United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 79-SOD-2
May 1979
Air
&EPA Sodium Carbonate
Emission Test Report
F. M. C.
Green River, Wyoming
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Branch
Mail Drop 13
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
FINAL REPORT
Emission Test Program: Sodium Carbonate Manufacturing Plant
Conducted at
F.M.C. Corporation
Green River, Wyoming 82935
Contract Number 68-02-2819
Task Assignment 14
Project Number 79-SOD-2
York Project Number 1-9517-14
March 11, 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
List of Figures -i-
List of Tables -ii-
Statement of Confidentiality -iii-
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 5
3.0 SAMPLING METHODS
3.1 Test Port Locations and Sampling Point
Determination 40
3.2 Gas Velocity 44
3.3 Gas Composition 48
3.4 Particulate 48
3.5 Organics 51
3.6 Particle Size Distribution 52
3.7 Visible Emissions . 55
4.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS
4.1 Particulate 55
4.2 Particle Size Distribution • 55
5.0 APPENDICES
A. Complete Computer Data Printouts
B. Field Data Sheets
C. Laboratory Data
D. Calibration Data
E. Sample Calculations
-------
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
List of Fiaures
Figure 1-1 Mono-5 Calciner Process Diagram
Figure 1-2 NS-6 Dryer Process Diagram
Figure 1-3 NS-3 Calciner Process Diagram
Figure 2-1 Andersen Particle Size Distribution - Mono-5 Inlet
Figure 2-2 Andersen Particle Size Distribution - .Mono-5 Outlet
Figure 2-3 Andersen Particle Size Distribution - NS-6 Inlet
Figure 2-4 Andersen Particle Size Distribution - NS-3 Inlet,
Test 1
Andersen Particle Size Distribution - NS-3 Inlet,
Test 2
Andersen Particle Size Distribution - NS-3 Inlet,
Test 3
Figure 2-7 Andersen Particle Size Distribution - NS-3 Outlet
Figure 2-8 Banco Particle Size Analysis - Mono-5 Inlet
Figure 2-9 Banco Particle Size Analysis - NS-6 Inlet
Figure 2-10 Banco Particle Size Analysis - NS-6 Inlet
Figure 4-1 Mono-5 Calciner Cyclone Inlet Sampling Point
Locations
Figure 4-2 Mono-5 Scrubber Outlet Sampling Point Locations
Figure 4-3 NS-6 Dryer Cyclone Inlet Sampling Point Locations
Figure 4-4 NS-6 Dryer Scrubber Outlet Sampling Point Locations
Figure 4-5 NS-3 Calciner Cyclone Inlet Sampling Point Locations
Figure 4-6 NS-3 Calciner Cyclone Outlet Sampling Point Locations
Figure 4-7 Modified Particulate Sampling Train
Figure 4-3 Andersen Sampling Train
Figure 4-9 An'dersen Stack Sampler
Page
2
3
4
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.3,8
39
41
42
43
45
46
47
49
53
54
-------
-11-
List of Tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
Summary
Summary
Inlet -
Summary
Inlet -
Summary
Outlet
S umma r y
Outlet
Summary
Inlet -
Summary
Inlet -
Summary
Outlet
Summary
Outlet
Summary
Inlet -
Summary
Inlet -
Summary
Outlet
Summary
Outlet
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
of Removal
of Emission
English
of Emission
Metric
of Emission
- English
of Emission
- Metric
of Emission
English
of Emission
Metric
of Emission
- English
of Emission
- Metric
of Emission
English
of Emission
Metric
of Emission
- English
Efficiency
Test Results
Test Results
Test Results
Test Results
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
of Emission Test
- Metric
of Opacity
of Opacity
of Opacity
of Opacity
of Opacity
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Observations
Observations
Observations
Observations
Observations
- Mono- 5
- Mono- 5
- Mono- 5
- Mono- 5
- NS-6
- NS-6
- NS-6
- NS-6
- NS-3
- NS-3
- NS-3
- NS-3
- Mono-
- NS-6
- NS-6
- NS-3
- NS-3
Dryer
Dryer
Dryer
Dryer
Calciner
Calciner
Calciner
Calciner
5
Dryer
Dryer
Calciner
Calciner
Fagi
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
-------
-111-
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
All data pertaining to temperature, moisture and actual flow
rates of the inlets tested have been deemed confidential by the
F.M.C. Corporation. Due to this fact, these data have been
deleted from the final report and put under separate cover.
Pending determination by E.P.A. of the confidentiality of these
data, they have been submitted as described to us for official
entry into our confidential files.
-------
-1-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
York Research Corporation (YRC) under contract #68-02-2819
was requested by the United States' Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) to perform an emission test program at a
Sodium Carbonate manufacturing plant. The test program was
conducted at the F.M.C. Corporation plant, located in Green
River, Wyoming. Sampling was performed from May 14, 1979 to
May 19, 1979.
