United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 80-IBR-7
October 1980
Air
vvEPA
Industrial Boilers
Emission Test Report
Formica Corporation
:i, Ohio
-------
York Services Corporation
Energy and Environmental Systems Engineering
Atmospheric Sciences Services
Emission Measurement Services
One Research Drive
Stamford. Connecticut 06906
Telephone: (203) 325-1371
TWX: 710-474-3947
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
MAIL DROP 13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
FINAL REPORT
EMISSION TEST PROGRAM: INDUSTRIAL BOILER OPERATION
CONDUCTED AT
FORMICA CORPORATION
10155 READING ROAD
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45241
CONTRACT NUMBER 68-02-2819
TASK ASSIGNMENT 24
EPA PROJECT NUMBER 80-IBR-7
YRC PROJECT NUMBER 01-9517-24
FEBRUARY 13, 1981
A Subsidiary of York Research Corporation
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface iii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 5
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Particulate Results
2.3 Gas Composition Results
2.4 Visible Emissions Observation Results
2.5 Fuel Samples Results
3.0 LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS * 23
3.1 Introducion
3.2 Baghouse Inlet
3.3 Baghouse Outlet
3.4 Opacity Observation Locations
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 31
4.1 Sampling Apparatus
4.2 Preliminary Measurements
4.3 ParticulateSampling and Analysis
4.4 Gas Composition
4.5 Visible Emissions
4.6 Fuel Samples
5.0 APPENDICES
5.1 Complete Computer Data Printouts
5.1.1 Boiler #3 Outlet
5.1.2 Boiler #4 Outlet
5.1.3 Baghouse Outlet
5.2 Calculation Formulae
5.3 Field Data Sheets
5.3.1 Boiler #3 Outlet
5.3.2 Boiler #4 Outlet
5.3.3 Baghouse Outlet
5.3.4 Visible Emissions
5.4 Laboratory Data
5.5 Sampling Apparatus
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
5.6 Calibration Data
5.6.1 Visible Emissions Certification
. 5.6.2 Orifice and Meter Calibration Data
5.6.3 Pitot Tube Calibration Data
5.6.4 Nozzle Calibration
5.7 Guidelines for Selecting an Observation Point
for the Evaluation of Visible Emissions
5.8 Project Participants
5.9 Work Order
-11-
-------
PREFACE
The work reported herein was conducted by personnel from York
Research Corporation (YRC), Radian Corporation and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
The scope of the work, issued under EPA Contract Number 68-02-
2819, Work Assignment Number 24, was under the supervision of
YRC Project Director, Mr. James W. Davison. Mr. Roger A.
Kniskern, YRC Project Manager, was responsible for summarizing
the test and analytical data contained in this report,. Analy-
ses of the samples were performed at the YRC laboratory in
Stamford, Connecticut under the direction of Mr. Robert Q.
Bradley.
Mr. Robert Phillips of Radian Corporation was responsible for
monitoring the process operations during the testing program.
Personnel from Radian Corporation will provide the Process
Description and Operations section of this report.
The cooperation and assistance of Mr. Mitch Morgan, Environ-
mental Engineer of the Formica Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio
greatly contributed to success of the test program.
Mr. Dennis Holzschuh of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emission Measurement Branch, USEPA, served as Tech-
nical Manager and was responsible for coordinating the emission
test program.
-111-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION 3.0
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Sampling Point and Test Port Locations - Boiler
#3 Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse) 24
Sampling Point and Test Port Locations - Boiler
#4 Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse) 26
Sampling Point and Test Port Locations -
Baghouse Outlet
Visible Emissions Observation Locations
27
29
SECTION 4.0
Figure 4-1 Particulate Sampling Train
33
-iv-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION 1.0
Table 1-1
SECTION 2.0
Table 2-0
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table 2-8
Table 2-9
Table 2-10
Table 2-11
Summary of Emissions Testing Program
Correction of Particulate Concentrations -
Boiler #4 Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse)
Summary of Emission Test Results - Boiler #3
Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse) (English Units)
Summary of Emission Test Results - Boiler #3
Outlet (Metric Units)
Summary of Emission Test Results - Boiler #4
Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse) (English Units)
Summary of Emission Test Results - Boiler #4
Outlet (Metric Units)
Summary of Emission Test Results - Baghouse
Outlet (English Units)
Summary of Emission Test Results - Baghouse
Outlet (Metric Units)
Particulate and Emission Data Summary - Gases
Entering and Exiting the Baghouse (English
Units)
Page
3
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Particulate and Emission Data Summary - Gases
Entering and Exiting the Baghouse (Metric Units) 18
Summary of Gas Composition Results
Summary of Visible Emissions Observations
Summary of Coal Analyses Results
19
20
21
-v-
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act of 1970 charges the Adminis-
trator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) with the responsibility of establishing federal stan-
dards of performance for new stationary sources which may sig-
nificantly contribute to air pollution. When promulgated,
these standards of performance for new stationary sources
(SPNSS)will reflect the degree of emission limitation achiev-
able through application of the best demonstrated emission con-
trol technology. To assemble this background information, the
USEPA utilizes emission data obtained from controlled sources
involved in the particular industry under, consideration.
