Report No. 76-LIM-10
                                SSION   T
O
ALLIED PRODUCTS COMPANY

  Montevallo, Alabama
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Office of Air and Waste Management
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                         Emission Measurement Branch
                      Research Triangle Park. North Carolina

-------
Particulate, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon
     Monoxide Emission Measurements from Lime Kilns
                 EMB Projects Report No.
                        76-LIM-10
                      Plant Tested

                 Allied Products Company
                   Montevallo, Alabama
             September 15, 16,. and 17, 1975
                      Prepared for
             Environmental Protection Agency
      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
               Emission Measurement Branch
                 Research Triangle Park
                 North Carolina   27711
                           by
              T. L.. Peltier, M. T. Thalman
                  and W. R. Peairheller
              Monsanto Research Corporation
                    Dayton Laboratory
                   1515 Nicholas Road
                  Dayton, Ohio
            Report Reviewed by Jason Burbank
          Contract No. 68-02-1*104 , Task No. 20

-------
                         TABLE OP CONTENTS

                                                           Page

     I.  .Introduction    '                                    .1


    II.   Summary of Results                                  4


   III.   Process Description and Operation                  31


    IV.   Location of Sampling Points                        35


     V.   Sampling and Analytical Procedures              •   39




Appendices

     A.   Complete Particulate Results
      i
     B.   Complete NO  Results and Sample Calculation

     C.   Complete S02 Results, .Calculations, and Continuous
         Monitoring Report

     D.   Complete CO Results

     E.   Complete Visible Emissions Results

     F.   Field Test Data Sheets

     G.   Process Operation Field Data Sheets

     H.   Sample Identification Log

     I.   Analytical Data Sheets

     J.   The Brinksฎ Cascade Impactor

     K.   Sampling and Analytical Procedures

     L.   Test Log

     M.   Project Participants
                                11

-------
                         LIST OP TABLES

  Table                             •          .            Page

    1    Summary of Particulate Emissions (Metric)           5

    2  •  Summary of Particulate Emissions (English)          6

    3    Summary of NO  Emissions                    '    .7.
                      X

    4    Summary of S02 Emissions by Dynascience S02        9
         Monitor

   • 5    Summary of S02 Emissions by EPA Method 6    '      1*1

    6    Summary of Total Sulfur Content of Coal,          16
         Product and Scrubber Water

    7    Summary of Brinksฎ Particle Sizing Results         17
         (Metric')'Using Unit Density

    8    Summary of Brinksฎ Particle Sizing Results         18
         (English)  Using Unit -Density

    9    Summary of Brinksฎ Particle Sizing Results         19
         (Metric) Using Actual Density

   10    Summary of Brinksฎ Particle Sizing Results         20
         (English)  Using Actual Density

   11    Summary of CO Emissions                          • 28

   12    Summary, of Visible Emissions                      30

   13    Summary of Lime Kiln Operating Data Taken         34
         During Sampling
Appendix        •                    •

  A-l  .  Particulate Emission Data (Metric)

  A-2    Particulate Emission Data (English)

  B-l    NO  Results
           X

  D-l    CO Results
                               iii

-------
                        LIST OP FIGURES
 Figure                                      .            Page
    1   ' Dynascience S02 Results - 9/15/75  Inlet     '    n

    2    Dynascience S02Results - 9/16,17/75  Outlet     12

  .  3    Dynascience S02 Results - 9/17/75  Inlet         13

   4-6   Particle Size Data (Unit Density)  '             22-24

   7-9   Particle Size Data (Actual Density)             25-27

   10  .  Inlet to Venturi on No. 3 Kiln                   36

   11 '   Outlet of Venturi Scrubbers     •                 37


Appendix
   E-l   Summary, of visible emissions for Ob.server 1
   E-2   Summary of visible emissions for Observer 2
   E-3   Summary of visible emissions for Observer 3  •
   F-l   S02 Data from Dynascience Strip Chart - Inlet
   F-2   S02 Data from Dynascience Strip Chart - Outlet
                              iv

-------
                          SECTION I
                        INTRODUCTION
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Environmental Protection
Agency is given the responsibility, of establishing performance
standards for new installations or modifications .to existing
installations in stationary source categories.  As a con-
tractor ,. Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC), under the EPA's
"Field Sampling of Atmospheric Emissions" Program, was asked
to undertake a sampling program to provide emission data from
the Allied Products Company in Montevallo, Alabama.

The field test work was directed by Jason Burbank, Field
Testing Section, Emission • Measurement Branch..  The sampling
was performed by MRC with Thomas L. Peltier as•Team Leader.

This report tabulates the data collected from the exhaust of
No. 3 lime kiln at the Allied Products Company during the
sampling program of September 15, 16, and 17, 1975.

A venturi scrubber is used to control the particulate emissions
from the kiln, which burns both natural gas and pulverized
coal.  Particulate, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and car-
bon monoxide emissions were measured at the outlet of the
venturi scrubber.  Sulfur dioxide levels and particle size
distribution at the inlet were also determined.   Total sulfur
content of the coal feed, calcined lime, and scrubber feed
and discharge water was determined, as well as pH and total •

-------
suspended solids  (TSS) of the scrubber feed and discharge
water.

Particulate emissions from the scrubber were measured ac-
cording to procedures described in the Federal Register,
Vol.  36, .No. 159, August, 1971, Method 5, "Determination of
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources."

Method 1, "Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary
Sources"; Method  2,  "Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and
Volumetric .Flow Rate  (Type S P'itot Tube)"; and Method 3,
"Gas  Analysis  for Carbon Dioxide, Excess Air and Dry Molecu-
lar Weight" are other procedures that were required for 'the
Method 5 tests.   Method 6, "Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions from Stationary Sources" and Method 7, "Determina-
tion -of Nitrogen  Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources"
were  performed according to the procedures in the  Federal
Register, Vol. 36,  No. 2^7, December 23, 1971.'  Method  9,
"Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions  from
.Stationary  Sources"  of the Federal Register, Vol.  39, No.  219,
November 12, 197^,  was performed on the exhausts of -the  bag-
house.  The -carbon  monoxide sampling and analysis  on the
exhaust gases  of  the lime kiln were performed according  to
Method 10,  "Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions  from
Stationary  Sources," of the Federal Register, Vol.  39,  No. 47,
March 8, 1974.

The EPA also conducted a sampling project during the sampling
at  Allied Products  Company.  A continuous S02 monitoring
device, a Dynascience Air Pollution Monitor, was used on both
the inlet and  outlet of the venturi.  Results from that  sam-
pling program  are included  in Appendix  C.

