74-LIM-7
(REPORT NUMBER)
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TEST
Marblehead Lime Company
(PLANT NAME)
Gary, Indiana
(PLANT ADDRESS)
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
-------
'Maiden,
SOURCE SAMPLING
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-0238
TASK NO. 9
MARBLEHEAD LIME COMPANY
GARY, INDIANA
LIME KILN
Prepared for
Emissions Measurement Branch
Environmental -Protection Agency
Prepared by
Maiden Research Division of Abcor Inc.
201 Vassar Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
(C-337-9)
201 Vassar Street Q Cambridge a Massachusetts a 02139
WALDEN RESEARCH DIVISION OF HUUUI me.
Abcor
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Secti on Title Page
I INTRODUCTION , 1-1
II SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...; 2-1
III PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION 3-1
IV LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS 4-1
V SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 5-1
A. PARTICULATE SAMPLING (EPA METHOD 5) 5-1
B. SULFUR DIOXIDE (METHOD 6) 5-4
C. NITROGEN OXIDES (METHOD 7) • 5-4
D. CARBON MONOXIDE (METHOD 10) 5-4
E. VISIBLE EMISSIONS (METHOD 9) 5-5
APPENDIX A - PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS AND SAMPLE
CALCULATION
APPENDIX B - SULFUR DIOXIDE TEST RESULTS AND SAMPLE
CALCULATION
APPENDIX C - NITROGEN OXIDE TEST RESULTS AND SAMPLE
CALCULATION
APPENDIX D - CARBON MONOXIDE TEST RESULTS
-APPENDIX E - OPACITY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX F - FIELD DATA
APPENDIX G - STANDARD SAMPLING PROCEDURES
APPENDIX H - LABORATORY REPORT
APPENDIX I -TEST LOG
ii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Environmental Protection
Agency is charged with the establishment of performance standards for new
installations or modifications of existing installations in stationary
source categories which may contribute significantly to air pollution. A
performance standard is a standard for emissions of air pollutants which
reflects the best emission reduction systems that have been adequately dem-
onstrated (taking into account economic considerations).
The development of realistic performance standards requires accurate
data on pollutant emissions within the various source categories. In the
lime production industry, the No. 5 baghouse at Marblehead Lime Company, lo-
cated in Gary, Indiana, was designated by EPA as representative of a well-
controlled operation, and was thereby selected for the emission testing
program. This report presents the results of the testing which was performed
at the Gary facilities of Marblehead Lime during the week of June 10, 1974.
The tests performed were particulate, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and visible emissions taken after the No. 5 baghouse
serving No. 5 lime kiln at the Marblehead Lime Company^ Gary, Indiana. The
tests were conducted by Walden Research Divis-ion of Abcor Inc., under the
technical direction of EPA Project Officer, John W. Brown. The process
monitoring engineer was James Eddinger. The test crew considted of Richard
Furman, Program Manager for Walden, Lawrence Katzman, Gary Pulliam, David
Jessich, and Denis Weder, Van Madden, Samuel Geer and Paul Wade from STW Test-
ing, Inc., and Ralph Torborg from Honeywell Corporate Research. The tests
included six four-hour runs designed to measure average emission rates.
1-1
-------
II. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Tables 2-1 through 2-8 summarize the results of particulates, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and visible emissions tests
performed at the Marblehead Lime Company, Gary, Indiana. Tables 2-1, 2-3,
and 2-5 give the test results in English units, while Tables 2-2, 2-4, and
2-6 give the results in Metric units.
The outlet particulate concentrations in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 are given
for the front half (particulate matter collected on the filter and all
sample-exposed surfaces prior to the filter) and the total particulate con-
centration including the condensible portion of the sample catch.
-------
TABLE 2-1
PARTICULATE SUMMARY
ENGLISH UNITS
«v
Run Number
Date
Volume of Gas Sampled-DSCF
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM
Percent Isokinetic
Percent Stack Opacity
Feed Rate-ton/hr. (limestone only)
Participates - Probe & Filter Catch
nig.