Based on the above criteria, the USEPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) selected the Formica Corporation
in Cincinnati, Ohio as a site to conduct an emission test pro-
gram. York Research Corporation (YRC), under EPA Contract
Number 68-02-2819, Work Assignment Number 24, was requested by
the USEPA to conduct the emission test program at the Formica
Corporation. This request was based on a pre-survey conducted
at the plant on March 19, 1980. The test program was designed
to provide a portion of the emission data base required for
establishing the SPNSS for industrial boilers. This plant is
considered to employ process and emission control technology
representative of industrial boiler facilities.
There are two industrial boilers which produce process steam
for the operations at the Cincinnati plant of the Formica
Corporation. Emissions from the two boilers are controlled by
a baghouse. The baghouse has a separate inlet duct from each
boiler and a single outlet stack which exhausts the boiler flue
gases to the atmosphere. Details of the process and the emis-
sion control equipment utilized at the Formica Corporation will
be submitted under separate cover by Radian Corporation.
-------
Emission sampling was conducted during the week of April 14,
1980 at the following test locations:
Boiler #3 Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse)
e Boiler f4 Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse)
Baghouse Outlet Stack
Concurrent tests performed at the inlet and outlet locations
provided velocity, moisture, gas composition and particulate
emission rate data. A total of four tests were conducted dur-
ing the test program, three while the boiler was operating
normally, and one during a typical soot blow cycle. Samples
were collected and analyzed in accordance with the prescribed
EPA methods. In addition, visible emissions observations were
conducted on the baghouse outlet stack to obtain average per-
cent opacity measurements. Table 1-1 presents the sequence of
the emission test program.
The following sections of this report include:
Summary and Discussion of Test Results
Location of Sampling Points
Sampling and Analytical Procedures
-2-
-------
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST PROGRAM
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
1
u>
1
Test
Date Location
Boiler #3 Outlet
(Inlet to Baghouse)
4/16/80 Boiler #4 Outlet
(Inlet to Baghouse)
Baghouse Outlet
Boiler #3 Outlet
(Inlet to Baghouse)
4/17/80 Boiler #4 Oultet
(Inlet to Baghouse)
Baghouse Outlet
EPA ooooooooooooooooooooo
Method Cr\cnooHrHojcNMrr)'*«3'U">inv£>vor^r-«cooo(T»
OOr-|r_1lHI-|r-|!-|rHrH,-|rHr-|r_(!_)rHr_|iHrHi-|rH
r III J 1 1
5 U r l l I
3 1 1 | |
^ i. . i i , . .1
III'
3 »-< H
^ i_-, , . , ,,j i i
11 r- 1
3 H H
9 I -1 \ \
1 i t. _j
b 1 ' I ^^
3 H H
r 1 ._.».! 1-., f^t
3 H
b r i 1 l
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
2.1 Introduction
The results of the emission test program conducted at the
Formica Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio during the week of
April 21, 1980 are presented throughout this section.
Tables 2-1 through 2-11 summarize the results of the tests
for the following parameters:
Particulate Emissions
Gas Composition
Visible Emissions
Fuel Samples
Samples were collected concurrently at the Boiler #3 Out-
let (inlet to baghouse), Boiler #4 Outlet (inlet to bag-
house), and Baghouse Outlet Stack. Preliminary pitot
traverses and moisture measurements were conducted at each
location, and the parameters necessary to maintain proper
isokinetic sampling were determined based on these pre-
liminary tests. All samples recovered during the test
program were transported to the YRC laboratory in
Stamford, Connecticut for analysis. Problems encountered
in the sampling program and deviations from normal samp-
ling procedures are discussed in Section 4.0, "Sampling
and Analytical Procedures".
2.2 Particulate Results
The results for the particulate emission sampling con-
ducted at the three test locations are summarized in
-5-
-------
Tables 2-1 through 2-6 (refer to Appendix 5.3 for field
data sheets). A summary of the emissions entering and
exiting-the baghouse, as well as the collection efficiency
of the baghouse, are presented in Tables 2-7 and 2-8. The
stack volumetric flow rates for the inlet columns in these
tables represent the sum of the individual volumetric flow
rates measured for the two inlet locations during a par-
ticular test. The additional data presented in Tables 2-7
and 2-8, with the exception of total particulate measured
in units of Ib/hr (English) and kg/hr (Metric), represent
the average of the data obtained at the two inlet loca-
tions for each test run. The total particulate for the
V
inlet denotes the sum of particulate collected during each
test at the two locations. The collection efficiency
calculations are based on particulate concentration,
measured in units of gr/SCFD.
The isokinetic ratio results of particulate tests con-
ducted at each location are also presented in Tables 2-1
through 2-8. The second and third tests conducted at
Boiler #4 Outlet (inlet to baghouse) failed to meet the
isokinetic requirement (I = 100 _+ 10%) of the reference
method.
Anisokinetic conditions can fall into two categories:
The velocity in the nozzle is greater than the
velocity in the stack (Vn >VS; I > 110%).
The velocity in the nozzle is less than the
velocity in the stack (Vn VS, the measured concentration of
particulate is less than the actual concentration in the
stack gas. This is due to the inertial properties of par-
ticles; the larger and heavier particles tend to pass the
nozzle while the smaller particles in the gas stream are
-6-
-------
drawn into the nozzle. As a result, less particulate mass
is collected per unit volume.
Correction factors for anisokinetic sampling were
composited by Green and Lane1 from various experiments.
Exhibit A (see page 8) lists correction factors for
various isokinetic ratios and particle diameters.
The actual particulate concentrations for Tests 2 and 3
were determined as follows:
where:
Ca = actual concentration
Cm = measured concentration
Fc = correction factor; interpolated from
Exhibit A assuming the limit for very large
particles
Table 2-0 presents the adjusted concentrations and
emission rates.
