&EFK
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
AJT
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 80-WFB-5
May 1980
Nonfossil Fueled Boilers
Emission Test Report
St. Joe Paper Company
Port St. Joe, Florida
-------
NONFOSSIL FUELED BOILERS
Emission Test Report
St. Joe Paper Company
Port St. Joe, Florida
Project No.: 80-WFB-5
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
by
James A. Peters and M. Timothy Thalman
Contract 68-02-2818, Work Assignment No. 25
May 1980
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Results 2
3. Process Description 18
4. Location of Sampling Points 20
5. Sampling and Analytical Methods 23
APPENDICES
A. Complete emission results A-l
B. Field data sheets B-l
C. Analytical data sheets C-l
D. BaP field and analytical results D-l
E. Boiler operation report E-l
F. Project participants F-l
ill
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Diagram of venturi scrubber control equipment,
Boiler #4, St. Joe Paper Company 19
2 Venturi scrubber inlet sampling location,
St. Joe Paper Company 21
3 Venturi scrubber outlet sampling location,
St. Joe Paper Company 22
4 BaP sample train 25
5 Battelle resin trap for BaP sample train. ... 26
IV
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 St. Joe Paper Company Sampling and Analysis
Schedule 3
2 St. Joe Paper Company Particulate Emission
Data and Stack Gas Parameters, Port St. Joe,
Florida, January 17-23, 1980 (English Units). . 5
3 St. Joe Paper Company Particulate Emission
Data and Stack Gas Parameters, Port St. Joe,
Florida, January 17-23, 1980 (Metric Units) . . 7
4 Summary of Integrated Gas Analysis Results,
St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida,
January 17-23, 1980 9
5 Summary of BaP Inlet Test Results, St. Joe
Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida,
January 17-23, 1980 10
6 Summary of BaP Outlet Test Results, St. Joe
Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida,
January 17-23, 1980 11
7 Summary of Andersen Particle Sizing Results,
St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida,
January 16-23, 1980 12
8 Summary of NO Emissions (Scrubber Outlet),
St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida,
January 17-23, 1980 15
9 Summary of S02 Results, St. Joe Paper Company,
Port St. Joe, Florida, January 17-23, 1980. . . 16
10 Summary of Bark Fuel Analyses, St. Joe Paper
Company, Port St. Joe, Florida, January 17-23,
1980 16
11 Summary of Average Boiler Operating Conditions
During Testing, St. Joe Paper Company, Port
St. Joe, Florida, January 17-23, 1980 17
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The St. Joe Paper Company in Port St. Joe, Florida, was emission
tested by Monsanto^Research Corporation (MRC) for the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract Number 68-02-2818,
Work Assignment Number 25. The objective of the sampling program
was to obtain emissions data from well-controlled sources for the
development of new source performance standards for the nonfossil
fuel-fired boiler industry-
Gaseous, particulate and benzo-alpha-pyrene (BaP) emissions were
determined simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the venturi
scrubber unit serving the bark-fired number four boiler. The
field test work was monitored by Dan Bivins, Field Testing Sec-
tion, Emission Measurement Branch, EPA. The sampling conducted
by MRC was directed by M. Timothy Thalman as team leader. The
field testing conducted by TRW, Inc. for BaP emissions was led by
James R. McReynolds. The collection methods employed were EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, with particulate sizing by
Andersen cascade impactor and BaP collection via a modified EPA
Method 5 train with a Battelle trap loaded with XAD-2 resin. The
BaP samples collected were analyzed using a fluorescence spectro-
photometric procedure.
The sampling at the Port St. Joe site was performed by MRC during
January 16-17 and 21-24, 1980; and by TRW during January 18-21,
1980. Two levels of venturi scrubber pressure conditions were
tested, three test runs at each level.
Quality assurance/quality control in the sampling area covered
such activities as instrument calibration, using standard or
approved sampling methods, chain-of-custody procedures, and pro-
tocols for the recording and calculation of data. QA/QC in the
analysis area involved using only validated analysis methods,
periodic operator QC checking and training, sample QC by the use
of splits, reference standards, and spikes, and interlaboratory
audits.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In this emission test, Boiler #4 venturi scrubber inlet and outlet
locations were sampled simultaneously for particulates and BaP;
also, two distinctly different scrubber pressure conditions were
maintained by plant operators. Test run numbers 1 through 3 were
taken at a scrubber pressure drop of 8 in. H2O; while test run
numbers 4 through 6 were at a scrubber pressure drop of 13.5 in.
H20. For BaP samples, run numbers BaP-1 through BaP-3 were taken
at a scrubber pressure drop of 8 in H2O pressure drop.
Pollutants which were measured for this emission test were partic-
ulate matter, BaP, particle size, C02 , CO, SO2, NO and plume
opacity. Table 1 presents the sampling and analysis schedule in
condensed form.
Equipment setup for the emission test began on January 16. The
first particulate emission test was performed on January 17. It
was interrupted for over two hours due to plant problems with the
venturi pressure drop, but otherwise proceeded normally- Average
steam output of Boiler #4 during testing was 101,000 Ib/hr.
On January 18 the first BaP emission test was performed. Average
steam output was 100,000 Ib/hr, and no difficulties were encount-
ered. The bark feed rate was lowest during this test.
The second and third BaP tests were run on January 19, completing
the three BaP emission runs at a scrubber pressure drop of 8 in.
H2O. Average steam outputs were 106,000 Ib/hr and 100,000 Ib/hr,
respectively.