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF ' -
Ib/hr
Ib/ton feed
Parti culates - Total Catch
n.
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton feed
Percent Implnger Catch
1
June 11 ,
181.62
6.5
291
23,797
37,049 •
98.5
0.031
37.76
.
262.4
0.0223
0.0143
4.55
0.1205
424.5
0.0361
0.0232
7.36
0.1949
38.2
2
1974
162.69
4.8
263
22,407
33,031
93.7
0.005
37.76
223.1
0.0216
0.0146
4.15
0.1099
/
426.0
0.0404
0.0274
7.76
0.2055
47.6
3
June 12,
163.91
6.3
284
23,162
35,532
91.4
0.055
38.63
104.6
0.0098
0.0064
1.96
0.0507
340.0
0.0320
0.0209
. 6.36
0.1646
69.2
4
1974
167.19
7.5
269
21,247
32,375
101.6
0.000
38.63
118.1
0.0109
0.0072
1.98
0.0513 *
275.0
0.0254
0.0167
4.62
0.1196
57.1
5
• June 13,
192.74
7.4
272
24,878
38,024
100.0
0.031
38.21
156.2
0.0125
0.0082
. 2.67
0.0700
320.4
0.0257
0.0168
5.47
0.1432 '
51.2
6
1974
182.32
6.5
273
23,156
35,078
101.6
0.003
38.21
137.0
0.0116
0.0077
2.30
0,0602
377.0
0.0319
0.0210
6.33
0.1657
63.7
Average
175.08
6.5
275
23,108
35,182
97.8
0.021
38.20
166.9
0.0148
0.0097
2.92
0.0771
360.5
0.0319
0.0210
6.32
0.1656
54.5
-------
TABLE 2-2
PARTICIPATE SUMMARY
METRIC UNITS
NJ
I
•*> Run Number
Date
Volume of Gas Sampled-Nm3
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°C
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-Nm3/min .
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-m3/min
Percent Isokinetic
Percent Stack Opacity
Feed Rate-M ton/hr (limestone only)
Particulates - Probe & Filter Catch
mg.
ITKJ/Mjll3
mg/n3
kg/iir .
kg/M ton
Particulates - Total Catch
mg.
mg/Nm3
mq/m3
kg/hr
kg/tl ton
Percent Implnger Catch
1
June
5.14
6.5
143.9
674
• 1,049
98.5"
0.031
34.26
262.4
51.1
32.8
2.07
0.0604
424.5
82.6
53.1
3.34
0.0975
38.2
2
11. 1974
4.61
. 4.8
128.3
635
935
93.7
0.005
34.26
223.1
48.4
32.8
1.84
0.0537
4'26.0
92.4
62.7
3.52
0.1027
47.6
3
June
4.64
6.3
140.0
656
1,006
91.4
0.055
35.04
104.6
22.5
14.7
0.89
0.0254
340.0
73.3
47.7
2 88
•0.0822
69.2
4
12, 1974
4.73
7.5
131.7
602
917
101.6
. 0.000
35.04
118.1
25.0
16.4
0.90
0.0257
. 275.0
58.1
38.1
2 10
0.0599
57.1
5
June
5.46
7.4
133.3
705
1,077
100.0
0.031
34.66
156.2
28.6
18.7
1.21
. 0;0349
320.4
58.7
38.4
0.0715
51.2
6
13, 1974
5.16
6.5
133.9
656
993
101.6
0.003
34.66
137.0
26.6
17.6
1.05
Q.0303
377.0
73.1
48.2
2 87
0.0828
63.7
Average
4.96
6.5
135.2
655
996
97.8
0.021
34.65
166.9
33.7
22.2
1.33
0.0384
360.5
73.0
48.1
2 87
0.0028
v; f *• %(<
54.5
-------
TABLE 2-3
SULFUR DIOXIDE SUMMARY
ENGLISH UNITS.