The sampling locations included:
• Mono-5 Inlet
e Mono-5 Outlet
• NS-6 Dryer Inlet
• NS-6 Dryer Outlet
• NS-3 Calciner Inlet
• NS-3 Calciner Outlet
t
Figures 1-1 to 1-3 show the sampling locations in the process
Samples were collected for solid particulate, organics and
particle size distribution at each test location. The objec-
tive of the test program was to determine the emission levels
of controlled sodium carbonate industry.
The test team consisted of the following individuals:
Name Affiliation Title
Dennis P. Holzschuh USEPA Technical Manager
Roger A. Kniskern YRC Project Manager
William J. Cesareo YRC Test Engineer
John Breger YRC Test Engineer
Keith Synnestvedt YRC Test Technician
Albert Burton YRC Test Technician
Laurie Behr YRC Test Technician
Joseph Kuntz YRC Chemical Technician
Bruce Wuebber YRC Test Technician
-------
MONO - 5
CALCINER
INLET
TEST
POINT
CYCLONE
PRE-COLLECTOR
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
OUTLET
TEST
POINT
i
CO
I
MONO - 5 CALCINER PROCESS DIAGRAM
FIGURE 1-1
-------
NS -6
DRY UK
CYCLONE
PUE-COLLECTOR
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
INLET
TEST
POINT
OUTLET
TEST
POINT
NS - 6 DRYER PROCESS DIAGRAM
FIGURE 1-2
-------
MS - 3
CALCINER
CYCLONE
PRE-COLLECTOR
INLET
TEST
POINT
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
OU'i'LET
TEST
POINT
MS-3 CALCINER PROCESS DIAGRAM
FIGURE 1^
-------
-5-
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
Tables 2-1 through 2-18 and Figures 2-1 through 2-10 summarize
the results of the emission test program. These tables present
the results of tests for the following parameters:
• Particulate
e Particle Size Distribution
• Visible Emissions
o Organics
Sample analysis for all parameters were performed at YRC lab-
oratories in Stamford, Connecticut or Denver, Colorado with
the exception of organics. A portable gas chromatograph with
a flame ionization detector was set up at the test site for
analysis of organic samples. The particulate concentration
at each of the three inlet test locations were extremely high.
This contributed to nozzle, filter, probe and pitot tube plug-
ging. All pitot readings were taken after each line was purged
with air.
The following table details the isokinetic ratio results of the
particulate tests conducted at each location.
Test No.
Mono- 5 Inlet
Mono-5 Outlet
NS-6 Inlet
NS-6 Outlet
NS-3 Inlet
NS-3 Outlet
1
97.6
107.6
72.6
99.2
78.1
94.9
2
97.9
107.8
68.8
99.9
93.2
103.3
3
111.1
108.4
76.2
94.9
104.4
108.3
-------
-6-
Several inlet tests failed to meet the isokinetic requirement
(100±10%) of the reference method.
Anisokinetic conditions can fall into two categories:
e The velocity in the nozzle greater than the velocity
in the stack (V > V )
n s
• The velocity in the nozzle less than the velocity
in the stack (V < V )
n s
In the case of V > V the measured concentration of particu-.
late is less than the actual concentration in the stack gas.
This is due to the inertial properties of the larger particles -
they tend to pass the nozzle while the gas and the smaller par-
ticles are drawn into the nozzle. As a result, fewer particles
are collected per unit volume. Conversely, in the case of
V < V the measured concentration of particulate is greater
11 «D
than the actual concentration in the stack gas. This is again
due to the inertial properties of the smaller particles - they
tend to pass the nozzle while the larger particles are drawn
into the nozzle. As a result, more particles are collected per
unit volume. This being the case, it is important to sample
isokinetically in streams, where there are predominantly large
particle.
Correction factors for. anisokinetic sampling are shown in Exhibit
A. The following tables detail the test results corrected for
anisokinetic sampling.
-------
-7-
Exhibit A
Appendix C
Errors due to Anisokinetic Sampling
Failure to withdraw a sample from a flow-
ing stream at the same velocity as that which
exists locally in the stream will result in non-
representative sampling. If the sampling rate
is much higher than the local stream velocity.
a greater fraction of smaller rather than larger
panicles will be drawn into the probe. If sam-
pling is much lower than the stream velocity,
large particles will be impacted into the col-
lecting probe.
Although theoretical and experimental data
are available, a comprehensive study of these
errors has not been made. The data is almost
entirely empirical and reflects different tech-
niques using different particles. The influence
of probe shape and size has yet to be fully eval-
uated.
In Table Cl the errors due to anisokinetic
sampling rates are given, which represent data
composited from several workers' experi-
ments.*
Particles used in the studies yielding the
data shown were coal dust, dibutyl phthalate,
and fungus spores, all of which are relatively
low density materials, ranging from 1.3 for
coal dust to about 1 or somewhat less for the
spores. Since particle density will materially
increase the inertial effects, the sampling error
could be considerably larger than the tabled
values for a given particle size. The last column
'GREEN. H. L.: LANE, W. R. Particular Clouds:
Dusts. Smokes, and Mists. London: E. and F. N. Spon.
Ltd. 1964. 2nd ed. p 272.