The fourth and fifth BaP tests were run on January 20, at a
scrubber pressure drop of 13.5 in. H20. Average steam outputs
were 103,000 Ib/hr and 108,000 Ib/hr, respectively. Near the end
of the fourth BaP run a decrease in steam production was noted due
to a switch from burning sawdust to bark. The boiler operator
increased the bark feed rate to compensate and steam production
increased to previous levels.
On January 21 the sixth BaP run was completed, and the third run
at 13.5 in. H20 scrubber pressure was finished. Average steam
output was 104,000 Ib/hr.
-------
TABLE 1. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SCHEDULE
Sampling
site
Scrubber
inlet
Scrubber
inlet
Scrubber
inlet
Scrubber
inlet
Scrubber
outlet
Scrubber
outlet
Scrubber
outlet
Scrubber
outlet
Scrubber
inlet
and
outlet
Scrubber
outlet
Scrubber
outlet
Boiler
feed
conveyor
Total
number of
samples
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3 runs,
4 samples
each
6
6 samples.
2 fuel
analyses
each
Sample
type
Particu-
late
matter
Particle-
size dis-
tribution
Integrated
gas
analysis
BaP
Particu-
late
matter
Particle-
size dis-
tribution
Integrated
gas
analysis
BaP
S02
NO
X
Opacity
ASTM
Minimum
Sampling sampling
method time
EPA 5 60 min
Andersen
EPA 3
Modified 60 min
EPA 5
EPA 5 60 min
Andersen
EPA 3
Modified 60 min
EPA 5
EPA 6, Same as
option 2 Method 5
EPA 7 15 min
intervals
EPA 9
Initial analysis
Type Method
C02, 02, EPA 3
CO
Fluores-
cence
spectro-
photom-
etry
C02, 02, EPA 3
CO
Fluores-
cence
spectro-
photom-
etry
Ultimate ASTM
analysis
and heat-
ing value
-------
Also, on January 21 the second particulate emission test was per-
formed. The scrubber pressure drop was lowered to 8 in. H2O.
Average steam output was 99,000 Ib/hr.
The third and fourth particulate emission tests were run on
January 22. Test run #3 was conducted at a scrubber pressure drop
of 8 in. H20, and test run #4 was at 13.5 in. H2O. During the
final 10 minutes of run #4 the venturi pressure drop slipped to
12.5 in. H20. Average steam outputs were 101,000 Ib/hr and
102,000 Ib/hr, respectively.
On January 23 the fifth and sixth particulate emission tests were
completed, the last two runs at 13.5 in. H2O scrubber pressure.
Average steam outputs were 104,000 Ib/hr and 108,000 Ib/hr,
respectively.
For the BaP tests, the inlet and outlet locations were sampled
simultaneously at forty-eight points for three minutes a point.
The particulate emission tests were conducted similarly, except
that two minutes per sampling point were used for a total of 96
minutes per run.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the data for particulate emissions and
stack gas parameters. The first test run at the scrubber inlet
was well outside of isokinetic variation and is not included in
the averages for inlet runs. The sample line apparently had
plugged because very little sample volume was pulled during the
first half of the run. Also, the measured stack moisture was
lower for run 1-1. Run 2-1 had a malfunctioning stack temperature
thermocouple which was discovered and corrections made. All other
runs were made without any problems. The venturi scrubber unit
demonstrated an average particulate removal efficiency of 92.4% at
8 in. H20 pressure drop, and 94.4% at 13.5 in. H2O.
Integrated gas analysis results are given in Table 4. No CO was
detected in any test run at either inlet or outlet location.
Results of emission testing for BaP are given in Table 5 (scrubber
inlet) and Table 6 (scrubber outlet). The emissions reported were
near the minimum detectable limit of the method of analysis, which
is 0.0001 |jg/mL of extract. The analysis method originally chosen
for the emission test was intended to be thin layer chromatography
separation and measurement by scanning in-situ with a scanning
attachment for a fluorescence spectrophotometer, but this method
lacked the required sensitivity. The method used instead, narrow
slit width fluorescence spectrophotometry, is a relative intensity
technique relying on a curve plotted from standards. All of the
BaP samples analyzed were at or near the origin of the standards
curves, which led the emission rates reported to be very low, less
than 0.00001 Ib/hr BaP- Average emissions at the scrubber outlet
are shown to be higher than those at the scrubber inlet, which
indicates that analysis results are near minimum limits.
-------
TABLE 2. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA AND STACK GAS
PARAMETERS, PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
(ENGLISH UNITS)
Run
number
Date
Time,
min
Flow,
dscfm
Stack
temp-
Emissions
erature, H20, Isokinetic,
°F % % gr/dscf
Actual
Ib/hr
Ib/mm
Btu
Corrected,
12% C02
gr/dscf
Scrubber inlet
(8 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
1
2
Average3
Scrubber outlet
(8 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
1
2
3
Average
1/17/80
1/21/80
1/22/80
96
96
96
49,294
41,191
40,693
40,942
380
372
375
374
13.05
18.11
20.97
19.54
1/17/80
1/21/80
1/22/80
96
96
96
60,156
56,717
56,788
57,887
143
140
142
142
21.26
19.65
20.25
20.39
50.1
97.4
101.5
99.6
95.2
97.1
0.4799 202.75 1.464 0.6399
0.3161 111.6 0.827 0.4079
0.6046 210.9 1.533 0.8848
0.4604 161.3 1.180 0.6464
0.0250
0.0255
0.0232
0.0246
12.9 0.093 0.0370
12.4 0.092 0.0397
11.3 0.082 0.0428
12.2 0.089 0.0398
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Run number
Scrubber inlet
(13.5 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
4
5
6
Average
Scrubber outlet
(13.5 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
4
5
6
Average
Date
1/22/80
1/23/80
1/23/80
1/22/80
1/23/80
1/23/80
Time,
min
96
96
96
96
96
96
Stack
temp-
Flow, erature
dscfm °F
43,651
32,420
46,866
40,979
60,254
57,172
54,237
57,221
373
377
379
376
143
144
146
144
Emissions
, H20, Isokinetic,
% %
19.33
20.11
20.09
19.84
21.34
22.59
23.43
22.45
101.4
104.9
104.0
100.1
97.3
99.3
gr/dscf
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0452
.4232
.6702
.7129
.0401
.0247
.0230
.0293
Actual
Ib/hr
391.0
117.6
269.3
259.3
20.7
12.1
10.7
14.5
Ib/mm
Btu
2.810
0.824
1.818
1.817
0.149
0.085
0.072
0.102
Corrected,
12% C02
gr/dscf
1.3783
0.5706
0.8936
0.9475
0.0587
0.0502
0.0452
0.0514
aAverage is based on runs 2 and 3 only.