-------
The following sections of this report include:  (1) summary
of results, (2) process description and operation, .(3) loca-
tion of sampling points, (4) sampling and analytical proce-
dures.  Appendices include all field, data and analytical
data from this sampling project.

-------
                         SECTION II

                     SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Summaries of the particulate emissions from the No.  3 lime
kiln are given in Tables 1 and 2.  Three Method 5 tests were
performed on the outlet of the venturi scrubber, which was
used to control the particulate emissions from the kiln.
Emissions of filterable particulate, as measured by the probe '
and filter catch, averaged 24.664 Ib/hr or 10.232 Kg/hr, at
a concentration of .0304 gr/dscf or 63.6 mg/Nm3.  The con-
centration data is reported in dry standard cubic feet  (DSCF)
where standard conditions are 68ฐF and 29.92 inches Hg.  The
metric conditions are 20ฐC and 760 mm Hg for normal cubic
meters (Nm3).

The Method-7 nitrogen oxide results are given in Table  3.
Grab flasks were taken on two different days with eight flasks
being used one day and four flasks the next for a total of
twelve samples.  Table 3 gives an average NO  emission  rate
                                            A
for each set of four samples taken' on the two days and  also
an overall average for the two days of sampling.  An average
flow rate of 2693- Nm3/min (95091 dscfm) was used -to convert
the concentration of grab flask to an emission rate for the
kiln.  All twelve grab flasks gave fairly close results, since
none of the values deviates more than ฑ 30 ppm from the 103
parts per million (ppm) overall average for two days of sam-
pling.  However the NO  concentration from a lime kiln  can
                      X
vary by as much as 100$ during normal operation.

-------
                  Table 1.  SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS  (Metric)
Run Number

Date

Volume of Gas Sampled - Nm3

Percent Moisture by Volume

Average Stack Temperature - ฐC

Stack Volumetric Flow Rate - NmVmin

Percent Isokinetic

Run Time - Minutes

Particulates - Front Half
     mg
     mg/Nm3
     Kg/hr

Particulates - Total
     mg
     mg/Nm3
     Kg/hr
1

9-15-75
1
19
64
2748
100
120
119
' 68
11
131
76
12
• 73
.86


.5

• 30
.8
• 330
.90 •
.0
.526
2

9-16-75 '
1.
18.
64-
27^7
100.
120
85.
49.
8.
93.
53-
8.
73
77


5

20
1
085
00
6
82.5
3
Average
9-16-75
1.
20.
66
.2583.
102.
120
121.
72.
11.
131.
78.
12.
66
91


6

30
9.
281
30
9 .
211
1
19
'65
. 2693

120
108
63
10
118
69
11
.71
.85




.60
.6
.232
.74
.5
.187
Percent Impinger Catch
9.5
8.4
7-6
8.5

-------
                    Table 2.  SUMMARY•OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS  (English)
a\
Run Number
Date
Volume- of Gas Sampled - dscf
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature - ฐF
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate - dscfm
Percent Isokinetic
Run Time - Minutes
Particulates - Front Half
- mg
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Particulates - Total
mg
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
1
9-15-75
. 61.14
19.86
148
97037
100. 5
120

119-30
o. 0300
24.977 '

131-90
0.0332 .
27.615
2
9-16-75
61.18
18.77
147
97021
100.5
120

85.20
0.0214
17.824

93.00
-0.0234
. 19.456
3
9-16-75
58.69
20.91
151
91216
102.6
.120

-.121.30
0.0318
24.870

•131.30
0.0345
26.921
Average

60.34
19.85
149
95091

120 .

108.60
0.0277
22.557

118.74
0.0304
24.664
   Percent Impinger Catch
9.6
8.4
7.6
8.5

-------
                        Table 3.  SUMMARY OF NO  EMISSIONS
                                               X
Date . Run
9-16-75
9-16-75
9-16-75
9-16-75
9-16-75
9-16-75
9-16-75
9-16-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
Total Average
No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

Time
936
. 937
938
939
1404
1405
1406
1407
1024
1044
1104
1124

ppma
107
129
119
131
122
101
100
104
96
100
111
77
65
104
89
104
gr/Nm3
0.203
0.245
0.226
0.248 .
0.231
0.192
0.190
0.197
0.182
0.190
0.211
0.146
0.123
0.197
0.169 •
0.197
Ib/dscf
x 10~5
1.27
1.53
1.41
1.55
1.44
1.20
1.19
• 1.23
1.14
1.19
1.31
0. 91
0.77
1.23
1.06
1.23
Kg/hrb
32.80
39-59
36.52
40.07
37 . 2-4
31.02
30.70
31.83
•29.41
30.74
34.09
23-59
19-87 .
31.83
'. 27-34
31-77
lb/hrc
72.46
82.29
80.45
88.43
82.16
68'. 46
67.89
70.18
65.04
67-89
74.74
51.92
43-93
70.18
60.19
70.08
a - parts per million by volume
b - Flow rate used was estimated to be 2693 Nm3/min .
c - Flow rate used was estimated to be 95,091 dscfm

-------
While MRC personnel were performing the Method 6 sampling on
the inlet to the venturi scrubber, EPA personnel were per-
forming S02 sampling using the Dynasciences Continuous Monitor.

A report of this testing is included in Appendix C.  A dis-
cussion of the sampling operations and the results of the
sampling are included in the report.  An average SC>2 concen-
tration in ppm' for the inlet and outlet is included in Table
4.  Copies of the original strip charts are included in
Appendix P..  Figures 1, 2 and 3 are a graphical description
of the Dynascience data.

The Method 6 sulfur dioxide results are also given in Table
5.  As can be seen from Table 5, only the first run on the
inlet to the venturi showed any sulfur dioxide by Method 6
testing.  The results of the outlet coincide with the results
of the Dynascience Continuous Monitor, which showed a zero
concentration (<5 ppm, the zero drift during the test while
spanned to 500 ppm full scale).'  However, the 'results for
Runs 2—1 and 3-1 showed appreciable S02 concentrations with
the Dynascience  (65 to 212 ppm). but none with Method 6.  How-
ever, we know this is impossible since the Dynascience Con-
tinuous Monitor was run simultaneously with the runs, on the
inlet.  '

These results can probably be best explained by the lime dust
which is collected in the end of the S02 probe. ' The S02 probe
has a glass wool plug for stopping particulates and the glass
wool merely acted as a filter for the lime dust and the com-
bination of 'the two scrubbed out the S02 giving zero concen-
tration levels on Runs 2-1 and 3-1-  Since no velocity traverse