TABLE 2-0
CORRECTION OF PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
BOILER #4 OUTLET (INLET TO BAGHOUSE)
Test No.
% Isokinetic
Measured Concentration (gr/DSCF)
Correction Factor
Actual Concentration
Actual Emission Rate
1 Green, H.L. and W.
Smokes, and Mists,
(gr/DSCF)
(lb/hr)
2
122.7
0.41732
0.8138
0.51280
48.40
R. Lane, Particulate Clouds:
London, E. and
F.N. Spon, Ltd.
3
122.8
0.66095
0.8132
0.81278
74.30
Dusts ,
, 1964, 2nd
Ed.
-------
EXHIBIT- A
Ratio of Observed to Actual Concentration of Particles when Sampled
at Various Fractions and Multiples of Isokinetic Flow*
C Observed concentration in sample
U Probe ialee velocity
U., Duct velocity
a..i
0.6
o.r
o.a
o.tf
i.i)
1. 1
1 .»-
1.3
1.4
t..T
1.0
1. 7
I.i
l.ii
*'n
*= 4*m
I. OS
1.0.T
1.02
l.OL
1.1)0
1.00
O.;w»
').'H
0.:.'7
0.>»7
O.!)(v
O.;»o
0.^(4-
>v>>-.>
i> r.m
:).3h
C,.
da I2iim
1.14
1.09
1.05
1.02
t.Ol
L.OO
o.as
o.»«
ij «4
O.iii
O.dH
0.33
0.73
0.72
!).o5
Actual concentration
dy = I7um
1.20
1.13
1.08
1.04
l.Ot
1.00
0.;J8
O.H3
0.94
0.93
i) 13
dp 31urn dp 37um
1.3C 1.46-
1.^3 > 1.41
l.U 1.32
1.06 1.16
1.03 l.U"
l.iin 1. 00
0.^5 0.-J3
0.:>2 O.d7
0-J5 0.84
O.d3 0.31
0.-5
0.74
0.71
O.S3
O.o'o
O.n4
Limit
for Very
Large
Particles
2.00
1.67
1.44
U5
1.11
1.00
0.90
0,53
0.77
0.72
0.67
0.63
0.59
0.5S
0^3
0.50
:his range.
After Green and Lane, ]964.
8
-------
Correcting for anisokinetic sampling increases the average
particulate concentration at the Boiler #4 outlet to
0.79913 gr/DSCF, and the emission rate to 75.27 Ib/hr
(compare with Table 2-3).
The baghouse removal efficiencies are changed by less than
1 percent. The efficiency for Tests 2 and 3 increased to
98.72 percent and 98.38 percent, respectively (compare
with Table 2-7).
2.3 Gas Composition Results
The results of the gas composition analyses are shown in
Table 2-9. Orsat analyses were performed on the flue
gases during each test at each sampling location. The
field data sheets for these analyses appear in Appendix
6.3.
2.4 Visible Emissions Observation Results
Visible emissions observations were conducted on the bag-
house outlet stack simultaneously with the particulate
emission tests. Summaries of these observations appear in
Table 2-10, and the locations from which these observa-
tions were being observed are presented in Section 3.0,
Figure 3-4. The average opacity observed during the test
program did not exceed one percent. The field data sheets
for these observations may be found in Appendix 5.3.
2.5 Fuel Samples Results
Samples of the coal used in Boiler #3 and Boiler #4 were
obtained by a member of the YRC test team during each of
the four particulate tests. These samples were trans-
ported to YRC laboratory in Stamford, Connecticut for
proximate and ultimate analyses. The results of these
analyses appear in Table 2-11.
-9-
-------
The gross calorific value (Btu/lb) of each coal sample was
also determined and.appears in Table 2-11. The pollutant
emissions (Ib/lO^ Btu) for the baghouse were calculated
based on these laboratory results. These values are
presented in Tables 2-7 and 2-8.
-3.0-
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS
BOILER #3 OUTLET (INLET TO BAGHOUSE)
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(English Units)
Date
Time
Volume Of Dry Gas Sampled (DSCF)b
Percent Moisture By Volume
Average Stack Temperature, °F
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate (DSCFM)c
Percent Isokinetic
Total Particulate - Filter Catch
and Front Half Wash
mg
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
Run 1
4/16/80
1636-1254
102.02
4.3 !
322.7
14241.0
97.4
4205.11
0.63474
77.48
Run 2
4/16/80
1535-1759
99.82
5.7
325.0
13603.0
99.8
4568.16
0.70475
82.17
Run 3
4/17/80
0900-1036
75.84
6.3
345.0
16115.0
96.0
4013.82
0.81503 :
112.58
Run 4a
4/17/80
1244-1420
78.44
6.7
332.7
16309.0
99.4
5286.71
1.03789
145.09
Average
5.7
331.4
15067.0
98.2
4518.45
0.79810
104.33
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted from 1310-1324 during this "test.