-------
TABLE 3. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA AND STACK GAS
PARAMETERS, PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
(METRIC UNITS)
Stack
Emissions
temper-
Time, Flow, ature, H20, Isokinetic, Actual
Run number Date min dncmpm °C %
% gr/dncm
kg/hr
kg/GJ
Corrected,
12% C02
gr/dncm
Scrubber inlet
(8 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
1 1/17/80 96
2 1/21/80 96
3 1/22/80 96
Average
Scrubber outlet
(8 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
1 1/17/80 96
2 1/21/80 96
3 1/22/80 96
Average
1,396
1,167
1,152
1,160
194
189
191
190
13.05
18.11
20.97
19.54
1,704
1,606
1,608
1,639
61
60
61
61
50.1
97.4
101.5
99.6
95.2
97.1
1.0985
0.7235
1.3839
92.0
50.6
95.6
0.630
0.355
0.659
1.4647
0.9335
2.0252
1.0537
0.0572
0.0585
0.0532
0.0563
73.1 0.507 1.4794
5.8
5.6
5.1
0.040
0.039
0.035
0.0847
0.09.2
0.0982
5.5 0.038 0.0914
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
oo
Run number
Scrubber inlet
(13.5 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
4
5
6
Average
Scrubber outlet
(13.5 in. H20
scrubber
pressure)
4
5
6
Average
Time,
Date min
1/22/80 96
1/23/80 96
1/23/80 96
1/22/80 96
1/23/80 96
1/23/80 96
Flow,
dncmpm
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
236
918
327
160
706
619
536
620
Stack
temper-
ature,
°C
190
192
193
192
62
62
63
62
Emissions
H20, Isokinetic,
% % gr/dncm
19
20
20
19
21
22
23
22
.33
.11
.09
.84
.34
.59
.43
.45
101.4 2
104.9 0
104.0 1
1
100.1 0
97.3 0
99.3 0
0
.3923
.9686
.5346
.6318
.0918
.0566
.0526
.0670
Actual
kg/hr
177.3
53.3
122.1
117.6
9.4
5.5
4.8
6.6
kg/GJ
1.208
0.354
0.781
0.781
0.064
0.037
0.031
0.044
Corrected,
12% C02
gr/dncm
3.1547
1.3060
2.0461
2.1689
0 . 1343
0.1151
0.1035
0.1176
Average is based on runs 2 and 3 only.
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS,
ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA,
JANUARY 17-23, 1980
Run CO2, CO, O2, N2, Molecular weight,
number Date % % % % Ib/lb-mole
Scrubber inlet (8 in. H20 pressure drop)
1
2
3
Average
1/17
1/21
1/22
9.0
9.3
8.2
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.1
76.8
77.4
77.1
Scrubber outlet (8 in. H20 pressure drop)
1
2
3
Average
1/17
1/21
1/22
8.1
7.7
6.5
7.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Scrubber inlet (13.5 in. H20 pressure drop)
4
5
6
Average
1/22
1/23
1/23
9.1
8.9
9.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.1
30.0
30.1
30.1
Scrubber outlet (13.5 in. H20 pressure drop)
4
5
6
Average
1/22
1/23
1/23
8
5
6
6
.2
.9
.1
.7
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
14
14
15
14
.6
.6
.1
.9
76
79
78
78
.8
.4
.8
.3
29
29
29
29
.9
.5
.6
.7
Andersen particle sizing results are presented in Table 7. Four
of the inlet tests were outside of isokinetic variation, but
sampling times were only five minutes at the inlet location due
to heavy particulate loadings.
Test runs for NO emissions were performed only at the scrubber
outlet and only It the normal scrubber pressure drop of 8 in. H2O.
Samples for NO emissions were collected in the afternate port
during particufate emission testing and results are presented in
Table 8.
Samples for S02 emissions were taken concurrently with particulate
emission runs by using the back half of the Method 5 train.
