Plant
Location A lr
Bar. Pressure
Ambient Temp
Run No
Comments : Sk.* H
/I
Power Stat Setting
Filter Used: Yes _
Operator
No
Clock
Time
/A .'31
0
JT
AT
As-
VO
<&•
Meter
(Ft.3)
if If .^7
3000.1
3oo3,/
3od,S-.i
300^- V
3oo^,
Pitot
in. H20
AP
O.Of
o.o^
o.o*
0.08
0.0?
Orifice
in H20
AH
CM
o./
O,/
0./
0. /
Temperatures °F
Stack
37JT
J7r
37T
37y
Probe
j;ur
35TD
3^TJjT
J^i'
iTT
Coil
ay
W
/^g
/y^
;r^.
Impinger
In
Out
Comments:
-188-
-------
SOURCE TEST REPORT
CHRYSLER MOTORS ASSEMBLY PLANT
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
BOILER NO. 1
-189-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY 192
1.0 INTRODUCTION 193
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 194
3.0 PROCESS OPERATION 195
4.0 SOURCE TEST DESCRIPTION 196
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 197
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 198
APPENDIX - CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA 199
-190-
-------
TABLES
PAGE
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 198
-191-
-------
SUMMARY
In conjunction with the RAPS project, a limited stack testing program is
being conducted. This report details the results obtained on boiler no. 1 at
the Chrysler Motors Assembly Plant in St. Louis, Missouri.
Stack testing was performed for measuring nitrogen oxides since this was
the major pollutant for this natural gas-fired boiler. Results of these tests
are included in this report. The results of these tests compared very well
with those predicted from published EPA emission factors: 17.8 pounds per
hour versus 17.4 pounds per hour, respectively.
We acknowledge and appreciate the excellent cooperation we obtained from
the management and the power plant personnel at Chrysler.
-192-
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The current stack testing program is being conducted in conjunction with
the emission inventory work for the St. Louis RAPS project. The emission in-
ventory is being compiled using published emission factors. The stack testing
is being conducted to develop special plant emission factors and thereby
improve the RAPS emission inventory.
This stack test was conducted at the Chrysler Motors Assembly Plant in
St. Louis, Missouri. Testing was performed on boiler no. 1 on 12 May 1976.
Boiler no. 1 is a gas-fired, 90,000 pounds per hour steam generating
unit. There is no collection equipment on this unit. The boiler was tested
for nitrogen oxides, COp and 02-
-193-
-------
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Boiler no. 1 was built by Wickes Boiler Co. in 1958. It was originally
Installed with a Laclede Stoker for coal-firing and was subsequently converted
to gas-firing. Steam pressure is maintained at approximately 150 psi. The
steam is used for heating within the assembly plant. The capacity of this
boiler is rated at 90,000 pounds of steam per hour.
This boiler is an induced draft unit with a fan rated at 69,200 cubic
feet per minute. The stack is of steel construction and is 125 feet tall and
5.5 feet inside diameter at the exit.
-194-
-------
3.0 PROCESS OPERATION
Boiler no. 1 was tested on 12 May 1976. During the testing period boiler
no. 2 was shut down in order that all the natural gas used in the powerhouse
would be used in boiler no. 1. This enabled the measuring of the amount of gas
burned during testing. The steam load remained fairly constant during testing.
-195-
-------
4.0 SOURCE TEST DESCRIPTION
Boiler no. 1 was tested near the base of the stack, just after the induced
draft fan. At this point there is an opening into the stack which was previous-
ly used for measuring static pressure.
This position is extremely turbulent and is unsuitable for particulate test-
ing or velocity measurements. However, for gaseous sampling, this location is
adequate. Since Pitot measurements could not be taken, the flow of stack gases
was calculated using fuel consumption figures.
-196-
-------
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The stack gas concentrations of CO^, oxygen, CO and nitrogen by difference
were measured with a standard Orsat apparatus. These concentrations and the
moisture content were used to determine molecular weight of the stack gas.
Moisture content was determined by passing a measured amount of gas through
cooled impingers containing a known volume of deionized water, measuring the in-
crease in the volume of the impinger liquid, and calculating the amount of water
vapor in the sample from this increase and the measured amount of gas.
Gas flow rates were calculated using the quantity of qas used, the compo-
sition of the gas, and the calculated amount of excess air determined by the
Orsat measurements.