^Dry cubic feet measured at standard conditions, 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
GDry cubic feet per minute measured at standard conditions, 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
-------
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS
BOILER #3 OUTLET (INLET TO BAGHOUSE)
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(Metric Units)
Date
Time
Volume Of Dry Gas Sampled (DNm3)b
Percent Moisture By Volume
Average Stack Temperature, °C
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate (DNm3/min)c
Percent Isokinetic
Total Particulate - Filter Catch
and Front Half Wash
mg
mg/DNm3
kg/hr
Run 1
4/16/80
1030-1254
2.89
4.3
161.5
403.0
97.4
4205.11
1452.53
35.15
Run 2
4/16/80
1535-1759
2.83
5.7
162.8
385.0
99.8
4586.16
1612.74
37.27
Run 3
4/17/80
0900-1036
2.15
6.3
173.9
456.0
96.0
4013.82
1865.09
51.07
Run 4a
4/17/80
1244-1420
2.22
6.7
167.1
462.0
99.4
5286.71
2375.10
65.81
Average
5.7
166.4
426.8
98.1
4518.45
1826.37
47.32
to
I
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted during this test run from 1310 to 1324
cubic meters measured at 20°C, 760mm Hg.
cubic feet per minute measured at 20°C, 760mm Hg.
'Dry normalized
'Dry normalized
-------
TABLE 2-3
SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS
BOILER #4 OUTLET (INLET TO BAGHOUSE)
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(English Units)
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4a
Average
Date
Time
Volume Of Dry Gas Sampled (DSCF)b
Percent Moisture By Volume
Average Stack Temperature, °F
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate (DSCFM)C
Percent Isokinetic
Total Particulate - Filter Catch
and Front Half Wash
mg
gr/DSCF^
lb/hrd
4/16/80
1030-1254
85.98
2.5
248.0
11062.0
96.6
2598.59
0.46545
44.13
4/16/80
1532-1756
107.81
4.3
241.5
11011.0
122.7
2921.48
0.41732
39.39
4/17/80
0908-1044
69.63
4.9
246.7
10664.0
122.8
2988.52
0.66095
60.41
4/17/80
1238-1414
59.70
4.5
244.6
11143.0
100.7
5448.76
1.40550
134.24
4.1
245.2
10969.8
110.7
3489.34
0.73731
69.55
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted during this test from 1310 to 1324.
t>Dry cubic feet measured at standard conditions, 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
GDry cubic feet per minute measured at standard conditions, 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
dSee Table 2-0.
-------
TABLE 2-4
SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS
BOILER #4 OUTLET (INLET TO BAGHOUSE)
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(Metric Units)
Date
Time
Volume Of Dry Gas Sampled (DNm3)b
Percent Moisture By Volume
Average Stack Temperature, °C
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate (DNm3/min)C
Percent Isokinetic
Total Particulate - Filter Catch
and Front Half Wash
mg
mg/DNmJ
kg/hr
Run 1
4/16/80
1030-1254
2.43
2.5
120.0
313.0
96.6
2598.59
1065.14
20.20
Run 2
4/16/80
1532-1^56
3.05
4.3
116.4
312.0
122.7
2921.48
954.98
17.87
Run 3
4/17/80
0903-1044
1.97
4.9
119.3
302.0
122.8
2988.52
1512.50
27.40
Run 4a
4/17/80
1238-1414
1.69
4.5
118.1
316.0
100.7
5448.76
3216.33
60.89
Averaqe
4.1
118.4
310.8
110.7
3489.34
1687.24
42.06
*. /
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted during this test run from 1310 to 1324
^Dry normalized cubic meters measured at 20°C, 760mm Hg.
cDry normalized cubic feet per minute measured at 20°C, 760mm Hg.
-------
TABLE 2-5
SUMMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS
BAGHOUSE OUTLET
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(English Units)
1
I-1
U1
1
Date
Time
Volume Of Dry Gas Sampled (DSCF)b
Percent Moisture By Volume
Average Stack Temperature, °F
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate (DSCFM)C
Percent Isokinetic
Total Particulate - Filter Catch
and Front Half Wash
mg
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
Run 1
4/16/80
1041-1310
106.98
3.0
224.7
25558.0
95.6
51.62
0.00743
1.63
Run 2
4/16/80
1537-1807
120.94
4.2
260.8
25958.0
104.2
61.30
0.00781
1.74
Run 3
4/17/80
0918-1059
82.92
5.0
252.9
26672.0
104.3
70.80
0.01315
3.01
Run 4a
4/17/80
1245-1427
83.14
4.7
273.3
26797.0
104.1
38.15
0.00707
1.62
Averaqe
4.3
252.9
26247.0
102.1
55.48
0.00886
2.00
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted 1310 to 1324 during this test.
^Dry cubic feet measured at standard conditions, 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
GDry cubic feet per minute measured at standard conditions, 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
-------
TABLE 2-6
SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS
BAGHOUSE OUTLET
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(Metric Units)
*
Date
Time
Volume Of Dry Gas Sampled (DNm3)b
Percent Moisture By Volume
Average Stack Temperature, °C
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate (DNm3/min)c
Percent Isokinetic
Total Particulate - Filter Catch
and Front Half Wash
mg
mg/DNnH
kg/hr
Run 1
4/16/80
1041-1310
3.03
3.0
107.0
724.0
95.6
51.62
17.00
0.74
Run 2
4/16/80
1537-1807
3.42
4.2
127.1
735.0
104.2
61.30
17.86
0.79
Run 3
4/17/80
0918-1059
2.35
5.0
122.7
755.0
104.3
70.80
30.09
1.36
Run 4a
4/17/80
1245-1427
2.35
4.7
134.1
759.0
104.1
38.15
16.17
0.74
Average
4.25
122.8
743.3
102.1
55.47
20.28
0.90
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted during this test run from 1310 to 1324
bDry normalized cubic meters measured at 20°C/ 760mm Hg.
cDry normalized cubic feet per minute measured at 20°C, 760mm Hg.