Run Number
Date
Volume of Gas Sampled-DSCF
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM
Laboratory Data
Normality of Barium Perchlorate-g-eq/1
Titrant Volume Minus Blank
r\j Volume-mis
Replicate 1
Replicate 2
Total Solution Volume-mis
Volume of Sample Aliquot-mis
S02 Concentration - (Average
of 2 Replicates
Ibs/DSCF x 1(T5
ppm (Volume) @ 25°C
Ibs/hr
1
June 11,
2.01
6.5
291
23,797
37,049
0.0103
7.35
7.35
100
20
1.32
80.9
18.9
2
1974
1.18
4.8
263
22,407
33,032
0.0103
4.15
4.10
100
20
1.27
77.4
17.0
3
June 12,
1.64
6.3
284
23,162
35,532
•
0.0103
7.56
7.59
100
20
1.74
106
24.2
4
1974
1.56
7.5
269
21,247
32,375
0.0103
6.27
6.45
100
20
1.48
90.7
18.9
5
June 13,
1.61
7.4
272
24,878
38,024
0.0103
6.00
6.05
121
20
1.64
100
24.4
6
1974
1.03
6.5
273
23,156
35,078
0.0103
3.75
3.75
117
20
1.55
94.8
21.5
Average
1.51
6.5
275
23,108
35,182
0.0103
1.50
91.6
20.8
-------
TABLE 2-4
SULFUR DIOXIDE SUMMARY
• METRIC UNITS
Run Number
Date
Volume of Gas Sampled-Nm3
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°C
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-N_m3/m1n
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-m3/m1n
Laboratory Data
Normality of Barium Perchlorate-g-eq/1
Titrant Volume Minus Blank
Volume -mis
ro
^. Replicate 1
Replicate 2
Total Solution Volume-mis
Volume of Sample Aliquot-mis
SO? Concentration - (Average of
Replicates)
gms/Nm3
kg/hr
ppm •
1
June 11 ,
0.057
6.5
143.9
674
1,049
0.0103
7.35
7.35
100 .
20
0.21
8.6
80.9
2
1974
0.033
4.8
128.3
635
935
0.0103
4.15
4.10
100
20
0.20
7.7
77.4
3
June 12,
0.046
6.3
140.0
656
1,006
0.0103
.
7.56
7.59
100
20
0.28
11.0
106
4
1974
0.044
7.5
131.7
602
917
0.0103
6.27
6.45
100
20
0.24
8.6
90.7
5
June 13,
0.046
7.4
133.3
705
1,077
0.0103
•
6.00
6.05
121
20
0.26
11.1
100
6
1974
0.029
6.5
. 133.9
656
993
0.0103
3.75
3.75
117
20
.
0.25
9.8
94.8
Average
0.042
6.5
135.2
655
996
•
0.0103
•
0.24
9. .5
91.6
-------
TABLE 2-5
NITROGEN OXIDES SUMMARY
ENGLISH UNITS
Run Number
Date
Percent Moisture by Volume
S;:ack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM
S-.;ack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM
Analysis
F" ask Volu:.i2-mls
Absorbant Volume-mis
Initial Prossure-in. Hg.
F:nal Presr.ure-in. Hg.
Ir-itial Te;;iperature-°F
Final Tempera ture-°F
Tctal NOX Collected-ug
NCy Concentration
Hs/DSCF x 10-7 (as N02)
ppm.
Ifcs/hr.
1 '
6.5
23,797
37,049
2,038
26.0
1.89
29.41
72.0
76.0
. 145.6
49.4
42.1
7.05
2
JCine
6.5
23,797
37,049
2,030
24.5
1.89
28.51
70.0
74.0
132.0
46.2
39.4
6.60
3
11, 1974
6.5-
23,797
37,049
1,961
24.0
1.79
28.61
73.0
73.0
138.8
29.9
42.5
7.12
4
6.5
23,797.
37,049
1,992
25. ,5
1.89
29.41
72.0
74.0
146.7
50.7
43.2
7.24
5
•6.3
23,162
.35,532
1,964
'25.0
2.04
29.68
72.0
80.0
143.1
50.5
43.0
. 7.02
6
June
6.3
23,162
35,532
2,046
• 25.0
1.81
29.06
75.0
81.0
143.1
49.2
41.9
. 6.84
7
12, 1974
6.3.