Table Cl
Ratio of Observed to Actual Concentration of Particles when Sampled
at Various Fractions and Multiples of Isokinetic Flow
C Observed concentration in sample
i' Probe iniet velocity
(,'.. Duct velocity
0.5
0.6
0.7
o.s
O.rf
.!)
.1
2
.3
•1
.0
n
-
.•i
"J . i 1
d,, — 4um
l.Ofi
1.0.3
1 .02
1.01
1. 00
1 00
0 :'V
• ).;•-
O.ti7
0.:-i7
!).!>«
0.:.'5
il -M
i'f >''J
M •'(,
•'I .•)«
C.,
*„ = 12.HH
1.14
1.09
1.05
1.02
1.01
1.00
0 i.'s
O.'in
il H4
•; .10
0.3'H
•).i.'3
•1 73
0 T 2
•l.riS
•
Actual concentration
^5 = 17um
1.20
1.13
1.08
1.04
1.01
1.00
0.:J8
'J.M5
...1 :)4
0.93
.) 13
dr — : 31 urn
1.33
1.23
1.14
1.06
1.03
l.'ICI
0.-5
I j < ; • 2
O.S5
0.33
•
•
•
•
•
•
ap-3.-m
1.46-
1.41
1.32
1.16
1.07
1.00
O.J3
0.57
O.S4
O.Sl
0.73
0.74
0.71
0 -56
0 60
0.04
Limit
for Very
Large
Pirticies
2.00
1.S7
1.44
1 25
l.ii
l.JO
O.sfO
0.53
0.77
0.72
0.57
0.*3
0.53
0.55
0.53
0.50
-------
APPENDIX
-8-
of the table shows the limit of the concentra-
tion ratio for very- large or der.se panicles. If
the sampling probe inlet velocity i« only 50
percent of the duct velocity and all large (or
dense! panicles in the projected area of the
probe inlet are impacted into the probe, twice
as many will be collected as should have been.
Similarly, should the sampling probe inlet
velocity be twice the duct velocity and the
panicle inertia be such that only those parti-
cles approaching in the projected area of the
probe are collected, then the observed con-
centration would be one-half the actual con-
centration.
It must be remembered that particles gen-
erated by most natural processes vary widely
in size, and the sampling error will be the com-
posite effect of all panicle sizes present.
39
-------
-9-
Mono-5
Test No.
Inlet Particulate
Concentration (gr/SCFD)
Measured 72.84011 109.49157 114.86092
Correction Factor 1.00 1.00 0.8923
Actual 72.84011 109.49157 128.72455
Outlet Particulate
Concentration (gr/SCFD)
Measured 0.09353 0.12157 . 0.11740
Correction Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Actual 0.09353 0.12157 0.11740
Scrubber
Based
Based
Efficiency (%)
on
on
Measured
Actual
99
99
.87
.87
99
99
.89
.89
99
99
.90
.91
NS-6
Test No.
Inlet Particulate
Concentration (gr/SCFD)
Measured
Correction Factor
Actual
Outlet Particulate
Concentration (gr/SCFD)
Measured
Correction Factor
Actual
Scrubber Efficiency(%)
Based on Measured
Based on Actual
39.65347
1.3984
28.35631
19.28181
1.4676
13.13833
18.26509
1.3408
13.62253
0.04935
1.00
0.04935
99.88
99.83
0.01703
1.00
0.01703
99.91
99.87
0.00655
1.00
0.00655
99.96
99.95
-------
-10-
NS-3
Test No.
Inlet Particulate
Concentration (gr/SCFD)
Measured
Correction Factor
Actual
103.5689
1.3104
79.03610
94.32048
1.00
94.32048
77.54809
1.00
77.54809
Outlet Particulate
Concentration (gr/SCFD)
Measured
Correction Factor
Actual
Scrubber Efficiency (%)
Based on Measured
Based on Actual
0.09322
1.00
0.09322
99.91
99.88
0.12319
1.00
0.12319
99.87
99.87
0.08193
1.00
0.08193
99.89
99.89
The correction factor was applied as follows
C
Fc =
where
Fc =
C =
Ca =
therefore
Ca
correction factor
measured concentration
actual concentration
The correction factor for the inlet concentrations was for
large particles since the Bahco analysis showed approximately
50% of the particles at each location to be greater than 44
microns.
-------
-11-
Correcting for anisokinetic sampling increased the scrubber
efficiency for test 3 at Mono-5 by 0.03%, decreased the
scrubber efficiency at NS-6 by an average of 0.033 %, and
decreased the scrubber efficiency for test 1 at NS-3 by 0.03%.
Particle size tests were performed using an Andersen cascade
impactor at each test location except the NS-6 dryer outlet.
No sample was collected at the NS-6 dryer outlet due to the
high moisture content of the gas stream. Sufficient sample
was collected at the inlet such that an aliquot from each test
was taken and composited for a sieve and Bahco particle size
analysis. It is not feasible to conduct a particle size
analysis on any outlet filters because of the small amount of
particulate. Any scraping of the filter would bias the parti-
cle size by introducing fiberglass material into the sample,
also any extraction of the filter by use of solvents such as
water would dissolve the particulate matter and the subsequent
crystallization would not be representative of actual test
conditions.