Scrubber inlet and outlet locations were sampled only when the
scrubber Ap was 8 in. H20. Due to the very low sulfur content of
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF BaP INLET TEST RESULTS, ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY,
PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
Test #
Date
Time
Meter volume, dscf
Meter volume, dscm
Stack flow, acfm
Stack flow, dscfm
Stack flow, dscmm
Stack temperature, °F
Percent moisture
Percent isokinetic
BaP, Ib/dscf
BaP, Ib/hr
BaP, Ib/mm Btu
BaP , mg/dscm
BaP , kg/hr
BaP, lb/(8,760 hr) yr
SJI - 1
1/18/80
0930-1227
107.984
3.053
160,334
86,680
2,453.0
377.3
17.1
92.5
3.0xlO~12
1.6xlO"5
l.lxlO"7
4.90xlO~5
7.2xlO~6
0.14
SJI - 2
1/19/80
1000-1311
74.078
2.096
139,108
73,190
2,071.3
384.2
18.2
101.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SJI - 3
1/19/80
1515-1912
83.329
2.358
150,839
84,073
2,379.3
364.5
15.3
102.3
0.4xlO~12
0.2xlO~5
1.46xlO"8
0.66xlO"5
0.9xlO"6
0.02
SJI - 4
1/20/80
1045-1342
94.210
2.666
167,491
92,399
2,614.9
359.1
17.9
101.3
0.6xlO"12
0.3xlO~5
2.13X10"8
1.12xlO~5
1.5xlO~6
0.03
SJI - 5
1/20/80
1545-1842
77.533
2.194
139,745
76,136
2,154.7
356.8
19.1
101.2
0.4xlO~12
0.2xlO~5
1.35X10"8
0.68X10"5
0.8xlO~6
0.02
SJI - 6
1/21/80
0900-1157
84.936
2.404
154,840
84,962
2,404.4
358.0
18.4
99.5
0.7xlO"12
0.4xlO"5
2.82xlO"8
1.14xlO~5
1.6xlO~6
0.04
Average
Inlet
86.95
2.400
152,060
82,907
2,346.3
366.6
17.7
99.7
0.85xlO"12
0.45xlO~5
3.24xlO"8
1.42X10"5
2.0xlO"6
0.04
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF BaP OUTLET TEST RESULTS, ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY,
PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
Test #
Date
Time
Meter volume, dscf
Meter volume, dscm
Stack flow, acfm
Stack flow, dscfm
Stack flow, dscmm
Stack temperature, °F
Percent moisture
Percent isokinetic
BaP, Ib/dscf
BaP, Ib/hr
BaP, Ib/mm Btu
BaP , mg/dscm
BaP , kg/hr
BaP, lb/(8,760 hr) yr
SJO - 1
1/18/80
0931-1230
75.984
2.151
94,171
66,364
1,878.1
139.8
20.3
93.0
1.1X10"12
0.4xlO~5
2.92xlO~8
1.78xlO~5
2.0xlO~6
0.04
SJO - 2
1/19/80
1004-1312
69.271
1.960
80,576
56,886
1,609.9
140.8
20.2
99.5
0.8xlO~12
0.3xlO~5
2.06xlO~8
1.39xlO~5
1.2xlO~6
0.03
SJO - 3
1/19/80
1516-1907
86.413
2.445
100,067
70,250
1,988.1
140.6
20.7
99.9
3.4xlO~12
1.4X10'5
1.02xlO~7
5.62xlO~5
6.5X10"6
0.12
SJO - 4
1/20/80
1045-1344
77.909
2.205
95,384
67,349
1,906.0
141.4
20.1
94.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SJO - 5
1/20/80
1545-1842
78.573
2.224
95,363
67,093
1,898.7
139.7
20.6
95.0
5.7xlO~12
2.3xlO~s
1.56xlO~7
9.2xlO"|
10.4x10"
0.20
SJO - 6
1/21/80
0900-1157
72.415
2.049
86,284
60,655
1,716.5
139.1
20.7
97.1
0.2X10"12
0.07xlO~s
0.49xlO~8
0.37xlO~5
0.3xlO~6
0.006
Average
outlet
76.763
2.172
91,974
64,766
1,832.9
140.2
20.4
96.5
1.9xlO~12
0.7xlO~5
5.21xlO~8
3.07xlO~s
3.4xlO~6
0.07
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF ANDERSEN PARTICLE SIZING
RESULTS, ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, PORT
ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 16-23, 1980
Scrubber Inlet
Run 1 - 1/16
Flow rate, acfm: 0.297
Isokinetic %: 129.1
Run 2 - 1/16
Flow rate, acfm: 0.280
Isokinetic %: 121.6
Stage
Pre impact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
1.8
13 6
7.1
10.0
11.8
13.6
24.3
6.5
11.2
0.1
Cumulative \
less than
size range
98.2
84.6
77.5
67.5
55.7
42.1
17.8
11.3
0.1
.0
Size
range
microns
>19.0
14.0-19.0
11.0-14.0
9.0-11.0
6.0-9.0
3.8-6.0
1.9-3.8
1.2-1.9
0.82-1.2
<0.82
Stage
Preimpact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
5.7
7.4
6.4
9.5
12.4
16.3
18.7
12.4
2.8
8.5
Cumulative \
less than
size range
94.4
87.0
80.5
71.1
58.7
42.4
23.7
11.3
8.5
0
Size
range
•icrons
>21.0
16-21
14-16
8.8-14
5.9-8.8
3.8-5.9
1.9-3.8
1.3-1.9
0.82-1.3
<0.82
Run 3 - 1/16
Flow rate, acfm: 0.285
Isokinetic %: 107.1
Run 4 - 1/22
Flow rate, acfm: 0.292
Isokinetic %: 106.0
Stage
Preinpact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
6.7
5.9
8.0
7.4
12.6
13.9
16.5
13.0
5.2
10.8
Cumulative %
less than
size range
93.3
87.4
79.4
72.0
59.4
45.5
29.0
16.0
10.8
0
Size
range
•icrons
>21.0
16-21
12-16
9-12
8-9
3.8-8
2.1-4.5
1.8-2.1
0.81-1.8
<0.81
Cumulative % Size
Stage
Preinpact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
3.2
21.6
1.6
1.6
4.0
0.8
0.8
17.6
26.4
22.4
less than
size range
96.8
75.2
73.6
72.0
68.0
67.2
66.4
48.8
22.4
0
range
microns
>19.2
14.9-19.2
8.3-14.9
5.7-8.3
3.7-5.7
2.0-3.7
1.5-2.0
1.1-1.5
0.7-1.1
<0.7
(continued)
12
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Scrubber Inlet
Run 5 - 1/23
Flow rate, acfm: 0.269
Isokinetic %: 119.5
Run 6 - 1/23
Flow rate, acfm: 0.257
Isokinetic %: 114.0
Stage
Pre impact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
0.9
1.7
1.7
24.1
11.2
21.6
15.5
2.6
5.2
15.5
Cumulative %
less than
size range
99.1
97.4
95.7
71.6
60.4
38.8
23.3
20.7
15.5
0
Size
range
microns
>22
14-22
8.9-14
6.0-8.9
3.8-6.0
1.9-3.8
1.3-1.9
0.8-1.3
0.5-0.8
<0.5
Cumulative % Size
Stage
Preimpact.