5.1 NITROGEN OXIDES
Using EPA Standard Method 7, gas samples were withdrawn from the stack into
evacuated 2-litre flasks containing a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide and
sulfuric acid. The hydrogen peroxide oxidizes the lower oxides of nitrogen (ex-
cept nitrous oxide) to nitric acid. The resultant solution is evaporated to
dryness and treated with phenol disulfonic acid reagent and ammonium hydroxide.
The yellow trialkall salt of 6-nitro-l-phenol-2,4-disulfonic acid is formed,
which is measured colorimetrically.
-197-
-------
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The nitrogen oxide emissions averaged 17.8 pounds per hour, as NOp. Since
this test was performed in conjunction with an emission inventory, it is of in-
terest to note how closely the results compare with those predicted from emis-
sion factors. Using a factor of 230 pounds NO^ per million cubic feet burned
from the EPA publication, AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors",
the predicted amount of nitrogen oxides is 17.4 pounds per hour.
The results of this test are summarized in Table 1. Detailed calculations
and field data are given in the Appendix.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Stack Flow Rate - SCFM, dry
% Water Vapor - Vol . %
% C02 - Vol . % dry
% 02 - Vol . % dry
% Excess Air @ Sampling Point
NOX Emissions - lbs/106 Btu
Ibs/hr.
15,188
7.89
9.1
5.4
31.1
0.23
17.8
-198-
-------
APPENDIX
CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA
-199-
-------
PARTICULATL: CALCULATIONS
YP_Luro e^ ° L dry_ 91 :>_ 5 aJ nplod a t _s ta n d a r d c q ndj tj on_s_^__7p ° F^ 29.JJ2 "Hg
V J - V CF /Pm \ /Tstd \ - 0.0334 V CF /P + _AH_
Vstd m - m mB
o
Vmstd " Volume of dry gar, sdinpled at standard conditions, ft
3
Vrn = Meter volume sampled, ft'
CF = Meter correction factor
m
Pm = Meter pressure, barometric pressure, PD> plus orifice
III |j
pressure, AH, in. Hg.
Pstd = Standard pressure, 29.92 in. HCJ.
Tstd - Standard temperature, 530° R or 70° F
Tm = Meter temperature, 530 R for compensated meter
Volume of water vapor at standard conditions
Vw=Vl &&Q*J2Q -1^-- - 0.0474 x Vic
Vw V]c I MH20 J( Pstd I 454 gm.
\ / \ ' ^
Vv/ - Volume of water vapor at standard conditions,, ft
V] = Volume of liquid collected in impingers and silica gel, ml
v»
pH20 = Density of water, Ig/ml.
M HpO = Molecular weight of water, 18 Ib/lb mol
R = Ideal gas constant, 21.83 in. Hg. - cu. ft./lb-mol - °R
%_ Moisture ijlStack_Cas
" ...... "" Vw std
% M - 100 X -.T ----- —-rr ---
Vmstd + Vv/st-d
-200-
-------
Average molecular weight of dry stack gas
""D -«°2 '^^'Tro'^* TO
Molecular weight of stack gas
Mww" O^rar1 x WDP-S"- x 18
Stack velocity at stack conditions
lAj^Ljv
Ps x MW,
(AD \ 1
1 S * ..*v dVg* \ I /„
Tr"S"BitJ X2
V = stack velocity, fps.
85.48 = pitot constant, ^^ ' lb-
sec. I ib. Mols - oR
\ /
C = pitot coefficient, dimensionless
T = average stack temperature, °R
P = stack pressure, barometric pressure plus static pressure, in. Hg.