-------
Table 4. . SUMMARY OP  S02 EMISSIONS BY THE DYNASCIENCE S02 MONITOR

 Corrected  10-Minute  Averages of  S02 Measurements at the Allied
. Products Lime  Plant, Montevallo, Alabama
Test
Date Site .Time
9/15/75 Scrubber 1:05 pm
Inlet •
1:15
1:25
1:35
1:45
1:55
' • .2:05
2:15
2:25
2:35
2:45
2:55
3 = 05
3 = 15.
3:25
•3 = 35
. ' 3:45.
3:55
.4:05
- 4:15-
.. 4:25
Corrected
Average
PPM
139
139
137
126
152
142 .
126 '
144
150
159
236
194
203
252
232
203
.211
• 207
243
150
174
High
Peak
PPM
177
164 .
194
130
196
.163
142
157
178
'187
29.0
278
282
280
264
246
232
245
312
167
200
Low
Point
PPM
117
122
122
44
128
115
• 114
128
128
139
170
164
154
221
212
180
189
172
157
125
150
Stack
Temperature
ฐC

449 (84oฐF)

438 (820ฐF)


427 (800ฐF)

421 (790ฐF)
427 (800ฐF)

415 (780ฐF)
427 (800ฐF)



432 (810ฐF)




-------
Table 4 (cont'd).  SUMMARY OF S02 EMISSIONS BY THE DYNASCIENCE S02
                   MONITOR
 Corrected 10-Minute Averages of S02 Measurements at the Allied
 Products Lime Plant, Montevallo, Alabama
                             Corrected  High   Low      Stack
Test
Date Site
9/16/75 Scrubber
Outlet

9/17/75 Scrubber
Inlet







9/17/75 Scrubber
Outlet
Time
11:45 am
4-
4:05 pm
10:28 am
10:38
10:48
10:58
11:08
11:18
11:28
11:38
11:48
2:'00 pm
4-
3:15
Average
PPM
0
0
168
159
183
190
. 159
124
101
86
. 156
0
. 0
Peak
PPM
0
0 .
194
190
212
.202
175
142
111
127
173
' 0
0
Point
PPM
. ' 0
0
148
139
158
161
' 141
.105
88
65
128
0
0
Temperature
ฐC
66 (150ฐP)

427 (800ฐF)







66 (150ฐF)
                                 10

-------
                                                   Figure  1
                                                      9/15/75  INLET
300- -
260--.
    !




240-
    i




220-



    i

200-





180-





160-
by V

~

olume •
DYNASCIENCE S02 RESULTS - TEN MINUTE AVERAGES
SHOWING AVERAGE (— ป
PEAK AND LOW VALUES
SCRUBBER INLET
i • ,:. i • •: .
i . .
AT -I •
. i
" i . ' ' '.'!". ! . . 1 . '. ' . _ ^
j





; ::::..


' ' • -:!': '!:;. .::;-i: •'..- \ " ' .\ ' '' •• • ""-L '. :;. :_...;"•
-- .- .
-
. ;. .... ., . .


• - • . •: '
• • • . . , i - - - .
_ 	

- --

:


.
:
. . " . i
; .


-—
! • ! - :
' . . 1
- ' -
,

I
1
i






. .
. • : ! : •'.'



i • . . .






_ -' 	






- — :- —
_ . " 	 	

;:.:::. :.!:'. " .!:"•'' ': . ! ' • :!: :'.
i _ • •
;::'
- :



- - — —
'-' — -

'. ' '


I .



-•


,
•^ - i
: . 7 . t . - . - . '- ' n~~ - " i 	 .
. . .- . . . _.
i - - - - i
... . i t . • . . ( . . t


•<

_
.. _,


-- 7*
— :
: . I .


- ; J
' . . • i " : . . I
i . ....




	 	
ซ*4
	 :.L: — _... '
: •' -'
---'
ซ^

• -— 	
*^
.
• | ' : -•;. .: . •; ' . . (
— L—

	
	
--T- •

1 " " t i
. ', . . . i . - . '

. - :..•'!
• -• t 	
	 ! - i
i
- • i
,
' ' " ' !
, _ ._i_^..r:_. J
	 ; 	
. . i " .
. i


120- )-- —


    !


100-  -. -


    i- , . .


'80- -----



    i


 60-'-——
 40-
 20-,-
          CLOCK TIME
     9/15/75 -'I
      i   •  i —'
 '. u -1	r	1~
 13:05  15   25
35   45   55  14:05  15   25
                                -h-
35   45   55  15:05  15
 i  •

—h-

 25
                                              	'I-
35
45   55  16:05  15
25

-------
                      Figure 2            9/16, 9/17/75  OUTLET
'tPPM by Volume
i • • : • : ; j—
' . . ' ' ' * " |~ .
, • ....,- i • " I
O U f| : ' ' • . • -
c 4 U — 	 • • i ; - • .
. 	 :._L_;L.!i .
i 1 ~~ '
••(••:
> !
9 00- ' i
' • i •
1 R 0 '• : ;
i
160
i h n ' ;
_L -7 \J
DYNASCIENCE S02 RESULTS *-. TEN MINUTE AVERAGES • ' .

:.i' . -'::i : ; • " ;-.":" _• j • -i;;.::.:" j: .'. _- .
'•".'.' \:' '! ' ::-:' •;• : r . • .: '- i ; ' '.. ..'.
:r:-"-' -. ;-:::; • . _[:.-. :' : : '" ;.:. :• ': '•.'•
.:-!•• •/••• ';: " "•:'.;.• • : ';
_. __, ._ _l _ .- ... . . . _- ... - ._ .. ..-_.
•:; . . • :l 	 . .
i . ...
. ..; • •; : ! ' • : . !•-•-'
! • . •••! -. •; . : :.!•-•
i . . j . . - ;..: : : ! •• •; ' ..
1 : ! • ; :. :-! '- - " : . ! :; :: ! ' ;j- _ -:; : ;.
-i |
j i . . . . ; 	 :.- .
TOO-' ;
_i_ 
-------
tPPM by Volume
                                                  Figure 3
                                                           9/17/75  INLET
                                DYNASCIENCE S09 RESULTS ,-. TEN MINUTE AVERAGES
        H-—rrrr
260-  —

240-J--
    i
220- -----

    i
200—  —

180-  —
    SHOWING AVERAGE (—•—),
    PEAK AND LOW VALUES AT
    SCRUBBER INLET
               _;. „;	.	
140-  -


120- -


100-


 80-
    t
 60-'
    i

 40-

    i
 20
;.	. _i_ ._.
!
; ., . , • , | .- i , , . ••
'I ": . i : : ' ! ' ' j i ' !
'!'.:••! • ' ; ' : 1 ; ' 1
' " :r- --I---: •--;-• --••; : . \ •-.-- |- -••-.-: 	 -
.!•:• . . ; i ..'!-• 1 ' . '
.
j
\ < •
! ' ' !