-------
TABLE 2-7
PARTICIPATE AND EMISSION DATA SUMMARY
GASES ENTERING AND EXITING THE PAGIIOUSE
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI. OHIO
(English Units)
Run 1 Run 2
Location
Date
Volume of Gas
Sampled (DSCF)b
Percent Moisture
By Volume
Average Stack
Temperature, °F
Stack Volumetric
Flow Rate (DSCFM)C
Percent Isokinetic
Total Participate
gr/DSCF
Ita/hr
lb/106 Btu
Collection
Kf f iciency, %
Inlet Outlet
4/16/80
106.90
3.4 3.0
285.4 224.7
25303.0 25558.0
97.0 95.6
0.55010 0.00743
121.61 1.63
0.0204
98.65
Inlet Outlet
4/16/80
120.94
5.0 4.2
283.3 260.8
24614.0 25958.0
111.3 104.2
0.56104 0.00781
121.56 1.74
0.0230
90.61d
Run 3 Run 4a Averaqe
Inlet Outlet
4/17/80
82.92
5.6 5.0
295.9 252.9
26779.0 26672.0
109.4 104.3
0.73799 0.01315
172.99 3.01
0.0347
98.22'1
Inlet Outlet
4/17/80
83.14
5.6 4.7
208.7 273.3
27452.0 26797.0
100.1 104.1
1.22170 0.00707
279.33 1.62
0.0208
99.42
Inlet Outlet
4.9 4.3
288.3 252.9
26036.8 26247.0
104.4 102.1
0.76771 0.00886
173.88 2.00
0.0247
98.72
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted from 1310-1324 during this test.
^Dry standard cubic feet measured at 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
cDry standard cubic feet per minute measured at 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg. "
dSee Section 2.2.
-------
CO
I
TABLE 2-8
PARTICULATE AND EMISSION DATA SUMMARY
GASES ENTERING AND EXITING THE BAGHOUSE
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(Metric Units)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4a Average
Location
Date
Volume of Gas
Sampled (DNm3)b
Percent Moisture
By Volume
Average Stack
Temperature, °C
Stack Volumetric
Flow Rate
(DNm3/min)c
Percent Isokinetic
Total Particulate
(Filter Catch and
Front Half Acetone
Wash)
mg/DNm3
kg/hr
kg/106 Btu
Collection
Efficiency, %
Inlet Outlet
4/16/80
3.03
3.4 3.0
140.0 107.0
716.0 724.0
97.0 95.6
1258.84 17.00
55.17 0.74
0.0451
98.65
Inlet Outlet
4/16/80
3.42
5.0 4.2
139.6 127.1
697.0 735.0
111.3 104.2
1283.86 17.86
55.14 0.79
0.0507
98.61d
Inlet Outlet
4/17/80
2.35
5.6 5.0
146.6 122.7
758.0 755.0
109.4 104.3
1680.80 30.09
78.47 1.36
0.0765
98.22<3
Inlet Outlet
4/17/80
2.35
5.6 4.7
142.6 134.1
778.0 759.0
100.1 104.1
2795.72 16.17
126.7 0.74
0.0459
99.42
Inlet Outlet
4.9 4.25
142.4 122.8
737.3 743.3
104.4 102.1
1756.81 20.28
89.38 0.90
0.05455
98.72
aTypical soot blow cycle conducted from 1310-1324 during this test.
3Dry normalized cubic meters, measured at 20°C, 760mm llg.
°Dry normalized cubic meters per minute, measured at 20°C, 760mm Hg.
dSee Section 2.2.
-------
TABLE 2-9
SUMMARY OF GAS COMPOSITION RESULTS
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
Location
Boiler #3 Outlet
(Inlet to Baghouse)
Boiler #4 Outlet
(Inlet to Baghouse)
Baghouse Outlet
Date
4/16/80
4/16/80
4/17/80
4/17/80
4/16/80
4/16/80
4/17/80
4/17/80
4/16/80
4/16/80
4/17/80
4/17/80
Test No.
1
2
3
4
Average
1
2
3
4
Average
1
2
3
4
Average
Gas Composition
(Dry Percent Basis)
% C02 % 02 % CO* % N2*
6.00
6.20
9.30
9.13
7.66
6.87
6.97
8.90
6.93
7.42
6.73
7.13
7.60
7.03
7.12
13.03
13.13
8.40
10.13
11.17
12.33
12.23
10.00
12.13
11.67
11.40
12.10
11.26
12.13
11.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
81.00
80.70
82.00
80.70
81.10
80.80
80.80
81.13
80.73
80.86
81.87
80.80
81.13
80.80
81.15
*Calculated By Difference
-------
TABLE 2-10
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS OBSERVATIONS
CONDUCTED ON BAGHOUSE OUTLET STACK
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
Test No.
Date
Time
Six Minute
Interval
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
4/16/80
1025-1225
2
4/16/80
1538-1738
3*
4/17/80
0910-1100
Average Opacity, %
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.2
0
0.2
0
0
0
0.6
0
0.3
0
0
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
4*
4/17/80
1248-1418
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
*Reduced particulate test times to 96 minutes; observer
measured emissions for 90 minutes during particulate tests
-20-
-------
. TABLE 2-11
SUMMARY OF COAL ANALYSES RESULTS (DRY BASIS)
FORMICA CORPORATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
Location
Date
Test No.