AP Avg = average differential pressure, in. H90
Stack gas volume at standard conditions
Ps \
nc - ^nri u
QS - 3600^1- ygg-J Vg A
Q = stack gas volume flow rate, SCF/hr
2
A = stack cross sectional area, ft
3600 - seconds per hour
Qs1 = Qs 7 60 = SCFM
-201-
-------
Excess air at sample point
% EA = 10° X % °2
(0.266 X % N2) - % 02
% EA = excess air at sample point, %
0.266 = ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in air by volume
-202-
-------
SAMPLING CALCULATIONS
Jesjt: Chrysler Date: 5/12/76
Material c ollected (rrig)
Filter Catch
Dry Catch
Acetone Wash
TOTAL
= 0.0334 V CF
7.89 %
13-6/
0.0334(22.013) ( 0.97 ) 29.52 + tlM. -^L= __1^061. ____ SCF
\ 13.6
Volume of water vapor Vw - 0.0474 X Vic
0.0474 ( 29 ml) = ____ 1^375 ______ SCF
% Moisture %M = 100 X Vwstd
Vmstd + Vwstd
100 X ( 1.375 )
(16.061 ) 4 ( 1.375 )
Molecular Height of dry stack gas
MWD = %C02 X 0.44 + %02 X 0.32 + %N2 X 0.28
( 9.1 X 0.44) + ( 5.4 X 0.32) + (85.5 X 0.28) = 29.67
M_q 1 or 11 lar Weight of stack__gas__
MWw - 100 - %M X MWn + 5C.M X 18
100 100
100-7.89 X 29.67
100
H
J L
7.89 X 18
100 J
28.75
-203-
-------
STOICHIOMETRIC
FLOWRATE CALCULATIONS
Boiler #1
Average fuel composition obtained from Laclede Gas - 23 June 1976
Combustion Water free
VpJ_._% mols/100 cu.ft. mo'Is 0^ reg^d mpls flue qas
C02 0.5 0.001 0.001
CH4 95.0 0.246 x 2 0.492 0.246
C2Hg 3.0 0.008 x 3.5 0.028 0.016
1.0 0.003 x 5 0.015 0.009
0.5 0.001 x 6.5 0.007 0.004
0.276
Excess 02 G> 31.1%
N2 = 3.76 X 02
Mols Dry Flue Gas = C02 + 02 + N2
0.276 + 0.169 + 2.673 = 3.118 mols/100 cu.ft.
@ 70°F 3.118 X 386.7 = 1205.7 scf/100 cu.ft.
(3 755.8 X 102 cu.ft./hr. 1205.7 X 755.8 = 911,268 scf/hr.
= 15,188 scfm
mols/100 cu.ft.
0.001
0.246 x 2
0.008 x 3.5
0.003 x 5
0.001 x 6.5
mo Is 0^ re<
0.492
0.028
0.015
0.007
0.542
0.169
0.711
2.673
-204-
-------
NO EMISSION DATA
A
12 May 1976
Run No.
Time
yg N02
T.- Initial Flask Temp, °R
Tf- Final Flask Temp, °R
Vf - Flask Volume, ml .
P..- Initial Flask Pres, "Hg
Pf- Final Flask Pres, "Hg
Ib/scf N02 x]0-5
lb/106Btu N02
1
0900
612
535
540
2040
2.5
29.46
2.11
0.25
2
0930
592
535
540
2038
2.5
29. 4(
2.0^
0.2!
3
0955
100
535
540
2039
2.5
29. 4<
0.34
0.04
4
1030
508
535
540
2028
2.5
29.46
1.76
0.21
5
1055
140
535
540
2080
2.5
29.46
0.47
0.06
6
1130
632
535
540
2052
2.5
29.46
2.16
0.26
7
1200
488
535
540
2052
2.5
29.46
1.67
0.20
8
1230
574
535
540
2056
2.5
29.46
1.96
0.24
Vsc= (17.71 :R \ (Vfc)
\ in. Hg/
Tf Ti
= scf
Vfc - Vf - 25
C = 6.2 x 10"5 Ib/scf
yg/ml
'yg NO,
Vsc
= Ib/scf NO,
-205-
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCESS DATA FOR POWER PLANTS
Date
Net Unit Load - MW
Average Steam Load - 10 Ib/hr
Boiler Heat Input
Fuel Burning Rate - Ib/hr
Fuel Heating Value - BTU/lb
Fuel Sulfur Content - %
Fuel Ash Content - %
Fuel Moisture Content %
5//Z/76
54
/COOATU/
Cf
"TV oi <_
IP.'OO
)o:as
u-io
F/
OMJL
S3
ps'
/SO
/SO
/ so
57O
fiar. Pr^l
29.55 i*J
For
* ?.36"
Cf
-206-
-------
ORSAT FIELD DATA
Location
Date
Tine
Operator
/ BoV lf\
Comments:
Test
0^20
1160
II 10
OJOO(.
•j
(CO )
Reading 1
9.^
9.0
?,4
9./
(0)
Reading 2
5.0
5-2
£.0
^.y
(CO)
Reading 3
o.o
0. o
o.o
o.o
Excels Ai'r » too *
)OO
-207-
-------
OXIDES OF NITROGEN FIELD DATA
Date
S/
/Z
Plant
l/r.