•

. 1

.
  0--
                 4-.
            10:28 38    48    58   11:08 18   28   38   48    CLOCK TIME +  9/17/75

-------
                  Table 5.  SUMMARY OP S02 EMISSIONS BY EPA METHOD 6
Run Number

Date

Volume of Gas Sampled
     Nm3
     dscf

S02 Concentration
     ppm
     g/Nm3
     Ib/dscf x 1CT5

S02 Emissions
          a
     Kg/hrc
     Ib/hr
a
1-1-
9-16
.0235
.829
61
.160
1.00
16.3-
36
1-0
9-16
.0235
.795
o'
0
0
• 0
0
2-1
9-17
.0235
.832
0*
0*
0*
0
. 0
2-0
9-17
.0228
.805
0
0
0
0
0
• '.3-1
9-17
.0223
..788
0*
0*
0* •
0
0
3-0
9-17
.0233
.824
0
0
0 .
0
0
a - Flow rate used - 1699 Nm3/min (Estimated - see explanation pp. 7)

b - Flow rate used - 60,000 dscfm (Estimated - see explanation pp. 7)
*Suspected sampling problems - see discussion pp. 8

-------
was performed at the inlet,'the flow rate used in the deter-
mination of the emission rate there is an estimated value.

It was seen from an earlier test (7-31 and 8-1-74) by the
Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission that the flow in
dscfm increased from inlet to outlet locations by an average
factor of 1.35.  This could be attributed to leakage of am-
bient air into the system between those two points, (a high
negative pressure exists) as well as inaccuracies of velocity
measurement due- to turbulent or cyclonic flow.  When this fac-
tor is applied to the situation here, taking into considera-
tion the increased duct disintegration and numerous leaks seen
which were not mentioned in that earlier report, a value of
60,000 dscfm for the inlet flow rate can be estimated.  The
design flow rate for the Venturis, as given in the process
description, amounts to 80,000 dscfm.

Table 6 gives the total sulfur results on the coal, product,
scrubber feed water and scrubber exit water.  The samples
were collected during the Method 6 inlet runs and are refer-
enced to the runs.  The results in-the table show the coal
being burned had an average sulfur content of 1.86%.  The
product had an average sulfur content of .005%.  The particu-
late in the scrubber feed water had an average sulfur content
of 2.9^%-  The particulate in the scrubber exit water had an
average sulfur content of 3-73%.

Table 7-10 presents a summary of the Brinkฎ particle sizing
results, Metric and English, respectively.  Three runs were
made on the inlet of the venturi scrubber.  As can be seen
from the tables, over 96 percent (weight basis) of the parti-
cles collected in all three runs were in the probe, cyclone
and first stage 'of the impactor, corresponding to a mean aero-
dynamic diameter of >5-0 microns, or a mean actual diameter of
>2.75 microns.
                             15

-------
    Table 6.  SUMMARY OF TOTAL SULFUR CONTENT OF COAL, PRODUCT AND SCRUBBER WATER
Date                          '  •             9-16             9-17  •           9-17

Corresponding EPA 6 Run         .              1-1    '        .  2-1              3-1

% Total Sulfur                 '              '    •
   '  Coal
     Product

Scrubber Feed H20
     pH
     TSS, mg/1
     g Sulfur/1 filtrate
                          
-------
Table 7.   SUMMARY  OF BRINKSฎ PARTICLE SIZING'
         '   RESULTS  (METRIC)  USING UNIT DENSITY
             CASCADE IMPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RVlN 1 '

             INPUT VARIABLE      UNHS    INPUT OAT*,









CYCLONE
.1
2
3 '
4
5
FILTER











CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
f HTER









STAGE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
it
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME
PRESSURE DROP
STATIC PRESSURE
P'.RTICLE DENSITY
GAS WOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VISCOS.ITY
GAS DENSITY

63.600
6. 366
0.915
1.000
0.240
0.206
1.100
CASCADE IMPACTOR
INPUT VARIABLE
SAMPLING TIME
PRESSURE DROP
STATIC PRESSURE
PARTICLE DENSITY
BAROMETRIC PRESSU
GAS MOL UT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VISCOSITY
GftS DENSITY
70.600
2.060
1.210
0.490
0.150
0.130
0.400
INPUT VARIABLE
SAMPLING IIME
PRESSURE OHOP
STATIC PRESSURE
PARTICLE DENSITY
BAROMETRIC PRESSU
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VISCOSITY
GAS DENSITY
UT OF MATERIAL
73.000
8. 431
1 .004
0.137
0.120
0.092
1.000
MIN
cn HG
CM H20
G/CC

DEG C
POISE
G/CC


4.63 '
2.73
1.67
0.98
0.61

PARTICLE SIZE
UNITS
MIN
CM HG
CM H20
G/CC
RE CM HG

DEG C
POISE
G/CC

5.06
3.00
2. OS
1.09
0.70

UNITS
MIN
CM HG
CM H20
G/CC
RE CM HG

OEG C '
POISE
G/CC









3.73
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.05
10.0
3.30
-16.60
1.00
2S.O
90.6
0.00022
0.00095

67.69
6.57
0.94
1.02
0.25
0,21
1.13
DISTRIBUTION FOH










9.56
0.29
0,16
0.07
0.02
0,02
0.05










DPC MG/ALM

4.79
2.63
1 .94
1.02
0.64

8.5S
0.2P
o.i?
0.02
0,01
0,01
0.1?
INPUT 0ซTซ
4.0
2.0?
-15.62
1.00
75.49
26.0
06.7
0.00021
0.00096
94 ,07
2,74
1.61
0,65
0.20
0,20
0.53
INPUT DATA
4,0
S.79
-16.51
1.00
75. ?3
26.1
93.3
0.00022
0.000^4
WT PCNT
93.91
3.09
1 ,26
0.17
fl. 15
0.12
1 .27









100.00 .
12,11
3.55
2.61
1.58
1.34
1 .13
HUN 2










100.00
5.93
3.19
1.58
0.93
0.73
0.53
RUM 3








CUM WT PCNT
100.00
6.0 =
2,99
1.72
1.54
1.39
1.27
                            17

-------
Table  8.  'SUMMARY  OP BRINKSฎ PARTICLE SIZING
           RESULTS  (ENGLISH)  USING  UNIT DENSITY
           CASCADE INPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN I