23,162
35,532
2,009
25.0
.1.80
29.18
76.0
81.0
118.1
41.2
35.1
5.73
8
6.3
23,162
35,532
2,020
24.0
1.78
28.88
71.0
82.0
107.4
37.7
32.1
5.24
9
June
7.4
24,878
38,024
2,030
26.0
1.62
29.67
77.0
85.0
279.1
94,8
80.8
14.2
10
13, 1974
7.4
24,878
38,024
1,992
26.0
1.59
29.57
78.0
85.0
221.9
77.0
65.6
11.5
11
7.4
24,878
38/024
2,040
25.0
1.62
29.47
• 82.0
86.0
268.4
91.5
77.9
13.7
12
7.4
24,878
38,024
1,994
26.0
1.68
29.37
80.0
83.0
225.5
78.7
67.0
11.7
Average
6.7
23,946
36,868
59.7
50.9
8.66
-------
TABLE 2-6
NITROGEN OXIDES SUMMARY
METRIC UNITS
. Run Number
Date
Purcent Moisture by Volume
S :ack Volumetric Flow Rate-NmVnrfn,
S-.ack Volumetric Flow Rate-m3/m1n
Analysis
F'ask Volune-mls
Ahsorbant Volume-mis
Ir.itial Pressure-mm Hg.
Final Pressure-nm Hg.
Iritial Tenperature-°C
Final Temperature-°C
Tctal NOX collected-ug . •
NCx Concentration
mc/N'm3
PFin
kg/hr
1
6.5
674
1,049
2,038
26.0
48.0
747.0
22.2
24.4
.145.6-
79.1
42.1
3.20
• 2
June
6.5
674
1,049
2,030
24.5
. 48.0
724.2
21.1
23.3
132.0
74.0
39.4
2.99
3
11, 1974
6.5
674
1,049
1,961
24.0
45.5
726.7
22.8
22.8
138.8
79.9
42.5
3.23
4
6.5
674.
1 ,049
1,992
25.5
48.0
747.0
22.2
23.3
146.7
81.2
43.2-
3.28
5
• 6.3
656
1,006
1,964
25.0
51.8
753.9
22.2
26.7
143.1
80.9
43.0
3-. 18
6
June
6.3
656
1,006
2,046
• 25.0
56.0
738.2
23.9
27.2
143.1
78.8
41.9
3.10
7
12, 1974
6.3.
656
.1,006
2,009
. 25.0
45.7
741.2
24.4
27.2
118.1
65.0
35.1
2.60
8-
6.3
656
1,006
2,020
24.0
45.2
733.6
21.7
27.8
107.4
60.4
32.1
2.38
9
7.4
• 705
1,077
2,030
26.0
41.1
753.6
25.0
29.4
279.1
151!9 '
80.8
6.44
10 •
June 13
7.4
705
1,077
1,992
26.0
40.4
751.1
25.6 .
29.4
221.9
123.3
65.6
5.22
11
, 1974
7.4
705
1,077
2,040
25.0
41.1
748.6
27.8
30.0
260.4
146.6
77.9
6.21
12
7.4
705
1,077
1,994
26.0
42.7
746.0
26.7
28.3
225.5
126.1
67.0
5.31
Average
6.7
678
1,044
95.7
50.9
3.93
-------
\
TABLE 2-7
CARBON MONOXIDE SUMMARY
(INTEGRATED 2-HOUR BAG SAMPLES)
Date Time CO, ppm
June 11, 1974 1500 - 1700 15
June 12, 1974 1030 - 1230 580
June 13, 1974 930 - 1130 30
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-8
SUMMARY OF OPACITY READINGS: NO. 5 LIME KILN
Stack No.
Date
tart Time
uratlon of Observation -(min)
otal No. of Readings
o. Readings Unobservable
o. Readings 0% Opacity
5 .