Sample Collected By
Field Data
Clock Time
Flask number
Volume of flask (ml)
Pressure before sampling in. Hg.
Pressure after sampling, in. Hg.
Flask temperature, F
olco
1
2ofo
2S
ZW(,
Mo
0130
^
Z& 8
2.S
ZW
oiss
3
2031
2.5
&n
J<&>
y
ZoZ*
2.£"
&.K
;«ss
s
ZotO
2.5"
21VC
754o
//JcJ
c.
tost
2.5
2f.y
2.5
#>&
* Flask + valve - 25 ml. for absorbing solution
-208-
-------
GAS SAMPLING FIELD DATA
Material Sampled For Moi5 Tu.re
Date S/IZ /?(*
Plant £kr*i
-------
SOURCE TEST REPORT
U.S.S. A6RI-CHEM PLANT
CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI
NITRIC ACID UNIT
-210-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY 214
1.0 INTRODUCTION 215
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 216
3.0 PROCESS OPERATION 217
4.0 SOURCE TEST DESCRIPTION 219
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 22°
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 221
APPENDIX - CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA 223
-211-
-------
FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE 1 - FLOW DIAGRAM OF TYPICAL NITRIC ACID PLANT 218
USING PRESSURE PROCESS
-212-
-------
TABLES
PAGE
TABLE 1 - NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS 222
-213-
-------
SUMMARY
In conjunction with the RAPS project, a limited stack testing program
is being conducted. This report details the results obtained on the nitric
acid unit at the U.S.S. Agri-Chem plant in Crystal City, Missouri.
The stack testing was performed solely for measuring nitrogen oxides.
Results of these tests are included in this report. Although slightly higher,
the results of these tests compared very well with those predicted from
published EPA emission factors. As a result of these tests, a plant specific
emission factor for this source is 60.4 pounds NOX per ton of 100% acid
produced.
We acknowledge and appreciate the excellent cooperation we obtained
from the management and plant personnel at U.S.S. Agri-Chem.
-214-
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The current stack testing program is being conducted in conjunction
with the emission inventory work for the St. Louis RAPS project. The
emission inventory is being compiled using published emission factors,
however, when possible stack testing is being conducted on major point
sources to develop source specific emission factors.
This stack test was conducted at the U.S.S. Agri-Chem plant in Crystal
City, Missouri. Testing was performed on the nitric acid unit on 19 October
1976. This nitric acid unit is rated at 290 tons per day of 100% nitric acid.
The unit was tested for nitrogen oxides.
-215-
-------
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The nitric acid unit at U.S.S. Agri-Chem is an old unit and plans are
in the works for its replacement. It was constructed approximately thirty
years ago as part of the original plant. Originally, ammonia was manufactured
at this plant location and used in this unit to manufacture nitric acid which
is then used in the manufacture of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Ammonia is
now manufactured elsewhere and shipped in for use in this nitric acid unit.
This unit is similar to the general diagram shown in Figure 1. Air and
ammonia are catalytically reacted and the resulting vapor is absorbed to form
approximately 59% nitric acid. This unit is rated at 290 tons of acid per day,
as 100% acid.
The tail gas stream is split after the final pass through the reactor,
before entering the expander. The gases then exit through two 1.5 foot diameter
and 50 foot tall stacks. At rated production the gases exit at 12,300 SCFM
from each stack.
-216-
-------
3.0 PROCESS OPERATION
The add unit was tested on 19 October. During the testing period the
unit was operated at a constant rate. It had been intended that twelve samples
would be taken. However, when the tenth sample was started the electric power
to the building was momentarily interrupted and the safety interlocks on the
unit kicked off and the operators had to shut the unit down, ending our testing,
During sampling, the production rate averaged 243 tons of acid per day,
as 100% acid.
-217-
-------
[EFFLUENT
STACK
COMPRESSOR
EXPANDER
SAMPLE
POINT
PRODUCT
(50 TO 70%
HN03)
FIGURE 1
FLOW DIAGRAM OF TYPICAL NITRIC ACID PLANT USING PRESSURE PROCESS
-218-
-------
4.0 SOURCE TEST DESCRIPTION
Due to the high pressure of the system, 100-150 psi., and inaccessability
of the stack, a test in the stack was impossible. There is a sample line from
the tail gas line prior to entering the preheater section of the reactor, which
the operators use to run Orsat and NOX analyses every other hour. This is the
sample point chosen for this test.
Since Pitot measurements could not be made, a design flow rate had to be
used and proportionally reduced according to the production rate.