CYCLONE
1
2
3
(;
9
FILTER



STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
i
5
FILTER



!il A IE
CYCLONE
1
2 '
3
14
5
FILTER

SAMPLING TIME MIN 10.0
PRESSURE DROP ' IN HG 1.30
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20 ' '7.40
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC 1.00
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN HG 29.93
GAS MOL WT 26.0
GAS TEMPERATURE DEG f 195.0
GAS VISCOSITY POISE 0.00022
GAS DENSITY G/CC 0.00095

85.600 131,39 67.69
' - 6.366 lป.63 ,12.83 * 8.57
0.915 2.73 ' l.UO 0.91
1.000 1.87 1.53 1.02
0.210 0.96 0.37 0.25
0.206 0.61 0.32 0.21
1.100 1.69 1.13
CASCADE IHPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
SAMPLING-TIME MIN 1.0
PRESSURE DROP IN HG . 0.60
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20 -6.15
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC 1.00
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN HG 29.72
GAS MOL WT 26.0
GAS TEMPERATURE DEG F 168.0
GAS VISCOSITY POISE 0.00021
GAS DENSITY G/CC 0.00096
yT OF MATERIAL OPC BG/ACF WT PCNT
70.600 . ' 337.63 91.07
2.060 5.06 9.62 2.71
1.210 3.00 5,77 1.61
0.190 2.05 2.3ป 0.65
0.150 1.09 0.72 0.20
0.150 0.70 0.72 0.20
0.100 1.91 0.53
CASCADE IMPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR
INPUT VARIABLE' UNITS INPUT DATA
SAMPLING TIME MIN 1.0
PRESSURE DROP IN HG 1.10
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20 -6.50
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC 'l.OO
UAROMETHIC PRESSURE IN H6 ?9.6?
GAS MOL UT 26.1
GAS TEMPERATURE OEG F POO.O
GAS VISCOSITY POISE 0.00022
GAS DENSITY G/CC 0.00091
WT UF MATERIAL OI'C M(,/Atr WT PCNT
73.600 . 303.il> 93.91
2.131 1.79 '!.<*" 3.0'f
1 .001 2.63 1.13 1.26
0.137 1.91 0,'_ 0.17
.0.120 1.02 0.19 0.15
0,092 0.61 O.jo 0.12
1 .000 ' 1.11 1.27



100.00
12.11
3.55
2.61
1.98
1.31
1.13
RUN 2 .


CUM WT PCNT
100.00
5.93
3.19
1.56
0.93
0,73
0.53
RUN 3


CMM WT PCNT
100,00
s.O')
2.99
1 .72
1 .51
1.39
1.27
                          18

-------
Table 9.   SUMMARY  OF BRINKSฎ PARTICLE  SIZING
            RESULTS  (METRIC) USING  ACTUAL DENSITY
        CASCADE IMPACTOR PAKTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN i

        INPUT VARIABLE      UNITS    INPUT DATA
SAMPLING TIME ' MIN
PRESSURE DROP CM HG
STATIC PRESSURE CM H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CM HG
• GAS MOl. WT
GAS TEMPERATURE DEG C
GAS VISCOSITY POISE

STAGE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
FILTER


"








STAGE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
1 1LTER






GAS DENSITY
WT OF MATERIAL
65.800 .
8.366
0,915
1.008
0.240
0.206
1.100
CASCAOf IMPACTOR
INPUT VARIABLE
SAMPLING TIME .
PRESSURE DROP
STATIC PRESSURE
PARTICLE DENSITY
BAROMETRIC PRESSI
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VISCOSITY
GAS DENSITY
WT OF MATERIAL
70.800
2.060
1.210
0.490
O.lbO
0.150
0.400
CASCADE IMPACTOR
INPUT VARIABLE
SAMPLING TIME
PRESSURE DROP
STATIC PRESSURE
PARTICLE DENSITY
G/CC

UPC MG/ACM

2.51
1.46
0.98 '
0.49
0.29

PARTICLE SIZE
UNITS
MIN
cn HG
CM H20
G/CC
JRE CM HG

DEG C
POISE
6/CC
3.73
0.36
0.04
0 , 0 4 '
0,01
0,01
0.05
10.0
3.30
-16,80
3.25
75.77
28.0
90.6
0.00022
0.00095
WT PCNT
87.88
6.57
0.94
1.03
0.25
0.21
1.13
DISTRIBUTION FOR










DPC MG/ACM

2.75.
1,61
1,09
0,55
0,34

PAKTICLE SIZE
UNITS
MIN
CM HG
CM H20
G/CC
9.56
0,26
0,16
0,07
0.02
0.02
0.05
INPUT DATA
4.0
2.03
-15.62
3.25
75.49
28.0
86.7
0,00021
0,00096
WT PCNT
94.07
2.74
1.61
0.65
0.20
0.20 .
0.53
DISTRIBUTION FOR





UAHUMETPIC PRESSURE CM HG




STAGf.
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
FILTER
GAS MGL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VISCOSITY
GAS DENSITY
WT OF MATERIAL
73,800
2.431
1.004
0.137
0.120
0.092
1.000

DEG C
POISE
G/CC




UPC MG/ACM

2.60
1.52
1.02
0.51
0.30

6.59
0.28
0.12
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.12
INPUT DATA
4.0
2.79
-16,51
3.25
75.23
28.1
93.3
0.00022
0,00094
WT PCNT
93.91
3.09'
1.28
0.17
0.15
0.12
1.27


CUM WT PCNT
100,00
12.12
3.55
2.62
1.58
1.31
1.13
RUN 2










CUM WT PCNT
100.00
5.93
3.19
1.58
0.93
0.73
0.53
RUN 3










CUM WT PCNT
100,00
6,09
2.99
1.72
1.54
1.39
1.27
                            19

-------
Table 10.   SUMMARY OP BRINKSฎ  PARTICLE  SIZING  •
             RESULTS (ENGLISH) USING ACTUAL DENSITY
       CASCADE IMPACTOR ^ARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN 1

       INPUT VARIABLE      UNITS    INPUT DATA
SAMPLING TIME MIN
PRLSSUHE DKOP IN H6
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PAKIICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAP.OPltTRIC PRESSURE IN HG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE OEG F
GAS VISCOSITY POISE

STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
FILTER

-






/


STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
FILTER






GAS DENSITY
UT OF MATERIAL
65.600
8.366
0.915
1.006
0.210
0.200
1.100
CASCADE IMPACTOR
INPUT VARIABLE
SAMPLING TIME
PRESSURE DROP
STATIC PRESSURE
PAHTtCLE DENSITY
BAROMLTRIC PRESSL
GAS P10L WT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VISCOSITY
GAS DENSITY
UT OF MATERIAL
70.600
ฃ.060
1.210
0.490
0.150
0.150
1). 400
CASCADE IMPACTOR
INPUT VARIABLE
SAMPLING TIME.
PRESSURE DROP
STATIC PRESSURE
PARTICLE DENSITY
G/CC
DPC MG/ACF
131.59
2.51 12.63
1.16 1.10
0.98 1.55
0.49 0,37
U.29 0,32
1.69
10.0
1.30
-7,40
3.25
29.63
• 28.0
195.0
0.00022
0.00095
UT PCNT
67.66
6.57
0.94
1.03
0.25
0.21
1.13
PBKTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR
UNITS
MlN
IN HG
IN H20
G/CC
IRE IN HG

DEG F
POISE
G/CC
DPC MG/ACF
337,47
2.75 9.62
1.61 5,77
1.09 2.34
0.55 0.71
0.34 0.71
1.91
INPUT DATA
4.0
0.80
-6.15
3.25
29.72
28.0
166.0
0.00021
0.00096
WT PCNT
94.07
2,74
1.61
0.65
0.20
0.20
0.53
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR
UNITS
MlN
IN HG
IN H20
G/CC
BAHUftTRIC PRESSURE IN HG




STATE
CYCLONE'
1
2
3
4
3
FILTER
GAS MOL WT
GAS TLNPEftATUKE
GAS VISCOSITY
GAS DLNijITY
WT OF MATERIAL
75.000
2. mi
1.004
0.137
0.120
0.092-
l.UOO

OEG F
POISE
G/CC
UPC MG/ACF
303. UO
2.60 9.99
1.52 4,13
1.02 0,56
0.51 0.49
U.30 0.38
4.11
'INPUT DATA
4.0
1.10
-6.50
3,25
29.62
26.1
200.0
0,00022
0.00094
UT PCNT
93.91
3.09
1.26
0.17
0.15
0.12
1.27


CUM UT PCNT
100.00
12,12
S.55
2.62
1.56
1,34
1.13
RUN 2










CUM UT PCNT
100.00
5.93
3.19
1.56
0.93
0.73
0.53
RUN 3










CUM UT PCNT
100.00
6.09
2.99
1.72
1.54
1.39
1.27
                          20.

-------
The characteristic particle diameter (listed in Tables 7-10 as
DPC) is the diameter of a spherical particle of unit density •
(Ib/cc) for -which 50% of the particles will impact on a given
stage and 50% will pass around to the succeeding stage.  The
equivalent aerodynamic diameter (diameter based on a spherical
particle of unit density) is reported in Tables 7 and 8, and
shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6.  Not only does this method of
reporting the data form a good standard for comparison between
particles of varying shape and density, but also it is general-
ly the aerodynamic particle size which is of interest to the
tester.  The actual diameter can be assumed to be as reported
in Tables 9 and 10, and as shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9-  These
values are based on spherical particles with an actual density
of 3.25 g/cc, which is derived from the density of CaO given
in The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 53^d edition.

Table 11 presents a summary of the carbon monoxide emissions
from the kiln.  The Method 10 testing was done on the exhaust
gases collected in a Tedlar bag.  The Orsat analysis was per-
formed on. the same gases as the carbon monoxide analysis.  The
integrated sample was collected during the respective Method
5 runs.          .

The table -lists the CO concentration in ppm, which was obtained
from the calibration curves for the Beckman NonDispersive In-
frared (NDIR) instrument.  Background CO was not measured at
this source.

The same flow rate used to calculate S02 and NO  emission rates
                                               X.
was also used for CO emission rates.  The .CO concentration in
the Tedlar bags was also determined by using Drager tubes which
involves drawing a small amount of gas through a column of in-
dicating material which changes color to indicate the concen-.
tration of .C'O present.  The results from this method are also
listed in Table 11.
                              21

-------
^x
CO
C
o

o
0)
•H:
Q
o
•H
         0.01
                   Weight ^ Less Than  Stated Size
        Figure  4.   Particle size data  (unit  density) Run 1
                             22

-------
W
C
O

O
•H
6
0)
.p


cti
•H
Q

(1)

o
•H
-P.

OJ
       .2
       .1
         0.01   0.0^ 0.1 0.2  0.5   1
20
30.  10  50  CO
                   Weight %  Less Than  Stated  Size
        Figure 5.   Particle  size data (unit  density)  Run  2

                                 23

-------
.w

 o

 o
 •H
 E
 0
 -P
 0)

 Cti
 •H
 Q

 0)
 rt
 PL.
     10

      9

      8

      7

       .1
          0.01  0.05 0.1  0.2   0.5  1
10
20
30   40  50  60
                    Weight % Less Than  Stated Size
         Figure 6.  Particle  size data  (unit density). Run 3

-------
CO
c
o
?H
O
0


B
cd
•H
o

- jjipj-;
                          -.^!A-i.- •j-|-:||
                          ^prE-hrnrt
                          m
                  Ty
                   Pi
               1-ilH-W'!'!

                      .......|-...|-t.( j.j j i  . ..,. r : .._;:;_.:
                                                         -.(_,_!_!.
                                                         -dm
                                                             rjฃirrn-:i;
                                                 TJ-4-i-~ ;-i
                                                 -t-l-r-H --I"'
                                                           .Vital
                                                ฑrฃ j!i:
                                                "*~T'":~(" • t
                  _ :	,	| ! .1 ._,.!'. 	 _, '	..;	,	*	._  ^


                  _.   .—• | -• -j--- >•---•   . — —  •   -     •-
.9,

.8.

ซ7.


'.6;


.5.



.4.