-------
-12-
TABLE 2.1
Summary of Removal Efficiency
Test No.
1
2
.3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Test Location
Mono- 5
Mo no- 5
Mo no- 5
NS-6 Dryer
NS-6 Dryer
NS-6 Dryer
NS-3 Calciner
NS-3 Calciner
NS-3 Calciner
Removal Ef ficiency (%)
99.87
99.88
99.90
99.98
99.91
99.96
99.90
99.86
99.86
-------
-13-
TABLE 2-2
Summary of Emission Test Results
Mono-5 Inlet
(English Units)
Test No. 1 2
General Data
Date 5/15/79 5/15/79
Time 0925 1345
Isokinetic Ratio (%) 97.6 97.9
Gas Data
3 Average
5/17/79
0810
111.1 102.2
Velocity (fps)
Flow (SCFMD)
Temperature ( F)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Gr/SCFD
Lb/hour
Organics
ppm
72.84011
39517.36
917
109.49157 114.86092
48624.06 44010.36
2587
99.06420
44050.59
1752
* Refer to page -iii- Statement of Confidentiality
-------
-14-
TABLE 2-3
Summary of Emission Test Results
Mono-5 Inlet
dMetric Units)
Test No.
Average
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
5/15
0925
97.6
5/15
1345
97.9
5/17
0810
111.1
i
.
102.2
Gas Data
Velocity (mps)
Flow (dnm /min)
Temperature ( C)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Mg/nm3 166685.7 250558.09 262845.19 226696.33
Kg/hr 17925.07 22055.88 19963.10 19981.35
* Refer to page -iii- Statement of Confidentiality
-------
-15-
TABLE 2-4
Summary of Emission Test Results
Mono-5 Outlet
(English Units)
Test No.
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
Gas Data
Velocity (fps)
Flow (SCFMD)
Temperature ( F)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Gr/SCFD
Lb/Hour
Organics
ppm
1
5/15/79
0930
107.6
85.889
47308.
152.5
32.8
0.09353
37.93
154
2
5/15/79
1337
107.8
87.228
44343.
168.8
36.4
0.12157
46.21
261
3
5/17/79
0800
108.4
87.103
43707.
150.0
38.6
0.11740
43.98
—
Average
—
--
107.9
86.740
45119.
157.1
36.0
0.11083
42.71
207.5
-------
-16-
TABLE 2-5
Suminary of Emission Test Results
Mono-5 Outlet
(Metric Units)
Test No.
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
Gas Data
Velocity (mps)
Flow (dnm /min)
Temperature (°C)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Mg/nm
Kg/Hour
1
5/15
0930
107.6
26.179
1340
66.9
32.8
214.03
17.20
2
5/15
1337
107.8
26.587
1256
76.0
36.4
278.20
20.96
3
5/17
0800
108.4
26.549
1238
65.6
38.6
268.67
19.95
Average
--
107.9
26.438
1278
69.5
36.0
253.63
19.37
-------
-17-
TABLE 2-6
Summary of Emission Test Results
NS-6 Dryer Inlet
(English Units)
Test No.
Average
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
5/18/79
0835
72. .6
5/18/79
1220
68.8
5/18/79
1530
76.2
—
--
72.5
Gas Data
Velocity (fps)
Flow (SCFMD)
Temperature (°F)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Gr/SCFD 39.65347 19.28181 18.26509 25.73346
Lb/Hour 26082.05 11853.49 11501.76 16479.10
Organics
ppm
25
88
56.5
* Befer to page -iii- Statement of Confidentiality
-------
-18-
TA3LE 2-7
Summary of Emission Test Results
NS-6 Dryer Inlet
(Metric Units)
Test No.
Average
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
5/18
0835
72.6
5/18
1220
68.8
5/18
1530
76.2
—
—
72.5
Gas Data
Velocity (mps)
Flow (dnm /min)
Temperature ( C)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Mg/nm3 90742.13 44124.07 41797.43 58887.88
Kg/Hour 11830.82 5376.74 5217.20 7474.92
Refer to page -iii- statement of Confidentiality
-------
-19-
TABLE 2-8
Summary of Emission Test Results
NS-6 Dryer Outlet
(English Units)
Test No.
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
Gas Data
Velocity (fps)
Flow (SCFMD)
Temperature (°F)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Gr/SCFD 0
Lb/Hour
Organics
ppm
1
5/18/79
0841
99.2
67.157
43330.
165.0
31.3
.04935
18.33
103
2
5/18/79
1220
99.9
64.228
41987.
168.6
30.0
0.01703
6.13
72
3
5/18/79 '
1520
94.9
62.754
43323.
142.1
29.2
0.00655
2.43
—
Average
—
—
98.0
64.713
42880.
158.6
30.2
0.02431
8.96
87.5
-------
-20-
TABLE 2-9
Summary of Emission Test Results
NS-6 Dryer Outlet
(Metric Units)
Test No.
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
Gas Data
Velocity (mps)
Flow (dnm /min)
Temperature (°C)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Mg/nm
Kg/Hour
1
5/18
0841
99.2
20.470
1227.