Proximate Analysis
% Moisture
% Ash
% Volatile Matter
% Fixed Carbon
Ultimate Analysis
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Sulfur
% Nitrogen
% Oxygen
Btu/Lb.
Boiler #3
4/16/80
1
3.96
9.36
37.88
52.76
67.92
4.89
0.84
1.09
15.90
L3,155
2
4.52
4.35
39.01
56.64
73.96
4.27
0.67
1.40
15.35
L4,386
4/17/80
3
5.47
4.66
41.83
53.51
72.87
4.37
0.89
1.41
15.80
14,298
4
5.24
8.81
36.94
54.25
69.21
4.44
0.81
1.27
16.27
13,202
Boiler #4
4/16/80
1
3.96
4.20
40.75
55.05
74.86
4.62
0.76
1.32
14.24
L4,337
2
4.52
7.38
35.71
56.91
70.22
4.80
0.59
1.38
15.63
13,392
V
4/17/80
3
3.97
4.50
39.26
56.24
72.91
4.62
1.05
1.33
15.59
L4,308
4
2.52
11.56
36.65
51.79
66.82
4.82
0.95
1.06
14.79
13,247
-21-
-------
3.0 LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
3.1 Introduction
Emission testing was conducted on the two industrial
boilers which produce process steam for the operations at
the Formica Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio. The emis-
sions produced by the boilers are vented to a baghouse.
The baghouse has a separate inlet duct from each boiler
and a single outlet stack which exhausts the boiler flue
gases to the atmosphere.
The locations of the test ports and sampling points for
the emission testing were determined in accordance with
guidelines outlined in EPA Method 1 (Sample and Velocity.
Traverses for Stationary Sources)1. This section presents
detailed descriptions of the particulate sampling loca-
tions and opacity observation locations.
3.2 Baghouse Inlet
Boiler #3 Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse)
The sampling ports on the outlet from Boiler #3 are lo-
cated in the duct which vents the flue gases from Boiler
#3 to the baghouse. The equivalent duct diameter at this
sampling location was measured as 31 inches. Four ports;,
located 132 inches (4.2 duct diameters) downstream of a
bend in the duct and 300 inches (9.6 duct diameters) up--
stream of the baghouse, were used for sampling. A total
of 12 traverse points, 3 in each port, were sampled
(Figure 3-1). For tests 1 and 2, each point was sampled
test methods cited in this report are taken from
"Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
Appendix A," Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 160,
August 18, 1977.
-23-
-------
Flow to baghouse
I
NJ
K-
31"
7F
31"
TRAVERSE
POINT
1
2
3
Al
B!
Cl
Dl
A*2
B*2
C2
D2
A3
B3
C3
D3
DISTANCE FORM
DUCT WALL (in.)
5.15
15.45
25.75
Port A _f_
Port B /
"t
Port C /
"t
Port D f
~\.
25' to upstream
/
1 4
^ >
y y
>i V
y ^
N
, 3.87"
7.75"
7.75"
7.75"
f
*~ 3.87"
/
11 ' from downstream
disturbance
disturbance
SCHEMATIC OF INLET DUCT
BOILER #3 OUTLET
TEST PORT AND SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
Boiler #3 Outlet (inlet to baghouse)
Formica Corporation
Cincinnati, Ohio
FIGURE 3-1
-------
for 12 minutes, resulting in a total test time of 144
minutes. For tests 3 and 4, the sampling time was reduced
to 8 minutes per point, resulting in a total test time of
96 minutes (refer to Section 4.0, for details of tests 3
and 4).
Boiler #4 Outlet
The sampling ports for the outlet from Boiler #4 are
located in the duct which vents the exhaust from Boiler #4
to the baghouse. The duct at this sampling location was
determined to have an equivalent diameter of 30 inches.
Four ports, located 39 inches (1.08 duct diameters) from a
downstream disturbance and 59 inches (1.64 duct diameters)
from an upstream disturbance, were used for sampling. A
total of 48 traverse points, 12 in each port, were sampled
(Figure 3-2). For tests 1 and 2, each point was sampled
for 3 minutes resulting in a total test time of 144 min-
utes. For the remainder of the test program, the sampling
time was reduced to 2 minutes per point, resulting in a
total test time of 96 minutes.
3.3 Baghouse Outlet
The baghouse outlet stack vents controlled emissions from
the baghouse to the atmosphere. The inner duct diameter
at this sampling location was determined to be 59.75
inches. Two ports, located 420 inches (6.43 duct
diameters) downstream of a disturbance and 240 inches
(3.67 duct diameters) from the top of the stack, were used
for sampling. A total of 24 traverse points, 12 in each
port, were sampled (Figure 3-3). Each point was sampled
for 6 minutes during tests 1 and 2, resulting in a total
test time of 144 minutes. For tests 3 and 4, the sampling
times were reduced to 4 minutes per point, resulting in a
total test time of 96 minutes.
-25-
-------
I
to
*
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
TRAVERSE
POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
30"
] 30'
T~
Flow to
Baghouse
Port A
Port B
Port C
-&.
DISTANCE TO
DUCT WALL (in.)