•.3.
        .2
        .1.
            11
     !--i--i  iri;
     •,-—|—i- -i-)-,!
     ....—,_,.. .,,..•
l-li-l
                   rnt
               -j -r'-t-rr
                       11= 1L
           iw^yii!
                   1/U-:


           -:jrJ4
           -La
             -'•'-I !
                   r II
                   art
            :!lfl
            ! -ii

            i^i
             lii
                                     Cif
                                     ^

                          rv-'lij
                              -'...L
                       ..., -.
                       :^
                          rpl::
                           =E
              C;;
-i-H:
                                             ',-r-V
                                          zm:
                                                 3S
                   • ;! I	/ J.	I

                   i"^  A  •  i  iT
                   tti
                   -i-hT
                   -;-;1-;
                                                 TLUr
                                                 -[•HI
                                                                -^r
                                         rm
                                         itn
                                         Utt
                                                            ir
                   —^rjrnTTTt'SS?^-: •:.-.-ป 1-1 :-:T'^HE:'~"T.7.tril^rr
                   .—!":•• I-!.-i.-ii (-•,-:::• | -fi' T-|-;- ."i-!.-:^'-. :r :ri:!:l j.rl4
                              -.4zt.-.i--.i
             -I-I-I--
                                m
                                m

                                            ~;~^i~
                                                 = 3ฃ-_
                                       :Ez
                                       =FR-
                                                     &
                                            -i	
                              Tfff
                               irrr
                                         liu.
                                                         •.!:r.i.
                                                        iff!:
                                     :;:pt:i;
                                                           iฑ
                                                 -i.rf..
                                                 tet
                                     r+t
                                     -4-t-f-f-
                                     -i-i-Fl-
                   ffi
                                                      •rK
                                                  •Upr;.
                                                               -rrp
                                                               -r-j-r"
                                                  T
                                                         -rrrr
                           ffl
                           dฑ
     ,-H_|.

     K
     iTr-
       +^
                                   -i
-K-B
:PRT
rm
                                               -|r|:
                                             7H^J7
                                             -, ... i.. -
                           zfeS
                                                                "i-PF
                           m
                                                                   rr
m
                                                                    •r-4-
                                                                        i.'l-V-j
                                          %&
                                          •L-f-j-T-
                                                            xpr
                                                            tp '
                                                                               ฃrc;:
                                          r?j:;
                                                                                    :^l
                   -P!
                   ip;.
 rrn:
 nit
:p
 • I! • I i'
Trrr"n
rHrr;
 !-!-^Lt-
                                                        .;-;rj:r
                                 3:!:!:
                                                   -j-H-j.
      T- i
      -I-H.I.
 TfF
                                                   -i—i-
                  iii. U".i
                                                                                ฃpฃ
IP
•n*r—
     Tt—
      t-f*-'
     -I-!-.

      hit
      rn-
                                                t

                                               fi
-i-i

tj
-H
T
                                                                 T:
    0.01   0.05 0.1  0.2    0.5   1
                                                       10
                                            20
                                30
                                                                               50   60
                        Weight  %  Less  Than Stated  Size
        Figure  7.    Particle  size  data  (actual  density)  Run 1


                                           25

-------
n
C
O


o
•H

E
0)
-p

-------
 CO
 C
 O

 o
 •H
 6
 (D
 -P
 0)


. Cd
 cd
          0.01  0.05 0.1 0.2
                                                     30  40  50  60
                    Weight % Less  Than Stated Size
        Figure 9.   Particle size data (actual  density)  Run 3


                                 27

-------
                             'Table 11.  SUMMARY OF CO EMISSIONS
ro
oo
Run Number

Date

Sample Time (24 Hour Clock)

CO Concentration
     ppm
     g/Nm3
     Ib/dscf x 1CT6

CO Emissions
     Kg/hra
     lb/hrb
1
9-15
1500-1530
35
0.040
2.497
6.46
14.25
2
9-16
•1000-1045
• 18
0.021
1.284
3.39
7.33
3
9-16
1300-1400
104 .
0.119
7.420
1.9.23
42.33
    CO by Drager Tubes
         ppm
                                       35-40
20
110
    a - Flow Rate used - 2693 Nm3/min (Average of '3 Method 5 runs)
    b  - Flow Rate used - 95091 dscfm (Average of 3 Method 5 runs).

-------
Table 12 presents a summary of the visible emissions.  The.
table gives the opacity readings which correspond, in part,
to the third run of the Method 5 tests.  The readings we're
taken from 3:00-4:00 p.m. on September 15, 1975 by J. Burbank,
Observer #1, P. Westlin, Observer //2, and K. C. Hustvedt,- Ob-
server #3j of the EPA.  The opacity readings were not taken
during each Method 5 run because of the difficulty in reading
the opacity of-the white steam plume against a white sky.
This steam plume would .not evaporate until it reached a height
of approximately 75-150 feet.  At this height, any particu-
lates that did exist in the plume, were so well dispersed
that no visible emissions could be detected.  It was due to
these reasons that visible emissions measurements were not
taken as originally planned'.  Appendix E gives the Complete
Visible Emissions Results including field data sheets, sum-
mary sheets with 6-minute averages, and graphs plotting- opaci-
ty vs. time.
                              29

-------
                          Table 12.  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
OJ
o.
    Date
    Observer Number
    Duration of Observation  (min.)
    •No. of readings at Q% opacity
    No. of readings at 5% opacity
9/16/75 9/16/75
1 2
10 48
38 192
2 . ' . . -
9/16/75
3
60
238
2

-------
                         SECTION III

              PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Limestone consists primarily of calcium carbonate or combina-
tions of calcium and magnesium carbonate with varying amounts
of impurities.  Lime is a calcined or burned form of lime-
stone, 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 lime-
stone raw material, (2) preparing the limestone for kilns by
crushing and sizing, (3) calcining the limestone, and (*}) op-
tionally processing the quicklime further by additional
crushing and sizing and then 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 Allied Products Company lime plant in Monte.vallo, Alabama,
consists of three rotary".kilns located on the edge of the high
calcium limestone quarry'.  Two. small older kilns  (total pro-
duction capacity about 500 tons of lime per day) are controlled
by. two Ducon scrubbers..  The newest and largest kiln (number 3)

             '                31

-------
Is controlled by twin ASE, Incorporated venturi scrubbers.
This kiln is rated at 800 tons of lime per day, however, is
only able to operate at 650 tons per day when coal is used as
fuel.

Alabama coal is used in the kiln and they try to restrict it
to less than 1.25'percent sulfur content because the lime is
used in steel furnaces (U.S.'Steel) -and high sulfur in the
lime effects the steel quality.  The plant uses natural gas
to the extent that it is available but there is never enough
natural gas available to run the plant for several days with-
out coal.  The plant would need 10,000,000 cubic feet of nat-•
ural gas per day if they had no coal (number 3 kiln would use
half of it).

To reduce emissions, 12 Buell cyclones (2 parallel sets) are
used as pre-cleaners and then the gases enter twin venturi
•scrubbers.'  Two 600 HP fans are located between the scrubbers
and a nine foot diameter stack.  The gas flow into the ven-
turis at design amounts'to 182,162 acfm @ 650ฐF, or approxi-
mately 80,000 dscfm.  The actual flow rate was.estimated to
be 60,000 dscfm.  The water flow through the Venturis was
about 1600 gallons per minute.'