10
15
20-100
ercent Readings Unobservable
ercent Readings OX Opacity
'. 5
10
15
20-100
verage Opacity = '
Sum of Nos.
1
June 11,
Obs. 1
1238
240
. 960
0
952
6
2
0
0
0
99.2
0.6
' 0.2
0.0
0.0
0.062
1974
Obs. 2
1601
240
960
0
960
0
0
0
0
0
100.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
2
June 11 ,
Obs. 1
1556 '
240
960
0
958
2
0
0
0
0
99.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.010
1974
Obs. 2
1601
240
960
0
960
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
3
June 12,
Obs. 1
1053
234
936
0
928
7
0
2
0
0
99.1
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.069
1974
Obs. 2
1053
240
960
0
954
4
2
0
0
6
99.4
0;4
0.2 •
0.0
0.0
0.042
4
June 12,
Obs. 1
1342
240
960
0
960
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
1974
Obs. 2
1305
240
960
0
960
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
.
5
June 13, 1974
Obs. 1 Obs. 2
931
240
960
0
956
2
2
0
0
0
99.6
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.031
6
June 13,
Obs. 1
1146
• 240
960
0
959
1
0
0
0
0
99.9
0.1
0.0
0:0
0.0
0.005 .
'
1974
Obs. i
1210
227
908
0
908
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
o. Readings Observable
-------
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Limestone consists primarily of calcium carbonate or combinations
of calcium and magnesium carbonate with varying amounts of impurities.
The most abundant of all sedimentary rocks, limestone is found in a
variety of consistencies from marble to chalk. Lime is a calcined or
burned form of limestone, commonly divided into two basic products —
quicklime and hydrated lime. Calcination expels carbon dioxide from the
raw limestone, leaving calcium oxide (quicklime). With the addition of
water, calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) is formed.
The basic processes in production are: (1) quarrying the limestone
raw material; (2) preparing the limestone for kilns by crushing and sizing;
(3) calcining the feed; and (4) optionally processing the quicklime further
by additional crushing and sizing and the hydration. The majority of lime
is produced in rotary kilns which can be fired by coal, oil, or gas. Rotary
kilns have the advantages of high production per man-hour and a uniform
product, but require higher capital investment and have higher unit fuel
costs than most vertical kilns.
The Marblehead Lime plant has five rotary lime kilns operating on high
calcium limestone. The product is a high calcium metallurgical 1-ime which
is used in the steel industry.
The No. 5 lime kiln, which was source tested by EPA, is 300 feet in
length with an inside diameter of 10 feet 6 inches. The kiln has a design
capacity of 500 tons per day. The limestone feed is brought into the plant
sized to one and three-quarters by one-half inch. There is no stone pre-
heater. The kiln is fired with pulverized coal.
The No. 5 lime .kiln is provided with a baghouse manufactured by the
Marblehead Lime Company. The exit gas from the lime kiln is cooled to about
500°F with a combination of water spray and tempering air. The cooled gases
pass to a knock-out box where some chips and stones are removed and then to
the induced draft fan. From the fan, the exhaust gas goes directly to the
3-1
-------
baghouse. This baghouse has twelve compartments, six stacks, and about
80,000 square feet of bag surface area. The bags are cleaned by reversing
the air flow in a section. Each section is cleaned in sequence with a
typical cleaning cycle taking about two hours. The dust collected is used
by a portland cement manufacturer located nearby.
During testing, the baghouse stacks were sampled for particulates,
S02» CO, and NOX- Simultaneous visible emissions data were also recorded.
The operation of the kiln and the baghouse was monitored during the
test and the process data recorded. Readings were taken about every half
hour. These records are in Appendix F. As far as known from the process
data and conversations with the operators, the kiln and baghouse operated
normally during the tests. The main process information is summarized in
Table 3-1.