Hashes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
1.4
13.7
27.4
12.3
1.4
4.1
4.1
13.7
8.2
13.7
less than
size range
98.6
84.9
57.5
45.2
43.8
39.7
35.6
21.9
13.7
0
range
microns
>22
14-22
9-14
6.1-9
3.9-6.1
2.0-3.9
1.4-2.0
0.83-1.4
0.65-0.83
<0.65
Scrubber Outlet
Run 1 - 1/16
Flow rate, acfm: 0.149
Isokinetic %: 95.7
Run 2 - 1/16
Flow rate, acfm: 0.152
Isokinetic %: 96.7
Stage
Preimpact.
Hashes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
0.7
0.4
0.7
2.1
3.8
7.3
6.6
47.2
18.8
12.5
Cumulative %
less than
size range
99.4
99.0
98.3
96.2
92.4
85.1
78.5
31.3
12.5
0
, Size
range
microns
>24
19-24
16-19
12-16
7.5-12
4.8-7.5
2.5-4.8
1.4-2.5
0.85-1.4
<0.85
Cumulative % Size
Stage
Preimpact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
1.1
1.1
0
0
0
12.7
14.9
11.5
24.1
34.5
less than
size range
98.8
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
85.0
70.1
58.6
34.5
0
range
microns
>25.6
18.8-25.6
4.8-18.8
2.4-4.8
1.6-2.4
0.9-1.6
<0.9
(continued)
13
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Scrubber Outlet
Run 3 - 1/16
Flow rate, acfm: 0.150
Isokinetic %: 97.6
Run 4 - 1/16
Flow rate, acfm: 0.152
Isokinetic %: 97.7
Cumulative % Size
Stage
Preimpact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
3.2
0.7
0.4
i.e
3.4
7.0
6.3
46.6
17.1
11.6
less than
size range
96.6
95.9
95.8
94.0
90.6
83.6
77.3
28.7
11.6
0
range
microns
>24
19-24
16-19
11-16
7.2-11
4.7-7.2
2.3-4.7
1.4-2.3
0.95-1.4
<0.95
Stage
Pre impact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
•ize range
6.4
0.7
0.7
2.4
3.4
6.8
6.1
44.9
17.9
10.8
Cumulative %
less than
size range
93.7
93.0
92.3
89.9
86.5
79.7
73.6
28.7
10.8
0
Size
range
microns
>22
19-22
14-19
11-14
7.2-11
4.8-7.2
2.3-4.8
1.4-2.3
0.9-1.4
<0.9
Run 5 - 1/23
Flow rate, acfm: 0.132
Isokinetic
%: 94.4
Stage
Pre impact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
3.0
14.7
11.2
9.5
16.4
10.8
8.2
9.9
8.6
7.8
Cumulative %
less than
size range
97.1
82.4
71.2
61.7
45.3
34.5
26.3
16.4
7.8
0
Size
range
•icrons
>28
22-28
17-22
12-17
8-12
5.1-8
2.9-5.1
1.9-2.9
1.0-1.9
<1.0
Run 6 - 1/23
Flow rate, acfm: 0.160
Isokinetic %: 102.8
Stage
Preimpact.
Washes
Stage 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Final
filter
Percent in
size range
3.7
1.8
0.9
12.8
0
11.9
13.8
9.2
20.2
25.7
Cumulative %
less than
size range
96.3
94.5
93.6
80.8
80.8
68.9
55.1
45.9
25.7
0
Size
range
•icrons
>24
18-24
16-18
11-16
7-11
4-7
2.2-4.0
1.4-2.2
0.92-1.4
<0.92
14
-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF NO EMISSIONS (SCRUBBER
OUTLET), ST. 50E PAPER COMPANY, PORT
ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
Run
number Date
1-1 1/17/80
1-2
1-3
1-4
Average
2-1 1/21/80
2-2
2-3
2-4
Average
3-1 1/22/80
3-2
3-3
3-4
Average
PPM
91.3
14.2
77.5
51.5
58.7
68.4
40.9
68.1
72.3
62.4
72.7
12.4
86.6
9.8
45.4
Ib/dscf
x 10"6
10.80
1.68
9.17
6.09
6.94
8.09
4.84
8.06
8.55
7.39
8.60
1.47
10.25
1.17
5.37
lb/hra
37.8
5.9
32.1
21.3
24.3
26.7
16.0
26.6
28.2
24.4
28.6
4.9
34.0
3.9
17.9
Ib/mm Btu
0.2730
0.0426
0.2319
0.1538
0.1753
0.1977
0.1185
0.1970
0.2089
0.1805
0.2079
0.0356
0.2472
0.0284
0.1298
g/ncm
x 10"3
0.173
0.027
0.147
0.098
0.111
0.130
0.078
0.129
0.137
0.118
0.138
0.024
0.164
0.019
0.086
kg/hra
17.1
2.7
14.5
9.7
11.0
12.1
7.2
12.1
12.8
11.1
13.0
2.2
15.4
1.8
8.1
kg/GJ
0.1171
0.0185
0.0993
0.0664
0.0753
0.0849
0.0505
0.0849
0.0898
0.0775
0.0896
0.0152
0.1061
0.0124
0.0558
Based on corresponding Method 5 run for flow velocity.
the waste wood feed, emissions of S02 were below minimum detectable
limits (0.74 x 10~7 Ib/scf for Method 8) at the scrubber outlet,
and also on run #3 at the scrubber inlet. The waste wood feed
during runs 1 and 2 had a slightly higher sulfur content and re-
sulted in detectable S02 emissions at the inlet location, as shown
in Table 9. A summary of the bark fuel analysis results is given
in Table 10. Opacity readings by EPA Method 9 could not be made
due to the steam content of the plume.