73.9
31.3
112.93
8.31
2
5/18
1220
99.9
19.577
1189.
75.9
30.0
3S..97
2.78
3
5/18
1520
94.9
19.127
1227.
61.2
29.2
14.99
1.10
Average
--
98.0
19.725
1214.
70.3
30.2
55.63
4.07
-------
-21-
TABLE 2-10
Summary of Emission Test Results
NS-3 Calciner Inlet
(English Units)
Test No.
Average
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
5/19/79
1015
78.1
5/19/79
1430
93.2
5/19/79
1710
104.4
--
—
91.9
Gas Data
Velocity (fps)
Flow (SCFMD)
Temperature ( F)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Gr/SCFD
Lb/Hour
103.5689
93577.33
94.32048
83311.77
77.54809
57897.52
91.81252
78262.20
Organics
ppm
47
178
222
149
Refer to page -iii- statement of Confidentialitv
-------
-22-
TA3LE 2-11
Summary of Emission Test Results
NS-3 Calciner Inlet
(Metric Units)
Test No.
Average
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
5/19
1015
78.1
5/19
1430
93.2
5/19
1710
104.4
—
--
91.9
Gas Data
Velocity (mps)
Flow (dnm /min)
Temperature ( C)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Mg/nm3 237004.9 215840.91 177459.33 210101.75
Kg/Hour 42446.68 37790.21 26262.31 35499.73
Safer to page -iii- Statement of Confidentiality
-------
-23-
TABLE 2-12
Summary
of Emission
NS-3 Calciner
Test Results
Outlet
(English Units)
Test No.
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
Gas Data
Velocity (fps)
Flow (SCFMD)
Temperature (°F)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Gr/SCFD
Lb/Hour
Organics
ppm
1
5/19/79
1014
94.9
82.721
85421.
400.8
30.4
0.09322
68.25
361
2 3
5/19/79 5/19/79
1420 1710
103.3 108.3
82.004 78.364
84751. 76372.
400.9 401.1
30.4 34.3
0.12319 0.08193
89.49 53.63
314
Average
--
--
102.2
81.030
82181.
401.0
31.7
0.09944
70.46
337.5
-------
-24-
TABLE 2-13
Summary of Emission Test Results
NS-3 Calciner Outlet
(Metric Units)
Test No.
General Data
Date
Time
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
Gas Data
Velocity (mps)
Flow (dnm /min)
Temperature (°C)
Moisture (%)
Particulate Emissions
Mg/nm
Kg/Hour
1
5/19
1014
94.9
' 25.213
2419 .
204.9
30.4
213.31
30.96
2
5/19
1420
103.3
24.995
2400.
205.0
30.4
281.90
40.59
3
5/19
1710
108.3
23.885
2163.
205.1
34.3
187.48
24.33
Average
—
102.2
24.689
2327.
205.0
31.7
227.56
31.96
-------
-25-
TABLE 2-14
Summary of Opacity Observations
Mono-5
1340 - 1440
5/15/79
Six Minute Interval Average Opacity (%)
1 50
2 40
3 45
4 50
5 45
6 40
7 40
8 • 40
9 38
10 38
-------
-26-
TABLE 2-15
Summary of Opacity Observations
NS-6
1203 - 1303
5/19/79
Six Minute Interval Average Opacity (%)
1 6
2 7
3 7
4 7
5 9
6 8
7 8
8 ' 10
9 8
10 7
-------
-27-
TABLE 2-16
Summary of Opacity Observations
NS-6
1410 - 1510
5/18/79
Six Minute Interval Average Opacity (%)
1 10
2 8
3 7
4 9
5 6
6 9
7 10
8 8
9 7
10 8
-------
-28-
TABLE 2-17
Summary of Opacity Observations
NS-3 Dryer
1532 - 1632
5/19/79
Six Minute Interval Average Opacity (%)
1 13
2 12
3 13
4 17
5 16
6 24
7 17
8 10
9 9
10 13
-------
-29-
TABLE 2-18
Summary of Opacity Observations
NS-3 Dryer
0945 - 1045
5/19/79
Six Minute Interval Average Opacity (%)
1 12
2 13
3 14
4 14
5 13
6 14
7 12
8 11
9 12
10 12
-------
100.0
-30-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
99.99 99.9 99.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
100.0
Andersen Particle Size Distribution
FMC Corporation
Mono-5 Inlet
Figure 2-1
o.t
0.2
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
O.I
-------
-31-
(00.0
99.99 99.9 99.6 99
0.4
03
o.e
O.I
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
95 90 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 5 2 I 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
Andersen Particle Size Distribution
FMC Corporation
Mono-5 Outlet
100.0
80.0
70.0
8QO
50.0
40)0
30O
20.0
iao
9.0 "£
8.0 O
7.0 «fl
6.0 O
cr
6.0 a
I
3.0 Ul
N
2.0 •"
O
tr
a.