-219-
-------
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Gas flow rates were calculated by proportioning the design flow rate for
this unit to the ratio of design capacity and actual operating rate. The design
rate is simply based upon the air required for reaction with ammonia to form
the acid.
5.1 NITROGEN OXIDES
Using EPA Standard Method 7, gas samples were withdrawn from the stack
into evacuated 2-litre flasks containing a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide
and sulfuric acid. The hydrogen peroxide oxidizes the lower oxides of nitrogen
(except nitrous oxide) to nitric acid. The resultant solution is evaporated to
dryness and treated with phenol disulfonic acid reagent and ammonium hydroxide.
The yellow trialkali salt of 6-nitro-l-phenol-2, 4-disulfonic acid is formed,
which is measured colorimetrically.
-220-
-------
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
-4
The nitrogen oxide emissions averaged 4.95 x 10 pounds per standard
cubic foot, or 612 pounds per hour, using the design flow rate. This is
slightly higher than the range of 506 - 557 pounds per hour which is obtained
by using EPA Emission Factors. This difference is not unexpected considering
the age of this acid unit. The results are shown in Table 1.
The flow rate used in the calculations was furnished by plant engineering
personnel. This value, 24,600 SCFM, checks with a stoichiometric calculation
allowing for a 2% leakage from the system. On the day of testing the produc-
tion rate was 243 tons per day of 100% acid. At this rate the tailgas flow
rate is reduced proportionally to 20,613 SCFM, which was used in the calcula-
tions.
The test results agree very well with the measurements made by the
operator during the same sampling period. The operator takes a sample, adds
peroxide to oxidize the nitrogen oxides to nitrates and titrates the sample
with sodium hydroxide. During our testing the operator took three samples
with the results: 0.43%, 0.33% and 0.37% as N02.
As a result of these tests, a source specific emission factor for this
source was determined to be 60.4 pounds N(L per ton of 100% acid produced.
-221-
-------
TABLE 1
NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Time
10:30A
10:45
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15P
1:15
1:30
Ib/scf
5.52 x 10~4
5.34 x 10"4
3.94 x 10~4
5.20 x 10"4
4.06 x 10"4
4.69 x 10"4
5.23 x 10"4
5.22 x 10~4
5.33 x 10~4
ppm
4703
4550
3357
4431
3459
3996
4456
4448
4541
Ib/hr
683
660
487
643
502
580
647
646
659
Average = 612
-222-
-------
APPENDIX
CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA
-223-
-------
STOICHIOMETRIC FLOW RATE CALCULATION
4 NH3 + 5 02 -»• 4 NO + 6 H20
4 NO + 2 02 •> 4 N02
4 N02 + | H20 f | H N03 + f NO
4 NH3 + 7 02 + H N03 + NO +
290 ton/day HN03 = 24166.7 Ib/hr - 383.6 mol/hr
383.6 mol HN03 requires 1006.95 mol/hr 02
assume design conditions: tailgas - 2% 02, QA% NOX
inlet - 31,000 scfm
31000 x 60 r 359 = 5181.1 mol/hr air
5181.1 T 4.76 = 1088.5 mol/hr 02. 4092.6 mol/hr N
4092.6 T 0.976 = 4193.2 mol/hr tailgas
4193.2 x 359 x 0.98 T 60 = 24600 scfm tailgas
-224-
-------
NO EMISSION DATA
X
Date.
Run No.
Time
yg N02
1.- Initial Flask Temp, °R
T-- Final Flask Temp, °R
Vfc- Flask Volume, ml.
P.- Initial Flask Pres, "Hg
Pf- Final Flask Pres, "Hg
Ib/scf N02 X |0"^
lb/106Btu N02
/
/C:3<>
MOt
527
4*37
2CAO
LI
2J.33
5.52
2
I0:t&
IMS
527
537
2035
1.7
*M3
5,3V
3
//:'*
//550
527
537
Z03f
/. 7
1233
J.fV
V
//.'JO
IS63I
527
537
2025
/•2
29. Z?
5,*0
5
///iflr
/25V5
52?
537
20*6
I.I
21.33
406
£
/2:rt>
/V^/c
S2F
537
2052
/•/f
2^./f
V.^
7
/2-V.S
/62y<5
52^
s537
20SZ
A/f
2f.W
5*23
8
t.'/S
/s&y
52f
537
205
/>/ 7
21.1*
S.22
Vsc= 17.71
in.