Average boiler operating conditions during testing is presented in
Table 11. Fuel feedrates reported represent the weightometer
readings of the fuel as it filled the bins leading to the boiler.
A lag time of 10-40 minutes was estimated between bin fill rate
and boiler feed rate. Complete boiler operating data are given in
Appendix E.
Boiler #4 and its venturi scrubber pollution control equipment
operated normally during the emission test. The samples taken can
be expected to characterize boiler emissions during normal
operation.
15
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF S02 RESULTS, ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY,
PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
Run number
Ib/scf
Date PPM x 10~7 Ib/hr Ib/mm Btu
Scrubber inlet
1
2
3
1/17/80 4.85 6.02 178.1 1.286
1/21/80 1.06 1.32 36.0 b 0.267
1/22/80 Below detection limit
Scrubber outlet
1
2
3
1/17/80
1/21/80
1/22/80
Below detection limit^
Below detection limit^
Below detection limit
Based on corresponding Method 5 run for flow velocity.
Minimum detectable limit is 0.74 x 10~7 Ib/scf for S02.
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF BARK FUEL ANALYSES, ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY
PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
Run *1
Run #2
Analysis
Run *3
As rcvd Dry basis As rcvd Dry basis As rcvd Dry basis
Proximate analysis, %
Moisture
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Btu/lb
Ultimate analysis, %
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Ash
Oxygen
46.51
—
0.47
0.02
4,778
25.98
8.27
0.08
0.02
0.47
65.18
—
—
0.92
0.04
9,279
50.45
5.59
0.15
0.04
0.92
42.85
48.04
—
0.64
0.02
4,931
26.19
8.25
0.05
0.02
0.64
64.85
—
—
1.23
0.03
9,490
50.40
5.60
0.10
0.03
1.23
42.64
48.54
—
2.30
0.01
4,651
25.61
8.08
0.07
0.01
2.30
63.93
--
—
4.47
0.02
9,038
49.76
5.22
0.14
0.02
4.47
40.39
Analysis
Run ft4
Run »5
Run *6
As rcvd Dry basis As rcvd Dry basis As rcvd
Proximate analysis, %
Moisture
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Btu/lb
Ultimate analysis, %
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Ash
Oxygen
47.57
—
0.61
0.01
4,802
26.01
6.12
0.06
0.01
0.61
65.19
—
—
1.17
0.02
9,159
49.60
5.40
0.11
0.02
1.17
43.70
51.95
..
1.04
0.00
4,429
20.69
7.99
0.04
0.00
1.04
70.24
—
__
2.17
0.01
9,218
43.06
4.62
0.08
0.01
2.17
50.06
49.90
1.21
0.01
4,558
23.85
8.15
0.07
0.01
1.21
66.71
--
__
2.42
0.01
9,907
47.61
5.21
0.13
0.01
2.42
44.62
16
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE BOILER OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING TESTING,
POWER BOILER NUMBER 4, ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, PORT ST. JOE,
FLORIDA, JANUARY 17-23, 1980
Test
number
1
BAP-1
BAP- 2
BAP -3
BAP-4
BAP -5
BAP- 6
2
3
4
5
6
Date
1/17
1/18
1/19
1/19
1/20
1/20
1/21
1/21
1/22
1/22
1/23
1/23
Time
interval
940-1526
930-1227
1000-1311
1515-1912
1045-1342
1545-1842
900-1200
1800-1959
952-1148
1825-2018
1200-1358
1705-1853
Bark
feed Steam
rate, production,
Ib/hr Ib/hr
50,293
28,015
37,896
52,098
49,485
57 , 184
41,814
34,311
32,682
38,183
56,714
56,542
101
100
106
100
103
108
104
99
101
102
104
108
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
Steam
temperature ,
OF
740
737.
740
740
739.
737.
728.
727 .
724.
725.
740.
740
5
2
5
8
8
6
7
4
Steam
pressure,
psig
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
603.2
620
615
Steam
heat
output ,
mm Btu/hr
138.45
136.935
145.30
137.08
141.14
147 . 89
141.89
135.02
137.56
139.13
142.65
148 . 14
Steam heat
output,
GJ/hr
146.08
144.48
153.31
144.63
148.92
156.04
149.71
142.46
145.14
146.79
150.51
156.30
Scrubber
pressure
drop,
in. H20
8
8
8
8
13.5
13.5
13.5
8
8
13.5
13.5
13.5
Average hourly feed rates were based on weightometer integration readings taken at start and end of
each test. Values reported represent the fill rate of the feed bin above boiler which has a residence
time of approximately 10-40 minutes.