3-2
/Ulaldeni
-------
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF LIME KILN PROCESS
DATA DURING SAMPLING
Test Run
1, 2
3, 4
5, 6
Date
1974
June 11
June 12
June 13
Limestone*
Feed Rate
tph
37.76
38.63
38.21
Fuel (coal)*
Feed Rate
tph
5.77
5.80
5.58
Baghouse
Pressure
Drop
in H20
1.7-2.0
1.2-1.6
1.4-1.5
Baghouse
Temp
Op
570-592
550-600
560-600
Oxygen
%
1.4-2.9
1.0-2.3
1.4-1.7
*
Feed rates were determined from the feed weight indicator during each test.
A monitor of the process uniformity was obtained from feed rate meters, however,
these meter readings were not calibrated to indicate the actual feed rates. These
numbers are shown in Appendix F.
3-3
-------
IV. LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
A schematic layout of the test location is shown in Figure 4-1. There
are two three-inch sampling ports on each of the six stacks. They are lo-
cated 90° apart, two feet from the outlet and six feet from the inlet. The
stacks are 7'4" in diameter and therefore, require the maximum number of
traverse points (48). Samples were taken at each of the 48 points for five
minutes per point, or a total of 240 minutes (four hours) for each run.
4_1 i nut ii /
lUlaldenl
-------
TOP VIEW
CASE
LADDER
STACK
.
0 O
3"
TEST PORTS
O O
T
i
»•
L
0 0
t
42"
*?1
r
24"
0 0
RAILINGS <
>•
0 0
* ' .. • •*
O O
ROOF CAGE
LADDER
t
1
i
. i
1
1
i
1
1
SIDE VIEW
Figure 4-1. Test Location
-------
V. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
All field sampling data is provided in Appendix F. All sample calcu-
lations and test results are provided in Appendices A through E.
A. PARTICULATE SAMPLING (EPA METHOD 5)
One four-hour particulate run was made on each of the six stacks
and two particulate trains were used simultaneously. The particulate sampling
was performed in accordance with EPA Method 5, Federal Register, December 23,
1971. The location of the sampling site, determination of stack gas velocity
and volumetric flow rate, gas analysis for carbon dioxide and dry molecular
weight, and determination of moisture in the stack gases were performed in
accordance with Methods 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, of the aforementioned
document.
The variations from Method 5 as described in the Federal Register
were the addition of one hundred milliliters of water to the third impinger
and the use of a stationary impinger box connected to the heated filter box
.through Teflon tubing. Normally, the third .impinger is left empty, however,
the addition of water did not alter the sampling methods or results .as the
4
water was eventually evaporated in a beaker for the determination of particu-
late matter in the residual water fraction. Approval was granted by the EPA
Project Officer for use of the stationary impinger box, Teflon tubing, and
stainless steel probe. The sampling train is shown in Figure 5-1.
Due to the low velocities (about 15 feet per second), inclined mano-
meters with a range of 0 - 0.25 inches H20 were used. Nomographs were not
used for the adjustment of the sampling rate, rather the equations that
serve as the basis for the nomograph were calculated. A direct relationship
between the stack velocity heat (APS) and the pressure differential across
the orifice meter (AH) was determined and used for setting the isokinetic
sampling rate. The relationship is a follows:
5-1
/Hlaldeni
-------
\.
PROBE
ILT£R HOLDER
THERMOMETE.R
VACUUM LINE
CHECK
VALVE
it
II VACUUM
LINE
ICE 8ATH
O
FINE CONTROL VALVE J
O
' .ORIFIOE
GAUGE
r ^
u
ACUUM GAUGE
COARSE CONTROL VALVi
DRY. PUMP
GAS
METER
'Figure 5-1. Particulate Sampling Train,
Marblehead Lime, Gary, Indiana
5-2
-------
[•(2.9) (pfcDF.) (60) (*) (D)2 (1-B) (Tm)1 2
*• 4(144) (Ts)1/2 (O.C.F.) J A
where:
STD P.C.F. = Pitot correction factor (dimensionless)
D = 'Diameter of nozzle, inches
B = Percent moisture in gas stream
Tm = Meter temperature, °R
TS = Stack temperature, °R
O.C.F. = Orifice correction factor
Also, a meter rate formula was determined and used to maintain isokinetic
flow by checking the flow rate at 15-second intervals. We have found this
approach to be quite accurate as the two equations serve as a check for each
other. The meter rate formula is as follows:
Mr = (P.C.F.) x V n x 60 x IT x ^ ± pS x An x (1-%H?0)
oVy• is • D ™ m
where:
Mr = Volumetric flow rate, ft3/min.