(Vfc)
Vfc = Vf - 25
C = 6.2 x 10~5 lh/_sct.
lig/ml
N02 ^ - Ib/scf N02
Vsc
-225-
-------
NO EMISSION DATA
Date.
Run No.
Time
vg N02
T.- Initial Flask Temp, °R
Tf- Final Flask Temp, °R
V, - Flask Volume, ml .
P..- Initial Flask Pres, "Hg
Pf- Final Flask Pres, "Hg
Ib/scf N02 X/0"^
lb/106Btu N02
10
i:jo
/583V
W
537
tosi
i.n
E?.S3
5,33
Vsc= (17.71 3.
V in. Hg,
(Vfc) / Pf - Pi
Tf Ti
= scf
Vfc - Vf - 25
"5
C = 6.2 x 10 J Ib/scf /yg N02 \ = Ib/scf N02
Vs
-226-
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCESS DATA FOR POWER PLANTS
Date
Net Unit Load - MW
Average Steam Load - 10 Ib/hr
Boiler Heat Input
Fuel Burning Rate - Ib/hr
Fuel Heating Value - BTU/lb
Fuel Sulfur Content - %
Fuel Ash Content - %
Fuel Moisture Content %
Ti'me
/O
n
iz
Perwer
10.1
TV*vtf
2.37
-227-
-------
OXIDES OF NITROGEN FIELD DATA
Date
Plant
uss
Sample Collected By
Field Data
Clock Time
10:30
10:1$
/f.'tf
Flask number
Volume of flask (ml)
/ 2
Pressure before sampling in. Hg.
203?
2 OS 2
205-6
/. 5
Pressure after sampling, in. Hg.
Z9.33
Flask temperature, F
*»/
* Flask + valve - 25 ml . for absorbing solution
e-T-f Ke
o-f a.
in
li
i«e.
-228-
-------
OXIDES OF NITROGEN FIELD DATA
Date
Plant
USS Afr*« CM
Sample Collected By
Field Data
Clock Time
Flask number
Volume of flask (ml)
Pressure before sampling in. Hg.
Pressure after sampling, in. Hg.
Flask temperature, °F
1:30
;o
ZQS7
J.S
2*£J
* Flask + valve - 25 ml. for absorbing solution
-229-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Injunctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/4-77-044
3. RECIPIFNT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION STUDY
Criteria and Non-criteria Pollutant Source Testing
Program
5. REPORT iATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
F.E. Littman, and O. Klein
R.W. Griscom.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Rockwell International
Air Monitoring Center
11640 Administration Drive
Creve Coeur. MO 63141
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA603 (AA-07(FY-77)
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2093
Task Order 108B
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory - RTF, N.C.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RoaoaT-oh Trianal P Park. N.C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/09
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
To enhance the accuracy of the emission inventory for the Regional Air Pollution
Study (RAPS), a special emission factor development program was conducted in
1975 and 1976 on many of the large emission sources. Source testing of typical
sources was carried out using standard EPA methods. Data for the criteria
pollutants — SO , NO , HC, CO, and particulate matter — were obtained, as well
as for H SO mist andxparticle size distribution.
Results indicate good agreement between measured and calculated SO2 values.
Agreement of NO and particulate values between actual tests and results calculated
using standard emission factors is variable. Actual values tend to be lower
than calculated values, at least for large combustion sources. In all cases,
however, the specific plant emission factors measured in the RAPS program are
being used in the RAPS emission inventory, since this was the prime purpose of
the source testing program.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
*Air Pollution
*Emission
*Sources
*Measurement
St. Louis, MO
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COS AT I Field/Group
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
21. NO. OF PAGES
238
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
230
-------
ft) t/> -. ~»
&• (6 ~S fb
O > -^ 0)
(/> C
Pf
.
0)
I!
5 <«
<* to
8
«> 5
- A
* S-
S. 5
<§ •*
CL =5.
I
I
S'
0)
8-
(f)
TJ
(D
O
-n
0) o
o z
o 3-
(f>
q m
I <
•H n> jj
Q I a i
3 2. 3J S
2 0 m rn
-3 Qi (/> -7
3 — CD ±j
OJ _ CU ~]
rr -5 -i >
- 4, o r-
O o :T TJ
? 3 5j JJ
o s Q g
S * ? S
S - « «
00 5}, o O
-»> T3 Z
c° o
d m
z
o
O
u>
(A
-------