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
At their mill in Port St. Joe, Florida, the St. Joe Paper Company
operates seven boilers which produce steam for process and electri-
cal power. One of these, power boiler #4, is a 1952 vintage
Babcock & Wilcox forced-draft traveling-grate spreader-stoker bark/
oil-fired boiler, design rated to produce 110,000 Ib steam/hr from
bark (175,000 Ib steam/hr from oil). No. 6 fuel oil is supplied
as auxiliary feed to bark in order to meet high steam demand,
compensate for wet bark, or boiler start-up. No fuel oil was
burned during this emission test. Cyclone fly ash is reinjected
into the boiler after sand is screened out, but comprises a
negligible portion of fuel feed according to plant personnel.
The boiler exhaust gases travel through Buell Rotoclones and are
then pushed by an ID fan through an Air Pollution Industries, Inc.
(installed 1978) variable throat venturi wet scrubber system,
which normally operates at 8-10 inches W.G. pressure drop. A
sketch of the wet scrubber unit is provided in Figure 1. Exhaust
gases are discharged through a stack which terminates 139 ft above
ground level.
18
-------
PLATFORMS
FROM CYCLONES
Figure 1. Diagram of venturi scrubber control equipment,
Boiler #4, St. Joe Paper Company.
-------
SECTION 4
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
As a result of the pretest survey, the sampling program included
the inlet to the venturi scrubber and the outlet at the stack
platform. Simultaneous sampling for particulates, particle size,
and BaP was performed at the two locations.
Sampling ports at the scrubber inlet were installed by the plant
prior to the test. Two 4-inch ports 90° apart were installed in
the 72 inch diameter circular duct six feet above the floor of the
platform. Figure 2 illustrates the inlet sampling location. The
nearest disturbance was an expansion one stack diameter below the
ports (upstream).
A diagram of the scrubber outlet sampling location is given in
Figure 3. The 84 inch diameter stack has two 4 inch ports 90°
apart which are 4 ft above the platform floor and a 3 ft 7 in.
railing provides protection. The nearest upstream disturbance is
18 ft (2.5 stack diameters) below the ports and the top of the
stack is 11 ft (1.6 stack diameters) above ports.
20
-------
AIRFLOW
TT
l'-6"
JL_
o
B
'-4"
TOP VIEW
SIDE VIEW
Figure 2. Venturi scrubber inlet sampling location, St. Joe Paper Company.
-------
18'
BC
A
o
W
11'
PLATFORM
TOP VIEW
SIDE VIEW
Figure 3. Venturi scrubber outlet sampling location,
St. Joe Paper Company.
22
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The St. Joe Paper Company's boiler #4 was sampled for particulate
matter, particle size, benzo-alpha-pyrene, S02, NO , integrated
gas analysis, and fuel analysis. The following describes the
methods used.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Particulate
Sampling for particulates was performed using the method outlined
in the Federal Register, Method 5, "Determination of Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources," with the modification that
the sample box temperature was maintained at 325°F instead of
250°F.
Particle Size
Sampling for particle size was performed using an Andersen cas-
cade impactor with seven stages and a back-up filter.
The sampling train used consisted of the following equipment
listed in order of the flow: a 10 mm diameter probe tip; a
curved (90°) probe tip to Andersen head connector; standard
Andersen heads; a 4 foot stainless steel probe; a Smith-Greenburg
impinger with water, then one charged with color indicating
silica gel; and an EPA-5 console equipped with a dry gas meter,
digital electronic thermometer and an inclined manometer. Also,
an S-type pitot tube was connected to the probe so the stack gas
pressure could be continually monitored.
A total of 12 particle sizing runs were made. Each run was
conducted under isokinetic conditions for about 5 minutes at the
scrubber inlet and 25 minutes at the scrubber outlet.
At the completion of each run, the moisture collected was meas-
ured and the Andersen heads were opened and oven-dried for three
hours. After drying, each stage was weighed, then the filter was
removed and the stage assemblies were cleaned, desiccated and
reweighed to provide partial tare weights. The tare weights of
the filters were taken during the assembly of the heads (after
desiccation for 24 hours).
23
-------
All weight measurements were made with a Mettler analytical
balance. The balance was calibrated daily and rezeroed before
each weight determination. Calculations were performed using
methods and tables provided in the Andersen manual.
Benzo-alpha-pyrene
The sampling procedures used at the venturi scrubber inlet and
outlet locations consisted of an EPA Method 5 train, modified in
the following manner (using EPA's draft BaP Method). A Batteiie
trap loaded with XAD-2 resin was inserted between the heated
filter, which was cut from a General Metal Works No. 25 Hi-Volume
Filter (see Appendix D for typical Elemental Analysis), and the
first impinger. A thermostatically-controlled water bath kept
the temperature of the Batteiie trap at 127°F. The Batteiie
trap was shielded from visible and ultraviolet light by wrapping
with aluminum foil. The Batteiie trap was capped after sampling
and remained capped, until the analysis was performed. Methylene
chloride was used for the recovery of the sample from the 316
stainless steel probe, glass filter holder with a 316 stainless
steel filter support and the connecting glassware up to the
Batteiie trap. Figure 4 is a schematic of the BaP train while
Figure 5 shows the Batteiie trap used in the BaP train. All the
field data sheets and analytical forms are included in Appendix D.
For the BaP tests, the inlet and outlet locations were sampled
simultaneously at forty-eight points for three minutes a point.
Tests 1, 2, and 3 were conducted with eight inches of water
pressure drop across the scrubber while tests 4, 5, and 6 had
fourteen inches of water pressure drop. No major problems were
encountered during the testing.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sampling for S02 was performed using the alternate method out-
lined in the Section 2.1 the Federal Register, Method 6, "Deter-
mination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,"
Option 2, where S02 is determined simultaneously with particulate
matter by replacing the Method 5 water impinger system (back
half) with a Method 8 isopropanol-filter-peroxide system.