.P.C.F. = Pitot correction factor (dimensionless)
V_w_ = Average velocity, ft/sec
avg.
Tm = Meter temperature, °R
TS = Stack temperature, °R
?5 = Barometric pressure, in. Hg.
Ps = Stack static pressure, in. Hg.
Pm = Vacuum at meter, in. Hg.
An = Area of nozzle, ft2
%H20 = Percent moisture in gas stream
The stack gas molecular weight was determined by three 4-hour in-
tegrated gas analyses collected simultaneously with the particulate tests.
An Orsat was used to determine C02 and Fyrites were used to determine C02
and 02. The Orsat scale is only capable of reading up to 21%. Since the
02 is read together with the C02, a reading above 21% (16.5% 02 and 7.0%
C02 = 23.5% total) was obtained and therefore, Fyrites were used.
5-3
-------
Sample recovery and analysis were performed in accordance with the
methods described in the Federal Register, August 17, 1971. At the request
of the Project Officer, a front-half water wash was performed after the ace-
tone wash. This procedure should be used when testing lime kilns due to the
nature of the particulate emissions. All sample-bottles were acid-washed
Wheaton bottles in accordance with specifications requested by the EPA. The
tared beakers and filters containing the particulate matter will be held by
EPA for their use.
B. SULFUR DIOXIDE (METHOD 6)
Six sulfur dioxide tests were performed in accordance with EPA
Method 6, Federal Register, December 23, 1971. The probe was located in
various stacks so there would be no interference with the traversing par-
ticulate sampling train. The tests were not run for the complete 4-hour
period due to carry-over of the sulfuric acid fraction in the isopropanol
impinger. Each test was conducted until bubbles from the first isopropanol
impinger began carrying over into the second impinger containing the sulfur
dioxide fraction. Two replicate analyses were performed by the barium thorin
titration method on each sample and recorded as the average of the two rep-
licates.
C. NITROGEN OXIDES (METHOD 7)
The nitrogen oxide tests were performed in accordance with EPA
Method 7, Federal Register. December 23, 1971, and a modified draft sup-
plied by the EPA. Four NOX flasks were taken for each of the three days
during the particulate tests. The samples were analyzed colorimetrically
using the phenoldisulfonic acid procedure at the Walden laboratories.
D. CARBON MONOXIDE (METHOD 10)
Three 2-hour integrated bag samples were collected during the par-
ticulate tests. The carbon monoxide was measured according to Method 10 in
the Federal Register, March 8, 1974. Carbon monoxide tests were conducted
by Honeywell Corporate Research using a Honeywell NDIR Analyzer. Although
CO, C02 and CH4 channels were available, only the CO channel was operated.
5-4
-------
EPA Method 10 specifies that for both integrated (bag) and con-
tinuous sampling, the sample must pass through a volume of silica gel and
another of ascarite immersed in an ice bath (to remove HgO and C02). Tests
with the Honeywell NDIR CO Analyzer have demonstrated rejection ratios
greater than 10" for both H£0 and C02. Therefore1; passing the sample
through silica gel and ascarite is unnecessary. In fact, passing the
sample through the ascarite caused considerable technical difficulty.
After about an hour of sampling, the ascarite formed a hard ball around
the inlet tube to the ascarite container, causing a severe flow restriction.
E. VISIBLE EMISSIONS (METHOD 9)
The relative opacity of each of the six stacks was determined in
accordance with Method 9 of the Federal Register, December 23, 1971. The
opacity determinations were conducted for two hours on each stack during
the particulate tests. Two observers read each stack except Stack No. 5,
which was read by one observer.
5-5
A
------- |