The slurry waste enters two settling tanks (only one in use
at any time) from which the sludge is pumped .to a slurry waste
pond.  Water from the waste pond evaporates or returns to the
plant water sump in the bottom  of the quarry.  This waste water
usually has a pH of greater than 9-  Makeup water is estimated
at less than 600 gallons per minute.  The amount of waste gen-
erated is about 35 tons per day in the waste pond and about  35
tons per.day of dry material collected from the multicyclones.
Dry material is hauled to a spoil pile where it is wetted and
forms a solid mass.  The t-ruck  lanes are kept wet t'o -reduce
fugitive emissions.
                             32

-------
Other process and handling emission control equipment con-
sisted of a 28,000 cfm bag collector on a milling operation,
a 10,000-12,000 cfm baghouse .on handling operations, and a •
5,000 acfm at 15'0ฐP Ducon scrubber on a 10 ton/hr hydrator.
The 'slurry collected in the hydrator scrubber is returned to
the process.

The operating parameters of the lime kiln were monitored
during the testing.  The process data recorded are listed on
data sheets found in Appendix G.  The lime kiln operated nor-
mally throughout the testing.  A summary of the operating
data taken during the sampling period appears in Table 13-

The Allied Products venturi scrubber had a large steam plume
which made visible emission readings very difficult.' A small
amount of particulate was visible at times but it was diffi-
cult to quantify because of the 'distance from the stack at
which the steam dissipated.  The complete visible emission
results are found in Appendix E.
                              33

-------
   Table 13-.  SUMMARY OF LIME KILN OPERATING DATA TAKEN DURING
              SAMPLING
              Limestone  'Fuel (Coal)  Fuel (Gas)  Stack
       Date   Feed Rate   Feed Rate   Feed Rate   Temp.  Oxygen
Test'  (1975)    (TPH)       (TPH)     (1000 CFM)    ฐF     %


  1    9/15   .   51.6      •  6.7          15       3^5     0.5


  2    9/16      51-6     -.  6.5          15       3^0   '  0.5


  3    .9/16      51.6        5.9          34      • 3^0     0.5

-------
                         SECTION IV
                 LOCATION OF SAMPLING .POINTS
•Figure 10 is a diagram of the inlet to the venturi scrubber on
the No. 3 lime kiln.  The steel rectangular duct has dimen-
sions measuring 1.37 meters  (5^") by 2.7^ meters (108").  The
exhaust gases flow  from the  Buell cyclones into the duct be-
fore being diverted into the 2 Venturis.  The sampling  loca-
tion does not .meet  the requirements of Method 1 of the  Federal
Register.  The location is presumed adequate for Method 6 test-
ing, since S02 concentration can be assumed to be uniform.
However, because of the possibility of particle stratification
at the bend immediately preceding the inlet ports, this loca-
tion leaves much to be desired for particle sizing.  A  sampling
•platform is located near the duct and has been used previously.
The temperature of  the exhaust gases at this location is 388ฐC
(730ฐF) and the flow rate has been estimated to be 1699 NmVmin.
(60,000 DSCFM).

Locations were available to  collect the coal before it  was pul-
.verized and the product after it was cooled.  The water being
used in .the scrubbers was collected before and after the ven- •
turi and analyzed for total  suspended solids and acidity.

Figure 11 is a diagram of the outlet of the venturi scrubber.
The stack has an inside diameter of 2.72 meters (107")  and has
an overall height of approximately 25.91 meters (85').  The
nearest upstream disturbance is below the sampling ports,

                              35

-------
   From Kiln
      Y
OJ
CT\
               Buell Cyclones
                                                       o  o  o
                                                                Sampling
                                                                Platform
Venturi
                                                   To Separator'
                           Figure 10.   Inlet to Venturi on No. 3 Kiln

-------
Figure 11.  Outlet of Venturl Scrubbers




                    37  .'

-------
because the inside diameter expands from 2.72 meters (107"')ป
at the sampling ports, to an inside diameter of 3-66 meters
(144") at approximately 12.91 meters (40') below the .ports.
For this reason, a 48 point traverse 'was employed on this
stack.  The nearest downstream disturbance, the outlet, is
approximately 10.67 meters (35 feet) from the sampling ports.
The sampling on this stack was performed on scaffolding set
up in front of each 90ฐ port.

Both sets of scaffolding were approximately 15.24 meters (50')
high with sampling platforms 3.66 meters (12') by 1.83 meters
(61) approximately .30 meters (12") away from the edge of the
stack.  The two 24-point traverses were performed through two
7.6 cm (3 inch) nipples.  The sampling for Methods 5, 6, -7
and 10 was performed through the ports provided in each' stack.

-------
                          SECTION V


              SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
1.   Methods 1 through 4 and 6 and 7 from the Federal Register,
    Vol. 36, No. 2*17, December 23, 1971, were followed during '
    the sampling at Allied Products in Montevallo,  Alabama.

                                 /
2.   Method 5 from the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 159, Au-
    gust 17, 1971j  was followed during the particulate sampling
    at Allied Products.  The clean-up procedures used followed
    the guidelines  of the above Federal Register, and "Speci-
    fications for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities,"
    U. S. Department of Health, 'Education, and Welfare publica-
    tion, October 1967-  Analysis of sample was performed ac-
    cording to the  aforementioned August 17 Federal Register,
    with the addition of back half water evaporation, dessica-
    tion, and weighing for inorganic matter following ether/
    chloroform extraction, as defined in the HEW publication.
3.  Method 9 from the' Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 219, Novem-
    ber 12, 197^1, was used to determine the visible emissions.


4.  Method 10 from the Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 47, March
    8, 197^, was followed during the carbon monoxide sampling
    and analysis.
5.  The total sulfur analysis of the coal collected, during the
    Method 6 runs was performed according to ASTM D271-70.
    The total sulfur analysis of the product and the particu-
    late in the scrubber water was performed according to ASTM
    Designation:  C25-72, "The Standard Methods of Chemical
    Analysis of Limestone, Quicklime, and Hydrated Lime," Sec-
    tion 23-1, Standard Bromine Method.  (See copy in Appendix
    K.)
                              39

-------
7.   The analyses for pH,  total suspended solids,  and total
    dissolved sulfur on the scrubber water was performed ac-
    cording to the 1971 edition of "Standard Methods for the
    Examination of Water and Wastewater," 13th Edition,
    Method #156, pages 330-336 and Method 224C, pages 531-538.

-------