1.25
3.75
6.25
8.75
11.25
13.75
16.25
18.75
21.25
23.75
26.75
28.75
7.5"
-4--
37*75"
1
1
X*N Port D
i
1
^v
59" to
upstream
disturbance
T 39" from ^
downstream
disturbance
SCHEMATIC OF INLET DUCT
BOILER #4 OUTLET
TEST PORT AND SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
Boiler #4 Outlet (Inlet to Baghouse)
Formica Corporation
Cincinnati, Ohio
FIGURE 3-2
-------
I
NJ
TRAVERSE
POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20'
DISTANCE FROM
STACK WALL (in. )
1
4
7
10
14
21
38
44
49
52
55
58
.25
.0
.0
.6
.9
.2
.5
.8
.1
.7
.8
.5
-*
35'
to
downstream
disturbance
J--
BAGHOUSE OUTLET
STACK
TEST PORT AND SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
BAGHOUSE OUTLET
FIGURE 3-3
Formica Corporation
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
3.4 Opacity Observation Locations
Visible emissions measurements were recorded of the emis-
sions from the baghouse outlet stack. The observer chose
suitable locations to view the emissions using the
guidelines described in Appendix 5.7. Figure 3-4 shows
the position of the observer relative to the stack, sun,
and wind direction. Tests 1 and 2 were conducted at
ground level. Tests 3 and 4 were conducted the next day,
and due to a change in wind direction, the observer moved
to a rooftop location to complete the observations.
-28-
-------
wind
boiler
control
building
x
S* f
observer was on ground level
during tests 1 and 2 (4/16/80)
stack
observer
sun during
test 1-4
Scale - 1"= 50'
observer was on the
roof during Tests 3 and 4
(4/17/80). Wind direction
was variable.
boiler
control
building
VISIBLE EMISSIONS OBSERVATIONS
POSITION OF OBSERVER-TESTS 1-4
FIGURE 3-4
-29-
-------
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
4.1 Sampling Apparatus
YRC sampling apparatus conform to the guidelines of the
USEPA Reference Methods. Detailed descriptions of the
apparatus are contained in Appendix 5.5, and calibration
data are included in Appendix 5.6.
4.2 Preliminary Measurements
Gas velocity and temperature were measured in accordance
>
with guidelines outlined in EPA Method 2 (Determination of
Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate).
The velocity pressure was measured with an S-type pitot
tube connected to a dual, vertical manometer and the
temperature was measured with a thermocouple attached to a
pyrometer. Measurements were made at each traverse point.
An initial determination of the moisture in the gas stream
was also made. The moisture train was similar to the
particulate sampling train except that a filter was not
used. The volume of water collected after sampling at a
constant rate for 20 minutes was measured.
4.3 Particulate Sampling and Analysis
Sampling
The sampling train consisted of a nozzle, probe, filter,
impinger train and metering system. The sampling tain is
shown schematically in Figure 4-1. Initial and final leak
checks were performed on each sampling train prior to and
upon completion of each test to confirm the presence of a
-31-
-------
figure 4-1
MODIFIED PARTICULATE SAMPLING TRAIN
NJ
I
STACK WALL
PITOT TUBE
^
NOZZL
THERMOCOUPLE
INCLINED
MANOMETER
(AP)
VACUUM GAUGE
THERMOMETER
IMPINGER TRAIN
BY-PASS
VALVE
35Z
FILTER
HOLDER
i i IKTMC
H r
t
PLE
~J
@:
^lllMI4.M|ill|
O O O
7 -^LLL^f
HEATED
BOX
AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
THERMOMETERS
ORIFICE
J=
f.*^S.
DRY GAS
METER
PYROMETER
ICE BATH
INCLINED
MANOMETER
(AH)
-------
leak-free system (leakage rates did not exceed 0.02 cfm
per EPA standards). The proper nozzle size was determined
using data obtained from the preliminary tests. The probe
was heated to 248 ± 25°F to prevent condensation.
The exit end of the probe was connected to the filter
holder which was kept in a heated area (also 248 ± 25°F).
A sample line led from the back-half of the holder to the
impinger train. The first and second impingers each
initially contained 100 ml of distilled water. The third
impinger was left empty. The fourth impinger contained
300g of dry, indicating, type silica gel. The first,
third, and fourth impinger tips were modified. 'The
temperature at the exit of the fourth impinger was
monitored with a thermometer that measured to the nearest
1°F. The impingers were kept in an ice bath. A short
sample line connected the last impinger to the RAG Meter
Box.
Method 5 calls for isokinetic sampling, which gives a
representative particulate sample. To maintain isokinetic
sampling, a relationship between the velocity pressure
differential (Ap) and the orifice pressure differential
(AH), is necessary. This relationship is dependent on the
following variables:
Orifice calibration factor
Pitot tube coefficient
Gas meter temperature
Moisture content of flue gas
Ratio of flue gas pressure to barometric
pressure
Stack temperature
e Sampling nozzle diameter
-33-
-------
A nomograph was used to correlate all of the above vari-
ables such that a direct relationship between £p and AH
was made and the sampling rate could quickly be adjusted
when the gas velocity pressure changed.
During the test, the following data were recorded for each
traverse point:
Point designation
« Sampling time (min)
« Clock time (24 hour clock)
Dry gas meter reading (Vm/ ft^)
Ap (in. H2O)
e Desired AH (in. H20)
Actual AH, (in. H2O)
Stack temperatue (Ts, °F)
Dry gas meter temperature at inlet and outlet
(Tm, °F)
Vacuum gauge reading (in. Hg)
Sample box temperature (°F)
Dry gas temperature at exit of last impinger
Upon completion of the second test, the sampling procedure
was modified. The particulate mass loading was such that
an adequate sample could be obtained in a shorter test.