Nitrogen Oxides
Sampling for NO was performed using the method outlined in the
Federal Register, Method 7, "Determination of Nitrogen Oxide
Emissions from Stationary Sources."
24
-------
ro
en
\
STAINLESS STEEL PROBE \
' PI TOT TUBE
BATTELLE TRAP TEMP.
•-FILTER TEMP.
STACK TEMP.
THERMOCOUPLE MINIMI TE
JUNCTION BOX
^
I PIIMP l_
.9
UMBILICAL CORD
Figure 4. BaP sample train.
-------
GLASS WATER JACKET
8mm - GLASS
COOLING COIL
GLASS FRITTED DISC
ABSORBANT
GLASS WOOL
Figure 5. Battelle resin trap for BaP sample train.
Opacity
Visible emissions were to be read during particulate sampling by
a certified smoke reader who met the specifications of Federal
Register, Method 9. However, the high water content of the plume
prevented accurate measurements from being taken, and these
readings were dropped from the sampling program.
26
-------
Integrated Gas Analysis
Exhaust gas analysis was performed using the method outlined in
the Federal Register, Method 3, "Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide,
Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular Weight."
Fuel
Six grab samples of feed bark were taken from the conveyor, one
during each Method 5 run.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Particulate, SO?, NO , Gas Analysis
^—^m^^^^^^^^^^^J^
All analytical procedures were performed using the methods de-
scribed in EPA Methods 3, 5, 6, and 7, previously mentioned in the
Sampling Procedures section.
BaP Analysis
The volume of the rinse sample was recorded and the sample was
stored at 4°C in an amber glass bottle until the analysis was
performed. If the rinse sample was deeply colored or contained a
large amount of suspended material, it was diluted ten to one
with cyclohexane before it was analyzed. No samples needed dilu-
tion in this emission test.
The filter was extracted with 100 mL of cyclohexane while the
XAD-2 resin from the Battelle trap was extracted with 250 mL of
cyclohexane. The extraction procedure placed the filter or XAD-2
into a single thickness pre-extracted cellulose extraction thim-
ble. The thimble was then placed in a soxhlet extraction appara-
tus and extracted for eight hours at five to six cycles per hour.
All this was done either behind a yellow light-safe screen or
under a yellow safe light. At the end of the extraction, the
extract volume was recorded, and the extract stored in an amber
bottle at 4°C until the analysis was performed. The thimble was
checked with a black light to confirm complete extraction.
The samples are analyzed for BaP using the fluorescence spectro-
photometric procedure. This method is preferred over the thin
layer chromatographic (TLC) method for low level BaP analysis, as
the TLC method has only 0.01 the sensitivity of direct liquid
measurement. The benzo-a-pyrene method using the fluorescence
spectrophotometry was tailored to these samples. The method
originally chosen was intended to be a thin layer chromatography
separation and measurement by scanning in-situ with a scanning
attachment for the fluorescence spectrophotometer. This method
lacked the sensitivity required for the analyses.
27
-------
The procedure for BaP analysis was by means of fluorescence
spectrophotometry. The equipment used for this analysis was -en
Aminco Model SPF-125 Spectrophotofluorometer with 7 mm lightpatn
cell. This instrument accurately measures concentrations of ear
as low as 0.001 ppm. The wavelength settings were 378 nm excita-
tion and 403 nm emission with respective slitwidth openings or
1 mm and 0.5 mm. This instrument becomes extremely substance
specific at very narrow slit widths, as was used in this analysis.
The spectrophotometer is equipped with a high intensity xenon
lamp which provides the excitation energy. For BaP analysis, tne
best results are obtained by setting the excitation wavelength
and emission wavelength to produce the maximum peak height, with
a narrow slit width, the specificity of the instrument is greatly
increased. The excitation wavelength is 378 nm. The minimum
entrance slit width used was 1 mm. The excitation energy is
re-emitted as fluorescence of a longer wavelength. For BaP, this
wavelength is 403 nm. The exit slit width can be narrower than
the entrance slit width, as in this case, 0.5 mm. The fluores-
cence is expressed as a relative intensity. The relative inten-
sity values are converted to BaP concentrations by analyzing a
set of known standards. These standards are prepared by serial
dilution of a 1,000 pg/mL BaP stock solution. This is prepared by
dissolving 10 mg of three times recrystallized BaP in 10 mL
spectral grade cyclohexane. This is stable for several months if
stored away from light at 0°C.
To determine the concentration of BaP in unknown samples, it is
necessary to plot a curve of the relative intensities from the
standards. The (jg/mL in the sample is then determined by the
sample's relative intensity compared to the graph of the standards.
The results can be affected by temperature, humidity, and light.
Precautions are taken during sampling, preparation, and analysis
to keep the exposure to light at a minimum. The optimum relative
humidity is between 35 percent and 50 percent. The instrument is
equipped with a constant temperature cell compartment to avoid
instability and the possible loss of sensitivity which could be
caused by a change in sample temperature. All glassware with
which the sample comes in contact is cleaned by using soapy water
wash, 50% nitric acid rinse, and a distilled, deionized water
rinse, respectively. When using fluorescence spectrophotometry,
only high quality quartz cuvettes are used. No corks, rubber
stoppers or lubricating agents are used and care is taken so that
impurities do not contaminate the sample.
Fuel
Analysis of the bark feed was performed using ASTM D 3178 for
carbon and hydrogen, ASTM D 3176 for oxygen, ASTM D 3179 for
nitrogen, ASTM D 3177 for sulfur, and ASTM D 3174 for ash.
Fuel value was determined using ASTM D 2015.
28
-------
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Results of quality control tests are furnished with the analytical
data sheets provided in Appendix C.
29
------- |