i.o
0.9
o.e
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.01 00501 0.2 05 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.899.9
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
99.99
O.I
-------
-32-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
100.0
99.99 99.9 99.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
100.0
Andersen Particle Size Distribution
FMC Corporation
NS-6 Inlet
Figure 2-3
0.2
O.I
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 9899
99.8 99.9 99.99
O.I
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
-------
-33-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
IOO.O
90.0
99.99 99.9 99.8
99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
100.0
Andersen Particle Size Distribution
FMC Corporation
NS-3 Inlet Test 1
Figure 2-4
0.2
O.I
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 03 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
O.I
-------
-34-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
100.0
99.99 9S.9 99.8
99 96 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
100.0
Andersen Particle Size Distribution
FMC Corporation
NS-3 Inlet Test 2
Figure 2-5
O.I
0!01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 10 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
0.8
99.99
O.I
-------
-35-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
IOO.O
99.99 99.9 99.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 21 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
100.0
Andersen Particle Size Distribution
FMC Corporation
NS-3 Inlet Test 3
Figure 2-6
0.2
O.I
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
O.I
-------
-36-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
99.99 99.9 99.8 ' 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 21 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
100.0
Andersen Particle Size Distribution
FMC Corporation
NS-3 Outlet
Figure 2-7
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
99.99
O.I
-------
-37-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
99.99 99.9 99.B
99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
100.0
BAHCO PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
FMC CORPORATION
MONO-5 CALCINER (COMPOSITE OF 3 TESTS)
Figure 2-8
0.2
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Op)
99.99
O.I
-------
-38-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
99.99 99.9 99.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
03
0.2
O.I
BAHCO PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
FMC CORPORATION
NS-6 INLET (COMPOSITE OF 3 TESTS)
Figure 2-9
t oo.o
80.0
70.0
6QO
500
40O
30O
20.0
10.0
9.0 "2
8.0 £
7.0 U>
6.0 O
tr
s.o o
S
3.0 LU
rsi
to
2.0 W
CE
<
0.
1.0
0.9
o.e
0.7
0.6
O.S
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN(Dp)
O.I
-------
-39-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
100.0
90.0
99.99 99.9 99.8 99 9S 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 21 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
30JO
20JO
10.0
9.0
a.o
7.0
6X>
S.O
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
03
0.2
O.I
TTT
| BAHCO PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
FMC CORPORATION
| NS-3 INLET (COMPOSITE SAMPLE OF 3 TESTS)
Figure 2-10
rr
100.0
SO.O
70.0
60.0
£0.0
400
I 300
20.0
IQO
s.o -5
8.0 £
7.0 «O
6.0 O
CC
5.0 O
S
4.0
3.0 UJ
N
tn
2.0 W
-------
-40-
3- 0 SAMPLING METHODS
3.1 Test Port Locations and Sampling Point Determination
The location of the test ports and sampling points at
each location was determined in accordance with guide-
lines outlined in EPA Method 1 (Sample and Velocity
Traverses for Stationary Sources).
The sampling ports at the Mono-5 Calciner Inlet are
located in the ductwork between the calciner outlet and
the cyclone inlet (Figure 4-1). The duct is 4.03 feet
by 7.22 feet at this location. Four sampling ports are
located on the bottom of the duct. Method 1 requires a
48 point traverse but due to the extremely high grain
loading which caused several filter changes and plugging
of the nozzle, 24 points were sampled at two minutes each,
resulting in a total test time of 48 minutes.
The sampling ports at the Mono-5 Calciner Outlet are lo-
cated in the stack which vents the exhaust gases from
the scrubber to the atmosphere. Two sample ports are in-
stalled 90 apart. 'The stack diameter is 60 inches at this
location (Figure 4-2) and 12 traverse points were sampled at
5 minutes each resulting in a total test time of 60 minutes.
Sampling ports at the NS-6 Dryer Cyclone Inlet are located
in the ductwork between the dryer outlet and the cyclone
inlet. The duct dimensions are 9.104 feet by 4.76 feet
(Figure 4-3). Six sampling ports are located in the bottom
of the duct. Originally, all six ports were to be sampled,
but due to obstructions inside.one duct and obstructions
by permanent scaffolding, only four ports could be utilized.
Again, because of the extremely high grain loading, 24
points were sampled at two minutes each resulting in a
total test time of 48 minutes.
-------
-41-
4.03'
7.22'
SAMPLING POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DISTANCE FROM STACK WALL (INCHES)
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
02
05
08
11
.14
17
20
23
,26
,29
,32
35
MONO-5 CALCINER CYCLONE INLET SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4-1
-------
-42-
SAMPLING POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
DISTANCE FROM STACK WALL (INCHES)
2.64
3.82
17.70
42.30
51.18
57.36
MONO-5 CALCINER SCRUBBER OUTLET SAMPLING POINT LOCATION
FIGURE 4-2
-------
-43-
4.76'
9.104 '
SAMPLING POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DISTANCE FROM STACK WALL (INCHES)
3
10
17
24
57
71
85
99
32.13
39..27
46.41
53.55
NS-6 DRYER CYCLONE INLET SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4-3
-------
-44-
The sampling ports at the NS-6 Dryer Scrubber Outlet
are located in the stack which vents the exhaust gases
from the scrubber to the atmosphere. The two sampling
ports are installed (90 apart) at which the diameter is
77 inches. Six traverse points were sampled in each
port for five minutes each resulting in a test time of
60 minutes (Figure 4-4).