Therefore, the total sampling time at each test location
was reduced from 144 minutes to 96 minutes per test.
The plant was operating the boiler at 25,000 pounds of
steam per hour throughout the test program. During the
fourth test, a typical soot blow cycle was conducted for
14 minutes.
-34-
-------
Sample Recovery
After the post-test leak check, the sampling train was
disassembled. The following samples were recovered:
Filter - the filter was removed from the filter
holder and placed in its original con-
tainer.
Front-half Acetone- the nozzle, probe and front half of
the filter holder were brushed and
rinsed with acetone three times. The
wash was collected in a glass sample
jar.
Silica Gel - the silica gel was returned to its
original container.
Acetone Blank =-a sample of acetone from the field
supply was collected in a glass jar.
All glass sample jars had Teflon-lined lids. Each sample
container was labeled with the date, contents and test
number and sealed with tape. The volume of water in the;
first three impingers was measured and recorded on the
data sheets. The water was discarded.
Sample Analysis
Each sample was analyzed in the following manner:
Filter - the filter was removed from its sealed
container and placed on a tared watch
glass. The filter and watch glass
were dessicated over anhydrous CaSC>4
-35-
-------
for 24 hours and weighed to a constant
weight. The weight was recorded to
the nearest 0.01 mg.
Front-half Acetone- the acetone was was transferred to a
tared beaker. The acetone was
evaporated at ambient temperature and
pressure. The beaker was dessicated
for 24 hours and weighed to a constant
weight. The weight was recorded to
the nearest 0.01 mg.
Silica Gel
- the silica gel was weighed on a beam
balance and the weight was recorded to
the nearest 0.1 gram. The samples
from Tests 1-3 were weighed in a
Formica Corporation laboratory. The
sample from Test 4 was returned to the
York laboratory to be weighed.
Acetone Blank
- the acetone blank was transferred to a
tared beaker. The acetone was
evaporated at ambient temperature and
pressure. The beaker was dessicated
for 24 hours and weighed to a constant
weight. The weight was recorded to
the nearest 0.01 mg. This weight was
subtracted from the final weight of
the front-half acetone residue to
obtain the net weight of particulate
in the front half wash.
-36-
-------
4.4 Gas Composition
The composition of the flue gas at each test location was
determined in accordance with guidelines outlined in EPA
Method 3 (Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess
Air and Dry Molecular Weight).
Multi-point integrated samples of the flue gas were ob-
tained at each sampling location during each test. The:
composition of each sample was determined with an Orsat
Analyzer.
4.5 Visible Emissions
i
The visible emissions were determined in accordance with
guidelines outlined in EPA Method 9 (Visual Determination
of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources).
4.6 Fuel Samples (Coal)
Sampling
Individual coal samples were collected from Boiler #3 and
Boiler #4 by a member of the YRC test team during each of
the four particulate test runs. The samples were placed
in glass sample jars with teflon-lined caps. Each jar was
labeled with the date, test location, test number, con-
tents and sample number.
Analysis
Representative samples of the coal obtained at the two
locations during each test run were analyzed at YRC's
laboratory in Stamford, Connecticut in accordance with
guidelines outlined in the following ASTM established pro-
cedures . 1
1978 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 26, American
Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsjyl-
vania, 1978, pp. 380-427.
-37-
-------
Proximate Analysis, of Coal
A proximate analysis of coal is defined by ASTM as an
"assay of the moisture, ash, volatile matter and fixed
carbon". 1
The standard test methods for these analyses are desig-
nated by ASTM as:
Moisture; Method D3173
Ash; Method D3174
Volatile Matter; Method D3175
Fixed Carbon; There is no direct ASTM method of determin-
ing fixed carbon. It can be calculated according to the
equation;
% Fixed Carbon = 100 - (% Moisture + % Ash + % Volatile
Matter)
Ultimate Analysis of Coal
An ultimate analysis of coal is "the determination of
carbon and hydrogen in the material, as found in the
gaseous products of its complete combustion, the deter-
mination of sulfur, nitrogen and ash in the material as a
whole, and the calculation of oxygen by difference."2
The standard test methods for these analyses are
designated by ASTM as:
Carbon and Hydrogen; Method D3178
Sulfur; Method D3177
Nitrogen; Method D3179
1 Ibid, p. 380.
2 Ibid, p. 390.
-38-
-------
Ash; Method D3174
Oxygen; There is no direct ASTM method of determining
oxygen. It can be calculated according to the equation:
% Oxygen = 100 - (% Carbon + % Hydrogen + % Sulfur + %
Nitrogen + % Ash)
The gross calorific value of each coal sample was also
determined according to ASTM Method D2015-17.1 The gross
calorific value is defined by ASTM as "the heat produced
by combustion of unit quantity of a solid or liquid fuel
when burned at constant volume in an oxygen bomb calori-
meter under specified conditions, with the resulting water
condensed to a liquid".2
1 Ibid, pp. 301-309.
2 Ibid, pp. 189-190.
-39-
-------
FINAL REPORT
Project No. 01-9517-24
Draft Report
Prepared by:
Martha Murray
Project Scientist
Revised by:
Maria Denaro
Project Scientist
Reviewed by:
Roger Kniskern
Manager, Emissions
Measurement Department
Approved by:
Co.
James Davison
Vice-president Operations
------- |