The sampling ports at the NS-3 Calciner Cyclone Inlet
are located in the ductwork between the calciner outlet
and the cyclone inlets. Four sampling ports are located
on the side of the duct. The dimensions at this location
are 8.032 feet by 8.115 feet. Thirty sampling points
were used due to the high grain loading and sampled two
minutes each for a total test time of sixty minutes
(Figure 4-5).
The sampling ports of the NS-3 Calciner Dryer Outlet are
located 90 apart in the stack which vents the exhaust
gases from the precipitator to the atmosphere. The stack
dimensions at this location is 96 inches ID. Forty-eight
sampling points were used and each point was sampled for
two minutes, resulting in a test time of ninety-six minutes
(Figure 4-6).
3.2 Gas Velocity
The gas velocity at each location was determined in ac-
cordance with guidelines outlined in EPA Method 2 (Deter-
mination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate).
A precalibrated type "S" pitot tube and thermocouple were
rigidly attached to each sampling probe. The velocity
pressure was measured on an inclined manometer, and the
temperature on a pyrometer.' Readings were recorded at
each traverse point.
-------
-45-
SAMPLING POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
DISTANCE FROM STACK WALL (INCHES)
3.43
11.47
23.01
55.00
66.53
74.57
NS-6 DRYER SCRUBBER OUTLET SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4-4
-------
-46-
8.115'
8.032'
SAMPLING POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DISTANCE FROM DUCT WALL (INCHES
4.06
12.17
20.29
28.40
36.52
44.63
52.75
60.86
68.98
77.09
85. 21
93.32
NS-3 CALCINER CYCLONE INLET SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
• FIGURE 4-5
-------
-47-
SAMPLING POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
DISTANCE FROM STACK WALL (INCHES)
1,
3.
5.
7,
10.
12,
15.
18.
22,
26.
31.
38,
57,
64,
69.
73.
77,
30,
33,
85.
88,
90,
92
94,
06
07
28
58
08
67
46
62
08
11
01
21
79
99
89
92
38
54
33
92
42
72
93
94
NS-3 CALCINER CYCLONE OUTLET SAMPLING POINT
LOCATION
FIGURE 4-6
-------
-48-
3.3 Gas Composition
The gas composition was determined in accordance with
guidelines outlined in EPA Method 3 (Gas Analysis for
Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air and Dry Molecular
Weight). Since there is no combustion involved in the
process, the gas composition at each test location was
assumed to be air. A check was made with a Fy-rite analyzer
for carbon dioxide and oxygen content.
3.4 Particulate
The particulate concentrations were determined in ac-
cordance with guidelines outlined in EPA Method 5 (Deter-
mination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources).
The sampling train consisted of a nozzle, stainless steel
probe, heated sample box which contained the filter,
impingers, vacuum pump, dry gas meter and calibrated ori-
fice (Figure 4-7) . The nozzle was rigidly connected to
the probe and the probe consisted of 5/8 inch O.D. tubing
which was wrapped with heater tape to prevent condensation.
Attached to the probe was an "S" type pitot tube and thermo-
couple used for monitoring the velocity pressure and
temperature. The probe and heater box were attached to
the impinger train by means of a flexible sample line.
The impinger train consisted of five Greenburg-Smith im-
pingers connected in series. The first impinger was
modified by replacing the impinger tip with a blank stem.
This impinger was initially filled with 100 milliliters of
distilled water. The second impinger was a standard
Greenburg-Smith impinger containing 100 milliliters of dis-
tilled water. The third and fourth impingers were identi-
cal to the first and were left dry while the fifth con-
tained 300 grams of indicating type silica gel.
-------
Figure 4-7
MODIFIED PARTICULATE SAMPLING TRAIN
^
»f
^3
— ' ^-^ITlN-t
' f > n.
t.ll^U-.I.MJ
o o o
— ^uj^r
>=
.g^s.
ES-093
-------
-50-
From the fifth impinger the effluent stream flowed
through a check valve, flexible rubber vacuum tubing,
a vacuum gauge, a needle valve, a leakless vacuum pump
and a dry gas meter.
A calibrated orifice completed the train and was used
to measure instantaneous flow rates. The dual manometer
across the calibrated orifice was an inclined vertical
type graduated in hundreths of an inch of water from
0 to 1.0 inch and in tenths from 1 to 10 inches.
During the test the following data was recorded at each
traverse point:
o Traverse point
» Sampling time
• Clock time
• Gas meter reading (cf)
• Velocity pressure (in. H20)
• Orifice pressure drop (in. H~0)
o Stack temperature ( F)
» Dry gas meter temperature - inlet and outlet (°F)
•9 Pump vacuum (in. Hg)
• Sample box temperature ( F)
• Impinger temperature ( F)
The relationship of AP reading with the AH reading is a
function of the following variables:
• Orifice calibration factor
• Gas meter temperature
• Moisture content of flue gas
• Ratio of flue gas pressure to barometric pressure
• Stack temperature
* Sampling nozzle diameter
A nomograph was used to correlate all the above variables
-------
-51-
such that a direct relationship between AP and AH was
determined by the sampler and isokinetic conditions
could be maintained.
At the completion of the test the samples were recovered
in the following manner:
Container #1 - The filter was removed from the filter
holder and placed in its original con-
tainer and sealed.
Container #2 - The nozzle, probe, cyclone bypass and
front half filter holder were rinsed
with acetone. The acetone was placed in
a glass jar and sealed.
Container 13 - The silica gel was returned to its ori-
ginal container and sealed.
3.5 Organics
A gaseous sample was withdrawn from the source using a
heated, glass lined stainless steel probe. Samples were
drawn into a prepurged, evacuated, heated (to above the
dew point of the sample gas) 250 ml glass grab flask
until a positive pressure was obtained in the flask. The
sample was injected into an AID model 621 portable Gas
Chromatograph (GC) directly from the heated grab flask
using the positive pressure obtained while sampling to
fill the sample loop of the G.C.. Two injections per
flask were made to determine the reproducibility of the
sample.
The samples were analyzed for Total Hydrocarbons, 'such as
methane, by using a Ice gas sample loop and a flame ioni-
zation detector. The column temperature was 125°C. The
G.C. was standardized employing a range of certified ana-
lyzed methane standards prepared in helium.
-------
-52-
Calculations:
S = the Sensitivity Factor
_ ppm standard
Peak ht(mm) x (attenuation x range)
ppm total Hydrocarbons = S_ X peak ht(mm) of sample
r
X (attenuation X range)
3.6 Particle Size Distribution
The particle size distribution samples were collected
using an Andersen Cascade Impactor. The impactor consists
of multiple stages which collect different particle sizes
(Figure 4-8). Each stage consists of an orifice of a
specific diameter above a collection plate. The orifice
sizes of each stage are different and are arranged in des-
cending order, the largest being stage 1. The sampling
system was set up as shown in Figure 4-9. The stack con-
ditions were determined and the sample was extracted iso-
kinetically.
As the sample flows through each orifice, and is deflected
off a glass fiber substrate filter placed on the collection
plate, particles of a specific size become impacted on the
substrate while the remaining particles entrained in the
gas stream proceed to the next collection stage. The range
of particle sizes retained on the substrate varies ac-
cording to the velocity of the gas (as determined by the
sampling rate and orifice diameter), the gas viscosity and
the particle density. Since the orifices are arranged in
descending diameters, the gas velocity increases and the
particle size collected on each stage decreases.
During the sampling a cyclone preseparator was used to pre-
cut particles above 10 microns and avoid overloading the
collection substrates. At the completion of each test the
contents of the preseparator and an acetone wash were
-------
ANDERSEN SAMPLING TRAIN
ANDERSON
SAMPLER
I
tn
u>
I
IMPINGERS
PUMP
GAS METER
ORIFICE
MANOMETER
Figure 4-8
ES-094
-------
-54-
ANDERSEN STACK SAMPLER
BACKUP
FILTER
JET STAGE (9 TOTAL)
SPACERS
GLASS FIBER
COLLECTION
SUBSTRATE
PLATE ^
HOLDER
NOZZLE
INLET
CORE
in
ES-095
Figure 4-9
-------
-55-
placed in a sample bottle. The glass fiber substrate
filters were returned to their original containers and
sealed.
3-7 Visible Emissions
The visible emissions were determined in accordance with
guidelines outlined in EPA Method 9 (Visual Determination
of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources).
4.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
4.1 Particulate
Each sample from the particulate test was analyzed in
the following manner:
Container #1 - The filter was removed from its sealed
container and placed on a tared watch
glass. The filter and watch glass were
dessicated with anhydrous CaSO. and
weighed to a constant weight. The weight
was recorded to the nearest 0.01 mg.
Container #2 - The acetone washings were transferred to
a tared beaker. The acetone was then
evaporated at ambient temperature and
pressure, dessicated and weighed to a
constant weight. The weight was recorded
to the nearest 0.01 mg
Container 13 - The silica gel was weighed to the nearest
0.1 gram on a beam balance.
4.2 Particle Size Distribution
The fiberglass substrate filters were dessicated and
weighed to a constant weight. The net weight gain was re-
corded to the nearest 0.01 mg.
The acetone rinse of the cyclone preseparator was trans-
ferred to a tared beaker. The beaker was heated to a
-------
-56-
temperature well below the boiling point until the water
was evaporated. The beaker was then dessicated and
weighed to a constant weight. The net weight gain was
recorded to the nearest 0.01 mg.
Bahco analysis was also performed on certain locations
due to the high moisture content restricting applicability
of the Andersen Impactor.
-------
-57-
Prepared by:
William J. Cesareo
Project Director
Reviewed by:
Roger A. Kniskern
Senior Project Manager
Approved by:
jf. /&•
Anthony
------- |